with different turbulence models
M.H.Roozbahani, M.H. Shojaefard, M.Tahani, M.Nirooei
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Purpose – airfoil in ground effect characteristics is important in aircraft take off and landing and
in WIG vehicle design. WIG crafts operate close ground. In to the water or ground surface by
utilizing an air cushion of relatively high pressurized air between airfoil and this paper, NACA
0015 in ground effect is studied. The purpose of this paper is to find that one of the kc turbulent
models is better for this kind of studies and find the variations in lift and drag coefficients near to
ground.
Methodology/approach  flow over the NACA 0015 is investigated numerically with two
different models of kc model, Realizable and RNG, the result compared with experimental
study. The pressurevelocity coupling is calculated by SIMPLE algorithm. Studies were
performing in 2.5 and 7.5 degree angles of attack and in three high from ground, H/C=0.2,0.4,0.6
with a CFD code.
Findings  It was found higher values of lift coefficient are obtained when the airfoil is close to
the ground and a loss of upper surface suction was recorded as the airfoil approached the ground
for all angles of attack, resulting in rapid decay of kinetic energy over the upper surface, leading
to a thicker wake and higher turbulence level and a higher drag. It's obtained that Realizable kc
give closer result to experimental data than RNG (Renormalization group) kc.
Originality/value – this paper is valuable for researchers in ground effected airfoil. This work is
original.
Keywords Aerodynamics, Wing in ground effect (WIG), Turbulence modeling, kc model,
NACA 0015
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
A WIG (winginground effect) craft is defined as a transport that has fixed wings
like an airplane and has the advantages of increasing lift and decreasing drag when it
flies above the water or ground surface at a sufficiently low level. WIG crafts operate
close to the water or ground surface (i.e., at a height of 30 % of its chord length or
lower) by utilizing an air cushion of relatively high pressurized air between airfoil and
ground.
There have been some successful attempts to develop WIG vehicles that fly overwater.
The initial success in the development of WIG vehicles was accomplished in Finland,
Sweden and the United States. A review of the various types of vehicles experimented at
various times is made by Ollila. Ando made a critical review of the design philosophies of
overwater transport WIG vehicles. Work on development of overwater WIG vehicles is
currently going on in many countries; the potential fuel savings and speed advantages over
other modes of water transport providing the impetus. Speeds of WIGs are much higher
than ship speeds, and overall operational expenses are lower than those of planes. Higher
speeds can be achieved with hydrofoil boats or so called surface effect ships. Definitely, a
marine vehicle without any water contact would be the solution for a very low drag
induced only by air.
A WIG boat is different from an aircraft because it cannot operate without the ground
effect. There are many papers related to WIG’s construction or operation. Some of them
are Afremov et al. (1996), Chawla (1988), who present wind tunnel results, also Kornev
and Matveev (2003) who give details of their research on flight modeling problems. The
problems with implementation of WIG crafts are presented by Taylor (2000). Experiments
on aerodynamics of an airfoil subject to the ground effect have been recently carried out
by Ahmed and Sharma (2004), who tested a symmetrical NACA 0015 in a low speed wind
tunnel. The results of their investigations were lift and drag forces and detailed
characteristics of the flow. Another work is the paper of Rafiuddin (2005) who also
presents experimental studies of the NACA 4415 airfoil in ground proximity. A numerical
approach to the solution of the considered problem is presented by Park and Chun (1995).
2. Simulation
In this paper, turbulent flows around twodimensional wing in ground effect are
analyzed with incompressible Reynolds Averaged NavierStokes (RANS) equations which
are approximated by finite volume method. The main object of this paper is to clarify the
twodimensional ground effect and its flow characteristics due to different ground
conditions at 7.5 degree angles of attack with two turbulence models. RNG and RKE kc
turbulence model with Enhanced wall treatment, kc turbulence model, “Launder and
Spalding", Equations are approximated by finite volume method, and they are solved by
segregated method. The second order upwind method, "Barth, Jespersen et al.", is used for
the convection term, also for pressure interpolation the PRESTO, "Patankar et al.", method
is used.
3. problem setup
3.1 Computational domain and mesh generation
At first the computational domain extended 12.5C upstream of the leading edge of
the airfoil, 25C downstream of the trailing edge, and 12.5C above the pressure surface
and with attention to Firooz et all works, the computational domain extended 5C
upstream of the leading edge of the airfoil, 10C downstream of the trailing edge, and
5C above the pressure surface. The result of two domain grid was similar and
continues analysis on the second domain.
Distance of below the airfoil was defined with H/C where C is chord and H is ground
distance at the trailing edge, such as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 the dimensions and boundary conditions of the computational domain
Velocity inlet boundary condition was applied upstream (Inflow) with speed of U
·
=35
m/s for a Reynolds number of 0.24 * 10
6
and Pressure out let flow boundary condition
was applied downstream. The pressure and suction side of the airfoil and above and
below's boundaries of domain were used applied with noslip condition and smooth
wall condition and fixed wall for below (Ground) the airfoil. The flow was assumed
Incompressible. At the outlet, zerodiffusion condition was applied. This is shown in
Figure 2,"Firroz, at al." An unstructured hybrid mesh arrangement with triangular
mesh elements was adopted to map the flow domain in ground effect. Particular
attention was directed to an offset 'inner region' encompassing the airfoil, and also
boundary layers mesh was applied on near the airfoil at above and bottom. A
structured mesh arrangement with quadrilateral mesh elements was adopted to map the
flow domain in trailing edge of airfoil until end wall, Tomasz Abramowski. All
applied physical models described above and grid topologies presented in Figure 3 and
Figure 4.
Figure 2 the Y plus," Y
p
", on airfoil edge
Figure 3 Zoom of refined hybrid grid around leading Edge
Figure 4 Zoom of refined hybrid grid around trailing Edge
By increasing the grid numbers and changing the type of arranging mesh, refining,
around the airfoil a proper Y
P
value is obtained, and with this value solution results
have good agreement with experimental data (Ahmed, at al.,2005) as shown as in
Figures 2 and 3.
For Enhanced wall treatment the Y
P
on the airfoil edge must be between 1 and 5 and a
proper Y
P
value is obtained on airfoil edges, shown as Figure. 1.
4. Governing equations
4.1 continuity and momentum equations
For calculation of viscous flow around an airfoil, a numerical method based on solving
equations describing the case under consideration, i.e. RANS equations, is used. These
equations have the following form for the incompressible, steady, twodimensional flow.
p(u
0u
0x
+:
0u
0y
) p=F
1

0p
0x
¹µ(
0
2
u
0x
2
+
0
2
u
0y
2
) p(
0u
'
u
'
0x
+
0u
'
v
'
0y
)
(1)
p(u
0u
0x
+:
0u
0y
) p=F
2

0p
0y
¹µ(
0
2
u
0x
2
+
0
2
u
0y
2
) p(
0u
'
u
'
0x
+
0u
'
v
'
0y
)
In the above equations, u, v are components of the mean velocity vector, P is the pressure,
is the viscosity, , are fluctuation parts of the velocity vector, F1, F2 are volumetric
forces. Furthermore, the model must satisfy the continuity equation.
0u
0x
+
0u
0y
=0 (2)
The RANS approach calculates statistically averaged (Reynoldsaveraged) variables for
both steadystate and dynamic flows and simulates turbulence fluctuation effect on the
mean airflow by using different turbulence models. Many turbulence models have been
developed since the 1970s. The RKE (Shih et al., 1995) and RNG (Yakhot and Orszag,
1986) kc model is use in this paper.
4.2 The Realizable k c model:
The turbulence kinetic energy, k, and its rate of dissipation, c, are obtained from following
transport equations:
0
0t
( µk) +
0
0x
¡
( µku
ì
) =
0
0x
]
Iµ +
u
t
c
k
]
0k
0x
]
 +0
k
+ 0
b
 µe  ¥
M
+ S
k
(4.2.1)
o
ot
( µe) +
o
ox
I
( µeu
ì
) =
o
ox
j
µ +
µ
t
o
s
1
oe
ox
j
 + µC
1
Se µC
2
e
2
k + Vve
+ C
1s
e
k
C
3s
0
b
+ S
s
Where
C
1
= m a x 0 .4 3 ,
n
n+5
 , n = S
k
s
, S =
.
2S
ì]
S
ì]
(4.2.2)
In these equations, 0
k
represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the
mean velocity gradients. 0
B
is the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to
buoyancy. ¥
M
represents the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible
turbulence to the overall dissipation rate. C
2
and C
1s
are constants. o
k
and o
s
are the
turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and c, respectively. S
k
and S
s
are userdefined source
terms.
Note that the k equation is the same as that in the standard kc mode and the RNG kc
model, except for the model constants. However, the form of the c equation is quite
different from those in the standard and RNGbased kc models.
4.3 The RNG kc model:
The turbulence kinetic energy, k, and its rate of dissipation, c, are obtained from following
transport equations:
o
ot
( µk) +
o
ox
I
( µku
ì
) =
o
ox
j
(o
k
µ
c]]
)
ok
ox
j
 + 0
k
+ 0
b
 µe  ¥
M
+ S
k
(4.3.1)
0
0t
( µe) +
0
0x
]
(µeu
]
) =
0
0x
]
(o
k
µ
c]]
)
0s
0x
]
 + C
1s
s
k
( 0
k
+C
3s
0
b
)  C
2s
µ
s
2
k
 R
s
+S
In these equations, the quantities o
k
and o
s
are the inverse effective Prandtl numbers for k
and c.
4.4 Modeling the Turbulent Viscosity for Realizable model:
In k  c models, the eddy viscosity is computed from
µ
t
= pCµ
k
2
c
(4.4.1)
It can be seen that Cµ is a function of the mean strain and rotation rates, the angular
velocity of the system rotation, and the turbulence fields (k and c).
4.5 Turbulence model constants
The turbulence model constants C
1c
and C
2c
in equation (4.3.1) have value derived
analytically by the RNG theory. These values for RNG model are C
1c
=1.42 and C
2c
=1.68
and for Realizable model are C
1c
=1.44, C
2
=1.9,
k
=1.0,
c
=1.2 (Launder and Spalding,
1972;Wilcox,1998). In this study, these values for the constant of RNG ke have been used
(Askari, Shojaeefard, 2009).
The overall of the applied technique is based on the finite volume method with segregated
formulation and secondorder upwind discretization schemes. The SIMPLE algorithm is
employed for the coupling of velocity and pressure. Flow conditions around the airfoil
were built up by steady analysis using a commercial code.
4.6 Wall treatment
The application of wall functions to modeling the nearwall region may significantly
reduce both the processing and storage requirements of a numerical model, while
producing an acceptable degree of accuracy. The nondimensional wall parameter is
defined as:
y
+
=
p¹
i
v
o
v
y
o
u
(4.6.1)
In "Eq. (4.6.1)", Y
p
is the distance from the first computational node to the wall and the
subscript w denotes wall properties, "Speziale, Abid, Anderson et al.".The standard wall
functions are based on the proposal of Launder and Spalding (1974), and have been widely
used for industrial flow. Kim and Choudhury (1995) proposed the use of the non
equilibrium wall functions in order to improve the accuracy of the standard wall functions.
The key elements in nonequilibrium wall functions are pressuregradient sensitized
Launder and Spalding (1974) log–law for mean velocity and the two layer based concept
to compute the turbulence kinetic energy in the walladjacent cells. In the twolayer
model, the whole domain is subdivided into a viscosity affected region and a fully
turbulent region. The one equation model of Wolf stein (1969) is employed in the
viscosity affected region.
Enhanced wall treatment is a method of nearwall modeling that utilizes the combination
of a twolayer zonal model with enhanced wall functions. If the mesh is fine enough to
resolve the laminar sub layer within the order of Y
P
 1), then the wall treatment is
identical to the twolayer zonal model, however, this mesh requirement can place
significant demands on computational processing and storage infrastructure.
5. Results & discussion
Figure 5 shows predicted lift coefficients with RKE and RNG Kc turbulence model
at u = 2.5, 7.5 and also compared with experimental data. It can be seen C
L
increases with
decreasing H/C and increasing angles of attack. It's obtained that this tow kind of kc
models earned reasonable result for C
L
in comparison with experimental data. Also with
RNG model the iterations of calculations increased to 2 or 3 time of Realizable model and
in time too.
Figure 5 Coefficient of lift at varying ground clearances for different angles of attack.
Figure 6 shows predicted drag coefficients with RKE and RNG kc turbulence model at
same angle of attack and also compared with experimental data. It can be seen C
D
increases with increasing H/C and increasing angles of attack. Its obtained that the result
of RKE model is better than RNG model. Also in C
L
calculations the RNG result with
Realizable result have a similarity but in C
D
calculations it's different.
Figure 6 Coefficient of drag at varying ground clearances for different angles of attack.
By comparing the pressure fields in unbounded flow and ground effect, it can be noticed
that a dramatic pressure increases in the region between the lower surface of the airfoil and
the ground occurs, resulting in the lift increase. As the airfoil approaches the ground, the
pressure on the pressure side of wing gradually increases due to slowdown of flow,
"Chun, Chang.", (Figures 7,8,10&11), although the pressure on the suction side of airfoil
gradually increases, but the increase rate of the pressure on the pressure side is much
larger than that of suction side, resulting in lift increase that is regarded as the advantage
of the WIG vehicle. The velocity fields around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow (u =2.5
o
,
Re = 2 *106) are shown in Figure. 9 and for u =7.5
o
are shown in Figure. 12.
Figure 7 Contours of static pressure around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow (u =2.50,H/C=0.2, Re=0.24 * 10
6
)
Figure 8 Contours of static pressure around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow (u =2.50,H/C=0.4,Re=0.24 * 10
6
)
Figure 9 Velocity fields around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow (u =2.50, H/C=0.4, Re=0.24 * 10
6
)
Figure10 Contours of static pressure around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow (u =7.50,H/C=0.2, Re=0.24 * 10
6
)
Figure 11 Contours of static pressure around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow (u =7.50,H/C=0.4, Re=0.24 * 10
6
)
Figure 12 velocity fields around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow (u =7.50, H/C=0.4, Re=0.24 * 10
6
)
.
6. Conclusion
The flow characteristics for twodimensional wings in ground proximity are analyzed with
RANS equations, and approximated by finite volume schemes, with RKE and RNG Kc
turbulence models. Based on this study, some conclusions can be drawn as:
1. For very low ground clearances, the lift force was found to be always high, due to
higher pressure on the lower surface of the airfoil. At higher angles of attack, high
values of pressure coefficient were recorded on the lower surface with the high
pressure region extending almost till the trailing edge of the airfoil, which resulted
in higher lift force. The pressure distribution on the upper surface did not show
significant variation with ground clearance, especially for higher angles of attack;
hence, the higher lift force was mainly due to modification of pressure distribution
on the lower surface.
2. Both kinds of Kc model, Realizable and RNG, for C
L
calculations of ground
affected airfoil is good but for C
D
predictions observably the Realizable give better
result.
3. The time consuming in Realizable model is very lower from RNG. For example for
H/C 0.6 in angle of attack 2.5 degree, Realizable was converged in 812 iteration but
RNG solution was converged in 3015 iteration.
References
Ahmed, M.R. (2005), "An investigation on the aerodynamics of a symmetrical airfoil in ground effect",
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science. Vol 29, 633–647.
Ollila, R.G. Hydronaut, J. (1980), "Historical review of WIG vehicles". 14 (3) 65–76.
Ando, S. (1990), "Critical review of design philosophies for recent transport WIG effect vehicles", Trans.
Jpn Soc. Aeronaut. Space Sci. 33 (99) 28–40.
Park I.R., Chun H.H., (1995), "Numerical simulation of unsteady performance for 2D surface effect
airfoils", Proc. of 95th Spring Meeting of Korea Committee for Ocean Resources and Eng.
Launder, B. E. and Spalding, D. B. (1974), "The numerical computation of turbulent flows", Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 269289.
Barth, T. J. and Jespersen, D. (1989), "The design and application of upwind schemes on unstructured
meshes", Technical Report AIAA 890366, AIAA 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting.
Patankar, S. V. (1980), "Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow", Hemisphere, Washington, D.C.
Zhai, Z. et al. (2007),"Evaluation of Various Turbulence Models in Predicting edicting Airflow and
Turbulence in Enclosed Environments by CFD: Part1: Summary of Prevalent Turbulence Models",
HVAC&R Research.
Speziale, C.G. and Abid, R. and Anderson, E.C. (1992), "Critical Evaluation of TwoEquation Models for
NearWall Turbulence", AIAA J., Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 324331.
Gresho, P. M. and Lee, R. L. and Sani, R. L. (1980), "On the TimeDependent Solution of the
Incompressible NavierStokes Equations in Two and Three Dimensions", Recent Advances in
Numerical Methods in Fluids, Pineridge Press, Swansea, U.K.
Firooz, A. Gadami, M. (2006), "Turbulence Flow for NACA 4412 in Unbounded Flow and Ground Effect
with Different Turbulence Models and Two Ground Conditions: Fixed and Moving Ground
Conditions", Int. Conference on Boundary and Interior Layers BAIL.
Abramowski, T. (2007), "NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF AIRFOIL IN GROUND PROXIMITY"
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 45, 2, pp. 425436, Warsaw.
Chun, H.H. and Chang, R.H. (2003), “Turbulence flow Simulation for Wings in Ground Effect with Two
Ground Condition Fixed and Moving Ground”, International Journal of Maritime Engineering.
YONG KIM, JAE. (2005), " Comparison of nearwall treatment methods for high Reynolds number
backwardfacing step flow" International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Vol. 19, No. 7,
493–500.
Askari S., Shojaeefard M.H. (2009), "Shape optimazition of the airfoil comprising a cross flow fan"
aircraft engineering and aerospace technology, an international journal, vol. 81 no. 5.
About the authers
M.H. Shojaeefard is a prof essor of Mechanical Engineeri ng, Depart ment of Mechanical
Engineering, Iran Universit y of Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran, Iran. He obt ained his BSc
in Ir an Uni ver sit y of Science and Technology, and M Sc and PhD in Bir mingham Univer sit y, UK. His
f ields of r esearch are f luid mechanics, gas t urbine, t urbomachines and design of machines, and
heat t r ansf er.
M. Tahani is a PhD st udent of Mechanical Engineering, Depar t ment of Mechanical Engineering,
Iran Universit y of Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran, Iran. He obt ained his BSc i n Semnan
Univer sit y, and M Sc and PhD i n Iran Univer sit y of Science and Technology. His f ields of research ar e
f luid mechanic, t her modynamic, gas t urbine, t urbomachine and t urbulence.
M.H. Roozbahani is a MSc st udent of Aer odynamic Engineering, Depar t ment of Mechanical
Engineering, Ir an Univer sit y of Science and Technology, Nar mak, Tehran, Iran. He obt ained his BSc
in MalekeAsht ar Universit y. His f ields of research are aerodynamics, t hermodynamic,
t urbomachine, t wo phase f low and t urbulence. M.H. Roozbahani is t he corr esponding aut her and
can be cont act ed at : rozbahani@mecheng.iust .ac.ir
M. Ni r ooei is a MSc st udent of Aerodynamic Engineer ing, Depart ment of Aerospace Engineering,
Shar if Universit y of t echnology, Azadi Av., Tehran, Iran. He obt ained his BSc in MalekeAsht ar
Univer sit y. His f i elds of r esearch ar e aerodynamics, f luid mechanics, t urbomachine and t urbulence.
Definitely. There have been some successful attempts to develop WIG vehicles that fly overwater. and overall operational expenses are lower than those of planes. There are many papers related to WIG’s construction or operation. also Kornev and Matveev (2003) who give details of their research on flight modeling problems. Sweden and the United States. Chawla (1988). Higher speeds can be achieved with hydrofoil boats or so called surface effect ships. at a height of 30 % of its chord length or lower) by utilizing an air cushion of relatively high pressurized air between airfoil and ground. The initial success in the development of WIG vehicles was accomplished in Finland. Ando made a critical review of the design philosophies of overwater transport WIG vehicles.. Experiments on aerodynamics of an airfoil subject to the ground effect have been recently carried out by Ahmed and Sharma (2004). the potential fuel savings and speed advantages over other modes of water transport providing the impetus. Speeds of WIGs are much higher than ship speeds. who tested a symmetrical NACA 0015 in a low speed wind tunnel. WIG crafts operate close to the water or ground surface (i. Introduction A WIG (winginground effect) craft is defined as a transport that has fixed wings like an airplane and has the advantages of increasing lift and decreasing drag when it flies above the water or ground surface at a sufficiently low level. (1996). A review of the various types of vehicles experimented at various times is made by Ollila. a marine vehicle without any water contact would be the solution for a very low drag induced only by air. Some of them are Afremov et al. A WIG boat is different from an aircraft because it cannot operate without the ground effect.e. The problems with implementation of WIG crafts are presented by Taylor (2000). The results of their investigations were lift and drag forces and detailed . who present wind tunnel results.1. Work on development of overwater WIG vehicles is currently going on in many countries.
is used for the convection term. The main object of this paper is to clarify the twodimensional ground effect and its flow characteristics due to different ground conditions at 7. such as shown in Figure 1. A numerical approach to the solution of the considered problem is presented by Park and Chun (1995). Equations are approximated by finite volume method. the computational domain extended 5C upstream of the leading edge of the airfoil. Simulation In this paper.5 degree angles of attack with two turbulence models. problem setup 3. 25C downstream of the trailing edge. and 12. 3. "Barth. RNG and RKE kturbulence model with Enhanced wall treatment. 10C downstream of the trailing edge.1 Computational domain and mesh generation At first the computational domain extended 12. turbulent flows around twodimensional wing in ground effect are analyzed with incompressible Reynolds Averaged NavierStokes (RANS) equations which are approximated by finite volume method.". The second order upwind method. The result of two domain grid was similar and continues analysis on the second domain. k. Jespersen et al.turbulence model. Distance of below the airfoil was defined with H/C where C is chord and H is ground distance at the trailing edge.". Figure 1 the dimensions and boundary conditions of the computational domain . 2. also for pressure interpolation the PRESTO.5C above the pressure surface and with attention to Firooz et all works. “Launder and Spalding". "Patankar et al. and they are solved by segregated method. method is used.characteristics of the flow.5C upstream of the leading edge of the airfoil. Another work is the paper of Rafiuddin (2005) who also presents experimental studies of the NACA 4415 airfoil in ground proximity. and 5C above the pressure surface.
Particular attention was directed to an offset 'inner region' encompassing the airfoil. at al. All applied physical models described above and grid topologies presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Tomasz Abramowski. zerodiffusion condition was applied. and also boundary layers mesh was applied on near the airfoil at above and bottom. At the outlet." An unstructured hybrid mesh arrangement with triangular mesh elements was adopted to map the flow domain in ground effect.Velocity inlet boundary condition was applied upstream (Inflow) with speed of U =35 m/s for a Reynolds number of 0. A structured mesh arrangement with quadrilateral mesh elements was adopted to map the flow domain in trailing edge of airfoil until end wall. The flow was assumed Incompressible.24 * 106 and Pressure out let flow boundary condition was applied downstream. ."Firroz. This is shown in Figure 2. The pressure and suction side of the airfoil and above and below's boundaries of domain were used applied with noslip condition and smooth wall condition and fixed wall for below (Ground) the airfoil.
at al. around the airfoil a proper YP value is obtained..Figure 2 the Y plus. . and with this value solution results have good agreement with experimental data (Ahmed.2005) as shown as in Figures 2 and 3. refining." Yp". on airfoil edge Figure 3 Zoom of refined hybrid grid around leading Edge Figure 4 Zoom of refined hybrid grid around trailing Edge By increasing the grid numbers and changing the type of arranging mesh.
v are components of the mean velocity vector. 4. i. RANS equations. 1995) and RNG (Yakhot and Orszag. + =0 (2) The RANS approach calculates statistically averaged (Reynoldsaveraged) variables for both steadystate and dynamic flows and simulates turbulence fluctuation effect on the mean airflow by using different turbulence models. 1986) k. 4. These equations have the following form for the incompressible. u. shown as Figure. Governing equations 4. . are fluctuation parts of the velocity vector. twodimensional flow.1 continuity and momentum equations For calculation of viscous flow around an airfoil. is the viscosity.. (u + ) =F1( + ). Furthermore.e. The RKE (Shih et al. F1. a numerical method based on solving equations describing the case under consideration. is used. 1.( + ) (1) (u + ) =F2( + ).( + ) In the above equations. P is the pressure.2 The Realizable k . the model must satisfy the continuity equation. Many turbulence models have been developed since the 1970s.For Enhanced wall treatment the YP on the airfoil edge must be between 1 and 5 and a proper YP value is obtained on airfoil edges. F2 are volumetric forces. steady.model is use in this paper.model: .
represents the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible and are constants.The turbulence kinetic energy. and its rate of dissipation. respectively. and and are the turbulence to the overall dissipation rate. (4. buoyancy. turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and .43. are obtained from following transport equations: ( )+ ( )= + x . k. the form of the models. .model: The turbulence kinetic energy.2) represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the is the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to mean velocity gradients. 4. + = + + + (4.2. terms. and its rate of dissipation. k. t ( )+ x ( )= + x . are obtained from following transport equations: t ( )+ x ( )= x k + x + + . .2. are userdefined source mode and the RNG k equation is quite Note that the k equation is the same as that in the standard k different from those in the standard and RNGbased k model. However. = max 0.3 The RNG k. except for the model constants.1) Where In these equations.
Shojaeefard. k=1.1) 4.models. 1972.0. the angular velocity of the system rotation. The SIMPLE algorithm is employed for the coupling of velocity and pressure. C2=1. In this study. 2009). =1.3.1998).9.4 Modeling the Turbulent Viscosity for Realizable model: In k . The overall of the applied technique is based on the finite volume method with segregated formulation and secondorder upwind discretization schemes.5 Turbulence model constants The turbulence model constants C and C in equation (4. 4.6 Wall treatment .4. the eddy viscosity is computed from = C k (4. and the turbulence fields (k and ).68 and for Realizable model are C1 =1.42 and C =1. these values for the constant of RNG ke have been used (Askari. These values for RNG model are C =1.Wilcox. 4.44. Flow conditions around the airfoil were built up by steady analysis using a commercial code. the quantities and .In these equations.1) have value derived analytically by the RNG theory.2 (Launder and Spalding.3. ( )+ = and are the inverse effective Prandtl numbers for k ( ) (4.1) It can be seen that is a function of the mean strain and rotation rates.
while producing an acceptable degree of accuracy. Kim and Choudhury (1995) proposed the use of the nonequilibrium wall functions in order to improve the accuracy of the standard wall functions. however. If the mesh is fine enough to resolve the laminar sub layer within the order of YP 1).based concept to compute the turbulence kinetic energy in the walladjacent cells. Yp is the distance from the first computational node to the wall and the subscript w denotes wall properties. Enhanced wall treatment is a method of nearwall modeling that utilizes the combination of a twolayer zonal model with enhanced wall functions. (4. then the wall treatment is identical to the twolayer zonal model. The key elements in nonequilibrium wall functions are pressuregradient sensitized Launder and Spalding (1974) log–law for mean velocity and the two layer.The standard wall functions are based on the proposal of Launder and Spalding (1974). The one equation model of Wolf stein (1969) is employed in the viscosity. In the twolayer model. and have been widely used for industrial flow.affected region. Abid.6.1)". The nondimensional wall parameter is defined as: = (4. Results & discussion . "Speziale. 5.1) In "Eq. this mesh requirement can place significant demands on computational processing and storage infrastructure.". the whole domain is subdivided into a viscosity affected region and a fullyturbulent region.6. Anderson et al.The application of wall functions to modeling the nearwall region may significantly reduce both the processing and storage requirements of a numerical model.
Figure 5 shows predicted lift coefficients with RKE and RNG K. Its obtained that the result of RKE model is better than RNG model.5. Also in CL calculations the RNG result with Realizable result have a similarity but in CD calculations it's different. 7. It's obtained that this tow kind of kmodels earned reasonable result for CL in comparison with experimental data.5 and also compared with experimental data. . Also with RNG model the iterations of calculations increased to 2 or 3 time of Realizable model and in time too. It can be seen CD increases with increasing H/C and increasing angles of attack.turbulence model at = 2.turbulence model at same angle of attack and also compared with experimental data. Figure 5 Coefficient of lift at varying ground clearances for different angles of attack. Figure 6 shows predicted drag coefficients with RKE and RNG k. It can be seen CL increases with decreasing H/C and increasing angles of attack.
". 12.10&11).8.50. Figure 7 Contours of static pressure around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow ( =2. The velocity fields around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow ( =2. (Figures 7.24 * 106) .5 o are shown in Figure. although the pressure on the suction side of airfoil gradually increases. Re = 2 *106) are shown in Figure. By comparing the pressure fields in unbounded flow and ground effect. Re=0. it can be noticed that a dramatic pressure increases in the region between the lower surface of the airfoil and the ground occurs. As the airfoil approaches the ground. Chang. resulting in lift increase that is regarded as the advantage of the WIG vehicle. "Chun.5o.H/C=0. the pressure on the pressure side of wing gradually increases due to slowdown of flow. but the increase rate of the pressure on the pressure side is much larger than that of suction side.2.Figure 6 Coefficient of drag at varying ground clearances for different angles of attack. 9 and for =7. resulting in the lift increase.
4.50.Figure 8 Contours of static pressure around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow ( =2.Re=0.4. H/C=0.24 * 106) .H/C=0.24 * 106) Figure 9 Velocity fields around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow ( =2. Re=0.50.
24 * 10 6) Figure 11 Contours of static pressure around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow ( =7.Figure10 Contours of static pressure around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow ( =7.H/C=0.50.H/C=0. Re=0.4.2.50.24 * 10 6) . Re=0.
with RKE and RNG Kturbulence models. the lift force was found to be always high. At higher angles of attack. Conclusion The flow characteristics for twodimensional wings in ground proximity are analyzed with RANS equations.Figure 12 velocity fields around NACA 0015 in unbounded flow ( =7. For very low ground clearances.24 * 106) . and approximated by finite volume schemes. high values of pressure coefficient were recorded on the lower surface with the high . 6. H/C=0.4. due to higher pressure on the lower surface of the airfoil. Based on this study. Re=0. some conclusions can be drawn as: 1.50.
(1980). Washington. for CL calculations of ground affected airfoil is good but for CD predictions observably the Realizable give better result. HVAC&R Research. C. 30 No. "Numerical simulation of unsteady performance for 2D surface effect airfoils".H. 2. and Spalding. 633–647... "An investigation on the aerodynamics of a symmetrical airfoil in ground effect". Z. Issue 2. (1992). The pressure distribution on the upper surface did not show significant variation with ground clearance.890366. M. the higher lift force was mainly due to modification of pressure distribution on the lower surface."Evaluation of Various Turbulence Models in Predicting edicting Airflow and Turbulence in Enclosed Environments by CFD: Part1: Summary of Prevalent Turbulence Models". J. D. Hemisphere.6 in angle of attack 2. and Abid. (2005). R. Space Sci. 14 (3) 65–76. R. For example for H/C 0.pressure region extending almost till the trailing edge of the airfoil.R. and Anderson. Vol 29. Jpn Soc. (1980). B. The time consuming in Realizable model is very lower from RNG. "On the TimeDependent Solution of the . J. References Ahmed. "The design and application of upwind schemes on unstructured meshes". "Historical review of WIG vehicles". 3. T. M. Both kinds of K. Barth. Patankar. R. D. S. Launder. R. B. especially for higher angles of attack. (1974). "Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow". Volume 3. Pages 269289. which resulted in higher lift force.5 degree. et al. Realizable and RNG. Aeronaut. 33 (99) 28–40. L. E. "The numerical computation of turbulent flows". of 95th Spring Meeting of Korea Committee for Ocean Resources and Eng. S. Realizable was converged in 812 iteration but RNG solution was converged in 3015 iteration. (1995). Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.C. 324331. Park I. "Critical Evaluation of TwoEquation Models for NearWall Turbulence". and Sani. and Jespersen. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science.R. Gresho. L. hence. "Critical review of design philosophies for recent transport WIG effect vehicles". D.G. Hydronaut.. (1980). P.G. Chun H. E. pp. Technical Report AIAA. Zhai. Vol. Proc. Ando.C. and Lee. Speziale. AIAA J. AIAA 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting. 2. (1990). Trans. Ollila. (1989). (2007).model. V.
Narmak. Iran. H. and MSc and PhD in Birmingham University. T.Incompressible NavierStokes Equations in Two and Three Dimensions". Iran.iust. Firooz. thermodynamic. U.H. 7.H. Abramowski. "Turbulence Flow for NACA 4412 in Unbounded Flow and Ground Effect with Different Turbulence Models and Two Ground Conditions: Fixed and Moving Ground Conditions". (2005). 81 no. International Journal of Maritime Engineering. an international journal.H. "Shape optimazition of the airfoil comprising a cross flow fan" aircraft engineering and aerospace technology.. No. Roozbahani is the corresponding auther and can be contacted at: rozbahani@mecheng. R. (2009). “Turbulence flow Simulation for Wings in Ground Effect with Two Ground Condition Fixed and Moving Ground”. M. Department of Mechanical Engineering. About the authers M. 2. turbomachine and turbulence. Int. Pineridge Press. He obtained his BSc in MalekeAshtar University. A. and Chang. gas turbine. YONG KIM. Sharif University of technology. thermodynamic. Azadi Av.K. Iran University of Science and Technology.H. Swansea. Department of Mechanical Engineering. Askari S. His fields of research are fluid mechanic. M. Iran. Vol. " Comparison of nearwall treatment methods for high Reynolds number backwardfacing step flow" International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics. turbomachine and turbulence. . Iran University of Science and Technology. 493–500. turbomachines and design of machines. His fields of research are fluid mechanics. Chun. 5. Gadami.. JAE. (2003).H.ac. vol. 19. Iran University of Science and Technology. M. Narmak. turbomachine. His fields of research are aerodynamics. Tehran. Tehran. Conference on Boundary and Interior Layers BAIL. He obtained his BSc in Iran University of Science and Technology. (2007). He obtained his BSc in Semnan University. Tahani is a PhD student of Mechanical Engineering. Roozbahani is a MSc student of Aerodynamic Engineering. two phase flow and turbulence. Department of Mechanical Engineering. "NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF AIRFOIL IN GROUND PROXIMITY" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 45. Tehran. Department of Aerospace Engineering. Shojaeefard is a professor of Mechanical Engineering. (2006). His fields of research are aerodynamics. UK. Iran. and heat transfer. Warsaw. Recent Advances in Numerical Methods in Fluids.H. gas turbine. Narmak. M. Shojaeefard M. fluid mechanics. Nirooei is a MSc student of Aerodynamic Engineering. He obtained his BSc in MalekeAshtar University. and MSc and PhD in Iran University of Science and Technology.ir M. 425436. pp. Tehran.