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

Can I validate results from a different aerofoil?

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   March 5, 2022, 18:18
Question Can I validate results from a different aerofoil?
  #1
New Member
 
Jetto Aji
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
jetaji1 is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I am running CFD simulations on a NACA 0012 aerofoil profile with a plain flap, 80% chord length from the leading edge. I was trying to look for a good validation paper that has wind tunnel tests and have been struggling.

However, I found a paper (linked below) from NASA that investigates a plain flap at similar flow conditions and chord length but is conducted on a NACA 23012 aerofoil. Would I be able to use this paper to validate my results and state the discrepancies due to the different aerofoil?

If not, does anyone have any other way to validate my results?

N.b. Verification has been completed.
N.b. Link: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/...9720006329.pdf

OR Title: WIND-TUNNEL STUDY OF SLOT SPOILERS
FOR DIRECT LIFT CONTROL by Dominick Andrisani II, Garl L. Gentry, Jr., and Joseph W. Stickle.
jetaji1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 8, 2022, 09:18
Default
  #2
agd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 320
Rep Power: 16
agd is on a distinguished road
Well, consider the following. You are solving a set of partial differential equations whose solutions depend entirely on the boundary conditions, and you are asking whether you can use the solution based on one set of boundary conditions (i.e. the contour of the airfoil) to validate a solution using a different set of boundary conditions (different contour). So if you are asking if you can do a one-to-one comparison, then the answer is no.



Validation is not an easy task. What you may be able to do is actually run the case that you have data for (the NACA 2312 with flap). Use that to gain some confidence in your solver. If you do a good job with that, then you can at least have some confidence in the original solution.
agd is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 8, 2022, 10:04
Default
  #3
Member
 
Josh Williams
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Scotland
Posts: 65
Rep Power: 3
joshwilliams is on a distinguished road
I agree with agd. Experimental data is usually sparse and hard to come by for many applications. It is best to use the exact same setup (in this case, use the NACA 23012 with flap geometry). Then, once you get good agreement with experiments and have confidence with the mathematical and numerical setup (turbulence models, mesh spacing and structure, time discretisation resolution and schemes), then you can apply it to cases you do not have experimental data for (your NACA 0012).


In cases without experimental data, you should always at least exercise good practices such as mesh sensitivity tests to ensure results are robust and reliable.
joshwilliams is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 14, 2022, 11:07
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Matt
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 914
Rep Power: 15
fluid23 is on a distinguished road
I would add to this that symmetric airfoils are notoriously more difficult to validate and the 0012 in particular has historical data sets that do not agree with each other. Deciding which is 'correct' can be a real challenge.

Unless you are married to the 0012, the 23012 is a better choice for a validation exercise IMO.
fluid23 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
cfd, naca 0012, naca 23012, nasa, validation

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
Error Interpolating Results onto New Mesh nammeh CFX 1 March 26, 2019 12:08
Save Results automatically by APDL Command ansyxyz ANSYS 1 June 5, 2018 08:16
2D Aerofoil with rotating cylinders - Help & Advice! Bluejay OpenFOAM 1 December 31, 2012 04:40
Transient Run - Output "Time" in partial results? evcelica CFX 2 May 16, 2012 21:36
CFD vs Experimetal Results for Aerofoil aceofharts414 Main CFD Forum 0 April 22, 2009 07:14


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:19.