Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Introduction
Airfoil geometry can be characterized by the coordinates of the upper and
lower surface. It is often summarized by a few parameters such as:
maximum thickness, leading edge , trailing edge and nose radius as shown
in figure 1. One can generate a reasonable airfoil section given these
parameters.
2. Objectives
The objectives of this project was to study the pressures
and performances of a NACA 4412 airfoil and compare it
with its real experimental results (a flying hot- wire
measurements).
Determining the characteristics, like pressure coefficient
and distributions along the airfoil.
3. Turbulence models
Turbulence modeling is the area of fluid dynamics modeling where a
simpler mathematical model is used to predict the effects of turbulence.
There are various mathematical models used in flow modeling to
understand turbulence.
4. Geometry
The geometry was done in Gambit software. I copied the airfoil data file
NACA 4412 from the NACA website. The airfoil naca4412.dat file looks like
this below:
Data file
61 2
0 . 0000000
0 . 0005000
0 . 0010000
0 . 0020000
0 . 0040000
0 . 0080000
0 . 0120000
0 . 0200000
0 . 0300000
0 . 0400000
0 . 0500000
0 . 0600000
0 . 0000000
0 . 0023390
0 . 0037271
0 . 0058025
0 . 0089238
0 . 0137350
0 . 0178581
0 . 0253735
0 . 0330215
0 . 0391283
0 . 0442753
0 . 0487571
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Figure 2 below shows the airfoil as it was imported into Gambit software.
How I did it? From Main Menu > File > Import > ICEM Input ...
Form File Name, browse and select the naca4412.dat file. Select both
Vertices and Edges under Geometry to Create: since these are the
geometric entities needed, deselect Face. Click Accept.
Coming to the data file above, the first line of the file represents the
number of points on each edge (61) and the number of edges (2). The first
61 set of vertices are connected to form the edge corresponding to the
upper surface; the next 61 are connected to form the edge for the lower
surface.
The chord length, c for the geometry in naca4412.dat file is 1m, so x varies
between 0 and 1.
NOTE: If
you are using a different airfoil geometry specification file, note the range of x
values in the file and determine the chord length c. You will need this later on.
6. Computational Mesh
I meshed each of the 3 faces separately to get a final mesh. Before the
mesh face, I define the point distribution for each of the edges that form
the face i.e. the edges was first meshed. The mesh stretching parameters
and number of divisions for each edge was selected based on three
criteria:
1. clustering points near the airfoil since this is where the flow is
modified the most; the mesh resolution as we approach the far field
boundaries can become progressively coarser since the flow
gradients approach zero.
2. Close to the surface, most resolution is needed near the leading and
trailing edges since these are critical areas with the steepest
gradients.
I did this because a non-uniform grid spacing will be used for x<0.3c and a
uniform grid spacing for x>0.3c. To split the top edge into HI and IG, select
Operation Tool pad > Geometry Command Button > Edge Command Button >
Split/Merge Edge
Make sure Point is selected next to Split Within the Split Edge window.
Select the top edge of the airfoil by Shift-clicking on it. You should see
something similar to figure 6 below:
Figure 6
I used the point at x=0.3c on the upper surface to split this edge into HI
and IG. To do this, enter 0.3 for x: under Global. If your c is not equal to
one, enter the value of 0.3*c instead of just 0.3.For instance, if c=4, enter
1.2
You should see that the white circle has moved to the correct location on
the edge.
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 8 above shows the zoomed grid around the airfoil from fluent
software.
Set farfield1 , farfield2 and farfield3 to the Pressure far field type.
Figure 9 below shows the convergence residuals plot for inviscid case
at design incidence ( = 15) and mach number ( = 0.05).
18.4 m/s
T = 298K
Spallart allmaras vt= 17.29 m/s
Figure. 9.
Figure 10 below shows the velocity contour of the airfoil at the leading
edge , the velocity of the upper surface is faster than the velocity on the
lower surface. On the leading edge. The fluid accelerates on the upper
surface as can be seen from the change in colors of the vectors.
Figure 11. shows the velocity contour of the airfoil at the trailing edge . On
the trailing edge, the flow on the upper surface decelerates and converge
with the flow on the lower surface
Figure 12 below shows the convergence residuals plot for Spalart Allmaras
case for lower mach number 0.05
Figure. 12
Figure 13 below shows the velocity magnitude of the airfoil with lower
mach number 0.05 for spalart Allmaras model.
As we can see there is high velocity on the upper surface of the airfoil near
the leading edge, this includes that there is low pressure at this region.
At the lower surface near the leading edge we see the stagnation point at
low velocity.
At the upper surface of the airfoil near the trailing edge we can see a stall.
A stall is a reduction in the lift coefficient generated by an airfoil as angle
of attack increases. This occurs when the critical angle of attack of the
airfoil is exceeded. The critical angle of attack is typically about 15 degrees
which was used in this computation, but it may vary significantly
depending on the airfoil.
Figure14 shows the wall pressure distribution (Cp) for NACA 4412, as
computed by the Spalart Allmaras model, inviscid case and compared with
the experimental results. Both case cases gives similar result on pressure
coefficient as in figure 14.
In general, the pressure on the surface of an aerofoil is not uniform. From
Figure 14 for = 15 it is seen that at this angle the reduction in the
pressure on the upper surface (suction side), in particular near the leading
edge, is the primary cause of the lift created. From x/c = 0.4 to the trailing
edge the value of Cp varies only slowly. As shown from the flying hot-wire
results (Experimental result), in the rear position of the aerofoil between
x/c = 0.7 to 1 there exists an intermittent low separation near the trailing
edge region. From the foregoing, the following conclusions may be drawn:
(i) At = 15 the lift is principally caused by the pressure reduction on the
front part of
the upper surface and to a smaller extent by a pressure increase on the
lower surface.
(ii) We can see that the S.A model and the inviscid case produces similar
result to that of experiment result.
2
1
0
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
Figure .17 : convergence residuals plot for Spalart Allmaras case for higher
mach number 1.5.
Figure. 18 below shows the contour plot of Mach number on the airfoil, as
we see there a shock on the upper surface of the airfoil at about x/c 0.2.
Stagnation point is at leading edge.
Figure.19: below shows the pressure distribution around the airfoil, the
lower curve is the upper surface of the airfoil, while the upper curve is the
lower surface of the airfoil. The lower curve have a negative pressure
coefficient as the pressure is lower than the reference pressure.
9. Conclusion
Compressible flow past NACA 4412 has been studied in detail using
a turbulence model computation(Spalart Allmaras). Computational
results are found to agree reasonably well with available
experimental data.
Conclusion can be drawn from the convergence of both inviscid
case and S.A model, for lower mach number 0.05 as shown in
figures 9 and 12 respectively. It is observed that we have better
convergence in the case of S.A model than that of inviscid case. The
reason is that there is unsteady flow around the airfoil for inviscid
case, whereby causing slow and bad convergence history.