Introduction
The NACA 0012 airfoil is widely used. The simple geometry and the
large amount of wind tunnel data provide an excellent 2D validation
case. For this case I use the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model.
Mesh
The mesh is a 30,000 cell structured C-grid. The chord length is 1 m.
The width of the first cell at the airfoil boundary is 0.02 mm. At Re =
3e6 and zero angle of attack, this results in a wall y+ = 1.3 ±
0.4, which is low enough for the turbulence model to resolve the sub
layer. The mesh shown is for an angle of attack of 6 degrees.
Drag Coefficient
The drag coefficient at zero angle of attack depends on the Reynold's
number. The experimental data is for an airfoil with a trip wire, which
forces the boundary layer to be completely turbulent.[1] This
corresponds to the Fluent model, which has an active turbulence model
over the complete airfoil. Note that the calculated drag coefficient is
somewhat higher than the experimental one. Possibly, the modeled
boundary layer is turbulent from the beginning, while in reality the
trip wire is not at the very leading edge of the foil.
Modeling the NACA 0012 airfoil without a trip wire is more complicated,
since Fluent itself is unable to predict the point along the chord where
the transition from a laminar to a turbulent boundary layer takes
place. One option is to manually set this transition point at Re = 5e5,
which is the flat plate transition point.[2]
Lift Curve
The lift coefficient depends on the angle of attack. For Re = 2e6 I
compare the lift coefficient to experimental results.[3] Because the
lift coefficient is less sensitive to the transition point, the
experimental data is for an airfoil without trip wire. (Later note: I
have come to think that the presence of a stall angle has some element
of luck. It turns out to be quite difficult to get one in Fluent.)
Lift Curve Slope
The initial slope of the lift curve depends on the Reynold's number.
Here I compare the lift curve slope to experimental results.[1]
Experimental results are both with and without trip wire; again the lift
coefficient is less sensetive to the transition point than the drag
coefficient.
References
2. H. Slichting, K. Gersten, Boundary Layer Theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg (2000), p. 33
3. L. Lazauskus, NACA 0012 Lift Data
برچسبها: مقایسه تحلیل عددی و ازمایشگاهی فلوئنت, مقایسه حل عددی و ازمایشگاهی, experimental
