Journals / Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 1

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF SUBSONIC TURBULENT FLOW OVER NACA0012 AIRFOIL: EVALUATION OF TURBULENCE MODELS

Pages
133–155
Publication Date
2017-03-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was found that by increasing the angle of attack, the accuracy of all the turbulence models used in the OpenFOAM software would reduce.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Subsonic turbulent flow over NACA0012 airfoil at the Reynolds number of 3×106 and different angles of attack (from -12º to 20º) is simulated using OpenFOAM.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Hence, the laminar to turbulent transition point was determined at various Reynolds numbers in order to get accurate results ort he drag coefficient.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that by increasing the angle of attack, the accuracy of all the turbulence models used in the OpenFOAM software would reduce.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Subsonic · NACA0012 airfoil · turbulence models

Abstract

Subsonic turbulent flow over NACA0012 airfoil at the Reynolds number of 3×106 and different angles of attack (from -12º to 20º) is simulated using OpenFOAM. The flow is assumed ort steady and two-dimensional. Different turbulence models including Spalart-Allmaras, realizable k-ɛ and k-ω Shear Stress Transport (SST) are employed and their accuracy evaluated through the comparison ort h results with the available experimental data. The main focus has been put on the two regions around the airfoil, namely, the transition region and the turbulent region that are of high importance in the evaluation of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes. Hence, the laminar to turbulent transition point was determined at various Reynolds numbers in order to get accurate results ort he drag coefficient. It was found that by increasing the angle of attack, the accuracy of all the turbulence models used in the OpenFOAM software would reduce. In addition, the Spalart-Allmaras model showed highest accuracy compared with the other models tested in the present research. In fact, these turbulence models are unable to detect the point where the transition from laminar to turbulent flow occurs and thus have deficiency in determining the accurate flow quantities. Therefore, in both the theoretical and empirical studies the transition effects should be taken into account especially in critical analyses.

🔖

Cite This Article

MOUSAVI, S. M., SHAFIEI, N., DADVAND, A. (2017). NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF SUBSONIC TURBULENT FLOW OVER NACA0012 AIRFOIL: EVALUATION OF TURBULENCE MODELS. Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 1, 133–155. https://ajindex.com/articles/415833

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Saniei Nejad M., Mani M., (2014) Numerical comparison between physics of transitional flow and full turbulent flow around classical airfoil of NACA0012 at subsonic and transonic regimes, Journal of Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics 2, 63–87. (In Persian
  2. Bacha W.A., Ghaly W.S., (2006) Drag prediction in transitional flow over two-dimensional airfoils, 44th AIAA AeroSpace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA. doi: 10.2514/6.2006-248
  3. Johansen J., (1997) Prediction of laminar/turbulent transition in airfoil flows, RisØ National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark
  4. McCroskey W.J., et al., (1987) A critical assessment of wind tunnel results for the NACA0012 airfoil, U.S. Army Aviation Research and Technology Activity: Nasa Technical Memorandum 42, 285–330
  5. Maksymiuk C.M., Pulliam T.H., (1987) Viscous transonic airfoil workshop results using ARC2D, 25th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, and Exhibit, 12–15 January 1987, Reno, Nevada, USA. doi: 10.2514/6.1987-415
  6. Arias O., Falcinelli O., Fico N., Elaskar S., (2007) Finite volume simulation of a flow over a NACA0012 using Jameson, Maccormack, Shu and Tvd Esquemes, Mecanica Computational 26, 3097–3116
  7. Barter G.E., (2008) Shock capturing with PDE-based artificial viscosity for an adaptive, higher-order discontinuous Galerkin finite element method, PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
  8. Batchelor G.K., (1967) An introduction to fluid dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
  9. Versteeg H.K., Malalasekera W., (2007) An introduction to computational fluid dynamics: The finite volume method, 2nd ed., Pearson Education Limited, ISBN: 978-0-13-127498-3
  10. Saniei Nejad M., (2009) Fundamentals of turbulent flows and turbulence modeling, Danesh Negar Press, Tehran, Iran. (In Persian
  11. Schmitt F.G., (2007) About boussinesq's turbulent viscosity hypothesis: Historical remarks and a direct evaluation of its validity, Comptes Rendus Mécanique 335, 617–627. doi: 10.1016/j.crme.2007.08.004
  12. Deck S., Duveau P., Espiney P., Guillen P., (2002) Development and application of Spalart–Allmaras one equation turbulence model to three-dimensional supersonic complex configurations, Aerospace Science and Technology 6, 171–183. doi: 10.1016/S1270-9638(02)01148-3
  13. Spalart P.R., Allmaras S.R., (1992) A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, AIAA Paper, No. 92–0439. doi: 10.2514/6.1992-439
  14. Deck S., Hallard R., (2001) Numerical simulation of se