An Experimental Study of the

characteristics of Laminar Separation

Bubble on an Airfoil

A Thesis Submitted

in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

for the Degree of
Master of Technology

by

George Phlip (Y8101012)

to the

DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR

August 2011
 CERTIFICATE

It is certified that the work contained in the thesis entitled “An Experimental Study of
the characteristics of Laminar Separation Bubble on an Airfoil” by George Phlip
(Y8101012) has been carried out under my supervision and that this work has not been
submitted elsewhere for a degree.

Dr. Kamal Poddar

Professor,
Department of Aerospace Engineering,
August 2011
Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur - 208016

ii
 Acknowledgement
I express sincere thanks to my thesis supervisor Dr. Kamal Poddar for his discerning
guidance and invaluable suggestions throughout the course of my thesis. He helped me by
giving the right direction whenever it was required. I adore his commitment and dedication
towards his work. Working on this thesis helped me a lot in learning about experimentation.

I am thankful to Mr. K Mohan, Technical Officer, Mr. Abhinath Kumar Yadav,

Junior Technician and Mr. Dorilal, Working Assistant at Low Speed Aerodynamics Lab for
their help and support during the entire course of work. They helped me beyond their duty at
times of need. I would also like to thank Mr. Anshul Khandelwal, Mr. Varun Kumar Singh
and Mr. Sharad Saxena for their help and friendly nature.

I acknowledge the work delivered by the staff of NWTF in fabrication of model and
during the experimental setup, due to which the experiments could be conducted efficiently.

Finally, I would like to pay due regards to the omnipotent divine grace, ever present
for a devotee who keeps his mental compass directed towards the Lord.

George Phlip

iii
Contents
Acknowledgement
iii
List of Figures
vii
Nomenclature
ix
Abstract
1
Chapter 1. Introduction 3
1.1 Introduction 3
1.2 Background 5
1.2.1 The Laminar Separation Bubble 5
1.3 Literature Review of various measurement
techniques 7
1.3.1 Possible Measurement Techniques 7
1.3.2 Feasibility of above Techniques in LS lab 10
1.3.3 Method Selected 11
1.3.4 Dynamic Response of ESP scanners 12
1.3.5 Airfoil Selection 12
1.4 Objective
13
Chapter 2. Experimental Setup
14
2.1 Experimental facility 14
2.2 Model 16
2.2.1 Model Fabrication and pressure porting 16
2.2.2 Model Mounting 17
2.3 Instrumentation 18
2.3.1 Pressure measurement system 18
2.3.2 Motion Control System
20
Chapter 3. Data Acquisition and Analysis
22
3.1 ESP Calibration 22
3.2 Data Acquisition 23

iv
 3.2.1 Port mapping 23
3.2.2 Test configurations 24
3.2.3 Data acquisition programs 25
3.3 Data Analysis 26
3.3.1 Calculation of lift coefficient 26
3.3.2 Calculation of drag coefficient 27
3.3.3 Error Estimation 28
3.3.4 Detection of LSB 29
3.4 Surface Flow Visualization Technique
30
Chapter 4. Results and Discussion
32
4.1 Preliminary results and comparison with literature 32
4.2 Airfoil Characteristics 36
4.2.1 Variation of lift coefficient with angle of attack and Reynolds
number 36
4.2.2 Variation of drag coefficient with angle of attack and Reynolds
number 39
4.3 Effect of Angle of Attack and Reynolds number on LSB
characteristics 41
4.3.1 Variation of LSB characteristics with angle of attack 41
4.3.2 Variation of LSB characteristics with Reynolds number 43
4.4 Oil flow visualization results
46
Chapter 5. Conclusion
48
References 49

Appendix A: Port map of all pressure ports including wake rake

52
Appendix B: Picture of Data Acquisition VI
55
Appendix C: Cp plots and wake profiles
56

v
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1.1: Comparison of CFD data with experimental data for E184 airfoil…………….....4

Figure 1.2: The bubble along with the streamlines........................…………………………...5

Figure 1.3: Comparison between inviscid Cp plot with actual Cp at Re=4×104..………….....7

Figure 2.1: Aerodynamic layout of Low Speed wind tunnel facility…..……………….…...15

Figure 2.2: Sketch of NACA0012 airfoil showing the location of pressure port………...…16

Figure 2.3: Airfoil model mounted in tunnel test section along with the wake rake………..17

Figure 2.4: Multi-channel pressure measurement system using ESP scanners…………......18

Figure 3.1: Diagram for calculation of lift coefficient….……………………………………27

Figure 3.2: Diagram for calculation of drag coefficient……………………………………..27

Figure 3.3: Graph of rms value of pressure fluctuations at 15 m/s & α =6...........…….......31

Figure 4.1: Comparison of experimental data with JAVAFOIL data………..…….……….33

Figure 4.2: Comparison of Lift data with literature. . . . . . . . . . ......................................…34

Figure 4.3: Comparison of Drag data with literature.............................. .........………….....35

Figure 4.4: Cl versus α plots at different Reynolds numbers…………………………….....37

Figure 4.5: Cp v/s x/c curve for Re=202.53×103 at α =16………………………………….38

Figure 4.6: Cl versus Re curve for different angles of attack…….……….…..……….…...39

Figure 4.7: Cd versus α plots at different Reynolds numbers ……………………….……...40

Figure 4.8: Variation of Cd with incoming Reynolds number…….……….…….…....…....41

Figure 4.9: Variation of bubble location with angles of attack at 10m/s….…….….….…...42

Figure 4.10: Variation of bubble length with angles of attack at different Re ……….........43

Figure 4.11: Variation of bubble location with Reynolds number at α=3.97° ..…………...44

Figure 4.12: Variation of bubble location with incoming Re at fixed angle of attack.........45

Figure 4.13: Variation of bubble length with incoming Re at fixed angle of attack.….......45

Figure 4.14: Location of the LSB using oil flow visualization technique at 5° at 15 m/s….47

vi
Figure 4.15: Comparison of results obtained about location of LSB with respect to the points
of separation and reattachment on the airfoil surface from different methods at 12 m/s….51

Table 4.1: Comparison of experimental data with JAVAFOIL data..................................32

vii
Nomenclature

NWTF : National Wind Tunnel Facility

ESPs : Electronically Scanned Pressure scanners
LE : Leading Edge of the airfoil
DAQ : Data Acquisition
c : length of airfoil chord
ρ : density of air
U∞ : freestream wind velocity
α : Angle of attack of the airfoil (angle between the airfoil axis and the free
stream velocity direction)
Cp : Coefficient of pressure
PStatic : Static pressure of the free stream
PTotal : Stagnation pressure of the free stream
Cl : Lift Coefficient
Cd : Drag Coefficient
Cn : Coefficient of normal force on the whole airfoil
Ca : Coefficient of axial force on the whole airfoil
µ : Coefficient of viscosity
ν : Coefficient of Kinematic viscosity
 UC 
Re : Chord Reynolds number  
  
LS : Low Speed
AoA : Angle of Attack
LSB : Laminar Separation Bubbles
UAV : Unmanned Air Vehicle
MAV : Micro- Air Vehicle
CFD : Computational Fluid Dynamics
NACA : National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
PVC : Poly Vinyl Chloride
PIV : Particle Imaging Velocimetry
TiO2 : Titanium dioxide

viii
TSP : Temperature Sensitive Paint
2D : 2-dimensional
3D : 3-dimensional

ix
 Abstract
An experimental investigation on NACA0012 airfoil to study LSB characteristics at
different Reynolds numbers and angles of attack was carried out in the Low Speed
Aerodynamics Lab of Aerospace Engineering Department, IIT Kanpur. The primary
objective of the present study was to develop a technique feasible for such a facility which
can successfully locate the zone of LSB. The secondary objective was to study the variation
of LSB location and length with change in Reynolds number and angle of attack. Finally, the
results obtained are compared with the flow visualisation results to reaffirm the accuracy of
the technique employed.

The primary measuring device used for this purpose was electronically scanned
pressure (ESP) scanners. As transition from laminar flow to turbulent flow takes place, flow
fluctuations increase drastically. In the transition region, flow fluctuations increase to very
large amplitudes in quite a broad bandwidth of frequencies. As the pressure signals from
airfoil surface are transferred to the ESP scanners via polymer-based flexible tubing’s which
act like a low pass filter, the fluctuating signals of high frequencies are cut-off from the
pressure signals. In the turbulent flow region, the pressure fluctuations are dominated by high
frequency signals which get attenuated due to use of these tubes. Moreover, the sampling rate
per port of the pressure scanner is not high enough to be able to resolve higher frequency
fluctuations. Hence, the root mean square value of pressure fluctuations shows a peak in the
transition region which can be used to characterize the zone of the LSB lying beneath the
transitioning free shear layer. This was confirmed by results from surface flow visualization
by spraying the airfoil surface with oil mixture and allowing the flow at desired Reynolds
number. Based on the differential shear stresses in the laminar and turbulent flow regimes, a
flow pattern on the airfoil surface is obtained which depicts the zone of the LSB.

Experiments were carried out at Reynolds numbers 66.97×103, 101.27×103,

151.08×103, 202.53×103& 256.43 ×103, and angles of attack varying from -7 to 24 degrees. It
was found that transition point directly above the zone of LSB moves towards the leading
edge with increase in Reynolds number as well as with increase in angle of attack as

1
expected. The results have been plotted. Also, with increase in angle of attack and the
Reynolds number the bubble length is found to decrease almost linearly.

2
Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction
Boundary layer formation and flow separation is of major interest for many aerodynamic
applications. Especially with regards to the development of micro air vehicles (MAV) and
unmanned air vehicles (UAV), efforts have been made recently to investigate the effects and
structure of laminar flow separation, i.e., to understand the velocity distribution as well as the
pressure distribution. MAV or UAV typically cruise at low speed and possess small scale
airfoils leading to low Reynolds number flow. Under such low Reynolds number conditions,
the boundary layer at the onset of the pressure rise may still be laminar, and thus it is unable
to resist the substantial adverse pressure gradients and hence flow separates. Under certain
circumstances, the separated flow experiences laminar-to-turbulent transition and reattaches
to form a laminar separation bubble (LSB). The laminar separation and the phenomena
followed largely determine the MAV's aerodynamic performance. For this reason, fixed wing
research focuses on the low Reynolds number aerodynamics, including the laminar
separation bubble and the laminar-turbulent transition [1].

The detection of the laminar separation bubbles and their detailed study to evaluate its effects
on the airfoil characteristics is of primary importance in low speed aerodynamics. Numerical
techniques like Drela’s XFOIL code (version 5.4) and the Eppler code (version 2000) cannot
correctly predict the characteristics and/or the location of the LSB [2]. The Eppler code only
issues a warning with regards to the calculated data points and while the XFOIL code
considers the LSB, it highly under-predicts the drag on the airfoil. Hence both methods are
unable to predict the characteristics of the airfoil at low Reynolds numbers (<200,000) [3].
Although the experimental techniques are difficult and tiresome, they yield quite good data
even at low Reynolds numbers.

3
The separation bubble thickens the boundary layer and thus increases the drag of the airfoil.
The drag increment can be several times the drag of the airfoil without a separation bubble.
Lift and Moment are also influenced by a laminar separation bubble, which can lead to
problems with stability and control of a model aircraft. Therefore, experimental investigation
of the bubble location and its characteristics is indispensable [4]. Figure 1.1 shows the
necessity of experiments although CFD results might be available.

Figure 1.1: Comparison of CFD data with experimental data for E184 airfoil [3]

Thus experimental investigation of the characteristics of the airfoil at low Reynolds numbers
is an absolute necessity to confirm and predict the presence of laminar separation bubbles.
The objective of present work is to develop an experimental method for detecting the
presence of LSB on airfoil models in Low Speed Aerodynamics Lab, IIT Kanpur. A reliable
experimental method will help to predict and study the effects of LSB formation on the
characteristics of the airfoil at low Reynolds numbers. It also allows for verification of airfoil
model surface being free of roughness elements, which could otherwise lead to erroneous
conclusions on performance of airfoil. The detection method should be compatible with low
speed wind tunnels and hence should satisfy the demands of robust equipment, high

4
reliability and high throughput. One of the fundamental problems in this field is fixed walls,
turbulence, noise and model quality, three dimensional nature of the LSB and spanwise
variations in lift and drag and the method must non-intrusive as possible.

1.2 Background
In the present section, the physics of laminar separation bubble has been discussed. It will
help to understand how various experimental techniques can be useful to detect the presence
of LSB.
1.2.1 The Laminar Separation Bubble
LSB influences the performance of all model aircraft at low Reynolds numbers. Boundary
layers are of two types, viz., laminar and turbulent boundary layers. The laminar boundary
layer has lesser frictional drag compared to its turbulent counterpart. Also it has far less
energy compared to the turbulent boundary layer and hence it is less stable. As there exists an
adverse pressure gradient on the airfoil surface aft of the suction peak, the laminar boundary
layer becomes highly unstable and hence may separate from the surface. The separated
boundary layer leaves the surface of the airfoil in the tangential direction leaving a wedge
shaped region enclosed between the separated layer and the airfoil surface. The point where
the boundary layer leaves the surface is known as the separation point, as denoted by the
point S in Fig1.2.

Figure 1.2: The mean flow structure of the laminar separation bubble [5].

5
The separated flow, which is still laminar in nature, is highly sensitive to flow disturbances
and may transition to turbulent state. The transition region is located away from the airfoil
surface. The turbulent layer grows in a wedge shaped manner and may meet the airfoil
surface causing it to reattach to the airfoil surface and hence enclosing a volume of fluid
flow. The point where the turbulent layer reattaches to the airfoil surface is known as the
reattachment point(R). The volume enclosed between the points of separation, S and
reattachment, R is known as the Laminar Separation Bubble (LSB). The LSB is quite stable
since there is almost no energy exchange with the outer flow.

Downstream of the point S, the flow can be divided into two regions. The first region is
bounded by the streamline ST’R and the airfoil surface. This streamline is the collection of
points across each velocity profile at which the integrated mass flow is zero. This first region
represents the relatively slow re-circulatory flow forming the bubble. The second region of
flow consists of the free shear layer contained between the outer edge of the boundary layer
S”T”R” and the streamline ST’R. Due to disturbance amplification occurring in the unstable
laminar layer, the separated shear layer undergoes transition at a location denoted by T. The
reverse flow near the wall gets eliminated due to the turbulent mixing and the eventual
momentum transfer and hence the flow reattaches at point R. This process of separation,
transition and reattachment results in a laminar separation bubble that has a predominant
effect on the entire airfoil flow field. The effect of the presence of the bubble on Cp plot is
shown in Figure 1.3.The flow physics involved with the formation of the laminar separation
bubbles have been a point of deliberation for quite a long time [6].

Figure 1.3: Comparison between inviscid Cp plot with actual Cp at Re=4×104 [1]

6
The LSB formed does affect the flow pattern and hence the stall characteristics [7].
Depending on the behavior of the bubble with change in Re, bubbles have been classified as
long and short bubbles [8]. Bubbles with l/δ* ~ O (104) were term as 'long' or l/δ* ~ O (102)
as 'short', depending on whether the separation boundary layer Reynolds number Reδ* , was
less or greater than about 450. Long bubbles are usually associated with leading edge stall
with the bubble extending even upto the wake whereas short bubbles are usually associated
with trailing edge stall, where the turbulent separation point moves upstream with increase in
incidence.

The bubble height and length have also been studied with interest and their dependence on
the flow velocity and disturbances have been found to be significant [9]. It was found that a
small decrease in the reference velocity would result in a large increase in the bubble height
and length. Also with increase in velocity, the aspect ratio of the bubble collapses.

Because of the decrease in lift and increase in drag associated with LSB, many studies have
been directed towards the control of their formation on the airfoil surface and their artificial
bursting. Plasma sheet actuators have been used for this purpose and it has been found that
the distance between the actuator and the separation line is a significant parameter alongwith
the intensity of actuation [10]. Also it has been found that the effect of actuation depends on
the flow condition. Also passive control techniques like surface indentation have been
employed [11]. It was found that surface indentations lead to smaller disturbances in the flow
and ensures quicker reattachment.

1.3 Discussion of various measurement techniques

The different experimental techniques that are used to detect laminar separation bubbles were
reviewed. The study of pros and cons of various methods should help to select the most
suitable and efficient method which might be feasible at the Low Speed Lab, IIT Kanpur.

7
1.3.1 Possible Measurement Techniques
 Hot wire anemometry & hot films: Due to the eddying motion in the turbulent
boundary layer, the velocity fluctuations increase by order of magnitude while the
boundary layer changes from laminar to turbulent and hence it can be measured using
a traversed 1-d hotwire probe, which has excellent temporal resolution, as has been
used in [12]. Hot films embedded inside airfoil surface can also be used for the same
purpose [13]. The disadvantage is that hot wire is intrusive and can locally trip the
shear layer causing premature transition or can lead to LSB bursting and hence affect
the bubble location. Hot films can heat the boundary layer and hence due to the
interaction with the thermal boundary layer, bubble formation/location can be
affected.
 Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV): The velocity profile in boundary layer changes
in shape, and thickness of boundary layer also changes from laminar to turbulent
boundary layer. The velocity distribution in the central plane along the airfoil chord
can measured using PIV technique. By comparing the velocity profile in the boundary
layers at different points, it is possible to get an idea about the location of the LSB
[14]. However, the size of LSB is very small and due to surface reflection effects, it is
quite difficult to obtain the velocity profile within the thin boundary layer and hence
determine the bubble parameters.
 Pressure sensor: Along with velocity fluctuations, the pressure fluctuations also
increase drastically with transition from laminar to turbulent boundary layer in
amplitude as well frequency. The time-series pressure measurement can be done
using high frequency unsteady pressure sensors embedded inside the surface as
accomplished in [15], or using microphone measurements for determining pressure
fluctuations [16]. The advantage of pressure measurement is that the pressure sensors
can be embedded inside the surface of airfoil, thereby causing minimum disturbance
to the flow. Also, many pressure sensors can be simultaneously installed at different
locations along the chord, so data acquired in a single run is sufficient to locate the
bubble.
 Shear sensitive liquid crystals: Since the bubble is enclosed between the laminar
boundary layer, the free shear layer and the turbulent boundary layer , each with different

8
 shear stresses associated with them, any coating which is known to differentiate between
shear stresses by their magnitude, can be used to detect the bubble location on the airfoil
surface. Coatings of pure chiral nematic liquid crystals serve the purpose as discussed in [17],
[18]. The disadvantage is that the method is intrusive and not very reliable since minute
variations in the shear stresses would not be easily detected.
 Laser Doppler Anemometry: This technique can be used to measure the velocity of
fluids as well as their direction using coherent, monochromatic laser beams
collimated at a desired location to produce straight fringes perpendicular to the
direction of flow. The fluid particles ( with tracers embedded in them )passing
through these fringes reflect light which are intercepted by a photo-detector and by
calculating the Doppler equivalent frequency shift the velocity of the particles can be
measured. This method can be used for 2-D measurements and is non-intrusive.
However due to long measurement times involved with them and their ineffectiveness
in resolving small structures like LSB, they are not suitable for LSB measurements
[19].
 Oil-film visualization: A mixture of TiO2, transformer oil and oleic acid can be used
for surface flow visualization showing the streamlines at the flow surface. The
proportion of mixture has to be changed for each velocity, which is to be deduced by
hit and trial. Surface flow visualization can give an idea whether the flow is laminar
or turbulent and the location of laminar separation bubble. It can give a rough idea of
the transition region and can be used just as a secondary confirmation [20].
 Temperature Sensitive Paint (TSP): If it is possible to create temperature difference
between the model and the ambient by either heating the model or cooling freestream
or by using heat exchangers, then convective heat transfer would be higher in
turbulent boundary layer than its counterpart. This would lead to temperature step
across the bubble on the model surface, which can be recorded by a CCD camera
[21]. The advantage is that this method is non-intrusive and can be applied in very
thin layers. The disadvantage is that changing the ambient temperature may itself
alter flow parameters and a large temperature step can also destabilize the boundary
layer and hence the subsequent bubble formation/location. Moreover, heat conduction
within the model may lead to erroneous results.

9
1.3.2 Feasibility of above Techniques in Low Speed Lab
 It is too difficult to have an automatic traversing mechanism for hot wire probe on the
top of airfoil. It will also be intrusive which might initiate premature transition of the
separated free shear layer. A manual shifting many times for each run is too time-
consuming and hence impractical. The hot films, glued to the surface, cannot be
reused making their use too expensive for this purpose.

 High frequency pressure sensors are too expensive to procure and unavailable in LS
lab. The pressure sensors which are available in adjoining facility NWTF are of very
high range which cannot be used to measure pressure fluctuations of low amplitude.
So, we shall try to use low frequency pressure scanners having many pressure ports
for this purpose.

 Shear sensitive liquid crystals are not available in Low Speed lab, and hence have to
be bought. Non-intrusive crystals used in [17], are too expensive; and are not reliable
enough to be used as a primary detection technique.

 LDA can be used to verify the bubble detected, but it is not accurate enough. It is also
too time-consuming, so to do experiments corresponding to varying angle of attack at
different speeds would be impractical and is unable to detect small structures.

 Use of oil-film visualization is useful in this small low speed wind tunnel. At low
Reynolds numbers, laminar separation bubble is expected and hence this technique
can be used to validate the primary detection technique. Since it is not practical to
apply oil mixture on the model again and again to find optimum mixture at each
velocity and apply it at each angle, it can only be used as a confirmatory technique.
Moreover, the oil may damage the model surface and the model has to be cleaned
after each time the tunnel is run.

10
  Temperature sensitive paints are primarily used in cryogenic wind tunnels which is
not the case here. Its use will require huge investment for CCD camera, heat lamp,
infrared window and arrangement of TSP. So much investment is not possible.

1.3.3 Method Selected

Various microphone studies have been done to identify transition region on airfoil surface by
means of unsteady pressure measurement [16]. It has been found that the pressure
fluctuations are much higher at the transition point compared to either the preceding laminar
flow or the following turbulent flow. Hence the root mean square of pressure fluctuations
show a peak at the transition point which can be used to characterize the bubble which lies
directly beneath the transition region.

Keeping in mind the limitations discussed in section 1.3.2, it was decided to use the
equipments already present in LS lab or those which are readily available. It was decided to
try to use pressure scanners that are present in LS lab to detect the bubble location by
conducting time series pressure measurements and compare the results with surface flow
visualization using oil flow technique which could serve as a primary confirmation. This
method is non-intrusive as desired, and need of any manual handling is limited to spraying
the oil on the airfoil surface and cleaning the model once the run is completed with all other
instrumentation fixed. The only problem with the use of pressure scanners is that since the
scanner multiplexes between different pressure ports, the sampling rate per port is lower than
desired.

1.3.4 Dynamic Response of ESP scanners

It has been tried to perform dynamic pressure measurements using ESPs in Langley Research
Center as discussed in reference [21]. The effect of the tubing between the scanner and the
pressure source on the dynamic response of the system has been studied for relatively lower
frequencies. The sinusoidal pressure of about 6000 Pa at the tube inlet was generated in the
cylinder of the sinusoidal pressure generator by means of an oscillating piston driven by an

11
electric motor and the pressure was measured by the scanner. The effect of length of tube,
tube diameter and elasticity of tube material was examined. The experiments were conducted
for steel and PVC tubes of length 34cm, 61cm and 74cm; and inner diameters 1.5mm, 1mm
and little variations below 1mm. It was found that sinusoidal variation of pressure was being
well transferred to the transducer through the tubes for inelastic steel tubes as well as elastic
PVC tubes, though there was some amplitude magnification in particular range of
frequencies depending on tube length. There is insignificant effect of elasticity due to use of
straight vinyl tubes. The amplification of measured pressure is reduced in case of PVC tubes
having bents near scanner and coils in between pressure generator and ESP module. Thus,
ESP scanners having PVC tubings of inner diameter 1mm or 1.5 mm are responding well to
dynamic pressure oscillations upto frequency 100 Hz and are expected to record pressure
fluctuations of frequency till at least 500 Hz.

.
1.3.5 Airfoil Selection
In order to study the characteristics of LSB’s, the airfoil chosen was standard NACA 0012
airfoil. NACA 0012 airfoil is primarily used in UAV’s, MAV’s and turbine blades where low
Reynolds number flows are encountered. Since NACA 0012 has been known to indicate LSB
formation on its surface and existing literature is readily available on its characteristics, this
profile was selected. This would also ensure a thorough validation of the basic characteristics
obtained through surface pressure distribution with the available literature.

1.4 Objective
The results from the preliminary tests, i.e., surface pressure measurement, must confirm with
the existing literature on NACA 0012 airfoils and hence the pre-requisite for any technique
used, must be to yield results which are comparable with the existing data for NACA 0012
airfoil. The airfoil characteristics can then be deduced from the pressure measurement and
studied to have an insight into the affect of bubble on the same. Also the variation of the

12
sectional characteristics with changes in angle of attack and Reynolds number should be
studied.

The primary objective of present thesis work is to successfully develop a bubble detection
technique for the LS Lab with NACA 0012 and verify it using some other technique. The
method should be able to detect LSB at varying angles of attack between -7 degree and 24
degree, for all range of velocities encountered from 8 m/s to 45 m/s. It must work for
arbitrary airfoil shape, i.e. thickness ratios from 10% to 30% and varying camber
distributions and should be non-intrusive. The method should be fairly accurate in detecting
and locating the LSB, at least within 5% of chord length and should have ease of operation.

The secondary objective is to investigate the variation of bubble characteristics developed on

NACA 0012 airfoil with change in angle of attack and Reynolds number.

Chapter 2. Experimental Setup

The experimental investigation was carried out at Low Speed Lab, IIT Kanpur. The
techniques used for present studies involved steady and unsteady surface pressure
measurement and oil flow visualization. The NACA0012 airfoil model used for experimental
purpose was mounted on the wooden turntable in the test section. The model had pressure
ports along the centreline throughout the chord which were connected to ESP scanners for

13
surface pressure measurement by nylon tubes. Pressure data were acquired using hardware
from National Instruments, USA and in-house developed Lab VIEW® based application
software. Surface flow visualization was carried out oil flow technique.

2.1 Experimental facility

The LS Lab is a unique facility in IIT Kanpur for testing small-scale hardware in a
continuous subsonic air stream equipped with state of art instrumentation and simulation
capabilities. It is a closed-circuit, continuous, atmospheric, low-speed two arms wind tunnel
with several auxiliary systems. Aerodynamic layout of the wind tunnel is shown in figure
2.1. The 2D test section has a cross section of 5.5’×1’. The length of the test section is 4’.
The tunnel also has a 3D section of dimensions 3’x2’x5.5’ equipped with force balance for
3D measurements. Both the test sections are connected by a common return circuit arm. For
the present study only the 2D section of the tunnel is utilized. The test section is clearly
visible since one of the sides is made of glass. Airspeed up to 50 m/s in the test section is
produced by two 12-bladed axial fans, each powered by a 15 hp DC motor. There are three
anti-turbulence screens placed prior to the contraction cone which ensure a flow of low
turbulence of the order of 0.15%.

14
Figure 2.1: Aerodynamic layout of Low Speed wind tunnel facility

15
2.2 Model
The model used for the experiment was standard NACA0012 airfoil. NACA0012 airfoil is a
symmetrical low lift airfoil with maximum thickness being 12% of the chord located at 30%
of the chord length. Another advantage of using this model is that it has been established that
bubble formation is evident on this airfoil. The airfoil shape is shown in figure 2.2. The
points indicate the location of pressure ports. The co-ordinates of pressure ports are given in
appendix A. 1.

Figure 2.2: Sketch of NACA0012 airfoil showing the location of pressure ports

2.2.1 Model Fabrication and pressure porting

The model was fabricated in three parts with the central part of width 30 mm and the left and
right parts of width 137mm such that the assembled parts spanned the entire tunnel width of
1’. Since it was required to make pressure ports on the model surface, the middle part was
made of acrylic as it is easier to drill holes into it. The acrylic central part was contoured to
the required profile by water jet machining in the 4-i lab, IIT Kanpur and later hand-finished
with fine grained emery paper. The left and right parts were made Acrylonitrile Butadiene
Styrene (ABS) with the profile contouring done by rapid prototyping in the 4-I lab, IIT
Kanpur. All the parts had 2 holes drilled into it spanwise such that they could be assembled
using metal rods and another hole was drilled into them with the hole centre located at
quarter chord of the model section such that the assembled model could be maneuvered in
the tunnel, with the help of the mounting rod passing through the hole, to vary the angle of
attack. The pressure ports were drilled into the central piece with diameter equal to 0.5mm at
predefined locations such that the variation in the pressure on the surface could be read as
accurately as possible. The surface pressure tapping are unevenly distributed on the upper &
lower surfaces such that the pressure taps were more clouded towards the LE as compared to

16
the TE. This helps in precisely capturing the surface flow phenomena and boundary layer
characteristics emerging from the LE. The pressure ports were 31 in number. Holes of
diameter 1.4mm were incorporated in the right side part design before fabrication such that
steel tubes of diameter 1.35mm could fit in these holes and thepressure from the ports could
be accessed outside the tunnel. These steel tubes were then connected to nylon tubes which
transferred the pressure to the pressure scanners.
Since the surface of the assembled model had small irregularities, it was hand finished with
fine grained emery paper to smoothen the surface. Then the pressure ports were tested for
leakage using soap bubble test. The surface was then thoroughly cleaned and wiped with a
smooth clean cloth. Finally, the airfoil was painted black to give it a perfectly smooth finish
and also because oil flow would be more visible with a black background
2.2.2 Model Mounting
The model was taken inside the test section of the wind tunnel and was rigidly mounted end-
to-end with ball bearings on the glass side and a wooden turntable on the other side of the test
section. This would ensure two-dimensional flow on the airfoil, and that the angle of attack
of the freestream wind can be changed by rotation of the turntable. A photograph of the final
model mounted in the wind tunnel along with wake rake is shown in figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Airfoil model mounted in tunnel test section along with the wake rake

17
2.3 Instrumentation
For the present experimental work, a PXI-based industrial grade data acquisition system has
been used. The system mainly consists of data acquisition system for pressure measurement
and motion control system. All these instruments were controlled programmatically by using
codes written in LabVIEW programming Software.

2.3.1 Pressure measurement system

Virtual Instrumentation (VI) based multi-channel pressure measurement system as shown in
Figure 2.4 has been used to acquire pressure data for airfoil model and wake survey. The
system mainly consists of system hardware which includes eight 32-port miniature
Electronically Scanned Pressure Scanners (ESPs), a digital interface and line driver unit, a
high-speed 14-bit DAQ module (PXI-6133) installed in PXI system and a Windows-based
host-computer installed with a PCI-8336 interface board.

PXI System installed with Host Computer installed with

ESP Scanners PXI-8336 (MXI-4 Interface), PCI-8336 (MXI-4 Interface)
Measurement and Control Modules Board and LabVIEW

Digital
Interface
and
Line
Driver
Unit

Fiber-optic Link PCI-8336 Board

Figure 2.4: Multi-channel pressure measurement system using ESP scanners

18
2.3.1.1 ESP Scanners
During the experiment, the pressure on the model surface and in the wake was measured
using ESPs. The scanners are differential scanners and pressure was measured with respect to
a reference pressure. For surface pressure measurement, single 20’’ water column ESP
scanner was used and for the rake, one 10’’and one 20’’ water column ESP scanners were
needed. The advantage of ESP scanners is their linearity, repeatability and hysteresis being
limited to less than 0.05% of full scale along with their extreme resistance to over-pressure.
Each pressure scanner has 32 pressure ports to measure pressure, one calibration port and a
reference port. Each port is linked to one of the strain-gauge-based pressure sensor working
on the principle of Wheatstone bridge. The applied pressure leads to change in resistances of
the Wheatstone bridge, and the resulting change in the bridge voltage output is measured
electronically. Hence the sensor needs to be calibrated before use to measure pressure in
order to convert the voltage output to pressure. It is better to calibrate the sensor just before
the test in order to get good results. The accuracy of the scanners is maintained within 0.05%
of full scale pressure range through their periodic online calibration.

The voltage output from the pressure sensors are connected to digitally addressed analog
multiplexers, which can switch between ports at rates up to 20,000Hz. Hence, the sampling
rate of each port is (1/32)th of the measuring frequency. Each sensor’s output is selectively
routed to the onboard instrumentation amplifier by applying its unique binary address to the
multiplexers. The multiplexed and amplified analog output of the scanner is then sent to the
remote A/D converter of DAQ board. Each scanner requires ±12V DC power supply for the
operation of built-in analog/digital devices and a ±5V DC power supply as the excitation
voltage source for the sensors.
The electronic output goes to the DAQ board through the digital interface and line driver, in
order to make it into compatible form. Voltage signals from it after passing through the
DILD unit was fed to the ADC. The pressure data in volts was then normalized with
excitation voltage acquired from the 8th channel (while cables from scanners were connected
to channels 0 to 2 of PXI-6133 DAQ board). The data acquisition board is connected to the

19
computer, which converts the electronic data to appropriate pressure values by means of
calibration coefficients which are beforehand obtained.

2.3.1.2 Digital Interface and Line Driver (DILD) Unit for ESP scanners
The signal from each pressure port is acquired by selecting individual port electronically.
Each pressure port is selected one by one through the digital I/O lines of the data acquisition
board. The output from the data acquisition board is 5-volts (TTL) logic level signals
whereas the pressure scanner requires 8-volts (CMOS) logic level signals for binary
addressing. Hence, there is a logic (TTL-CMOS) level mismatch between the DAQ board
and the scanner. To attenuate the difference in the two signal levels, a Digital Interface and
Line Driver (DILD) is used. The logic level shifters of the DILD unit compensate for this
logic level mismatch. The DILD unit has a capability to drive 8 scanners simultaneously.

2.3.1.3 NI-PXI 6133 DAQ board

This is a high speed data acquisition board from National Instruments, USA with a sampling
rate of 2.5MS/s for acquiring data from the pressure scanners. The ADC has 14 bit
resolution. With this board it is possible to scan 8 analog input channels at a maximum
sampling rate of 2.5MS/s. It also has 8 hardware-timed digital I/O lines and two 24 bit
counters.

2.3.2 Motion Control System

The angle of attack of the airfoil is changed automatically during the experiment by rotation
of turn table, which is pre-decided programmatically. This automatic motion control system
consists of the following parts.

2.3.2.1 Motion control board

PXI-7340 motion controller (from National Instruments Inc, USA), is used in the present
study. It is a combination of servo and stepper motor controller, which can control up to eight
axes of motion that can be completely independent single axis motion or simultaneous multi-
axis motion. It has an 8-channel multiplexed, 16-bit ADC. The converted analog values are
broadcast to computer using a dedicated internal high-speed serial bus. The multiplexer scan
rate provides high sampling rates required for feedback loop closure. The 7340 controller has

20
full onboard programmability capable of executing up to 10 simultaneous motion programs.
In addition, the onboard programs support basic math and data operation functions up to 120
general-purpose variables. The 7340 also features buffered operations for contouring, high-
speed position captures, and breakpoints.

2.3.2.2 Servo power motor drive

For controlling the motion of servo motors, which were used to rotate the turntable, MID-
7654 servo power motor drive from National Instruments was used. It has a power amplifier
and system interface for use with four axes of simultaneous or independent servo motion
control. It can drive a broad range of servo motors with its pulse-width modulation (PWM)
amplifier with user specified peak and continuous output current settings. It uses a built in
power supply of 240/120 VAC for operation. It also has separate encoder, limit switch, and
motor power removable screw terminal connector blocks for each axis.

2.3.2.3 Turntable motion system

Turntable motion system consists of Sanyo Denki DC servo motor with built-in encoder,
drive, and turntable. The drive is commanded through the motion controller card (PXI-7340)
and operated by the LabVIEW® based application software. Based on the command from the
user, DC servo motor can rotate the turntable to the desired angle and encoder gives the feed-
back to computer. Turntable can be positioned by the computer-controlled motion control
system at any angular orientation with a fine resolution of 0.02.

21
Chapter 3. Data Acquisition and Analysis

During the experiment, as wind flows over the model, the unsteady pressure data at each
pressure port has to be acquired and saved which is to be used while analysis to deduce the
airfoil characteristics and the LSB characteristics. In order to convert the electronic signals to
pressure values, the pressure scanners need to be calibrated before conducting the
experiment. The calibration is explained in section 3.1. The process of automatic data
acquisition during the experiment controlled by pre-coded computer programs is explained in
section 3.2. After acquiring pressure data at all the ports, the comparison of magnitude of
pressure fluctuations is made to deduce the location of LSB. This analysis, along with its
justification, is discussed in section 3.3. Finally, the procedure for surface flow visualization
using oil flow technique as a primary confirmation to the conclusions drawn using this
method is contained in section 3.4.

3.1 ESP Calibration

The scanner has two position manifolds; one is the calibration mode and the other run mode.
The manifold positions can be changed by applying a momentary pulse of pressure. The
calibration mode is used for calibrating each port of the pressure scanner, whereas the run
mode is used to acquire pressure data during the test. Before each test, all the ports in each
scanner are calibrated against known pressure. During calibration, a set of known gauge
pressures are applied at the calibration port using a manometer while the reference port is
kept open to atmosphere. The signal in volts is acquired from all the ports and is saved to a
text file. A second order polynomial curve fit is used to obtain the calibration coefficients.
𝑃𝑖 = 𝐾0𝑖 + 𝐾1𝑖 ∗ 𝐸𝑖 + 𝐾2𝑖 ∗ 𝐸𝑖2
where, Pi is the known gauge pressure at the ith port of the scanner
Ei is the voltage signal output from the ith port of the scanner
K0i , K1i , K2i are the coefficients for the ith port of the scanner

22
The calibration coefficients are stored in a file and accessed during the experiment to convert
the voltage signals to pressure data.

3.2 Data Acquisition

During the experiment, after reaching the desired wind speed in the tunnel, unsteady data is
recorded for each of the decided angles of attack for the pre-decided interval of time. The
data acquisition and change of angle of attack is done automatically by means of computer
algorithm. For controlling the DAQ boards and analysing the data to present the results,
programs are developed in LabVIEW software. This process is explained in the following
sections.

3.2.1 Port mapping

Port mapping is an important step in the pre-processing of pressure measurement from the
ESP scanners. Each of the pressure ports on the model is connected to a unique port number
on a particular scanner through PVC tube. To make proper correspondence of data obtained
from the different pressure ports of the scanners, all the ports on the model are given unique
identification labels and the corresponding port number on the scanner, along with the port
location is listed as a table and stored in file for easy post-processing of data.

The model has 31 ports- 17 on the upper surface, 12 on the lower surface and 1 port each at
the leading and trailing edges. The upper surface ports are labeled with U and the lower
surface ports with L. The first port which is situated at a little offset from the leading edge on
the upper surface is labeled as U1 and so on. The wake rake needed to calculate momentum
deficit has 57 stagnation pressure ports and 5 ports for measuring static pressure. One port is
there to measure total pressure of the freestream flow and hence calculate wind tunnel flow
speed. As each scanner has 32 pressure ports, 2 scanners are required for the test. The port
map is given in Appendix A.

23
3.2.2 Test configurations
The objective of present experiment was to investigate the effect of angle of attack and
Reynolds number on the LSB and airfoil characteristics. Accordingly, it was decided to
perform the following experiments:-

i. To perform steady state surface pressure measurements so as to obtain the surface

pressure distribution and the wake profile as a function of the angle of attack
varying from -7° to 24°at different wind speeds from 8m/s (Re= 66.97×103) to
30m/s (Re=256.43×103) in steps of 6m/s and hence calculate and plot the lift and
drag coefficients as a function of angle of attack for the airfoil.

ii. To perform steady state surface pressure measurements so as to obtain the surface
pressure distribution and the wake profile as a function of the incoming Reynolds
number varying from 66.97×103 (8m/s) to 256.43×103 (30m/s) at different angles
of attack from 0° to 12° in steps of 3° and hence calculate and plot lift and drag
coefficients as function of the incoming Reynolds number.

iii. To perform time series pressure measurements so as to obtain the bubble location,
i.e., points of separation, transition on the free shear layer and reattachment and
hence deduce the bubble length as a function of the angle of attack varying from
0° to 12° in steps of 1° at different wind speeds from 8m/s to 30m/s in steps of
6m/s.

iv. To perform time series pressure measurements so as to obtain the bubble location,
i.e., points of separation, transition on the free shear layer and reattachment and
hence deduce the bubble length as a function of the incoming Reynolds number
varying from 66.97×103 (8m/s) to 256.43×103 (30m/s) in steps of 6m/s at different
angles of attack from 0° to 12° in steps of 1° each.

24
 v. To validate the bubble location data obtained with time series pressure
measurements for different angles of attack at wind speeds of 8m/s, 12m/s and
15m/s using oil flow visualization.

3.2.3 Data acquisition programs

During the experiment, the pressure distribution on the model surface and in wake region is
measured using the pressure scanners, which send voltage signals to the signal conditioner
where they are amplified and filtered. The conditioned signals are acquired by the DAQ
Board which resides inside the computer. The ADC in the DAQ board digitizes the data and
provides to the program as input. This information is analyzed by the program and presented
in the graphs, so that any problem can be monitored during the course of experiment.
Program was developed in such a way that online analysis is carried out while the
experiments were going on. The raw data is kept in a data-log file and is analyzed later.

There were separate experiments done to obtain airfoil characteristics and the LSB effects. At
the start of each experiment, model was set at zero angle of attack and no wind data was
acquired. Then the wind speed is increased until the desired wind speed is reached. After the
flow stabilizes, acquisition of pressure data is started. After data is obtained for the decided
time interval, the angle of attack is changed to the next angle and the flow is allowed to
become steady before starting data acquisition for that angle of attack. To obtain the airfoil
characteristics, pressure data was collected for 5 seconds at each angle of attack and then its
mean was computed to obtain the pressure distribution on the airfoil surface. The stabilizing
time allowed for the flow to become steady after changing angle of attack was kept 3
seconds. The angle of attack was varied by 1 degree in general, and in steps of half degree
near stall. To locate the bubble, the stabilizing time given was 5 seconds, so as to give the
flow more time to become steady. Each experiment at different speeds was repeated twice to
ensure consistency. The pressure data from all the ports along with the model angles and
dynamic head were stored in a data log file. As the front panels of the VIs were too lengthy,
dual monitors were used to accommodate the front panel with online analysis. Photograph of
data acquisition VI is given in Appendix B.

25
3.3 Data Analysis
The data which was stored in the DAT file during a particular experiment was retrieved and
no wind data subtracted from the wind data and the resulting data is used for analysis.
Normalized data in volts is converted into pressure data by using scanners calibration
coefficients. From the unsteady pressure data, mean pressure distribution over the airfoil at
different angles of attack is used to calculate lift co-efficient while the momentum deficit as
measured by the wake rake is used to calculate drag coefficient. Subtracting the mean
pressure from the unsteady pressure data, we get the fluctuating component. The maxima of
fluctuations are used to locate the LSB. The analysis is explained in the following sections.

3.3.1 Calculation of lift coefficient

Firstly, the pressure data was converted into non-dimensional form called coefficient of
pressure CP by subtracting free stream static pressure from the local pressure on the model,
then dividing the result by dynamic head of the freestream. Then the pressure forces are
integrated to get the force components along and perpendicular to airfoil chord; then the lift
force is calculated by taking components of forces in direction perpendicular to freestream
wind.

𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝑝𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝑝𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐

𝐶𝑝 = 1
=
2
𝜌𝑈∞2 𝑝𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑝𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐

For an airfoil subjected to freestream wind velocity V∞ at angle of attack α,

𝑥
𝐶𝑛 = − ∮ 𝐶𝑝 𝑑 (𝑐 ) ≈ − ∑ 𝐶𝑝 𝛥𝑥 ⁄𝑐

𝑦
𝐶𝑎 = ∮ 𝐶𝑝 𝑑 ( 𝑐 ) ≈ ∑ 𝐶𝑝 𝛥𝑦⁄𝑐

𝐶𝑙 = 𝐶𝑛 cos 𝛼 − 𝐶𝑎 sin 𝛼

26
 Figure 3.1: Diagram for calculation of lift coefficient [25]

3.3.2 Calculation of drag coefficient

The drag coefficient cannot be calculated in the same manner as lift coefficient, because it
will give only the pressure drag, whereas for an airfoil, the major contribution to total drag is
from skin friction drag in non-stalled condition. Hence, in order to calculate total drag, the
incoming and outgoing flow momentum is calculated, the difference in which is due to force
exerted on the flow and which should also be equal to force exerted by the flow on the airfoil
in the flow direction.

Figure 3.2: Diagram for calculation of drag coefficient[25]

27
 2
𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑚 = 𝜌𝑈∞ 𝑙

𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑔𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑚 = 𝜌 ∫{𝑈(𝑦)}2 𝑑𝑦

For calculating U(y), the total pressure in the wake is measured. The stagnation pressure and
the static pressures are measured in the wake, which can be used to calculate velocity
variation in the cross-flow direction using the equation for incompressible flow:-

𝑝𝑜 = 𝑝 + 𝜌𝑈 2 /2,

where, P0 is the measured total pressure, P is the static pressure and U is the flow velocity at
that location.

2(𝑝𝑜 −𝑝)
Therefore, 𝑈 = √[ ].
𝜌

Total drag per unit span (D) = Incoming momentum - Outgoing momentum

2𝐷
𝐶𝑑 =
𝜌𝑈∞2 𝑐

3.3.3 Error Estimation

In this section, the uncertainty in calculating pressure coefficient and hence lift, drag and
moment coefficients due to instrumental error is analyzed.

𝑝
𝐶𝑝 = ⁄𝑞∞

Both surface pressures as well as dynamic pressure are measured by pressure scanners, so
uncertainty due to limitation of instrumental precision will be present in both of them.

𝛥𝐶𝑝 𝛥𝑝 𝛥𝑞
= +
𝐶𝑝 𝑝 𝑞

Since the error in surface pressure and dynamic pressure are uncorrelated,

28
Maximum error in measured pressure is 0.05% of full scale.

Therefore,

𝛥𝑝 𝛥𝑞
= ≈ 0.0005
𝑝 𝑞

𝛥𝐶𝑝
( ) = √[0.00052 + 0.00052 ] = 0.00071
𝐶𝑝 𝑟𝑚𝑠

Thus, the percentage error calculated value of in Cp is about 0.07%, which is much below the
desired accuracy. The error in Cl and Cd calculated by integrating Cp values should also be of
same order, neglecting the inaccuracy in location of co-ordinates.

3.3.4 Detection of LSB

As has been discussed in section 1.3.3, the standard deviation value of the pressure
fluctuations show a peak at a point over the airfoil at which the separated shear layer
transitions into turbulent state from the laminar state. The region under the peak is the LSB
extending from the point of separation on the airfoil surface to the point of reattachment.
Hence, the calculated value of standard deviation from the point where the rms value shows
an increase, to the point where the value becomes minimal and of the same magnitude as the
flow beyond that location over the airfoil surface would indicate the presence of LSB as
shown in the figure 3.3. A correlation between the Cp and Cp rms is necessary to ensure the
presence of the bubble since an attached flow transition would also lead to a peak in the rms
plot. In the laminar flow regime, flow fluctuations are much smaller in amplitude and the
associated frequency is also lower than the sampling rate; and in the turbulent flow regime,
not only the actual root mean square value of pressure fluctuations is lower compared to the
same in transition region, but also the fluctuations are in range of higher frequencies
compared to the sampling rate of pressure scanners due to which the apparent rms value is
still lower. Secondly, it is also expected that the presence of air column in the vinyl tubes will
act like a low pass filter due to which higher frequency fluctuations will be excluded from the

29
data. The length of PVC tubes used varies from 10cm to 50 cm and their inner diameter is
1mm, in the range studied in reference [21].

Figure 3.3: Comparison of Cp and Cp rms plots to deduce bubble location.

Figure 3.3 clearly depicts the point of separation to be at x/c= 0.187 and the point of
reattachment at x/c=0.51 for the upper surface of the airfoil for a flow of 15m/s at an angle of

30
6°. The free shear layer undergoes transition at x/c=0.286. Thus it means that the bubble
length at the centre-line section of the airfoil is approximately equal to 33% of the chord
length.

3.4 Surface Flow Visualization Technique

As a secondary technique to locate LSB in order to confirm the results obtained from the
primary technique, surface flow visualization using oil flow was carried out. In this method,
differential surface shear stresses in laminar and turbulent boundary layer regions are
utilized. The oil sprayed on the airfoil model responds to these shear stresses in different
manners and hence a pattern is obtained on the airfoil surface. The skill lies in preparing the
mixture of TiO2 + Oleic acid + Transformer-oil with definite proportions and tactfully
applying on the surface of the airfoil. The chronology of events determined between the
separation and reattachment points, quantifies the band identified as the zone of LSB.
When wind flows over the model, the oil mixture starts moving on the airfoil surface. The
rate of movement is governed by the shear stresses in the boundary layer. The shear stress is
much higher in the laminar boundary layer, so the movement of oil on the surface is slower
and in a well defined layer like pattern, whereas in the turbulent flow region, the flow is rapid
and in a haphazard manner and thus this difference would ensure a differential pattern in the
flow over the surface and thus allows us to locate the zone of the bubble. Hence, the
differential patterns of flow clearly show the location of the bubble and can be used as a
confirmatory technique for the primary technique.
Precautions:-
1. The oil mixture has to prepared carefully (in the ratio 1:1:1) and it must be ensured that
there are no lumps in the mixture.
2. Before spraying the solution, all the pressure ports must be properly closed; otherwise the
oil mixture will enter and block the pressure ports.
3. The spraying should be uniform all along the surface to avoid any superficial erroneous
conclusion.
4. Every test must be repeated at least once before confirming the bubble location.

31
Chapter 4. Results and Discussion

The pre-requisite for any analysis of the experimental results is the validation of the
experimental procedure/setup used for measurements. The preliminary surface pressure
measurement data and the corresponding aerodynamic coefficients are firstly compared with
existing literature for the NACA 0012 airfoil and after that, the effect of LSB on Cp and the
wake data are analysed in section 4.1. Then the sectional properties of the airfoil, i.e., plots of
Cl and Cd at varying angle of attack and Reynolds numbers are given in section 4.2. Then the
effect of change in angle of attack and Reynolds number on the characteristics of the LSB is
thoroughly discussed in section 4.3. Finally, the comparison between the primary and
secondary techniques is done section 4.4 to validate the results obtained about the
location/length of the LSB from the ESP scanners.

4.1 Preliminary Results

Firstly, steady flow pressure measurements were performed on the airfoil at different Reynolds
numbers and the surface pressure distribution obtained was integrated to obtain the aerodynamic
coefficients. This gave an idea of the stall angle, lift-curve slope and Cl max and Cl max/ Cd. Table 4.1
compares these data with Javafoil data obtained from [22] corresponding to a Reynolds number of
100×103.

Characteristic Experiment JAVAFOIL

Cl max 0.82 0.84
Max (L/D), Location 20.98; 7⁰ 40.56; 7⁰
dCl/dα 0.085 0.12
Stall Angle 10.5⁰ 7⁰
Indication Of LSB Yes No
Table 4.1: Comparison of Experimental data with Javafoil data

Javafoil codes are highly inept at predicting the presence of LSB’s. The lift –curve slope obtained
through the experiments are much less compared to the prediction through the Javafoil code. One of
the primary reasons for this is the lack of more pressure tapping’s near the leading edge of the airfoil

32
as a result of which the suction peak region is not completely accessible through experiments. This
leads to a lesser value of Cp and consequentially lesser value of Cl which in turn affects the lift curve
slope. This disadvantage is again discussed later.

Cl, Cd

Figure 4.1: Comparison of experimental data with JAVAFOIL data

Figure 4.1 compares the Cl, Cd versus α plots for the experimental data and the Javafoil data.
The lift and drag data compare well at low angles of attack. However at higher angles, as the
suction peak region on the airfoil surface traverses towards the leading edge, the data show
considerable deviation with respect to the lift data. As discussed above, this is primarily due
to the lack of more pressure tappings near the leading edge of the airfoil on the upper surface.
Also there is considerable deviation in drag data in the post stall region with Javafoil data.
This is primarily because of the transition model used in the code which cannot completely
account for the separated flow on the airfoil surface in the post stall region.

33
Sandia National Laboratories conducted a study on the aerodynamic characteristics of
symmetric airfoil sections in which NACA0012 was also included [23]. The data so obtained
is compared with the experimental data acquired in the present work in the subsequent
paragraphs.

Figure 4.2: Comparison of lift data with literature

As it is evident from figure 4.2, the lift data are comparable with the data from reference [22]
except for deviation near stall and hence there is a subsequent reduction in Cl max. This may
be due to the lack of more pressure ports towards the LE of the airfoil. Also, the aspect ratio
of the model used in the current setup is only 2.48 as compared to the reference model aspect
ratio of 3.57 which is a significant change. This would also result in a more 3-D flow even
near the centerline of the tunnel section, thus resulting in a decrease of the maximum lift
attained.Figure 4.3 below compares the drag data with reference drag data. The drag
measured in the current setup is higher compared to the reference with much larger deviation
near stall.

34
 Figure 4.3: Comparison of drag data with literature

The experimental pressure data acquired in the present study is depicted in Figures 4.4 and
4.5 as surface pressure distribution and wake data respectively for a limited number of angle
of attack. From figure 4.4, the evident of bubble is clear from the Cp plot at α = 5.82º located
around x/c = 0.4 and as the α increases, the bubble moves towards the leading edge which is
clear from the Cp plot corresponding to α = 8.87º which depicts the plateau region due to the
bubble to be located just before x/c = 0.1. At α = 10.97º, the bubble is located at the LE and
there is a reduction in the suction peak leading to a loss in the lift attained. However at α =
13.93º, the slope of the Cp plot becomes positive just aft of the LE showing that the flow has
separated from the surface and the airfoil has stalled. Figure 4.5 depicts the wake velocity
profiles corresponding to the angle of attack under consideration in figure 4.4. It is clear from
figure 4.5 that as the angle of attack increases, the velocity profiles corresponding to the
upper side are overlapping with increase in the velocity reduction in the wake as the angle of
attack increases from α = 5.82º to α = 8.87º. At α = 10.97º, the profile has grown abruptly in
the upper side which indicates stall since the drag associated has increased alongwith the
decrease in lift as explained earlier.

35
 Figure 4.4: Comparison of Cp data at Re = 66.97×103 for different angle of attack

Figure 4.5: Comparison of wake data at Re = 66.97×103 for different angle of attack

36
4.2 Airfoil Characteristics

Firstly, the sectional properties of airfoil were determined using steady flow pressure
measurement to get the variation of the aerodynamic coefficients with angle of attack and
Reynolds number. This would also help to study the effect of LSB on sectional properties.
The lift, drag and moment coefficients of the airfoil were determined at angles of attack
varying from -70 to 240 at freestream velocities of 8m/s, 12m/s, 18m/s, 24m/s and 30m/s by
taking the average pressure values from 5 second steady flow measurements and
programmed analysis in LabVIEW as per the formulation discussed in section 3.4. The
variation of Reynolds number from 66.97×103 to 256.43×103 would also allow us to analyze
effect of Reynolds number on sectional properties. The plots thence obtained are presented in
the following subsections. The CP distribution for a particular set of values of angle of attack
and the associated wake profiles, for each speed is shown in Appendix C.

4.2.1 Variation of lift coefficient with angle of attack and Reynolds number
The lift curves were obtained at varying speeds from 8m/s to 30 m/s to study the effect of
Reynolds number on Cl max and stall angle. The plots of lift coefficient as a function of angle
of attack at different Reynolds number are shown in Figure 4.6.
It can be seen from figure 4.6 that the plots are fairly linear for smaller angles, and start
deviating for larger angles (more than 7⁰), even more so at larger Reynolds number. With
increase in angle of attack, the flow, being unable to overcome the high adverse pressure
gradients, starts separating from the trailing edge. As the incoming Reynolds number of the
flow increases, the freestream turbulence is higher, due to which the boundary layer is having
more turbulent kinetic energy, so it remains attached to the surface for longer distance
compared to the case at lower Reynolds number. Due to this trailing edge flow separation,
the lift coefficient is slightly lower at smaller value of Reynolds number at high angles of
attack. The curves are fairly overlapping for small angles of attack when the flow remains
attached to the surface except for extremely low Reynolds numbers (66.97×103 to
151.08×103) since the LSB formed is predominant with respect to length and location. The
trailing edge flow separation can be noted clearly from the Cp curves at different angles of
attack, where the curve flattens after flow separation, and also from plots of R.M.S. values of

37
fluctuations which increase abruptly after the point of boundary layer separation. As an
example, Cp curve at velocity 24m/s at angle of attack 16⁰is shown in figure 4.7. It shows
flow separation on the upper surface after x/c = 0.18 as the curve has become flat after that.

Figure 4.6: Cl versus α plot at different Reynolds numbers

38
 Figure 4.7: Cp v/s x/c curve for Re=202.53×103 at α =16⁰

It is also found that stall angle and hence Cl max increases with Reynolds number. The
turbulent boundary layer, having more energy tends to remain attached to airfoil surface, and
hence the airfoil stalls at a higher angle of attack at higher Reynolds number.
The variation of the lift coefficient at a fixed angle of attack with the incoming Reynolds
number was also studied as shown in figure 4.8. It can be clearly seen that the variation in Cl
is minimal. At lower angles of attack (from 0° to 5°), the increase in Re results in a slight
decrease in the Cl values which is due to the fact that an increase in the Re results in a
decrease in the bubble length and consequently the length of the plateau region on the Cp
profile is shortened. However at higher angles, the bubble is almost near the leading edge and
hence lies within the suction peak region. Under such conditions, the flow is transitioning to
turbulent state faster with an increase in Reynolds number and hence there is an increase in
lift.

39
 Figure 4.8: Cl v/s Re curve for different angles of attack.

4.2.2 Variation of drag coefficient with angle of attack and Reynolds number
Similar to lift coefficient, the drag coefficient curves were obtained by taking average wake
pressure data and analyzing as discussed in section 3.3.2 at different speeds. The plots of
drag coefficient variation with angle of attack at different Reynolds numbers are given in
figure 4.9.
The drag coefficient plots are parallel for small angles of attack and deviate at higher angles.
As can be noted from figure 4.9, the stall location varies with different Reynolds number. As
the flow becomes turbulent earlier at higher Reynolds number, the skin friction drag which is
much higher for turbulent boundary layer tends to increase the overall drag for higher
Reynolds number. This tendency is countered by trailing edge flow separation at higher
angles of attack which happens earlier at lower Reynolds number and increases the pressure
drag. After stall, the drag coefficient increases tremendously, and is clearly seen from figure
4.9.It is to be noted that stall occurs earlier for lower Re.

40
Figure 4.9: Cd versus α plots for different Reynolds numbers

41
 Figure 4.10: Variation of Cd with incoming Reynolds Number

The effect of variation of the drag coefficient with the incoming Reynolds number at a fixed
angle of attack was also studied and is depicted in figure 4.10.

4.3Effect of Angle of attack and Reynolds number on LSB Characteristics

Since the technique of bubble detection by low frequency pressure measurements by ESP
scanners is now established, we can study the effect of different parameters on LSB location.
The parameters that can be varied for flow past an airfoil are angle of attack and Reynolds
number. In these experiments, both of these are varied one by one keeping the other
parameter fixed. As the bubble on the upper surface which lies in adverse pressure gradient is
of paramount importance, it is the one discussed in this section. The variation of bubble
location and bubble length at the centerline of the flow, with change in these parameters is
presented in following subsections.

4.3.1 Variation of LSB characteristics with angle of attack

In these experiments, firstly a desired freestream wind velocity was reached and flow was
allowed to stabilize, then the unsteady pressure measurements were taken at different angles
of attack of airfoil and the deviation of R.M.S values was used to locate the bubble. The
experiments were repeated for different Reynolds number. The results are presented in figure

42
4.11. As is intuitively apparent, the bubble moves toward leading edge with increase in angle
of attack.

Figure 4.11: Variation of the bubble location with angles of attack at 10 m/s.

It is clear from figure 4.11 that, the separation point on the upper surface of the airfoil moves
towards the leading edge as angle of attack increases. As the angle of attack increases, the
upper surface of airfoil is subjected to higher and higher adverse pressure gradients. This
increases the tendency of the laminar flow to separate from the airfoil surface and hence
separates earlier compared to flow at a lower angle of attack. With increase in angle of
attack, the adverse pressure gradient region starts at a lower value of x/c and is much steeper
and hence the separated shear layer also undergoes transition from laminar to turbulent at a
lower value of x/c. After transition, the free hear layer being more energetic reattaches to the
airfoil surface quicker and thus results in the bubble moving upstream.
For higher Reynolds numbers, the incoming turbulent fluctuations are higher and hence the
boundary layer has more energy. After adverse pressure gradient region begins, more and
more energy is added to the fluctuating part, due to which boundary layer is prone to become
turbulent. As boundary layer is more energetic for higher Reynolds number, the transition is
earlier at higher Reynolds number. Also as visible from the flow visualization technique and

43
the Cp R.M.S. plots, the bubble length decreases as the angle of attack increases. Figure 4.12
shows the variation in the bubble length with change in angle of attack. At 10 m/s wind
velocity, the variation in bubble length is from 32% of the chord length at α=3.27 0 to 18% of
the chord length at α=10.11⁰. The reduction in bubble length is attributed to earlier separation
and reattachment of the flow on the airfoil surface.

Figure 4.12: Variation of the bubble length with angle of attack at different Re.

4.3.2 Variation of LSB characteristics with Reynolds number

In order to analyze the effect of variation of Reynolds number on bubble location, keeping
the angle of attack fixed, the unsteady pressure data to determine bubble characteristics were
acquired at different speeds. This was repeated for different angles of attack. The angles of
attack considered varied from 0 to 7 degrees, because after that the bubble shifts very near to
leading edge and, as can be seen from figure 4.11, there is little effect of Reynolds number
variation. The flow velocity was varied from 8m/s to 30m/s. The location of the bubble
obtained with aforesaid variation is presented in figure 4.13.

44
Figure 4.13: Variation of bubble location (transition location) with Reynolds number at α = 3.970.

With increase in Reynolds number, the bubble shifts towards the leading edge due to increase
in turbulent kinetic energy because of higher incoming turbulent fluctuations, as discussed in
section 4.3.1. It can be seen from figure 4.14, that variation of transition point on the free
shear layer used to locate the LSB with Reynolds number is steeper at lower angles of attack
and much less at higher angles. This is because at higher angles of attack, the adverse
pressure gradient is so steep that the flow accelerates very fast and the boundary layer
becomes turbulent quickly regardless of incoming Reynolds number. At very low angles of
attack, i.e. 3 and 4 degrees, the pressure gradient is not so steep and the boundary layer takes
some distance to become turbulent after adverse pressure gradient begins. That is the time
when role of incoming Reynolds number becomes prominent. The variation of bubble length
with Re at a fixed angle of attack is depicted in Figure 4.15.

45
 Figure 4.14: Variation of bubble location with incoming Reynolds number at fixed angle of attack.

Figure 4.15: Variation of bubble length with incoming Reynolds number at fixed angle of attack.

46
4.4 Oil Flow Visualization Results

The purpose of using oil flow visualization technique for detection of LSB is to validate the
results obtained by ESP scanners. It is, by no means, supposed to be a primary technique for
this facility, because it is extremely tedious and time-consuming as it requires the wind
tunnel to be opened and the oil mixture to be applied to the model for each angle of attack
and velocity manually, and about five minutes to run the tunnel after that. Each test has then
to be repeated for confirmation. So, the technique is used here for few angles of attack in
order to compare it with the results deduced by unsteady pressure measurements. The surface
flow visualization technique was done for angles of attack from 4˚to 10˚ in steps of 1 o each
for velocities of 8 m/s, 12m/s and 15 m/s.
Initially, the oil mixture at a predefined ratio was applied to the airfoil surface, so that white
oil mixture pattern obtained would be contrasted against black background. When the flow
was turned on, the flow pattern was studied and the mixture strength was optimized to
achieve good results by repeating the test for different mixture combinations. As a result, the
optimum strength was found to be 1:1:1 (by volume).
Hence, the solution was applied to the airfoil surface in the middle and location of LSB if any
was obtained after turning on the wind as explained in section 3.4. It was found that, the
pattern observed had well differentiable laminar boundary layer, the bubble region and the
turbulent boundary layer. In the laminar region, the oil had flowed in parallel streamline
pattern and had extended upto the point of separation beyond which the layer like pattern
wasn’t observed whereas in the turbulent flow regime, the oil had moved much faster and in
a random pattern upto the trailing edge. In the bubble region two different flow regimes were
observed: the region beneath the laminar free shear layer where the flow was very slow and
the region beneath the turbulent free shear layer where the flow was faster and more random
with reverse flow clearly visible. Wind was turned off and the bubble was approximately
located. The bubble is the region between the laminar and turbulent flow regimes. As an
example, a photograph of showing the location of the LSB in the middle of flow condition at
5 degree angle of attack at 15 m/s is shown in figure 4.16. The point of separation at mid-
span of the airfoil is at x/c = 0.22 and the point of reattachment is at x/c = 0.5. Reverse flow

47
underneath the turbulent shear layer just before reattachment is also visible. The uncertainty
in location of the bubble in this way is about 6 mm, roughly 5% of chord length.

Figure 4.16: Location of the LSB using oil flow visualization technique at 50 at 15 m/s

In this way, the location of the bubble was deduced at above stated angles of attack for
different speeds for each angle of attack. A comparison of the results of ESP scanners and by
oil flow visualization is given in Figure 4.17. There is some uncertainty in bubble location
by both methods. The correspondence of results within experimental accuracy gives a
confirmation to the primary method.

Figure 4.17: Comparison of results obtained about location of LSB with respect to the points
of separation and reattachment on the airfoil surface from different methods at 12m/s.

48
Chapter 5. Conclusion

An experimental technique to detect and study the LSB on the surface of any airfoil was
successfully implemented at Low Speed Aerodynamics Lab, IIT Kanpur. The technique used
is unsteady pressure measurement using ESP scanners. It has been found to detect the bubble
fairly well at different velocities and angles of attack and was validated using surface oil flow
visualization. Following are the salient features of employing this technique.
 It uses only ESP scanners which were already present at LS lab. Hence, this method
is quite economic as there is no need to invest on costly unsteady pressure sensors.
 It can be successfully used at any velocity and angle of attack.
 As the pressure ports are very small and the airfoil surface is made very smooth,
there is minimum possibility of any disturbance being propagated downstream or
premature transition. As such, the method can be treated as almost being non-
intrusive, particularly when compared with hot wire or hot films.
 As the models tested in LS Lab are quite small, pressure scanners can easily be used
outside the tunnel if proper space is provided for steel tubing while design. Hence,
the method is useful for airfoils of varying thickness from 10% to 30%.
 It can successfully locate the bubble within almost 8% accuracy of the chord length
which is lower than desired.

An experimental investigation of flow past NACA0012 airfoil was carried out. The sectional
properties and location of the bubble on the upper surface on clean airfoil were investigated
at varying angles of attack for different Reynolds numbers. The technique used is unsteady
pressure measurement using ESP scanners. The experiments are done at Re =66.97×103,
101.27×103, 151.08×103, 202.53×103 and 256.43×103. The results have been plotted. Main
observations are summarized below.

49
  The data acquired are comparable with the existing literature and hence the
method of surface pressure measurement using ESP scanners can be used on
any airfoil.
 The LSB moves upstream towards the leading edge as the angle of attack is
increased, until the bubble reaches the leading edge and bursts before stall.
 For a given angle of attack, the LSB moves upstream on the airfoil surface as
Reynolds number is increased.
 With the increase in angle of attack, the bubble length decreases and the
effect is more prominent at lower Reynolds numbers.
 For a given angle of attack, the LSB length decreases as Reynolds number is
increased.

Scope for Future Work

 The result for bubble location and length can be confirmed using high frequency
pressure sensors of appropriate range. Since experiment was conducted in LS Lab
with the pressure sensors unavailable, the results couldn’t be reaffirmed in this case.
 PIV technique may be used to determine the bubble height as a function of Re and the
angle of attack using high magnification lenses.
 As the lift data was slightly less compared to the available literature data due to the
non-availability of more pressure ports near the leading edge of the airfoil, with any
future testing, the availability of more pressure ports towards the leading edge must
be ensured.
 Since the bubble length measurement and detection is also influenced partly by the
non availability of more ports near the leading edge, to employ this technique for
bubble detection/study, it is imperative that more pressure ports are available.
 The problem of non availability of more ports near the leading edge may be solved by
using a force balance incorporated within the airfoil and further testing/confirmatory
testing may be done.
 Since the oil flow visualization technique is highly tedious and time consuming, flow
visualization techniques employing temperature sensitive paints may be used
alternatively.

50
References
1. Y. Lian, and W. Shyy, “Laminar-Turbulent Transition of a Low Reynolds Number Rigid
or Flexible Airfoil”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 47, No. 7, 2007.
2. Mark Drela, “Xfoil: An analysis and design system for low Reynolds number airfoils” In
Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Engineering 54,
1989.
3. http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/methods.htm
4. S. Burgmann, J. Dannemann, W. Schro¨der, “Time-resolved and volumetric PIV
measurements of a transitional separation bubble on an SD7003 airfoil”, Experiments in
Fluids, Experimental Methods and their Applications to Fluid Flow, Springer-Verlag 2007.
5. H.P.Horton, “A Semi-Emperical Theory for the Growth and Bursting of Laminar
Separation Bubbles.” , British ARC CP no. 1073, 1969.
6. Mohsen Jahanmiri, Laminar Separation Bubble: Its Structure, Dynamics and Control,
Research report 2011:06, ISSN 1652-8549.
7. G.B. McCuullough, and D. E. Gault, “Examples of Three Representative Types of
Airfoil-Section Stall at Low Speed.” NACA TN 2502, 1951.
8. P. R. Owen and L. Klanfer, “On the Laminar Boundary layer Separation from the
Leading Edge of a Thin Airfoil.” British A.R.C. CP No. 220, 1953.
9. Sourabh S. Diwan and O. N. Ramesh, “Laminar Separation Bubbles: Dynamics and
Control”, Sadhana: Academy proceedings in Engineering sciences, 32 (1-2), pp. 103-109,
2007.
10.Sosa Roberto and Artana Guillermo, “Steady control of laminar separation over airfoils
with plasma sheet actuators”, Journal of Electrostatics, Vol. 64, No: 7-9, pp. 604-610, 2006.
11. M. Brien and Y. Metin,“Passive manipulation of separation bubble transition using
surface modification”, Journal of Fluids engg., Issue-2-021201, 2009.
12. C. P. Haggmark, A. A. Bakchinov and P. H. Alfredsson, “Experiments on a Two-
Dimensional Laminar Separation Bubble”, Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences Vol. 358, No. 1777, Steady and Unsteady Separated
Flows (Dec. 15, 2000), pp. 3193-3205.

51
13. R. Hain, C. J. Kahler AND R. Radespiel, “Dynamics of laminar separation bubbles at
low-Reynolds-number aerofoils”, J. Fluid Mech. (2009), vol. 630, pp. 129–153.
14. Hui Hu, Zifeng Yang, “An Experimental Study of the Laminar Flow Separation on a
Low-Reynolds-Number Airfoil”, Journal of Fluids Engineering-transactions of The ASME -
J FLUID ENG , vol. 130, no. 5, 2008.
15. Patrick Francis Mish, “An experimental investigation of unsteady surface pressure on
single and multiple airfoils”, PhD thesis, Virginia Technical University, 2006.
16. Mads Dossing, “High frequency microphone measurements for transition detection on
airfoils”, Technical report, Riso DTU, 2008.
17. S. Zhong, “Detection of flow separation and reattachment using shear-sensitive liquid
crystals”, Experiments in fluids, Springer- Verlag, 2002.
18. Thomas G. Popernack, Lewis R. Owens, Marvine P. Hamner & Martin J. Morris,
“Application of Temperature Sensitive Paint for Detection of Boundary Layer Transition” ,
17th International Congress on Instrumentation in Aerospace Simulation Facilities, 29 Sep-2
Oct 1997, Pages 77 – 83.
19. M. Lang, U. Rist, S. Wagner, ”Investigations on controlled transition development in a
laminar separation bubble by means of LDA and PIV”, Experiments in Fluids 36 (2004) 43–
52, DOI 10.1007/s00348-003-0625-x.
20. E. Schuelein, S. Koch & H. Rosemann, “Skin Friction Measurement and Transition
Detection Techniques for the Ludwieg-Tubes at DLR”, NASA no. 19980204008, 1998.
21. William G. Chapin, “Dynamic-Pressure Measurements Using an Electronically Scanned
Pressure Module”, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, 1983.
22. http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/1137.htm
23. Robert E. Sheldahl and Paul C. Klimas, “Aerodynamic characteristics of seven
symmetrical airfoil sections through 180-degree angle of attack for use in aerodynamic
analysis of vertical axis wind turbines”, Sandia National Laboratories, Research report,
February, 1981.
24. Deepakkumar M. Sharma, “Experimental Investigations of Dynamic Stall for an
Oscillating Airfoil”, PhD thesis, Aerospace Engg. Dept., IIT Kanpur, India, June 2010.
25. Anshul Khandelwal, “An Experimental Study on the Detection of Transition Location on an
Airfoil”, M.Tech Thesis, Aerospace Engg. Dept., IIT Kanpur, India, May 2010.

52
APPENDIX A: Port Map of all Pressure Ports including Wake Rake
Port map for NACA 0012 Airfoil
Serial # Port ID ESP Channel ESP Port index X/C Y/C X(mm) Y(mm)
0 MLE 0 0 0.000 0 0.000 0
1 MU01 0 1 0.030 0.028 3.632 3.425
2 MU02 0 2 0.055 0.037 6.741 4.492
3 MU03 0 3 0.080 0.043 9.822 5.238
4 MU04 0 4 0.104 0.047 12.738 5.776
5 MU05 0 5 0.146 0.053 17.837 6.450
6 MU06 0 6 0.187 0.056 22.874 6.890
7 MU07 0 7 0.228 0.059 27.894 7.171
8 MU08 0 8 0.286 0.060 35.033 7.338
9 MU09 0 9 0.351 0.060 43.017 7.297
10 MU10 0 10 0.425 0.057 52.114 7.024
11 MU11 0 11 0.507 0.053 62.166 6.503
12 MU12 0 12 0.598 0.047 73.296 5.725
13 MU13 0 13 0.679 0.040 83.218 4.883
14 MU14 0 14 0.754 0.033 92.322 4.014
15 MU15 0 15 0.819 0.026 100.314 3.177
16 MU16 0 16 0.876 0.020 107.303 2.390
17 MU17 0 17 0.943 0.011 115.529 1.398
18 MTE 0 18 1.000 0.000 122.500 0.000
19 MLE 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
20 ML01 0 30 0.029 -0.028 3.610 -3.414
21 ML02 0 29 0.055 -0.037 6.753 -4.498
22 ML03 0 28 0.097 -0.046 11.916 -5.624
23 ML04 0 27 0.145 -0.053 17.819 -6.440
24 ML05 0 26 0.211 -0.058 25.904 -7.081
25 ML06 0 25 0.287 -0.060 35.172 -7.329
26 ML07 0 24 0.369 -0.059 45.229 -7.255
27 ML08 0 23 0.427 -0.057 52.311 -7.017
28 ML09 0 22 0.492 -0.054 60.301 -6.618
29 ML10 0 21 0.567 -0.049 69.512 -6.011
30 ML11 0 20 0.650 -0.043 79.605 -5.229

53
31 ML12 0 19 0.748 -0.033 91.591 -4.096
32 MTE 0 18 1 0.000 122.500 0.000
33 R-25 2 0 0.000 3.020 370
34 R-24 2 1 0.000 3.184 390
35 R-23 2 2 0.000 3.347 410
36 R-22 2 3 0.000 3.510 430
37 R-21 2 4 0.000 3.633 445
38 R-20 2 5 0.000 3.755 460
39 R-19 2 6 0.000 3.837 470
40 R-18 2 7 0.000 3.918 480
41 R-17 2 8 0.000 4.000 490
42 R-16 2 9 0.000 4.082 500
43 R-15 2 10 0.000 4.163 510
44 R-14 2 11 0.000 4.245 520
45 R-13 2 12 0.000 4.327 530
46 R-12 2 13 0.000 4.408 540
47 R-11 2 14 0.000 4.490 550
48 R-10 2 15 0.000 4.551 557.5
49 R-9 2 16 0.000 4.612 565
50 R-8 1 0 0.000 4.653 570
51 R-7 1 1 0.000 4.694 575
52 R-6 1 2 0.000 4.735 580
53 R-5 1 3 0.000 4.776 585
54 R-4 1 4 0.000 4.816 590
55 R-3 1 5 0.000 4.857 595
56 R-2 1 6 0.000 4.898 600
57 R-1 1 7 0.000 4.939 605
58 R-0 1 8 0.000 4.980 610
59 R1 1 9 0.000 5.020 615
60 R2 1 10 0.000 5.061 620
61 R3 1 11 0.000 5.102 625
62 R4 1 12 0.000 5.143 630
63 R5 1 13 0.000 5.184 635
64 R6 1 14 0.000 5.224 640
65 R7 1 15 0.000 5.265 645
66 R8 1 16 0.000 5.306 650

54
67 R9 1 17 0.000 5.347 655
68 R10 1 18 0.000 5.408 662.5
69 R11 1 19 0.000 5.469 670
70 R12 1 20 0.000 5.551 680
71 R13 1 21 0.000 5.633 690
72 R14 1 22 0.000 5.714 700
73 R15 1 23 0.000 5.796 710
74 R16 1 24 0.000 5.878 720
75 R17 1 25 0.000 5.959 730
76 R18 1 26 0.000 6.041 740
77 R19 1 27 0.000 6.122 750
78 R20 1 28 0.000 6.204 760
79 R21 1 29 0.000 6.327 775
80 R22 1 30 0.000 6.449 790
81 R23 1 31 0.000 6.612 810
82 R24 2 17 0.000 6.776 830
83 R25 2 18 0.000 6.939 850
84 R26 2 19 0.000 7.102 870
85 R27 2 20 0.000 7.265 890
86 R28 2 21 0.000 7.429 910
87 R29 2 22 0.000 7.592 930
88 R30 2 23 0.000 7.755 950
89 R31 2 24 0.000 7.918 970
90 R32 2 25 0.000 8.082 990
91 S1 2 26 0.000 2.506 307
92 S2 2 27 0.000 3.731 457
93 S3 2 28 0.000 4.955 607
94 S4 2 29 0.000 6.180 757
95 S5 2 30 0.000 7.404 907
96 Qinf 0 31 0.000 0.000 0

55
APPENDIX B: Picture of Data Acquisition VI

56
APPENDIX C: CP Plots and Wake Profiles

57
58
59