Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Double wake model for separated flows over airfoils

2017

Abstract

Industry standard aerodynamic design tool RFOIL's performance can be improved at high angles of attack by incorporating the double wake inviscid model in the separated flow region. As a precursor, single wake inviscid model is developed using 2-D panel method to replicate the outcome of the standard tools. Then the double wake inviscid model is established on top with changes in the Kutta condition and local vorticity at the separation point. The solution is calculated by iterative procedure by establishing two wake sheets one from the trailing edge and the other from the separation point. The wake shapes are established from induced velocities of the airfoil vorticity distribution. The double wake inviscid model could establish better results than XFOIL and results closer to the experiment in the separated flow region over airfoils. This model can be combined with the viscous effects to mitigate the convergence problem at very high angles of attack with separated flows. Further...

FAQs

sparkles

AI

How does the double wake model improve predictions at high angles of attack?add

The research finds that the double wake inviscid model improves lift predictions by 15-20% compared to single wake models, especially around 21° AoA where flow separation is prevalent.

What are the limitations of traditional inviscid models with separated flows?add

Traditional inviscid models struggle to accurately predict lift in highly separated flows, often resulting in 10-30% discrepancies in lift coefficients compared to experimental data.

When is the double wake model most effective for airfoil design?add

The double wake model is most effective during the peak lift conditions for thick airfoils (up to 30% thickness) at angles of attack exceeding 15°, where it surpasses XFOIL accuracy.

What methodologies support the validity of the double wake model results?add

The double wake model's accuracy is validated through a combination of experimental comparisons and numerical results obtained from CFD simulations with SU2.

How can the double wake model be coupled with viscous effects for better predictions?add

Future work suggests coupling the double wake model with viscous effects by integrating viscous corrections only in non-separated regions to enhance prediction accuracy across all AoA.

References (38)

  1. M. Vezza and R. A. McD. Galbraith. An inviscid model of unsteady aerofoil flow with fixed upper surface separation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 5(6):577-592, 1985.
  2. N. R. Garcia. Unsteady Viscous-Inviscid Interaction Technique for Wind Turbine Airfoils. PhD thesis, Technical University of Denmark, April 2011.
  3. V. A. Riziotis and S. G. Voutsinas. Dynamic stall modelling on airfoils based on strong viscous -inviscid interaction coupling. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 56:185-208, 2008.
  4. A. Zanon and P. Giannattasio. A vortex panel method for vawt in dynamic stall. PhD thesis, Università degli Studi di Udine, 2011.
  5. L. Marion, N. R. Garcia, and J. N. Sørensen. Inviscid double wake model for stalled airfoils. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 524(1):012132, 2014.
  6. J. Katz and A. Plotkin. Low-Speed Aerodynamics , Second Edition, volume 2. Cambridge university press, 2010.
  7. R.P.J.O.M. van Rooij. Modification of the boundary layer calculation in RFOIL for improved airfoil stall prediction. Technical Report IW-96087R, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1996.
  8. M. Drela. XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for Low Reynolds Number Airfoils. In Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics, pages 1-12. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1989.
  9. G. Ramanujam, H. Ozdemir, and Harry W. Hoeijmakers. Improving Airfoil Drag Prediction. 34th Wind Energy Symposium, (January):1-12, 2016.
  10. G. Ramanujam and H. Özdemir. Improving airfoil lift prediction. In 35th Wind Energy Symposium, number AIAA 2017-1999 in AIAA SciTech Forum, Grapevine, Texas, 9-13 January 2017.
  11. M. Drela and M. B. Giles. Viscous-inviscid analysis of transonic and low Reynolds number airfoils. AIAA Journal, 25(10):1347-1355, 1987.
  12. M. Drela. Integral boundary layer formulation for blunt trailing edges. AIAA Journal, (10), 1989.
  13. M. Drela and M. B Giles. Viscous-Inviscid Analysis of Transonic and Low Reynolds Number Airfoils. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal, 25(2):1-9, 1986.
  14. P. Dini and M. D. Maugmer. A computationally efficient modelling of laminar separation bubbles. Technical Report NAG-1-778, The Pennsylvania State University, July 1990.
  15. S. G. Voutsinas and V. A. Riziotis. A viscous-inviscid interaction model for Dynamic stall simulations on airfoils. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, pages 185-208, 1999.
  16. N. R. Garcia, A. Cayron, and J. N. Sørensen. Unsteady Double Wake Model for the Simulation of Stalled Airfoils. Journal of Power and Energy Engineering, 3:20-25, July 2015.
  17. B. C. Basu and G. J. Hancock. The unsteady motion of a two-dimensional aerofoil in incompressible inviscid flow. 87:159-178, 1978.
  18. F. A. Dvorak, B. Maskew, and B. L. Rao. An investigation of separation models for the prediction of C lmax . Technical Report 6, Analytical methods, Inc., Bellevue, Washington 98004, February 1979.
  19. F. Palacios, M. R. Colonno, A. C. Aranake, A. Campos, S. R. Copeland, T. D. Economon, A. K. Lonkar, T. W. Lukaczyk, T. W. R. Taylor, and J. J. Alonso. Stanford University Unstructured (SU2): An open-source integrated computational environment for multi-physics simulation and design. AIAA, January 2013.
  20. K. F. Sagmo, J. Bartl, and L. Saetran. Numerical simulations of the NREL S826 airfoil. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 753, 2016.
  21. N. Y. Aksnes. Performance Characteristics of the NREL S826 Airfoil. M.Sc. Thesis -Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2015.
  22. C. Bak, P. Fuglsang, J. Johansen, and A. Ioannis. Wind Tunnel Tests of the NACA 63-415 and a Modified NACA 63-415 Airfoil. Technical Report Risø-R-1193(EN), Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, 2000.
  23. P. Fuglsang, I. Antoniou, K. S. Dahl, and H. A. Madsen. Wind tunnel tests of the FFA-W3-241, FFA-W3-301 and NACA 63-430 airfoils. Technical Report Risø-R-1041(EN), Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, December 1998.
  24. D. M. Somers and J. Tangler. Design and Experimental Results for the S825 Airfoil. Technical Report NREL/SR-500-36345, NREL, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, January 2005.
  25. H. Schlichting. Boundary Layer Theory. Mc Graw Hill, eighth edition, 1979.
  26. J. G. Leishman and G. L. Crouse. State-space model for unsteady airfoil behavior and dynamic stall. AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC 30th Structures, structural dynamics and materials Conferences. Mobile, Alabama, (89-1319):11, April 3-5 1989.
  27. J. G. Leishman. Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics, Second Edition. Cambridge university press, 2006.
  28. T.S.R. Reddy and K.R.V. Kaza. A comparative study of some dynamic stall models. Technical report, March 1987.
  29. T. Theodorsen and L. E. Garrick. General potential theory of arbitrary wing sections. Technical Report 452, National advisory committee for aeronautics, 1940.
  30. W. Sheng, R. A. McD. Galbraith, and F. N. Coton. A Modified Dynamic Stall Model for Low Mach Numbers. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 130(3):031013, 2008.
  31. T. S. R. Reddy and K. R. V. Kaza. Analysis of an unswept propfan blade with a semiempirical dynamic stall model. Technical Report NASA-TM-88917, The University of Toledo and Lewis Research Center, Ohio, 1989.
  32. J.G. Holierhoek, J. B. de Vaal, A. H. van Zuijlen, and H. Bijl. Comparing different dynamic stall models. Wiley Online Library, 2012.
  33. T. S. Beddoes and J. G. Leishman. A Semi-Empirical Model for Dynamic Stall. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 34(3):3-17, 1989.
  34. M. H Hansen, M. Gaunaa, and H. A. Madsen. A Beddoes-Leishman type dynamic stall model in state-space and indicial formulations. Technical Report Risø-R-1354(EN), Technical University of Denmark, 2004.
  35. J. G. Leishman and T. S. Beddoes. A semi-empirical model for dynamic stall. American Helicopter Society, page 15, June 1986.
  36. J. W. Larsena, S. R. K. Nielsena, and S. Krenk. Dynamic stall model for wind turbine airfoils. Journal of Fluids and Structures, (0889-9746):959-982, May 2007.
  37. J. B. de Vaal. Heuristic modelling of dynamic stall for wind turbines. Technical Report IW-96087R, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2009.
  38. C. Chantharasenawong. Nonlinear Aeroelastic Behaviour of Aerofoils Under Dynamic Stall. PhD thesis, May 2007.