Kingston University, London

Faculty of Science, Engineering and Computing

Further Aerodynamics, propulsion and Computational

Techniques
AE6020

2D incompressible flow simulation around an aerofoil using

ANSYS CFD package

Student Name :Guneet Mirchandani

Student ID :K1550256
Setter :Yujing Lin

Assignment Submission Date: 07/02/2020

Table of contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3

Flow conditions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Flow conditions set up…………………………………………………………………………………………………..………..………5

Fluent Launcher ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4

Mesh display……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..5

General set up……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………….…………….6

Materials………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...7

Models ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....8

Boundary Conditions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………..….9

Reference Values………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……...10

Solution Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………10

Report Definition………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….…11

Residual Monitors…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……..11

Initialization and Run Calculation…………………………………………………………………………………………………..12

Results and discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14

Scaled Residuals………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…14

Drag and Lift………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………….16

CFD post processing results…………………………………………………………….…….………………………….……………18

Validation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………….23

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………...28

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….29

2
Introduction
The CFD coursework 2 is aimed to compile CFD simulations using pre-set flow conditions to
solve a converged solution performed on mesh generated of NACA 64-618 datafile for the
aerofoil.
The three main processes that are performed during the simulations are pre-processing,
solver and post processing used to evaluate the CFD results. Pre-processing is used to
generate a high-quality mesh and thus this assignment will utilize the mesh generated in
CFD coursework 1. The solver is used to produce converged results so they can be input into
the post processing part and be compared with other factors and results.

Figure 1: NACA 64-418 Aerofoil

The above aerofoil represents the data file NACA 64-418 and has recorded a max thickness
at 17.9% at a 34.8% chord. (airfoiltools.com). to obtain two-dimensional incompressible
flow simulations, ANSYS fluent solver is used. The fluent solver is used to set up conditions
required for simulations such as boundary conditions, calculation methods and materials.
CFD as a software is widely used to compute different sorts of engineering problems faced
worldwide in many industries. CFD provides a cost-effective solution to test certain
aerodynamic characteristics of materials which would require a lot of finances and time to
experiment and rectify in real life. CFD can also assist in obtaining pressure and velocity
values to test characteristics which can be difficult to obtain in real time for further testing.
This coursework aims to educate in terms of accurate predictions for flow conditions around
the aerofoil by terms of boundary conditions to obtain lift and drag co-efficient.

3
Flow Conditions

Table 1: Flow conditions

The above table represents the given flow conditions for the NACA64-618 aerofoil. The
chord length, Reynolds number, Mach number and pressure given remain same for both
angles of attack as compared to free stream velocity, temperature and density alter in value
when the angle of attack is changed. The changes in these values however small will be
visible on the CFD simulations.
The data from above the aforementioned table is used to first obtain the viscosity,
beginning with the aerofoil at both angle of attack using the following formula:

𝜌𝑉𝐷
𝑅𝑒 =
𝜗

Equation 1 : viscosity

The above equation equates the -0.88 degrees to a value of 1.92337 X 10^-5 and the 4.62
degrees to a value of 1.92313 X 10^-5. As the table shows the Reynolds number to be
greater than 500,000, it can be deduced the flow is turbulent and given the Mach number is
less than 0.3 along with a constant density proves that the flow is incompressible.

4
Flow Conditions Set-Up

Step 1: Fluent launcher

The ANSYS fluent solver consists of a wide range of tools used to model flows around
different geometries, an aerofoil in this case, and the solver predicts flow conditions which
can be used to rectify the aerofoil if needed.

Figure 2: Fluent launcher

The fluent solver has been set up in a 2D dimension with double precision and a serial
processing option. Double precision helps obtain further accurate pressure distribution, and
the serial processing option is selected as a trial but can be changed if needed to parallel
and adjusted with multiple core processors for a faster processing of the data in the solver.
The solver remains at these settings for the entirety of use for both angles of attacks.

Step 2: Mesh display

The mesh used for this coursework is obtained from the previous coursework and is
converted to an unstructured mesh as only unstructured mesh’s are supported by the
ANSYS fluent solver. The boundary conditions were also set up in the ICEM mesh before the
mesh was unstructured and imported to Fluent. Once the case and data are read by fluent,
the mesh should be visible on screen now, as shown in the figure below.

5
 Figure 3: Mesh Display of 4.62-degree angle of attack

Step 3: General Setup and Quality Check

The general settings assist the solver in selecting methods to solve the simulation, as we
select the pressure-based solver and furthermore we can obtain mesh quality and aspect
ratio as seen below.

6
 Figure 4: Mesh quality and Aspect ratio of 4.62-degree angle of attack

Step 4: Materials
Material selection is done in fluent to assist the solver in understanding the fluid and solid
parts of the simulation. Therefore, in material selection air is selected for fluid and
aluminium for solid parts.

Figure 5: Materials

7
Step 5: Models

In viscous flow modelling, a range of models are available and as the pre-determined flow
conditions predict the flow to be turbulent, a turbulent model must be chosen. Out of the
many options for turbulent modelling, one common option is Spallart-Allmaras, a simple
model that uses only one equation to solve simple simulations. As we require a more
advanced model to solve eliminating turbulent viscosity the K-omega or the K-epsilon
models are available to predict flow simulations.

The K-omega model is more accurate in splitting the flows and therefore used over the K-
epsilon model. The K-omega model is selected with the SST module which therefore allows
minimal Y+ values which are used for the separations of boundary layers. The K-omega
model utilizes 2 equations to determine the specific rate of kinetic energy.

Figure 6: Methods

8
Step 6: Boundary Conditions
Although the boundary conditions were set in the ICEM they must now be defined with the
conditions set in the flow conditions. Velocity inlet determines the flow entering the entire
domain and the aerofoil has been set as a wall to instruct the software that the flow from
inlet must react with the aerofoil. The top and bottom of the domain have been set as
symmetry to set 2 boundaries to the domain. The velocity inlet part and pressure outlet part
must have their conditions changed to the pre-set ones given in the flow conditions to allow
simulations at predetermined conditions. On the -0.88 angle of attack aerofoil the X-velocity
is to be changed to 45.03 m/s and the turbulent intensity is set to 0.1% to eliminate the
turbulence. the turbulent viscosity ratio is set to 10 for better results. For the 4.62 degree of
angle of attack same procedure must be followed and the X-velocity is to be set to 44.98
m/s.

9
 Figure 7: Boundary conditions

Step 7: Reference Values

The reference values are used by the fluent software as a reference to advise the
computation with limits. Here we calculate the gauge pressure by subtracting the absolute
pressure from the real pressure given. Therefore 92810-101325=-8515. The reference is set
to compute from inlet.

Figure 8: Reference Values

Step 8: Solution Methods

There is a drop-down option list in the solution methods which provide different methods to
solve the simulation. It is advised to use simplec method with the first upwind order to
initially solve the simulation before redoing it on second order. I have chosen to go with the
coupled method and the second upwind order in order to get my simulation to converge
after the first attempt with simplec failed to converge.

10
 Figure 9: Solution Methods

Step 9: Report Definitions

The report definitions describe the predicted results at the end of the simulations. We
define the fluent software in this section to produce force plot graphs for the Lift co-
efficient and the Drag co-efficient against the iterations in the simulation.

Figure 10: Report Definitions

Step 10: Residual Monitors

The residual monitors assist the software to define an absolute criteria which once achieved
will mean that the fluent has converged. Once converged the solutions stop as the criteria
has been met. The defined criteria set for residual continuity, x-velocity, y-velocity, k,
omega, and intermittent is set to 1e-06.

11
 Figure 11: Residual Monitors

Step 11: Initialization and Run Calculation

With the above steps completed the Fluent software is now set to be initialized and run
calculations. To initialize we select hybrid initialization as it has a collective set of formulas
and boundary interpolation methods. Running the calculations once initialized allows the
solver to simulate and provide converged results. Number of iterations first set was 1000
and then later increased or decreased to a certain value where the simulation converged.
Data file qualities was also changed as per defined in the assignment.

12
Figure 12: Initialization and Run calculation page

Figure 13: Initialized Values

13
 Figure 14: Data file qualities selections

Figure 15: converged results of 4.62-degree angle of attack

Results and Discussion

CFD post processing is a solver used to obtain results of the fluent solver in different analysis
for example, vector, pressure, streamline, and pressure distribution. In fluent the
calculations are run and then exported to CFD post.

Angle Iterations Continuity X-velocity Y-velocity

-0.88 1069 9.9354e-07 7.2549e-10 3.0401e-11
4.62 190 9.9906e-07 5.3079e-11 1.0204e-10
Table 2

Angle Co-efficient of drag Co-efficient of lift

-0.88 1.8380e-02 2.1634e-01
4.62 9.1383e-03 4.34549e-01
Table 3

Scaled Residuals
Below are the scaled residuals obtained from fluent. This graph represents the residual plots
for the aerofoil such as continuity, x-velocity, y-velocity, coefficient of lift, coefficient of
drag, K, omega, and energy. These data are plotted against iterations and allow us to
understand the quality of the aerofoil.

14
Figure 16: Scaled Residuals

15
Coefficient of drag plot graph

As previously pre-set in the setup of fluent, the solver also plots a Cd graph against
iterations. This graph allows us to comprehend the drag reaction on the aerofoil.

Figure 17: Plot Cd graphs

16
Coefficient of Lift plot graph

The Cl plot graph plots the lift against the iterations and shows how the aerofoil reacts to
the lift force.

Figure 18: Plot Cl graphs

17
CFD post processing

As mentioned above CFD post processing is now used to obtain other graphs and results to further
understand the characteristics of the aerofoil.

Pressure contour

As seen below the highest point the pressure value reaches is at the front tip of the aerofoil
in both cases of angle of attack. It is observed in both cases pressure on top of the aerofoil is
relatively low. As angle of attack increases, more pressure is applied to the bottom of the
aerofoil and as this pressure is higher than that of the top of the aerofoil, the aerofoil moves
upwards in draft. Also, as the angle increases, the pressure coefficient increases. it is
observed that between the two cases even though difference is small, the angle of -0.88 has
less pressure on top of aerofoil than that of 4.62.

Figure 19: Pressure contour 0.88

Figure 20: pressure contour 4.62

18
Velocity U contour
The velocity contour displays the aerofoil reacting to velocity and as observed below
generally the top of the aerofoil reacts largely with air at high velocity. Between the two
angles of attacks, it is observed that on -0.88-degree angle of attack the velocity contour
affects both the top and bottom of the aerofoil whereas the 4.62-degree angle of attack
only affect the top of the aerofoil. This is due to velocity being greater at a smaller angle of
attack. Both aerofoils demonstrate high reactivity on top of the aerofoil instead of the tip of
the aerofoil.

Figure 21: Velocity u 0.88

Figure 22: Velocity u 4.62

19
Vector velocity
The below images display the vector velocities of both angle of attacks. Velocity vectors are
used to display the direction and reaction of the air on the aerofoil. Both cases of angle of
attack seem to be similar.

Figure 23: Vector 0.88

Figure 24: Vector 4.62

20
Streamline Velocity
The figures below depict streamline velocity. As observed for both angles of attacks, the
streamline velocity is on its upper limits at the top of both aerofoils. The streamline velocity
at its lowest is observed around the tip and the edge of both aerofoils. The aerofoil at 4.62
degrees displays denser streamline velocity than of the -0.88-degree aerofoil.

Figure 25: Streamline velocity 0.88

Figure 26: Streamline Velocity 4.62

21
Velocity distribution graph

Figure 27: Velocity distribution 0.88

Figure 28: Velocity distribution 4.62

The above graphs represent the velocity distribution. The velocity on the 4.62-degree angle of attack
seems to be a broken pattern and thus not accurate. The velocity change observed above and below
the aerofoil at different length of the aerofoil. This shows how the velocity changes when air flows
over the aerofoil. The broken graph still proves that when the angle of attack is higher, the air is
more turbulent under the aerofoil.

22
Validation

Javafoil

Java foil is a program that provides an alternative solution for plotting of graphs for DAT file
aerofoils. Therefore, I have chosen to compare the results obtained from ANSYS to the
graphs produced in JAVAFOIL as one of the methods to validate the assignment.

Initially java foil required to be set up to the NACA 64-418 DAT file before it could produce
accurate graphs.

Figure 29 : JAVAFOIL set up

23
Once the aerofoil was imported, density, viscosity and angle of attacks were added to the solver.
Java foil is now ready to create graphs.

Figure 30: java foil set up

24
 Figure 31: Velocity distribution on java foil

The velocity distribution graphs produced on Java foil as compared to the graphs obtained
from ANSYS POST show Cd to be -0.02007 and -0.1763 for 4.62 and -0.88 degrees of angles
of attacks respectively. Cl values are 1.21 and 0.478.

25
Validation Data
The validation data has been provided on the assignment brief page. The graphs produced
from that data is shown below.

Cp
1.50E+00

1.00E+00

5.00E-01

0.00E+00
0.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.00E-01 6.00E-01 8.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.20E+00

-5.00E-01

-1.00E+00

Figure 32: -0.88 Validation graph

XFOIL
1.50E+00

1.00E+00

5.00E-01

0.00E+00
0.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.00E-01 6.00E-01 8.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.20E+00
-5.00E-01

-1.00E+00

Figure 33: -0.88 validation graph

26
 Cp
1.50E+00

1.00E+00

5.00E-01

0.00E+00
0.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.00E-01 6.00E-01 8.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.20E+00
-5.00E-01

-1.00E+00

-1.50E+00

-2.00E+00

Figure 34: 4.62 Validation Graph

XFOIL
1.50E+00

1.00E+00

5.00E-01

0.00E+00
0.00E+00 2.00E-01 4.00E-01 6.00E-01 8.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.20E+00
-5.00E-01

-1.00E+00

-1.50E+00

Figure 35: 4.62 Validation graph

Angle Co-efficient of drag Co-efficient of lift

-0.88 1.8380e-02 2.1634e-01
4.62 9.1383e-03 4.34549e-01
Table 3

This data combined with the data obtained from java foil results, validate the data collected
from ANSYS POST, in terms of coefficients of drag and lift being similar.

27
Conclusion

To conclude, the ANSYS Fluent and Post solvers successfully converged at different angles of
attack (-0.88 and 4.62) of the NACA 64-418 Aerofoil within the parameters set by the given
conditions. The solver could be made to solve quicker with less iterations if the mesh quality
and the aspect ratio had been improved. The solver results also prove that pressure and
velocity are directly proportional to each other. The larger the angle of attack, pressure
reduces on the bottom of the aerofoil and thus creates an imbalance that in turn reduces
the velocity. The results obtained from Fluent and Post solver have proved to be similar to
those obtained from data validation and java foil.

The selected viscous model, K-omega, utilizes 2 equations for solving the simulation. This
could be improved by using a more complex model that utilizes more equations. The reason
k-omega was selected over other models was that k-omega provides a nonetheless quite
accurate result and require less time to compute than the other more complex solutions.
One final suggestion would be to use the first order system and once converged use the
second order. On -0.88 the solution could not converge on the first order.

28
References
1. Airfoiltools.com. (2020). NACA 64(3)-618 (naca643618-il). [online] Available at:
http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=naca643618-il [Accessed 5 Feb. 2020].
2. Mh-aerotools.de. (2020). JavaFoil - Users Manual. [online] Available at: https://www.mh-
aerotools.de/airfoils/jf_users_manual.htm [Accessed 5 Feb. 2020].
3. Abbott, I. and Doenhoff, A. (n.d.). Theory of Wing Sections. [Place of publication not
identified]: Dover Pubns.

29