CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS > FLUENT

Can't seem to get the correct cl and cd values

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   January 14, 2020, 05:31
Default Can't seem to get the correct cl and cd values
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 3
NonStopEagle is on a distinguished road
Hey guys,
I am trying to simulate a NACA 0015 airfoil in ansys fluent. I just cant seem to get the correct cl and cd values. I think my mesh is fine, the y+ values are equal to or less than 1. I am using the k-omega SST model. Any ideas what might be going wrong?
the airfoil chord is 0.4 m and I have input this value in the reference area section of the reference values. I am running a pressure based simulation, with a velocity inlet( vel = 11 m/s) and a pressure outlet. The simulation is unsteady and I stop the simulation when I start getting the same cl values across 5-6 timesteps.
Please tell me why I am not getting the right cl and cd values.

NonStopEagle
NonStopEagle is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 16, 2020, 06:01
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Arnie
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 6
arnie333 is on a distinguished road
Two quick questions...

1. Are you comparing your analysis values to the experimental values at similar velocity (Re number) ? - recall that Cd and Cl are dependent on velocity
2. have you confirmed that your geometry was imported at the correct scale ?

Last edited by arnie333; January 16, 2020 at 07:05.
arnie333 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 17, 2020, 15:05
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 3
NonStopEagle is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie333 View Post
Two quick questions...

1. Are you comparing your analysis values to the experimental values at similar velocity (Re number) ? - recall that Cd and Cl are dependent on velocity
2. have you confirmed that your geometry was imported at the correct scale ?
Thanks for the reply arnie333,
yes, the Reynolds number for my simulation is 300000, accordingly, the chord length is 0.4m and the velocity at inlet is about 11 m/s.
I imported the geometry such that the chord was 1m, I then scaled the geometry down in fluent by a scaling factor of 0.4

NonStopEagle
NonStopEagle is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 18, 2020, 06:58
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Arnie
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 6
arnie333 is on a distinguished road
1. You don't say how much different your analysis results Cd & Cl are from experiment ... are you a few % out or orders of magnitude ?
2. Are you analysing a 2D or 3D case ?
3. Are you running a steady state or transient analysis ?
4. If steady state, have you tried with "Pseudo Transient" ON and OFF
5. Have you tried reducing your "Timescale Factor' or/and your "relaxation Factors"
6. You say its "unsteady"... perhaps run a transient analysis, if not done so already. Reduce the cell size from the training edge going downstream for at least 5 chord lengths
7. I assume that you have checked cell Skewness and Orthogonality and these are within the recommended values !?
8. Are you using Double Precision ?
9. Have you changed your 'Turbulent Kinetic Energy' and 'Specific Dissipation Rate' to 2nd Order ?
arnie333 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 22, 2020, 14:10
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 3
NonStopEagle is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie333 View Post
1. You don't say how much different your analysis results Cd & Cl are from experiment ... are you a few % out or orders of magnitude ?
2. Are you analysing a 2D or 3D case ?
3. Are you running a steady state or transient analysis ?
4. If steady state, have you tried with "Pseudo Transient" ON and OFF
5. Have you tried reducing your "Timescale Factor' or/and your "relaxation Factors"
6. You say its "unsteady"... perhaps run a transient analysis, if not done so already. Reduce the cell size from the training edge going downstream for at least 5 chord lengths
7. I assume that you have checked cell Skewness and Orthogonality and these are within the recommended values !?
8. Are you using Double Precision ?
9. Have you changed your 'Turbulent Kinetic Energy' and 'Specific Dissipation Rate' to 2nd Order ?
Hi arnie333,
sorry for the late reply.
1. I am having trouble getting the correct values at high AoA(s) where flow separation occurs. While the lift differs from the experimental values by about 34% the drag can be differ by an order of 2 sometimes.
2. I am running a 2D simulation.
3. I run a steady simulation initially and after the residuals have stabilised, I switch over to a transient simulation and wait till the cl and cd values become constant.
4. I don't really have any convergence issues so to say, so I don't think changing the relaxation factors will do me any good.
5. I have kept the pressure outlet sufficiently far so as to eliminate the effects of the boundary condition imposed there.
6. I am indeed running on double precision.
7. The order of discretisation for all the quantities(except pressure) is third order MUSCL.
Do you have any idea what i can do to get accurate values after the flow seperation happens. also, i have noted that at specific AoA(s) there is vortex shedding from the airfoil, due to which the cl and cd oscillate. Under such condition how do i get a single value of cl and cd which i can compare with the experimental data i have?

thanks in advance

NonStopEagle
NonStopEagle is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 22, 2020, 14:19
Default
  #6
New Member
 
Arnie
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 6
arnie333 is on a distinguished road
In your Cd calculations, are you considering the change in your frontal area (perpendicular to airflow) due to your change in AoA ?

In your Cl calculations, are you considering that your lift is perpendicular to the airfoil and not vertical ?
arnie333 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 22, 2020, 14:24
Default
  #7
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 24
Rep Power: 3
NonStopEagle is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnie333 View Post
In your Cd calculations, are you considering the change in your frontal area (perpendicular to airflow) due to your change in AoA ?

In your Cl calculations, are you considering that your lift is perpendicular to the airfoil and not vertical ?
hi arnie333,
i am using the fluent force report to print out the cl and cd values. Since I rotate the entire mesh(domain) to a specific AoA, I think its the right thing to do?
Also the lift, as far as i know is perpendicular to the free stream flow and drag is parallel the the free stream. Perhaps you're confusing the normal and axial forces to lift and drag?
with regards to the change in frontal area, I believe ansys does that when we specify the direction along which the forces and coefficients are to be evaluated.

thanks

NonStopEagle
NonStopEagle is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 22, 2020, 14:42
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Arnie
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 23
Rep Power: 6
arnie333 is on a distinguished road
Cd: To my knowledge, the Reference Area is not updated by rotating the fluid/mesh domain. You can go to Reports->Projected Areas and compute in the direction (frontal) you need.
Cl: For the lift (with AoA) I am not 100% sure, but I would think that you would need to enter the Cartesian components of your angle - just enter these in the Cl Monitor report X & Y (2D) for fluent to calculate automatically....try it and let us know.
arnie333 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
airfoil 2d, fluent, lift and drag calculation

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:27.