Assessment of An Inviscid Euler-Adjoint Solver For Prediction of Aerodynamic Characteristics of The NASA HL-20 Lifting Body

AIAA 2016-3266
AIAA Aviation
13-17 June 2016, Washington, D.C.
34th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference
Assessment of an Inviscid Euler-Adjoint Solver for

Prediction of Aerodynamic Characteristics of the NASA
HL-20 Lifting Body
Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266
Dan Almosnino 1
Aerion Technologies Corporation / Desktop Aeronautics, Palo Alto, CA 94303, U.S.A
An Adjoint-based Euler solver is used to calculate the flow on NASAs HL-20 lifting body
configuration. The study covers a full Mach range from low subsonic (M=0.3) to hypersonic
(up to M=20). Longitudinal and lateral aerodynamic coefficients are calculated.
Convergence behavior of the solver is discussed with emphasis on the impact of the HL-20
base flow in subsonic and transonic Mach numbers. Hypersonic flow cases are then studied
in detail, with incidence reaching 50 degrees. Computational considerations pertaining to
hypersonic flow and the impact of modifying the specific heat ratio are discussed.
Representative numerical flow visualizations are included for each flow regime and flow
features are discussed. Computational results show good agreement with wind-tunnel data
and a second computational method. The study demonstrates the conceptual and
preliminary design power of the current Euler-Adjoint solver when applied to complex
reentry geometries across their full flight Mach range.
Nomenclature
=
CA =
CD =
CD0 =
CDBase =
CFL =
CL
=
Cl
=
Cm =
CN =
Cn
=
CY =
Lb
=
L/D =
M
=
N
=
ReL =
Sref =
s
=
Xref =
Zref =
angle of attack
angle of side-slip
specific heat ratio
axial force coefficient
drag force coefficient
drag force coefficient at zero lift
base drag coefficient
CourantFriedrichsLewy condition value
lift coefficient
rolling moment coefficient (based on body width, s)
pitching moment coefficient (based on body length, Lb)
normal force coefficient
yawing moment coefficient (based on body width, s)
side force coefficient
reference length for longitudinal coefficients
lift to drag ratio
Mach number
number of volume grid cells
Reynolds number (based on body length, Lb)
reference area
body width (reference length for lateral coeficients)
X coordinate of moment reference point
Z coordinate of moment reference point
Independent Consultant, Senior Member AIAA.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2016 by Aerion Technologies Corporation / Desktop Aeronautics. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
I. Introduction
HIS study aims to assess computational results of GoCart 2.0, a user analysis framework that runs Cart3D-1.4.9
Euler/Adjoint solver, against experimental data and CFD results of other methods for a NASA HL-20 liftingbody configuration. Cart3D unstructured Cartesian-grid Euler-Adjoint solver is discussed in Refs. 1 to 6. Cart3D
development itself started circa 1995 (e.g. Refs. 7 to 9). The current study also helps to identify limitations of the
method and to establish its value as a conceptual and preliminary design tool.
The HL-20 Personnel Launch System was a NASA concept for manned orbital missions studied by NASA
Langley Research Center circa 1990. Its stated goals were to achieve low operational costs, improved flight safety,
and a possibility of landing on conventional runways. Specifically, the plans for Space Station Freedom required a
small supporting vehicle for ferrying personnel to and from the station (called the Personnel Launch System, or PLS
plan). There was also a requirement to have a vehicle permanently docked at the station to serve as an emergency
crew rescue vehicle (planned to be a small personnel-only version, called the Assured Crew Return Capability,
or ACRC plan). One of the concepts evaluated was of a lifting body type vehicle designated HL-20.10 No actual
flight prototype was ever built. After completing the first extensive set of wind-tunnel tests (carried out in ten
different wind-tunnels,11-18 and performing some stability and control studies,15-22 several modifications were
proposed and tested to improve both aerodynamic and control characteristics of the vehicle, designated HL-20A,
HL-20B.23,24 In addition, a full-scale mock-up of the HL-20 was built to study systems and human factors associated
with the vehicle.25 Other concepts (Ref. 26 for example) are not within the scope of this study.
The HL-20 lifting body case is particularly interesting for an assessment study, because it encompasses the full
range of Mach numbers, from low subsonic to hypersonic. A specific computational challenge is the handling of the
HL-20 significant base area flow. Note that the sharply trimmed trailing-edges of the fins create a base-type flow as
well.
II. Geometry
Figure 1a shows the schematics of a 0.07-scale HL-20 wind-tunnel model used for transonic tests,15 whereas a
high-density mesh, digital model used in the current study is shown in Fig. 1b. The digital model is based on a
NASA-provided laser-scan of the 0.07 scale wind-tunnel model. The intersected model contains 422,554 surface
cells for the full geometry. The fins and vertical stabilizer have a round, blunt leading edge. The trailing edges are
trimmed (ending at a straight-cut angle of 90 to the fin or stabilizer surfaces). Figure 1a shows the different control
surfaces present in the wind-tunnel model, however the digital model in this study does not provide options for
control deflection. Table 1 provides the reference dimensions of the 0.07-scale model and the full scale vehicle.
a) 0.07-scale HL-20 wind-tunnel model,15

dimensions in inches.
b) Shaded image of the digital model.
Figure 1. HL-20 geometry.

2
Table 1. HL-20 reference dimensions.

7% Model Full Scale
Units
Misc.
Body Width s
9.70
138.571
inch
Reference Length for Lateral Coefficients
Body Length, Lb
20.63
294.714
inch
Reference Length for Pitching Moment
Reference Area, Sref
152.2
31061.2
inch2
Moment Reference Point Xref
11.14
159.143
inch
0.54*Lb
Moment Reference Point Zref*
-1.604
-22.914
inch
Below Nose-tip
* Needed for moment coefficient calculation if model geometry definition has an x-axis going through the nose tip.
III. Sources of Experimental Data

Table 2 summarizes ten different sources for the experimental data used in the assessment of the computational
results.11-18 The table demonstrates how extensive the HL-20 experimental effort was, but it also raises the need for
caution in data analysis, due to unavoidable differences in some flow characteristics between the wind tunnels, such
as the Reynolds number, the level of turbulence and the value of the specific heat ratio . The Reynolds numbers
quoted in Table 2 are based on the wind-tunnel model body length. Actual flight conditions for a 24.6 ft. long
vehicle would experience a much higher Reynolds number.
Table 2. Experimental data sources used in the assessment of the computational results.11-18
Test Facility
Model
Scale
ReL
(millions)
Number of
Runs
30x60 ft. Full-Scale

Tunnel
0.2
0.05,
0.08
1.74, 2.79*
1.4
130
Low Turbulence
Pressure Tunnel
0.059
0.2, 0.3
3.40, 7.0, 10.3,

13.8, 22.3
1.4
129
7x10 ft. High Speed

Tunnel
0.059
0.3 to
0.8
3.40
1.4
184
CALSPAN 8 ft.
Transonic Tunnel
0.07
0.6 to
1.2
6.00
1.4
244
Unitary Plan Wind

Tunnel
0.07
1.6 to
4.5
3.40
1.4
412
20 inch M=6
Hypersonic Tunnel
0.02
0.32, 1.09, 2.09,

3.78
1.4
126
CF4 M=6
Hypersonic Tunnel
0.02
0.13, 0.26
1.22
73
31 inch M=10
Hypersonic Tunnel
0.02
10
0.26, 0.54, 1.01,

2.0
1.4
83
0.02
1.5 to
4.5
MSFC 14 inch
Tri-Sonic Tunnel
22 inch M=20
(Helium)
Hypersonic Tunnel
0.02
20
1.47
1.4
1.67
Type of Test
Comments
*Estimated here using
standard sea level
conditions.
Force &
moment
Force &
moment,
Thermal
mapping
Flow
visualization
28
Force &
moment
(Ascent &
Abort)
Mentioned in Refs. 14, 23.

Data not used in this
study.
26
Force &
Moment
Mentioned in Refs. 12, 13,

14;
Cm data provided in Ref.
13.
3
IV. Computational Results

A. Preliminary Comments
The HL-20 case is particularly interesting because it deals with a lifting-body geometry over a full range of
Mach numbers, from low subsonic (M=0.05) to hypersonic (M=20.3). The extensive wind-tunnel tests provided one
of the most comprehensive databases covering these Mach numbers. As such, the experimental data is a good
opportunity for the assessment of Euler and full Navier-Stokes solvers. On the other hand, the large base area and
blunt fin trailing edges of the HL-20 present a special computational challenge for the Euler solver, especially in
subsonic and transonic flows.
In reality, one would expect the HL-20 subsonic base flow to be unsteady, possibly periodical (shedding a VonKarman like vortex street). Viscosity would tend to dampen the unsteady effects to some extent. This strong base
flow can affect the pressure field upstream (and as a result it affects the aerodynamic coefficients). The wind-tunnel
test reports do not include any indication of the extent of unsteadiness (only average processed values are provided).
The wind tunnel data do provide average base pressure coefficient measurements that can be used to estimate the
base drag, but this measurement is performed at a single location (usually in a cavity where the support system
connects to the base). In subsonic and transonic flows with a large base area, the base surface pressure will in reality
vary across the base, so the single point measurement needs to be considered with caution. In fully supersonic and
hypersonic flows the base pressure is almost constant across the base area and the effect of the base flow is not
propagated upstream.
The base flow and the extent of its impact upstream have an impact on the convergence behavior of inviscid
solvers such as Cart3D. Specific measures (tuning) may be required in order to get good results. Navier-Stokes
solvers should be able to simulate the base flow better (depending on the turbulence model and the extent of
numerical damping).
The other challenge in the HL-20 case is in high hypersonic Mach numbers, where real-gas effects can take
place. Cart3D does not simulate real gas effects, but it does accept variation of the specific heat ratio ().
B. The Solver and the Analysis Framework
Cart3D is a high-fidelity solver for the Euler inviscid equations of flow, being developed at NASA Ames
Research Center since the mid 90s (Refs. 7 to 9 for example). The solver is used mainly for conceptual and
preliminary aerodynamic design. It allows performing automated CFD analysis on complex geometries and supports
steady and, in its latest version (1.50), time-dependent simulations. The latest packages (current study uses version
1.4.9) feature fully-integrated Adjoint-driven mesh adaptation1-6 and also include utilities for geometry import,
surface modeling and intersection, mesh generation, and post-processing of results. Parallel computing, either shared
memory (OpenMP) or distributed memory (MPI) can be used.
Cart3D input consists of a geometry model in the form of surface triangulations. The input may be generated
from within CAD packages, from legacy surface triangulations or from structured surface grids. Cart3D uses
adaptively refined Cartesian grids to discretize the space around the geometry. It carves the geometry out of the
set of "cut-cells" (volume grid cells that intersect the surface triangulation). The multigrid meshes are automatically
refined on a localized basis in multiple adaptation cycles. The Adjoint solution identifies the grid cells where the
computational error is highest and targets those for further refinement, aiming to reduce the error in aerodynamic
outputs.
GoCart 2.0 is a commercial user analysis framework that runs Cart3D. The package provides graphical user
interface support and additional automation that greatly eases problem setup, convergence monitoring and postprocessing (including digital visualization of the flow field and surface contours for selected flow parameters).
C. Methodology
The amount of HL-20 wind tunnel tests data accumulated in several years of research exceeds by far the scope of
this report and the resources available for this study. The assessment is therefore based mostly on a Mach sweep (to
demonstrate how well Cart3D / GoCart 2.0 handle the different aspects of the Mach range), and some polar samples
at selected Mach numbers. Important aspects of this case, such as the base flow and specific heat ratio impact are
covered as well. Solution convergence behavior and recommended tuning are discussed in detail.
4
D. Convergence and Numerical Considerations

This section presents typical cases from each flow regime and discusses some of the input parameters used to
achieve the results shown. These parameters may not be the only way or combination to achieve good results for a
particular case. Different geometrical configurations may behave differently than the HL-20 configuration.
Subsonic and Transonic Flow Range
Convergence of the HL-20 case in subsonic Mach numbers (0.3 to 0.6) and transonic Mach numbers (0.8 to
1.6) required over 8.5 million cells (10 or 11 adaptation cycles). The code had to use multiple built-in corrective
actions to overcome oscillatory behavior and convergence issues caused by the base flow. A better convergence
pattern was achieved with 5 multigrid levels (instead of 3) and 4 buffer cell layers (instead of 3) in the Adjoint
settings, with CFL=1.0 (instead of 1.1). Figure 2 shows a typical subsonic convergence pattern at M=0.3 and
incidence of =8. The oscillating behavior and convergence difficulty at M=0.3 is demonstrated in Fig. 3a for a
run using default settings, and in Fig. 3b for a run that uses 5 multigrid levels and 4 buffer cell layers with
CFL=1.0. Figure 4 shows a typical transonic convergence pattern at M=0.9 and incidence of =8.
1.
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.001
Half Configuration
CL
CD
0.01
0.1
1
10
Number of Cells (Millions)
Figure 2. Typical convergence pattern of a subsonic HL-20 calculation at M=0.3 and =8.
a) Oscillatory behavior with default settings: 3 multigrid levels, 3 buffer cell layers and CFL=1.1.
b) Improved behavior with modified settings: 5 multigrid levels, 4 buffer cell layers and CFL=1.0.
Figure 3. Solution behavior of forces and moments at M=0.3, =8 with different settings.
5
0.25
Half Configuration
0.2
0.15
CL
0.1
CD
0.05
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Figure 4. Typical convergence pattern of a transonic HL-20 calculation at M=0.9 and =8.
2.
Supersonic Flow Range

Convergence of the HL-20 case in supersonic Mach numbers (2.0 to 4.5) required at least 9 adaptation cycles
(3 to 5 million cells). The base flow did not cause significant convergence issues in supersonic flow and the base
pressure coefficient is almost constant across the base area. A better convergence pattern was achieved with 5
multigrid levels in the Adjoint settings. Figure 5 shows a typical supersonic convergence pattern at Mach=2.0
and incidence of =8. It was observed that the M=1.6 case converged better when using transonic regime input
settings.
0.16
Half Configuration
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
CL
0.06
CD
0.04
0.02
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
Figure 5. Typical convergence pattern of a supersonic HL-20 calculation at M=2.0 and =8.
3.
Hypersonic Flow Range

Convergence of the case in hypersonic Mach numbers turned out to be fast, with no sensitivity to the base
flow. The incidence range (zero to 42 degrees at M=10) did not cause significant convergence issues (meaning
that the codes built-in mechanisms were able to deal with each hypersonic run without the need to tweak the
input controls). Figure 6 shows a typical hypersonic convergence pattern at M=10 and =8. Note that for all
practical purposes the aerodynamic coefficients (CL and CD) are converged already at a much lower density
grid, however the flow and surface details (such as CP distribution) are then too crude. Turning on directional
buffering of limiters in the hypersonic calculations helped to reduce or eliminate a known numerical
phenomenon called staircasing (detailed analysis can be found in Ref. 27). The effect is to selectively widen
the stencil of the limiters near strong features (not just shocks) and smear the limiter values to prevent strong
gradients getting confined within the cells. Figure 7a shows an example of staircasing, while the effect of
using directional buffer limiters is shown in Fig. 7b.
6
0.05
Half Configuration
0.04
0.03
0.02
CL
0.01
CD
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Figure 6. Typical convergence pattern of a hypersonic HL-20 calculation at M=10 and =8.
a) Staircasing
b) With directional buffer limiters turned on
Figure 7. "Staircasing" example at M=10 & =40 and the effect of turning on directional buffer limiters.
E. Mach Sweep Results
A Mach sweep was calculated for an incidence of 8. The choice of =8 had to do with having an incidence
applicable to all Mach numbers in the experimental database. The experiments covered a Mach number range from
0.05 to 20, while the assessment covers a Mach number range from 0.3 to 20. Note that the wind-tunnel tests had
some limitations on the angle of attack range, depending on the wind-tunnel test section, the support system, the
model size and practical aerodynamic considerations (e.g. stall onset). The experimental data sources used in Figs. 8
to 13 are from six different wind tunnels.11-18
1.
Longitudinal Aerodynamic Coefficients

Figure 8 shows the lift coefficient for a Mach sweep from M=0.3 to M=10 at =8. Both calculated and
experimental data points in this figure use a specific heat ratio of =1.4 (Table 2). The overall match is good,
with some discrepancies at subsonic Mach numbers (M0.6) and a slight under-prediction at M=10.
0.35
CL
Langley 30x60ft
tunnel
Langley 7x10ft
tunnel
Calspan 8ft tunnel
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
Mach
Figure 8. Lift coefficient Mach sweep at =8.

7
10.0
Langley Unitary
Plan tunnel
Langley 20 inch
M=6 tunnel
Langley 31 inch
M=10 tunnel
GoCart 2.0
Comparison for the drag coefficient CD should be made with caution because the Euler solver is inviscid, so
the calculated drag coefficient does not include the viscous drag contribution. One would therefore expect the
calculated drag coefficient to be somewhat lower than the corresponding experimental result for the total drag.
Complicating the analysis is the fact that each wind tunnel used a different range of Reynolds numbers (creating
some inconsistency in the friction drag contribution when trying to plot all data in a single Mach sweep). This is
demonstrated in Fig. 9, where the viscous drag at zero lift is estimated with a separate tool for each Mach
number, using the actual Reynolds number from the experiment. The tool is based on the well-known flat plate
approximation with form-related and other empirical or semi-empirical corrections. It is not able to estimate the
effects of the angle of attack (pressure field change) on the local skin friction, so the correction for =8 uses the
same value calculated for zero lift. It is evident that the Reynolds number variation in the various experimental
facilities introduces a large variability in the viscous drag (roughly up to 5% of the total drag).
0.025
CD0 Viscous
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
10
Mach
Langley 7x10ft tunnel

ReL=3.4 million
ReL=22.3 million
Calspan 8ft tunnel ReL=6.0
million
Langley Unitary Plan tunnel
ReL=3.4 million
Langley 20 inch M=6 tunnel
ReL=1.01 million
Langley 20 inch M=6 tunnel
ReL=3.78 million
Langley 31 inch M=10
tunnel ReL=1.01 million
Figure 9. Estimated viscous drag contribution at zero-lift, based on the Mach and Reynolds numbers
of each experiment.
Figure 10 shows the drag coefficient Mach sweep at 8 incidence. The figure shows both the GoCart 2.0
original inviscid results, and GoCart 2.0 results corrected with the viscous drag estimate from Fig. 9. The
corrected results match the experimental data quite well (with some over-prediction of the total drag coefficient
at lower supersonic Mach numbers).
0.25
Langley 30x60ft
tunnel
Langley 7x10ft
tunnel
Calspan 8ft tunnel
CD
0.2
0.15
Langley Unitary
Plan tunnel
Langley 20 inch
M=6 tunnel
Langley 31 inch
M=10 tunnel
GoCart 2.0
0.1
0.05
0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0 Mach 10.0
Figure 10. Drag coefficient Mach sweep at =8.

8
GoCart2.0+Viscous
Correction
Another factor that affects the calculated drag results is the base drag. The inviscid Euler code cannot provide
the exact base flow features which in reality are complex (showing unsteadiness, especially in transonic and
subsonic Mach numbers, and also dominated by viscous effects). Figure 11 shows attempts to estimate the base
drag coefficient. For GoCart 2.0 the estimate is done by roughly integrating the base pressure coefficient over the
base areas, while for the experimental data the estimate is done by using the single-point of measured pressure
coefficient. No base corrections were made to the experimental drag data. The supersonic and hypersonic base
pressure is almost constant across the base area, but this is not the case in subsonic and transonic flows.
Therefore the base drag estimates are probably less accurate at subsonic and transonic Mach numbers. The
experimental data did not include base pressure measurement for the hypersonic Mach numbers.
0.25
CDBase
0.2
Experiment
0.15
GoCart2.0
0.1
0.05
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Mach
Figure 11. Estimated GoCart2.0 and experimental base drag coefficient at =8, normalized to Sref.
Based on Fig. 11, GoCart 2.0 drag coefficients in Fig. 10 can be corrected for the estimated difference in base
drag, at least in the supersonic zone where fidelity is better, as shown in Fig. 12. Results are then compared to
the wind-tunnel data (ReL=3.4 million). The largest discrepancy of GoCart 2.0 results with viscous drag
correction from the experimental data is at M=1.6 (~9% over-prediction). With corrected base-drag the
discrepancy is reduced to ~5%, gradually diminishing to ~0% as the Mach number is increased to 4.5. Both
viscous and base drag corrections, as well as the experiment base drag, are only estimates.
0.25
Langley Unitary Plan tunnel,

ReL=3.4 million
CD
0.20
GoCart 2.0 inviscid
0.15
GoCart 2.0 with Viscous Drag

Correction
0.10
GoCart 2.0, Corrected for Base

Drag Difference
0.05
GoCart2.0 with Base and

ViscousDrag Corrections
0.00
1
Mach
Figure 12. The effect of base drag and viscous drag corrections on GoCart2.0 supersonic results, =8.
9
Figure 13 shows the pitching moment coefficient, Cm, for the same Mach sweep and conditions. The overall
agreement between the calculated results and experimental data is good, with slight discrepancy at low Mach
numbers (M0.6) and around the transonic dip.
0.03
0.02
0.01
Calspan 8ft tunnel
Cm
-0.01
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
Mach
Langley Unitary Plan

tunnel
Langley 20 inch M=6
tunnel
langley 31 inch M=10
tunnel
GoCart 2.0
10.0
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
Figure 13. Pitching moment coefficient Mach sweep at =8.
2.
Lateral Aerodynamic Coefficients

The lateral coefficients Mach sweep was calculated at =0 and =4. Experimental data sources are from the
same wind-tunnels detailed in Fig. 8.
Fig. 14 shows the variation of the side-force coefficient, CY, with Mach number. The overall agreement with
the experimental data is good, with more deviation in the transonic zone (0.9 <M<1.3). The inviscid Euler code
is known to over-predict on-surface shock locations in the transonic zone, which could be the cause of the
discrepancy. While this discrepancy seems less pronounced for the longitudinal coefficients, one should note the
order of magnitude scale difference between Fig. 8 and Fig. 14.
CY
0
-0.01 0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
-0.02
4.0
Mach
5.0
-0.03
-0.04
Experiment
-0.05
GoCart 2.0
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
-0.09
-0.1
Figure 14. Side-force coefficient Mach sweep at =0 and =4.
Figure 15 shows the variation of the yawing moment coefficient Cn with Mach number. The calculation
somewhat under-predicts the subsonic and transonic positive values, but it does provide the correct trend,
including a transonic peak around M=1.3. At supersonic Mach numbers (M2.5) the prediction is good, showing
10
a practically zero yawing moment coefficient. One possibility that may explain the discrepancy at the lower
Mach numbers could be the asymmetric base pressure (in the y direction) developing in yaw. Such asymmetry
can cause a yawing moment, especially with the HL-20 wide base. It is possible that the inviscid code does not
predict this base pressure asymmetry accurately enough.
0.05
Cn
0.03
Experiment
0.01
-0.01 0.0
GoCart 2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Mach
5.0
-0.03
-0.05
Figure 15. Yawing moment coefficient Mach sweep at = 0 and =4.
Figure 16 shows the variation of the rolling moment coefficient Cl with Mach number. The overall
agreement is good, with some deviations. The prediction of the trend is correct, showing a negative yawing
moment coefficient across the Mach range with a negative peak around M=1.2 that decreases gradually in
absolute value with increasing Mach number in the supersonic zone.
0.05
Cl
0.03
Experiment
GoCart 2.0
0.01
-0.01 0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Mach
5.0
-0.03
-0.05
Figure 16. Rolling moment coefficient Mach sweep at = 0 and =4.
F. Typical Flow Patterns
The following are a few selected views of calculated flow patterns (Mach contours). Figures 17A-17C show
calculated Mach contours on the symmetry plane (side view) and the mid-body plane (top view, half configuration)
at M=0.9, 1.2 and 3.0 for 8 incidence. The model surface mesh is turned on for better distinction between the model
surface and the surrounding flow. The center fin blunt trailing-edge wake adds to the base flow in the side views.
Note the side shocks and the large base flow area in the top views. Selected x-cuts are shown, one at M=1.2 (Fig.
18), the other at M=3.0 (Fig. 19). Note the lateral shock in Fig. 18 and the complex pattern in Fig. 19.
11
Figure 17. Mach contours of transonic to supersonic shock system evolvement (side and top views).
12
Figure 18. Mach contours at M=1.2, =8, x/L=0.85 (half configuration).
Figure 19. Mach contours at M=3.0, =8, x/L=0.80 (half configuration).

13
G. Hypersonic Behavior
1.
Aerodynamic Coefficients
As real gas effects cannot be simulated using Cart3D, the question is how far the solver can be pushed into
the hypersonic zone. Yet it is also good to remember that hypersonic wind-tunnel tests have their own
limitations. The huge volume of flow usually dictates small test cross sections and as a result the model scale
needs to be small (0.02 in the HL-20 case). This in turn, results in small Reynolds numbers, much smaller than in
the full-scale aircraft. Real gas effects are also difficult to simulate in wind-tunnel tests (as part of the
phenomenon is related to interaction with the boundary layer, heat transfer and model-surface wall temperature).
Figure 20 shows the normal force coefficient (CN) variation with angle of attack at M=10. Computational
results are compared to experimental data from NASA Langley's 31 inch M=10 wind tunnel tests13. The
experiments were performed using air (=1.4) at a Reynolds number of 1.01x106 (see Table 2). The
computational results (using =1.4) match the experimental data very well across the whole incidence range (=0
to =40). The computational data also exhibits the same non-linear trend that shows in the test data. Shown in
this figure are also the computational results of a structured-grid, thin-layer Navier-Stokes code (LAURA "Langley Aerothermodynamic Upwind Relaxation Algorithm", developed at NASA Langley.28, 29 The LAURA
code is a point-implicit, finite-volume solver based on the upwind-biased flux-difference splitting of Roe30. The
scheme utilizes Yee's symmetric total variation diminishing discretization to achieve second-order spatial
accuracy and incorporates Harten's entropy fix. LAURA is capable of modeling Euler and Navier-Stokes flow
for a host of different air chemistry assumptions: perfect gas, equilibrium, chemical non-equilibrium, and
thermochemical non-equilibrium. In addition, any gas or gas mixture can be addressed as long as there is an
adequate model for the thermodynamic and transport properties of the gas in question. The LAURA code
supports a number of boundary conditions: In addition to the usual no-slip conditions at the wall, the code
supports the specification of non-catalytic, fully catalytic, and finite-rate catalytic boundary conditions. Also, the
wall temperature may be specified as a constant value, fixed distribution, or values based on a radiation
equilibrium wall condition. According to Refs. 13 and 30 the code was run in inviscid (Euler) mode to get the
M=10 results in Figs. 20 to 26. The agreement of the LAURA data with the experimental results for CN is very
good (but LAURA results cover a more limited incidence range, from 15 to 35).
CN
1.2
Experiment - Langley 31 inch
tunnel (ReL=1.01 million)
1
0.8
GoCart 2.0
0.6
LAURA solver (inviscid mode)
0.4
0.2
0
-5
0
-0.2
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Alpha, degrees
Figure 20. HL-20 Normal force coefficient vs. angle of attack at M=10, =1.4.
Figure 21 shows a similar comparison for the axial force coefficient, CA. The overall agreement is
reasonable, as Cart3D results do not account for the viscous drag contribution. If the viscous component is added
(same figure), then the calculated results under 15 incidence get closer but somewhat overshoot the
experimental data. The viscous correction is calculated for zero lift and does not account for angle of attack
influence (changes in the surface pressure distribution). Therefore there is no point using the viscous correction
at higher incidence. LAURA results in this case (in inviscid mode) are roughly 100 counts lower than the GoCart
14
2.0 inviscid results within the incidence range it covers (15 to 35). At high incidence, both GoCart2.0 and
LAURA show an almost flat slope for CA, while the experiment shows a small negative slope.
0.15

GoCart 2.0 (inviscid)
CA 0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
-5
0

GoCart 2.0 with Zero-Lift
Viscous Drag Correction
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Alpha, degrees
Figure 21. HL-20 Axial force coefficient vs. angle of attack at M=10, =1.4.
Figure 22 shows a similar comparison for the pitching moment coefficient, Cm. The agreement between the
calculated results and the experimental data is good across the whole incidence range, including the non-linear
trend. The LAURA solver inviscid results for Cm are on par with Cart3D results, with slight differences in the
slope.
Cm
0.1

0.08
0.06
GoCart 2.0
0.04
0.02
0
-5
-0.02 0
-0.04
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Alpha, degrees
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
Figure 22. HL-20 Pitching moment coefficient vs. angle of attack at M=10, =1.4.
Figure 23 shows a comparison of the L/D ratio for the same case. Note that the calculated drag does not
include the viscous contribution, so the calculated L/D should be higher than the corresponding experimental
one. The overall agreement is good, and indeed the calculated L/D is higher than the experimental L/D up to
~30 incidence. Beyond that the calculated values seem identical to the experimental ones, meaning that if the
viscous contribution is added then the calculation slightly overshoots the experiment in the high incidence
region. The maximum L/D predicted by the calculation is ~1.45 at ~20 degrees incidence, matching closely the
experimental data. In this context, one of the main reasons for suggesting aerodynamic improvements to the
original HL-20 configuration was the poor L/D ratio. The LAURA solver results in inviscid mode are very close
to the Cart3D results (predicting a maximum L/D of ~1.5). The peak L/D ratio is sensitive to Reynolds number
15
as shown in Fig. 24a, taken from Ref. 13. The figure shows that the higher the Reynolds number (within the
limited number tested), the higher the peak. The inviscid flow is supposed to be an asymptotic limit for this
trend. In the reported experimental results of Ref. 13, neither CN nor CL show much sensitivity to Reynolds
number and the scale of the CD graph precludes clear conclusions. However Fig. 24b, taken from Ref. 13, shows
that the higher the Reynolds number, the lower the axial force coefficient. It is reasonable to suspect that the low
Reynolds number wind-tunnel experiments (1.01 million) do not best-simulate the actual flow conditions of a
full scale flight vehicle, showing higher axial force and a lower L/D peak than in the case of a full scale vehicle.
L/D
Experiment, Langley 31 inch

1.5
GoCart 2.0 (Inviscid)
1
LAURA solver (inviscid
mode)
0.5
0
-5
-0.5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Alpha, degrees
-1
Figure 23. HL-20 L/D ratio (untrimmed) vs. angle of attack at M=10, =1.4.
a) L/D ratio
b) Axial force coefficient
Figure 24. L/D peak and CA dependency on Reynolds number at M=10, =1.4 from Ref. 13.
Figure 25 shows the pitching moment coefficient variation with angle of attack for Mach=20 with =1.67,
ReL=1.47 million (experiments performed in NASA Langley's 22 inch hypersonic Helium tunnel, Ref. 13). The
experimental data indicates almost identical CM magnitudes of the M=20 and M=10 cases up to about 15
incidence. Cart3D results for M=20 follow the experimental data well up to about 10 incidence (then curving
down more strongly than the experimental data). It is not evident that the Euler solver reaches its limits at that
16
point, because at low incidence the match is good. Another factor to consider is that at M=6, Ref. 13 shows that
at high incidence the HL-20 pitching moment coefficient decreases with increasing Reynolds number (Fig. 26).
The inviscid solution is expected to resemble a high Reynolds number flow. Indeed the inviscid-mode LAURA
results in Fig. 26 are closer to the highest Reynolds number experimental results (3.78 million).
Cm 0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-5-0.02 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-0.04
Alpha (degrees)
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
Figure 25. Pitching moment coefficient vs. angle of attack for M=20, =1.67.
Experiment ReL=1.47 million

GoCart2.0 - Inviscid
Figure 26. Pitching moment coefficient vs. angle of attack for different Reynolds numbers at M=6,
air, =1.4, from Ref. 13.
2.
Hypersonic Flow Patterns

Figures 27 to 30 show selected computational visualizations of hypersonic cases, for Mach numbers of 6 and
10, and angles of attack of =8 and 40. The figures plot density contours, selected for showing high sensitivity
to flow features in the hypersonic flow regime.
17
a) M=6.0
b) M=10.0
Figure 27. Hypersonic density contours at =8 (symmetry plane side view).
a) M=6.0
b) M=10.0
Figure 28. Hypersonic density contours at =40 (symmetry plane side view).
a) x/L=0.34
b) x/L=0.85
Figure 29. Hypersonic density contours at M=6 and =8 (half configuration).
18
a) x/L=0.28
b) x/L=0.85
Figure 30. Hypersonic density contours at M=6 and =40 (half configuration).
The Effect of Modifying the Specific Heat Ratio in Hypersonic Computations

As explained before, Cart3D / Adjoint does not account for real-gas effects or heat-transfer. Within its
underlying assumptions it does allow however the modification of the specific heat ratio, . The following
discussion examines the effect of modifying on GoCart 2.0 results in order to get some idea of the sensitivity
of the solution to this parameter. The calculations were performed at M=20 and =28, with being the only
input parameter changed. The results are shown in Fig. 31, after well-converged 11 adaptation cycles (~5 million
cells). There is no comparison to experimental data because these also depend on Reynolds number.
The normal force coefficient in Fig. 31a is not sensitive to the change in within the range used; however the
axial force coefficient clearly slopes down as increases. With =1.22 CA is ~3.3% higher than with =1.4,
while with =1.67 it is ~6.2% lower than with =1.4. In Fig. 31b, the pitching moment coefficient Cm shows a
very small sensitivity to the change in .
For completeness, the Log of the final number of cells, N, created through the mesh refinement process is
also shown in Fig. 31b for the different values. Note the Adjoint solution sensitivity to the change in . The
number of cells did not change much between =1.22 and =1.4, but it grew from 5,086,883 for =1.4 to
5,434,108 for =1.67.
3.
CN
CA
0.04
0.3
0.03
0.2
0.02
0.1
0.01
0
0
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Normal force coefficient
1.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Axial force coefficient
Figure 31a. Sensitivity of Cart3D / Adjoint computation to the specific heat ratio at M=20 and =28.
19
LOG(N)
Cm
6.8
0
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
-0.002
6.6
6.4
-0.004
6.2
-0.006
6
-0.008
Pitching moment coefficient
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Number of cells in the last adaptation cycle
Figure 31b. Sensitivity of Cart3D / Adjoint computation to the specific heat ratio at M=20 and =28.
V. Conclusions
GoCart 2.0, that uses Cart3D 1.4.9 with Adjoint solution, can be used successfully to calculate the aerodynamics
of reentry, lifting-body vehicles across the full range of Mach numbers, from subsonic to hypersonic.
The method is able to tackle the large base flow of the HL-20, giving reasonable estimate for the base drag
contribution for conceptual and preliminary design purposes. The HL-20 large base introduces computational
instability and oscillatory behavior, especially in subsonic and transonic flows. Modification of some input
parameters is needed to get converged results. A simple viscous drag estimate may be added to the inviscid results to
allow better assessment of the total drag coefficient and the overall L/D ratio.
The inviscid GoCart 2.0 results generally simulate high Reynolds number flow conditions. This makes GoCart a
good tool for conceptual and preliminary design of a full-scale vehicle, but caution must be used when comparing
the computational results to wind-tunnel data taken using a small scale model at relatively low Reynolds numbers.
GoCart 2.0 predicts very well the hypersonic aerodynamic coefficients of the HL-20 for angles of attack up to 50
degrees. Discrepancies at high incidence are attributed to the relatively low Reynolds number used in the windtunnel experiments.
GoCart 2.0 hypersonic results for the normal force and pitching moment coefficients agree very well with
computational LAURA results run in inviscid mode. LAURA predicted inviscid drag is somewhat lower than
GoCart 2.0 prediction, resulting in a slightly higher corresponding inviscid L/D ratio. There is some sensitivity of
the computed axial force results to the specific heat ratio () within the hypersonic Mach range used (M20) and
values between 1.22 and 1.67.
The use of tools such as GoCart 2.0 / Cart3D can significantly reduce the number and related cost of wind-tunnel
experiments needed for conceptual and preliminary design of reentry vehicles such as the HL-20. In the HL-20 case,
10 different wind-tunnels were used for the investigation of the base HL-20 model. The results necessitated
subsequent modifications to the model (to increase L/D and improve stability and control characters), requiring a
significant number of additional wind tunnel tests.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the great cooperation and help of Andrew S. Hahn (NASA Langley Research
Center) and Robert A. McDonald (California Polytechnic State University) for their help with creating the digital
model of the NASA HL-20. In addition, the author wishes to thank Stephen C. Smith, NASA Ames Research Center
retired, for reviewing this paper and making useful suggestions that enhanced its contents.
1
References
Nemec, M., Aftosmis, M. J. and Wintzer, M., Adjoint-Based Adaptive Mesh Refinement for Complex Geometries, 46th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2008-0725, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2008.
2
Nemec, M. and Aftosmis, M. J., Output Error Estimates and Mesh Refinement in Aerodynamic Shape Optimization, 51st
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2013-0865, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2013.
3
Nemec, M. and Aftosmis, M. J., Parallel Adjoint Framework for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Component-Based
Geometry, 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2011-1249, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2011.
20
4
Nemec, M. and Aftosmis, M. J., Adjoint Error Estimation and Adaptive Refinement for Embedded-Boundary Cartesian
Meshes, 18th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, 2007-4187, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2007.
5
Aftosmis, M. J. and Nemec, M., Adjoint Algorithm for CAD-Based Shape Optimization Using a Cartesian Method, 17th
Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, NAS-05-014, 2005, Toronto, ON, Canada.
6
Nemec, M., Aftosmis, M. J., Murman, S. M. and Pulliam, T. H., Adjoint Formulation for an Embedded-Boundary Cartesian
Method, 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2005-0877, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2005.
7
Aftosmis, M. J., Berger, M. J., Melton, J. E., Robust and efficient Cartesian mesh generation for component based
geometry, 35th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 97-0196, AIAA, Washington, DC, 1997.
8
Aftosmis, M. J., Melton, J. E., and Berger, M. J., Adaptation and Surface Modeling for Cartesian Mesh Methods, 12th
AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, 95-1725, AIAA, Washington, DC, 1995.
9
Melton, J. E., Berger, M. J., Aftosmis, M. J., and Wong, M. D., 3D Applications of a Cartesian Grid Euler Method, AIAA
rd
33 Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 95-0853. AIAA, Washington, DC, 1995.
10
Stone, H. W. and Piland, W. M., 21st Space Transportation System Design Approach: HL-20 Personnel Launch
System, AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1993, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 521-528.
11
Ware, G. M., Spencer, B. Jr. and Micol, J. R., Aerodynamic Characteristics of Proposed Assured Crew Return Capability
(ACRC) Lifting Body Configuration, AIAA 7th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 89-2172, AIAA, Washington, DC, 1989.
12
Cruz, C. I., Ware, G. M., Grafton, S. B., Woods, W. C., and Young, J. C., Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Proposed
Personnel Launch System (PLS) Lifting Body Configuration at Mach Numbers from 0.05 to 20.3, NASA TM
101641, November 1989.
13
Micol, J. R., Experimental and Predicted Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Proposed Assured Crew Return Vehicle
(ACRV) Lifting Body Configuration at Mach 6 and 10, AIAA 16th Aerodynamic Ground Testing Conference, 90-1403, AIAA,
Washington, DC, 1990.
14
Ware, G. M. and Cruz, C. I., Aerodynamic Characteristics of the HL-20, AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1993,
Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 529-536.
15
Ware, G. M., Transonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Proposed Assured Crew Return Capability (ACRC) Lifting
Body Configuration, NASA TM 4117, June 1989.
16
Ware, G. M., Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Proposed Assured Crew Return Capability (ACRC) Lifting
Body Configuration, NASA TM 4136, November 1989.
17
Cruz, C. I. and Ware, G. M., Control Effectiveness and Tip-Fin Dihedral Effects for the HL-20 Lifting-Body
Configuration at M = 1.6 to 4.5, NASA TM 4697, December 1995.
18
Ware, G. M. and Cruz, C. I., Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of the HL-20 Lifting-Body Configuration, NASA
TM 4515, October 1993.
19
Jackson, E. B. and Cruz C. I., Preliminary Subsonic Aerodynamic Model for Simulation Studies of the HL-20 Lifting
Body, NASA TM-4302, 1992.
20
Powell, R. W., Six-Degree-of-Freedom Guidance and Control Analysis of the HL-20, AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, 1993, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 537-542.
21
Scallion, W. I., Performance of an Aerodynamic Yaw Controller Mounted on the Space Shuttle Orbiter Body Flap at
Mach 10, NASA TM 109179, February 1995.
22
Scallion, W. I., Aerodynamic Characteristics and Control Effectiveness of the HL-20 Lifting Body Configuration at Mach
10 in Air, NASA TM-19999-209357, September 1999.
23
Ware, G. M., Spencer, B. Jr. and Micol J. R., Aerodynamic Characteristics of the HL-20 and HL-20A Lifting-Body
Configurations, AIAA 9th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 91-3215, AIAA, Washington, DC, 1991.
24
Spencer, B. Jr., Fox, C. H. Jr. and Huffman, J. K., A Study to Determine Methods of Improving the Subsonic
Performance of a Proposed Personnel Launch System(PLS) Concept, NASA TM 110201, December 1995.
25
Driver, K. D. and Vess, R. J., Design and Fabrication of the NASA HL-20 Full Scale Research Model, NASA CR187801, January 1991.
26
Saltzman, E. J., Wang, C. K. and Iliff, K. W., Aerodynamic Assessment of Flight-Determined Subsonic Lift and
Drag Characteristics of Seven Lifting-Body and Wing-Body Reentry Vehicle Configurations, NASA TP-2002209032, November 2002.
27
Berger, M., Aftosmis, M. J. and Murman, S. M., Analysis of Slope Limiters on Irregular Grids, 43rd AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, 2005-0490, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2005.
28
Cheatwood, F. M. and Gnoffo, P. A., Users Manual for the Langley Aerothermodynamic Upwind Relaxation Algorithm
(LAURA), NASA TM 4674, April 1996.
29
Mazaheri, A., Gnoffo, P. A., Johnston, C. O., and Kleb, B., LAURA Users Manual: 5.4-54166, NASA TM2011
217092, May 2011.
30
Weilmuenster, K. J., and Greene, F. A., HL-20 Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis, AIAA Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets, 1993, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 558-566.
21

Assessment of An Inviscid Euler-Adjoint Solver For Prediction of Aerodynamic Characteristics of The NASA HL-20 Lifting Body

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Assessment of An Inviscid Euler-Adjoint Solver For Prediction of Aerodynamic Characteristics of The NASA HL-20 Lifting Body

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

AIAA 2016-3266

Assessment of an Inviscid Euler-Adjoint Solver for

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

Independent Consultant, Senior Member AIAA.

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

a) 0.07-scale HL-20 wind-tunnel model,15

b) Shaded image of the digital model.

Figure 1. HL-20 geometry.

Table 1. HL-20 reference dimensions.

Reference Length for Lateral Coefficients

Reference Length for Pitching Moment

Reference Area, Sref

Moment Reference Point Xref

Moment Reference Point Zref*

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

III. Sources of Experimental Data

30x60 ft. Full-Scale

3.40, 7.0, 10.3,

7x10 ft. High Speed

Unitary Plan Wind

0.32, 1.09, 2.09,

0.26, 0.54, 1.01,

Mentioned in Refs. 14, 23.

Mentioned in Refs. 12, 13,

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

IV. Computational Results

D. Convergence and Numerical Considerations

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

Supersonic Flow Range

Hypersonic Flow Range

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

b) With directional buffer limiters turned on

Longitudinal Aerodynamic Coefficients

Figure 8. Lift coefficient Mach sweep at =8.

Langley 7x10ft tunnel

8.0 Mach 10.0

Figure 10. Drag coefficient Mach sweep at =8.

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

Langley Unitary Plan tunnel,

GoCart 2.0 inviscid

GoCart 2.0 with Viscous Drag

GoCart 2.0, Corrected for Base

GoCart2.0 with Base and

Langley 30x60ft tunnel

Langley 7x10ft tunnel

Calspan 8ft tunnel

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

Langley Unitary Plan

Lateral Aerodynamic Coefficients

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

Figure 18. Mach contours at M=1.2, =8, x/L=0.85 (half configuration).

Figure 19. Mach contours at M=3.0, =8, x/L=0.80 (half configuration).

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

Experiment - Langley 31 inch

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

LAURA solver (inviscid mode)

Experiment - Langley 31 inch

Experiment, Langley 31 inch

GoCart 2.0 (Inviscid)

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266

Downloaded by Dan Almosnino on June 21, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-3266