11695 S. S. Benadict Bensiger et al./ Elixir Mech. Engg.

53 (2012) 11695-11698

Available online at www.elixirpublishers.com (Elixir International Journal)

Mechanical Engineering
Elixir Mech. Engg. 53 (2012) 11695-11698

Analysis of Bi-Convex Aerofoil using CFD Software at Supersonic and

Hypersonic Speed
S. S. Benadict Bensiger1 and N. Prasanth2
1
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Lord Jegannath College of Engineering & Technology, PSN Nagar, Ramanathichanputhur,
Kumarapuramthoppur, Kanyakumari District-629402.
2
Anna University Chennai, India.

A R TI C L E I N F O A B ST R A C T
Art i c l e h i st ory : The aim of this paper is to design and analyse a biconvex aerofoil with slightly curved
Received: 27 March 2012; leading edge and estimating the coefficient of pressure (CP), coefficient of lift (CL) and
Received in revised form: coefficient of drag (CD) at supersonic and hypersonic speeds. The aerofoil is symmetric and
19 November 2012; has a thickness of 6%. Gambit and Ansys Fluent are two best CFD software used for the
Accepted: 28 November 2012; analysis. The aerofoil was designed and meshed using Gambit software. Good quality
boundary layer mesh can be easily generated using Gambit. The mesh generated was
K ey w or d s analyzed using Ansys Fluent software. About 1000 iterations were used for the simulation
Bi-convex aerofoil, purpose. The pressure coefficient, lift coefficient and drag coefficient for the designed
Symmetric, aerofoil were obtained. It was proven that the biconvex aerofoil can also be used for
Pressure coefficient, hypersonic speeds.
Lift coefficient, © 2012 Elixir All rights reserved.
Drag coefficient.

Introduction thickness appears to be important at the lower values of M, and

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is the science of the results indicate that the flat plate theory is not sufficiently
predicting fluid flow, heat transfer, mass transfer, chemical accurate. N. Gregory et al [4] estimated the aerodynamic
reactions, and related phenomena by solving the mathematical characteristics of NACA 0012. Robert J. McGhee et al [5]
equations which govern these processes using a numerical conducted an investigation in the Langley low-turbulence
process. The result of CFD analyses is relevant engineering data pressure tunnel to determine the low-speed two-dimensional
used in conceptual studies of new designs, detailed product aerodynamic characteristics of a 17% thick airfoil designed for
development, troubleshooting, redesign etc. CFD analysis general aviation applications. Here we designed a biconvex
complements testing and experimentation reduces the total effort aerofoil having 6% thickness. The profile was designed and
required in the laboratory. It provides a qualitative (and imported into the Gambit software meshed and the generated
sometimes even quantitative) prediction of fluid flows by means mesh was imported into the Ansys Fluent software. The pressure
of mathematical modeling (partial differential equations), coefficient, lift coefficient and drag coefficient for the designed
numerical methods (discretization and solution techniques), and aerofoil were obtained using the simulation process.
software tools (solvers, pre- and postprocessing utilities). CFD Design and Modeling
enables scientists and engineers to perform ‘numerical An aerofoil (or airfoil) is a two-dimensional object, the
experiments’ (i.e. computer simulations) in a ‘virtual flow shape of the cross section of the wing at right angles to the wing
laboratory’. The broad area of CFD leads to many different span, with the function of producing a controllable aerodynamic
specialized technology areas. These include grid generation, force by its motion through the atmosphere. The bi-convex
flowfield discretization algorithms, efficient solution of large aerofoil is mostly symmetric and used in supersonic speeds. The
systems of equations, massive data storage and transmission aerofoil has a thickness of 6%. For unit chord the profile was
technology methods and computational flow visualization. designed. The profile was tabulated in table. 1.
Tulia et al [1], using CFD analyses, the effects of flow Meshing
control techniques, as the contour bump and the surface cooling The meshing of the aerofoil was done using gambit
concepts, are separately investigated in transonic periodic flow software. Boundary meshing should be used for the flow
over 14% and 18% biconvex aerofoils. D. H. Williams et al [2] analysis. The mesh was generated for the aerofoil with unit
tested 5% thick bi-convex aerofoil using Compressed Air chord. In an external flow such as that over an airfoil, we
Tunnel and estimated the values of CL and CD. W. P. Jones and defined a farfield boundary and mesh the region between the
Sylvia W. Skan [3] developed a method for the calculation of airfoil geometry and the farfield boundary. It is a good idea to
the aerodynamic forces on an oscillating aerofoil. Aerodynamic place the farfield boundary well away from the airfoil since we
lift and pitching moment derivatives for a 5 per cent thick, used the ambient conditions to define the boundary conditions at
symmetrical, circular-arc aerofoil at Mach numbers M = 1.4, 1.5 the farfield. The maximum aspect ratio in this mesh is quite
and 2.0 are given for a range of frequencies and compared with high. This is acceptable because these cells are close to the
values obtained on the basis of the flat plate theory. The effect of airfoil wall surfaces. This is needed for the turbulence model

Tele:
E-mail addresses: [email protected]
© 2012 Elixir All rights reserved
11696 S. S. Benadict Bensiger et al./ Elixir Mech. Engg. 53 (2012) 11695-11698

being used, since it ensures the first grid point is in the viscous pressure, angle of attack and the temperature were given as input
sublayer. The less effect it has on the flow and so more accurate corresponding to the Mach number and altitude.
is the farfield boundary condition. The generated mesh was The solution method used is implicit formulation and Roe-
show in fig. 1. FDS flux type. The implicit formulation is more stable and can
Table 1: Aerofoil profile be driven much harder to reach a converged solution in less
X Y Z time. The Green-Gauss Node based gradient method is used.
1 0 0 This is slightly more computationally expensive than the other
0.95 0.00707 0 methods but is more accurate. Second Order Upwind for flow
0.9 0.01259 0 and turbulence discretization was selected for the simulation.
0.8 0.02099 0
0.7 0.02635 0
The Second Order Upwind schemes were used to accurately
0.6 0.02917 0 predict drag. The Courant number (CFL) determines the internal
0.5 0.03 0 time step and affects the solution speed and stability. The CFL
0.4 0.02927 0 for the density-based implicit formulation is 5.0. It is often
0.3 0.02709 0 possible to increase the CFL to 10, 20, 100, or even higher,
0.2 0.02332 0 depending on the complexity of problem. A lower CFL is
0.15 0.02067 0 required during startup (when changes in the solution are highly
0.1 0.01729 0
0.075 0.01516 0
nonlinear), but it can be increased as the solution progresses.
0.05 0.01255 0 Then the inputs were initialized and the simulation was done.
0.025 0.00903 0 The static pressure contours for Mach 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 are shown
0.0125 0.00646 0 in fig 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 respectively. Also the pressure coefficient
0 0 0 distribution for Mach 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 are shown in fig 8, 9, 10,
0.0125 -0.00646 0 11, 12 & 13 respectively.
0.025 -0.00903 0
0.05 -0.01255 0
0.075 -0.01516 0
0.1 -0.01729 0
0.15 -0.02067 0
0.2 -0.02332 0
0.3 -0.02709 0
0.4 -0.02927 0
0.5 -0.03 0
0.6 -0.02917 0
0.7 -0.02635 0
0.8 -0.02099 0 Fig. 2: Static pressure at Mach 2
0.9 -0.01259 0
0.95 -0.00707 0

Fig. 3: Static pressure at Mach 3

Fig. 1. Aerofoil Mesh

Simulation
The meshed aerofoil was imported into Ansys Fluent and
simulated. The mesh scale should be in metre. The mesh was
checked for errors. The solver used is steady state density based
solver. Energy equation was used for the simulation. This is
needed because the flow is compressible and we used ideal gas Fig. 4: Static pressure at Mach 4
equation. The one-equation Spalart-Allmaras model was chosen.
This is a relatively simple turbulence model that has been shown
to give good results for boundary layers subjected to adverse
pressure gradients, particularly where there is no or only mild
separation. Setting zero operating pressure which means that all
pressures set in FLUENT will be absolute. The pressure-far-
field boundary type is applicable only when the density is
calculated using the ideal-gas law. It is important to place the
far-field boundary far enough from the object of interest. The
Fig. 5: Static pressure at Mach 5
11697 S. S. Benadict Bensiger et al./ Elixir Mech. Engg. 53 (2012) 11695-11698

Fig. 6: Static pressure at Mach 6

Fig. 11: Pressure coefficient distribution at Mach 5

Fig. 7: Static pressure at Mach 7

Fig. 12: Pressure coefficient distribution at Mach 6

Fig. 8: Pressure coefficient distribution at Mach 2

Fig. 13: Pressure coefficient distribution at Mach 7

Conclusion
The simulation process was done using Ansys Fluent and
the coefficient of lift and coefficient of drag were found out.
About 1000 iterations were used to calculate the lift and drag
coefficients. These values were found separately for different
Mach numbers. Coefficient of lift and the coefficient of drag for
corresponding Mach number were tabulated in table 2. The
maximum and minimum values for the pressure coefficients
Fig. 9: Pressure coefficient distribution at Mach 3 were also estimated and the values were tabulated in table 3.
From the result obtained it shows that the lift coefficient
decreases as the Mach number increases and the coefficient of
drag also decreases. This phenomenon shows that the increasing
the velocity (or over speeding) may bring the shock waves less
effect. Thus the wave drag is reduced. From this it shows that
the bi-convex aerofoil can be used in supersonic speeds as well
as hypersonic speeds.
Table 2: Coefficient of lift and coefficient of drag for
supersonic and hypersonic speeds
Mach Number Coefficient of lift, CL Coefficient of drag, CD
2 0.061031 0.025150
3 0.038115 0.018415
4 0.028740 0.015385
Fig. 10: Pressure coefficient distribution at Mach 4 5 0.023669 0.013868
6 0.020610 0.013106
7 0.018449 0.012748
11698 S. S. Benadict Bensiger et al./ Elixir Mech. Engg. 53 (2012) 11695-11698

Table 3: Maximum and minimum Coefficient of pressure for [2]. D. H. Williams, B.Sc. and A. H. Bell, Tests on a 5-percent
supersonic and hypersonic speeds Biconvex Aerofoil in the Compressed Air Tunnel, Aeronautical
Minimum Maximum Research Council Reports and Memoranda, 1950.
Mach number coefficient of coefficient of [3]. W. P. Jones, M. A. and Sylvia W. Skan, Aerodynamic
pressure, CP pressure, CP Forces on Biconvex Aerofoils Oscillating in a Supersonic
2 -0.14229 0.390354 Airstream, Aeronautical Research Council Reports and
3 -0.07367 0.21653 Memoranda, 1953.
4 -0.0452 0.15743 [4]. N. Gregory and C. L. O'Reilly, Low-Speed Aerodynamic
5 0.029721 0.137601 Characteristics of Naca 0012 Aerofoil Section, including the
6 -0.02047 0.126022
Effects of Upper-Surface Roughness Simulating Hoar Frost,
Aeronautical Research Council Reports and Memoranda, 1973.
7 -0.01314 0.11773
[5]. Robert J. Mcghee and William D. Beasley, Low-Speed
Reference Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 17 -Percent Thick Airfoil
[1]. C. Tulita, S. Raghunathan, E. Benard, Drag Reduction and Section Designed for General Aviation Applications, National
Buffeting Alleviation in Transonic Periodic Flow over Biconvex Technical Information Service, 1973.
Aerofoils, 24th International Congress of the Aeronautical
Sciences, pp. 1-13, 2004.