Aerofoil Kinematics Computational Fluid Dynamics (Update: 01)

This post is about a 2D NACA 0010 aerofoil undergoing various forms of forced kinematics i.e. pure heaving and pitching and a combination of two known as flapping.

Heaving motion is achieved by changing the angle of attack on the aerofoil based on the Eqn. 1.

α_e = arctan[2*π*St_a*cos(2*π*f_h*t)] + α_i               Eqn. 1

The pitching motion is achieved by employing the sliding mesh with the rotational velocity governed by Eqn. 2.

ω = 2*π*f_h*ϑ*cos(2*π*f_h*t)                                 Eqn. 2

w.r.t. Eqn. 1-2 α_e is the effective angle of attack, St_a is Strouhal number (defined as (f_h*h0/U∞)), f_h is the frequency of oscillations, while ω, t and ϑ represent rotational velocity, instantaneous time and pitching angle. h0 is the heaving amplitude and U∞ is the free stream velocity.

The flapping motion is achieved by a combination of the heaving and pitching. In this particular simulation, the aerofoil is in the power extraction mode, meaning the feathering parameter χ is greater in magnitude than 1.0. Feathering parameter is defined by Eqn. 3.

χ = ϑ/arctan(h0*2*π*f_h/U∞)                                  Eqn. 3

The boundary conditions employed for the set of simulations are at Re 50,000, St_a 0.0149, h0 = aerofoil chord length, χ = 1.1 and f_h = 0.5 Hz. The animation of the velocity contours superimposed with streamlines is shown in Fig. 1. The velocity scale ranges from 0 to 7 m/s. Pressure distribution around the aerofoils in various forms of motion, after five complete cycles is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1, Flow animation, fluid flow direction is from left to right

Fig. 2, Fluid flow is from left to right

If you want to collaborate on the research projects related to turbomachinery, aerodynamics, renewable energy, please reach out. Thank you very much for reading.

Heaving Airfoil Simulation

This post is about a 2D NACA 0012 heaving aerofoil. Heaving motion is achieved by changing the angle of attack on the aerofoil based on the Eqn. 1.

α_e = arctan[2*π*St_a*cos(2*π*f_h*t)]+ α_i               Eqn. 1

w.r.t. Eqn. 1, α_e is the effective angle of attack, St_a is Strouhal number, f_h is the heaving frequency.

The case S1 and H6 from [1] are compared in the animations below.

If you want to collaborate on the research projects related to turbomachinery, aerodynamics, renewable energy, please reach out. Thank you very much for reading.

References

[1] https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001419

Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of a Drone

     This post is about the computational fluid dynamics analysis of a small drone. The drone features a blended body-wing design with various cross sections at different span-wise locations. The drone has a wing-span and length of 6 ft. and 4.92 ft., respectively. The root (center) portion of the drone is relatively thicker and symmetrical in cross section for increased mechanical strength while the the mid-section and wing tips are thinner and utilize more cambered aero-foils. This is purely a concept design and as of now, no physical model of this drone exists.

     The numerical simulations for the present study were carried out using SolidWorks Flow Simulation Premium© code. The code employs κ-ε model with Two-Scales Wall Functions approach as the turbulence model. The numerical algorithm implemented is the SIMPLE-R, modified. The second-order upwind discretization scheme is used to approximate the convective fluxes while the diffusive terms are approximated using the central differencing scheme. The time derivatives are approximated with an implicit first order Euler scheme. The SolidWorks Flow Simulation© solves the Navier-Stokes equations, equations 1-3, which are formulations of mass, momentum and energy conservation laws for fluid flows. Turbulent flows are predicted using the Favre-averaged Navier-Stokes equations.

     The mesh independence test was carried out starting with 348,679 fluid cells. The mesh density was then increased up to 2,360,514 cells. The results of mesh independence study are mentioned below.

                          Mesh Name             Cells            Lift [N]         Drag [N]      Lift/Drag

                          M1                          348,679       382.41 -48.14      7.95

                          M2                          1,032,665    466.08      -48.73      9.57

                          M3                          1,559,516    473.48 -47.89      9.89

                          M4                          1,990,010    486.38 -48.08      10.12

                          M5                          2,360,514    491.07 -48.32      10.16

     It can be seen that as the mesh density increased, the difference in the critical parameters between two successive meshes also reduced. The mesh independence test was stopped as the difference between all of the critical parameters was less than one percent for the meshes M4 and M5.

     The pressure and velocity plots at various span-wise locations are shown in Fig. 1-2. It can be clearly seen that there is a negligible change in the velocity and pressure distributions around the drone between meshes M4 and M5. It can also be seen that as the mesh becomes finer, the resolution of both the pressure and velocity plots also increases.

Fig. 1, Velocity contours of various meshes.

Fig. 2, Pressure contours of various meshes.

     Aero-acoustics around the drone were also examined, as shown Fig. 3.

Fig. 3, Sound level contours of various meshes.

     A zoomed in view of the computational mesh is shown in Fig. 4. The refined mesh at the drone walls as a result of the mesh controls employed is clearly visible. The hump near the root of the drone is also visible, it was added in order to prevent the span-wise flow.

Fig. 4, Mesh level M4.

     The boundary conditions and the computational domain are shown in Fig. 5. The large red arrows represents inlet velocity boundary condition and the large blue arrows represents the atmospheric pressure outlet boundary condition. The red squares represents real wall boundary condition (slip) applied to the computational domain walls so that the boundary layer from the walls does not effect the flow around the drone.

An animation of an aileron roll can be seen here.

Thank you for reading. If you would like to collaborate on research projects, please reach out.

High Camber Wing CFD Simulation

     This post is about the numerical simulation of a high camber, large aspect ratio wing. The wing had an aspect ratio of 5:1. The Reynolds number of flow was 500,000. The wing was at an angle of attack of zero degree. The aero-foil employed had a cross section of NACA 9410.

     The software employed was Flow Simulation Premium. A Cartesian mesh was created using the immersed boundary method. The mesh had 581,005 cells. Among those 581,005 cells, 55,882 were at the solid-fluid boundary. A time step of ~0.00528167 s was employed*. The domain was large enough to accurately trace the flow around the wing without any numerical or reversed flow errors. The software employs κ-ε turbulence model with damping functions, SIMPLE-R (modified) as the numerical algorithm and second order upwind and central approximations as the spatial discretization schemes for the convective fluxes and diffusive terms. The time derivatives are approximated with an implicit first-order Euler scheme.

     The mesh is shown in Fig. 1. The four layers of different mesh density are also visible in Fig. 1, the mesh is refined near the wing surface using a mesh control. The velocity around the wing section is shown in Fig. 2, using a cut plot at  the center of the wing. In Fig. 2, the wing body is super imposed by pressure plot. The velocity vectors showing the direction of flow are superimposed on both the wing body and the velocity cut plot.

Fig. 1, The computational domain.

Fig. 2, The velocity and pressure plots.

     The results of the simulation was validated against the results from XFLR5 software. XFLR5 predicted slightly higher lift and slightly less drag on the wing for same boundary conditions because the XFLR5 simulations were inviscid.

     Thank you for reading. If you would like to contribute to the research, both financially and scientifically, please feel free to reach out.

     *Time step is averaged because of the fact that a smaller time step was employed at the start of the numerical simulation.

Canal Turbine Concept

It's a concept I am currently working on, so far I gave made a CAD model (renderings attached) of it in SolidWorks and analyzed it using its built in CFD module.

There are many advantages of canal turbines over wind turbines, prominent one's being:

 

Unidirectional flow

Water flows in one direction in a canal so we don't need pitch and yaw control surfaces. That simplifies the design process and reduces weight.

Constant flow rate

We (humans) control water flow rate through canals and it's almost same all year, so we don't have to worry about blade aero foil design to suit variable/abruptly variable flow rate, that makes design process further straight forward.

Large Electricity potential

Canals are 100s of km long, imagine the electricity potential in the canals. You can put these turbines in irrigation canals and it'll power nearby villages and all the irrigation equipment etc.

Higher Power/Discharge Ratio

Water is ~816 times dense (powerful) than air, so for the same discharge (flow) rate we get potentially 816 times more power. Which means more we can make designs that are lighter, smaller and easier to manage and maintain.

Easy maintenance

Fitted less than ~1 m deep inside the canal and can be retracted for maintenance at ground level, making maintenance very easy or better yet, we can maintain them while canals are being cleaned.

Plots for Comparison between Lift and Drag Produced by a Legacy Wing VS a Wing with Tubercles (Humpback Whale Fin's Inspired)

For some reason plots are now showing up in the original post (http://3dimensionaldesigningandmanufacturing.blogspot.com/2015/07/comparison-between-lift-and-drag.html).

Comparison between Lift and Drag Produced by a Legacy Wing VS a Wing with Tubercles (Humpback Whale Fin's Inspired)

* Link for Plots (now showing here for some reason) http://3dimensionaldesigningandmanufacturing.blogspot.com/2015/07/plots-for-comparison-between-lift-and.html

Following data was obtained from the CFD Simulations carried out in SolidWorks Flow Simulation Premium.

Project: Design of a Wing/Blade with Tubercles for Airplanes and/or Turbines

Without Tubercles
Air Speed in Km/h	Lift in N	Drag in N
150	46.307	14.775
140	39.942	12.917
130	33.432	11.057
120	28.807	9.498
110	24.234	7.928
100	20.593	6.625
90	15.836	5.352
80	12.482	4.205
70	9.411	3.243
60	7.272	2.406
50	4.873	1.680
40	3.130	1.082
30	1.763	0.612
20	0.810	0.279
10	0.231	0.072

 

 

With Tubercles
Air Speed in Km/h	Lift in N	Drag in N
150	50.616	11.360
140	48.131	10.008
130	37.190	8.505
120	30.988	7.309
110	24.784	6.079
100	20.892	5.094
90	17.225	4.146
80	13.412	3.287
70	9.955	2.507
60	7.444	1.849
50	4.955	1.286
40	2.991	0.828
30	1.652	0.468
20	0.725	0.212
10	0.214	0.057

 

Comparison between Lift and Drag

Air Speed in Km/h	Percentage Less Drag		Percentage More Lift
150	23.113		8.513
140	22.520		17.014
130	23.080		10.105
120	22.974		7.038
110	23.322		2.219
100	23.109		1.431
90	22.534		8.064
80	21.831		6.934
70	22.695		5.465
60	23.150		2.311
50	23.452		1.655
40	23.475		-7.523
30	23.529		-6.719
20	24.014		-11.72
10	20.833		-7.94

 

It is clear that the wing with tubercles not only produces more lift at a particular velocity but also less drag.

Data for the Wing without Tubercles:

Wing Span: 1.07 m

Chord Length: 0.229 m

Air Velocity: 0-150 Km/h head on

Vertical Pitch: 0 Degree

Gravity Considered

Fluid: Dry Air at STP

Mesh Settings: Coarse (3/8)

Data for the Wing with Tubercles:

Wing Span: 1.067 m

Chord Length Large: 0.229 m

Chord Length Small: 0.203 m

Air Velocity: 0-150 Km/h head on

Vertical Pitch: 0 Degree

Gravity Considered

Fluid: Dry Air at STP

Mesh Settings: Coarse (3/8)

Let's now take a look at visual representation of data.

This Plot Shows Air Velocity VS Drag, Lift by the Wing without Tubercles

This Plot Shows Air Velocity VS Drag, Lift by the Wing with Tubercles

As you can see from above two plots; the wing with tubercles generates more lift and less drag.

This Plot Shows Air Velocity VS Lift Generated by the Wings

The green line represents the Lift generated by the wing with tubercles. It is between two to six percent more at each velocity.

This Plot Shows Air Velocity VS Drag Generated by the Wings

The green line represents the Drag generated by the wing with tubercles. It is around twenty two percent less at each velocity.

This Plot Shows Air velocity VS Lift to Drag Ratio

It is clear from this plot that Lift to Drag ratio of the wing with tubercles is around thirty three percent more for the wing without tubercles at a velocity point.

 

This Plot Shows Air Flow around the Wings at 150 Km/h from the Right Side

This Plot Shows Air Flow around the Wings at 150 Km/h

The Need for Tubercles

In aviation there are four forces at play, Lift which over comes Weight and Thrust which overcomes Drag. For a cruise speed at a particular altitude, three of these forces are almost constant. Our goal is to minimize Thrust, Drag and Weight and maximize Lift, this is because Thrust costs in terms of fuel flow rate and Weight and Drag negatively impacts on the agility of the aircraft. Aerodynamically efficient Wings and/or Blades with "Tubercles" will not only increase Lift and but also decrease Drag. This all means that we will need less Thrust for a cruise speed than before, that results in savings in terms of fuel which will result in healthier environment.

 

Applications:

 

Canal Turbine Concept

It's a concept I am currently working on, so far I gave made a CAD model (renderings attached) of it in SolidWorks and analyzed it using its built in CFD module.

There are many advantages of canal turbines over wind turbines, prominent one's being:

 

Unidirectional flow

Water flows in one direction in a canal so we don't need pitch and yaw control surfaces. That simplifies the design process and reduces weight.

Constant flow rate

We (humans) control water flow rate through canals and it's almost same all year, so we don't have to worry about blade aero foil design to suit variable/abruptly variable flow rate, that makes design process further straight forward.

Large Electricity potential

Canals are 100s of km long, imagine the electricity potential in the canals. You can put these turbines in irrigation canals and it'll power nearby villages and all the irrigation equipment etc.

Higher Power/Discharge Ratio

Water is ~816 times dense (powerful) than air, so for the same discharge (flow) rate we get potentially 816 times more power. Which means more we can make designs that are lighter, smaller and easier to manage and maintain.

Easy maintenance

Fitted less than ~1 m deep inside the canal and can be retracted for maintenance at ground level, making maintenance very easy or better yet, we can maintain them while canals are being cleaned.