Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Aircraft Engine

Identifying Opportunities for Reducing Nacelle Drag

[+] Author and Article Information
M. S. Zawislak

Department of Mechanical and Materials
Queen's University,
Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
e-mail: maverick.zawislak@queensu.ca

D. J. Cerantola

Department of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering,
Queen's University,
Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
e-mail: david.cerantola@queensu.ca

A. M. Birk

Department of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering,
Queen's University,
Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
e-mail: birk@me.queensu.ca

Contributed by the Aircraft Engine Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 12, 2017; final manuscript received July 20, 2017; published online October 10, 2017. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 140(2), 021202 (Oct 10, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-17-1350; doi: 10.1115/1.4037864 History: Received July 12, 2017; Revised July 20, 2017

The accurate prediction of drag caused by bluff bodies present in aerospace applications, particularly at high angles of attack, was a challenge. An experimental and numerical investigation of a nacelle intended for fuselage-mounted aircraft engines was completed at several angles of attack between 0 deg and 45 deg with a Reynolds number of 6 × 105. Steady-flow simulations were conducted on hybrid grids using ANSYS fluent 15.0 with preference given to the realizable k–ε turbulence model. Both total drag and the pressure-to-viscous drag ratio increased with angle of attack as a consequence of greater flow separation on the suction surface. Near-field and far-field drag predictions had grid uncertainties below 2.5% and were within 10% of experiment, which were less than the uncertainties of the respective force balance and outlet traverse data at all angles of attack. Regions were defined on suction-side x-pressure force plots using the validated computational fluid dynamics (CFD) data-set that showed where and how much drag could be reduced. At 20 deg angle of attack, there was a potential to reduce up to 20% drag contained within the separated flow region.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


van Dam, C. P. , 1999, “ Recent Experience With Different Methods of Drag Prediction,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 35(8), pp. 751–798. [CrossRef]
Gariépy, M. , Malouin, B. , Trépanier, J.-Y. , and Laurendeau, É. , 2013, “ Far-Field Drag Decomposition Applied to the Drag Prediction Workshop 5 Cases,” J. Aircr., 50(6), pp. 1822–1831. [CrossRef]
Meredith, P. T. , 1993, “ Viscous Phenomena Affecting High-Lift Systems and Suggestions for Future CFD Development,” The Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD), Technical Report No. 94-18415-04-01.
Versteeg, H. K. , and Malalasekera, W. , 2007, An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method, Vol. 2, Pearson, Harlow, UK.
Dawes, W. N. , Dhanasekaran, P. C. , Demargne, A. A. J. , Kellar, W. P. , and Savill, A. M. , 2001, “ Reducing Bottlenecks in the CAD-to-Mesh-to-Solution Cycle Time to Allow CFD to Participate in Design,” ASME J. Turbomach., 123(3), pp. 552–557. [CrossRef]
Spalart, P. R. , 2015, “ Philosophies and Fallacies in Turbulence Modeling,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 74(4), pp. 1–15. [CrossRef]
Spalart, P. R. , and Allmaras, S. R. , 1992, “ A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows,” AIAA Paper No. 1992-0439.
Chao, D. D. , and van Dam, C. P. , 1999, “ Airfoil Drag Prediction and Decomposition,” J. Aircr., 36(4), pp. 675–681. [CrossRef]
Mavriplis, D. J. , 2003, Aerodynamic Drag Prediction Using Unstructured Mesh Solvers, (Lecture Notes From the VKI Lecture Series on CFD-Based Drag Prediction and Reduction), von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Sint-Genesius-Rode, Belgium.
Murayama, M. , Yamamoto, K. , and Kobayashi, K. , 2006, “ Validation of Computations Around High-Lift Configurations by Structured- and Unstructured-Mesh,” J. Aircr., 43(2), pp. 395–406. [CrossRef]
Lei, Z. , Murayama, M. , Takenaka, K. , and Yamamoto, K. , 2006, “ CFD Validation for High-Lift Devices: Two-Element Airfoil,” Trans. Jpn. Soc. Aeronaut. Space Sci., 49(163), pp. 31–39. [CrossRef]
Argyropoulos, C. D. , and Markatos, N. C. , 2015, “ Recent Advances on the Numerical Modelling of Turbulent Flows,” Appl. Math. Model., 39(2), pp. 693–732. [CrossRef]
Méheut, M. , and Bailly, D. , 2008, “ Drag-Breakdown Methods From Wake Measurements,” AIAA J., 46(4), pp. 847–862. [CrossRef]
Malouin, B. , Gariépy, M. , Trépanier, J.-Y. , and Laurendeau, É. , 2015, “ Internal Drag Evaluation for a Through-Flow Nacelle Using a Far-Field Approach,” J. Aircr., 52(6), pp. 1847–1857. [CrossRef]
Yamazaki, W. , Matsushima, K. , and Nakahashi, K. , 2006, “ Unstructured Mesh Drag Prediction Based on Drag Decomposition,” European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics (ECCOMAS CFD), Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands, Sept. 5–8.
Mavriplis, D. J. , 2008, “ Third Drag Prediction Workshop Results Using the NSU3D Unstructured Mesh Solver,” J. Aircr., 45(3), pp. 750–761. [CrossRef]
Vos, J. B. , Sanchi, S. , and Gehri, A. , 2013, “ Drag Prediction Workshop 4 Results Using Different Grids Including Near-Field/Far-Field Drag Analysis,” J. Aircr., 50(5), pp. 1615–1627. [CrossRef]
Levy, D. W. , Laflin, K. R. , Tinoco, E. N. , Vassberg, J. C. , Mani, M. , Rider, B. , Rumsey, C. , Wahls, R. A. , Morrison, J. H. , Brodersen, O. P. , Crippa, S. , Mavriplis, D. J. , and Murayama, M. , 2013, “ Summary of Data From the Fifth AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop,” AIAA Paper No. 2013–0046.
Rumsey, C. L. , and Slotnick, J. P. , 2015, “ Overview and Summary of the Second AIAA High-Lift Prediction Workshop,” J. Aircr., 52(4), pp. 1006–1025. [CrossRef]
Menter, F. R. , 1994, “ Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Model for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Celić, A. , and Hirschel, E. H. , 2006, “ Comparison of Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models in Flows With Adverse Pressure Gradient,” AIAA J., 44(10), pp. 2156–2169. [CrossRef]
Benini, E. , Ponza, R. , and Massaro, A. , 2011, “ High-Lift Multi-Element Airfoil Shape and Setting Optimization Using Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms,” J. Aircr., 48(2), pp. 683–696. [CrossRef]
Shih, T.-H. , Liou, W. W. , Shabbir, A. , Yang, Z. , and Zhu, J. , 1995, “ A New k-ε Eddy Viscosity Model for High Reynolds Number Turbulent Flows,” Comput. Fluids, 24(3), pp. 227–238. [CrossRef]
Liu, Y. , Claus, R. , Litt, J. , and Guo, T.-H. , 2013, “ Simulating Effects of High Angle of Attack on Turbofan Engine Performance,” AIAA Paper No. 2013–1075.
Carnevale, M. , Wang, F. , and di Mare, L. , 2017, “ Low Frequency Distortion in Civil Aero-Engine Intake,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 139(4), p. 041203. [CrossRef]
Larkin, M. J. , and Schweiger, P. S. , 1992, “ Ultra High Bypass Nacelle Aerodynamics Inlet Flow-Through High Angle of Attack Distortion Test,” Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, Commercial Engine Business, East Hartford, CT, Technical Report No. NASA CR-189149.
Brune, G. W. , 1992, “ Quantitative Three-Dimensional Low-Speed Wake Surveys,” Boeing Commercial Airplane Co., Seattle, WA, Technical Report No. 93N27447.
Betz, A. , 1925, “ A Method for the Direct Determination of Wing-Section Drag,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, Technical Report No. NACA-TM-337.
Rogers, S. E. , Roth, K. , and Nash, S. M. , 2001, “ Validation of Computed High-Lift Flows With Significant Wind-Tunnel Effects,” AIAA J., 39(10), pp. 1884–1892. [CrossRef]
Van der Vooren, J. , 2008, “ On Drag and Lift Analysis of Transport Aircraft From Wind Tunnel Measurements,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 12(4), pp. 337–345. [CrossRef]
Paparone, L. , and Tognaccini, R. , 2002, “ A Method for Drag Decomposition From CFD Calculations,” Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), Toronto, ON, Canada, Sept. 8–13, p. 1113.
Ganzevles, F. L. A. , de Bruin, A. C. , and Puffert-Meissner, W. , 2002, “ A Quantitative Analysis of Viscous and Lift-Induced Drag Components From Detailed Wake Measurements Behind a Half-Span Model,” National Aerospace Laboratory, Marknesse, The Netherlands, Report No. NLR-TP-2002-320.
Kusunose, K. , 1998, “ Drag Prediction Based on a Wake-Integral Method,” AIAA Paper No. 98–2723.
Zawislak, M. S. , 2016, “ Experimental and RANS-CFD Study of Nacelle Drag,” Master's thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Gallington, R. W. , 1980, “ Measurement of Very Large Flow Angles With Non-Nulling Seven-Hole Probes,” International Instrumentation Symposium, Indianapolis, IN, Apr. 27–30.
Crawford, J. , and Birk, A. M. , 2013, “ Improvements to Common Data Reduction and Calibration Methods for Seven Hole Probes,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 135(2), p. 031206. [CrossRef]
Crawford, J. , and Birk, A. M. , 2013, “ Influence of Tip Shape on Reynolds Number Sensitivity for a Seven Hole Pressure Probe,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 135(9), p. 091602. [CrossRef]
ANSYS, 2013, “ ANSYS® Release 15.0: ANSYS FLUENT User's Guide,” Ansys Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Wolfshtein, M. , 1969, “ The Velocity and Temperature Distribution of One-Dimensional Flow With Turbulence Augmentation and Pressure Gradient,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 12(3), pp. 301–318. [CrossRef]
Yakhot, V. , and Orszag, S. A. , 1986, “ Renormalization Group Analysis of Turbulence—I: Basic Theory,” J. Sci. Comput., 1(1), pp. 3–51. [CrossRef]
Celik, I. B. , Ghia, U. , Roache, P. J. , Freitas, C. J. , Coleman, H. , and Raad, P. E. , 2008, “ Procedure for Estimation and Reporting of Uncertainty Due to Discretization in CFD Applications,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 130(7), p. 078001. [CrossRef]
Gregory-Smith, D. G. , Graves, C. P. , and Walsh, J. A. , 1988, “ Growth of Secondary Losses and Vorticity in an Axial Turbine Cascade,” ASME J. Turbomach., 110(1), pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
Shur, M. L. , Strelets, M. K. , Travin, A. K. , and Spalart, P. R. , 2015, “ Evaluation of Vortex Generators for Separation Control in a Transcritical Cylinder Flow,” AIAA J., 53(10), pp. 2967–2977. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Test section schematic

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Boundary condition schematic

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Mesh cut planes and surface mesh at α = 0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Drag coefficient grid convergence with Rk–ε at α = 20 deg. Lines = polynomial curve fits. Extrapolated relative errors shown at Δx = 0.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

SST traverse plane X-velocity contours at α = 20 deg. Looking downstream: (a) base grid and (b) locally refined grid.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Rk–ε velocity contour slices, streamlines, and zero x-velocity iso-surface at α = 20 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Rk–ε y = 0.17 H pressure contours at α = 20 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Traverse plane x-velocity contours at α = 20 deg. Looking downstream: (a) Rk–ε and (b) experiment.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Traverse plane x-vorticity contours at α = 20 deg: (a) Rk–ε and (b) experiment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Traverse plane azimuthal vorticity contours at α = 20 deg: (a) Rk–ε and (b) experiment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Rk–ε traverse plane Tu contours at α = 20 deg. Looking downstream.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Normalized CFD and experimental velocity traverse plane profiles at several angles of attack: (a) axial velocity at the nacelle-strut connection height y = 0.17 H, (b) axial velocity at the midplane nacelle height y = 0.27 H, (c) y-velocity at the midplane nacelle height y = 0.27 H, and (d) z-velocity at z = 0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Far-field drag components versus angle of attack

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Near-field drag components versus angle of attack

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Rk–ε suction side x-pressure force contours at α = 20 deg. Experimental results determined from string tufts.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Rk–ε predicted contributions of drag within the separated flow region



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In