Numerical Simulation of The Flow Around NACA0018 Airfoil

Journal of
Marine Science
and Engineering
Article
Numerical Simulation of the Flow around NACA0018 Airfoil at
High Incidences by Using RANS and DES Methods
Haipeng Guo 1 , Guangnian Li 1 and Zaojian Zou 2,3, *
1 Faculty of Maritime and Transportation, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China;

guohaipeng1@nbu.edu.cn (H.G.); liguangnian@nbu.edu.cn (G.L.)
2 School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China
3 State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
* Correspondence: zjzou@sjtu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-21-3420-4255
Abstract: In this work, the flow around the NACA0018 airfoil with a wide range of attack angles was
investigated based on the open-source computational fluid dynamics (CFD) platform OpenFOAM.
Two numerical methods, Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) and the detached eddy simula-
tion (DES), were employed. Under the premise of a grid convergence analysis, the computed lift and
drag coefficients were validated by the available experimental data. The pressure distribution, the
complex flow mechanisms of the airfoil under the attached flow regime, the mild separation flow
regime, and the post-stall flow regime, combined with the shedding vortex structures, streamlines,
and vorticity distributions, are discussed. From the numerical results, it can be seen that the DES
computation presents a better accuracy in the prediction of the lift and drag coefficients, with a
deviation less than 10% at the largest angle of attack. Meanwhile, it also presents remarkable im-
provements in capturing the local flow field details, such as the unsteady separated flow and the
shedding vortex structures.
Citation: Guo, H.; Li, G.; Zou, Z.
Numerical Simulation of the Flow Keywords: airfoil; high incidence; NACA0018; OpenFOAM; RANS method; DES method
around NACA0018 Airfoil at High
Incidences by Using RANS and DES
Methods. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10,
847. https://doi.org/10.3390/
1. Introduction
jmse10070847
The issue of flow around airfoils at high incidences plays an important role in the
Academic Editors: Kamal Djidjeli, research of ship and offshore structures, such as evaluating ship maneuverability and
Anatoly Gusev and Alberto Ribotti propulsion performance, optimizing wind turbine designs, etc. However, the flow field
Received: 24 April 2022
characteristics of airfoils at high incidences are rather complicated, due to the transition
Accepted: 10 June 2022 and pressure-induced separation. The flow features are highly related to the Reynolds
Published: 22 June 2022 number, the angle of attack, as well as the shape of the airfoil. Hence, it is important to
explore the flow features around airfoils at high incidences.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Several research studies have been performed by using the experimental approach,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
aimed at exploring the flow mechanisms governing the complex flow around airfoils at high
published maps and institutional affil-
incidences. Jacobs and Sherman [1], Goett and Bullivant [2], and Sheldahl and Klimas [3]
iations.
investigated the effect of the Reynolds number on the characteristics of an airfoil section.
Nakano et al. [4] explored the flow separation and reattachment around an airfoil and the
velocity field across the boundary layers over the airfoil surface. Timmer [5] measured the
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. aerodynamic characteristics of an airfoil to serve as input to estimate the performance of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. vertical axis wind turbines. Boutilier et al. [6] studied the shear layer development over
This article is an open access article an airfoil using a combination of flow visualization, velocity field mapping, and surface
distributed under the terms and pressure fluctuation measurements. Gim and Lee [7] studied the tip vortex structures
conditions of the Creative Commons around an airfoil with and without an endplate. Greenblatt et al. [8] examined pitching
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// airfoils under relatively free stream oscillatory conditions (in a water tunnel and a wind
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ tunnel, separately).
4.0/).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10070847 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 2 of 20
Concerning the high expenses and complex facilities of the experimental approach, the
numerical approach, mainly referring to the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method,
has been widely adopted in this issue. Several research studies have used the Reynolds-
averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) method. Hassan et al. [9] investigated the accuracy of
different turbulence models in predicting the aerodynamic characteristics of an airfoil.
Raj [10] analyzed the flow over an airfoil at different Mach numbers and attack angles.
Suvanjumrat [11] compared different turbulence models in the solution of the flow field
around an airfoil. Yılmaz et al. [12] analyzed different airfoils at various attack angles
and examined the effects of the symmetrical and asymmetrical profiles. Wang et al. [13]
conducted a numerical study for a vertical axis wind turbine with different thicknesses
or cambers of airfoils. Aqilah et al. [14] discussed the significant effect of mesh quality on
the solution of the flow around an airfoil. Zidane et al. [15] explored the structure and
behavior of the transitional separation bubbles on the airfoil at different Reynolds numbers.
Li et al. [16] analyzed the effect of camber, the rotating axis position of the flap, the angle of
attack, and flap thickness on the flow characteristics of a two-element wing sail. Overall, it
was shown that the RANS method is suitable for the solution of attached flow, as well as a
slightly separated flow, while it is hard to capture the large-scale flow separation for the
airfoil at high incidences.
In contrast, the large eddy simulation (LES) method was proven to be capable of
capturing large-scale flow separation. Breuer and Jovičić [17] investigated the separation
flow past an airfoil at high attack angles. Mary and Sagaut [18] simulated the turbulent flow
past an airfoil near the stall. Yuan et al. [19] investigated the flow past an airfoil, to clarify the
viscous features of laminar separation and the transition flow followed by the complicated
behavior of the flow reattachment. Li et al. [20] simulated the flow around an airfoil with
high attack angles and discussed the vortex diffusion after flow separation. Breuer [21]
investigated the effect of inflow turbulence on the flow around an airfoil with a laminar
separation bubble. However, due to the high-computational resource consumption in the
resolution of the near-wall flow, the LES method is too expensive for practical applications.
The hybrid RANS/LES method has been greatly developed in recent years to resolve
the complex flow in practical applications (with affordable computational expenses). The
method applies the RANS method for the attached flow in the boundary layer, and adopts
the LES method for the separated flow regime, balancing the efficiency of the RANS method
and the accuracy of the DES method. The widely used hybrid RANS/LES method and the
detached eddy simulation (DES) method were proposed by Spalart et al. [22]. However, the
original DES method revealed a defect of grid-spacing dependence; hence, it may behave
incorrectly at the boundary layer and result in modeled stress depletion (MSD). To address
the problem, two improved DES variants, delayed DES (DDES) [23] and improved DDES
(IDDES) [24], were developed to ensure the transition of the RANS model to the LES mode
was independent of grid spacing. Several research studies have been performed using the
DES-type method. Schmidt and Thiele [25] investigated the influence of transient flow
patterns on the quality of flow prediction. Li et al. [26] calculated pre-stall and post-stall
aerodynamic characteristics of airfoils with different flow separation patterns at the stall
regime. Probst et al. [27] and Im and Zha [28] discussed the effectiveness of different
numerical schemes in the simulation of an airfoil at the stall. Grossi et al. [29] investigated
the transonic flow over an airfoil within the buffet regime. Liang and Xue [30] investigated
the wing-tip vortex from a rectangular wing with a square tip. Gan et al. [31] simulated the
flow around a transonic wing flutter using a fully-coupled fluid/structure interaction (FSI)
with high-order shock-capturing schemes. Xu et al. [32] investigated the flow over airfoils
at a wide range of attacks. Yalçın et al. [33] explored the effects of two different length scale
definitions in the simulation of the flow around an airfoil. Wang et al. [34] discussed the
effects of the time step, spanwise lengths, and grid resolution on the prediction of flow
around an airfoil beyond stall. Patel and Zha [35] simulated the post-stall flow around an
airfoil to investigate the physics of flow separation. From the above research studies, it can
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 3 of 20
be seen that the DES method is capable of predicting the unsteady flow with transition
and separation.
Although large amounts of numerical research studies have been performed, the
details and the corresponding discussions on the flow characteristics of airfoils under
different regimes are relatively limited. Moreover, the effectiveness of the existing numerical
approaches needs to be further explored, such as the difference between the RANS and
DES methods in a complex flow solution with remarkable separation. In this paper, the
flow around airfoils at high incidences was investigated based on the open-source CFD
platform OpenFOAM. Using a symmetrical airfoil (NACA0018) as the study object, a series
of numerical simulations were performed for a wide range of attack angles by using the
RANS and DES methods. The computed lift and drag coefficients were compared with
the available experimental data, to qualify the efficiency of the two numerical methods.
Further, the flow features of the vortex structure, streamlines, and vorticity distribution, as
well as the pressure distribution on the airfoil surface, are presented, to analyze the flow
mechanism of the airfoil under the attached flow regime, the mild separation flow regime,
and the post-stall flow regime. Based on the comparisons of the obtained flow field details,
the capabilities of the RANS and DES solvers in OpenFOAM—in the prediction of the flow
around airfoils at high incidences—were further assessed.
2. Numerical Method
For the adopted RANS method, the Spalart–Allmaras one-equation model was adopted
for turbulence modeling. The adopted DES formulation was also derived from the Spalart–
Allmaras one-equation model, and an improved variation of the original DES method,
DDES method, was used in the study. In the Spalart–Allmaras one-equation model, the
eddy viscosity vt is defined with a modified turbulence viscosity ve, vt = ve f v1 , and the
transport equation is given by:
D
= ∇·(ρDveve) + Cσvb2 ρ|∇ve|2 +
v)
Dt ( ρe t
(1)
ev(1 − f t2 ) − Cw1 f w − Cb12 f t2 ρ ve2 + Sve
Cb1 ρSe κ e2 d
Here,
χ3
f v1 = 3 ,
χ3 +Cv1
, Cw1 = Cκb12 + 1+σvtCb2
χ= ve
v

6
1+Cw3
= Ct3 exp −Ct4 χ , f w = g g6 +C6 , g = r + Cw2 r6 − r
2 (2)

f t2
w3
ve χ ve
r= e 2 d2 , f v2 = 1 − 1+χ f v1 , Se = |ω | + f
κ 2 d2 v2
Sκ
where ρ is the fluid density, d is the distance to the closest solid surface.
de in the DDES model, different from the original DES model, is defined by:
de = max[ LRANS − f d , max( LRANS − LLES , 0)] (3)
The RANS length scale is defined by LRANS = d, while the LES p length scale is defined
by LLES = ΨCDES ∆, where ∆ is the local grid scale, defined as ∆ = 3 ∆x × ∆y × ∆z. Ψ is the
low Reynolds number correction function:
1 − C1−κC2b1f ∗ [ f t2 + (1 − f t2 ) f v2 ]
 
Ψ2 = min102 , w1 w  (4)
f v1 max(10−10 , 1 − f t2 )
The delay function is given by:

h i
f d = 1 − tan h (8rd )3 (5)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 4 of 20
= 1 − tanh[(8 ) ] (5)
Here, when f d = 0, the RANS model is recovered, and when f d = 1, the DES model is
recovered. The rd parameter
Here, when is given
= 0, the RANS by: is recovered, and when
model = 1, the DES model
is recovered. The parameter is given by:
v + vt
rd = min +2 2 , 10 (6)
= min |∇u|κ d , 10 (6)
|∇ |
The model constants are given in Table 1; for more details on the SA-DDES model,
The model constants are given in Table 1; for more details on the SA-DDES model,
refer to [23,36].
refer to [23,36].
Table 1. Constants in the SA-DDES model.
Table 1. Constants in the SA-DDES model.
Cb1 Cb2 Cw2 Cw3 Cv1 Cs CDES Ck Ct3 Ct4 *
σvt ∗fw
2/3 0.1355
2/3 0.1355 0.622
0.622 0.3
0.3 2.0
2.0 7.1
7.1 0.3
0.3 0.65
0.65 0.07
0.07 1.2
1.2 0.5
0.5 0.424
0.424
3.3.Case
CaseDescription
Description
3.1.
3.1.Study
StudyObject
Objectand
andWorking
WorkingCondition
Condition
The
The symmetry airfoil NACA0018was
symmetry airfoil NACA0018 wasselected
selectedasasthe
thestudy
studyobject,
object,and
andthetheprofile
profileisis
given
givenininFigure
Figure1.1.The
Thechord
chordlength
lengthofof C==0.154 0.154mmwaswasadopted,
adopted,which
whichisisininaccordance
accordance
with
withthe
thepublished
publishedwind
windtunnel
tunneltesttest[3].
[3].Differently,
Differently,the
theflowing
flowingmedium
mediumwas wassetsettotowater
water
with
with ρ ==997.561
997.561kg/m
kg/m 3 and =
3 and
µ 8.89
= 8.89 10−4 The
× 10×−4 Pas. Pa·s.details of the studied
The details workingworking
of the studied condi-
tion are summarized
condition in Table
are summarized in2.Table 2.
Figure
Figure1.1.Profile
Profileofofthe
theNACA0018
NACA0018airfoil.
airfoil.
Table
Table2.2.Study
Studyobject
objectand
andworking
workingconditions.
conditions.
Terms
Terms Values
Values
Airfoil
Airfoilprofile
profile NACA0018
NACA0018
Chord
Chordlength
length C (m) 0.154
0.154
Spanwise
Spanwise length S (m)
length (m) 0.1
0.1
Reynolds number Re 1,000,000
Reynolds number 1,000,000
Angle of attack α (deg) 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40
Angle of attack (deg) 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40
Forthe
For thesake
sakeofofanalysis,
analysis,the
thenon-dimensional
non-dimensionallift
liftand
anddrag coefficients, CLand
dragcoefficients, and C,D ,
were adopted in the following, computed
were adopted in the following, computed by: by:

CL ==L/⁄(0.5
0.5ρAU02 ) (7)
(7)
= ⁄(0.5 )
(8)
CD = D/ 0.5ρAU02 (8)
where and denote the lift and drag acting on the airfoil. is the area of the airfoil,
= L and
where . D
is denote the lift
the velocity of and drag acting on the airfoil. A is the area of the airfoil,
free inflow.
A = C × S. U0 is the velocity of free inflow.
3.2. Computational Domain and Boundary Condition
3.2. Computational Domain and Boundary Condition
A cuboid-shaped computational domain was adopted in the present numerical sim-
A cuboid-shaped computational domain was adopted in the present numerical sim-
ulation, as shown in Figure 2. With the coordinate system defined at the center of the
ulation, as shown in Figure 2. With the coordinate system defined at the center of the
airfoil profile, the dimension of the computational domain is defined as: −4.9 < < 9.7 ,
airfoil profile, the dimension of the computational domain is defined as: −4.9C < X < 9.7C,
−4.9 < < 4.9 , and −0.5 < < 0.5 . As for the boundary condition, a uniform inflow
−4.9C < Y < 4.9C, and −0.5S < Z < 0.5S. As for the boundary condition, a uniform inflow
condition with zero gradients for the pressure field was applied for the inlet side. A uni-
condition with zero gradients for the pressure field was applied for the inlet side. A uniform
form outflow
outflow condition
condition with with the pressure
the pressure field setting
field setting to the to the atmospheric
atmospheric pressure
pressure was
was applied
applied
for the for the side.
outlet outletThe
side. The
slip slipboundary
wall wall boundary condition
condition was setwas set on
on the topthe
andtop
theand the
bottom
J.J.Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci.Eng.
Eng.2022,
2022,10,
10,847
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of 20
20
bottom sides.
sides. The symmetry plane boundary condition was set on the front and the back
bottomThe symmetry
sides. plane boundary
The symmetry condition
plane boundary was setwas
condition on the front
set on theand theand
front back
thesides.
back
sides. Moreover,
Moreover, the
the no-slip no-slip wall
wall with with
zero zero velocity
velocity was
was setwas set
on the on the surface of the airfoil.
sides. Moreover, the no-slip wall with zero velocity set surface of the airfoil.
on the surface of the airfoil.
Figure 2. Illustration of the computational domain and boundary conditions.

Figure2.2. Illustration
Figure Illustrationof
ofthe
thecomputational
computationaldomain
domainand
andboundary
boundaryconditions.
conditions.
The discretization of
The of the computational
computational domain was was performed
performed by by using
using the
the pre-
pre-
The discretization
discretization of the the computational domain domain
processing
processing tools in OpenFOAM. At first, the computational domain was discretized with
processingtools
toolsininOpenFOAM.
OpenFOAM.At Atfirst,
first,the
thecomputational
computationaldomain domain waswasdiscretized
discretized with a
with
a uniform
uniform hexahedral
hexahedral grid
grid by by using
using the the blockMesh
blockMesh tool.
tool. Then,Then,
the the grid
grid refining,
refining, splitting,
splitting, and
a uniform hexahedral grid by using the blockMesh tool. Then, the grid refining, splitting,
and snapping
snapping were
werewere performed
performed by using
by using the snappyHexMesh
the snappyHexMesh tool.
tool. tool. A series
A series of mesh
of mesh refine-
refinement
and snapping performed by using the snappyHexMesh A series of mesh refine-
ment
blocks blocks were
were added added to
to refine refine
the gridthe grid spacing around the airfoil, especially the down-
ment blocks were added to refine thespacing aroundaround
grid spacing the airfoil, especially
the airfoil, the downstream
especially the down-
stream
of the of theOn
airfoil. airfoil.
the On theofsurface
surface the of the
airfoil, fiveairfoil,
layers five
of layers ofcells
prismatic prismatic
were cells were
adopted to
stream of the airfoil. On the surface of the airfoil, five layers of prismatic cells were
adoptedato
achieve achieve
better a betterofresolution
resolution the of theflow.
near-wall near-wall
The flow. Theof
alignment alignment
those of was
cells thoseset
cells
in
adopted to achieve a better resolution of the near-wall flow. The alignment of those cells
was set in accordance
accordance with the targeted non-dimensional
with the targeted distance from the+ wall Y+ fromrang-
was set in accordance with thenon-dimensional distance from
targeted non-dimensional the wall
distance fromYtheranging
wall Y+ rang-
ingtofrom
30 60. 30 Figure
See to 60. See3 Figure
for the 3 for
grid the grid generation
generation of the of the computational
computational domain and domain
the and
region
ing from 30 to 60. See Figure 3 for the grid generation of the computational domain and
the region
around the around
airfoil. the airfoil.
the region around the airfoil.
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Gridgeneration
generation of(a)
(a) thecomputational
computational domainand
and (b)the
the regionaround
around theairfoil.
airfoil.
Figure3.3. Grid
Figure Grid generationof
of (a)the
the computationaldomain
domain and(b)
(b) theregion
region aroundthe
the airfoil.
3.3.
3.3. Other
Other Setups
Setups in
in the
the Numerical
NumericalSolution
Solution
3.3. Other Setups in the Numerical Solution
The
Thepresent
presentnumerical
numerical study
study was
was performed
performed by by using
using the
the psioFoam
psioFoam solver
solver in
in Open-
Open-
The present numerical study was performed by using the psioFoam solver in Open-
FOAM.
FOAM.ItItisisa apressure-based,
pressure-based, coupled,
coupled,unsteady
unsteadysolver, and and
solver, solves the incompressible
solves the incompressibleflow
FOAM. It is a pressure-based, coupled, unsteady solver, and solves the incompressible
by using
flow the pressure
by using implicit
the pressure with splitting
implicit of operator
with splitting (PISO)(PISO)
of operator algorithm. The discretiza-
algorithm. The dis-
flow by using the pressure implicit with splitting of operator (PISO) algorithm. The dis-
tion schemesschemes
cretization adoptedadopted
in the present
in the study
presentarestudy
givenare
in Table
given3,inwhere
Tableφ3,is where
the volumetric
is the
cretization schemes adopted in the present study are given in Table 3, where is the
flux.
volumetric flux. For the temporal discretization, the first-order Euler schemeinwas
For the temporal discretization, the first-order Euler scheme was used the used
RANS in
volumetric flux. For the temporal discretization, the first-order Euler scheme was used in
computation, and the second
the RANS computation, backward
and the secondscheme
backward wasscheme
used inwasthe used
DES computation. As for
in the DES computa-
the spatial
the RANS computation, and the the second backward scheme was used inwas
theused
DES computa-
tion. As fordiscretization, second-order
the spatial discretization, Gauss integration
the second-order scheme
Gauss integration schemefor wasdiver-
used
tion. As
gence forgradient
and the spatial discretization,
schemes the second-order
in the RANS Gauss integration
and DES computations, and thescheme
surfacewas used
normal
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 6 of 20
gradient scheme was adopted for the Laplacian scheme, which is a corrected unbounded
second-order conservative scheme. Moreover, the first-order linear scheme was adopted
for the interpolation scheme.
Table 3. Discretization schemes adopted in the present study.
Terms RANS DES

Time Euler Backward
(φ, U ) Gauss linearUpwind grad(U) Gauss LUST unlimitedGrad(U)
Divergence
(φ, ve) Gauss limitedLinear 1 Gauss limitedLinear 1
U Gauss linear cellLimited Gauss linear 1
Gradient
ve Gauss linear cellLimited Gauss linear 1
Laplacian Gauss linear limited corrected 0.5 Gauss linear limited corrected 0.33
Interpolation linear linear
4. Convergence Study
A grid convergence study was performed with the methodology presented by
Stern et al. [37] to clarify the effect of grid spacing in the numerical solution. Typically, the
angle of attack α = 40 deg was √ selected as the study case. Three grids were generated based
on the refinement factor of 2. For the RANS and DES computations, the time step was set
to 1.0 × 10−3 s. To achieve the iterative convergence, the total simulated physical time was
set to 5 s for the RANS computations and 10 s for the DES computations. A workstation
with the CPU of Intel@ Xeon(R) Gold 5218 CPU@ 2.3 GHz (Intel Corp., Santa Clara, CA,
USA) with 64 GB RAM was adopted in the present numerical study, and 16 processors
were used for each computation. The computational details for the grid convergence study
are given in Table 4, where the computational time refers to the wall-clock time.
Table 4. Computational details for the grid convergence study.
Method Fine Grid SG1 Medium Grid SG2 Coarse Grid SG3
Grid number - 3.98 × 106 2.07 × 106 1.06 × 106
Computational RANS 50–55 25–30 5–10
expense (h) DES 60–65 40–45 15–20
The results of the grid convergence study are given in Tables 5 and 6. According to
the spatial discretization scheme, the theoretical order of accuracy PGest = 2 was adopted.
For the RANS computation, a relatively lower grid uncertainty was observed, with the
values of UG %SG1 ranging from 1.0% to 1.5% for CL and CD . As for the DES computation,
a lower grid uncertainty was presented for CL with the value of UG %SG1 approaching
0.5%. However, a relatively higher grid uncertainty was presented for CD , with the value
of UG %SG1 reaching 3.5%. The higher grid uncertainty in the DES computation was highly
related to the larger values of ε 32 %SG1 , resulting from the irrational solution with the coarse
grid SG3 . It suggests that the coarse grid would be unable to solve the important flow
features involved in the DES computation, as proposed by Muscari et al. [38]. A further
refined grid would be helpful to improve the uncertainty, while it is rather time-consuming
and unpractical. For another, the values of ε 21 %SG1 are at reasonably small magnitudes,
demonstrating the minor difference between the solutions with the grid of SG1 and SG2 .
It can be concluded that the solution with the grid above the medium level would be less
affected by the grid spacing. Therefore, the grid with the medium level was adopted in the
following numerical studies, to balance the accuracy and efficiency of the computation.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 7 of 20

Table 5. Grid convergence analysis of the RANS computation.
Table 5. Grid
SG1convergence
SG2 analysis
SG3of the RANS computation.
21 %SG1 ε32 %SG1 RG PG CG UG %SG1
Table 5. Grid convergence analysis of theεRANS computation.
CL 1.334 1.318 1.349 %−1.210 % 2.303 −0.525 - - % 1.152
CD 1.156 1.151 1.186 %−0.373 % 2.981 −0.125- - - % 1.491
1.334
1.334 1.318
1.318 1.349
1.349 −1.210
−1.210 2.303
2.303 −0.525
−0.525 - -- 1.152
1.152
1.156
1.156 1.151
1.151 1.186
1.186 −0.373
−0.373 2.981
2.981 −0.125
−0.125 -- -- 1.491
1.491
Table 6. Grid convergence analysis of the DES computation.
SG1 SG2 SG3 ε21 %SG1 ε32 %SG1 RG PG CG UG %SG1
%
% %
% %
CL 1.015 1.017 1.116 0.222 9.709 0.023 10.898 42.684 % 0.439
CD 1.015
0.802
1.015 1.017
0.819
1.017 1.116
0.886
1.116 0.222
2.095
0.222 9.709
8.468
9.709 0.023
0.247 10.898
0.023 4.030 42.684
10.898 3.042 0.439
42.684 3.501
0.439
0.802
0.802 0.819
0.819 0.886
0.886 2.095
2.095 8.468
8.468 0.247
0.247 4.030
4.030 3.042
3.042 3.501
3.501
5.
5. Numerical Results
5. Numerical
Numerical Results
Results
5.1. Lift and Drag Coefficients
Figures4–11
Figures 4–11plot
plotthe
the comparisons of the time histories CL and C
of and D obtained from
the Figures
RANS 4–11
and DESplot the comparisons
comparisons
computations, and
of
of the
thethe time
time
last 2 s
histories
histories
of the
of
of and were
computations
obtained
obtained from
fromFrom
selected.
the
the RANS
RANS and
and DES
DESbe computations,
computations, and the last 22 ss of
of the computations were selected. From
the
the figures,
figures, it
it can
can be seen
seen that
that CL and
and
and
the
CD last
,, obtained
obtained
the computations
from
from the
the RANS
RANS
were
and
and
selected.
DES
DES
From
computations,
computa-
the figures,
achieved it can be seen
stable valuesvalues that
at smallsmall and
attack angles , obtained from
(α < 15 deg).deg).the RANS
At the angle and DES
of attackcomputa-
α = 15 deg,
tions,
tions, achieved
achieved stable
stable values at at small attack
attack angles
angles (( << 15 15 deg). At At the
the angle
angle ofof attack
attack
obvious
== 15 fluctuations were presented for C and C obtained from the DES computation,
15 deg,
deg, obvious
obvious fluctuations
fluctuations werewere presented
presented for and obtained
obtained fromfrom the
the DES
DES com-
L D
for and com-
which
putation, were notwere
observed in the RANS computation. At the angle of attack α = 20 deg,
putation, which were not observed in the RANS computation. At the angle of attack ==
which not observed in the RANS computation. At the angle of attack
both
20 computations presented remarkably irregular fluctuations, and thethe frequency of
20 deg,
deg, both
both computations
computations presented
presented remarkably
remarkably irregular
irregular fluctuations,
fluctuations, and and the frequency
frequency
fluctuations
of was relatively reduced for the DEScomputation.
computation. As the angle of attack
of fluctuations
fluctuations was was relatively
relatively reduced
reduced forfor thethe DES
DES computation. As As the
the angle
angle ofof attack
attack
increased
increased further, CLand
further, and CD , , obtained
obtained fromfrom thethe
RANSRANS computation,
computation, tended
tended to to present
present
increased further, and , obtained from the RANS computation, tended to present
regular fluctuations, and the amplitudes of the fluctuations were enlarged with the increase
regular fluctuations, and the amplitudes
amplitudes of the the fluctuations
fluctuations were were enlarged
enlarged with with the
the in-
in-
of the of
crease attack
the angles.
attack Differently,
angles. the tendencies
Differently, the tendencies of C of and CD , obtained
and , from the DES
crease of the attack angles. Differently, the tendencies of L and , obtained from the
obtained from the
computations,
DES computations, were still
were chaotic,
still and
chaotic, andthe theamplitudes
amplitudes were
were relatively
relatively
DES computations, were still chaotic, and the amplitudes were relatively less affected by
less
less affected
affected by
by the
attack
the angles.
attack angles.
the attack angles.
4.3 1.8
4.3 1.8
RANS Average,RANS RANS Average,RANS
RANS
DES Average,RANS
Average,DES RANS
DES Average,RANS
Average,DES
DES Average,DES DES Average,DES
4.2 1.7
4.2 1.7
2 2
1
10
10
4.1 1.6
1
CDC10
10
4.1 1.6
D
CLC L
4.0 1.5
4.0 1.5
3.9 1.4
3.9 0 500 1000 1500 2000 1.4 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time step Time step
Time step Time step
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 4.
4. Time
Timehistories
historiesof (a)
(a) CLand
and(b)
(b) CDat = 5 deg.
Figure
Figure 4. Time histories ofof(a) and (b) atat α ==55deg.
deg.
10.5 2.6
10.5 2.6
RANS
DES Average,RANS
Average,DES RANS
DES Average,RANS
Average,DES
10.0 2.5
10.0 2.5
2 2
1 1
10
10
9.5 2.4
CDC10
10
9.5 2.4
D
L
CLC
9.0 2.3
9.0 2.3
8.5 2.2
8.5 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2.2 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time step Time step
Time step Time step
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 5. Time histories of (a) and (b) at = 10 deg.
Figure 5.
5. Time
Timehistories
historiesofof(a)
(a) CLand
and(b)
(b) CDatat α ==10
10deg.
deg.
J. J.
Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci.Eng. 2022,10,
Eng.2022, 10,847
x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 208 of 20
1.4 2.0
1.4 RANS Average,RANS 2.0 RANS Average,RANS
1.4 DES Average,DES 2.0
RANS Average,RANS DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS
1.4 RANS
DES Average,RANS
Average,DES 2.0 RANS
DES Average,RANS
Average,DES
1.2 1.5
DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS
1.2 1.5
1.2 1.5
1.2 1.5
1
D CD10
1.0 1.0
CL CLCL CL
1
10
1.0 1.0
1
10
1.0 1.0
CDC
1
CD10
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.5
0.8 0.5
0.8 0.5
0.8 0.5
0.6 0.0
0.6 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0.6 0 500 1000
Time step 1500 2000 0.0 0 500 1000
Time step 1500 2000
0.6 0 500 1000
Time step
1500 2000 0.0 0 500 1000
Time step
1500 2000
0 (a)
500 1000
Time step1500 2000 0 500 (b)1000
Time step 1500 2000
(a) Time step (b)
Time step
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 6.
6.Time
Timehistories ofof(a)
(a)
histories (a) CLand
and(b)(b) CDatat α ==15
15deg.
deg. (b)
Figure
2.0 6. Time histories of (a) and (b) at = 15
0.5 deg.
2.0 DES Average,DES 0.5 DES Average,DES
2.0 RANS
DES Average,RANS
DES Average,RANS
Average,DES
1.5 0.4
DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS
1.5 0.4
1.5 0.4
1.5 0.4
1.0 0.3
CD CDCD CD
CL CLCL CL
1.0 0.3
1.0 0.3
1.0 0.3
0.5 0.2
0.5 0.2
0.5 0.2
0.5 0.2
0.0 0.1
0.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0.1 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0.0 0 500 1000
Time step 1500 2000 0.1 0 500 1000
Time step 1500 2000
0.0 0 500 1000
Time step
1500 2000 0.1 0 500 1000
Time step
1500 2000
0 (a)
500 1000
Time step 1500 2000 0 500 (b)1000
Time step 1500 2000
(a) Time step (b)
Time step
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Time histories(a)
of (a) and (b) at = 20 deg. (b)
Figure
Figure7.7.Time
Timehistories
historiesof (a)(a) CLand
and(b)
(b) CDat = 2020deg.
Figure 7. Time histories ofof(a) and (b) atat α ==20 deg.
deg.
Figure
1.4 7. Time histories of (a) and (b) at = 200.7 deg.
1.4 0.7
DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS
1.2
DES Average,DES 0.6
DES Average,DES
DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS
1.2 0.6
1.2 0.6
1.0 0.5
CD CDCD CD
CL CLCL CL
1.0 0.5
1.0 0.5
1.0 0.5
0.8 0.4
0.8 0.4
0.8 0.4
0.8 0.4
0.6 0.3
0.6 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0.3 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0.6 0 500 1000
Time step 1500 2000 0.3 0 500 1000
Time step 1500 2000
0.6 0 500 1000
Time step
1500 2000 0.3 0 500 1000
Time step
1500 2000
0 (a)
500 1000
Time step 1500 2000 0 500 (b)1000
Time step 1500 2000
(a) Time step (b)
Time step
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 8.
8.Time
Timehistories
historiesofof(a)
(a) CLand
and(b)
(b) CDatat α ==25
25deg.
deg.
Figure
1.6 8. Time histories of (a) and (b) at = 251.0 deg.
1.6 1.0 DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS
DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS
1.6 RANS
DES Average,RANS
DES Average,RANS
Average,DES
1.4 0.8 DES Average,DES
DES
RANS Average,DES
Average,RANS RANS Average,RANS
1.4 0.8 DES Average,DES
1.4
DES Average,DES 0.8
1.4 0.8
1.2 0.6
CD CDCD CD
CL CLCL CL
1.2 0.6
1.2 0.6
1.2 0.6
1.0 0.4
1.0 0.4
1.0 0.4
1.0 0.4
0.8 0.2
0.8 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0.2 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0.8 0 500 1000
Time step 1500 2000 0.2 0 500 1000
Time step 1500 2000
0.8 0 500 1000
Time step
1500 2000 0.2 0 500 1000
Time step
1500 2000
0 (a)
500 1000
Time step 1500 2000 0 500 (b)1000
Time step 1500 2000
(a) Time step (b)
Time step
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure9.9.Time
Timehistories
historiesofof(a)(a) CLand
and(b)
(b) CDatat α==30
30deg.
deg.
J. Mar. Sci.
J. Mar. Eng.
Sci. 2022,10,
Eng.2022, 10,847
x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20 9 of 20
1.6 1.2
1.4 1.0
1.4 1.0
1.6 1.2
1.2 0.8
CD CD
CL CL
1.2 0.8
1.4 1.0
1.0 0.6
1.0 0.6
1.2 0.8
CD
CL
0.8 0.4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0.8 0.4
1.0 0 500 Time step
1000 1500 2000 0.6 0 500 Time step
1000 1500 2000
Time step Time step
(a) (b)
0.8 (a) 0.4 (b)
Figure
Figure0 10.
10.Time histories
500
Time ofof
1000
histories (a)(a) Cand
1500
(b) 2000at = 350
deg. 500
L and (b) CD at α = 35 deg.
1000 1500 2000
Figure 10. Time histories of (a)

Time step
and (b) at = 35 deg. Time step
1.6 (a) 1.4 (b)

Figure 10. Time histories of (a) DES
RANS and (b)
Average,DES at
Average,RANS = 35 deg. DES
RANS
Average,DES
Average,RANS
1.4 1.2
1.4
1.6 1.41.2
CD CD
CL CL
1.2
1.4 1.21.0
1.0 0.8
1.0
1.2 1.00.8
CD
CL
0.8 0.6
1.0 0
0.8
500 1000 1500 2000 0.80.6 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 500 Time step
1000 1500 2000 0 500 Time step
1000 1500 2000
Time step Time step
(a) (b)
0.8
0 500 (a)1000 1500 2000
0.6
0 500 (b)
1000 1500 2000
Figure 11. Time historiesTime
ofstep(a) and (b) at = 40 deg. Time step
Figure
Figure11.
11.Time
Timehistories
(a)of of
histories (a)(a) Cand (b)(b) Cat
L and D at =
α 40 deg.
= 40 deg. (b)
Figure 12 plots the comparison of the time-averaged and obtained from the
Figure 11. Time1212histories ofcomparison
(a) and (b)of the
RANS Figure
Figure
and DES plots
plots the the
computations. comparison
The numericalofat the = 40 deg.
time-averaged
time-averaged
results and
are also compared CL andobtained CD obtained
with from the
the available from the
RANS and
RANS and DES
experimental DES computations.
data computations.
[3,5]. The The numerical
The numerical
time-averaged results
values are
results
of also
are
and compared
also compared
take with
the the available
with theval-
averaged available
Figure 12 plots the comparison of the time-averaged and obtained from the
experimental
experimental
ues plotted in data
data
Figures [3,5].
[3,5]. The
4–11. The time-averaged
Fromtime-averaged
the values
experimental values of ofitCand
data, andbe C take
D take
thetheaveraged
averagedval-avalues
RANS and DES computations. The numerical results are alsocan Lcompared seen that
with presents
the available
ues plotted
plotted
monotonically in Figures
in Figures
increasing 4–11.
4–11. From
From
tendency the
the experimental
at experimental
< 15 deg, of data,
anddata,theit can be
it can
tendency seen
be that
seen
isthe
approximately presents
that CLval- a
presents
lin- a
experimental data [3,5]. The time-averaged values and take averaged
monotonically
monotonically
ear. After > increasing
15increasing
deg, there tendency
tendency
is a at at
remarkable <
α <15 15deg,
deg, and and
decline/fluctuant the tendency
the tendency
in the is approximately
is
tendency. approximately lin-
Differently, linear.
ues plotted in Figures 4–11. From the experimental data, it can be seen that presents a
ear. After
α > 15a>deg,
presents 15 deg,
small there
value aisremarkable
at a remarkable
the small decline/fluctuant 15in inthe tendency. Differently, CD
After
monotonically there
increasing is
tendency at attack angles
decline/fluctuant
< 15 deg, and the ( <tendency deg),the isand it is enlarged
tendency.
approximately lin-re-
Differently,
presents
markably a small value at the small attack angles ( < 15 deg), and it is enlarged re-
ear. Afteraafter
presents small
> 15 deg,> 15there
value deg.
at the Hence,
is a small the angle
attack
remarkable of attack
angles (α < 15
decline/fluctuant = 15indeg
deg),
the andis nearit isthe
tendency. critical point
enlarged
Differently,remarkably
markably
of the after and
airfoil > 15the deg. Hence, the of angle 15of attack = 15 deg is near theregime. criticalMore-
point
after α > 15stall,
presents adeg. valuecondition
smallHence, atthe
the angle
small of> attack
attack deg
angles is
α known
=( 15< 15 asdeg),
deg the post-stall
is nearand it the is enlarged re- of the
critical point
of the
over, airfoil stall, and the condition of > 15 deg is known as the post-stall regime. More-
airfoil stall, and the condition of α > 15 deg is known as the post-stall regime. data
markablyit is shown
after that
> 15 a remarkable
deg. Hence, difference
the angle of is observed
attack = 15between
deg is the
near experimental
the critical point
Moreover,
over,
from
ofis it
theshown is shown
Sheldahl
airfoil and
stall, that
and athe
Klimas remarkable
[3] and
condition difference
Timmer
of > 15is is observed
[5].
deg Inknown
is particular, between
as thehysteresis
theapost-stall
stall experimental
regime.loop More-data
was
it
from Sheldahl
thatand
a remarkable
Klimas [3] data
difference
anddifference
Timmer
observed
[5]. In particular,
between a stall
the experimental
hysteresis loop
data from
was
over,
observed
Sheldahl it is shown
in
and the that
Klimas a
experimentalremarkable
[3] and Timmer by Timmer
[5]. Inis observed
[5]. The
particular, between
differences
a stall the experimental
may
hysteresis derive
loop data
from
was the
observed
observed
from Sheldahl
differences inintheand
testexperimental
Klimas [3] while
conditions, dataTimmer
and by Timmer
limited [5]. [5].particular,
In
information The differences
is may
a stall hysteresis
published. It isderive
shownloopfrom
wasthe
that the
in the
differencesexperimental
inthe
test data by
conditions, while Timmer [5].
limited The differences may derive from the differences in
observed
RANS andinDES experimental
computations data
presentby ratherinformation
Timmer is published.
[5]. The tendencies
different differences mayItderive
of is
andshown fromthat
thethe
with the
test
RANS conditions,
andof DES while
computations limited information
present rather is published.
different It
tendencies is shown that the RANS and DES
differences
variations inthe
test conditions,
attack angles,while limited
especially information
for the post-stall regime.of It is shown
is published. and that with
thethe
computations
variations of the present
attack rather
angles, different
especially
RANS and DES computations present rather different tendencies of
tendencies
for the of
post-stall C and
regime.
L C D with
and
the variations
with the
of the
attack
variations
1.4 angles, especially for the post-stall regime.
of the attack angles, especially for the post-stall regime.
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
CL CL CL
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4 RANS
0.6
0.4 DES
RANS
0.2
0.4 Exp. Sheldahl
DES
RANS
0.2
DES Timmer
Exp. Sheldahl
0.0
0.2 Exp.Sheldahl
Exp. Timmer
0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Exp. 40
Timmer 45
0 5 10 15 20
0.0 (deg)25 30 35 40 45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a)(deg)
(deg)
(a)
(a)
Figure 12. Cont.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847
10 of 20
1.4
RANS
1.2 DES
Exp. Sheldahl
1.0 Exp. Timmer
0.8
CD
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(deg)
(b)
Figure 12.
Figure 12.Comparison
Comparison of (a) and
of (a) (b) (b) between
CL and the numerical
CD between results and
the numerical the experimental
results and the experimental
data [3,5].
data [3,5].
The
Thedeviations
deviationsofof CLand and CDbetween
between the
thenumerical
numericalresults andand
results the the
experimental
experimental data
data are given in Tables 7 and 8. By comparing the numerical results and the experimental
are given in Tables 7 and 8. By comparing the numerical results and the experimental
data, it can be seen that for the smaller attack angles ( ≤ 15 deg), the RANS computation
data, it can be seen that for the smaller attack angles (α ≤ 15 deg), the RANS computation
presents better consistency with the experimental data and the deviation of is less than
presents better consistency with the experimental data and the deviation of CL is less than
5% for most attack angles. In contrast, the DES computation presents a higher deviation,
5%
withfor
themost
error attack
reachingangles. In contrast,
about 20%, especiallythe
forDES computation
the angle of attack presents
= 15 deg.aMoreover,
higher deviation,
with the error
the deviation of reaching
is relatively higher due to the small magnitude before the stall,deg.
about 20%, especially for the angle of attack α = 15 reach-Moreover,
the deviation
ing about 150%offorCDthe
is RANS
relatively higher due
computation andtoabout
the small
200% magnitude before the stall,
for the DES computation. As reaching
about
the angle150% for the
of attack RANS further,
increases computation and about
the deviations of 200% and for the DES the
between computation.
RANS As
the angle ofand
computation attack increases further,
the experimental data arethe deviations
enlarged, of Cabout
reaching L and30% CD atbetween
the largestthe RANS
angle of attack and
computation = 40
thedeg. Differently, the
experimental datadeviations between
are enlarged, the DES about
reaching computation
30% atandthe largest
the experimental
angle of attack αdata
= 40are reduced,
deg. with the
Differently, values
the reaching
deviations about 1%
between forDESand
the about
computation and
10%experimental
the for at the angle
data areof attack
reduced,= with
40 deg.theBased
values onreaching
the comparison
about 1% between
for CLtheandnu-about 10%
merical
for CD at results and theofexperimental
the angle attack α = 40 data,
deg.it can be concluded
Based that the RANS
on the comparison computation
between the numerical
has higher accuracy in the prediction of the global loads before the airfoil stall, as well as
results and the experimental data, it can be concluded that the RANS computation has
the critical point of the airfoil stall, while the DES computation presents a higher accuracy
higher accuracy in the prediction of the global loads before the airfoil stall, as well as the
in the prediction of the global loads after the airfoil stall.
critical point of the airfoil stall, while the DES computation presents a higher accuracy in
the
Tableprediction
7. Deviationofofthe between
global loads after the
the numerical airfoil
results and stall.
experimental data.
ERR% ERR% ERR% data. ERR%

Table
(deg). RANSof CL between the numerical resultsDES
7. Deviation and experimental
(Sheldahl) (Timmer) (Sheldahl) (Tmmer)
α5(deg). 0.406RANS 26.257ERR% 16.354 ERR% 0.412 DES 25.107 ERR% 15.049 ERR%
10 0.959 1.648 1.273 0.895 8.252 7.902
15 5 1.0480.406 1.378 26.257 4.855 16.354 0.819 0.412 22.948 25.10725.665 15.049
10 0.959 1.648 1.273 0.895 8.252 7.902
2015 0.7831.048 19.328 1.378 22.523 4.855 1.122 0.819−15.557 22.948 −10.981 25.665
2520 0.8610.783 14.83919.328 11.534 22.523 1.058 1.122 −4.729 −15.557 −8.794 −10.981
3025 1.1620.861 −35.86714.839 - 11.534 1.073 1.058−25.457 −4.729 - −8.794
30 1.162 −35.867 - 1.073 −25.457 -
3535 1.2061.206 −23.025 −23.025 - - 1.024 1.024 −4.469 −4.469 - -
4040 1.3201.320 −27.559 −27.559 - - 1.020 1.020 1.469 1.469 - -
Table 8. Deviation of between the numerical results and experimental data.

Table 8. Deviation of CD between the numerical results and experimental data.
ERR% ERR% ERR% ERR%
(deg). RANS ERR%(Timmer) ERR% DES ERR% ERR%
α (deg). RANS (Sheldahl) DES(Sheldahl) (Tmmer)
5 0.016 −73.263 −63.781 0.015 −60.580 −51.792
5 0.016 −73.263 −63.781 0.015 −60.580 −51.792
1010 0.0240.024 −56.362−56.362
−14.068−14.068
0.023 0.023
−46.694 −7.015
−46.694 −7.015
15 0.061 −142.182 4.196 0.079 −213.138 −23.873
20 0.249 11.695 −72.966 0.313 −11.055 −117.528
25 0.464 −14.461 −93.758 0.412 −1.829 −72.376
30 0.752 −31.855 - 0.536 5.973 -
35 0.914 −22.661 - 0.668 10.357 -
40 1.157 −25.798 - 0.817 11.179 -
15 0.061 −142.182 4.196 0.079 −213.138 −23.873

15 0.061 −142.182 4.196 0.079 −213.138 −23.873
15
20 0.061
0.249 −142.182
11.695 4.196
−72.966 0.079
0.313 −213.138
−11.055 −23.873
−117.528
20 0.249 11.695 −72.966 0.313 −11.055 −117.528
20
25 0.249
0.464 11.695
−14.461 −72.966
−93.758 0.313
0.412 −11.055
−1.829 −117.528
−72.376
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 25 0.464 −14.461 −93.758 0.412 −1.829 −72.376 11 of 20
25
30 0.464
0.752 −14.461
−31.855 −93.758
- 0.412
0.536 −1.829
5.973 −72.376
-
30 0.752 −31.855 - 0.536 5.973 -
30
35 0.752
0.914 −31.855
−22.661 -- 0.536
0.668 5.973
10.357 --
35 0.914 −22.661 - 0.668 10.357 -
35
40 0.914
1.157 −22.661
−25.798 -- 0.668
0.817 10.357
11.179 --
40
5.2.40 Shedding1.157 1.157
Vortex Structures−25.798 - 0.817 11.179 -
−25.798 - 0.817 11.179 -
5.2. Shedding
FiguresVortex 13–20 Structures
present the comparisons of the transient vortex structures shedding
5.2. Shedding Vortex Structures
5.2. Shedding
fromFigures Vortex
the airfoil13−20 Structures
obtained
present from the RANS of
the comparisons andtheDES computations.
transient The vortex
vortex structures shedding structures are
Figures 13−20 present the comparisons of the transient vortex structures shedding
from Figures
the airfoil
visualized 13−20
with thepresent
obtained the the
from
isosurface comparisons
ofRANS
the and
second ofDES
the transient
invariant of vortex
computations.the structures
The
rate ofvortex
strain shedding
structures
tensor Q, and the
from the airfoil obtained from the RANS and DES computations. The vortex structures
from
are the airfoil
visualized obtained
with theby from
isosurfacethe of
RANS and DES
the second computations.
invariant of theUrate The ofvortex
strainstructures
tensor 13 ,
are visualized with the isosurface of the second invariant of the rate of strain tensor , and 14,
isosurface is colored the non-dimensional axial velocity x /U 0 . From Figures
are
and
it visualized
canthebe isosurface
seen with
that isthe isosurface
colored
there are theofnon-dimensional
byalmost theno second
vortex invariant
axial of
structures the
velocity rate of
generated ⁄ strain
. From
from tensor
Figures
the , surface
airfoil
and the isosurface is colored by the non-dimensional axial velocity ⁄ . From Figures
and
13 the 14,
and isosurface is seen
it can attack
be colored thatbythere
the non-dimensional axial structures
velocity generated⁄ . Fromfrom Figures
under
13 and the14, small
it can be seenangles (α
that there < are
are
almost
15 deg),
almost andnothevortex
no vortexnear-wall
structuresflowgenerated
is reduced along
from
thethe airfoil
the
13 andsurface
airfoil 14, it can be seen
under that there
the small attack are almost
angles ( no vortex
< 15 deg),structures generatedflow
and the near-wall fromis the re-
surface.
airfoil Moreover,
surface under the a minor
small difference
attack angles is (observed
< 15 deg),forand
thethe RANS and DES
near-wall flow computations.
is re-
airfoil
duced surface
along the under
airfoilthesurface.
small attack
Moreover,angles ( < 15difference
a minor deg), andisthe near-wall
observed for flow
the RANS is re-
duced
As shown alongin the airfoil 15,
Figure surface. Moreover,
a slight disturbancea minorofdifference
the near-wallis observed
flow for for the RANS
appears in the RANS
duced
and DES along the airfoil surface.
computations. As shown Moreover,
in Figurea15, minor difference
a slight is observed
disturbance of the near-wallthe RANS flow
and DES
computation computations.
at the As
angle shown
of in Figure
attack α = 15,
15a slight
deg, disturbance
but a rather of the
weak near-wall
shedding flowvortex is
and DES in
appears computations. As shown inatFigure
the RANS computation the angle15, aofslight disturbance
attack = 15 deg, of the
butnear-wall
a rather weak flow
appears
presented. in the RANS computation
Differently, a series atremarkable
ofat the angle ofvortices
attack were = 15 deg, but a rather
generated from weak
the latter part
appears
shedding invortex
the RANS computation
is presented. the angle
Differently, a series ofofattack = 15 vortices
remarkable deg, butwerea rather
generatedweak
shedding
of the vortexinisthepresented. Differently, a series of remarkable vortices were generated
shedding
from theairfoil
vortex
latter part of theDES
is presented. computation,
airfoilDifferently, and the
in the DESacomputation,
series vortex
of remarkable
and the structures
vortices developed
were
vortex structures generated
devel-well along
from the latter part of the airfoil in the DES computation, and the vortex structures devel-
the
from downstream.
the latter part of
oped well along the downstream. the airfoil in the DES computation, and the vortex structures devel-
oped well along the downstream.
oped well along the downstream.
(a) (b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW (a) (b) 12 of 20
(a) (b)
Figure 13. = 10,000
13. Q==10,000
10,000of the airfoil with = 5 deg: (a) RANS; (b) DES.
Figure13.
Figure of of
thethe airfoil
airfoil withwith= α5 = 5 deg:
deg: (a) RANS;
(a) RANS; (b) DES.
(b) DES.
Figure 13. = 10,000 of the airfoil with = 5 deg: (a) RANS; (b) DES.
From Figures 16–20, one can see that large-scale shedding vortices are presented in
the RANS and DES computations, as the angle of attack increases further ( > 15 deg).
The vortex structures present remarkable differences between the two numerical meth-
ods. In the RANS computation, two large-scale shedding vortices were generated near the
leading and trailing edges of the airfoil, respectively. The vortex structures are relatively
simple, and obvious spanwise uniformity is observed. By contrast, more vortices in dif-
ferent scales are observed in the DES computation, and the locations of the shedding vor-
(a) upper surface of the airfoil. The (b)
tices cover the whole vortex structures are rather compli-
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
cated
Figureand
14. present
= 10,000 remarkable spanwise
of the airfoil with = non-uniformity.
10 deg: (a) RANS; In(b)particular,
DES. the breakup of the
Figure 14. Q===10,000
10,000
10,000 of of
the airfoil with = α10=deg: (a) RANS; (b) DES.
Figure14.
Figure 14. vortices
large-scale thethe
isofwell airfoil
airfoil withwith
captured by=the 10 deg:
DES
10 deg: (a) RANS;
computation,
(a) RANS; (b) DES.
which
(b) DES. is predicted unreal-
istically in the RANS computation.
In combination with the computed lift and drag coefficients, it can be concluded that
the variations of the global loads on the airfoil are highly related to the generation and
development of the shedding vortices. For the small angle of attack ( < 15 deg), there is
no obvious vortex structure around the airfoil. Correspondingly, the drag of the airfoil
has a rather small magnitude. At the angle of attack > 15 deg, remarkable vortex struc-
tures appear and result in a significant increase of the drag. Meanwhile, due to the gener-
ation and development
(a) of the shedding vortices, the lift (b) and drag coefficients present ob-
vious fluctuation (a) (b)
(a)tendencies. The fluctuations are regular (b) for the RANS computation and
are chaotic
Figure 15. for the DES
= 10,000 computation,
of the airfoil with corresponding to the(b)
= 15 deg: (a) RANS; developments
DES. of the shedding
Figure
Figure15.15. Q= =10,000
10,000 of the airfoil
of the withwith= α
airfoil 15=deg: (a) RANS;
15 deg: (b) DES.
(a) RANS; (b) DES.
vortex structures, respectively.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure16.
16. Q= =
10,000 of the
10,000 airfoil
of the withwith
airfoil = 20
α =deg: (a) RANS;
20 deg: (b) DES.
(a) RANS; (b) DES.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 (a) (b) 12 of 20
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure17.
17. Q==10,000
10,000ofofthe
theairfoil
airfoilwith
with α ==25
25deg:
deg:(a)
(a)RANS;
RANS;(b)
(b)DES.
DES.
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER Figure
REVIEW18. = 10,000 of the airfoil with = 30 deg: (a) RANS; (b) DES. 13 of 20
Figure
Figure18.
18. Q==10,000
10,000ofofthe
theairfoil
airfoilwith
with α==30
30deg:
deg:(a)
(a)RANS;
RANS;(b)
(b)DES.
DES.
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 19.19. Q
Figure = 10,000 of the
= 10,000 airfoil
of the with
airfoil with=α35
= deg: (a) RANS;
35 deg: (b) DES.
(a) RANS; (b) DES.
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 20.20. Q
Figure = 10,000 of the
= 10,000 airfoil
of the withwith=α40= deg:
airfoil (a) RANS;
40 deg: (b) DES.
(a) RANS; (b) DES.
5.3. Streamlines and Vorticity Distribution
5.3. Streamlines and Vorticity
From Figures 16–20,Distribution
one can see that large-scale shedding vortices are presented in
Figures
theFigures 21–28
RANS 21–28
and present
DES the comparisons
computations, as theofof the transient
angle streamlines
of attackstreamlines and vorticity
increases further con-
(α > 15con-
deg). The
present the comparisons the transient and vorticity
tours around the airfoil profiles obtained from the RANS and DES computations. The
vortex structures present remarkable differences between the
tours around the airfoil profiles obtained from the RANS and DES computations. The two numerical methods. In
mid-span section of = 0 was taken into account. Based on the streamlines and vorticity
the RANS
mid-span computation,
section of twotaken
= 0 was large-scale shedding
into account. Basedvortices
on thewere generated
streamlines andnear the leading
vorticity
contours, the attached flow regime, mild separation flow regime, and post-stall flow re-
and trailing
contours, edges offlow
the attached the regime,
airfoil, respectively.
mild separation The vortex
flow structures
regime, are relatively
and post-stall flow re-simple,
gime were identified clearly. As shown in Figures 21 and 22, the attached flow was the
andwere
gime obvious spanwise
identified uniformity
clearly. As shown is observed.
in FiguresBy 21contrast, more
and 22, the vortices
attached in different
flow was the scales
dominant feature for the flow around the airfoil at the small angle of attack ( < 15 deg).
are observed
dominant featureinforthe
theDES
flowcomputation, and at
around the airfoil thethe
locations of the
small angle shedding
of attack ( < vortices
15 deg). cover
It is shown that the local flow is smooth over the surface of the airfoil and no flow separa-
It is
theshown
whole that the local
upper flowofis the
surface smooth overThe
airfoil. thevortex
surfacestructures
of the airfoil
areand no flow
rather separa- and
complicated
tion occurs. Moreover, the flow feature is consistent for the RANS and DES computations.
tion occurs.remarkable
present Moreover, the flow feature
spanwise is consistentIn
non-uniformity. forparticular,
the RANSthe andbreakup
DES computations.
of the large-scale
As the angle of attack increases to = 15 deg, the attached flow regime transforms
As theisangle of attack increases to computation,
= 15 deg, thewhich
attachedpredicted
flow regime transforms
into the mild separation flow regime. From Figure 23, one canissee
vortices well captured by the DES that mildunrealistically
flow separa- in the
into
RANSthe mild separation flow regime. From Figure 23, one can see that mild flow separa-
computation.
tion occurs and an obvious separation bubble is formed near the trailing edge. Meanwhile,
tion occurs and an obvious separation bubble is formed near the trailing edge. Meanwhile,
an apparent difference is observed between the flow features captured by the RANS and
DES computations. For the RANS computation, the flow separation point is near the mid-
DES computations. For the RANS computation, the flow separation point is near the mid-
chord of the airfoil. The separation bubble is formed by a clockwise vortex shedding from
chord of the airfoil. The separation bubble is formed by a clockwise vortex shedding from
the separation point, and the local flow around the separation bubble is relatively smooth.
the separation point, and the local flow around the separation bubble is relatively smooth.
As for the DES computation, the separation point is located slightly ahead of that in the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847
(a) (b) 13 of 20
5.3. Streamlines and Vorticity

In combination with theDistribution
computed lift and drag coefficients, it can be concluded that
Figures 21–28
the variations of thepresent
globalthe comparisons
loads on the airfoilof the
aretransient streamlines
highly related to theand vorticity and
generation con-
tours aroundofthe
development theairfoil
shedding profiles obtained
vortices. For the from
small the RANS
angle and DES
of attack (α < 15computations.
deg), there isThe no
mid-span
obvious section
vortex of
structure = around
0 was taken into account.
the airfoil. Based on the
Correspondingly, thestreamlines
drag of theand vorticity
airfoil has a
rather small
contours, themagnitude.
attached flow At the anglemild
regime, of attack α > 15flow
separation deg,regime,
remarkableand vortex
post-stallstructures
flow re-
appear and result in a significant increase of the drag. Meanwhile,
gime were identified clearly. As shown in Figures 21 and 22, the attached flow was the due to the generation
and development
dominant feature offorthetheshedding
flow around vortices, the lift
the airfoil atand drag coefficients
the small present
angle of attack ( <obvious
15 deg).
fluctuation
It is shown tendencies.
that the localThe flow fluctuations
is smooth over are regular
the surface for the RANS
of the computation
airfoil and no flowand are
separa-
chaotic for the
tion occurs. DES computation,
Moreover, the flow feature corresponding
is consistenttofor thethe
developments
RANS and DES of computations.
the shedding
vortexAs structures,
the anglerespectively.
of attack increases to = 15 deg, the attached flow regime transforms
into the mild separation flow regime. From Figure 23, one can see that mild flow separa-
5.3.
tionStreamlines
occurs andand Vorticity separation
an obvious Distributionbubble is formed near the trailing edge. Meanwhile,
Figures 21–28 present
an apparent difference is observed the comparisons
between the of flow
the transient streamlines
features captured andRANS
by the vorticity
and
contours around theFor
DES computations. airfoil
the profiles obtained from
RANS computation, thethe RANS
flow and DES
separation computations.
point The
is near the mid-
mid-span
chord of the section
airfoil. Z=0
of The was takenbubble
separation into account.
is formed Basedby aon the streamlines
clockwise and vorticity
vortex shedding from
contours, the attached flow regime, mild separation flow regime, and
the separation point, and the local flow around the separation bubble is relatively smooth. post-stall flow regime
were
As foridentified
the DESclearly. As shown
computation, theinseparation
Figures 21pointand 22, the attached
is located flowahead
slightly was the dominant
of that in the
feature
RANS computation. The separation bubble has a larger scale, which is formed byisashown
for the flow around the airfoil at the small angle of attack (α < 15 deg). It couple
that the localincluding
of vortices, flow is smooth over the
a clockwise surface
vortex of thefrom
shedding airfoilthe
and no flow separation
separation point and an occurs.
anti-
Moreover, the flow feature is consistent
clockwise vortex generated near the trailing edge. for the RANS and DES computations.
(a) (b)
Figure 21. Streamlines on the mid-span section with α = 5 deg: (a) RANS; (b) DES.
Figure 21. Streamlines on the mid-span section with = 5 deg: (a) RANS; (b) DES.
(a) (b)
Figure22.
Figure 22.Streamlines
Streamlineson
onthe
themid-span
mid-spansection
sectionwith
withα = 10
= 10 deg:(a)(a)RANS;
deg: RANS;(b)
(b)DES.
DES.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 (a) (b) 14 of 20
J. Mar.
Mar. Sci.
Sci. Eng.
Eng. 2022,
2022, 10,
10, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW (a) (b) 15 of
of 20
20
J. 15
Figure23.
Streamlineson
onthe
themid-span
mid-spansection
sectionwith
withα = 15
= 15 deg:(a)(a)
deg: RANS;
RANS; (b)
(b) DES.
DES.
At the larger angle of attack ( > 15 deg), the mild separation flow regime trans-
formed into the post-stall regime. It is shown that the flow separation on the upper surface
of the airfoil was intensified, and the distribution of separated flow changed remarkably
with the increase of the angle of attack. Remarkable differences appeared between the
flow fields from the RANS and DES computations. For the RANS computation, the sepa-
ration point moved forward to the leading edge at the attack angles = 20 deg and 25
deg. Consequently, a separation bubble covering the whole upper surface was formed,
including a clockwise vortex shedding from the separation point and an anticlockwise
vortex generated near the trailing edge. As the angle of attack increased further, another
derived shedding vortex appeared near the leading edge. Overall, the local flow fields
around the airfoil were relatively regular in the RANS computation, which was domi-
nated by vortices shedding
(a)
(a) from the separation point and(b) (b)the trailing edge. In contrast,
the local flow presented by the DES computation was rather complicated. The flow sepa-
Figure24.
Figure
Streamlineson
onthe
themid-span
mid-spansection
sectionwith
withα = =20
= 20
20 deg:(a)(a)
deg: (a) RANS;
RANS; (b)(b) DES.
DES.
ration 24. Streamlines
region coveredon the
the mid-span
whole section
upper with
surface of the deg:
airfoil,RANS; (b)
and the DES.
separation bubble
was formed by a series of chaotic detached vortices. Different from the regular diffusion
of vortices presented by the RANS computation, the breakup of the large-scale shedding
vortices was captured well by the DES computation. From the streamlines and vorticity
distributions, it can be seen that, due to the generation and development of the shedding
vortices, as well as the interaction between the vortices in different directions, strong un-
steady characteristics were observed for the local flow around the airfoil at the larger an-
gle of attack.
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure25.
Figure
25. Streamlineson
Streamlines onthe
on themid-span
the mid-spansection
mid-span sectionwith
section withα = =25
with = 25
25 deg:(a)(a)
deg:
deg: (a) RANS;
RANS;
RANS; (b)
(b)
(b) DES.
DES.
DES.
As the angle of attack increases to α = 15 deg, the attached flow regime transforms into
the mild separation flow regime. From Figure 23, one can see that mild flow separation
occurs and an obvious separation bubble is formed near the trailing edge. Meanwhile,
DES computations. For the RANS computation, the flow separation point is near the
mid-chord of the airfoil. The separation bubble is formed by a clockwise vortex shedding
from the separation point, and the local flow around the separation bubble is relatively
smooth. As for the DES computation, the separation point is located slightly ahead of that
in the RANS computation. The separation bubble has a larger scale, which is formed by a
couple of vortices, including a clockwise vortex shedding from the separation point and an
anticlockwise vortex generated near the trailing edge.
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 26.
Figure 26. Streamlines
Streamlines on
on the
the mid-span
mid-span section
section with
with == 30
30 deg:
deg: (a)
(a) RANS;
RANS; (b)
(b) DES.
DES.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 (a) (b) 15 of 20
(a) (b)
Figure26.
Streamlineson
onthe
themid-span
mid-spansection
sectionwith
withα = =3030deg:
deg:(a)(a)RANS;
RANS;(b)
(b)DES.
DES.
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure27.
Streamlineson
onthe
themid-span
mid-spansection
sectionwith
withα = =3535deg:
deg:(a)(a)RANS;
RANS;(b)
(b)DES.
DES.
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure28.
Figure 28. Streamlines
Streamlineson
onthe
themid-span
mid-spansection
sectionwith
withα = =4040deg:
deg:(a)
(a)RANS;
RANS;(b)
(b)DES.
DES.
5.4. Pressure Distribution

At the larger angle of attack (α > 15 deg), the mild separation flow regime transformed
Figure
into the 29 presents
post-stall the
regime.the comparisons
It is shown that ofof the
thethe transient
flow separation pressure distributions
on thedistributions
upper surface over the
of the
Figure 29 presents comparisons transient pressure over the
airfoilwas
airfoil surface obtained
intensified, and from
the the RANS and
distribution of DES computations.
separated flow changed Corresponding
remarkably to the
with the
airfoil surface obtained from the RANS and DES computations. Corresponding to the
streamlines
increase of and
the vorticity
angle of distributions
attack. discussed
Remarkable above,appeared
differences the mid-span section
between theofflow=fields
0 was
streamlines and vorticity distributions discussed above, the mid-span section of = 0 was
taken into
from account. The pressure on the surface of the airfoil is represented with the non-
takenthe RANS
into and The
account. DESpressure
computations.
on the For the RANS
surface computation,
of the airfoil the separation
is represented with thepoint
non-
dimensional
moved forward pressure coefficient
to the leading ⁄(0.5
edge at the=attack angles)) ,α where
= 20 deg andis the relative
25 deg. pressure.
Consequently,
dimensional pressure coefficient = ⁄(0.5 , where is the relative pressure.
aFrom
separation
Figurebubble covering
29a,b one can seethe whole
that upper surfaceofwas
the discrepancies formed, including
the pressure a clockwise
distributions between
From Figure 29a,b one can see that the discrepancies of the pressure distributions between
vortex shedding
the RANS fromcomputations
and DES the separationwere pointrather
and anlimited
anticlockwise vortex
at the small generated
attack anglesnear
( <the15
the RANS and DES computations were rather limited at the small attack angles ( < 15
trailing edge. As with
deg), coinciding the angle of attackstreamlines
the obtained increased further, another
and vorticity derived shedding vortex
distribution.
deg), coinciding with the obtained streamlines and vorticity distribution.
appeared near
As the theofleading
angle edge. Overall,
attack increased to =the localan
15 deg, flow fieldsdifference
obvious around the in airfoil were
the pressure
As the angle of attack increased to = 15 deg, an obvious difference in the pressure
distribution between the RANS and DES computations was observed. According to the
above analysis of the flow field details, a mild flow separation appeared under the condi-
above analysis of the flow field details, a mild flow separation appeared under the condi-
tion, and the separation points in the RANS and DES computations were located at about
tion, and the separation points in the RANS and DES computations were located at about
⁄
⁄ == 0.5.
0.5. From Figure 29c, it can be seen that the negative pressure on the upper surface
From Figure 29c, it can be seen that the negative pressure on the upper surface
was reduced after the separated point. Meanwhile, due to the small recirculation flow
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 16 of 20
relatively regular in the RANS computation, which was dominated by vortices shedding
from the separation point and the trailing edge. In contrast, the local flow presented by the
DES computation was rather complicated. The flow separation region covered the whole
upper surface of the airfoil, and the separation bubble was formed by a series of chaotic
detached vortices. Different from the regular diffusion of vortices presented by the RANS
computation, the breakup of the large-scale shedding vortices was captured well by the
DES computation. From the streamlines and vorticity distributions, it can be seen that,
due to the generation and development of the shedding vortices, as well as the interaction
between the vortices in different directions, strong unsteady characteristics were observed
for the local flow around the airfoil at the larger angle of attack.

Figure 29 presents the comparisons of the transient pressure distributions over the
airfoil surface obtained from the RANS and DES computations. Corresponding to the
streamlines and vorticity distributions discussed above, the mid-span section of Z = 0
was taken into account. The pressure on the surface ofthe airfoil is represented with the
non-dimensional pressure coefficient C p = p/ 0.5ρU02 , where p is the relative pressure.
From Figure 29a,b one can see that the discrepancies of the pressure distributions between
the RANS and DES computations were rather limited at the small attack angles (α < 15 deg),
coinciding with the obtained streamlines and vorticity distribution.
As the angle of attack increased to α = 15 deg, an obvious difference in the pressure
above analysis of the flow field details, a mild flow separation appeared under the condition,
and the separation points in the RANS and DES computations were located at about
x/C = 0.5. From Figure 29c, it can be seen that the negative pressure on the upper surface
was reduced after the separated point. Meanwhile, due to the small recirculation flow
near the trailing edge (as shown in Figure 23), a small negative pressure region appeared
on the upper and lower surfaces near the trailing edge, and it was more distinct for the
DES computation. Overall, the DES computation presents a weaker negative pressure on a
major part of the upper surface, resulting in a lower lift than that of the RANS computation.
For the attack angles α = 20 deg and 25 deg, the difference in the pressure distribution
on the airfoil surface between the RANS and DES computations was more obvious, espe-
cially for the upper surface near the leading edge. Under the conditions, the separation
point of the RANS computation was about x/C = 0.15 for α = 20 deg and about x/C = 0.05
for α = 25 deg, while the separation point of the DES computation was approaching the lead-
ing edge. From Figure 29d,e it can be seen that the negative pressure on the upper surface
was reduced and presented a flat distribution for the RANS computation after the separated
point. Differently, the negative pressure on the upper surface was relatively irregular, in
accordance with the chaotic local flow field. Moreover, the DES computation presented a
stronger negative pressure on the upper surface. As a result, the lift obtained from the DES
computation was higher than that of the RANS computation. For the larger attack angles
α = 30 deg, 35 deg, and 40 deg, the incorrectly separated flow and the diffused vortices in
the RANS computation resulted in a stronger negative pressure on the upper surface of the
airfoil, which consequently led to a much higher lift and drag coefficients. In contrast, the
pressure distribution obtained from the DES computation was more reasonable, according
to the comparison of the lift and drag coefficients with the experimental data.
J.J. Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci. Eng.
Eng. 2022, 10, 847
2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18
17 of 21
of 20
5 5
RANS_upper RANS_upper
4 RANS_lower 4 RANS_lower
DES_upper DES_upper
DES_lower DES_lower
3 3
2 2
-Cp
-Cp
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x/C x/C
(a) (b)
5 5
DES_upper DES_upper
DES_lower DES_lower
3 3
2 2
-Cp
-Cp
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x/C x/C
(c) (d)
5 5
DES_upper DES_upper
DES_lower DES_lower
3 3
2 2
-Cp
-Cp
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x/C x/C
(e) (f)
5 5
DES_upper DES_upper
3
DES_lower 3
DES_lower
2 2
-Cp
-Cp
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x/C x/C
(g) (h)
Figure 29.
Figure 29. Pressure
Pressure distribution
distributionon onthe
themid-span
mid-spansection
sectionof ofthe
theairfoil
airfoilatat(a)
(a)α 𝛼𝛼=
= 55deg,
deg,(b)
(b)α 𝛼𝛼= 10
= 10
deg,
deg,
(c) α =(c)15𝛼𝛼deg,
= 15(d)
deg,
α =(d) 𝛼𝛼 = 20
20 deg, (e)deg, (e) deg,
α = 25 𝛼𝛼 = (f)
25 αdeg,
= 30(f)deg,
𝛼𝛼 =(g)
30αdeg,
= 35(g)
deg, = 35 (h)
𝛼𝛼 and deg,α and
= 40 (h)
deg.𝛼𝛼 = 40
deg.
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
In this paper, the flow around the airfoil NACA0018 at high incidences was investi-
gatedInbythis
usingpaper, the flow around
the open-source CFDthe airfoilOpenFOAM.
platform NACA0018 at high and
RANS incidences was investi-
DES methods were
gated byto
adopted using the open-source
simulate the local flowCFD platform
fields around OpenFOAM. RANS
the airfoil, with theand DES
attack methods
angles were
covering
adopted to simulate the local flow fields around the airfoil, with the attack
the attached flow regime, mild separation flow regime, and post-stall flow regime. Under angles covering
the premise
the attached of flow regime,
a grid mild separation
convergence flow
analysis, theregime, and post-stall
effectiveness flow regime.
of the numerical Under
methods
the premise of a grid convergence analysis, the effectiveness of the
was discussed based on the comparison between the numerical results and the availablenumerical methods
was discussed
experimental based
data. It ison the comparison
shown between
that the feasibility ofthe
the numerical results and
numerical methods the available
highly depends
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 18 of 20
on the flow regime. For the attached flow regime and mild separation flow regime, CL and
CD obtained from the RANS computation presented an agreement with the experimental
data, with the deviation less than 5% for most attack angles. As for the post-stall flow
regime, the DES computation had high accuracy, with the deviation reaching about 1% for
CL and about 10% for CD at the largest angle of attack α = 40 deg.
We discuss the obtained flow features of the shedding vortex structures, streamlines,
and vorticity distribution, as well as the pressure distribution, the flow mechanism of
the airfoil at high incidences, and the effectiveness of the adopted numerical methods.
It is shown that vortex structures are relatively simple and present obvious spanwise
uniformity in the RANS computation. In contrast, vortex structures with different scales are
captured by the DES computation, and the vortex structures present remarkable spanwise
non-uniformity. In particular, different from the regular diffusion of vortices presented by
the RANS computation, the DES computation reproduces the breakup and development of
large-scale shedding vortices. Based on the pressure distribution on the airfoil section, the
feature of the flow separation and its effect on the global loads were explored. Based on
the pressure distribution at high incidences, the unrealistic flow separation and shedding
vortices in the RANS computation resulted in a too-strong suction pressure on the upper
surface of the airfoil. Hence, CL and CD were remarkably overestimated. Differently,
the DES computation presented a more reasonable pressure distribution on the airfoil
surface. As a result, a good agreement was achieved between the DES computation and the
experimental data. From the numerical results, it can be seen that the adopted DES method
is better capable of predicting the flow around the airfoil at high incidences, especially for
the post-stall regime, with remarkable flow separation and large-scale shedding vortices.
This study focused on the effectiveness of RANS and DES methods in the numerical
solution of the flow around an airfoil at high incidences. Although the adopted DES
method presented satisfactory accuracy overall, an obvious deviation appeared near the
critical point of the airfoil stall. In the future, more systematic studies should be performed,
exploring the suitable turbulence model and the DES variant, to further improve the
prediction accuracy of the flow around the airfoil at high incidences.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.G., G.L. and Z.Z.; methodology, H.G.; software, H.G.
and G.L.; validation, H.G., G.L. and Z.Z.; formal analysis, H.G. and Z.Z.; investigation, H.G. and
G.L.; data curation, H.G. and G.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.G., G.L. and Z.Z.; writing—
review and editing, H.G. and Z.Z.; supervision, Z.Z.; project administration, G.L. and Z.Z.; funding
acquisition, H.G., G.L. and Z.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant
numbers 51779140, 52171263, the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, grant number
LQ22E090003, and the Science and Technology Innovation 2025 Major project of Ningbo City, grant
number 2020Z076.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data used to support the findings of this study are available from
the corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Jacobs, E.N.; Sherman, A. Airfoil Section Characteristics as Affected by Variations of the Reynolds Number; Annual Report-National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics; Iowa State University: Ames, IA, USA, 1937; p. 586.
2. Goett, H.J.; Bullivant, W.K. Tests of NACA 009, 0012 and 0018 Airfoils in the Full-Scale Tunnel; Annual Report-National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics; Iowa State University: Ames, IA, USA, 1938; p. 647.
3. Sheldahl, R.E.; Klimas, P.C. Aerodynamic Characteristics of Seven Symmetrical Airfoil Sections through 180-Degree Angle of Attack for
Use in Aerodynamic Analysis of Vertical Axis Wind Turbines; Sandia National Laboratories Energy Report; Sandia National Labs.:
Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1981.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 19 of 20
4. Nakano, T.; Fujisawa, N.; Oguma, Y.; Takagia, Y.; Leeb, S. Experimental study on flow and noise characteristics of NACA0018
airfoil. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 2007, 95, 511–531. [CrossRef]
5. Timmer, W.A. Two-dimensional low-Reynolds number wind tunnel results for airfoil NACA 0018. Wind Eng. 2008, 32, 525–537.
[CrossRef]
6. Boutilier, M.S.H.; Yarusevych, S. Separated shear layer transition over an airfoil at a low Reynolds number. Phys. Fluids 2012, 24,
084105. [CrossRef]
7. Gim, O.S.; Lee, G.W. Flow characteristics and tip vortex formation around a NACA 0018 foil with anendplate. Ocean Eng. 2013,
60, 28–38. [CrossRef]
8. Greenblatt, D.; Mueller-Vahl, H.; Strangfeld, C.; Medina, A.; Ol, M.; Granlund, K. High advance-ratio airfoil streamwise
oscillations: Wind tunnel vs. water tunnel. In Proceedings of the 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA,
4–8 January 2016.
9. Hassan, G.E.; Hassan, A.; Youssef, M.E. Numerical investigation of medium range re number aerodynamics characteristics for
NACA0018 airfoil. CFD Lett. 2014, 6, 175–187.
10. Raj, J. CFD analysis of flow characteristics of NACA0012 airfoil using SU2. J. Mech. Aeronaut. Eng. Res. 2017, 1, 25–28.
11. Suvanjumrat, C. Comparison of turbulence models for flow past NACA0015 airfoil using OpenFOAM. Eng. J. 2017, 21, 207–221.
[CrossRef]
12. Yilmaz, M.; Koten, H.; Çetinkaya, E.; Coşar, Z. A comparative CFD analysis of NACA0012 and NACA4412 airfoils. J. Energy Syst.
2018, 2, 145–159. [CrossRef]
13. Wang, Y.; Shen, S.; Li, G.; Huang, D.; Zheng, Z. Investigation on aerodynamic performance of vertical axis wind turbine with
different series airfoil shapes. Renew. Energ. 2018, 126, 801–818. [CrossRef]
14. Aqilah, F.; Islam, M.; Juretic, F.; Guerrero, J.; Wood, D.; Nasir, F. Study of mesh quality improvement for CFD analysis of an airfoil.
IIUM Eng. J. 2018, 19, 203–212. [CrossRef]
15. Zidane, I.F.; Swadener, G.; Saqr, K.M.; Ma, X.; Shehade, M.F. CFD investigation of transitional separation bubble characteristics on
NACA 63415 airfoil at low Reynolds numbers. In Proceedings of the 25th UKACM Conference on Computational Mechanics,
Birmingham, UK, 12–13 April 2017.
16. Li, C.; Wang, H.; Sun, P. Numerical investigation of a two-element wingsail for ship auxiliary propulsion. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020,
8, 333. [CrossRef]
17. Breuer, M.; Jovičić, N. An LES investigation of the separated flow past an airfoil at high angle of attack. In Direct and Large-Eddy
Simulation IV; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 165–172.
18. Mary, I.; Sagaut, P. Large eddy simulation of flow around an airfoil near stall. AIAA J. 2002, 40, 1139–1145. [CrossRef]
19. Yuan, W.; Xu, H.; Khalid, M.; Radespiel, R. A parametric study of LES on laminar-turbulent transitional flows past an airfoil. Int.
J. Comut. Fluid Dyn. 2006, 20, 45–54. [CrossRef]
20. Li, C.; Zhu, S.; Xu, Y.; Xiao, Y. 2.5 D large eddy simulation of vertical axis wind turbine in consideration of high angle of attack
flow. Renew. Energ. 2013, 51, 317–330. [CrossRef]
21. Breuer, M. Effect of inflow turbulence on an airfoil flow with laminar separation bubble: An LES study. Flow Turbul. Combust.
2018, 101, 433–456. [CrossRef]
22. Spalart, P.R. Comments on the feasibility of LES for wings, and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach. In Proceedings of the 1st
AFOSR International Conference on DNS/LES, Ruston, LA, USA, 4–8 August 1997.
23. Spalart, P.R.; Deck, S.; Shur, M.; Squires, K.D. A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities.
Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 2006, 20, 181–195. [CrossRef]
24. Shur, M.L.; Spalart, P.R.; Strelets, M.K.; Travin, A.K. A hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and wall-modelled LES
capabilities. Int. J. Heat. Fluid Flow 2008, 29, 1638–1649. [CrossRef]
25. Schmidt, S.; Thiele, F. Detached eddy simulation of flow around A-airfoil. Flow Turbul. Combust. 2003, 71, 261–278. [CrossRef]
26. Li, D.; Men’shov, I.; Nakamura, Y. Detached-eddy simulation of three airfoils with different stall onset mechanisms. J. Aircr. 2006,
43, 1014–1021. [CrossRef]
27. Probst, A.; Wolf, C.; Radespiel, R.; Knopp, T.; Schwamborn, D. A comparison of detached-eddy simulation and Reynolds-stress
modeling applied to the flow over a backward-facing step and an airfoil at stall. In Proceedings of the 48th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, FL, USA, 4–7 January 2010.
28. Im, H.; Zha, G. Delayed detached eddy simulation of a stall flow over NACA0012 airfoil using high order schemes. In Proceedings
of the 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, FL, USA,
4–7 January 2011.
29. Grossi, F.; Braza, M.; Hoarau, Y. Delayed detached-eddy simulation of the transonic flow around a supercritical airfoil in the
buffet regime. In Progress in Hybrid RANS-LES Modelling; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 369–378.
30. Liang, Z.; Xue, L. Detached-eddy simulation of wing-tip vortex in the near field of NACA 0015 airfoil. J. Hydrodynam. B 2014, 26,
199–206. [CrossRef]
31. Gan, J.; Im, H.S.; Chen, X.; Zha, G.C.; Pasiliao, C.L. Delayed detached eddy simulation of wing flutter boundary using high order
schemes. J. Fluids. Struct. 2017, 71, 199–216. [CrossRef]
32. Xu, H.Y.; Qiao, C.L.; Yang, H.Q.; Ye, Z.Y. Delayed detached eddy simulation of the wind turbine airfoil S809 for angles of attack
up to 90 degrees. Energy 2017, 118, 1090–1109. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847 20 of 20
33. Yalçın, Ö.; Cengiz, K.; Özyörük, Y. High-order detached eddy simulation of unsteady flow around NREL S826 airfoil. J. Wind.
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018, 179, 125–134. [CrossRef]
34. Wang, Y.; Liu, K.; Han, Z. Detached eddy simulation on the flow around NACA0021 airfoil beyond stall using OpenFOAM. In
Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Aerospace Technology, Chengdu, China, 16–18 October 2018.
35. Patel, P.; Zha, G. Improved delayed detached eddy simulation of separated flow. In Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation 2020
Forum, Virtual Event, 15–19 June 2020.
36. OpenFOAM. Available online: https://www.openfoam.com (accessed on 24 August 2021).
37. Stern, F.; Wilson, R.; Shao, J. Quantitative V&V of CFD simulations and certification of CFD codes. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids.
2006, 50, 1335–1355.
38. Muscari, R.; Di Mascio, A.; Verzicco, R. Modeling of vortex dynamics in the wake of a marine propeller. Comput. Fluids. 2013, 73,
65–79. [CrossRef]

Numerical Simulation of The Flow Around NACA0018 Airfoil

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Numerical Simulation of The Flow Around NACA0018 Airfoil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of

1 Faculty of Maritime and Transportation, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China;

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 847. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10070847 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

de = max[ LRANS − f d , max( LRANS − LLES , 0)] (3)

The delay function is given by:

Figure 2. Illustration of the computational domain and boundary conditions.

Table 3. Discretization schemes adopted in the present study.

Terms RANS DES

Table 4. Computational details for the grid convergence study.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

Figure 10. Time histories of (a)

1.6 (a) 1.4 (b)

Figure 12. Cont.

ERR% ERR% ERR% data. ERR%

Table 8. Deviation of between the numerical results and experimental data.

15 0.061 −142.182 4.196 0.079 −213.138 −23.873

5.3. Streamlines and Vorticity

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20

5.4. Pressure Distribution

5.4. Pressure Distribution

You might also like