See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305217292

NACA653218 Airfoil Aerodynamic Properties

Article in Journal of Aeronautics & Aerospace Engineering · January 2016

DOI: 10.4172/2168-9792.1000168

CITATIONS READS
0 1,095

2 authors:

E. S. Abdelghany Osama Abdellatif

Albaha University Benha University
35 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS 65 PUBLICATIONS 199 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by E. S. Abdelghany on 08 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 NACA653218airfoil AERODYNAMIC PROPERTIES
Eslam Said Abdelghany 1, Osama E. Abdellatif2,Gamal elhariry3 and Essam E. Khalil 4

ABSTRACT
In this research we have obtained the drag and lift coefficients, velocity, pressure and pathlines contours
using CFD which can also be determined by using wind tunnel experimental test. This process is relatively
difficult and surely price more than CFD technique cost for the same problem solution. Thus we have gone
through analytical method then it can be validated by experimental testing. A CFD procedure is described for
determination aerodynamic characteristics of subsonic NACA653218airfoil. Firstly, the airfoil model shape,
boundary conditions and meshes were all formed in GAMBIT® 2.3.16 as a pre-processor. The second step
in a CFD model should be to examine the effect of the mesh size on the solution results. In order to save time
take case for a grid with around 100000 cells. The third step is validation of the CFD NACA653218airfoil
shape model by different turbulence models with available experimental data for the same model and
operation conditions. The temperature of free stream is 288.2 K, which is the same as the environmental
temperature. At the given temperature, the density of the air is ρ=1.225kg/m3, the pressure is 101325 Pa and
the viscosity is μ=1.7894×10-5 kg/m s. A segregate, implicit solver is utilized (FLUENT® processor)
estimate were prepared for angles of attack variety from -5 to 16°. The Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model is
more accurate than standard k – ε model, RNG k – ε model and standard model k–𝜔 models. For lift
coefficient, it is found maximum error by Spalart-Allmaras model about 12% lower than other turbulence
models. For drag coefficient, it is found maximum error by Spalart-Allmaras model about 25% lower than
other turbulence models. For pitching moment coefficient, it is found maximum error by Spalart-Allmaras
model about 30% lower than other turbulence models.

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND LITURATURE REVIEW

The CFD grow to be instrument for developing, sustaining, optimizing, innovating, verifying and,
particularly here, for validating steps. The CFD has become a widely used tool for aerodynamic applications.
On Aerodynamics, the four main forces which act on the aircraft during the flight are Lift, Drag, Thrust and
Weight. Drag is one of the most critical phenomena amongst all and is the opposing force of aircraft’s
forward motion, [1] and [2]. A class of body exists, however for which a wing profile is not symmetrical (or
when there is a nonzero angle of incidence), a velocity difference is uphold between upper and lower
surfaces. This creates a pressure difference and a circulation around the wing: lift is generated, [3]. Airfoil is
famous aerodynamic shape that used in aeronautical applications. When the aerofoil is in motion through air,
the air is passing above and below the wing. The wing’s upper surface is shaped so the air velocity increases.
The air pressure above the wing decreases. The wing’s lower surface is shaped so the air velocity decreases.
The air pressure above the wing increases. Lift of a wing is produced by high pressure on the lower surface
and low pressure on the upper surface. And when the force of gravity is lower than the force of lift, the
airplane is able to fly [4], [5] and [6].

1
Instructor, Institute of Aviation Engineering,Cairo , Egypt.
2
Professor of Mechanical Engineering. benha University, Egypt.
3
Doctor of Mechanical Engineering. Cairo University, Egypt.
4
Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt, AIAA Fellow, khalile1@asme.org
 Figure 1: Basic properties of an airfoil.

From figure 1, at the front of the airfoil, the leading edge is the point has the maximum curvature. At the rear
of the airfoil, the trailing edge is defined the point of maximum curvature. A straight line connecting the
leading and trailing edges points of the airfoil is the chord line. AOA is the angle between the direction of air
velocity and a chord line on the wing [7]. AOA increases when the nose of the wing pitches up, and lift
increases. Drag increases also, but not the same as lift. The drag force, lift force, pitching moment equations
are shown in equations (1), (2), (3).
1
D  V 2  S C D (1)
2
1
L   V 2  S C L (2)
2
1
M   V 2  S C C M (3)
2
The investigation of the 2D subsonic flow over a NACA 0012 airfoil at different AOA and running
at a Reynolds number of 3000000 is considered by [8]. In this project, the steps of computational solution
are consisting of three stages as shown in Figure 2. The project starts from preprocessing step of geometry
design and grid generation. The model geometry and the grid are generated by GAMBIT® 2.3.16. The
second step was solving equation of motion by FLUENT solver using Finite Volume Approach. Finally is
the post-processing step where the aerodynamics properties of NACA653218airfoil. It is determed drag, lift,
pressure contours, pitching moment coefficient, pathlines and velocity contours around aerofoil at all AOA
by CFD package.

Figure 2: Three steps of present CFD model.

1.2 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
The air flow is modeled as 2-D compressible viscous flow. Thus the governing equations are the continuity
equation together with x- yand z governing equations for a compressible flow. Turbulence is modeled by the
Spalart-Allmaras model. The complete system of equations is presented here in differential form, FLUENT®
Documentation [9] and [10]. The governing equations in this model are:
Continuity equation in vector form:
 
  . ( V )  0
t
Momentum equation in vector form:
 
 .(  .v v )  p  .( )  F
Energy Conservation Equation:
The energy equation is applied on the control volume that is primarily derived from the first law of
thermodynamics. the energy equation may be written in the differential form as:
(  E )     
  .(v (  E  p ))   .  k eff T   h j J j   eff .v    S h
t  j 

1.3 Numerical model of NACA653218airfoil

Figure 3, the numerical model of NACA653218airfoil is shown below:

AB Pressure farfield

A
AFE Pressure farfield B

BC Pressure farfield
No slip wall
(Aerofoil)

F G
C

CD Pressure farfield

D
E

ED Pressure farfield

Figure 3: NACA653218airfoil numerical model.

 1.3.1 Boundary Conditions
The flow field, temperature, pressure and Mach number in the numerical model of NACA653218airfoil
considered are solved by FLUENT®, with the following boundary conditions:

1.3.1.1 Pressure farfield:

At Pressure farfield boundary, Reynolds number (as shown in figure 1) was Re=3x106, same with the
reliable experimental numbers from [11] and [12], to validate the present CFD simulation. The free stream
temperature is 288.2 K, which is the same as the environmental temperature. The density of the air at the
given temperature is ρ=1.225kg/m3, the pressure is 101325 Pa and the viscosity is μ=1.7894×10-5 kg/m s. A
segregated, implicit solver is utilized (ANSYS FLUENT® processor) calculation were done for varies angles
of attack range from -5 to 16°. The airfoil shape, boundary conditions and meshes are created in GAMBIT®
2.3.16 as a pre-processor.

1.3.1.2 NACA653218airfoil
The NACA653218airfoil is considered adiabatic and no slide wall, as shown in figure 3.

1.3.2 Drawing of NACA653218airfoil

According to airfoil database [13], scatter drawing of an aerofoil in this problem was a 6-digit NACA series,
NACA653218airfoil. The airfoil is drawn using GAMBIT® 2.3.16, as shown in figure 4.

Figure 4: NACA6𝟓𝟑 218 aerofoil shape.

1.3.3 Grid creation

Grids near the airfoil wall boundary must be dense enough and computed fields must be large enough to
satisfy far field boundary conditions to obtain accurate aerodynamics properties such as drag, lift, and
pitching moment on airfoil. However, extreme grids will cost too much computing resources and increase
computing time. Thus, the compromise is that grids far from the airfoil wall boundary are scattered and grids
near the airfoil wall boundary are intense. Figure 3, is shown Computed fields where right part are two
rectangles, where AB=ED=GC=20c, and AG=GE=12.5c. Left part is a half circle with a center at G, and a
radius of 12.5c.
It is meshed each of 3 faces individually to get our final mesh. Figure 5(a), shows all grids in computed
fields. By performing the command “Grid Check” in FLUENT, it is known that total number of grids is
100000 quadrilateral cells, the volume of the smallest grid 4.122476-10 m3, and the volume of the largest grid
9.398500-1 m3. Figure5 (b), shows the grids surrounding the airfoil.
 Figure 5: Grid computed flow field surrounding the clean NACA6𝟓𝟑 218 airfoil.

1.3.4 Solver
FLUENT® package is used to calculate the flow field and properties through the different
configurations. Simulations as Velocity contours, Pressure contours, drag and lift coefficients
values by the same package.

1.3.5 Convergence Criterion

Continuity equation, linear momentum equations and turbulence model Spalart- Allmaras
3
equations are calculated for the mesh control volumes to a residual of 10 , while energy equation is
6
calculated to a residual of 10 .

1.3.6 Grid dependency check

It should be to investigate the grid size effect on the solution results for the first step in performing a
CFD simulation. Generally, a numerical solution to be further accurate as more cells are used, but using
added cells also increases the essential computational time and computer memory. The appropriate
number of cells is determined by increasing the number of cells until the grid is satisfactorily fine so that
further refinement does not vary the outcomes. To check the independency of the outcomes to cell
number, seven types of grids are produced. The results of these seven grids are seen in table 1, at stall
AOA (15°).

Table 1: Seven types of meshing with varying number of cells and aerodynamic outcomes
Cell
7200 22500 56250 90000 97500 105000 200000
number
𝐂𝐋
0.613 1.1739 1.439 1.5272 1.4939 1.497 1.517
𝐂𝐃 0.187 0.0884 0.05107 0.05308 0.05615 0.0593 0.056
𝐂𝐦 0.068 0.0362 0.03693 0.04511 0.04391 0.0431 0.043
Figure 6 explains the effect of number of mesh cells in aerodynamic lift coefficient at stall AOA (15°).

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
CL
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Number of grid cells

Figure 6: Aerodynamic lift coefficient at stall AOA against number of mesh cells.

Figure 7 explains the effect of number of mesh cells in aerodynamic drag coefficient at stall AOA (15°).

0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
CD 0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Number of grid cells

Figure 7: Aerodynamic drag coefficient at stall AOA against number of mesh cells.

Figure 8 explains the effect of number of mesh cells in aerodynamic moment coefficient of at stall
AOA (15°).
 0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
Cm 0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Number of grid cells

Figure 8: Aerodynamic moment coefficient at stall AOA against number of mesh cells.

In order to save time when running the computations, the grid with the smallest number of cells displaying
an independent solution should be used for the calculations. This is seen to be the case for a grid with around
100000 cells.

1.4 Verification of Numerical Model:

A similar Numerical Model NACA653218airfoil of the same previously-mentioned grid size and type was
developed, for verifying numerical model with experiment and numerical models measurements. The
NACA653218airfoil model was used to verify the work done by [11], [12] and [13]. To apply the same
boundary conditions at pressure far field, temperatures are 288.2K, velocities are 43 m/s, pressure is 101325
Pa. The density of the air at the given temperature is ρ=1.225kg/m3, the viscosity is μ=1.7894×10-5 kg/m s at
Re=3x106. The NACA653218airfoil is considered zero heat flux wall and no slide wall. Compare the
outcomes of the numerical model by standard k – ε model, RNG k – ε model, the standard model k–𝜔 model
and Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model to those of the numerical and experimental models measurements.
The results show good agreement of lift, drag and moment coefficients with the corresponding values in the
experimental and numerical models measurements. Figure 9; see the coefficient of lift (CL) with AOA from -
4 degree to stall angle of attack 16 degree of numerical models and experimental studies, plotted on the same
axes and scale for comparison. By Spalart-Allmaras, it is found maximum error model about 12% but for
standard k – ε model, RNG k – ε model, the standard model k–𝜔 model it is found maximum error increase
from Spalart-Allmaras model maximum error and reach in k–𝜔 model about 60%.
 Epermental[1] Present work by Spalart-Allmaras model
numerical model[2] Present work by standard k – ε model
Present work by RNG k – ε model Present work bystandard model k–𝜔 model
2

1.5

CL

0.5

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20

-0.5
angle of attack in degree ()

Figure 9: Lift coefficient values comparison between present numerical results and
experimental results.

Figure 10; see the coefficient of drag (CD) with AOA from -4 to stall angle of attack 16 of numerical
models and experimental studies, plotted on the same axes and scale for comparison. By Spalart-Allmaras
model, it is found maximum error about 25% but for standard k – ε model, RNG k – ε model, the standard
model k–𝜔 models, it is found maximum error increase from Spalart-Allmaras model maximum error and
reach in k–𝜔 model about 300%.
 Epermental[1] Present work by Spalart-Allmaras model
numerical model[2] Present work by standard k – ε model
Present work by RNG k – ε model Present work bystandard model k–𝜔 model
0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

CD 0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20

angle of attack in degree ()

Figure 10: Drag coefficient values comparison between present numerical results and
experimental results.

Figure 11 see the coefficient of pitching moment (Cm) with AOA from -4 to stall AOA 16 of numerical
models and experimental studies, plotted on the same axes and scale for comparison. By Spalart-Allmaras
model , it is found maximum error is about 30% but for standard k – ε model, RNG k – ε model, the standard
model k–𝜔 models, it is found maximum error increase from Spalart-Allmaras model maximum error and
reach in k–𝜔 model about 500%. It concluded the Spalart-Allmaras model more Accurate than standard k –
ε model, RNG k – ε model, the standard model k–𝜔 models.
 Epermental[1] Present work by Spalart-Allmaras model
numerical model[2] Present work by standard k – ε model
Present work by RNG k – ε model Present work bystandard model k–𝜔 model
0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04
Cm
0.03

0.02

0.01

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.01
angle of attack in degree ()

Figure 11: Numerical results of Cm in comparison to corresponding experimental results

Figures 12 show the velocity contours explain the flow development from = =16. The range
-4 to
values of all figures shows maximum value of velocity about 130 m/s obtained for =16. At = -4 it is
shown that the low velocity area value around leading edge is small, and it starts to disappear with increasing
the AOA then start building up from =8 raises steadily up to approximately =16on pressure side of
aerofoil. From around =10 the separation is clearly seen and reattaches to the suction side at trailing edge
of the airfoil and the separation area raises until it arrive at about 50% of the suction side of the airfoil at
=16.
 Figure 12: Velocity contours around the leading edge for clean airfoil case. 1st row: α =-4
(left) and α =-2 (right), 2nd row : α =2 (left) and α =4 (right), 3rd row: α =8 (left) and α
=10 (right), 4th row : α =14 (left) and α =16 (right). Values are in m/s at Re=3*106.
The reason for the streamline unit kg/s not kg/m.s is the 2D geometry. The missing m in the denominator
denotes per unit depth. It is evident from Figure 13 (a) that the flow at =2 to is rather smooth and well
attached to the surface of the airfoil. It is evident from Figure 13 (b) that the flow at =16 a separation
bubble starts to form at the trailing edge and moving upstream for bigger angles of attack.

(a) Streamlines for clean airfoil case at =2◦

(b) Streamlines for clean airfoil case at =16◦

Figure 11: Streamlines for clean airfoil case (a) Streamlines for clean airfoil case at =2 and (b)
Streamlines for clean airfoil case at =16◦. Values are in kg/s. Re=3*106.

4. CONCLUSIONS

 By using CFD to calculate performance of numerical model NACA653218airfoil, huge

amount of time and money can be saved before testing the wing in the wind tunnel.
 Calculations show that trends of numerically-simulated curves are in excellent agreement
with trends of experimentally-obtained ones.
 the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model more Accurate than standard k – ε model, RNG k
– ε model, the standard model k–𝜔 models.
 Lift coefficient increases with increases AOA. After stall AOA about 16 degree, Lift
coefficient decreases.
 Drag coefficient increases with increases AOA.

5. REFERENCES

1. Versteeg, H., and Malalasekera, W. “An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite
Volume Method” Longman, 1995.
2. FLUENT Documentation. © Fluent Inc. (2005).
3. Glauert, H., “The Element Of Aerofoil and Airscrew theory”, .
4. Roskam, J., “Airplane Design” Roskam aviation and engineering corporation Rt4, Ottawa, Kansas, 1985.
5. NASA web site; http://www.larc.nasa.gov
6. Jenkinson, L. R., et al., “Civil jet aircraft design vol. 7” Arnold London, 1999.
7. Houghton, E.L. and Carpenter, P.W., “Aerodynamics for Engineering Students” (Fifth edition), Oxford,
Great Britain: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003.
8. Karna S., Saumil B., Utsav B. and Prof. Ankit P. A., “CFD Analysis of an Aerofoil” International Journal
of Engineering Research, Volume No.3, Issue No.3, pp: 154-158, 2014.
9. Versteeg, H., and Malalasekera, W. “An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite
Volume Method” Longman, 1995.
10. FLUENT Documentation. © Fluent Inc. (2005).
11. Abbott, I.H. and Von Doenhoff, A.E., “Theory of Wing Section” Dover, New York, pp. 634-635, 1958.
12. Abbott, I.H., Von Doenhoff, A.E. and STIVERS, L.S., “SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA”
NACA REPORT No. 824, pp. 222-223, 1945.
13. Aerodynamic Coefficients for NACA 653-218,
airfoilhttp://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~cengiz/thesis/appendix-b.html.

NOMENCLATURE

List of symbols

C Chord length T Temperature

CL Lift coefficient u Instantaneous x direction velocity
CD Drag coefficient v Instantaneous y direction velocity
CM Moment coefficient w Instantaneous z direction velocity
D Drag force x, y, z Cartesian coordinate components
E Total energy of a fluid
particle constant Greek Letters
h Enthalpy
M Mach number α Angle of attack
Pitching moment ε Turbulence dissipation rate
S Reference area μ Dynamic viscosity
P Pressure value μt Turbulent viscosity
Re Reynolds number, Re = ρ U Lc / μ  Density
t Time
 
g Gravity body forces
AOA Angle of attack
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
List of Abbreviations

14

View publication stats