Numerical investigation of the unsteady

aerodynamics of NACA 0012 with suction

surface protrusion
Aslesha Bodavula
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, India
Rajesh Yadav
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, India, and
Ugur Guven
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of surface protrusions on the flow unsteadiness of NACA 0012 at a Reynolds number
of 100,000.
Design/methodology/approach – Effect of protrusions is investigated through numerical simulation of two-dimensional Navier–Stokes equations
using a finite volume solver. Turbulent stresses are resolved through the transition Shear stress transport (four-equation) turbulence model.
Findings – The small protrusion located at 0.05c and 0.1c significantly improve the lift coefficient by up to 36% in the post-stall regime. It also
alleviates the leading edge stall. The larger protrusions increase the drag significantly along with significant degradation of lift characteristics in the
pre-stall regime as well. The smaller protrusions also increase the frequency of the vortex shedding.
Originality/value – The effect of macroscopic protrusions or deposits in rarely investigated. The delay in stall shown by smaller protrusions can be
beneficial to micro aerial vehicles. The smaller protrusions increase the frequency of the vortex shedding, and hence, can be used as a tool to
enhance energy production for energy harvesters based on vortex-induced vibrations and oscillating wing philosophy.
Keywords Wind energy, MAVs, Low Reynolds number, NACA 0012, Vortex shedding
Paper type Research paper

Nomenclature r = Density, kg/m3;

m = Molecular viscosity, kg/m-s;
c = Chord length, m; mt = Turbulent viscosity;
cd = Drag coefficient; t ij = Viscous stress tensor; and
cl = Lift coefficient; v = Specific dissipation rate, s1.
cl, max = Maximum value of lift coefficient;
cp = Pressure coefficient;
1. Introduction
h = Height of protrusion normal to surface, m;
k = Turbulent kinetic energy, m2/s2; The generation of renewable energy to avoid global warming
L/D = Lift to drag ratio; because of fossil fuel-based power plants is the need of the
p = Pressure, Pa; hour. For small wind turbines, which are captive power
Reu t = Momentum-thickness Reynolds number; generators, the range of Reynolds number is between 105 and
g
Re ut = Transition thickness Reynolds number; 107. Apart from conventional wind turbines, renewable energy
t = Time, second; from wind can be extracted through windmills (McKinney and
u = Cartesian components of velocity vector; DeLaurier, 1981; Davids et al., 1999; Kinsey and Dumas,
! 2008; Xiao et al., 2012; Xiao and Zhu, 2014), kites
V = Velocity vector;
x = Spatial coordinate;
y1 = Non-dimensional cell wall distance; All the simulations carried out for this investigation were carried out on
a = Angle of attack (AOA), degrees (°); computational fluid dynamics Servers with 8 cores Xeon processors and 32
g = Intermittency; giga bytes of memory provided by the University of Petroleum and Energy
Studies. We would like to thank the university management for providing
us the necessary support required for the simulations. The authors would
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on also like to thank the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor of the university
Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1748-8842.htm to have financially supported this research. We hereby declare that there is
no conflict of interest.

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology

Received 28 January 2019
92/2 (2020) 186–200 Revised 3 June 2019
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1748-8842] 7 August 2019
[DOI 10.1108/AEAT-01-2019-0022] Accepted 16 October 2019

186
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven
(Cherubini et al., 2015; Perkovic et al., 2013; Argatov et al.,
2009), and mechanisms based on vortex-induced vibrations
(VIVs) (Wang and Chang, 2010; Wang et al., 2012; Rostami
and Armandei, 2017; He and Gao, 2013; Peng and Zhu, 2009;
Kumar et al., 2017; Dunnmon et al., 2011; Barrero-Gil et al.,
2012). All these energy extraction mechanisms use some form
of wing, flat plate or cylinder motion because of aerodynamic
forces at low Reynolds number. Another area of industrial
importance, where the low Reynolds number flows find a
massive application is design of micro aerial vehicles (MAVs)
and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). These vehicles are
required to fly in dusty and hazardous places for rescue,
inspection and delivery of payloads. The MAVs fly at low
altitudes and their sizes vary in the range of 0.1-0.5 m. The
range of the Reynolds number for these micro and small UAVs
are 104-106 (Lissaman, 1983). Aerodynamics of MAVs, UAVs
and the energy harvesters at low Reynolds number, operating
especially in the range of 104-106 is very interesting as it
involves complex unsteady flow phenomena (Lissaman, 1983;
Carmichael, 1982; Lin and Pauley, 1996). This has attracted
the interests of many researchers into examining the low
Reynolds number flow phenomena over airfoil profiles of
NACA, Eppler, Selig and Clark-Y series. One of the peculiar
behavior of airfoil at low Reynolds number is vortex shedding,
which is caused by the dominant inviscid instability wave
induced by the inflection velocity profile downstream of the
separation point (Lin and Pauley, 1996). The airfoil
aerodynamic behavior and coherent structures are mainly
dependent on the flow Reynolds number and the angle of
attack. The formation of the separation bubble on the upper
surface of the airfoil decreases the coherence and length scale of
wake vortices (Yarusevych et al., 2009). Serhiy Yarusevych
et al. (2009) proposed an alternative scaling for fundamental
frequency and the wake vortex shedding frequency. In the
separated shear layer, the fundamental frequency is scaled
along with wavelength of the fundamental disturbances, which
makes the Strouhal number to lie between 0.45 and 0.5. In the
near wake region, the vertical distances between two vortices
are used as characteristic length, which reduces the Strouhal
number to 0.17. As the Reynolds number increases, there is a
reduction in Strouhal number (Rostami et al., 2018). At low
Reynolds number and low angles of attack (AOA), the
formation of laminar separation bubble occurs on both surfaces
of the airfoil (Juanmian et al., 2013). As the Reynolds number
increases, the length and thickness of laminar separation
bubble decrease (Meara and Muellert, 1987). Vortex shedding
is also affected by the angle of attack with higher angle of attack
accounting for longer vortex shedding cycles (Juanmian et al.,
2013). As the angle of attack increases, the laminar separation
bubble length and thickness increase (Meara and Muellert,
1987). At low AOA, the development of vortex shedding is
closely associated with the shear layer instabilities (Huang and
Lin, 1995). As the angle of attack increases, separation point on
suction surface travels in the direction of the leading edge, and
there is an alteration in the mode of separation, from trailing
edge separation to leading edge separation, as the separation
bubble forms near the leading edge (Kojima et al., 2013).
Yarusevych et al. (2006), in an experimental study of NACA
0025, found that as the Reynolds number is dropped from
1.5  105 to 1.0  105, the separated shear layer fails to
187
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200
reattach on the surface of the airfoil (Yarusevych et al., 2006).
This clearly indicates the deterioration of the aerodynamic
performance of airfoils at low Reynolds numbers. Even for the
Clark–Y airfoil, which is designed for good low Reynolds
number performance, the aerodynamic efficiency deteriorates
dramatically as the Reynolds number is reduced to 75,000
(Marchman and Werme, 1984). This degradation in
performance is again, caused by the failure of the shear layer to
reattach. A detailed numerical study to understand the
aerodynamics of various airfoils at low Reynolds numbers was
done by Winslow et al. (2017). Besides reestablishing a
nonlinear lift curve behavior at low Reynolds number for
NACA 0012, they suggested a reduction of about 46 per cent in
the maximum lift coefficient for Reynolds number between 105
and 104 because of the inability of the prematurely separated
flow to reattach. Winslow et al. (2017) also suggested that an
airfoil with sharper leading edge provides better reattachment
of the flow, and hence, a better low Reynolds number
performance. An increase in camber also results in an increase
in lift-to-drag ratio at lower Reynolds numbers. A recent study
on very low Reynolds number aerodynamics of NACA 0012
airfoil also reported a highly nonlinear lift curve with abrupt
changes in lift coefficients with changes in AOA for Reynolds
number in the range between 2,500 and 5,000 (Kim et al.,
2011).
The low Reynolds number characterization of airfoils
reported in the literature are mostly for the clean airfoil
configurations. However, during actual operations, these low
Reynolds number configurations are susceptible to surface
roughness of various forms, size and origin. The deformation in
geometry of the airfoil may be concave or convex. The
protrusions on wing surface may be because of dirt deposition,
insect deposits, ice formation or bird littering. At low Reynolds
number, the flow is highly susceptible to surface characteristics,
and hence, these protrusions can alter the aerodynamics of
these wings considerably. For NACA 663-018 airfoil, a
distributed grit roughness on the leading edge resulted in a
rapid increase in lift coefficient with angle of attack, however,
with decreased cl,max at a Reynolds number of 40,000. At a
higher Reynolds number of 130,000, the negative lift at small
angle of attack was shown to be eliminated by the use of grit
roughness at the leading edge (Mueller et al., 1980). The larger
protrusions like a rough ice accretion were found to reduce the
cl, max and stall angle drastically with a premature stall of NACA
0012 in the Reynolds number range of 0.36  106-3.36  106.
This was also found to accompany a large rise in drag and
pitching moment coefficient (Korkan et al., 1984). For larger
protrusion, however, the Reynolds number variations in the
moderate range was found have insignificant effect on the
aerodynamic coefficients. As the height of these ice accretions is
increased, a severe degradation in the aerodynamics of airfoils is
observed, except when the protuberance is located at the
leading edge (Lee and Bragg, 2003). As far as the shape of these
icy protrusions is concerned, the circular or hemispherical
accretion gives the highest lift coefficient as compared to
conical and triangular protrusions. Mirzaei et al. (2009)
reported a crisp understanding of the characteristics of
separation bubble behind protrusion caused by icing and its
effect on flow unsteadiness. They found that increasing the
angle of attack for NLF-0414 airfoil results in longer separation
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven
bubbles at moderate Reynolds numbers. They also reported a
reduction in vortex shedding frequency as the angle of
incidence is increased. Zhang et al. (2011) in their study of the
performance degradation of low Reynolds number airfoil
because of insect debris, reported that although protuberances
reduced the lift coefficient significantly, small roughness could
delay the stalling significantly. The protuberances are not
necessarily always associated with performance degradation of
airfoils. Some bio-inspired wings, with sinusoidal leading edge
protuberance named tubercles, may increase the aerodynamic
efficiency of wings. Low pressure pockets are formed in the
troughs between the protuberances, which results in an
increased lift coefficient at all AOA for wide range of Reynolds
numbers in the range of 1.8  105-3.0  106. These sinusoidal
tubercles with height of 0.12c and wavelength 0.5c could delay
the stalling to up to 39° for the NACA 634-021 airfoils along
with decreased minimum drag coefficient and a softer stall
(Dropkin et al., 2012). These sinusoidal protrusions at the
leading edge are beneficial only in the post-stall regime as well,
for conventional NACA 4-digit airfoils (Hansen et al., 2011).
Smaller the protrusion height or the gap between protrusions,
higher are the lift coefficients and stalling angles with better post-
stall characteristics. Larger gap between the tubercles leads to a
drop in aerodynamic efficiency of the airfoils (Serson and
Meneghini, 2015). The enhancements in post-stall aerodynamic
characteristics and increase in stalling angle strengthens further
with increasing Reynolds number in the range 75,000-300,000
(Peristy et al., 2016). In addition, these protrusions perform better
on thicker airfoils as compared to thinner ones (Paula et al., 2016).
Leading edges are not the only place where the protrusions can be
placed. Two- and three-dimensional bumps located at the various
chordwise location also show significant changes in the
aerodynamic performance of airfoils. At a Reynolds number of
64,200, a discrete roughness of height 1.25 times the local
boundary layer thickness near the leading edge induces an earlier
breakdown of separated laminar boundary layer, resulting in
increased lift coefficients (Gross and Fasel, 2013). Vortex
shedding does not appear for roughness elements with height less
than 50 per cent of boundary layer thickness for NACA 643-618
at a = 8°, and hence, lift coefficient is unaffected. In an
investigation over a wing, with two discrete roughness elements at
Figure 1 Grid around NACA 0012 with a circular protrusion on suction surface
188
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200
low Reynolds number, it was found that the larger and taller
bumps trigger vortex breakdown and delay separation and may
increase the L/D ratio of airfoils (Zhou and Wang, 2011).
At low Reynolds number, the smallest of deformations in the
geometry of airfoils can produce significant alterations in its
aerodynamic characteristics at low Reynolds numbers. The
aerodynamic performance may be enhanced or degraded based
on size, shape and location of the protrusions on wing surface.
The effects these protrusions are also dependent on the thickness,
location of maximum thickness and the angle attack of the airfoil
configuration. The macroscopic alteration in the surface of
airfoils because of insect deposits can reduce the output power of
wind turbines by 25 per cent (Corten and Veldkamp, 2001). A
detailed study on the aerodynamic performance degradation or
upgradation through careful examination of the associated flow
phenomena is thus required. In view of this, the current paper
reports the effects of size and location of a circular protrusion on
flow behavior and aerodynamic characteristics of NACA 0012 at
a Reynolds number of 100,000.
2. Numerical methodology
2.1 Geometric modeling and grid generation
C-shaped domain with multi-block structured grids are created
around the NACA 0012 airfoil with and without protrusions at
various locations on the surface using ICEMCFD® as shown in
Figure 1. The chord length of the airfoil in each case is 0.1 m
and protrusions are located either at the leading edge or at
0.05c, 0.1c, 0.25c, 0.5c and 0.75c on the surface of the airfoil.
Protrusions at each location on suction or pressure surface have
three different heights of 0.005c, 0.01c and 0.02c. The
C-topology computational domain extends to 20 times the
chord length in all directions, from the airfoil. A dense grid of
O-grid topology with stretching in all directions away from
airfoil is created around the airfoil. The first cell distance from
the surface of the airfoil in each case is set to be 0.000019 m
such that the non-dimensional cell wall distance y1  1. Based
on a detailed grid independence study, the multi-block grid
generated is converted to unstructured mesh with 169,750
quadrilateral elements.
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200

2.1.1 Governing equations and solver @ ð r v Þ @ ð r Uj v Þ

1 ¼ ar S2  b r v 2
At low Reynolds numbers, the viscous forces dominate the @t @xj
flow, and thus, the two-dimensional unsteady Navier–Stokes  
@ @v
equations given by equations (1) and (2) are solved using finite 1 ðm 1 s v m t Þ
@xj @xj
volume solver ANSYS FLUENT®:
 
@r ! 1 @k @ v
1r  rV ¼ 0 (1) 1 2ð1  F1 Þ r s v 2 (4)
@t v @xj @xj
   
@ ! !!
r V 1 r  r V V ¼ rp 1 r  s 1 r ! g (2) "
@t @ ð r g Þ @ ð r Uj g Þ  #
@ mt @g
The s in equation (2) is the viscous stress tensor. 1 ¼ Pg  Eg 1 m1 (5)
@t @xj @xj s g @xj
The energy equation is not solved as the flow is an adiabatic
one and at a very low Mach number with negligible     " #
compressibility effects, and thus, with negligible macroscopic g
@ r Re ut
g
@ r Uj Re ut @ g
@ Re ut
heat transfer. The continuity equation and the two momentum 1 ¼ Pu t 1 s u t ðm 1 m t Þ
@t @xj @xj @xj
equations are solved in a segregated manner using a pressure
based algorithm. The coupling of pressure and velocity fields is (6)
achieved through semi-implicit method for pressure linked g
In equations (5) and (6), g is the intermittency, Re u t is the
equations scheme, which is based on the predictor-corrector
transition thickness Reynolds number and P g , E g and Pu t
approach to enforce mass conservation.
are intermittency source term, intermittency destruction
term and momentum thickness production source term,
2.2 Spatial and temporal discretization
respectively.
All the conservation equations are discretized using a second-
order upwind scheme with higher order under-relaxation factor 2.4 Boundary conditions
of 0.75 applied to all flow variables. The viscous terms in the The airfoil surface is a no-slip boundary with u = 0 and v = 0
momentum equations, however, are discretized using second- imposed on it. The other boundaries as shown in Figure 1
order central difference scheme and the gradient at cell centers are velocity inlet and pressure outlet. At the velocity inlet, a
are evaluated using the least square cell-based formula wherein uniform velocity of 15 m/s is specified with the
the variables are assumed to vary linearly inside the cells. As the intermittency of 1.0 and turbulent intensity of 0.1 and at the
low Reynolds number flows are inherently unsteady, the pressure outlet boundary static pressure of 1.0 atm is
unsteadiness is resolved using a second-order accurate implicit specified. The values at the inlet are also used to initialize
the solution.
transient formulation. Starting with the steady state or pseudo-
steady state solutions as initial guess, the equations are solved
2.5 Grid independence and solver validation
iteratively at each time step before advancing to the next time
A detailed grid independence study is done for clean NACA
level, with a fixed time step of 1e05 s.
0012 airfoil, to assess the number of cells required for a grid-
independent solution. In Figure 2(a), the pressure distribution
2.3 Turbulence modeling
over the airfoil surface for grids of various element counts
Low Reynolds number flows are susceptible to laminar
appears to be same over the entire surface. A careful
separation and a turbulent reattachment. The conventional one
examination of the peak suction pressure in Figure 2(b) reveals
and two-equation turbulence models fail to capture the transition
that the solution becomes grid-independent only for meshes
and give erroneous results in this regime (Rumsey and Spalart, with element count of 169,750 and more. In backdrop of this
2009; Wang et al., 2012). The turbulence model thus, selected mesh independence study, all simulations were started with a
here is a four-equation transition model, namely, transition Shear minimum element count of 170,000 and element count for all
stress transport model (Menter et al., 2004). Transition SST cases were increased to 300,000 during the course of the
model can predict the detailed instantaneous and mean flow solution using dynamic mesh adaptation based on pressure
features, including laminar separation of the shear layer, gradients.
transition to turbulence, reattachment of the shear layer, vortex Besides the grid independence study, solver validation is
shedding and wake characterization (Counsil and Goni done against the experimental observations by Ohtake et al.
Boulama, 2012). This model is based on the correlation-based (2007) and Rinoie and Takemura (2004). In Figure 3(a), a
coupling of the two-equation SST k-v model (Menter, 1994) very good agreement is observed between the time-averaged
with two extra equations for the transport of intermittency (g ) lift coefficient values obtained in the current study and those
and transition-onset momentum-thickness Reynolds number obtained by Ohtake et al. In addition, the time-averaged
(Reu t). The resultant set of transport equations solved in this pressure distribution over NACA 0012 at a Reynolds
turbulence model are thus, given by equations (3)-(6): number of 130,000 obtained in the current validation study
@ ð r kÞ @ ð r Uj kÞ f in close agreement with those obtained by Rinoie and
1 ¼ Pk  b  r kv
@t @xj Takemura, as can be seen in Figure 3(b). A slight
  disagreement in the surface pressures for a = 10°, seen in
@ @k
1 ðm 1 s k m t Þ (3) Figure 3(b) is primarily due the dependence of laminar
@xj @xj
separation bubble size on the freestream turbulent intensity.

189
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200

Figure 2 Grid independence study

Figure 3 Solver validation study

Thus, it may safely be presumed that the numerical Figure 4 Evolution of lift coefficient at a = 8°
methodology adopted in the current study gives reasonably
accurate solutions for scientific consumption.
A solver verification is also conducted against the
numerical results obtained by Council and Boulama for the
evolution of the lift coefficient of NACA 0012 at a Reynolds
number of 105 (Counsil and Goni Boulama, 2013). As
shown in Figure 4, the lift coefficient for NACA 0012 settles
to a steady value at a = 8° and in accordance with the
findings of Council and Boulama. This verification was done
as the current research uses a similar numerical
methodology especially the turbulence model. As observed
by Council and Boulama, at a Reynolds number of 105, the
converged lift coefficient of NACA 0012 shows non-
oscillatory behavior at a = 8°. The primary reason suggested
for this lift convergence is the amount of free stream
turbulent intensity, the turbulence model and comparatively
high Reynolds number that might inhibit the vortex
shedding (Counsil and Goni Boulama, 2013).

190
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Effect of protrusion at the leading edge
In this research, numerical simulations are conducted to
investigate the effect circular protrusion over on airfoil at
Reynolds number of 105 and at the AOA in between 0° and
20°. For protrusions located at the leading of NACA 0012, a
marginal increment in the lift coefficient can be observed at
very small AOAs. In the range of AOA between a = 4° and 10°,
the lift curve coincides with that for a clean configuration as can
be seen in Figure 5(a). For a protrusion of height h = 0.005c,
the peak lift coefficient is same for that for the clean
configuration, the recovery from stall, however, for airfoil with
protrusion is immediate. For a leading edge protrusions of
height h = 0.01c, the stall is slightly smoother with full stall
occurring at AOA between a = 14° and 16°. At a = 12° and
18°, the protrusion with h = 0.01c offers significant
improvement in time-averaged lift coefficients because of cyclic
vortex shedding, which results in downward flow of
momentum near the trailing edge as a counterclockwise vortex
is shed away. The instantaneous vortical structures that cause
change in lift coefficient are shown in Figure 6. As can be seen
in Figure 6(a), with two counter-rotating vortices on the
suction side the lift is small as the flow separated from the
leading edge fails to curl downwards. As the trailing
counterclockwise vortex is shed away, clockwise circulation is
imparted to the airfoil and the primary clockwise vortex
becomes stronger and pushes the flow closer to the surface as
can be seen in Figure 6(b). This results in an increased
instantaneous lift coefficient. The smaller protrusions lead to
more severe vortex shedding in lift and drag with higher
amplitudes of fluctuations and the time-averaged lift
coefficients are significantly improved at AOA higher than a =
12°. The drag, however, is largely unaffected by the presence of
protrusions at the leading edge, for AOA below a = 14°, as can
be seen in Figure 5(b).
The addition of protrusion at the leading edge adds to the
flow unsteadiness as the airfoil undergoes high frequency vortex
shedding of 100 Hz, at a = 16°. The frequency of fluctuations
in the lift coefficient is similar for all protrusion heights at
Figure 5 Aerodynamic coefficients for NACA 0012 with circular protrusion at leading edge
191
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200
Figure 6 Vortex structure for airfoil with leading edge protrusion of
h = 0.005c and a = 16°
a = 18°. However, at a = 20°, the protrusion with height h =
0.01c lowers the fundamental frequency of oscillation to 40 Hz.
3.2 Effect of protrusion at 0.05c on the upper surface
The aerodynamic characteristics of an airfoil with protrusion
located at 0.05c on the suction surface is significantly different
from those of the clean configuration and those with
protrusions at other locations. The lift curve for configuration
with a protrusion height of 0.005c follows the one for clean
configuration up to a = 12°, as can be seen in Figure 7(a). In
fact, for AOAs up to 4°, the protrusion with h = 0.005c provides
a marginal increment in lift. At AOAs higher than 12°, the
configurations with smallest of protrusion show remarkable
increase in lift as compared to the clean configuration. The lift
increases linearly from a = 12° to 20°, giving increments of 21,
36, 29 and 28 per cent at a = 14°, 16°, 18° and 20°,
respectively. For the clean configuration, the flow is stalled at
a = 12°, however, for configurations with protrusion at 0.05c
location, the reversed flow on the suction surface is tripped at
the protrusion resulting in formation of a small separation
bubble ahead of the protrusion. The periodic washing away of
this tiny vortex leads to flow unsteadiness, causing the primary
vortex to be centered over the airfoil mid chord for a longer
duration before being shed away. This enhances the suction
causing the lift coefficient values to go up along with an
increased drag as can be seen in Figure 7(b). The increment in
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven
Figure 7 Aerodynamic coefficients of airfoil with protrusion at 0.05c on the upper surface
the drag observed is primarily because of viscous tugging at the
protrusion.
As the protrusion height is increased from h = 0.005c to h =
0.01c, the flow pattern and unsteadiness remain unchanged,
especially at a high angle of attack. The lift curve from a = 12°
onwards is exactly similar for both the cases. This makes the lift
curve almost linear in the entire range of AOA from a = 10° to
20°, with virtually no stalling with protrusion of h = 0.01c
located at 0.05c. The drag penalty, however, is higher, at all
AOA, as can be seen in Figure 7(b). At low AOAs between a =
4° and a = 10°, the aerodynamic performance is highly
degraded with lift coefficient falling significantly. At a = 4°,
pressure on the lower surface is similar to that for a clean airfoil,
the pressure on the suction surface is, however, slightly
modified. As can be seen in Figure 8(a), the formation of small
separation bubble ahead of the protrusion results in a strong
Figure 8 Surface pressure distribution for airfoil with protrusion of h = 0.01c at 0.05c on the upper surface
192
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200
local suction, which falls immediately due formation of a larger
separation bubble aft of the protrusion. At a = 8°, the suction
provided by the small vortex ahead of the protrusion is unable
to match the peak suction by the clean configuration as can be
seen in Figure 8(b). The flow pattern at a = 10° is similar with
much reduced suction and separation of flow aft of the
protrusion leading to a higher loss in lift. The separation
bubbles at a = 4° and a = 8° can be seen in Figure 9, which
shows the instantaneous streamlines for clean airfoil and airfoil
with protrusion of height 0.01c, located at 0.05c.
As the height of protrusion at 0.05c is increased to 0.02c, the
aerodynamic performance is further degraded at small AOAs,
with the highest reduction of 39.7 per cent at a = 8°. The lift
coefficient values remain almost unaltered between a = 2° to
a = 8°, even as the drag coefficients continue to rise with AOA.
This degradation in lift is because of the inability of the flow
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven
Figure 9 Instantaneous streamlines at a = 8° for (a) clean airfoil, and (b) protrusion at 0.05c
separated from the protrusion surface to reattach as the
separation bubble extends up to the trailing edge at AOAs up to
a = 8°. From a = 10° onwards, steady increments in lift
coefficient can be observed because of the buildup of an
anticlockwise vortex near the trailing edge, which makes the
primary vortex over the suction surface more coherent.
Increments of 31.9, 57.6 and 25.6 per cent in time-averaged lift
coefficient values are observed at a = 14°, 16° and 18°,
respectively. The increment in vortical lift comes, however, at
the cost of flow unsteadiness because of periodic vortex
shedding from the trailing edge. Nevertheless, the time-
averaged lift curve slope for airfoil with 0.02c protrusion at
0.05c, behaves linearly from a = 10° onwards. As the lift
provided by these configurations are entirely vortical in nature,
typical airfoil stall is not observed, as can be seen in Figure 7(a).
The protrusions located at 0.05c on the suction surface thus
induces high frequency vortex shedding at AOA as low as a =
12°. For a protrusion of height h = 0.005c and 0.01c, the
frequency of lift oscillation is 120 Hz at a = 14°, which reduces
100 Hz at a = 16°. For largest protrusion of h = 0.02c at 0.05c
location, an oscillation frequency of 120 Hz is achieved at a =
12°, which diminishes to 100 Hz at AOAs of a = 14° and 16°,
and to 40 Hz at a = 20°.
Figure 10 Aerodynamic coefficients of airfoil with protrusion at 0.10c on the upper surface
193
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200
3.3 Effect of protrusion at 0.1c on suction surface
As with the protrusion at 0.05c, the protrusions at 0.1c
improves the lift characteristic of NACA 0012 significantly as
can be seen in Figure 10(a). For smaller protrusions,
increments from 11 to 29 per cent can be observed in the post-
stall regime between a = 12° and a = 20°. These increments
come with no or little deterioration in lift values in the pre-stall
regime and with no increase in drag coefficient values as can be
seen in Figure 10(b). For protrusion height of 0.02c, however,
massive degradation in both lift and drag characteristics in pre-
stall regime is observed with 37 per cent reduction in lift at
a = 8°. The increment in lift, observed at a = 12° and 14°, is
because of the suction created by the separation bubble formed
in front of the protrusion as can be seen in Figure 11(a). The
flow detached from the surface of protrusion does not reattach
on the airfoil, forming a vortical flow region aft of the
protrusion, which is stable. The lift and drag coefficient values
thus, do not fluctuate for AOAs up to a = 12°. At higher AOAs,
the flow becomes unsteady and as the vortices are shed away
from the surface, the separation bubble in front the protrusion
vanishes and the flow fails to reattach on the protrusion. This
results in diminished suction both ahead and aft of the
protrusion as can be seen in Figure 11(b). The vortical lift on
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven
Figure 11 Instantaneous surface pressure distribution over airfoil with protrusion of height 0.01c, located at 0.1c
the rear of the surface, however, compensates for the suction
destruction ahead of protrusion.
The flow, in general, is unsteady for AOA of 14° and above
for all protrusion heights at 0.1c location. The protrusions
induce a 125 Hz high frequency, low amplitude oscillations in
the lift coefficient at a = 14°. As the AOA is increased, the
frequency of vortex shedding is reduced to 100 Hz at a = 16°
and to 86 Hz at a = 18° while the amplitude of fluctuation in
the lift coefficients increase. At a = 20°, the vortex shedding
frequency is unaltered by the presence of protrusions as the
flow fully separated, the amplitude of oscillation, however,
decreases as the height of protrusion is increased.
3.4 Effect of protrusion at 0.25c on suction surface
Figure 12 shows the variation of aerodynamic coefficients for
an airfoil with protrusion at the 0.25c on the upper surface. For
the smallest protrusion of h = 0.005c, the lift and drag
coefficients are unaffected in the pre-stall regime, while
Figure 12 Variation of aerodynamic coefficients for airfoil with protrusion at 0.25c
194
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200
significant deteriorations in aerodynamic characteristics can
be seen for larger protrusions. The lift curve for protrusion
of h = 0.005c follows the non-linearity of clean airfoil up to
a = 14°, after which an increase in lift value of about 20 per
cent is seen. The drag coefficient also increases slightly from
16° onwards. For the protrusions with h = 0.01c, the average
lift in the pre stall region is slightly less than for the clean
airfoil, and marginally higher in the post-stall region beyond
a = 16°.
There is a high frequency oscillation in lift coefficient values
for an airfoil with smaller protrusions and at higher AOAs
because of unsteady vortex structure. The instantaneous high
lift in the post-stall regime is primarily because of increased
suction on the upper surface as can be seen in Figure 13(a).
The increase in suction is because of the presence of a single
dominant clockwise vortex spanning the entire upper surface,
as can be seen in Figure 14(a). The vortex adds to downward
momentum of the flow hence enhancing circulation besides
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven
Figure 13 Instantaneous surface pressure for airfoil with protrusion at 0.25c and a = 16°
Figure 14 Instantaneous vortex structure at a = 16° for airfoil with
protrusion at 0.25c location and h = 0.005
causing an increase in pressure on the pressure side. As the flow
rolls up at the trailing edge because of pressure gradient, an
anticlockwise vortex builds up at the trailing edge. As this
counterclockwise vortex grows in size, it increases suction near
trailing edge on both top and bottom surfaces as seen in
Figure 13(b), causing the lift to diminish. When the
anticlockwise vortex gains its maximum strength, the clockwise
vortex on suction side becomes elongated and moves farther
from surface as seen in Figure 14(b), and the lift is reduced to
its minimum. After attaining full strength the counterclockwise
vortex is shed away from the surface imparting circulation to
the airfoil and the lift increases as the shed vortex moves away
from trailing edge.
For the airfoil configuration discussed in Figure 14, the lift
coefficient fluctuates between 0.71 and 0.80 at a frequency of
100 Hz. At a = 16°, the frequency of oscillation is the same for
all protrusion heights while the amplitude of oscillation
diminishes for larger protrusions as can be seen in Figure 15.
The frequency of oscillations for larger protrusions of h = 0.01
and 0.02 is reduced to 90 Hz at a = 18°. At a = 20°, the lift
coefficient fluctuates with a very low fundamental frequency of
40 Hz, the amplitude, however, goes through two intermediate
points of inflection during each cycle.
For a protrusion of height 0.01c, the time averaged lift
coefficient is increased marginally as compared to the clean
airfoil at a = 0°. From a = 2° to 16°, there is no significant
change in lift coefficient except at a = 8° and 10° where some
reductions can be observed. At both, a = 8° and 10°, the
195
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200
Figure 15 Lift history for airfoil with protrusion at 0.25c and a = 16°
formation of laminar separation bubble occurs ahead of the
protrusion and flow attaches to the protrusion and then
separates aft of the protrusion before reattaching again near
the trailing edge. Because of this, there is a small reduction
in lift coefficient for these AOAs as can be seen in
Figure 12(a). At a = 18°, there is an enhancement in the
time-averaged lift coefficient by 13 per cent, which
fluctuates between 1.24, when the vortex on suction surface
is strongest, immediately after the vortex is shed and 0.9 as
the counterclockwise vortex becomes strongest at the
trailing edge. This increment in time-averaged lift
coefficient falls to 6 per cent at a = 20°.
For a protrusion of height 0.02c, located at 0.25c, no
significant effect on the lift coefficient is observed at a = 0°
and 2°. For AOAs between 4° and 10° however, there is
significant decrement in lift coefficient as can be seen in
Figure 12(a). At a = 4° and 6°, flow separates ahead of the
protrusion forming a short separation bubble and then
separates again from the protrusion forming a long separation
bubble aft of the protrusion, which extends up to the trailing
edge, as can be seen in Figure 16(a). This results in a
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200

Figure 16 Instantaneous streamlines for airfoil with protrusion at
0.25c with h = 0.02c
significant loss of lift and a small increase in drag coefficient.
For a = 8° and 10°, the reduction in lift and increase in drag
are both amplified as the length of the vortical structure
extends beyond the trailing edge forming a hairpin vortex.
The coherent structure at a = 8° for airfoil with protrusion
height of 0.02c located at 0.25c on suction surface can be
seen in Figure 16(b). For this configuration of protrusion, the
lift curve follows the one for clean configuration up to a =
16°, with slightly higher average lift coefficient as compared
to clean airfoil. At a = 18° the vortices are shed from the
airfoil at a frequency of 80 Hz and lift coefficient value
fluctuates between 1.242 and 0.96. For a = 20°, the lift
coefficient fluctuates between 1.02 to 0.975, as the flow
separated from the leading edge remains unaffected by the
presence of the protrusion.
For protrusion with h = 0.01c, the trend in lift variations is
similar to those with h = 0.005c, as the protrusion degrades the
performance of the airfoil only slightly in the pre-stall regime and
improves the lift in the post-stall regime. At a = 16°, the time-
averaged lift coefficient is increased by 20 per cent, owing to the
coherent vortical lift in separated flow regime. The vortex
shedding at this AOA occurs at a frequency of 100 Hz causing lift
coefficient to fluctuate between 0.715 and 0.796, as can be seen in
Figure 18. At a = 18° and 20°, increments of 11 and 5 per cent,
respectively, are seen in the time-averaged lift coefficient, with an
increased amplitude of fluctuations. These improvements in lift
coefficients post 16° AOA, comes with increments in drag, as well
as can be seen in Figure 17(b). At a = 20°, the fundamental
frequency of vortex shedding is reduced to 40 Hz for all protrusion
heights located at 0.5c. The amplitude of this oscillation, however,
goes through three crests and troughs in each cycle.
As the height of protrusion, located at 0.5c, is increased to
0.02c a drastic change in the lift coefficient observed for a =
16°, along with high amplitude fluctuations. A high
instantaneous lift for this configuration is caused by a large
suction particularly aft of the protrusion as can be seen in
Figure 19(a). A single dominating vortex seen in the cases of
Figure 18 Lift history for airfoil with protrusion at 0.5c and a = 16°

3.5 Effect of circular protrusion at 0.50c

The trends in the lift and drag variations for an airfoil with
protrusions located at 0.5c is similar to that for protrusion at
0.25c, for AOAs up to a = 14°, as can be seen Figure 17(a) and (b).
The smallest protrusion of h = 0.005c does not seem to affect
the flow when located at mid-chord, as the lift curve for airfoil
with protrusion overlaps the clean configuration curve up to
a = 16°. The amplitude of fluctuation of lift coefficient for
airfoil with protrusion is, however, slightly higher than those
for clean airfoil. Also, at a = 18° and 20°, the time-averaged
lift coefficients for airfoil with this protrusion height is
marginally higher than that for the clean configuration.

Figure 17 Aerodynamic coefficients of airfoil with protrusion at 0.50c

196
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven
Figure 19 Instantaneous surface pressure distribution for airfoil with protrusion of h = 0.02c at 0.5c
smaller protrusions splits into two smaller vortices one
centered ahead of the protrusion and the other aft of the
protrusion, as can be seen in Figure 20(a). A small
anticlockwise vortex can also be seen in front of the
protrusion for this high lift vortical system. Because of suction
from this system of vortices, the lift coefficient is increased to
1.23, which diminishes to 0.96, as an anticlockwise vortex
gain strength near the trailing edge, as shown in Figure 20(b).
This also forces the two clockwise vortices on the suction
surface to merge as a result, the suction ahead of the
protrusion is enhanced. Despite this, there is a decrement in
lift because of enhanced suction on the bottom surface, as
well as can be seen in Figure 19(b). Similar vortex shedding
behavior is also observed for a = 18° and 20°, with slightly
smaller increment in the lift coefficient though.
3.6 Effect of protrusion at 0.75c
The aerodynamic characteristics of NACA 0012 remain
largely unchanged by the presence of protrusion located at
0.75c, as can be seen in Figure 21. For a protrusion of height
0.02c, some significant reductions lift coefficient can be
observed at a = 4° and a = 8°, primarily because of formation
of laminar separation bubble ahead and aft of the protrusion
extending up to the trailing edge, which results in reduced
suction on the top surface. At a = 6°, however, the separation
bubble ahead of the protrusion breaks into smaller bubbles as
can be seen in Figure 22. These bubbles are flushed away
periodically creating unsteadiness in the flow and an
increased time-averaged lift coefficient because of vortical
Figure 20 Vortex system for airfoil with protrusion at 0.5c on suction
surface with h = 0.02c
197
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200
lift. The drag coefficient curve, on the other hand, overlaps
the one for clean configuration up to a = 14°, for all
protrusion heights. For a = 18°, significant reductions in the
lift could be observed for all protrusion heights with marginal
reductions in drag for smaller protrusion heights. The
anticlockwise vortex seen over the trailing at a = 18° for clean
configurations are not present for airfoil with smaller
protrusions at 0.75c. This reduces the flow unsteadiness, and
the vortical lift is diminished with elongated primary vortex
on the suction surface. This elongated vortex also results in
reduced drag because of thinning of the wake.
With protrusions at 0.75c, the vortex shedding frequency is
similar to those for the clean configuration. Significant
fluctuations in lift coefficient are observed at AOAs of a = 2°, 6°
and 20°, for airfoils with tallest protrusions only. The
amplitude of fluctuation in lift coefficient values is, however,
very small as compared to the clean NACA 0012.
4. Conclusion
The aerodynamics of NACA 0012 with circular protrusions
located at various positions on the suction surface is
investigated at a Reynolds number of 105. The protrusions
of height h = 0.005c, 0.01c and 0.02c are placed at 5, 25, 50
and 75 per cent chordwise position on the suction surface
and at the leading edge as well. The lift curve for clean
NACA airfoil is highly non-linear and the airfoil stalls at a =
10°, which recovers from stall at a = 16°. The lift and drag
curves are largely unaffected by a protrusion of height
0.005c, for AOAs between a = 4° and 10°, irrespective of its
location. The smaller protrusions at the leading edge,
however, enhances severe vortex shedding with higher
amplitudes of fluctuations in lift and drag coefficients for
AOAs higher than a = 12°. The aerodynamic characteristics
of airfoil with protrusion located at 0.05c and 0.1c on the
suction surface is significantly different from those of clean
configuration and those with protrusions at other locations.
At AOAs higher than 12°, the configurations with smallest of
protrusions at 0.05c, show remarkable increase in time-
averaged lift, enhancing it by 21, 36, 29 and 28 per cent at
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven
Figure 21 Aerodynamics characteristic of airfoil with protrusion located at 0.75c on the suction surface
Figure 22 Instantaneous streamlines for airfoil at a = 6° with
protrusion at 0.75c with h = 0.02c
a = 14°, 16°, 18° and 20°, respectively. The drop in lift
coefficient at stall is very small, thus making the curve
virtually stall free up to a = 20°. For larger protrusion,
located at 0.05c, the lift curve is almost linear in the range of
AOAs between a = 10° and a = 20°. At low AOAs between
a = 4° and a = 10°, however, the aerodynamic performance
is highly degraded with lift coefficient falling significantly,
along with increments in drag. At higher AOA, the time-
averaged lift coefficients is improved significantly with 31.9,
57.6 and 25.6 per cent increase at a = 14°, 16° and 18°. For
smaller protrusions located at 0.1c, the time-averaged lift
coefficients are improved only by 11-29 per cent in the post-
stall regime with no or little deterioration in the pre-stall
regime. For protrusion height of 0.02c, however, massive
degradation in both lift and drag characteristics in pre-stall
regime is observed with 37 per cent reduction in lift at a =
8°. With protrusions at downstream locations on the suction
surface, the lift and drag coefficients are unaffected in the
pre-stall regime for smaller protrusions of h = 0.005c and
0.01c, while significant deteriorations in aerodynamic
characteristics can be seen for the largest protrusions. The
smallest protrusion of h = 0.005c does not seem to affect the
flow up to a = 16°, when located at or aft of the mid-chord
location. All protrusions, however, show significant
enhancement in the lift coefficient, in the post-stall regime.
Some deterioration in post-stall lift coefficients can be seen
198
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200
when the protrusion is placed at 0.75c, which also provides
reductions in drag coefficients at higher AOA for smaller
protrusion height.
The improvement in lift coefficients seen in the post-stall
regime for configurations with protrusion comes along with an
associated unsteadiness in the flow because vortex shedding.
The vortex shedding for airfoils with protrusion starts at lower
AOAs as compared to the clean configurations. Because of this
vortex shedding phenomena, the lift coefficient values oscillate
periodically between its high and low values as vortex builds up
on the surface and is finally shed away. With the anticlockwise
vortex at its full strength the lift coefficient is at the trough and
regains its peak value after the anticlockwise vortex from the
trailing edge and a single clockwise vortex spans the entire
suction surface. As the AOA is increased, the frequency of
oscillation decreases while the amplitude of oscillation in the lift
value increases. A high frequency, low amplitude oscillations at
120 Hz is observed for at a = 14° for smaller protrusion at 5 per
cent chord on the upper surface. With most protrusions the lift
oscillates at a frequency between 100-80 Hz for AOAs between
a = 16° and a = 18°. For protrusions at 0.25c and at 0.05c, lift
coefficient shows a multi-modal oscillation with a small
fundamental frequency of 40 Hz. In cases with these lower
frequencies, three troughs and crests are observed in each cycle,
making highest frequency of 120. For protrusions at 0.5c and
0.75c, however, the oscillation is similar to that of the clean
configuration.
The estimation of degradation in aerodynamic characteristics
of NACA 0012 by spanwise deposition or protrusion can be used
to evaluate the performance degradation of energy harvesters
operating at lower Reynolds numbers. The current findings show
that some artificial protrusions of suitable height can enhance the
aerodynamics performance, if placed suitably, as with the one
located at 0.05c on the suction surface. The smaller protrusions
also increase the frequency of oscillation of the airfoil because of
vortex shedding, and hence, can be used as a tool to enhance
energy production for energy harvester based on VIVs and
oscillating wing philosophy. As the vortex shedding phenomenon
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven
is very sensitive to the Reynolds number, the simulations should
be repeated at further lower Reynolds number.
References
Argatov, I., Rautakorpi, P. and Silvennoinen, R. (2009),
“Estimation of the mechanical energy output of the kite wind
generator”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1525-1532.
Barrero-Gil, A., Pindado, S. and Avila, S. (2012), “Extracting
energy from vortex-Induced vibrations: a parametric study”,
Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 3153-3160.
Carmichael, B.H. (1982), “Low Reynolds number airfoil
survey”, Vol. 1 NASA Report No. 165803.
Cherubini, A., Papini, A., Vertechy, R. and Fontana, M.
(2015), “Airborne wind energy systems: a review of the
technologies”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Vol. 51, pp. 1461-1476.
Corten, G.P. and Veldkamp, H.F. (2001), “Aerodynamics:
insects can halve wind-turbine power”, Nature, Vol. 412
No. 6842, pp. 41-42.
Counsil, J.N.N. and Goni Boulama, K. (2013), “Low-
Reynolds-Number aerodynamic performances of the
NACA0012 and Selig-Donovan 7003 airfoils”, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 204-216.
Counsil, J.N.N. and Goni Boulama, K. (2012), “Validating the
URANS shear stress transport g -Reu model for low-
Reynolds-number external aerodynamics”, International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol. 69 No. 8,
pp. 1411-1432.
Davids, S., Platzer, M.F. and Jones, K.D. (1999), “Oscillating-
Wing power generator”, Proceedings of the 3rd ASME/JSME
Joint Fluids Engineering Conference July 18-23, 1999, San
Francisco, CA.
Dropkin, A., Custodio, D., Henoch, C.W. and Johari, H.
(2012), “Computation of flowfield around an airfoil with
leading-edge protuberances”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 49
No. 5, pp. 1345-1355.
Dunnmon, J.A., Stanton, S.C., Mann, B.P. and Dowell, E.H.
(2011), “Power extraction from aeroelastic limit cycle
oscillations”, Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 27 No. 8,
pp. 1182-1198.
Gross, A. and Fasel, H.F. (2013), “Numerical investigation of
passive separation control for an airfoil at low-Reynolds-
number conditions”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 51 No. 7.
Hansen, K.L., Kelso, R.M. and Dally, B.B. (2011),
“Performance variations of Leading-Edge tubercles for distinct
airfoil profiles”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 185-194.
He, X.F. and Gao, J. (2013), “Wind energy harvesting based
on flow-induced-vibration and impact”, Microelectronic
Engineering, Vol. 111, pp. 82-86.
Huang, R.F. and Lin, C.L. (1995), “Vortex shedding and
Shear-Layer instability of wing at low Reynolds number”,
AIAA Journal, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1398-1403.
Juanmian, L., Feng, G. and Can, H. (2013), “Numerical study
of separation on the trailing edge of a symmetrical airfoil at a
low Reynolds number”, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics,
Vol. 26, pp. 918-925.
Kim, D.H., Chang, J.W. and Chung, J. (2011), “Low-
Reynolds-number effect on aerodynamic characteristics of a
199
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200
NACA 0012 airfoil”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 48 No. 4,
pp. 1212-1215.
Kinsey, T. and Dumas, G. (2008), “Parametric study of an
oscillating airfoil in a Power-Extraction regime”, AIAA
Journal, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1318-1330.
Kojima, R., Nonomura, T., Oyama, A. and Fujii, K. (2013),
“Large-Eddy simulation of Low-Reynolds-Number flow
over thick and thin NACA airfoils”, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 187-196.
Korkan, K.D., C.C., Jr, Cross, E.J. and Cornellj, (1984),
“Experimental aerodynamic characteristics of an NACA
0012 airfoil with simulated ice”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 130-134.
Kumar, S.K., Bose, C., Ali, S.F., Sarkar, S. and Gupta, S.
(2017), “Investigations on a vortex induced vibration based
energy harvester”, Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 111 No. 24.
Lee, S. and Bragg, M.B. (2003), “Investigation of factors
affecting Iced-Airfoil aerodynamics”, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 40 No. 3.
Lin, J.C.M. and Pauley, L.L. (1996), “Low-Reynolds-Number
separation on an airfoil”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 34 No. 8.
Lissaman, P.B.S. (1983), “Low-Reynolds-number airfoils”,
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 223-239.
McKinney, W. and DeLaurier, J.D. (1981), “The windmill: an
oscillating-wing windmill”, Journal of Energy, Vol. 5, pp. 109-115.
Marchman, J.F. and Werme, T.D. (1984), “Clark-Y airfoil
performance at low Reynolds numbers”, AIAA 22nd
Aerospace Sciences Meeting.
Meara, M.M.O. and Muellert, T.J. (1987), “Laminar
separation bubble characteristics on an airfoil at low
Reynolds numbers”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 25.
Menter, F.R. (1994), “Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence
models for engineering applications”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 32
No. 8, pp. 1598-1605.
Menter, F.R., Langtry, R.B., Likki, S.R., Suzen, Y.B., Huang,
P.G. and VöLker, S. (2004), “A Correlation-Based
transition model using local variables: part I – model
formulation”, Turbo Expo 2004, Vol. 4, pp. 57-67.
Mirzaei, M., Ardekani, M.A. and Doosttalab, M. (2009),
“Numerical and experimental study of flow field
characteristics of an iced airfoil”, Aerospace Science and
Technology, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 267-276.
Mueller, T.J., Batill, S.M. and Dame, N. (1980),
“Experimental studies of the laminar separation bubble on a
two-dimensional airfoil at low Reynolds numbers”, AIAA
13th Fluid & Plasma Dynamics Conference.
Ohtake, T., Nakae, Y. and Motohashi, T. (2007),
“Nonlinearity of the aerodynamic characteristics of
NACA0012 aerofoil at low Reynolds number”, Journal of
the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
Vol. 55 No. 644, pp. 439-445.
Paula, A.A.D., Padilha, B.R.M., Meneghini, J.R. and Paulo, S.
(2016), “The airfoil thickness effect on wavy leading edge”,
pp. 1-43.
Peng, Z. and Zhu, Q. (2009), “Energy harvesting through flow-
induced oscillations of a foil”, Physics of Fluids, Vol. 21
No. 12, pp. 1-9.
Peristy, L.H., Perez, R.E., Asghar, A. and Allan, W.D.E.
(2016), “Reynolds number effect of leading edge tubercles
on airfoil aerodynamics”, AIAA Aviation.
 Investigation of the unsteady aerodynamics
Aslesha Bodavula, Rajesh Yadav and Ugur Guven
Perkovic, L., Silva, P., Ban, M., Kranjčevic, N. and Duic, N.
(2013), “Harvesting high altitude wind energy for power
production: the concept based on Magnus’ effect”, Applied
Energy, Vol. 101, pp. 151-160.
Rinoie, K. and Takemura, N. (2004), “Oscillating behaviour
of laminar separation bubble formed on an aerofoil near
stall”, The Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 108 No. 1081,
pp. 153-163.
Rostami, A.B. and Armandei, M. (2017), “Renewable energy
harvesting by vortex-induced motions: review and
benchmarking of technologies”, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, Vol. 70, pp. 193-214.
Rostami, A.B., Mobasheramini, M. and Fernandes, A.C. (2018),
“Strouhal number of flat and flapped plates at moderate
Reynolds number and different angles of attack: experimental
data”, Acta Mechanica, Vol. 230 No. 1, pp. 333-349.
Rumsey, C.L. and Spalart, P.R. (2009), “Turbulence model
behaviour in low Reynolds number regions of aerodynamic
flowfields”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 982-993.
Serson, D. and Meneghini, J.R. (2015), “Numerical study of
wings with wavy leading and trailing edges”, Procedia Iutam,
Vol. 14, pp. 563-569.
Wang, D.A. and Chang, K.H. (2010), “Electromagnetic
energy harvesting from flow induced vibration”,
Microelectronics Journal, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 356-364.
Wang, D.A., Chiu, C.Y. and Pham, H.T. (2012),
“Electromagnetic energy harvesting from vibrations induced by
kármán vortex street”, Mechatronics, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 746-756.
Wang, S., Ingham, D.B., Ma, L., Pourkashanian, M. and Tao,
Z. (2012), “Turbulence modeling of deep dynamic stall at
relatively low Reynolds number”, Journal of Fluids and
Structures, Vol. 33, pp. 191-209.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
200
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Volume 92 · Number 2 · 2020 · 186–200
Winslow, J., Otsuka, H., Govindarajan, B. and Chopra, I.
(2017), “Basic understanding of airfoil characteristics at low
Reynolds numbers”, 7th AHS Technical Meeting on VTOL
Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
Xiao, Q., Liao, W., Yang, S. and Peng, Y. (2012), “How
motion trajectory affects energy extraction performance of a
Biomimic energy generator with an oscillating foil?”,
Renewable Energy, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 61-75.
Xiao, Q. and Zhu, Q. (2014), “A review on flow energy
harvesters based on flapping foils”, Journal of Fluids and
Structures, Vol. 46, pp. 174-191.
Yarusevych, S., Sullivan, P.E. and Kawall, J.G. (2009), “On
vortex shedding from an airfoil in low-Reynolds-number
flows”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 632, pp. 245-271.
Yarusevych, S., Sullivan, P.E., Kawall, J.G., Yarusevych, S.
and Sullivan, P.E. (2006), “Coherent structures in an airfoil
boundary layer and wake at low Reynolds numbers”, Physics
of Fluids, Vol. 44101.
Zhang, Y., Igarashi, T. and Hu, H. (2011), “Experimental
investigations on the performance degradation of a Low-
Reynolds-Number airfoil with”, 49th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and
Aerospace Exposition, pp. 1-18.
Zhou, Y. and Wang, Z.J. (2011), “Effects of surface
roughness on laminar separation bubble over a wing at a
low-Reynolds number”, 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition, pp. 1-18.
Corresponding author
Rajesh Yadav can be contacted at: RAJESHYADAV@ddn.
upes.ac.in