CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

Inviscid Flow Low Lift

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   December 31, 2015, 09:27
Default Inviscid Flow Low Lift
  #1
New Member
 
Erdem Eskioglu
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 3
ErdemEskioglu is on a distinguished road
Sponsored Links
Hello,

I'm analysing an aircraft in FLUENT to compare results with the experimental results. But first, I'm doing the wing only analysis in inviscid model to see if I'm doing right or not.

Profile: NACA 0015
Chord: 0.133 m
Span: 0.54 m
Re: 335000
Model: Inviscid

I am getting lower Lift Coefficients for NACA 0015 Wing at about same reynolds number than the experimental Lift Coefficient.
Isn't it wrong? My model is inviscid so there is no viscous effect no boundary layer and no Lift Loss due to viscosity.
I expected higher Lift Coefficient than experimental in no-stall region at different angle of attacks.
What am I doing wrong. Can you help me?

Best regards,
Erdem
ErdemEskioglu is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Old   December 31, 2015, 09:37
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,409
Rep Power: 39
FMDenaro will become famous soon enoughFMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErdemEskioglu View Post
Hello,

I'm analysing an aircraft in FLUENT to compare results with the experimental results. But first, I'm doing the wing only analysis in inviscid model to see if I'm doing right or not.

Profile: NACA 0015
Chord: 0.133 m
Span: 0.54 m
Re: 335000
Model: Inviscid

I am getting lower Lift Coefficients for NACA 0015 Wing at about same reynolds number than the experimental Lift Coefficient.
Isn't it wrong? My model is inviscid so there is no viscous effect no boundary layer and no Lift Loss due to viscosity.
I expected higher Lift Coefficient than experimental in no-stall region at different angle of attacks.
What am I doing wrong. Can you help me?

Best regards,
Erdem

what do you mean?
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   December 31, 2015, 09:40
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Erdem Eskioglu
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 3
ErdemEskioglu is on a distinguished road
My analysis reynolds number = 335000
NACA0015 Experiment results for reynolds number = 360000
My analysis and experimental reynolds number are close to each other
ErdemEskioglu is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 31, 2015, 10:06
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,409
Rep Power: 39
FMDenaro will become famous soon enoughFMDenaro will become famous soon enough
if you use inviscid models, you have no finite Re number!
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   December 31, 2015, 10:09
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Erdem Eskioglu
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 3
ErdemEskioglu is on a distinguished road
I know since there is no viscosity. I made an assumption assuming standard air viscosity. What I am trying to say is what should I expect in terms of CL comparison. Is it normal to have lower lift than the real case?
ErdemEskioglu is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 31, 2015, 11:41
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,409
Rep Power: 39
FMDenaro will become famous soon enoughFMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErdemEskioglu View Post
I know since there is no viscosity. I made an assumption assuming standard air viscosity. What I am trying to say is what should I expect in terms of CL comparison. Is it normal to have lower lift than the real case?

a rude assumption on the pressure distribution: normal pressure derivative in the BL is almost as the same as in the external flow, that means that the on the airfoil wall at high Re you get the same pressure distribution,
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   December 31, 2015, 17:54
Default
  #7
New Member
 
Erdem Eskioglu
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 3
ErdemEskioglu is on a distinguished road
I have lower lift than the experimental about %30 difference.
I did 2D airfoil analysis and had almost same lift with the experimental data.
Problem is 3D wing, what can cause this much difference?
Thanks,
ErdemEskioglu is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 1, 2016, 14:39
Default
  #8
Member
 
Kaya Onur Dag
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 94
Rep Power: 6
kaya is on a distinguished road
I have no clue about FLUENT

If you're doing inviscid computations, you don't have Reynolds number, or its just infinity. But lets put this aside.

When you do a 3d wing computation, due to the induced wind, tip vortices, induction from the wake, (or what ever you want to call it ) you will never get the same 2d-lift on a 3d wing (unless your AR:aspect ratio=span/chord is infinity). Have you taken this into account while comparing your 3d lift with 2d one?

ps.there usually is a remarkable change in polar curves in between Re 1e5 to Re 1e6. If your measurements were taken at a lower Re, perhaps your 2D inviscid computations wouldn't have matched well.
kaya is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Issues on the simulation of high-speed compressible flow within turbomachinery dowlee OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 8 October 25, 2016 19:48
The lift force coefficient in bubbly flow Kai Yan Main CFD Forum 1 November 4, 2008 14:54
inviscid Sylvain FLUENT 6 October 30, 2005 14:58
Multicomponent fluid Andrea CFX 2 October 11, 2004 05:12
Inviscid Drag at subsonic, subcritical Mach # Axel Rohde Main CFD Forum 1 November 19, 2001 13:19

Sponsored Links


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:34.