[Ry10]

I am trying to get the lift and drag coefficients out of a 2D airfoil using SU2. I am doing a steady 2D incompressible RANS simulation with the SA turbulence model. I have attached two graphs that I compare the results from XFOIL(panel method) and known wind tunnel data for different angles of attack. The lift matches pretty well but the drag is very high. Is there something wrong with my config file that would cause this? I tried to attach my su2 mesh but it was too big, but let me know if you need it. Thanks!

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%                                                                              %
% SU2 configuration file                                                       %
% Case description: 2D NACA 0012 Airfoil Validation Case (incompressible)      %
%                   http://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/naca0012_val_sa.html       %
% Author: Francisco Palacios	                                               %
% Institution: Stanford University                                             %
% Date: Feb 18th, 2013                                                         %
% File Version 4.0.0 "Cardinal"                                                %
%                                                                              %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% ------------- DIRECT, ADJOINT, AND LINEARIZED PROBLEM DEFINITION ------------%
%
% Physical governing equations (EULER, NAVIER_STOKES,
%                               TNE2_EULER, TNE2_NAVIER_STOKES,
%                               WAVE_EQUATION, HEAT_EQUATION, LINEAR_ELASTICITY,
%                               POISSON_EQUATION)
PHYSICAL_PROBLEM= NAVIER_STOKES
%
% Specify turbulent model (NONE, SA, SA_NEG, SST)
KIND_TURB_MODEL= SA
%
% Mathematical problem (DIRECT, ADJOINT, LINEARIZED)
MATH_PROBLEM= DIRECT
%
% Regime type (COMPRESSIBLE, INCOMPRESSIBLE, FREESURFACE)
REGIME_TYPE= INCOMPRESSIBLE
%
% Restart solution (NO, YES)
RESTART_SOL= NO

% ------------------------- UNSTEADY SIMULATION -------------------------------%
%
% Unsteady simulation (NO, TIME_STEPPING, DUAL_TIME_STEPPING-1ST_ORDER, 
%                      DUAL_TIME_STEPPING-2ND_ORDER, TIME_SPECTRAL)
UNSTEADY_SIMULATION= NO
% CONSOLE = CONCISE
% -------------------- INCOMPRESSIBLE FREE-STREAM DEFINITION ------------------%
%
% Mach number
% MACH_NUMBER= 0.15
% Angle of attack (deg)
% AoA= -5.0

% Free-stream density (1.2886 Kg/m^3 (air), 998.2 Kg/m^3 (water))
FREESTREAM_DENSITY= 2.13163
%
% Free-stream velocity (m/s)
FREESTREAM_VELOCITY= ( 10.0, 0.00, 0.00 )
%
% Free-stream viscosity (1.853E-5 Ns/m^2 (air), 0.798E-3 Ns/m^2 (water))
FREESTREAM_VISCOSITY= 1.853e-05

% ---------------------- REFERENCE VALUE DEFINITION ---------------------------%
%
% Reference origin for moment computation
REF_ORIGIN_MOMENT_X = 0.25
REF_ORIGIN_MOMENT_Y = 0.00
REF_ORIGIN_MOMENT_Z = 0.00
%
% Reference length for pitching, rolling, and yawing non-dimensional moment
REF_LENGTH_MOMENT= 1.0
%
% Reference area for force coefficients (0 implies automatic calculation)
REF_AREA= 1.0
%%%%%
% MOTION
%GRID_MOVEMENT = YES
%GRID_MOVEMENT_KIND = NONE
%GRID_MOVEMENT_KIND = ROTATING_FRAME
%MACH_MOTION = 0.7958
%MARKER_MOVING = NONE
%MOTION_ORIGIN_X = 0.5
%MOTION_ORIGIN_Y = -32.0
%MOTION_ORIGIN_Z = 0.0
%ROTATION_RATE_X = 0.0
%ROTATION_RATE_Y = 0.0
%ROTATION_RATE_Z = 0.0 
%8.25

% -------------------- BOUNDARY CONDITION DEFINITION --------------------------%
%
% Navier-Stokes wall boundary marker(s) (NONE = no marker)
MARKER_HEATFLUX= ( airfoil, 0.0 )
%
% Farfield boundary marker(s) (NONE = no marker)
MARKER_FAR= ( farfield )
%
% Marker(s) of the surface to be plotted or designed
MARKER_PLOTTING= ( airfoil )
%
% Marker(s) of the surface where the functional (Cd, Cl, etc.) will be evaluated
MARKER_MONITORING= ( airfoil )

% ------------- COMMON PARAMETERS DEFINING THE NUMERICAL METHOD ---------------%
%
% Numerical method for spatial gradients (GREEN_GAUSS, WEIGHTED_LEAST_SQUARES)
NUM_METHOD_GRAD= WEIGHTED_LEAST_SQUARES
%
% Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy condition of the finest grid
CFL_NUMBER= 10.0
%
% Adaptive CFL number (NO, YES)
CFL_ADAPT= NO
%
% Parameters of the adaptive CFL number (factor down, factor up, CFL min value,
%                                        CFL max value )
CFL_ADAPT_PARAM= ( 1.5, 0.5, 1.0, 100.0 )
%
% Number of total iterations
EXT_ITER= 75000

% ----------------------- SLOPE LIMITER DEFINITION ----------------------------%
%
% Reference element length for computing the slope and sharp edges limiters.
REF_ELEM_LENGTH= 0.1
%
% Coefficient for the limiter
LIMITER_COEFF= 0.1
%
%
% Reference coefficient (sensitivity) for detecting sharp edges.
REF_SHARP_EDGES= 3.0
%
% Remove sharp edges from the sensitivity evaluation (NO, YES)
SENS_REMOVE_SHARP= NO

% ------------------------ LINEAR SOLVER DEFINITION ---------------------------%
%
% Linear solver for implicit formulations (BCGSTAB, FGMRES)
LINEAR_SOLVER= FGMRES
%
% Preconditioner of the Krylov linear solver (JACOBI, LINELET, LU_SGS)
LINEAR_SOLVER_PREC= LU_SGS
%
% Minimum error of the linear solver for implicit formulations
LINEAR_SOLVER_ERROR= 1E-4
%
% Max number of iterations of the linear solver for the implicit formulation
LINEAR_SOLVER_ITER= 5

% -------------------------- MULTIGRID PARAMETERS -----------------------------%
%
% Multi-Grid Levels (0 = no multi-grid)
MGLEVEL= 0
%
% Multi-grid cycle (V_CYCLE, W_CYCLE, FULLMG_CYCLE)
MGCYCLE= V_CYCLE
%
% Multi-grid pre-smoothing level
MG_PRE_SMOOTH= ( 1, 2, 3, 3 )
%
% Multi-grid post-smoothing level
MG_POST_SMOOTH= ( 0, 0, 0, 0 )
%
% Jacobi implicit smoothing of the correction
MG_CORRECTION_SMOOTH= ( 0, 0, 0, 0 )
%
% Damping factor for the residual restriction
MG_DAMP_RESTRICTION= 0.75
%
% Damping factor for the correction prolongation
MG_DAMP_PROLONGATION= 0.75

% -------------------- FLOW NUMERICAL METHOD DEFINITION -----------------------%
%
% Convective numerical method (JST, LAX-FRIEDRICH, CUSP, ROE, AUSM, HLLC,
%                              TURKEL_PREC, MSW)
CONV_NUM_METHOD_FLOW= ROE
%
% Spatial numerical order integration (1ST_ORDER, 2ND_ORDER, 2ND_ORDER_LIMITER)
%
SPATIAL_ORDER_FLOW= 2ND_ORDER_LIMITER
%
% Slope limiter (VENKATAKRISHNAN, MINMOD)
SLOPE_LIMITER_FLOW= VENKATAKRISHNAN
%
% 1st, 2nd and 4th order artificial dissipation coefficients
AD_COEFF_FLOW= ( 0.15, 0.5, 0.02 )
%
% Time discretization (RUNGE-KUTTA_EXPLICIT, EULER_IMPLICIT, EULER_EXPLICIT)
TIME_DISCRE_FLOW= EULER_IMPLICIT

% ---------------- ADJOINT-FLOW NUMERICAL METHOD DEFINITION -------------------%
% Adjoint problem boundary condition (DRAG, LIFT, SIDEFORCE, MOMENT_X,
%                                     MOMENT_Y, MOMENT_Z, EFFICIENCY,
%                                     EQUIVALENT_AREA, NEARFIELD_PRESSURE,
%                                     FORCE_X, FORCE_Y, FORCE_Z, THRUST,
%                                     TORQUE, FREE_SURFACE, TOTAL_HEAT,
%                                     MAXIMUM_HEATFLUX, INVERSE_DESIGN_PRESSURE,
%                                     INVERSE_DESIGN_HEATFLUX)
OBJECTIVE_FUNCTION= DRAG
%
% Convective numerical method (JST, LAX-FRIEDRICH, ROE)
CONV_NUM_METHOD_ADJFLOW= ROE
%
% Spatial numerical order integration (1ST_ORDER, 2ND_ORDER, 2ND_ORDER_LIMITER)
%
SPATIAL_ORDER_ADJFLOW= 2ND_ORDER
%
% Slope limiter (VENKATAKRISHNAN, SHARP_EDGES)
SLOPE_LIMITER_ADJFLOW= VENKATAKRISHNAN
%
% Coefficient for the sharp edges limiter
SHARP_EDGES_COEFF= 3.0
%
% 1st, 2nd, and 4th order artificial dissipation coefficients
AD_COEFF_ADJFLOW= ( 0.15, 0.0, 0.002 )
%
% Reduction factor of the CFL coefficient in the adjoint problem
CFL_REDUCTION_ADJFLOW= 0.25
%
% Time discretization (RUNGE-KUTTA_EXPLICIT, EULER_IMPLICIT)
TIME_DISCRE_ADJFLOW= EULER_IMPLICIT
%
% Adjoint frozen viscosity (NO, YES)
FROZEN_VISC= YES

% -------------------- TURBULENT NUMERICAL METHOD DEFINITION ------------------%
%
% Convective numerical method (SCALAR_UPWIND)
CONV_NUM_METHOD_TURB= SCALAR_UPWIND
%
% Spatial numerical order integration (1ST_ORDER, 2ND_ORDER, 2ND_ORDER_LIMITER)
%
SPATIAL_ORDER_TURB= 1ST_ORDER
%
% Slope limiter (VENKATAKRISHNAN, MINMOD)
SLOPE_LIMITER_TURB= VENKATAKRISHNAN
%
% Time discretization (EULER_IMPLICIT)
TIME_DISCRE_TURB= EULER_IMPLICIT

% --------------------------- CONVERGENCE PARAMETERS --------------------------%
%
% Convergence criteria (CAUCHY, RESIDUAL)
%
CONV_CRITERIA= CAUCHY
%
% Residual reduction (order of magnitude with respect to the initial value)
RESIDUAL_REDUCTION= 5
%
% Min value of the residual (log10 of the residual)
RESIDUAL_MINVAL= -10
%
% Start convergence criteria at iteration number
STARTCONV_ITER= 10
%
% Number of elements to apply the criteria
CAUCHY_ELEMS= 100
%
% Epsilon to control the series convergence
CAUCHY_EPS= 8E-6
%
% Function to apply the criteria (LIFT, DRAG, NEARFIELD_PRESS, SENS_GEOMETRY, 
% 	      	    		 SENS_MACH, DELTA_LIFT, DELTA_DRAG)
CAUCHY_FUNC_FLOW= LIFT
%CAUCHY_FUNC_LIN= DELTA_DRAG
% ------------------------- GRID ADAPTATION STRATEGY --------------------------%
%
% Percentage of new elements (% of the original number of elements)
NEW_ELEMS= 5
%
% Kind of grid adaptation (NONE, FULL, FULL_FLOW, GRAD_FLOW, FULL_ADJOINT,
%                          GRAD_ADJOINT, GRAD_FLOW_ADJ, ROBUST,
%                          FULL_LINEAR, COMPUTABLE, COMPUTABLE_ROBUST,
%                          REMAINING, WAKE, SMOOTHING, SUPERSONIC_SHOCK,
%                          TWOPHASE)
KIND_ADAPT= FULL_FLOW
%
% Scale factor for the dual volume
DUALVOL_POWER= 0.5
%
% Before each computation do an implicit smoothing of the nodes coord (NO, YES)
SMOOTH_GEOMETRY= NO
% ------------------------- INPUT/OUTPUT INFORMATION --------------------------%
%
% Mesh input file
%MESH_FILENAME= mesh_NACA0012_turb_897x257.su2
MESH_FILENAME = mesh_AIRFOIL.su2
%
% Mesh input file format (SU2, CGNS, NETCDF_ASCII)
MESH_FORMAT= SU2
%
% Mesh output file
MESH_OUT_FILENAME= mesh_out.su2
%
% Restart flow input file
SOLUTION_FLOW_FILENAME= solution_flow.dat
%
% Restart adjoint input file
SOLUTION_ADJ_FILENAME= solution_adj.dat
%
% Output file format (PARAVIEW, TECPLOT, STL)
OUTPUT_FORMAT= PARAVIEW
%
% Output file convergence history (w/o extension) 
CONV_FILENAME= history
%
% Output file restart flow
RESTART_FLOW_FILENAME= solution_flow.dat
%
% Output file restart adjoint
RESTART_ADJ_FILENAME= restart_adj.dat
%
% Output file flow (w/o extension) variables
VOLUME_FLOW_FILENAME= flow
%
% Output file adjoint (w/o extension) variables
VOLUME_ADJ_FILENAME= adjoint
%
% Output objective function gradient (using continuous adjoint)
GRAD_OBJFUNC_FILENAME= of_grad.dat
%
% Output file surface flow coefficient (w/o extension)
SURFACE_FLOW_FILENAME= surface_flow
%
% Output file surface adjoint coefficient (w/o extension)
SURFACE_ADJ_FILENAME= surface_adjoint
%
% Writing solution file frequency
WRT_SOL_FREQ= 5000
%
% Writing convergence history frequency
WRT_CON_FREQ= 1000

DV_KIND = HICKS_HENNE
DV_MARKER = ( airfoil )
DV_PARAM = ( 1, 0.5 )
DEFINITION_DV= ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.05 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.10 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.15 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.20 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.25 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.30 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.35 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.40 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.45 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.50 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.55 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.60 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.65 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.70 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.75 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.80 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.85 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.90 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.95 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.05 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.10 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.15 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.20 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.25 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.30 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.35 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.40 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.45 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.50 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.55 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.60 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.65 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.70 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.75 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.80 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.85 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.90 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.95 )
% DEFINITION_DV = (( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.961538461538 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.923076923077 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.884615384615 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.846153846154 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 0, 0.807692307692 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.846153846154 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.884615384615 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.923076923077 ); ( 1, 1.0 | airfoil | 1, 0.961538461538 )

[anon_k]

Hi,

For what it's worth, I have noticed the same thing. The drag is always higher than the test data I have from an old NACA report. Cl and Cm vary from too high to too low, depending on the solver choice and CFL number. I was using SU2_EDU.

[EMolina]

Hi...

Let me ask you some questions. Did your simulation converged? Why you are using Cauchy converge criteria? Can you show us the density residual?

Cheers

Molina

[Ry10]

Originally Posted by EMolina

Hi...

Let me ask you some questions. Did your simulation converged? Why you are using Cauchy converge criteria? Can you show us the density residual?

Cheers

Molina

My simulation did converge. I have been using the Cauchy convergence criteria because I am using the CFD in an outer loop and it seemed more robust. My residuals are all pretty low between -7 and -12.
Res[Press] Res[nu]
-7.827376 -10.677632

[gunnersnroses]

Hi

Is the reference area you've set definitely correct/the same as you've used for the wind tunnel/other experiments?

You currently have it set to the default 1m^2 (REF_AREA= 1.0)

Cheers,
M.

[Ry10]

Originally Posted by gunnersnroses

Hi

Is the reference area you've set definitely correct/the same as you've used for the wind tunnel/other experiments?

You currently have it set to the default 1m^2 (REF_AREA= 1.0)

Cheers,
M.

Yes. Everything was normalized to 1.0 for all the calculations that are compared. My lift matches pretty well, it is my drag that is quite high in comparison.

[luigi22]

Hi,
I have to calculate Cl Cd for different type of airfoils to vary the angle of attack (alpha), I do in this way:
naca0018
pane
oper
visc 100000
iter 1000
alfa 0
pacc naca0018.pol
aseq -30.0 30.0 2.0
pacc
quit
The results are different from the datas, maybe cause the large variation of alpha. what do you think?

[hlk]

It looks like this hasn't been mentioned on this thread yet:
Since the panel method and data match well, but the turbulent viscous simulation does not, it could be that the issue is with the turbulence - either that the flow in the experiment was closer to laminar, or that the grid is not refined enough near the wall to accurately capture the boundary layer.

On the angle of attack sweep from -30 to 30 degrees - that is a wide enough range that the flow would certainly be separated and not likely to be providing an accurate solution towards the ends of that range. (unless using very high fidelity CFD - ie unsteady LES methods)

[Jiba]

Just some other points:

1. did you set the transition point in XFOIL? If not the code will predict a "free" transition, conversely SU2 is fully turbulent. A comparison in terms of cf could be interesting

2. the turbulence model is solved as 1st order, did you check with 2nd order accuracy?

[luigi22]

Hi,
I didn't set the transition point and I didn't check with 2nd order accuracy, the only things that I write in the prompt are:
naca0018
pane
oper
visc 100000
iter 1000
alfa 0
pacc naca0018.pol
aseq -30.0 30.0 2.0
pacc
quit
I read in a document that is better using the command "init" for a large range of alpha and I don't know if the command "alpha 0" (after iter) is necessary. What do you think?
I tryed the same for different Reynold's Numbers and I have the same problems, maybe the issues are linked to an error in my script.
Thank you very much!

[Jiba]

Originally Posted by luigi22

Hi,
I didn't set the transition point and I didn't check with 2nd order accuracy, the only things that I write in the prompt are:
naca0018
pane
oper
visc 100000
iter 1000
alfa 0
pacc naca0018.pol
aseq -30.0 30.0 2.0
pacc
quit
I read in a document that is better using the command "init" for a large range of alpha and I don't know if the command "alpha 0" (after iter) is necessary. What do you think?
I tryed the same for different Reynold's Numbers and I have the same problems, maybe the issues are linked to an error in my script.
Thank you very much!

The script itself is not wrong, anyway you are performing a free transition analysis (so keep in mind that when comparing the results). Could you post the details about SU2 simulation, like y+ and the input file?

[luigi22]

I don't have an SU2 simulation; I had experimental datas (maybe from Sandia Lab) to be compared with my xfoil's results.

[luigi22]

Hi,
I have another question, like you can see on my script there is the command alpha 0 (after iter 1000); I used this command cause there was in a tutorial but I don't know the utility, I thought that was only to see the Cp at alpha 0 but then I noticed that, with this command (alpha 0), my final results are less correct. Do you know its function?
thank you very much!

[hlk]

Originally Posted by luigi22

I don't have an SU2 simulation; I had experimental datas (maybe from Sandia Lab) to be compared with my xfoil's results.

For more information on running and interpreting xfoil data, I would suggest seeking out a similar support forum for that code, or seeing what their contact/support suggestions are on their website.

[luigi22]

Hi,
I have another question, like you can see on my script there is the command alpha 0 (after iter 1000); I used this command cause there was in a tutorial but I don't know the utility, I thought that was only to see the Cp at alpha 0 but then I noticed that, with this command (alpha 0), my final results are less correct. Do you know its function?
thank you very much!

About this what do you think?

[whizkid]

Hello all,
The problem here is possibly because that the flow is transitional (Re = 1.1M and freestream turbulence intensity is around 0.1%). You should solve the case with a transition model. Recently, I have added my own transition model (named BC (Bas-Cakmakcioglu) Model) to the code, and I have opened a pull request (#326). Maybe you can test this case with the BC model, and see the results.

Hopefully, the BC transition model will be merged into the master branch after some testing.

Best,
S. Cakmakcioglu