Improvements in Simulating a Mach 0.80 Transonic Truss-Braced Wing Configuration using the Spalart-Allmaras and k-ω SST Turbulence Models

Teams from the NASA Ames Research Centers (ARC) and Langley Research Center (LaRC) have been working on validating their computational fluid dynamics (CFD) results for the Boeing Mach 0.80 Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) configuration. Experimental data used for the validation were gathered from a test conducted of a 4.5% scale Mach 0.80 TTBW model in the NASA Ames Research Center 11- by 11-Foot Transonic Wind Tunnel. The CFD simulations were initially run with both LAVA and USM3D Mixed Element solvers utilizing the Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence model. A discrepancy was observed between CFD and experimental loads and moments ranging on average from 0.047 to 0.063 for lift coefficient, 16.5 to 27 in drag counts, and -0.02 to -0.032 for pitching moment, varying with the solver used. With introducing the refactored version of LAVA these values dropped to 0.034 to 0.047 for lift coefficient, 7.74 to 16.5 in drag counts, and lastly -0.012 to -0.02 for pitching moment. Based on findings from Boeing, who observed an improved comparison to experimental data when using the k-ω Shear Stress Transport (SST) turbulence model, the NASA teams conducted simulations with SST to investigate turbulence modeling sensitivities. OVERFLOW and USM3D V6 solvers were used for the comparison of SST and SA simulations. CFD results using the SST turbulence model demonstrate an improvement in matching with experimental CL values, reducing the discrepancies seen by 0.021-0.055 (62-93% reduction in discrepancy respective to the OVERFLOW and USM3D V6). The SST model has varying effects on CD, based on the solver / grid paradigm; for USM3D this prediction is only improved at higher angles of attack (above the cruise design point) resulting in a reduced discrepancy of 8.8 – 25 drag counts However, at the mid-to-low angles of attack, SST increases the CD discrepancy by 4-55 counts, increasing at lower angles of attack. For OVERFLOW this discrepancy only exists at the low angles of attack and maxes out at 10 counts of drag. Above α = 1.5° OVERFLOW SST reduces discrepancy by 9.3 drag counts on average.