Aperiodic Aero-foil Kinematics

     This post is about a 2D NACA 0012 aero-foil undergoing forced aperiodic heaving. Heaving motion is achieved by the plot shown in Fig. 1. Plot within Fig. 1 represents position of airfoil at various time steps.

Fig. 1, The position of aero-foil

     The animation of the vorticity contours are shown in Fig. 2. The velocity, pressure and vorticity for aperiodic heaving is shown in Fig. 3. A comparison will be made with heaving later, if ever 😀. As far as aerodynamic forces are concerned, per-cycle C_{l, avg} is at 0.63 as compared to 0.0 for periodic heaving. C_{d, avg} aperiodic heaving is at 0.162 as compared to 0.085 for periodic heaving. Of course, this is done on a coarse mesh. If ever I write a paper about this... 😀

Fig. 2, Top Row, Aperiodic, periodic heaving airfoil 

     

Fig. 3, Top Row, L-R, Vorticity, pressure. Bottom Row, Velocity 

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

Flapping Aerofoil For Propulsion

     This post is about a 2D NACA 0012 aerofoil undergoing forced flapping motion for propulsion purposes. Heaving motion is achieved by applying a vertical velocity on the aerofoil based on the Eqn. 1. Similarly the pitching motion is achieved by applying a rotational velocity, governed by Eqn. 2.

v_y = 2*π*f_h*H_o*sin(2*π*f_h*t)                                              Eqn. 1

ω = -2*π*f_h*ϑ*sin[(2*π*f_h*t) + 1.5708]                               Eqn. 2

     w.r.t. Eqn. 1-2 reduced frequency is defined as (2*π*f_h*H_o/U∞)), f_h is the frequency of oscillations, while ω, t and ϑ_o represent rotational velocity, instantaneous time and maximum pitching angle. H_o 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 propulsion mode, meaning the feathering parameter χ is less 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 simulation are at Re 1,000, K = 1.41, H_o = aerofoil chord length, χ = 0.5489 and f_h = 0.003391 Hz. The animation of the pressure, vorticity and velocity contours is shown in Fig. 1.

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

     The results of present simulation are compared with [1]. In terms of maximum lift, a maximum deviation of 5% is observed as compared to [1], as shown in Fig. 2. The maximum lift coefficient for available data is ~4.224 while the maximum lift coefficient from the present simulation is ~4.057. The average thrust produced is within 2% of [1]. Average thrust coefficient per cycle from [1] is 0.9957 while the result from present simulation reveals the thrust coefficient to be 1.0098.

Fig. 2, A comparison of coefficient of lift.

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

References

[1] https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2017.508

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.

Formation Flight Computational Fluid Dynamics

     This is a post about computational fluid dynamics analysis of formation flight.

     The results from an analysis of three unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) flying in a V-type formation are presented. The chosen UCAV configuration, shown in Figs. 1-2 and available for download here, is named SACCON (Stability And Control Configuration) UCAV. This configuration is used because of the availability of the geometric and aerodynamic data, used in the validation and verification of the numerical analysis. The SACCON UCAV is designed by NATO's (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) RTO (Research and Technology Group) under Applied Vehicle Task Group (AVT-161) to assess the performance of military aircrafts.

Fig. 1, SACCON UCAV

Fig. 2, Technical drawing for the SACCON UCAV

     The simulation is performed using commercially available computational fluid dynamics code.  The details about the solver and the discretization schemes are presented next. The simulation is performed using SIMPLE-R solver for pressure-velocity coupling. The diffusive terms of the Navier-Stokes equations are discretized using central differentiating scheme while the convective terms are discretized using the upwind scheme of second order. The κ-ε turbulence model with damping functions is implemented to model turbulence. The simulation predicts three-dimensional steady–state flow over UCAVs.

     The Reynolds and Mach number of flow are set at 1e6 and 0.15, respectively. The two trailing UCAVs are placed 3 wingspans behind the leading UCAV. The trailing UCAVs are a wingspan apart. The V-type configuration is chosen because it is the most common observation in birds (author's observation). The V-type formation is shown in Fig. 3. All three UCAVs are at 5° angle-of-attack.

Fig. 3, The V-type formation (top view)

     The boundaries of the computational domain are located at a distance equivalent to 10 times the distance between the nose of the leading UCAV and the tail of the trailing UCAV. The mesh is made of 821,315 cells. Mesh controls are used to refine the mesh in the areas of interest i.e. on the surfaces of the UCAVs and in the wake of all three UCAVs. A cartesian mesh with immersed boundary method is used for the present study. The computational domain with mesh is shown in Fig. 4 while a closeup of the mesh is shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 4, The computational domain and mesh

Fig. 5, Closeup of mesh, notice the refined wakes of the UCAVs

     For validation and verification, the lift and drag forces from the present study are compared with studies [1-2]. The results are in close agreement with [1,2] As a result of flying in a formation, an improvement in the lift-to-drag ratio of 10.05% is noted. The lift-to-drag ratio of the trailing UCAVs is at 11.825 in comparison with a lift-to-drag ratio of a single UCAV, i.e. 10.745. The lift coefficient is increased by 7.43% while the drag coefficient decreased by 2.174%. The reason(s) to why the efficiency increases will be looked upon later, if ever the author has the time and will power ☺.

     The results from post processing of the simulations are presented in Figs. 6-7. The pressure iso-surfaces colored by velocity magnitude are shown in Fig. 6. While the velocity iso-surfaces colored by pressure magnitude are shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 6, Flight direction towards the reader

Fig. 7, Flight direction away from the reader

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

[1] https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031386

[2] https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4217217

Comparison of VAWT Blade Designs (Leading-Edge Tubercle, Leading and Trailing-Edge Tubercle, Unmodified) (Update 05)

Numerical simulations were run on SolidWorks Flow Simulation Premium (model files are available here) software to compare the torque characterizes of three distinct vertical-axis wind turbine blade designs shown in Fig. 1. The torque characteristics are shown in Fig. 2.

This publication was used to verify and validate the numerical methodology. The results were within 8% of the publication's results at the design point of TSR of 1.2 at 90 RPM and 7.85 m/s wind speed. The dimensions of the turbine, the  blades and the cross section used are mentioned in the publication.

Fig. 1. Top Row, L-R: VAWT with blades having tubercles at the leading edge (ten tubercles per blade span, configuration name 10T), VAWT with blades having tubercles at both the leading and the trailing edge (ten tubercles per blade span). Bottom Row, VAWT with blades having no modifications.

It is clear from the Fig. 2 that the baseline design provides the most stable torque. On average the turbine with no modifications on the blades produced 5.31 Nm torque in one complete rotation, while the turbine with tubercles at the leading edge only, produced 5.20 Nm torque. The turbine with tubercles added to both the leading and the trailing edge produced 5.09 Nm torque in one complete rotation.

The peak torque was maximum for the turbine with the leading edge tubercles, followed by the turbine with the tubercles added to both the leading and the trailing edge of the turbine blades and the turbine with no modifications on the blades at 21.59 Nm, 21.45 Nm and 20.58 Nm respectively.

Fig. 2. Top Row, L-R: Torque curves for VAWT with blades having tubercles at the leading edge, Torque curves for VAWT with blades having tubercles at both the leading and the trailing edge. Bottom Row, Torque curves for VAWT with blades having no modifications. Three colors denote each of the blades in the turbine.

CFD post processing will be added later (may be next week). The effect of leading edge tubercle geometry will be investigated next. The blade design with tubercles added to both the leading and the trailing edge will not be investigated further because it produced the lowest average torque and second highest peak torque.

Update 01:

Decreased the number of tubercles per unit length of the blade, i.e. made the wavelength of the tubercles longer, kept the sweep angle same. As a result, the average and peak torque decreased to 4.53 Nm, and 19.33 Nm, respectively. The figure is attached.

Fig. 3. T-B: Torque curves for VAWT with blades having large wavelength tubercles at the leading edge (five tubercles per blade span, configuration name 5T45). Three colors denote each of the blades in the turbine. Render of the blades.

Update 02:

Increased the number of tubercles per blade span, i.e. made the wavelength of the tubercles smaller, kept the sweep angle same. As a result, the average and peak torque increased to 5.80 Nm, and 23.36 Nm, respectively. The figure is attached.

Fig. 4. T-B: Torque curves for VAWT with blades having smaller wavelength tubercles at the leading edge (fifteen tubercles per blade span, configuration name 15T45). Three colors denote each of the blades in the turbine. Render of the blades.

Update 03:

Again, increased the number of tubercles per blade span, i.e. made the wavelength of the tubercles smaller, kept the sweep angle same. As a result, the average and peak torque increased to 6.1 Nm, and 24.12 Nm, respectively. The figure is attached.

Fig. 5. T-B: Torque curves for VAWT with blades having smaller wavelength tubercles at the leading edge (twenty tubercles per blade span, configuration name 20T45). Three colors denote each of the blades in the turbine. Render of the blades.

Update 04:

Once more, increased the number of tubercles per blade span, i.e. made the wavelength of the tubercles smaller, kept the sweep angle same. As a result, the average and peak torque increased to 6.42 Nm, and 24.63 Nm, respectively. The figure is attached.

Fig. 6. T-B: Torque curves for VAWT with blades having smaller wavelength tubercles at the leading edge (twenty-five tubercles per blade span, configuration name 25T45). Three colors denote each of the blades in the turbine. Render of the blades.

A table for the tubercle geometry is shown below.

Table 01, Tubercle Geometry

Configuration Name	Amplitude (m)	Wavelength (m)	Sweep Angle (°)
Baseline	0	0	0
5T45	0.12777778	0.25555556	45
10T45	0.06052632	0.12105263	45
15T45	0.03965517	0.07931034	45
20T45	0.02948718	0.05897436	45
25T45	0.02346939	0.04693878	45

It is evident from Table 2 that adding more tubercles to the wind turbine's blade causes an increase in both the peak and the average torque. But it is also clear from the Table 2 that the percentage difference in both the average and the peak torque from the previous configuration (less tubercles per blade span) decreases as the number of tubercles per blade span is increased. It appears to be converging to a value.

Table 02, Tubercle Efficiency

Configuration Name	Peak Torque (Nm)	Average Torque (Nm)	Percentage Difference in the Average Torque from the Previous Configuration	Percentage Difference in the Average Torque from then Baseline Configuration
Baseline	20.58	5.31	N/A	N/A
5T45	19.33	4.53	-17.22	-17.22
10T45	21.59	5.2	12.89	-2.12
15T45	23.36	5.8	10.35	8.45
20T45	24.12	6.1	4.92	12.95
25T45	24.63	6.42	4.98	17.29

I think the difference between both the peak and the average torque produced by 25T45 and 20T45 configuration is comparable, up next, a new sweep angle.

Update 05

Following are my publications relating to the subject of this post.

Butt, F.R., and Talha, T., "A Numerical Investigation of the Effect of Leading-Edge Tubercles on Propeller Performance," Journal of Aircraft. Vol. 56, No. 2 or No. 3, 2019, pp. XX. (Issue/page number(s) to assigned soon. Active DOI: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.C034845)

Butt, F.R., and Talha, T., "A Parametric Study of the Effect of the Leading-Edge Tubercles Geometry on the Performance of Aeronautic Propeller using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)," Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, Vol. 2, Newswood Limited, Hong Kong, 2018, pp. 586-595, (active link: http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE2018/WCE2018_pp586-595.pdf).

Butt, F.R., and Talha, T., "Optimization of the Geometry and the Span-wise Positioning of the Leading-Edge Tubercles on a Helical Vertical-Axis Marine Turbine Blade ," AIAA Science and Technology Forum and Exposition 2019, Turbomachinery and Energy Systems, accepted for publication.

Thank you for reading.