NACA 0012 lift and drag coefficient.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the discrepancies observed in the drag coefficient of the NACA 0012 airfoil during ANSYS Fluent simulations compared to published literature. Participants explore potential reasons for these differences, including computational fluid dynamics (CFD) challenges, mesh quality, boundary conditions, and experimental influences.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant reports that while the lift coefficient aligns with published data, the drag coefficient shows significant discrepancies.
  • Another participant notes that calculating drag in CFD is notoriously difficult, suggesting it may be a common issue.
  • A suggestion is made that resolving the sub-layer is crucial, with a recommended y+ value around 1.0, and emphasizes the importance of accurately capturing the wake of the airfoil.
  • It is mentioned that drag calculations are sensitive to the turbulence model used and the pressure profile in the far field.
  • One participant cites literature recommending at least 25 chord lengths for accurate drag predictions, contrasting with their own experience of using only 10 chord lengths.
  • A participant shares their experimental findings with the NACA 0012, noting similar issues with drag force and suggesting potential interference effects, such as those from the pitot tube and boundary layer effects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessary mesh size and the factors affecting drag calculations, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain on how to achieve accurate results.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their approaches, including unresolved assumptions regarding mesh quality, turbulence modeling, and the influence of experimental setup on drag measurements.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to researchers and practitioners involved in computational fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, and experimental fluid mechanics, particularly those working with airfoil simulations.

maomao39
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I am running ANSYS fluent simulation flow over naca 0012 airfoil.
So far the lift coefficient is similar with the published papers.
The problem is drag coefficient is different so much in term of value compared to published papers.
I have check my mesh quality and boundary condition, it shows no problem.
Any idea why drag coefficient is different ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know if it's the case, but I do know that calculating drag has always been the bane of CFD.
 
To get the drag correctly, you need to resolve the sub-layer. Your y+ value needs to be around y+=1.0.
Also, drag calculations are sensitive to the downstream vortices and the pressure profile in the far field. You need to accurately capture the wake of the airfoil for at least 10 cord lengths, and the distance to the boundary of the far field needs to be be about the same length. So basically, there is at least 10 cord lengths of mesh in all directions around the airfoil.

Also, the predictions depend a lot on the turbulence model used.

You can still be off by 10-20% though because of the bad prediction of the transition point where the laminar boundary layer becomes turbulent.
 
From the literature I've seen on ANSYS, at least 25 chord lengths were suggested.

I've done around 10 and had problems before.
 
I just have done the experiment with NACA0012 finding drag and lift.
I had same problem about the amount of drag force.
but I think there are some interference. for example... pitot's effect, boundary effect...
sorry for weak English.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
10K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
12K