nd

2 International Conference on Mechanical, Automotive and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAAE 2013) 2-4 July 2013, Kuala Lumpur

A CFD Study of NACA 63415 with deployment of

leading edge and trailing edge surface
W.Z. Wan Omar1,2,a, M.M.A. Rahim1,b, T. M. Mat Lazim1,3,c
1
Department of Aeronatical, Automotive and Off-shore Engineering, University Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru
Malaysia
2
Centre for Electrical Engineering Systems, Energy Reserach Alliance, University Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru
Malaysia
3
Transport Research Alliance, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
a
wanzaidi@fkm.utm.my,bmmultazaam2@gmail.com, ctholudin@fkm.utm.my

ABSTRACT Specific flow characteristics are presented to understand the

Deployment of leading edge and trailing edge of airfoils are
methods to improve the aerodynamic characteristics of aerofoils,
and are also used for control purposes. The ability to successfully
obtain specific aerodynamic characteristic is highly dependent on
modifying the aerofoils by combinations of the deployment of
leading and/or trailing edges. Obtaining these characteristics
from wind tunnel tests would involve very high costs. The task is
expected to become simpler with the advancement in computing
power and the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). However
application of CFD needs the right knowledge and expertise. In
the validation phase of this work the initial CFD results for
NACA 63415 without control deflections were compared with
previous published simulations on other platforms and
experimental results. Further CFD studies were then conducted
for 20% chord LE and TE of the NACA 63415 aerofoil deployed
at various angles. The effects of the deployment of leading and
trailing edges to the flow around NACA 63415 aerofoil were also
studied. Results of the aerofoil lift, drag and pitching moment
were presented for a range of angles of attack, and a range of
control surface deflection angles. Another advantage of CFD is its
ability to show the flow behaviour at a particular point of interest
in the flow field. These details might help in understanding and
improving the flow around the aerofoil. The results show that the
maximum lift improved by 14% and the drag reduced by 17%
with a combination of the deployment of the control edges. The
pitching moment coefficient had no significant change.
Keywords- CFD; Aerofoil; control surface; streamline; stall;
turbulence
1. INTRODUCTION
Recent years have seen a significant growth in the size and
investment cost of wind tunnel testing. A good aerodynamic
characteristic is desired in industry to enhance their
performance. However wind tunnel testing is too expensive.
Computational fluid dynamic comes as solution in order to
evaluate the aerodynamic performance. NACA 63415 are
commonly used in wind turbines that suffers multitude of
angles of attack. To enhance the performance the wind
turbines, a good understanding of the aerodynamic
characteristic of the aerofoil are needed including the
performance at or near stall conditions. Mild stall behaviour of
the aerofoil at stall is desired so as to avoid abrupt or violent
unloading of the wind turbine blades after stall. This aerofoil
is also used in aircrafts for its docile stall[1].
This report describes a two-dimensional CFD study done
on NACA 63415 aerofoil with deployment of leading and
trailing edges, from low angles of attack to those past stall.
stall mechanism.
The modeling of the problem in CFD is based on co-
ordinates of the aerofoil obtained from UIUC Airfoil
Coordinates Database [2]. The mesh were generated with
ANSYSY 14 workbench, and the CFD calculations were done
in 2D with k-ω SST (shear stress transport) turbulence model
as is recommended in other studiesof flow around aerofoils[3].
The initial validation of the model was done using a NACA
0012 aerofoil whose results from experiments and other CFD
studies are readily available[3].
Figure 1 The NACA 63415 aerofoil[2, 4]
The validated method was then used in this study of the
NACA 63415aerofoil, in clean conditions and with LE and TE
control surfaces deployed. This paper reports the early results
of the study at angles of attack (AOA) from -6O to 21O which
covers the flying conditions and the early stall conditions, with
and without control surface deployments.
Another advantage of the CFD study is the ability to
visualize and scrutinize the flow details in the domain studied.
In understanding the stall mechanics, specific points on the
aerofoil where the flow starts to separate is of very high
interests. The flow separation mechanics can be studied in
detail and if any modification is carried out, its effects can be
studied with less trouble compared to physical wind tunnel
tests. This particular part of the study is not reported in this
paper, as it would only come in the next phase of this research
work, but an example of a single condition of 10 ο AOA,
10οLE and 30οTE deflections is shown in Figure 2 to
emphasize the importance of this function in CFD method.
Here the flow separation can clearly be seen at the junction of
the main aerofoil to TE intersection.
 nd
2 International Conference on Mechanical, Automotive and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAAE 2013) 2-4 July 2013, Kuala Lumpur

The modeling of the flow uses the K-ω with SST (shear stress
transport) turbulence model. The validation of the chosen
model was by comparisons of results from other reported
results [6, 7].

Ellipsys2D fully turbulent

2.0 from Riso- National
Laboratory, Roskilde,
Denmark,August 2001
Figure 2 Result of CFD showing the streamlines over the aerofoil with 3×[10]^6 Re number
Ellipsys2D transiation
ο ο ο 1.5
at 10 AOA, 10 LE and 30 TE deflections. model from Riso- National
Laboratory, Roskilde,
Denmark,August 2001
2. MESH STUDY OF A CLEAN NACA 63415 with 3×[10]^6 Re number
Xfoil from Riso- National

Cl value
AEROFOIL 1.0 Laboratory, Roskilde,
Denmark,August 2001
2.1. Mesh Refinement Investigation with 3×[10]^6 Re Number

In order to establish that the model (including the numbers 0.5 Experiment from Riso-
National Laboratory,
of elements, suitable a grid pattern elements sizes, etc) an Roskilde, Denmark,August
independent study on clean NACA 63415 was carried out. A 2001 with 3×[10]^6 Re
C-mesh configuration was chosen with overall length 12 times Number
0.0 Experiment result from
the chord length. The flow was assumed to be fully turbulent -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
NACA report No.824 with
3x[10]^6
and steady with free stream velocity giving a Reynolds
number (Re) of 0.5×106. Figure 3 shows the mesh with
-0.5 ANSYS 14 simulation
123,606 elements which were used in this study. Boundary Angle of attack ,α result with 3.0x [10]^6
layer elements were programmed to adapt according to y+
values. The same method was adopted by LEAP Australia [5].

Figure 4 Comparisons of Cl at different angles of attack for NACA

63415 at Re = 3 X 106

Ellipsys2D fully turbulant

0.35 from Riso- National
Laboratory, Roskilde,
0.30 Denmark,August 2001 with
3×[10]^6 Re number
Ellipsys2D transition model
0.25 from Riso- National
Laboratory, Roskilde,
Cd value

Denmark,August 2001 with

0.20 3×[10]^6 Re number
Xfoil from Riso- National
0.15 Laboratory, Roskilde,
Denmark,August 2001 with
3×[10]^6 Re Number
0.10
Experiment from Riso-
0.05 National Laboratory,
Roskilde, Denmark,August
2001 with 3×[10]^6 Re
0.00 Number
ANSYS 14 simulation result
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 with 3.0x10^6
Angle of attack, α

Figure 3 C-mesh with boundary adaptation in Ansys 14 showing

the general mesh, the leading edge and the trailing edge.
2.2. Validation method
In order to make sure the method used in this study is
valid, the same method applied on the NACA 0012 aerofoil
was employed on the NACA 63415 aerofoil. Results form 2
previous CFD simulations and 2 experimental results over this
aerofoil were compared with the results from this work
(labeled Ansys 14 in the figures). The flow uses the K-ω with
SST (shear stress transport) turbulence model and was set such
that the Reynolds Number is 3 X 106 so that a direct
comparison could be made with other published results. The
comparisons are shown in Figures 4 and 5 [3].
Figure 5 Comparisons of Cd at different angles of attack for
NACA 63415 at Re = 3 X 106
The results of the simulations show very close agreements
with the published results, as can be seen in Figures 4 and 5.
This validates the method and the turbulence model used in
this work. After this validation works, the continuing works
uses the same model but the analyses were for airspeeds such
that the Reynolds Numbers are 0.5 X 106 only. This value was
chosen because the authors are going to use the aerofoil in low
speed environment with that value of Reynolds number.
3. Modelling
3.1. k--ω SST 2-equation turbulence model
 nd
2 International Conference on Mechanical, Automotive and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAAE 2013) 2-4 July 2013, Kuala Lumpur

The k-ω SST 2-equation turbulence model is able to work configuration was setup with 0 bias factors and 100 number of
with either Wall Functions or fully resolve the boundary layer, division of elements. The rest of edge was setup with 150 bias
so the same y+ conditions apply. Therefore, the acceptable y+ factor and 200 number of division elements. Table
value are 30 to 300 [5], or a y+ of 1 if the flow has adverse 1summarises the element types used in this study.
pressure gradients or separation regions that need to be
properly resolved. The use of scalable wall functions will Table 1 Summary of mesh characteristics
automatically activate the local usage of the log law in regions Far field configuration C- mesh
where the y+ is sufficiently small to fully resolve the boundary Number of quadrants 4
layer, in conjunction with the standard wall function approach Front bias factor 0
in any regions where the y+ is coarser. Quadrant bias factor 150
Front number of division 100
K-ω SST model is reputed to be more accurate than k-€ in Quadrant number of division 200
Number of element 123606
near wall layer. It has been successful for flow with moderate
Number of node 124811
adverse pressure gradient [5], it have ω equation which very
Range of Y+ 1-12
sensitive to the value of ω in the free stream. The SST corrects
this problem by solving the standard k-ω in the far field and 3.3. Case studies
the standard k-ω near the wall. To improve its performance for The flow over the aerofoil were analysed and the resulting
adverse pressure flow, the SST considers the effects of the Cl and Cd were noted for various control deflections. The
transport of the turbulent shear stresses in the calculations of leading edge deflections studied were from 0° to 15°
the turbulent viscosity and turbulent Prandtl number[5]. downward with increments of 5°, while the deflections of the
trailing edge were from 0° to 30° with increments of 10°. The
Thus a good approximation of flow in this study was
total cases are 16. At each control deflection case, the
obtained using k-ω SST. It gives us better result of Cd
simulations were run at angles of attack from -6° to 21° with
prediction.
increments of 3°.All cases are summarised in Table 2 and the
diagram of the aerofoil in different configurations is shown in
The accuracy computational turbulent viscosity near skin is
very important in order to study flow around airfoil with low Figure 7.
Reynolds number. The k-ω SST turbulent model was chosen Table 2 Summary of cases studied
as turbulence model solver in this study. Figure 6 shows that
k-ω SST gives better resolution of eddies at the trailing edge. Sim no. Leading edge deflection Trailing edge deflection

It uses the multiple circulation graphic to visualize the eddy (Degree) (Degree)

flow[8]. 1 0 0
2 0 10
3 0 20
4 0 30
5 5 0
6 5 10
7 5 20
8 5 30
9 10 0
10 10 10
11 10 20
12 10 30
13 15 0
14 15 10
Figure6 streamlines at the trailing edge using k-ω SST[8]. 15 15 20
16 15 30
3.2. Element type
In this study, the NACA 63415 was modeled in
SolidWorks. The variable parameter of LE and TE edge
deployment was setup according to the desired angles in
SolidWorks. The summary of the angles of deployment can be
seen in Table 2.

The mesh selection is highly dependent on geometry of the

subject. Since the aerofoil with the control surface deflections
does not have complex geometry, the structured mesh was
chosen. C- Mesh configuration with boundary adaptation was
used in this study as shown in Figure3. The far-field size was
setup 12 times chord length. Structured elements used in this
study were the quadrilateral element type. The mesh was
controlled based on bias factor and number of divisions of the
elements themselves. The frontal area of the c-mesh
Figure 7 The Aerofoil with the defelected positions of the LE and
TE control surfaces
4. RESULT
4.1. Test condition and comparison with previous result
The conditions for the simulations as reported in this paper
are summarized in Table 3. The calculations were all done
with steady 7 m/s flow with turbulence model k-ω SST 2
 nd
2 International Conference on Mechanical, Automotive and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAAE 2013) 2-4 July 2013, Kuala Lumpur

equations. The results were compared to previous experiments

by NASA[3] and Riso Laboratory[9]. It has to be noted here Cl value for 0° LE and various TE position
that the present work is at Reynolds Number 0.5 X 10 6 whilst 2.5
the published results are for 3 X 106.
2 0° LE 0° TE
Table 3 Testing condition
1.5 0° LE 10° TE
Aerofoil chord NACA 63415 (C= 1.0 m)

Cl value
0° LE 20° TE
1
Main stream velocity V= 7 m/s
0° LE 30° TE
Reynolds Number Re = 0.5 × 106 0.5

0
An evaluation scheme is presented to compute the aerofoil -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
lift, drag and pitching moment for the range of angles of attack -0.5
Angle of attack
in order to evaluate the aerodynamic characteristic. The
Figures 8 and 9 show comparisons between NACA 63415 Figure10 Cl versus AOA for 0° LE with various TE positions
CFD results with wind tunnel test results.
Overall graph of Cl showed that the stall was a mild stall. As
2.0 the AOA goes past αclmaxfor all cases, the Cl reduces slightly
NACA but slowly. The Clofor 0° LE 30° TE was 1.085 and Clofor
1.5 Report aerofoil without LE or TE deflections is 0.238. This is an
No.804 on
1.0 Cl value improvement of about 35.58% when AOA is zero. The max
average changes Cl value per 10° as LE position varies was
0.5 Ansys 14
29.21%.
Cl value

0.0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 Figure 11 shows the Cd performance of NACA 63415 with no
-0.5
Riso
LE deflection but various TE positions, from 0° to 30° at 10°
-1.0 national lab interval. The figure shows that there exist a drag bucket from
result on Cl AOA -5° to 2° for this aerofoil. Then, increasing the AOA will
-1.5 exp
Angle of attack, alpha generally increase the Cd, up to stall point. It should be noted
that the AOA when stall occurs decreases with the increasing
Figure 8 Comparisonsof Cl for NACA 63415 deployment of the TE, from 18° for TE 0°, to about 15° when
the TE is deployed to 30°. The drag bucket also disappears
0.20 once the TE deployment goes beyond 10°. The maximum
NACA report No
804 on Cd value
average change in Cd value due to increasing deployment of
0.15 with 3.0e6 Re TE is 10.87% per 10°of TE deployment.
number
Cd value

Ansys 14
0.10 0.7

0.6
0.05 Riso International 0.5
Lab Cd 0° LE 0° TE
Cd value

0.4
0.00 0° LE 10° TE
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.3
0° LE 20° TE
Cl value
0.2
0° LE 30° TE
Figure 9 Comparisons of Cd against Cl forNACA 63415 0.1

4.2. Result 0° LE with various TE position 0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 10 showed Cl versus AOA for 0° LE with various TE Angle of attack
positions. Obviously, when increasing the deflection angle of
the TE while fixing the LE at 0° made the graphs for Cl versus Figure11 Cd versus AOA for NACA 63415 with 0° LE and various
AOA move upwards and to the left which agree with the TE positions
report in the NACA investigations [8]. The clean NACA
Figure12 shows the effect of TE deployment on Cm for this
63415 showed Clmax was 1.47 at AOA 15°. The Clmax obtained
aerofoil. The clean NACA 63415 gives a low negative Cm
in this study is up by 31.69% as the TE of aerofoil deployed to
value (nose down tendency) with little change as the AOA
30°. The Clmax was recorded at 12° AOA.
increases, but after stall point, for every TE position, the
aerofoil experiences a sharp decrease in C m. The deployment
of TE results in the Cm becoming more negative at all AOA. It
 nd
2 International Conference on Mechanical, Automotive and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAAE 2013) 2-4 July 2013, Kuala Lumpur

should also be noted that when the TE is deployed, C m 4.3. Results for 10° LE with various TE positions
increases when the AOA increases from 0° to about 8°. Figure 15 shows the Cl against AOA for 10° LE deployment
with various TE positions. The deployment of the LE
0 generally has the effect of extending the stall point (the Cl
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
increases until a new stall point is reached) past the point of
-0.1 0° LE 0° TE stall when the LE is not deployed, which agrees with results
from others [7]. The average increase in stalling angle and Cl
Cm value

0° LE 10° TE
increase are about +2° and 8.2% respectively per 10° of LE
-0.2 0° LE 20° TE deployment.
0° LE 30° TE Figure 16 explains the effects on Cd when LE was deployed.
-0.3
The most interesting effect of LE deployment on Cd values is
the improvement of the range of the drag bucket when the TE
-0.4 is not deployed. The drag bucket for 0° LE 0° TE was from -
Angle of attack 5° to 0° AOA, while the drag buckets for 10° LE 0° TE is
from -5° to 6° AOA. The drag bucket is not apparent once the
Figure12 Cm versus AOA for NACA 63415 with 0° LE and
TE is deployed.
various TE positions

Figures13 and 14 show the relationship between Cl, Cd and the 2.5

AOA for various TE positions, but without LE being

deployed.Figure9 shows that overall, the Cd increase with the 2.0
deployment of the TE, and so is the Cl. But the improvement 10° LE 0° TE

stops when the airfoil stalls, which occurs at lower AOA as 1.5
10° LE 10° TE
Cl value

the TE is deflected further downwards. Figure 13 shows that

the best Cl/Cd of about 17 is obtained with the aerofoil at AOA 1.0
10° LE 20° TE
of 3° and with the TE deployed to 10°.
0.5
10° LE 30° TE
2.0
0.0
1.5 0° LE 0° TE -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

-0.5
0° LE 10° TE
1.0 Angle of attack
Cl value

0° LE 20° TE
0.5 Figure 15 Cl for NACA 63415 with 10° LE and various TE
0° LE 30° TE positions

0.0
0.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

-0.5
0.3
Cd value
Cd value

10° LE 0° TE
0.2
Figure13 Cl versus Cd for NACA63415 with 0° LE and various 10° LE 10° TE
TE positions 10° LE 20° TE
0.1
20 10° LE 30° TE

0° LE 0° TE 0.0
15
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0° LE 10° TE Angle of attack
10
Cl / Cd

0° LE 20° TE
5 Figure 16 Cd for NACA 63415 with 10° LE and various TE
0° LE 30° TE
positions
0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 17 shows the variations of Cmfor the aerofoil with 10°
-5 LE deflection and various TE deflections. For TE at 0° the Cm
continuously reduces (tending to nose down) with AOA, until
-10
Angle of attack the stall point where it increases (reduced nose down
tendency) sharply. Then Cm reduces further (continue to tend
Figure 14 Cl /Cd versus AOA of NACA 63415 with 0° LE and
various TE positions
 nd
2 International Conference on Mechanical, Automotive and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAAE 2013) 2-4 July 2013, Kuala Lumpur

nose down) due to loss of lift near the LE. Similar behavior is The effects of the deployment of LE by 10 ο are that the graph
observed when the TE edge is deflected further. of Cl against Cd moves upward and shifted to the right. This
shows that there are a general rise in Cl and Cd with the
0.00
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 deployment of LE and TE. Closer analysis showed that the
-0.05
most efficient point for this aerofoil is when the Cl value is
about 1.0 when both the LE and TE are deflected to 10 ο,
-0.10 10° LE 0° TE giving Cl/Cd of 16 at AOA of 7ο. Up to this point, the increase
Cm value

in Cl is faster than the increase in Cd.

-0.15 10° LE 10° TE
CONCLUSION
-0.20 10° LE 20° TE The combinations of the deployments of leading and/or
trailing edges are highly significant to improve the
-0.25 10° LE 30° TE aerodynamic characteristics of an aerofoil. The NACA 63415
with the LE and TE at 10ο had shown improvement in Cl of up
-0.30
Angle of attack to 17% with only a penalty of 5% in Cd compared to the clean
NACA 63415. This CFD study also points to a situation where
Figure 17 Cm for NACA 63415 with 10° LE and various TE new data of aerofoils, especially with variations in LE and TE
positions deployments, could be obtained through CFD studies.
Figures 18 and 19 show the relationship between Cl and Cd
against AOA for NACA 63415 with 10° LE and various TE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
positions. The authors thanked the Aerolab UTM, for the use of the
computer facilities.
2.0
REFERENCES

1.5 1. Inc, P.-C. Vision aircraft designer. Available from: http://www.pro-

composites.com/VisionInfo2.html. Last acccessed:20 April 2013
10° LE 0° TE
1.0 2. Anon. UIUC Airfoil Coordinate Database. Available from:
Cl value

10° LE 10° TE http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html. Last

acccessed:
0.5 10° LE 20° TE
3. Anon. Turbulence Modeling Resource. Available from:
10° LE 30° TE http://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/naca0012_val_sst.html. Last acccessed:20
0.0 April 2013
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
4. Wezinger, C.J., Summary of NACA Investigations of High-lift Devices.
-0.5 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics: Aeronautical Engineer,
Cd value 1939. 4(4).

5. Australia Pty. Ltd., L. Tips & Tricks: Turbulence Part 2 – Wall Functions
Figure 18 Cl versus Cd for NACA 63415 with 10° LE and various and Y+ requirements. Available from:
TE positions http://www.computationalfluiddynamics.com.au/tips-tricks-turbulence-
wall-functions-and-y-requirements. Last acccessed:20 April 2013 2013.
20 6. Bertagnolio, F., Sørensen, N., Johansen, J., and Fuglsang, P., Wind
Turbine Airfoil Catalogue. 2001, Roskilde: Risø National Laboratory.
10° LE 0° TE
15 7. Abbott, I.H., von Doenhoff, A.E., and Stivers Jr., L.S., Summary of
Airfoil Data. 1945. p. 426.
10° LE 10° TE
8. Villapando, F., Reggio, M., and Ilinca, A., Assessment of turbulent model
Cl / Cd

10 for flow simulation around a wind turbine airfoil. Modelling and

10° LE 20° TE Simulation Engineering, 2011: p. 1-8.

5 9. Bak, C., Fuglsang, P., Johansen, J., and Antoniou, I., Wind Tunnel test on
10° LE 30° TE the NACA 63415 and modified NACA 63415 airfoil. 2000.

0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

-5
Angle of attack

Figure 19 Cl/Cd for NACA 63415 with 10° LE and various TE

positions