Aerodynamic Loads on External Stores

Saab 39 Gripen
Evaluation of CFD methods for estimating loads on external stores
Christian Spjutare
September 21, 2009

ii

Christian Spjutare

Master Thesis
September 2009
LIU-IEI-TEK-A09/00686SE
Department of Management and Engineering
Division of Applied Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics

Saab Aerosystems

iii

Abstract
External stores mounted on aircraft generate loads which need to be estimated
before first takeoff. These loads can be measured in a wind tunnel but since the
possible store configurations are basically endless, testing them all is neither economically feasible nor time efficient. Thus, scaling based on geometrical similarity is used. This can, however, be a crude method. Stores with similar geometrical properties can still behave in different ways due to aerodynamic interference
caused by adjacent surfaces.
To improve the scaling performance, this work focuses on investigating two
CFD codes, ADAPDT and Edge. The CFD simulations are used to derive the
difference in aerodynamic coefficients, or the -effect, between a reference store
and the new untested store. The -effect is then applied to an existing wind tunnel
measurement of the reference store, yielding an estimation of the aerodynamic
properties for the new store.
The results show that ADAPDT, using a coarse geometry representation, has
large difficulties predicting the new store properties, even for a very simple store
configuration on the aircraft. Therefore it is not suited to use as a scaling tool in
its present condition. Edge on the other hand uses a more precise geometry representation and proves to deliver good estimations of the new store load behavior.
Results are well balanced and mainly conservative. Some further work is needed
to verify the performance but Edge is the recommended tool for scaling.

iv

Christian Spjutare

Saab Aerosystems

Preface
This thesis was carried out in the Loads Department at Saab Aerosystems in
Linkoping as part of a masters degree in Mechanical Engineering at Linkoping
University.
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisors at Saab Aerosystems,
Jenny Poovi and Mickael Stenborg. They provided invaluable support by discussing different ideas and by answering all of my questions. My supervisors at
Linkoping University, Roland Gardhagen and Matts Karlsson, have also provided
many thoughts for which I am very grateful. Furthermore I would like to thank
Anders Lindberg and Bengt Mexnell at Saab Aerosystems for taking the time to
discuss options and for providing expert opinions. Many thanks also go out to
Per Weinerfelt for introducing me to the ADAPDT software and for highly appreciated insights to the mathematical modelling of the problem. The task has also
involved many of the other employees in the Loads Department and the Structural
Dynamics, Flutter & Separation Department at Saab Aerosystems and I would
like to thank all of them for the enthusiasm they have shown and for every piece
they have contributed. I would also like to mention David Eller at KTH Royal
Institute of Technology, who generously helped me with the modelling software
dwfSumo.

Finally, I want to thank my near and dear ones, especially Asa,

for patience
and constant loving support during this work.
Linkoping, August 2009
Christian Spjutare

vi

Christian Spjutare

Saab Aerosystems

vii

Table of Contents
1

Introduction
1.1 Background . . . .
1.2 Purpose . . . . . .
1.3 General Definitions
1.4 Delimitations . . .

.
.
.
.

1
1
2
3
3

Pilot Study
2.1 Simulation Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1 ADAPDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2 Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5
6
6
6

Work Process
3.1 ADAPDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Postprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8
8
9
11

Results
4.1 Selecting Appropriate Models for ADAPDT
4.2 Mesh Independence for Edge . . . . . . . .
4.3 CFD vs. Wind Tunnel Data . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Scaling Using the CFD Results . . . . . . .
4.4.1 Mach 0.6, Alpha Sweep . . . . . .
4.4.2 Mach 0.8, Alpha Sweep . . . . . .
4.4.3 Mach 0.6, Beta Sweep . . . . . . .

12
12
13
14
15
16
17
17

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Analysis
19
5.1 General Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2 Higher Speed Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3 Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Discussion
6.1 Improving the Results Further . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Recommendations for Continued Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summarising the Methodology

7.1 Modelling . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Preprocessing . . . . . . .
7.3 Simulation . . . . . . . . .
7.4 Postprocessing . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

21
21
22
22

23
. 23
. 23
. 24
. 24

viii

Christian Spjutare

References

25

A CFD Values, Store1, Mach 0.6, Alpha Sweep

B CFD Values, Store2, Mach 0.6, Alpha Sweep

IV

C CFD Values, Store1, Mach 0.8, Alpha Sweep

VII

D CFD Values, Store2, Mach 0.8, Alpha Sweep

E CFD Values, Store1, Mach 0.6, Beta Sweep

XIII

F CFD Values, Store2, Mach 0.6, Beta Sweep

XVI

G Scaling at Mach 0.6, Alpha Sweep

XIX

H Scaling at Mach 0.8, Alpha Sweep

XXII

XXV

Scaling at Mach 0.6, Beta Sweep

Saab Aerosystems

ix

Nomenclature

CC
CD
CL
CN
CT
CM X
CM Y
CM Z
M

Angle of attack
Angle of sideslip
Side force coefficient
Drag force coefficient
Lift force coefficient
Normal force coefficient
Axial force coefficient
Roll moment coefficient
Pitch moment coefficient
Yaw moment coefficient
Mach number

[]
[]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

Christian Spjutare

Saab Aerosystems

Introduction

Saab Aerosystems, a part of the Saab Group, offers advanced airborne systems
and services throughout the product life cycle to defence customers and aerospace
industries. The main product is the Gripen fighter.
The Loads Department is responsible for generating load data as a basis for
stress analyses of the aircraft hull and subsystems. The data include loads for
static dimensioning as well as load spectra for dimensioning against fatigue and
damage resistance.
Aircraft are complex technical systems; especially military aircraft which have
a large flight envelope including high speed, great altitude and rapid manoeuvres.
Additionally, they need to carry a large amount of external equipment, also called
external stores. The performance of an aircraft is highly dependent on its aerodynamic properties and when equipped with bombs, missiles and external fuel tanks
the aerodynamics change drastically. This introduces new loads on the aircraft
structure and they need to be determined to assure structural integrity.

1.1

Background

When new external stores are to be integrated on the aircraft, it is important to

determine the loads they generate and study the corresponding effects on the aircraft. This applies to both aerodynamic and inertial loads and this report focuses
on the aerodynamic loads. These loads can be estimated in a variety of ways. One
of the more accurate methods would be to perform a wind tunnel measurement of
the store mounted in the desired pylon on the aircraft.
The Gripen fighter, as it looks today, has five pylon stations for external stores.
Together with more than thirty different types of bombs, missiles, drop tanks and
other equipment, this generates a huge number of possible store configurations on
the aircraft. See Figure 1. All of these cannot be tested in a wind tunnel since wind
tunnel measurements are very expensive, time consuming and require meticulous
preparations.
When integrating a new kind of store it is important to be able to produce good
load results in a fast way and a wind tunnel measurement does only meet the
first half of those requirements. Therefore it is appealing to use some form of
scaling technique to estimate the loads on the new store based on wind tunnel
measurements for other stores.
Generally, aerodynamic data for free flight conditions is provided by the manufacturer of the store. If not, a program such as Missile DATCOM can be used
[1, 2, 3]. However, data for free flight conditions may differ a lot from data obtained from wind tunnel measurements with the store mounted on the aircraft.
This is a result of interference effects between the store, the wing and stores

Christian Spjutare

Figure 1: A large number of stores can be mounted on the aircraft, making wind
tunnel measurements a costly business. Copyright Gripen International.
mounted in adjacent pylons. These effects must be considered, thus data for free
flight conditions is not enough to predict the aerodynamic loads.
The scaling at Saab Aerosystems currently consists of a number of different
actions, for which geometrical similarity is the basis. If a new external store has
a similar appearance to a previously wind tunnel measured one, it is assumed to
behave in a similar way. The scaling methods include, for instance, comparing
free flight aerodynamics and geometric scaling from existing wind tunnel measurements, based on reference areas and lengths.
To improve the accuracy of the current scaling, the interest has increased for
developing a scaling methodology based on simulation of the flow field around the
bodies using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). For this task two CFD codes
were selected for evaluation; ADAPDT and Edge.

1.2

Purpose

The purpose of this Master thesis is to outline the basis for a new load scaling
methodology. To do so, the CFD codes ADAPDT and Edge are investigated from
a load scaling perspective to determine if they are suited to use as scaling tools in
the Loads Department at Saab Aerosystems.

Saab Aerosystems

1.3

General Definitions

The coordinate system used throughout this report is basically a standard system
from flight mechanics, as can be seen in Figure 2. The angle of attack, and the
angle of sideslip, , are defined positive in positive y and z directions respectively.
Out of the five force coefficients shown above, only two are used throughout this
report, CC and CN . Forces in the x direction are not measured in the wind tunnel
and therefore not considered here.

Figure 2: Defining positive directions for forces, moments and angles.

1.4

Delimitations

Investigating different methods is a time consuming task, hence the large amount
of store configurations available needed to be reduced into a narrow range to perform the simulations and scaling on. Initially, two different stores were chosen.
These were selected based on two criteria:
Two types of stores with some geometrical similarity.
Previously wind tunnel measured.
Figure 3 shows an example of what geometrical similarity may involve. The stores
selected are here referred to as Store1 and Store2 and they are geometrically similar to some extent. Identical wind tunnel measurements existed for these stores
mounted on the Gripen wing. The wind tunnel measurements were used as a base

Christian Spjutare

(a) A simple store

(b) A more complex store

Figure 3: Two stores which have identical central body sections but different nose
cones, tails and fin assemblies. They are considered geometrically similar.
for the scaling and also as a reference to evaluate the scaling results. All results
presented in this report are normalised.
Due to time constraints associated with the work process of scaling aerodynamic
loads at the Loads Department, the use of the Navier-Stokes equations in Edge
was deemed unrealistic. The CFD simulations must be carried out within hours
rather than days.
This report focuses on the simulation and scaling of aerodynamic loads. Inertial loads are not considered. Any mention of loads refers to purely aerodynamic
loads.

Saab Aerosystems

Pilot Study

Aerodynamic scaling is a difficult topic and most of the research done in the field
is focused on scaling wind tunnel data from small scale models to full-size applications [4, 5, 6]. Scaling data from one full size application to another with
similar appearance is a sparsely investigated field.
Applying a single scale factor for an entire range of or is not sufficient.
It is easy to illustrate the difficulties associated with this form of scaling. Figure
4 shows a comparison of wind tunnel measured CM Z coefficients for Store1 and
Store2. Multiplying one of the curves by a constant scale factor will never result
in a curve that resembles the other. Thus, scaling with a constant factor throughout
the -range is too crude a method.

Figure 4: The dotted curve represents the scaling result of the Store2 curve multiplied by a constant factor -2.
In aerodynamics, basic scaling can be performed using different rules of thumb
and the moment coefficients are generally more difficult to scale than the force coefficients [7, 8]. Some rules that may be applied are that the side force coefficient
CC and the roll moment coefficient CM X can be scaled using the relation between
the bodies wingspans squared. In this case, due to the existence of interference
from other bodies, these rules may range from fairly accurate to useless.
Interference effects caused by surfaces in the vicinity of the store are highly
irregular and difficult to predict [9, 10]. Therefore the interference effects on a
store are hard to estimate by simply applying an interference effect from a similar
store. A slight change in position or size can result in fundamentally different flow
fields.

2.1

Christian Spjutare

Simulation Tools

CFD is an umbrella term for different methods to simulate flow fields around
objects in a fluid [6, 11, 12]. All CFD methods suffer from lack of precision in
predicting complex flow fields, at least when computational times are required to
be short. When -effects are considered they are generally considered able to
deliver acceptable results.
The -effect is the difference in aerodynamic loads between two simulations.
The general assumption is that the error produced in each of the two different simulations will be approximately the same, eliminating each other when considering
the -effect instead of the raw CFD values.
2.1.1

ADAPDT

ADAPDT (Aero Dynamic Analysis and Preliminary Design Tool) is an in-house

developed panel code based on the vortex lattice potential flow theory [13, 14, 15].
The vortex lattice method models surfaces as infinitely thin sheets of vortices to
calculate the loads. The theory neglects viscous effects, making it valid only for
subsonic speeds and low angles of attack [16]. The fast computation time is the
main benefit of this theory.
Panel methods can be used with both two and three dimensional body representations and ADAPDT uses the simpler, two dimensional representation. Successful attempts to integrate three dimensional representation in ADAPDT have
been made but they are not yet implemented in the available code.
In ADAPDT, bodies are approximated with thin sheets in one plane or in a
cross configuration, see Figure 5. Each sheet is then divided into a number of
smaller panels.

(a) Cross model

(b) Flat sheet model

Figure 5: Front views of the two model types.

2.1.2

Edge

Edge is developed by the Swedish Defence Research Agency, FOI, and it uses the
Euler or Navier-Stokes equations to solve flow problems [17]. The Euler equations are a simplification of the Navier-Stokes equations, neglecting viscous ef-

Saab Aerosystems

fects in the flow and speeding up calculation times. This also imposes the same
constraints on the test envelope as mentioned for ADAPDT. Despite the lack of
viscous effects in the flow solver, it has been pointed out that for predicting effects for stores on aircraft, the use of the Euler equations may in fact be more
precise than the Navier-Stokes equations [18].
In contrast to ADAPDT, Edge makes full use of three dimensional geometries.
To model the geometries and generate the mesh, dwfSumo and TetGen was used
[19, 20].

Christian Spjutare

Work Process

The basic idea behind this thesis is to employ CFD methods to simulate the flow
around both the new store as well as the wind tunnel measured reference store
when mounted on the aircraft. The differences in aerodynamic loads, the -effect,
between these two simulations can be viewed as a scaling unit between the stores.
This unit depends on angle of attack, angle of sideslip and Mach number and is
applied to the wind tunnel measurement data for the reference equipment. The
result is an estimation of the aerodynamic loads for the new equipment.
Scaling was performed using Store1 as the scaling base; the known reference
store. Store2 was used as the unknown, new target store for which accurate loads
were required. The two stores investigated have the same reference areas and
lengths, making the resulting coefficient curves for the stores directly comparable.
On the other hand, the reference points used in the two wind tunnel measurements
are different. The wind tunnel reference point is the point in the tested model
where the loads are measured. To achieve fully comparable loads between the two
wind tunnel measurements, the loads for Store2 had to be moved to correspond to
the reference point of Store1 before scaling was performed.
Despite the and Mach number limitations of the potential flow theory and the
Euler equations, both theories were tested for higher angles of attack and speeds
to investigate if the -effect could be used there as well.

3.1

ADAPDT

ADAPDT has the disadvantage of not using a three dimensional representation

of the geometries. This leaves large room for interpretation of how a body is
modelled accurately. For this reason several different models were initially made
and compared with aerodynamic data for free flight to achieve models that acted
as much as the actual store as possible.
Two major designs were tested for the stores; body-shaped sheet design (BSD)
and rectangular sheet design (RSD), shown in Figure 6. The RSD was based on
using the smallest possible rectangle to fit the planform. The RSD is currently

(a) Body-shaped sheets

(b) Rectangular sheets

Figure 6: Side views of one of the stores modelled with body-shaped and rectangular sheets.

Saab Aerosystems

used at Saab Aerosystems for various simulations with good results. The BSD
was chosen to evaluate if using the contours of the body would improve upon the
results of the RSD design. The two designs were tested using the cross model and
flat sheet configurations mentioned i section 2.1.1. The number of panels in each
sheet was also varied to find the most suitable combination. This was done by
separately altering the number of panels in the direction of flow and the direction
of span from 2 to 32 panels by doubling, 2-4-8-16-32. Consequently, each model
was simulated 25 times using different panel densities. Finally, the RSD was
tested with different sizes of the sheets. The total number of models tested was in
the end somewhere around 15 to 20 per store, resulting in a total of at least 750
simulations.
A prefabricated model of the aircraft existed in the Aerodynamics Department. Pylons 2 and 3 were added and the store models with the best free flight
data agreement were installed on the aircraft wing, Figure 7, and used for the simulations. ADAPDT was tested using both a linear and a nonlinear option at Mach
0.6 and 0.8 with an -sweep between -4 and 20 and a step size of 2.

Figure 7: The aircraft modelled as a cross model with a store mounted in pylon 2.

3.2

Edge

Three dimensional geometry representation made modelling a simpler task for the
Edge calculations. Based on drawings, the stores were modelled as accurately as
possible using the dwfSumo software.
Since no previous dwfSumo models existed and the software lacks the ability
to import CAD geometry, every body had to be modelled, including the Gripen
fighter, see Figure 8. Fine details were excluded to keep the mesh size to a minimum. Also, the vertical stabiliser was removed, since its effect on the store was
assumed to be negligible. The meshes were generated focusing on refinement in
the region of interest; close to the store.

10

Christian Spjutare

Figure 8: The aircraft modelled in dwfSumo with a store mounted in pylon 2.

Fine details are removed, as well as the vertical stabiliser.
The mesh size was approximately 700,000 nodes, varying with store complexity.
Mesh independence was tested using the Edge hadaption feature which refines
the mesh based on gradients in the flow parameters. For more information regarding this feature, please view the Edge manual [17]. Figure 9 illustrates the mesh
representation in the vicinity of the store.

Figure 9: Mesh representation close to the store

Boundary conditions were manually placed on the air intakes and exhaust. In
reality the mass flow through the engine would vary with engine thrust. Here the
normal flow velocities were specified at the intake surfaces and were assumed to
be equal to the aircraft velocity. The exhaust boundary condition was calculated
accordingly, assuming constant mass flow. All other boundary conditions, such
as those on the aircraft surfaces and on the farfield boundary were automatically
specified by the mesh generation software.
Simulations were performed at Mach 0.6 and 0.8, using an -sweep ranging
from 0 to 15 and a step size of 3. Edge was executed on a Beowulf cluster
computer, using 8 or 16 processor cores per simulation. Maximum number of
iterations was set to 5,000. The number of simulations performed, including mesh
independence study, was close to 120.

Saab Aerosystems

3.3

11

Postprocessing

The postprocessing step was similar for both ADAPDT and Edge. Scripts for extracting force and moment coefficients were applied to the resulting data, generating MATLAB coefficient libraries. The reference store data was subtracted from
the new unknown store equivalent to produce the -effect. It was then applied
to the reference store wind tunnel measurement. Finally, plots were generated,
showing both scaling results and raw CFD values.

12

Christian Spjutare

Results

ADAPDT calculations lasted somewhere between 1 to 5 minutes depending on the

amount of panels in the model and which method was used; linear or nonlinear.
Modelling the store itself was a simple and fast process since the RSD was chosen.
The most time consuming task was the adjustment of the ADAPDT models to free
flight data, which required several different models and showed no discernible
pattern.
Edge Euler calculations lasted 20 to 80 minutes, representing up to 50% of the
total time for modelling, simulation and postprocessing.

4.1

Selecting Appropriate Models for ADAPDT

The cross model design was chosen over the single flat sheet design based on the
first tests made. The single flat panel design resulted in a greatly underestimated
side force which could not be compensated with altered panel densities or sheet
sizes without interfering with the other force and moment coefficients. Thus the
design was abandoned.
Nonlinear calculations in ADAPDT resulted in numerical errors above =
10, see Figure 10. This problem was general and occurred for all models. The
results of the linear and nonlinear calculations were similar for low angles of attack, thus the linear method was used.

Figure 10: The nonlinear ADAPDT option generated numerical errors at high
angles of attack.

Tests on the BSD model showed that panel density increases, both in length and
span directions, did not make the results converge towards a stable solution. Fig-

Saab Aerosystems

13

ure 11a shows an example of this, where the curves change directions and magnitude arbitrarily.
The RSD model generated results that converged towards a stable solution and
the tests showed that panel density on the body should be chosen low in the length
direction. Optimal density was at 2 panels. Span density was optimal between
8 to 32 panels and was chosen as 8 panels since the differences in results were
small and few panels reduce the calculation time. Figure 11b shows an example
of panel density variations in the RSD model compared to free flight data.

(a) Non-converging BSD model of Store1

(b) Converging RSD model of Store1 with good

free flight data agreement

Figure 11: Panel density was varied in the span direction from 2 to 32 panels.
Curve names are defined as (length density-span density), e.g. 2-2.
Fin density was evaluated next and the span density was optimal at 2 panels.
Length direction density was found best at 32 panels. To further improve the
load behavior of the rectangular models, the sizes of the panels were altered in
both length and span direction. Best correspondence was found by increasing the
rear fin set span. For Store1 the increase stayed at 5% while for Store2 the increase was 65% for optimal results. Thus, selected for final testing were the RSD
cross models with increased rear span which provided converging results and best
possible free flight data agreement.

4.2

Mesh Independence for Edge

The original 700,000 node meshes were refined to investigate whether a more
dense grid would improve the results. This was done using the Edge hadaption
feature. Relatively little was gained by increasing the mesh density. The largest
refinements were done in regions of low mesh density far from the store, thus only
affecting the flow field around the store to a small extent. After two refinements

14

Christian Spjutare

the loads on the stores had only changed 4% from the original values, thus the
original meshes were chosen for the final simulations.

4.3

CFD vs. Wind Tunnel Data

Comparisons between raw CFD values and wind tunnel measurements were made
to investigate if the simulation tools could capture the loads for the stores when
mounted on the aircraft. The results for the -sweep at Mach 0.6 are presented in
this section.
The examples in Figure 12 display a trend for both ADAPDT and Edge where
the roll moment coefficient is overestimated. Figures 12a and 12b are zoomed in
to visualise the shapes of the curves. Original curves are available in appendices
A and B, showing the large exaggeration of ADAPDT.

(a) CM X for Store2

(b) CM X for Store1

Figure 12: Roll moment coefficient comparison for wind tunnel, ADAPDT and
Edge
Figure 13 shows the pitch moment coefficients for the two stores. For Store2, Figure 13a, ADAPDT has predicted the slope in the right direction but exaggerates the
magnitude. In Figure 13b, ADAPDT predicted an erroneous slope direction. The
Edge simulations captured the overall load behavior of both Store1 and Store2.
The normal force coefficient proved a difficult task for both ADAPDT and Edge.
Edge managed to pinpoint the location of the Store2 curve well, Figure 14a. Turning to Store1 in Figure 14b, the result was overestimated but Edge kept predicting
the direction of the slope in the right way. ADAPDT consistently exaggerated the
magnitude of the normal force coefficient and also predicted the direction of the
slope wrong in both cases.
See appendices A and B for all charts presenting the raw values delivered by
Edge and ADAPDT for the -sweep at Mach 0.6 and appendices C and D for the

Saab Aerosystems

(a) CM Y for Store2

15

(b) CM Y for Store1

Figure 13: Pitch moment coefficient comparison for wind tunnel, ADAPDT and
Edge.

(a) CN for Store2

(b) CN for Store1

Figure 14: Normal force coefficient comparison for wind tunnel, ADAPDT and
Edge.
-sweep at Mach 0.8. Appendices E and F show results from a -sweep at Mach
0.6.

4.4

Scaling Using the CFD Results

The -effects generated by the CFD codes were added to the Store1 reference
wind tunnel measurement which resulted in two different scaling curves; one for
ADAPDT and one for Edge. These were plotted against the wind tunnel measurement for Store2 to evaluate the accuracy of the scaling methods. The charts in this
section also include the wind tunnel measurement for Store1 to get a notion of the
scaling starting point. All scaling charts are also available in detail in appendices
G, H and I.

16
4.4.1

Christian Spjutare
Mach 0.6, Alpha Sweep

With an -sweep at Mach 0.6, CC was predicted well by both Edge and ADAPDT
scaling, with a slight underestimation (Figure 15a). For CN in Figure 15b, ADAPDT
exaggerated the result and generated an erroneous direction of the slope. Edge
overestimated the magnitude of the curve at high but with good overall resemblance.

(a) Scaling of CC

(b) Scaling of CN

Figure 15: Force coefficients at Mach 0.6, -sweep

The trend for CN continues in Figure 16 for both CM X and CM Y where the
ADAPDT scaling overestimated the size of the coefficients and Edge kept predicting both the slope and the order of magnitude well.

(a) Scaling of CM X

(b) Scaling of CM Y

Figure 16: Roll and pitch moment coefficients at Mach 0.6, -sweep
For CM Z , neither Edge, nor ADAPDT did well in scaling the order of magnitude
of the Store2 curve but Edge managed to capture the shape which resulted in a

Saab Aerosystems

17

parallel displaced curve. See appendix G for this figure and the other scaling
results for the -sweep at Mach 0.6.

Figure 17: Scaling of CM Z at Mach 0.6, -sweep

4.4.2

Mach 0.8, Alpha Sweep

Moving to the -sweep at Mach 0.8, the scaling performance of Edge and ADAPDT
was very similar to the Mach 0.6 case. Only minor differences were seen, for
instance in CC , where Edge performed slightly better than at Mach 0.6 and generated a scaling without underestimation. ADAPDT improved upon its CM Z result
at Mach 0.6 and delivered a slightly more well adjusted scaling. These charts can
be viewed in appendix H.
4.4.3

Mach 0.6, Beta Sweep

The promising performance of Edge led to an additional test; a -sweep at Mach

0.6. Charts showing raw Edge values are available in appendices E and F. The
force scaling performance, in Figure 18, was generally good, where CC was adequate and CN had fair shape resemblance and magnitude.
Scaling was less accurate for yaw and roll moments, Figure 19. The slopes of the
curves were overestimated in both cases but Edge picked up the opposite direction
of slope for the yaw moment. The pitch moment, Figure 20, was well predicted
in shape but slightly underestimated, mainly for positive . All -sweep scaling
charts are available in appendix I.

18

Christian Spjutare

(a) Scaling of CC

(b) Scaling of CN

Figure 18: Force coefficients at Mach 0.6, -sweep.

(a) Scaling of CM X

(b) Scaling of CM Z

Figure 19: Roll and yaw moment coefficients at Mach 0.6, -sweep.

Figure 20: Scaling of CM Y at Mach 0.6, -sweep

Saab Aerosystems

19

Analysis

The results from the scaling tests were very different for the two CFD methods. Edge performed relatively well for most aerodynamic coefficients, delivering
loads resembling the wind tunnel measured results. ADAPDT performance on the
other hand left much to be desired in terms of both shape and magnitude for all
but one coefficient.
Looking at the time consumed for the total scaling process, the two CFD methods were comparable. The slower simulation times of Edge were compensated by
a long and complicated process for adjusting the ADAPDT models to fit free flight
aerodynamic data.

5.1

General Performance

ADAPDT only managed to deliver side force coefficient curves that could be considered usable from a scaling perspective. The results for the other coefficients
were unpredictable in both magnitude and shape.
The poor performance should probably be addressed to the coarse geometry
representation. The thin sheets may be a good starting point in preliminary evaluation of new aircraft and flying bodies but they are not suited for use in a complex
flow field as the present one. A plausible explanation for this lies in the theoretical
formulation of the potential flow theory. A closed body with rotational symmetry
has in potential flow no normal force at all. The thin sheets on the other hand
generate a significant normal force in potential flow. The actual normal force exerting on the body is neither zero, nor of the magnitude predicted by ADAPDT,
but somewhere in between.
Looking at the raw values delivered by ADAPDT, it becomes obvious why the
scaling results are not sufficient. ADAPDT rarely managed to capture the shapes
of the force and moment curves which in turn means that it could not predict said
shapes in the scaling. This would not necessarily be a problem. If the raw value
predictions were consistently over or underestimated and the slope directions were
accurate, the -effect could still be approximately right, delivering a scaling with
a good overall magnitude.
Edge delivered values and curve shapes that were generally close to those
measured in the wind tunnel. The scaling results presented were well adjusted to
the desired shapes. They were also predictable. For example, Edge showed good
ability to foresee changing slope directions. For CM X and CM Z in the -sweep,
Edge scaling was slightly less accurate but the results were mainly conservative.
For all test cases, Edge overestimated the maximum curve magnitude by a factor
2.5 at most. For ADAPDT, the same factor was in the range of 25 to 30, at least
ten times higher.

20

5.2

Christian Spjutare

Higher Speed Scaling

At Mach 0.8, where compressible effects are more intrusive, the scaling performance of both ADAPDT and Edge was very similar to the Mach 0.6 case. For
Edge this looks promising since it may indicate the possibility of using the software for higher Mach scaling as well. Thus, the -effect may in fact be fairly
accurate even though the underlying theory is not entirely valid for higher speeds.
This will require further investigations to be confirmed.

5.3

Errors

For both ADAPDT and Edge the absolute scaling errors increase at high . In
most cases, above = 10 Edge starts to overestimate the magnitude of the
curves. This is expected since the theory applies only to low angles of attack.
ADAPDT on the other hand has a steadily growing error throughout the -range.
This generates clearly exaggerated results already at = 5 in most cases.
It is interesting to note that the error produced by Edge is generally well behaved and with tests on more stores it may be possible to deduce a correction
factor for higher alphas. In the case of CM Z a parallel displacement coefficient
could be used to move the whole curve to a more appropriate level. It could be
argued that also ADAPDT would benefit from deduction of correction factors but
there is no clear shape correlation between the ADAPDT scaling and wind tunnel curves. Edge manages this well without corrections. Also, ADAPDT does
in the case of CN predict the slope in the opposite direction. There is no way of
knowing this without having a wind tunnel measurement at hand for comparison.
Thus ADAPDT would be an unreliable scaling tool and Edge has proved more
consistent in this investigation.

Saab Aerosystems

21

Discussion

The time frame for the complete scaling process using ADAPDT and Edge is
not that different. Edge requires more time during the computer simulations and
ADAPDT during model adjustments to fit them to free flight data. In the end,
the difference is negligible and the choice of method comes down purely to the
scaling performance.
When generating the volume mesh for Edge using dwfSumo, it was difficult
to get Edge to accept any mesh file exceeding 80 MB. Whether the problem lies in
dwfSumo or TetGen is unknown but fortunately, the simple configurations chosen
in this thesis meant that the mesh files were below that limit. If more complex
configurations are investigated there is a risk of passing the 80 MB limit which
will require an investigation of the problem.
It is of great importance that the scaling tool is reliable and ADAPDT shows no
signs of stability in the scaling results. Since, in the actual scaling situation, there
will be no wind tunnel measurements available for the second store, ADAPDT
simply cannot be trusted to predict the new loads. Edge gives a more reassuring
impression and the scaling performance can be considered good. It delivers a very
accurate scaling when < 10 for most coefficients.
The Edge scaling was mainly conservative, which is a positive feature. However, a too conservative result is not good and can lead to over-dimensioning or
limitations to the use of the store. ADAPDT was conservative as well but an overestimation of a factor 25 to 30 would impose restrictions to the flight envelope.

6.1

Improving the Results Further

ADAPDT nonlinear simulations resulted in numerical errors. The cause is unknown and perhaps resolving it could lead to more accurate ADAPDT results
using the nonlinear instead of the linear solver.
Implementation of full three dimensional geometry representation in ADAPDT
could possibly improve the results to such extent that it would produce a satisfactory scaling. Also, it would simplify the body modelling process and eliminate the
time consumed for adjusting the models to free flight data. This of course requires
additional work to be done in the ADAPDT code. Using an alternative potential
flow solver would pose an option.
For the Edge simulations, refining the aircraft model would further improve
the scaling results. The model used throughout this work was roughly modelled
using pictures and certain important measures. Details, such as the saw tooth on
the Gripen wing were omitted and the aerofoil was chosen as a standard high
speed thin profile. Thus, the model was far from accurate but still delivered an
acceptable scaling performance.

22

6.2

Christian Spjutare

Recommendations for Continued Work

Before implementing a three dimensional geometry representation in ADAPDT,

it would be of interest to compare its performance to a potential flow solver using
said representation. An example of such a code is dwfSolve [21]. This would
help to determine whether implementation of three dimensional representation in
ADAPDT is worth the efforts.
Since only one scaling case with two stores has been investigated during this
study, several more should be made to verify the results. For example, an investigation of scaling performance for missiles and other bomb shapes. It is also
very important to investigate more complex store configurations on the aircraft.
In this case the stores were mounted in pylon 2 with an empty pylon 3. Mounting
additional stores in adjacent pylons will further increase the complexity and it is
important to investigate if Edge manages to predict the loads in these cases.
Another vital task is to further investigate how Edge performs as a scaling tool
at higher Mach numbers. If it can be established that Edge -effects are relatively
correct also for transonic speeds it would increase the usefulness of this scaling
method.
Finally, correction factors for high should be investigated, as well as parallel
displacement coefficients for the yaw moment.

6.3

Conclusions

Based on the results presented in this report, there is little reason to choose the
ADAPDT software as the scaling tool for the Loads Department at Saab Aerosystems. ADAPDT predicted only one out of five coefficients well. The results for
the other coefficients were unpredictable and exaggerated. However, it would be
valuable to repeat the scaling performance test if three dimensional geometry was
implemented. Currently, ADAPDT shows no advantages over Edge. Scaling results are less accurate and the total amount of time for the scaling is basically the
same due to the long process of model adaption.
Edge results were consistent and proved to deliver fairly accurate results also
in raw CFD values. Scaling performance was good throughout the tests. Cases
with less accuracy were mainly conservative and never overestimated by more
than a factor 2.5 at maximum value.
Edge will be a good choice for a scaling tool if some time is spent verifying
the results for more store configurations. Overall, this scaling method will most
likely improve the accuracy of the scaling performed at Saab Aerosystems and,
more importantly, make the scaling process more efficient.

Saab Aerosystems

23

Summarising the Methodology

Four main steps are needed to perform the scaling using Edge. Modelling, where
the geometries are created. Preprocessing, which generates the mesh and prepares
it for the simulation. The actual simulation and then postprocessing, where the
data is managed. See Figure 21 for an illustration of the work flow, including an
iteration for investigating the mesh independence.

Figure 21: Illustrating the steps of the work process. To check mesh independence, iterations are performed after the initial simulation.

7.1

Modelling

The first step is the modelling of the geometry. This step is performed in the
dwfSumo software. The geometry is defined by specifying a number of cross
sections throughout the length of the store. Fins, rudders, air intakes and other
protruding parts are added separately. When finished, the store is moved to the
correct position in the aircraft coordinate system and is finally added to the aircraft
model.

7.2

Preprocessing

The surface mesh for the entire aircraft, including the store selected for evaluation, is generated within dwfSumo. Mesh size parameters are specified for each
of the modelled surfaces. A fine representation is chosen close to the store, gradually coarsening moving away. Based on the surface mesh, the volume mesh is
generated using the built-in TetGen interface.
An Edge input file is defined by specifying parameters for the Edge simulation.
These parameters include, for instance, solver algorithms, number of iterations,
convergence criteria and velocities. One input file is required for each angle in an
-sweep. Depending on the level of precision needed and the time available, the
step size in the sweep can be adjusted accordingly. Finally, the Edge preprocessor
prepares the mesh for the simulation using the input files.

24

7.3

Christian Spjutare

Simulation

The simulations are initiated by executing Edge. Each angle in a sweep requires
its own simulation, but when executed on a cluster all simulations can run simultaneously. The time frame for simulations of this size was 20 to 80 minutes
depending on convergence speed and number of processors used.

7.4

Postprocessing

Edge generates coefficients for the entire model in the mesh. Thus, a script has to
be executed to extract coefficients for every body defined in the model. The coefficients for the relevant bodies of the store are added, generating the aerodynamic
coefficients for the entire store. These are stored in a MATLAB library which can
be used for plotting.
Once the libraries for both the new store and the old reference store are generated, the -effect can be extracted. Subtracting the reference store coefficient
data from the new store equivalent results in a -effect which can then be added
to the existing wind tunnel measurement data and finally be plotted.

Saab Aerosystems

25

References
[1] Sooy, Thomas J. & Schmidt, Rebecca Z. (2005). Aerodynamic Predictions,
Comparisons, and Validations Using Missile DATCOM (97) and Aeroprediction 98 (AP98). AIAA Inc.
[2] Vukelich, Steven R. & Jenkins, J. E. (1984). Missile DATCOM: Aerodynamic Prediction of Conventional Missiles Using Component Build-Up
Techniques. AIAA Inc.
[3] Vukelich, Steven R. (1985). Aerodynamic Prediction of Elliptically-Shaped
Missile Configurations Using Component Build-Up Methodology. AIAA
Inc.
[4] Grimes, R. & Walsh, E. & Quin, D. & Davies, M. (2005). Effect of Geometric
Scaling on Aerodynamic Performance. AIAA Journal, Vol. 43, No. 11.
[5] Hansen, Heikki & Jackson, Peter & Hochkirsch, Karsten (2002). Comparison of Wind Tunnel and Full-Scale Aerodynamic Sail Force Measurements.
High Performance Yacht Design Conference, Auckland.
[6] Petterson, Karl & Rizzi, Arthur (2006). Aerodynamic Scaling to Free Flight
Conditions: Past and Present. Elsevier Ltd.
[7] Lindberg, Anders (2009). Personal communications at Saab Aerosystems.
[8] Mexnell, Bengt (2009). Personal communications at Saab Aerosystems.
[9] Nelson, H. F. (1989). Wing-Body Interference Lift for Supersonic Missiles
with Elliptical Cross-Section Fuselages. AIAA Inc.
[10] Sahu, Jubarai & Heavey, Karen R. & Ferry, Earl N. (1998). Computational
Modeling of Multibody Aerodynamic Interference. Elsevier Science Ltd.
[11] Anderson, John D. Jr. (2007). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. McGrawHill.
[12] Jiyuan Tu & Guan Heng Yeoh & Chaoqun Liu (2008). Computational Fluid
Dynamics, A Practical Approach. Elsevier Inc.
[13] Weinerfelt, Per (2005). Metodik for aerodynamisk analys och design av
lagsignaturfarkoster. Saab Aerosystems.
[14] Weinerfelt, Per (2005). Validering och anpassning av metodik for aerodynamisk analys och design av lagsignaturfarkoster. Saab Aerosystems.

26

Christian Spjutare

[15] Nordin, Erik (2006). Development of Body and Viscous Contribution to

a Panel Program for Potential Flow Computation, Aero Dynamic Analysis and Preliminary Design Tool. Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Linkoping University.
[16] Munk, Max M. (1922). Technical Note No. 104. Notes on Aerodynamic
Forces - II. The Aerodynamic Forces on Airships. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.
[17] FOI (2009). Edge. [www] http://www.foi.se/edge. 2009-04-22.
[18] Persson, Ingemar & Lindberg, Anders (2008). Transonic Store Separation
Studies on the Saab Gripen Aircraft Using Computational Aerodynamics.
ICAS 2008.
[19] Eller, David (2007). dwfSumo. [www] http://fdl8.flyg.kth.se/
dwf/sumo.html. 2009-04-21.
[20] Hang Si (2007). TetGen, A Quality Tetrahedral Mesh Generator and
Three-Dimensional Delaunay Triangulator. [www] http://tetgen.
berlios.de/ 2009-04-21.
[21] Eller, David (2007). dwfs. [www] http://fdl8.flyg.kth.se/dwf/
dwfs.html. 2009-04-21.

Saab Aerosystems

CFD Values, Store1, Mach 0.6, Alpha Sweep

CC for Store1

CN for Store1

II

Christian Spjutare

CM X for Store1

CM Y for Store1

Saab Aerosystems

III

CM Z for Store1

IV

Christian Spjutare

CFD Values, Store2, Mach 0.6, Alpha Sweep

CC for Store2

CN for Store2

Saab Aerosystems

CM X for Store2

CM Y for Store2

VI

Christian Spjutare

CM Z for Store2

Saab Aerosystems

VII

CFD Values, Store1, Mach 0.8, Alpha Sweep

CC for Store1

CN for Store1

VIII

Christian Spjutare

CM X for Store1

CM Y for Store1

Saab Aerosystems

IX

CM Z for Store1

Christian Spjutare

CFD Values, Store2, Mach 0.8, Alpha Sweep

CC for Store2

CN for Store2

Saab Aerosystems

XI

CM X for Store2

CM Y for Store2

XII

Christian Spjutare

CM Z for Store2

Saab Aerosystems

XIII

CFD Values, Store1, Mach 0.6, Beta Sweep

CC for Store1

CN for Store1

XIV

Christian Spjutare

CM X for Store1

CM Y for Store1

Saab Aerosystems

XV

CM Z for Store1

XVI

Christian Spjutare

CFD Values, Store2, Mach 0.6, Beta Sweep

CC for Store2

CN for Store2

Saab Aerosystems

XVII

CM X for Store2

CM Y for Store2

XVIII

Christian Spjutare

CM Z for Store2

Saab Aerosystems

XIX

Scaling at Mach 0.6, Alpha Sweep

Scaling of CC

Scaling of CN

XX

Christian Spjutare

Scaling of CM X

Scaling of CM Y

Saab Aerosystems

XXI

Scaling of CM Z

XXII

Christian Spjutare

Scaling at Mach 0.8, Alpha Sweep

Scaling of CC

Scaling of CN

Saab Aerosystems

XXIII

Scaling of CM X

Scaling of CM Y

XXIV

Christian Spjutare

Scaling of CM Z

Saab Aerosystems

XXV

Scaling at Mach 0.6, Beta Sweep

Scaling of CC

Scaling of CN

XXVI

Christian Spjutare

Scaling of CM X

Scaling of CM Y

Saab Aerosystems

XXVII

Scaling of CM Z