|
[Sponsors] |
April 30, 2012, 14:05 |
NACA 0012 K-omega model
|
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 48
Rep Power: 14 |
Hello everyone,
I'm struggling to get a k-omega model to run a FLUENT simulation of a naca 0012. The 0012 is at zero degrees angle of attack, with a chord of 1 meter. The rectangular domain is a tet mesh whose inlet is 20 meters upstream and outlet is 40 meters downstream with the top and bottom of the domain at +/- 20 meters from the airfoil. It should be a big enough domain and a fairly simple and classic simulation. This sounds like a very broad question but how would I get the k-w model to produce good results? My understanding is that k-w has the potential to predict transition so could k-w run at a Re# of say 1.3 million by specifying the inlet velocity of 20 m/s? It doesn't seem to work when I tried it. The velocity contours show a low velocity bubble around the airfoil and then acceleration way downstream. k-w can also do compressibility apparently. So I tried running a density solver with the energy equation on, and the k-w compressibility option turned on. I used pressure-far-field conditions for the inlet, top and bottom of the domain (M=0.8) and a pressure outlet with a turbulent intensity of 0.1%. That solution diverged. Sooooo it should be a fairly simple simulation. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here. I was able to get a k-epsilon model to run assuming a turbulent Re# (about 4.8 million; inlet velocity 70 m/s). If I step outside of this regime,I would have to change models because my flow would not be fully turbulent, which is my whole motivation for trying to get a k-w model to run at both low Re# and compressible flows. One issue might be the turbulent intensity and viscosity ratio. I set 0.1% for the intensity because I read on cfd-online that's an estimate for intensity for external flows around aircraft/cars/etc. could be much less than 1%. I left the viscosity ratio as 10 and it worked out very well for the k-e turbulent case that I ran. Any ideas of how to get some meaningful results? Thanks! |
|
May 1, 2012, 14:41 |
|
#2 | |
Senior Member
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,665
Rep Power: 65 |
Quote:
It can, but that doesn't mean it's recommended. If you want best results with any CFD modelling, stick with incompressible pressure based solver unless it's required. whenever the density based solver w/ energy equation is used there is always the chance for the flow to diverge rapidly from having the wrong initialization. Your initialization has to be good, probably with a converged pressure-based solver solution. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Superlinear speedup in OpenFOAM 13 | msrinath80 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 18 | March 3, 2015 05:36 |
Drag and Lift coefficient (NACA 0012) | remi_fr | STAR-CCM+ | 17 | March 2, 2015 16:23 |
Naca 0012 validation, Cd value is too high. | Peter88 | OpenFOAM | 4 | January 21, 2014 16:10 |
How to import NACA 0012 Profile in Gridgen | maplepink | Main CFD Forum | 17 | May 7, 2013 13:01 |
NACA 0012 Case Will Not Converge | dancfd | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 6 | November 14, 2011 19:09 |