Aerofoil Theory and Simulation of flow in 2D

A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by

N####

In partial fulfilment for the award of the degree

Of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
In

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Department of Mechanical Engineering

July 2018

CHITKARA UNIVERSITY, PUNJAB CAMPUS

1|P a ge
 Department of Mechanical Engineering

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report “Aerofoil Theory and Simulation of flow in

2D” is the bonafide work of “N####” who carried out the project work under my

supervision.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

(SUPERVISOR)
Dr. Anoop Kumar Singh Dr. Jaswinder Singh Mr. Prabhjot Singh
Head of Department Professor Assistant Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering
Chitkara University, Punjab 140401 Chitkara University, Punjab 140401

2|P a ge
 ABSTRACT
Aim of this project is to understand about the aerodynamics of wing cross-section and
simulation of flow using CFD software.

The aerofoil section is incarnation of a wing or a lifting surface which is very important in an
aeroplane wing design. While the shape of the aerofoil changes, their aerodynamic
characteristics also change.

This project deals with a symmetrical aerofoil NACA 0012 and cambered aerofoil NACA
2412.

Flow simulation is done with the help of software ANSYS Fluent. Aerodynamics
Characteristics such as coefficient of lift and coefficient of drag are noted at different angle of
attacks. Turbulence model is used for the CFD of aerofoils. Velocity and Pressure distribution
over Aerofoils and also studied.

3|P a ge
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

ABSTRACT 3
LIST OF FIGURES 5

1 INTRODUCTION 7
2 HISTORY OF AEROFOIL 8
3 AEROFOIL TERMINIOLOGY 9
4 AEROFOIL LIFT THEORY 10
5 CFD OF AEROFOIL 12
5.1 NACA 0012 12
5.2 NACA 2412 22
6 CONCLUSION 29
7 REFERENCES 30

4|P a ge
 LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Forces on aerofoil

2.1 Evolution of Aerofoil Design

3.1 Aerofoil Terminologies

4.1 Lift theory on Aerofoil

5.1 Mesh view of NACA 0012

5.2 Inflation layer view

5.3 Closer look of mesh around aerofoil

5.4 Drag (NACA 0012 at 0˚)

5.5 Lift (NACA 0012 at 0˚)

5.6 Velocity contours (NACA 0012 at 0˚)

5.7 Pressure contours (NACA 0012 at 0˚)

5.8 Velocity vectors (NACA 0012 at 0˚)

5.9 Drag at (NACA 0012 at 8.30˚)

5.10 Lift at (NACA 0012 at 8.30˚)

5.11 Velocity contours (NACA 0012 at 8.30˚)

5.12 Pressure contours (NACA 0012 at 8.30˚)

5.13 Velocity vectors (NACA 0012 at 8.30˚)

5.14 Drag (NACA 0012 at 16.30˚)

5.15 Lift (NACA 0012 at 16.30˚)

5.16 Velocity contours (NACA 0012 at 16.30˚)

5|P a ge
5.17 Pressure contours (NACA 0012 at 16.30˚)

5.18 Velocity vectors (NACA 0012 at 16.30˚)

5.19 Mesh (NACA 2412)

5.20 Lift (NACA 2412 at 0˚)

5.21 Drag (NACA 2412 at 0˚)

5.22 Velocity contours (NACA 2412 at 0˚)

5.23 Pressure contours (NACA 2412 at 0˚)

5.24 Velocity vectors (NACA 2412 at 0˚)

5.25 Drag (NACA 2412 at 8.30˚)

5.26 Lift (NACA 2412 at 8.30˚)

5.27 Velocity contours (NACA 2412 at 8.30˚)

5.28 Pressure contours (NACA 2412 at 8.30˚)

5.29 Velocity vectors (NACA 2412 at 8.30˚)

5.30 Velocity contours (NACA 2412 at 16.30˚)

5.31 Pressure contours (NACA 2412 at 16.30˚)

5.32 Velocity vectors (NACA 2412 at 16.30˚)

6|P a ge
 INTRODUCTION
An aerofoil is defined as the cross section of a body that is placed in an airstream in order to
produce a useful aerodynamic force in the most efficient manner possible. The cross sections
of wings, propeller blades, windmill blades, compressor and turbine blades in a jet engine, and
hydrofoils are example of aerofoils.

Lift on a body is defined as the force on the body in a direction normal to the flow direction.
Lift will only be present if the fluid incorporates a circulatory flow about the body such as that
which exists about a spinning cylinder. The velocity above the body is increased and so the
static pressure is reduced. The velocity beneath is slowed down, giving an increase in static
pressure. So, there is a normal force upwards called the lift force.

The drag on a body in an oncoming flow is defined as the force on the body in a direction
parallel flow direction. For a windmill to operate efficiently the lift force should be high and
drag force should be low. For small angles of attack, lift force is high and drag force is low. If
the angles of attack (α) increases beyond a certain value, the lift force decreases and the drag
forces increases. So, the angle of attack plays a vital role. Lift and drag is presented in figure
1.1

1.1 Forces on Aerofoil

7|P a ge
 HISTORY OF AEROFOIL
Aerofoil profiles were designed based on some major needs. One was to meet the
requirements of flight and the other was to develop new concepts of slender, sleek and
efficient shapes. In the 1800’s, the works on aerofoil started with advancements continuing
till today. Keeping birds’ flight in mind, the flat plate was kept at an angle of incidence to the
incoming airstreams and the lift forces were derived. Further, the curvature was applied to the
leading edges of the flat plate and hence to avoid retardation of air speed over it. Many
aerodynamicists and researchers have paved way to the modified shapes and sizes of the
aerofoil have to be used for their specific research tasks and applications.

One such research led to the invention of Gliders – the inspiration to fly along with the wind.
And the control over the gliders needed air flow past their wings from the leading edge, which
was satisfactorily achieved at first and then controlled with manual adjustments during flight.
Eminent personalities who started sharing their ideas were Sir. George Cayley, Horatio F
Phillips, Otto Lilienthal, Wilbur Wright, Orville Wright etc. Next to their works, changes were
made by the National Physics Laboratory (NPL) and NACA in the late 1930’s with common
names as the 4-digit and 5-digit series of aerofoil after testing in the virtual wind tunnel at
Langley Aeronautics Laboratory.

Now there are many aerofoil series suited for individualistic applications and performances.
In the 1990’s supercritical aerofoil profiles were meeting the high speed flying conditions and
thus the evolution of high speed aerofoil designs took place.

2.1 Evolution in Aerofoil design

8|P a ge
 AEROFOIL TERMINOLOGY

3.1 Aerofoil terminology

Critical to lift is the angle of attack, which is the angle between the relative
velocity and the chord line of the aerofoil. The chord line is the straight line from
the leading edge to the trailing edge of the aerofoil. Although the relative velocity
is shown as horizontal in the illustration, that is for level flight only. If the aircraft
is ascending or descending, the relative velocity will not be horizontal, but the
angle of attack would still be defined as the angle between the relative velocity
of the air and the chord line of the aerofoil. The mean line of the aerofoil is the
line equidistant from the lower and upper surfaces, measured perpendicular to the
chord line. The camber of the aerofoil is the maximum distance between the chord
line and the mean line and is usually a few percent of the length of the chord.
Aerodynamicists usually measure angles relative to the relative velocity of the
air, sometimes referred to as the relative wind. Lift and drag are then measured
perpendicular and parallel to the relative wind, respectively. In that context, lift
is not generally vertical, and not generally perpendicular to the chord of the wing,
it is the component of force perpendicular to the relative velocity of the air or the
relative wind.

9|P a ge
 AEROFOIL LIFT THEORY
This has been an extremely active debate among those who love flying and are
involved in the field. Which is best for describing how aircraft get the needed lift
to fly? Bernoulli's equation or Newton's laws and conservation of momentum?
The answer is clear, both are correct. Both are based on valid principles of
physics. The Bernoulli equation is simply a statement of the principle
of conservation of energy in fluids. Conservation of momentum and Newton's 3rd
law are equally valid as foundation principles of nature, we do not see them
violated. This physical validity will undoubtedly not quell the debate, and this
treatment will not settle it. But perhaps it can at least indicate the lines of the
discussion.

4.1 Lift Theory

Those who advocate an approach to lift by Newton's laws appeal to the clear
existence of a strong downwash behind the wing of an aircraft in flight. The fact
that the air is forced downward clearly implies that there will be an upward force
on the aerofoil as a Newton's 3rd law reaction force. From the conservation of
momentum viewpoint, the air is given a downward component of momentum
behind the aerofoil, and to conserve momentum, something must be given an
equal upward momentum. Those who prefer to discuss lift in these terms often
invoke the Kutta-Joukowski theorem for lift on a rotating cylinder. The lift on a
spinning cylinder has been clearly demonstrated, and its discussion includes a
vortex in the circulating air. Many discussions of aerofoil lift invoke such a vortex

10 | P a g e
in the effective circulation of air around the moving aerofoil. Conservation of
angular momentum in the fluid requires an opposite circulation in the air shed
from the trailing edge of the wing, and such vortex motion has been observed.

Those who advocate the Bernoulli approach to lift point to detailed measurement
of the pressures surrounding aerofoils in wind tunnels and in flight. Correlating
the pressures with the Bernoulli equation gives reasonable agreement with
observations.

Those who argue against modelling the lift process with the Bernoulli equation
point to the fact that the flow is not incompressible, and therefore the density
changes in the air should be taken into account. This is true, the ideal gas
law should be obeyed and density changes will inevitably result. This does not
render the Bernoulli equation invalid, it just makes it harder to apply. But the
pragmatic success of modelling the lift with Bernoulli, neglecting density
changes, suggests that the density changes are small. Pragmatic difficulties exist
also for those who would model the lift from Newton's third law, it is difficult to
measure the downward force associated with the downwash because is distributed
in the airstream leaving the trailing edge of the aerofoil. Detractors from the
Bernoulli approach often make calculations using the Kutta-Joukowski theorem.

NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics)

The digits in NACA's four digit numbering system are defined as follows:
The first digit denotes the maximum camber, as a percent of the chord.

The second digit denotes the chord wise position of the maximum camber, in tenths
of the chord.

The last two digits denotes the maximum thickness of the aerofoil section, as a
percent of the chord

11 | P a g e
 CFD OF AEROFOIL

NACA 0012 (Symmetric Aerofoil):

The geometry is constructed in solidworks.

The aerofoil data or the coordinates were extracted from aerofoil tools site
(http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=n0012-il ). After that flow domain was set.

Since data is validated from NASA turbulence modelling resources site that’s why initial
specification has been taken from the site.

Meshing:

Here mesh is finer around the aerofoil and as we move away from it the mesh becomes
coarser.

5.1 Mesh view of NACA 0012

12 | P a g e
 5.2 Inflation Layer

Around the aerofoil there are 10 inflation layer to capture the effect of boundary layer. Growth
rate has been set to 1.2.

Edge sizing is done with a bias factor of 10. Biasing is in such a way that the element size are
much finer near the leading edge and the trailing edge.

Now the mesh is finer around aerofoil with the help of sphere of influence to capture the
velocity and pressure distribution around aerofoil accurately. Radius of this sphere is kept to
3m to capture the wake precisely.

5.3 Closer look of mesh around aerofoil

Finally after meshing no. of nodes are 26602 and no. of element are 26205.

13 | P a g e
Setup:
Turbulence model used is realizable k-epsilon model. The simplest "complete models'' of
turbulence are two equation models in which the solution of two separate transport equations
allows the turbulent velocity and length scales to be independently determined. The standard
k-epsilon model falls within this class of turbulence model and has become the workhorse of
practical engineering flow calculations in the time since it was proposed by Launder and
Spalding (1974). Robustness, economy and reasonable accuracy for a wide range of turbulent
flows explain its popularity in industrial flow and heat transfer simulations. It is a semi-
empirical model and the derivation of the model equations relies on phenomenological
considerations and empiricism. As the strengths and weaknesses of the standard k-epsilon
model have become known, improvements have been made to the model to improve its
performance.

Now for flow to be turbulent Reynolds no. is kept 6 million and

Mach no. 0.15 (as specified on turbulence model website)

Now to achieve this value the chord length is kept 1m, density 1.1767 kg/𝑚3
and viscosity 1.005×10−5 kg/m-s.

Now flow velocity comes out to be 51.45m/s.

14 | P a g e
Angle of Attack (AOA) -0˚

Solution converged after 160 iteration.

Coefficient of lift: 7.8147e-04
Coefficient of drag: 8.3754e-03

5.4 Drag

5.5 Lift

15 | P a g e
Velocity Contours:
Here we can see that velocity contours are symmetric around the aerofoil.

5.6 Velocity contours

Pressure contours:
Here we can see that the pressure distribution are symmetric around the aerofoil. Therefore
no lift is generated.

5.7 Pressure contours

16 | P a g e
Velocity vectors:
Here we can see the velocity vectors over the surface around mid-point of the chord and the
trailing edge. The viscous effect can be easily seen.

5.8 Velocity vectors

Angle of attack-8.30˚

Solution converged after 278 iteration.

Coefficient of lift: 8.0694e-01
Coefficient of drag: 1.7270e-02

5.9 Drag

17 | P a g e
 5.10 Lift
Velocity contours:
Now here we can see that the flow velocity is higher at the upper part of aerofoil as
compared to lower.

5.11 Velocity contours

18 | P a g e
Pressure contours:
Here we can see the high pressure region below the aerofoil and low pressure region above
the aerofoil, thus generating lift.

5.12 Pressure contour

Velocity vectors:
Here we can see that the flow velocity at trailing edge is low but the flow is not yet separated.

5.13 Velocity vectors

19 | P a g e
Angle of attack-16.30˚

Solution converged after 1370 iteration.

Coefficient of lift: 1.2833
Coefficient of drag: 4.7394e-02

5.14 Drag

5.15 Lift

20 | P a g e
Velocity contours:
Now here it can be notice that the aerofoil has a stagnation region at trailing edge
showing flow separation.

5.16 Velocity contours

Pressure contours:
Very high pressure at lower part will help in generating higher lift coefficient.

5.17 Pressure contours

21 | P a g e
Velocity vectors:
In this picture flow separation and vortex formation can be seen.

5.18 Velocity vectors

NACA 2412 (Cambered Aerofoil):
The geometry is constructed in solidworks.
The aerofoil data or the coordinates were extracted from aerofoil tools site
(http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=naca2412-il ). After that flow domain
was set.
Meshing:

5.19 Mesh

22 | P a g e
Meshing is done similarly as done in symmetric one. But changing some sizing parameters
made it finer than previous one. No. of nodes are 172906 and no. of element are 172001.
Setup:
Angle of Attack-0˚

Solution converged after 194 iteration.

Coefficient of lift: 1.9907e-01
Coefficient of drag: 8.4443e-03

5.20 Lift

5.21Drag

23 | P a g e
Velocity contours:
Flow velocity is higher at upper surface as compared to lower surface.

5.22 Velocity contours

Pressure contours:
Here we can notice lower pressure at upper surface as compared to lower surface
thus generating lift at 0˚ AOA

5.23 Pressure contours

24 | P a g e
Velocity vectors:

5.24 Velocity vectors

Angle of Attack-8.30˚

Solution converged after 263 iteration.

Coefficient of lift: 9.3464e-01
Coefficient of drag: 1.5817e-02

5.25 Drag

25 | P a g e
 5.26 Lift
Velocity contours:

5.27 Velocity contours

Pressure contours:

5.28 Pressure contours

26 | P a g e
Velocity vectors:
This picture make it clear the start of flow separation at trailing edge.

5.29 Velocity vectors

Angle of Attack-16.30˚

Solution converged after 159 iteration. (1st order)

Coefficient of lift: 1.3965e+00
Coefficient of drag: 1.5992e-01
The solution didn’t converge after 4500 iteration when 2 nd order method is
applied. Therefore no plot (drag, lift) are shown.
Velocity contours:
Here it can be seen that the stagnation region on upper surface of aerofoil show
that the flow separated early.

5.30 Velocity contours

27 | P a g e
Pressure contours:
Since flow separated, there should be an adverse pressure gradient which can be
easily seen in this picture.

5.31 Pressure contours

Velocity vectors:
This picture clearly show that how early flow actually separated and the vortex
formation over the aerofoil.

5.32 Velocity vectors

28 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
Based on the CFD analysis of the flow over NACA 0012 air foil we can conclude
that at the zero degree of AOA there is no coefficient of lift generated and if we
want to increase value of lift coefficient then we have to increase the value of
AOA. By doing that obviously value of drag coefficient also increased but the
amount of increment in drag coefficient is quite lower compare to lift coefficient.
For AOA 16.30 we can the flow separation and vortex formation near trailing
edge. The exact numerical values of the forces and coefficient is compared to the
actual data from NASA turbulence modelling resource (ladson 1988) as below:

Angle of Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient

Attack of Lift of drag of Lift of drag

0 0.00078147 0.0083754 0 0.00840

8.30 0.80694 0.017270 0.8873 0.1050

16.30 1.2833 0.047394 1.5739 0.02218

For NACA 2412, since it was cambered it was expected of some lift even at zero
AOA and drag was much lesser. As AOA was increased there was a significant
increase in coefficient of lift. For AOA 8.30 we can the flow separation and vortex
formation near trailing edge. Now For AOA 16.30 the Flow separated early
around 30% of chord length. That’s why the solution didn’t converge for second
order iteration. There was fluctuation in both coefficient of lift and drag. The
aerofoil is in stall region.

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Coefficient of

Lift drag

0 0.19907 .0084443

8.30 0.93464 .015817

16.30 - -

29 | P a g e
 REFERENCES
 Aerofoil tools: http://airfoiltools.com/
 Cornell Simulation:
https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/SIMULATION/FLUENT+-
+Flow+over+an+Airfoil
 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Fluids/airfoil.html
 Turbulence modelling resource:
https://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/naca0012_val.html

 John D. Anderson, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Tata McGraw Hill

publications.2nd edition.

 Er. Shivam Saxena , Mr. Rahul Kumar (2015) ‘Design of NACA 2412 and
its Analysis at Different Angle of Attacks, Reynolds Numbers, and a wind
tunnel test’ International Journal of Engineering Research and General
Science Volume 3, Issue 2, March-April, 2015.
 Jasminder Singh, Dr. Jaswinder Singh, Ampritpal Singh , Abhishek Rana,
Ajay Dahiya (2015) ‘Study of NACA 4412 and Selig 1223 airfoils through
computational fluid dynamics’ SSRG International Journal of Mechanical
Engineering (SSRG-IJME) – volume 2 Issue 6–June 2015.
 Karna S. Patel, Saumil B. Patel, Utsav B. Patel, Prof. Ankit P. Ahuja (2014)
‘CFD Analysis of an Aerofoil’ International Journal of Engineering
Research Volume No.3, Issue No.3, pp : 154-158.

30 | P a g e