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

net/publication/318369673

Effect of Dimple on Aerodynamic Behaviour of Airfoil

Article in International Journal of Engineering and Technology · June 2017

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i3/1709030335

CITATIONS READS

20 5,011

3 authors:

Amit Saraf Mahendra Pratap Singh

Jagannath University JECRC Foundation
9 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 160 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

T. S. Chouhan

2 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Amit Saraf on 08 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Amit Kumar Saraf et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Effect of Dimple on Aerodynamic

Behaviour of Airfoil
Amit Kumar Saraf #1, Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh*2, Dr. Tej Singh Chouhan#3
#1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jagannath University Jaipur, India
1
amitsaraf11@rediffmail.com
*2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jagannath University Jaipur, India
2
mpsingh_76@yahoo.co.in
#3 Principal, Rajdhani Institute of Engineering Technology Jaipur India
3
tejsingh7@gmail.com
Abstract--In order to boost the efficiency of an airfoil, surface of the airfoil is altered. A two
dimensional airfoil was analysed with and without dimples on the upper surface using CFD software.
NACA0012 non cambered airfoil with and without dimples were used for analysis with k-ɛ turbulent
model. Both were compared keeping in mind the coefficients of lift and drag. Dimples were located at
four different positions and compared mutually with smooth airfoil. The velocity of flow was keeping
constant for different angles of attack. In CFD analysis results were fluctuated with size of grid so as to
get rid of the fluctuating, a grid independency test was done before final analysis. During grid
independence test numbers of nodes were increased until constant results come.
Keywords: Airfoil, Dimple, Smooth, Lift and Drag
I. INTRODUCTION
It is in the nature of human that he always tries to move toward the best performance with less input. He also
has various dreams, among those one dream was to take off in the sky freely. Not only flying but flying with
speed at a high altitude but there were many difficulties in flying in the sky. To fly at high altitude there is a
requirement of lift force. To complete his dream he has been researched for long and succeeded. They did
researches in many areas like engine design, aerodynamic shape, quality of fuel, shape of airfoil etc., still there
are scopes to improve the performance of airfoil. This study tries to prove the improvement in performance of
the airfoil.
In this work surface of the airfoil was modified and compared with smooth airfoil. It was noticed that a golf
ball engraved with dimples performs better than without dimples. Pressure drag does not play a central role in
aerodynamic bodies than bluff bodies but at a high angle of attack it works. Flow separation starts at high angle
of attack and forms wake. In previous studies vortex generators were used to improve the efficiency. Vortex
generator’s work is to create vortices and hence turbulence in flow. This turbulence is helpful in increasing the
time of flow separation.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
(Rao & Sampath, 2014) Surface modification was done to improve performance of airfoil. Here NACA4412
airfoil was modified with dimple and cylinders. Dimples of two sizes at different location were simulated.
Dimples near trailing edge gave good result. Five different experiments were performed with various sizes of
dimples and cylinders. But it was noticed that dimples on airfoil showed better result in terms of efficiency of
the airfoil.
(A.Dhiliban, et al., 2013) Turbulent in rear side leads to pressure drag. In this smooth airfoil was compared
with rough airfoil. Roughness was created on both upper and lower surface towards the trailing edge. For the
simulation, velocity of the air was kept constant (100m/s) with k-ɛ std turbulent model. Overall performance of
the airfoil was increased on modification towards the trailing edge of the airfoil. Both upper and lower surface
modification increases the efficiency, also increased the stall angle.
(Faruqui, Albari, Md.Emrn, & Ferdaus, 2013) Efficiency of the airfoil can be increased by many ways i.e.
flow control method or adaptive technology. Here the author used flow control method. Naca 4315 airfoil was
used on CFD tools. Two different models were tested, one was smooth airfoil and other was with bumpy surface
on upper side of the airfoil. The bump was generated at 80% of chord length toward trailing edge. The flow
separation starts near 9 degree angle of attack in smooth airfoil. From this it was noticed that there was a drastic
change in results of bumpy surfaced airfoil.
(Srivastav, 2012)This study was done on the basis of dimples on the golf ball. This says that drag on golf ball
can be reduced by dimples so on this basis author thought that drag could also be reduced if this theory is
applied on airfoils. Models were prepared in CATIA V5 R18 and simulated in COMSOL 3.4 and COMSOL
4.29.

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i3/170903335 Vol 9 No 3 Jun-Jul 2017 2268

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Amit Kumar Saraf et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

(Juanmian, Feng, & Can, 2013) Separation bubble and lift coefficient fluctuation with time was observed
during study. Laminar separation bubble become unstable and developed primary and secondary vortex.
Secondary vortex was much stronger than primary vortex. Analysis was done from 0o to 10o angles of attack.
As soon as the angle of attack increased, the fluctuation also increased. Laminar separation bubble started
moving forwarded for increased angle of attacks and started to reattach to surface of airfoil, hence lift
coefficient increased suddenly.
(C.K.Chear & Dol, 2015) Dimples delay the flow separation for bluff bodies. Author simulated car model
with different ratios of dimple using k-ɛ turbulent model. Ratio of dimples was taken as depth to diameter.
(Mustak & Harun, 2017) At zero degree angle of attack, dimples on airfoil do not shows changes in drag
compared to smooth airfoil. But at high angles of attack it behaves like bluff body. It leads to delay in separation
and wake formation. Also it increases the angle of stall. In this work NACA4415 airfoil was used and drawing
was first made in solid works. Hexagonal outward dimpled profile was compared with smooth profile of airfoil.
Physical model was prepared with wood and analysed in wind tunnel. Hexagonal surface delays starting of flow
separation by 4 degree angle of attack. In case of smooth surface it starts at 12o and for outward dimpled it
happens at 16 o angle of attack. Velocity of the air was taken as 43m/s.
III. TURBULENT MODEL
Turbulent models are used because of limitations of Navier stroke equations. There are many turbulent
models used in CFD analysis. Generally k-ɛ and k-ω models are used in fluid flow. Both models are used for
streamlined and bluff bodies. Kinetic energy of turbulent fluid flow is solved by k-ɛ turbulent model. This
model is less complicated compared to other. Time of computation is also less. This model can be used in low
memory computers.
A. k-ɛ turbulent models equation
ρk ρku μ G G ρϵ Y S (1)

ρϵ ρϵu μ C G C G C ρ S (2)

IV. GRID INDEPENDENCE TEST

(Muralidhar & Sundrarajan, 2008) The Grid distribution scheme has many limitations. Global error cannot be
controlled. But we can control the local errors. For controlling this author increased the no of nodes until he got
constant result.
As we increase the number of nodes, result varies with respect to it. But there comes a stage where the results
become fixed. This fixed result shows that this is our required number of nodes on which we have to do work as
shown in fig.1. In this work 102180 numbers of nodes have been used.

Fig.1 Grid Independence Test

V. COMPUTATION METHOD
NACA0012 airfoil smooth profile and dimpled airfoil were used to study the aerodynamic behaviour of the
airfoils. The shapes of the airfoil models is shown in fig.2 and the farfiled and meshing is shown in fig.3, is used
for computation in CFD software. Diameter of dimple was taken as 0.02 % of chord.
(airfoiltools.com, 2016) Practical data were taken from this reference. These data were validated to check the
accuracy of the work.
(Confluence, 2015) Coordinates of airfoil NACA0012 was downloaded from this source.

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i3/170903335 Vol 9 No 3 Jun-Jul 2017 2269

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Amit Kumar Saraf et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Smooth airfoil’s computed results were compared with practical data. This ensured us that we have followed
right way for calculation. After that dimples on the airfoil at different location were created. Dimples location
affects the results. In this work five dimpled airfoil were used, one is smooth and remaining each have dimples
at 10%, 25%, 50% and 75% of chord length. Results of smooth airfoil were compared to outcomes of these five
dimpled airfoil. Flow of air was taken 7.3 m/s and density was 1.225kg/m3.

Fig2. (A)Smooth Airfoil, (B) Dimpled at 10% of Chord, (C) Dimpled at 25% of Chord, (D) Dimpled at 50% of Chord, (E) Dimpled at 75%
of Chord

Fig3. Farfield with Mesh

VI. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. 5.1 Pressure Contours
Fig 4-8 shows pressure contours represents distribution of pressure. At zero degree angle of attack (fig A),
upper side and lower side pressure is approximately equal so their lift is minimum. As soon as we increased the
angle of attack, result shows that pressure on upper side started decreasing and on lower side it started
increasing and stagnation point moved from tip of leading edge to upper surface.

Fig4 Pressure Contours at different angle of attack for Smooth Airfoil

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i3/170903335 Vol 9 No 3 Jun-Jul 2017 2270

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Amit Kumar Saraf et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Fig5 Pressure Contours at different angle of attack for Dimpled at 10% Chord Airfoil

Fig6 Pressure Contours at different angle of attack for Dimpled at 25% Chord Airfoil

Fig7 Pressure Contours at different angle of attack for Dimpled at 50% Chord Airfoil

Fig8 Pressure Contours at different angle of attack for Dimpled at 75% Chord Airfoil

B. Velocity Vectors
Velocity on upper and lower side of the airfoil is approximately similar at zero degree angle of attack as
shown in fig A of 9-13. At 10o angle of attack fluid starts separating and generates wakes. This leads to
pressure drag. As we reaches 16o angle of attack separation reaches maximum value, after that lift starts
decreasing.

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i3/170903335 Vol 9 No 3 Jun-Jul 2017 2271

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Amit Kumar Saraf et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Fig.9 Velocity Vectors for Smooth Airfoil

Fig.10 Velocity Vectors of Dimpled at 10% Chord Airfoil

Fig.11 Velocity Vectors of Dimpled at 25% Chord Airfoil

Fig.12 Velocity Vectors of Dimpled at 50% Chord Airfoil

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i3/170903335 Vol 9 No 3 Jun-Jul 2017 2272

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Amit Kumar Saraf et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Fig.13 Velocity Vectors of Dimpled at 75% Chord Airfoil

C. Coefficient of Pressure
Upper curve in fig 14-18 shows the coefficient of static pressure of lower surface and lower curve represents
the upper surface of the airfoil. At zero degree angle of attack both curves are identical fig 14-18 (A), this
represents that pressure on both surface is approximately similar. At higher angle the difference of pressure near
the leading edge is wider, this represents that lift starts from leading edge. It was also proved in contours of
pressure diagram.

Fig.14 Coefficient of Pressure for Smooth Airfoil

Fig.15 Coefficient of Pressure of Dimpled at 10% Chord Airfoil

Fig.16 Coefficient of Pressure of Dimpled at 25% Chord Airfoil

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i3/170903335 Vol 9 No 3 Jun-Jul 2017 2273

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Amit Kumar Saraf et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Fig.17 Coefficient of Pressure of Dimpled at 50% Chord Airfoil

Fig.18 Coefficient of Pressure of Dimpled at 75% Chord Airfoil

D. Streamlines
Streamlines shows the path of fluid on the airfoil. It was seen from fig 19-23 that at zero degree angle of
attack fluid remain stick to the airfoil. At higher anger angle of attack it started separating as shown in fig 19 (B)
of the smooth airfoil. Flow separation delayed in the airfoil which is dimpled at 75% of chord, can be seen in fig
23(B). So it proves that dimpled airfoil performs better than smooth airfoil.

Fig.19 Streamlines for Smooth Airfoil

Fig.20 Streamlines of Dimpled at 10% Chord Airfoil

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i3/170903335 Vol 9 No 3 Jun-Jul 2017 2274

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Amit Kumar Saraf et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

Fig.21 Streamlines of Dimpled at 25% Chord Airfoil

Fig.22 Streamlines of Dimpled at 50% Chord Airfoil

Fig.23 Streamlines of Dimpled at 75% Chord Airfoil

E. Coefficient of Lift and Drag

CFD analysis was done on 2D NACA0012 Dimpled and Smooth Airfoils. From fig 24 it was seen that
dimple at 10% of chord showed worst result than smooth airfoil. Coefficient of lift was increased and drag was
decreased in dimpled airfoil at 75% of the chord .Dimples at 25% and 50% of the chord length also did not
performed well.
TABLE I. Variation of Coefficient of lift with Angle of Attack

α Cl‐Smooth Cl‐10% Cl‐25% Cl‐50% Cl‐75%

0 2.84E‐05 ‐1.46E‐03 ‐5.98E‐03 1.50E‐02 3.50E‐02
2 2.13E‐01 1.61E‐01 2.02E‐01 2.28E‐01 2.48E‐01
4 4.21E‐01 4.17E‐01 4.05E‐01 4.36E‐01 4.56E‐01
6 6.21E‐01 6.19E‐01 5.97E‐01 6.36E‐01 6.56E‐01
8 8.12E‐01 7.78E‐01 7.79E‐01 8.27E‐01 8.47E‐01
10 9.79E‐01 9.36E‐01 9.44E‐01 9.94E‐01 1.01E+00
12 1.12E+00 1.04E+00 1.10E+00 1.13E+00 1.17E+00
14 1.20E+00 1.04E+00 1.17E+00 1.21E+00 1.29E+00
16 1.19E+00 9.62E‐01 1.11E+00 1.20E+00 1.29E+00

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i3/170903335 Vol 9 No 3 Jun-Jul 2017 2275

ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Amit Kumar Saraf et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

TABLE II. Variation of Coefficient of Drag with Angle of Attack

α Cd‐Smooth Cd‐10% Cd‐25% Cd‐50% Cd‐75%

0 1.43E‐02 2.41E‐02 1.80E‐02 1.34E‐02 8.24E‐03
2 4.92E‐03 2.66E‐03 6.83E‐03 6.81E‐03 9.20E‐03
4 ‐1.53E‐02 ‐1.79E‐02 ‐1.30E‐02 ‐1.32E‐02 ‐1.10E‐02
6 ‐5.06E‐02 ‐4.85E‐02 ‐4.72E‐02 ‐4.52E‐02 ‐4.38E‐02
8 ‐9.38E‐02 ‐7.18E‐02 ‐8.77E‐02 ‐8.69E‐02 ‐8.88E‐02
10 ‐1.42E‐01 ‐1.18E‐01 ‐1.35E‐01 ‐1.39E‐01 ‐1.41E‐01
12 ‐1.94E‐01 ‐1.61E‐01 ‐1.90E‐01 ‐1.91E‐01 ‐1.94E‐01
14 ‐2.38E‐01 ‐1.89E‐01 ‐2.31E‐01 ‐2.33E‐01 ‐2.41E‐01
16 ‐2.41E‐01 ‐1.87E‐01 ‐2.32E‐01 ‐2.37E‐01 ‐2.47E‐01

Fig.24Comparision of Lift Coefficient

Fig.25Comparision of Drag Coefficient

VII. CONCLUSION
Coefficient of lift and drag were analysed and compared at positive angle of attack. Fig 24 shows that
coefficient of lift has been increased by 7% for airfoil having dimple at 75% of chord length, compared to
smooth airfoil. In the same manner it was noticed for coefficient of drag as shown in fig 25. Coefficient of drag
has been reduced by 3% for the same airfoil. The location of the dimple on the airfoil plays an important role. In
this work we noticed that dimple at 75% of the chord length is the best location for the dimples.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to God, my Parents and everyone who supported me
throughout the course of this Research Paper. I am thankful for their aspiring guidance, invaluably constructive
criticism and friendly advice during the work. I am sincerely grateful to them for sharing their truthful and
illuminating views on a number of issues related to the project.
I express my warm thanks to Dr. M.P.Singh, Jagannath University and Dr. Tej Singh Chouhan for their
support and guidance in working in this work.
We would also like to show our gratitude to the Dr. Vivek Sharma, Jagannath University for sharing their
pearls of wisdom with us during the course of this research.

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i3/170903335 Vol 9 No 3 Jun-Jul 2017 2276

 ISSN (Print) : 2319-8613
ISSN (Online) : 0975-4024 Amit Kumar Saraf et al. / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET)

REFERENCE
[1] A.Dhiliban, P.Meena, Narasimhan, P. S., Vivek, M., Pillai, Nadaraja, S., et al. (2013). Aerodynamic Performance of Rear Roughness
Aerofoils. The Eighth Asia-Pacific Conference on wind Engineering (pp. 193-200). Chennai, India: Research Publishing.
[2] airfoiltools.com. (2016, Jan 1). http://airfoiltools.com/polar/details?polar=xf-n0012-il-500000. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from
airfoiltools.com: http://airfoiltools.com/polar/details?polar=xf-n0012-il-500000
[3] C.K.Chear, & Dol, C. K. (2015). Vehicle Aerodynamics:Drag Reduction by Surface Dimples. International Journal of Mechanical,
Aerospace, Industrial and Mechatronics Engineering , 9, 202-205.
[4] Confluence, A. (2015, Apr 10). https://confluence.cornell.edu. Retrieved Sep 15, 2015, from https://confluence.cornell.edu:
https://confluence.cornell.edu/download/attachments/144976439/naca0012coords.txt?version=1&modificationDate=1302377518000&
api=v2
[5] Faruqui, S. H., Albari, M., Md.Emrn, & Ferdaus, A. (2013). Numerical Analysis of the Role of Bumpy Surface to Control The Flow
Seperation of an Airfoil. 10th International Conference on Mechanical, ICME 2013 (pp. 255-260). Bangladesh: Elsevier Ltd.
[6] Juanmian, L., Feng, G., & Can, H. (2013). Numerical Study of Seperation on the Trailing Edge of a Symmetrical Airfoil at aLlow
Reynolds Number. Chienese Journal of Aeronautics , 918-925.
[7] Muralidhar, K., & Sundrarajan, T. (2008). Computation Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer (Second ed.). Kolkata India: Narosa Publishing
House PVT LTD.
[8] Mustak, R., & Harun, M. (2017). Improvement of Aerodynamic Characteristics of an Airfoil by Surface Modification. American
Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) , 07-14.
[9] Rao, D. P., & Sampath, S. (2014). CFD Analysis on Airfoil at High Angles of Attack. International Journal of Engineering Research ,
3 (7), 430-434.
[10] Srivastav, D. (2012). Flow Control Over Airfoils Using Different Shaped Dimples. 2012 International Conference on Fluid Dynamics
and Thermodynamics Technologies (pp. 92-97). Singapore: IACSIT Press.

AUTHOR PROFILE
Amit Kumar Saraf is persuing PhD from Jagannath University. He has done M.Tech from Rajasthan
Technical University in 2013. He has also published many papers and Book..
Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh having more than 17 years of experience in teaching and industrial field. He has
guided many students of Ph D and M.Tech. He was selected for Kirchhoff Research Award-2015 in Mechanical
Engineering by IASR. He has also published many books and research papers.
Dr. Tejsingh Chouhan is working as Principal in “Rajdhani Institute of Technology and Management Jaipur”.
He got first rank during his Mtech. He is having sound knowledge in mechanical softwares. He guided many
PhD and M.Tech Students.

DOI: 10.21817/ijet/2017/v9i3/170903335 Vol 9 No 3 Jun-Jul 2017 2277

View publication stats