applied
sciences
Article
Numerical Study of Turbulent Flows over a NACA 0012 Airfoil:
Insights into Its Performance and the Addition of a Slotted Flap
Brian Steenwijk † and Pablo Druetta *,†
Citation: Steenwijk, B.; Druetta, P.
Numerical Study of Turbulent Flows
over a NACA 0012 Airfoil: Insights
into Its Performance and the
Addition of a Slotted Flap. Appl. Sci.
2023, 13, 7890. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app13137890
Academic Editors: Salman Saleem
and Ahmad Zeeshan
Received: 24 May 2023
Revised: 30 June 2023
Accepted: 3 July 2023
Published: 5 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13137890
Department of Chemical Engineering, ENTEG, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4,
9747AG Groningen, The Netherlands
* Correspondence: p.d.druetta@rug.nl; Tel.: +31-50-3634479
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: This work provides a comprehensive overview of various aspects of airfoil CFD simulations.
The airflow around a 2D NACA 0012 airfoil at various angles of attack is simulated using the RANS
SST turbulent flow model and compared to experimental data. The airfoil is then modified with a
slotted flap and additionally the angle of the flap is altered. The flow model is subsequently coupled
to a heat transfer model to compare the isothermal versus non-isothermal performance. The airfoil
with the slotted flap shows increased CL and CD values compared to the standard NACA 0012.
Larger flap angles further increase the CL and CD . The lift and drag coefficients show no difference
in the non-isothermal model compared to the isothermal model, indicating the isothermal model
is sufficient for this system. The 3D model without wingtips shows a similar CL to the 2D model
as it effectively has an infinite span. Adding a wingtip reduces the lift coefficient, as the air can
flow around the wingtip, increasing the pressure on top of the wing. Overall, these results match
the behavior expected from wing theory well, showing how CFD can be effectively applied in the
development and optimization of wings, flaps, and wingtips.
Keywords: NACA 0012; slotted flap; CFD; SST turbulence model; non-isothermal flow
1. Introduction
The study of flow around objects is a vital part of engineering design, providing the
necessary input for a proper and sustainable design. In the case of aerodynamics, the shape
and size of the wing play an integral role in its performance. By better understanding
the flow around the wing, optimized structures can be made, resulting in better, cheaper,
and safer airplanes. The flow around a wing is complex and much research has gone
into understanding and predicting it; with the constant increase in computational power,
computers have been increasingly used to model such fluid flows. This field is known as
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), the basis of which are the Navier–Stokes equations,
describing viscous fluid flow, and the Euler equations, describing perfect, inviscid flow [1].
As these equations are complex, or potentially impossible to solve analytically, numerical
methods are used to get useful solutions. COMSOL Multiphysics is the software that is
used to make and solve the simulations.
In addition to the structure of a wing, the surface roughness of a wing plays a signifi-
cant role in its drag coefficient [2–5]. Good simulations could provide additional insights
into the development of coatings and other materials of airplanes. Airplanes are not the
only area that can benefit from accurate simulations of airfoils and wing structures. Such
structures can also be found in the design of the blades in pumps, compressors, or turbines.
CFD can be used to predict and optimize the performance of such devices [6–8]. CFD helps
in designing better performing devices by combining mechanical and chemical engineering,
resulting in the use of fewer resources. Wenzinger [9] tested various flap types in a wind
tunnel, with the slotted flap showing one of the largest increases in CL . Todorov [10] and
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 2 of 28

Hussein et al. [11] found increased CL and CD values in simulations by modifying airfoils
with a slotted flap. Prabhakar and Ohri [12] found good agreement in CL between their
3D simulation of a plain NACA 2412 and wind tunnel data from Saha [13]; they did not
compare their 3D model to a 2D one. Ozdemir and Barlas [14] investigated 2D and 3D
models with varying wingspans of a NACA 0012; however, they did not include viscosity
effects and considered the air as incompressible.

Novelty and Theory

In this work, a plain NACA 0012 is simulated, and COMSOLs automatic “physics-
controlled” meshing is utilized with the SST turbulent flow model. The automated mesh is
compared to a user-made mesh and to wind tunnel data from Ladson [15] and O’Reilly [3].
The airfoil is modified with a slotted flap and the performance differential is compared to
the plain airfoil; additionally, different airspeeds are compared for the modified airfoil. The
density and viscosity of a fluid are a function of the temperature, and, in turn, using an
isothermal model means these material properties will not change due to temperature. The
density and viscosity of the fluid are important properties of the air flowing around the
airfoil. To investigate the validity of the constant temperature assumption, a non-isothermal
model is compared to the isothermal model. The non-isothermal flow model is created by
coupling the SST model to a heat transfer model in COMSOL. Finally, the stock NACA 0012
is extended into a 3D model; one 3D model has an airfoil spanning the entire domain and
the other partially spans a larger domain, creating a wingtip. The 3D models are compared
to the 2D model and to each other [16–19].
Based on airfoil theory, it is expected that the addition of a slotted flap will increase
the CL compared to the stock NACA 0012 airfoil, with larger increases at higher flap angles.
However, the CL slope with respect to the angle of attack should be largely unchanged. The
addition of a flap will break up the streamlined shape of the airfoil, more so when the flap
is angled, and, in turn, the CD will be increased by the flap, and further increases in CD
should be present when the flap angle is larger. Finally, as the air velocity increases, so does
the Reynolds number. As a consequence, a small decrease in CD is expected [1,20,21]. The
model should be able to reflect these changes in CL and CD stemming from the changing
airfoil geometry and free-stream flow conditions.
The extension of the 2D model to a 3D model with the wing spanning the domain
effectively creates a wing of infinite span; as a result, the lift coefficient is expected to
be similar to the 2D result for this mode. However, extending the domain beyond the
span of the wing creates a wingtip around which air can flow. The wing now has a finite
length, and the lift coefficient of the finite wing is dependent on the aspect ratio of the
wing. Additionally, the flow around the wingtip introduces vortices which will trail behind
the wing as it is moving through the air. Additionally, the trailing vortices persist for a
significant amount of time and can be dangerous to following airplanes. This change in the
lift and airflow profile should be visible between the two different 3D models [20]. Much
research has gone into minimizing the loss of lift and reducing the trailing vortices, as they
reduce the wing performance. This can be achieved by optimizing the aspect ratio of the
wing and the wingtip. For example, the span can be increased to increase the lift coefficient;
however, the structural integrity of the wing must be preserved.
This work provides a comprehensive overview by considering additional aspects,
such as the validity of an isothermal model, investigating the boundary layer profiles,
and extending them to three dimensions. This work investigates the issue of whether the
difference in performance resulting from modifying an airfoil with a high lift device, e.g.,
flaps, can be accurately modeled using CFD.

2. Model Description
2.1. Physical Model
An airfoil is the cross-section of a shaped surface which can generate significant lift,
such as an airplane wing. An example wing including commonly used terminology is
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 3 of 28

sketched in Figure 1. The chord is a straight line from the leading edge of the airfoil to the
rear edge. The angle of attack “α” is the angle between the chord line and the incoming air.
A wing moving through air can generate a force perpendicular to this movement: the lift
force. Another force is generated on the opposite of the direction of the flow: the drag force.
By generating significant lift, heavier-than-air flight is possible.

Figure 1. Sketch of a wing with the main parts identified.

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) has created several for-
mulas that describe the shape of wing-shaped airfoils. In 1933, NACA released a report
detailing the performance of 78 airfoils tested at high Reynolds numbers [22]. In this
report they created a formula describing airfoils using a 4 digit system. The first digit
indicates the amount of camber as a percentage of the chord length, the second the position
of this camber in tenths of the chord length. The last two digits describe the maximum
thickness of the airfoil as a percentage if the chord length. For example, a NACA 0012 has a
thickness that is 12% of the chord. As the first two digits are zero, this airfoil has no camber,
it is symmetrical.

Performance Metrics
To evaluate the airfoil performance, the lift coefficient CL , drag coefficient CD , and their
ratio CL /CD are used. The lift force is calculated by integrating the pressure perpendicular
to the airflow direction over the airfoil surface. The lift coefficient CL is given by,

FL
CL = 1
(1)
2
2 ρu A

where FL is the lift force, ρ is the density, u is the flow speed, and A is the projected area.
The drag force is calculated by integrating the total force opposite to the airflow over the
airfoil surface. The drag coefficient CD is calculated by,

FD
CD = 1
(2)
ρu 2A
2

where FD is the drag force. In 3D models, A is the platform area. In 2D models, the projected
area A is the chord length c, this is also known as the section drag or lift coefficient. The
cross-sections of the 3D wings do not vary across the span; as such, the 2D and 3D NACA
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 4 of 28

0012 results are directly comparable. In turn, CL and CD are used to refer to both the 2D
and 3D model. The Reynolds number for airfoils is calculated by,
ρuc
Re = (3)
µ

where ρ is the density, u is the air velocity, and c is the chord length. The Mach number is
defined as the ratio of the local velocity to the local speed of sound:
u
Ma = (4)
c
where Ma is the mach number, u is the velocity, and c is the speed of sound. The speed of
sound, assuming an ideal gas, is calculated by,
q
c= kR p T (5)

where k is the specific heat ratio, which is 1.4 for air, R p is the particular gas constant,
and T is the temperature [21,23]. A high lift coefficient is desirable as it allows for more
weight to be lifted, and a low drag coefficient is desirable as it reduces fuel costs [24]. The
performance of an airfoil can be increased by adding so-called high-lift devices, for example,
a flap [12].

2.2. Turbulent Flow Modeling

Figure 2 illustrates the well-known example of a fluid flowing over a plate with a
uniform flow of velocity U∞ . A boundary layer develops close to the plate, and initially
this layer is fully laminar. As the flow travels further across the plate, the boundary layer
begins to flow more chaotically, i.e., a transition region, until it becomes fully turbulent.
The Reynolds number at which the flow becomes turbulent depends on the geometry of
the objects impeding the flow [25,26]. Due to the low velocity near the wall, the Reynolds
number is locally low. Subsequently, close to the wall, the flow has a viscous sub-layer in
the turbulent region, also known as the laminar sub-layer. As the velocity and in turn the
Reynolds number increase, further away from the wall the flow becomes more turbulent.
A transition layer forms, also known as the buffer layer. Finally, the flow becomes fully
turbulent, forming a turbulent layer.

Figure 2. Fluid flow over a flat plate [27].

As the Reynolds number increases, the temporal and spatial scales of the eddies
decrease. As a consequence, it is typically not computationally feasible to resolve them
using direct numerical simulations. Instead, the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS)
formulation can be used. This is based on the decomposition of flow variables u into a
time-averaged u and local oscillation u0 , as illustrated in Figure 3 [28–30]. This operation
creates extra unknown variables and the RANS set of equations are not closed, i.e., there
are more unknowns than equations. Extra equations are used to close the set; different
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 5 of 28

sets of closure equations create different turbulence models. Some models introduce extra
transport equations as part of the closure set, for example, a so-called two-equation model
would use two such equations.

Figure 3. Decomposition of the flow variable u into the mean u and local oscillation u0 .

Wall Velocity Profile

The velocity of a turbulent flow near a wall is dependent on the distance from the wall.
Close to the wall, the velocity profile follows the law of the wall, depicted in Figure 4. The
dimensionless velocity u+ is defined as,
u
u+ = (6)
uτ

where u is the local velocity and uτ is the friction velocity at the closest wall, calculated by
r
τw
uτ = (7)
ρ

where τw is the wall shear stress and ρ is the density at the wall. The dimensionless wall
distance y+ is defined as,
uτ y
y+ = (8)
ν
where y is the distance from the nearest wall and ν is the kinematic viscosity. Close to the
wall, the velocity is low and viscous forces will be dominant. The profile follows u+ = y+ ,
this viscous sub-layer is also known as the laminar sub-layer introduced before. As the
distance from the wall increases and the flow becomes more turbulent, a transition layer
is formed, also known as the buffer sub-layer. Even further out, the flow becomes fully
turbulent; the profile in the fully turbulent region can be described by u+ = κ1 ln y+ + C,
where κ ≈ 0.41, known as the von Kármán constant, and C ≈ 5.0. This layer is also known
as the log-layer.

Figure 4. Velocity profile near the wall [31].

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 6 of 28

2.3. Numerical Model

COMSOL multiphysics was used to create and compute the models [32]. The Menter
shear stress transport (SST) turbulent flow model was used, which is a two-equation
RANS turbulent flow model [33]. The SST model interpolates between two other models,
the k-ω model, used near the wall, and the k-e model, used further out. COMSOL uses
modifications to the original SST model based on [34,35].

2.3.1. Wing Geometry

NACA 0012 is described by the following parametric formula for 0 ≤ x ≤ 1,
 r  x 2
x x
y = ±c · 0.59468 0.29822 · − 0.12712 · − 0.35791 · +...
c c c
 x 3  x 4 
+0.29198 · − 0.10517 · (9)
c c

The chord length c is 1.8 m. The resulting airfoil is depicted in Figure 5. Next, the
airfoil was modified by adding a slotted flap. Additionally, the rear tips were rounded
off. The main wing has a chord length of 1.62 m. The flap has a chord length of 0.53 m.
The minimum slot distance between the flap and the main wing is 0.05 m. This airfoil is
depicted in Figure 6, where the flap is positioned at 10°. Three flap angles were used in
the simulations: 10°, 15°, and 20°. Figures A1 and A2 in Appendix A show the geometry
with the flap at 15◦ and 20°. The 3D model is of the stock NACA 0012, and it has a span of
2 · c = 3.6 m.

Figure 5. NACA 0012 airfoil geometry.

Figure 6. Modified airfoil geometry, flap at 10°.

The addition of the flap changes the chord length and angle of attack. Additionally,
the angle of the flap will also the alter angle of attack and slightly change the chord length.
Compared to the chord line of the NACA 0012, the model with the flap has a chord line
that is already angled upward with the air coming head on. The chord line is taken as the
reference angle of attack, i.e., 0°, from here on out. The air angle adjustments, compared to
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 7 of 28

the stock NACA 0012 and new chord lengths, are listed in Table 1. For example, with the
flap at 20°, the relative wind is angled at −6◦ to obtain an angle of attack of 0◦ .
Table 1. Air angle adjustments and chord lengths.

Flap Angle Wind Angle Adjustment Chord Length (m)

No flap 0.00 1.80
10 −3.55 2.11
15 −4.78 2.10
20 −6.01 2.09

2.3.2. Governing Equations and Flow Models

The solver utilizes the conservation of mass and momentum in all flow models which
are used. The conservation of mass, also known as the continuity equation, is given by,

∂ρ
+ ∇ · (ρu) = 0 (10)
∂t
where ρ is the density and u is the velocity vector. The conservation of momentum is
given by
∂u
ρ + ρ(u · ∇)u = −∇ p + ∇ · τ̄¯ + F (11)
∂t
where p is the static pressure, τ̄¯ is the stress tensor, and F is the volume force vector. The
stress tensor can be described by

2
τ̄¯ = µ(∇u + (∇u) T ) − (µ∇ · u)I (12)
3
where µ is the viscosity and I is the identity matrix. The SST flow model uses two additional
transport equations, these are formulated in terms of the turbulent kinetic energy “k” and
the specific dissipation rate ω,

∂k
ρ + ρu · ∇k = P − ρβ∗0 kω + ∇ · ((µ + σk µ T )∇k) (13)
∂t
∂ω ργ ρσω2
ρ + ρu · ∇ω = P − ρβω 2 + ∇ · ((µ + σω µ T )∇ω ) + 2(1 − f v1 ) ∇ω · ∇k (14)
∂t µT ω
A full description of the SST model can be found in [33]. COMSOL uses a pseudo
time-stepping method based on an adaptive feedback CFL controller. The controller is a
multiplicative PID controller given by
e k p  tol ki  e k d
n −1 n−1 /en
CFLn+1 = CFLn (15)
en en en−2/en−1

where k p , k i , and k d are the controller parameters, en is the nonlinear error estimate for step
n, and tol is the target error estimate. A lower limit of CFL ≥ 1 is used and convergence
is not accepted until CFLn ≥ CFL∞ = 104 , where CFL∞ = 104 is the steady-state CFL
number.

2.3.3. Boundary Conditions

For all 2D models, the reference domain length is L = 180 m. The full domain is
depicted in Figure 7; the air flows from left to right, with the inlet depicted in brown and
the outlet in blue. This domain shape was selected as it is a commonly used shape in CFD
simulations of NACA 0012 airfoils, where a large domain is used to minimize the effect of
the boundary conditions [36–39]. Figure 8 depicts the 3D model domain. Here, the wing
spans the entire domain, as such there is no wingtip. The reference length of the domain is
reduced to 10 m in order to reduce the computational time and increase the mesh density.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 8 of 28

The y axis has a length of 2 · c = 3.6 m and is equal to the span of the wing. The blue planes
are inlets and the red yz plane in the back is the outlet. The second 3D model has a domain
which extends beyond the wing on one side. In turn, this model has a wingtip instead of
the wing spanning the entire domain; this model is called “with wingtip”. The domain
extends 2 · c = 3.6 m beyond the wingtip in the +y direction, and Figure A3 in Appendix A
depicts this domain. The airfoil geometry is assigned the no-slip condition. The parameters
used in the simulations are listed in Table 2. The free stream velocity is 50, 75, or 100 m/s
for the 2D models and 50 m/s for the 3D model. These values were chosen because the
type of airplanes that use the NACA 0012 and similar wings are typically single-engine
propeller airplanes, and these are typical speeds used by these types of planes. At higher
velocities, the flow will approach Mach numbers of 1 or higher and shockwaves should be
visible; however, these speeds are not achieved in practice by airplanes using the NACA
0012. Moreover, a flow model is not suitable for this flow regime. The free-stream turbulent
kinetic energy is calculated by
µ∞ U∞
k ∞ = 0.1 (16)
ρ∞ L
and the free-stream specific dissipation rate by

U∞
ω∞ = 10 (17)
L

Figure 7. Boundary conditions of the domain, where the brown boundary is an inlet and the blue
boundary is an outlet.

Figure 8. Boundaries of the 3D model without air beyond the wingtip. The yz plane in the back (red)
is the outlet and the other (blue) boundaries are inlets.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 9 of 28

The free-stream turbulent kinetic energy and specific dissipation rate are used as
boundary conditions for the inlet and outlet. The inlet velocity in the x-direction is calcu-
lated by  απ 
U∞,x = U∞ cos (18)
180
and in the y-direction by  απ 
U∞,y = U∞ sin (19)
180
where U∞ is the free stream velocity and α is the angle of attack. α is increased in an
auxiliary sweep to model an increasing angle of attack, where the converged results are
used for the next step. The outlet is set to have a normal stress of zero N/m2 . A simple
potential flow model is solved for the first angle of attack and used for the initial values of
the field for the first step in the auxiliary sweep.
Table 2. Model parameters.

Symbol Value Description

U∞ Variable m/s Free-stream velocity
ρ∞ 1.2043 kg/m3 Free-stream density
µ∞ 1.814 ×10−5 Pa·s Free-stream dynamic viscosity
P 101,325 Pa Free-stream pressure
T 293.13 K Free-stream temperature
C 1.8 m Chord length
α Variable Angle of attack

2.3.4. Meshes
The first meshes were fully generated by COMSOL based on the type of physics in-
cluded in the model; the only setting changed was the element size setting. The element size
setting was varied from extremely coarse to extremely fine. Table 3 lists the specifications
of all the COMSOL-generated meshes that were able to converge. These meshes showed
poor results compared to experimental results; additionally, finer meshes were unable to
converge. Therefore, a reference user-controlled mesh was made. A mapped mesh was
used close to the airfoil, and further out, an unstructured triangular mesh was used. This
mesh is illustrated in Figure 9, with a close-up around the airfoil in Figure 9b. To make the
reference mesh, the outline of the airfoil was enlarged, forming a domain around the airfoil.
This domain was split into different sections, allowing more precise control of the element
distribution in each section. In each of the split domains, a structured mesh was used with
an exponential distribution normal to the airfoil surface, creating thin elements close to the
airfoil surface. The distribution of each split domain along the surface was set to have a
higher density at the leading and trailing edge of the airfoil, with a lower density in the
middle part. This mesh shows good agreement with experimental lift coefficient data. A
similar meshing strategy was employed for the modified airfoil, shown in Figure 10, and a
close-up around the airfoil is depicted in Figure 10b. The 3D model uses a mix of mapped
and unstructured meshes on the airfoil surface. Figure 11b depicts a cross-section of the
mesh, and the full mesh is shown in Figure 11a. Table 4 lists the specifications of all the
user generated meshes.
Table 3. Meshes generated by COMSOL for the stock NACA 0012.

COMSOL Element Number of Average Element Number of

Size Setting Elements Skewness Quality Boundary Layers
Extra coarse 1742 0.870 12
Coarser 2688 0.881 12
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 10 of 28

Table 4. User-controlled meshes.

Airfoil Geometry Flap Number of Average Element Number of

Angle Elements Skewness Quality Boundary Layers
2D NACA 0012 - 52,240 0.796 100
Modified with flap 10 105,800 0.738 100
Modified with flap 15 105,752 0.743 100
Modified with flap 20 105,755 0.745 100
3D no wingip - 665,131 0.750 25
3D with wingtip - 1,169,579 0.735 40

(a) Full domain (b) Around the airfoil.

Figure 9. User-controlled mesh of the 2D NACA 0012.

(a) Full domain (b) Around the airfoil

Figure 10. Mesh of the modified airfoil.

The number of mesh boundary layers around the modified airfoil was altered and
evaluated with respect to the CL /CD ratio. This was executed with an airspeed of 50 m/s
and a flap angle of 10°. The results for four different angles of attack are displayed in
Figure 12. An increase from 50 to 75 layers shows a significantly different CL /CD ratio.
Additional layers show little change, especially at higher angles of attack. It was decided
to use 100 layers to assure accuracy. This also indicates why the COMSOL-generated
meshes performed poorly; they employ a significantly lower number of boundary layers
and elements.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 11 of 28

(a) Full domain (b) Cross section around the airfoil

Figure 11. Mesh of the 3D model with a wingtip.

Figure 12. CL /CD ratio versus increasing mesh boundary layer count.

3. Results and Discussion

The full results are presented in Appendix B. Of the NACA 0012 simulations using
the physics-controlled meshes, only the physics-controlled “extra coarse” and “coarser”
meshes converged. The lift coefficients are depicted in Figure 13 alongside the reference
user-controlled mesh and experimental data. The reference mesh matches the experimental
data closely, showing good agreement overall. The physics-controlled meshes show a
similar trend of an increasing lift coefficient with an increasing angle of attack; however,
they significantly underestimate the amount of lift. Considering the mesh specifications
reported in Tables 3 and 4, the poor results of the automated meshes can be attributed to
the low amount of elements and boundary layers. Consequently, the automated mesh
has a low element density throughout, including close to the airfoil itself. In turn, it is
unable to accurately capture the boundary layer flow around the airfoil. As a result, the
computed lift coefficient is significantly lower than the experimental one. Decreasing the
automated element size setting to increase the mesh density does not lead to a solution, as
those meshes led to models that were not able to converge.
Overall, these results show how the automated meshes introduce significant deviation
from the experimental results. The automated meshes are unsuitable and a user-controlled
mesh is required to yield usable results. In turn, user-controlled meshes are used for
the investigations into the addition of a slotted flap, the non-isothermal model, and the
extension of the stock NACA 0012 airfoil to 3D.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 12 of 28

Figure 13. Lift coefficients of physics-controlled automated meshes and the user-controlled mesh
compared to experimental data from Ladson.

3.1. Modified Airfoil

Figure 14a shows the CL versus the angle of attack for the stock NACA 0012 and the
modified airfoil with the three flap angles of 10°, 15°, and 20°. As the modified airfoil is
not symmetrical, there is now also lift at α = 0. The modified airfoils show increased CL
compared to the NACA 0012. The NACA 0012 slope begins to decrease at higher α, and as
such, the change in lift coefficient between it and the modified airfoils is larger at 14° than
0°. These results match the trends found in the literature [20]. The flap increases the CL and
the slope gradient remains (mostly) the same. Comparing the different flap angles, a larger
angle further increases the CL .
Figure 14b shows the drag coefficients of the same setups mentioned above. Further-
more, NACA 0012 CD data from Ladson [15] are also included. First, we compared the
simulated NACA 0012 results to the experimental data. The overall trends match: CD
increases with increasing alpha and the slope increases at higher angles. The simulation
does significantly overestimate the amount of drag compared to the experimental results.
This is due to the flow model assuming the boundary layer is turbulent over the entire
length of the airfoil, when in fact, the flow is partially laminar. The laminar flow results in a
lower CD , and consequently the CD is overestimated by the flow model [36]. By creating a
more fully turbulent boundary layer across the airfoil surface in experiments, for example,
by roughening the surface, the results between simulation and experimental would be
closer. For example, the simulated results show better agreement with the experimental
results from Gregory and O’Reilly when the surface is more roughened [3]. Next, we
compared the NACA 0012 to the modified airfoil. The introduction of the flap results in an
increase in c D . Compared to the literature, while the high lift device is different, a similar
result is observed [20]. In Figure 14b, the NACA 0012 has a higher CD at higher angles of
attack than the modified airfoils, this is due to the difference reference angles. If the relative
wind was used as α = 0, the CD of the modified airfoil would be higher for all angles.
Additionally, a larger flap angle increases the CD . These results confirm the hypothesis
that the modified airfoil would have an increased CL and CD compared to the NACA 0012.
These results show how a movable flap can be used to adapt to situations where either the
lift or drag coefficient might be more important. The performance can be further improved
by adding additional high lift devices, for example, a slat or multiple slotted flaps. The
change in performance resulting from the addition of slotted flaps and slats is caused by
multiple effects: the slat effect, the circulation effect, the dumping effect, off-the-surface
pressure recovery, and the fresh boundary layer effect. A full explanation of all these effects
is beyond the scope of this work and can be found in [40].
Figure 15 displays the CL /CD ratios. There is a large difference between the NACA
0012 simulation and the Ladson data due to the CD . The profile is similar for all setups,
showing a parabolic profile. The reason for this profile shape is that the CD increases
exponentially, whereas CL increases linearly. The flap significantly improves the CL /CD
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 13 of 28

ratio compared to the stock NACA 0012 for all angles of attack; additionally, the CL /CD
ratio is further improved with larger flap angles.
Overall, the modified airfoil shows significant improvements in CL and CL /CD , and a
substantial increase in CD . These results show how a movable flap can be used to adapt to
the different stages of flight. For example, the increase in CD is detrimental during cruise
flight, but during this stage not much lift is required, and thus the flap can be retracted to a
low angle. Conversely, during take off, a lot off lift is desired and the increased drag is an
acceptable trade-off; during this stage the flap would be fully extended.

(a) CL (b) CD

Figure 14. NACA 0012 compared to the modified airfoil with the flap positioned at 10°, 15°, and
20° and an airspeed of 50 m/s.

Figure 15. CL /CD of NACA 0012 compared to the modified airfoil with the flap positioned at 10°,
15°, and 20° and an airspeed of 50 m/s.

Figure 16a displays the CL for three different free stream velocities: 50, 75, and 100 m/s.
The flap is positioned at 10°. There is a very small increase in CL at higher velocities.
Figure 16b depicts a small decrease in CD , as was expected from the literature and previous
papers [5,20]. With the improvements in CL and CD , their ratio also improves, as depicted
in Figure 17.
The simulated results match the expectations from airfoil theory well, showing how
numerical simulations can be effectively utilized in the development and optimization of
airfoil geometry and flap operation.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 14 of 28

(a) CL (b) CD

Figure 16. Modified airfoil with the flap positioned at 10°, for airspeeds of 50, 75, and 100 m/s.

Figure 17. CL /CD of modified airfoil with the flap positioned at 10° for airspeeds of 50, 75, and
100 m/s.

3.2. Non-Isothermal Flow

Looking at Figure 18, which compares the isothermal to the non-isothermal simulation
of the modified airfoil, there is little difference in CL , CD , and consequently their ratio.
A similar result is observed in Figure 19, showing the isothermal versus non-isothermal
results for the NACA 0012. Here, the performance is also identical. The Mach number of
the flow is largely below 0.3; as such, the flow can be regarded as incompressible and the
effect of temperature is small. Based on these results, the use of an isothermal flow model is
valid. This is not surprising, as the non-isothermal NACA 0012 simulation already showed
good agreement with the experimental CL results.

Wall Profiles
Figure 20 displays the dimensionless velocity profile of the modified airfoil. This
profile shows good agreement with the “law of the wall” profile in Figure 4.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 15 of 28

(a) CL (b) CD

Figure 18. Isothermal and non-isothermal flow for the modified airfoil, with the flap positioned at
10° and an airspeed of 100 m/s.

(a) CL (b) CD

Figure 19. Isothermal and non-isothermal flow for NACA 0012 airfoil with an airspeed of 50 m/s.

Figure 20. Dimensionless velocity wall profile of the modified airfoil. Air speed 100 m/s, flap angle
10, non-isothermal model.

Figures 21–24 depict various profiles originating from the modified airfoil wall. These
profiles are perpendicular to the thickest point at the top of airfoil and extend 100 m
vertically. The angle of attack is 6°. The profile reaches its peak around 0.01 m, after which
the velocity normalizes to the free-stream velocity. As the line is stemming from the top
of the airfoil, the velocity reaches higher levels than the free stream velocity. There is a
very small difference in velocity between the non-isothermal and isothermal model, best
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 16 of 28

seen at the top of the peak. Figure 23 displays a largely similar profile. The difference
between the two models with regard to the Mach number is even smaller. Figure 22 depicts
the temperature profile; for the isothermal model it is naturally flat. The non-isothermal
model shows a profile that is similar to those seen in Figures 21 and 23 but inverted.
Figure 24 illustrates the temperature profile but inverted. The temperature peaks at the
same distance from the wall as the velocity, and beyond the peak it normalizes to the
free-stream temperature in a similar manner. Figure 25 shows the Mach number profiles
perpendicular to the thickest point at the top and the bottom of the airfoil. Three different
angles of attack are shown. At α = 0°, the top and bottom profile are close to each other. As
the angle increases, the Mach number increases at the top, while it decreases at the bottom.
The profile shape for the boundary layer remains the same. Beyond the boundary layer, the
profile normalizes to the free-stream Mach number.

Figure 21. Velocity profile.

Figure 22. Temperature profile.

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 17 of 28

Figure 23. Mach number profile.

Figure 24. Inverted temperature profile.

3.3. 3D Model
Figure 26 displays the CL of the 3D models compared to the reference 2D model. The
3D model without a wingtip shows good agreement with the experimental data and the 2D
model. It is similar as the wing spans the entire domain. The model with a wingtip shows
a significantly lower CL , as was predicted from wing theory. Figure 27a illustrates the
velocity magnitude isosurface of the NACA 0012 with a wingtip, where the air is flowing
in the +x direction. The same view without the isosurface is depicted in Figure 27b to show
the position of the wing. At the right bottom of the image is the side of the airfoil with
the wingtip. As can be seen, the wingtip has a substantially different profile compared
to the side ending in a boundary. The velocity magnitude decreases towards the wingtip.
Figure 27c shows the velocity magnitude isosurface viewed from the front of the wing and
Figure 27d shows the front zoomed in on the wingtip. Here, it can be well seen how a trail
develops behind the wingtip.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 18 of 28

Figure 25. Mach number profiles of the modified airfoil with a non-isothermal flow. The cut line
starts at the thickest point at the top and bottom of the airfoil, extending vertically for 100 m.

Figure 26. Lift coefficient of the 3D models.

The difference in lift can be further explained by looking at the dynamic pressure
profile around the airfoil. Figures 28 and 29 depict slices at two different positions along the
span of the wing. First looking at the slices in the middle of the wing in Figures 28a and 29a,
the pressure delta between the top and the bottom of the airfoil is lower with a wingtip.
Next looking at Figures 28b and 29b, the wingtip has a significantly lower pressure delta.
This pressure difference is generating lift, consequently the CL is lower for the model
with wingtip.
Figure 30 depicts a yz plane pressure slice, it is positioned 0.15 chord lengths along the
wing from the leading edge. On the left, the wing ends at the boundary of the domain, and
on the right is the wingtip. The pressure on top increases towards the wingtip, and does
so more rapidly close to the wingtip. The air can flow around the wingtip from the high
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 19 of 28

pressure region under the wing to the low pressure region on top. This flow around the
wingtip is what creates wingtip vortices. As the fully bounded wing does not allow flow
around the wing, it does not exhibit these vortices. Figure 31 displays the yz slice for the
model without a wingtip. The air is unable to flow around the wingtip, and as a result, the
pressure is constant along the y-axis across the wing.

(a) Rear view (b) Rear view without isosurface

(c) Front view (d) Zoomed in front view

Figure 27. Velocity magnitude isosurface of NACA 0012 with a wingtip. The air is flowing in the
+x direction.

(a) Middle of the airfoil (b) 0.1 m from the boundary

Figure 28. Pressure slices of the 3D NACA 0012 without a wingtip (xz plane).

(a) Middle of the airfoil (b) 0.1 m from the wingtip

Figure 29. Pressure slices of the 3D NACA 0012 with a wingtip (xz plane).
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 20 of 28

Figure 30. Pressure slice of the 3D NACA with a wingtip. The slice is positioned at 0.15 chord lengths
from the leading edge (yz plane).

Figure 31. Pressure slice of the 3D NACA without a wingtip. The slice is positioned at 0.15 chord
lengths from the leading edge (yz plane).

4. Conclusions
Two- and three-dimensional models of an NACA 0012 were studied in COMSOL
under different regimes and analyzing the different physics involved.
• A first numerical conclusion of this study is that the COMSOL physics-controlled
meshing settings are not suitable for this airfoil simulation as they are either unable
to converge or give results that do not match those of experiments. User-controlled
meshes are required to yield good results.
• The SST turbulence flow model with a user-controlled mesh shows good agreement
with experimental CL results. The CD results need to be considered carefully when
trying to apply it to real life wings, as the flow model assumes turbulent flow across
the entire airfoil. The degree to which this assumption is valid will depend on the
wing roughness. The modified airfoil has increased CL and CL /CD values compared
to the stock NACA 0012. Increasing the flap angles further increases CL and CD . The
free stream velocity has a minor impact, with a very slightly higher CL and slightly
higher CD at higher velocities. Overall, the simulated results correspond well to what
is expected from theory and real-life experiments.
• No significant difference was found in CL or CD between the isothermal and non-
isothermal models. In turn, the use of a non-isothermal model is not required for good
results in these simulations.
• The 3D model shows some interesting avenues for future research, but the current
results are limited and more verifications are necessary.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 21 of 28

For instance, a large eddy simulation (LES) model could be evaluated, especially at
higher angles of attack near or at stalling. Different high lift devices could be used to
modify the NACA 0012 and compare their performance, for example, a slat at the front.
Combinations of these devices could be made to further optimize the airfoil, for example,
an additional flap or a combination of a flap and a slat. The shape of the main body could
be altered, for example, by using the NASA supercritical (SC) airfoils used in commercial
jets. The span could be increased, and this would be especially interesting for the model
with a wingtip. Similar modifications which have already been made or suggested for the
2D model could be made for the 3D model.

Author Contributions: Methodology; software; validation; formal analysis; investigation;

writing—original draft preparation, B.S. Project administration; conceptualization; resources;
writing—review and editing; visualization; supervision, P.D. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: B.S. thanks the University of Groningen for providing the COMSOL Multi-
physics software. P.D. thanks to Aleksandra Piekorz for her valuable comments about this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

LES Large Eddy Simulation
NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
RANS Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes
SA Spalart–Allmaras
SST Shear-Stress Transport
Nomenclature
A Area (m2 )
c Speed of sound (m/s)
CD Drag coefficient (-)
CL Lift coefficient (-)
FD Drag force (N)
FL Lift force (N)
k Specific heat ratio (-)
p Pressure (Pa)
Rp Particular gas constant (J/kg · K)
T Temperature (K)
[u, v, w] Fluid velocity field (m/s)
Greek Letters
α Angle of attack (°)
ρ Fluid density (kg/m3 )
µ Phase viscosity (mPa · s)
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 22 of 28

Appendix A. Figures

Figure A1. Modified airfoil geometry with the flap at 15°.

Figure A2. Modified airfoil geometry with the flap at 20°.

Figure A3. Geometry of 3D NACA 0012 with a wingtip on one side. Blue planes are inlets, red planes
are outlets.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 23 of 28

Figure A4. CL /CD of isothermal and non-isothermal flow for the modified airfoil, with the flap
positioned at 10° and an airspeed of 100 m/s.

Figure A5. CL /CD isothermal and non-isothermal flow for an NACA 0012 airfoil with an airspeed of
50 m/s.

Appendix B. CL , CD , and CL /CD Data

Table A1. CL of NACA 0012, SST turbulent flow model with physics-controlled mesh.

Alpha Extra Coarse Coarser

0 0.00 0.00
2 0.04 0.05
4 0.06 0.10
6 0.09 0.15
8 0.12 0.19
10 0.14 0.23
12 0.16 0.26
14 0.18 0.28
Number of elements 1742 2688
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 24 of 28

Table A2. CL of modified airfoil.

Flap 10° Flap 15° Flap 20°

Alpha 50 m/s 75 m/s 100 m/s Alpha 50 m/s 75 m/s 100 m/s Alpha 50 m/s 75 m/s 100 m/s
0 0.257 0.265 0.274 0.0 0.412 0.425 0.442 0.0 0.557 0.576 0.601
2 0.489 0.502 0.520 2.0 0.643 0.662 0.687 2.0 0.784 0.809 0.842
3.6 0.668 0.685 0.710 4.0 0.872 0.896 0.929 4.0 1.010 1.041 1.082
5.6 0.896 0.919 0.952 4.8 0.961 0.988 1.025 6.0 1.233 1.269 1.320
7.6 1.122 1.149 1.193 6.8 1.186 1.219 1.265 8.0 1.451 1.494 1.555
9.6 1.343 1.376 1.431 8.8 1.407 1.446 1.502 10.0 1.666 1.715 1.786
11.6 1.559 1.598 10.8 1.623 1.669 12.0 1.873 1.930
13.6 1.766 1.811 12.8 1.831 1.884 14.0 2.072 2.136
15.6 1.958 14.8 2.027 2.086 16.0 2.257
16.6 2.045 16.8 2.204 18.0 2.419
17.6 2.122 17.8 2.281 19.0 2.484
18.8 2.343 20.0 2.528

Table A3. CD of modified airfoil.

Flap 10° Flap 15° Flap 20°

Alpha 50 m/s 75 m/s 100 m/s Alpha 50 m/s 75 m/s 100 m/s Alpha 50 m/s 75 m/s 100 m/s
0.0 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.0 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.0 0.012 0.011 0.011
2.0 0.010 0.010 0.009 2.0 0.011 0.010 0.010 2.0 0.012 0.012 0.011
3.6 0.011 0.010 0.010 4.0 0.012 0.011 0.011 4.0 0.013 0.012 0.012
5.6 0.012 0.011 0.011 4.8 0.012 0.011 0.011 6.0 0.014 0.014 0.014
7.6 0.013 0.012 0.012 6.8 0.013 0.013 0.013 8.0 0.016 0.016 0.015
9.6 0.015 0.015 0.014 8.8 0.015 0.015 0.015 10.0 0.019 0.018 0.018
11.6 0.018 0.018 10.8 0.018 0.017 12.0 0.022 0.021
13.6 0.022 0.022 12.8 0.022 0.021 14.0 0.026 0.026
15.6 0.028 14.8 0.027 0.027 16.0 0.033
16.6 0.033 16.8 0.034 18.0 0.042
17.6 0.038 17.8 0.039 19.0 0.048
18.8 0.046 20.0 0.056

Table A4. CL /CD of modified airfoil.

Flap 10° Flap 15° Flap 20°

Alpha 50 m/s 75 m/s 100 m/s Alpha 50 m/s 75 m/s 100 m/s Alpha 50 m/s 75 m/s 100 m/s
0 25.7 28.0 29.9 0.0 39.1 42.6 45.7 0.0 48.4 52.7 56.4
2 48.0 52.1 55.7 2.0 59.3 64.2 68.6 2.0 64.9 70.3 75.1
3.6 63.0 68.5 72.4 4.0 75.1 81.1 86.3 4.0 77.9 84.0 89.2
5.6 77.7 83.5 89.0 4.8 80.1 86.4 91.9 6.0 86.1 92.4 97.7
7.6 86.3 95.8 97.8 6.8 88.7 95.2 100.8 8.0 89.8 96.0 101.0
9.6 88.7 91.7 99.4 8.8 91.7 98.1 103.1 10.0 89.4 95.1 99.2
11.6 85.8 88.8 10.8 89.9 95.7 12.0 85.4 90.5
13.6 78.8 82.3 12.8 84.1 89.1 14.0 78.6 82.7
15.6 68.8 14.8 75.3 78.6 16.0 69.4
16.6 62.9 16.8 64.2 18.0 58.2
17.6 56.3 17.8 58.0 19.0 51.9
18.8 51.0 20.0 45.0
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 25 of 28

Table A5. Non-isothermal and isothermal of modified airfoil. 100 m/s, flap 10°.

Non-Isothermal Isothermal
Alpha Cd Cl Cl/Cd Cd Cl Cl/Cd
0 0.0091 0.269 29.6 0.0092 0.275 29.9
2 0.0093 0.509 55.0 0.0093 0.520 55.7
4 0.0098 0.748 76.1 0.0099 0.764 76.9
6 0.0109 0.984 90.7 0.0110 1.007 91.6
8 0.0125 1.218 97.8 0.0126 1.247 98.8
10 0.0148 1.449 97.6 0.0150 1.484 98.7

Table A6. NACA 0012, 50 m/s, non-isothermal and isothermal.

Non-Isothermal Isothermal
Alpha Cd Cl Cl/Cd Cd Cl Cl/Cd
0 0.009 0.00 0.0 0.009 0.00 0.0
2 0.009 0.22 23.8 0.009 0.22 23.9
4 0.010 0.44 42.7 0.010 0.44 42.7
6 0.012 0.65 54.0 0.012 0.65 54.0
8 0.015 0.86 58.3 0.015 0.86 58.3
10 0.018 1.06 57.7 0.018 1.07 57.7
12 0.023 1.25 53.7 0.023 1.25 53.7
14 0.030 1.41 47.6 0.030 1.42 47.8

Table A7. CL of 3D models.

Alpha 2D Reference 3D without Wingtip 3D with Wingtip

0 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.22 0.21 0.14
4 0.44 0.42 0.27

Table A8. CD of 3D models.

Alpha 2D Reference 3D without Wingtip 3D with Wingtip

0 0.009 0.024 0.019
2 0.009 0.026 0.020
4 0.01 0.031 0.026

Table A9. CL /CD of 3D models.

Alpha 2D Reference 3D without Wingtip 3D with Wingtip

0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 24.4 8.3 6.6
4 43.8 13.7 10.5

References
1. Hirsch, C. Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows: Introduction to the Fundamentals of CFD; Butterworth-Heinemann:
Oxford, UK, 2007.
2. Ouahabi, M.H.; El Khachine, H.; Benabdelouahab, F. Aerodynamic Analysis of Wind Turbine Blade of NACA 0006 Using a CFD
Approach. In Proceedings of the WITS 2020, Fez, Morocco, 14–16 October 2020; Bennani, S., Lakhrissi, Y., Khaissidi, G., Mansouri,
A., Khamlichi, Y., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 541–552.
3. Gregory, N.; O’Reilly, C.L. Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 0012 Aerofoil Section, including the Effects of Upper-Surface
Roughness Simulating Hoar Frost; AERADE: Cranfield, UK, 1970.
4. Du, Y.; Gao, Z.; Wang, C.; Huang, J. Experiment and Numerical Simulation of Crossflow Transition on A Large-Swept Supercritical
Tapered Thin Wing Based on Surface Roughness. In Processing of the 11th Asian Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference
(ACFD11), Dalian, China, 16–20 September 2016.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 26 of 28

5. Hasham Ali, M.; Nawazish Mehdi, S.; Naik, M. Comparative analysis of low velocity vertical axis wind turbine NACA blades at
different attacking angles in CFD. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 80, 2091–2100. [CrossRef]
6. Blinov, V.L.; Zubkov, I.S. Influence of the axial compressor blade row defects on the industrial gas turbine performance. J. Phys.
Conf. Ser. 2020, 1683, 42–49. [CrossRef]
7. Irfan Sadaq, S.; Nawazish Mehdi, S.; Danish Mehdi, S.; Yasear, S. Analysis of NACA 0020 aerofoil profile rotor blade using CFD
approach. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 64, 147–160. [CrossRef]
8. Yossri, W.; Ben Ayed, S.; Abdelkefi, A. Airfoil type and blade size effects on the aerodynamic performance of small-scale wind
turbines: Computational fluid dynamics investigation. Energy 2021, 229, 120739. [CrossRef]
9. Wenzinger, C.J.; Harris, T.A. Wind-Tunnel Investigation of an NACA 23012 Airfoil with Various Arrangements of Slotted Flaps; Technical
Report; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 1939.
10. Todorov, M. Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airfoil with Single Slotted Flap for Light Airplane Wing. In Proceedings of the
International Conference of Scientific Paper AFASES 2015, Brasov, Romania, 28–30 May 2015; pp. 509–514.
11. Hussein, E.; Azziz, H.; Rashid, F. Aerodynamic study of slotted flap for NACA 24012 airfoil by dynamic mesh techniques and
visualization flow. J. Therm. Eng. 2021, 7, 230–239. [CrossRef]
12. Prabhakar, A. CFD analysis on MAV NACA 2412 Wing in high lift take-off configuration for enhanced lift generation. J. Aeronaut.
Aerosp. Eng. 2013, 2, 5. [CrossRef]
13. Saha, N. Gap Size Effect on Low Reynolds Number Wind Tunnel Experiments. Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA,
USA, 1999.
14. Yavuz Hakan Ozdemir, B.B. 2D and 3D Potential Flow Simulations around NACA 0012 with Ground Effect. Res. Sq.
2021, preprint .
15. Ladson, C.L. Effects of Independent Variation of Mach and Reynolds Numbers on the Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of the NACA
0012 Airfoil Section; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 1988.
16. Chakraborty, S.; Ghosh, S. A CFD study on the structural parameters of NACA 2412 airfoil based air-wing using different
composite materials. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 60, 894–901. [CrossRef]
17. Çakıroğlu, R.; Erdi Tanurun, H.; Acir, A.; Üçgül, F.; Olkun, S. Optimization of NACA 4412 augmented with a gurney flap by
using grey relational analysis. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2023, 45, 167. [CrossRef]
18. Yusop, F.; Mustafa, S.S.; Awang, M.; Hassan, N.N.M.; Noor, H.M. Comparison of Pressure Distribution of NACA 0012 Between
CFD Code and Experimental. CFD Lett. 2022, 14, 35–41. [CrossRef]
19. Loutun, M.J.T.; Didane, D.H.; Batcha, M.F.M.; Abdullah, K.; Ali, M.F.M.; Mohammed, A.N.; Afolabi, L.O. 2D CFD Simulation
Study on the Performance of Various NACA Airfoils. CFD Lett. 2021, 13, 38–50. [CrossRef]
20. White, F.M. Fluid Mechanics, 8th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 492–499.
21. Anderson, J.D. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 6th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 567–577.
22. Jacobs, E.N.; Pinkerton, R.M.; Ward, K.E. The Characteristics of 78 Related Airfoil Sections from Tests in the Variable-Density Wind
Tunnel; NACA: Hampton, VA, USA, 1933.
23. Rao, Y.S.R.; Manohar, M.V.N.S.; Praveen, S.V.V.S. CFD simulation of NACA airfoilsat various angles of attack. IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1168, 012011. [CrossRef]
24. Cihan, B. Numerical drag reduction of a ground vehicle by NACA2415 airfoil structured vortex generator and spoiler. Int. J.
Automot. Technol. 2019, 20, 943–948. [CrossRef]
25. Rogowski, K.; Królak, G.; Bangga, G. Numerical Study on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of the NACA 0018 Airfoil at Low
Reynolds Number for Darrieus Wind Turbines Using the Transition SST Model. Processes 2021, 9, 477. [CrossRef]
26. Michna, J.; Rogowski, K. Numerical Study of the Effect of the Reynolds Number and the Turbulence Intensity on the Performance
of the NACA 0018 Airfoil at the Low Reynolds Number Regime. Processes 2022, 10, 1004. [CrossRef]
27. Hussein, E.; El, M. Boundary-Layer Theory of Fluid Flow past a Flat-Plate: Numerical Solution using MATLAB. Int. J. Comput.
Appl. 2018, 180, 6–8. [CrossRef]
28. Reggente, M. Statistical Gas Distribution Modelling for Mobile Robot Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Örebro University, Örebro,
Sweden, 2014.
29. Rashid, F.L.; Abd, H.S.; Hussein, E.Q. Numerical study of the air flow over modified NACA 2412 airfoil using CFD. AIP Conf.
Proc. 2022, 2415, 020005. [CrossRef]
30. Abobaker, M.; Elfaghi, A.M.; Addeep, S. Numerical Study of Wind-Tunnel Wall Effects on Lift and Drag Characteristics of NACA
0012 Airfoil. CFD Lett. 2020, 12, 72–82. [CrossRef]
31. Benoit, M.; Roger, M.; Bosschaerts, W. Multidisciplinary Optimization of Aircraft Propeller Blades. Ph.D. Thesis, Royal Military
Academy, Camberley, UK, 2011.
32. Lyu, P. How Do I Compute Lift and Drag? 2015. Available online: https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-do-i-compute-lift-and-
drag/ (accessed on 15 June 2022).
33. Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J. 1994, 32, 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
34. Menter, F.R.; Kuntz, M.; Langtry, R. Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model. Turbul. Heat Mass Transf.
2003, 4, 625–632.
35. NASA. Menter Shear Stress Transport Model. 2021. Available online: https://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/sst.html (accessed on 1
May 2023).
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7890 27 of 28

36. Douvi, C.E. ; Tsavalos, I.A.; Margaris, P.D. Evaluation of the turbulence models for the simulation of the flow over a National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 0012 airfoil. J. Mech. Eng. Res. 2012, 4, 100–111.
37. Fatahian, E.; Lohrasbi Nichkoohi, A.; Salarian, H.; Khaleghinia, J. Effects of the hinge position and suction on flow separation and
aerodynamic performance of the NACA 0012 airfoil. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2020, 42, 86. [CrossRef]
38. Shan, H.; Jiang, L.; Liu, C. Direct numerical simulation of flow separation around a NACA 0012 airfoil. Comput. Fluids 2005,
34, 1096–1114. [CrossRef]
39. Uranai, S.; Fukudome, K.; Mamori, H.; Fukushima, N.; Yamamoto, M. Numerical simulation of the anti-icing performance of
electric heaters for icing on the NACA 0012 airfoil. Aerospace 2020, 7, 123. [CrossRef]
40. Smith, A.M. High-lift aerodynamics. J. Aircr. 1975, 12, 501–530. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.