DMCA
Comparative Results From a CFD Challenge Over a 2D ThreeElement High-Lift Airfoil (1997)
| Venue: | NASA TM |
| Citations: | 6 - 0 self |
BibTeX
@ARTICLE{Klausmeyer97comparativeresults,
author = {Steven M. Klausmeyer and John C. Lin},
title = {Comparative Results From a CFD Challenge Over a 2D ThreeElement High-Lift Airfoil},
journal = {NASA TM},
year = {1997},
volume = {112858}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
major part of the workshop centered on a blind test of various computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods in which the flow about a two-dimensional (2D) three-element airfoil was computed without prior knowledge of the experimental data. Comparisons were made between computation and experiment for (a) lift, drag, and moment, (b) lift and drag increments due to Reynolds number and flap gap changes, (c) pressure and skinfriction distributions, and (d) mean velocity profiles. The results of this 'blind ' test revealed: 1. There was good agreement between several codes and the experimental results. In general, the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) methods showed less variability among codes than did potential/Euler solvers coupled with boundary-layer solution techniques. However, some of the coupled methods still provided excellent predictions. 2. Drag prediction using coupled methods agreed more closely with experiment than the RANS methods. Lift was more accurately predicted than drag for both methods. 3. The CFD methods did well in predicting lift and drag changes due to changes in Reynolds number, however, they did not perform as well when predicting lift and drag
Keyphrases
threeelement high-lift airfoil cfd challenge comparative result reynolds number rans method reynolds averaged navier-stokes cfd method skinfriction distribution potential euler solver various computational fluid dynamic several code prior knowledge drag increment excellent prediction major part drag change velocity profile boundary-layer solution technique blind test experimental data experimental result three-element airfoil drag prediction flap gap change good agreement
