International Scientific Journal


The application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is often motivated by the limitations of measurement techniques, economic limitations, and complex model geometry or, as it is in this case, the unavailability of appropriate test model geometry. CFD was used to assess and evaluate scenario that cannot be investigated experimentally and was shown to be an efficient and economical option to experimental setup. Because of that, there is a strong need for a validation procedure and assessment of the data obtained by numerical simulation. A combined experimental/numerical procedure is described for determination and estimation of subsonic and supersonic aerodynamic behavior of an AGARD-B model with a nonstandard nose configuration. Conducted numerical aerodynamic calculations needed to be satisfied via experimental tests so, the CFD code validation procedure required experimental data that characterize the distributions of measured aerodynamic forces and moments which act upon the test model. Validation of the CFD was achieved by performing the calculation for the model with the standard nose shape as well, and by comparing the results of the CFD calculations with available experimental data for the model with the standard nose configuration. Comparison demonstrated very good agreement between numerically and experimentally obtained results. It was concluded that the numerical prediction for the similar nonstandard model configuration could be accepted as reliable and used to estimate the corrections needed when interpreting the available data. The effects of the different nose shape were found to be small and noticeable mainly in the pitching moment coefficient. This work also demonstrates the application of CFD for the purpose of proving a qualitative and quantitative prediction of the aerodynamics behavior.
PAPER REVISED: 2013-05-17
PAPER ACCEPTED: 2013-07-16
CITATION EXPORT: view in browser or download as text file
  1. Colombo, E., Inzoli, F., Mareu, R., A methodology for qualifying industrial CFD: The Q3 approach and the role of a protocol, Computers & Fluids, 54 (2012), pp. 56-66
  2. Rašuo, B., Scaling between Wind Tunnels-Results Accuracy in Two-Dimensional Testing, Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences, 55 (2012), 2, pp: 109-115
  3. Damljanović, D., Investigation of Flow Quality Parameters in the 3D Test Section of the T-38 Trisonic Wind Tunnel, MSc thesis, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, 2010, (in Serbian)
  4. Damljanović, D., Rašuo, B., Testing of Calibration Models in Order to Certify the Overall Reliability of the Trisonic Blowdown Wind Tunnel of VTI, FME Transactions,38 (2010), 4, pp. 167-172
  5. Damljanović, D., Vitić, A., Vuković, Đ., Testing of AGARD-B calibration model in the T-38 wind tunnel, Scientific Technical Review, 56 (2006), 2, pp. 52-62
  6. Damljanović, D., Isaković, J., Rašuo, B., An Evaluation of the Overall T-38 Wind Tunnel Data Quality in Testing of a Calibration Model, Proceedings, 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana , 2012
  7. Damljanović, D., Rašuo, B., Isaković, J., The T-38 Wind Tunnel Data Quality Assurance Based on Testing of a Standard Model, AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Full Paper 2012-08-C032081.R2, ISSN: 0021-8669, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., (DOI: 10.2514/1.C032081) (to be published)
  8. Hills, R., A Review of Measurement on AGARD Calibration Models, Report No. 64, Aircraft Research Association, Bedford, England, 1961
  9. Isakovic, J., Zrnic, N., Janjikopanji, G., Testing of the AGARD B/C, ONERA and SDM Calibration Models in the T-38 1.5m x 1.5m Trisonic Wind Tunnel, Proceedings, 19th ICAS congress, Anaheim, USA, 1994, pp. 1-9
  10. Elfstrom, G. M., Medved, B., The Yugoslav 1.5m Trisonic Blowdown Wind Tunnel, AIAA Paper 86-0746-CP, 1986
  11. Rasuo, B., Two-Dimensional Transonic Wind Tunnel Wall Interference, Technical University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary, 2003
  12. Rašuo, B., The influence of Reynolds and Mach numbers on two-dimensional wind-tunnel testing: An experience, The Aeronautical Journal, 115 (2011), 1166, pp: 249-254
  13. Rasuo, B., On boundary layer control in two-dimensional transonic wind tunnel testing, Proceedings, (Meier, G. E. A., Sreenivasan, K. R. and Heinemann, H.-J.), IUTAM Symposium on One Hundred Years of Boundary Layer Research, Berlin, Germany, 2006, pp. 473-482
  14. ANSYS Inc., Theory Guide, ANSYS FLUENT 14.0, 2009
  15. Menter, F. R., Performance of Popular Turbulence Models for Attached and Separated Adverse Pressure Gradient Flow, AIAA J., 30 (1992), pp. 2066-2072
  16. Menter, F. R., Improved Two-equation k-ω Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows, NASA Technical Memorandum TM-103975, NASA Ames, CA, 1992
  17. Menter, F., Two-equation Eddy-viscosity Turbulence Model for Engineering Applications, AIAA J. 32 (1994), pp. 1598-1605
  18. Menter, F., Eddy-viscosity Transport Equations and their Relation to the k-ε Model, Trans. ASME, J. Fluids Eng.119 (1997), pp. 876-884
  19. Versteeg, H. K., Malalasekera, W., An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics, Second edition, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, England, 2007
  20. Anderson, D. J., Computational Fluid Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, NY, 1995

© 2019 Society of Thermal Engineers of Serbia. Published by the Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International licence