CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > CFX

turbulence models and lift coefficient for naca 0021

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   March 2, 2011, 07:09
Default turbulence models and lift coefficient for naca 0021
  #1
Senior Member
 
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 110
Rep Power: 5
Nick R is on a distinguished road
Hi guys,


I'm modelling flow around NACA OO21 using cfx. The Reynolds number is 120,000. My main problem is that SST gives me a much lower lift coefficient than expected (about 0.3 less) compared to experimental data. The K-epsilon model is a little better but not that accurate either.
My mesh which is structured is created in ICEM and the yplus is lower than one in cfx contours on the foil's surface.
The angle of attack is 10 but for lower angles there's still that discrepency.
I wonder if you can suggest ways to improve the results. What turbulence model and settings or solver control parameters would you recommend I try. Please let me know if there's any important parameter that would impact lift. Many thanks.
Nick R is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 4, 2011, 00:02
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 100
Rep Power: 7
alastormoody11 is on a distinguished road
hi,

you might want to check whether your wall y plus values are within the recommended ranges, if not you need to modify your mesh and then rerun your simulation.

Also since you desire to extract the lift coefficient from your simulation you need to plot against the iterations and ensure the variation in the lift coefficient is within reasonable limits when your convergence criterion are met which I am guessing, you are using the default values.

Also you might want to check the refernce pressure from which Cl is calculated.
alastormoody11 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 4, 2011, 01:09
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 110
Rep Power: 5
Nick R is on a distinguished road
Thanks for the response. I calculate lift coefficient once the solution has converged using the force option in post. But if you're suggesting I monitor my forces then I'll do that.
I was also thinking perhaps I should use a "transitional model" but I'm not familiar with the option. The default setting for onset Reynold is 260. Should this be changed? Is this sufficient?
Also what do you think about switching to a transient model instead of a steady one. I'm quite inexperienced so it would be good to know what's worked for others before. Thanks again.
Nick R is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 4, 2011, 04:14
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 100
Rep Power: 7
alastormoody11 is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I was suggesting that you use the variation of Cl as it would be a better indicator of convergence, since it might be a good idea to iterate the solution till the residuals quiet low compared to the set defaults.

You can also the check the same using the vertical force, but I think you can also monitor Cl if you create a CEL expression in CFX pre, check that when the solution converges(acc. to default values) whether the Cl or forces are still oscillating over a large range, if so iterate it further till the variations drop to within an acceptable range. Also you should refer the convergence criterion section on CFD -wiki.

Also monitor the force variation wrt time if the variation is periodic, then your case is transient, but I think your case is steady. I had simulated a NACA0018 airfoil, and had got reasonably accurate values for Cl using a steady state approach.

Most importantly check whether your wall y plus values are in accordance with the recommended values stated for your chosen turbulence models.

I would not recommend using the transition model until you have run out of options, and changing the threshold value for Re would be a bad idea.
alastormoody11 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 6, 2011, 17:09
Default
  #5
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 9,225
Rep Power: 74
ghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura aboutghorrocks has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Most importantly check whether your wall y plus values are in accordance with the recommended values stated for your chosen turbulence models.
A better and more general approach is to do a sensitivity study of mesh y+ versus lift, drag or whatever is important to you. Simply obtaining some arbitrary y+ target is not alway sufficient.
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 8, 2011, 02:21
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 110
Rep Power: 5
Nick R is on a distinguished road
Thanks. I'll keep trying!

Last edited by Nick R; March 22, 2011 at 02:14.
Nick R is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Zero Coefficient of Lift Problem MH FLUENT 0 February 25, 2007 11:48
about compresive phase James CFX 10 September 12, 2006 03:16
Turbulence Models Meri CFX 3 July 27, 2005 03:40
Lift prediction in turbulent models BART FLUENT 3 April 14, 2004 01:15
turbulence models - lift and drag dave harbage FLUENT 2 April 2, 2003 05:27


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:02.