A CFD Assessment To Subsonic Flow Around NACA4412

Journal Of Engineering And Development, Vol. 15, No.
4, Des 2011 ISSN 1813- 7822

173

A CFD assessment to Subsonic flow around NACA4412

Ali Abud AL-Nabi Abass
Affairs Contracts Department
The University of Mustansiriya
triplea71@yahoo.com

Abstract

The purpose of this study is determined values of Mach Number (Ma) for Subsonic
flow around NACA4412 which is begun shock wave and known the location it. A 2-
dimensional triangular C-type grid is used to match the reference measurements at an
airfoil cross-section was taken from NACA 4412 from leading edge to trailing edge. The
Mach numbers which used are (0.1 to 0.9) respectively and angles of attack (2.31 and
0.0)for three cases inviscid and viscous flow with choose two cases (K epsilon RNG and
Spalart-Allmaras turbulent models).
The numerical results show that the inviscid and two turbulence models well
predict the shock wave location and size as well as flow properties along the airfoil surface.
The Lift Force Coefficient (CL) decrease and the Drag Force Coefficient (CD) increase
with using viscous term as well as pressure coefficient (CP) give fit location for the shock
wave
Keyword:
Computational fluid dynamics(CFD), turbulence models, subsonic flow, Spalart-Allmaras
Model, k-epsilon rng model, grid technique,

CFD NACA 4412

NACA 4412 .

NACA 4412 . 1.0 - 1.0 )
1.20 1.1 ) (K-epsilon RNG
and Spalart-Allmaras turbulent models) .
Journal Of Engineering And Development, Vol. 15, No.4, Des 2011 ISSN 1813- 7822

174

.

Introduction

The design for model of airfoil such as NACA 4412 demanded knowledge
aerodynamic properties. It was built by using GAMBIT code, chosen and specified clustering
the mesh generation with boundary conditions. To study the flow properties such as Lift
Force Coefficient and Drag Force Coefficient, three cases were taken inviscid and viscose
flow (by using K epsilon (e) RNG and Spalart-Allmaras turbulent models). This study is
limited the effect of shock wave on flow properties for flow on airfoil surface by using the
curves of lift and drag force coefficients and curves of pressure coefficient on the wall while
is showed the size and location of shock waves through Mach number contours.
Various experimental and theoretical studies have been published about NACA
4412.Omar Badran et al(2003)[1]. studied mean flow and Reynolds stresses results, of a
NACA 4412 airfoil, cov-ering the boundary layers around the airfoil and the wake region at
angle of attack, = 15. Two-equation turbulence models are tested on NACA 4412 airfoil at
the position of maximum lift (angle of attack= 15). These models are the two-equation
Realizable and RNG k-e models and the Reynolds Stress Model (RSM). It was found that the
developed turbulence models had captured the physics of unsteady separated flow. The
resulting surface pressure coefficients, skin friction, velocity vectors, and Reynolds stresses
are compared with flying hot wire experimental data, and the models produce very similar
results. Also excellent agreements between computational and experimental surface pressures
and skin friction were observed. Also excellent agreement between computational and
experimental surface pressures and skin friction was observed. Serhat Duran(2005)[2].
Modified blade shape by using NACA 4412. The output of the blade design program
performed for the airfoil NACA 4412 When the designed blade shape is modified, it is seen
that the power extracted from the wind is reduced about 10% and the length of modified blade
is increased about 5% for the same required power. Modification of blade geometry promised
to be a good approximation would be explained it.B. Greschner et al (2005)[3] investigated
unsteady flows around a series of NACA airfoils included NACA 4412 carried out. They
designed case studies on the connections between an airfoil shape characteristics and its
aerodynamic and aeroacoustic performance, employed the unsteady CFD flow simulations in
the near field of an airfoil. The results include identifying the optimum symmetric and
asymmetric airfoils among the airfoils and suggesting the possible optimum airfoil
characteristics. The results can be used to guide the selections of the geometric parameters
and constraints in a fully automated aerodynamic and aeroacoustic optimization. Manish K et
al (2005)[4]. Studied CL,CD on NACA 4412 and NACA 0011at Mach number 0.2 and

175
different angles of attack (0.0
o
to 14
o
) and determined the effect of Gurney flap on NACA
4412 and NACA 0011 airfoils for Two dimensional steady state Navier-Stokes, used to
predict the flow field around the airfoils. Gurney flap sizes selected for the study range from
0.5% to 4% of the airfoil chord. They Computed results have been compared with available
experimental and computational data. There was good correlation observed between
computed and experimental data. Addition of Gurney flap increased the lift coefficient
significantly with very little drag penalty if proper Gurney flap height was selected.

Inviscid flow

For studying inviscid flow Euler equation by Ali Al-Hussaini [5]:
Continuity equation:
( ) ( )
0 =
c
c
+
c
c
+
c
c
y
v
x
u
t

......................................................................... (1)
The conservation of momentum equation is:
( )
( ) ( ) 0
2
=
c
c
+ +
c
c
+
c
c
uv
y
p u
x t
u

................................................................... (2)
( )
( ) ( ) 0
2
= +
c
c
+
c
c
+
c
c
p v
y
uv
x t
v

.................................................................... (3)
The conservation of energy equation is
( )
( ) | | ( ) | | 0 = +
c
c
+ +
c
c
+
c
c
v p E
y
u p E
x t
E
t t
t
........................................................... (4)
Where : density (Kg/m
3
( , u: Velocity component in x direction (m/s), v: Velocity
component in y direction (m/s), p: pressure (Pa), E
t
: Total internal energy per unit volume
(J/m
3
)

The RNG K- Model

Yakhot, et al. [6] have proposed a variant of the k--Model to improve performance
characteristics compared to the standard model. The new model is based on the
Renormalization-Group-Theory [7], and is referred to as RNG-k--Model. The transport
equations of the RNG are very similar to the standard (k-) model, but employ an additional
source/sink term in the () equation and the values of the coefficients differ from those in the
standard (k-) model. The turbulent kinetic energy, k, and its rate of dissipation, epsilon, are
obtained from the following transport equations::

176
YM B G
x
k
k
x Dt
Dk
eff
+ +
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
= c o .(5)
And
2
*
2 3
) ( 1
k
C B C G
k
C
x x Dt
D
eff
c
c c
oc
c
+ +
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
= ..(6)

Where C1, C2and C3 are empirical coefficients and
k
and are the turbulent Prandtl number
respectively Schmidt number. The effective viscosity
eff
(Equation (5, 6) in Modeling the
Effective Viscosity) to account for low-Reynolds-number effects.
3679 . 0 6321 . 0
3929 . 2 3929 . 1 + = o o
eff
o o where o=1in the high Reynolds No.

|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|

+ =
3
0
3
2
*
2
1
1
|q
q
q
q
C
C C
(7)

The term B is the buoyancy-term (depending on whether stratification is stable or unstable)
( g B
p
t
~ ). Where B: depends on the fluctuating density field, where is the turbulent

Prandtl / Schmidt number for density.
The dilation dissipation term in the k-equation
2
2
a
K
YM c = is modelled according to
Sarker, a: sound speed [8].
S is the tensor of the mean rate-of-strain, defined as:
With
c
q
k
S = and
ij
S s 2s
ij
= =
t
G
with
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
+
c
c
=
xi
uj
xj
ui
s
ij
2
1
.It can be shown that is a
function of generation and dissipation of k and can be Written as
c
q

G
C
1
= which
indicates that characterises the equilibrium characteristic of the turbulence field.
C
= 0.09, (G=
t
S
2
),
t
= C
c
2
K

the two new coefficients,
0
and , can be obtained directly
from the primary model coefficients and the Von Karman constant,
0
= 4.38 and = 0.012.
These values are referred to as the original set of coefficients. The quantities
k
and
are
the inverse effective Prandtl numbers for k and .
Yakhot, et al. [6] recommended the following set of model coefficients:


177

Spalart-Allmaras Model

The Spalart & Allmaras model belongs to the one equation family of eddy viscosity models.
This family is based on the assumption that Reynolds stress-tensor
, ,
v u is related to the
mean strain rate through an apparent turbulent viscosity called eddy viscosity t, which can be
computed from the Reynolds Stresses:
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
+
c
c
=
x
v
y
u
v v u
t
.
, ,

Actually the computation uses an intermediate transport variable with the damping function
f
v1
() relating to turbulent viscosity by t = f
v1
() to solve the following transport equation
...(8)
The intermediate variable is in general identical to the turbulent kinematic viscosity t
except in the near-wall region [9].
G and Y are the production and destruction terms of turbulent viscosity. Both are strong in
the near-wall region due to wall blocking and viscous damping. Besides denotes the
turbulent Prandtl number, Cb2 a calibration constant and is the molecular kinematic
viscosity.
Boundary conditions specify the flow and properties variables on the boundaries of the
physical model. The boundary conditions in GAMBIT are classified, flow inlet and exit
boundaries: pressure far field, pressure outlet, Wall, the internal face boundary conditions are
defined on cell faces, which means that they do not have a finite thickness and they provide a
means of introducing a step change in flow properties[10].
In solid wall, there are two types of flow on the wall, depending on viscous or inviscid
flow, wherein viscous wall boundary condition, no-slip condition, enforced at walls,
tangential fluid velocity equal to wall velocity. Normal velocity component = 0, shear stress
can also be specified [10].
In inviscid wall boundary condition imposes flow tangency at the zone boundary (wall
surface) while maintaining the same total velocity as the point adjacent to the boundary [10].
The far field boundary conditions are more difficult to specify in a way that facilitates
computation. It is necessary to differentiate between inflow and outflow boundary conditions,
which can determine pressure far field, pressure outlet boundary condition.
Pressure outlet boundary conditions are used to define the static pressure at flow outlet. The
use of a pressure outlet boundary condition instead of an outflow condition often results in a
better rate of convergence when backflow occurs during iteration .

178
Pressure far field boundary conditions are used to model a free stream compressible or
incompressible flow at infinity, with free stream Mach number and static conditions specified.
For grid generation FLUENT used grids comprising of triangular. the major motivation for
using unstructured grids employing triangular cells, the range of length scales of the flow is
large, a triangular mesh can often be created with far fewer cells than the equivalent mesh
consisting of quadrilateral cells. This is because a triangular mesh allows cells to be clustered
in selected regions of the flow domain, whereas structured quadrilateral meshes will generally
force cells to be placed in regions where they are not needed, the reason behind case in the
current study unstructured triangular meshes as shown fig (1) [4].
At convergence, all discrete conservation equations (momentum, energy, etc.) obey in all cells
to a specify tolerance. Solution no longer changes with more iteration, solution to equation on
overall mass, momentum, energy, and scalar balances are obtained. Monitoring convergence
with residuals, generally shows, a decrease in residuals by 3 orders of magnitude indicating at
least qualitative convergence, major flow features established, scaled species residual may
need to decrease to 10-4 to achieve species balance, monitoring quantitative convergence and
monitoring other variables for changes, ensure that conservation satisfies the convergence [4].

Results and Discussion

The flow computations required about 800 iterations to converge. At the end of every
computational run, flow residuals are reduced by more than three orders of magnitude. An
example of residual history is shown in Fig 2.
At angle of attack =2.31
0
. The shock wave started creation and separation flow on the surface
of trail of airfoil at Mach-number 0.7 and angle of attack =2.31
0
as shown in Figures (3, 3a,
4, 4a and 5a) while the flow is subsonic as shown in fig. 5.

The general effect of Mach number 0.729 and separation flow on the trail of airfoil shown in
Figures (6, 6a, 7, 7a, 8, and 8a). Especially the size and location of the shock wave region (Ma
> 1,0) can be seen at(X/C > 15).
The shock wave grew moving towards tail as well as the interaction with the boundary layer
after flow separation as shown in figures (9, 9a, 10, 10a, 11 and 11a). At last the location of
shock in (X/C > 70).
At angle of attack =0.0
o
, Mach numbers (0.7 and 0.729), the figures (12, 12a, 13, 13a, 14, 14a,
15, 15a, 16, 16a, 17, 17a) in Mach number contours shown location and size shock wave at
(x/c>50) while velocity magnitude contours appeared the boundary layer on the surface of
trail of airfoil.
Figures (18, 18a, 19, 19a, 20, 20a) shown Mach number and velocity magnitude contours the
behavior of flow properties are similar to previous cases at Mach number 0.8 .
In Figures (12, 13 and 14) the pressure distribution along airfoil surface is presented by
pressure coefficient. The comparison of the chosen turbulence models with inviscid flow

179
which is one of the main subjects of the investigation. The curves of all three models fit and
give a good indication to the location of the shock wave. The high gradient in pressure
coefficient (X/C 15, 17.5 and 50) indicates the back boundary of the shock region. The
effect of the viscosity was gradually increased which cause the deference between the CD and
CL. when increase the value of Mach number above 0.7 the values of CL and CD are jump
because of the shock wave was created on the middle surface of airfoil as shown in the figures
(15, 16).

Conclusion

As the aim of study the effect of shock wave on airfoil surface is to know the value of Mach
number, which start to create shock wave and effect boundary layer on the shock. The
calculations show good agreement in values of Mach number 0.729 in three cases on RAE
2822,at angle of attack 2.31
o
with Al-Dulaimy [11], but it deferent in the location of shock
wave because the shape of airfoil for this reason different the results from angle of attack 0.0
o
.
The curves of pressure coefficient give exact location for shock wave. The curves of CL, CD
and CP give effect of shock wave on CL, CD and CP on surface of airfoil. The effect of
viscosity is clearance on CL, CD and values of Mach numbers contours but is disappear in
pressure coefficient .


180

60 70 80 90 100 110
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
311.598
290.825
270.051
249.278
228.505
207.732
186.959
166.186
145.412
124.639
103.866
83.0928
62.3196
41.5464
20.7732
60 70 80 90 100 110
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
311.598
290.825
270.051
249.278
228.505
207.732
186.959
166.186
145.412
124.639
103.866
83.0928
62.3196
41.5464
20.7732
Fig.2 Residual history of
Solution Convergence
Fig.1Grid Generation
(Triangular Mesh, C-Type)
Fig. 3 Mach number contours
(free stream Mach number0.7 for
inviscid flow and =2.31

degree)

Fig.3a velocity magnitude contours
At Mach Number 0.7 for inviscid
flow and =2.31

degree

Fig. 4 Mach number contours
(free streamMach number0.7
for k-epsilon RNG flow
and =2.31

degree)
Fig.4a velocity magnitude
contours at Mach number 0.7
for k-epsilon RNG flow and
=2.31

degree


181

60 70 80 90 100 110
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
311.598
290.825
270.051
249.278
228.505
207.732
186.959
166.186
145.412
124.639
103.866
83.0928
62.3196
41.5464
20.7732
70 80 90 100 110 120 130
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
363.187
342.579
321.972
301.364
280.756
260.148
239.541
218.933
198.325
177.717
157.109
136.502
115.894
95.2862
74.6784
60 70 80 90 100 110 120
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
349.876
326.551
303.226
279.901
256.576
233.251
209.926
186.6
163.275
139.95
116.625
93.3002
69.9752
46.6501
23.3251
at Machnumber 0.7 for Spalart-
Allmaras flow and =2.31 degree
Fig. 5 Mach number contours (free
stream Mach number0.7 for Spalart-
Allmaras flow and =2.31

degree
at Machnumber 0.729 for inviscid
flow and =2.31 degree
streamMach number 0.729 for
inviscid flow and =2.31 degree)
Fig.7a velocity magnitude contours at
Machnumber 0.729 for k epsilon
RNG flow and=2.31 degree
stream Mach number 0.729 for
k-epsilon RNG flow and =2.31degree )


182

-

60 70 80 90 100 110
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
349.918
326.59
303.262
279.935
256.607
233.279
209.951
186.623
163.295
139.967
116.639
93.3115
69.9836
46.6558
23.3279
70 80 90 100 110
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
422.328
399.322
376.316
353.31
330.304
307.298
284.292
261.286
238.28
215.274
192.268
169.262
146.256
123.25
100.244
70 80 90 100 110 120 130
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
374.137
349.195
324.252
299.31
274.367
249.425
224.482
199.54
174.597
149.655
124.712
99.77
74.8275
49.885
24.9425
Fig8a velocity magnitude contours at
Mach number 0.729 for Spalart Allmaras
Fig. 8 Mach number contours (free stream
Mach number 0.729 for Spalart- Allmaras
flow and =2.31degree)

at Mach number 0.8 for
inviscid flow and =2.31 degree
streamMach number 0.8
for inviscid flow and =2.31 degree)

Mach number 0.8 for k-epsilon RNG

stream Mach number 0.8 for
k-epsilon RNG flowand =2.31 degree

183

Fig. 11a velocity magnitude contours at
Mach number 0.8 for Spalart- Allmaras
Fig. 11 Mach number contours free
stream Much number 0.8 for Spalart-
Allmaras flow and =2.31 degree)

Fig 12 Mach number contours (free
stream Mach number 0.7 for inviscid

Mach number 0.7for k- epsilon RNG flow
and =0.0 degree

Fig 13 Mach number contours (free stream
at Mach number 0.7 for k- epsilon RNG

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
373.398
348.505
323.611
298.718
273.825
248.932
224.039
199.145
174.252
149.359
124.466
99.5727
74.6796
49.7864
24.8932
0 50 100
X/C
Mach Number
1.00326
0.944855
0.886447
0.82804
0.769632
0.711225
0.652817
0.59441
0.536002
0.477595
0.419187
0.36078
0.302372
0.243965
0.185557
0 50 100
X/C
Mach Number
0.951811
0.894293
0.836774
0.779255
0.721736
0.664218
0.606699
0.54918
0.491661
0.434143
0.376624
0.319105
0.261586
0.204068
0.146549
60 70 80 90 100
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
311.598
290.825
270.051
249.278
228.505
207.732
186.959
166.186
145.412
124.639
103.866
83.0928
62.3196
41.5464
20.7732
60 70 80 90 100 110 120
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
326.184
307.515
288.846
270.177
251.507
232.838
214.169
195.5
176.831
158.162
139.493
120.824
102.154
83.4853
64.8162
Fig.12a velocity magnitude contours at Mach
number 0.7for inviscid flow and )
=0.0 degree

184

0 50 100
X/C
Mach Number
0.95669
0.894231
0.831771
0.769311
0.706851
0.644392
0.581932
0.519472
0.457012
0.394553
0.332093
0.269633
0.207173
0.144714
0.0822538
60 70 80 90 100 110
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
315.443
294.414
273.384
252.355
231.325
210.296
189.266
168.236
147.207
126.177
105.148
84.1182
63.0887
42.0591
21.0296
0 50 100 150
x/c
Mach Number
1.14005
1.07398
1.0079
0.94183
0.875758
0.809685
0.743613
0.677541
0.611468
0.545396
0.479323
0.413251
0.347178
0.281106
0.215033
70 80 90 100 110
x/c
Velocity Magnitude
363.187
342.579
321.972
301.364
280.756
260.148
239.541
218.933
198.325
177.717
157.109
136.502
115.894
95.2862
74.6784
0 50 100 150
X/C
Mach Number
1.08923
1.02109
0.952959
0.884826
0.816692
0.748559
0.680425
0.612292
0.544158
0.476025
0.407891
0.339758
0.271624
0.203491
0.135357
60 70 80 90 100 110
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
349.876
326.551
303.226
279.901
256.576
233.251
209.926
186.6
163.275
139.95
116.625
93.3002
69.9752
46.6501
23.3251
contours at Mach number 0.7for
Spalart- Allmaras flow and =0.0
degree
stream at Mach number 0.7 for
Spalart-Allmaras flow and =0.0
degree

contours at Mach number 0.729 for
inviscid flow and =0.0 degree
Fig 15 Mach number contours
(free stream at Mach number 0.729
for inviscid flow) and =0.0 degree)

Mach number 0.729 for k-epsilon RNG
stream at Mach number 0.729 for k
epsilon RNG flow and =0.0 degree

185

0 50 100
X/C
Mach Number
1.0883
1.01874
0.949177
0.879616
0.810055
0.740494
0.670933
0.601372
0.531811
0.46225
0.392688
0.323127
0.253566
0.184005
0.114444
70 80 90 100
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
349.918
326.59
303.262
279.935
256.607
233.279
209.951
186.623
163.295
139.967
116.639
93.3115
69.9836
46.6558
23.3279
0 50 100
X/C
Mach Number
1.37883
1.301
1.22316
1.14533
1.06749
0.989656
0.91182
0.833984
0.756148
0.678313
0.600477
0.522641
0.444805
0.36697
0.289134
70 80 90 100
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
425.15
401.96
378.769
355.579
332.388
309.198
286.007
262.817
239.626
216.436
193.245
170.055
146.864
123.674
100.483
0 50 100
X/C
Mach Number
1.3464
1.27038
1.19437
1.11836
1.04234
0.966329
0.890316
0.814302
0.738289
0.662275
0.586262
0.510248
0.434235
0.358221
0.282207
70 80 90 100
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
394.762
368.445
342.127
315.81
289.492
263.175
236.857
210.54
184.222
157.905
131.587
105.27
78.9525
52.635
26.3175
Mach number 0.729 for Spalart Allmaras
stream at Mach number 0.729 for Spalart

Mach number 0.8 for inviscid flow and
=0. 0 degree
Fig 18 Mach numbercontours(free
stream at Mach number 0.8 for
inviscid flow and =0.0 degree)

Mach number 0.8 for k-epsilon RNG flow
and =0.0 degree
stream at Mach number 0.8for k
epsilon RNG flow and =0.0 degree)


186

0 50 100
X/C
Mach Number
1.33213
1.25009
1.16804
1.086
1.00395
0.921903
0.839857
0.757811
0.675765
0.593719
0.511673
0.429627
0.34758
0.265534
0.183488
70 80 90 100
X/C
Velocity Magnitude
394.796
368.476
342.157
315.837
289.517
263.197
236.878
210.558
184.238
157.918
131.599
105.279
78.9592
52.6395
26.3197
0 25 50 75 100
X/C
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
for inviscid flow
for K-epsilon RNG
for Spalart-Allmaras
0 25 50 75 100
X/C
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
for inviscid flow
for K-epsilon RNG
0 25 50 75 100
X/C
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
for inviscid flow
for K-epsilon RNG
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
X/C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
L
i
f
t
F
o
r
c
e
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
inviscid flow
k-epsilon RNG flow
spalart-Allmaras flow
at Mach number 0.8 for Spalart-
Fig 20 Mach number contours
(free stream at Mach number 0.8 for
Spalart-Allmaras flow and =0.0 degree)
Fig.22 Comparison of Pressure
Coefficient Distribution (Free stream
Mach number 0.729)
Fig.21 Comparison of Pressure
Coefficient Distribution (Free
stream Mach number 0.7)

Fig 24Lift force coefficient (CL)
at Mach numbers from (0.1 to 0.9)
for inviscid and viscose flow
Fig23 Comparison of Pressure
Coefficient Distribution (Free
stream Mach number 0.8)


187

Fig.25 Drag force coefficient (CD)
at Mach numbers from (0.1 to 0.9)
for inviscid and viscose flow
.

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
X/C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
L
i
f
t
F
o
r
c
e
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
inviscid flow
k-epsilon RNG flow
spalart-Allmaras flow

188

References

1. Omar Badran, Regis Quadros and Fettah Aldudak Two-Equation Turbulence
Models for Turbulent Flow over a NACA 4412Airfoil at Angle of Attack 15 Degree
Mechanical Engineering Department Faculty of Engineering technology, Al-Balqa`
Applied University, P.O.Box 331006, Amman 11134 Jordan (2003)
2. Serhat Duran Computer-Aided Design Of Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine Blades
Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in
Mechanical Engineering, Middle East Technical University (2005).
3. B. Greschner, C. Yu, S. Zheng, M. Zhuang, Z. J. Wang and F. Thiele* Knowledge
Based Airfoil Aerodynamic and Aeroacoustic"Hermann-Foettinger-Institute of Fluid
MechanicsBerlin University of Technology, Mueller-Breslau-Str. 8, D-10623
Berlin, Germany(2005).
4. Manish K. Singh, K. Dhanalakshmi and S. K. Chakrabartty" Navier-Stokes Analysis
of Airfoils with Gurney Flap" Computational and Theoretical Fluid Dynamics
Division National Aerospace Laboratories P. B. 1779, Bangalore 560 017,
India(2005).
5. Ali Al-Hussaini.: Computational Study of Supersonic Flow Over Aerodynamic
Configurations Department of Mechanical Engineering of the University of
Technology,(2006).
6. V. Yakhot and S. A. Orszag. Renormalization Group Analysis of Turbulence: I.
Basic Theory. Journal of Scientific Computing,1(1):1{51, 1986.
7. D. Choudhury. Introduction to the Renormalization Group Method and Turbulence
Modelling Fluent I nc.Technical memorandum TM-107, 1993
8. S. Sakar and L. Balakrishhnan. Application of a Reynolds stress Turbulence Model to
the Compressible shear layer ICASE Report 90-18, NASA CR 182002,1990.
9. Chen H. C. and V. C. Patel. Near-Wall Turbulence Models for Complex Flows
I ncluding Separation. AIAA Journal,26(6):641{648, 1988.
10. Fluent Users Services Center,2002, WWW. fluent users. com,.
11. Al-Dulaimy, F. M. A.; Cousin, R. A CFD assessment to transonic flow around a 2822
airfoil Research Reports from Guest Scientists in the Faculties 07 and 09 in the
Academic Year 2004/2005

A CFD Assessment To Subsonic Flow Around NACA4412

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A CFD Assessment To Subsonic Flow Around NACA4412

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Of Engineering And Development, Vol. 15, No.

4, Des 2011 ISSN 1813- 7822

~ ). Where B: depends on the fluctuating density field, where is the turbulent

You might also like