Incompressible Solutions About High-Lift Wing Configurations

  • Nirajan Adhikari
  • D. Stephen NicholsEmail author


Accurately predicting the performance of high-lift wing configurations with Computational Fluid Dynamics is an active area of research for academia and industry alike. The compressible Navier–Stokes equations are usually used in these studies to predict the complex flow field generated by high lift wing configurations. However, since these configurations are applied in low-speed conditions where \(Mach \le 0.2\), the compressible equations can exhibit some numerical stiffness caused by the quasi-incompressible nature of air under these conditions. Instead of using preconditioned compressible equations to alleviate these numerical issues, this work proposes the use of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations to predict these flow fields. Specifically, the incompressible solutions about the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency Standard Model configuration with and without nacelles and pylons are compared with experiment at multiple angles of attack to demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach.



All numerical simulations were performed on the Auburn University Hopper Cluster, and the authors are grateful for the support of the Auburn University Hopper Cluster and the HPC staff.

The authors also thank the HiLiftPW3 committee and JAXA for providing both the geometry and measurements used in this work.


  1. 1.
    3rd AIAA CFD High Lift Prediction Workshop.
  2. 2.
    Anderson, J.: Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, Inc. (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barth, T.J., Jespersen, D.C.: The design and application of upwind schemes on unstructured meshes. In: 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Jan 1989, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 89-0366 (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briley, W., Taylor, L., Whitfield, D.: High-resolution viscous flow simulations at arbitrary mach number. J. Comput. Phys. 184, 79–105 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coakley, T.J.: Turbulence modeling methods for the compressible Navier-Stokes equations. In: AIAA 16th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, July 1983, Danvers, Mass, AIAA Paper 83-1693 (1983)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Currier, N.G.: A hybrid method for flows in local chemical equilibrium and nonequilibrium. Master’s thesis, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eriksson, L.: A preconditioned navier-stokes solver for low mach number flows. In: Proceedings of the Third ECCOMAS Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Paris, France, pp. 199–205 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta, A.: Preconditioning methods for ideal and multiphase fluid flows. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hajjawi, M., Taylor, L.K., Nichols, D.S.: Assessment and modification for reynolds stress transport turbulence model flow prediction. In: 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan 2008, AIAA Paper 2008-0568 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liou, W., Shih, T.: Transonic turbulent flow predictions with new two-equation turbulence models. Technical Report No. CR-198444, NASA (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Menter, F., Kuntz, M., Bender, R.: A scale-adaptive simulation model for turbulent flow predictions. In: 41st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 6–9 Jan 2003, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 2003-0767 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murayama, M., Yamamoto, K., Ito, Y.: Japan aerospace exploration agency studies for the second high-lift prediction workshop. J. Aircr. 52(4) (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nichols, D.S., Hyams, D.G., Sreenivas, K., Mitchell, B., Taylor, L.K., Whitfield, D.L.: An unstructured incompressible multi-phase solution algorithm. In: 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 9–12 Jan 2006, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 2006-1290 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nichols, D.S., Mitchell, B., Sreenivas, K., Taylor, L.K., Briley, W.R., Whitfield, D.L.: Aerosol propagation in an urban environment. In: 36th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, 5–8 June 2006, San Francisco, CA, AIAA Paper 2006-3726 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nichols, D.S., Sreenivas, K., Karman, S.L., Mitchell, B.: Turbulence modeling for highly separated flows. In: 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 8–11 Jan 2007, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 2007–1407 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pointwise: Version 18.0 R1.
  17. 17.
    Spalart, P.R., Allmaras, S.R.: A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. In: AIAA Paper 92-0439 (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sreenivas, K., Hyams, D., Nichols, D., Mitchell, B., Taylor, L., Briley, W., Whitfield, D.: Development of an unstructured parallel flow solver for arbitrary mach numbers. In: 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan 2005, AIAA Paper 2005-0325 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sreenivas, K., Taylor, L., Briley, W.: A global preconditioner for viscous flow simulations at all mach numbers. In: 36th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, 5–8 June 2006, San Francisco, CA, AIAA Paper 2006-3852 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Strelets, M.: Detached eddy simulation of massively separated flows. In: 39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 8–11 Jan 2001, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 01-0879 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taylor, L.K.: Unsteady three-dimensional incompressible algorithm based on artificial compressibility. Ph.D. thesis, Mississippi State University (1991)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Turkel, E.: Review of preconditioning methods for fluid dynamics. Appl. Numer. Math. 12(13), 257–284 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilcox, D.C.: Turbulence Modeling for CFD. 3rd edn. DCW Industries (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Auburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations