cfd industry perspective...engineering, operations & technology | boeing research &...

BOEING is a trademark of Boeing Management Company.

Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved. CFD -- Anderson | 6-8 Aug 2012 1

CFD: An Industry Perspective

Future Directions in CFD Research: A Modeling and Simulation Conference

06 August 2012

Hampton, Virginia

Mark Anderson Director - Flight Sciences Technology

Boeing Research & Technology

Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Engineering, Operations & Technology | Boeing Research & Technology

NASA’s Role in Development of CFD

Technical workshops have been critical in focusing academia, industry, and government resources to enhance understanding of flow physics, evaluation of CFD methods, and development of CFD best practices

CFD -- Anderson | 6-8 Aug 2012 2

Source: https://info.aiaa.org/tac/ASG/FDTC/DG/BECAN_files_/BANCII.htm

NASA has been an important organizational member of all international workshops and has provided key expertise in developing workshop CFD validation test cases (DPW, HiLiftPW, Benchmark for Airframe Noise Components, etc.)



NASA’s Role in Development of CFD

Experimental test data for CFD validation is critical to the understanding of complex flow physics for a wide array of flow environments and aerospace vehicles, and enables the continued development of more accurate and effective CFD methods and tools

NASA has been very active in creating experiments to collect building-block CFD validation data (30p30n slat noise, tandem cylinders, Trap Wing, CRM, FAITH hill, etc.)


FAITH hill Trap Wing Common Research Model



Presentation Outline

Role of a prime aerospace manufacturer in use and development of current practice, and emphasis for future direction, in Computational Fluid Dynamics

State of the art, current challenges

Transport aircraft

Other configurations

MDAO

Common Research Model

Where we believe CFD should go (Vision 2030)




Introduction

Role of a Prime Aerospace Manufacturer



6

787 Design Features

Composite primary

structure

Advanced engines & nacelles

Innovative passenger cabin

Enhanced flight deck

Advanced

aerodynamic

design

Innovative

systems

technologies

Large cargo

capacity

Overhead crew rests

Mission Requirements • Extremely long range

• Unprecedented efficiency

• Very low community & cabin noise

• Very low emissions

CFD -- Anderson | 6-8 Aug 2012 6 Copyright © 2012 Boeing. All rights reserved.



CFD Application In Tactical Aircraft Design

• Background: Initial F/A-18E/F flight testing revealed uncommanded

rolling motion while maneuvering at transonic flight due to asymmetric

flow separation on the wing upper surface.

• CFD Study: Undertaken to determine whether CFD could predict the lift

curve break seen in wind tunnel tests and obtain detailed flowfield

description of the phenomena.

• Results: Confirmation that CFD could help identify characteristics

associated with cause of abrupt wing stall.

Contours of

Surface Pressure and

Particle Traces

Lift

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

4 6 8 10 12 14

AOA - deg

CL

AOA - Deg

CL

Lift Curve




Animation of Iso-Vorticity Surface

Streamlines in Mean Flow Solution

Unsteady Analyses of Hemispherical Turret for Aero-Optic Performance

Locations of Hotwire

Measurements


Unable to discuss details of military applications due to ITAR and Export Control restrictions



Background

State of the Art – Current Challenges



Today’s Situation

Routine

Steady-State Navier-Stokes in all programs

Assess flowfields, conduct trade studies, identify options

Diverse applications

Design confirmation (not design development) through wind tunnel testing

Emerging

Multi-disciplinary

Aeroelasticity

– Simple modal analysis

– Coupled to NASTRAN

Aero-acoustics

Aero-optics

Automated Optimization

Unsteady flow

Routine for rotary wing applications

Use as appropriate for fixed-wing aircraft




High-Speed Wing

Design Cab Design

Engine/Airframe

Integration

Inlet Design

Inlet Certification

Exhaust-

System Design

Cabin

Noise

Community Noise

Wing-Body

Fairing Design

Vertical Tail and

Aft Body Design

Design For

Stability &

Control

High-Lift Wing

Design

APU Inlet

And Ducting

ECS Inlet

Design APU and Propulsion

Fire Suppression

Nacelle Design

Thrust-Reverser

Design Design for FOD

Prevention

Aeroelastics

Substantial CFD Utilization Some CFD Utilization

Icing

Air-Data

System

Location

Vortex Generators

Planform

Design

Buffet

Boundary

Reynolds-Number Corrections

Flutter

Control-Surface

Failure Analysis

Wind-Tunnel Corrections Wing-Tip Design

Wing

Controls

Avionics Cooling

Interior

Air

Quality

Engine-Bay Thermal

Analysis

Limited CFD Utilization

Key Enablers Include High Performance Computing and

Physics-based Design/Analysis/Optimization CFD -- Anderson | 6-8 Aug 2012 11

CFD Contributions to Aircraft Design



Advanced Technology Contributions to Aircraft Efficiency Improvement

Systems

Materials

Aerodynamics

Engines

Improvements relative to 767-300ER

Aerodynamics and

Propulsion are main

contributors




Lessons learned from existing products

CFD design, analysis,

and optimization tools

Extensive wind- tunnel

test program


Sources of Aerodynamic Design Expertise



Minneapolis, MN

Farnborough, UK

Cologne, Germany

Hampton, VA Gifu, Japan

Mountain View, CA

Seattle, WA Philadelphia, PA

Le Fauga, France

Copyright © 2005 The Boeing Company. All rights reserved. CFD -- Anderson | 6-8 Aug 2012 14

Global Wind Tunnels Used for Development

http://anplab.ca.boeing.com/webroot/lg_photos/9x9003.jpg

http://anplab.ca.boeing.com/webroot/lg_photos/outside024.jpg



Boeing

Products

Multi-fidelity CFD code are essential for industrial design

CFD

Tools

1 9 8 0 1 9 8 5 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5

7 6 7 7 3 7 - 3 0 0 7 7 7 7 3 7 N G 7 5 7 7 8 7

P A N A I R

A 5 0 2 A 4 8 8

F L O 2 2

A 4 1 1

T R A N A I R

C a r t e s i a n

G r i d T e c h .

T R A N A I R

O p t i m i z a t i o n T L N S 3 D -

M B / Z E U S

T L N S 3 D - M B

O V E R F L O W T L N S 3 D

1 9 8 0 s t a t e o f t h e a r t M o d e r n c l o s e c o u p l e d n a c e l l e i n s t a l l a t i o n , 0 . 0 2 M a c h f a s t e r t h a n 7 3 7 - 2 0 0

Th i c k e r f a s t e r w i n g t h a n 7 5 7 , 7 6 7 t e c h n o l o g y

H i g h l y c o n s t r a i n e d w i n g d e s i g n

F a s t e r w i n g t h a n 7 3 7 - 3 0 0

C F D f o r L o a d s a n d

S t a b i l i t y a n d C o n t r o l

U n s t r u c t u r e d

A d a p t i v e G r i d

3 - D N - S

C F L 3 D / Z E U S

O V E R F L O W

C F L 3 D

O V E R F L O W

Multi-point

viscous

optimization

Full Potential Structured

Navier-Stokes

Unstructured

Navier-Stokes


CFD Maturity and Application Chronology (1980-2010)



767

(1980)

777-200

(1990)

787

(2005)

Oc

cu

pa

nc

y H

ou

rs

Significant decrease in wind-tunnel testing time since 1980’s reduces cost and enables faster market readiness

Reduction in testing time largely enabled by availability of mature and ‘calibrated’ advanced CFD

How to realize the next major cost reduction?

-25 %

-30 %

X%?

(2020)

XX


Wind Tunnel Test Time Reduction



Aerodynamic Optimization

Navier Stokes based CFD Methods widely used on past and current Aerodynamic Optimization/Design efforts

BCA: Wing body fairing (787), winglets (787), flap support fairings (747), nacelle fan cowl.

BR&T: AFRL Joined Wing concept development and optimization, NASA N+2 Supersonic Low Boom effort

Developing adjoint capabilities for gradient based optimization using Overflow and internal unstructured grid solver BCFD

Continuing development of MDOPT optimization method

Global surrogate model based optimization using Boeing-developed Design Explorer software

Multi-fidelity flow solver option using Boeing-developed Tranair (full potential/integral boundary layer), NASA-developed Overflow (overset structured), Boeing-developed BCFD (unstructured)




M=0.85, Alt=55kft

CL = 0.61

CD = 0.03002

CM = 0.0003

CL = 0.61

CD = 0.03515

CM = 0.0042

•Performed MDOPT Optimization

•Used new Design Explorer tools reducing

Drag while trimming configuration

•Used 60 solid design variables shaping wing

and aft wing, inlet, and body upper surface

•Constrained CL and CM (trimmed),

thickness constraints for antenna

•Optimization concept tested and validated at

NASA Ames 11ft Wind Tunnel

600+ Overflow

solutions

seed optimized

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

CL

CD

Main06-Strut06 MDOPT-OPT2-1237

100 counts

optimized

seed

Body upper

Nose

Chord Locations 16% 41% 80%

Nose droop

Delta z

AIAA-2008-7180

14% improvement


Aerodynamic Optimization Tools for AFRL Aerodynamic Efficiency Improvement (AEI)



Navier-Stokes Based Winglet Optimization

Overflow-MDOPT design space with a wide range of junction geometries (56 Design variables)

N-S based design able to approach theoretical aero optimum tight juncture




Common Research Model (CRM)

WBH Configuration

WBNPH Configuration


• A generic geometry,

developed with contributions

from Boeing, NASA and other

industry

• Representative of modern

transport state of the art



Common Research Model (CRM) Interest

Groups Interested in a CRM

Drag Prediction Workshop

– Subject Geometry for DPW-IV

Computational Methods for Stabilitly and Control (COMSAC)

Various Wind Tunnel Facilities

– NTF

– Ames 11 Foot

Cross-section of Government and Industry

Air Force, Boeing, Cessna, Gulfstream, Hawker-Beechcraft, Lockheed Martin, NASA, Navy, Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney




The CRM has been offered as a generic testbed for validation of emerging prediction methods




Future

Where We Believe CFD Should Go

(Vision 2030)



CFD Challenges

Accurate prediction of boundary layer transition

Improved RANS model for efficient complex flow analysis

Accurate prediction recovery, dynamic distortion, and swirl patterns at the Aerodynamic Interface Plane (AIP) for propulsion integration

Accurate prediction of shock-boundary layer in presence of corner flows

An advanced turbulence model within a single framework for accurate unsteady flow phenomena

Efficient and robust mesh adaptation for complex configurations

Error estimation and uncertainty predictions

Multidisciplinary analysis (aeroelasticity, etc.)




Throughput : End-to-end cycle time must be faster than

process based on wind tunnel testing

Consistent quick turnaround essential in a schedule-driven

development program

Engineering development consists of development of large

databases for loads, stability and control, and flight simulation

Cost: Database creation using CFD must be cheaper than using

wind tunnels

Accuracy : Must be superior to wind-tunnel

Error / Uncertainty Quantifications: Must be able to quantify

the error and uncertainty associated with results

Expertise : Must be automated and operational using project

engineers, not just CFD experts


Important Factors for Industry Regarding 2030 CFD



‘Vision 2030’ CFD Code Request for Proposals

Many CFD codes are currently available (e.g. NASA / other government labs, external vendors, academia, etc.) based on structured, unstructured and hybrid-grid technology and low fidelity turbulence models, which are adequate for a limited subset of turbulent flow applications of immediate interest. If computations of complex, unsteady, turbulent flows are to become routine, however, it is likely that computational technology will need to evolve to readily embrace new ideas and developments in turbulence modeling, high-order numerical methods, fast solvers, grid adaptation, etc., in addition to exploiting the current and future developments in computer

Answer the following 5 questions: 1. What hardware requirements and software attributes will characterize an advanced ‘Vision 2030’

CFD code that is used routinely to compute complex turbulent flows, involving flow separation, at subsonic and supersonic/hypersonic speeds, and exhibits greater robustness than current technology?

2. How many orders of magnitude faster (time-to-solution), as compared with current capabilities, will 2030 CFD technology be?

3. What will be the fundamental elements of 2030 turbulence models, and for what classes of problems will they be reliable?

4. What are the principle impediments, both modeling and algorithmic, that must be overcome to achieve the 2030 CFD vision outlined above?

5. What high-risk/high-yield obstacles remain as enduring and daunting challenges that should be the focus of long range efforts by NASA?




Boeing has assembled a Team to help answer the Vision 2030 CFD code challenge questions

Task 1: Develop

2030 Vision

Requirements

and Identify Gaps

& impediments

Task 2: Refine Vision

Requirements, and develop

initial research approach

Task 3: Develop Integrated Plans

and Vision 2030 CFD Roadmap

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Final Roadmap

Final Report

Mid-Term Review

Vision 2030

CFD Workshop

Task 4: Program Management

Final Oral

Review

Kick-Off

Meeting

Refine Community InputInitial

Community

feedback on

gaps &

impediments

Team Input

ATP

1. What hardware requirements and software attributes will

characterize an advanced “Vision 2030” CFD code that is

used to routinely compute complex turbulent flows,

involving flow separation, at subsonic and

supersonic/hypersonic speeds, and exhibits greater

robustness than current technology?

2. How many orders of magnitude faster (time-to-solution),

as compared with current capabilities, will 2030 CFD

technology be?

3. What will be the fundamental elements of 2030 turbulence

models, and for what classes of problems will they be

reliable?

4. What are the principle impediments, both modeling and

algorithmic, that must be overcome to achieve the 2030

CFD vision outlined above?

5. What high-risk/high-yield obstacles remain as enduring

and daunting challenges that should be the focus of long

range efforts by NASA?

Boeing Research & Technology

Matt Ganz, VP/GM

High performance Computing

NCSA

William Gropp

Focal

Propulsion

Pratt & Whitney

Elizabeth Lurie

Focal

Airframe

Boeing

Abdi Khodadoust

Focal

Flight Sciences Technology

Mark Anderson, Director

Program Manager and Chief Integrator

Abdi Khodadoust

Academia

Research Team

David Darmofal, MIT

Focal

• Juan Alonso, Stanford

• Dimitri Mavriplis, Wyoming

• Dan Dominik

• Paul Fussell

• Joerg Gablonsky

• Robert Bush, P&W

• John Croxford

• Wesley Lord, P&W

• Rich Shaw

• Nagendra Somanath, P&W

• Tony Antani

• Kevin Bowcutt

• Mori Mani

• Robert Narducci

• Jeff Slotnick• Philippe Spalart

• Venkat Venkatakrishnan

• John Vassberg

NASA COTR

Boeing Business Team

Contracts, Supplier Mgt , Financial Mgt

NASA and

Government Lab

Researchers

Technical Advisory Team

Mark Anderson, Leader




Conclusion

Final Observations



What’s Holding Us Back?

Throughput and end-to-end cycle time

Consistent quick turnaround essential in a schedule-driven

development program

Engineering development culminates in large databases for loads,

stability and control, flight simulation

Consistency (quality control)

Cannot tolerate intermittent process failures

CFD is still a specialist tool to a remarkable degree

User skill is often a key factor in obtaining consistent high quality

results for frontline projects

Skill mixes in research groups do not reflect those of frontline project

groups




Summary

CFD capabilities have brought forth tremendous capabiltiies over 3+ decades of production use

Significant opportunities remain for further advances

Boeing has ideas about appropriate areas for focused effort

Thank you for opportunity to share ideas with you today



Backup



The CRM Wing is Representative of Modern Transport Aircraft


Wing Pressures, M=0.86



Nacelle/Pylon Effect


cfd industry perspective...engineering, operations & technology | boeing research &...

Documents