![]() ![]() (i) The schlieren pictures showing top and side views of the model indicate that the body nose shock does not intersect the wing throughout the range of * under investigation. The incidence ranged from -3 to 10* for the cone-cylinder and -5 to 15* for the power-law body. The tests were performed at model incidences, * = 0, 5 and 10* for flap deflection angles, * = 0, 5, 15, and 25* for the wing-body. We didn’t do any practical oriented models just we design the model in Gambit and analyze in the Fluent.Īn experimental investigation of the hypersonic flow over (i) a wing-body configuration, (ii) a hemi-spherically blunted cone-cylinder body and (iii) a one-half-power-law body has been conducted for M* = 8.2 and Re* = 9.35x104 per cm. Then we compared the results at the different models in different angles having with and without flap in 2D and 3D. The main tool we used in the project is CFD, so we gave some introduction about the CFD and how it could be used. This project could be done with the help of so many research papers were taken and followed in the literature review. ![]() In this chapter, basic nature of winds and types, wind affects through the wind turbine blade, formation of internal pressure and atmospheric boundary layer. Before we built wind turbine blade in any strong wind blowing region the aerodynamic flow analysis is must for withstand the strong wind affects. In the “Aerodynamic performance of wind turbine blade by using high lifting device” described that different velocity flow of air is passing through the wind turbine blade model and analyze through a numerical simulation that the pressure variation occur at that surface of the model. And pressure coefficient (Cp) increases in the first half region and decreases in the second half region of the wedge with the increase in half wedge angle. For same Mach number, increase in half wedge angle increases shock and expansion waves at 0 0 AONA. From the simulated result, the coefficient of Lift and Drag has been seen to decrease with the increase in Mach number and decrease in AOA. Numerical simulated data was generated by using Tecplot. The analysis is done using ANSYS fluent and the k-turbulence modeling method is carried out. Double wedge airfoil is analyzed at different angles of attack (AOA). Thermodynamic parameters are studied for two different Double wedge airfoils with half wedge angle 5 0 and 10 0 respectively. This paper aims to present the effects of change in the physical parameter for the Double wedge airfoil for the different range of Mach number with varying angle of attack. On them, double wedge airfoils have different types of shocks at higher speeds. Various shapes of the airfoil are being studied to attain a better and safer flight with the highest possible performance. Hope it helps.Ĭould anybody give some clue in how to set a Supersonic flow over an airfoil?¿ (I’ve already done the Cornwell University tutorials.The aerodynamic analysis primarily focusses on choosing airfoil shapes to obtain better physical performance. I tried to describe accurately the configuration set up in order that somebody could understand what I’m doing. I know that the Shock Expansion Technique only gives the Wave Drag but in Lifts I should get encouraging results. So it’s like the double and not valid.(Figure 3) Report/forces in lift I get 0.37 while in the Shock Expansion Technique (Hand calculation) I get 0.17 which is correct and reliable. Not messages given back during the iterations. Gauge pressure ( Pressure Farfield BC’s ) : aprox.Scaled correctly / Reorder domain till get 1 / yplus around 150 ( in order to the mesh, not the best) And I’m an undergraduate student and in order to the amount af tests I would like to do I thought that it could be a good start point. ![]() It’s not the best but I think that my laptop can “die” if I mesh it more accurately when I iterate under FLUENT. The final mesh has more than 400.000 elements, aspect ratio 1-3 and the most skewed element has 0.7 ratio. ![]() Pressure farfields are chosen for the BC’s. With a NURBS “cone” due to refine the mesh in that area using Bi-exponent method. I’ve already designed the farfield and the BC’s under GAMBIT. The first test I’m doing is over a symmetrical double wedge airfoil. I know that my FLUENT configuration is rough and it could be difficult to get correct Lif&Drag ratios. Once the 2D tests done in double wedged airfoils will be correct and compared with those ones calculated by hand (excel sheet) I will validate them to move on 3D models. What I’m doing firstly is comparing Lif&Drag ratios against the values calculated with the Shock Expansion Technique. I’m involved in an undergraduate project focused in Compressible flow/ Supersonic ( M=1.5/2.5). I’m a student of Beng(Hons) Aero Mech engineering. FLUENT Lift don't match up with Shock Expansion Tech - CFD Online Discussion Forums ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |