What is it about?
Community summary of the IFCPT S-duct at PAW4 (Cincinnati, July 2018): 35 participants from 11 organizations, more than 100 solutions from nine CFD codes, on workshop nested meshes and participant meshes, some with the AIP rake in the duct and some without. Matching the test’s AIP pressure or Mach, instead of the reported mass flow, and including rake blockage, cut the scatter in total-pressure recovery relative to PAW3. SST generally gave lower recovery and higher distortion than the other models. SA and k-ω SST matched AIP wall pressure; k-ε did not. Leaving the rake out produces an upper-wall separation near the AIP that the test does not have; including the rake, most runs still missed the actual upper-wall separation at the AIP.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
It shows that a lot of the PAW3 scatter was a boundary-condition and geometry problem, not just “codes disagree.” Drive the duct the way the tunnel does, put the rake in the CAD, and the remaining disagreement is then about turbulence modeling and whether you capture the real separation.
Perspectives
This is the PAW4 S-duct map. I was at Kratos by then. Use it with the PAW3 grid paper and the FUN3D adaptation paper, not instead of them.
Zach Davis
Space Dynamics Laboratory
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Summary of the 4th Propulsion Aerodynamics Workshop: S-duct Results, August 2019, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA),
DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-3845.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
