THE

UNIVERSITY
OF ASSIGNMENT 1
NOTTINGHAM
MALAYSIA

Khoo Chong Ming | 003218

Flow past a NACA airfoil test

1.0 Introduction

An airfoil takes the shape of a wing or blade. Its body move through a fluid produces a force
perpendicular to the motion called lift. There are many uses of airfoil. It can be found in
aircrafts, propellers, compressors and turbines. Airfoils are more efficient lifting shapes, able to
generate more lift and to generate lift with less drag. It is important to study the flow over an airfoil
especially in the design of planes.

2.0 Problem Specifications

Figure 1: Diagram of a NACA 4412 airfoil

NACA 4412 properties:

Chord Length, c 1m
Mach Number, M 0.15

Fluid (Air) properties:

Viscosity, μ 1.7894 x 10-5 kg/m3

Density, r 1.225 kg m-3
Boundary conditions

Reynolds Number, Re 6,000,000

Angle of Attack, α 6˚
Free Stream Velocity, u 87.6441 m/s
x-velocity of flow 87.16396 m/s
y-velocity of flow 9.1613 m/s
Inlet Static Pressure 101325 Pa
Inlet Static Temperature 288.16 K

Formulas:

Re=(ruc)/μ
U= (Re*μ)/(r*c)
U= (6000000*1.7894x10-5)/(1.225*1) = 87.64408
x-velocity = u cos α
y-velocity = u sin α

3.0 Design of problem:

In this case study of NACA 4412 airfoil, the airfoil mesh was downloaded from the web

Simulations are carried out using 3 different turbulence models, which are:

- K-ε standard Model

- K-ω Model
- Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)
4.0 Literature Review:

Figure 2: Lift and drag coefficient (Abbott et al 1945)

In this particular design, the Reynolds number used is 6000000 and the angle of attack is 6˚

From the diagram above, the lift coefficient (cl) and drag coefficient (cd) obtained were 1
and 0.008 respectively.
5.0 Results

RSM k-ε standard k-ω

Figure 3-5: Iteration plots

RSM k-ε standard k-ω

Figure 6-8: Lift coefficient plots

RSM k-ε standard k-ω

Figure 9-11: Velocity vector

RSM k-ε standard k-ω

Figure 12-14: Pressure vector

RSM k-ε standard k-ω

Figure 15-17: Velocity contour

RSM k-ε standard k-ω

Figure 18-20: Pressure contour

RSM k-ε standard k-ω

Figure 21-23: Pressure coefficient plots

RSM k-ε standard k-ω

Figure 24-26: Wall Y+ plots

6.0 Discussion

Velocity and Pressure Vectors

An airfoil works on the basis of Bernoulli’s Principle which stated that an increase in the speed of the
fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or a decrease in the fluid's potential energy.
In order to generate a lift, the pressure under the airfoil will be higher than the pressure at the
surface of the airfoil. Consequently, the velocity will be higher will be higher at the surface of the
airfoil. These were shown from both the velocity and pressure vectors.

Velocity and Pressure Contours

Similarly, the results shown conform to the Bernoulli’s Principle. Velocity is higher at the surface of
the airfoil and in the mean time, the pressure is greater at the bottom of the surface. These were
clearly seen from the velocity and pressure contours. Thus, the results obtained were consistent.

Lift and Drag Coefficients

The lift and the drag coefficient represent the changes in lift and drag as the angle of attack changes.
CL and CD are not expressed by any physical unit, they are rather absolute numbers obtained from
either wind tunnel tests or derived mathematically. Initially both CL and CD increase as the angle of
attack increases. At a certain point, the lift begins to drop while the drag increases sharply. This
point is defined as the critical angle of attack. If the angle of attack increases passed the critical angle
of attack, at one point all lift will be lost while the drag continues to increase.

Literature Value:

Lift coefficient 1
Drag coefficient 0.008

Results obtained:

Model
RSM k-ε k-ω
Lift coefficient 1.1746 1.11 0.9724
Drag coefficient 0.116 0.077 0.00676
By referring to table above, the literature value of lift and drag coefficients are 1 and 0.008
respectively at Reynolds number of 6 millions and angle of attack of 6˚. Comparing with the
data obtained, the best approach will be using the k-ω model. It has a lift coefficient of
0.9724 and drag coefficient of 0.00676. This is follow by the k-ε model and lastly the RSM
model.

Wall Y+

Law of the wall is the name based on findings, with certain assumptions, the mean velocity U in
constant-property turbulent flow near a smooth impermeable solid surface of negligible curvature
can be correlated in terms of shear stress at the surface, τw, the distance from the surface y, and the
fluid properties ρ (density) and μ (molecular viscosity). (Bradshaw and Huang, 1995).

The region near the wall can be divided into three layers which are:

1. Viscous sublayer, where molecular viscosity makes the flow behave close to laminar.
2. Buffer layer, where the laminar and turbulent properties of the flow are both important.
3. Fully turbulent layer, where the turbulent properties of the flow play the major role.

There are two approaches to the near-the-wall proble which are:

1. Wall function approach, where the flow near the wall is not solved, but given by a semi-
empirical function called ‘wall function’.
2. Near –wall approach, where the mesh is very fine close to the wall and the conditions are
solved all the way to the wall.

The values of Y+ are dependent on the grid and the Reynolds number of the flow, and are
meaningful only in boundary layers. The value of Y+ in the wall-adjacent cells dictates how wall shear
stress is calculated.

An airfoil come with a boundary layer, which forms a thin sheet adjacent to the wall where the
velocity is reduced from the free stream value down to zero on the wall. An wall function approach
is used in this case. A non-dimensional wall distance for a wall-bounded flow can be defined as:

∗
Y+ =

Where u* is the friction velocity at the nearest wall, y is the distance to the nearest wall and ν is the
local kinematic viscosity of the fluid.
Conclusion

From the 3 models used, k-ω has the highest wall y+ value, follow by k-ε and lastly RSM. The range is
from 700 to 1100. Improvement can be made to the results by generating a better mesh and refining
the cells adjacent to the wall.

3 different turbulence models were used in this test as different models will give different results.
Second order upwind was used in every model in order to get more accurate results. Convergence
criteria were set to 1e-06 as well for better accuracy. Based on the final results obtained, it can be
deduced that the k-ω model is the best approach to test this particular airfoil. The final results were
the closest as compared to the literature value. Even though it took the longest computational time
where 921 iterations were needed as compared to other two models (Figure 3-5), but it generates
the best results out of the three models tested.

References

1) Abbott, I. H., Doenhoff, A. E., and Stivers. L. S., 1945, Report No. 824: Summary of Aerofoil
Data, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Pg 399.
2) Bradshaw, P., and Huang, G.P., 1995. The Law of Wall in Turbulent Flow. Mechanical
Engineering Department, Stanford University.
3) Kivekäs, N., Riipinen, I., and Vuollukoski, H., Near-Wall Treatment for Wall- Bounded
Turbulent Flows.