MCEN90008 Fluid Dynamics, 2012

MCEN90008 Fluid Dynamics

Flow over an aerofoil

Introduction

The forces exerted on a body moving through a fluid may be resolved into two components:
Lift (L) the force perpendicular to the free stream or direction of travel.
Drag (D) the force parallel to the free stream.
The drag, D, is the sum of the form drag (due to pressure forces) and the skin friction
drag (due to viscous stresses).
An aerofoil is a body designed to produce much more lift than drag when moving through
a fluid. The production of a lifting force for these types of bodies is most easily understood
in terms of potential flow. In order to avoid infinite velocity at the sharp trailing edge, a
circulation (bound vortex) is superimposed on the flow around the aerofoil. This tends to
increase fluid speed over one side, decreasing the pressure there (by Bernoullis principle)
and vice versa for the other side. The resulting pressure differences between either side
cause the lifting force.
Potential flow theory, however, predicts zero drag, which is not observed experimentally.
The presence of even tiny viscosity causes potential flow theory to be invalid in thin
regions close to the surface known as boundary layers. In these regions, fluid velocity
varies from zero at the wall to the potential flow velocity outside the boundary layer.
Large velocity gradients at the wall result in high skin friction drag, Cf0 , since

du
0
Cf ,
(1)
dn
n=0

for a given Reynolds number. Note that u is the local mean fluid velocity, is the dynamic
fluid viscosity and n is a coordinate normal to the surface of the body.
In adverse pressure gradients (ie. pressure increasing with downstream distance) or where
there are sharp edges, these boundary layers may separate from the surface causing a large
increase in the size of the wake. Separation and wake formation at the rear of the aerofoil
prevent the pressure there from increasing as potential flow theory predicts. The resulting
pressure difference between the upstream and downstream halves of the aerofoil result in
form drag.
Hence, efficient, low speed aerofoils have a geometry similar to that shown in figure 1.
A rounded nose prevents separation that might occur from sharp edges, whilst a smooth
streamlined shape prevents unnecessary separation. Some of the terminology and geometric features include:

leading edge
thickness t

camber line

U
chord line

c
trailing edge

Figure 1: General features of an aerofoil.

Leading edge the upstream edge of aerofoil.
Trailing edge the downstream edge of aerofoil.
Chord line the straight line from the leading edge to the trailing edge and has length c.
Camber line the locus of points halfway between upper and lower surfaces measured
normal to the chord line.
Thickness the maximum distance between the upper and lower surfaces measured
normal to the chord line.
Angle of attack , the angle between the free stream velocity and the chordline.
Using dimensional analysis, it can be shown that the non-dimensional lift coefficient CL
and drag coefficient CD , which are defined by
CL =

CD =

1
U 2 A
2

,
1
U 2 A
2

(2)

are functions of the aerofoil geometry, the angle of attack and the Reynolds number
Re = U c/ for an incompressible flow. Here, is the fluid density, the absolute
viscosity, U the freestream velocity and A a representative area. If L and D are redefined
to be the force per unit span of wing then it is common to choose A = 1 c.
Similarly, a pressure coefficient CP may also be defined as
CP =

p p
,
1
U 2
2

(3)

where p is the static pressure far upstream.

Usually, CL increases approximately linearly with respect to for small , whilst the
variation of CD is often described by the empirically derived relationship
CD = A + BCL2

(4)

where A and B are constants to be determined from the data. However, beyond an angle
of attack of approximately 15 degrees, the lift reaches a peak value and then starts to
decrease, whilst the drag suddenly increases. This behaviour is associated with boundary

layer separation close to the leading edge and is known as the stall. This phenomena
is undesirable since it substantially reduces performance (eg. loss of altitude in aircraft,
decrease in efficiency and increase in vibration of fans) although it may be used to maintain
loads within structural limitations (eg. aircraft, wind turbines).

Aims
1. To measure the pressure distribution around an aerofoil.
2. To estimate the lift and form drag of an aerofoil at various angles of attack.
3. To identify the stall angle and maximum lift coefficient.
4. To identify the optimum angle of attack.

Theory
y

Fy

Fx

D ds

Figure 2: Forces acting on the aerofoil and coordinate system definition.

To calculate the forces acting on an aerofoil, we consider the pressure p acting on an
element of aerofoil surface, as shown in figure 2. The force per unit span dF acting on
this element is dF = p 1 ds. Resolving this in the x and y directions, we see from figure 3
that
dy
= p dy
ds
dx
dFy = dF cos = p ds
= p dx
ds
dFx = dF sin = p ds

(5)

The forces are then obtained by integrating over the surface S of the aerofoil so that:
Z ymax
Fx =
(pf ront pback ) dy
ymin
Z c
Fy =
(plower pupper ) dx
(6)
0

dF y

dF = p ds
dy

dF x

dx

Figure 3: Pressure forces acting on an infinitesimally small element of the aerofoil surface.
The force coefficients in the x and y directions are then given by
I
y
Fx
Cx = 1 2
=
CP d
c
U c 1
2
IS
x
Fy
Cy = 1 2
=
CP d
c
U c 1
S
2

(7)

where the constant terms containing p disappear when integrated over S. Using figure 2,
the lift and drag coefficients may be written as:
CL = Cy cos Cx sin
CD = Cy sin + Cx cos .

(8)

Hence, to find CL and CD the CP distribution over the surface of the aerofoil is required.
This may be determined by drilling small holes (pressure tappings) over the aerofoil surface
and measuring the pressure at each hole using a manometer. The total pressure pT is the
sum of the dynamic pressure 21 U 2 and the static pressure p so that
1 2
U = pT p
2

(9)

which when inserted into the definition of CP (3) becomes

CP =

p p
.
pT p

(10)

Since the head reading of the manometer is proportional to the pressure measured, (10)
can be rewritten as
h h
(11)
CP =
hT h
where h is the local pressure head of a particular tapping, h the static pressure head
and hT the total pressure head.
Using the pressure tapping coordinates in appendix I it is thus possible to construct plots
of CP versus x/c and CP versus y/c. Integrations may be performed either graphically
(ie. by counting squares) or using a simple trapezoidal numerical integration scheme.

Report

The following is required in the report for this experiment:

4.1

Procedure

Explain the procedure used to measure the Cp distribution and the variation in CL and
CD with at one value of the Reynolds number. How was = 0o determined?

4.2

Results

1. Tabulated data, including CL and CD for each .

2. Calculations of U and Re.
3. Plots of CP versus x/c and y/c for each .
4. Plots of CL and CD versus .

4.3

Discussion

As a basis for the discussion, consider the following:

1. Errors: Identify and discuss any significant sources of error.
Explain the limitations of the drag measurement method used in this experiment.
2. If u is defined to be the speed on the surface of the aerofoil in potential flow theory,
show that
u 2
.
(12)
CP = 1
U
3. The theoretical distribution of (u/U )2 obtained from potential flow theory is given
in Appendix I for = 0. Plot the theoretical CP distribution on the experimental
plot for CP versus x/c at = 0. How well do these compare? Does potential
flow theory provide a reasonable estimate of the pressure distribution for this case?
Why?
4. Determine the slope of the CL versus for less than the stall angle. How does
this compare with thin aerofoil theory?
5. Determine the maximum lift coefficient and its angle of attack for this aerofoil.
Would potential flow theory give useful results in this regime? Why?
6. From a plot of CD versus CL2 , determine if the proposed empirical relationship
CD = A + BCL2 is suitable for less than the stalling angle. If so, determine the
constants A and B.
7. The lift/drag ratio L/D = CL /CD is used as a measure of aerofoil efficiency. Determine the maximum lift/drag ratio for this aerofoil and the optimum angle of
attack.

8. Explain the importance of the Reynolds number, particularly when applying test
results to the design of a device (eg. aircraft) which is geometrically similar, but
much larger in size. For an aircraft incorporating the present aerofoil with a chord
c = 1 m, calculate the speed from the present results at sea level in standard
atmospheric conditions. Comment on the velocity and Re.
For the same chord c = 1 m and conditions, determine Re for the aircraft flying
at a speed of U = 100 m/s. How could experimental results be obtained for a
geometrically similar model at the calculated Re?

4.4

Conclusion

Summarise the important results.

Bibliography

[1] Clancy, L.J. (1991) Aerodynamics, Longman Scientific and Technical, England.
[2] Abbott, I.H. and Von Doenhoff, A.E. (1959) Theory of wing sections, Dover publications, New York.
[3] Pope, A. and Harper, J.J. (1966) Low-speed wind tunnel testing, John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
[4] Hunsaker, J.C. and Rightmire, B.G. (1947) Engineering applications of fluid dynamics,
Mc Graw-Hill, New York.

Appendix
2.0
u 2
U
1.6

1.2

0.8
NACA 0018
0.4

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

x/c

x
y
(u/U )2 u/U
(percent c) (percent c)
0
0
0
0
1.25
2.841
0.857 0.926
2.5
3.922
1.217 1.103
5.0
5.332
1.507 1.228
7.5
6.300
1.598 1.264
10
7.024
1.628 1.276
15
8.018
1.633 1.278
20
8.606
1.625 1.275
30
9.003
1.556 1.247
40
8.705
1.453 1.205
50
7.941
1.331 1.154
60
6.845
1.246 1.116
70
5.496
1.153 1.074
80
3.935
1.051 1.025
90
2.172
0.933 0.966
L.E. radius: 3.56 percent c

ua /U
1.342
1.028
0.861
0.662
0.555
0.479
0.381
0.320
0.238
0.184
0.144
0.113
0.087
0.063
0.039

Table 1: NACA 0018 Basic Thickness Form

1.0