JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Vol. 50, No. 1, January–February 2013

Large-Eddy Simulation of Low-Reynolds-Number Flow

Over Thick and Thin NACA Airfoils

Ryoji Kojima∗
University of Tokyo, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8510, Japan
and
Taku Nonomura,† Akira Oyama,‡ and Kozo Fujii§
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8510, Japan
DOI: 10.2514/1.C031849
In this study, the flowfields around NACA0012 and NACA0002 airfoils at Reynolds number of 23,000 and the
aerodynamic characteristics of these flowfields were analyzed using implicit large-eddy simulation and laminar-flow
simulation. Around this Reynolds number, the flow over an airfoil separates, transits, and reattaches, resulting in the
Downloaded by ROKETSAN MISSLES INC. on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031849

generation of a laminar separation bubble at the angle of attack in a certain degree range. Over an NACA0012 airfoil,
the separation point moves toward its leading edge with an increasing angle of attack, and the separated flow may
transit to create a short bubble. On the other hand, over an NACA0002 airfoil, the separation point is kept at its
leading edge, and the separated flow may transit to create a long bubble. Moreover, nonlinearity appears in the lift
curve of the NACA0012 airfoil, but not in that of NACA0002, despite the existence of a laminar separation bubble.

I. Introduction Recently, many researchers have analyzed the characteristics of

R ECENTLY, aircraft-like devices have been proposed as possible
Mars explorers and are being investigated by a Japanese re-
search group. These explorers are required to operate in a low Reyn-
olds number (103 to 105 ) environment because of the severe
restrictions on size and weight, which is necessary for low-speed
cruising for taking photographs in the thin Mars atmosphere.
However, under the low Reynolds number condition, it is difficult to
gain a sufficiently high lift coefficient (CL ) because of laminar
separation [1,2]. Moreover, laminar separation causes transition to
the turbulence, which leads to the formation of separation bubbles.
These bubbles are characterized into two types: short and long.
Whereas a short bubble is one whose length decreases with increasing
angle of attack, a long bubble is one whose length increases with the
angle of attack. Such separation bubbles are known to generate
unsteadiness in flowfields and to affect aerodynamic characteristics
[3]. Thus, it is important to understand the characteristics of separa-
tion bubbles for airfoil design of aircraft cruising under the low
Reynolds number condition.
To understand the characteristics of low Reynolds number flows
over airfoils numerical simulations seem to be preferable because
conducting experiments at low flow speeds is very difficult. Moreover,
numerical simulations provide a variety of flowfield information.
At low Reynolds numbers, however, flowfields become unsteady
because of complex flow characteristics due to separation, transition,
and reattachment. Thus, high-cost numerical simulations such as the
direct numerical simulation (DNS) or the large-eddy simulation (LES)
are required to evaluate the separation bubbles accurately.
Received 19 February 2012; revision received 18 June 2012; accepted for
publication 17 July 2012; published online 14 January 2013. Copyright ©
2012 by Ryoji Kojima, Taku Nonomura, Akira Oyama, and Kozo Fujii.
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
with permission. Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal
use, on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright
Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include
the code 1542-3868/13 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
*Graduate Student, Department of Space Transportation Division;
currently Japan Railway Central.
†
Assistant Professor, Institute of Space and Astronautical Science,
Department of Space Transportation Division. Member AIAA.
‡
Associate Professor, Institute of Space and Astronautical Science,
Department of Space Transportation Division. Senior Member AIAA.
§
Professor, Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Department of
Space Transportation Division. Fellow AIAA.
187
separation bubbles using DNS or LES [4,5]. These analyses are
limited to thick airfoils such as NACA0012 or SD7003. Their results
show that short bubbles are formed over thick airfoils. In addition,
the nonlinearly of a CL curve at Reynolds numbers around 104 has
caught the attention of many researchers [1,6]. However, the reasons
for such nonlinearity in the aerodynamic characteristics have not yet
been clarified because of experimental difficulties and the limited
number of numerical simulations.
In the course of the various studies conducted on thick airfoils,
several characteristics of the airfoil design for low Reynolds numbers
have been clarified: thin and cambered airfoils are better than thick
and symmetric ones, respectively, and sharp leading edges improve
aerodynamic ability in terms of maximum lift-to-drag ratio. For
example, Oyama et al. [7] conducted the optimization of the airfoil of
an aircraft-like Mars explorer at a 2 deg angle of attack by using a two-
dimensional (2D) Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulation and
genetic algorithms for maximizing the lift and minimizing the drag.
Their result showed that cambered thin airfoils are obtained as a
Pareto-optimal solution with maximum lift-to-drag ratio [8].
From the preceding discussion, it can be concluded that an airfoil
with a sharp leading edge can be a possible candidate for inclusion
into the design of aircraft-like Mars explorers. However, the flowfield
characteristics of such an airfoil, such as the separation bubbles
generated by a sharp leading edge and the differences between the
flowfields of thin and thick airfoils, have not yet been sufficiently
elucidated.
For the design of future aircraft-like Mars explorers, it is important
to understand the differences between the flowfields of thin and
thick airfoils subject to the low Reynolds number condition. In this
study, we conducted three-dimensional (3D) LES computation and
2D laminar computation for thin and thick airfoils, and discussed
the differences between the flowfields around these airfoils. Because
of the high computational cost, only a few 3D LES computations
can be conducted. On the other hand, the much cheaper 2D laminar
computation can be used to investigate a much broader range of
angles of attack. Thus, the LES results were used for the quantitative
discussions of a limited number of cases, whereas the 2D laminar
computation was used for qualitative discussions.
II. Computational Setup
A. Computational Model
In this study, NACA0012 and NACA0002 were adopted as thick
and thin airfoils, respectively. These airfoil shapes are shown in
Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The freestream Mach number M was
 188 KOJIMA ET AL.

Fig. 1 NACA0012 airfoil.

set to 0.2, the value at which compressibility can be ignored and y,v
computational efficiency can be improved. The Reynolds number Re x,u
was set to 23,000, which is the same as that in the previous experi- z,w
mental studies. The specific heat ratio was set to 1.4. The angles of
attack were set to 3.0, 6.0, and 9.0 deg for LES computation, and 0.0,
1.5, 3.0, 4.5, 6.0, 7.5, and 9.0 deg for laminar computation. Note that
LES computation is approximately 300 times more expensive than
laminar computation. However, laminar computation is unable to
treat turbulent transitions.

B. Computational Methods
In this study, LANS3D [9] (developed in ISAS/JAXA) was Fig. 3 Computational grid around NACA0012 airfoil.
adopted and 3D implicit LES (iLES) and 2D laminar simulation was
Downloaded by ROKETSAN MISSLES INC. on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031849

conducted. In addition, a Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)

computation using the Baldwin-Lomax model [10] was conducted.
Under the present Reynolds number condition, the laminar simula-
tion showed better results than the RANS computation. Moreover,
the preliminary studies concluded that the laminar simulation showed
better agreement with the experiments and LES at Reynolds numbers
less than 30,000. Therefore, laminar simulation was adopted in
this study.
1. Three-Dimensional Implicit Large-Eddy Simulation
The 3D compressible Navier-Stokes equations in generalized
curvilinear coordinates were employed as the governing equations.
The spatial derivatives of the convective and viscous terms, metrics,
and Jacobians were evaluated by the sixth-order compact difference
scheme [11]. A tenth-order filtering [12] was used with a 0.495
filtering coefficient. For time integration, the second-order backward
differencing converged by three subiterations of the alternate direc-
tional implicit symmetric Gauss-Seidel (ADI-SGS) [13] scheme was
adopted. The computational time step was 0.0003c∕a∞ in non-
dimensional time so that the maximum Courant-Friedrichs-Levy
number becomes approximately 1.6, where c denotes the chord
length and a∞ denotes the speed of sound at freestream. In this study,
we adopted the iLES [14] approach rather than the explicit subgrid
scale model. We employed a high-order low-pass filter that selec-
tively damps the poorly resolved high-frequency waves. At the out-
flow boundary, all variables were extrapolated from a point inside of
the outflow boundary. No-slip conditions were adopted on the airfoil
surface and the periodic boundary condition was applied to the
spanwise boundaries.
2. Two-Dimensional Laminar Simulation
The 2D compressible Navier-Stokes equations in generalized
curvilinear coordinates were employed as the governing equations.
The spatial derivatives of the convective terms were evaluated with a
simple high-resolution upwind scheme [15], and with a monotone
upstream scheme for the conservation law scheme [16]. The viscous
terms were evaluated with a second-order central difference scheme.
For time integration, the ADI-SGS [13] scheme was adopted. The
time step was the same as that for the 3D iLES. At the outflow
boundary, all variables were extrapolated from a point inside of the
outflow boundary. On the airfoil surface, no-slip conditions were
applied.
boundary condition. The computational meshes for the 2D Laminar
computation are 2D meshes corresponding to the z-plane of the
computational mesh shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The grid points of
each computational mesh are shown in Table 1. For the 3D iLES, the
grid spacings were evaluated by the wall unit after the computation.
The grid spacings normalized by the wall unit for NACA0012 and
NACA0002 at α
6.0 deg are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively.
Both computational meshes satisfy the following inequalities:
Δξ < 25; Δη
min < 1; Δζ  < 15 (1)
where Δξ is the streamwise grid spacing, Δηmin is the wall-normal
minimum grid spacing, and Δζ is the spanwise grid spacing. Here the
superscript plus denotes the normalized value based on the wall unit.
With these criteria, the turbulent analysis including the near wall
structure is well resolved for the present computational methods.
III. Results and Discussion
A. Instantaneous Flowfields
In this section, the instantaneous flowfields of NACA0012 and
NACA0002 are discussed using the 3D iLES results. The isosurfaces
of the second invariants of the velocity gradient tensor (Q-criterion:
Q
5c=a∞ ) with x-direction velocity distributions for NACA0012
are shown in Fig. 7, where the isosurfaces are colored by x-direction
vorticity. Top views of Fig. 7 is shown in Fig. 8. The corresponding
figures for NACA0002 are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. These figures
indicate that the flowfields include various coherent 2D vortices and
turbulent 3D vortices. Next, the characteristics of the flowfields
around NACA0012 and NACA0002 and the comparison between the
two flowfields are discussed.
y,v
x,u
z,w

C. Computational Mesh
The computational meshes for the 3D iLES around NACA0012
and NACA0002 are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. For the span
direction, 20% chord length was computed using the periodic

Fig. 2 NACA0002 airfoil. Fig. 4 Computational grid around NACA0002 airfoil.

 KOJIMA ET AL. 189

Table 1 Details of the number of grid points

Case Nξ Nη Nζ Total
3D iLES 615 101 201 12,485,115
2D Laminar computation 615 101 1 62,115

NACA0012 First, the instantaneous flowfields around

NACA0012 at α
3 deg are discussed. The distribution of x-
direction velocity in Fig. 7 at α
3 deg shows that the flow
separates around the position of the maximum wing thickness, and
the thickness of the separated shear layer grows in the downstream α = 3.0
direction. The isosurfaces shown in Figs. 7a and 8a illustrate that
a)
the 2D coherent spanwise (−z-direction) vortices are generated peri-
odically. These vortices break up near the trailing edge and turn into
hairpin-like vortices (vortices whose color has changed from red to
blue). Spanwise coherent 2D vortices, which are generated by the
Kelvin-Helmholtz (K-H) instability, are observed in all the presented
cases. Here, the K-H instability observed in the short bubble is
Downloaded by ROKETSAN MISSLES INC. on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031849

experimentally confirmed [17,18], and we also confirmed that the

instability is caused by the hyperbolic tangent-like profile at the
short-bubble position in this study. Therefore, it is called K-H
instability in this paper.
Next, corresponding figures α
6 deg are discussed. The
distribution of x-direction velocity in Fig. 7b shows that the vortex
generation occurs near the leading edge, unlike the α
3 deg
condition. The isosurfaces shown in Figs. 7b and 8b illustrate that the α = 6 .0
2D coherent vortices break up near the position of the maximum wing b)
thickness and turn into hairpin vortices. These hairpin vortices are
involved with the 2D structures, and the mixing of the shear layer
seems to be enhanced. In this condition (α
6 deg), the separation
regions disappear between the position of the generation of hairpin

α = 9 .0
c)

Fig. 7 Q-Isosurfaces of instantaneous flows around NACA0012 airfoil.

Fig. 5 Grid-size distribution in the direction of chord of the grid around

NACA0012 airfoil.
vortices (corresponding to the position of the maximum wing
thickness) and the trailing edge, as discussed in the next section. This
is due to the mixing enhancement by the hairpin vortices generated
inside the shear layer. The flow structure around NACA0012 at
α
6 deg includes separation, transition, and reattachment, in this
order, which are analyzed in the following section.
Finally, corresponding figures at α
9 deg are discussed. The
distribution of the x-direction velocity in Fig. 7c shows that the
emitted angle of the separated shear layer from the leading edge
becomes larger because of the high angle-of-attack condition, and the
separated shear layer moves far away from the wing surface. The
isosurfaces shown in Figs. 7c and 8c illustrate that the spanwise
coherent vortices break up and generate hairpin vortices, similar to
the α
3 and 6 deg conditions.
NACA0002 The distribution of the x-direction velocity on
NACA0002 in Fig. 9 shows that the vortices are generated (corre-
sponding to separation as discussed later using averaged flowfields)
near the leading edge at all angles of attack. This is because the
Fig. 6 Grid-size distribution in the direction of chord of the grid around leading edge is sharp, the wing thickness is small, and the airfoil is
NACA0002 airfoil. symmetric. This characteristic is also observed in flowfields around
 190 KOJIMA ET AL.

x/c

α = 3.0
a)

α = 3 .0
a)

α = 6.0
b)
Downloaded by ROKETSAN MISSLES INC. on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031849

α = 9.0
c) α = 6 .0
b)

Fig. 8 Top view of Fig. 7.

thin airfoils such as thin flat plates, where the separation point is fixed
at the leading edge.
First, the instantaneous flowfields around NACA0002 at α

3 deg are discussed. The isosurfaces shown in Figs. 9a and 10a
illustrate that the 2D coherent spanwise vortices are generated
periodically. These vortices break up and generate hairpin vortices, as
in the NACA0012 flowfields. Next, corresponding figures at α

6 deg are discussed. The isosurfaces shown in Figs. 9b and 10b
illustrate that the flow structure at α
6 deg similar to the α

α = 9 .0
3 deg condition. Comparing Figs. 9a and 9b, the 2D coherent
vortices at α
6 deg breaks up earlier than those at α
3 deg. The c)
vortex structures after the breakup are finer and more complex at
α
6 deg than at α
3 deg.
Finally, the similar figures at α
9 deg are discussed. The
isosurfaces shown in Figs. 9c and 10c illustrate that the 2D coherent
vortices at α
9 deg breaks up earlier than those at α
6 deg. The
hairpin vortices generated by the breakup of the 2D coherent vortices Fig. 9 Q-Isosurfaces of instantaneous flows around NACA0002 airfoil.
are stretched in a direction away from the wing surface.
Comparison of NACA0012 and NACA0002 The comparison of
6 deg as discussed later) are compared with those for which the flow
flowfields around NACA0012 at α
6 and 9 deg and those around
does not reattach after the separation (NACA0012 at α
9 deg and
NACA0002 at α
6 and 9 deg shows that the 2D coherent vortices
NACA0002 at α
9 deg as discussed later). This comparison
around NACA0002 are generated earlier and have spatially shorter
shows that the reattachment of the flow depends on whether the 3D
intervals than those around NACA0012. This is because the flow is
turbulent vortices generated by the breakup of the 2D vortices reach
further accelerated around the sharper leading edge of NACA0002.
This leads to larger velocity differences across the shear layer and the wing surface, as observed in the experiments [17]. In the case of
stronger K-H instability around NACA0002 than those around the flowfields for which the flow reattaches after the separation, the
NACA0012. Flowfields around NACA0012 at α
3 deg have a turbulent vortex position seems to be lower than those for which the
separation point at the decelerating region. This leads to smaller flow does not reattach after the separation. Therefore, the flow seems
velocity differences across the shear layer, and the instability is to reattach in the former case due to the lower turbulent vortex
further suppressed, as compared to the case with leading-edge position. The distance from the shear layer to the wing surface or the
separation. 3D turbulent strength may relate to reattachment. This point should
In addition, the flowfields observed in Figs. 7–10 show that the be further investigated in the future research using both computation
appearance of how 2D vortices break up are approximately the same. and experiments.
The breakup of the 2D vortices is caused by the interaction of hairpin
vortices and 2D vortices, where the hairpin vortices are generated by B. Averaged Results
the breakup of the previously coherent vortex. The breakup of these In this section, the averaged flowfields of NACA0002 and
vortices resembles a chain reaction. NACA0012 are discussed using the results of the 3D iLES and the 2D
Finally, the flowfields for which the flow reattaches after the laminar simulation where the results of the 2D laminar simulation are
separation (NACA0012 at α
6 deg and NACA0002 at α
3 and used as supplements. Temporal and spanwise averaging are carried
 KOJIMA ET AL.
x/c
α = 3.0
a)
α = 6.0
b)
Downloaded by ROKETSAN MISSLES INC. on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031849
α = 9.0
c)
Fig. 10 Top view of Fig. 9.
out for the results of the 3D iLES, whereas only temporal averaging is
performed for the results of the 2D laminar simulation.
1. Averaged Flowfields
NACA0012 Figure 11a shows that the flow around NACA0012 at
α
3 deg separates at 40% chord length, which is just downstream
of the maximum wing-thickness position (30% chord length). A low-
speed dead-water region is formed inside the separated shear layer. In
addition, the flowfields around NACA0012 at α
6 deg in Fig. 11b
show that the flow separates at 10% chord length, which is upstream
of the position of the maximum wing thickness, and reattaches to the
wing surface at 70% chord length, although the 3D vortices are
convected near the surface and clear reattachment is not observed in
the instantaneous flowfields in Fig. 7b. Moreover, Fig. 11b shows a
recirculation region surrounded by a separated shear layer and
reattached flow. This is the so-called separation bubble. Figure 11c
shows the averaged flow around NACA0012 at α
9 deg. At this
angle, the flow separates around the leading edge and does not
reattach. A large recirculation region is observed over the suction
surface. This flowfield is characterized as a leading-edge separation.
NACA0002 Figures 12a and 12b show that the flow around
NACA0002 at α
3 and 6 deg exhibits separation and reattachment
similar to NACA0012 at α
6 deg, while the separation position of
NACA0002 is fixed at the leading edge. In these flowfields separation
bubbles are observed. Figure 13c shows that the flow around
NACA0002 at α
9 deg does not reattach. Thus, it is characterized
as a leading-edge separation flowfield. The separation and re-
attachment type of these computed flowfields are summarized in
Table 2. Here the separation type is divided into leading-edge
separation and trailing-edge separation. In this paper, leading-edge
separation denotes the separation upstream at the maximum wing-
thickness position, whereas trailing-edge separation denotes the
separation downstream at the maximum wing-thickness position.
2. Separation and Reattachment Characteristics
NACA0012 Figure 13 shows the separation and reattachment
positions of NACA0012 computed by the 3D iLES and 2D laminar
191
Separation
α = 3.0
a)
α = 6.0
b)
α = 9.0
c)
Fig. 11 x-direction velocity distributions and streamlines of time-
averaged flows around NACA0012 airfoil conducted by 3D iLES.
simulation, and the experimental results [19]. Here the 2D laminar
cases and the experimental results are plotted to support the 3D iLES
results for the separation and reattachment positions. Note that the 2D
laminar cases yield almost the same flowfields as the 3D iLES except
for the massively separated condition, although there is a slight
difference in the separation and reattachment positions. The separa-
tion position in Fig. 13 shows that the trailing-edge separation is
observed even at α
0 deg. The separation position moves linearly
upstream with increasing angle of attack at α
1.5∼4.5 deg and
α
6∼9 deg, and the slope at α
1.5 to 4.5 deg is different from
that at α
6∼9 deg. At α
4.5∼6 deg, the separation position is at
x∕c
0.3, which corresponds to the maximum wing-thickness
position, and the separation position moves suddenly upstream with
increasing angle of attack. This nonlinear behavior in the separation
position is due to the change in separation characteristics at α

4.5∼6 deg, whereas the separation position at α
1.5∼4.5 deg is
located downstream of the maximum wing-thickness position, and
that at α
4.5∼6 deg is located upstream of the maximum wing-
thickness position.
The comparison between the separation position of the 3D iLES
and that of the experimental data shows that the separation position of
 192 KOJIMA ET AL.
Separation Reattachment
α = 3.0
a)
Downloaded by ROKETSAN MISSLES INC. on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031849
Separation Reattachment
α = 6.0
b)
Separation
α = 9.0
c)
Fig. 12 x-direction velocity distributions and stream lines of time-
averaged flows around NACA0002.
the 3D iLES is located 10 to 20% chord length upstream of that of the
experimental data, while the movement of the separation position
qualitatively agrees well. The quantitative difference might be due to
the difference in the inflow condition; the inflow condition of the
present computation is assumed to be laminar, whereas that of the
experimental data has a weak disturbance that was detected in smoke-
wire visualization. The disturbances in the inflow of the experiment
may delay the separation point because of the enhancement of
mixing.
With regard to reattachment, the flowfields of the 3D iLES and 2D
laminar simulation with trailing-edge separation (separation down-
stream of the maximum wing-thickness position) do not include any
reattachment, whereas those with leading-edge separation (separa-
tion upstream of the maximum wing-thickness position) observed at
α
6∼7.5 deg include reattachments. Moreover, the 2D laminar
results show that the reattachment position moves upstream at α

6∼7.5 deg and downstream at α
7.5∼9 deg. Considering that
the flowfield for the 3D iLES at α
9 deg does not include
reattachment, it is difficult to quantitatively discuss the reattachment
position using the 2D laminar results, whereas the 2D laminar
simulation captures the qualitative characteristics of the reattachment
position. On the basis of the 2D laminar simulation results, a
Reattached
flow
Separated flow
Attached flow
Fig. 13 Separation and reattachment points of time-averaged flows
around NACA0012 airfoil.
short bubble is observed at α
6∼7.5 deg, which bursts at α

7.5∼9 deg, resulting in the massive separation.
Experimental data show that the separated flow does not reattach at
α
6.0 deg. This is because the separation point of the experimental
data is located farther downstream than that of the 3D iLES and 2D
laminar simulation, and the separation flow of the experimental data
neither transits nor reattaches on the wing surface, as discussed in
Reference [19].
NACA0002 Figure 14 shows the separation and reattachment
positions of NACA0002 computed by the 3D iLES and 2D laminar
simulation, where the 2D laminar cases are plotted to support the 3D
iLES results for the separation and reattachment positions similar to
those of NACA0012. Figure 14 shows that the flow completely
attaches at α
0∼1.5 deg, whereas it separates at the other angles of
attack where the separation point is fixed at the leading edge. This is
because the leading edge radius of NACA0002 is very small, and the
flow gets separated easily. With regard to reattachment, the flow
already reattaches at α
3 deg, where the flow begins to separate.
The reattachment point slightly moves downstream with the angle of
attack at α
3∼4.5 deg and it linearly moves downstream with the
angle of attack at α
4.5∼7.5 deg. At these angles of attack, the
long bubble, whose length increases with the angle of attack, is
formed. At α
9 deg, the flowfields of the 3D-iLES are massively
separated. Therefore, the separated flow stops reattaching at α

7.5∼9.0 deg and the flowfield is characterized as a leading-edge
separation flowfield.
The preceding discussion clarified the separation, reattachment,
and separation bubble characteristics. In the next subsection, the
reattachment of the separated flow and the relationship between
reattachment and 3D vortices (turbulent intensity) are discussed.
3. Turbulent Kinetic Energy Distributions
The turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) distributions around
NACA0012 and NACA0002 computed by the 3D iLES are shown
in Figs. 15 and 16, respectively. The position where the TKE becomes
the highest corresponds to that where the 3D hairpin vortex is
generated by the deformation of the 2D vortex. The comparison
between NACA0012 and NACA0002 at α
6 deg, where the flow
separated at the leading edge attaches, shows that both reattachment
positions are located just downstream of the position where the TKE
is the highest, which is corresponding to the experimental obser-
vation [17]. The comparison between the flowfields at α
6 deg
and α
9 deg for both NACA0012 and NACA0002 shows that the
position where the TKE is the highest is located near the wing surface
at α
6 deg (Figs. 15b and 16b), where the flow reattaches. On the
other hand, the TKE is widely distributed at α
9 deg (Figs. 15c
 KOJIMA ET AL. 193

Table 2 Forms of separation, and presence or absence of the large airfoil thickness at a low angle of attack. Figure 13a also
of reattachment shows that the acceleration on the pressure surface near the leading
Airfoil NACA0012 edge is strong in this condition. The other is a trailing-edge
separation. The flow on the suction surface is separated around
Angle of attack (deg) 3 6 9
Separation type Trailing edge Leading edge Leading edge x∕c ∼ 0.4, and the flow from the pressure surface side goes to the
Reattachment No Yes No suction surface side around the trailing edge, leading to a negative Cp
Airfoil NACA0002 value. Due to the two factors previously discussed, the accelerated
Angle of attack (deg) 3 6 9 flow on the pressure surface does not decelerate well. As a result,
Separation type Leading edge Leading edge Leading edge attached flow with a negative Cp value is realized on the entire
Reattachment Yes Yes No pressure surface, where Cp on the suction surface slightly increases
near the trailing edge region because of trailing edge separation. This
is the reason of an inversion of pressure.
and 16c), where the flow does not reattach. With regard to The characteristics of the Cp distributions at α
6 deg in Fig. 17
NACA0002 at α
3 deg, reattachment is placed around the are different from those at α
3 deg. A strong negative pressure
position where the TKE is the highest. This is because the separated peak is observed near the leading edge. The flat pressure region is
shear layer is near the wing surface because of its low angle of attack, observed at x∕c
0.1 ∼ 0.5 deg, followed by the secondary
and the 3D structure of the vortex is not well formed before negative pressure peak at x∕c
0.55 and pressure recovery at
reattachment. The smaller TKE compared to the other cases supports the trailing edge. Compared with the averaged flowfield shown in
Downloaded by ROKETSAN MISSLES INC. on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031849

this explanation, because the immediate reattachment prevent the
growth of turbulent. Therefore, except for the thin airfoil with low
angle of attack, the distance between the position where the 3D
structure is formed and the wing surface seems to be an important
factor in reattachment. This is strongly related to whether the 3D
vortex reaches the wing surface.
Fig. 11b, the separation point corresponds to one at which the flat
pressure region starts, and the maximum TKE point corresponds to
the secondary peak, which is at the end of the flat pressure region. The
experimental data qualitatively agree with the computational data,

C. Aerodynamic Coefficients
In this section, the aerodynamic coefficients are discussed on the
basis of the already analyzed flow characteristics.

1. Cp Distributions
The pressure coefficient (Cp ) distributions are discussed for Separation
clarifying the effects of the separation bubble on the airfoil surfaces.
Figures 17 and 18 show the Cp distributions on NACA0012 and
NACA0002 airfoils, respectively. Figure 17 includes the experimen-
tal data of the Cp distribution on NACA0012 airfoil at α
6 deg
[19]. Each Cp distribution is discussed separately below, whereas the a) α = 3 .0
Cp distribution at α
9 deg is not discussed in detail because it
massively separates. Here, the aspect ratio and Reynolds number of
experimental data compared are 2.78 and 2.3 × 104 .
NACA0012 The Cp distributions at α
3 deg in Fig. 17 show
that the Cp of the suction surface is smaller than the pressure surface
from x∕c ∼ 0.4 to the trailing edge. This inverse Cp distribution in the
wide region is due to the following two factors. One is the large
thickness of the airfoil. The Cp value on the pressure surface near the
leading edge is negative at α
3 deg, as shown in Fig. 17. This is Separation Reattachment
because the flow is well accelerated on the pressure surface because

α = 6 .0
b)

Separated flow

Reattached flow

Separation

Attached flow α = 9 .0
c)

Fig. 14 Separation and reattachment points of time-averaged flows Fig. 15 Turbulent kinetic energy distributions of flows around
around NACA0002 airfoil. NACA0012 airfoil.
 194 KOJIMA ET AL.

Separation Reattachment

α = 3.0
a)

Fig. 18 Cp distribution of averaged flows by 3D iLES around

NACA0002 airfoil.
Downloaded by ROKETSAN MISSLES INC. on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031849

whereas the distribution is slightly shifted. This discrepancy in Cp

distribution seems to be caused by the difference in the separation
position, which may be caused by inflow turbulence.
NACA0002 The Cp distributions at α
3, 6 deg in Fig. 18 have
characteristics similar to those of NACA0012 at α
6 deg, as
α = 6.0 shown in Fig. 17. Although the secondary peak does not appear, the
b) end of the flat pressure region corresponds to the center of the vortex
inside the separation bubble, as shown in Fig. 13. In addition, the
comparison between the values of Cp at the flat pressure regions of
NACA0012 and NACA0002 at = 6 deg indicates that the value of
NACA0002 is 1.3 times larger than that of NACA0012. This seems to
be caused by the difference in the strength of the recirculation flows
inside the bubbles.

2. CL − α
Next, CL − α is discussed on the basis of the flow and Cp
characteristics. The value of CL computed from the averaged results
of the 3D iLES and 2D laminar simulation are shown in Fig. 19.
CL − α of NACA0012 The CL − α of NACA0012, as shown in
α = 9.0 Fig. 19, is significantly different from the potential theory (2πα)
c) atα
1.5 ∼ 4.5 deg, and a strong nonlinearity appears, as reported
in the experimental study by Mueller and Batill [20]. However, the
value of CL increases suddenly at α
4.5 ∼ 6.0 deg and approaches
the theoretical value.
Fig. 16 Turbulent kinetic energy distributions of flows around The nonlinearity at α
1.5 ∼ 4.5 deg is caused by trailing-edge
NACA0002 airfoil. separation and the separation point moves toward the leading edge
with increasing angle of attack, as discussed when the separation and
reattachment points were considered. There are two opposite effects

Fig. 17 Cp distribution of averaged flows by 3D iLES around Fig. 19 CL − α of averaged flows by 3D iLES and 2D laminar
NACA0012 airfoil. simulation.
 KOJIMA ET AL.
on the CL − α curves. One is that CL is suppressed by the inverse Cp
distribution near the trailing edge, as discussed in case of α
3 deg
in Fig. 17. The other is that the negative pressure peak increases with
the angle of attack. These two effects cancel out, but the latter effect
becomes stronger with increasing angle of attack and CL increases
nonlinearly. In particular, the negative CL at α
1.5 deg occurs
because the effects of the inverse pressure distributions become
stronger than the latter effects. The sudden increase in CL at α

4.5 ∼ 6.0 deg is caused by the change in the flowfields. As discussed
in Fig. 12, the flowfield changes from trailing-edge separation to
leading-edge separation and reattachment at α
4.5 ∼ 6.0 deg.
This leads to a significant change in the Cp distribution: Cp of the
trailing-edge separation flow does not have sufficient negative
pressure after the separation, while the Cp of the leading-edge
separation and reattachment flow have sufficient negative pressure at
the region where the separation bubble forms.
CL − α of NACA0002 The CL − α of NACA0002, as shown in
Fig. 19, is almost linear. However, as discussed when considering the
Downloaded by ROKETSAN MISSLES INC. on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031849
separation and reattachment characteristics of NACA0002, the flow
around NACA0002 attaches at α
0.0 ∼ 1.5 deg and separates
from the leading edge and reattaches at α
3.0 ∼ 7.5 deg. In
addition, the relationship between the length of the separation bubble
and the angle of attack is not always linear and it is difficult to explain
the linear CL − α by the separation bubble length. Comparing the
separation bubble length and the strength of NACA0002 and
NACA0012 at α
6.0 deg, where both airfoils have almost the
same CL value, the length of a separation bubble over a NACA0012 is
approximately 1.2 times longer than that over NACA0002 and the Cp
value of the flat pressure region of NACA0002 is 1.3 times lower than
that of NACA0012. This fact implies that the linear relationship of
CL − α is explained by the length and strength of the separation
bubble.
3. CD − α
Next, drag coefficient CD − α is discussed on the basis of the flow
characteristics. The values of CD computed from the averaged results
of the 3D iLES and 2D laminar simulation are shown in Fig. 20.
CD − α of NACA0012 The CD − α of NACA0012, as shown in
Fig. 20, changes its characteristics at α
4.5 ∼ 6.0 deg. This is
because the flowfield is changed from trailing-edge separation to
leading-edge separation and reattachment.
CD − α of NACA0002 On the other hand, the CD − α of
NACA0002, as shown in Fig. 20, seems to have parabolic
characteristics. This can be explained as follows. The thin airfoil can
be approximated as a thin flat plate. In this case, the pressure F
working on the wing surface is normal to the wing chord, resulting in
L
F cos α and Dp
F sin α. In addition, sin α ∼ α and cos α ∼
1 are good approximations for the low angle-of-attack condition.
Fig. 20 CD − α of averaged flows by 3D iLES and 2D laminar
simulation.
195
Fig. 21 L∕D − α of averaged flows by 3D iLES and 2D laminar
simulation.
Moreover, CL is proportional to α and CL
cl α is satisfied, where cl
is the CL − α slope. This approximation leads to CD
cl α2 .
Comparison of CD − α Although as discussed above, CD of
NACA0002 is proportional to the square of α, that of NACA0012 is
large at α
0.0 ∼ 4.5 deg because of trailing-edge separation and is
small at α
4.5 ∼ 6.0 deg because of reattachment. As a result,
NACA0012 has a lower CD at α
4.5 ∼ 6.0 deg.
4. L∕D − α
Finally, L∕D − α is discussed. The L∕D characteristics of these
two airfoils are shown in Fig. 21. Figure 21 shows that L∕Dmax for
NACA0002 is observed approximately at α
3 deg and that for
NACA0012 is observed approximately at α
6 deg, where the
L∕Dmax values are almost the same, i.e., 12. The L∕D value for these
two airfoils are inversed at α
4.5 ∼ 6.0 deg. This is because the
CL of NACA0012 at α
0.0 ∼ 4.5 deg is smaller than that of
NACA0002 because of trailing-edge separation and that of
NACA0012 at α
4.5 ∼ 6.0 deg is almost the same as that at
NACA0002 because of the flowfields with reattachment (separation
bubble), together with a smaller CD.
IV. Conclusions
In this study, we conducted the three-dimensional (3D) implicit
large-eddy simulation (iLES) and two-dimensional (2D) laminar
simulation of the low Reynolds number flows around NACA0012
and NACA0002. The results showed the following characteristics.
The flowfields computed by the 3D iLES are summarized as
follows. In the instantaneous simulated flowfields, 2D vortices are
periodically emitted when the flow separates and forms a separated
shear layer. This 2D vortex breaks up and turns into 3D hairpin
vortices. This is observed as a turbulent transition in experiments. In
the case of reattachment of the separated shear layer, the flow
reattaches just after the position where the 3D vortices are generated
because of the breakup of the periodically emitted 2D vortices. This
implies that the position of the breakup of the 2D vortex and the
strength of the 3D vortices are important factors that determine
whether the flow reattaches or not. The present results illustrates that
the turbulent vortex should be located near the wing surface for the
reattachment.
The flow characteristics of NACA0012 are presented as follows.
At α
0 ∼4.5 deg, trailing-edge separation is observed and the
separation point moves upstream with increasing angle of attack. At
α
4.5 ∼6 deg, the separation mode is changed from trailing-edge
separation to leading-edge separation, and the separated flow
reattaches, resulting in a separation bubble. At α
6 ∼7.5 deg, the
reattachment point moves upstream and the separation bubble
becomes shorter with increasing angle of attack. This separation
 196 KOJIMA ET AL.
bubble can be characterized as a short bubble. At α
7.5 ∼9 deg,
the flow completely separates.
The aerodynamic characteristics are presented as follows. At
α
0 ∼4.5 deg, pressure does not recover at the trailing edge on the
suction side because of trailing-edge separation. In addition, the
pressure-side flow is accelerated and the pressure at the pressure side
becomes very low. This effect and the movement of the separation
point lead to the nonlinearity in CL − α. In addition, CD becomes
smaller because of trailing-edge separation. At α
4.5 ∼6 deg, CL
suddenly increases because of the suction side pressure recovery by
reattachment. This is because the flowfield changes from trailing-
edge separation to leading-edge separation and reattachment. The
trend of an increasing CD is also changed. At α
6 ∼7.5 deg,
although the separation bubble becomes shorter, CL and CD become
larger. At α
7.5 ∼9 deg, CD becomes larger because of the
completely separated flows. With regard to L∕D, the L∕Dmax is
observed approximately at α
6 deg, where the flowfield changes
from a flow with trailing-edge separation to a flow with the separation
bubble. In addition, L∕D is affected by the nonlinearity of CL − α.
Downloaded by ROKETSAN MISSLES INC. on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031849
The flow characteristics of NACA0002 are presented as follows.
At α
0 ∼ 1.5 deg, the flow attaches. At α
1.5 ∼ 3 deg, the flow
separates and reattaches, resulting in a separation bubble. At
α
3 ∼ 7.5 deg, the reattachment point moves downstream and the
separation bubble becomes longer with increasing angle of attack.
This separation bubble can be characterized as a long bubble. At
α
7.5 ∼ 9 deg, the separated flow does not reattach.
The aerodynamic characteristics of NACA0002 are presented as
follows. At α
0 ∼ 7.0 deg, CL − α is linear, although the flowfield
has changed from the attached flow to a flow with a long bubble.
CD − α is proportional to the square of α. At α
7.5 ∼ 9 deg, CD
becomes much higher because of the completely separated flows.
With regard to L∕D, L∕Dmax is observed approximately at
α
3 deg, where the flowfield changes from the attached flow to a
flow with a long bubble.
For the low Reynolds number conditions examined in this study,
L∕D of NACA0012 is strongly affected by the nonlinearity of CL ,
and L∕Dmax is observed at the unstable angle of attack, where the
flowfields changes from flows with trailing-edge separation to those
with separation bubble. In this condition, thick airfoils such as
NACA0012 are not appropriate because the aerodynamic character-
istics possibly change drastically because of the change in flowfields.
On the other hand, thin airfoils such as NACA0002 are appropriate
because there is no sudden change in the aerodynamics character-
istics because of the fixed separation point owing to the sharp
leading edge.
Acknowledgments
The present research was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (20246122, 24246141, and 24246136), Strategic
Programs for Innovative Research of High Performance Computing
Initiative, and Mars Exploration Aircraft Working Group in Japan.
The authors are grateful to the flutiful discussion with the members of
Mars Exploration Aircraft Working Group in Japan.
References
[1] Schmitz, F., “Aerodynamics of the model airplane. Part 1. Airfoil
measurements. Translated from German by Translation Branch,
Redstone Scientific Information Center,” Research and Development
Directorate, United States Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal,
Alabama, Vol. 35809, 1967.
[2] Schmitz, F. W., “The Aerodynamics of Small Reynolds Numbers,”
NASA Technical Memorandum, 1980.
[3] Lissaman, P. B. S., “Low-Reynolds-number Airfoils,” Annual Review of
Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 15, 1983, pp. 223–239.
doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.15.010183.001255
[4] Shan, H., Jiang, L., and Liu, C., “Direct Numerical Simulation of Flow
Separation around a NACA 0012 Airfoil,” Computers and Fluids,
Vol. 34, No. 9, 2005, pp. 1096–1114.
doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2004.09.003
[5] Galbraith, M. C., and Visbal, M. R., “Implicit Large Eddy Simulation of
Low-Reynolds-Number Transitional Flow Past the SD7003 Airfoil,”
AIAA Paper 2010-4737, June 2010.
[6] Abdo, M., and Mateescu, D., “Low-Reynolds Number Aerodynamics of
Airfoils at Incidence,” AIAA Paper 2005-1038, 2005.
[7] Oyama, A., Fujii, K., Shimoyama, K., and Liou, M.-S., “Pareto-
Optimality-Based Constraint-Handling Technique and Its application to
Compressor Design,” AIAA Paper 2005-4983, June 2005.
[8] Oyama, A., and Fujii, K., “A Study on Airfoil Design for Future Mars
Airplane,” AIAA Paper 2006-1484, Jan. 2006.
[9] Fujii, K., and Obayashi, S., “High-Resolution Upwind Scheme for
Vortical-Flow Simulations,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 26, No. 12, 1989,
pp. 1123–1129.
doi:10.2514/3.45890
[10] Baldwin, B., and Lomax, H., “Thin Layer Approximation and
Algebraic Model for Separated Turbulent Flows,” AIAA Paper 1978-
257, Jan. 1978.
[11] Lele, S. K., “Compact Finite Difference Schemes with Spectral-like
Resolution,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 103, No. 1, 1992,
pp. 16–42.
doi:10.1016/0021-9991(92)90324-R
[12] Gaitonde, D. V., and Visbal, M. R., “Padé -Type Higher-Order Boundary
Filters for the Navier-Stokes Equations,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 38, No. 11,
2000, pp. 2103–2112.
doi:10.2514/2.872
[13] Nishida, H., and Nonomura, T., “ADI-SGS Scheme on Ideal
Magnetohydrodynamics,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 228,
No. 9, 2009, pp. 3182–3188.
doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2009.01.032
[14] Boris, J. P., Grinstein, F. F., Oran, E., and Kolbe, R. J., “New Insights
Into Large Eddy Simulation,” Fluid Dynamics Research, Vol. 10,
Nos. 4–6, 1992, pp. 199–228.
doi:10.1016/0169-5983(92)90023-P
[15] Shima, E., and Jounouchi, T., “Role of CFD in Aeronautical
Engineering (No.14) -AUSM type Upwind Schemes-,” Proceedings of
the 14th NAL Symposium on Aircraft Computational Aerodynamics,
National Aerospace Laboratory, Japan, 1997, pp. 7–12.
[16] Van Leer, B., “Towards the Ultimate Conservation Difference Scheme.
V. A Second-Order Sequel to Godunov’s Method,” Journal of
Computational Physics, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1979, pp. 101–136.
doi:10.1016/0021-9991(79)90145-1
[17] Gerakopulos, R., Boutilier, M., and Yarusevych, S., “Aerodynamic
Characterization of a NACA 0018 Airfoil at Low Reynolds Numbers,”
AIAA Paper 2010-4629, 2010.
[18] Anyoji, M., Nose, K., IDa, S., Numata, D., Nagai, H., and Asai, K.,
“Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Testing in a Mars Wind Tunnel,” AIAA
Paper 2010-4627, 2010.
[19] Kim, D. H., Yang, J. H., Chang, J. W., and Chung, J., “Boundary Layer
and Near-wake Measurements of NACA0012 Airfoil at Low Reynolds
Numbers,” AIAA Paper 2009-1472, 2009.
[20] Mueller, T., and Batill, S., “Experimental Studies of the :Laminar
Separation Bubble on a Two-dimensional Airfoil at Low Reynolds
Numbers,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1980, pp. 457–463.
doi:10.2514/3.51095