Introduction

1.1 Evolution of Aerofoils

General science dictates that a body exhibiting motion in a fluid experiences a resultant force
which usually resists its motion. But there exists class of bodies whose motion causes
resultant force normal to the direction of the motion which is many times greater than the
component resisting its very movement in it, and the possibilities of such a design is found in
aerodynamically well-designed wing structures called the Aerofoils. Such forces that are
developed normal and parallel to the flow are called drag and lift forces respectively. Drag
force is a mechanical force generated by the aerofoil and the lift force is the force that helps
the aerofoil to gain altitude. And such types of structures are used in cross sections of wings,
propeller blades, windmill blades, compressor and turbine blades in jet Engines and
Hydrofoils
The earliest serious work on the development of airfoil sections began in the late 1800's. H.F.
Phillips patented a series of airfoil shapes in 1884 after testing them in one of the earliest
wind tunnels in which "artificial currents of air (were) produced from induction by a steam jet
in a wooden trunk or conduit." Octave Chanute writes in 1893, "...it seems very desirable that
further scientific experiments be made on concavo-convex surfaces of varying shapes, for it
is not impossible that the difference between success and failure of a proposed flying machine
will depend upon the sustaining effect between a plane surface and one properly curved to
get a maximum of 'lift'."
At nearly the same time Otto Lilienthal had similar ideas. After carefully measuring the shapes
of bird wings, he tested the aerofoils below (reproduced from his 1894 book, "Bird Flight as
the Basis of Aviation") on a 7m diameter "whirling machine". Lilienthal believed that the key
to successful flight was wing curvature or camber. He also experimented with different nose
radii and thickness distributions.
Aerofoils used by the Wright Brothers closely resembled Lilienthal's sections: thin and highly
cambered. This was quite possibly because early tests of aerofoil sections were done at
extremely low Reynolds number, where such sections behave much better than thicker ones.
The erroneous belief that efficient aerofoils had to be thin and highly cambered was one
reason that some of the first airplanes were biplanes.

1|Page
A wide range of airfoils were developed, based primarily on trial and error. Some of the more
successful sections such as the Clark Y and Gottingen 398 were used as the basis for a family
of sections tested by the NACA in the early 1920's.

1.2 Objective

In this project, we aim to study the aerodynamics of an aerofoil by designing and analysing its
physical operation under different parameters. The constraints would be low speed, inviscid
and incompressible airflows over different geometries of aerofoils under varying attack
angles. The design of the aerofoil would be made using Computer Aided Design(CAD) and
will be analysed using Computer Aided Engineering(CAE) techniques, more specifically
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software “ANSYS”. The simulation would be carried for
different attack angle and parameters and the following phenomenon would be studied
• Pressure contour
• Velocity vector
• Stream Line and Velocity vectors
• Coefficient of drag and lift
Also, an attempt would be made to study different boundary conditions needed to setup to
solve the continuity equation and Navier-Stokes equation for two dimensional flows.

2|Page
1.3 Methodology

The first step in our project, after deciding the topic, was to do a literature review of the topic.
So in the first phase we searched for some previous works established in this topic and got
ourselves familiar with the topic.The next pahse we finalised the tools needed to carry out
the project,which included required softwares which in this case was ansys- Analysis Systems
and Micrsoft excel. The third phase was the Data collection. For this project we narrowed
down to required coordinates of the four airfoils provided they cover the diverse domain of
aerofoils.Then we went through some textual as well as visual manuals to learn ANSYS.
Then,we modelled four models of the airfoil and obtained the coefficient of lift and drag ,
detremined stall angle of attack, plotted graph between coefficient of lift and drag and the
angle of attack and analysed the resuts obtained.

Study Areas

2.1 Airfoil Theory-Terminology and Definitions

Leading Edge- It is the part of the wing that first contacts the air. Alternatively it is the
foremost edge of an airfoil section. It is generally roundish in shape and deflects the air in
such a way that the velocity of air on upper surface of the aerofoil is more than velocity on
the lower Surface.

3|Page
Trailing Edge-It is the edge of the airfoil which is pointed in nature. It is located at the back
side of the airfoil.

Chord Line- chord refers to the imaginary straight line joining the leading and trailing edges
of an aerofoil. The chord length is the distance between the trailing edge and the point on the
leading edge where the chord intersects the leading edge.

Angle of attack - It is the angle which the chord line makes with the direction of motion of
plane. It is an important parameter which affects the coefficient of lift and drag.

4|Page
Chamber line - It is a line joining leading edge and trailing edge and dividing the airfoil into
two symmetrical parts. It may or may not be a straight line.

Lift coefficient - It is a dimensionless coefficient that relates the lifting force on the body to
its velocity, surface area and the density of the fluid in which it is lifting.

Coefficient Of Drag- The drag coefficient then expresses the ratio of the drag force to the
force produced by the dynamic pressure times the area.

Stall angle of attack:- It is the angle of attack at which the lift coefficient is maximum and
after which the lift coefficent starts to decrease.
Stall velocity:The stalling speed V stall is defined as the slowest speed at which an airplane
can fly in straight and level flight. Therefore, the calculation of Vstall, as well as aerodynamic

5|Page
methods of making Vstall as small as possible, is of vital importance. The stalling velocity is
readily obtained in terms of the maximum lift coefficient, as follows. From the

Mean camber line (MCL). The line which is exactly in the middle of upper and lower surfaces
is mean camber line. The MCL for a cambered airfoil generally is above the chord line whereas
it is coincident with the chord line in case of symmetric aerofoils.

Maximum Thickness- It is the maximum separation from the bottom edge to the top edge. It
is generally 0.12c or 12% of the chord

Maximum camber. - The maximal distance of the MCL from the chord line. Maximum 2
Camber is generally expressed as a % or fraction of the chord.

Leading Edge Radius- The radius of a circle that produces the leading edge curvature.

Flap is an artificial high lift providing device attached to the aerofoil section at trailing edge.
When flap is deflected downwards, the lift coefficient increases due to increase in camber of
aerofoil sections

2.2 TYPES OF AEROFOIL

Asymmetrical Aerofoil- An aerofoil section that is not the same on both sides of the chord
line. Asymmetrical aerofoils are the most commonly used type for fixed-wing aircraft, but
because the location of the centre of pressure changes as the angle of attack changes, they
are seldom used for rotary-wing aircraft.

Symmetrical Aerofoil- An aerofoil that has the same shape on both sides of its centre line. A
symmetrical aerofoil has a very small change in the location of its centre of pressure as its
angle of attack changes. For this reason, symmetrical aerofoils are often used for helicopter

6|Page
rotors.Flat bottom airf

Flat Bottom Airfoil- Flat bottoms are usually seen in trainer flights. They look extremely thin.
Its bottom is flat and top is curved. Flat bottoms are speed sensitive. They are similar to
symmetrical airfoils. When power and speed is added it produces great lift.

Cambered airfoils- Cambered airfoils (asymmetric) are the kind which can generate a lift at a
zero angle of attack.

Supersonic Airfoil- A supersonic airfoil is used to generate lift at supersonic speeds. Its need
arises when an aircraft is operated consistently in supersonic range.

7|Page
2.3 Ansys

Ansys, offers engineering simulation solution sets in engineering simulation that a design
process requires. Companies in a wide variety of industries use ANSYS software. It uses CFD
and FEM and various other programming algorithms for simulating and optimising various
design problems. ANSYS has many sub parts out of which I will use FLUENT. ANSYS Fluent uses
CFD for analysis and is mainly used for simulation of fluid mechanics and thermodynamics
problems. Data of various fluid and solid materials are already fed into the ANSYS database
which we use.

Computational fluid dynamics provides a qualitative and sometimes even quantitative

prediction of fluid flow by means of mathematical modelling, numerical method and software
tools. CFD analysis enables an engineer to compute the flow numerically in a ‘virtual flow
laboratory’. The analysis consists of several steps such as: problem statement, mathematical
modelling, mesh generation, space discretization, time discretization, iterative solver,
simulation run, post processing, and verification.

Literature review
INVESTIGATION OF AIRFOIL DESIGN by AVNISH KUMAR, NIT Rourkela did a detailed study on
three aerofoils BOEING737, MIG21 and BELL 200XV and found the effect of drag and lift for
different angles of attack.

Mr. Arvind (2010)[4] researched on NACA 4412 airfoil and analysed its profile for
consideration of an airplane wing .The NACA 4412 airfoil was created using CATIA V5 And
analysis was carried out using commercial code ANSYS 13.0 FLUENT at an spped of 340.29
m/sec for angles of attack of 0˚, 6, 12 and 16˚. k-ε turbulence model was assumed for Airflow.
Fluctuations of static pressure and dynamic pressure are plotted in form of filled contour.

Mr. Mayurkymar kevadiya (2013)[2] studied the NACA 4412 airfoil profile and recognized its
importance for investigation of wind turbine edge. Geometry of the airfoil is made utilizing
GAMBIT 2.4.6. Also CFD investigation is done utilizing FLUENT 6.3.26 at different approaches
from 0˚ to 12˚.
Setup (based on the review)

8|Page
Here, we can set many combinations of parameters according to our requirements and
desired conditions. Table 2.3 shows the parameters and their corresponding values used in
this analysis.

Parameter Value
Model Inviscid
Density of air 1.225 kg/m3
Viscosity 0.00001767
Velocity 1 m/s
X-component Cos(α)
y-component Sin(α)
Max no. of iterations 3000
Precision 0.001
Temperature 288 K
Table 2.3

Here α is the angle of attack, which we will keep changing.

Once set up is done, we run the simulation, while keep changing the angle of attack.

Investigation of Aerofoil
design of NACA 0064-
008A

9|Page
4.1 Geometry

Coordinates of the aerofoil are imported into geometry framework and joined together by
a spline. The aerofoil being a 2-D geometry requires an additional sketch that acts as boundary
condition for the entire system, hence a C-mesh is prepared with the aerofoil in the middle.
NACA 0064-8a Is a symmetrical aerofoil hence the upper half of the aerofoil is the mirror
image of the lower half. Another implication would be that the chord line and Mean camber
line would coincide.

Fig 4.1 (a) Aerofoil Geometry

4.2 Meshing

10 | P a g e
 Fig4.2(a) Meshing of the C-mesh

Fig4.2(b)Closer look over the meshing

4.3 Setup-Simulation-Results
The first Simulation was ran for 0° angle of attack, the aerofoil being symmetric experienced
Zero lift (CL=0), this inference is evident from the pressure contour as the pressure
distribution is same on both sides of the camber.

11 | P a g e
 Fig4.3 (a)Pressure contour for AOA 0°
As the lift of an aerofoil is an physical implication of Bernoullies theorem which roughly states
(assumed for an streamlines mtion around the aerfoil)

Pressure α Velocity⁻1

The following velocity contour I got from simulation is perfectly in compliance with the
theorem, as it has high velocity distribution equally over the upper and lower surfaces to
produce low pressure fields over the same (fig1.3 (a)). Another fascinating phenomenon to
note here is the distinct formation of stagnation point (point of least velocity) at the leading
edge of the aerofoil
where the airflow separates, with some going over and some under the surface of the airfoil
. It is the point where the full dynamic pressure pluswhatever static pressure is effective at t
he time will be felt.

12 | P a g e
 Fig4.3 (b)Velocity contour for AOA 0°

A velocity vector represents the rate of change of the position of an object. The
magnitude of a velocity vector gives the speed of an object while the vector direction
gives its direction. Here is basically represents the displacement of air with time along the
surface of the aerofoil.At 0° the displacement is uniform on both sides of camber line from
the leading edge to the trailing edge.

Fig4.3 (c)Velocity vectors for AOA 0°

13 | P a g e
The following results were obtained for angle of attack 2°, we can interpret that the aerofoil
undergoes a lift due to pressure difference between upper surface and lower surface(with
low pressure fields on the upper surface and high pressure fields on the lower surface ).

Fig4.3 (d)Velocity contour for AOA 2°

Fig4.3 (e)Pressure contour for AOA 2°

14 | P a g e
Fig4.3 (f)Velocity Vector for

AOA 2°
The pressure difference between the upper surface and lower surface is maximum at the stall
angle, after which further increase in AoA will cause drag coefficient hence drag
force(undesirable).

Fig4.3 (g)Pressure contour at Stall Angle

15 | P a g e
Fig4.3 (h)Velocity contour for Stall Angle

Fig4.3 (i)Velocity Vector at Stall Angle

16 | P a g e
4.4 Post Processing
The simulation was ran for different angles until a distinct decrease in coefficient of lift was
observed, further which a distinct solution didn’t exist(non-convergence). Post observation
the obtained data points was plotted for coefficient of lift versus angle of attack.
Stall angle=4.0635°

no: Angle of Attack(degrees) Coefficient of lift(CL)

1 -4.125° -0.00378
2 -4.094° -0.00375
3 -4.063° -0.00378
4 -4.000° -0.00300
5 -3.000° -0.00303
6 -2.000° -0.00206
7 -1.000° -0.00107
8 0.000° 0.00215
9 1.000° 0.00108
10 2.000° 0.00207
11 3.000° 0.00303
12 4.000° 0.00376
13 4.125° 0.00371

Fig 4.4(a)plots of Cl versus AoA

Few inferences we get from the graph is the CL=0 at 0°, reason of which is attributed to the
symmetric nature of the aerofoil. The value of lift coefficient increases with AoA up to stall
angle after which its decreases. For negative angles of attack the force is not a lifting but a
downward force that resists lifting.
We can observe pressure difference near the leading edge causes downward moment.

17 | P a g e
 Fig 4.4(b)Pressure contour for AoA -3°

INVESTIGATION OF
AIRFOIL DESIGN OF
S7055

Geometry
S7055 is a flat-bottom airfoil and is one of the standard NACA airfoil. Its shape is as shown in
fig. 2.1 It is bulged upwards and has negligible curvature at the bottom side.

18 | P a g e
 Fig. 5.1

The co-ordinates of this curve was imported online and were imported to Ansys 15
workbench. Then from those points, the shape of S7005 was generated using spline curve.
After that, domain for meshing was created.

Meshing
For meshing, we created 4 parts of the domain and each edge was divided into 100 parts. Fig.
2.2(a) shows the overall look of the meshed domain and fig. 2.2(b) & 2.2(c) shows the closer
looks of the meshing near the airfoil boundary.

19 | P a g e
Fig. 5.2(a) C-Meshing

Fig. 5.2 (b)

20 | P a g e
 Fig. 5.2 (c)

Now, as meshing is done, we will proceed with naming the walls, boundaries, inlet and outlet.
After naming, we are ready to set the required parameters to run the simulation.

• Simulation
We ran the simulation for different angles of attack, starting from 0® and keep increasing it
until we get the stall angle. We also gathered their pressure and velocity contours along with
streamline distribution.

α = 0®

Fig 5.4(a) Pressure contour for AoA 0®

21 | P a g e
 As the airfoil is unsymmetrical, there will be some pressure difference between upper and
lower region surrounding the airfoil due to different streamline curvatures. This can also be
inferred from Fig. 5.4(a).

Fig. 5.4(b) Velocity contour for AoA 0®

Fig. 5.4(c) streamlines

22 | P a g e
• α = 4®

23 | P a g e
• α = 8®

24 | P a g e
25 | P a g e
 α = 8.12®

26 | P a g e
 • Post- processing

All the above contours show us the pressure and velocity variations around the S7055
airfoil at different angles of attack. These were a part of qualitative analysis. For quantitative
analysis, we have the coefficient of lift and coefficient of drag. The following table specifies
the coefficients.

Angle (degrees) Coefficient of lift Coefficient of drag

0 0.357780 0.002169
2 0.579638 0.004128
4 0.801365 0.006881
6 0.995205 0.012389
7 1.062668 0.016781
7.5 1.083344 0.017773
8 1.084635 0.023630
8.12 1.066893 0.019390
8.25 1.082840 0.025155

27 | P a g e
 The interval between angles is reduced as we reach near AoA = 8 because our motto
is to find the stall angle and we are interested in getting as much accurate value as we can.
So, from the table we can infer that the stall angle for S7055 is 8®. Above this, we will get
haphazard values of coefficient of lift and drag due to inability of the data to converge.
Notable thing is that we get 10 times drag at 8® than at 0®. So, one cannot just use the airfoil
at stall angle everywhere.

1.200000

1.000000

0.800000

0.600000
Series1
0.400000

0.200000

0.000000
0 2 4 6 8 10

Fig. 5.6 shows the variation of coefficient of drag with angle of attack in graphical form. It
clearly suggests that lift increases with angle of attack and reaches a maximum value then
start reducing.

Now, we also have the variation of drag with angle of attack.

0.030000

0.025000

0.020000

0.015000 Series1

0.010000

0.005000

0.000000
0 2 4 6 8 10

Drag just keeps on increasing (as can be inferred from increasing slope of the curve).
It will be maximum when AoA will reach its maximum of 90®.

28 | P a g e
 Investigation of Aerofoil
design of NACA 0012

6.1 Geometry
NACA 0012 Is a symmetrical airfoil hence the upper half of the airfoil is the mirror image of
the lower half. Another implication would be that the chord line and Mean camber line would
coincide.

Fig 6.1 (a) Aerofoil Geometry

29 | P a g e
6.2 Meshing

Fig6.2(a) Meshing of the C-mesh

Fig6.2(b)Closer look over the meshing

30 | P a g e
6.3 Setup-Simulation-Results
The first Simulation was ran for 0° angle of attack, the airfoil being symmetric experienced
Zero lift (CL=0), this inference is evident from the pressure contour as the pressure
distribution is same on both sides of the camber.

Fig6.3 (a)Pressure contour for AOA 0°

31 | P a g e
 Fig6.3 (b)Velocity contour for AOA 0°

Fig6.3 (c)Velocity streamlines for AOA 0°

The following results were obtained for angle of attack 6°, we can interpret that the aerofoil
undergoes a lift due to pressure difference between upper surface and lower surface(with
low pressure fields on the upper surface and high pressure fields on the lower surface ).

32 | P a g e
 Fig6.3 (d)Velocity contour for AOA 6°

Fig6.3 (e)Pressure contour for AOA 6

°
Fig6.3 (f)Velocity streamlines for AOA 6°
The pressure difference between the upper surface and lower surface is maximum at the stall
angle, after which further increase in AOA will cause drag coefficient hence drag
force(undesirable).

33 | P a g e
Fig6.3 (g)Pressure contour at Stall Angle

34 | P a g e
 Fig6.3 (h)Velocity contour for Stall Angle

Fig6.3 (i)Velocity streamlines at Stall Angle

6.4 Post Processing

The simulation was run for different angles until a distinct decrease in coefficient of lift was
observed, further which a distinct solution didn’t exist(non-convergence). Post observation
the obtained data points was plotted for coefficient of lift versus angle of attack.

Table 1.1(a) Variation of lift coefficient with angle of attack

S.No. A.O.A (Degrees) CL

1 0 0
2 1 0.115132
3 2 0.228307
4 3 0.338382

35 | P a g e
 5 4 0.444157
6 5 0.547027
7 6 0.642093
8 7 0.740243
9 8 0.812596
10 9 0.869520
11 9.5 0.870981
12 10 0.870334
13 10.5 0.862710
14 11 0.851800

Stall Angle of Attack = 9.5 degree

From, the graph it is seen that first the lift
Coefficient increases with increase in angle of attack. But as the angle crosses 13.5° it starts
to decrease.

36 | P a g e
 Investigation of Aerofoil
design of BOEING 737
ROOT

7.1 Geometry
BOEING 737 ROOT Is a asymmetrical aerofoil therefore the chord line does not bisect the
Airfoil into two symmetrical halves. The curved surface of upper and lower layer is dissimilar
in geometry.

37 | P a g e
 Fig7.1(a) Aerofoil Geometry

7.2 Meshing

Fig7.2 (a) Meshing of the C-mesh

Fig7.2(b)Closer look over the meshing

38 | P a g e
7.3 Setup-Simulation-Results

The first Simulation was ran for 0° angle of attack, the aerofoil being asymmetric experienced
Non Zero lift (CL=0.14131) , this inference is evident from the pressure contour as the
pressure distribution is same on both sides of the camber.

Fig7.3 (a) Pressure contour for AOA 0°

At zero angle of attack it can be seen that the static pressure is little higher on the lower
surface than on the upper surface. This generates a pressure gradient which causes a force
on the total surface area of the airfoil.

Fig7.3 (b) Velocity contour for AOA 0°

39 | P a g e
 Fig1.3 (c) Velocity vectors for AOA 0°
The following results were obtained for angle of attack 6°, we can interpret that the aerofoil
undergoes a lift due to pressure difference between upper surface and lower surface(with
low pressure fields on the upper surface and high pressure fields on the lower surface ).

Fig7.3 (d) Velocity contour for AOA 6°

Fig1.3 (e) Pressure contour for AOA 6°

40 | P a g e
Fig1.3 (f) Velocity Vector for AOA 6°
The pressure difference between the upper surface and lower surface is maximum at the stall
angle, after which further increase in AOA will cause drag coefficient hence drag
force(undesirable).

Fig7.3 (g) Pressure contour at Stall Angle

Fig7.3 (h) Velocity contour for Stall Angle

41 | P a g e
 Fig7.3 (i) Velocity Vector at Stall Angle

7.4 Post processing

The simulation was run for different angles until a distinct decrease in coefficient of lift was
observed, further which a distinct solution didn’t exist (non-convergence). Post observation
the obtained data points was plotted for coefficient of lift versus angle of attack.
Table 1.1(a) Variation of lift coefficient with angle of attack

S. No. A.O.A(degrees) Cl
1 0 0.14131
2 2 0.36691
3 4 0.57907
4 6 0.78985
5 8 0.98781
6 10 1.15950
7 12 1.27980
8 13 1.30520
9 13.5 1.30680
10 14 1.30240
11 15 1.28310
12 16 1.29350

42 | P a g e
 Stall Angle
of Attack = 13.5 degree

From, the graph it is seen that first the lift

Coefficient increases with increase in angle of attack. But as the angle crosses 13.5° it starts
to decrease.

Analysis of Results

8.1 Distribution of pressure coefficient

The pressure coefficient is a dimensionless number which describes the relative pressures
throughout a flow field in fluid dynamics. The pressure coefficient is used
in aerodynamics and hydrodynamics. Every point in a fluid flow field has its own unique
pressure coefficient, . The distribution of pressure coefficient of NACA0064-8A airfoil under
different angles of attack is shown in the following Fig 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.1(c). It can be seen

43 | P a g e
that the pressure coefficient varied largely under different attack angle. The pressure
coefficient of the airfoil’s upper surface was negative and the lower surface was positive,
thus the lift force of the airfoil is in the upward direction. Larger the attack angle, greater is
the difference of pressure coefficient between the lower and upper surface. We can also see
that the coefficient of pressure difference is much larger on the front edge, while on the
rear edge it was much lower, thus indicting that the lift force of the airfoil is mainly
generated from the front edge.

Fig 8.1(a)Variation of Cp Along the chord at AoA

44 | P a g e
Fig8.1 (b)Variation of Cp Along the chord at AoA 2°

45 | P a g e
 Fig 8.1(c)Variation of Cp Along the chord at stall Angle

The relationship between the dimensionless coefficient and the dimensional numbers is

where:
P : is the static pressure at the point at which pressure coefficient is being evaluated
P∞: is the static pressure in the freestream (i.e. remote from any disturbance)
P0 : is the stagnation pressure in the freestream (i.e. remote from any disturbance)
ᵨ Is the freestream fluid density (Air at sea level and 15 °C is 1.225 )
V∞ :is the freestream velocity of the fluid, or the velocity of the body through the
fluid

From fig 8.1(c) we can infer that the difference between pressure coefficient is
larger, hence greater lift than that of fig 8.1(b)

8.2 Experimentation over different Flow models in Fluent

The stall angle of any aerofoil is a function of its geometry, which implies simulation under
any flow model must result in a stall angle within a small range.Thus we simulateted NACA
0012 in Laminar and K-€ turbulent models for different angle of attack apart from Inviscid
model done in chapter 6.
1)Inviscid- A flow in which viscous effects can be neglected is known as inviscid flow. At
high Reynolds numbers, flow past slender bodies involve thin boundary layers. Viscous
effects are important only inside the boundary layer and the flow outside it is nearly
inviscid. If the boundary layer is not separated then the inviscid flow model can be used
to predict the pressure distribution with reasonable accuracy. Although no practical flow
is inviscid, the inviscid assumption is valid if the time scales for diffusion are much larger
compared to the time scales for convection, which is measured by the Reynolds number.
2)Laminar-type of flow in which the fluid travels smoothly or in regular paths, in contrast
to turbulent flow in which the fluid undergoes irregular fluctuations and mixing. In
laminar flow, sometimes called streamline flow, the velocity, pressure, and other flow
properties at each point in the fluid remain constant. Laminar flow over a horizontal
surface may be thought of as consisting of thin layers, or laminate, all parallel to each
other. The fluid in contact with the horizontal surface is stationary, but all the other
layers slide over each other.

46 | P a g e
3) K-epsilon-The k-epsilon (k-ϵϵ ) model for turbulence is the most common to simulate the
mean flow characteristics for turbulent flow conditions. This is a 2-equation model which
gives a general description of turbulence by means of two transport equations (PDEs), which
accounts for the history effects like convection and diffusion of turbulent energy. The 2
transported variables are turbulent kinetic energy k, which determine the energy in
turbulence, and turbulent dissipation ϵϵ , which determines the rate of dissipation of the
turbulent kinetic energy. The k-ϵϵ model is shown to be applicable for free-shear flows, such
as the ones with relatively small pressure gradients [1], but might not be the best model for
problems involving large adverse pressure gradients [2]. Hence this model might not be
suitable for inlets and compressors.

Setup

Velocity 1.4607 m/s

Reynolds Number 100000
density 1.225 kg/m3
viscosity 1.79E-05
Temperature 288.16 k
Type Density based
Pressure 101325 Pa

inviscid
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
coeff. of lift

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
angle (degree)

47 | P a g e
 laminar
0.4
0.35
coeff. of lift 0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
angle (degree)

k-epsilon turbulent
1.2

0.8
coeff. of lift

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
angle (degree)

Stall angle
Inviscid 9.5°
Laminar 11°
K-€ model 12.5°
Hence stall angles for different models are achieved within a small range of 3°, which indeed
means stall angle is a function of geometry.

8.2 Geometry variations

Geometry model Stall angle
NACA 008 4.0625°
NACA S7055 8°
NACA 0012 9.5°
Boeing 737 Root aerofoil 13.5°
The aerofoils were chosen based on the following parameters
-NACA 008 is a Symmetric and low camber aerofoil used in fighter planes

48 | P a g e
-NACA S7055 is Unsymmetrical, flat-bottomed aerofoil
-NACA 0012 is symmetric aerofoil which is most commonly used in turbine blades
-Boeing 737 -is an Unsymmetrical and High Camber thickness aerofoil
At 3° the CL for these aerofoils are

Geometry model CL
NACA 008 0.00303
NACA S7055 0.6905015
NACA 0012 0.228307
Boeing 737 Root aerofoil 0.57907
Unsymmetrical airfoils like NACA S7055 and Boeing 737 have relatively high coefficient of lift

8.3 Alembert’s Paradox

The entire simulation was done on incompressible and Inviscid flow for which symmetric
aerofoils like NACA 0012 and NACA 008 got us=nsually low values of drag coeffcinet in the
order of 10-5 which can almost be considered as Zero.Our Perplexion led to further study
and were able to relate this phenomenon to one of the oldest Paradoxes in Fluid dynamics.
d'Alembert's paradox (or the hydrodynamic paradox) is a contradiction reached in 1752 by
French mathematician Jean le Rond d'Alembert.D'Alembert proved that – for
incompressible and inviscid potential flow – the drag force is zero on a body moving with
constant velocity relative to the fluid. Zero drag is in direct contradiction to the observation
of substantial drag on bodies moving relative to fluids, such as air and water; especially at
high velocities corresponding with high Reynolds numbers. A formal mathematical proof is
lacking, and difficult to provide, as in so many other fluid-flow problems involving the
Naiver–Stokes equations (which are used to describe viscous flow).

Conclusion

• Lift coefficient was found to be higher for Asymmetric airfoil than the Symmetric airfoil for

same chord length and maximum camber of the airfoil at same angle of attack.

49 | P a g e
• Drag force of Asymmetric airfoil was found to be marginally more than that of Symmetric

airfoil for same length and camber of airfoil.

• Out of the three airfoils namely NACA 008, BOEING 737, NACA 0012 and NACA S7055 airfoils

BOEING 737 was found to have highest stall angle of attack.

• The values of lift coefficient is directly proportional to angle of attack until stall angle (this

obeys even for negative AoA where CL is negative)

• The values of drag coefficient is directly proportional to angle of attack and is always positive

even for negative attack angles.

• D’Álemberts paradox if not be able to prove mathematically we could observe the

phenomenon through simulations over airfoils.

• Study of contours over aerofoil gave a greater visualization of Bernoulli’s principle

References

• Computational Study of Flow Around a NACA 0012 Wing Flapped at Different Flap Angles
with Varying Mach Numbers

• Gultop T., “An Investigation of the effect of aspect ratio on Airfoil performance.” Gazi :
American Journal of Applied Sciences ISSN/EISSN: 15469239 15543641, Volume: 2, Issue: 2
,Pages: 545-549 ,1995.

50 | P a g e
 • Arvind M. “CFD ANALYSIS OF STATIC PRESSURE AND DYNAMIC PRESSURE FOR NACA 4412”
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology ISSN/EISSN: 22315381 Volume:
4 Issue: 8 Pages: 3258-3265,(2010

• EXPERIMENTAL AND CFD ANALYSIS OF AIRFOIL AT LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER Chandrakant

Sagat1*, Pravin Mane1 and B S Gawali1

• STUDIES ON PERFORMANCE OF AN AIRFOIL AND ITS SIMULATION Rajendra Roul

• INVESTIGATION OF AIRFOIL DESIGN by AVNISH KUMAR NIT Rourkela

Web references

1. http://www.airfoiltools.com

2. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/737family/

3. http://www.dcs-mig21.com/

4. http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/bell_xv-3.php

5. http://aerospace.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html

6.Wikipedia

7. https://confluence.cornell.edu

8. http://cfd.ninja/ansys-fluent

51 | P a g e