## 3 Results and Discussion
### NACA0012 Models
#### 3.1.6 Results of the Sharp Trailing Edge Based on Definition Formula Applying 400 Points  
Figures 20 and 21 depict the distributions of \(\mathrm{P/P_{t}}\), \(\mathrm{T/T_{t}}\), and \(\mathrm{U/U_{t}}\) of reference data and numerical data and the mean error ratios are presented in Table 17. Then the optimal total mean error ratios under different configurations are confirmed, as shown in Figure 22, which are highlighted in red. As to the far-field distance, the finest results for three distances are 4.14%, 2.46%, and 2.454%. As to the turbulence model, the minimum result of SST is 2.454%, and that of SA is 3.48%. As to the flux type, ROE has a minimum total mean error ratio of 2.454%, and that of AUSM is 3.48%. In conclusion, through the comparison among optimal performances of all configurations, SST + 20 m combined with ROE has the preferred result, and the value is 2.454% and the relevant accuracy growths are 40.67%, 56.91%, 0.24%, 29.54%, and 36.98%.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Simulation Configurations**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Mean Error Ratios under Different Configurations**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ROE**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AUSM**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **P/P\({}_{t}\)** & **T/T\({}_{t}\)** & **U/U\({}_{t}\)** & **P/P\({}_{t}\)** & **T/T\({}_{t}\)** & **U/U\({}_{t}\)** \\ \hline SST + 12 m & 4.86\% & 3.88\% & 0.96\% & 8.02\% & 7.94\% & 1.77\% \\ \hline SA + 12 m & 5.87\% & 1.18\% & 1.55\% & 7.83\% & 4.63\% & 1.76\% \\ \hline SST + 16 m & 8.58\% & 7.83\% & 1.83\% & 3.74\% & 4.06\% & 2.00\% \\ \hline
**SA + 16 m** & **2.54\%** & **1.86\%** & **1.74\%** & 4.79\% & 3.75\% & 1.29\% \\ \hline SST + 20 m & 5.02\% & 6.54\% & 1.99\% & 9.84\% & 5.13\% & 2.19\% \\ \hline SA + 20 m & 6.00\% & 4.32\% & 1.21\% & 3.51\% & 4.13\% & 2.48\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 16: The mean error ratios of \(\mathrm{P/P_{t}}\), \(\mathrm{T/T_{t}}\), and \(\mathrm{U/U_{t}}\) of the sharp trailing edge based on 200 points.  
Figure 19: Comparison of the simulation performances of the sharp trailing edge based on 200 points formula under different simulation configurations.  
Figure 21: Distributions of \(\mathrm{U/U_{t}}\) of the sharp trailing edge based on 400 points formula at location of \(\mathrm{x/L}\) = 0.95.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Simulation Configurations**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Mean Error Ratios under Different Configurations**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ROE**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AUSM**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **P/\(\mathbf{P_{t}}\)** & **T/\(\mathbf{T_{t}}\)** & **U/\(\mathbf{U_{t}}\)** & **P/\(\mathbf{P_{t}}\)** & **T/\(\mathbf{T_{t}}\)** & **U/\(\mathbf{U_{t}}\)** \\ \hline SST + 12 m & 6.02\% & 4.72\% & 1.66\% & 13.60\% & 22.17\% & 1.83\% \\ \hline SA + 12 m & 8.66\% & 6.36\% & 2.06\% & 12.65\% & 12.06\% & 0.95\% \\ \hline SST + 16 m & 2.21\% & 4.08\% & 1.09\% & 7.75\% & 9.69\% & 1.89\% \\ \hline SA + 16 m & 6.96\% & 2.86\% & 1.32\% & 3.66\% & 4.98\% & 1.81\% \\ \hline
**SST + 20 m** & **2.06\%** & **4.22\%** & **1.08\%** & 6.48\% & 1.71\% & 4.10\% \\ \hline SA + 20 m & 7.35\% & 2.74\% & 1.59\% & 7.52\% & 9.22\% & 1.35\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 17: The mean error ratios of \(\mathrm{P/P_{t}}\), \(\mathrm{T/T_{t}}\), and \(\mathrm{U/U_{t}}\) of the sharp trailing edge based on 400 points.  
Figure 20: (**a**) Distributions of \(\mathrm{P/P_{t}}\) of sharp trailing edge based on 400 points formula; (**b**) Distributions of \(\mathrm{T/T_{t}}\) of sharp trailing edge based on 400 points formula.