Objectives:

To gain experience in setting up and running a commercial CFD package. To draw results on the level of grid independence achieved using two convection schemes (upwind and QUICK) on the different grids. To obtain higher order estimates for the upwind scheme results, and to find the order of accuracy for the same using Richardson extrapolation. To make comparisons between computed turbulent flow and the experimental data (reported by Nakayama).

Introduction:
The experiment is aimed at computing the flow around an airfoil model with the use of Fluent software. The flow is 2-dimensional and a small flow domain is considered. Two flow cases are dealt i.e. laminar and turbulent flows. The laminar flow is computed at velocity magnitude of 0.0035 at an three grids are examined such as the airfoil and 10 from the airfoil grids are 80x20, 160x140, 320x80, dimension by a factor of 2. a Reynolds number 240 with the angle of incidence 10 o . In this flow, 40x10 (40 nodes wrapped around to the outer boundary). The other each obtained by dividing each cell

The turbulent flow is computed at a Reynolds number 1.2x106 and at an angle of incidence 0o. The computational results thus obtained are then compared with experimental data reported by Nakayama (1985).

Results and Discussion:

Investigations conducted: A solution was obtained on the coarsest grid using the first order upwind scheme and the values of Cl and Cd are recorded. A corresponding solution was obtained using the QUICK scheme on the coarsest grid.

The above calculations were repeated using first order upwind and QUICK schemes for the two medium grids. The results were tabulated as shown below

GRID

UPWIND CL CD 0.2634 0.2322 0.2131 0.2028

QUICK CL 0.5855 0.5887 0.5972 0.6018 CD 0.2103 0.1975 0.1932 0.1923

40x10 80x20 160x40 320x80

0.7142 0.6625 0.6348 0.6217

Table 1: shows calculated CL and CD values for different grids. Grid Independence: Generation of high-quality grid is very important to get an accurate solution; a low-quality grid leads to incorrect solution. It is important, therefore, to test whether the solution is grid independent. From the CL and CD values obtained from Table 1, there is reduction in values for the successive grid refinements. The values obtained for finer grid (320x80) is relatively low when compared to the coarser grid (40x10) indicating that dependency of the numerical simulation on the cell size has been reduced. In addition, reduction in values from coarser grid to the finer grid is relatively high, the level of grid independence was said to be achieved. Richardson Extrapolation: Richardson extrapolation was used to calculate higher order estimates for CL and CD using the below formula, ex=1-2n21-2n Eq.1 where 1 and 2 can be any grid solution, n is the order of solution (in this case, since it is first order upwind n=1.)

Thus, when calculated we get, ex= 0.6109. The above calculation were repeated for another set of solution and the results were tabulated below GRID 80X20 320X80 CL 0.6109 0.6083 CD 0.2021 0.2234

Table 2: Richardson extrapolated values for CL and CD From the Table 2 it is clear that, the extrapolated CL value is only slightly lower than the finer grid solution. Similar behavior is observed for drag coefficient (CD). Therefore it is shown that the solution has converged with refinement from coarser grid to finer grid. Accuracy of Discretization Scheme: The order of accuracy of the scheme was estimated using the formula below, n=log2-13-2log2 Eq.2

Thus, n was calculated to be 0.8952, which is close to 1. Turbulent flow comparison: Turbulent flow calculations were performed at a Reynolds number of 1.2 x 106 and at an angle of incidence of 0o. In this case, an inlet value for the turbulent quantities such as turbulent intensity and viscosity ratio was set in the software. Also, near wall effects are considered by selecting Enhanced Wall Treatment option in the software. By setting this, wall function approximation will be employed. Figure (1-4) shows the pressure distribution along the airfoil, computed at different locations and compared with experimental results. The results in Figure (1-2) confirm the close agreement between computed and experimental values. It is evident that the inclusion of

viscous effects influences the pressure distribution in the leading and trailing edge regions of airfoil. In general, pressure on the surface is not uniform. From x/C = 0.9 to trailing edge the value of Cp varies slowly. Between x/C =1.4-3 , there exists a separation near the trailing edge region which can seen from Figure(3-4).

Figure 1: shows pressure distribution for x/C =1.2

Figure 2: shows pressure distribution for x/C =1.4

Figure 3: shows pressure distribution for x/C=1.8

Figure 4: shows pressure distribution for x/C=3

Conclusion:
The solution obtained for finer grid (320x80) is relatively low if compared with coarser grid (40x10). This shows that the level of grid independence was achieved. The solution obtained from Richardson extrapolation showed that the solution is converged with refinement from coarser grid to finer grid. Accuracy of discretization scheme was calculated and found to be close to 1.

The pressure coefficient distribution Cp over the airfoil was computed which found to be similar with the experimental data (reported by Nakayama).