|
Experimental
Validation of
NACA 6321
Airfoil
Characteristics
Obtained Using
Different
Turbulence
Models
K. Balajia and
G.
Jims John
Wessleyb
a
Associate
Professor,
Department of
Aeronautical
Engineering,Parul
Institute of
Engineering and
Technology,
Parul
University,Vadodara,Gujarat-
391760.
b
Associate
Professor,
Department of
Aerospace
Engineering,
Karunya
Institute of
Technology and
Sciences,
Coimbatore,
Tamilnadu – 641
114, India.
Corresponding
Author:
K. Balaji
Email:
arobalaji@gmail.com
Doi: https://doi.org/10.47011/16.4.3
Cited by :
Jordan J. Phys.,
16 (4) (2023)
403-411
PDF
Received
on:
13/02/2021;
Accepted
on:
16/03/2022
Abstract:
Numerical
analysis
of NACA
6321
aerofoil
is
conducted
at
different
angles
of
attack
with
constant
velocity
using
three
turbulence
models
and the
results
are
validated
with
experimental
findings.
The
simulation
study is
conducted
by
solving
the
steady-state
governing
equation
of
continuity
and
momentum
using
the
Spalart-Allmaras,
k-omega,
and
k-epsilon
models;
the
obtained
results
are
compared
with
experimental
data.
Aerodynamic
parameters
are
calculated
and then
juxtaposed
with
experimental
data
acquired
from
experiments
performed
in a
subsonic
tunnel.
The
study
reveals
that the
results
generated
by the
k-omega
model
exhibit
a strong
correlation
with the
experimental
findings
at low
and high
angles
of
attack
when
compared
to other
turbulence
models.
In
contrast
to the
k-epsilon
and the
Spalart-Allmaras
models,
the
prediction
of the
stalling
angle of
attack
has an
error of
±
20% in
comparison
to the
experimental
evaluation.
The
results
of the
k-omega
turbulence
model
predict
the
turbulence
properties
pretty
well in
the NACA
6321
aerofoil
with an
error of
less
than 4%.
Keywords:
NACA
6321,
Spalart-Allmaras,
k-omega
and
k-epsilon,
Turbulence
models.
References
[1] Sadikin, A.,
Mohd Yunus, N.A.,
Abd Hamid, S.A.,
Ismail, A.E.,
Salleh, S.,
Ahmad, S., Abdol
Rahman, M.N.,
Mahzan, S. and
Ayop, S.S., Int.
J. Integr. Eng.,
10 (2018) 134.
[2] Eleni, D.C.,
J. Mech. Eng.
Res., 4 (2012)
100.
[3] Li, H.,
Zhang, Y. and
Chen, H., AIAA
J., 58 (2020)
3863.
[4] Matyushenko,
A.A. and
Garbaruk, A.V.,
J. Phys. Conf.
Ser., 769 (2016)
012082.
[5] Rogowski,
K., J. Mech.
Sci. Technol.,
32 (2018) 2079.
[6] Roy, S.,
Huque, Z., Lee,
K. and
Kommalapati, R.,
J. Clean Energy
Technol., 5
(2017) 496.
[7] Aftab, S.M.A.,
Rafie, A.S.M.,
Razak, N.A. and
Ahmad, K.A.,
PLoS One. 11
(2016) 1.
[8] Sogukpinar, H. and
Bozkurt, I., AIP
Conf. Proc.,
1935 (2018)
020003.
[9] Suvanjumrat,
C., Eng. J., 21
(2017) 207.
[10] Zhu, H.,
Hao, W., Li, C.,
Ding, Q. and Wu,
B., Energy, 165
(A) (2018) 12.
[11] Hasan, R.,
McGuirk, J.,
Apsley, D. and
Leschziner, M.,
Aeronaut. J.,
108 (1079)
(2004) 1.
[12] V, S. and
A, I. Int. J.
Aviat. Aeronaut.
Aerosp., 8 (1)
(2021) 7.
[13] El Maani,
R., Elouardi,
S., Radi, B. and
El Hami, A.,
Uncertainties
and Reliability
of Multiphysical
Systems, 2 (2)
(2018) 1.
[14] Catalano,
P. and Amato,
M., Aerosp. Sci.
Technol., 7 (7)
(2003) 493.
[15] Villalpando,
F., Reggio, M.
and Ilinca, A.,
Model. Simul.
Eng., 2011
(2011)
714146.
|
