This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# ESA 341: GASDYNAMICS GROUP PROJECT (Eppler 374

)

LECTURER DR. KAMARUL ARIFIN 2008/2009

Analysis of Eppler 374

Contents

Page 1 1 2 2 5 13 14 15 16 19 19 20

Project Objective Project Committee CFD Introduction Gambit Methodology Fluent Methodology and Analysis Discussion Water Table Experiment Introduction Observation & Calculation Precaution Comparison Conclusion

1|Page

**Analysis of Eppler 374
**

Objective To study the method of computational fluid dynamic (CFD) in analyzing the flow passing through a model of certain shape under various circumstances. To obtain the shape of the shock wave by using water table method. To compare the water table analysis and CFD analysis.

Project Committee Project Advisor Project Manager Dr Kamarul Arifin B Ahmad Lim Kui Yuet 92248 Ng Hong Fai 92261 Chan Ray Mun 92226 Tan Cheh Chun 92270 Fluid Dynamist Md Shazerin Amri B. Shahatshau 79781 Ng Kok Chian 92262 Shuaidah BT. Hanif 92267 Aerodynamicist Mohd Asmadi R. Fauzi @ Zaharia 92250

Secretary

CFD Analyst

2|Page

**Analysis of Eppler 374
**

CFD Introduction Experimental data using closed loop wing tunnel to analyze the flow around an airfoil is costly and complicated. Therefore, by using CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics), we can calculated and obtain similar results with a lower cost. Broadly, the strategy of CFD is to replace the continuous problem domain with a discrete domain using a grid. Before we start the computations, we need to create the mesh of the airfoil of our study:

Gambit Methodology Creating the Mesh by using Gambit Software Create vertices Create edges Form faces Mesh edges Mesh faces

Specify Boundary Types

Create groups

First we import the vertex data for Eppler 374 airfoil into the software then we join the points separately for upper and lower part to form a symmetrical airfoil. Next, we create the vertices for the boundary according to the coordinates shown in Table A.

Label A B C D E F G c=1.0m

x-coordinate c 21c 21c 21c c -11.5c c

y-coordinate 12.5c 12.5c 0 -12.5c -12.5c 0 0

z-coordinate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table A Since the airfoil is in 2D form, so the z-coordinate is zero for all. After that, we join all the vertices to form edges (AB, BC, CD, DE, EG, GA and CG) and circular arcs (AF and EF) for the boundary. After creating the edges, we create the faces to be meshed. We created three faces: ABCGA, EDCGE and GAFEG (subtracting the airfoil). When that is done, we proceed to meshing the edges following Table B.

3|Page

Analysis of Eppler 374

Edges AB GC ED AG BC EG DC Upper Airfoil Lower Airfoil AF EF

Arrow Direction Right to Left Right to Left Right to Left Downward Downward Upward Upward Right to Left Right to Left Upward Downward Table B

Successive Ratio 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 1 1 0.968 0.968

Interval Count 100 100 100 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

The successive ratio chosen was meant to concentrate more mesh on the area around the airfoil, which will give a better result of the flow around the airfoil. The successive ratio and interval count for upper and lower airfoil is same since the Eppler 374 airfoil is symmetric. After that, we mesh the faces (ABCGA, EDCGE and GAFEG ) since we need to analysis the whole airfoil.

Finally, we group the edges to form 3 groups as stated in Table C. Following by define the boundary types (Wall for airfoil, Velocity Inlet for arc and Pressure Outlet for level).

Group Name arc level out airfoil

Edges in Group AF , EF AB , DE BC , CD Upper and Lower Surface of Airfoil Table C

4|Page

Analysis of Eppler 374

Completed Mesh

This completed mesh was saved and exported into fluent for further analysis.

5|Page

**Analysis of Eppler 374
**

FLUENT Methodology and Analysis Choose the Discretisation of the Flow Equations

Set up Grid

Set the Solution Control

Define Model

Define Boundary Condition

Define the Monitor

Analysis

Select appropriate Material

Set up the Operating Condition

Run the Calculation

Produce Output

Following the instructions given to us, first we read the mesh, and then we defined the model as followed : Solver : Coupled, implicit, 2D, Steady, Absolute Energy : By turning on the energy equation (uncheck energy equation for subsonic) Viscous : Spalart-Allmaras

After that, we define the materials by choosing the default setting which is air and selecting ‘Ideal Gas’ (for supersonic, transonic) or 1.225kg/m3 (for subsonic) for density and ‘Sutherland’ for Viscosity. For flows with Mach numbers greater than 0.1, an operating pressure of 0 is recommended. Next we defined the Boundary Condition : • For supersonic and transonic, “arc” selected under “zone” and “pressure-far-field” was selected under “type”, the gauge pressure was set to 101325 Pa while Mach number was set to 0.8 (transonic flow), 2.0(supersonic flow). Also, X-component of flow direction was set to 1 and Ycomponent of flow direction was set to 0. For subsonic, “arc” and “level” selected under “zone” and “Velocity Inlet” was selected under “type”. Select Components from the Velocity Specification method, using free stream velocity 40m/s since the X-component =1 while Y-component=0 6|Page

•

Analysis of Eppler 374

The next step is to set the Under-Relaxation Factor for Modified Turbulent Viscosity to 0.9 (Larger under-relaxation factors will generally result in faster convergence. However, instability can arise that may need to be eliminated by decreasing the under-relaxation factors).After that, set the Courant Number to 5. The next step is to choose the discretisation of the flow equation. Select Second Order Upwind for Modified Turbulent Viscosity The second-order scheme will resolve the boundary layer and shock more accurately than the first-order scheme. Then, we initialize the solution by selecting “arc” and pressing “Init”. Also, before running the calculations, in order to see how the residuals vary with time step, we tick the check box for “Print” and “Plot” for the residual and all the ticks for the item list under “Check Convergence” are removed. After all are done, request 100 iterations and continuing until 1000 (for transonic, supersonic) or request 100 iterations and continuing until 200 (for subsonic). Next, increase the Courant Number to 20. The iteration ended until 1500 (transonic, supersonic) or 300 (for subsonic).

Mach number 0.115(subsonic)

7|Page

**Analysis of Eppler 374
**

Mach number 0.8(transonic)

Mach number 2.0(supersonic)

8|Page

Analysis of Eppler 374

9|Page

Analysis of Eppler 374

After calculation was done, we proceeded to plot the contours of static pressure, Mach number, Velocity Magnitude and Velocity Vector. Mach number 0.115(subsonic)

10 | P a g e

Analysis of Eppler 374

Mach number 0.8(transonic)

11 | P a g e

Analysis of Eppler 374

12 | P a g e

Analysis of Eppler 374

Mach number 2.0(supersonic)

13 | P a g e

Analysis of Eppler 374

Discussion The residual for supersonic would not converge below 1e-03. We could only get it to fluctuate between the 1e-03 regions. The residual for transonic condition is even worse as it fluctuates at the 1e-02 region. The residual plot for subsonic condition is the best. However, the iterations give us a constant Cd, Cl, and Cm value for all flow cases. As noticed in the velocity vector plot of transonic flow (M 0.8), the flow reversal is clearly visible behind the shock near to the airfoil. Also, if noticed closely, the velocity is lower at the wall of the airfoil. This is due to skin friction of the airfoil. As expected, Eppler 374 is a chambered airfoil as it produces lift (from the positive Cl) even at zero angle of attack.

14 | P a g e

**Analysis of Eppler 374
**

Water Table Experiment The following flow chart represents the algorithm and steps used in the water table experiment. Start Pour water into the water table tank

Motor was turned on to 4.5Hz for 30s to allow steady water flow established.

A small piece of paper was put on the water surface near the starting edge of the tank.

Once the small piece of paper was released, stopwatch was started.

When the small piece of paper reached the ending edge of the tank, stopwatch was stopped.

The duration of travel of the small piece of paper was recorded.

The distance between the starting edge and ending edge of the tank was measured.

Airfoil was carefully placed on the centre of water flowing region in the tank.

The shape of the wave was observed.

Photo was taken from the top of the airfoil.

End 15 | P a g e

Analysis of Eppler 374

Sluice Gate

Water Rotor Pump

The water table

Introduction 1. The primary objective of the water table is to reveal the concept of lift, drag, and streamlines of certain fluids. 2. To illustrate this, different shape of model will be put inside a closed channel with steady water flow in it. 3. The model can be put in any orientation in the middle front of the tank so that the waved generated will not be disturbed by reflected tank wall water wave. 4. A graph paper was put on the bottom of the transparent water tank in order to ease the observation of the wave generated and also help to calculate shock wave angle.

16 | P a g e

**Analysis of Eppler 374
**

Observation & Calculation Distance travelled by small piece of paper, d = 0.4m 1. Motor frequency = 4.5Hz Number of data 1 2 3 4 Time (s) 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8

Time average:

0.8 × 3 + 0.7 = 0.775s 4

Velocity, v =

0.4 = 0.5161ms −1 0.775

2. Motor frequency = 6.52Hz Number of data 1 2 3 4 Time (s) 0.7 0.8 0.76 0.6

Time average:

0.7 + 0.8 + 0.76 + 0.6 = 0.715s 4

Velocity, v =

0.4 = 0.5594ms −1 0.715

3. Motor frequency = 11.49Hz Number of data 1 2 3 4 Time (s) 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 17 | P a g e

Analysis of Eppler 374

Time average:

0.7 × 2 + 0.6 × 2 = 0.65s 4

Velocity, v =

0. 4 = 0.6154ms −1 0.65

4. Motor frequency = 16.50Hz Number of data 1 2 3 4 Time (s) 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5

Time average:

0.7 + 0.6 × 2 + 0.5 = 0.60 s 4

Velocity, v =

0. 4 = 0.6667 ms −1 0.60

The following photos correspond to the four different motor frequencies shown above. 1. 4.5Hz

18 | P a g e

**Analysis of Eppler 374
**

2. 6.52Hz

3. 11.49Hz

4. 16.50Hz

19 | P a g e

**Analysis of Eppler 374
**

Precaution 1. To avoid wave generated is being disturb by the reflected wave that generated through the wall, the test object have to be placed at the middle front section of the tank. 2. Motor frequency should not adjust such that the bubble appears in the water tank. 3. In order to get a sharp photo of the flow, the focal plane of the camera should be the water surface and not the airfoil upper surface. 4. Do not use pieces of paper to measure the velocity because paper absorbs water thus changing its mass and affecting the accuracy of the measurement of velocity. We suggest using bits of polystyrene as it is able to float on the water surface.

Comparison

The photo above is the overlapping of the CFD Mach Number diagram (M=2.0) with the photo of the water table experiment (motor frequency = 4.5 Hz). It can be observed that the shock wave simulated in the CFD has very similar properties with the water table experiment in term of shock wave shape. However, slight difference is observed. This phenomena is believed to be due to the disturbance wave generated from side wall of the water tank, as shown in the following photo. 20 | P a g e

Analysis of Eppler 374

Conclusion 1. It is evident through this experiment that the shock wave shape can be demonstrated through a simple water table experiment.

2. The water wave generated by flowing water passing through an airfoil is similar with the shock wave simulated in CFD with supersonic air flow through the same airfoil. 3. From these facts, it can be deduced that the water table equipment provide an alternative method to observe the shock wave shape. This method is far cheaper and easier than the real supersonic wind tunnel experiment. 4. However, the constraint in the water table experiment (for instance, the disturbance wave generated from the side wall of the tank) has limited the accuracy of this experiment. If more accurate analysis is desired, CFD and real supersonic wind tunnel experiment are preferable.

21 | P a g e