Anda di halaman 1dari 36

Hasib Choudhry

Fluent Project: Frisbee

Date Submitted: 11/18/09


Introduction:
It was however the advent of plastics during the 1940’s and the technology
of plastic
injection moulding which allowed Frisbees to be successfully manufactured
as a recreational toy. The interest in UFO’s and flying saucers of the time
helped to secure the future of the FRISBEE as a popular toy. The sport itself
can be traced back to Columbia High School, 1968. Several staff and
students developed the basic construct of the sport as a gag and activity for
several school functions. Ultimate Frisbee (Ultimate) has grown from there to
become a fast
moving and highly competitive sport.

Background:

Despite its geometrical simplicity the FRISBEE (disc) gives rise to complex
flow patterns during flight. It is its inherent complexity that has made it a
popular toy and has
also allowed an entire sport to be built around it.

The desired properties of the disc during the play of Ultimate vary as it is a
very dynamic sport with the players constantly changing position, trying to
get ahead of their
mark. Consequently the players have developed a variety of different throws,
each of
which are suited to specific scenarios. Thus it is very difficult to say which
aerodynamic
properties the disc should have but the properties which have the most
influence on its
flight are:

• Coefficient of lift
• Coefficient of drag
• Sensitivity of these properties against varying angles of attack
and rotational.

The basic design of the FRISBEER has changed very little and indeed the
requirements
of the disc which may be permitted to be used in competitive Ultimate are
very strict
and do not allow for much variation . However, in recent years many new
designs
have hit the market, most notably the Aerobie Superdisc.

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) provides a means of studying the


aerodynamic
properties of the different discs in detail and thus allows for an easy
comparison of the
different air flows.

Computational Fluid Dynamic codes use numerical algorithms based on the


Navier-
Stokes Equations to describe fluid motion and to calculate the forces on any
objects
within the flow. The CFD process is made up of three different stages,
namely, the
pre-processor, the solver and the post processor.
During the pre-processor stage the geometry of the model and the wind
tunnel are created as well as the mesh through which the fluid will flow.

The solver calculates the flow through the region using a finite volume
technique which
integrates the governing equations of the flow in all the cells in the wind
tunnel. A process of discretization then gives values to the terms within the
integrated equations by finite-difference substitution. A number of different
solvers may be selected to calculate the flow field by using either a direct or
iterative method.

The post-processor is then used to display and analyze the results as well as
to determine their validity. The post-processor provides the user with a large
variety of tools with which to view the flow through the wind tunnel.

Objectives of This Project:

The objectives of this project are described below:


• Learn how to use the relevant CFD programs and the relevant processors
in order
to create realistic geometries and meshes and to produce realistic data.

• Accurately measure the geometry and to recreate these geometry in an


accurate model.

• Validate the data generated using CFD against actual wind tunnel tests and
in
flight measurements.
• Compare the different flow fields and identify the geometric features which
most
impact on the aerodynamic properties of the disc.

• To create this recommended geometry and compute its aerodynamic


properties
using similar CFD techniques.

Plan of Development:
This report begins with a discussion on the literature that was available
regarding this
subject. The geometries of the discs are then discussed on how they were
modeled and
meshed in GAMBIT . This is followed by an explanation of the solver settings
which
were specified. The results are then shown, followed by the conclusions
which were
drawn and then by the recommendations which were made.

Development of the Frisbee:

Since the accidental discovery of the interesting aerodynamic properties of a


pie tin lid,
the basic shape of the disc has changed very little. Indeed the disc that is
used in competitive Ultimate today is still comparable to those original lids.
Some of the most recent developments in disc design have come from , and
of
most interest to the Aerobie Superdisc.

Current Performance of Discs:

Performance characteristics of frisbees or discs on the market either don’t


exist or are
very difficult to obtain. Only partial experimental data was obtained
regarding flying discs at different velocities, rotational speeds and angles of
attack.

Basic Aerodynamics of a Disc Wing:

It is intriguing that such a simplistic geometric shape yields such a complex


flow field
allowing it to become the foundation of a major competitive sport, namely
Ultimate
Frisbee. The disc is essentially an aerofoil with lift and drag characteristics
which are
not unlike that of conventional aerofoils, the lift and drag forces which act on
an inclined
disc for a typical angle of attack are shown in figures.

Lift and drag acting on a disc for a typical angle of attack. What sets the
flying disc apart from standard aerofoils is that it rotates during its flight,
indeed the rotation is absolutely critical for a stable flight.

The center of lift for a rotating disc does not coincide with its center of mass
and indeed
its position varies depending on the angle of attack. The result is that the lift
produces
a pitching moment about its center of mass.
Without the rotation this unbalanced pitching moment will dominate the
flight and
force the nose up.
The effect of the rotation causes the disc to effectively act as a gyroscope.
The unbalanced pitching moment coupled with the rotation then causes the
disc to bank or
roll to the left or right depending on the direction of the rotation. Thus the
flying disc
has an inherent instability built into its design, however, this has only served
to further
complicate the flight physics of the disc and made the sport of Ultimate that
much more
interesting, providing further options for the thrower.

Computational Fluid Dynamics Theory:

Computational Fluid Dynamics is a useful tool which can aid us in the


understanding
of fluid flow phenomena. It is not the object that is modeled but rather the
volume
surrounding the object which is split into a multitude of cells. Depending on
the settings
specified by the user a specific series of equations are applied to each cell in
order
to accurately predict the fluid flow for each cell. Computational Fluid
Dynamics code
usually comprises of three separate stages, namely the:

• Pre-processor
• Solver
• Post-processor

The Pre-processor:

The pre-processor enables the user to create the geometry that he wishes to
model and
to create the mesh surrounding the model. The mesh compromises of a large
number of
cells and it is up to the user to carefully specify the mesh in order to
accurately capture
the flow phenomena and to minimize the time required for the solution to
converge. A
fine mesh is required in regions where large gradients are expected but is
unnecessary
in regions where the flow is stable and where a coarser mesh would be
adequate.
A wide variety of meshing schemes are available as well as differing cell
geometries,
each with its own inherent strengths and weaknesses. The numerical errors
which are
associated with CFD are closely linked to the shape and skewness of the cells
within the mesh. The meshing schemes can be divided into two categories,
namely structured and unstructured meshes.

Structured meshes allow the user to exactly specify the mesh and the cells
therein and
are preferable as they provide consistent cell geometries which can be
controlled and
thus numerical errors are minimized.
Unstructured meshes are best used when a structured mesh cannot be
applied and in
areas with low gradients. The unstructured meshing schemes adapt the
mesh in order
to fit the geometry of the model and the meshes of adjacent volumes. If not
carefully
implemented and controlled these schemes can result in highly skew cells
which can
exacerbate numerical errors.

Four different cell geometries are available, each with their own strengths
and weakness and it is up to the user to specify where they should be used.
Hexagonal cells are preferable especially in areas with high gradients
however they can only be used in structured meshes. Pyramidal cells are
also available and are used with unstructured meshes, they do however
result in additional numerical errors. The five sided pyramidal cell is used
when the mesh is transitioning from hexagonal cells towards the four sided
tetrahedral cells.

The Boundary Layer:

In certain applications an extremely fine mesh is required, such as where


boundary layers form and where the air interacts with a surface. To allow for
accurate modeling of this flow and its turbulence a very fine mesh is
required. GAMBIT R provides the user with the boundary layer tool, which
allows the user to specify the size of the first cell and
the cell growth factor. This tool was used during this investigation and
indeed was very
important for accurate modeling as the y+ values could be easily controlled
and specified.

Due to the limitation of current computer speeds it is necessary for the user
to carefully
specify the mesh and the cells, fine enough in regions of high gradients to
accurately
capture the flow while being aware that unnecessarily fine meshes only
serve to increase the time required for a solution to converge.

The Solver:

The CFD software used for this thesis utilized the finite volume method as a
means of
solving the fluid flow. However all of the available methods follow three basic
steps:

• Approximation of the unknown flow variables

• Discretization by substitution of the approximations into the governing flow


equations
and subsequent mathematical manipulations

• Solution of the algebraic equations

A number of different techniques are available to perform these functions,


namely the
finite difference, finite element and spectral methods. The core differences
between
these three different systems is largely with the manner which the flow
variables are
approximated and with the discretization processes. The solver which was
used in this
investigation, FLUENT , utilizes the finite volume method which was originally
developed
as a special case of the finite difference formulation.

The Post-Processor:

The post-processor provides a combination of tools to the user with which he


may
analyze the flow. It allows the user to view vector fields, particle tracking or
contour
plots for a wide range of different properties. The post-processor and solver
that was
used in this investigation are part of the same software package, namely
FLUENT .

Turbulence Modeling:

Nearly all flows involving engineering applications experience turbulent


regions and thus
this has to be acceptably modeled in order to arrive at a useful solution using
CFD.

At higher values of the Reynolds number, flows are observed to become


turbulent, where the velocity and the pressure are changing continuously for
substantial regions of the flow.
The Spalart Allmaras turbulence model which was used in this investigation
utilizes
the Reynolds average approach which is computationally cheaper than the
LES approach.

The Spalart Allmaras model also utilizes the Boussinesq hypothesis and only
uses one transport equation, this lowers the computational time required for
a solution
to converge.

NearWall Treatments for Wall Bounded Turbulent Flows:

Turbulent flows are significantly affected by the presence of walls for a


number of different reasons. There are two approaches concerning the
modeling of turbulent flows near walls, namely the wall function approach
and the near wall model.
The near wall region can be divided into three subdivions, namely the
viscous sub layer,
in which the flow is laminar. Then is the buffer layer or blending region which
experiences both laminar and turbulent flows. After which the flow becomes
fully turbulent.

Extremely high gradients are experienced in the buffer layer where the flow
interchanges from laminar to turbulent flow. As such an extremely fine mesh
is required to fully capture the flow. However a coarser mesh may be applied
and a wall function can be used, which utilizes semi-empirical formulae
which are used to bridge the viscosity affected region between the wall and
the fully-turbulent region. As such the viscous sublayer and buffer layer are
not resolved and much computational expense is spared.

Despite the assumptions made in the application of the wall function it is


found to be
to be robust and acceptably accurate for most applications.
The alternative is to utilize the near wall model approach. This requires a
very fine mesh
at the wall and resolves the entire viscous layer in the near wall region. This
method
can be very computationally expensive but can also be more accurate.

Modeling Using the Spalart Allmaras Turbulence Model:

The Spalart Allmaras model was designed specifically for aerospace


applications involving wall-bounded flows and has been shown to give good
results for boundary layers subjected to adverse pressure gradients, as is the
case with inclined rotating discs.

It is however a relatively simple one equation model that solves a modeled


transport
equation for the kinematic eddy viscosity. The Spalart Allmaras model is a
relatively
new model, and while it has been shown to provide accurate results, its
potential and
limitations are not well known.

Also the Spalart Allmaras model was designed to be utilized for low Reynolds
number
applications, and consequently with models that properly resolve the viscous
affected
region. Therefore a near wall model should be used, although the wall
function approach
may still be utilized. It is recommended that with the application of the near
wall model
that the y+ should be approximately 1 but values lower than 5 are still
considered good.

Model Considered For This Report:


Creating the Models
The geometries of the discs were easily created in GAMBIT , the half cross
sectional
profile was created by specifying points and the radii that would connect
them. This
profile was then rotated about the disc’s center and thus a model of the disc
was created.
This technique was performed on all of the geometries of the discs.
The Wind Tunnels Used
The discs compared were all of similar size, the Flat Disc and the Ultimate
Disc, both
having a diameter of 274mm. Considering the size of the discs and the need
to capture the down wash of the fluid flow, the wind tunnels had to be
sufficiently large in order to accurately capture these effects.

Altering the Angle of Attack


It was necessary for this investigation that the aerodynamic properties of the
discs be
examined for varying angles of attack. Creating a new mesh in the wind
tunnel for each
angle of attack of the disc would be prohibitively time consuming.
Consequently an
alternate method was used.

The front end of the wind tunnel as well as the walls on each side where
defined as
Velocity Inlets, in the boundary condition settings in FLUENTR . The velocity
could
then be specified component wise and by altering the components,
effectively different
angles of attack could be investigated by using only one mesh. Care had to
be taken to
ensure that the wind tunnel was large enough so as the walls would not
adversely effect
the air flow.

Wind Tunnel Geometry


The wind tunnels had to be increased in size in order to minimize the effect
of having
the bottom wall defined as a velocity inlet. Consequently the bottom wall had
to be
sufficiently far from the disc so this boundary condition does not adversely
affect the
flow. Also the top wall had to be sufficiently far from the disc so that it would
not effect
the wake of the air flow.

From the initial simulations that were run, it became clear that the size of the
wind
tunnels could be reduced, so as to reduce the number of cells in the mesh
and thus
lower the computational time required for the solutions to converge. The
wind tunnel
geometries were kept constant once a suitable size was found, this was done
so as to
ensure consistency of the results.

Wind Tunnel Boundary Conditions

The front and side faces of all the wind tunnels were specified as Velocity
Inlets, this
allowed the user to effectively alter the angle of attack by specifying the
velocity component wise.
The back faces were specified as pressure inlets as this would have the least
effect on the airflow as it exited the wind tunnel. A velocity outflow boundary
condition can effect
the air flow to force consistent exit vectors, however a pressure inlet
condition will not
interfere with the air exiting the wind tunnel.

Meshing the Geometries:


The next step in the Computational Fluid Dynamics process required the
volumes about
the models to be accurately meshed so that realistic results could be
obtained from the
solver. A fine mesh was required near the surface of the disc in order to
capture the
boundary layer and turbulence. This fine mesh would then have to be grown
into a
coarser mesh away from the disc where a fine mesh would be inappropriate.
This would
save on the computational time required for the solution to converge.
Considering that the angle of attack was being controlled by altering the
velocity of the
air component wise, this would result in a wake somewhat above the disc.
The wind
tunnel and the mesh had to be controlled so that the wake and down wash
could also
be accurately captured.
An extensive amount of time was spent developing appropriate meshes for
the discs
which would be suitable for the solver. The problems that were encountered
are also
discussed in this chapter, as well as the solutions that were found to be
effective.

Problems Experienced When Meshing


The first issue arose when a hexagonal grid was applied to the faces of the
disc. It
was necessary to use a hexagonal mesh on the faces of the discs, as they
have a higher accuracy than tetrahedral cells and only introduce minimal
numerical diffusion (False diffusion) into the simulation.

Splitting the Surface Face


GAMBIT could not apply a structured hexagonal mesh on a circular face.
Attempts
were made to split the circular geometry so that a hexagonal mesh could be
applied on
the various subsections. Also problems arose when a tetrahedral mesh was
applied to
the face meshes of the hexagonal mesh.
The cause of these issues were suspected to be sharp corners of the
hexagonal mesh,
where GAMBIT could not grow the tetrahedral cells, firstly to 5 sided and then
to
4 sided tetrahedral cells.

Cell Size Consistency


Difficulties were experienced when applying a volume mesh adjacent to
other volumes
which had cells of inconsistent sizes. Theses cells would have a very large
area when
compared to their depth, as such GAMBIT could not grow a consistent mesh
from
these cells.
This issue was especially applicable to the Flat Disc which had a large
surface area when compared to its depth of only 2mm. A fine mesh was
required on the surface of the disc so that the boundary layer could be
correctly captured.

The nature of the face mesh resulted in the growth of the cells from the inner
circle
towards the outer perimeter. It was required to have a fine mesh on the
outer perimeter
and as such, the density of the mesh grew towards the center of the disc. As
a result
an unnecessarily fine mesh was thus applied over the center of the disc,
however it was
found that this was unavoidable.

The greatest discrepancies in cell sizes occurred between the cells on the
surface of the
disc, which had a very large area when compared to their depth. Their area
was relatively larger than their depth and this was done deliberately in an
attempt to reduce the number of cells near the center of the disc. However
the depth of these cells was kept very small as was required in order to
accurately capture the boundary layer. As such GAMBIT could not generate a
volume mesh surrounding these volume, using any of the schemes available.

The solution was to use a series of intermediate volumes, with structured


meshes in
order to grow the depths of these very shallow cells in order to create cells
with a more
consistent size, and which GAMBIT could then apply a tetrahedral mesh to.

Meshing the Disc


Disc used had to be meshed according to its specific shape and the
expected air flow. Also disc had its own complications which had to be
overcome in order to generate an accurate mesh. A brief description on how
the disc was meshed may be found below.

Hexagonal face meshes were applied to the disc, with a dense mesh near the
surface of the disc in order to capture the turbulent region. The mesh was
grown to form a shallow cylinder surrounding the disc, consisting entirely of
hexagonal cells.
The area close to the disc is of interest to the flow, and consequently
requires a dense and accurate mesh. However further away from the disc
the flow has very small gradients and as such, a tetrahedral mesh may be
applied while not affecting the flow and can save on computational time. As
such tetrahedral meshes were used to mesh the wind tunnel , in conjunction
with intermediate rectangular volumes, which aided the growth acceleration
of the tetrahedral cells.

The purpose of which would be to reduce the number of tetrahedral cells


required to
mesh the volume, and without compromising on the accuracy of the solution.
CFD Solver Settings
Once the geometries had been modeled and the mesh about it was created,
then exported to the solver, FLUENT , which would then calculate the fluid
flow over
the whole domain. FLUENT is capable of solving for a wide range of potential
flows
and criteria. Consequently the user must carefully specify the properties and
settings
required for the cases which must then be solved. All significant settings
used in this
investigation are discussed in this section. Any settings not mentioned here
were left as
default FLUENT settings.

Incompressible Flow
The velocities of the discs considered for this investigation were first at
10m/s. This velocity is well below 0.1 of Mach Number and thus the air flow
was assumed to be considered incompressible, this is considered acceptable
CFD
practice.

Fluid Properties Specified


Air was specified as the fluid used and the standard properties were utilized:

• Density 1.225kg/m3
• Cp(Specific Heat) 1006.43/kg-k
• Thermal Conductivity 0.0242w /m-k
• Viscosity 1.7894e-05kg/m-s
• Molecular Weight 28.966kg/kgmol

Operating Pressure
The operating pressure was specified as standard atmospheric pressure of
101.325kPa.

Turbulence Model
The Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model was used for this investigation, it
offers several
advantages over other turbulence models for this particular application. This
turbulence
model was designed to be used for low-Reynolds-number flows as such is the
case with
this investigation.

The flow over the discs for the higher velocity of 20m/s would be largely
turbulent, even
when the flow was 6m/s there would be turbulent regions within the flow
field. As such,
utilization of a laminar model would be inappropriate, and so the Spalart-
Allmaras turbulence model was specified, as it was initially designed to
handle exterior flows.

Convergence Criteria
Residuals are used to monitor the level of convergence within the flow for an
iterative
simulation. The total residuals are calculated as the difference between the
values of
those entering and leaving the volume.
The residuals used for this investigation were continuity, velocity in the x, y
and z directions
and μt which is the turbulent viscosity, which is introduced by the Spalart
Allmaras
turbulent model. Initially residual levels were set to 1e-3 and these were
satisfactory for
most simulations.
Setting the residuals to 1e-4 or lower would have led to prohibitively long
simulations
when computational resources were already severely limited.

Discretization Scheme
Several solution algorithms are provided by FLUENT in order to solve the
pressure velocity coupling in steady flows. For the initial simulations the
SIMPLE discretization
scheme was used. SIMPLE is a first order upwind scheme, however the
results that were produced did not match experimental data.

Another algorithm was then tried, SIMPLEC(SIMPLE-Consistent), which is also


a first
order upwind scheme, however it offers several advantages of the SIMPLE
algorithm
regarding more complex flows and the handling of turbulence. Also,
utilization of the
SIMPLEC algorithm can improve the time required for convergence. The
initial results
using this algorithm were good and thus all further simulations used the
SIMPLEC
algorithm.
Case 1 at the angle of attack 10 deg, at speed 20 rad/sec the
velocity is 10 m/s.

1)Scaled Residuals Plot

2)Lift Convergence History


3) Drag Convergence History
4) Contours of Static Pressure (Pascal)
5)Contours of velocity Magnitude (m/s)

6)Profile of velocity Magnitude (m/s)


7) Solution is Converged

8)Velocity vectors colored by velocity magnitude


(m/s)

9) Lift and Drag


Case 2 at angle of attack 10 deg, speed 25 rad/sec and velocity is 10
m/sec.

Scaled Residuals
Drag Convergence
Lift Convergence

Solution Converged
Profiles of Modified Turbulant Viscosity
Case 3 Angle of attack 20 deg, with the rotational speed
20 rad/s and air velocity of 10 m/s.

Scaled Residuals
Drag Convergence History

Lift convergence History


Solution Converged

Contours of static Pressure


Contours of Velocity Magnitude (m/s)
Contours of Turbulant Viscosity (m^2/s)
Velocity vectors colored by velocity Magnitude
(m/s)

Velocity vector colored by static Pressure (Pascal)


Contours of static Pressure (pascal)

Contours of velocity Magnitude (m/s)


Results and Discussion
The main purpose of this Project was to investigate the aerodynamic
properties of the Frisbee. The ratio of my project calculated to be 14.6.

Values of Interest
The values that are of most interest for this investigation are:

• Co-efficient of Lift
• Co-efficient of Drag

The equations which define the co-efficient of lift and drag are shown below.
Case 1:

Cd= F/(0.5)(1000)(pi)(112²)(10²) = 1675.461/1970406912= 0.85

Cl = F/(0.5)(1000)(pi)(112²)(10²) = 24486.573/1970406912 = 1.24

L/D RATIO = 14.61

Case 2:
Cd = F/(0.5)(1000)(pi)(112²)(10²) = 64782.652/1970406912 = 3.29

Cl = F/(0.5)(1000)(pi)(112²)(10²) = 9140.134/1970406912 = 4.64

L/D RATIO = 7.08

Case 3:
Cd = F/(0.5)(1000)(pi)(112²)(10²) = 461.41867/1970406912 = 2.34

Cl = F/(0.5)(1000)(pi)(112²)(10²) = 35879.893/1970406912 = 1.821

L/D RATIO = 22.3

Conclusion:
In contrast to the major change in boundry layer and immediate flow field
surrounding a spinning disc, the overall aerodynamics were minimally
affected, if we exclude the gyroscopic stability benefit of rotation.

Although the numerical simulations were limited to a single shape and only
one variation in flight parameters, the overall CFD analysis was able to unveil
most of the “big picture” in disc aerodynamics. The influence of rotation on
boundry layer growth and flow separation was anything but expected, and
trying to obtain the same level of documentation in an actual wind Tunnel
test would be next to impossible. Although the number of graphs generated
from the computational data may have been overwhelming, well collectively
they mapped out the flow field and thus told us the “ complete story”.

Being limited in our computational resources, this work can only be


considered a small first step towards the better understanding of disc
aerodynamics. Future research on this topic should include the testing of
different aerodynamic shapes, under a larger set of flight parameters. It
should also address the turbulent aspect of the flow, which may have
considerable impact on the overall aerodynamic behavior.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai