|March 18, 2010, 14:02||
Comparison of experimental and CFD results for the VA-2 supercritical airfoil
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2Rep Power: 0
Dear Fluent users,
I am currently studying the supercritical airfoil VA-2 with Fluent in order to compare the results with some experimental data (drag coefficient, pressure distribution).
However I have some big differences between my results and the experimental data.
For my study, I am using:
- Spalart-Allmaras viscous model
- Pressure based solver
- angle of attack = 0.6°
- Reynolds number = 6 millions
My main worry is about the turbulent inlet I have to put in the boundary conditions (pressure far-field).
When I am using the Turbulent intensity and Hydraulic diameter (I have found the values of the wind tunnel) I get a drag coefficient of 0.0205 instead of 0.0101.
When I am usins Turbulent intensity and Turbulent length scale, I get a drag coefficient of 0.0134.
I don't know how to explain this difference particularly for the first one.
Moreover when I am looking at my pressure distribution, I get a weak shock and I am not supposed to get one according to experimental data.
I hope it is enough clear as I am non-native English speaker.
If you need any other information or graph, ask me!!
|March 8, 2016, 15:15||
Amar Fayyad K.A
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1Rep Power: 0
Since the Mach Number you deal is 0.75 over a super-critical aerofoil such as VA 2, you should be considering density based solver rather than pressure based solver in order to accommodate compressibility effects.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Is it worth it?||Jason Bardis||Main CFD Forum||47||July 27, 2011 04:52|
|CFD vs Experimetal Results for Aerofoil||aceofharts414||Main CFD Forum||0||April 22, 2009 07:14|
|validation of CFD results||andy||FLUENT||0||June 13, 2007 13:55|
|HELP! Experimental & numerical results don't agree||Jenny Rollo||FLUENT||5||April 23, 2006 14:12|
|Experimental Results of flow over a cylinder||dhandapani.s||CD-adapco||0||August 25, 2003 06:12|