Investigation Into The Efficiency of A T Foil

Investigation into the efficiency of a
T Foil
Student: Amelia Nunn

Student ID: 611022
Lecturer: Dev Ranmuthugala
Subject: Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics
Course: Bachelor of Engineering (Marine & Offshore Systems)
Due Date: 27th of April 2011
JEE480-Investigation into the efficiency of a T Foil 2011
Abstract
This paper investigates the computational results produced by varying the Angle of Attack and velocity
on a scaled T Foil using ANSYS 12.1 CFX. The CFD data was compared to 2008 and 2009 tank data to
analyse its accuracy and relativity to true data. The coefficient of lift was found to be at around 13 degrees
at the lowest velocity and 12.5 degrees for the higher velocities. The results found that the T Foil is at
maximum efficiency when operated at an Angle of Attack of 9 degrees. Figure 1 summarizes the results
of the present investigation.
A secondary mesh was produced to investigate the varying results when the mesh is refined from an
initial 500,000 elements to 2.3 million elements. The investigation focussed on analysing the T Foil at a 0
degree Angle of Attack at four different speeds. The refined mesh produced a higher lift, smaller drag and
reduced moment when compared to the coarse mesh.
Figure 1 Wing Characteristics at 2.1 m/s
2 Amelia Nunn
Contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Nomenclature .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................. 6
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................. 7
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 8
2.0 Theory .............................................................................................................................................. 9
2.1 NACA Airfoils .............................................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Scaling......................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Turbulence model ....................................................................................................................... 14
3.0 Geometry ....................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 NACA foils ................................................................................................................................. 15
3.2 Rhinoceros 4.0 Model ................................................................................................................. 16
3.3 Domain ........................................................................................................................................ 18
4.0 Mesh ............................................................................................................................................... 19
4.1 Grid Independence Study ............................................................................................................ 19
4.2 Analysis Mesh ............................................................................................................................. 19
4.3 Refined Mesh .............................................................................................................................. 24
5.0 Setup ............................................................................................................................................... 26
6.0 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 27
6.1 Analysis Mesh ............................................................................................................................. 27
6.1.1 CFD Data .......................................................................................................................................... 28
6.1.2 CFD Data Calculations ..................................................................................................................... 29
6.1.3 CFD Data vs Tank Data .................................................................................................................... 30
6.2 Refined Mesh .............................................................................................................................. 32
6.2.1 Refined Mesh vs Analysis Mesh ......................................................................................................... 32
7.0 Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 33
7.1 Grid Independence Study ............................................................................................................ 33
7.2 Convergence ............................................................................................................................... 33
7.3 Stall Angle and Separation.......................................................................................................... 34
7.4 Y+ ............................................................................................................................................... 36
7.5 Pressure Development................................................................................................................. 38
3 Amelia Nunn
7.6 Vortices Progress ........................................................................................................................ 40

7.7 Lift, Drag and Pitching Moment ................................................................................................. 42
7.8 Analysis Mesh CFD Data vs. Tank Data .................................................................................... 42
7.9 Analysis Mesh vs. Refined Mesh ................................................................................................ 42
8.0 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 43
9.0 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 44
10.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 45
4 Amelia Nunn
Nomenclature
α Angle of Attack ˚
b0012 Wing Span of the NACA 0012 foil mm
b0015 Wing Span of the NACA 0015 foil mm
c0012a Wing Chord of the NACA 0012 foil at the tip mm
c0012b Wing Chord of the NACA 0012 foil midway between the wing span mm
c0015 Wing Chord of the NACA 0015 foil mm
CD Drag Coefficient -
CL Lift Coefficient -
CM Pitching Moment Coefficient -
D Drag N
g Gravity [9.81ms-2] ms2
L Lift N
M Pitching moment Nm
ρ Density of the fluid kg/m3
μ Fluid Dynamic Viscosity kg/ms
Re Reynold’s Number -
T(x) Thickness Distribution over foil m
S Wing Area m
V Speed ms1
5 Amelia Nunn
Abbreviations
AMC Australian Maritime College
AOA Angle of Attack
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
IGES Initial Graphics Exchange Specification
NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
6 Amelia Nunn
List of Figures
Figure 1 Wing Characteristics at 2.1 m/s ......................................................................................................................2
Figure 2-1 NACA foil (US Department of Transportation, 1980) .................................................................................9
Figure 2-2 Forces on a NACA foil (US Department of Transportation, 1980) ........................................................... 10
Figure 2-3 Typical Wing Characteristics (Abbot & Doenhoff, 1959) ......................................................................... 11
Figure 2-4 Stall - Separation of an Airfoil (NASA, 2011) ........................................................................................... 12
Figure 2-5 Pressure Distribution about the foil .......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2-6 Vortex pattern for a tapered wing (Graebel, 2007) ................................................................................... 13
Figure 3-1 NACA 0012a c=54mm ............................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3-2 NACA 0012b c=75.6mm ............................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 3-3 NACA 0015 ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 3-4 Perspective view of T Foil ......................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3-5 Top View of T Foil ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3-6 Splits in Horizontal Foil ............................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 3-7 Splits in Strut ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 3-8 Domain ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4-1 Grid Independence Study........................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4-2 Domain mesh at AOA 12 degrees .............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 4-3 Analysis Mesh about the T-Foil ................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 4-4 Splits through T-Foil ................................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 4-5 Inflated Boundary ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 4-6 Refined Mesh – Domain ............................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 4-7 Refined Mesh ............................................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 5-1 Domain Setup ............................................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 6-1 Analysis Mesh – L vs AOA ......................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 6-2 Analysis Mesh – D vs AOA ....................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 6-3 Analysis Mesh – M vs AOA........................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 6-4 Analysis Mesh - CL vs AOA ....................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 6-5 Analysis Mesh – CD vs AOA ....................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 6-6 Analysis Mesh – CD vs AOA ....................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 6-7 CD Vs CL - Tank Data vs CFD Data .......................................................................................................... 30
Figure 6-8 CD vs AOA - Tank Data vs CFD Data ....................................................................................................... 31
Figure 6-9 CL vs AOA - Tank Data vs CFD Data ....................................................................................................... 31
Figure 6-10 Refined Mesh vs Analysis Mesh ............................................................................................................... 32
Figure 7-1 Velocity Streamlines at AOA 0 degrees, velocity = 0.9m/s ........................................................................ 34
Figure 7-2 Velocity Streamlines at Stall (13 degrees), velocity 0.9 m/s ...................................................................... 35
Figure 7-3 Velocity Streamlines after Stall (16 degrees), v= 0.9 m/s.......................................................................... 35
Figure 7-4 Y+ AOA 0 degrees, v=0.9m/s ................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 7-5 Y+ AOA 16 degrees, v=4.4m/s .................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 7-6 Pressure @ AOA 0 degrees, v=0.9m/s ...................................................................................................... 38
Figure 7-7 Pressure @ AOA 13 degrees, v=0.9m/s .................................................................................................... 38
Figure 7-8 Pressure @ AOA 16 degrees, v=0.9m/s .................................................................................................... 39
Figure 7-9 Vortices @ AOA 0 degrees, v=0.9m/s ....................................................................................................... 40
Figure 7-10 Vortices @ AOA 13 degrees, v=0.9m/s ................................................................................................... 41
Figure 7-11 Vortices @ AOA 16 degrees, v=0.9m/s ................................................................................................... 41
Figure 7-12 Analysis Mesh – Lift/Drag vs Angle of Attack ......................................................................................... 42
7 Amelia Nunn
List of Tables
Table 4-1 Mesh Statistics of Analysis Mesh ............................................................................................................... 20
Table 4-2 Specifics of Analysis Mesh ......................................................................................................................... 20
Table 4-3 Mesh Statistics of Refined Mesh ................................................................................................................ 24
Table 4-4 Specifics of Analysis Mesh ......................................................................................................................... 24
Table 5-1 Velocity’s Tested ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 6-1 AOA’s and Velocities tested with the Analysis Mesh ................................................................................ 27
Table 6-2 AOA’s and Velocities tested with the Refined Mesh ................................................................................. 32
Table 7-1 Y+ Values ................................................................................................................................................... 36
8 Amelia Nunn
2.0 Theory
2.1 NACA Airfoils
NACA Airfoils are the resulting design of the Wright brothers’ first successful flight in the early 20th
century. Their design was developed after observing the lift developed over the curvature of a bird’s
wing. Through their initial research, the development of wings rapidly progressed resulting in the various
series’ of NACA foils.
The NACA four digit airfoil series was developed in 1933 after 78 airfoil shapes were tested in a series of
wind tunnel tests. Earlier in 1930 Eastman Jacobs of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
defined the following equation for relating the airfoil thickness to the airfoil chord length;
( ) [ √ ( ) ( ) ( ) ]
( )
The numbering system employed for the NACA four digit series is determined by the geometry of the foil
section. Hence, the first digit represents the maximum value of the mean line ordinate in percent of the
chord; the second digit represents the distance from the leading edge to the location of maximum camber
in tenths of the chord; and the final two digits represent the section thickness in percent of the chord
(Abbot & Doenhoff, 1959). Therefore, the NACA 00xx series represents a symmetrical section with
respect to the chord line. The cross-section of a typical NACA foil section can be seen in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1 NACA foil (US Department of Transportation, 1980)
The expectation of the NACA airfoil design is to deliver the maximum lift at a minimum drag. The lift
force, drag force and pitching moment are illustrated in Figure 2-2.
9 Amelia Nunn
PITCHING MOMENT
Figure 2-2 Forces on a NACA foil (US Department of Transportation, 1980)
Approximate calculation of the forces and moments, can be found using the Equations [1], [2] and [3]
below. The approximate values of the coefficients (if unknown) are found in Figure 2-3. Incidentally,
when the forces and moments on an airfoil are determined from Tank Data or simulation programs such
as ANSYS CFX, Equations’ 1, 2 and 3 can result in determination of the moment and force coefficients.
Hence,
Lift Force,
[1]
Drag Force,
[2]
Pitching Moment,
[3]
10 Amelia Nunn
Figure 2-3 Typical Wing Characteristics (Abbot & Doenhoff, 1959)
The coefficient of Lift is an important parameter as it indicates the point when the foil stops producing lift
due to boundary- layer separation. The gradual increase in flow separation can be seen in Figure 2-4.
Numerically this can be determined by plotting the Lift Coefficient against the Angle of Attack. The
Angle of Stall is found at the point went the Lift Coefficient proceeds to decrease. An example of this
phenomenon is seen in Figure 2-3.
11 Amelia Nunn
Figure 2-4 Stall - Separation of an Airfoil (NASA, 2011)
Separation characteristics are also found in the pressure distribution about the foil. The development in
pressure characteristics is seen in Figure 2-5. The pressure distribution about an airfoil is the foremost
influence on producing lift and drag on the foil. This is due to the air passing over the wing having to
travel further on the upper surface than the lower surface. Consequently lower pressures are created on
the upper surface and higher pressures generated on the lower surface which in turn generates lift.
Subsequently, as the angle of attack increases so too does the distance travelled by the airfoil which
increases the distance travelled by the foil, increasing fluid speed and thus decreasing pressure and
increasing lift. However, when the angle of attack increases to stall, the flow becomes turbulent and
initiates separation thus reducing lift but continuing the increase in drag (Swanson, -).
12 Amelia Nunn
Figure 2-5 Pressure Distribution about the foil
After the Stall Angle, vortices are found to form at the trailing edge and at the wing tip. As such, on the
trailing edges of a tapered wing, a rectangular vortex pattern occurs (this can be seen below in Figure
2-6). The rectangular pattern presented causes a constant downwash over the wing which reduces the
induced drag for a given lift and span (Moran, 1984).
Figure 2-6 Vortex pattern for a tapered wing (Graebel, 2007)
13 Amelia Nunn
2.2 Scaling
Reynold’s Number is employed as a scaling factor for geometrically similar shapes ie model and full
scale bodies. The non-dimensionless number can be determined from the following equation:
[ ]
Reynold’s Number was used as the velocity scaling method for the present investigation where the T Foil
was assumed to be fully submerged. The aim of this method is to conserve the viscosity rather than
produce wake – making resistance.
2.3 Turbulence model
The k-ε model is considered the industry standard when requiring both numerical and computational
accuracy. They solve the model by using the turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation rate. Wall
functions are compulsory in this form of turbulent modelling while the y plus value must be < 300 for the
wall functions to be accurate. Limitations of the k- ε model include; separation predicted at a lower rate
and inaccuracies within the swirling flow regions.
14 Amelia Nunn
3.0 Geometry
3.1 NACA foils
The co-ordinates for the NACA foil were imported as points into Rhinoceros 4.0. The points were
obtained from the Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Illinois (UIUC Applied
Aerodynamics Group , 2010).
According to Moran (Moran, 1984), 50 points are required for accurate airfoil geometry. Hence, to define
the NACA 0012, 132 points were imported, however, for the NACA 0015 only 32 points were imported
due to the limitations of points available. By importing such few points the accuracy of NACA 0015
geometry has been slightly affected.
After importation of the co-ordinates, the tips of the airfoil were rounded off so that fewer meshing errors
would occur (more specifically errors occurring due to sharp angles). Once the ends were rounded, Curve
Through Points was applied to create an enclosed foil. Since the t-foil involves a horizontal tapered wing,
two NACA 0012 sections were required with different chord lengths ~ 54mm and 75.6mm. Since the
NACA 0015 is in the direct centre of the tapered wing then the chord length of the strut foil was also
75.6mm. The geometry of the airfoils can be seen in Figure 3-1, Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-1 NACA 0012a c=54mm
Figure 3-2 NACA 0012b c=75.6mm
Figure 3-3 NACA 0015
15 Amelia Nunn
3.2 Rhinoceros 4.0 Model
Rhinoceros 4.0 was used to model the T Foil from the NACA foil geometries explained previously;
Figure 3-1, Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3
The T Foil specified was physically measured to enable accurate modelling. To capture the extent of the
flow characteristics the T Foil was initially scaled to 9% in Rhinoceros 4.0, however, it was later scaled
up to 54% (in ANSYS 12.1 Geometry) of the measured T Foil to improve the results produced in ANSYS
CFX Post. The dimensions of the T Foil can be seen in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-4 Perspective view of T Foil
Figure 3-5 Top View of T Foil
The horizontal foil and strut were individually modelled in Rhinoceros 4.0 for ease of importation into
ANSYS 12.1 Geometry. The horizontal foil was modelled using the two NACA 0012 foils (NACA 0012 a
and NACA 0012b). After being imported onto the same plane, two lines connecting the trailing edges and
leading edges were drawn; enabling the Sweep 2 function to be employed to create one surface. The
surface was subsequently mirrored and Capped to close off the ends of the foil. The horizontal foil was
16 Amelia Nunn
then Split as seen in Figure 3-6. The Boolean Union function was subsequently used to join the horizontal
foil into a singular Polysurface.
The vertical strut with the NACA 0015 was next modelled in Rhinoceros 4.0. The image seen in Figure
3-3 was extruded perpendicular to the plane of horizontal foil. After extrusion, the foil was Capped to
close off the open ends of the strut and subsequently Split (this is seen in Figure 3-7). After the successful
split the strut was joined using the Boolean Union Function.
Splitting the foil is an important modelling aspect as it facilitates the option of refining the mesh at the
leading and trailing edges which enables accurately capturing the flow characteristics.
Figure 3-6 Splits in Horizontal Foil
Figure 3-7 Splits in Strut
17 Amelia Nunn
3.3 Domain
The domain for the fluid flow analysis, found below in Figure 3-8, was constructed in ANSYS 12.1
Geometry. Due to mesh size limitations, Figure 3-8, is a symmetrical half section of the domain. Since
both the domain and T Foil are symmetrical, then splitting directly through the middle is possible.
The shape of the domain originated as a rectangle but as the front top and bottom edges of the rectangle
inlet do not assist with the flow characteristics then these were removed and replaced by a semi-circular
shape to save on mesh elements. The rectangle found at the back of the domain was implemented so that
the mesh size in this region could be increased to reduce the mesh size (although this feature of the
geometry was never implemented in meshing). Another feature of the domain is the inner cylinder which
contains the foil (seen in Figure 4-2) which assists in creating a fine mesh around the T Foil and flow
regions about the T Foil.
The domain size was determined upon using 11 x the maximum chord length (NACA 0015) for the flow
region behind the foil and 5 x the maximum chord length (NACA 0015) for the flow region; above, below
and in front of the foil.
Figure 3-8 Domain
18 Amelia Nunn
4.0 Mesh
The meshing method employed was CFX mesh in ANSYS 12.1 Meshing Application. A maximum
specification of 500,000 elements was required in completing the analysis of the T Foil. To precisely
determine mesh size, a Grid Independence Study was executed. With reference to Figure 4-1, the mesh
size required to produce an accurate results is at ~460,000 elements.
4.1 Grid Independence Study
2.75
2.7
2.65
Lift Force (N)
2.6 Initial Point of Convergence
2.55
2.5
2.45
2.4
- 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000
Number of Mesh Elements
Figure 4-1 Grid Independence Study
4.2 Analysis Mesh
The Analysis Mesh sizing was produced as a result of the grid independence study. Table 4-1 displays the
mesh size for an Angle of Attack of 16 degrees as this was the maximum mesh size implemented. An
overview of the sizing of the mesh is seen in Table 4-2.
19 Amelia Nunn
Table 4-1 Mesh Statistics of Analysis Mesh
Table 4-2 Specifics of Analysis Mesh

Default Body Spacing
Maximum size 30 mm
Default Face Spacing
Minimum Edge Length 3 mm
Maximum Edge Length 30 mm
Inflated boundary
Maximum Thickness 1.2 mm
Edge spacing (At trailing edge)
Minimum Edge Length 1.5 mm
Maximum Edge Length 6 Mm
Default Face Spacing and Default Body Spacing were used in defining the mesh in the main body
domains. The mesh in the cylindrical section was refined to concentrate the flow in this region. It can be
seen in Figure 4-2 that the mesh starts off coarse and is refined as it approaches the T Foil.
Figure 4-2 Domain mesh at AOA 12 degrees
20 Amelia Nunn
Figure 4-3 displays the concentrated mesh about the leading and trailing edges. The mesh has been
concentrated in these areas so that the vortices and areas of separation can be accurately captured.
Figure 4-3 Analysis Mesh about the T-Foil
21 Amelia Nunn
As previously explained the T Foil was split into sections to increase the mesh spacing in the areas of
interest. A detailed view of the splits with varying mesh spacing is seen in Figure 4-4. Face Spacing was
used over the split faces, while Edge Spacing was used at the trailing edge of the horizontal foil.
Edge Spacing
Figure 4-4 Splits through T-Foil
22 Amelia Nunn
An Inflated Boundary was applied to the entirety of the T Foil to remove sharp mesh angles. Referring to
Figure 4-5, the inflated boundary has ensured a satisfactory transition mesh for merging the T Foil to the
cylinder.
Inflated
Boundary
Figure 4-5 Inflated Boundary
23 Amelia Nunn
4.3 Refined Mesh
The Refined Mesh seen in Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7 was developed by reducing the sizing of the
analysis mesh by approximately 30%. The mesh size for the refined mesh is displayed in Table 4-3 for
an Angle of Attack of 0 degrees. An overview of the sizing of the mesh is seen in Table 4-4.
Table 4-3 Mesh Statistics of Refined Mesh
Table 4-4 Specifics of Analysis Mesh

Default Body Spacing
Maximum size 30 mm
Default Face Spacing
Maximum Edge Length 30 mm
Inflated boundary
Maximum Thickness 0.36 mm
Edge spacing (At trailing edge)
Maximum Edge Length 1.8 mm
24 Amelia Nunn
Figure 4-6 Refined Mesh – Domain
Figure 4-7 Refined Mesh
25 Amelia Nunn
5.0 Setup
The Domain Setup is constant for all mesh variations as it is seen in Figure 5-1. The Boundary Conditions
set are as follows; Inlet was set as ‘Inlet’, Outlet was set as ‘Opening’, Sym-Side was set as ‘Symmetry’,
T Foil was set as a ‘No-Slip Wall’, and the Top, Side Wall and Base were set as a ‘Free-Slip Wall’. The
turbulence model applied was K - Epsilon.
Top Side Wall
Inlet
Outlet
T-Foil
Base
Sym-Side Figure 5-1 Domain Setup
The model velocities applied to all runs are found in Table 5-1. The model velocities were scaled using
Reynolds scaling found previously in Equation [4];
Table 5-1 Velocity’s Tested

La (mm) 140 140 140 140
Lm (mm) 75.66 75.66 75.66 75.66
Va (m/s) 0.5 1.125 1.75 2.4
Vm (m/s) 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
26 Amelia Nunn
6.0 Results
6.1 Analysis Mesh
The Analysis Mesh tested a wide range of Angles of Attack which can be found in Table 6-1. The
extensive range of AOA’s tested was applied to accurately depict the exact point at which the Stall
Angle would occur. Hence at 0.9 m/s, Stall occurred at an AOA of 13 degrees while at the higher
velocities (2.1m/s, 3.2m/s and 4.4m/s), Stall occurred at an AOA of 12.5 degrees. Although a
maximum AOA of 15 degrees was specified, 2008 Tank Data (Jonathan R. Binns, 2008) revealed
that Stall occurred at 15 degrees, hence to isolate when the Stall Angle occurred it was necessary to
examine the angle after stall hence 16 degrees was tested.
Table 6-1 AOA’s and Velocities tested with the Analysis Mesh
AOA
(°) V [m/s]
0 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
3 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
6 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
7 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
8 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
9 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
10 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
11 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
12 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
12.5 - 2.1 3.2 4.4
13 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
14 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
15 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
16 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
27 Amelia Nunn
6.1.1 CFD Data
The following Figures; Figure 6-1, Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3 present the data obtained directly
from ANSYS 12.1 CFX Post.
80
70
60
Lift Force (N)
50
0.9
40 2.1
30 3.2
20 4.4
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Angle of Attack, α
Figure 6-1 Analysis Mesh – L vs AOA
25
20
Drag Force (N)
15 0.9
2.1
10 3.2
4.4
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Angle of Attack, α
Figure 6-2 Analysis Mesh – D vs AOA
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-0.5
Pitching Moment (J)
-1 0.9
-1.5 2.1
3.2
-2
4.4
-2.5
-3
-3.5
Angle of Attack, α
Figure 6-3 Analysis Mesh – M vs AOA
28 Amelia Nunn
6.1.2 CFD Data Calculations
The following Figures; Figure 6-4, Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-6 are the product of using the CFD
Post results with Equations [1], [2] and [3].
0.8
0.7
0.6
Lift Coefficient
0.5
0.9
0.4 2.1
0.3 3.2
0.2 4.4
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Angle of Attack, α
Figure 6-4 Analysis Mesh - CL vs AOA
0.25
0.2
Drag Coefficient
0.15 0.9
2.1
0.1
3.2
4.4
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Angle of Attack, α
Figure 6-5 Analysis Mesh – CD vs AOA
29 Amelia Nunn
0.2
0.1
Pitching Moment Coefficient

0
-0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-0.2 0.9
-0.3 2.1
-0.4
3.2
-0.5
4.4
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
Angle of Attack, α
Figure 6-6 Analysis Mesh – CD vs AOA
6.1.3 CFD Data vs Tank Data
A comparison between the CFD Data and actual Tank Data was produced to conclude whether
the results produced in ANSYS 12.1 CFD were accurate. The tank data was obtained through the
thesis “An Investigation into the Effect of Froude, Weber and Cavitation numbers on Ventilation
of Surface-Piercing T-Foils” (Emonson, 2009) and the report “The Effect of Heel Angle and
Free-Surface Proximity on the Performance and Strut Wake of a Moth Sailing Dinghy Rudder T-
Foil” (Jonathan R. Binns, 2008). Figure 6-7, Figure 6-8 and Figure 6-9 displays the Tank Data vs
the CFD Data.
0.3
0.25
Drag Coefficient
0.2
J. Binns et al
0.15
CFD Data
0.1 J. Emonson
0.05
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Lift Coefficient
Figure 6-7 CD Vs CL - Tank Data vs CFD Data
30 Amelia Nunn
0.3
0.25
Drag Coefficient 0.2
J. Binns et al
0.15
CFD Data
0.1 J. Emonson
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Angle of Attack, α
Figure 6-8 CD vs AOA - Tank Data vs CFD Data
1.2
1
Lift Coefficient
0.8
0.6 J. Binns et al
CFD Data
0.4
J. Emonson
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Angle of Attack, α
Figure 6-9 CL vs AOA - Tank Data vs CFD Data
31 Amelia Nunn
6.2 Refined Mesh
The Refined Mesh was tested at an Angle of Attack of 0 degrees at four different speeds (Tested
speeds can be seen in Table 6-2. The four speeds were tested to enable a distinct comparison
between the two mesh sizes.
Table 6-2 AOA’s and Velocities tested with the Refined Mesh
AOA ( ° ) V [m/s]
0 0.9 2.1 3.2 4.4
6.2.1 Refined Mesh vs Analysis Mesh
5
Drag - Refined Mesh
4
Drag - Analysis Mesh
Force [N]
3 Lift - Refined Mesh
2 Lift - Analysis Mesh
1 Moment - Refined Mesh
Moment - Analysis Mesh

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Pitching -1
Moment[J] Velocity [m/s]
-2
Figure 6-10 Refined Mesh vs Analysis Mesh
32 Amelia Nunn
7.0 Discussion
7.1 Grid Independence Study
The Grid Independence Study (Figure 4-1) revealed the instance at which the mesh was refined
enough to produce adequate results. The number of elements required to produce good results was in
range of the 500,000 elements specified – the maximum being ~490,000 elements @ AOA of 16
degrees.
7.2 Convergence
Convergence was seen in the solutions of a majority of the runs. Though, at an AOA of 16 degrees
with velocities; 2.1 m/s, 3.2 m/s and 4.4 m/s the results failed to converge. However, since all the
runs prior to these converged it was disregarded and assumed to be due to possible meshing issues.
33 Amelia Nunn
7.3 Stall Angle and Separation
The Stall Angle was found at 13 degrees for 0.9m/s and 12.5 degrees for 2.1 m/s, 3.2 m/s and 4.4
m/s. Stall occurred at a much lower angle then expected when compared to Tank Data results
produced by Emonson, 2009, and Binns, 2008 – stalling at 14 degrees and 15 degrees respectively.
This could have been due to a number of factors; however, a known disadvantage of the K-Epsilon
turbulence model is that the foil tends to stall earlier than the expected stall angle. Figure 7-2 visually
demonstrates the T Foil at Stall. It can be seen that the initial point of separation is occurring where
the strut is fixed to the horizontal foil. Figures’ 7-1 and 7-3 demonstrates the fluid trend before and
after stall respectively. The reduction in lift is evident as vortices can be seen to occur on the top face
of the horizontal foil.
Figure 7-1 Velocity Streamlines at AOA 0 degrees, velocity = 0.9m/s
34 Amelia Nunn
Figure 7-2 Velocity Streamlines at Stall (13 degrees), velocity 0.9 m/s
Figure 7-3 Velocity Streamlines after Stall (16 degrees), v= 0.9 m/s
35 Amelia Nunn
7.4 Y+
The Y+ values revealed in Table 7-1 capture the range of Y+ values found over a variety of the
Angles of Attack. When using k-epsilon turbulence models the maximum Y+ value should be no
greater than 300, however, it is revealed that at an AOA of 16 degrees at v = 4.4 m/s the Y+ value
equals 460. Hence, for the final angle and final velocity tested it is outside the range of acceptable
Y+ values. Figure 7-4 and display the T Foils which resulted in the minimum and maximum Y+
values found in the results (Table 7-1). Figure 7-5 displays that the highest y plus values occur on the
strut while Figure 7-4 shows very low Y+ values on the strut (the maximum occurring on the trailing
edge of the horizontal foil). The high Y+ value could be reduced if the mesh size along the trailing
edge of the strut was reduced.
Table 7-1 Y+ Values

Y+
AOA 0, v=0.9 55
AOA 0, v=4.4 240
AOA 12.5, v=4.4 269
AOA 13, v=0.9 60
AOA 16, v=0.9 108
AOA 16, v=4.4 460
Figure 7-4 Y+ AOA 0 degrees, v=0.9m/s
36 Amelia Nunn
Figure 7-5 Y+ AOA 16 degrees, v=4.4m/s
37 Amelia Nunn
7.5 Pressure Development
The pressure images produced (Figure 7-6, Figure 7-7, Figure 7-8) are in direct correlation with the
theoretical expectations found in Figure 2-5. It can be seen that there is an even pressure acting about
the foil at 0 AOA; at 13 AOA the maximum pressure is seen at the lower stagnation point before
traversing to the top as seen in Figure 7-8.
Figure 7-6 Pressure @ AOA 0 degrees, v=0.9m/s
38 Amelia Nunn
39 Amelia Nunn
7.6 Vortices Progress
Figures’ 7-9, 7-10 and 7-11, clearly identify the increase in vortices as the Angles of Attack increase.
It can be seen that even at 0 AOA the vortices have already began to form at the tip and over the foil.
As the foil reaches stall, the vortices begin to form at the trailing edge while the vortices at the tip are
further increased than that of 0 AOA. At 16 AOA the pressure distribution has translated to the top of
the foil which has induced large vortices acting midway over the foil – the point at which separation is
at its maximum.
Figure 7-9 Vortices @ AOA 0 degrees, v=0.9m/s
40 Amelia Nunn
41 Amelia Nunn
7.7 Lift, Drag and Pitching Moment
The Lift Force, Drag Force and Pitching Moment results found in Figure 6-1, Figure 6-2 and Figure
6-3 reveal that at the Angle of Stall - the Lift, Drag and Pitching Moment are at their maximum. At
higher velocities the gradient of the forces and moments increases more rapidly than when at lower
speeds. With reference to Figure 7-12 below, the Lift/Drag Ratio is at its maximum when the Angle of
Attack is at ~9 degrees, hence this reveals that the foil will be of the highest efficiency at an AOA of 9
degrees.
7
5
Lift / Drag
4 0.9
2.1
3
3.2
2
4.4
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Angle of Attack, α
Figure 7-12 Analysis Mesh – Lift/Drag vs Angle of Attack
The Coefficients were calculated using the force and moment data provided from ANSYS 12.1 CFX
Post. Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 reveal the Lift and Drag coefficients respectively. An obvious trend is
seen through the results providing evidence that the fluid simulation program was accurate. However,
observing the trends in the pitching moment coefficients seen in Figure 6-6; there is a definitive jump
at 13 AOA when the velocity is 0.9m/s. As mentioned before the T Foil stalls at 13 AOA when the
velocity is at 0.9m/s, hence the jump in Pitching Moment coefficient data could be due to the change
in pressures on the foil.
7.8 Analysis Mesh CFD Data vs. Tank Data

The comparison between the CFD Data and Tank Data (Figure 6-7, Figure 6-8 and Figure 6-9) reveals
a discrepancy between results but a comparable trend in data. The discrepancy is partly due to
different speeds tested. The CFD Data applied in the comparison was at a scaled speed of 4.4 m/s
while the equivalent speed for the tested data is 7.7 m/s. While this inconsistency hinders whether the
results can be accurately compared, the trend between the data indicates that the CFD data is accurate.
7.9 Analysis Mesh vs. Refined Mesh

The Refined Mesh was without element size restriction however the analysis continued to focus on
half of the domain. The mesh size was increased by about 1.5 million elements which highly increased
the accuracy of the results. A comparison between the analysis mesh and refined mesh is found in
Figure 6-10. A noticeable difference in drag force, lift force and pitching moment was found that there
was a greater lift, smaller drag and lesser pitching moment with respect to the analysis mesh.
42 Amelia Nunn
8.0 Conclusion
The CFD results were found to be in good agreement with the 2008 and 2009 experimental data
[ (Jonathan R. Binns, 2008) and (Emonson, 2009) ].
The Stall Angle was found to be at 13 degrees at a velocity of 0.9 m/s and 12.5 degrees at a velocity of
2.1, 3.2 and 4.4 m/s. Both stall angles were below the tank data results [ (Emonson, 2009)& (Jonathan R.
Binns, 2008)], however, this could be due to inaccuracies found with the k-epsilon model or
inconsistencies found within the mesh. A review of the Y+ values reveals that at the maximum; angle and
velocity, the Y+ value was outside the range deemed acceptable for the k-epsilon model i.e. > 300. The
Y+ value was found to be at its greatest at the trailing edge of the strut hence if the mesh size was reduced
on this edge, the Y+ value could be within the acceptable range and the T Foil might have stalled at the
expected angle.
The refined mesh enhanced the results produced to that of the analysis mesh, however, the results could
further be improved if the model wasn’t scaled to 54% and the entire foil and domain were analysed.
The development of the pressure distribution was in line with the theoretical expectation of Figure 2-5.
With reference to Figures’ 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3 the development of separation is clearly exhibited. The effect
of the separation can also be observed in the vortex regions in Figures’ 7-9, 7-10 and 7-11.
The T Foil was found to be the most efficient when at an Angle of Attack of 9 degrees due to the
Lift/Drag ratio being at its maximum. For the best performance in Lift the T Foil should be operated at 9
degrees.
43 Amelia Nunn
9.0 Recommendations
The major inconsistency found in the results was concluded to be due to mesh size and k-epsilon
turbulence modelling.
The author recommends the following:
 Develop a finer mesh at the trailing edge of the strut to reduce Y+ values and increase the stall
angle
 Investigate the results produced by other Turbulence Models such as the Shear Stress Turbulence
modelling
 Scale the T Foil closer to the actual size or do not scale at all
 Explore the possibility of applying winglets to the tip of the horizontal foil to reduce the vortices
44 Amelia Nunn
10.0 References
Abbot, I., & Doenhoff, A. (1959). Theory of Wing Sections. Toronto: General Publishing Company.
Emonson, J. (2009). An Investigation into the Effect of Froude, Weber and Cavitation numbers on
Ventilation of Surface-piercing T-Foils. Launceston: AMC.
Graebel, W. (2007). Advanced Fluid Mechanics. London: Elsevier.
Jonathan R. Binns, P. A. (2008). The Effect of Heel Angle and Free-Surface Proximity on the
Performance and Strut Wake of a Moth Sailing Dinghy Rudder T-Foil . Auckland: 3rd High
Performance Yacht Design Conference .
Moran, J. (1984). An Introduction to Theoretical And Computational Aerodynamics. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
NASA. (2011, 04 08). Introduction to the Aerodynamics of Flight. Retrieved 04 26, 2011, from NASA
History: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/f48.htm
NSIT. (2009). About IGES. Retrieved 03 26, 2011, from Technology Services:
http://ts.nist.gov/standards/iges/about.cfm
Swnason, D. Dr. (-). INTRODUCTION / ADAPTATIONS FOR FLIGHT . Retrieved 04 26, 2011, from
Biology 463/563 Ornithology: http://people.usd.edu/~dlswanso/ornith/lec1_2.html
UIUC Applied Aerodynamics Group . (2010). UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database. Retrieved 04 25,
2011, from UIUC Applied Aerodynamics Group : http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/
US Department of Transportation. (1980). Flight Training Handbook. Retrieved 04 24, 2011, from
Aviation Online Magazine: http://avstop.com/ac/flighttrainghandbook
45 Amelia Nunn

Investigation Into The Efficiency of A T Foil

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigation Into The Efficiency of A T Foil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigation into the efficiency of a

Student: Amelia Nunn

Figure 1 Wing Characteristics at 2.1 m/s

7.6 Vortices Progress ........................................................................................................................ 40

b0012 Wing Span of the NACA 0012 foil mm

b0015 Wing Span of the NACA 0015 foil mm

c0012a Wing Chord of the NACA 0012 foil at the tip mm

c0015 Wing Chord of the NACA 0015 foil mm

CM Pitching Moment Coefficient -

g Gravity [9.81ms-2] ms2

ρ Density of the fluid kg/m3

μ Fluid Dynamic Viscosity kg/ms

T(x) Thickness Distribution over foil m

AMC Australian Maritime College

AOA Angle of Attack

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

IGES Initial Graphics Exchange Specification

NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Figure 2-1 NACA foil (US Department of Transportation, 1980)

Figure 2-2 Forces on a NACA foil (US Department of Transportation, 1980)

Figure 2-3 Typical Wing Characteristics (Abbot & Doenhoff, 1959)

Figure 2-4 Stall - Separation of an Airfoil (NASA, 2011)

Figure 2-5 Pressure Distribution about the foil

Figure 2-6 Vortex pattern for a tapered wing (Graebel, 2007)

2.3 Turbulence model

3.1 NACA foils

Figure 3-1 NACA 0012a c=54mm

Figure 3-2 NACA 0012b c=75.6mm

Figure 3-3 NACA 0015

3.2 Rhinoceros 4.0 Model

Figure 3-4 Perspective view of T Foil

Figure 3-5 Top View of T Foil

Figure 3-6 Splits in Horizontal Foil

Figure 3-7 Splits in Strut

Figure 3-8 Domain

4.1 Grid Independence Study

2.6 Initial Point of Convergence

4.2 Analysis Mesh

Table 4-1 Mesh Statistics of Analysis Mesh

Table 4-2 Specifics of Analysis Mesh

Figure 4-2 Domain mesh at AOA 12 degrees

Figure 4-3 Analysis Mesh about the T-Foil

Figure 4-4 Splits through T-Foil

Figure 4-5 Inflated Boundary

4.3 Refined Mesh

Table 4-3 Mesh Statistics of Refined Mesh

Table 4-4 Specifics of Analysis Mesh

Figure 4-6 Refined Mesh – Domain

Figure 4-7 Refined Mesh

Top Side Wall

Table 5-1 Velocity’s Tested

6.1.1 CFD Data

6.1.2 CFD Data Calculations

Pitching Moment Coefficient

6.1.3 CFD Data vs Tank Data

Drag Coefficient 0.2

Figure 6-8 CD vs AOA - Tank Data vs CFD Data

6.2 Refined Mesh

6.2.1 Refined Mesh vs Analysis Mesh

2 Lift - Analysis Mesh

1 Moment - Refined Mesh