ME 450/550 Computational Fluid Dynamics

CFD Lab 3

Simulation of Turbulent Flow around a

Clark-Y Airfoil
Submitted to: Professor Tao Xing

Name: Cristofer Farnetti

University ID: 111-67743
E-mail: Farn7259@vandals.uidaho.edu
Department: UI Mechanical Engineering

Date: 04/20/2016

I.

Problem Description and Simulation Design (10 points)

Turbulence encompasses a large portion of the flows observed in real-life situations. The ClarkY airfoil has been used on aircrafts that travel at sub-sonic speeds for a long time, and the
purpose of this simulation is to get hands-on experience with turbulence modelling with on a 2-D
Clark-Y airfoil. The type of grid that is used will be the so-called O-type structured grid. The
effects of the domain size and angle of attack (AOA) will be investigated as well. The domain
sizes are 3m, 5m, and 7m while the AOA used are 0 degrees, 13 degrees, and 30 degrees. The
CFD tool that will be used is ANSYS Fluent 16.2.
The Clark-Y airfoil in this study has a chord length of 0.3049[m], and a Reynolds
number of 300,000 will be used to achieve turbulent flow. The Reynolds number characteristic
length is equal to the chord length, the velocity is 15[m/s], and the fluid properties are based on
air at 20 degrees C. The domain around the airfoil will be split into four equal segments so that
the appropriate boundary conditions can be applied for a decent solution.

II. CFD Process (10 points)

The information that was used to define the CFD process can be seen in the table below.

1.) Geometry
a. Open geometry editor from Workbench 16.2
i. In the sketch tab turn on Auto Constriants
ii. From the sketching tab, create a circle on the xy-plane (R=5[m]) at the
origin
iii. For the airfoil, click Concept>3D curve and open the airfoil geometry
file.
1. Concept>surfaces from edges, and click the airfoil curve
iv. For the circle, click Concept>surfaces from sketches, change the
operation box to add frozen
v. For the airfoil, click Create> Boolean, change the operation to subtract
click on the circle as the target body and the airfoil as the tool body.
vi. Create 2 lines that bisect the circle vertically and horizontally and create
the line from the Concept menu. Then use the projection tool to divide
the circle into 4 different parts.
2.) Mesh
a. Open mesh editor from Workbench 16.2
i. Tools>options set options to Automatic then click generate and add a
face mesh.
ii. For the left and top lines that divide the circle add a mesh size of 75
divisions, Hard
1. Bias type ____ ___ _ _
a. Bias factor= 50000
2. Do the same for the right and bottom lines except change the bias
type to _ _ ___ ____
iii. Create a mesh size for A, with 125 divisions, Hard
1. Bias type _ _ ___ ____
a. Bias factor= 150
2. Do the same for B, except change the bias type to ____ ___ _ _
iv. Create a mesh size for C, with 125 divisions, Hard
1. Bias type ____ ___ _ _
a. Bias Factor= 150
2. Do the same for D, except change the bias type to _ _ ___ ____
v. Create named selections called Airfoil_Top (surfaces A and C), and
Airfoil_Bottom (surfaces B and D).
vi. Create named selection Inlet for the left outline of the semi-circle, and
Outlet for the right outline of the semi-circle.
vii. Create named selection Fluid for the faces of the circle quadrants.
3.) Setup/Physics
a. Open Ansys Fluent by selecting the setup editor in Workbench 16.2
i. Before Fluent opens define double precision, and Parallel processing or
serial depending on your computers capabilities
ii. In the General tab ensure time is Steady, and 2D space is Planar
iii. Under Model, choose: Viscous-SST k-omega

iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.

xi.

1. BCs:
a. Wall: no slip
b. Inlet: Const. velocity = 15[m/s]
c.
Outlet: Const. velocity = 15[m/s]
2. Fluid: Air
3. Set velocity at the inlet= 15 m/s
Under the Cell Zone Conditions tab, ensure that the type is Fluid for the
circles surface.
Set the reference values to those shown in the Table above.
Set the Solution Methods as defined in the Table above.
Set Residuals as in the Table above.
Create a lift and drag monitor, and set their precision to 4.
Initialize the solution (see table for method)
Run the calculation with 1000 iterations.
1. Save plots of:
a. Residuals
b. Lift coefficient
c. Drag coefficient
d. Contours of pressure and velocity
e. XY plot of EFD pressure coeff. and CFD pressure coeff.
f. Vector plot of boundary layers
For 30 degree AoA change time in the general tab to Transient, and then
follow the Table for adjustments to the solution before running the
simulation.

III. Data Analysis and Discussion (65 points)

A. Effect of domain size (15 points)
Circle Radius (m)
Lift Coefficient
Relative Change

3
0.31757832
N/A

Effect of domain size

5
0.31769018
0.035%

7
0.31782843
0.044%

B. Angle of attack 0 (circle radius 5 m, convergence tolerance 10-5) (9 points)

Figure 1. Residuals

Figure 3. Contour of velocity magnitude

Figure 5. Streamlines near the airfoil surface

Figure 2. Contour of pressure

Figure 4. Velocity vectors near the airfoil

surface

Figure 6. Comparisons with EFD on pressure

coefficient distribution

Converged lift coefficient CL = 0.31769018

(Error: 28.43 %)
(EFD CL = 0.4439)
Converged drag coefficient CD = 0.013981884
(EFD CD = 0.025)
(Error: 44.07%)

C. Angle of attack 13 (9 points)

Figure 1. Residuals

Figure 3. Contour of velocity magnitude

Figure 2. Contour of pressure

Figure 4. Velocity vectors near the airfoil

surface

Figure 5. Streamlines near the airfoil surface

Figure 6. Comparisons with EFD on pressure

coefficient distribution

Converged lift coefficient CL = 1.3668704

(Error: 0.727 %)
(EFD CL = 1.357)
Converged drag coefficient CD = 0.040035615
(EFD CD = 0.08)
(Error: 49.95 %)

D. Angle of attack 30 (8 points)

Figure 1. Residuals

Figure 2. Contour of pressure

Figure 3. Contour of velocity magnitude

Figure 4. Velocity vectors near the airfoil

surface

Figure 5. Streamlines near the airfoil surface

Figure 6. Time history of the lift coefficient

Last period of lift coefficient =

0.125 (s)

Last period of drag coefficient =

0.125 (s)

Figure 7. Time history of the drag coefficient

E. Questions in CFD Lab 3 (24 points)

(1). What is the effect of domain size on solutions?
Answer:
The result of increasing the domain size from R=3[m] to R=5[m] and R=7[m] was a small
increase in the lift coefficients. The lift coefficient for the 3[m] domain was 0.31757832, and
when the domain was increased to 5 [m] the lift coefficient grew to 0.31769018 (an increase of
1.1186e-04 or 0.035%) and when the domain was increased to 7[m] the solution for lift
coefficient grew again to 0.31782843 (an increase of 2.5011e-04 or 0.079%, from the 3[m]
domain). Thus for a sufficiently large domain, the results are independent of the domain size.
(2). 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?
Answer:
0 Degree AOA
The location for the maximum pressure was at the airfoil nose (the stagnation point) while the
location for minimum pressure was about of the airfoil downstream at the top surface of the
structure. The location for the maximum velocity magnitude was about of the airfoil
downstream at the top surface of the structure, while the minimum velocity magnitude was at the
airfoil nose. The locations are the same for both the pressure and velocity magnitude, however
the maximums and minimums are swapped (e.g. the max pressure is the location of the min
velocity magnitude and vice versa).
13 Degree AOA
The maximum pressure was located on the bottom of the airfoil, shifted slightly off from the
original stagnation point of the 0 degree AOA. The minimum pressure was shifted more toward
the airfoil nose (on the top surface) relative to the 0 degree AOA. The maximum velocity
magnitude was shifted more toward the nose of the airfoil on the top surface, relative to the 0
degree AOA, while the minimum velocity magnitude was located on the bottom of the airfoil
shifted slightly off from the original stagnation point of the 0 degree AOA. The locations are the
same for both the pressure and velocity magnitude, however the maximums and minimums are
swapped (e.g. the max pressure is the location of the min velocity magnitude and vice versa).
30 Degree AOA
8

The maximum pressure was located on the bottom of the airfoil, shifted more down the airfoil
body with respect to the 13 degree AOA. The minimum pressure location varied as the
asymmetric shedding caused pressure and velocity fluctuations on the top of the airfoil and
behind it. The maximum velocity was located at the leading edge and trailing edge of the airfoil
as the flow detached from the airfoil body. The minimum velocity occurred near the same
location as the maximum pressure, in addition to the locations of back flow related to the vortex
shedding behind and near the top surface of the airfoil.
(3). 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.
Answer:
The location of minimum pressure was always on or near the top of the airfoil surface for every
AOA, and since the pressure on the bottom of the airfoil was much larger the fluid particles
move much slower near the bottom, while it accelerates near the top; additionally the higher
pressure fluid tends to travel toward a lower pressure fluid vertically, so if there is a low pressure
near the top surface the fluid under the airfoil rises bringing the airfoil with it.
(4). Discuss the comparison between CFD and experiments on the pressure coefficient.
Where is the largest deviation observed? Why? What can you do to improve the
accuracy of the CFD predictions?
Answer:
The largest deviation was observed in the 13 degree AOA on the airfoil top surface where the
CFD data under predicts the pressure coefficient (by about 2) at the nose the most and the error
propagates down the airfoil. I think this occurs since there is such a large pressure gradient in the
front of the airfoil on the top (due to the geometry). Perhaps refining the mesh near the nose to
more accurately capture the physics of the high pressure gradient of the airfoil would work by
adding more grid points, and using a larger bias factor to attribute more grid points toward the
nose of the airfoil. Given the fact that the solution may take longer to converge with more grid
points, I would try using a larger bias factor first and compare my results with EFD.
(5). Discuss the relative magnitudes of the lift and drag coefficients for different angles of
attack?
Answer:
For the 0 degree AOA the coefficient of lift (CL) was 0.31769018 but when the AOA is adjusted
to 13 degrees the CL increases by a magnitude of about 4.3 (CL=1.3668704). The most
interesting part occurs when the AOA is increased to 30 degrees and the airfoil beings to produce
some vortex structures because the CL fluctuates but the data produces a mean value that is only
3.92 times larger (CL=1.2449968) than the 0 degree AOA CL, which is a smaller CL than the 15
degree AOA .
(6). Which angle of attack you observed flow separations? What causes the flow to
separate?
Answer:
All AOA had flow separations, even though the 0 degree AOA had a very small separation region
in comparison to the 30 or 13 degree AOA. The flow separates because the geometry of the

airfoil causes an abrupt and rapid pressure gradient where the boundary layer detaches since the
kinetic energy of the fluid is too great to follow the contour of the airfoil body.

IV. Conclusions (15 points)

A. Conclusions (Summarize your findings and relate them to classroom
lectures or textbooks) (8 points)
Domain size can play a role in the accuracy of the solution. When the domain size was
increased from 3[m] to 5[m] and eventually to 7[m], the solution for the CL gradually increased
in magnitude indicating that the flow physics were being captured more and more (reduction of
% error). It leaves the question though, when will the solution come to a point where it changes
negligibly as we increase the domain size? Is the function to describe this behavior linear?
In the study of the effects of AOA, the error associated with the solution for the CL and
CD changed from the 0 degree AOA to the 13 degree AOA. The error for the CL changed from
about 28% to 0.7% from the 0 degree to the 13 degree AOA respectively, while the error for the
CD increased from 44% to 50% for the 0 degree to the 13 degree AOA (respectively). I am
uncertain of the reason for the behavior of the error, but my prediction is that it has to do with
mesh size and how or where the points are located with respect to the airfoil since the airfoils
cross-section in the stream-wise direction is significantly larger and the effects airfoil in the
middle of the body could have more grid points to capture the flow physics.
In the 30 degree AOA the thing that I found interesting was the period of the last
fluctuation for both CL and CD. The period for the las fluctuation for CL and CD was exactly the
same (t=0.125[s]), which is interesting because the forces associated with each coefficient are
perpendicular but nonetheless the fluctuation has the same period with in the same time frame
(0.45 t 0.6). The fact that both CD and CL reach a relative maximum within the period at near
the same time is also interesting, but intuitive in that if there is a pressure change that causes a
higher lift, there would also have to be an increase in drag as well for this system. Additionally,
the 30 degree AOA have vortex shedding patterns that looked very similar to the circular
cylinder flow video from Lecture 8.
The contours of the airfoil are what determine the characteristics of the flow around the
airfoil. From Lecture 8, pages 4-5 (on the 2 slides per page link), the effects of pressure gradient
on curved surfaces in quite strongly related to the data received from the pressure and velocity
contour plots (Figure 2B and 3B) as the air flows around and over the nose of the airfoil.

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

In this lab, I learned a number of things that really solidified some of the knowledge that I
learned in fluid dynamics and this class, on top of increasing my knowledge/ experience with
CFD. I learned that turbulence modelling can have a large error associated with the solutions.

C. Comments on the hands-on experience, the software interface, and

overall lab performance (3 points)
The hands- on experience was really helpful to connecting the dots between the theory and the
physical systems. The software interface was very intuitive and made the process to obtain

10

solutions very easy, and quick. The overall lab was great, however I did notice some typos in the
lab template that could be fixed for future classes.

D. Suggestions and improvements (2 points)

The lab tutorial was very well laid out, but the only improvement I could suggest would be on
the lab report template, and even then it is only a matter of grammar and clarity. I say clarity
because in question #2 I wasnt sure if you wanted me to talk about all of the AoA, or just one.
Additional guidance on where to take pictures of the boundary layer with the vector plots could
be helpful, but the way I took it was that you wanted to see where/if the flow separates from the
airfoil body (areas where there could be backflow, etc.).

11