Evaluation of Different Turbulence Models at Low Reynolds Number for the Flow over Symmetric and Cambered Airfoils

Authors

  • Tafsirul Hassan Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology, Chattogram-4349, Bangladesh
  • Md. Tazul Islam Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology, Chattogram-4349, Bangladesh
  • Md. Mizanur Rahman Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology, Chattogram-4349, Bangladesh
  • Abu Raihan Ibna Ali Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology, Chattogram-4349, Bangladesh
  • Asif Al Ziyan Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Chattogram-4349, Bangladesh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.38032/jea.2022.01.003

Keywords:

Turbulence Models, CFD Analysis, Wind Tubbel Testing, Airfoil, Lift Coefficient, Drag Coefficient

Abstract

This paper presents an evaluation of five different turbulence models by comparing the numerical data derived from these models using ANSYS Fluent with experimental data at a Reynolds number and a Mach number of 0.05 × 106 and 0.015 respectively based on the centerline chord of the airfoil for the flow over NACA 0012 and NACA 2412 airfoils. Moreover, the aim of the present study is to demonstrate the difference in aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoils in order to find aerodynamically more advantageous airfoil. It is concluded that Spalart-Allmaras model and k-ω SST model are capable of providing the most accurate prediction for lift coefficient at a low angle of attack for both airfoils. Standard k - ε model gives a slightly low value of lift coefficient at low angle of attack and slightly high value of lift coefficient at high angle of attack for both airfoils. k-ω SST model, Spalart-Allmaras model, Transition k-kL - ω model, and γ-Rⅇθ Transition SST model can predict drag coefficient reasonably at low angle of attack. At a high angle of attack, however, no turbulence model is able to give a satisfactory prediction for lift coefficient as well as drag coefficient, which implies that these models are unable to predict post-stall characteristics. NACA 2412 airfoil produces more lift coefficient than that of the NACA 0012 airfoil at all angles of attack. Moreover, the drag coefficient of NACA 2412 airfoil is less than that of the NACA 0012 airfoil, which implies that NACA 2412 airfoil exhibits better aerodynamic performance. The lift to drag coefficient ratio of NACA 2412 airfoil is also higher than that of the NACA 0012 airfoil indicating NACA 2412 airfoil to be more fuel economic.

References

Patel, K.S., Patel, S.B., Patel, U.B. and Ahuja, A.P., 2014. CFD Analysis of an Aerofoil. International Journal of Engineering Research, 3(3), pp.154-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17950/ijer/v3s3/305

Pranto, M.R.I. and Inam, M.I., 2020. Numerical Analysis of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA4312 Airfoil. Journal of Engineering Advancements, 1(02), pp.29-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38032/jea.2020.02.001

Mubassira, S., Muna, F.I. and Inam, M.I., 2021. Numerical Investigation of Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 4312 Airfoil with Gurney Flap. Journal of Engineering Advancements, 2(02), pp.63-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38032/jea.2021.02.001

Milne-Thomson, L.M., 1973. Theoretical aerodynamics. Courier Corporation.

McLay, A., 1995. Computational Fluid Dynamics: the Basics with Applications, JD Anderson, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Sahoo, S. and Maity, S., 2020. CFD Analysis of Responses of Two-Equation Turbulence Models for Flow over NACA 0012, NACA 4412 and S809 Aerofoils. In Advances in Mechanical Engineering (pp. 31-40). Springer, Singapore. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0124-1_4

El Maani, R., Radi, B. and El Hami, A., CFD Analysis of the Transonic Flow over a NACA 0012 Airfoil. Published by ISTE Ltd. London, UK.

Badran, O., Aldudak, R.Q.F. and und Aerodynamik, F.S., Two-Equation Turbulence Models for Turbulent Flow over a NACA 4412 Airfoil at Angle of Attack 15 Degree. Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering technology, Al-Balqa Applied University, Jordan.

Oukassou, K., El Mouhsine, S., El Hajjaji, A. and Kharbouch, B., 2019. Comparison of the power, lift and drag coefficients of wind turbine blade from aerodynamics characteristics of Naca0012 and Naca2412. Procedia Manufacturing, 32, pp.983-990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.312

Eleni, D.C., Athanasios, T.I. and Dionissios, M.P., 2012. Evaluation of the turbulence models for the simulation of the flow over a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 0012 airfoil. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research, 4(3), pp.100-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/JMER11.074

Linjing, M.A., Jiang, C., Gang, D.U. and Renjing, C., 2010. Numerical simulation of aerodynamic performance for wind turbine airfoils. Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica., 2, pp.203–209.

Bacha, W. and Ghaly, W., 2006. Drag prediction in transitional flow over two-dimensional airfoils. In 44th AIAA AeroSpace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (p. 248). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-248

Sogukpinar, H., 2018, February. The effects of NACA 0012 airfoil modification on aerodynamic performance improvement and obtaining high lift coefficient and post-stall airfoil. In AIP conference proceedings (Vol. 1935, No. 1, p. 020001). AIP Publishing LLC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5025955

Saxena, E.S. and Kumar, M.R., 2015. Design of NACA 2412 and its Analysis at Different Angle of Attacks, Reynolds Numbers, and a wind tunnel test. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, 3(2), pp.193-200.

Mayer, Y., Zang, B. and Azarpeyvand, M., 2019. Aeroacoustic characteristics of a NACA 0012 airfoil for attached and stalled flow conditions. In 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (p. 2530). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-2530

Harish, H.V., Arundeep, M., Santhosh, N., 2019. Prediction Of Stalling Angle By Analysis Of Flow Over Symmetric Aerofoil. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 2(2), pp.17-28.

Patil, B.S. and Thakare, H.R., 2015. Computational fluid dynamics analysis of wind turbine blade at various angles of attack and different Reynolds number. Procedia Engineering, 127, pp.1363-1369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.495

Hasegawa, M. and Sakaue, H., 2017. Drag reduction using hairy chemical coating on NACA 0012 airfoil in turbulent airflow. In 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting (p. 0283). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-0283

Venkatesan, S.P., Kumar, V.P., Kumar, M.S. and Kumar, S., 2018. Computational analysis of aerodynamic characteristics of dimple airfoil NACA 2412 at various angles of attack. Idea, 46, p.10.

Meghani, P., 2018. A 2D Aerodynamic Study on Morphing in The NACA 2412 Aerofoil. In 13th Research and Education in Aircraft Design Conference, Brno, Czech Republic. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13164/conf.read.2018.6

Havaldar, S.N., Pawar, S., Lele, A., Pradhan, R. and Rishi, A., Experimental Investigation of Lift forNACA 2412 Airfoil without Internal Passage with NACA 2412 Airfoil with Internal Passage in a Subsonic Wind Tunnel. Journal of Aerospace Engineering & Technology, 5(2), pp.27-33.

ANSYS Fluent 2019 R2. 2019.

Wilcox, D.C., 1988. Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models. AIAA journal, 26(11), pp.1299-1310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/3.10041

Menter, F.R., 1994. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA journal, 32(8), pp.1598-1605. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/3.12149

Launder, B.E., Spalding, D.B., 1974. The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 3(2), pp.269–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(74)90029-2

Shih, T.H., Liou, W.W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z. and Zhu, J., 1995. A new k-ϵ eddy viscosity model for high reynolds number turbulent flows. Computers & fluids, 24(3), pp.227-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7930(94)00032-T

Spalart, P. and Allmaras, S., 1992, January. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. In 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (p. 439). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1992-439

Walters, D.K. and Cokljat, D., 2008. A three-equation eddy-viscosity model for Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations of transitional flow. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 130(12). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2979230

Walters, D.K. and Leylek, J.H., 2004. A new model for boundary layer transition using a single-point RANS approach. J. Turbomach., 126(1), pp.193-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1622709

Langtry, R. and Menter, F., 2005, January. Transition modeling for general CFD applications in aeronautics. In 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (p. 522). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-522

Menter, F.R., Langtry, R. and Völker, S., 2006. Transition modelling for general purpose CFD codes. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 77(1), pp.277-303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10494-006-9047-1

Langtry, R.B. and Menter, F.R., 2009. Correlation-based transition modeling for unstructured parallelized computational fluid dynamics codes. AIAA Journal, 47(12), pp.2894-2906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.42362

Contigiani, C.C., Colli, A.N., Pérez, O.G. and Bisang, J.M., 2020. The effect of a conical inner electrode on the mass-transfer behavior in a cylindrical electrochemical reactor under single-phase and two-phase (Gas-Liquid) swirling flow. Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 167(8), p.083501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ab8477

Downloads

Published

18-03-2022
  • Abstract view251

How to Cite

Hassan, T., Islam, M. T., Rahman, M. M., Ali, A. R. I., & Ziyan, A. A. (2022). Evaluation of Different Turbulence Models at Low Reynolds Number for the Flow over Symmetric and Cambered Airfoils. Journal of Engineering Advancements, 3(01), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.38032/jea.2022.01.003

Issue

Section

Research Articles