Conference of Global Chinese Scholars on Hydrodynamics
DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION METHOD FOR
A TWO-DIMENSIONAL HYDROFOIL
Ching-Yeh Hsin, Jia-Lin Wu and Sheng-Fong Chang
Department of Systems Engineering and Naval Architecture, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung, China
E-mail: hsin@mail.ntou.edu.tw
ABSTRACT: In this paper, methods for the design and the
optimization of two-dimensional hydrofoils are presented.
First a previously developed potential flow design method is
extended to the viscous flow computations. In this design
method, the foil geometry is defined by B-splines, and the
RANS method is utilized for the viscous flow computations.
The foil is designed based on a prescribed pressure distribution,
and the Newton-Raphson method is used to achieve a foil
geometry generating the prescribed pressure distribution. In
the design method described above, although designers can
specify a pressure distribution based on the desired local
characteristics, it is hard to know the forces on the desired foil
in advance. Therefore, an optimization method by using the
Lagrange multiplier method is then developed. The optimi-
zation problem described in the proposed paper is to satisfy the
lift requirement by minimizing the drag force. The design
variables are the angle of attack and the geometry parameters.
In the presented design examples, the camber distribution and
the pressure distribution shape function are selected as the
geometry parameter. Both the design and the optimi-
zation methods can be used as a design tool individually;
however, the combination of two methods provides a useful
design tool that can not only optimize the global performance,
but also design the detailed geometry according to designers
requirements. Design examples are illustrated in the paper,
and this design method is proved to be practical and effective.
KEYWORDS: foil design, lagrange multiplier method, RANS
1. Introduction
Two-dimensional foil designs have been widely
applied to different applications, such as marine pro-
pellers, rudders, pumps, wind turbine blades, cooling
fans, etc., and many newly-designed foil geometries
have been successfully applied to the performance
improvements for different purposes. In the marine
propeller applications, two-dimensional sections, such
as NACA series, Newton-Rader sections, Eppler
section etc. have been used for different design con-
siderations. In this paper, a design method for the
two-dimensional hydrofoil is first presented. In this
method, the foil geometry is designed based on a
given pressure distribution. Then, a method based on
the Lagrange multiplier method is presented for the
performance optimization.
The foil design problem was first studied by
Lighthill[1], and he solved it for the case of the
incompressible flow by using the conformal mapping
technique. Since then, many methods have been de-
veloped, such as Tranen[2] , Henne[3] and Volpe[4] ,
and all these methods mapped the foil shape to a
mapping plane. Eppler[5] and Drela[6][7] developed
methods extensively used by the industry. Epplers
sections are famous for its advantages in the pre-
vention of cavitations, and Drelas method based on
the boundary element method with the incorporation
of the boundary layer computations, and this method
is then developed as the widely used foil design tool
XFOIL. Recently, the Genetic Algorithms and the
Evolutionary Strategy are also utsed for the foil de-
signs, such as De Falco[8][9][10] and Obayash[11].
In this paper, we will present two methods, and
the first method is referred as the design method,
and the second method is referred as the optimization
method. The design method is used to design a foil
based on a given pressure distribution, and the opti-
mization method is used to optimize the foil per-
formance. In the design method, a pressure distri-
bution is given, and the foil geometry is directly
obtained in the Cartesian coordinate system by solving
the Laplace's equation. Note that the pressure distri-
bution has to satisfy certain physical constraints such
as existence of the stagnation point, satisfaction of the
Kutta condition, etc. A detail description of the direct
method can be seen in Hsin[12]. This direct method is
found to have difficulties to resolve the leading edge
geometry of the foil due to the abrupt changes of the
pressure distribution near the leading edge. There-
fore, an improved method is then developed. In the
improved method, the foil geometry is defined by
B-splines (or NURBS), and the pressure distribution is
a function of B-spline control points. A nonlinear
problem is then solved to perturb the B-spline control
points to match the pressure distribution to the given
323
pressure distribution. The improved method will be
described in the section 2. Notice that the designed
foil geometry from the direct method is the initial
solution of the improved method. This design method
has been successfully developed based on the po-
tential flow boundary element method[13][14], and it
then has been extended to the application of viscous
flow RANS code[15].
We will then present an optimization method
using the Lagrange Multiplier method. The presented
optimization method can be used to optimize the per-
formance of the hydrofoil based on different criteria.
2. Design Method
In this design method, the foil geometry is first
de- fined by B-splines (Fig. 1):
Nv Nv
x(t) = (xv )i Bi4 (t) y (t ) = ( yv )i Bi4 (t )
i =1 i =1
where t is the B-spline parameter, xv and yv
are B- spline control points, Nv is the number of
4
B-spline control points, and Bi is the B-spine basis
functions of order 4 (degree 3). The foil is designed
based on a prescribed pressure distribution, and the
Newton- Raphson method is used to achieve a foil
geometry generating the prescribed pressure
distribution. Dif- ferent kinds of computational
methods can be used for the flow computations, and
the RANS method is utilized for the viscous flow
computations in this paper. The design procedure is
described as follows:
The foil geometry is defined by B-splines, and
the pressure distribution on the foil can be ex- pressed
as a function of B-spline control points;
JJG
CP = C P ( X )
JJG
X = ( xv , yv )1 ,( xv , yv )2 ,( xv , yv )3 ,......( xv , yv ) N v
A Jacobian is established by relating the geo-
metry changes and the pressure changes
(Cp )
[ J ] = [ JJG i ]
( X ) j
Where (Cp )i is the pressure distribution on the
JJG
i collocation point, and ( X ) j is the j th B-spline
th
control point.
By defining (Cp ) as the difference between
the designed pressure distribution and the desired
pressure distribution, we can then solve a nonlinear
equation
[ (Cp )] = 0
by the Newton-Raphson method
JJG JJG
[ X ]k +1 = [ X ]k [ J ]1[ Cp ]k
324
Results of a computational example are shown in
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. Fig. 2 shows the designed pressure
distributions by the potential flow and by the viscous
flow computations, and Fig. 3 shows the designed
geometries by the potential flow and viscous flow
computations. The viscous effect seems to be over
predicted in this example.
3. Optimization Method
In the design method described above, although
designers can specify a pressure distribution based on
the desired local characteristics, it is hard to know the
forces on the desired foil in advance. Therefore, an
optimization method by using the Lagrange Multiplier
method is then developed. The Lagrange Multiplier
method can transfer a constrained problem to a non-
constrained problem by introducing the Lagrange
multiplier . The constrained optimization problem
of the foil design problem in this paper is to find a
two-dimensional foil geometry which provides the
minimum drag coefficient ( CD ) with a given lift
coefficient ( C L ). The constraint is therefore, CL = CL* ,
and CL* is the objective lift coefficient. The design
problem thus can be stated as:
min CD
(1)
*
subject toCL CL = 0
We also assume that the lift coefficient and the drag
coefficient are functions of angle of attack and
geometric parameters. The geometric parameters
can be defined by different ways such as the camber
ratio, the thickness, NURB control points that
defined the foil geometry, etc.
CL = CL ( , i )
i = 1,2,3...m (2)
CD = CD ( , i )
In equation (2), is the angle of attack, and is
i
the geometric parameters.
We thus can define the Lagrangian of this opti-
mization problem as:
L = C D + (C L C L* ) (3)
and the derivatives of equation (3) with respect to
angle of attack, geometric parameters and Lagrange
multiplier can be obtained:
L = C D + CL = 0
(4)
CL C L* = 0
L can also be expressed as
 C D C I = 0 . The solution can be obtained by Newtons
+ L method:
i = 1,2,..., m (5)
G
C D C Gj I (Z j )
+ L Z =
i i I j (12)
G j +1 G j Gj
This is a non-linear optimization problem, and we Z = Z + Z
define:
In equation (12), the update of Z is to update

the angle of attack and the geometric parameters.
Once the angle of attack and the geometric parameters
L 1
G= Z = (6) are updated, CD and C L can be calculated.
* 2
C L C L
#

After an iterative procedure, Z can be solved, and
the design is reached.
m
If we only have one geometric parameter, and the
and the solution of this optimization problem is to above equations can be derived as follows:
solve:
G CL = CY cos C X sin
G( Z ) = 0 (7) CD = CY sin + C X cos
The Newtons method is used to solve this non-linear where C X and CY are X-component force and Y-
problem, and we can get component force of the foil. Equations (4) and (5)
G thus become:
Gj G(Z j )
Z = (8)
G j L CD CL (a)
= + = 0
Since the solutions are obtained through iterations, we
can express the Lagrange multiplier, , as a function L CD C
= + L = 0 (b)
of C L , CD and . From equation (5), we have
L
C D C = CL CL* = 0
+ L =0 (c)

The above equation can be further simplified by
and thus can be obtained: introducing equation (9):
CD CD CL
= (9)
C L = /

The number of variables to solve thus can be reduced, CD C
+ L =0
and we can further derive:
CD C C C = 0 *

+ L L L

i i

CD CD CL
(10) 4. Design Examples
i CL i
From equation (6) to (10), we first define From the theory introduced in the last section, we
can conclude the design procedure as the following
steps:
= =
(1) Under the condition of CL = CL* , computing
i
CD CL CD CL
And we have: , , , and ;

C (2) Computing elements of I and I in
I C D C (11)
D C L equation (11);
L (3) Solving equation (11) to obtain and ;
In order to solve this design problem, we have to solve (4) Updating the geometric parameter and angle

325
 of attack ;
(5) Repeating steps (1) to (4), until the equation (4) is
satisfied.
We will demonstrate several design examples in this
section. The flow field computation is by a com-
mercial RANS solver FLUENT.
4.1 Design example 1
In the first design example, we define the
geometric parameter as the camber ratio, and the
design goal is to obtain the lift coefficient CL = 0.7
with the minimum drag coefficient.
The initial foil geometry is a NACA 1215 section
(thickness ratio is 15%, and the maximum camber is
located at 20% of the foil from leading edge). Fig. 4
shows the convergence history of the angle of attack
(AOA) and the camber ratio (f/C), and Fig. 5 shows
the variations of the lift coefficients ( C L ) and drag
coefficients ( CD ) during the iterations. It is obvious
that the solutions are converged at the 3rd iteration.
In order to verify this design, we compare our design
with the performance of the NACA 0015 foil (without
the camber). Table 1 shows that the NACA 0015
section has the lift coefficient 0.7 at the angle of attack
6.249 degrees, and the drag coefficient is 0.00725.
The drag is 15% higher than the designed foil. Fig. 6
shows the comparison between the designed foil and
NACA 0015 section, and Fig. 7 shows the comparison
of the pressure distributions between the designed foil
and NACA 0015 section at the same lift coefficient.
Notice that the pressure distribution look like a
bump near the trailing edge is due to that the
maximum camber distribution is located at the 20% of
the foil.
Table 1 Verification of the design example 1
Camber CL CD
ratio
Design 4.328 0.02 0.7 0.00612
Verification 6.249 0.00 0.7 0.00725
4.2 Design example 2
In the design example 2, we still define the
geometric parameter as the camber ratio; however, the
objective lift coefficient is higher such that CL = 1.2 .
The NACA 1215 section is still used as the initial foil
geometry.
Fig. 8 shows the convergence history of the angle
of attack (AOA) and the camber ratio (f/C), and Fig. 9
shows the convergences of the lift coefficients ( C L )
and the drag coefficients ( CD ). 8 iterations are
needed in this example, and it is because the design
lift coefficient is higher.
Similarly, in order to verify this design, we
compare our design with the performance of the
326
NACA 0015 foil. Table 2 shows that the NACA
0015 section has the lift coefficient 1.2 at the angle of
attack 10.904 degrees, and the drag coefficient is
0.01076. The drag is almost 30% higher than the
designed foil. Fig. 10 shows the comparison between
the designed foil and NACA 0015 section, and Fig. 11
shows the comparison of the pressure distributions
between the designed foil and NACA 0015 section at
the same lift coefficient.
Table 2 Verification of the design example 2
Camber CL CD
ratio
Design 6.846 0.0396 1.2 0.00753
Verification 10.904 0.0 1.2 0.01076
4.3 Design example 3
In the design example 3, we try to combine both
the design method and the optimization method
described in this paper. In this example, we define the
geometric parameter as a shape function of the
pressure distribution. That is, we maintain the shape
of the pressure distribution, and then scale it according
to the geometric parameter . The design procedure
is separated into the following steps:
(1) Giving a range of the geometric parameters to
limit the designs, and in this case, 1.0 1.1 ;
(2) Using the optimization method to proceed to
the design. That is, to update the angle of attack
and the geometric parameter ;
(3) For each geometric parameter -- a pressure
distribution, the design method is used to obtain
the geometry generating that pressure distribution;
(4) Repeat (2) and (3) until a convergent solution is
obtained.
The given pressure distribution shape function
of this design example is shown in Fig. 12, along with
the pressure distribution of the designed foil based on
that pressure distribution. Note that this pressure
distribution is equivalent to the pressure distribution
corresponding to = 1.0 . The objective lift coefficient
is set to be 0.7631. When we adjust the geometric
parameter, the suction side of the pressure distribution
will be scaled (the lift is increased as the geometric
parameter increases). The design results are shown in
Table 3. By comparing to the lower and upper limit of
the geometric parameters, we can find that the
designed foil gives a lower drag coefficient. Fig. 13
shows the designed foil geometry and geometries
corresponding to = 1.0 and = 1.1 , and Fig. 14
shows the pressure distributions corresponding to the
designed foil and those corresponding to the geo-
metric parameters = 1.0 and = 1.1 .
 Table 3 Design results of the design example 3
CL CD
Lower limit 1.000 2.9414 0.7631 0.00595
Upper limit 1.100 3.2054 0.7631 0.00845
Design 1.096 2.7796 0.7631 0.00474

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we present a design method that

can design a foil generating the given pressure dis- Fig. 3 The foil geometries designed by the viscous flow
tribution, and an optimization method to optimize computations and the viscous flow computations
the performance of the hydrofoil. Both methods can
be used as a design tool individually; however, the
combination of two methods provides a useful design
tool that can not only optimize the global performance,
but also design the detailed geometry according to the
designers requirements. Several design examples are
illustrated in the paper, and this design method is
proved to be practical and effective. This method can
also be used for other design purposes, for example, a
hydrofoil with a better cavitaion performance.

Fig. 4 The convergence history of the angle of attack (AOA)

and the camber ratio (f/C) of the design example 1

Fig. 1 A two-dimensional hydrofoil geometry defined by

B-splines

Fig. 5 The variations of the lift coefficients ( C L ) and drag

coefficients ( CD ) during the iterations of the design
example 1

Fig. 2 The desired pressure distribution and the designed

pressure distributions by the viscous flow computation
and the potential flow computation respectively

327
Fig. 6 The comparison between the designed foil (design 1) of
the design example 1 and NACA 0015 section (check)

Fig. 9 The variations of the lift coefficients ( C L ) and drag

coefficients ( CD ) during the iterations of the design
example 2

Fig. 10 The comparison between the designed foil (design 2)

Fig. 7 The comparison between the pressure distributions of of the design example 2 and NACA 0015 section
the designed foil (design 1) of the design example 1 (check)
and NACA 0015 section at the same lift coefficient

Fig. 8 The convergence history of the angle of attack (AOA)

and the camber ratio (f/C) of the design example 2 Fig. 11 The comparison between the pressure distributions of
the designed foil (design 2) of the design example 2
and NACA 0015 section at the same lift coefficient

328

Fig. 12 The given pressure distribution shape function
( = 1.0 ) of the design example 3, and the pressure
distribution from the designed foil
Fig. 13 The designed foil geometry and foil geometries
corresponding to the geometric parameters = 1.0
and = 1.1 in design example 3
Fig. 14 The pressure distributions corresponding to the
designed foil and geometric parameters = 1.0 and
= 1.1 in design example 3
References
[1] Lighthill, M.J. A new method of two-dimensional
aerodynamic design, RAND Technical Report M2112,
ARC. 1945.
[2] Tranen, J.L. (1974), A rapid computer aided transonic
airfoil design method, AIAA paper 74-501.
[3] Henne, P.A., An inverse transonic wing design method,
AIAA paper 85-0330., 1980
[4] Volpe, G and Melnik, R.E., The design of transonic
airfoils by a well posed inverse method, Int. J.
Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 22, 1986
[5] Eppler, R. and Somers, D.M., A Computer Program for
the Design and Analysis of Low-Speed Aitfoils, Tech.
Rep., NASA TM 80210, 1980
[6] M. Giles, M. Drela, A two-dimensional transonic
aerodynamic design method, AIAA Journal, Vol.25,
No.9, 1986.
[7] M. Drela, XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for
Low Reynolds Number Airfoils, in Low Reynolds
Number Aerodynamics, Vol. 54, 1989, Springer-Verlag
Lecture Notes in Eng.
[8] De Falco, R. Del Balio, A. Della Cioppa and E.Tarantina,
A Parallel Genetic Algorithm for Transonic Airfoil
Optimisation, Evolutionary Computation, IEEE
International Conference, Volume: 1, PP.429-434, 29
Nov-1 Dec 1996.
[9] De Falco., An introduction to Evolutionary Algorithms
and their application to the Aerofoil Design Problem Part
IThe Algorithms, Inverse Design and Optimisation
Method, von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics,
Lecture Series, 1997-05.
[10] De Falco. An introduction to Evolutionary Algorithms
and their application to the Aerofoil Design Problem Part
II The Results, Inverse Design and Optimisation
Method. von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics,
Lecture Series 1997-05.
[11] Shigeru Obayashi, Susumu Takanashi, Genetic
Algorithm for Aerodynamic Inverse Optimization
Problems, Genetic Algorithms in Engineering Systems:
Innovations and Applications, pp.7-12, 12-14, Sep 1995.
[12] Hsin, C.-Y., "Application of the panel method to the
design of two-dimensional foil sections", J. of Chinese
Society of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineers,
Vol.13,No.2,pp.1-11, 1994
[13] Hsin, C.-Y. and Chang, Y.-L., Solving a Hydrodynamic
Design Problem by a Distributed Computing System,
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Hydro-dynamics, Seoul Korea, Oct. 1998.
[14] Hsin, C.-Y. and Chang, Y.-L., A Hydrodynamic Design
Method Developed on a Distributed Computing System,
Transcations of the Aeronautical and Astronautical
Society, Vol. 32, No.1, pp.89-95, 2000
[15] Wu, Jia-Lin, Foil Design by Viscous Flow
Computation, Master Thesis, National Taiwan Ocean
University, 2005 (in Chinese)
329