Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The analysis of the two dimensional subsonic flow over a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
(NACA) 0012 airfoil at various angles of attack and operating at a Reynolds number of 3106 is
presented. The flow was obtained by solving the steady-state governing equations of continuity and
momentum conservation combined with one of three turbulence models [Spalart-Allmaras, Realizable
k and k shear stress transport (SST)] aiming to the validation of these models through the
comparison of the predictions and the free field experimental measurements for the selected airfoil. The
aim of the work was to show the behavior of the airfoil at these conditions and to establish a verified
solution method. The computational domain was composed of 80000 cells emerged in a structured way,
taking care of the refinement of the grid near the airfoil in order to enclose the boundary layer
approach. Calculations were done for constant air velocity altering only the angle of attack for every
turbulence model tested. This work highlighted two areas in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) that
require further investigation: transition point prediction and turbulence modeling. The laminar to
turbulent transition point was modeled in order to get accurate results for the drag coefficient at
various Reynolds numbers. In addition, calculations showed that the turbulence models used in
commercial CFD codes does not give yet accurate results at high angles of attack.
Key words: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD), airfoil, aerodynamic coefficients, lift, drag, turbulence models,
transition point.
INTRODUCTION
The rapid evolution of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) has been driven by the need for faster and more
accurate methods for the calculations of flow fields
around configurations of technical interest. In the past
decade, CFD was the method of choice in the design of
many aerospace, automotive and industrial components
CL ,
Eleni et al.
101
u S m
t
(1)
u uu p g F
t
(2)
2
u u T uI
3
(3)
0
x y
(4)
102
yx
Du
p
xx
f x
Dt
x x
y
Dv
p xy yy
f y
Dt
y x
y
(5)
(6)
2
cb1
~~ 1
Dv~
v~
2
~
~
~
cb1 (1 f t 2 ) S v v v v cb 2 v c w1 f w 2 f t 2 f t1 U 2
Dt
v~
fw ~ 2 2
Sk d
~
S S
1
4
v~ v
v~ ~
1 v v 1
~ v 3 C 3
2d 2
v
v1
v~ 5
v~ 5
16
6
6
1 C w 2 ~ 2 2 1 1 C w3 1 C w 2 ~ 2 2 1 C w3
Sk d
Sk d
t2
d 2 g t2 d t2 , f t 2 Ct 3 exp Ct 4 v~ v2
f t1 Ct1 g t exp Ct 2
2
U
(7)
The Realizable
(8)
1 6
(9)
(10)
turbulence model
The simplest "complete models'' of turbulence are twoequation models in which the solution of two separate
transport equations allows the turbulent velocity and
length scales to be independently determined. The
standard k model falls within this class of turbulence
model and has become the workhorse of practical
engineering flow calculations in the time since it was
proposed by Launder and Spalding (1974). Robustness,
economy and reasonable accuracy for a wide range of
turbulent flows explain its popularity in industrial flow and
heat transfer simulations.
It is a semi-empirical model and the derivation of the
Eleni et al.
model
equations
relies
on
phenomenological
considerations and empiricism. As the strengths and
weaknesses of the standard k model have become
known, improvements have been made to the model to
improve its performance. Two of these variants are
available: the RNG k model and the Realizable
k model (Shih et al., 1995).
The modelled transport equations for k and in the
u j t
t
x j
x j
k
n
,n S ,S
C1 max0.43,
n 5
2S ij S ij
(13)
u
D
ij i 2
Dt
vt
x j
x j
k ku j t k Gk Gb YM S k
t
x j
x j k x j
(12)
u
Dk
k
ij i * k
k t
Dt
x j
x j
x j
1 k
t
2 1 F1
x j
x j x j
u u j 2 u k 2
ij u iu j t i
k ij
x x 3 x ij 3
i
k
j
(16)
(11)
And
C1 C3 Gb S
C1 S C 2
k
k v
x j
where
103
(14)
(15)
2 k 500v
F2 tanhmax
,
0.09y y 2
(17)
turbulence
The coefficients
104
1.332
1.331
1.330
1.329
1.328
1.327
1.326
1.325
Figure 1. Curve of lift coefficient at stall angle of attack against number of grid cells.
F1 1 1 F1 2 , F1 1 1 F1 2 ,
k F1 k 1 1 F1 k 2 , F1 1 1 F1 2
(18)
4 2 k
k
500
v
F1 tanhminmax
,
0.09y y 2 CD y 2 (19)
1 k 20
CD k max 2
,10
x
j
j
(20)
Eleni et al.
105
Figure 2. Mesh around NACA 0012 airfoil (left) and detail closed to the airfoil (right).
Laminar region
Turbulent region
CD
it meant that the simulated turbulent zone was larger than the real
and a new value for the transition point had to be chosen, righter
than the initial one. Respectively, if the
CD
CD
of the mentioned values results the correct xtr. The mesh was
separated with the xtr that was calculated in two regions as
mentioned earlier and the simulated results were closer to the
experimental data.
106
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
Figure 4. Comparison between experimental data from Abbott et al and three different
turbulent models simulation results of the lift coefficient curve for NACA 0012 airfoil.
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0.000
Figure 5. Comparison between experimental data from Abbott and Von Doenhoff (1959)
and Johansen (1997) for transitional boundary layer and three different turbulent models
simulation results of the drag coefficient curve for NACA 0012 airfoil.
stall angle.
Near stall, disagreement between the data was shown.
The lift coefficient peaked and the drag coefficient
Eleni et al.
107
0.040
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
Figure 6. Comparison between experimental data for fully turbulent boundary layer
from Johansen and three different turbulent models simulation results of the drag
coefficient curve for NACA 0012 airfoil.
since the actual airfoil has laminar flow over the forward
half. The turbulence models cannot calculate the
transition point from laminar to turbulent and consider
that the boundary layer is turbulent throughout its length.
From theory, the turbulent boundary layer carries more
energy and C D is much greater than at the viscous
boundary layer, which carries less energy. The
computational results must be compared with
experimental data of a fully turbulent boundary layer. This
was done only for C D as C L is less sensitive to the
transition point.
Johansen (1997) contained experimental data of C D
6
for the NACA 0012 airfoil and Re=310 , where the
boundary layer formed around the airfoil is fully turbulent.
Figure 6 shows the curves of C D for various angles of
attack, compared with experimental data for fully
turbulent boundary layer. The values of C D from the
three turbulence models were very close to experimental
data for the fully turbulent boundary layer. The most
accurate model was the k SST model, second came
the Spalart-Allmaras and latest in precision was the
Realizable k .
In order to get more accurate results, the computational
domain could be split into two different domains to run
mixed laminar and turbulent flow. The disadvantages of
this approach were that the accuracy of simulations
depends on the ability to accurately guess the transition
location, and a new grid must be generated if
108
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
Figure 8. Contours of static pressure at 3 angle of attack with the Spalart Allmaras turbulence model.
Eleni et al.
109
Figure 9. Contours of static pressure at 9 angle of attack with the Spalart Allmaras turbulence model.
Figure 10. Contours of velocity magnitude at 3 angle of attack with the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model.
Conclusions
This paper showed the behaviour of the 4-digit symmetric
airfoil NACA 0012 at various angles of attack. The most
appropriate turbulence model for these simulations was
the k SST two-equation model, which had a good
agreement with the published experimental data of other
investigators for a wider range of angles of attack. The
predicted drag coefficients were higher than the existing
experimental data from reliable sources. This
overprediction of drag was expected since the actual
airfoil has laminar flow over the forward half. The
110
Figure 11. Contours of velocity magnitude at 9 angle of attack with the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model.
Figure 12. Contours of velocity magnitude at 16 angle of attack with the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was co-financed by the European Union
(European Social Fund ESF) and Greek national funds
through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong
Learning" of the National Strategic Reference Framework
(NSRF) - Research Funding Program: Heracleitus II.
Investing in knowledge society through the European
Social Fund.
Eleni et al.
111
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
REFERENCES
Abbott IH, Von Doenhoff AE (1959). Theory of Wing Sections. Dover
Publishing, New York.
Bacha WA, Ghaly WS (2006). Drag Prediction in Transitional Flow over
Two-Dimensional Airfoils, Proceedings of the 44th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV.
Badran O (2008). Formulation of Two-Equation Turbulence Models for
Turbulent Flow over a NACA 4412 Airfoil at Angle of Attack 15
Degree, 6th International Colloquium on Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics
and Applications, Milano, 20-24 July.
ANSYS (2006). ANSYS Fluent 6.3.26.
Johansen J (1997). Prediction of Laminar/Turbulent Transition in Airfoil
Flows. Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark.
Launder BE, Spalding DB (1974). The numerical computation of
turbulent flows. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mechanics Engr., 3: 269-89.
Ma L, Chen J, Du G, Cao R (2010). Numerical simulation of
aerodynamic performance for wind turbine airfoils. Taiyangneng
Xuebao/Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica, 31: 203-209.