How to calculate the required SimScale Inlet velocity and Air property values in order to match Mach and Reynolds Numbers of wind tunnel conditions

When using NACA0012 experimental data from NASA TM4074, it has proven difficult to determine suitable values for SimScale Inlet velocities and Air properties such that the Reynolds Number and Mach Number for a Simulation Run match the Re and Mach of the wind tunnel data.

Recently I have come across this article which describes the necessary equations and techniques which can be used to help in this matter:
Andrew Ning ReMatching.pdf

Using the article, I have created a spreadsheet that allows the user to enter the Chord, a desired Mach, Re, Temp and Density which outputs the Inlet Speed and Kinematic Viscosity for SimScale use.

Here is an image of my spreadsheet with input values set so that I can see if the spreadsheet matches the NASA Re calculator :

And here is the NASA Re calculator whose output seems to match my above spreadsheet values :slight_smile: :

.
.
.

And finally, here is my spreadsheet with input values that give me SimScale values to match exactly the Re 3.9M and Mach 0.15 of the NASA TM4074 tunnel run on the NACA0012 data that I want to verify with my SimScale CFD project:

As long as our Temp and Pressure values are inside the range of Temps and Pressures that the Langley LTPT Tunnel can achieve, then these are the required inputs for SimScale use :slight_smile:

With a geometry file that has a 1m chord, my inputs to SimScale to match Re3.9M and M0.15 under T and P conditions that are obtainable at Langley are:

  1. Inlet Velocity 58.924 m/sec
  2. Air Density 1.2280 kg/m^3
  3. Kinematic Viscosity 1.5109E-5 m^2/sec

You can find my spreadsheet file in this Google Drive folder (and other goodies :wink: )

Use the output at your own risk.

Even though it seems that I can match the NASA calculator, it would be nice if someone could please give my spreadsheet a going over to make sure I properly implemented Andrew Ning’s great procedure. :slight_smile:

EDIT Nov 9, 2023: Wow I just re-read Andrew Nings’ ReMatching.pdf and found this at the end, which I missed the first time. I am putting this following warning forefront now in this topic as a reminder to me when I come back here in the future:

“Either approach is fine, but remember that when you set the temperature and pressure in your boundary condition, you should also use them to set the initial conditions (or at least something close). If your initial conditions are very far from the steady state solution, you may have numerical issues and a dicult time converging. If you change pressure, it may be easiest to just change the reference pressure and then your gauge pressure can remain at 0 elsewhere.”

I think that might be good advice for all my future external CFD simulations!

1 Like

Good job (again) Dale! :slight_smile: Will definitely go over it if I have the time! :+1: Maybe someone else can make use out of it in the meantime.

Cheers and thanks for sharing!

Jousef

1 Like

This is just a topic bump to see if anyone will go over it and report back here on my spreadsheets’ validity. :wink: