Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

On the role and challenges of CFD in the aerospace industry

  • P. R. Spalart (a1) and V. Venkatakrishnan (a1) (a2)

This article examines the increasingly crucial role played by Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in the analysis, design, certification, and support of aerospace products. The status of CFD is described, and we identify opportunities for CFD to have a more substantial impact. The challenges facing CFD are also discussed, primarily in terms of numerical solution, computing power, and physical modelling. We believe the community must find a balance between enthusiasm and rigor. Besides becoming faster and more affordable by exploiting higher computing power, CFD needs to become more reliable, more reproducible across users, and better understood and integrated with other disciplines and engineering processes. Uncertainty quantification is universally considered as a major goal, but will be slow to take hold. The prospects are good for steady problems with Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) turbulence modelling to be solved accurately and without user intervention within a decade – even for very complex geometries, provided technologies, such as solution adaptation are matured for large three-dimensional problems. On the other hand, current projections for supercomputers show a future rate of growth only half of the rate enjoyed from the 1990s to 2013; true exaflop performance is not close. This will delay pure Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) for aerospace applications with their high Reynolds numbers, but hybrid RANS-LES approaches have great potential. Our expectations for a breakthrough in turbulence, whether within traditional modelling or LES, are low and as a result off-design flow physics including separation will continue to pose a substantial challenge, as will laminar-turbulent transition. We also advocate for much improved user interfaces, providing instant access to rich numerical and physical information as well as warnings over solution quality, and thus naturally training the user.

Hide All
1. F.T. Johnson , E.T. Tinoco and N.J. Yu Thirty years of development and application of CFD at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle, USA, Comput Fluids, December 2005, 34, (110), pp 1115-1151.

3. R. Strawn , T. Nygaard , M. Bhagwat , A. Dimanlig , H.S.R. Ormiston and M. Potsdam Integrated computational fluid and structural dynamics analyses for comprehensive rotorcraft analysis, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, 2007, 10.2514/6.2007-6575.

4. L. Dumas CFD-based Aerodynamic Optimization for Automotive Aerodynamics, Optimization and Computational Fluid Dynamics, D. Thevenin and G. Janiga (Eds), 2008, Springer, pp 191-215.

6. B. Sanderse , S. van der Pijl and B. Koren Review of computational fluid dynamics for wind turbine wake aerodynamics, Wind Energy, 2011, 14, (17), pp 799-819.

11. S.T. Le Doux , J.C. Vassberg , D.P. Young , S. Fugal , D.S. Kamenetskiy , W.P. Huffman and R.G. Melvin Study based on the AIAA aerodynamic design optimization discussion group test cases, AIAA J, 2015, 53, (17), pp 1910-1935.

12. R.G. Melvin , W. Huffman , D. Young , F. Johnson , C. Hilmes and M.B. Bieterman Recent progress in aerodynamic optimization, Int J Numer Methods Fluids, 1999, 30, (12), pp 205-216.

13. J.C. Vassberg , E.N. Tinoco , M. Mani , T. Zickuhr , D.W. Levy , O.P. Brodersen , B. Eisfel , S. Crippa , R.A. Wahls , J.H. Morrison , D.J. Mavriplis and M. Murayama Summary of the fourth AIAA computational fluid dynamics drag prediction workshop, J Aircraft, 2014, 51, (14), pp 1070-1089.

15. P. Spalart and D. Wetzel Rudimentary landing gear results at the 2012 BANC-II airframe noise workshop, Int J Aeroacoust, 2015, 14, (11–2), pp 193-216.

17. S.R. Allmaras , J.E. Bussoletti , C.L. Hilmes , T. Johnson , R.G. Melvin , E.N. Tinoco , V. Venkatakrishnan , L.B. Wigton and D.P. Young Algorithm issues and challenges associated with the development of robust CFD codes, Variational Analysis and Aerospace Engineering, G. Buttazzo and A. Frediani (Eds), 2009, Springer, pp 1-20.

18. F.T. Johnson , D.S. Kamenetskiy , R.G. Melvin , V. Venkatakrishnan , L.B. Wigton , D.P. Young , S.R. Allmaras , J.E. Bussoletti and C.L. Hilmes Observations regarding algorithms required for robust CFD codes, Math Model Nat Pheno, 2011, 6, (103), pp 2-27.

19. D.J. Mavriplis Results from the 3rd drag prediction workshop using the NSU3D unstructured mesh, J Aircraft, 2008, 45, (13), pp 750-761.

21. M.B. Bieterman , J.E. Bussoletti , C.L. Hilmes , F.T. Johnson , R.G. Melvin and D.P. Young An adaptive grid method for analysis of 3D aircraft configurations, Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng, 1992, 101, pp 225-249.

23. K. Fidkowski and D. Darmofal Review of output-based error estimation and mesh adaptation in computational fluid dynamics, AIAA J, 2011, 49, (14), pp 673-694.

24. D.S. Kamenetskiy , J.E. Bussoletti , C.L. Hilmes , V. Venkatakrishnan , L.B. Wigton and F.T. Johnson Numerical evidence of multiple solutions for the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations, AIAA J, 2014, 52, (18), pp 1686-1698.

25. P. Spalart Philosophies and fallacies in turbulence modelling, Prog Aerosp Sci, 2015, 74, pp 1-15.

26. P. Farrell , A. Birkisson and S.W. Funke Deflation techniques for finding distinct solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations, SIAM J Sci Comput, 2015, 37, (4), pp A2026-A2045.

27. F.D. Witherden , B.C. Vermeire and P.E. Vincent Heterogeneous computing on mixed unstructured grids with PyFR, Comput Fluids, 2015, 120, pp 173-186.

28. P. Spalart , Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations, Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 2000, 21, pp 252-263.

29. C. Smith , N. Beratlis , E. Balaras , K. Squires and M. Tsunoda Numerical investigation of the flow over a golf ball in the subcritical and supercritical regimes, Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 2010, 31, (13), pp 262-273.

33. A.D. Ronch , D. Vallespin , M. Ghoreyshi and K.J. Badcock Evaluation of dynamic derivatives using computational fluid dynamics, AIAA J, 2011, 50, (12), pp 470-484.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Aeronautical Journal
  • ISSN: 0001-9240
  • EISSN: 2059-6464
  • URL: /core/journals/aeronautical-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 56
Total number of PDF views: 1627 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 802 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 17th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.