EXPERIMENT 1

CHARACTERISTICS OF AERODYNAMIC FORCES ACTING ON AIRFOIL WING

MODEL

Objective
The purpose of this experiment is to acquaint the student with the wind tunnel
as a useful tool to determine the aerodynamic characteristics of various wing
configurations. Another purpose is to verify that the lift and drag curves for
various configurations are usually as presented in the courses to illustrate the
utility of some of the equations to reduce aerodynamic data to useful
dimensionless forms. In this experimental set, the students would determine
the aerodynamic characteristics of a given airfoil, and then use the model data
to predict the behavior of a full scale wing under certain flight conditions.

Apparatus
Cusson Subsonic wind tunnel

Figure 1: A SUBSONIC WIND TUNNEL APPARATUS

Experimental Procedure:
The provided wing model to conduct wind tunnel tests of 305mm(W) x
305mm(H) x 610mm(L) test section wind tunnel was used. The wing model is a
symmetrical airfoil, and it is known that a symmetrical airfoil produces zero lift
at zero angle of attack, it is important to set the adjustable angle of attack
scale to read zero degrees when the wing is producing zero lift. The model was
mounted in the wind tunnel at zero angle of attack and zero all measurement
scale: lift, drag and velocity, using the procedures explained in the laboratory.
It was ensured that the model is securely mounted. Special care was taken to
ensure that no small screws are dropped into the balance mechanism. The
steps below were followed in conducting the experiment:-

1. Before putting the model in the tunnel, all dimensions necessary to

determine the reference areas and chord lengths were taken.
2. The barometric pressure and room temperature for calculating air
density using the perfect gas law were recorded.
3. The tunnel was turned on and the air speed adjusted to 10m/s, 20m/s
and 25m/s respectively.
4. The values of the lift force, the drag force, the angle of attack and
velocity were recorded.
5. The angle of attack was increased to neaerest 2 degrees interval and the
above steps were repeated.
6. The procedures were supposed to be repeated until the stall angle but
due to inadequate power supply, the experiment was halted before the
stall angle

Calculations:
Calculate the model lift and drag forces for each value of angle of attack using
the following

CL = F/ (S*0.5*density*V^2) (Lift Coefficient)

CD = F/ (S*0.5*density*V^2) ( Drag Coefficient)

Re = (density * V* LC) /µ (Reynolds Number)

Q = (density* V^2)/µ (Dynamic pressure)

µ = bT0.5 / (1 + S/T) (Kinematic viscosity)

where b is equal to 1.458x10^-6kg/(msK^0.5) and S is 110.4K

D is the drag force produces

Rho is the density of air

V is the free stream velocity- that is the airspeed far from the lifting surface

S is the surface area of the lifting surface

L is the lift force produced

Lc is the characteristic length of the wing

TABLE OF VALUES
S/N Speed Angle of Drag Lift Drag Lift
(m/s) Attack Force(N) Force(N) Coefficient Coefficient
1 10 0.2 0.09 0.64 9.32 66.25
2 15 0.2 0.27 1.47 12.42 67.63
3 20 0.2 0.49 2.29 12.68 59.26
4 25 0.2 0.74 2.96 12.26 49.02

5 10 2 0.07 0.66 7.25 68.32

6 15 2 0.07 1.41 3.22 64.87
7 20 2 0.11 2.68 2.85 69.35
8 25 2 0.35 3.88 5.80 64.26

9 10 4 0.07 0.82 7.25 84.88

10 15 4 0.05 1.82 2.30 83.73
11 20 4 0.21 3.25 5.43 84.10
12 25 4 0.38 5.35 6.29 88.61

13 10 6 0.25 0.62 25.88 64.18

14 15 6 0.03 2.31 1.38 106.88
15 20 6 0.33 4.13 8.54 106.88
16 25 6 0.43 6.02 7.12 99.70

17 10 8 0.15 0.31 15.53 32.09

18 15 8 0.25 1.02 11.50 46.93
19 20 8 0.29 2.09 7.50 54.09
20 25 8 0.11 4.21 1.82 69.73
21 10 12 0.11 0.33 11.39 34.16
22 15 12 0.29 1.02 13.34 46.93
23 20 12 0.47 2.90 12.16 75.05
24 25 12 0.62 4.19 10.27 69.40

EXPERIMENTAL CONSTRAINT
The experiment could not be completed as planned due to interruptions in
power supply, which introduced inconsistencies in the results. Further trials
would be required under stable conditions to ensure accurate and reliable
outcomes

Sources of Errors
1. Instrument Calibration: Inaccurate calibration of lift, drag, and velocity
measurement instruments could lead to incorrect data.
2. Air Density Variation: Unaccounted changes in room temperature or
barometric pressure may affect the calculated air density, impacting lift
and drag values.
3. Misalignment of Model: If the wing model is not precisely aligned with
the desired angle of attack, it could lead to erroneous results.
4. Turbulence in Wind Tunnel: Variations in airflow could affect the
consistency of the test environment, skewing results.
5. Human Error in Angle Adjustment: Inconsistent angle adjustments can
lead to inaccuracies in the recorded lift and drag forces.
6. Stall Condition Uncertainty: Determining the exact stall angle may be
difficult, leading to inconsistent results around the stall point.

Precautions
1. Extra care was taken to align the model accurately at each angle of
attack to ensure reliable measurements.
2. It was ensured that the wind tunnel airflow is stable and free from
disturbances.
3. Room temperature and barometric pressure were measured precisely to
calculate air density accurately.
4. The angle of attack increments were double-checked to ensure
consistent and accurate adjustments.
Conclusion
The experiment aimed to analyze the aerodynamic forces acting on an airfoil
wing model and determine the stall angle by gradually increasing the angle of
attack. However, due to an inconsistent power supply, the necessary angle of
attack could not be reached to observe stall conditions accurately. This
limitation hindered the experiment's objective of analyzing aerodynamic
characteristics across the complete range of expected conditions.

Recommendation
It is strongly recommended that Bayero University Kano(BUK) improve the
power supply infrastructure, especially for laboratory experiments that require
a stable and consistent energy source, like those in mechanical engineering. A
reliable power supply would allow students to perform experiments
effectively, achieve accurate results, and fully explore critical concepts in
aerodynamics and other mechanical engineering fields.
EXPERIMENT 2

MEASUREMENT OF BOUNDARY LAYER ON A FLAT PLATE

Objectives
The objective of this experiment is to evaluate the nature and extent of the
viscous effect in a uniform flow over a two dimensional flat plate with a zero
pressure gradient.

Apparatus
Cussons Subsonic flow apparatus, allen-keys, screw drivers, measuring tape,
Ruler

Introduction
Viscous flows over solid bodies can be analysed by dividing the flow into two
regions; one close to the solid boundary and the other covering the rest of the
flow. The thin region adjacent to the solid boundary is called the boundary
layer.

Theory
The flow in a boundary layer may be either laminar or turbulent. Among the
factors that affect boundary layer transition are as follows:

 Pressure gradient
 Surface roughness
 Heat transfer
 Free stream disturbances.

Under typical flow conditions, transfer usually is considered to occur at the

following Reynolds number.

Rex = Uinfiinty X/v = 5x10^5

Here, the U(infinity) is the free stream velocity, x is the current coordinate and
v us the kinematic viscosity. The transition from laminar to turbulent flow
becomes clearly discernible by a sudden and large increase in the boundary
layer thickness. The boundary layer thickness. Delta, is usually defined as the
distance from the solid surface to the point where the velocity is within 1% of
the freestream velocity. Blasius solved the boundary layer equations for a 2-D
flow along a thin flat plate, and obtained the velocity distribution in the
laminar region. The thickness of the laminar boundary layer, due to the exact
solution of Blasius is given by;

Delta = 5X / (Rex) ^0.5

Where X is the distance from the leading edge of the flat plate for turbulent
boundary layer, an empirical power-law profile has been suggested:

U/U(infinity) = (y/delta)^1/7

Where y is the distance from the wall, and U is the local velocity. The layer
thickness is approximately given by:

Delta = 0.37X / (Rex)^0.2

Calculations
The basic assumptions used in all the following calculations is that the working
fluid (air) is an incompressible fluid. This is a reasonable assumption for low
speeds such as those involved in this testing. Standard day atmospheric
conditions of air are also used within these calculations. All calculated data is
presented within the Tables and Graphs section.

Table 1: Nomenclature

Cd Drag Coefficient
FD Drag Force
P Air density
U(infinity) Free stream velocity
M Dynamic viscosity
N Kinematic viscosity
P∞ Free stream pressure
P0 Stagnation pressure
∆P Pressure difference
L Length of object

Procedures
1. The flat plate was mounted inside the test section and the pitot tube
was placed in position one
 2. The pipe from the pitot-tube to the back of the control panel(pitot
probe) was connected at positive(+) position.
3. The pipe from the pressure tapping at the roof of the test section to the
back of the control panel (pitot probe) was connected at negative (-)
postion.
4. The fan was started and the free stream velocity data at (15 & 20)m/s
were recorded.
5. The pitot tube was adjusted to touch the flat plate and the velocity was
recorded
6. The pitot tube was then adjusted up from base of the flat plate so as to
increase interval by 1mm until the free stream velocity is obtained and
hence, the thickness data was recorded.
7. The fan was stopped and the pitot tube moved to the next position and
the procedure is repeated.

Diagrams
 position 1 position 2 position 3 position 4
Re Re Re Re

L1= 1.5cm L2= 5.4cm L3= 9.2cm L4= 20cm

vel
B(mm vel(15 (20m/s velocity velocity vel velocity vel vel(20
) m/s) ) B(mm) (15m/s) (20m/s) B(mm) (15m/s) (20m/s) B(mm) (15m/s) m/s)
0 14.8 16.0 0 14.8 19.8 0 14.8 19.7 0 14.8 19.6
1 14.9 16.3 1 14.9 19.9 1 14.9 19.8 1 14.9 19.8
2 15.0 17.8 2 15.0 15.0 2 15.0 20.0 2 15.0 19.9
3 20.0 3 3 3 19.9
4 4 4 4 19.9
5 5 5 5 20.0
6 6 6 6

Sources of Errors
1. Instrumental Errors: Pitot tube inaccuracies or calibration errors can
lead to incorrect velocity and pressure readings.
2. Environmental Conditions: Variations in air density due to temperature
and pressure changes may affect the results.
3. Alignment Errors: Improper alignment of the flat plate in the flow could
cause non-uniform flow, altering the boundary layer development.
4. Human Error: Manual measurement and recording errors may occur
during position adjustments and data collection.
5. Flow Disturbances: External vibrations or airflow fluctuations in the
laboratory can disturb the boundary layer formation.

Precautions
1. It was ensured that the pitot tube is securely connected to avoid leaks,
which could cause inaccurate pressure readings.
2. Obstruction to the airflow was avoided, as this can disturb the uniform
flow over the flat plate and affect boundary layer formation.
 3. The pitot tube was handled carefully, ensuring precise positioning and
movement to obtain accurate readings.
4. The ambient temperature and pressure variations were checked, as they
can influence the fluid properties and flow characteristics.
5. The readings displayed on the control panel were allowed to stabilize
before the values were noted down.

Discussion of Results
The experiment measured the boundary layer characteristics on a flat plate in
a controlled flow environment. Using a pitot tube to record velocity at various
distances from the plate surface allowed us to determine boundary layer
thickness and examine the transition from laminar to turbulent flow. The
results confirm that boundary layer thickness increases along the length of the
plate, with a notable change in slope where the flow transitions from laminar
to turbulent. This transition aligns with theoretical predictions at Reynolds
numbers near 5x10^5, validating the influence of Reynolds number on flow
regime shifts.

Conclusion
The experiment successfully demonstrated boundary layer behavior on a flat
plate and validated theoretical calculations for boundary layer thickness.
Results support the model that laminar flow transitions to turbulence as the
Reynolds number increases, accompanied by an observable rise in boundary
layer thickness. To further improve accuracy, future experiments could use
more advanced equipment to reduce instrumental and alignment errors,
ensuring better precision in boundary layer analysis.