CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > OpenFOAM > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

NACA0012 validation with different OF version

Register Blogs Community New Posts Updated Threads Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   February 17, 2021, 12:34
Default NACA0012 validation with different OF version
  #1
New Member
 
Ivan
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 15
Rep Power: 6
Ivangzp is on a distinguished road
Hello,

I’m trying to validate the case NACA0012, incompressible at hight Reynolds number (6 Millions) at different angles of attacks.
I will focus on the case of 3 degrees, although the kind of errors that I’m getting are much the same for the rest (i.e. 6º,9º,12º).

I got the validation with OpenFoamversion v4.
Turbulence model: Spalart Allmaras
nu = 1.6666666666666668e-07;
U = 1m/s
Re = 6*10^6

Real Value for lift coefficient
Cl(3º) = 0,32341
Value obtained
Cl(3º) version OF4 = 0,32863

I want to insist on it, it happen the same for the rest of de AoA, the error is very short when I use OF4. So I can conclude I validate it with that OF version.

I tried to do the same with other version of OpenFOAM (OF v2006), and the values are deviated around 10%.

Real Value for lift coefficient
Cl(3º) = 0,32341
Value obtained
Cl(3º) version v2006 = 0,29336

As you can see, between both calculated, Cl(3º) = 0,32863 and Cl(3º) = 0,29336, there is an "appreciable" difference.

Same mesh, FvSchemes, FvControlDict, FvSolution, Initial Conditions, I mean every file is the same. (Find attached a picture of that mesh. Mesh1).

I tried other mesh (Find attached a picture of that mesh. Mesh2), probably with better quality (I tried dozens of them, but this is a good one), and the issue persists.
In that case I had to change the boundary conditions (Change from OGrid-Mesh to CGrid-Mesh), but phisically are exactly the same problem.
Real Value for lift coefficient
Cl(3º) = 0,32341
Value obtained
Cl(3º) version 4 = 0,32889
Cl(3º) version v2006 = 0,29693


I have been a long time with that problem and I couldn’t find a solution. I’m not sure if it is merely a difference between both version or whether I can change something to get closer results.

Each mesh has different boundary conditions and the results are pretty close, so the problem is not in the mesh or in the BC. The problem should be in FvSolution and FvSchemes which are identicall in both cases. For that reason, I copy it there here:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FvScheme:

FoamFile
{
version 2.0;
format ascii;
class dictionary;
object fvSchemes;
}


snGradSchemes{
default corrected;
}


laplacianSchemes{
default Gauss linear corrected;
}


fluxRequired{
p ;
}


gradSchemes{
default Gauss linear;
}


interpolationSchemes{
default linear;
}


divSchemes
{
default none;
div(phi,U) bounded Gauss linearUpwind grad(U);
div(phi,nuTilda) bounded Gauss linearUpwind grad(nuTilda);
div((nuEff*dev2(T(grad(U))))) Gauss linear;
}


ddtSchemes{
default steadyState;
}


wallDist {
method meshWave;
}


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fv Solution:

FoamFile
{
version 2.0;
format ascii;
class dictionary;
object fvSolution;
}


SIMPLE{
pRefPoint (-1.000000 4.990000 0.500000);
pRefValue 0;
nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 1;

residualControl{
p 1e-07;
U 1e-07;
}

}


relaxationFactors{

fields{
p 0.7;
}


equations{
U 0.7;
k 0.3;
omega 0.5;
nut 0.8;
nuTilda 0.8;
}

}


potentialFlow{
PhiRefPoint (0.000000 14.990000 0.500000);
nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 20;
PhiRefValue 0;
pRefPoint (0.000000 14.990000 0.500000);
pRefValue 0;
}


solvers{

U{
relTol 0.1;
preconditioner DILU;
tolerance 1e-10;
solver PBiCG;
}


nut{
relTol 0.1;
preconditioner DILU;
tolerance 1e-10;
solver PBiCG;
}


nuTilda{
relTol 0.1;
preconditioner DILU;
tolerance 1e-10;
solver PBiCG;
}


p{
relTol 0.1;
preconditioner DIC;
maxIter 10000;
tolerance 1e-10;
solver PCG;
}

Phi
{
solver GAMG;
smoother DIC;
cacheAgglomeration on;
agglomerator faceAreaPair;
nCellsInCoarsestLevel 10;
mergeLevels 1;

tolerance 1e-10;
relTol 0.01;
}
}



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annotations:
- The y+ number of both meshes is less than 1 in the wall.
- Force calculation is donde considering Lift in axis (0 1 0) and Drag (1 0 0). In order to have real values of Lift and Drag I rotate the axis to consider the angle of attack of 3 degrees after getting the results.
- The results are obtained after 2.000 iterations.
- The value of "Real Value for lift coefficient " it's from the NASA : https://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/naca0012_val.html
- I checked the official source, for that case https://www.openfoam.com/documentati...irfoil-2d.html , It didn't help me.
- I tried also with the version v2012 and the results are pretty similiar to the version v2006.
- Files (with the mesh and log files) can be find here in that link:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...PA?usp=sharing

- Find attached the 0 and system folders for the case of Mesh2.

Any kind of help would be very appreciated.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Mesh1_1.jpg (192.5 KB, 1 views)
File Type: jpg Mesh1_2.jpg (200.5 KB, 1 views)
File Type: jpg Mesh2_1.jpg (191.0 KB, 1 views)
Attached Files
File Type: zip 0.zip (1.8 KB, 0 views)
File Type: zip system.zip (2.3 KB, 0 views)
Ivangzp is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"reactingParcelFoam" active gravity, high courant number bijan darbari OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 7 May 25, 2022 15:52
[PyFoam] Problems with installing PyFoam Christoph_84 OpenFOAM Community Contributions 34 October 26, 2021 12:25
Inaccurate results for some turbulent annular flows using K-Omega SST donree4 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 March 19, 2019 19:15
oopenFoam error cyndy M OpenFOAM Pre-Processing 7 March 30, 2016 09:03
NACA0012 Validation Accuracy Improvement Alhasan OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 8 February 1, 2015 09:39


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:04.