# kutta condition and separated flow in transient simulation

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

 April 19, 2011, 00:40 kutta condition and separated flow in transient simulation #1 Senior Member   Nick Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 126 Rep Power: 9 Hi, In my incompressible simulation of flow over naca 0021 ( using the GAMMA-Theta steady solver first and then switching to transient) I notice that the flow from under the trailing edge whips around the foil there and enters the separated region. It looks like this is a violation of the kutta condition. Has anyone observed anything like that? The AOA is 4deg.

 April 19, 2011, 06:41 #2 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 14,336 Rep Power: 110 What is a violation of the kutta condition?

 April 19, 2011, 07:12 #3 Senior Member   Nick Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 126 Rep Power: 9 The kutta condition dictates that the flow should leave the trailing edge smoothly but if the flow from underneath goes around the trailing edge to the top doesnt that negate the Kutta condition?

 April 19, 2011, 12:56 #4 Senior Member   Stuart Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 537 Rep Power: 16 Surely, that is how the airflow separates on the upper surface anyway at some angle of attack? By the airflow traversing from the lower surface and effectively "peeling" the boundary layer off the upper surface. So in order to do that the airflow must flow around the trailing edge and in the upstream direction to seaparte the downstream airflow. Keep this going and it stalls.

 April 19, 2011, 23:13 #5 Senior Member   Nick Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 126 Rep Power: 9 Thanks. I let the flow evolve and the flow under the trailing edge is leaving it smoothly and there's a separation zone above. Now I have another question (I think you guys are quite experienced and can help ) This is with regard to the currant (Courrant number- I hear a joke coming) . Is this number only important for explicit schemes? In my simulation I use the backward Euler which is an implicit scheme so does this mean this number is not important? Thanks in advance. Last edited by Nick R; April 19, 2011 at 23:57.

 April 19, 2011, 23:37 #6 Super Moderator   Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 14,336 Rep Power: 110 Well, before you ask about any strange flow behaviour please check your simulation is accurate, otherwise you are wasting everybody's time. Here are some tips: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Ansys..._inaccurate.3F Here is something with a high currant number: images.jpg I suspect you really mean Courant number. As CFX is an implicit solver it is not limited by Courant number. The Courant number can give you a guide as to what time step to use but nothing more. You need to do a sensitivity check on the time step size to find what time step size your model really needs.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post max91 CFX 1 July 29, 2008 20:28 Nicola Siemens 5 June 16, 2003 05:44 Jim Main CFD Forum 31 November 18, 2001 00:18

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48.