The aeroelastic behavior of engine nacelle strake when subjected to unsteady aerodynamic flows is investigated in this paper. Geometric nonlinear characteristics and modal parameters of nacelle strake are studied when it is under dynamic loading condition. Here, an N-S based Finite Volume solver is coupled with Finite Element (FE) based nonlinear structural solver to investigate the nonlinear characteristics of nacelle strake over a range of dynamic pressures at various phases of flight like takeoff, climb, and cruise conditions. The combination of high fidelity models for both aerodynamics and structural dynamics is used to predict the nonlinearities of strake (chine). The methodology adopted for present aeroelastic analysis is partitioned-based time domain coupled CFD and CSD solvers and it is validated by the consideration of experimental and numerical comparison of aeroelastic data for a cropped delta wing model which has a proven record. The present strake geometry is derived from theoretical formulation. The amplitude and frequency obtained from the coupled solver at various dynamic pressures is discussed, which gives a better understanding of its impact on aerodynamic design-sizing of strake.
An essential component of a finite volume method (FVM) is the advection scheme that estimates values on the cell faces based on the calculated values on the nodes or cell centers. The most widely used advection schemes are upwind schemes. These schemes have been developed in FVM on different kinds of structured and unstructured grids. In this research, the physical influence scheme (PIS) is developed for a cell-centered FVM that uses an implicit coupled solver. Results are compared with the exponential differencing scheme (EDS) and the skew upwind differencing scheme (SUDS). Accuracy of these schemes is evaluated for a lid-driven cavity flow at Re = 1000, 3200, and 5000 and a backward-facing step flow at Re = 800. Simulations show considerable differences between the results of EDS scheme with benchmarks, especially for the lid-driven cavity flow at high Reynolds numbers. These differences occur due to false diffusion. Comparing SUDS and PIS schemes shows relatively close results for the backward-facing step flow and different results in lid-driven cavity flow. The poor results of SUDS in the lid-driven cavity flow can be related to its lack of sensitivity to the pressure difference between cell face and upwind points, which is critical for the prediction of such vortex dominant flows.