CFD Discussion-Group 7

 The importance of a correct setup

Student: Philip Bradley, 300814

In the subsonic range of Mach numbers, where the viscosity effects are negligible in comparison with pressure effects, the general simple turbulence models sufficed to provide accurate numerical validations. Initialization from the pressure-far-field boundary condition was vital in providing an accurate guess of the solution, which reduced divergence errors. Proving mesh independence was also important so as to provide an accurate, acceptable, solution while reducing computational time. However, proving mesh independence is rendered useless if the incorrect boundary conditions are assumed.

Viscosity and compressibility effects for the simulation

For the low Mach number of 0.5, there are mild compressibility effects on the flow which needed to be considered and were taken into account when choosing the model solver as a density based solver as opposed to a pressure based solver. The impact of viscous effects on the flow were also considered which were defined by the Reynold’s Number, where a large Reynold’s Number meant that inertial effects were more prominent than viscous effects. The issue when describing viscous effects, is that they are not analytically predictable, which leads to fluctuations, high frequencies and over estimated drag results.

It was found that during rotation, lift was lower and drag was higher than the corresponding steady-state values at the same Mach number.

At Mach 0.5, the differences between steady and transient lift were attributed to flow history whereas for transient drag these differences were mainly attributed to fluid inertia. The inertia effects dominated at higher Reynolds numbers as opposed to the viscous effects. The Spalart-Allmaras inviscid model was used to compare these results as the model is designed for highly rotational flows, such as the case with this model.

It was found that the transient flow fields were similar to the steady-state flow fields at Mach 0.5.

Transient flow fields at Mach 0.5 are different to the steady-state flow fields at the same Mach number, because transient flow fields are time dependent and are influenced by their history. However, in subsonic regions this difference is not large and will not drastically affect the final results as can be seen in comparing the velocity vector images of the transient and steady-state scenarios.

Velocity magnitudes for transient flow were similar to steady-state flow at Mach 0.5.

As mentioned in the point above, there are small differences between transient and steady-state flow fields such as velocity. As can be seen from the velocity vectors comparing transient to steady-state static flow at varying angles of attack, the results are very similar for velocity magnitudes. Visually, from the velocity vector plot, it is evident that there is greater separation on the top surface of the aerofoil at steady-state flow compared to the transient flow. This separation causes a more prominent wake downstream, especially for the higher

and high pressure in front of the aerofoil. .5 at close to 90°. where the down force is greatest and separation effects are minimal. similar results were obtained.  Pressure contours for steady-state static conditions showed a general trend of low pressure behind the aerofoil. Using the Spalart-Allmaras solver. This shows that separation had started to occur at around 15°. The drag steadily increased from zero drag to a maximum coefficient of drag of 2. Although Spalart-Allmaras was slightly different. with the minimum surface area at 0°. Spalart-Allmaras.pitching angles. For the lift coefficients. it can be seen that the angle of attack should be set at a very low angle. trailing behind the aerofoil. It can be seen that in the steady state scenario the direction of the arrows changed in the region close to the surface of the aerofoil so that their absolute velocity was higher than the aerofoil itself. This is intuitive as the largest surface area is exposed at 90°. the pressure on the leading edge of the aerofoil increases and the low pressures extend off the top surface.  Transient rotational lift and drag coefficient comparison showed similar results for κ-ε and κ-ω.  Steady-state static lift and drag coefficients were similar Static lift and drag coefficients using three commonly used turbulent models. it was shown that solver independence did exist and that the differing result of Spalart-Allmaras was attributed to user defined errors as well as Spalart-Allmaras being an inviscid model modelling a viscous case and not capable of dealing with separation effects very well.  Lift and drag characteristics of aerofoil for transient simulation Initially the lift produced from the aerofoil was negative which indicates that there was down force produced at 0°. As the aerofoil pitched and accelerated. The transient rotational lift and drag coefficients were plotted for the three turbulence solvers with Spalart-Allmaras providing different results to that of κ-ε and κ-ω.  Ideal drag versus lift for useful applications For ideal down forces with slight drag. the pressure contours for the static steadystate scenario were processed at various angles of attack. and Spalart-Allmaras was slightly different with a general error of 5%. As the angle of attack increased. This is essentially the ideal characteristics for spoilers on subsonic and transonic automobiles. At an angle of attack of 0°. κ-ε and κ-ω showed a similar trend over varying angles of attack. the κ-ε and κ-ω were the most similar. the leading edge experienced the highest pressure whereas the apex experienced the lowest pressure. This proves that regardless of the turbulence model used. the lift increased to a maximum at around 30°. and then decreased down to zero lift at 90°. with differing Spalart-Allmaras results.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful