AE 3030, Project 3

Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of an Airfoil

By: Srishti Gupta

Fall Semester 2016

Introduction
This project report covers the questions proposed in the project description and analyzes the
NACA0012 airfoil section for Reynolds numbers 1185000. The associated flow parameters are
also mentioned. Along with this, a section showing the boundary conditions and physics models
chosen has been included. Finally a description of the generated mesh, meshing parameters and
the plot depicting convergence of the analysis has been included. Finally, the Pressure, Velocity
and Mach number contours with the description of the flow features such as stagnation points,
shock expansion fans, etc have been included. Finally, the agreement between JavaFoil analysis
and CFD Fluent Analysis has been included along with references and results from both the
softwares. The parameters chosen for NACA0012 analysis in CFD and in JavaFoil are the same.
This ensures that there is no discrepancy between the results. The obtained results will be slightly
different since the software used was Workbench 16.1 instead of Workbench 14, as taught in
class.

Method
After selecting the airfoil, the airfoil mesh to be used was created using PROGRAM.
This mesh was then imported into WORK PROGRAM and launched with Fluent. After
putting in the conditions required and following through steps similar to the tutorial,
convergence plots, drag polar plots and other desired plots were obtained along with the
values required. During the post processing phase, contours of static pressure, Mach number,
etc.
Results
I. Chosen Flow Parameters
The flow parameters chosen were discussed in class and according to that changes
were made in the final parameters. The matter of significance was keeping these
values, specially the Reynolds number the same for JavaFOIL and Fluent. This is
important as later in the project we will be comparing values and plots obtained from
Fluent with respect to the data obtained from JavaFOIL analysis of NACA 0012. The
operating condition of operating pressure is 0 Pa is also included. This value is
chosen as is the most convenient value for analysis in compressible flows. There is no
specific way to add Reynolds number for Fluent Analysis but we can get the required
value using equations:

1. Fluent Parameters:
The following are the flow parameters chosen in the form of the table.
Folllwoing the table, images depicting the point in Fluent at which they were
added for clarification.
TABLE I. Fluent Parameters
Parameter

Value

Units

Velocity

236.0762

m/s

Density

0.898489

kg/m3

Characteristic Length

1.0

Viscosity

1.7894 x 10-5

Kg/m-s

Specific Heat

1006.43

j/kg-k

Thermal Conductivity

0.0242

w/m-k

Temperature

283.239

Enthalpy

3926.412

j/kg-k

Operating Pressure

Pa

Reynolds Number obtained from above values is 1185000

The same value will be chosen in JavaFoil.
The following are the images from fluent for further clarification of the values
that were chosen and used.
3

Figure 1. Materials Parameters from Fluent

Figure 2. Reference Values from Fluent

2. JavaFOIL Parameters:
The following are the parameters chosen in JavaFOIL in the form of a table. The
Reynolds number chosen was the same as the one obtained from Fluent.
TABLE II. JavaFOIL Parameters
Parameter

Value

Units

Reynolds Number

1185000

NA

First Angle of Attack

-10

Degrees

Last Angle of Attack

10

Degrees

II. Boundary Conditions and Physics Models Chosen

The different boundary conditions and physical models chosen will be discussed
in this section. These were chosen in accordance with JavaFOIL values and those
discussed in class.
For Upper and Lower Airfoil Boundaries
The wall motion was set to stationary wall and no slip conditions were used along
with heat flux set to 0 w/m2 and heat generation rate also set to 0 w/m3. Gauge
Pressure is set to 73048 GPa, Mach number is set to 0.7. The flow direction
components will be 0.99963 and 0.02705 for an angle of attack for 1.55.
The model chosen includes Steady, Compressible, Turbulent Flow with KOmega values.
III. Mesh Analysis
5

1. Mesh Images from Fluent

The following figures depict the mesh analysis done using the Mesh option under
the Graphics option.
Figure 3. NACA0012 Whole Mesh

Figure 4. NACA0012 Airfoil Mesh

Figure 5. NACA0012 Whole Mesh with Nodes

Figure 6. NACA0012 Airfoil Mesh with Nodes

Mesh Analysis
The mesh sink is three dimensional parabolic curve. The aspect ratio of the mesh is
slightly higher than it should be. The nodes display shows shocks at the middle part
of the node.

IV. Convergence Plots

The following is the combined convergence plots. The all show that the results starts
converging around the same range of 500-600.
Figure 7. Convergence Plots

The above plot shows the different plots converge. This figure ws used to understand
how convergence worked across both Cl and Cd and it also depicts the convergence
history.

The following are individual plots for Cl, Cd and convergence:

Figure 7. Convergence History Plot

Figure 8. Cd Convergence Plot

Figure 9. Cl Convergence Plot

V. Contours with Analysis

1. Pressure
a. Contour Plots
Figure 10. Un-filled Contour Plot

10

Figure 11. Filled Contour Plot

b. Analysis
As we can see the pressure is lower on the upper surface while it is higher on
the lower surface. It is also very high right at the leading edge which makes
sense because that is where the flow hits the airfoil when it comes. This
mechanism of the airfoil helps it create lift. According to the values obtained
in Fluent, the minimum pressure was 47001.52 Pa and the maximum pressure
was 100987.1 Pa.
Velocity and Mach Number
a. Contour Plots
For Mach Number:
Figure 12. Un-filled Contour Plot

11

Figure 13. Un-filled Contour Plot

b. Analysis
The velocity increases significantly over the airfoil and is the highest near it. It
is lowest at the leading and trailing edges. The minimum M = 0.001037102
and the maximum is 1.104935. Hence it does go into supersonic flow regime.
VI. Experimental Data, JavaFOIL and Fluent Comparison
12

The following is a depiction of the JavaFOIL setup:

Figure 15. JavaFoil Airfoil Setup

Figure 16. JavaFoil Data Setup

1. Cp Comparison with experimental data

13

The Cp comparison of the airfoil uses the data obtained from the NASA AMES
Research Center [1] [2] as provided in the class notes. As we can see from the plot,
the plots for both upper and lower parts of the airfoil are very similar.
2. Cl and Cd Comparison
The Wall Y+ plot gives us Cd and Cl. The main plot is included below. The values
for both are Cl = 0.24355 and Cd = 0.0086325 for Fluent.
The JavaFOIL values used are for angle of attack for 1.6 (approximately 1.55) are
approximately Cl = 0.43355 Cd = 0.01684
The experimental data values [1][2] used are for angle of attack for 1.6 (approximately
1.55) are approximately Cl = 0.24123 and Cd = 0.008126
They are different but it makes sense considering its different software and different
methods. The NASA data is very close to the obtained data from Fluent. The
following images show the data obtained from fluent and Java Foil.

14

Figure 20. Y+ Wall plot

References

[1] T.J. Coakley, Numerical Simulation of Viscous Transonic Airfoil Flows, NASA Ames

15

Research Center, AIAA-87-0416, 1987

[2] C.D. Harris, Two-Dimensional Aerodynamic Characteristics of the NACA 0012 Airfoil in
the Langley 8-foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel, NASA Ames Research Center, NASA TM
81927, 1981
[3] JavaFoil Analytical Software Tutorials
[4] Fluent Tutorials

16