PAPER 1

Computational Study of Flow around a NACA 0012 Wing Flapped at Different Angles with
Varying Mach Numbers
PAPER 2
Evaluation of the Turbulence Models for the Simulation of the Flow over a National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 0012 Airfoil

Answer 1:
Paper 1:
Paper 2:

Answer 2:
Paper 1:
Paper 2:

Answer 3:
Paper 1:
Paper 2:

Answer 4:

Paper 1:
For accelerating CFD solution, 2 methods were used in this journal which is the pressure-based
coupled solver (PBCS) and density-based coupled solver (DBNS). PBCS was introduce in 2006
where itll be use to reduce the time overall convergence by solving the pressure-based and
momentum continuity equation. There are 2 example of hybrid solution (see p10, Fig.8)
initialization where it was the collection of recipes and boundary interpolation method to
initialize efficiency the solution based on the simulation setup. Furthermore, this method can be
applied to change the flow ragging from subsonic into supersonic. Both of method was
recommended for steady-state cases and many cases may improve the convergence robustness
due to this initialization method. (see p9, par 2)

Paper 2:
The boundary condition was created in the pre-processor gambit 2.4.6 for the airfoil profile. The
pre-processor is a program that can be employed to produce models in 2D or 3D by using
structured or unstructured mesh. The 1st step in performing the CFD simulation is we should
identify the effect of mesh size because normally numerical solution more accurate. Other than
that, new method was use to get accurate result for the drag coefficient in the aerodynamic. The
laminar point and turbulent point flow was determined to calculate the transition point and split
the computational domain at the point with perpendicular line. There was a few problem when
simulated influent after determine the region (see p105, Fig.3). If the

CD

was greater than

experimental value, thats means turbulent one was greater than the real value and its vice versa.
This method will be repeated until the two results

CD

were satisfied. (see p104, par 1)

Answer 5:

Paper 1:
The type of flow simulated at NACA 0012 wing flapped was 2 dimensional flows. By selecting a
turbulent model, the structure of turbulent flow is a crucial undertaking to stud sorts of fluid
flow. Turbulent flow is a most flow that pragmatic in engineering field. In addition, there were a
model viscous turbulent flow that present in this flow simulated and the Reynoldss number for
this turbulent was set to

6 106 . Furthermore, there was a compressible flow over the body

under the experiment due to the DBNS utilizing the shear stress transport modeling fluent
facilities. (see p6, par 2)

Paper 2:
For National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics airfoil, there were the 2 dimensional subsonic
flows present in this analysis. The flow was identifying by solving the steady-state governing
equation of continuity of turbulent model. Turbulent flows are significantly affected by the
presence of wall. Due to the characteristics of 2D flow in continuous equation, viscous flow was
present where it will be use to make the momentum equation. (see p101, par 3)

Answer 6:
Paper 1:
Paper 2:

Answer 7:

Paper 1:
The studys method and result can be verified as the operations condition are following
the NASA Langley Research Centers study cases. The operating condition also were the same
where the temperature, density are following the guidelines by NASA. The CFD method was
done according to guideline as well as the simulation on mesh size on the solution result was
done firstly (see p9, par1). The method used can be verified to be accurate as the determination
of the proper number of nodes until the mesh is fine so further refinement would not change the
result (see p9, par 2). The definition of the NACA 0012 airfoil is slightly altered so that the chord
= 1with a sharp trailing edge and the exact formula for the airfoil was used as recommended by
NASA but is scaled down by 1.00890411365 (see p10, par2). The evident that verified the result
furthermore is that the study with 12000 cells method can yield a negligible 2-3% of the standard
data provided by NASA (see p14, par2).

Paper 2:
The verification of the study method and result can be observed such as the selected
airfoil is the well documented airfoil from the 4-digit series of NACA airfoils (see p104, par1).
Other than that, the study procedure is done from a wide range of attack angle to obtain enough
reliable data which is from -12 to 20 degree. The airfoil profile, boundary conditions, and meshes
were done using a pre-processor Gambit 2.4.6 (see p104, par 1). The CFD method was done
according to procedure as the investigation on mesh size on the solution result was done (see
p104, par 2). The CD simulation result was also repeated a few time until a satisfy value was
obtained (see p105, par 2). In order to verify the result for lift and drag coefficient, the data
obtained is compared to the theoretical one and to get a more accurate result, the computational
domain was split into two different domains to run mixed laminar and turbulent flow (see 107,
par 3).

Answer 8:

Paper 1:
The studys result is validated when the 2D simulation result of NACA 0012 for zero
angle obtained from the computational method applied was compared to the NASAs result.
Apart from that, the lift curve, drag polar, pressure coefficient was also compared to the NASAs
result. Fully developed turbulent flow also simulated in Fluent to match NASAs demand of
result (see p10, par 2). The data from NASA were the experimental data of Abbott and Von
Doenhoffs unstrapped experimental results and the lift curve of the study were compared from
-16 angle of attack to 16 degree. The deviation was only up to 3% (see p11, Fig. 9). The drag
polar of the study was also compared to NASAs validation cases which agree with the result
from Abbott and Von Doenhoffs (see p11, Fig. 10). The pressure coefficient however has a
slight deviation from the data conducted by Ladson (see p11, Fig 12, 13).

Paper 2:
In order to validate the study method which was the proper modeling of transition,
including both onset and extent of transition, the study referred to (Bacha et al, 2006) for the
proper method (see p100, par 3). The result of the study was also validated by comparing the
numerical solution of the flow field over the NACA 0012 airfoil with the reliable sources
(Abbott et al, 1959) (see p101, par5). Apart from that, the study also used the Reynolds number =
3x 102 by referring to the experimental data from (Von Doenhoff, 1959). (see p104, par1). Then,
the result which was the lift coefficient and drag coefficient against angle of attack for the
Spalart Allmaras, k- Realizable, and k- SST were compared to Abbott and Von Doenhoff
(1959) experimental data (see p106, Fig. 4, 5, 6).

The comparison was also done with

(McCroskey, 1987) for the simulation results with the spilt grid and the experimental data from
McCroskey for transitional boundary layer with only maximum error of 3.6 % (see p107, par 4).

Answer 9:
Paper 1:

Paper 2:

Appendixes