|
[Sponsors] |
January 9, 2012, 04:32 |
PotentialFOAM - meeting the Kutta condition
|
#1 |
New Member
Richard Moser
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 28
Rep Power: 16 |
I am using the potentialFOAM solver for flow around a 2D aerofoil (in this case a multi-element aerofoil, but my question is general). I understand the limitations of using a potential solver, but there are good reasons for doing it in this case. The problem I am having is in making sure that the Kutta condition is satisfied. I have attached a screenshot of the streamlines I am currently getting, which indicate that the Kutta condition is not being satisfied (and also explains why my results match neither the exact solution or the output from another potential method). My question is therefore what I need to do to make sure that the Kutta condition is satisfied - is it something in my boundary files (which I have attached), or a separate setting somewhere?
Any help would be much appreciated. Richard |
|
January 11, 2012, 14:29 |
|
#2 |
Senior Member
Pablo
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 102
Rep Power: 17 |
To get kutta condition you need a rotational fluid, so at least inviscid.
With potential flow you need to define the wakes explicitly. |
|
January 11, 2012, 15:43 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Richard Moser
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 28
Rep Power: 16 |
Thanks for your response. Do you know how to define the wake explicitly in potentialFoam?
|
|
January 11, 2012, 16:42 |
|
#4 |
Senior Member
Pablo
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 102
Rep Power: 17 |
well, a very rude solution would be create a gap at the mesh from the trailing edge until the end, you must choose the angle (it could be aligned with free stream or tangent to trailing edge and after aligned with T.E.)
And the best solution is work with euler equations, it means delete every difusive term, u will work with inviscid rotational fluid. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
kutta condition and separated flow in transient simulation | Nick R | CFX | 5 | April 19, 2011 23:37 |
Kutta Condition in impellers | kaan | Main CFD Forum | 2 | September 29, 2009 04:57 |
D'Alembert paradox + kutta condition | snegan | Main CFD Forum | 3 | January 6, 2006 10:45 |
Kutta condition | Afungchui | Main CFD Forum | 5 | January 28, 2005 06:02 |
Kutta Condition | saba | Main CFD Forum | 3 | July 17, 2003 09:49 |