Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T10:52:26.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An implicit hybrid method for the computation of rotorcraft flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2018

M. A. Woodgate  and
G. N. Barakos
M. A. Woodgate*
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory School of Engineering James Watt South BuildingUniversity of Glasgow Glasgow, UK
G. N. Barakos*
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory School of Engineering James Watt South BuildingUniversity of Glasgow Glasgow, UK
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a wide variety of CFD grid types including Cartesian, structured, unstructured and hybrids, as well as, numerous methodologies of combining these to reduce the time required to generate high-quality grids around complex configurations. If the grid methodologies were implemented in different codes, they should be written in such a way as to obtain the maximum performance from the available computer resources. A common interface should also be required to allow for ease of use. However, it is very time consuming to develop, maintain and add extra functionally to different codes. This paper examines the possibility of taking an existing CFD solver, the Helicopter Multi-Block (HMB) CFD method, and implementing a new grid type while reusing as much as possible the original code base. The paper presents some of the challenges encountered in extending the code which was written for a single mesh type, to a more flexible solver that is still computationally efficient but can cope with a variety of grid types.

Keywords

Computational fluid dynamicshybrid meshesimplicit methods
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 122 , Issue 1256 , October 2018 , pp. 1522 - 1556
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Barakos, G., Steijl, R., Badcock, K., and Brocklehurst, A. Development of CFD capability for full helicopter engineering analysis, Proceedings of the 31st European Rotorcraft Forum, Associazione Italiana de Aerotecnica e Astronautica, 13–15 September, 2005, pp 720–736, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
2. Steijl, R. and Barakos, G. Sliding Mesh Algorithm for CFD analysis of helicopter rotor-fuselage aerodynamics, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2008, 58, (5), pp 527–549.Google Scholar
3. Puigt, G., Gazaix, M., Montagnac, M., Le Pape, M. C., de La Llave Plata, M., Marmignon, C., Boussuge, J. F., and Couaillier, V. Development of a new hybrid compressible solver inside the CFD elsA software, 20th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 27–30 June 2011, AIAA 2011-3379.Google Scholar
4. Schwamborn, D., Gerhold, T., and Heinrich, R. The DLR TAU-Code: recent applications in research and industry, ECCOMAS CFD 2006: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics, TU Delft, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands, 5–8 September 2006, Paper no. 619.Google Scholar
5. Sitaraman, J., Potsdam, M., Wissink, A., Jayaraman, B., Datta, A., Mavriplis, D., and Saberi, H. Rotor loads prediction using Helios: a multisolver framework for rotorcraft aeromechanics analysis, J Aircr, 2013, 50, (2), pp 478–492.Google Scholar
6. Katz, A., Wissink, A. M., Sankaran, V., Meakin, R. L., and Chan, W. M. Application of strand meshes to complex aerodynamic flow fields, J Computational Physics, 2011, 230, (17), pp 6512–6530.Google Scholar
7. Woodgate, M. and Barakos, G. Rotor computations with active gurney flaps, 2012, 38th European Rotorcraft Forum, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 4–7 September.Google Scholar
8. Steger, J. L., Dougherty, F., and Benek, J. A. A chimera grid scheme. [Multiple overset body-conforming mesh system for finite difference adaptation to complex aircraft configurations], Advances in Grid Generation: Proceedings of the Applied Mechanics, Bioengineering, and Fluids Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers FED-5, 1983, pp 59–69.Google Scholar
9. Jarkowski, M., Woodgate, M., Barakos, G., and Rokicki, J. Towards consistent hybrid overset mesh methods for rotorcraft CFD, Int J Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2014, 74, (8), pp 543–576.Google Scholar
10. Kao, K. H. and Liou, M. S. Advance in overset grid schemes: from chimera to DRAGON grids, AIAA J, 1995, 33, (10), pp 1809–1815.Google Scholar
11. Wang, Y., Qin, N., Carnie, G., and Shahpar, S. Zipper layer method for linking two dissimilar structured meshes, J Computational Physics, 2013, 255, pp 130–148.Google Scholar
12. Badcock, K. J., Richards, B. E., and Woodgate, M. A. Elements of computational fluid dynamics on block structured grids using implicit solvers, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2000, 36, (5), pp 351–392.Google Scholar
13. Steijl, R., Barakos, G., and Badcock, K. A framework CFD analysis of helicopter rotors in hover and forward flight, Int J Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2006, 51, (8), pp 819–847.Google Scholar
14. Hirt, C. W., Amsden, A. A., and Cook, J. L. An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian computing method for all flow speeds, J Computational Physics, 1974, 14, (3), pp 227–253.Google Scholar
15. van Leer, B. Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. A second order sequel to Godunov’s method, J Computational Physics, 1979, 32, (1), pp 101–136.Google Scholar
16. van Albada, G. D., van Leer, B., and Roberts, W. W. Jr. A comparative study of computational methods in cosmic gas dynamics, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1982, 108, pp 76–84.Google Scholar
17. Jameson, A. Time dependent calculations using multigrid, with applications to unsteady flows past airfoils and wings, 10th Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, 24–26 June 1991, AIAA-1991-1596.Google Scholar
18. Lawson, S., Woodgate, M., Steijl, R., and Barakos, G. High performance computing for challenging problems in computational fluid dynamics, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2012, 52, pp 19–29.Google Scholar
19. Selmin, V. and Formaggia, L. Unified construction of finite element and finite volume discretizations for compressible flows, Int J Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1996, 39, (1), pp 1–32.Google Scholar
20. Mavriplis, D. Revisiting the least-squares procedure for gradient reconstruction on unstructured meshes, 16th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Orlando Florida, 23–25 June 2003, AIAA 2003-3986.Google Scholar
21. Barth, T. and Jespersen, D. The design and application of upwind schemes on unstructured meshes, 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, 9–12 January 1989, AIAA-89-0366.Google Scholar
22. Venkatakrishnan, V. Convergence to steady state solutions of the Euler equations on unstructured grids with limiters, J Computational Physics, 1995, 118, (1), pp 120–130.Google Scholar
23. Vanharen, J., Puigt, G., and Montagnac, M. Theoretical and numerical analysis of nonconforming grid interface for unsteady flows, J Computational Physics, 2015, 285, pp 111–132.Google Scholar
24. Goumas, G., Kourtis, K., Anastopoulos, N., Karakasis, V., and Koziris, N. Performance evaluation of the sparse matrix–vector multiplication on modern architectures, J Supercomputing, 2009, 50, (1), pp 36–77.Google Scholar
25. Eisenstat, S. C., Elman, H. C., and Schultz, M. H. Variational iterative methods for nonsymmetric systems of linear equations, SIAM J on Numerical Analysis, 1983, 20, (2), pp 345–357.Google Scholar
26. Saad, Y. and Schultz, M. H. GMRES: a generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems, SIAM J Scientific and Statistical Computing, 1986, 7, (3), pp 856–869.Google Scholar
27. Axelsson, O. Iterative Solution Methods, 1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
28. Yoon, S. and Jameson, A. Lower–upper symmetric-Gauss–Seidel method for the Euler and Navier–Stokes equations, AIAA J, 1988, 26, (9), pp 1025–1026.Google Scholar
29. Chen, R. F. and Wang, Z. J. Fast, block lower–upper symmetric Gauss–Seidel scheme for arbitrary grids, AIAA J, 2000, 38, (12), pp 2238–2245.Google Scholar
30. Shaidakov, V. I. Properties of the oblique cylindrical vortex sheet, In Proektirovanie vertoletova (Helicopter Design), Moscow Aviation Institute, Moscow, Russian Federation, 1976, issue 381, 36–57.Google Scholar
31. Kusyumov, A., Mikhailov, S., Romanova, E., Garipov, A., Nikolaev, E., and Barakos, G. Simulation of flow around isolated helicopter fuselage, EPJ Web of Conferences, Vol. 45, EDP Sciences, 2013, p. 01103.Google Scholar
32. Chirico, G., Szubert, D., Vigevano, L., and Barakos, G. N. Numerical modelling of the aerodynamic interference between helicopter and ground obstacles, CEAS Aeronautical J, Dec 2017, 8, (4), pp 589–611.Google Scholar
33. Karypis, G. and Kumar, V. A fast and high qualitymultilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs, SIAM J Scientific Computing, 1998, 20, (1), pp 359–392.Google Scholar
34. ARCHER, UK National Supercomputing Service ARCHER, http://www.archer.ac.uk/, 2018, Accessed: 03-03-2018.Google Scholar
35. Gregory, N. and O’Reilly, C. L. Low speed aerodynamic characteristics of NACA0012 airfoil section, including the effects of upper surface roughness simulation hoarfrost, Tech. Rep. No. 3726, Aeronautical Research Council Reports and Memoranda, 1973.Google Scholar
36. Ladson, C. L. Effects of independent variation of Mach and Reynolds numbers on the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA0012 airfoil section, Tech. Rep. TM-4074, NASA Langley Research Center, 1988.Google Scholar
37. Freeman, C. E. and Mineck, R. E. Fuselage surface pressure measurements of a helicopter wind-tunnel model with a 3.15 meter diameter single rotor, Tech. Rep. TM-80051, NASA, 1979.Google Scholar
38. Mark, S. C. and John, D. B. Navier–Stokes and potential theory solutions for a helicopter fuselage and comparison with experiment, Tech. Rep. TM-4566, NASA, 1994.Google Scholar
39. Mineck, R. E. and Gorton, S. A. Steady and periodic pressure measurements on a generic helicopter fuselage model in the presence of a rotor, Tech. Rep. TM-2000-210286, NASA, 2000.Google Scholar
40. Stabellini, A., Verna, A., Ragazzi, A. Hakkaart, J. F., De Bruin, A. C., Hoeijmakers, A. H. W., Schneider, O., Przybilla, M., Langer, H. J., and Philipsen, I. First NICETRIP powered wind tunnel tests successfully completed in DNW-LLF, 70th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Montreal, Canada, 2014.Google Scholar
41. Elliott, J. W., Althoff, S. L., and Sailey, R. H. Inflow measurements made with a laser velocimeter on a helicopter model in forward flight. Volume 1: Rectangular Planform Blades at an Advance Ration of 0.15, Tech. Rep. NASA TM-100541, 1988.Google Scholar