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

Simulation of NACA 2412 results from Theory of wing sections

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   April 17, 2020, 08:03
Default Simulation of NACA 2412 results from Theory of wing sections
  #1
New Member
 
Rosha
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 5
lami_nar is on a distinguished road
As a part of our project we are trying to simulate the results from Theory of wing sections by Ira Abott for NACA 2412. Our Cl values are matching the graph values for 5.7e6 reynolds number with standard surface roughness, but we are not able to do the same for smooth wall. Even though the default settings of ansys fluent are that for a smooth wall, we are only able to match the standard roughness values. We have tried improving the mesh several times to no avail.

Any insights into why this is happening will be appreciated.

Model- K omega sst
Reynolds number- 5.7e6
lami_nar is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 17, 2020, 10:49
Default Coefficients
  #2
Senior Member
 
vinerm's Avatar
 
Vinerm
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Nederland
Posts: 2,946
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 35
vinerm will become famous soon enough
Are you getting lower or higher than expected value?
__________________
Regards,
Vinerm

PM to be used if and only if you do not want something to be shared publicly. PM is considered to be of the least priority.
vinerm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 17, 2020, 11:21
Default Coefficients
  #3
New Member
 
Rosha
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 5
lami_nar is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinerm View Post
Are you getting lower or higher than expected value?
I am getting lower values. For eg. Max Cl from simulation is 1.21 and from the experimental value from theory of wing sections is 1.7
lami_nar is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 17, 2020, 11:44
Default Experimental Value
  #4
Senior Member
 
vinerm's Avatar
 
Vinerm
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Nederland
Posts: 2,946
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 35
vinerm will become famous soon enough
First of all, experimental values are not possible for smooth walls; there is always some roughness. However, if the roughness is smaller than viscous layer, then the effect of roughness is negligible. However, the difference you are observing is significant. Do check if you are using correct reference values in Fluent for determining C_l. If those are correct, then you should check your material properties and boundary conditions. If everything is good, then it would be very difficult to debug since the difference is too large to be numerical error.
__________________
Regards,
Vinerm

PM to be used if and only if you do not want something to be shared publicly. PM is considered to be of the least priority.
vinerm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 19, 2020, 06:45
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Rosha
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 5
lami_nar is on a distinguished road
Thank you for your inputs
lami_nar is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 23, 2020, 07:40
Default
  #6
New Member
 
Rosha
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 5
lami_nar is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinerm View Post
First of all, experimental values are not possible for smooth walls; there is always some roughness. However, if the roughness is smaller than viscous layer, then the effect of roughness is negligible. However, the difference you are observing is significant. Do check if you are using correct reference values in Fluent for determining C_l. If those are correct, then you should check your material properties and boundary conditions. If everything is good, then it would be very difficult to debug since the difference is too large to be numerical error.
Just to give you a reference, our values are matching the line marked with triangles ie reynolds number 5.7e6 having standard roughness.
But the settings in Ansys fluent correspond to a smooth wall (as roughness height is zero). How is it possible that the values of simulation of smooth wall match with value of standard roughness condition? Are these simulations acceptable?
Kindly find the attachment image
Attached Images
File Type: jpg theory of wing section.jpg (198.4 KB, 3 views)
lami_nar is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 23, 2020, 12:19
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
duri
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 245
Rep Power: 16
duri is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by lami_nar View Post
Just to give you a reference, our values are matching the line marked with triangles ie reynolds number 5.7e6 having standard roughness.
But the settings in Ansys fluent correspond to a smooth wall (as roughness height is zero). How is it possible that the values of simulation of smooth wall match with value of standard roughness condition? Are these simulations acceptable?
Kindly find the attachment image

Looking into the data suggest standard roughness has LE trip and probably smooth wall doesn't have trip. If this is true, try using transition model with laminar flow till some percent of chord.
duri is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 23, 2020, 15:48
Default Roughness
  #8
Senior Member
 
vinerm's Avatar
 
Vinerm
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Nederland
Posts: 2,946
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 35
vinerm will become famous soon enough
The effect of roughness on the flow is significant only if the roughness is larger than the viscous sublayer. Any roughness smaller than that implies smooth wall. So, you have to look at the thickness of boundary layer in your case and the roughness value. If the case is more or less smooth, then the results should match. If roughness is much more than viscous sublayer, then result match could also be due to the reason that the boundary layer is very thin and, hence, viscosity does not play much role and whole of the stress is due to turbulence.
__________________
Regards,
Vinerm

PM to be used if and only if you do not want something to be shared publicly. PM is considered to be of the least priority.
vinerm is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
fluent 19.2, naca2412, simulation.

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ffd_control_point_2d feiyi SU2 4 September 30, 2019 13:42
NACA 2412 airfoil fail with SST but works with k-Epsilon. What I'm doing wrong? CsabiH OpenFOAM 3 April 30, 2019 09:35
[ANSYS Meshing] Mesh for 3D rectangular wing of NACA 0012 Aerofoil brucewayne123 ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 0 April 25, 2018 03:14
Theory of wing sections experimental data. koalabryant FLUENT 2 August 3, 2015 10:07
Tabulated results from Abbott theory of wing sections bennn Main CFD Forum 5 June 17, 2015 10:53


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05.