SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL AND
DESIGN ENGINEERING
Module: Computational Fluid Dynamic -
ENG780S1
Coursework: Investigation of Air Flow Over an
Airfoil
Parthsarthi Rao
2157242
Table of Content
1. Introduction..........................................................................................3
2. Methodology.........................................................................................5
3. Mesh and Simulation.............................................................................6
4. Efficiency and Test
Results.....................................................................8
5. Choice of Model....................................................................................12
6. Result and
Discussion..................................................................... .....13
7. Conclusion...........................................................................................19
8. Reference.............................................................................................21
INTRODUCTION
The aim is to study the airflow over an aerofoil using
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) is the analysis of fluid flows using numerical
solution methods. Using CFD, we are able to analyze complex
problems involving fluid-fluid, fluid-solid or fluid-gas interaction.
An airfoil experiences 4 forces which are; lift, thrust, weight and
drag. Balancing these forces results in a perfect dynamic
equilibrium.
Fig1. Forces acting on an airfoil
These forces vary due to various factors such as wing’s area (S),
density (ρ) and velocity of the airflow (V). The general equation
for lift and drag forces are as follows:-
𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑡 = 1 𝜌𝑉2𝑆𝐶𝑙
𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 = 1 𝜌𝑉2𝑆𝐶𝑑, Here, Cl and Cd are constants
The relationship between the Angle of Attack (AOA) and the lift
and drag coefficients (Cl and Cd) is directly proportional.
However, this principle holds true only up to the point where
airflow starts to separate from the airfoil, known as the stall
angle. At this point, lift begins to decrease while drag increases
sharply.
Bernoulli's principle explains that in a flow of constant energy,
fluid speeds up in regions of lower pressure and slows down in
regions of higher pressure. Consequently, the air flowing above
the airfoil speeds up and its pressure decreases, while the air
flowing below the airfoil, which typically moves at a constant
speed due to the lack of curvature, maintains a steady pressure.
This pressure difference causes air to move from the high-
pressure region below the airfoil to the low-pressure region above
it, generating lift. Thus, the greater the pressure difference, the
greater the lift force. Therefore, identifying the position and
magnitude of this pressure difference along the airfoil is essential
for understanding where the highest lift is being generated.
CFD simulation investigation was performed on Boeing B-737a-il,
at a wind speed of 50 m/s, using air density of 1.177 kg/m³, a
temperature of 300 K, and a dynamic viscosity of 1.855E-5 kg/m-
s, a simulation was conducted on an airfoil with a mean chord
length of 1 meter. The resulting Reynolds number for this setup
was 3,201,730, and the Mach number was calculated to be 0.145.
Using Star CCM+12, which approximates solutions to the Navier-
Stokes equations, was used for this simulation.
METHODOLOGY
From the UIUC airfoil database, information was collected.
The coordinates collected from the database was passed through
excel and adjusted to my use and later modulated in Star CCM+
12 as spline 3D sketch to convert into 3D model.
The chosen computational domain for the external flow simulation
was a C-domain geometry. The dimensions were set with a 3-
meter radius from the airfoil's leading edge, extending 6 meters
from the same reference point to the outlet. These dimensions
were selected to ensure the domain was large enough to capture
any wakes that might develop during stall and airflow separation
stages.
Both the fluid region (the rear face) and outer region (the front
face), the boundary condition for airfoil was configured as a
separate wall with a no slip condition. The boundary condition for
the C-domain border was set to free stream, simulating the
airflow around the airfoil.
MESH & SIMULATION
STAR-CCM+ is a commercial Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
based simulation software. STAR-CCM+ allows the modeling and
analysis of a range of engineering problems involving fluid flow,
heat transfer, stress, particulate flow, electromagnetics and
related phenomena. It’s meshing convergence grid and the time
to obtain the near accurate setup; the small cells reduce the error
in results.
In this coursework, all the meshing was done in 2D also taking
accuracy into consideration, polygonal cells were selected for the
simulation due to their effectiveness in this task, along with prism
layer volume meshes.
The total quality check is done after processing the volume mesh
and selecting mesh base size. These checks are done majorly for
the following;
Optimizing mesh distribution between high and low gradient
areas
Ensure enough mesh density
Integrating near wall layers
Five initial reference mesh values with varying base sizes were
created at 0 degrees Angle of Attack to evaluate mesh sensitivity
and behavior. The default settings for automated meshing
controls, such as a surface growth rate of 1.3, prism layer total
thickness of 30% of the base size, prism layer stretching of 1.5,
and 12 prism layers, were kept consistent across all meshes.
These settings enhance flow result accuracy by accurately
capturing the boundary layer gradient.
For wake refinements, an airfoil surface control is implemented
with wake distance of 6 meters parallel to fluid domain dimension
and 0.4 radians of spread angle. This setup refines the mesh
downstream of the body to account for boundary layer
separation, which causes unsteady and turbulent fluid
phenomena. An absolute size of 0.1 meters and a growth rate of
1.3 were used. The creation of prism layers on the C-domain
edges was disabled using edge surface control, which was
assessed by examining the fine mesh. The target surface size for
the edges was set relative to the base size, balancing simulation
accuracy with time and cost efficiency.
To test the mesh sensitivity, each mesh simulation was run for
1000 iteration. Based on this test; cells, faces, vertices and
constants were recorded. We can see as we lower the base size,
the results become almost constant
With decrement in base size, number of faces, cells and vertices
rise which lead to better accuracy. For my purpose I choose Mesh
4 over Mesh 5 because of it’s lower solving time.
EFFICIENCY AND TEST RESULTS
The overall results for this airfoil are as follows: -
CHOICE OF MODEL
The simulation space was chosen to be two-dimensional and
steady-state. For the material, coupled flow gas was selected,
considering air as the flowing fluid and the airfoil as the target.
The equation of state was set as an ideal gas with a turbulent
viscous regime. Since the simulation focused on aerodynamics,
the Standard Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model was selected for
the Reynolds-Averaged turbulence model. Finally, the all y+
model was chosen for wall treatment.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
1. Coefficient of lift
Due to advantage of thickness the airfoil’s Cl is high, with high
angle of attack coefficiency is increasing at a constant rate with at
it’s minimum at angle between 0 degrees and 10 degrees. This is
due to it’s advantage of area and it’s thickness.
2. Coefficiency of Drag
Under 10 degrees, behavior of drag is low and almost could be
considered constant. As the angle increases we see a sharp
inclination in Cd resulting in the sharpness of drag.
3. Efficiency vs Angle of Attack
Against angle of attack we observe that the airfoil is most efficient
at an angle of about 5 degrees. We also notice that along with the
AOA, the efficiency decreases but not drastically due to it’s shape
and span area.
4. Presure
At angle of 0 degrees,
At angle of 5 degrees,
At angle of 10 degrees,
At angle of 15 degrees,
The maximum pressure was observed at the stagnation point.
According to Bernoulli’s principle, the upper surface of the airfoil
experiences lower pressure, while the lower surface experiences
higher pressure. At zero degrees angle of attack, the pressure
differential was small. However, as the angle of attack increased,
the pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces
also increased, resulting in a greater lift force.
5. Velocity
At angle of 0 degrees,
At angle of 5 degrees,
At angle of 10 degrees,
At angle of 15 degrees,
The velocity magnitude around the leading edge of each airfoil
was approximately 50 m/s at zero degrees angle of attack. As the
angle of attack increased, the flow on the upper surface of the
airfoil accelerated, while the flow on the lower surface
decelerated. At a 15-degree angle of attack, a blue area,
indicating low velocity, was clearly visible at the trailing edge of
each airfoil. The wake refinement simulation showed the
spreading of air near the trailing edge, which was a result of the
increased angle of attack.
In terms of velocity spread area, the air flow starts to separate
from the airfoil gradually as the angle of attack increased and
that is represented by the blue area above the airfoil which start
to be clearer as the AOA increase and that’s because it is
becoming closer to the angle of attack and that can be seen
obviously in angle 10° Scenes and much clear to the observer in
angle 15°.
CONCLUSION
1. Relationship Between AOA and Lift/Drag Coefficients:
The lift and drag coefficients increase proportionally with the
angle of attack up to the stall angle. Beyond this point, lift
decreases sharply while drag increases.
2. Flow Characteristics and Bernoulli’s Principle:
Bernoulli's principle explains the pressure distribution around the
airfoil, where higher speed on the upper surface leads to lower
pressure, and lower speed on the lower surface results in higher
pressure, generating lift.
3. Simulation and Mesh Sensitivity:
The computational domain and mesh settings significantly
impact the accuracy of the simulation. Using a C-domain
geometry and refining the mesh, especially near the trailing edge,
helps capture the flow behavior accurately.
Consistent default meshing controls and wake refinements are
crucial for improving the accuracy of the simulation results.
4. Pressure Distribution and Lift Force:
At zero degrees angle of attack, the pressure differential is small.
As the angle of attack increases, the pressure differential between
the upper and lower surfaces increases, resulting in a greater lift
force until the stall angle is reached.
5. Flow Separation and Stall:
As the angle of attack increases, the airflow begins to separate
from the upper surface of the airfoil, leading to the formation of a
low-velocity (blue) area. This separation is gradual and becomes
more pronounced closer to the stall angle.
At 10 degrees angle of attack, the onset of separation is visible,
and at 15 degrees, significant flow separation and stall are
evident.
6. Velocity Distribution:
The velocity around the leading edge remains consistent at zero
degrees angle of attack. With increasing angle of attack, the
velocity on the upper surface increases while it decreases on the
lower surface, leading to the observed pressure differences and
lift generation.
Overall, the investigation highlights the importance of
understanding the aerodynamic behavior of airfoils, particularly
the effects of angle of attack on lift and drag, the role of pressure
differentials, and the necessity of precise simulation techniques to
accurately capture flow phenomena such as separation and stall.
REFERENCES
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, Gipson, L.,
Principles of Flight: Bernoulli's Principle (5-8) (2016). NASA.
A comparative CFD analysis of NACA0012 and NACA4412
airfoils” Journal
Gudmundsson, S. (2014). Chapter 8 - The Anatomy of the
Airfoil. In General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied Methods
and procedures (pp. 235–297). essay, Elsevier/Butterworth-
Heinemann
Anderson, J. D. (2012). Airfoils, Wings, and Other
Aerodynamic Shapes. In Introduction to flight (7th ed., pp.
408–409). essay, McGraw-Hill.