Numerical simulations show great potential to reduce the need for costly physical flight testing during takeoff and landing, thereby decreasing the time-to-market for future aircraft. In order to validate computational fluid dynamics results, we often perform wind-tunnel experiments. However, most simulations in the literature are performed at free-air conditions, neglecting confinement effects, and therefore the wind-tunnel data must be corrected based on empirical methods. In the present work, we compare free-air and in-tunnel simulations of NASA’s high-lift configuration of the Common Research Model (CRM-HL) and quantify sensitivities for steady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS)-based methods and unsteady scale-resolving hybrid RANS/large-eddy simulations (HRLESs). Uncertainties associated with the choice of turbulence model, initialization strategies, and boundary conditions are covered. The present study provides valuable lessons learned and contributes toward best practices for in-tunnel simulations. For maximum lift () prediction, RANS-based methods lead to nonphysical flow-separation patterns considering both free-air and in-tunnel configurations. We show consistency between in-tunnel and free-air HRLESs in terms of statistical and unsteady characteristics and reasonable agreement with wind-tunnel data. However, in-tunnel simulations increase the levels of complexity considerably and require long initial transients (independent of the initialization strategy). In order to explain persisting differences between simulation and experiment, we require better characterization of wind-tunnel flow conditions.
In-Tunnel Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulations and Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Simulations of the NASA High-Lift Configuration of the Common Research Model
AIAA Journal ; 1-19
01.06.2025
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Elektronische Ressource
Englisch