Aerodynamic

 Evalua1on  of  the  D8  

"Double-­‐Bubble"  Aircra;  Nacelle  Design

Shishir  Pandya,  NASA  Ames  Research  Center

Overset  Grid  Symposium,  Dayton,  OH,  Oct  16,  2012
1
 Outline
• The  D8  
– Concept
– Goals
• Modeling  and  Mesh  Topology
– Use  Cart3D  inviscid  mesh  adapta1on  to  guide  overset  viscous  mesh
– O-­‐mesh  with  wake  boxes
– Mesh  sensi1vity
• Clean  Configura1on
– Comparison  with  experiment
– Independent  verifica1on  of  D8  concepts
• Podded  Nacelle
– Geometry
– Results

2
 MIT  D8  “Double-­‐Bubble”  Aircra;
• MIT  team  concept  of  N+3  advanced  vehicle  
configura1on
–Lower  fuel  burn
–Lower  noise
–Reduce  emissions
• 180  passengers
• 3000  nmi  range
• 118  ;  span
• ~Boeing  737  size
3
 MIT/Pra]  &  Whitney/Aurora  D  Series
Airframe  &  Propulsion  Technology  Overview

Novel  configura1on  plus  suite  of  airframe  and  propulsion technologies,  and  opera1ons  modifica1ons

Reduced Secondary High Bypass Ratio Engines (BPR

Structure weight 20) with High-Efficiency Small Boundary Layer
Cores Ingestion
Active Load
Alleviation Health and Distortion Tolerant
Usage Fans
Monitoring
Tt4 Materials and
Natural Laminar Flow advanced cooling
on Wing Bottom
Variable Area Nozzle

Lifting Body
LDI Advanced Advanced Engine
Combustor Materials
Advanced Structural Faired
Materials Undercarriage
 Fuselage  Advantages
• “Double-­‐bubble”  fuselage  provides  more  li;
– Gives  par1al  span-­‐wise  loading  /  smaller  wing
• Shorter  cabin  (wider  body)
–Results  in  lighter  landing  gear  support  structure  
• Provides  a  nose-­‐up  pitching  moment
–Shrinks  horizontal  tail
–Lighter  horizontal  tail

5
 Lower  Cruise  Speed
• M=0.72
–Lower  sweep  wing
• Reduced  structural  load  =>  Lower  weight
• Increased  CL
M.  Drela,  MIT
• Can  eliminate  high-­‐li;  devices
–Proper  speed  at  engine  fan  face  (M=0.6)
• Reduces  nacelle,  inlet  size  
• Reduced  nacelle  drag
–Nacelles  embedded  in  the  π-­‐tail  and  fuselage
–Reduced  size,  weight

6
 Embedded  Rear-­‐Mounted  Engines
• Boundary  Layer  Inges1ng  (BLI)  engines  for  
propulsive  efficiency Fans like flow at ~ M=0.6

–Thicker  boundary  layer  in  the  rear

–Designed  for  M=0.6  flow  around  engine  inlet  area
–Distor1on  tolerant  fan
–High  bypass  ra1o  (~20)
• Lower  engine-­‐out  yaw
–Reduced  ver1cal  tail  size Nacelle

• Noise  shield
Fan

7
 Wind  Tunnel  Tests
• Wright  brothers  wind  tunnel  at  MIT
The Mach and Re don’t match
the flight, but the BLI effect is
not expected to be very
different

–Low  speed  (100  and  120  mph)  ≈  M=0.15

–Clean  configura1on:  α=0,  1.9,  4.4,  6.6,  8.8,  11,  13.3
–Rec≈0.5  Million
–1:20  scale  model
• Tests  complete
–1:11  scale  model
• Being  constructed
• w/,  w/o  empennage
• Podded  nacelle
• Blended  nacelle
8
A.  Uranga,  MIT
 Goals  of  This  Work
• Independent  assessment  of  the  D8  design  assump1ons
– Is  the  “double-­‐bubble”  fuselage  advantageous?
• Does  it  provide  li;  in  the  range  of  10  to  20%?
• Does  it  provide  a  nose-­‐up  pitching  moment?
– Boundary  Layer  Inges1on  (BLI)
• Quan1fy  flow  diffusion  from  fuselage  geometry  resul1ng  in  lower  
speed  at  the  fan  face
• Validate  Overflow  against  the  wind  tunnel  tests
– Use  best  prac1ces  for  nacelle  assessment  
• Assess  nacelle  performance  using  Overflow
– Clean  vs.  Podded  vs.  Embedded
9
 Simula1ons
• 120  mph  (M=0.16)
• Alpha  sweep:  -­‐2°  to  14°  in  2°  increments
–Half-­‐body  cases  (symmetry  assumed)
• Steady,  turbulent  flow
• Clean  configura1on
–in  Free-­‐air
–w/  WT
–w/  WT+mount/fairing
• Podded
• Embedded  (geometry,  mesh  genera1on  in  progress)
10
 Outline

• The  D8
• Modeling  and  Mesh  Topology
– Use  Cart3D  inviscid  mesh  adapta1on  to  guide  overset  viscous  
mesh
– O-­‐mesh  with  wake  boxes
– Mesh  sensi1vity
• Clean  Configura1on
• Podded  Nacelle

11
 Cart3D/Aero  Solu1on   Original,  70K

Adap1ve  Mesh
• Component  based  inviscid  solver
–Automated  mesh  genera1on,  complex  geometries
• Adjoint-­‐based  adap1ve  mesh  refinement  used
–Takes  place  of  a  lot  of  user  1me  and  exper1se

3  adapts,  400K 6  adapts,  7M 9  adapts,  30M

12
 Overflow
• Overset  mesh  genera1on  follows
–Overset  best  prac1ces
–Guidance  from  Cart3D  adap1ve  refinement

• Finite  difference
–Beam-­‐Warming  (approximate  factoriza1on/central  
difference)
–Scalar  dissipa1on
• +
Turbulence  model  (SA,  SST)  with  target  y ≈1 13
 Wake  Grid  with  O-­‐Grid  Topology
• Eliminate  C-­‐  mesh
• Wake  capture
• Tip  vortex  resolu1on

14
 19  near-­‐body  grids

Volume  Mesh    1  WT  grid

   4  wake  grids
Rear  WT  core    9  box  grids
   2  core  grids
WT  mesh 35  total  grids
Clean:  ~80  Million  Pts.
Podded:  ~87  Million  Pts.

Wake  grids
Body-­‐fi]ed  grids

Front  WT  core

Box  grids  to  cover  test  sec1on

15
 Mesh  Sensi1vity
• Test  each  parameter  independently
–Wall  spacing  (y+)
–Near-­‐wall  stretching  ra1o
–Surface  spacing
• LE,  TE,  ...
–Off-­‐body  spacing
• Study  done  at  α=0°
–SA  turb.  model  

16
 CL,  CD  Sensi1vity  to  y +
D8  with  WT  walls  and  Strut,  M=0.16,  α=0   SR=1.15,  DSs=1,  DSo=0.15
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0 D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0
0.45 15

0.4 10

%CL
CL

5
0.35

0
0.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 74 M 76 M 78 M 80 M 82 M 84 M 86 M
+
Y
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0
Number of Points
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0
0.040 35

0.038 30
0.036
25
0.034
20
%CD
CD

0.032
15
0.030
10
0.028

0.026 5

0.024 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 74 M 76 M 78 M 80 M 82 M 84 M 17
86 M
+
Y Number of Points
 CL,  CD  Sensi1vity  to  Surface  Spacing
D8  with  WT  walls  and  Strut,  M=0.16,  α=0  
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0
y+=1,  SR=1.15,  DSo=0.15
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0
0.45 15

0.4 10

%CL
CL

0.35 5

0
0.3
0 1 2 3 40 M 60 M 80 M 100 M 120 M
ΔSsurface Number of Points
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0 D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0
35
0.04
30
0.038
0.036 25

0.034 20
%CD
CD

0.032
15
0.03
10
0.028
5
0.026
0.024 0
0 1 2 3 40 M 60 M 80 M 100 M 120 M
ΔSsurface 18
Number of Points
 CL,  CD  Sensi1vity  to  Stretching  Ra1o
D8  with  WT  walls  and  Strut,  M=0.16,  α=0  
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0
y+=1,  DSs=1,  DSo=0.15
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0
0.45 15

0.4 10

%CL
CL

5
0.35

0
0.3
1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 70 M 80 M 90 M 100 M
Stretching Ratio
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0 Number of Points
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0
35
0.040
0.038 30

0.036 25

0.034 20
%CD
CD

0.032
15
0.030
10
0.028
5
0.026
0.024 0
1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 70 M 80 M 90 M 100 19
M
Stretching Ratio Number of Points
 CL,  CD  Sensi1vity  to  Off-­‐Body  Spacing
D8  with  WT  walls  and  Strut,  M=0.16,  α=0  
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0 y+=1,  SR=1.15,  DSs=1
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0
0.45 15

0.4 10

%CL
CL

0.35
5

0
0.3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 60 M 80 M 100 M 120 M 140 M
Off-Body Grid Spacing Number of Points
D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0 D8, 1:20 scale model in WBWT with Mount, M=0.1578, α=0
35
0.04
0.038 30

0.036 25

0.034 20
%CD
CD

0.032
15
0.03
10
0.028
5
0.026
0.024 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 60 M 80 M 100 M 120 M 140 20
M
Off-Body Grid Spacing Number of Points
 Produc1on  Mesh
• Tested  each  parameter  independently  (α=0°,  SA)
–Wall-­‐normal  spacing  (tested  0.5  to  5)
• 0.00016  =>  y+  ≈  1
–Stretching  ra1o  (tested  1.1  to  1.25)
• 1.15
–Surface  spacing  (tested  LE  spacing  of  0.025  to  0.3%)
• LE  spacing  ≈  0.006  (0.1%  chord)
• TE  spacing  ≈  0.003  (0.05%  chord)
• Inboard  airfoil  covered  by  ~550  points
• Outboard  airfoil  covered  by  ~300  points
–Off-­‐body  spacing  (tested  0.1  to  0.3)
•  0.15 21
 Solu1on  Consistency,  Sensi1vity
• Pegasus  vs.  Xrays  vs.  c3Lib
–li;  varies  2.9%,  drag  varies  1.1%
• AF  vs.  Diagonal  vs.  Roe  vs.  HLLC
–li;  varies  3%,  drag  varies  1.4%
• Low-­‐Mach  pre-­‐condi1oner
–No  change  in  li;  and  drag
• Unsteady  algorithm
–Flow  remained  steady  with  minor  change  in  li;  and  drag  
• Various  WT  Inlet/Exit  Boundary  Condi1ons
–Minor  varia1ons  in  integrated  forces
22
 Outline

• The  D8  Concept/Goals

• Modeling  and  Mesh  Topology
• Clean  Configura1on
–Comparison  with  experiment
– Independent  verifica1on  of  D8  concepts  
• Podded  Nacelle

23
 Convergence  and  Solu1on

Force/Moment History Force/Moment History

0.15

1 0.10
Total Drag Coefficient
Total Lift Coefficient

0.5 0.05

0 0.00

-0.05
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 24
Time Step Number Time Step Number
 CL  Comparison
2 WT
Cart3D
Overflow (SA)
Overflow(SST)

1.5
CL

0.5

0
0 5 10 15
α 25
 CD  Comparison
0.25 WT
Cart3D
Overflow (SA)
Overflow (SST)
0.2

0.15
CD

0.1

0.05

0
0 5 10 15
α
26
 Span-­‐wise  Loading

Fuselage  provides  span  loading                              Y                        

Pi-­‐tail  has  minimum  nega1ve  loading 27
 Component-­‐wise  Break-­‐down
CL CD Cm*
0.9 0.050 0.20
0.8
0.15
0.7 0.040
0.6
0.10
0.5 0.030
0.4 0.05
0.3 0.020
0
0.2
0.1 0.010
-0.05
0
-0.1 0 -0.10
Total Fuse. Wing Pi-tail Total Fuse. Wing Pi-tail Total Fuse. Wing Pi-tail

α=0 *Fuselage  provides  a  pitch-­‐up  moment

α=4
28
 Boundary  Layer  Inges1on
Cruise  condi1on,  α=4°

29
 Outline

• The  D8  Concept/Goals

• Modeling  and  Mesh  Topology
• Clean  Configura1on
• Podded  nacelle
– Geometry
– Results
• Embedded  nacelle

30
 Podded  Nacelle
• In  free-­‐stream
–Under-­‐wing
–Between  π-­‐tail
–Side-­‐mount
• Nacelle/Hub/Pylon
–7  addi1onal  grids  
• One  for  each  component
• Two  collar  grids  
–Fuselage/pylon,  nacelle/pylon
• Two  caps  for  the  hub
–nose,  base
31
Podded  Nacelle

32
 Podded  Nacelle
• Flow-­‐through  nacelle
• CL,  CD  increments  w/rt  
clean  configura1on
–Lower  CL
–Higher  CD
• Compare  w/  embedded
• Engine  model

33
 Outline

• The  D8  Concept/Goals

• Modeling  and  Mesh  Topology
• Clean  Configura1on
• Podded  nacelle

34
 Conclusions
• CFD  predic1ons  validate  basic  ideas  behind  D8
–Fuselage  carries  ~15%  of  the  li;  at  cruise
–Fuselage  provides  a  posi1ve  pitching  moment  at  cruise
–Rear  of  the  fuselage  acts  as  diffuser
• CL,  CD  compare  well  to  the  experiment
–Be]er  agreement  with  SST
• Podded:  Results  in  increased  drag,  reduced  li;  as  
expected

35
 Future  Work
• Placement  of  Podded  Nacelles
• Blended  Nacelles
–Original  configura1on  
• Three-­‐engine
M.  Drela,  MIT

–Present  concept  
• Two-­‐engine
–Geometry,  mesh,  CL,  CD  increments
• CGT
• Blender  Sub-­‐D  surfaces  for  C-­‐2  con1nuity?
• Fan  model  (pressure  disk,  rota1ng  
blades?)  
36
 Acknowledgements
This  work  is  funded  by  NASA’s  Fundamental  Aeronau1cs  Program  
under  the  Fixed  Wing  Project

• NASA  Ames
• MIT –William  Chan
–Mark  Drela –Ce1n  Kiris
–Ed  Greitzer –Nateri  Madavan
–Bob  Haimes –Mike  Olsen
–Alejandra  Uranga –Thomas  Pulliam
–Mike  Rogers

37