JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Numerical Simulations of the F-16XL at Flight-Test Conditions

Using Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation

Andrew J. Lofthouse∗ and Russell M. Cummings†

U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado 80840
DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045
The F-16XL flight-test data have been used for many years in the Cranked-Arrow Wing Aerodynamics Program
International series as a challenging test case for numerical prediction of military aircraft at full-scale flight
conditions. The complexity of the configuration and the variety of flight-test conditions available challenge most
computational fluid dynamics codes and turbulence models. This study documents the use of the Kestrel flow solver
with its solution-based mesh refinement capability and delayed detached-eddy simulation turbulence models for F-
16XL flight condition 25, which is a subsonic high-angle-of-attack flight condition that has proven particularly
challenging for computational researchers. The spectral content of the pressure data and the integrated lift, drag, and
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

pitching moment coefficients are also presented. The more advanced turbulence models, coupled with the more
refined meshes, show very good agreement with flight-test data and reasonable resolution of the unsteady frequency
content.

Nomenclature and transonic conditions and to characterize the stability and control
CD = drag coefficient; positive downwind of the aircraft. The original intent of a flight, wind-tunnel, and CFD
CL = lift coefficient; positive upward correlation experiment would be maintained, albeit for the baseline
Cm = pitch moment coefficient; positive nose up F-16XL configuration only” [1]. CAWAP provided the computa-
Cp = pressure coefficient tional fluid dynamics (CFD) community with an excellent database
for complex aerodynamic validation and evaluation purposes [4].
The Cranked-Arrow Wing Aerodynamics Project International
I. Introduction (CAWAPI), which was initiated by NASA as a follow-on project to the
CAWAP, allowed for a larger international community of researchers
T HE F-16XL was developed in the 1980s by General Dynamics
as a single-place fighter prototype aircraft. Starting with the
F-16A configuration, the F-16XL design included a stretched
to participate in predicting the aerodynamics of the F-16XL.

fuselage and a cranked-arrow wing (as well as modified systems).
The cranked-arrow wing was a joint design between General
Dynamics and NASA Langley Research Center that provided
improved supersonic performance while maintaining the transonic
performance of the F-16A. Figure 1 shows the cranked-arrow wing
design with a leading-edge sweep angle of 70 deg inboard and 50 deg
outboard of the crank.
At the juncture of the wing leading edge with the fuselage, an
S-blend curve was placed in the leading edge to alleviate a
pitch instability that was found to occur at high angles of
attack in wind-tunnel tests. All flight-test data were collected
with the air dams (upper-surface fences mounted near the
wing leading-edge crank) and wing-tip missiles installed [1].
Along with the Vortex Flow Experiment 2 (VFE-2),
CAWAPI was incorporated under the NATO science and
technology organization Task Group applied vehicle
technology-113. The objective of the CAWAPI facet was
to allow a comprehensive validation and evaluation of CFD
methods against the CAWAP flight database. A number of
researchers simulated the flowfield of the F-16XL at a
variety of flight conditions using different numerical
approaches, including structured, block, and unstructured
grids, as well as various turbulence models and numerical
algorithms. This type of full-scale aircraft configuration
provides many challenges to state-of-the-art CFD flow
prediction, including the ability to accurately predict
unsteady flowfields at flight Reynolds numbers [4].

The F-16XL program produced two prototype aircraft that were
flight tested from 1989 through 1997 at the NASA Dryden Flight
Research Center.
The F-16XL program was cancelled during phase 1 flight testing
due to funding limitations, but funding was provided to complete a
modified flight-test program, which became the Cranked-Arrow
Wing Aerodynamics Project (CAWAP) program [2,3]. “The revised
objectives were to document upper surface flow physics at high-lift
Presented as Paper 2015-2875 at the 33rd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, Dallas, TX, 22–26 June 2015; received 28 May 2016; revision
received 28 March 2017; accepted for publication 7 June 2017; published
online 5 July 2017. This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government
and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. All requests
for copying and permission to reprint should be submitted to CCC at
www.copyright.com; employ the ISSN 1533-3868 (print) or 0021-8669
(online) to initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions
www.aiaa.org/randp.
*Director, High Performance Computing Research Center. Senior Member
AIAA.
† aerodynamic characteristics are difficult to predict with the
Professor of Aeronautics, Department of Aeronautics. Associate Fellow
AIAA.
Article in Advance / 1
The success of CAWAPI led to follow-on projects to evaluate
improvements to the CFD predictions using Reynolds-averaged
Navier–Stokes (RANS) turbulence models (known as CAWAPI-2)
and with hybrid RANS/large-eddy simulation (LES) turbulence
models (known as CAWAPI-3). The results presented here are part of
the CAWAPI-3 program, where the delayed detached-eddy
simulation (DDES) hybrid turbulence model has been used on
improved computational meshes in order to improve the flowfield
predictions of the F-16XL.
A delta-wing configuration of an aircraft such as the F-16XL,
shown in Figs. 1 and 2, behaves significantly differently from a
traditional aircraft configuration with relatively straight wings. At
high angles of attack, the boundary layer separates at the leading edge
and curls inward to form cores of high vorticity. The size and strength
of the vortex cores are dominant features of the flow. The low
pressure of the vortex cores assists in maintaining lift, even at flight
conditions where traditional aircraft configurations would stall [5].
The vortex cores are highly unsteady as they travel backward over
the wing, eventually breaking down or bursting. These types of
computational aerodynamic codes available today.
 2 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS
Fig. 1 F-16XL configuration showing stretched fuselage and cranked-
arrow wing design.
The geometric features of interest in this study, in addition to the
shape of the main wing, are the air dam and actuator pod toward the
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045
outer portion of the wingspan, as well as the dummy missile and
missile rail. These features were present on the aircraft during the
flight test and are included in the computational geometry treated
here. Note also that pressure data were taken at several butt line (BL)
locations (where the butt line is measured from the centerline of the
aircraft out toward the right wingtip) and fuselage station (FS)
locations (where the fuselage station locations are measured in
inches, back from the nose of the aircraft).
This study is a follow-on one to the CAWAPI program and
documents the use of the Kestrel flow solver to simulate the F-16XL
during flight condition 25 (FC25), which was a low-speed high-
angle-of-attack condition that exhibited some significant challenges
for numerical simulations due to the flow unsteadiness caused by
vortex interactions and the onset of vortex breakdown. To more fully
understand the type of unsteadiness and the specific details of this
complex flowfield, two specific capabilities of Kestrel were
exercised: the offline solution-based adaptive mesh refinement, and a
number of different turbulence models.
The turbulence models include Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
and delayed detached-eddy simulation. RANS models resolve only
the time-averaged flow quantities and none of the turbulent
fluctuations. They are typically suitable for attached boundary layers,
and even steady separated flows, with minimal computational cost;
but, they tend to fail to provide accurate results for flows with large
regions of unsteady separated flows [6]. DDES combines RANS
models in the attached boundary layer with a large-eddy simulation
model in the separated regions. LES resolves the larger turbulence
scales numerically but models the smaller, more homogeneous
scales. LES is much more computationally expensive than RANS
models, especially in attached boundary layers [6]. Thus, the
combination of RANS in attached boundary layers and the LES in
separated regions provides a capability to accurately resolve large-
scale unsteady, separated flows with a reduced computational cost.
Nevertheless, hybrid RANS/LES models such as DDES require more
refined meshes than RANS-only models in order to resolve the large-
scale unsteady turbulent fluctuations. The application of these
advanced turbulence models requires a balance between minimizing
computational cost while maintaining the required level of accuracy.
This balance may be achieved by using solution-based adaptive mesh
refinement.
Detached-eddy simulation (DES) was first proposed in 1997 [7],
whereas DDES was proposed in 2006 as an extension to the original
DES formulation that addressed a shortcoming in the sensitivity of
the model to grid spacing near the wall [8]. Since their development,
both models have been used extensively for a variety of unsteady,
highly separated flows. Some of these studies have included the
F/A-18 to resolve unsteady tail buffet [9] and abrupt wing stall [10];
a generic fighter configuration at high angle of attack [11]; and the
unsteady vortex breakdown of a generic, 70 deg delta wing [12].
It is expected that the improvements in turbulence modeling and
adaptive mesh refinement that have taken place since [4] was
published will increase our understanding of the flowfield for FC25.
II. Simulation Procedure
A. Kestrel Flow Solver
Kestrel is a complete virtual flight-test simulation software suite
developed as part of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
Computational Research and Engineering Acquisition Tools and
Environments (CREATE) Program. CREATE was established as a
12 year program in fiscal year 2008 and is managed by the DOD High
Performance Computing Modernization Program. The goal is to
enable improvements in DOD acquisition programs through the use
of scalable, multidisciplinary physics-based computational engineer-
ing software products for use on DOD high-performance computing
resources [13]. CREATE consists of three computational engineering
tool sets for the design of air vehicles, ships, and radio frequency
antennas. The fixed-wing analysis code Kestrel is part of the Air
Vehicles Project (known as CREATE-AV) and is a modularized,
multidisciplinary, virtual aircraft simulation tool incorporating
aerodynamics, structural dynamics, kinematics, and kinetics [14].
The flow solver component of Kestrel (known as kCFD) is a finite
volume cell-centered two- or three-dimensional unstructured flow
solver. The unstructured mesh may be composed of arbitrarily shaped
cells, with the most common being triangles and quadrilaterals in two
dimensions and tetrahedra, prisms, pyramids, and hexahedra in three
dimensions. Automatic domain decomposition allows the simulation
to be run on multiple processors in parallel. The method of lines is
employed and allows the temporal and spatial integration schemes to
differ [15]. The spatial residual is computed with a typical Godunov
scheme [16] with second-order accuracy achieved by the use of linear
gradients within each cell. Several exact and approximate Riemann
schemes are implemented to compute the fluxes, with the default
being a variation of the Harten-Lax-van-Leer-Einfeldt++ scheme
[17]. A subiterative point-implicit scheme solved with a symmetric
successive overrelaxation technique provides up to second-order
temporal accuracy [18].
The Kestrel solver includes several turbulence models, including
the Spalart–Allmaras (SA) one-equation RANS model [19] and the
Spalart–Allmaras with rotation correction (SARC) model [20]. The
solver also includes the delayed detached-eddy simulation hybrid
RANS/LES turbulence model to resolve the unsteady turbulent
fluctuations in separated regions of the flow [7,8]. The turbulence
models used in this study included the SA, SARC, SA/DDES, and
SARC/DDES models.
B. Mesh Refinement
The simulations documented here used several meshes that were
generated from a baseline mesh using the offline adaptive mesh
refinement capabilities of Kestrel and the associated postprocessing
tools. The baseline mesh, designated A1, was the original mesh used
during the CAWAPI program [4]. This baseline mesh was a fairly
coarse mesh of about 12 million cells, with about 1.4 million prisms
near the surface to resolve boundary-layer gradients. Only half of the
full-span geometry was included, with the centerline being a
symmetry plane. The baseline mesh was refined by subdividing all
cells such that a tetrahedron was split into eight tetrahedral cells and a
prism was split into four prisms. This mesh, designated A2, contained
almost 90 million cells, with 5.8 million prisms.
Further meshes were generated from preliminary solutions run on
the baseline mesh during which a refinement variable and tracking
threshold were employed. Cells in which the solution refinement
variable exceeded the tracking threshold during the simulation were
flagged and then subdivided (as noted previously, eight tetrahedra
resulted from a single tetrahedron that was flagged and four prisms
resulted from a single prism that was flagged).
The computational cost of a DDES solution increases over a
RANS solution partially because of the increased mesh refinement
required to resolve the unsteady turbulent fluctuations in the
separated flow regions. Each mesh refinement variable will flag
different numbers of cells for refinement, depending on the tracking
threshold. The refinement variables used here were selected based on
how likely mesh refinement based on those variables would increase
mesh resolution in the required areas while minimizing increased cell
 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS 3
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 2 Drawings of the F-16XL aircraft geometry and pressure data locations.

density where it was not needed. The refinement variables used in this
study included vorticity magnitude, Q criterion, and scaled Q criterion.
Vorticity magnitude is a measure of the rotation and shear of a fluid
element and is given mathematically as the curl of the velocity vector
[6]. The values of vorticity magnitude are typically large in regions of
high flow rotation, such as separation vortices, as well as regions of
high shear, such as boundary layers. The Q criterion is defined as the
rotation rate minus the shearing rate [6]. Values of the Q criterion are
typically large in regions of high flow rotation, such as separation
vortices, but are not typically high in regions of high shear, such as
boundary layers. The values of the vorticity magnitude and Q
criterion that are appropriate for a mesh refinement tracking threshold
are problem specific. The scaled Q criterion was developed to
provide a variable for visualization and refinement tracking that
should be universal.
Mesh B2 was generated by flagging all cells in which the Q
criterion exceeded 0.0; mesh C2 was generated using a scaled
Q-criterion threshold value of 0.1; and mesh D2 used a vorticity
magnitude of 2001∕s as the refinement value. Each of these values,
except for the scaled Q criterion, may be different for a different flight
condition or application. Therefore, the analyst would be required to
generate visualizations in order to determine which specific values
would provide refinement in the regions required. As noted
previously, the scaled Q-criterion value is expected to be universal.
 4 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 3 Preliminary solutions on mesh A1 used for refinement of the mesh.

Figure 3 shows a sampling of the preliminary solutions on mesh A1
that were used to flag cells for refinement (note that the Q-criterion
isosurface is at a value of 1 × 10−5 instead of 0.0).
Details of the resulting meshes are summarized in Table 1. The
mesh with the most cells is mesh A2, which refined all cells in the
original mesh. The next largest was mesh B2, which used the Q
criterion of zero as the refinement tracking variable; the size
difference between mesh A2 and mesh B2 is just over 3M cells.
Note that three of the four refined meshes (all but mesh C2)
resulted in 5.8M prisms, which is about four times the initial number
of 1.4M, indicating that the entire surface mesh and prism layers
grown from the surface mesh were flagged for refinement. The main
difference between these meshes is the number of cells flagged for
refinement in the flow separation area; more cells were flagged for
refinement using the Q-criterion tracking than with the other two
methods. The scaled Q criterion does not flag as many cells in the
prism layer as the other meshes, although some are flagged.
The meshes are visualized in Figs. 4–8, including the surface mesh,
the symmetry plane, a slice in the X direction at 350 in. aft of the nose,
and a slice in the Y direction 75 in. toward the right wing from the
symmetry plane. Note specifically the areas where the baseline mesh
was refined with each method; especially note that the scaled
Q-criterion (mesh C2) and vorticity magnitude (mesh D2) tracking
variables result in refinement that seems to better track the vortices
being shed from the wing.
The viscous spacing of each mesh was unchanged from the
original mesh, which was selected to maintain a y
less than or equal
to one for the Reynolds number considered here. A sample solution
using the SA/DDES turbulence model on mesh B2 is shown in Fig. 9;
the final y
value is mostly less than one.
C. Reference Conditions
The flight conditions for FC25 are low-speed and high angle of
attack: the angle of attack is 19.84 deg; altitude is 10,000 ft; Mach
number is 0.242; and Reynolds number is 32.2 × 106 . The aircraft
forces and moments are calculated with the following reference
quantities: reference area is 8.64 × 104 in:2 ; reference length is
296.4 in.; the moment reference point is located at 326.86, 0.0,
76.06 in.; and the moment reference lengths are 194.42, 296.4, and
194.42 in.
A time-step sensitivity study was conducted on mesh B2 to
determine the proper time step. The initial time step of 5.0 × 10−4 s

Table 1 Mesh details for F-16XL

Mesh name Refinement variable Threshold value Prisms Tetrahedra Total cells
A1 None (baseline) None 1.4M 10.5M 11.9M
A2 All refined All 5.8M 83.9M 89.7M
B2 Q criterion 0.0 5.8M 80.7M 86.5M
C2 Scaled Q criterion 0.1 2.2M 54.6M 56.8M
D2 Vorticity magnitude 200 1∕s 5.8M 63.0M 68.8M
 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS 5
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 4 Mesh A1 (baseline).

Fig. 5 Mesh A2: baseline mesh with each cell divided.

 6 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 6 Mesh B2: baseline mesh refined in cells where Q criterion exceeded zero.

Fig. 7 Mesh C2: baseline mesh refined in cells where scaled Q criterion exceeded 0.1.
 Article in Advance
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045
Fig. 8 Mesh D2: baseline mesh refined in cells where vorticity magnitude exceeded 200 1∕s.
Fig. 9 Contours of y
from the SA/DDES solution on mesh B2.
was shown previously to provide good temporal resolution [4].
Simulations of two additional time steps of 2.5 × 10−4 s and 1.25 ×
10−4 s showed very little change in the overall forces and moments,
as shown in Fig. 10. The average lift coefficient varied by about 1%,
and the average drag coefficient varied by about 2% in the results
using the smaller time steps. The average pitching moment
coefficient varied by about 6%, although the absolute magnitude of
the changes was one order of magnitude smaller than the changes in
the lift and drag coefficient (the larger percent change is due to the
much lower magnitude of the pitching moment coefficient). Because
of the small differences in average force and moment coefficients, the
initial time step of 5.0 × 10−4 s was deemed sufficient for this study.
The general simulation procedure is as follows. The solver is set to
second-order spatial and temporal accuracy. All simulations used
three Newton subiterations to improve the temporal accuracy. Startup
transients were flushed with 2000 startup time steps (1 s of simulation
time); after which, 8000 time steps (4 s of simulation time) of
unsteady data were taken. Unsteady data at a series of tap points on
/ LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS 7
the surface and above the surface, as well as integrated forces and
moments, were recorded at every time step. The solution was also
averaged over the entire 8000 final time steps.
Standard viscous no-slip wall boundary conditions were used for
the solid surfaces: a symmetry boundary condition for the symmetry
plane, and modified Riemann invariants for the far field (modified
Riemann invariants use fixed inflow values for supersonic flow and
Riemann invariants for subsonic inflow).
III. Results
This section summarizes the results obtained for the simulations of
the F-16XL geometry at flight condition 25, using the meshes and
turbulence models discussed previously. First, the solutions will be
compared qualitatively using volume visualizations. Then, the
computational results will be compared to full-scale flight-test data
using plots of pressure coefficient values along slices that correspond
to the BL and FS pressure data locations of the full-scale aircraft in
 8 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045
Fig. 10 Time-step sensitivity study results.
Fig. 2. Finally, a comparison of the integrated loads (lift, drag, and
pitching moment coefficients) will be made.
A. Volume Visualizations
Snapshots of the unsteady solution are visualized using several
different views in Figs. 11–16. Visualizations of isosurfaces of the Q
criterion at 1.0 × 10−3 , colored by Cp, on the four refined meshes
are found in Figs. 11–13. Using mesh B2, the same comparison is
made between the solutions using different turbulence models in
Figs. 14–16.
There are several flow features of note that are sources of the flow
unsteadiness. The first is a strong vortex shed from the main leading-
edge apex of the wing that travels aft and leads to a large area of
unstable and unsteady flow above the air dam and actuator pod. The
second is a vortex that is formed from the crossflow above the wing
over the air dam. This vortex also travels downstream and interacts
with the leading-edge apex vortex. The third is a vortex shed from the
crank in the wing, just outside of the air dam. This vortex travels aft
and outboard, and it interacts with the vortex system and wake from
the missile and wingtip rail. Note that the flowfield behind the air dam
is highly unsteady when compared with the relatively steady apex
and crank vortices.
Although all of the simulations captured the gross effects of these
vortex systems, the degree of unsteadiness captured is dependent on
the mesh refinement and turbulence model used. The smallest
meshes, including mesh C2 and mesh D2 (refinement tracking
variables of scaled Q criterion and vorticity magnitude) did not
capture as much unsteadiness as the largest meshes: mesh A2 and
mesh B2 (all-refined and refinement based on Q criterion). This is
particularly apparent in the top view of Fig. 12. Between the two
largest meshes, it appears that the solution on mesh B2 resolves
slightly more unsteadiness than the solution on mesh A2.
The difference between solutions with different turbulence models
is more striking. It is not surprising that the two RANS solutions
using the SA and SARC turbulence models do not resolve as much
unsteadiness as the DDES solutions, although it should be noted that
they both resolve the large-scale vortex motions and that the SARC
solution exhibits slightly greater resolution of the vortices than
the SA solution. The differences between the SA∕DDES and
SARC∕DDES solutions are not as apparent, although the top view in
Fig. 15 seems to indicate that the SA∕DDES solution resolves
slightly more unsteadiness than the SARC/DDES solution. Note that
the improved delayed detached-eddy simulation was not available at
the time the earlier work was accomplished [4].
The final volume visualizations to be discussed are presented in
Fig. 17. These are snapshots of the instantaneous solution visualized by
isosurfaces of the Q criterion at three different levels [1.0 × 10−3 (as
before), 1.0 × 10−4 , and 1.0 × 10−5 ], as well as an isosurface of the
vorticity magnitude at 200 1∕s. The high level of unsteadiness in the
flowfield above the aft portion of the wing is apparent. Thus, it appears
that the apex and crank vortices break down over the aft portion of the
wing. Note, though, that although this solution using SARC∕DDES on
mesh B2 does resolve the unsteadiness in the immediate vicinity of the
surface mesh, the amount of unsteadiness behind the aircraft is not well
 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS 9
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 11 Q criterion  1.0 × 10−3 . SA∕DDES turbulence model on various meshes: isoview.

Fig. 12 Q criterion  1.0 × 10−3 . SA∕DDES turbulence model on various meshes: top view.

resolved as compared to solutions using an offbody Cartesian mesh
capability of Kestrel, as shown in other work [15].
B. Tap Data Comparison
A quantitative comparison of the pressure coefficient data obtained
from the computational simulations will now be made with flight-test
data of the full-scale F-16XL. Slices in the X direction (fuselage
stations) and Y direction (butt lines) are compared and discussed in
each subsection that follows.
1. Fuselage Station 300
FS300 is a slice in the X direction that is 300 in. from the nose of
the aircraft. Figure 18 shows a slice of the average solution using
SARC∕DDES on mesh B2, as well as comparisons of the
computational solutions using all meshes and turbulence models.
Finally, a more detailed comparison of the amount of unsteadiness
predicted by the computations is obtained by plotting the average Cp ,
the standard deviation (or rms), and the minima and maxima of the
computed solution using SARC∕DDES on mesh B2.
 10 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 13 Q criterion  1.0 × 10−3 . SA∕DDES turbulence model on various meshes: side view.

Fig. 14 Q criterion  1.0 × 10−3 . Various turbulence models on mesh B2: isoview.

Pressure coefficient data are shown with respect to the location
along the cutline, in the spanwise direction, and normalized by the
half-span distance of b∕2. Data are shown from the centerline
(2y∕b  0) to the edge of the wing (2y∕b  1).
This location is characterized by a strong apex vortex, with some
smaller vortex structures toward the outer wingspan. The computed
solutions do not exhibit a large amount of disagreement, and they
agree fairly well with the experimental data provided. There are some
slight differences between the solution on mesh A1 (baseline mesh)
and the refined meshes at the outer location where the computed
solution overpredicts the suction peak of the smaller vortices.
It is evident from the minima, maxima, and rms of the computed
Cp data that there is significant unsteadiness at this location; although
the average of the computed Cp does not always agree perfectly with
the flight-test data, it generally falls within the standard deviation of
the unsteady data.
2. Fuselage Station 337.5
The computed solution and flight-test data for FS337.5 is seen in
Fig. 19. The Cp slice shows that the main apex vortex is still present,
with a smaller vortical structure coming from the outboard edge
interacting with it. The majority of the computational solutions are
in good agreement with each other, with the exception of SA/DDES
on the baseline mesh, mesh A1, and the SA turbulence model on
mesh B2. Again, there is some significant unsteadiness in the
pressure data, as exhibited by the minima, maxima, and rms; but,
the experimental data fall very closely to the rms limits of the
computational solution.
 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS 11
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 15 Q criterion  1.0 × 10−3 . Various turbulence models on mesh B2: top view.

Fig. 16 Q criterion  1.0 × 10−3 . Various turbulence models on mesh B2: side view.

3. Fuselage Station 375
Further aft at FS375 (375 in. from the nose), the smaller outboard
vortex has merged with the apex vortex, as shown in Fig. 20. A larger
negative Cp peak is seen in the computational data toward the
outboard section of the wing that corresponds to the flow over the air
dam. There are no flight-test data available at this location, but the
other data points fall close to the limits of the rms of the
computational pressure data. As before, the SA turbulence model and
mesh A1 show the most deviation from the experimental data.
4. Fuselage Station 407.5
At FS407.5, the apex vortex starts to lose some coherence, whereas
the air dam and wing crank vortices are starting to form, as shown in
Fig. 21. The computational data compare well with experiments, with
the exception of a single point inboard of the apex vortex. The
negative peak of the air dam vortex is captured fairly well (within
the rms limits). The SA and mesh A1 solutions both overpredict the
negative suction of the crank vortex, as compared with the other
computed solutions.
5. Fuselage Station 450
FS450 is the location in the X direction furthest aft at which
solution data are compared. As seen in Fig. 22, the apex vortex is
losing significant strength, whereas the air dam and wing crank
vortices are still very coherent. Smaller vortical structures are also
seen in the vicinity of the main vortex on the inward side, and upward
from the surface. There are some fairly significantly differences in the
peak suction pressure predicted in the air dam and crank vortices in
the different computational solutions; but, without experimental data
with which to compare, it is not clear which is the most correct. The
SA and mesh A1 solutions can be discounted as to their accuracy
based on previous cut lines considered.
It is significant to note the increased level of unsteadiness shown by
the pressure minima and maxima from the SARC/DDES solution on
mesh B2, especially in the outboard location. This is the area of the
flow where the air dam and crank vortices interact with each other.
Note that the data slice extends only to the outboard edge of the
main wing (2y∕b  1) and does not include the missile body or
missile rail.
6. Butt Line 55
Slices of the computed solutions taken along butt lines (constant Y
values) will now be considered. The first is FS55 (55 in. from the
aircraft centerline). As seen in Fig. 23, The main flowfield structure is
the main apex vortex. It appears that the solution on mesh A1
(baseline) is the only computed solution that compares well with the
suction peak of the experimental data. Given the poor agreement seen
at other locations, as well as the artifact near the trailing edge, this can
 12 Article in Advance
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045
Fig. 17 Isosurfaces of various solution variables, colored by Cp , for SARC∕DDES on mesh B2.
only be a coincidence. It is apparent, however, that the experimental
suction peak falls within the rms of the computed SARC/DDES
solution on mesh B2.
There is no significant difference between the different turbulence
models on mesh B2 for this particular case.
7. Butt Line 70
The solution at butt line 70 (70 in. from the centerline), seen in
Fig. 24, is characterized again by the apex vortex. None of the
computed pressure values quite resolve the suction peak, but the
experimental data fall well within the pressure maxima and minima,
and close to the rms limits. The rms limits demonstrate the significant
unsteadiness in the flowfield near the apex vortex.
8. Butt Line 80
All computed solutions agree very well with the experimental data
at butt line 80 (Fig. 25), even capturing the suction peak at the leading
edge. Although there is significant unsteadiness near the leading
edge, the average computed pressure values come very close to the
experimental data. However, there is some slight disagreement at the
trailing edge of the aircraft.
9. Butt Line 95
Butt line 95 continues outboard from BL80, and the solution
shown in Fig. 26 continues to show the apex vortex as it progresses
downstream and outboard. Again, most of the computed solutions
agree fairly well with each other and the experimental data, with the
exception of a region somewhat downstream of the apex vortex.
10. Butt Line 153.5
Although BL95 was inboard of the air dam and actuator pod, butt
line 153.5 is just outboard of them both. The solution is now
characterized by the air dam and crank vortices, as seen in Fig. 27.
/ LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS
There is also some significant unsteadiness above the wing surface.
This position has historically been a challenging location for
computational prediction due to the high levels of unsteadiness
caused by the multiple vortices.
It does not appear that any of the computed solutions compare
particularly well with the experimental data, except for the two that
have not shown themselves to be accurate thus far: the SA solution on
mesh B2 and the SA/DDES solution on mesh A1. All other solutions
do not appear to agree very well. However, the experimental data are
again within the rms pressure data of the SARC/DDES solution on
mesh B2, with the exception of one point near the leading edge. It
appears that this particular point could be on the lower surface, but it
is not clear where it is located.
11. Butt Line 184.5
The final slice of data to be considered here is taken along butt
line 184.5, near the wingtip, as shown in Fig. 28. The main flow
feature seen in the slice plane is the crank vortex, but its effect is not
seen in the computational or experimental data, which is fairly flat
along the entire wing surface from leading edge to trailing edge.
Although the pressure averages do not necessarily agree
completely, the experimental data are within the rms limits of the
computed unsteady data.
12. Spectral Data of Select Points
In addition to the surface pressure data discussed previously, data
were taken at several locations above the F-16XL wing during the
simulations. The spectral content of the data was analyzed using a
windowed fast Fourier transform with a Hanning filter applied to
each window. A window size of 2048 time steps with 50% overlap
between adjacent windows was used. The data were taken at each
time step of 5 × 10−4 s for 8000 time steps (4 s of simulation time).
The locations of the pressure tap data taken is summarized in
Table 2 and shown graphically in Fig. 29. Taps 1–9 of Table 2 are
 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS 13
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 18 Pressure tap data for fuselage station 300.

Fig. 19 Pressure tap data for fuselage station 337.5.

 14 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 20 Pressure tap data for fuselage station 375.

Fig. 21 Pressure tap data for fuselage station 407.5.

 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS 15
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 22 Pressure tap data for fuselage station 450.

Fig. 23 Pressure tap data for butt line 55.

 16 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 24 Pressure tap data for butt line 70.

Fig. 25 Pressure tap data for butt line 80.

 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS 17
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 26 Pressure tap data for butt line 95.

Fig. 27 Pressure tap data for butt line 153.5.

 18 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 28 Pressure tap data for butt line 184.5.

shown in Fig. 29, as well as taps 10–15. Tap 5 is the horizontal and
vertical center of the cluster of nine tap points.
The sound pressure level (SPL) of each of the apex tap points for
the computational solutions on each mesh is shown in Fig. 30. The
dominant frequencies in the unsteady data should appear as peaks in
the SPL plots. There is one peak at about 45 Hz that appears in the
solutions on all of the meshes, but it appears that the two largest
meshes (mesh A2 and mesh B2) seem to have some lower-frequency
content that does not appear in the solutions on the two smaller
meshes (mesh C2 and mesh D2). Recall that the smaller meshes
tended to refine cells in the area of the main wing vortices but not
elsewhere (although mesh D2 does have a refined prism layer near the
surface, whereas mesh C2 does not).
The data with the largest SPL value come from tap 5, which is the
center data point of the array of nine points near the apex. The data at
Fig. 29 Data extraction points. Main leading-edge apex points and wing
apex points are shown.

Table 2 Tap locations

Tap no. Location X, in. Y, in. Z, in. this point were plotted for each of the SA/DDES solutions on all
1 Main apex 196.8505 49.2126 94.4882 meshes, as well as for the different turbulence models on mesh B2, in
2 Main apex 196.8505 49.2126 98.4253 Fig. 31. Note that each DDES solution on the larger meshes has a
3 Main apex 196.8505 49.2126 100.3938 peak at about the same location. The RANS solutions and the DDES
4 Main apex 196.8505 55.1181 94.4882 solution on the smallest mesh (mesh A1) do not show peaks at the
5 Main apex 196.8505 55.1181 98.4253
6 Main apex 196.8505 55.1181 100.3938 same point.
7 Main apex 196.8505 62.9922 94.4882 The decibel value of the maximum SPL of each solution, along
8 Main apex 196.8505 62.9922 98.4253 with the frequency value, is summarized in Table 3. Note that all of
9 Main apex 196.8505 62.9922 100.3938 the frequencies are at about 45 Hz, with SPL values at around 145 dB.
10 Wing apex 452.7562 173.2284 94.4882 Although the solutions on the largest meshes have the same peaks, it
11 Wing apex 452.7562 173.2284 102.3623 is much easier to distinguish these peaks on the smaller meshes that
12 Wing apex 452.7562 173.2284 110.2363 do not have the lower-frequency content.
13 Wing apex 452.7562 181.1025 94.4882
The spectral content of the data taken at taps 10–15 for the
14 Wing apex 452.7562 181.1025 102.3623
15 Wing apex 452.7562 181.1025 110.2363 solutions on different meshes is shown in Fig. 32. There are no
apparent peaks in the spectral content at these locations.
 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS 19
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 30 Apex tap spectral analysis for SA/DDES on various meshes.

Fig. 31 Apex pressure tap spectral analysis for various turbulence models and meshes; tap 5.

Table 3 Maximum SPL for tap 5

C. Integrated Loads
The integrated aerodynamic loads in the form of lift, drag, and Turbulence model Mesh SPL, dB Frequency, Hz
pitching moment coefficients were recorded at each time step SA∕DDES A2 146 46
throughout the unsteady portion of the simulations. The values of SA∕DDES B2 146 43
SA∕DDES C2 145 46
each during the final 8000 time steps (4 s of simulation time) were
SA∕DDES D2 145 44
analyzed, and the average, minima, maxima, and rms values are SARC∕DDES B2 149 43
summarized in Tables 4–6.
 20 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 32 Wing pressure tap spectral analysis for SA/DDES on various meshes.

Notably, the lift values for each solution method, regardless of Table 5 Drag coefficient: average, minimum, maximum, and rms
mesh and turbulence model, agree fairly well with respect to the
average values. Additional scatter is seen in the minima and maxima, Turbulence
model Mesh CD min CD avg CD max CD rms
but they also agree fairly well. The unsteadiness of the solution is
measured by the rms values. Here, the RANS solutions showed the SA∕DDES A1 4.414E − 1 4.518E − 1 4.636E − 1 3.874E − 3
SA∕DDES A2 4.474E − 1 4.602E − 1 4.764E − 1 3.980E − 3
lowest amount of unsteadiness, with the SA solution’s CL rms value SA∕DDES B2 4.480E − 1 4.616E − 1 4.750E − 1 4.390E − 3
nearly one magnitude lower than the others. The drag predictions SA∕DDES C2 4.424E − 1 4.556E − 1 4.670E − 1 4.028E − 3
followed similar trends. The rms values for lift and drag were one to SA∕DDES D2 4.452E − 1 4.610E − 1 4.786E − 1 4.270E − 3
two orders of magnitude less than their actual values. SA B2 4.588E − 1 4.606E − 1 4.682E − 1 1.339E − 3
The pitching moment coefficient, on the other hand, showed a SARC B2 4.560E − 1 4.622E − 1 4.706E − 1 2.128E − 3
significant amount of sensitivity to the flow unsteadiness, with the SARC∕DDES B2 4.468E − 1 4.600E − 1 4.738E − 1 2.886E − 3
rms values only one order of magnitude lower than the average
values. The minimum pitching moment coefficient of many of the
solutions was negative, whereas the maximum of them all was

Table 4 Lift coefficient: average (avg), minimum (min), maximum Table 6 Pitching moment coefficient: average, minimum, maximum,
(max), and rms and rms
Turbulence Turbulence
model Mesh CL min CL avg CL max CL rms model Mesh CM min CM avg CM max CM rms
SA∕DDES A1 7.404E − 1 7.772E − 1 8.066E − 1 1.038E − 2 SA∕DDES A1 4.774E − 3 1.394E − 2 2.446E − 2 4.018E − 3
SA∕DDES A2 7.460E − 1 7.866E − 1 8.278E − 1 1.171E − 2 SA∕DDES A2 −6.412E − 3 1.129E − 2 2.836E − 2 4.928E − 3
SA∕DDES B2 7.504E − 1 7.918E − 1 8.254E − 1 1.287E − 2 SA∕DDES B2 −4.744E − 3 9.994E − 3 2.212E − 2 4.700E − 3
SA∕DDES C2 7.492E − 1 7.836E − 1 8.136E − 1 1.138E − 2 SA∕DDES C2 1.536E − 3 1.308E − 2 2.504E − 2 3.832E − 3
SA∕DDES D2 7.386E − 1 7.848E − 1 8.318E − 1 1.238E − 2 SA∕DDES D2 −2.072E − 3 1.094E − 3 2.396E − 2 4.154E − 3
SA B2 7.836E − 1 7.926E − 1 8.088E − 1 2.626E − 3 SA B2 3.076E − 3 1.030E − 2 1.416E − 2 1.086E − 3
SARC B2 7.738E − 1 7.920E − 1 8.144E − 1 5.806E − 3 SARC B2 −3.848E − 3 4.770E − 3 1.196E − 2 2.096E − 3
SARC∕DDES B2 7.492E − 1 7.864E − 1 8.244E − 1 1.366E − 2 SARC∕DDES B2 −4.868E − 3 1.163E − 2 2.648E − 2 5.222E − 3
 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS 21
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

Fig. 33 Convergence plots and spectral content for lift, drag, and pitching moment.

positive, indicating a large amount of sensitivity to the details of
the flow.
A spectral analysis was conducted on the integrated forces and
moments, using the same methodology as described previously for the
tap points in order to more fully understand the frequency content. The
convergence data and the spectral content for each of the solutions are
shown in Fig. 33, and the peak loads and frequencies are summarized
in Table 7. Note that the spectral content for the integrated loads is
given in terms of the force or moment coefficient power, which is
equivalent to sound pressure level for pressure spectra.
Interestingly, SARC/DDES on mesh B2 and SA/DDES on mesh
A2 give nearly the same spectral peak at about 12.7 Hz for all three
forces and moments (although SA/DDES on mesh B2 is slightly off
with the pitching moment). SA/DDES on mesh B2 produces nearly
the same frequency value, but with a slightly lower peak. The smaller
refined meshes, mesh C2 and mesh D2, do not produce the same
frequency content for the integrated loads.
D. Computational Cost
The computational costs of the simulations reported herein are
summarized in Table 8. The simulations were run on an IBM
iDataPlex with Intel Sandy Bridge processors and an Infiniband
interconnect. Table 8 shows the number of computational cores used
for each simulation; the total wall-clock time (in hours:minutes:
 22 Article in Advance / LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS

Table 7 Integrated loads spectral analysis (peak power and The spectral content of pressure data taken at specific points, as
frequency of peak) well as of the integrated forces and moments, was also presented.
Turbulence Again, the largest meshes, coupled with the DDES turbulence
model Mesh C2L ∕Hz C2D ∕Hz C2M ∕Hz models, showed the best resolution of frequency content.
SARC∕DDES B2 0.00588∕12.7 0.00201∕12.7 0.00152∕12.7
SA∕DDES A2 0.00545∕12.7 0.00186∕12.7 0.00153∕12.7
SA∕DDES B2 0.00469∕12.8 0.00159∕12.7 0.00141∕13.5 Acknowledgments
SA∕DDES C2 0.00344∕13.6 0.00117∕13.6 — —/— — The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the U.S. Air
SA∕DDES D2 0.00284∕13.8 0.000969∕13.6 — —/— — Force Academy and the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific
Research. Pre- and postprocessing were accomplished using the
High-Performance Computing (HPC) Portal to remotely connect to
the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) HPC machines. The
generous use of DOD high-performance computing resources was
Table 8 Computational cost of each simulation
indispensable to this investigation and was greatly appreciated.
Total Turbulence No. of Wall- CPU Relative Special thanks go to David McDaniel and Scott Morton of the DOD
Mesh cells model cores clock time hours cost Computational Research and Engineering Acquisition Tools and
A1 11.9M SA∕DDES 1024 04:01:19 4118 1.0 Environments Team, and Principle Developers of Kestrel, for their
A2 89.7M SA∕DDES 2048 15:04:47 30883 7.5 assistance in pre- and postprocessing the simulations. The views
B2 86.5M SA∕DDES 2048 14:38:55 30000 7.3 expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045

C2 56.8M SA∕DDES 2048 07:33:44 15487 3.8
D2 68.8M SA∕DDES 2048 12:03:07 24682 6.0
B2 86.5M SA 2048 14:26:56 29591 7.2
B2 86.5M SARC 2048 14:25:52 29554 7.2
B2 86.5M SARC∕DDES 2048 14:43:43 30164 7.3
seconds); the total CPU hours consumed (wall clock multiplied by
number of cores); and the relative cost, with the baseline cost being
that of the simulation on mesh A1.
Most of the simulations required approximately 30,000 CPU hours
of time, or about seven times the cost of the simulation on the baseline
mesh. Note that the computational cost is directly related to the size of
the mesh, and it only varies weakly with the different turbulence
models. It is evident that the larger meshes provide better results and
that there is minimal additional cost for a DDES turbulence model.
IV. Conclusions
Computational simulations of a complex, nonlinear aerodynamic
flow about the F-16XL aircraft at low-speed high-angle-of-attack
flight conditions were completed using the Kestrel flow solver on a
variety of meshes with several turbulence models. Two Reynolds-
averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) models, the Spalart–Allmaras and
the Spalart–Allmaras with rotation correction, were coupled with the
delayed detached-eddy simulation and used. Several meshes were
obtained by refining a baseline mesh using solution-based adaptive
mesh refinement. The solution variables used were the Q criterion,
scaled Q criterion, and vorticity magnitude. The meshes that gave the
best results, as judged by comparison with the surface pressure
coefficient data from flight tests as well as the unsteady content, were
the largest meshes. These were mesh A2, generated by refining all
cells of the original baseline mesh, and mesh B2, generated by
refining cells where the Q criterion exceeded a value of 0.0.
Generation of mesh A2 did not require any additional solutions,
whereas mesh B2 required an initial solution on mesh A1, but the
additional cost of computing an unsteady delayed detached-eddy
simulation (DDES) solution on mesh A2 was minimal compared to
the solution on mesh B2 plus the initial solution on mesh A1.
Therefore, the total turnaround time could be quickest by simply
refining all the cells of an initial, relatively coarse mesh.
As expected, the RANS turbulence models and the smallest
meshes showed the least amount of unsteadiness in the computed
solutions. The RANS turbulence models did not resolve any of the
turbulent fluctuations but only the mean flow properties, and so they
could not be expected to resolve the level of unsteadiness of a hybrid
RANS/large-eddy simulation model such as DDES. The additional
cost of the DDES turbulence models was minimal (on the same
mesh), and so should always be used for flow conditions with a large
amount of unsteady separation. The largest meshes, coupled with the
DDES turbulence models, showed very good agreement with the
flight-test data, especially when considering the unsteady rms limits.
official policy or position of the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Department
of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
References
[1] Obara, C. J., and Lamar, J. E., “Overview of the Cranked-Arrow Wing
Aerodynamics Project International,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 2,
2009, pp. 355–368.
[2] Lamar, J., Obara, C., Fisher, B., and Fisher, D., “Flight, Wind-Tunnel,
and Computational Fluid Dynamics Comparison for Cranked Arrow
Wing (F-16XL-1) at Subsonic and Transonic Speeds,” NASA TP-2001-
210629, 2001.
[3] Lamar, J. E., and Obara, C. J., “Review of Cranked-Arrow Wing
Aerodynamics Project: Its International Aeronautical Community
Role,” 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA
Paper 2007-0487, Jan. 2007.
[4] Morton, S., McDaniel, D., and Cummings, R., “F-16XL Unsteady
Simulations for the CAWAPI Facet of RTO Task Group AVT-113,” 45th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2007-
0493, Jan. 2007.
[5] Bertin, J. J., and Cummings, R. M., Aerodynamics for Engineers,
Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2014, pp. 404–414.
[6] Cummings, R. M., Mason, W. H., Morton, S. A., and McDaniel, D. R.,
Applied Computational Aerodynamics: A Modern Engineering
Approach, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2015, pp. 596–602.
[7] Spalart, P. R., Jou, W.-H., Strelets, M., and Allmaras, S. R., “Comments
on the Feasibility of LES for Wings, and on a Hybrid RANS/LES
Approach,” 1st AFOSR International Conference on DNS/LES,
Greyden Press, Centerville, OH, 1997, pp. 137–147.
[8] Spalart, P. R., Deck, S., Shur, M. L., Squires, K. D., Strelets, M. K., and
Travin, A., “A New Version of Detached-Eddy Simulation, Resistant to
Ambiguous Grid Densities,” Theoretical and Computational Fluid
Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 3, July 2006, pp. 181–195.
doi:10.1007/s00162-006-0015-0
[9] Morton, S. A., Cummings, R. M., and Cholodar, D. B., “High
Resolution Turbulence Treatment of F/A-18 Tail Buffet,” Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2007, pp. 1769–1775.
[10] Forythe, J. R., and Woodson, S. H., “Unsteady Computations of Abrupt
Wing Stall Using Detached-Eddy Simulation,” Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 42, No. 3, 2005, pp. 606–616.
[11] Jeans, T. L., McDaniel, D. R., Cummings, R. M., and Mason, W. H.,
“Aerodynamic Analysis of a Generic Fighter Using Delayed Detached-
Eddy Simulation,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 4, 2009, pp. 1326–
1339.
[12] Morton, S. A., “Detached-Eddy Simulations of Vortex Breakdown over
a 70-Degree Delta Wing,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 3, 2009,
pp. 746–755.
[13] Post, D. E., “Highlights of the CREATE Program,” 2010 DoD High
Performance Computing Modernization Program Users Group
Conference, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ, 2010, pp. 430–437.
doi:10.1109/HPCMP-UGC.2010.55
[14] Roth, G. L., Morton, S. A., and Brooks, G. P., “Integrating CREATE-
AV Products DaVinci and Kestrel: Experiences and Lessons Learned,”
50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 2012-1063,
Jan. 2012.
[15] Morton, S., and McDaniel, D., “Numerical Simulation of the F-16XL at
Full-Scale Flight Test Conditions Using a Near-Body Off-Body CFD
 Article in Advance
Approach,” 33rd AIAA Applied Aerodynamic Conference, AIAA Paper
2015-2873, June 2015.
[16] Godunov, S. K., “A Difference Scheme for Numerical Computation of
Discontinuous Solution of Hydrodynamic Equations,” Sbornik
Mathematics, Vol. 47, No. 3, 1959, pp. 271–306.
[17] Tramel, R. W., Nichols, R. H., and Buning, P. G., “Addition of
Improved Shock-Capturing Schemes to OVERFLOW 2.1,” 19th AIAA
Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 2009-3988,
June 2009.
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on September 25, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034045
/ LOFTHOUSE AND CUMMINGS 23
[18] Tomaro, R. F., Strang, W. Z., and Sankar, L. N., “An Implicit Algorithm
for Solving Time Dependent Flows on Unstructured Grids,” 35th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 1997-0333, Jan. 1997.
[19] Spalart, P. A., and Allmaras, S. R., “A One-Equation Turbulence Model
for Aerodynamic Flows,” 30th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit, AIAA Paper 1992-0439, Jan. 1992.
[20] Spalart, P. R., and Shur, M. L., “On the Sensitization of Turbulence
Models to Rotation and Curvature,” Aerospace Science and Technology,
Vol. 1, No. 5, 1997, pp. 297–302.