ME 450 Computational Fluid Dynamics

CFD Lab 3: Simulations of Turbulent Flow

around a Clark-Y Airfoil
Submitted to Prof. Tao Xing (xing@uidaho.edu)

Name: Scout Ferguson

University ID: 131-02489
E-mail: ferg6024@vandals.uidaho.edu
Department: Mechanical Engineering

Date: 24 April 2017

I. Problem Description and Simulation Design
A 2D CFD simulation is performed using ANSYS Fluent for turbulent flow over a Clark-
Y airfoil. The Reynolds Number for the turbulent flow is roughly 300,000 and the airfoil
is set in an O-type domain. The effects of domain size as well as to airfoil angle of attack
(AoA) is investigated. The entire experiment used the k-omega (SST) viscous model. Lift
and Drag Coefficients are found for each angle of attack (0, 3, and 30 deg) and compared
to experimental data. In addition to Lift and Drag Coefficient analysis, velocity and
pressure were also evaluated at each angle of attack at a 5[m] radius farfield.
II. CFD Process
1. Crating the Airfoil Geometry
i. 2-Dimensional
ii. Unchecked Solid Bodies
iii. Import airfoil coordinates (file is included, BBLearn)
iv. Farfield (Air)
a. Radius: 5[m] (3[m] and 7[m] Radius use for 0AoA study as well)
b. Subtract the airfoil sketch
c. Make the farfield a fluid
v. Surfaces
a. Make the airfoil a solid
b. Split the farfield into four quadrants
2. Creating the Mesh
i. Horizontal and Vertical axis mesh
a. 75 divisions
b. Hard behavior
c. Bias Factor of 50000
ii. Airfoil Mesh
a. Top half
1. 125 divisions
2. Hard behavior
3. 150 Bias Factor
b. Bottom half
1. 150 divisions
2. Hard behavior
3. 125 bias factor
3. Setup (Physics)
i. Double Precision
ii. General: Planar, Steady. Pressure-based, Abs. Velocity Formulation
iii. Viscous Model
a. K-omega (SST)
iv. Materials: Air
a. Density: 1.225 [kg/m3]
b. Viscosity: 1.789 e-05 [kg/m-s]
v. Boundary Conditions
a. Inlet Velocity, Outlet Velocity: 15[m/s]

1
4. Solution
i. Method
a. Scheme: Coupled
b. Gradient: Least Squares Cell Based
c. Pressure: Second Order
d. Momentum: Second Order Upwind
e. Turbulent Kinetic Energy: Second Order Upwind
f. Specific Dissipation Rate: Second Order Upwind
ii. Initialization
a. Hybrid
iii. Monitors (all Print to Console and Plot)
a. Residuals: 1.00e-05
1. Absolute Criteria
2. Precision: 4
b. Lift Coefficients
c. Drag Coefficients
iv. Calculation
a. Iterations: 1000
5. 30 Degree AoA/Create Airfoil Velocity Animation
i. Geometry
a. Translate: Rotate -30 deg
b. 5m Radius farfield
ii. Creating the Mesh
a. Airfoil Top Number of Divisions: 200
b. Airfoil Bottom Bias Factor: 250
iii. Solutions
a. General: Set Time as Tansient
b. Method
1. Scheme: SIMPLEC
2. Gradient: Green-Gauss Node Based
3. Pressure: Second Order
4. Momentum: Second Order
5. Turbulent Kinetic Energy: Second Order Upwind
6. Specific Dissipation Rate :Second Order Upwind
7. Transient Formulation: Second Order Implicit
c. Convergence Criterion: None
d. Initialization
1. Hybrid
e. Solution Animation
1. Contours : Velocity and Velocity Magnitude (50 levels)
f. Running Calculation
1. Time Step: 0.025 [sec]
2. Number of Time Steps: 25
3. Maximum Iterations: 200
4. Reporting Interval: 200

2
III. Data Analysis and Discussion
1. Effect of Domain Size

Ansys
Circle Radius 3 5 7
Lift Coefficient 0.304589 0.30398572 0.30387465
Relative Change N/A 6.03e-4 1.11e-4

2. Angle of Attack 0 (circle radius 5 [m], convergence tolerance 10-5)

Figure 1: Ansys Residuals

Figure 2: Ansys Contour of Pressure

3
 Figure 3: Ansys Contour of Velocity Magnitude

Figure 4: Ansys Velocity Vectors near the airfoil surface

4
 Figure 5: Ansys Streamlines near the airfoil surface

Figure 6: Ansys Comparisons with EFD on Pressure coefficient distributions

Ansys EFD
Converged Lift Coefficient (CL) 0.30398572 0.4439
CL Error 31.51932417 -
%
Converged Drag coefficient (CD) 0.020009113 0.025
CD Error 19.963548 % -

5
3. Angle of Attack 13

Figure 1: Ansys Residuals

Figure 2: Ansys Contour of Pressure

6
 Figure 3: Ansys Contour of Velocity Magnitude

Figure 4: Ansys Velocity Vectors near the airfoil surface

7
 Figure 5: Ansys Streamlines near the airfoil surface

Figure 6: Ansys Comparisons with EFD on Pressure coefficient distributions

Ansys EFD
Converged Lift Coefficient (CL) 1.3567696 1.357
CL Error 1.6978629e-2 % -
Converged Drag coefficient (CD) 0.053277263 0.08
CD Error 33.40342125 % -

4. Angle of Attack 30

8
 Figure 1: Ansys Residuals

Figure 2: Ansys Contour of Pressure

9
 Figure 3: Ansys Contour of Velocity Magnitude

Figure 4: Ansys Velocity Vectors near the airfoil surface

10
Figure 5: Ansys Streamlines near the airfoil surface

Figure 6: Ansys Time History of the drag coefficient

Last Period of lift coefficient = 0.13 [s]

Last Period of drag coefficient = 0.11 [s]

11
5. Questions in CFD Lab 3:
a. What is the effect on domain size on solutions?

The larger the domain size, the more precise the answer will be (in this case we were
finding the Lift Coefficient). It can also be noted that the results that the Lift
Coefficient will have monotonic convergence. Looking at the relative difference
between each farfield size shows that convergence will occur. The only drawback to
using a larger farfield is the amount of processing time it would take to solve the
mesh and input factors.

b. Where are the locations for the maximum and minimum pressure? Where are the
locations for the maximum and minimum velocity magnitude? Are they the same
locations? Why?

Referring to the 0 AoA, the maximum pressure occurs at the front of the airfoil. This
is the point of stagnation pressure. At the stagnation pressure point, there is no
velocity! The minimum pressure occurs on the top of the airfoil. This is also where
the maximum velocity magnitude is. As the pressure decreases, velocity increases.
The maximum pressure and minimum velocity occur at the same location, same with
the other way around.

Maximum Pressure: 143.00 [Pa]

Maximum Velocity: 19.00 [m/s]

Minimum Pressure: -91.10 [Pa]

Minimum Velocity: 0.00 [m/s]

c. Explain why there is a lift force (vertical up) on the airfoil using the contour plot of
pressure or the XY plot of pressure coefficient distribution.

The geometry of the airfoil causes the air to slow down on the bottom, creating a high
pressure zone right below the surface. On the top, the flow is expanded, which in turn
makes the flow speed up, creating a low pressure zone. Both of these zones start
roughly 0.15 [m] in the x-direction from the starting tip of the airfoil. A higher
pressure zone on the bottom will generate lift, even if it is a 0AoA.

d. Discuss the comparison between CFD and experiments on the pressure coefficient.
Where is the largest deviation observed? Why? How can you do to improve the
accuracy of the CFD predictions?

CFD and EFD pressure coefficients are accurate along the x-direction of the airfoil
EXCEPT for the front bottom side. The largest deviation occurs right past the tip
underneath the airfoil. Because of the rapid change in geometry, the EFD may not be
isentropic around that area. The CFD could be more accurate by increasing the
number of grid points and increasing the bias factor.

12
 e. Discuss the relative magnitudes of the lift and drag coefficients for different angles of
attack?

0 AoA: CL=0.30398 and CD=0.02000

13 AoA: CL=1.35677 and CD=0.05327

There is hardly any lift with a 0 AoA. Changing the AoA to just 13 degrees increases
the lift coefficient more than four times and only increases the drag by about 2.5
times. There will be a point when increasing the AoA will create more Drag than Lift.

f. Which angle of attack you observed flow separations? What causes the flow to
separate?

The airfoil at the 30 deg AoA has flow separation and the separation occurs on the top
side of the air foil. When the AoA is that steep (30 deg) and the Reynolds number is
that high, the flow is not able to turn enough and follow the airfoil surface. As a
result, the flow separates from the surface/flow direction. In addition, there is a point
of vorticity on the topside of the airfoil.

6. Conclusions
a. Conclusions (Summarize your findings and relate them to classroom lectures or
textbooks) (8 points)

The larger domain size will provide a more precise lift coefficient. A steeper angle of
attack will eventually cause flow separation. The fact that as pressure increases and
velocity decreases (relation) was reinforced. The general engineering of the airfoil
was also established. That is, a higher pressure zone on the bottom (compared to the
top) creates lift for the airfoil. Although we have not talked too much about airfoil
design in CFD class, this lab was very useful when it came to material from my Gas
Dynamics class ME412. The Pressure and Drag Coefficients also tied back to ME417
Turbomachinery. I visually learned about wat the wake region looks like behind the
30 AoA airfoil.

b. What I have learned from CFD Lab. (2 points)

I learned that the size of the farfield matter when trying to find precis solutions,
however, it takes much longer for the CFD to be solved. I also learned how to make a
transient solution instead of a steady solution. I enjoyed learning how to subtract
sketches from each other (I would have never thought to do it that way).

c. Comments on the hands-on experience, the software interface, and overall lab
performance (3 points)

13
 The setup took a bit longer than the last two labs, but many more steps were involved
with creating the mesh. However, going through the solution steps was very easy
because I am familiar with obtaining the correct plots, solutions, etc. Lab instructions
were 8 out of 10 overall.

d. Suggestions and improvements (2 points)

It would have been better if the instructions on the animation were a bit clearer. I
spent ~4 hours trying to get it to work and save properly. Other than that everything
else went well

14