You are on page 1of 24

Team Members:

Chandrashekar Vishwanadha Jibi Ninan Varughese Krishna P Nitya Kalva

Contents
Introduction
Procedure Results: Comparison of different cases

Conclusion
References

Objective
To analyze the flow around different airfoils with varying angle of attacks and in different flow regimes

Procedure
MATLAB for Gmsh script generation CFD Analysis in ANSYS Fluent

Coordinates of Airfoil

Gmsh code

Mesh generation using Gmsh

Meshed Airfoil Geometry


Asymmetric Air-foil Symmetric Air-foil

NACA 6409 airfoil Max thickness 9% at 29.3% chord Max camber 6% at 39.6% chord

NACA 0012 airfoil Max thickness 12% at 30% chord Max camber 0% at 0% chord

CFD Analysis
Setup
Type: Density-based Steady State 2-D planar space Absolute velocity formulation

Flow conditions
Inviscid flow Ideal gas Energy Equation: On Po = 1 (atm.), To = 300 ( K)

Solver
Implicit 2nd Order upwind Solution steering to dynamically change CFL Under-relaxation factor: 0.5

Boundary conditions
Pressure far field Pressure far field Pressure far field

wall Pressure far field

Cases
Case 1: Symmetrical Wedge Mach no = 1.5 Mach no = 3 Case 2: Varying Mach numbers @ = 0o Symmetrical airfoil (M = 0.2, 1, 3, 7) Asymmetrical airfoil (M = 0.2, 1, 3, 7) Case 3: Varying Angle of attack @ M =3 Symmetrical airfoil ( = 5o, 10o, 15o) Asymmetrical airfoil ( = -15o, 5o, 15o)

Results Case 1: Symmetrical Wedge

Wedge: Varying Mach Number

Mach contour Mach 1.5 Detached shock as expected from the theta- beta-M diagram

Mach contour- Mach 3 Attached shock M2= 2.23 which is approximately equal to theoretical value of (2.26) M3=3.64 which is approximately equal to theoretical value 3.65

Wedge

Velocity vector plot for Mach 1.4 Sudden change in direction of flow at bow shock Gradual change in direction of flow in Prantdl Meyer expansion

Pressure plot for Mach 1.4

Results Case 2: Varying Mach Number

Symmetric Airfoil: Varying Mach Number


Mach number contours Low Subsonic: M =0.2 Transonic: M = 1

Supersonic: M = 3

Hypersonic: M = 7

Symmetric Airfoil: Varying Mach Number


Pressure contours Low Subsonic: M =0.2 Transonic: M = 1

Supersonic: M = 3

Hypersonic: M = 7

Asymmetric Airfoil: Varying Mach Number


Mach number contours Low Subsonic: M =0.2 Transonic: M = 1

Supersonic: M = 3

Hypersonic: M = 7

Asymmetric Airfoil: Varying Mach Number


Pressure contours Low Subsonic: M =0.2 Transonic: M = 1

Supersonic: M = 3

Hypersonic: M = 7

Results Case 3: Varying Angle of Attack

Symmetric Airfoil: Varying Angle of Attack


= 5o Mach number contours = 10o

= 15o

Slip line

Symmetric airfoils produce no lift at zero angle of attack velair, top > vel air, bottom So, according to Bernoulli's principle (ideal conditions): Pressuretop < Pressurebottom This produces lift!

Symmetric Airfoil: Varying Angle of Attack


= 5o Pressure contours = 10o

= 15o
As angle of attack increases, the differential pressure between top and bottom surfaces increases, thus increasing the lift

Asymmetric Airfoil: Varying Angle of Attack


= 5o Mach number contours = 15o

= -15o

Asymmetric airfoils produce lift even at zero angle of attack because of difference in surface areas of top and bottom surfaces Positive : velair, top > vel air, bottom Negative : velair, top < vel air, bottom

Asymmetric Airfoil: Varying Angle of Attack


= 5o Pressure contours = 15o

= -15o

As angle of attack increases, the differential pressure between top and bottom surfaces increases, thus increasing the lift Airfoil is being pushed down during negative angle of attack i.e. lift is negative

Lift and drag coefficients


Cd, Cl vs Mach Number
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 Cl Cd 0.18 0.16 0.6 0.14 0.5

Cd,Cl vs AOA
0.8 C_lift_symmetric

0.1

0.7

C_drag_symmetric

0.098

0.096

C_drag

0.4 0.1 0.3 0.08 0.2 0.1 0 0 -0.1 -0.2 2 4 6 8 0.06 0.04 0.02

0.4 0.3

0.094

0.092
0.2

0.09
0.1

Mach number

0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.088

Angle of attack [degrees]

C_drag

C_lift

0.12

C_lift

Conclusion
The wedge was perfectly symmetrical and thus

produced no lift (C_lift ~ E-06) with zero angle of attack. It also helped in investigating attached shocks and helped in validating the fluent solver Flow over symmetrical and asymmetrical airfoils was studied under different sonic conditions and angles of attack The optimal operating conditions observed in fluent agreed with theoretically specified values

References
Modern Compressible Flow: With Historical

Perspective. John D. Anderson, JR, 3rd Edition http://airfoiltools.com/search/index fluent_13.0_workshop02-airfoil.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil

Thank You! Questions?

Appendix
Hypersonic Flow

You might also like