Title

Abstract
The airfoils are an important component of many modern-day machines that aerodynamic services
like airplanes, engines, helicopters, windmills, etc. The airfoils are analyzed for aerodynamic
forces like lift, drag, and thrust using experimental and CFD tools. The comparison of the CFD
work of airfoil with the provided experimental work is part of the current study. The CFD analysis
of airfoil NACA0012 was carried out by creating the geometry in the Design Modeler of ANSYS
Fluent, followed by meshing, and preprocessing steps like turbulence models, solver methods,
discretization schemes, and others. The addition of y+ to capture the viscous effects of the flow
near the walls of the airfoil was carried out by calculating the y+ through the given procedure. The
mesh convergence study was also carried out using h-refinement to obtain the mesh-insensitive
analysis. The converged mesh was exported to analysis for all the cases of the angle of attack and
the values of lift coefficient, drag coefficient, and pressure coefficient at given locations on the
airfoil were noted to carry out a comparative study with the experimental results. The airfoil for
the current study was analyzed for the angle of attack ranging from 0º to 20º to sort out the optimum
angle and stall angle. The optimum angle for the airfoil came out to be 7º for the experimental
results where the value of the lift-drag ratio is 15.33, whereas the numerical results came out with
an optimum angle of 7º with a ratio of 13.833. The stall angle for the airfoil resulted in 14º for the
experimental results whereas the lift at this angle is 1.364. For the numerical results, the stall angle
came out to be 15º with the value of the lift as 1.2037. The difference between the experimental
and numerical results is not very much prominent. The pressure coefficient was noted at the
provided pressure-tapping positions and plotted along the walls of the airfoil. The results of
pressure coefficients for different angle of the attack shows that the increment in the angle of attack
of the flow increases the pressure coefficient near the leading edge which predicts that the flow
separation keeps shifting from the trailing edge towards the leading edge when the angle of attack
is increased.
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Airfoil
An airfoil is an object or a structure with a specific cross-section designed to generate the desired
reaction force when it is moved through a gas. The desired reaction forces are lift and drag, while
the gas is air because the application of airfoils exists in the objects that move through the air. The
airfoils are used in designing the cross-sections of airplane wings and stabilizers, the rotor blades
of the helicopter, compressors, propellers, and fans. When an object like a wing or a blade having
an airfoil cross-section is moved in a gas medium like air, it generates an aerodynamic force on
the airfoil (Abzalilov, Il’inskii and Stepanov, 1996). The component of the wing that is
perpendicular to the free stream velocity of the air is called the lift force while the component of
the force parallel to the free stream velocity is called the drag force. An airfoil is designed in such
a way that when it is moved through the air at a high speed, the airfoil shape deflects the air in
such a way the air gets maximum velocity on the upper surface and lower velocity on the bottom
surface. Consequently, the value of the pressure on the upper surface becomes very less as
compared to the pressure on the bottom surface. That high pressure on the bottom surface generates
the lift force that is utilized in aircraft, helicopters, and other applications (Bartaria and Sharma,
2015).

1.2 CFD in aerodynamics

In the present technological world, there are several tools specifically built to analyze the
performance of the new or previously designed object. The pre-processing before the prototype
manufacturing of a new object involves the design and analysis of the object under the conditions
of its service that predict the performance of that object. The modification or improvement in the
design of that object is carried out based on the analysis evaluation. The same is the role of
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in aerodynamics as it serves as an important tool for
different aerodynamic objects to analyze their behavior in the flow (Jameson and Fatica, 2005).
The parameters like temperature, pressure, and velocity serve as the basic parameters for an
aerodynamic flow and the general classifications of an aerodynamic flow are velocity-based and
density/pressure-based flows. The velocity-based flows are generally characterized as
incompressible subsonic, transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic flows based on the mach number
of the moving object. Whereas, the density or pressure-based flows comprise the density effects
referred to as compressible flows (Roychowdhury, 2020).
The utilization of CFD is an important tool in an aerodynamic design of an automobile because
there are many important factors in the efficient performance that are directly related to the
automobile’s aerodynamics. Therefore, automobile manufacturers critically compete for efficient
performance like sedan cars and racing cars. The design of a car is kept in a way that it faces the
minimum possible drag to enhance the speed and fuel average. Therefore, the design of the front
portion of the car like the bumper, bonnet, and windshield plays an important role in its
aerodynamics. The complete outer portion of a car is also designed in a way that the flow of air
does not separate from the car’s upper surface. The science behind this concept is that when a car
moves in the air, the air flowing on the upper surface from the leading edge up to the trailing edge
of the car must not separate from the car’s surface because the attached flow will have a maximum
velocity of air on the surface and minimum pressure. If the flow of air separates at any point on
the upper surface of the car, it will create vortices that serve as maximum-pressure regions and
exert extra pressure on the car that reduces the desired performance (Rauf et al., 2020). Therefore,
the manufacturers utilize the CFD tools and packages to simulate the flow behavior on the car’s
surface and modify the design to its desired shape to get maximum performance. Similarly, the
CFD packages are also utilized a lot in the aerodynamic design of airplanes to obtain efficient
performance because poor aerodynamics costs the operators very much in fuel prices and others
(Hossain, Mashud and Asaduzzaman, 2013).

1.3 Sample of CFD utilization

The CFD tool has been used for many years in the efficient designing of new devices and design
optimization of previous models. There are numerous examples where CFD has been employed to
predict the performance of a model and resulted in optimization in the design of the model. An
important example in this regard is the efficient design of side view mirrors in a car as the evolution
in the automobile industry has also changed a lot in the aerodynamics of a car. The old models of
cars were designed with flow-facing flat surface mirrors or surfaces that create a higher drag in the
mirrors (Olosson, 2011). A past and a modern designed side view mirrors of a car are shown in
figure 1.

Figure 1 Side view mirror (left) old design, (right) optimized design (Olosson, 2011)

The effects of this drag force directly entangle the efficiency of the car. Therefore, the utilization
of CFD to reduce the drag on the mirrors has optimized the mirror designs, and therefore, modern
manufacturers have developed many efficient models of the car’s side view mirror. Figure 2 shows
the comparative performance of a car’s side-view mirror
Figure 2 Results of total pressure on old and modern side view mirrors (Olosson, 2011)
Chapter 2
CFD Modeling
The CFD modeling of airfoil NACA0012 was carried out by creating the geometry in the Design
Modeler of ANSYS Fluent, followed by meshing, and preprocessing steps like turbulence models,
solver methods, discretization schemes, and others. The addition of y+ to capture the viscous
effects of the flow near the walls of the airfoil was carried out by calculating the y+ through the
given procedure. The CFD modeling of the airfoil for the current study is explained next.

2.1 Geometry and domain

The geometry of the airfoil was created by importing the coordinates of NACA0012 obtained from
the verified website Airfoiltools.com and a 3D curve was created on the imported coordinates and
a surface using the 3D curve was generated. The resulting airfoil model is shown in figure 3.

Figure 3 NACA0012 airfoil generated by the 3D curve on imported coordinates

The domain created for the flow of air around the airfoil and the face splitting to obtain a structured
mesh is shown in figure 2.
 Figure 4 Domain around the airfoil and face splitting

The size of the domain is given in Table 1

Table 1 Dimensions of the domain around the airfoil

Location to airfoil Dimension

Upstream circular inlet 4 m (diameter)
Upper wall 2m
Lower wall 2m
Downstream outlet 2m
2.2 Meshing
The edge sizing and face meshing techniques were used in the generation of a uniformly distributed
or structured mesh around the domain of the airfoil. The inflation layer was also added to achieve
the desired value of y+ on the airfoil walls. The mesh obtained is shown in figure 5.
 Figure 5 Structured meshing on the airfoil

2.3 Calculations for Reynolds number and Wall y+

The parameters used in the calculations are given in Table 2.
Table 2 Parameters used in the calculation of Reynolds number and Wall y+

Parameter Value Parameter Value

𝐾𝑔
Density 𝜌 1.2 𝑚3 Viscosity 𝜇 1.825 Pa.s
𝑚
Characteristic 0.15 m Velocity 32 𝑠
length 𝑙
Desired y+ 1
The Reynolds number and Wall y+ are calculated according to the procedure given below.
𝜌𝑉𝐿
𝑅𝑒 =
𝜇
1.2 × 32 × 0.15
𝑅𝑒 =
1.825 × 10−5
𝑹𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟏𝟓𝟔 × 𝟏𝟎𝟓

Therefore,

𝐶𝑓 = 0.058𝑅𝑒𝑙 −0.2

𝐶𝑓 = 0.0046089
Now,
1
𝜏𝑤 = 𝐶 𝜌𝑈 2
2 𝑓 ∞
1
𝜏𝑤 = × (0.0046089) × (1.2) × (32)2
2
𝐾𝑔
𝜏𝑤 = 2.83
𝑚𝑠 2
Also,

𝜏𝑤 2.83
𝑢𝜏 = √ = √
𝜌 1.2

𝑚
𝑢𝜏 = 1.535
𝑠
Hence
𝑦+𝜇 1 × 1.825 × 10−5
𝑦= =
𝑢𝜏 𝜌 1.536 × 1.2

𝒚 = 𝟗. 𝟗 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟔 𝒎
𝒚 = 𝟗. 𝟗 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟑 𝒎𝒎

The height of the first element created in the mesh on the airfoil is also shown in figure 6.

Figure 6 Mesh on the airfoil with first element height

The wall y+ along the walls of the airfoil was also verified in the post-processing and is shown in
figure 7.
 Figure 7 Wall y+ along the airfoil

2.4 Mesh sensitivity

The study of the sensitivity or convergence of the mesh generated on the airfoil and its domain
was carried out by increasing the number of elements and the value of the drag coefficient was
noted against each refinement. This method is called h-refinement and is used to obtain a
converged mesh. The convergence criterion for the current case is given in figure 8.

0.023
0.022
0.021
Cd

0.02
0.019
0.018
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Number of elements

Figure 8 Mesh convergence study

The value of Cd kept on decreasing and became constant at about 60000 elements and kept constant
for further increase in the number of elements. Therefore the mesh created on the airfoil and
domain consists of elements and nodes given in table 3.
Table 3 Configuration of converged mesh

Converged mesh parameter Value

 Number of elements 62400
Number of nodes 63180
Figure 9 and figure 10 show the skewness of the generated mesh which was attempted to maintain
at a value less than 0.5.

Figure 9 Mesh skewness

Figure 10 Mesh skewness around the airfoil

Figure 11 and figure 12 show the orthogonal quality of the generated mesh which was attempted
to obtain with a maximum value of 1.

Figure 11 Orthogonal quality of mesh

Figure 12 orthogonal quality around the airfoil

2.5 Solver setup
The details of the solver setup utilized in the analysis of the airfoil for the current study are given
in table 4.
Table 4 Pre-processing details for the analysis

Constraint Setting
Solver type Pressure-based
Time setting Steady-state
Turbulence model k-w SST
Method Simple
Discretization 1st order upwind
Reference values Area = 0.045𝑚2 , Length = 0.15 m,
Depth = 0.3 m
Boundary conditions Inlet: Velocity(magnitude and
direction)
Outlet: Pressure outlet
Residuals 10−5(All)
Report definitions 𝐶𝑑 , 𝐶𝑙
Iterations 20000

2.6 Simulations for AOA 0º to 20º

The mesh generated after the convergence study was utilized in all the cases of simulation of the
angle of attack from 0º to 20º. The mesh file was exported as a Fluent input file and then imported
into the Fluent cases for each angle of attack. The purpose was to cut out the time required to
design and mesh the airfoil and its domain for each angle of attack.
Chapter 3
Wind Tunnel Test
3.1 Lab Experiment
Wind tunnels are a useful tool to test different aerodynamic models and components of aircraft
and others. While conducting a test, the test model is placed in the test section and the airflow is
created at high speed that passes over the test model in the wind tunnel. These tests are mainly
conducted to measure and examine the moments and aerodynamic forces. The devices that are
used to measure the forces and moments on the test models are called force balances. Generally,
there are two types of wind tunnel force balances, a six-components force balance, and a three-
component force balance. The six-component force balance measures three components of force
and three components of moments. While the three-component force balance measures only three
components that are pitch, drag, and lift (Post and Morris, 2010). A general description of a three-
component force balance is given in figure 13.
 Figure 13 Three-component force balance (www.grc.nasa.gov)

3.2 Importance of lift and drag coefficients

In aerodynamics, the airfoils serve as an important basic component that is used in several devices
like aircraft, engines, helicopters, and others. The purpose of the airfoil is to create the lift that is
utilized by aircraft and helicopters to fly in the air at high altitudes. Therefore, the airfoils are tested
in wind tunnels and by CFD to validate the lift and drag. The aerodynamicists are keenly interested
in computing the lift and drag coefficients rather than the lift and drag forces because the airfoil
model is scaled up and down based on its application. Therefore, the surface area changes with the
dimensions that change the lift and drag forces ultimately. The coefficient of lift and drag are non-
dimensional parameters for any airfoil and remain the same for the same airfoil cross-section
whether it is scaled up or scaled down. This helps the researchers and analyzers to manipulate the
forces of lift and drag by scaling up or down the airfoil (Al-Obaidi and Wei, 2018).
Chapter 4
Analysis and discussion
4.1 Comparison of 𝐂𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐥
The airfoil NACA0012 was analyzed numerically using ANSYS Fluent and the results for the
coefficient of drag and lift were noted for each angle of attack. Figure 14 shows the comparison of
lift coefficient Cl for experimental and numerical results.
 1.600

1.400

1.200

1.000

0.800
Cl

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25
AOA

experimental numerical

Figure 14 Lift coefficient for numerical and experimental results

The prediction of actual results based on CFD results for the current study is shown in the figure
above which shows that the error between the experimental and numerical values is comparatively
less for the initial AOAs while the difference increases in the values of upper AOAs. The
comparison of the drag coefficient for the experimental and numerical study is also given in figure
15.
 0.600

0.500

Cd 0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25
AOA

experimental numerical

Figure 15 Drag coefficient for numerical and experimental results

The difference between the values of Cd for the experimental and numerical values is very small
in the initial values of AOAs and not significantly increased in higher AOAs which means the
prediction of Cd is more comparative w.r.t Cl.

4.2 Optimum angle, Stall angle, and flow separation

The stall angle is the angle of attack at which an airfoil generates maximum lift. Therefore, the
stall angle for the experimental results was identified in figure 16.

Experimental results
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
Cd,Cl

0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25
AOA

Drag coefficient Lift coefficient

Figure 16 Stall angle identification for experimental results

The stall angle for the numerical results was identified using figure 17 by noting down the angle
which gives the maximum value of Cl.

Numerical results
1.4

1.2

0.8
Cd,Cl

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
AOA

Drag coefficient Lift coefficient

Figure 17 Stall angle identification for numerical results

Table 5 shows the value of the stall angle for both experimental and numerical results.
Table 5 Comparison of stall angle

Analysis/Results Stall Angle 𝑪𝒍

Experimental 14º 1.364

Numerical 15º 1.2037

The optimum angle is the angle at which an airfoil gives maximum values of the Lift-Drag ratio.
Therefore, the experimental and numerical results are plotted in figure 18 for the Lift-Drag ratio
to identify the maximum value of the ratio that identifies the value of the optimum angle.
 Cl/Cd
18

16

14

12

10
Cl/Cd

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
AOA

Experimental Numerical

Figure 18 Optimum angle identification for the experimental and numerical results

Table 6 shows the value of the optimum angle for both experimental and numerical results.
Table 6 Comparison of stall angle

Analysis/Results Optimum Angle 𝑪𝒅

⁄𝑪
𝒍

Experimental 7º 15.3384

Numerical 7º 13.833

4.3 Pressure distribution for important angles

The pressure distribution on the upper and lower surface of the airfoil was noted in the CFD
analysis of the airfoil for each angle of attack. Therefore, the comparison of the pressure coefficient
on the upper and lower surface of the airfoil for important angles of attack is added next.
4.3.1 AOA = 0º
Figure 19 and Figure 20 show the coefficient of pressure on the lower and upper surfaces of the
airfoil for 0º angle of attack for experimental and numerical results.

Lower surface
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
Cp

0.20
0.00
-0.20 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00

-0.40
-0.60
Position along chord length (mm)

Experimental Numerical

Figure 19 Coefficient of pressure on lower surface for AOA=0º

Upper surface
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
Cp

0.20
0.00
-0.20 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
Position along chord length (mm)

Experimental Numerical

Figure 20 Coefficient of pressure on the upper surface for AOA=0º

4.3.2 AOA = 4º
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show the coefficient of pressure on the lower and upper surfaces of the
airfoil for 4º angle of attack for experimental and numerical results.

Upper surface
0.50

0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00

-0.50
Cp

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00
Position along chord length (mm)

Experimental Numerical

Figure 21 Coefficient of pressure on the upper surface for AOA=4º

Lower Surface
1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60
Cp

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
-0.20

-0.40
Position along chord length (mm)

Experimental Numerical

Figure 22 Coefficient of pressure on lower surface for AOA=4º

4.3.3 AOA = 7º (Optimum angle)
Figure 23 and Figure 24 show the coefficient of pressure on the lower and upper surfaces of the
airfoil for 7º angle of attack for experimental and numerical results.

Lower surface
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
Cp

0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
-0.20
-0.40
Position along chord length (mm)

Experimental Numerical

Figure 23 Coefficient of pressure on lower surface for AOA=7º

Upper Surface
0.50

0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
-0.50

-1.00
Cp

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50
-3.00

-3.50
Length across airfoil (mm)

Experimental Numerical

Figure 24 Coefficient of pressure on the upper surface for AOA=7º

4.3.4 AOA=14º (Stall angle for experimental results)
Figure 25 and Figure 26 show the coefficient of pressure on the lower and upper surfaces of the
airfoil for 14º angle of attack for experimental and numerical results.

Upper Surface
0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
Cp

-4.00
-5.00
-6.00
-7.00
-8.00
Length across airfoil (mm)

Experimental Numerical

Figure 25 Coefficient of pressure on the upper surface for AOA=14º

Lower Surface
1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
Cp

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00
Length across airfoil (mm)

Experimental Numerical

Figure 26 Coefficient of pressure on lower surface for AOA=14º

4.3.5 AOA = 15º (Stall angle for numerical results)
Figure 27 and Figure 28 show the coefficient of pressure on the lower and upper surfaces of the
airfoil for 15º angle of attack for experimental and numerical results.

Lower Surface
2.00
1.00
0.00
-1.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
-2.00
Cp

-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
-6.00
-7.00
Length across airfoil (mm)

Experimental Numerical

Figure 27 Coefficient of pressure on lower surface for AOA=15º

Upper Surface
0.00
-1.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
Cp

-5.00
-6.00
-7.00
-8.00
-9.00
Length across airfoil (mm)

Experimental Numerical

Figure 28 Coefficient of pressure on the upper surface for AOA=15º

4.3.6 Pressure coefficient for different angles of attack
The pressure distribution for different flow angles is given in Figure 29 and Figure 30. Important
angles like the initial angle, stall angle, and optimum angle are also added for their results of
pressure coefficients.

Upper surface
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
-2
Cp

-4
-6
-8
-10
Length across airfoil

0 4 7 8 12 14 15

Figure 29 Pressure coefficient on the upper wall of the airfoil for numerical results

Lower surface
2
1
0
-1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
-2
Cp

-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
Length across airfoil

0 4 7 8 12 14 15

Figure 30 Pressure coefficient on the lower wall of the airfoil for numerical results

4.3.6 Discussion on results and flow separation

The stall angle for an airfoil is very important and each airfoil has a specific stall angle whereas,
the stall angle of most airfoils lies between 12º-15º. When the angle of attack of the flow on an
airfoil is increased from 0º, the flow starts to separate from the trailing edge of the airfoil and
moves toward its leading edge. With the increment in the angle of attack, the separation keeps
moving towards the leading edge, and the lift increases. When the angle of attack reaches the stall
angle of the airfoil, the airfoil generates maximum lift. But further increment in the angle of attack
beyond stall angle decreases the lift and flow separation keep moving towards the leading edge.
The difference between the results of the pressure coefficient for experimental and numerical
studies is not significant. Whereas, the comparison of results for the pressure coefficient shows
that by increment in the angle of attack, the maximum value of the pressure coefficient also
increases on the upper surface. The results shown in the above figures also predict that when the
angle of attack increases, the positions along the airfoil length to note down the coefficient of
pressure for the upper and lower surface show a variation in the values of the pressure coefficient.
For the angle of attack of 0º, the maximum tapping positions have a maximum value, while the
number of tapping positions with maximum values kept on decreasing when the angle of attack is
increased to 4º, 7º, 14º, and 15º. This shows that the flow separation is shifting toward the leading
edge when the angle of attack is increased. The results shown in Figures 29 and 30 also reveal that
the pressure coefficient increases near the leading edge when the angle of attack is increased.

4.4 Pressure and velocity contours

The contours of the pressure and velocity are also added to obtain a visual description of the
behavior of the respective parameters.

4.4.1 Pressure contours

The pressure contours for the important angles of attack are given in Figures 31, 32, 33, 34, and
35.

Figure 31 Pressure contour for AOA = 0º

Figure 32 Pressure contour for AOA = 4º

Figure 33 Pressure contour for AOA = 7º

 Figure 34 Pressure contour for AOA = 14º

Figure 35 Pressure contour for AOA = 15º

4.4.2 Velocity Contours

The velocity contours for important angles of attack are given in Figures 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 for
the numerical results.
Figure 36 Velocity contour for AOA = 0º

Figure 37 Velocity contour for AOA = 4º

Figure 38 Velocity contour for AOA = 7º

Figure 39 Velocity contour for AOA = 14º

 Figure 40 Velocity contour for AOA = 15º

4.4.3 Discussion
The visual distribution of pressure and velocity is shown in the form of contours in figures 31-40
for the important angles of attack. The results show that the flow separation is minimum for the
AOA = 0º and it keeps on increasing and moving from the trailing edge toward the leading edge
when the angle of attack is increased. The pressure coefficient near the leading edge increases
when the angle of attack is increased.
Chapter 5
Conclusions
The CFD analysis of airfoil NACA0012 was carried out by creating the geometry in the Design
Modeler of ANSYS Fluent, followed by meshing, and preprocessing steps like turbulence models,
solver methods, discretization schemes, and others. The addition of y+ to capture the viscous
effects of the flow near the walls of the airfoil was carried out by calculating the y+ through the
given procedure. The mesh convergence study was also carried out using h-refinement to obtain
the mesh-insensitive analysis. The converged mesh was exported to analysis for all the cases of
the angle of attack and the values of lift coefficient, drag coefficient, and pressure coefficient at
given locations on the airfoil were noted to carry out a comparative study with the experimental
results.
The airfoil for the current study was analyzed for the angle of attack ranging from 0º to 20º to sort
out the optimum angle and stall angle. The optimum angle for the airfoil came out to be 7º for the
experimental results where the value of the lift-drag ratio is 15.33, whereas the numerical results
came out with an optimum angle of 7º with a ratio of 13.833. The stall angle for the airfoil resulted
in 14º for the experimental results whereas the lift at this angle is 1.364. For the numerical results,
the stall angle came out to be 15º with the value of the lift as 1.2037. The difference between the
experimental and numerical results is not very much prominent. The pressure coefficient was noted
at the provided pressure-tapping positions and plotted along the walls of the airfoil. The results of
pressure coefficients for different angle of the attack shows that the increment in the angle of attack
of the flow increases the pressure coefficient near the leading edge which predicts that the flow
separation keeps shifting from the trailing edge towards the leading edge when the angle of attack
is increased.
References
Abzalilov, D. F., Il’inskii, N. B. and Stepanov, G. Y. (1996) ‘Airfoil design with external flow
suction’, Fluid Dynamics, 31(6), pp. 814–818. doi: 10.1007/bf02030097.
Al-Obaidi, A. S. M. and Wei, T. C. (2018) ‘Lift and Drag of Non-conventional Wings at
Subsonic Speeds and Zero Angle of Attack - An Experimental Investigation’, MATEC Web of
Conferences, 152, pp. 1–15. doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201815202017.
Bartaria, V. N. and Sharma, S. (2015) ‘Aifoil Terminology, Its Theory and Variations as Well as
Relations with Its Operational Lift Force and Drag Force in Ambient Conditions’, International
Journal of Recent Research in Civil and Mechanical Engineering (IJRRCME), 2(1), pp. 268–
277.
Hossain, M. A., Mashud, M. and Asaduzzaman, M. (2013) ‘FLOW SEPARATION CONTROL
OVER AN AIRFOIL BY USING CO-FLOW JET’, in.
Jameson, A. and Fatica, M. (2005) ‘Using Computational Fluid Dynamics for Aerodynamics’, p.
10. Available at: http://aero-comlab.stanford.edu/fatica/papers/jameson_fatica_hpc.pdf.
Olosson, M. (2011) ‘Designing and Optimizing Side-View Mirrors’, pp. 1–97.
Post, S. and Morris, M. (2010) ‘Force Balance Design For Educational Wind Tunnels’, in. doi:
10.18260/1-2--15891.
Rauf, W. et al. (2020) ‘Effect of Flow Separation Control with Suction Velocity Variation: Study
of Flow Characteristics, Pressure Coefficient, and Drag Coefficient’, Universal Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, 8(3), pp. 142–151. doi: 10.13189/ujme.2020.080302.
Roychowdhury, D. (2020) Computational Fluid Dynamics for Incompressible Flows. doi:
10.1201/9780367809171.