Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
KHARTOUM
ENGINEERING
JOURNAL
(UofKEJ)
=0
(1)
(3)
(2)
= 12 + 22 + 32
(4)
+
=
+ +
(5)
Mohamed Hussain and Elteyeb Eljack / UofKEJ Vol. 1 Issue 2 pp. 52-57 (October 2011)
ui uj
( )
(6)
+ =
The equation
(7)
2
2
(1 2 ) (3 ) + ,1 + ,2
ui uj
1 + 1
(8)
= (1 2 )
= (1 2 ) +
+
.
= + + 2
(11)
= (
. )
+ 2
(12)
(9)
ui uj
( )
( )
(10)
+ (
.
) = + + (2
)
The first term on the left side, for fixed reference frames,
becomes
(
) =
(13)
(14)
In the same manner the last term on the right side becomes
(2
) = 2
RSM = +
(15)
+ = 0
(16)
Mohamed Hussain and Elteyeb Eljack / UofKEJ Vol. 1 Issue 2 pp. 52-57 (October 2011)
2
.
= (
.
)
) =
|2 =
.
where 2 |
(17)
(18)
= (
. )
+ 2
(19)
COMPUTATIONAL SETUP
The inlet boundary velocity was set to 30 m/s for all
turbulence models for direct comparison.
Fig. 2. Boundary Conditions
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
NACA 4412
Figs 3, 4, and 5 show the stream lines of the flow field which
is generated by k , k , and RSM models, respectively.
The angle of attack is set to (=24) so as to make sure that
there exist boundary layer separation over the airfoil.
Cord: 150 mm
Span: 300 mm
Re: 300,000
Fig. 3. Standard
Fig. 4. Standard
Fig. 5. RSM
54
Mohamed Hussain and Elteyeb Eljack / UofKEJ Vol. 1 Issue 2 pp. 52-57 (October 2011)
Pressure distribution
Figs 9, 10, and 11 show static pressure distribution over upper
and lower surfaces of the airfoil versus distance from leading
edge as calculated by , , and RSM models.
Frame No. (3)
Mohamed Hussain and Elteyeb Eljack / UofKEJ Vol. 1 Issue 2 pp. 52-57 (October 2011)
Mohamed Hussain and Elteyeb Eljack / UofKEJ Vol. 1 Issue 2 pp. 52-57 (October 2011)
4. CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
[1]
57