A NUMERICAL ANALYSIS ON THE

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF NACA

0015 AND NACA 2412 AEROFOILS WITH CURVED
TRAILING-EDGE PLANFORM

ANIKA NUZHAT
TANVIR AHMED KHAN RAHAT
MANSURA ALAM
SHEIKH ZABED MOYEEN

B.Sc. ENGINEERING THESIS

DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

MILITARY INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
DHAKA, BANGLADESH

MARCH 2022
 A NUMERICAL ANALYSIS ON THE
AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF NACA
0015 AND NACA 2412 AEROFOILS WITH CURVED
TRAILING-EDGE PLANFORM

ANIKA NUZHAT (SN. 201822013)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN RAHAT (SN. 201822016)
MANSURA ALAM (SN. 201822023)
SHEIKH ZABED MOYEEN (SN. 201822040)

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements

for The Degree of Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical
Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

MILITARY INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
DHAKA, BANGLADESH

MARCH 2022
 A NUMERICAL ANALYSIS ON THE AERODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF NACA 0015 AND NACA 2412 AEROFOILS
WITH CURVED TRAILING-EDGE PLANFORM

B.Sc. Engineering Thesis

By

ANIKA NUZHAT (SN. 201822013)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN RAHAT (SN. 201822016)
MANSURA ALAM (SN. 201822023)
SHEIKH ZABED MOYEEN (SN. 201822040)

Approved as to Style and Content by The Examiners in March 2022:

Major Md. Touhidur Rahman Evan Chairman (Supervisor)

Instructor Class-B of Aeronautical Engineering
MIST, Dhaka

Gp Capt Karthikeyan Member

Senior Instructor (Foreign Faculty) of Aeronautical Engineering
MIST, Dhaka

Air Commodore Md. Mahbubul Alam Head of the Department

Senior Instructor of Aeronauctical Engineering
MIST, Dhaka

Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MIST, Dhaka

 A NUMERICAL ANALYSIS ON THE AERODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF NACA 0015 AND NACA 2412 AEROFOILS
WITH CURVED TRAILING-EDGE PLANFORM

DECLARATION

We hereby declare that the study reported in this thesis entitled as above is our original
work and has not been submitted anywhere for any degree or other purposes. Further, we
certify that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of our work and that all the
assistance received in preparing this thesis and sources have been acknowledged and cited
in the reference section.

ANIKA NUZHAT
Student No. 201822013

TANVIR AHMED KHAN RAHAT

Student No. 201822016

MANSURA ALAM
Student No. 201822023

SHEIKH ZABED MOYEEN

Student No. 201822040

Department Of Aeronautical Engineering, MIST, Dhaka

 ABSTRACT

A Numerical Analysis on The Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 0015 and

NACA 2412 Aerofoils with Curved Trailing-Edge Plainform

Every section of the airplane generates lift, but the wings generate the majority of it on a
typical aircraft. The wing of an airplane has a unique form known as aerofoil. The amount
of lift created by an airplane is heavily influenced by its wing geometry. The aerofoil shape
and wing size also affect the amount of lift. This thesis details an experiment to see if
combining curvature at the trailing edge on the wing without affecting the overall surface
area of the wing, may increase aerodynamic performance. By integrating curvature at the
trailing edges, this work is done numerically to investigate the aerodynamic characteristics
of NACA 2412 and NACA 0015 aerofoils. Each type of aerofoil is employed, one with a
curve at the trailing edge and the other with straight leading and trailing edges (rectangular).
Rectangular aerofoil is used as a reference and the commercial CFD package of laminar
flow and viscous model K-omega SST are used to simulate these models. All the models
are tested at airspeed of 10, 15, 20 and 25 m/s respectively at Reynolds number of 1.02x105
, 1.54x105 , 2.05x105 and 2.57x105 respectively. Different angle of attacks used are 0˚, 5˚,
10˚, 15˚ and 20˚. It is discovered after studying the data that the asymmetric curved trailing
edge aerofoil gives better lift to drag ratio than that of the asymmetrical rectangular aerofoil,
and the symmetrical rectangular aerofoil gives better lift to drag ratio than that of the
symmetrical curved-edge aerofoil.

i
 সারসংক্ষেপ

A Numerical Analysis on The Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 0015 and

NACA 2412 Aerofoils with Curved Trailing-Edge Plainform

বিমানের প্রবিটি অংশই উনতালে তিবর কনর, িনি ডাো একটি সাধারণ বিমানে উনতালে এর বিবশরভাগ
অংশ তিবর কনর। একটি বিমানের ডাোর একটি অেন্য রূপ রন়েনে যা areofoil োনম পবরবিি। একটি
বিমাে দ্বারা তিবর উনতালনের পবরমাণ িার ডাোর জ্যাবমবি দ্বারা ব্যাপকভানি প্রভাবিি হ়ে। Areofoil
এর আকার এিং ডাোর আকারও উনতালনের পবরমাণনক প্রভাবিি কনর। এই বিবসসটি একটি পরীক্ষার
বিশদ বিিরণ বদ়ে বয ডাোর উপবরভানগর সামবিক বক্ষত্রফলনক প্রভাবিি ো কনর ডাোর বপেনের প্রানে
িক্রিানক একবত্রি করা হনল, aerodynamic কম মক্ষমিা বৃবি করনি পানর।অনুগামী প্রানে িক্রিা
একীভূি করার মাধ্যনম, এই কাজ্টি NACA 2412 এিং NACA 0015 areofoil িা়ে়ুগি
তিবশষ্ট্যগুবল িদে করার জ্ন্য সংখ্যাগিভানি করা হ়ে। প্রবিটি ধরনণর areofoil ব্যিহার করা হ়ে, একটির
বপেনের প্রানে একটি িক্রনরখা এিং অন্যটি বসাজ্া অিগামী এিং অনুগামী প্রাে (আ়েিাকার) সহ।
আ়েিনক্ষত্রাকার areofoil একটি বরফানরন্স বহসানি ব্যিহৃি হ়ে এিং ল্যাবমোর প্রিানহর িাবণবজ্যক CFD
প্যানকজ্ এিং সান্দ্র মনডল বক-ওনমগা SST এই মনডলগুবলনক অনুকরণ করনি ব্যিহৃি হ়ে। সমস্ত মনডল
যিাক্রনম 1.02x105, 1.54x105, 2.05x105 এিং 2.57x105 বরেল্ডস েম্বনর যিাক্রনম 10, 15,
20 এিং 25 বম/বসনকনের airspeed পরীক্ষা করা হ়ে। ব্যিহৃি আক্রমনণর বিবভন্ন বকাণ হল 0˚, 5˚,
10˚, 15˚ এিং 20˚। িথ্য অধ্য়েে করার পনর এটি আবিষ্কৃি হ়ে বয অপ্রবিসম িাাঁকা বেবলং এজ্
areofoil অপ্রবিসম আ়েিনক্ষত্রাকার areofoil এর তুলো়ে lift to drag অনুপাি ভাল বদ়ে এিং
প্রবিসম আ়েিনক্ষত্রাকার areofoil প্রবিসম িাাঁকা প্রানের তুলো়ে lift to drag অনুপাি ভাল বদ়ে ।

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their deep gratitude to Major Md. Touhidur Rahman
Evan, for his patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and useful critiques of this
research work. The authors acknowledge the generosity of the Head of the Department Air
Cdre Md. Mahbubul Alam for financial allocation that made this study possible. The
authors would also like to thank their teacher Saif Reza, for his advice and assistance in
using the softwere needed for the research.

Finally, the authors owe particular gratitude to their parents, who have supported them and
helped them get to this point. The authors would like to express their appreciation for their
family for their support, encouragement, and patience throughout the process.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i
সারসংক্ষেপ ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF FIGURES iv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General 1
1.2 Aerodynamic Characteristics of Wing 1
1.3 Motivation of the Present Work 2
1.4 Research objectives 2
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 3
CHAPTER 3 WING AERODYNAMICS OVERVIEW 11
3.1 Airfoil and wing 11
3.2 General Features of an Aerofoil 11
3.3 Aerodynamic Forces Developed by Aerofoil 12
3.4 Characteristics of an Aerofoil 14
3.5 Familiarization with NACA Aerofoils 15
3.6 Geometric Parameters of Wing 17
3.7 Familiarization with Different Wing Planforms 19
CHAPTER 4 MATHEMATICAL MODELING 24
4.1 Pressure Coefficient determination 24
4.2 Aerodynamic Force Coefficients estimation from CP 24
CHAPTER 5 MATHEMATICAL SETUP CONSTRUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
31
5.1 Solidworks Designs 31
5.2 Computational methodology 35
5.3 Approach 37
5.3.1 Preparing geometric model 37
5.3.2 Generate meshing 38
5.3.3 Setting boundary conditions 38
5.3.4 Setting up FLUENT (Initializing and solving) 39
5.3.5 Post-processing 39
ii
CHAPTER 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 40
6.1 Data Collection and Analysis 40
6.2 Lift Characteristics 40
6.2.1 NACA 0015: 40
6.2.2 NACA 2412: 42
6.3 Drag Characteristics 44
6.3.1 NACA 0015: 44
6.3.2 NACA 2412: 46
6.4 Lift to Drag Ratio 49
6.4.1 NACA 0015: 49
6.4.2 NACA 2412: 51
6.5 Contours of Pressure 53
6.5.1 NACA 0015 rectangular Planform: 53
6.5.2 NACA 0015 Curved Edge Planform: 53
6.5.3 NACA 2412 rectangular Planform: 54
6.5.4 NACA 2412 Curved Edge Planform: 55
6.6 Contours of Velocity 56
6.6.1 NACA 0015 Rectangular Planform: 56
6.6.2 NACA 0015 Curved Edge Planform: 56
6.6.3 NACA 2412 Rectangular Planform: 57
6.6.7 NACA 2412 Curved Edge Planform: 57
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59
7.1 Conclusion 59
7.2 Recommendations for Future Work 59
References 61
APPENDIX 63
INDEXING 79

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Coefficients of drag and lift versus angle of attack 2

Figur 3.1: Definition of an aerofoil 11
Figure 3.2: The elements of an airfoil 12
Figure 3.3: Four forces on airplane 13
Figure 3.4: Aerofoil pressures 13
Figure 3.5: Aerodynamic characteristics of an aerofoil 14
Figure 3.6: Influence of Mach number on dCL/d∞, for symmetrical NACA profiles
(RIEGELS, 1961) 14
Figure 3.7: A: blue line = chord, green line = camber mean-line, B: leading-edge radius,
C: XY coordinates for the profile geometry (chord = x-axis; y-axis line on that leading
edge) 15
Figure 3.8: Plot of NACA 0015 16
Figure 3.9: Plot of NACA 2412 16
Figure 3.10: Different wing area 17
Figure 3.11: Aspect ratio of wing 17
Figure 3.12: Wing taper 19
Figure 3.13: Root chord and tip chord 19
Figure 3.14: Rectangular wing 22
Figure 3.15: Tapered swept-back wing 22
Figure 3.15:Blended wing body (Layout Optimization for Blended Wing Body Aircraft
Structure,16 May,2019) 23
Figure 4.1: Various parts of pressure distribution 24
Figure 4.2: Illustration of pressure and shear stress on an aerodynamic surface (Anderson,
2016) 25
Figure 4.3: Resultant aerodynamic force and moment on the body. (Fundamentals of
Aerodynamics, sixth edition,2017) 25
Figure 4.4: Resultant aerodynamic force and components into which it
splits.(Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, sixth edition,2017) 26
Figure 4.5: Nomenclature for the integration of pressure and shear stress distribution over
a two-dimensional body surface 27
Figure 4.6: Aerodynamic force on an element of the body surface 27
Figure 4.7: Geometrical relationship of differential lengths 29
Figure 5.1: Front view of NACA 0015. 31
Figure 5.2: Isometric view of NACA 0015. 31
Figure 5.3: Front view of NACA 0015 with curve edge. 32

iv
Figure 5.4: Isometric view of NACA 0015 with curve edge. 32
Figure 5.5: Front view of NACA 2412. 33
Figure 5.6: Isometric view of NACA 2412. 33
Figure 5.7: Front view of NACA 2412 with curve edge. 34
Figure 5.8: Isometric view of NACA 2412 with curve edge. 34
Figure 5.9: Computational domain 37
Figure 5.10: Close-up of an aerofoil section with fine mashing. 38
Figure 6.1: CL vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph 40
Figure 6.2: CL vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph 41
Figure 6.3: CL vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph 41
Figure 6.4: CL vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph 42
Figure 6.5: CL vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph 42
Figure 6.6: CL vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph 43
Figure 6.7: CL vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph 43
Figure 6.8: CL vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph 44
Figure 6.9: CD vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph 44
Figure 6.10: CD vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph 45
Figure 6.11: CD vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph 45
Figure 6.12: CD vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph 46
Figure 6.13: CD vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph 46
Figure 6.14: CD vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph 47
Figure 6.15: CD vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph 47
Figure 6.16: CD vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph 48
Figure 6.17: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph 49
Figure 6.18: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph 49
Figure 6.19: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph 50
Figure 6.20: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph 50
Figure 6.21: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph 51
Figure 6.22: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph 51
Figure 6.23: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph 52
Figure 6.24: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph 52
Figure 6.25: Contour results for static pressure over NACA 0015 rectangular aerofoil at
velocity of 10m/s, 15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s 53
Figure 6.26: Contour results for static pressure over NACA 0015 curved edge aerofoil at
velocity of 10m/s, 15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s. 54

v
Figure 6.27: Contour results for static pressure over NACA 2412 rectangular aerofoil at
velocity of 10m/s, 15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s. 54
Figure 6.28: Contour results for static pressure over NACA 2412 curved edge aerofoil at
velocity of 10m/s, 15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s. 55
Figure 6.29: Contour results for velocity over NACA 0015 rectangular aerofoil at velocity
of 10m/s, 15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s. 56
Figure 6.30: Contour results for velocity over NACA 0015 curved edge aerofoil at
velocity of 10m/s, 15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s. 57
Figure 6.31: Contour results for velocity over NACA 2412 rectangular aerofoil at velocity
of 10m/s, 15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s 57
Figure 6.32: Contour results for velocity over NACA 2412 curved edge aerofoil at
velocity of 10m/s, 15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s. 58

vi
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Since the wings create the majority of the lift, and lift is defined as the force perpendicular
to the flying direction, increasing the wing planform area is the logical choice. The
planform area is the area of the wing as seen from above, along the "lift" direction. The
amount of lift created by an airplane is heavily influenced by its wing geometry. The wing
produces approximately two-thirds of the overall drag of a typical transport aircraft at cruise
conditions (Chapter II. Commercial Transports—Aerodynamic Design for Cruise
Performance Efficiency, 1982).The amount of lift is affected by both the form of the
aerofoil and the size of the wing. The ratio of wing span to wing area influences the amount
of lift produced by a wing. The wing also generates drag force or drag (D) and nose-down
pitching moment (M). While a wing designer strives to maximize lift, the other two
parameters (drag and pitching moment) must be reduced.

1.2 Aerodynamic Characteristics of Wing

Wings feature streamlined cross-sections that act as aerofoils and are subject to
aerodynamic forces. The lift-to-drag ratio is a measure of a wing's aerodynamic efficiency.
Without proper orientation of angle of attack, wings cannot produce desired lift. Once the
angle of attack is properly oriented, the wing deflects the airflow downwards as it passes
the wing. Since the wing exerts a force on the air to change its direction, the air must also
exert an equal and opposite force on the wing.

In aerodynamics, angle of attack specifies the angle between the chord line of the
wing of a fixed wing aircraft and the vector representing the relative motion between the
aircraft and the atmosphere. The lift coefficient of a fixed wing aircraft varies with angle
of attack. Increasing angle of attack is associated with increasing lift coefficient up to the
maximum lift coefficient, after which lift coefficient decreases. A symmetrical wing has
zero lift at 0 degrees angle of attack.

1
 Figure 1.1: Coefficients of drag and lift versus angle of attack

1.3 Motivation of the Present Work

Substantial study on various aerofoils and traditional wing geometries has been carried out
in many countries across the world. However, the aerodynamic characteristics of symmetric
curved-edge wing planform have not been investigated yet, and to investigate the
aerodynamic characteristics of such wings ANSYS software has been used.

1.4 Research objectives

The proposed experiment is carried out numerically to investigate the aerodynamic

properties of curved-edge wing planform and rectangular wing planform. Then these
characteristics are compared to explore which one gives better aerodynamic characteristics.
The scope and objectives of the research are:

a. To determine the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing models using different

velocities and compare all the characteristics with different Angle of Attack.

b. To estimate the lift and drag characteristics at different Angles of Attack over the
surfaces of curved trailing edge wing and rectangular wing with NACA 0015 and
NACA 2412.

2
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Nishant (Singh, 2016) conducted a project to analyze and predict the performance of an
aerofoil in terms of CL and Cd. The primary goal is to raise the lift coefficient, lower the
drag, and hence enhance the aircraft's aerodynamic performance. This study provided a
chronological overview of the series aerofoil development program, discussed various
aerofoil design standards, and presented coordinates of a matrix of family-related aerofoils.
In addition, when compared to other aerofoils, this one creates higher lift and less drag.

Monirul (Khan & Al-Faruk, 2018) investigated a thesis work by integrating curvature at
the leading edge. This work numerically evaluates the aerodynamic performance of the
NACA 2412 aerofoil wing. There are two types of wing models: a rectangular planform
with straight leading and trailing edges and a curved leading edge with a straight trailing
edge. ANSYS fluent, a commercial CFD program, was used to simulate the span length
and surface area. According to results, the curved leading edge wing planform has a higher
lift coefficient and a lower drag coefficient than the rectangular wing planform. As a result,
the lift-to-drag ratio of the curved leading edge planform is larger than that of the
rectangular planform.

Gómez (Gómez & Pinilla , November 2006) conducted a thesis work about computational
analysis of the behavior of NACA profiles with customized trailing edges in terms of
aerodynamic characteristics. During the research, various members of the 4-digit NACA
family were examined. The experiments show variations in lift and drag properties, also
change the angle of attack(stall).

Cárdenas (J.A., et al., July 2019) conducted research for presenting a dynamic system that
was created to analyze the features of airfoils in an unstable flow and is capable of
reproducing various movements such as coupled bending and torsion. NACA 0015 was
investigated in two scenarios using an airfoil model with pressure taps: flutter and bending
motion. There was a significant difference in cl and cd depending on whether the effective
angle of attack was raised or lowered. The requirement for a catalog of airfoils in an
unstable regime is made public.

Muhammad (Haque, et al., 2015) experimented to see if including curvature both at the
leading and trailing edges of the wing can improve aerodynamic performance. Curvature is

3
included in the wing design without impacting the total surface area to lessen chord length
towards the wing's tip. According to the study, the curved leading edge wing planform has
a greater lift coefficient and a lower drag coefficient than the rectangular planform. The lift
coefficient of the curved trailing edge planform is greater and the drag coefficient is lower
than that of the curved leading-edge wing.

Rhyhanul ( Pranto & Inam, 2020) conducted research focusing on the aerodynamic
characteristics of a NACA-4312 airfoil, such as lift coefficient, drag coefficient, and
pressure distribution over a surface. For these numerical simulations, the commercial
program ANSYS FLUENT was used to calculate the aerodynamic characteristics of a 2-D
NACA-4312 airfoil. At higher angles of attack, both the lift and drag coefficients increase,
but the lift coefficient starts to decrease at α =13° which is known as stalling condition. The
numerical results also show that flow separations begin at the rare edge when the angle of
attack is higher than 13° due to the reduction of lift coefficient.

Gregory (Gregory & O'Reilly, 1970) conducted experiments performed on a two-

dimensional model of the NACA 0012 aerofoil in the N.P.L. 13 ft × 9 ft (4.0 m x 2.7 m)
low-speed wind tunnel. The tests were carried out primarily because NACA 0012 is a
section that has been utilized for rotor blades on helicopters for a long time. and a
development effort for aerofoils to boost the performance capabilities of the rotor.

Arunvinthan (ARUNVINTHAN & PILLAI, November 2019) investigated the effect of

turbulent inflows on the aerodynamic characteristics of the unsymmetrical airfoil at varying
turbulence intensities and Reynolds numbers by a series of wind tunnel tests. The result
shows that as the turbulence intensity increases, the coefficient of lift increases as well. It
also shows that by attaching the flow over the airfoil over an extended period, the flow with
turbulence can effectively postpone the stall characteristics of an airfoil. In addition,
researchers tried to figure out how turbulence affects aerodynamic hysteresis.

Mahbubur (Rahman, et al., October 2020) conducted a thesis employing a key technique
for improving aerodynamic efficiency by lowering drag. About axially symmetric wings,
the effect of aspect ratio on aerofoil performance is examined as a function of the angle of
attack. The lifting surface is optimally designed to provide the highest lift while minimizing
drag force. As a result, at certain angles of attack, the difference in top and bottom surface

4
pressures on the AR 2 wing model is greater than on other wing types. After analyzing the
findings, the wing type AR 2 is determined to be the best.

Nazmul (Haque, et al., 2015) experimentally investigated the aerodynamic properties of the
NACA 4412 airfoil with curved-edge planform. The results of an experimental
investigation into enhancing aerodynamic efficiency by integrating curvature at the lead
and trail edges of a wing are summarized in this thesis. Curvature is incorporated into the
wing design to minimize chord length towards the wingtip without having an impact on the
total surface area.

Ismat (Ara, February 2018) conducted a thesis work on the aerodynamic efficiency of
curved NACA 4412 Winglets. They observed that at most angles of attack, the variation
between the top and bottom surface pressures of a wing with a blending winglet is
substantially larger than the difference between the top and bottom surface pressures of
other wing types. This happens as a result of the blended winglet weakening the vortices
near the wingtip by reducing the vortex at the tip.

Rahman (Rahman, et al., October 2020) examined the impact of aspect ratio on the airfoil
properties of the NACA 0012 wing. The experiment showed a comparison of three different
aspect ratios for the NACA 0012 wing: AR 2, AR 1, and AR 0.5. The variation between
top and bottom can be noted. The AR 2 wing model has significantly lower surface
pressures than other wing variants. Because by minimizing the strength of vortices at the
wingtip, a wing model with a higher aspect ratio lessens their strength. In wing models, the
vortex formed at the tip is more effective for the same wing area.

Sivaraj (Krishnan, et al., July 2019)conducted a project describing the aerodynamic

characteristics of an aircraft wing model with a Rüppell’s griffon vulture (RGV)-type
winglet. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study was undertaken using ANSYS to
investigate the influence of the RGV winglet on a rectangular wing in comparison to other
types of winglet configurations. The RGV winglet has a lower vortex formation than the
winglet without it, according to the contour plot study. Using an RGV winglet, the results
reveal a 15 to 30% reduction in drag coefficient and a 5 to 25% increase in lift coefficient.

Ismat (Ara, February 2018) researched using winglets to reduce induced drag and convert
it to increased thrust, lowering fuel costs and enhancing aircraft efficiency. The
experimental results indicate that wing models with winglets have a greater lift than drag

5
and lower drag than wing types without winglets for the Reynolds number considered in
this work.

Azlin (Azlin, et al., 2011) analyzed the aerodynamic characteristics of two winglets with
semicircular and elliptical cross-sections at different angles of attack (AOA) through
numerical simulation. The elliptical winglet with a 45° can’t angle was found to be the most
effective and showed the best performance.

Sidairi (Sidairi & Rameshkumar, 2016)performed a computational investigation of the

structure and aerodynamic characteristics of winglets using CATIA-V5 and ANSYS. The
figures show a 3.8 %. The addition of a winglet to the wingtip increased flight distance by
3.9 percent.

Chattot (Chattot, 2006) used XFOIL to examine the analysis and design of winglets from
an aerodynamics perspective. The optimal form was discovered to be unchanged by
viscosity, although it did have a significant influence on the coefficient. The findings also
show that the winglets produced thrust, which balances some of the winglets' friction drag.

Hossain ( Hossain, et al., 2011) investigated the aerodynamic characteristics of a rectangle

wing with and without bird feather-like wingtips at different Reynolds numbers. The use
of a bird feather-like winglet at an attack angle of 8° resulted in a 25-30% drop in drag as
well as a 10-20% improvement in lift coefficient.

Mineck (Mineck & Vijgen, October 1993) investigated three surfaces planar, untwisted
wings with the same elliptic chord with different quarter-chord line curves. They
discovered that the crescent-shaped wing has the lowest lifting efficiency, the elliptical
wing with the unswept quarter-chord line has the best lifting efficiency, and the elliptical
wing with the unswept trailing edge has the highest lifting efficiency.

Recktenwald (Recktenwald, 2008) examined a round layout non-spinning body using an

airfoil sectional arrangement devised and constructed by Geobat Flying Saucer Aviation
Inc with the help of a wind tunnel facility. For comparison, a Cessna 172 model also was
studied. The author determined that the lift curve slope of the Geobat was less steep than
that of the Cessna 172, but it had superior stall characteristics.

Wakayama (Wakayama, 1995) investigated & reported desired configuration from wing
geometrical modification for minimum drag while maintaining structured weight

6
constraints and optimum lift. To accomplish effective wing planform shape optimization,
analyses in each of these domains were created and blended. The results demonstrated the
importance of weight constraints, stress-strain drag, optimum lift, and static aero-elasticity
on the shape of the wing, as well as the need of simulating such aspects for constructing
real optimal planforms.

Kandwal (Kandwal & Singh, 2012) demonstrated a computational approach for computing
lift and drag characteristics that can replace wind tunnel testing. The airflow over a two-
dimensional NACA 4412 Airfoil is studied using ANSYS FLUENT (version 12.0.1 6) to
derive the pressure distribution of the surface, which is then used to predict drag and lift
using sets of integral equations of pressure over finite surface areas. The drag and lift
coefficients were also computed. The CFD simulation findings closely match the
experimental data, showing that there is a suitable option to the experimental technique for
estimating drag and lift.

Wells (Wells , 2005) attempted to experimentally confirm the high-performance

characteristics of the co-flow jet (CFJ) airfoil. The CFJ employs tangentially injected air at
the leading edge and tangentially withdrawn air at the following edge to increase lift and
stall margin while lowering drag. Because injection and suction mass flow rates are
identical, the net mass flow rate is zero. Two airfoils were tested at the University of
Florida. The injection lot size on one airfoil was 0.65 percent chord length, while the
injection slot size on the other was 1.315 percent chord length. On both airfoils, the suction
slot size was 1.96 percent of the chord length. In terms of increased lift and stall margin,
the smaller injection slot size outperformed the larger injection slot size, whereas the larger
injection slot size outperformed the smaller injection slot size in terms of reduced drag.
When compared to the baseline airfoil, the smaller injector slot airfoil showed a 113 percent
to 220 percent increase in maximum lift and a 100 percent to 132 percent increase in stall
margin.

McArthur (McArthur, December 2008) investigated three different airfoil forms at

Reynolds numbers of 1 and 2 104: a flat plate airfoil, a circular arc cambered airfoil, and
the Eppler 387 airfoil. Both 2D and 3D condition lift and drag force measurements were
taken, with the 3D wings having a 6aspect ratio and the 2D condition being approximated
by putting endplates at the wingtips. When compared to the small number of previous
measurements, there was enough agreement. Previous research had been uncertain on

7
whether lifting line theory could be applied to this range of R N, but this work demonstrated
that lifting line theory could be applied when the slope of the force curves did not shift
suddenly.

Hassan (Hassan, et al., 2010) conducted theoretical and experimental research on the
aerodynamic properties of a forward-swept wing. Theoretically, using the three-
dimensional Low Order Subsonic Panel approach, a computer program was developed to
forecast the pressure distribution across the wing's surface. The pressure distribution
obtained from tangential velocities was used to compute the aerodynamic coefficients of
the wing. The tests were conducted by developing and fabricating a wing model with a
pressure tapping mechanism suited for wind tunnel testing. Using a rotating mechanism,
the entire wing was rotated on an axis in the plane of 10 symmetry and normal to the chord
to provide variable sweep and incidence angles for the wing. A t(U=33.23 m/s) wind tunnel
test was conducted for various swept angles and angles of attack. There were comparisons
made between the expected and experimental outcomes. The analysis revealed that the lift
and drag characteristics of the front swept wing were lower than those of the swept-back
wing. As a result, a forward-swept wing may fly at a greater speed corresponding to a lower
speed pressure distribution.

Walter (Walter, September 2007)examined the effect of ground proximity on the lift, drag,
and moment coefficients of inverted, two-dimensional aerofoils. The goal of the study was
to see how ground proximity affected aerofoils posts tall, to see if active aerodynamics may
help a racecar perform better. Angles of attack ranging from 0° to 135° were used to test
the aerofoils. Based on chord length, the experiments were conducted at a Reynolds number
of 2.16 x 10^5. Forces along the centerline of the aerofoils were calculated using pressure
taps. The experiments were carried out at the RMIT Industrial Wind Tunnel (IWT). The
IWT was chosen because it offered enough height to mitigate the blockage effect caused
by the aerofoils at a higher incident angle. The tunnel's sides were pressure tapped to enable
pressure gradient monitoring. The findings show that when the ground clearance is reduced,
the aerofoils tested take longer to stall. Two of the three investigated aerofoils showed a
drop in CL as ground clearance decreased, while the third showed an increase. The CD of
the aerofoils post-stall was lowered when ground clearance was reduced. Lowering ground
clearance was shown to lessen the pitch moment variation of aerofoils with variable angles
of attack.

8
Al-Kayiem (Al-Kayiem & Kartigesh, 2011) examined the wing-ground collision
experimentally and numerically. As part of the investigation, a 2-D wing model with
NACA 4412 airfoil shape was subjected to a series of wind tunnel measurements. In a low-
speed wind tunnel, an experimental setup has been constructed and built to imitate the
collision phenomenon. The experiments were conducted at various Reynolds numbers
ranging from 105 to 4×105, various model heights to chord ratios ranging from 0.1 to 1, and
various angles of attack ranging from -4˚ to 20˚. FLUENT software was used to do a
numerical simulation of the wing-ground collision. The findings indicated that when the
wing is close to the ground, the aerodynamic properties are greatly altered, especially at
angles of attack 4 to 8. Take-off and landing speeds were discovered to be very influencing
factors on aerodynamic properties, namely wing lift in a collision event.

Mashud (Mashud, 2010) created a flow separation control system to enhance the
aerodynamic characteristics of an airfoil. Suction and injection effects were used to
experimentally simulate flow separation over an airfoil encountering a laminar separation
bubble at a low Reynolds number. The wing model for the experiment was built using a
NACA 4215 airfoil profile. The wing model with a control mechanism was tested in a
subsonic wind tunnel at various angles of attack and suction-injection frequency. The
experimental results demonstrated that the proposed mechanism could control flow
separation. The management of flow separation by suction and injection considerably
increased wing performance. It was also discovered that at 8 degrees of attack, lift rose by
14 percent, and drag decreased by 23 percent.

Arora (Arora, December 2005) evaluated the aerodynamic parameters of a type of aircraft
with NACA wing No. 65-3-218 In a subsonic wind tunnel with a 1000 mm × 1000 mm
rectangular test section. The aircraft model was tested with and without winglets in two
configurations at Reynolds numbers of 1.7 x 105, 2.1 x 105, and 2.5 x 105. The lift curve
slope rose with the inclusion of the elliptical winglet, but drag reduced, providing the
aircraft model with the elliptical winglet a benefit over the aircraft model without the
winglet when the lift to drag ratio for the elliptical winglet is taken into account. Elliptical
winglet design 2 (winglet inclination 60) had the highest overall performance, with a 6%
improvement in lift curve slope over no winglet arrangement and the best lift to drag ratio.

Janiszewska (Janiszewska, 2004) carried out a significant experimental investigation on an

LS (1)-0421MOD airfoil model. Surface pressure distributions were measured under clear

9
and surface grit situations for the 2D base and 3D setups. Several vortex generator designs
were tried out. The measurements were taken in both stable and unstable conditions. The
steady-state data set comprised angles of attack ranging from 0 to 30 as well as Reynolds
numbers ranging from 1.0 million. The unstable conditions were replicated using a face
cam, which created a sinusoidal angle of attack change with an amplitude of 10 for three
frequencies of 0.6 and 1.8 Hz at mean angles of attack of 8, 14, and 20. Surface pressure
data were obtained from six span-wise situations and integrated into local coefficients. The
results revealed that applying grit roughness reduces the maximum lift coefficients in all
setups by up to 50%. The Flat and Curled vortex generators raised the maximum lift
coefficient for both the 3D tip and wall stations, increasing them to 1.6 and 1.92
respectively. The use of vortex generators altered the stall angle of attack by approximately
30%. In comparison to grit alone, a gritted model with vortex generators increased
maximum lift and stall angle of attack by around 25%. The unstable maximal lift
coefficients were always up to 60% larger than the stable maximum lift coefficients and
displayed significant hysteresis loops in general. The hysteresis loops were smaller for the
3 D wing structure due to the tip vortex influence, and hence the lowest hysteresis loops
occurred near the tip. The hysteresis loops were eliminated by the Flat and Curled vortex
generators at all frequencies at 14 mean angles, resulting in a considerable reduction in the
minimum value of the pitching moment and pressure drag at the stall.

10
 CHAPTER 3
WING AERODYNAMICS OVERVIEW

3.1 Airfoil and wing

An aircraft's principal lifting surface is its wing. The wing has a defined length known as
its wingspan. If the wing is cut with a plane parallel to the aircraft's x-z plane, the
intersection of the wing surfaces with that plane is referred to as an aerofoil.

Figur 3.1: Definition of an aerofoil

In the span-wise direction (y-direction), the wing extends. The XZ plane is parallel to the
freestream velocity V∞. An aerofoil is a section of the wing that has been split by a plane
parallel to the XZ plane (Anderson, 2016)

3.2 General Features of an Aerofoil

Anybody that provides substantially more lift than drag when positioned at a sufficient
angle to a given airflow is called an aerofoil. To fulfill this requirement, the body should
be shaped accordingly.

Various features of an aerofoil are as follows:

● The leading edge is the forefront of the aerofoil that meets the air first.

● The trailing edge is the back of the aerofoil. To satisfy the Kutta condition, the
trailing edge is kept thin. The wake is also kept thin and any separated flow zone is
kept as small as practicable.

● The chord line is a straight line that connects the centers of curvature of the
leading and trailing edges.

11
 ● The camber of an airfoil is the intersection of points that are midway between the
upper and lower surfaces, with distances measured normal to the chord line.

● The thickness to chord ratio(t/c) is where the maximum thickness is resoluted

normal to the chord line.It is generally 12-14%. (Clancy, 1975)

Figure 3.2: The elements of an airfoil

Some aerofoils have very little camber, resulting in a flat appearance, while others have a
higher degree of camber, resulting in a more curved appearance. The camber of the
aerofoil's upper surface is referred to as the upper chamber. The term "lower camber" refers
to the camber of the aerofoil's lower surface. The lift of an aerofoil is affected by its camber.
The relative wind describes the direction of airflow past an aerofoil in relation to the flight
path. The relative wind is always aligned to and in the converse direction of the flight route.

3.3 Aerodynamic Forces Developed by Aerofoil

There are four aerodynamic forces developed by an aerofoil:

1. Lift: It is the upward-pushing force of the aircraft.

2. Drag: It is a force that opposes the relative motion of an object through the air.

3. Thrust: It is the forward-moving force of the aircraft.

4. Weight: The airplane is dragged down to the ground by its weight.

12
 Figure 3.3: Four forces on airplane

The angle of attack has a bigger impact on the lift. When AOA increases, the lift also
increases. This increment continues for a specific point. When the aircraft hits that
maximum specific AOA, lift starts decreasing rapidly, and stalling starts. At this AOA, the
lift is maximum (CLmax).

In an aerofoil, the pressure generally will be higher at the bottom and lesser at the top. The
result will give some lift in the vertical direction.

Figure 3.4: Aerofoil pressures

From the upper figure, right at the front of the wing, the pressure is actually higher than the
ambient pressure. Because at the stagnation point the pressure is quite high. According to
Bernoulli’s equation, the upper surface's lower pressure zone has a faster velocity than the

13
lower surface's higher pressure region. If the shear forces parallel to the surface of the
aerofoil are ignored, the lift is generated by the overall pressure force.

3.4 Characteristics of an Aerofoil

The characteristics of any specific aerofoil section can be simply represented using graphs
displaying the amount of lift and drag obtained at various angles of attack, the lift-drag
ratio, and the movement of the center of pressure.
Lift and drag both are affected by the angle of attacks. Basically, drag is the
price we pay for a lift.
Besides angle of attack, lift and drag also depend on the aerofoil shape, wing area(S), true
airspeed, and air density ( ).
The lift (L) and drag (D) of an aerofoil can be expressed as follows:-

Here, CL and CD are the lift coefficient and drag coefficient.

‘S’= planform area
‘V’ = free stream velocity
½ ρ V2 = dynamic pressure.

Figure 3.5: Aerodynamic characteristics of an aerofoil

Figure 3.6: Influence of Mach number on dCL/d∞, for symmetrical NACA profiles (RIEGELS, 1961)

14
Another important factor is lift to drag ratio. The lift-to-drag ratio is a measure of
aerodynamic efficiency. It is inversely related to the amount of energy required for a certain
aircraft. This means the higher the L/D ratio, the higher will be the fuel economy of the
aircraft.

3.5 Familiarization with NACA Aerofoils

Aircraft wings are of aerofoil shapes. These aerofoil shapes are developed by National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). There are different types of NACA
aerofoils, like four-digit, Five-digit, 6-series, 7- series, and 8-series and 16-series NACA
aerofoils. In this experiment, a 4 digit aerofoil has been used.

● The first digit of 4digit aerofoil describes the maximum camber as a

percentage of the chord.

● The second digit narrates the distance of maximum camber from the
aerofoil leading edge in tenths of the chord.

● The last two digits narrates the maximum thickness of the aerofoil as
the percent of the chord.

Figure 3.7: A: blue line = chord, green line = camber mean-line, B: leading-edge radius, C: XY coordinates
for the profile geometry (chord = x-axis; y-axis line on that leading edge)

15
Here, symmetrical aerofoil NACA 0015 and asymmetrical aerofoil NACA 2412 have been
used. That means NACA 0015 aerofoil has no camber and 15% maximum thickness of its
length.

Figure 3.8: Plot of NACA 0015

The formula for symmetrical aerofoil is:

yt= 5t [0.2969 √𝑥 -0.1260x -0.3516x2 +0.2843x3 -0.1015x4]

Here, yt = half-thickness at a given value of x

x = the position along the chord from 0 to 1.00

t =the maximum thickness as a fraction of the chord

The upper aerofoil surface co-ordinates =(xu,yu)

And the lower aerofoil surface co-ordinates =(xl,yl)

Here, xu=xl=x , yu=yt ,yl=-yt

And, for NACA 2412 aerofoil, maximum thickness is 12%, camber is 2% and is placed
40% back from the leading edge of the aerofoil.

Figure 3.9: Plot of NACA 2412

16
3.6 Geometric Parameters of Wing

The Doppler effec Some geometric parameters are:

● Wing area (S): The projected area of the planform bordered by the leading and
trailing edges,as well as the wingtips, is referred to as the wing area.

Figure 3.10: Different wing area

● Aspect ratio (AR): It is the ratio of wingspan and mean chord.

𝑏2 𝑏
AR= = ; b=wing span, A=Wing area
𝑠 𝑐

Figure 3.11: Aspect ratio of wing

The effects of aspect ratio on aircraft performance, stability, control, cost, and
manufacturability are:

1. From an aerodynamic standpoint, as the AR increases, the aerodynamic

features of a three-dimensional wing (such as CLmax, CDmin) become more similar
to those of a two-dimensional aerofoil section (such as Clmax, Cdmin).

17
 2. As the AR increases, so does the slope of the wing lift curve.

3. The wing stall angle decreases toward the aerofoil stall angle as the AR
increases.As a result, in order to allow for a higher tail stall angle, the horizontal tail
must have a lower aspect ratio than the wing. The tail will stall after the wing has
stalled, allowing for a safe recovery. For the same reason, a canard's aspect ratio
should be greater than the wing's aspect ratio. As a result, a high AR (longer) wing
is preferred.

4. The wing will become heavier as the AR is increased.

5. As the square root AR increases, so does the aircraft's maximum lift-to-drag ratio.

6. Because induced drag is conversely proportional to the aspect ratio, as the AR

increases, so do the wing induced drag. As a result, a low AR (shorter) wing is
preferred.

● Taper ratio (λ): It is the ratio of root to tip chord length of the wing.

18
 Figure 3.12: Wing taper

The wing taper will alter the lift distribution of the wing, will raise the cost of wing
production, and will reduce the wing weight. The aircraft's static lateral stability will also
be influenced by the taper.

● Root chord (Cr ): In the top perspective, the root chord is the dimension from
leading edge to trailing edge - in the center of the airplane.

● Tip chord (Ct): The chord at the tip of an aerofoil, measured parallel to the plane
of symmetry and at points where straight leading or trailing edges meet the tip's
curvature.

Figure 3.13: Root chord and tip chord

3.7 Familiarization with Different Wing Planforms

The FFT operates by Different wing planforms have been introduced for different types of
aircrafts:

Common Planform Shapes:

19
Constant chord wing planform is the plain planform among all. Here, the leading edge and
the trailing edge are parallel. In light aircraft, these are commonly used.

In a Straight Tapered wing, a straight line forms both the leading and trailing edge. In this
type of wing planform, the root chord is larger than the tip chord. And better aerodynamic
efficiency and greater complexity in structure.In Compound Taper a series of straight liner
segments form a complex shape.

Curved planforms:

Elliptical wing planform is one of the curved edge wing planforms. For a given lift and
span, the wing will have the lowest induced drag and be highly span efficiently.

Crescent or Lunate wing is more efficient than the theoretically optimum elliptical shape. (
Barnaby Wainfan, June 14,2020)

Other types of planforms are:

20
Swept back planform is a wing planform that, rather than flying straight sideways, bends
backward from its root.

(An Experimental Investigation on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 4412

Aerofoil with Curved-Edge Planform, March 2015)

Variable sweep wing enables the pilot to select the best sweep angle for the aircraft's current
speed, whether slow or fast.

(An Experimental Investigation on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 4412

Aerofoil with Curved-Edge Planform,March 2015)

Swept forward planform is a wing planform that, rather than flying straight sideways, bends
forward from its root.

21
 (An Experimental Investigation on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 4412
Aerofoil with Curved-Edge Planform, March 2015)

A rectangular planform is a non-tapered, straight wing planform. Mostly used in small

aircraft.

Figure 3.14: Rectangular wing

Tapered swept-back planform is a tapered wing that bends backward from its root.

Figure 3.15: Tapered swept-back wing

Delta wing planform is a triangle-shaped wing.

22
 (An Experimental Investigation on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 4412
Aerofoil with Curved-Edge Planform, March 2015)

A reverse tapered wing planform is a planform in which the chord of an airplane's wing
rises as one moves away from the root.

(An Experimental Investigation on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 4412

Aerofoil with Curved-Edge Planform, March 2015)

Blended wing body airframe allows the airplane to generate lift while minimizing the drag
and fuel economy is also increased.

Figure 3.15:Blended wing body (Layout Optimization for Blended Wing Body Aircraft Structure,16
May,2019)

23
 CHAPTER 4
MATHEMATICAL MODELING

4.1 Pressure Coefficient determination

Pressure coefficient is non-dimensional.

The velocity in a given flow cannot surpass the value provided by po= ½ *ρ *U2 ,a
theoretical maximum value that is never reached because it implies p=0. As a result, the
pressure coefficient can never be smaller than -p∞/(½)ρU∞2 (Clancy, 1975).

Figure 4.1: Various parts of pressure distribution

In this plot, Cp is lower at the upper surface and higher at the lower surface.

Pressure is positive at the lower surface.Trailing edge pressure is affected by the thickness
and geometry of the aerofoil at the trailing edge. Pressure is somewhat positive here for
thick aerofoils.A stagnation point occurs near the leading edge. For incompressible flow
Cp = 1.0 at this point.

4.2 Aerodynamic Force Coefficients estimation from CP

The forces that act on a body as it moves through the air or any other gas are known as
aerodynamic forces. When traveling through the air, everything from an aircraft's wing,

24
fuselage, tail, and engine, to a car experiences aerodynamic forces. Drag, Lift, and Thrust
is the three types of aerodynamic force. The weight acts on an aerodynamic body as well,
but it is owing to the earth's gravitational attraction. The aerodynamic forces and moments
on the body are caused by only two basic sources: pressure distribution across the body
surface and shear stress distribution across the body surface (Investigation of Load and
Pressure Distribution on Wing with Wake Rollup for Low-Speed Aircraft,2008).

Pressure and shear stress distributions on the body's surface are the only forces
acting on a body moving through a fluid in nature. The pressure force works perpendicular
to the body's surface, while the shear stress acts tangential to the body's surface. Shear stress
is created by friction between the body's molecules and the air molecules. The combined
action of the pressure and shear stress distributions over the entire body surface produces
an aerodynamic force R and a moment M on the body.

Figure 4.2: Illustration of pressure and shear stress on an aerodynamic surface (Anderson, 2016)

Locally, the pressure force acts normal to the surface, while the shear stress acts tangentially
to the surface. The only means to communicate solid things or surfaces with nature is
through pressure and shear stress distributions. These forces produce a resultant R, which
can be further subdivided into subcomponents as Aerodynamic forces.

Figure 4.3: Resultant aerodynamic force and moment on the body. (Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, sixth
edition,2017)

The path along which fluid particles travel is known as a streamline. When a body moves
through a fluid with a finite amount of acceleration and velocity, streamline forms around
it. We already know that velocity and pressure are intertwined. When there is low pressure,

25
there will be high velocity, and when there is high pressure, there will be the low velocity
at a location along the streamlines. As a result of the net uneven pressure distribution, the
aerodynamic force is generated (Lift).

Shear stress is the force per unit area that operates tangentially along the body's surface
due to friction between the streamlines and the body. It might vary over the surface, and
the net imbalanced distribution causes the aerodynamic force to be generated (Drag).

Figure 4.4: Resultant aerodynamic force and components into which it splits.(Fundamentals of
Aerodynamics, sixth edition,2017)

Here, the velocity along the streamlines is V∞ , and the lift component of R parallel to V∞
is L, while the drag component of R parallel to V∞ is D.

Here, L ≡ lift ≡ component of R perpendicular to V∞

D ≡ drag ≡ component of R parallel to V∞

The chord c is the linear distance between the body's leading and trailing edges. R can be
divided into components that are perpendicular and parallel to the chord.

Here, N ≡ normal force ≡ component of R perpendicular to c

A ≡ axial force ≡ component of R parallel to c

The angle of attack α is equal to the angle formed by c and V∞. As a result,α is also the
angle formed by L and N, as well as D and A.These two groups of components have a
geometrical relationship-

L = N cos α − A sin α

D = N sin α + A cos α

26
 Figure 4.5: Nomenclature for the integration of pressure and shear stress distribution over a two-
dimensional body surface

Pressure is normal to the surface and oriented at an angle θ to the perpendicular at any given
point; shear stress is tangential to the surface and oriented at the same angle θ to the
horizontal. When measured clockwise from the vertical line to the direction of p and from
the horizontal line to the direction of, the sign convention for is positive. All thetas are
shown in a positive direction in this diagram (Haque, et al., 2015)

Figure 4.6: Aerodynamic force on an element of the body surface

Upper body surface,

Lower body surface,

The positive clockwise convention for θ must be followed in these equations. Consider the
previous figure once more. τ is sloped upward near the leading edge of the body, where the
slope of the upper body surface is positive, and therefore it contributes to N'. In the case of

27
an upward inclination, would be counterclockwise, and hence negative. As a result, in the
first equation of upper body surface, Sinθ is negative, resulting in a positive value for the
shear stress term (the last term), as it should be in this case.

The total lift and drag per unit span can be obtained by inserting these equations into the
lift and drag equations.

There are quantities of a fundamental nature that are even more fundamental than
aerodynamic forces. These are force coefficients with no dimensions. Let s represent the
reference area and l represent the reference length. The dimensionless force coefficients for
3-dimensional bodies are as follows:

Lift coefficient:

Drag coefficient:

Normal force coefficient:

Axial force coefficient:

28
The reference area S and reference length I in the above coefficients are chosen to
correspond to the provided geometric body shape; S and I may be different for different
shapes. The planform area of an airplane wing, for example, is S, and the mean chord length
is I. For 2 dimensional bodies we can write,

and,

Here, S=c(1)=c

Figure 4.7: Geometrical relationship of differential lengths

From this figure,

Substituting the preceding dx, dy, and S equations into N’ and A’ equations and dividing
by q∞, the integral forms of the force and moment coefficients are obtained:

29
Here, yu is positive because it is directed above the x-axis, whereas yl is negative because
it is directed below the x-axis. dy/dx is positive for parts of the body with a positive slope
and negative for parts of the body with a negative slope. Integration of pressure distribution
along an aerofoil chord for both upper and lower surfaces is known to produce normal and
axial force acting on an aerofoil section when shear stress due to viscous effect is ignored
(Anderson, 2016). So,

For n number of panels, we can write,

So, lift and drag coefficient-

30
 CHAPTER 5
MATHEMATICAL SETUP CONSTRUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

5.1 Solidworks Designs

Figure 5.1: Front view of NACA 0015.

Figure 5.2: Isometric view of NACA 0015.

31
 Figure 5.3: Front view of NACA 0015 with curve edge.

Figure 5.4: Isometric view of NACA 0015 with curve edge.

32
 Figure 5.5: Front view of NACA 2412.

Figure 5.6: Isometric view of NACA 2412.

33
 Figure 5.7: Front view of NACA 2412 with curve edge.

Figure 5.8: Isometric view of NACA 2412 with curve edge.

34
5.2 Computational methodology

Formula Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is one of the branches of mechanical

engineering that employs numerical methods to solve fluid flow problems. It is the study
of forecasting fluid flow by solving mass, momentum, and energy differential equations for
fluid flow. Control these processes by running a numerical algorithm on a computer to
model the free flow of a liquid and the contact of a liquid (liquids and gases) with surfaces
under specified engineering and flow conditions.

To create parts for this investigation, the ANSYS Fluent CFD program version 16.0 was
used. By trying to resolve the incompressible two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations
onto complex-shaped unstructured grids, the steady flow field over an aerofoil has been
computationally modeled. Simulated flow fields (SST turbulence model) were being used
to investigate the reasons for the wake region and to explain the aerodynamic characteristics
of two-dimensional standard and geometry variants of aerofoils NACA 0015 and NACA
2412. Menter (Menter, 1994) developed the SST (Shear Stress Transport) model to
combine the superior performance of the k- ω model near the wall section with the model's
increased strength. The Shear Stress Transfer model is defined in terms of k and ω using
equations (1) and (2) (Sogukpinar, 2017).

𝜕𝑘
𝜌 + 𝜌𝑢. ∇𝑘 = 𝑃 + ∇. [(𝜇 + 𝜎𝑘 𝜇 𝑇 )∇𝐾] − 𝜌𝛽0 ∗𝑘𝜔 (1)
𝜕𝑡

𝜕𝜔 𝜌𝛾 𝜌𝜎𝜔2
𝜌 + 𝜌𝑢. ∇𝜔 = 𝑃 − 𝜌𝛽𝜔2 + 2(1 − 𝑓𝑣1) 𝛻𝜔. ∇𝑘 + ∇. [(𝜇 + 𝜎𝑘 𝜇 𝑇 )∇𝜔](2)
𝜕𝑡 𝜇𝑇 𝜔

Where:-

𝑘=kinetic energy of turbulence,

𝜌= density,

𝛾, 𝛽, 𝛽0 ∗ = turbulence-model coefficients,

𝜔 =specific dissipation of turbulence kinetic energy,

𝜇𝑇 = turbulent viscosity,

𝜇= dynamic viscosity,

𝜎𝜔, 𝜎𝑘=turbulence-model coefficients.

35
Where the static pressure (P) can be represented in the equation (3) below:

𝑃 = min (𝑃𝐾, 10𝜌𝛽0 ∗𝑘𝜔) (3)

Here, the production term 𝑃𝐾 is expressed by the following equation:

2 2
𝑃𝐾 = 𝜇𝑇 {∇𝑢: [∇𝑢 + (Δ𝑢) 𝑇] − (∇. 𝑢) 2} − 𝜌𝑘∇. 𝑢 (4)
3 3

The viscosity of the turbulence (𝜇𝑇) is expressed with the equation (5):

𝜌𝑎1 𝐾
𝜇𝑇 = (5)
(𝑎1 𝜔,𝑆 𝑓𝑣2 )

Where:

𝑎1=Bradshaw’s structural parameter.

Where, the characteristic magnitude of the average velocity gradients is (S) and can be
expressed by the equation (6):

𝑆 = (2𝑆𝑖𝑗) 1/2𝑆𝑖𝑗 (6)

The interpolation functions (𝑓𝑣1 and 𝑓𝑣2) are indicated by the equations (7and 8):

1
(𝐾)2 500𝜇 4𝜌𝜎𝜔2 𝐾
𝑓𝑣1 = tanh {min [max( ∗ , 2 ), 2𝜌𝜎 2 ]4} (7)
( 𝛽0 𝜔𝑙𝜔 ) 𝜌𝜔𝑙𝜔 𝑚𝑎𝑥( 𝜔 𝛻𝜔.𝛻𝑘,10−10 2
)𝑙𝜔
𝜔

1 2
(𝐾)2 500𝜇
𝑓𝑣2 = tanh{𝑚𝑎𝑥 ( , ) } (8)
( 𝛽0 ∗ 𝜔𝑙𝜔 ) 𝜌𝜔𝑙𝜔
2

Where: 𝑙𝜔 is the distance for the nearest wall.

For Shear Stress Transfer, default model constants are specified by:

𝜎𝑘1 = 0.85, 𝜎𝑘2 = 1.0, 𝜎𝜔1 = 0.5, 𝜎𝜔2 = 0.856, 𝛽1 = 0.075, 𝛽2 = 0.0828, 𝛾1 = 5/9, 𝛾2 = 0.44,
𝛽0 ∗ = 0.09, 𝜎1=0.31.

36
5.3 Approach

For this simulation, the CFD software ANSYS FLUENT was utilized to establish the work
environment in which the geometric model was simulated. It is required for the CFD
analysis procedure since the major portion is to establish a grid that surrounds the body.

5.3.1 Preparing geometric model

Importing the SOLIDWORKS design part (i.e. SLDPRT file to ANSYS convenient IGS
file) of the aerofoil into ANSYS Design Modeler and creating the surface to the curve is
how the processes function. After generating a coordinate system at the tail of the aerofoil,
create the geometry for the box-shaped domain with the sketcher toolbox and the dimension
toolbox. A box-shaped type was adopted to eliminate distortions in the border zone and
emulated the actual wind tunnel scenario. From the leading edge of the aerofoil to the
intake, the length of a box-shape type was 6 times (600mm) more than the chord length,
and from the leading edge to the open boundary, it was 8 times (1200mm). To improve the
flow simulation, a rectangular box measuring 40mm in thickness was created behind the
aerofoil tail section. The goal is to reduce the calculation's impact from the boundary zone.
Using Boolean operations, the box-mesh is completed by producing a surface between the
boundary and the aerofoil. Figure 5.9 depicts a computational domain.

Figure 5.9: Computational domain

37
5.3.2 Generate meshing

Computational grids were built using the software. In the boundary layer portion, the mesh
is meant to be very fine towards the aerodynamic aerofoil, and coarser further away. The
grids utilized in this work are unstructured triangular grids, and the density of the grid was
increased until an insignificant variance reached the solution approaching convergence,
ensuring that the calculated aerodynamic findings were unaffected by grid size. Figure 5.10
shows a close-up of an aerofoil segment for numerical analysis purposes. A no-slip
requirement is established on the surface of the aerofoil.

Figure 5.10: Close-up of an aerofoil section with fine mashing.

5.3.3 Setting boundary conditions

To replicate zero-gauge pressure, the mesh borders were set to the velocity components of
the x and y-axis, with the end boundary set to the property "pressure-outlet." The wall
characteristics of the aerofoil are presented. The intake in this case is a velocity type inlet,
with a distinct type of velocity specified for the simulation. The intensity and viscosity ratio
was chosen as the specification technique, with the turbulent intensity of backflow set at
5% and backflow turbulent viscosity set at 10%. The Angle of Attack of the airflow
direction coming from the intake was used to set the X and Y components of the airflow
direction. Table 5.1 depicts the boundary conditions.

38
 Table 5.1: Computational conditions

Input Value

Wind speed 10 m/s,15 m/s,20 m/s &25 m/s

Operating temperature 288.16 k

Operating pressure 0 pa

Density of fluid 1.225 kg/m3

Viscosity 0.000017894 kg/m-s

Ratio of specific heat 1.4

Aerofoil chord length 150 mm

Models Laminar Flow & Shear Stress Transport

(SST) Turbulence

Solid material Aluminum

Fluid Air

5.3.4 Setting up FLUENT (Initializing and solving)

The geometries and meshes were exported into FLUENT to improve precision, and "double
precision" was selected as a system parameter. The residuals of the turbulence model had
been set to 10-6, and the maximum number of iterations frequency was set at 1200.

5.3.5 Post-processing

a. The CL and CD among all wing planforms throughout various angles of attack are
gathered from the ANSYS Fluid Flow (Fluent) results sections.

b. For all wing models at different angles of attack, the ratio of CL to CD at each angle
of attack is utilized to determine L/D or CL /CD.

c. Furthermore, using the CL versus α, CD versus α, and CL /CD versus α plots, the lift
properties, drag properties, and ratio of lift to drag of the wing models are studied
and compared.

39
 CHAPTER 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Data Collection and Analysis

The lift coefficient and drag coefficient of both symmetric and asymmetric aerofoils were
analyzed using the ANSYS simulation to analyze the aerodynamic characteristics of the
wings with a curved trailing edge (T.E.) shape design and semicircular notch on the upper
surface of both rectangular aerofoils. The lift and drag coefficients of 10 m/s, 15 m/s, 20
m/s, and 25 m/s are then displayed at various angles of attack. The lift and drag coefficients
of the symmetric and asymmetric rectangular wing planforms are also measured through
using ANSYS simulation, and all those values are plotted in just the same way across all
graphs as standards. The coefficient of lift to drag proportions of all wing planforms are
then reviewed and compared at various angles of attack.

Furthermore, lift properties, drag characteristics, and lift to drag ratio for all six wing
planforms are examined in relation to each other using CL versus α, CD versus α, and CL/CD
versus α graphs for varied velocity. Appendix-I shows the cumulative values of lift
coefficients and drag coefficients and lift to drag ratio for varying velocity and angle of
attack for all six platforms.

6.2 Lift Characteristics

6.2.1 NACA 0015:

Figure 6.1: CL vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph

40
Figure 6.2: CL vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph

Figure 6.3: CL vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph

41
 Figure 6.4: CL vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph

From figure 6.1 to 6.4, lift coefficient of curve edge plainform is increasing when the
velocity is increasing. But the rectangular plainform maintains a stable lift coefficient
throughout all situation.

6.2.2 NACA 2412:

Figure 6.5: CL vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph

42
Figure 6.6: CL vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph

Figure 6.7: CL vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph

43
 Figure 6.8: CL vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph

From figure 6.5 to 6.8, lift coefficient for curved edge plainform is higher after 15 angle
of attack by comparing rectangular plainform.

6.3 Drag Characteristics

6.3.1 NACA 0015:

Figure 6.9: CD vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph

44
Figure 6.10: CD vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph

Figure 6.11: CD vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph

45
 Figure 6.12: CD vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph

From figure 6.9 to 6.12 , drag coefficient is almost same for both plainform in NACA 0015.

6.3.2 NACA 2412:

Figure 6.13: CD vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph

46
Figure 6.14: CD vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph

Figure 6.15: CD vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph

47
 Figure 6.16: CD vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph

From figure 6.13 to 6.16 , each and every graph shows that curved edge plainform has low
drag coefficient and low drag leads to better stability.

48
6.4 Lift to Drag Ratio

6.4.1 NACA 0015:

Figure 6.17: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph

Figure 6.18: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph

49
Figure 6.19: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph

Figure 6.20: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph

50
6.4.2 NACA 2412:

Figure 6.21: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (10 m/s) graph

Figure 6.22: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (15 m/s) graph

51
Figure 6.23: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (20 m/s) graph

Figure 6.24: CL/CD vs Angle of Attack (25 m/s) graph

52
 6.5 Contours of Pressure

6.5.1 NACA 0015 rectangular Planform:

1
0
m
/
s
1
5
m
/
s
2
0
m
/
s
2
5
m
/
s
0 deg 5 deg 10 deg 15 deg 20 deg

Figure 6.25: Contour results for static pressure over NACA 0015 rectangular aerofoil at velocity of 10m/s,
15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s

6.5.2 NACA 0015 Curved Edge Planform:

1
0
m
/
s

53
1
5
m
/
s
2
0
m
/
s
2
5
m
/
s
0 deg 5 deg 10 deg 15 deg 20 deg

Figure 6.26: Contour results for static pressure over NACA 0015 curved edge aerofoil at velocity of 10m/s,
15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s.

6.5.3 NACA 2412 rectangular Planform:

10
m
/s

15
m
/s

20
m
/s

25
m
/s

0 deg 5 deg 10 deg 15 deg 20 deg

Figure 6.27: Contour results for static pressure over NACA 2412 rectangular aerofoil at velocity of 10m/s,
15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s.

54
 6.5.4 NACA 2412 Curved Edge Planform:

1
0
m
/s
1
5
m
/s
2
0
m
/s
2
5
m
/s
0 deg 5 deg 10 deg 15 deg 20 deg

Figure 6.28: Contour results for static pressure over NACA 2412 curved edge aerofoil at velocity of 10m/s,
15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s.

Figure 6.25, 6.26, 6.27, 6.28 shows pressure contours for the NACA 0015 rectangular
planform, NACA 0015 curved edge planform, NACA 2412 rectangular planform, NACA
2412 curved edge planform respectively, at different angle of attack. The numbers show
that the top surface has reduced pressure while the bottom has greater pressure. The flow
has a stalling point (pressure is optimum and velocity is nil) tip of the nose of an aerofoil
for varied velocity at 00 AOA, as illustrated in Figures 1,2,3,4. At this angle, the contours
of static pressure around an aerofoil were symmetrical for both top and bottom regions
pressure for all rectangular and curved edge aerofoils except for the asymmetric NACA
2412 curved edge aerofoil. With an increasing angle of attack for all aerofoil, static pressure
increases at lower surface and negative pressure region on the upper surface which was
located around the whole surface starts to decrease in all aerofoil.

55
 6.6 Contours of Velocity

6.6.1 NACA 0015 Rectangular Planform:

10
m/
s

15
m/
s

20
m/
s

25
m/
s

0 deg 5 deg 10 deg 15 deg 20 deg

Figure 6.29: Contour results for velocity over NACA 0015 rectangular aerofoil at velocity of 10m/s, 15m/s,
20m/s, 25m/s.

6.6.2 NACA 0015 Curved Edge Planform:

10
m
/s

15
m
/s

20
m
/s

56
25
m
/s

0 deg 5 deg 10 deg 15 deg 20 deg

Figure 6.30: Contour results for velocity over NACA 0015 curved edge aerofoil at velocity of 10m/s,
15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s.

6.6.3 NACA 2412 Rectangular Planform:

10
m/
s

15
m/
s

20
m/
s

25
m/
s

0 deg 5 deg 10 deg 15 deg 20 deg

Figure 6.31: Contour results for velocity over NACA 2412 rectangular aerofoil at velocity of 10m/s, 15m/s,
20m/s, 25m/s

6.6.7 NACA 2412 Curved Edge Planform:

1
0
m
/s
1
5
m
/s

57
2
0
m
/s
2
5
m
/s
0 deg 5 deg 10 deg 15 deg 20 deg

Figure 6.32: Contour results for velocity over NACA 2412 curved edge aerofoil at velocity of 10m/s,
15m/s, 20m/s, 25m/s.

Figure 6.29, 6.30, 6.31, 6.32 shows velocity contours for the NACA 0015 rectangular
planform, NACA 0015 curved edge planform, NACA 2412 rectangular planform, NACA
2412 curved edge planform respectively, at a different angle of attack. For different
velocities at 0⁰ AOA, the flow velocity is close to zero on the nose of the leading edge for
all aerofoils. For varied velocity, the top surface has higher velocity while the lower surface
has lower velocity, as shown in the figures. Bernoulli's principle is responsible for this. The
flow is attached to both the top and lower surfaces, suggesting that flow separation has
transpired. There is no region of zero velocity, signifying the flow separation has happened.

58
 CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusion

In this research, the curved boundary is incorporated at the trailing edge of one symmetric
and one asymmetric wing planform. The following is a summary of the research's overall
findings:

a) The curved-edge wing planform can provide higher lift for NACA 0015 owing to
the increased surface area around the root of the wings, according to the analysis of
lift and drag characteristics. However, it generates greater drag than that aerofoil's
rectangular planform. As a result, the total lift to drag ratio of the NACA 0015
curved trailing edge wing planform is determined to be less than even the
rectangular planform.

b) The examination of lift and drag characteristics demonstrates that curved-edge wing
planforms can create less lift for NACA 2412. However, it creates less drag than
that aerofoil's rectangular planform. The total lift to drag ratio of the NACA 2412
curved trailing edge wing planform thus becomes greater than even the rectangular
planform.

c) By comparing the symmetrical aerofoil (NACA 0015) with the asymmetrical

aerofoil (NACA 2412), it is clear that even if the wing shape is changed, there is no
substantial aerodynamic change in the symmetrical aerofoil. In contrast, an
asymmetrical aerofoil always outperforms a symmetrical aerofoil.

d) By observing the data of lift to drag ratio with the variation of different velocities
of the different angles of attack of four different aerofoils, it is discovered that the
curved trailing edge planform of NACA 2412 exhibits the best lift to drag ratio
among the four planforms.

7.2 Recommendations for Future Work

For further research in this topic, the authors would like to submit the following
suggestions:

59
a. The trailing edge curve's position and shape can be altered by adjusting the root
chord to tip chord ratio.

b. In this case, the study is carried out using ANSYS simulation and the K Omega SST
model and Laminar model is used. For further study, other ANSYS simulation
models might be created.

c. Such study might be done with a higher airspeed variation to evaluate the
modification of aerodynamic features of curved-edge planforms.

d. The research is conducted by software simulation. It may also be done at wind

tunnel for the experimental approach of those curved-edge planforms to investigate
aerodynamic characteristics.

e. Flaps and slats can be positioned at any suitable point on the front and/or outer
periphery to examine the aerodynamic properties of curved-edge wing planforms.

f. To study the aerodynamic physical stability of the wings, the coefficient of tension
of the curved-edge wing planforms might well be observed in comparison to that of
the rectangular planform.

g. For the curved-edge wing planforms, aerofoil sections other than NACA 0015 and
NACA 2412 may be employed.

h. To examine the aerodynamic properties of a curved edge planform, different

aerofoils can be utilized at various segments of the planform.

i. To analyze the aerodynamic stability characteristics, the coefficient of moment of

the curved-edge wings may be regulated and differentiated with the rectangular
wing.

60
 References

Hossain, A. et al., 2011. Drag. International Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace, Industrial

and Mechatronics Engineering, Volume 05, pp. 1894-1899.
Pranto, M. . R. I. & Inam, M. I., 2020. Numerical Analysis of the Aerodynamic
Characteristics of NACA-4312 Airfoil. Journal of Engineering Advancements, 01(02), pp.
29-36 .
Al-Kayiem, H. H. & Kartigesh, A., 2011. An Investigation on the Aerodynamic
Characteristics of 2-D Airfiol in Ground Collision. Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology, 06(03), p. 369 – 381.
Anderson, J. D., 2016. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. 6th edition ed. s.l.: McGraw Hill.
Ara, I., February 2018. Experimental study on the aerodynamic performance of winglets
with curve edged wing of NACA 4412.
Arora, P. R. H. A. E. P. J. A. A. Y. T. S. a. S. M., December 2005. Drag Reduction in
Aircraft Model using Elliptical Winglet. Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia,
66(04), pp. 1-8.
ARUNVINTHAN, S. & PILLAI, S. N., November 2019. Aerodynamic characteristics of
unsymmetrical aerofoil at various turbulence intensities. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics,
32(11), pp. 2395-2407.
Azlin, M. A., Taib, C. F. M., Kasolang, S. & Azlin, F. H. M., 2011. CFD Analysis of
Winglets at Low Subsonic Flow. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering,
Volume 1, pp. 87-91.
Chattot, J. J., 2006. Low Speed Design and Analysis of Wing/ Winglet 107 Combinations.
Journal of Aircraft, 43(02), pp. 386-389.
Clancy, L. J., 1975. Aerodynamics. 1st ed. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons.
Gómez, A. & Pinilla , Á., November 2006. Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airfoils with
Blunt Trailing Edge. Revista de Ingeniería.
Gregory, N. & O'Reilly, C. L., 1970. Low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of NACA
0012 aerofoil section, including the effects of upper-surface roughness simulating hoar
frost, s.l.: Aeronautical Research Council Reports & Memoranda.
Haque, M. N., Ali, M. & Ara, I., 2015. Experimental Investigation on the Performance of
NACA 4412 Aerofoil with Curved Leading Edge Planform. ScienceDirect, Volume
Volume 105, pp. 232-240.
Hassan, I. A., Darwish, A. S. & Jaffal, H. M., 2010. Theoretical and Experimental Study.
Anbar Journal for Engineering Sciences, 3(2), pp. 15-30.
J.A., C. R., Gutiérrez, M. .. O. & Longhi, . S. F., July 2019. Experimental study of the effect
of the reduced frequency in the airfoil's aerodynamic characteristics. 8th European
Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences.

61
Janiszewska, J. M., 2004. Three Dimensional Aerodynamics of a Simple Wing in
Oscillation Including Effects of Vortex Generators, s.l.: Graduate School of Ohio State
University.
Kandwal, . S. & Singh, S., 2012. Computational Fluid Dynamics Study of Fluid Flow and.
International Journal of Engineering and, 1(7), pp. 1-8.
Khan, M. M. I. & Al-Faruk, A., 2018. Comparative analysis of aerodynamic characteristics
of rectangular and curved leading edge wing planforms. American Journal of Engineering
Research, 7(5), pp. 281-291.
Krishnan, S. G., Ishak, M. H. H., Nasirudin, A. M. & Ismail, F., July 2019. Investigation
of Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Wing Model With RGV Winglet. Journal of
Aerospace Technology and Management, Volume 12.
Mashud, M. a. H. M. F., 2010. Experimental Study of Flow Separation Control of.
Proceedings of the 13th Asian Congress of Fluid , pp. 166-169.
McArthur, J., December 2008. Aerodynamics of Wings at Low Reynolds Numbers:
Boundary Layer Separation and Reattachment, s.l.: University of Southern California.
Menter, F. R., 1994. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications. AIAA Journal, 08(32), pp. 1598-1605.
Mineck, R. & Vijgen, P., October 1993. Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Aerodynamic. NASA
, pp. 1-20.
Rahman, M., Ali, M. & Hossain, M., October 2020. An Experimental Investigation of the
Effect of Aspect Ratio on the Airfoil Characteristics of NACA 0012 Wing.
Recktenwald, B., 2008. Aerodynamics of a Circular Planform Aircraft. American Institute
, pp. 1-7.
RIEGELS, D. F. W., 1961. Aerofoil sections. London: BUTTERWORTHS .
Sidairi, K. A. & Rameshkumar, G. R., 2016. Design of Winglet Device for Aircraft.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Engineering, 07(01), pp. 23-30.
Singh, N., 2016. Analysis of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Various Aerofoils at Sonic
Speed. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 5(9), pp.
405-411.
Sogukpinar, H., 2017. Numerical simulation of 4-digit inclined NACA 00xx aerofoils to
find an optimum angle of attack for an airplane wing. Uludag University Journal of The
Faculty of Engineering, 01(22), pp. 169-178.
Wakayama, S., 1995. Subsonic Wing Planform Design Using Multidisciplinary. Journal of
Aircraft, 32(4), pp. 746- 753.
Walter, D. J., September 2007. Study of Aerofoils at High Angle of Attack, in Ground Effect,
s.l.: School of Aerospace, Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University.
Wells , A. J., 2005. Experimental Investigation of an Aerofoil with Co-Flow Jet Flow, s.l.:
University of Florida.

62
 APPENDIX

APPENDIX-I
Laminar flow

Velocity: 10 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 rectangle
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.00513 0.01028 0.4990

5 0.08538 0.015838 5.3908

10 0.14053 0.029624 4.7439

15 0.19313 0.050979 3.7884

20 0.22169 0.075336 2.9426

Velocity: 15 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 rectangle
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.00372 0.00821 0.4528

5 0.06274 0.01265 4.9565

10 0.12380 0.02578 4.8025

15 0.17349 0.04509 3.8476

20 0.21971 0.07262 3.0254

63
Velocity: 20 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 rectangle
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.00337 0.00698 0.4834

5 0.05776 0.01126 5.1307

10 0.10778 0.02255 4.7789

15 0.16611 0.04240 3.9189

20 0.14712 0.05478 2.6856

Velocity: 25 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 rectangle
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.00274 0.00638 0.4293

5 0.04639 0.00974 4.7619

10 0.09649 0.02029 4.7536

15 0.16507 0.04202 3.9284

20 0.23736 0.07412 3.2024

64
Velocity: 10 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 with curved edge
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.0077495 0.011858 0.653525

5 0.016069 0.010946 1.46802

10 0.15228 0.034122 4.46281

15 0.125 0.040991 3.04945

20 0.22416 0.079032 2.836319

Velocity: 15 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 with curved edge
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.008514 0.0099786 0.8532259

5 0.012455 0.011444 1.088343

10 0.082166 0.023209 3.54026

15 0.1497 0.043095 3.406143

20 0.23352 0.077846 2.999769

65
Velocity: 20 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 with curved edge
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.007448 0.008271 0.90040

5 0.057556 0.013410 4.29202

10 0.104902 0.023888 4.39140

15 0.167187 0.043927 3.80594

20 0.230944 0.073124 3.15823

Velocity: 25 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 with curved edge
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.011877 0.0079872 1.48700

5 0.048104 0.012276 3.9185

10 0.1197 0.024810 4.8247

15 0.18165 0.045580 3.9853

20 0.24300 0.077986 3.1159

66
Velocity: 10 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 rectangle
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.027817 0.090467 0.30748

5 0.099551 0.016264 6.1209

10 0.15035 0.30259 0.49688

15 0.20594 0.5413 0.38045

20 0.27341 0.88303 0.309627

Velocity: 15 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 rectangle
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.08258 0.07351 1.12338

5 0.12956 0.166 0.78048

10 0.16824 0.31086 0.5412

15 0.21107 0.52551 0.401648

20 0.26275 0.82154 0.319826

67
Velocity: 20 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 rectangle
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.099686 0.0061970 16.08617

5 0.057719 0.015267 3.780638

10 0.17208 0.30907 0.55677

15 0.21175 0.51636 0.410082

20 0.27328 0.84601 0.323022

Velocity: 25 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 rectangle
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.099736 0.05708 1.7473

5 0.138 0.01542 8.94941

10 0.17245 0.030061 5.73667

15 0.20874 0.04986 4.18652

20 0.26751 0.081193 3.2947

68
Velocity: 10 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 with curved edge
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.042546 0.010406 4.0886

5 0.057719 0.015267 3.78064

10 0.12127 0.029569 4.10125

15 0.18533 0.053855 3.44128

20 0.27185 0.092461 2.940159

Velocity: 15 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 with curved edge
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.086065 0.0089282 9.6397

5 0.076273 0.014364 5.3100

10 0.14474 0.031255 4.6309

15 0.2009 0.054302 3.6996

20 0.27678 0.088648 3.1222

69
Velocity: 20 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 with curved edge
Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.10189 0.0079892 12.75347

5 0.13652 0.017344 7.87131

10 0.19464 0.035629 5.462966

15 0.21596 0.054264 3.9798

20 0.28742 0.090000 3.19356

Velocity: 25 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 with curved edge
Angle of Attack
Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD
(AOA)
(CL) (CD)

0 0.10014 0.0069134 14.48491

5 0.10771 0.015442 6.97515

10 0.17047 0.03306 5.15638

15 0.22332 0.056190 3.97437

20 0.29130 0.091050 3.19934

70
 APPENDIX-II

Turbulent flow

Velocity: 10 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 rectangle

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 -0.0054738 0.0089794 -0.60959

5 0.0038334 0.0011644 3.29216

10 0.081949 0.020356 4.02579

15 0.12693 0.035198 3.60617

20 0.19104 0.06091 3.13643

Velocity: 15 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 rectangle

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 -0.0063914 0.0082548 -0.77426

5 0.038932 0.010946 3.55673

10 0.083975 0.019857 4.22898

15 0.12972 0.034904 3.71647

20 0.19315 0.060581 3.18829

71
Velocity: 20 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 rectangle

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 -0.0069748 0.0077973 -0.89451

5 0.039031 0.010489 3.72113

10 0.084832 0.019497 4.35102

15 0.13130 0.034702 3.78364

20 0.19384 0.060193 3.2203

Velocity: 25 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 rectangle

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 -0.0074972 0.0074699 -1.06423

5 0.038986 0.010155 3.83909

10 0.085370 0.019238 4.43757

15 0.13228 0.034542 3.82954

20 0.19428 0.05922 3.28064

72
Velocity: 10 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 with curved edge

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 -0.0047113 0.0096982 -0.48579

5 0.040520 0.012521 3.23616

10 0.085991 0.021612 3.97885

15 0.13477 0.037363 3.60704

20 0.19569 0.062326 3.13978

Velocity: 15 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 with curved edge

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 -0.0055254 0.0088955 -0.621145

5 0.041896 0.011790 3.55351

10 0.089302 0.021197 4.21295

15 0.13839 0.037112 3.72898

20 0.19824 0.061950 3.2

73
Velocity: 20 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 with curved edge

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 -0.0060180 0.008390 -0.71728

5 0.042399 0.011313 3.74781

10 0.090849 0.020879 4.35121

15 0.14064 0.036977 3.80344

20 0.20027 0.061846 3.23820

Velocity: 25 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 0015 with curved edge

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 -0.0063921 0.0080307 -0.79595

5 0.04250 0.010958 3.87844

10 0.091698 0.020611 4.44898

15 0.14210 0.036867 3.85439

20 0.20191 0.061823 3.26593

74
Velocity: 10 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 rectangle

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 0.13614 0.018013 7.55787

5 0.23130 0.034237 6.75585

10 0.32193 0.063030 5.10757

15 0.4712 0.10435 4.51557

20 0.53059 0.16265 3.26216

Velocity: 15 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 rectangle

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 0.13921 0.016553 8.40996

5 0.23706 0.033156 7.14984

10 0.33002 0.062627 5.26961

15 0.42606 0.10446 4.07869

20 0.53939 0.16319 3.30529

75
Velocity: 20 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 rectangle

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 0.14046 0.015635 8.98369

5 0.23949 0.032399 7.39189

10 0.33403 0.062219 5.36862

15 0.43133 0.10448 4.12835

20 0.54542 0.16367 3.33244

Velocity: 25 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 rectangle

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 0.14085 0.014972 9.40756

5 0.24050 0.031798 7.56337

10 0.33617 0.061829 5.43709

15 0.43461 0.10441 4.16253

20 0.54998 0.16409 3.35169

76
Velocity: 10 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 with curved edge

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 0.091134 0.0090327 3.44680

5 0.13785 0.018636 7.39697

10 0.18072 0.034183 5.28683

15 0.22454 0.055372 4.05511

20 0.27841 0.084725 3.28604

Velocity: 15 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 with curved edge

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 0.093103 0.0082939 11.22547

5 0.14107 0.018097 7.79521

10 0.18519 0.034007 5.44564

15 0.22911 0.055368 4.13794

20 0.28223 0.084770 3.32936

77
Velocity: 20 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 with curved edge

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 0.093905 0.0078257 11.99957

5 0.14246 0.01777 8.01688

10 0.18748 0.033828 5.54215

15 0.23193 0.055387 4.18744

20 0.28510 0.084928 3.35696

Velocity: 25 m/s
Airfoil type: NACA 2412 with curved edge

Angle of Attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of Drag CL/CD

(AOA) (CL) (CD)

0 0.094311 0.074920 1.25882

5 0.14313 0.017422 8.21547

10 0.18874 0.033649 5.60908

15 0.23375 0.055366 4.22190

20 0.28736 0.085088 3.37720

78
 INDEXING

ABSTRACT ............................................................... i
INDEXING .............................................................. 79
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................... i
INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1
APPENDIX .............................................................. 79
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................... iv
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ........ 40
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK ............................. 3
DATA COLLECTION ........................................... 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................... ii

79