APPLICATION OF MOSAIC MESH ON STORE SEPARATION MODELLING AND ITS

VALIDATION WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA

Pratik Balasaheb Pansare+, Eshu Krishna Mishra+, Gopalchetty Brahma+, Sagar Chawla+ & Rakesh
Kumar*

+ Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar (Punjab), India

* Aeronautical Development Establishment, Bangalore, India.

ABSTRACT GWPS Generic Wing Pylon Store

Store Separation is an important phenomenon during the
combat and air launches for the safety of the mother aircraft
during the separation process. The design, integration and 1. INTRODUCTION
certification of a store configuration to an aircraft requires Store separation is the process that any new aircraft/weapon
expensive experiments in wind tunnel and flight tests. Also, CFD combination has to undergo before a flight clearance is issued.
has shown promising reduction in number of these tests over the This can be done using previous data for existing aircraft and
time. While in this paper the Mosaic Mesh approach has been weapons. Earlier, store separation was conducted in a hit or miss
utilized for discretization of computational domain. The store fashion and store would be dropped from the aircraft at gradually
trajectory is evaluated by using inbuilt 6DOF solver of Ansys increasing speeds until the store came closer to or sometimes
Fluent. Further, the predicted trajectory data is validated with actually hit the aircraft. In some cases, this led to loss of aircraft,
the Generic-Wing-Pylon-Store (GWPS) benchmark case and it and made test pilots reluctant to participate in store separation
shows a good agreement with literature data showing a flight test programs. New aircraft and/or weapons (both internal
promising workflow for solving complex store separation and external) require extensive CFD, wind tunnel, ground, and
problems utilizing new Ansys Fluent’s patent pending mosaic flight testing. Modelling store separation involves integrating the
meshing, which produces a hexahedral dominant mesh in the Newton-Euler equations for six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF)
core and mosaic polyhedral cells that extend to the inflation rigid body motion, in response to aerodynamic and other
layers of the wall. externally applied loads. Many CFD technologies have been
Keywords: Store Separation, Mosaic Mesh, GWPS, 6DOF. demonstrated for 6-DOF simulations1,2.
The current work demonstrates an integrated package for
NOMENCLATURE performing 6DOF simulations couple with a RANS solver
α/AoA Angle of attack employed using AnsysFluent where the Mosaic Mesh
β/AoSS Angle of Side Slip technology is utilized for grid generation. Mosaic mesh is a
ρ Density patent pending Ansys Fluent meshing technology for
CL Coefficient of Lift computational fluid dynamic simulations. It accelerates the
CD Coefficient of Drag meshing process with a reduced face count, higher quality cells
CZ Coefficient of Normal Force and efficient parallel scalability. Mosaic meshing technology
CX Coefficient of Axial Force enables polyhedral connections between disparate mesh types.
CY Coefficient of Side Force Mosaic-enabled poly-hexcore meshing, has shown decrement of
FZ Normal Force the number of meshing cells by 15%. This reduction, when
FX Axial Force combined with the new hex-dominant mesh has also shown
FY Side Force faster solution that are twice as fast [3].
MY Pitching Moment In CFD, the transitioning between different types of mesh
MX Rolling Moment has been done by non-conformal mesh till the Mosaic meshing
MZ Yawing Moment technology was introduced. The transition zones were often had
Sref Reference area to be used with excessive cell count and issues in mesh quality.
Cref Mean Aerodynamic Chord Mosaic addresses these problems of non-conformity between
P Static Pressure different types of meshes and creates a transition by using
T Static Temperature general Polyhedral cells. ANSYS is addressing this question
M Mach Number with of Mosaic technology that automatically connects several
WT Wind Tunnel types of meshes with general polyhedral elements. The initial
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics application of this technology preserves layered elements on the

213
boundary layers, fills the substance region with computationally has a tangent-ogive cylinder at the forebody. The store is
competent and highly accurate hexahedral elements, and modeled with the sting used in the CTS wind tunnel experiments
conformally links these two meshes with high-quality polyhedral to account for its effect on the flow field as this was not separated
elements without adding unnecessary numbers of elements in the in the experimental processing of the data. The store has four fins
transition area zone. Also, it helps in automating the watertight that are located at the tail side in a cruciform style. The fins are
geometry workflow meshing process using a python-based identical and they have a constant profile (NACA0008)
journal file for batch meshing in AnsysFluent. Fluent will then throughout the fin span. Leading and trailing edge sweep angles
run through the whole process from CAD import to adding local of the fins are 60 and 0 degrees, respectively. The fins are clipped
sizing for body of influences to creating the surface and volume to the store body. The store is located at the mid-span of the wing
mesh using specified minimum and maximum cell sizing values. at carriage position.
Customization & journal file-based batch processing saves lot of
pre-processing and was the biggest motivation for undertaking
this meshing approach. ANSYS Fluent solver with in-built
6DOF solver along with overset methods are finally adopted for
trajectory estimation. Mosaic mesh technique is used on a
standard benchmark case to evaluate its performance. Entire
simulation was performed on desktop-based system with 24core
machine and on 3million grid within 6hrs. The time saving and
effectiveness of the data make it an ideal choice over standard
traditional workflow for solving complex store separation
problem.

2. COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH
A benchmark configuration available in literature known as
the Eglin Benchmark Case3 commonly known as Generic Wing
Pylon Store (GWPS) is considered for evaluation of current
technique. The wind-tunnel data selected as a benchmark to
evaluate the accuracy of the computational process was obtained
in 1990 at the ‘Arnold Engineering Development Centre’ in
Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel. This data set consists of trajectory
data and surface pressure distributions on the model described. FIGURE 2.1. BENCHMARK CONFIGURATION: GWPS
The trajectory data for the Mach number 0.95 case is taken
for simulations. The typical simulation workflow is shown in The experimental dataset consists of trajectory data, force &
Fig. 1.1. moment and surface pressure data on the model. The store was
ejected downward from the pylon with a nose upward rotation.
This was accomplished by setting the aft ejector force to four
times that of the forward ejector. Details are further illustrated in
Fig. 2.1. The geometry of the configuration was built using the
CAD properties of the pre-processor Ansys SpaceClaim to apply
surface and volume labeling. The surface generated are shown in
Fig. 2.2. The WT model scale and other parameters used for
model preparation as reported in literature are further reproduced
at Table 4.1.
Pre-processing involves formulation of the problem,
geometry preparation, the governing equations, construction of
computational mesh and assigning boundary conditions.
FIGURE 1.1. TYPICAL WORKFLOW
2.1 Computational Geometry
The benchmark configuration geometry consists of a
clipped delta wing (NACA64A010 airfoil section) with a 45 ̊
leading edge sweep and a taper ratio of 0.133, a pylon located at
the mid span of the wing, and a store having four tail fins
positioned in a cruciform. The pylon has an ogive-flat plate-
ogive cross section shape, which is closed at the leading and
trailing edges by a symmetrical tangent-ogive shape. The store

214
 FIGURE 2.3. COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN: GWPS

FIGURE 2.2. EJECTOR FORCE MODEL USED IN THE

EXP. [3]

2.2 Computational Mesh

The geometry becomes very complex with full aircrafts and
multiple stores. Therefore, an efficient grid technology is utilized
to build grid systems to define the complete domain in which
calculations are to be performed. For this study the mosaic
meshing has been adopted. Mosaic poly-hexcore is a patent
pending Ansys Fluent meshing technology that accelerates
meshing time and produces a faster, more accurate solution. It
accelerates the meshing process with a reduced face count,
higher quality cells and efficient parallel scalability. Mosaic
poly-hexcore mesh is a combination of hexahedral, isotropic
FIGURE 2.4. CLOSE-UP OF OVERSET COMPUTATION-
poly prism and mosaic polyhedral elements, as shown in Fig. AL ZONE: GWPS
2.3-2.4. On average, hexahedral elements have fewer faces than
generalized polyhedral elements, which reduces compute time
and memory and disk space requirements and CFD simulations
with meshes created by Poly-Hexcore with Mosaic shows a 20
percent to 50 percent speedup in solver fluent as compared to
Hexcore or generalized polyhedral meshes with the same
accuracy.
Mosaic poly-hexcore mesh is a combination of hexahedral,
isotropic poly prism and mosaic polyhedral elements, as shown
in Fig. 2.5. Details of surface grid over store and its overset
boundary is shown in Fig. 2.6.

FIGURE 2.5. MOSAIC POLY-HEXCORE COMBINES

BOUNDARY LAYER MESH USING HIGH QUALITY
POLYHEDRON TO HEXAHEDRON ELEMENTS.

(a) STORE WITH OVERSET BOUNDARY

215
 ERU Stroke 0.33 ft
AOA 0 Deg
AOSS 0 Deg
M 0.95
AIRCRAFT
ALT 8 Km (≈26000 ft)
Pressure 35652 N/m2
Temp 236.22 K
(b) STORE SURFACE MESH
FIGURE 2.6. OVERSET COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN:
GWPS

3. FLOW & TRAJECTORY CALCULATIONS

For this study, the RANS equations were solved starting
from an initial solution set to the free-stream conditions based on
the free-stream Mach number and altitude. Table 3.1 provides
the free-stream quantities for the simulations conducted in this
FIGURE 3.1. STEADY STATE PRESSURE CONTOUR: GWPS
study.
Generic wing-pylon-store separation case is solved using
AnsysFluent, unsteady solver with overset grid methodology.
The solver is pressure based coupled solver, with double
precision enabled. RANS with k-ε turbulence model along with
implicit second-order upwind scheme is used to reduce
numerical diffusion. The solver is run until a specified
convergence criterion is met. The residuals are converged till 1e-
04. Fig. 3.1 shows the pressure coefficient distribution on the ac- (a) Sectional CP Data (b) Axis System
store at the captive carriage position (t=0). The wind tunnel
measured pressure coefficient data is available for comparison at FIGURE 3.2. EXP. DATA & AXIS SYSTEM: GWPS
multiple locations (circumferential) on the store surface. Fig. 3.2
shows the availability of CP data, from experimental -1.25
measurements. This fixed location is an axial row of points on -1.00
the store at a given circumferential angle. The angle is measured
-0.75
with respect to a vertical plane passing through the pylon and
-0.50
store center-lines when the store is in the captive position.
-0.25
Cp

Interaction effects between the store and the pylon can be seen
0.00
from these graphs. This location is on top of the store, under the
0.25
pylon while in carriage, but 50 outboard and other sections are
0.50 CFD (PHI=5)
900 offset to these section in circumferential side as illustrated
0.75 EXP (PHI=5)
in Fig. 3.2. The ɸ=50 section plane lies between the pylon-store
1.00
gap. The compression due to pylon and the expansion after the
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
compression is well captured. Outboard yawing moment X/L
tendency of the store can be predicted from the pressure (a) CP AT ɸ=50
coefficient distribution graphs at ɸ=950 and ɸ=2750 as shown in
Fig. 3.3.
-1.25
-1.00
TABLE 3.1. AIRCRAFT-STORE PARAMETERS
-0.75
PARAMETERS VALUES -0.50
-0.25
907.18 Kg (≈2000 lb)
Cp

MASS
0.00
CG 1.41732m aft of store nose
STORE 0.25
IXX 27.11 Kg-m2
0.50 CFD (PHI=95)
MOI IYY 488.09 Kg-m2
IZZ 488.09 Kg-m2 0.75 EXP (PHI=95)
ERU FWD 1.2374m aft of store nose 1.00
(Location) REAR 1.7465m aft of store nose 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
X/L
ERU FWD 434.464 Kg (≈2400 lb)
(Force) REAR 1088.616 Kg (≈9600 lb) (b) CP AT ɸ=950

216
 -1.25 In general, store moves towards inboard and backwards while
-1.00 moving down with the effect of gravity and the ejector forces
-0.75 after its release. Total forces acting on the store results in a pitch
-0.50 up, yaw and roll to the outboard after its release. Pitch up motion
-0.25 is mainly due to the ejector forces acting on the store. All
Cp

0.00 displacements in three directions are in very good agreement

0.25 with the experimental data. The deviations observed between
0.50 CFD (PHI=185) CFD & Experimental data could be attributed to the fact that,
0.75 EXP (PHI=185) CFD was a time accurate computation whereas EXP was carried
1.00 out with Captive Trajectory System (CTS) by pitch-pause
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 method, which is not time-accurate but a quasi-steady approach.
X/L
(c) CP AT ɸ=1850 5. CONCLUSION
The Mosaic meshing technology to predict complex store
-1.25 carriage and separation dynamics on a benchmark configuration
-1.00 is validated against wind tunnel measurements to highlight the
-0.75 benefits and/or advantages for solver performance and result
-0.50 accuracy.
-0.25 The results accuracy can be further improved by investing
Cp

0.00
0.25
0.50 CFD (PHI=275)
0.75 EXP (PHI=275)
1.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
X/L
(d) CP AT ɸ=2750
FIGURE 3.3. SECTIONAL CP COMPARISON: EXP. VS CFD
4. CFD PREDICTION & COMPARISON WITH EXP
DATA
Starting from the steady solutions, transient solutions of
the store trajectories were computed following the separation of
the store from the wing of GWPS configuration. Ejector forces
are used for separating stores from the pylon and modeled as
forces acting till specified vertical clearances equivalent to
piston height is cleared. The ejector profile has a significant
impact on the initial trajectory of the store. The Axis system used
in this discussion are illustrated in Fig. 3.2
The computed linear and angular displacements of store
cg [GWPS configuration] are shown in Fig. 4.1-4.2. Even though
trajectory calculations were conducted till 1 second of the store
drop, only 0.5 seconds are shown here for clarity in comparing
with available experimental data. The store has moved down
about 1m within 0.3 seconds matching excellently with the
experimental data. The full CFD data set shows that the store
would have moved more than 7 m away from the aircraft within
1 sec from start of separation. Displacement of the store in the
other directions (rear and inboard) also correlates very well with
the experimental data. The linear/angular displacement of the
benchmark case matches well with experiments. A thorough
analysis of this benchmark case using FLUENT conducted by
Deryl5 & also at ADE, on a tetrahedron mesh using dynamic re-
meshing technique also demonstrated the similar results.
saved mesh elements in the critical flow regions, which makes
Mosaic Poly-Hexcore a best choice for future computations.
Also, the fact that these comparisons were carried out at
transonic speeds makes the meshing technology an attractive
choice for fight aircraft store separation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Shri B Saravanan, Head-
Aero, Shri A Vadivelan, GD (Aero), & Shri Y Dilip, Director-
ADE for their assistance and permission to carry out the work at
ADE premises as part of our internship.
REFERENCES
1. A. Lurdharaj, Rakesh Kumar, Indrajit Pratap Sinh
Chandel and Dr. Abraham J.Meganathan., “Numerical
simulation of External Store Separation”, 7th ACFD
Conference, November 26-30, 2007.
2. N Balachandran, Rakesh Kumar and D. Narayan.,
“Prediction of Store Separation characteristics using CFD
and Validation with Flight Test Results”,
Journal of AeSI, Nov 2010.
3. Fox. J. H., 23. Generic Wing, Pylon, and Moving
Finned Store, Verification and Validation Data for
Computational Unsteady Aerodynamics, RTO-TR-26,
October 2000, St. Joseph Ottawa/Hill, Canada.
4.https://www.ansys.com/products/fluids/ansys-
fluent/mosaic-meshing
5. Deryl O. Snyder, Evangelos K. Koutsavdis, and
John S. R. Anttonen., “Transonic Store Separation Using
Unstructured CFD With Dynamic
Meshing”, 33rd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and
Exhibit, Orlando, Florida, 23-26 June 2003.

217
 3 FIGURE 4.3. TIME HISTORY OF SEPARATED STORE: GWPS
X [CFD]
2.5 Y [CFD] TABLE 4.1. BENCHMARK CONFIGURATION: GWPS
Z [CFD]
EXP MODEL CFD MODEL
X [EXP] PARAMETER
2 (5% SCALE) (FULL SCALE)
Displacement (m)

Y [EXP]
Wing Root Chord 15.0 Inch 7.620 m
Z [EXP]
1.5 Wind Tip 2.0 Inch 1.014 m
Taper Ratio 0.13 0.13
1 Pylon Length 4.5 Inch 2.286 m
Pylon Depth 1.2 Inch 0.6096 m
6.5 Inch from
0.5 Pylon Center Span Position 3.302 m
Centerline
Pylon (LE) from Wing LE 7.266 Inch 3.691 m
0 Pylon (LE) from Store Nose 1.666 Inch 0.8463 m
Pylon (LE) from Wing LE 0.766 Inch 0.3891 m
-0.5 Store length 5.941 Inch 3.018 m
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Store Diameter 1.0 Inch 0.5080 m
Time (s) Store Cross-Sectional Area 0.07854 Inch2 0.3891 m
Store (Surface)- Pylon Gap 0.070 Inch 0.0355 m
FIGURE 4.1. LINEAR DISPLACEMENT: CFD VS EXP
Store CG from Wing LE 5.6 Inch 2.8448 m
22
Roll [CFD]
18 Pitch [CFD]
Angular Displacements (Degree)

Yaw [CFD]
14 Pitch [EXP]
Yaw [EXP]
10 Roll [EXP]

-2

-6

-10
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time (s)
FIGURE 4.2. ANGULAR DISPLACEMENT: CFD VS EXP

(a) t=0 Sec (b) t=0.1 Sec

(c) t=0.2 Sec (d) t=0.3 Sec

(e) t=0.4 Sec (f) t=0.5 Sec

218

View publication stats