See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319649582

Wind Tunnel Testing of a NACA0012 Aerofoil

Experiment Findings · June 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33700.37760

CITATIONS READS

0 29,346

1 author:

Tumisang Laurel Kalagobe

University of the Witwatersrand
8 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reduction of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption in a heavy duty truck logistics operation by use of a hybrid drive train View project

3rd Year Mechanical Engineering Laboratory Experiments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tumisang Laurel Kalagobe on 12 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Wind Tunnel Testing of a
NACA0012 Aerofoil

MECN3007 - Mechanical Engineering Laboratory

Tumisang Kalagobe

Student number: 800363

Supervisor: Mr M. Boer

A project report submitted to the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the degree of Bachelor of Science in Engineering.

Johannesburg, June 2017

 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

School of Mechanical, Industrial & Aeronautical Engineering

INDIVIDUAL DECLARATION WITH TASK SUBMITTED FOR ASSESSMENT

I, the undersigned, am registered for the course MECN3007 - Mechanical Engineering

Laboratory in the year 2017. I herewith submit the following task ”Wind Tunnel Testing
of a NACA0012 Aerofoil” in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the above course.

I hereby declare the following:

ˆ I am aware that plagiarism (the use of someone else’s work without their permission
and / or without acknowledging the original source) is wrong;

ˆ I confirm that the work submitted herewith for assessment in the above course is my own
unaided work except where I have explicitly stated otherwise;

ˆ This task has not been submitted before. either individually or jointly, for any course
requirement, examination or degree at this or any other tertiary educational institution;

ˆ I have followed the required conventions in referencing the thoughts and ideas of others;

ˆ I understand that the University of the Witwatersrand may take disciplinary action
against me if it can be shown that this task is not my own unaided work or that I failed
to acknowledge the sources of the ideas or words in my writing in this task.

Signed this 29th day of June 2017

Tumisang Kalagobe 800363

i
Abstract

A wind tunnel test was conducted on a NACA 0012 aerofoil in order to determine an unknown
angle of attack. The angle of attack was found by forcing the calculated lift coefficient onto
a CL vs α graph of a known slope. The test was conducted in an open circuit wind tunnel.

A review of various literature assisted in finding equations that could be used to determine
the lift coefficient. The graph of CL vs α was adapted from the work of Abbot et al and is
the basis for determining the angle of attack. Two methods were used to model the pressure
distribution on the aerofoil and an uncertainty analysis found that one method had slightly
higher precision than the other due to the gradual nature of the pressure distribution.

Visual observations were made with the assistance of small strings on the aerofoil. It was
found that as the angle of attack increased then there is an adverse pressure gradient that
develops relative to the direction of flow. The strings would remain attached to the aerofoil
at smaller angles of attack.

ii
Contents

Declaration i

Abstract ii

Contents iii

List of Figures v

List of Tables v

List of Symbols v

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background, motivation and literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Apparatus 3

2.1 Wind tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 NACA0012 Aerofoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.3 Multi-tube Manometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.4 Pitot tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Procedure and Precautions 6

3.1 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.2 Precautions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4 Observations and Data Processing 7

iii
 4.1 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4.2 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4.3 Uncertainty Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5 Results 9

6 Discussion 10

7 Conclusions 12

A Diagrams 14

A.1 Wind tunnel dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

A.2 Pressure distributions of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

A.3 Experimental lift coefficient graph from literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

B Sample Calculations 16

B.1 Free Stream Velocity Derivation and Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

B.2 Pressure Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

B.3 Lift Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

C Uncertainty Analysis 17

D Tabulated Raw Data 20

E Health and Safety Risk Assessment 21

iv
List of Figures

1 Coefficient of lift vs angle of attack at Re = 2.0 × 106 [5] . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Schematic of the wind tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Schematic of a NACA0012 aerofoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4 Schematic of a multi-tube manometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

5 Schematic of the pitot tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

6 Theoretical lift curve with calculated values superimposed along with error bars 10

7 Schematic of wind tunnel with dimensions [10] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

8 Method 1 for analysing the pressure distribution over the aerofoil . . . . . . . 14

9 Method 2 for analysing the pressure distribution over the aerofoil . . . . . . . 15

10 Lift and moment curves of a NACA 0012 aerofoil relative to the angle of attack
[8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

11 Health and safety risk assessment sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

List of Tables

1 Experimental uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 Processed pressure coefficients and the distances from the leading edge . . . . 17

3 Uncertainties in the pressure coefficients on the upper and lower surfaces . . . 19

4 Raw data collected from the first run on the upper surface . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5 Raw data collected from the first run on the lower surface . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6 Raw data collected from the second run on the upper surface . . . . . . . . . 20

7 Raw data collected from the second run on the lower surface . . . . . . . . . 21

v
List of Symbols

The units of quantities defined by a symbol are indicated in square brackets following the
description of the symbol. Quantities with no indicated units may be assumed to be dimen-
sionless.

ρa Density of the working fluid [kg/m3 ].

P The far field pressure of the working fluid [P a].

Rh The relative humidity of the testing environment as a percentage [%].

es The saturation vapour pressure [P a].

T The far field temperature of the working fluid [K].

µ Dynamic viscosity of the working fluid [P a · s].

Re The Reynolds number of the flow regime.

U∞ The free stream velocity of the fluid entering the tunnel [m/s].

L The total distance from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge [m].

CL The lift coefficient of the aerofoil at a given angle of attack.

CP The pressure coefficient at a given location on the aerofoil.

ρw Density of water [kg/m3 ].

α The aerofoil angle of attack [o ].

vi
1 Introduction

1.1 Background, motivation and literature review

Testing prototypes is an integral stage in any engineering design. Experimentation is partic-

ularly important in applications such as fluid mechanics, where the behaviour of the system
is difficult to model analytically. Fluid mechanics make use of empirical methods in order to
create clearly defined models that can assist in predicting the behaviour of fluid systems [1].

The nature of fluid flow allows engineers to create scale models of the body in order to assess
the behaviour of fluid flow around it. The effect of dimensional similarity can be quantified
by use of the Reynold’s number. This is a non-dimensional number which when kept constant
for geometrically similar objects creates flow conditions that are comparable [2].

It is more energy efficient to move an object through a fluid as opposed to moving a fluid
past a body, however it is more convenient to take measurements from a stationary body [3].
Wind tunnel testing is thus the preferred method for measuring the aerodynamic effects of
fluid flowing past a body. Key flow characteristics such as lift and drag can then be deduced
from these experiments. Wind tunnels can come in 3 distinct layouts, the closed circuit, open
circuit and pressure tunnels [3].

In order to establish important flow characteristics in a wind tunnel experiment a number of

equations are necessary to determine the properties of the fluid before data processing can
be conducted. In order to find the density of the air in a wind tunnel Barlow et al [4] showed
that Equation 1 can be used.
 
0.0034847
ρa = (P − 0.003796Rh es ) (1)
T
The saturation vapour pressure can be found through Equation 2.

es = (1.7526 × 1011 )e(5315.56/T ) (2)

Additionally Barlow et al [4] showed that the dynamic viscosity of the working fluid can
be found through the use of Equation 3, where TR is the bulk temperature in Rankine,
T0 = 518.6o R and µ = 3.74 × 10−7 lb · s/f t2 .
 3/2
µ TR T0 + 198.6
= (3)
µ0 T0 TR + 198.6
It must be noted that the viscosity found through Equation 3 is in units of lb · s/f t2 and thus
must be multiplied by 47.88 in order to yield the viscosity in units of P a · s.

Knowledge of the exact flow regime can be found by use of the Reynold’s number in Equation 4.
The Reynold’s number allows for geometrical similarity to be maintained in order for different

1
experiments to be compared objectively.
ρa U∞ L
Re = (4)
µ

The work of Ladson [5] shows a number of different flow regimes and their relation to lift
and drag. Ladson found that changes in the Mach number and the Reynolds number results
in changes occurring to the lift coefficient vs angle of attack curve, such as the one seen in
Figure 1.

Figure 1: Coefficient of lift vs angle of attack at Re = 2.0 × 106 [5]

Ladson [5] showed that increasing the Mach number results in changes to the slope of the
curve in Figure 1 and increasing the Reynold’s number results in a higher stalling angle. The
opposite is true when the Mach number or Reynold’s numbers are decreased.

The lift coefficient can be deduced by integrating the difference between the upper and lower
surface pressure coefficients, as shown by Houghton [6]. Equation 5 shows this relationship
on a unit width basis. Z 1
CL = − (CP U − CP L )d(x/L) (5)
0
Where the subscripts “U ” and “L” refer to the upper and lower surfaces respectively, while
“c” refers to the total distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge and “w” is the
width of the aerofoil.

2
The pressure coefficients in Equation 5 are the ratio between the the gauge pressure at a
given location in space and the dynamic pressure due to a moving fluid. Equation 6 defines
this ratio [7].
∆P
CP = 1 (6)
2 ρU∞
The gauge pressure as described in Equation 6 can be found through the use of Equation 7
[7].
∆P = ρg∆h (7)

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of this paper are as follows:

1. To determine the angle of attack of a given aerofoil in a set of given flow conditions.

2. To determine the lift coefficient of a given aerofoil at unknown angles of attack by use
of surface pressure measurements.

3. To perform a wind tunnel test on a given aerofoil and measure the static pressure at
various locations given the far field air properties.

2 Apparatus

A wind tunnel test is conducted on a given aerofoil in order to measure the pressure distri-
bution due to air rushing past it.

2.1 Wind tunnel

The experiment is conducted by use of an open circuit wind tunnel as shown schematically
in Figure 2. A sketch of the wind tunnel with the necessary dimensions can be found in
Appendix A.1.

The wind tunnel uses a suction action in order to mitigate the turbulence that could ensue
due to a blowing action. The turbulence from blowing could negatively affect the readings
taken.

3
 Figure 2: Schematic of the wind tunnel

2.2 NACA0012 Aerofoil

The symmetrical NACA0012 aerofoil, shown in Figure 3, is used in this experiment. A key
characteristic of this type of aerofoil is that at a zero angle of attack there is no lift at all.

Figure 3: Schematic of a NACA0012 aerofoil

Pressure tappings are made along the top and bottom of the aerofoil. These tappings are
connected to the multi tube manometer, which is described in greater detail in subsection 2.3.

2.3 Multi-tube Manometer

The pressure along the top and bottom of the aerofoil is measured by use of a multi-tube
manometer that has water as the working fluid. Blue dye is used in the water in order to make
the readings more visible. As the pressure on the various tappings changes the water level
either moves up or down, corresponding to the pressure change. Higher pressure results in
the fluid moving down and vice versa. The multi-tube manometer can be seen schematically
in Figure 4. The tubes on one side represent the “top” of the aerofoil while the “bottom” is
represented by the tubes on the opposite side. The two central tubes are used for the pitot

4
 Figure 4: Schematic of a multi-tube manometer

tube readings. The manometer is inclined at an angle of 78o and thus all readinigs must be
multiplied by a factor of 0.2 in order to obtain the correct readings in mm.

2.4 Pitot tube

The velocity of the air is initially unknown and must be determined through indirect methods.
The pitot tube, shown in Figure 5, is used to measure the total and static pressure of the air
rushing into the wind tunnel upstream of the aerofoil. These measurements can then used
alongside Bernoulli’s equation to find the velocity of the air in the tunnel.

Figure 5: Schematic of the pitot tube

5
3 Procedure and Precautions

The following procedure is used to measure the surface pressure on a NACA0012 aerofoil in
order to determine the lift coefficient and, by extension, the angle of attack. Precautions are
as stated in subsection 3.2.

3.1 Procedure

1. Follow the precautionary procedure outlined in subsection 3.2 before conducting the
experiment.

2. Record the manometer readings. They should all be the same.

3. Turn the wind tunnel compressor on and set to the maximum power.

4. Insert the pitot tube into the hole upstream of the aerofoil and take the pressure readings
from the two central manometers.

5. Remove the manometer from the wind tunnel.

6. Rotate the aerofoil at an angle to the airflow.

7. Allow the air flow to reach steady state (this should be approximately 30 to 60 seconds).

8. Record the pressure readings on all of the manometers except for the two middle tubes.

9. Repeat steps 6 to 8 for as many angeles of attack as necessary.

3.2 Precautions

1. Check the that the wind tunnel, piping, aerofoil and pitot tube are not damaged.

2. Ensure that there are no loose items in the wind tunnel and that the aerofoil is secured
inside the test section of the wind tunnel.

3. Keep the entrance and exit of the wind tunnel free from people and other obstructions.

4. Check the fluid levels in the manometer.

6
4 Observations and Data Processing

A number of observations that were made while conducting the experiment are briefly presen-
ted in the following section, along with the method used to process the raw data.

4.1 Observations

A number of thin pieces of string were attached to the trailing edge, tips and on the body
of the aerofoil in order to aid with flow visualisation. Following the procedure described in
subsection 3.1, it can be seen that at a zero angle of attack the string pieces flow out in a
perpendicular direction at the trailing edge. The string on the body of the aerofoil stays
“attached” to the body. The string at the tip oscillates in small circles that are difficult see
with the naked eye.

Increasing the angle of attack results in the string on the body and the trailing edge flowing
out at an angle that is parallel to the flow direction. The tip strings begin making greater
circular oscillations. If the angle of attack is increased further then a point is reached where
the strings on the trailing edge and the body flow in the direction opposite to the flow
direction. The tip stings oscillate in even greater circular motions. These positions were,
however not measured using the manometers and were purely for visual observations.

The angles of attack of interest appear small. It is unlikely that either angle of attack was
any more than about 5o . The lift coefficient, by extension, also must be small, given that the
test aerofoil is symmetrical and demonstrates no lift at a zero angle of attack.

The manometer levels that are observed reveal a pattern such that the side of the aerofoil
that is most exposed to the air flow has a greater pressure change than the opposite side.
Additionally, the high pressure surface shows a pressure decrease in the direction of the
trailing edge. The pressure seems to increase in the direction of the trailing edge for the low
pressure side.

4.2 Data Processing

Determining the lift coefficient of the NACA0012 aerofoil requires the equations mentioned
in subsection 1.1. In order to determine the lift coefficient it is necessary to first determine
what the flow characteristics inside the tunnel and the ambient conditions outside of it are.

7
The ambient temperature, relative humidity and pressure are found through measurement
tools within the laboratory and can be used with Equation 1 and Equation 2 to find the
density of the air. The density is found to be 0.965kg/m3 .

The viscosity of the air is found through the use of Equation 3. This result is then multiplied
by a factor of 47.88 in order to yield a dynamic viscosity of 1.809 × 10−5 P a · s.

Once the ambient properties are determined the flow properties can then be found. The
measurements collected through the pitot tube are used in conjunction with Equation 8, a
simplified version of Bernoulli’s equation. The derivation for this equation can be found in
Appendix B.1. s
2ρw g∆hpitot
U∞ = (8)
ρa
The measurements taken with the manometer can now be processed into usable pressures.
Given that the manometers are inclined at a 78o , all manometer readings must be multiplied
by a factor of 0.2 in order to get an actual height reading. Appendix D shows the data that
was collected.

A zero reading for the manometers is not necessary as the relationship between two pressures
is more important than their absolute values. Equation 6 and Equation 7 are used to find
the pressure coefficients at the various tapping locations. A detailed calculation is included
in Appendix B.2.

Equation 5 is now invoked and can conveniently be solved numerically. The form that a
numerical solution takes is shown in Equation 9.
h x1 x2 i
CL = − (CP U 1 − CP L1 ) + (CP U 2 − CP L2 ) + ... (9)
L L
In a similar manner as the pressure coefficient, the sample calculation for the lift coefficient
can be found in Appendix B.3. The pressure distribution can be determined in a number
of different ways. The two methods employed in this experiment are using the distances
between the pressure tappings and using the distance from the leading edge to the average
distance between pressure tappings. These methods are shown visually in Appendx A.2.

The lift coefficient can now be used alongside a CL vs α curve, such as the one shown in
Figure 1. The lift coefficient is forced onto this curve and a reading for the angle of attack is
taken.

8
4.3 Uncertainty Analysis

The uncertainty of the experiment arises primarily due to measurement instrument uncer-
tainties. As only a small amount of raw data is collected and most of the important quantities
come from derived equations, uncertainty is propagated through the use of Equation 10 [7].
s 2  2  2
∂f ∂f ∂f
δf = δa + δb + ... + δz (10)
∂a ∂b ∂z

Where the “f ” is a function of the variables “a” to “z” and “δf ” is the uncertainty of the
calculated value. Table 1 shows the final experimental uncertainties, detailed calculations of
which can be found in Appendix C. The uncertainties are for a sample measurement point
of 32.4mm manometer height at the tapping closest to the leading edge.

Table 1: Experimental uncertainties

δT (K) δP δh δes δρa δ(∆P ) δU∞ δCP δCL

(P a) (mm) (P a) (kg/m3 ) (P a) (m/s)
0.5 5 0.2 99.1 0.00163 1.962 1.793 0.0302 0.1

5 Results

The procedure described in subsection 4.2 and subsection 4.3 leads to the results in Figure 6.
The theoretical line is adapted from the work of Abbot et al [8] on NACA 0012 aerofoils. A
CL /α slope of 0.1 can be found graphically from Figure 10 in Appendix A.3. This slope gives
a straight line equation that passes through the origin, shown in Equation 11.

CL = 0.1α (11)

Processing of the raw measurements yields lift coefficients of 0.069 and −0.187 for each angle
of attack when using distances directly from the leading edge to each tapping in order to
estimate the pressure distribution. These lift coefficients translate to angles of attack of 0.69
and -1.87 degrees respectively. The error bars in Figure 6 show that the lift coefficients have
uncertainties of ±0.1 and ±0.0998 respectively.

When using the average distances between pressure tappings in order to predict the pressure
distribution, lift coefficients of 0.061 and −0.138 are found. The angles of attack for these lift
coefficients are 0.61 and -1.38 degrees respectively. Error bars in Figure 6 show uncertainties
of 0.0816 and 0.0818 respectively.

9
 0.4

0.2
Coefficient of Lift

-0.2

-0.4
-4 -2 0 2 4
Angle of attack in degrees

Figure 6: Theoretical lift curve with calculated values superimposed along with error bars

6 Discussion

A wind tunnel test was conducted on a NACA 0012 aerofoil model. Pressure tappings on
the wing surface at various distances from the leading edge fed into a multi-tube manometer
where pressure changes were then related to the change in height. In this experiment the
working fluid in the manometers is water with blue dye added in order to make it easier to
read the results.

The flow regime of the experiment for both angles of attack can be classified as low-speed flight
scenarios because the Reynold’s number is found to be approximately 5.50×105 . Fortunately,
the slope of the CL vs α curve is largely insensitive to variations in the Reynolds number, as
shown in the work of McCroskey [9]. This means that the experimental data in this paper
can be related to the work of Abbot et al [8] without the need of adjusting for the difference
in Reynolds number since the lowest Reynolds number that is considered in that body of
work is 3.0 × 106 .

It was initially hypothesised that the angles of attack would not be any greater than 5o , as
stated in subsection 4.1. The hypothesis held true as the angles of attack for both methods
did not exceed an absolute value of 2o . Similar experiments by other groups in the MECN3007
course yielded similar results, thus demonstrating the repeatability of the experiment.

10
Two methods were used when dividing up the pressure distribution in order to find the lift
coefficient of the aerofoil. The first was a direct method where the incremental distances used
were measured directly from the leading edge to each pressure tapping, shown in Appendix
A.2. Given that the former method assumes that the pressure spontaneously changes at
each pressure tapping it was predicted that this method is doomed to being slightly more
inaccurate than the latter method. The latter method was predicted to give slightly more
accurate prediction as it assumes that the measured pressure is the average at that section
of the aerofoil, allowing for a smoother transition from one pressure to the next.

The predictions in the aforementioned models held true as the uncertainty in the final lift
coefficient was found to be slightly lower in method two than in method one. The lift
of method two is found to be slightly lower for both angles of attack however the error
bars in Equation 11 comfortably cover their counterparts, suggesting that both methods are
reasonably accurate.

Experimental errors arise from propagating the errors in the temperature, pressure and mano-
meter heights through the various equations used to determine the lift coefficient and the
angle of attack. The errors for the lift, shown in Equation 11, are approximately 10% of the
calculated lift coefficients. This error may get larger for greater angles of attack and could
render the results uncertain beyond reason at low angles of attack. This must be taken into
consideration if the experiment is repeated for high angles of attack. Reduction of these
uncertainties could largely be achieved by using manometers with smaller increments than
2mm. If possible pressure and temperature measurement tools of greater precision should
also be used.

11
7 Conclusions

A wind tunnel test was conducted on a NACA 0012 aerofoil at unknown angles of attack.
Two angles of attack were found after processing surface pressure values. The conclusions of
the experiment based on the objectives set out in subsection 1.2 are as follows:

1. The two angles of attack of the aerofoil were found by forcing the calculated lift coef-
ficients onto a graph that is similar to that presented by Abbot et al [8]. The slope of
the graph was determined graphically to be approximately 0.1, which lead to a straight
line curve with the equation CL = 0.1α. Manipulation of this equation allowed the
angle of attack to be determined directly, having already calculated the lift coefficient.
Based on two pressure distribution approaches, the angles of attack were found to be
0.69o and −1.87o for method one. For method two the angles were found to be 0.61
and −1.38o .

2. The lift coefficients were found for unknown angles by use of two pressure distribution
methods, each yielding two lift coefficients. The pressure distributions varied in the
way that the numerical integration was conducted. For method one the incremental
distances were taken from the leading edge to each pressure tapping. In method two
the incremental distances were the average distances between each pressure tapping,
which showed to have slightly greater precision than method one. The lift coefficients
for method one were 0.0690 and −0.187 while they were 0.016 and −0.138 for method
two.

3. Pressure readings were taken on the surface of the aerofoil by use of multi-tube mano-
meters that had water as the working fluid. The pressures were given initially as height
changes in the manometer and were thereafter converted into pressure coefficient read-
ings by a number of calculations. The pressure coefficients require information about
the working fluid of the aerofoil which is air. The far field properties were measured dir-
ectly while the air flow properties inside the wind tunnel were found by measurements
taken with a pitot tube upstream of the aerofoil.

12
References

[1] Anderson, J. (1991). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 32-34

[2] Bertin, J. (2002). Aerodynamics for engineers. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

[3] Bradshaw, P. (1970). Experimental Fluid Mechanics. Toronto: Pergamon Press Ltd, pp.
40-44

[4] Rae, W. H. et al (1999). Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. Wiley.

[5] Ladson, C. L. (1988). Effects of Mach and Reynolds Numbers on the Low-Speed Aerody-
namic Characteristics of the NASA0012 Airfoil Section. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.

[6] Houghton, E. (2003). Aerodynamics for engineering students 5th ed. 5th ed. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann, pp.38-40.

[7] Potter, M., Shih, T., Ramadan, B. and Wiggert, D. (2012). Mechanics of fluids. 4th ed.
Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.

[8] Abbot, I. and von Doenhoff, A. (1959). Theory of Wing Sections. New York: Dover
Publications, pp 462.

[9] McCroskey, W., J. (1987). A Critical Assessment of Wind Tunnel Results for the NACA
0012 Airfoil. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

[10] Boer, M., Leering, M. (2017). Wind Tunnel Testing Long Laboratory Report [PowerPoint
Presentation]. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.

13
A Diagrams

The following section contains diagrams and graphs that can be useful when conducting the
experiment.

A.1 Wind tunnel dimensions

Figure 7 shows a sketch that includes the dimensions of the wind tunnel that is used in the
experiment.

Figure 7: Schematic of wind tunnel with dimensions [10]

A.2 Pressure distributions of interest

Figure 8 and Figure 9 are the methids for numerically integrating the pressure on the surface
of the aerofoil, as described in subsection 4.2.

Figure 8: Method 1 for analysing the pressure distribution over the aerofoil

14
 Figure 9: Method 2 for analysing the pressure distribution over the aerofoil

A.3 Experimental lift coefficient graph from literature

Figure 10 shows the CL vs α curve for a NACA 0012 aerofoil test section with and without
a flap. The moment coefficient curve can also be found on the graph.

Figure 10: Lift and moment curves of a NACA 0012 aerofoil relative to the angle of attack
[8]

15
B Sample Calculations

B.1 Free Stream Velocity Derivation and Solution

The velocity of the air rushing through the tunnel can be found through the use of Equation 6
and Bernoulli’s equation (Equation 12).
1 1
P 1 + ρ a q1 2 + z 1 = P 2 + ρ a q2 2 + z 2 (12)
2 2
Given that locations one and two are the stagnation point and the static pressure tapping
on the pitot tube, the equation can be further simplified. Noting that P1 ≡ Pstag , P2 ≡ P∞ ,
z1 = z1 = 0, q2 ≡ U∞ and q1 = 0, Equation 6 can be simplified to Equation 13.
1
Pstag = P∞ + ρa U∞ 2 (13)
2
Using the definition of Equation 7 and performing some algebraic manipulations on Equation 13
leads to Equation 8. Substituting the values measured on the pitot manometers, densities
and gravitational acceleration leads to the following solution:
s s
2ρw g∆hpitot 2(1000kg/m3 )(9.81m/s2 )(0.057m)
U∞ = = = 34.03m/s
ρa (0.965kg/m3 )

B.2 Pressure Coefficient

A sample of the pressure coefficient calculations at one location is presented in this section.
The key parameters are found in subsection 4.2. The pressure coefficient can be found by
use of Equation 6 and Equation 7. Combining these equations leads to Equation 14.
ρw g∆h
CP = 1 (14)
2 ρa U∞

The final lift coefficient values are not a function of the ambient pressure and thus the
manometer measurements at the aerofoil pressure tappings can be taken as absolute values
without referring them to the manometer zero reading. This may lead to a pressure coefficient
that is not necessarily accurate, however the final lift coefficient does not change provided
that the datum is kept constant. The datum is thus assumed to be “0mm”.

The values can now be substituted in order to solve for the pressure coefficient at a point.

(1000kg/m3 )(9.81m/s2 )(23 × 10−3 m)

∴ CP = 1 3
= 0.404
2 (0.965kg/m )(34.03m/s)

16
 Table 2: Processed pressure coefficients and the distances from the leading edge

Tapping no. x (mm) CP U CP L

1 20 0.403 0.568
2 45 0.382 0.358
3 75 0.435 0.351
4 120 0.421 0.393
5 150 0.463 0.414
6 240 0.474 0.449

B.3 Lift Coefficient

A sample of the lift coefficient calculations can be found in this section, in reference to
subsection 4.2. As stated in subsection B.2, the lift coefficient is not a function of the selected
datum of the measurements.

Equation 9 is used in order to determine the lift coefficient. The pressure coefficient and
distance values in Table 2 are used in order to find the lift at a specific angle of attack.

Noting that c = 300mm and substituting the relevant values into Equation 9 the lift coeffi-
cient can be calculated.
∴ CL = 0.069

C Uncertainty Analysis

The uncertainty in the experiment arose primarily due to the propagated uncertainty from
the measurement devices to the final values. The measurement uncertainties came from the
manometer heights, the temperature reading and the pressure reading. The uncertainties for
these can be found in Table 1. Equation 10 is used to propagate these uncertainties. It must
be noted that “δ” denotes the error and is not a physical quantity in of itself.

The first uncertainty that is considered is the uncertainty in the saturation vapour pressure,
which is defined in Equation 2. Equation 15 defines the error in the saturation pressure due
to the uncertainty in the temperature reading.
 
11 5315.56 (−5315.56/T )
δes = (1.7526 × 10 ) e δT (15)
T2

17
Substituting the ambient temperature and the uncertainty thereof into Equation 15 leads to
the uncertainty in the saturation vapour temperature:
 
11 5315.56 (−5315.56/299)
⇒ δes = (1.7526 × 10 ) e (0.5) = ±99.1P a
2992
The uncertainty in the air density defined in Equation 1 can be found through the use of
Equation 16. This error is a function of the ambient temperature, pressure and the saturation
vapour pressure.
p
δρa = A2 + B 2 + C 2 (16)

Where A, B and C are arbitrary constants and are defined by Equation 17, Equation 18 and
Equation 19 respectively.
 
0.0034847
A= − (P∞ − 0.003796Rh es )δT (17)
T2
 
0.0034847
B= δP (18)
T
 
0.003487
C= (−0.003796Rh )δes (19)
T
Substituting the relevant values into Equation 16 to Equation 19 yields the final uncertainty
as shown:
⇒ δρa = ±0.00163kg/m3

The uncertainty in the pressure difference can be found by Equation 20. The uncertainty in
the height can be found in Table 1.

δ(∆P ) = ρw gδ(∆h) (20)

Substituting the relevant values into Equation 20 yields:

⇒ δ(∆P ) = (1000kg/m3 )(9.81m/s2 )(0.2 × 10−3 m) = ±1.962P a

The airspeed uncertainty is a function of the manometer height reading from the pitot tube
and the calculated air density. Equation 21 shows the relationship between the airspeed
uncertainty and the aforementioned parameters.
v ( )
u 2ρw g∆hpitot −1  1  2ρw gδ(∆hpitot ) 2  1  2ρw g∆hpitot δρa 2
u
δU∞ = t + (21)
ρa 2 ρa 2 ρa 2

Substituting the necessary values into Equation 21 yields an uncertainty as follows:

⇒ δU∞ = ±1.793m/s

The pressure coefficient uncertainty can now be determined through the use of Equation 22,
which is a function of the airspeed velocity, pressure differential and the air density.
v" !#2 " #2 " #2
u
u δ(∆P ) −∆P δρa −∆P δU∞
δCP = t 1 2 + 1 2 2 + 1 3 (22)
2 ρa U∞ 2 ρa U∞ 4 ρa U∞

18
Taking into consideration the first tapping that gives a manometer height of 23 × 10−3 m for
a specific angle of attack, the uncertainty at that point in the pressure coefficient is:

⇒ δCP = ±0.0216

Finally, the uncertainty of the lift coefficient is a function of the upper and lower surface
pressure coefficients. Equation 23 shows the general form of the lift coefficient uncertainty.
Table 3 shows the data that is used to determine the lift coefficient uncertainty.
6 x 
i
X
δCL = (δCP U i − δCP Li ) (23)
L
i=1

The uncertainty in the lift coefficient is found by applying Equation 23 and the data from
Table 3.
∴ δCL = ±0.1

Table 3: Uncertainties in the pressure coefficients on the upper and lower surfaces

Tapping no. x (mm) δCP U δCP L

1 20 0.0216 0.0302
2 45 0.0204 0.0192
3 75 0.0232 0.0188
4 120 0.0225 0.0210
5 150 0.0247 0.0221
6 240 0.0252 0.0239

19
D Tabulated Raw Data

The raw data that was collected from the manometers during the experimentation is tabulated
in the following section.

Table 4: Raw data collected from the first run on the upper surface

Tapping no. x (mm) h (mm)

1 20 115
2 45 109
3 75 124
4 120 120
5 150 132
6 240 135

Table 5: Raw data collected from the first run on the lower surface

Tapping no. x (mm) h (mm)

1 20 162
2 45 102
3 75 100
4 120 112
5 150 118
6 240 128

Table 6: Raw data collected from the second run on the upper surface

Tapping no. x (mm) h (mm)

1 20 23
2 45 44
3 75 66
4 120 98
5 150 124
6 240 134

20
 Table 7: Raw data collected from the second run on the lower surface

Tapping no. x (mm) h (mm)

1 20 178
2 45 156
3 75 143
4 120 138
5 150 132
6 240 128

E Health and Safety Risk Assessment

Herein follows the health and safety risk assessment for the wind tunnel laboratory.

21
View publication stats

22

Figure 11: Health and safety risk assessment sheet