Aerofoil analysis, CFD and Experimental comparison

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the discrepancies between Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) results from ANSYS Fluent and experimental data for a NACA 0012 aerofoil. The analysis reveals that at 0º and 9º incidence angles, the results align closely, but at 12º incidence, significant differences arise due to flow separation not accounted for by Fluent's standard wall functions. The recommendation is to utilize Fluent's non-equilibrium wall functions for improved accuracy in cases involving flow separation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) principles
  • Familiarity with ANSYS Fluent software and its wall function settings
  • Knowledge of aerofoil theory, specifically NACA 0012 characteristics
  • Experience with interpreting Cp/x graphs in fluid dynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implementation of non-equilibrium wall functions in ANSYS Fluent
  • Study the effects of surface roughness on aerodynamic performance
  • Explore advanced CFD techniques for modeling flow separation
  • Analyze experimental methods for measuring aerodynamic coefficients
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, CFD analysts, and researchers involved in aerodynamic testing and simulation will benefit from this discussion.

Ma77h3w
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Computational Fluid Dynamics anyone? :D I know someone out there is a genius?
I'm trying to understand some of the differences between Experimental results and a Fluent (CFD) analysis of a NACA 0012 aerofoil. There are 3 Cp/x graphs of my results (plotted with negative down just to confuse you - suction on bottom, pressure top) . I need to explain what causes the differences between CFD and the experiment. Fluent is set up with pretty standard settings, standard wall functions.. etc..

The Attempt at a Solution



Here's what I've written so far (check attachments for graphs, hopefully they'll show up) :-

1.png


The 0º incidence results show a good similarity between the Fluent solver and the
experimental results. There is a small discrepancy with the experimental results showing a
lower Cp along the whole surface than the Fluent CFD. This may be due to... ?real-world surface roughness? ?Fluent wall functions? ... any ideas?

2.png


The 9º incidence results also show a good similarity between the CFD and the experiment.
However at the front tip of the wing the experimental results show a smaller Cp value than
the CFD on the suction surface. This may be due to ... no idea? anyone? my notes don't help!

3.png


The 12º incidence results show a large difference between CFD and the experiment. The Cp
on the suction surface is a lot nearer zero for the experiment, and flattens rather than
converging on zero. This is due to separation occurring on the suction surface of the
aerofoil. The standard wall functions used in Fluent don’t account for the separation
occurring in the 12º incidence case. Fluent’s non-equilibrium wall functions should be used
instead, as they provide a better estimation of the non-equilibrium effects in the separation.
... Not sure if there's anything I'm missing?

I will be amazingly greatful if anyone can help fill in the gaps.. :)
:)
Matt
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
i got a problem that there is offset in cp plots of Fluent and experiment regarding Naca65.
Please suggest what may be the cause
Please reply on maheshvarpe@gmail.com
 

Attachments

  • Cp offset.JPG
    Cp offset.JPG
    25.5 KB · Views: 484

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
910
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K