Research Article

CFD analysis of the aerodynamic characteristics of biconvex airfoil

at compressible and high Mach numbers flow
Ebrahim Hosseini1

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
In the present study, numerical investigation of the turbulent flow over a biconvex airfoil at compressible and high Mach
numbers flow is done using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The flow is considered as turbulent, two-dimensional,
steady and compressible. For this purpose, three Reynolds number of 2.4 × 107, 2.9 × 107 and 3.3 × 107 are considered. The
simulations are implemented using the commercial software Ansys Fluent 16. The results are obtained with Reynolds-
averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS), and for simulating the flow turbulence, SST k–ω turbulence model is carried out. The
results show that the lift coefficient (­ CL) and drag coefficient (­ CD) increase by the increment of the angle of attack (α).
The lift-to-drag ratio ­(CL/CD) is improved by increasing the Mach number (Ma) and cause to delay the boundary layer
separation. Increasing the Mach number affects the stall angle which causes to increase it from α = 22° to α = 30° from
Ma = 1 to Ma = 1.4.

Keywords Biconvex airfoil · Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) · Mach number · Lift coefficient · Drag coefficient

List of symbols 1 Introduction

c Airfoil chord length
α Angle of attack Supersonic flow over aeronautical configurations has a
ρ Density wide scope in the aerospace applications [1–3]. Biconvex
CD Drag coefficient and double-wedge airfoils are extensively employed in
U∞ Free stream velocity aerospace engineering and many works have been done
CL Lift coefficient by researches [4, 5]. The Supersonic aircraft uses bicon-
Y+ Normal distance in wall coordinates vex and double wedge airfoil but any analysis data for
P Pressure these two airfoils is not available easily [6]. It is important
CP Pressure coefficient to have the knowledge of aerodynamic parameters in
Re Reynolds number order to design wings. To analyze and obtain the results
τ Shear stress of supersonic flight, CFD method can be helpful to under-
ε Turbulent dissipation stand wing analysis at supersonic flow. Askari et al. [4]
k Turbulent kinetic energy numerically studied compressible flow around the dou-
μ Viscosity ble wedge and biconvex airfoils by CFD. They concluded
that the aerodynamic coefficients gained from both ana-
lytical and numerical methods were in good agreement.
Olejniczak et al. [7] investigated numerically and experi-
mentally a double-wedge airfoil and measured the surface
pressure and heat transfer coefficient. They indicated that

* Ebrahim Hosseini, [email protected] | 1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dezful Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Dezful, Iran.

SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:1283 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1334-2

Received: 2 August 2019 / Accepted: 21 September 2019 / Published online: 25 September 2019

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Article SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:1283 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1334-2

separation zones in numerical analyses are smaller than 2 Grid generation and boundary conditions
in experiment results. Raghunathan et al. [8] numerically
considered oscillations of the shock wave over biconvex A C-type grid is generated using the mesh generation
airfoil. They found that the shock-induced separation has module of the Ansys software. The C-type grid is applied
a great impact on the origin of shock oscillations. Al-Garni to form a regular mesh. The grid extends from 12 chords
et al. [9] experimentally and numerically investigated the upstream to 20 chords downstream and the upper and
aerodynamic coefficients of the double-delta wing. Their lower boundary extends 12 chords from the profile which
results of the surface pressure coefficient distribution and is shown in Fig. 1. The upstream should be selected at a
vortex breakdown location were in excellent agreement distance where the flow regains its normal state and the
with experimental data. Hamid et al. [10] numerically presence of the object in the flow causes no changes in
investigated the compressible flow over a biconvex circu- that location.
lar arc airfoil. They found that the unsteady shock move- Different computational domains are selected to con-
ment generates the transient shock-boundary layer inter- sider domain extent independence test as shown in Fig. 2.
action and leads to create the separation. Rahman et al. For this purpose, the pressure coefficient ­(CP) is calculated
[11] numerically analyzed the self-excited shock oscillation at Mach number of 1 and angle of attack of 20°. It is found
over a biconvex circular arc airfoil with and without cav- that the domain with 12 chords upstream to 20 chords
ity. Their results demonstrated that the airfoil with cavity downstream of the airfoil is sufficient for the present simu-
dramatically decreased the flow field unsteadiness. Also, lation. Inlet, upper and lower boundaries are considered
Rahman et al. [12] modified the geometry of the baseline
airfoil to consider the effects of cavity size on the control
of transonic internal flow. They concluded that the average
RMS of pressure oscillation around the airfoil with an open
cavity has decreased dramatically.
Although many numerical investigations have been
done to investigate the aerodynamic performance and
flow characteristics of biconvex airfoils but rare studies
have been focused on the simulation of turbulent flow
around the thin symmetric airfoils especially the bicon-
vex airfoil at compressible and high Mach numbers flow
using CFD technique. For this purpose, three different
Ma = 1, Ma = 1.2 and Ma = 1.4 are selected to consider the
flow characteristics of the biconvex airfoil and simulate the
flow separation at high Mach numbers. Moreover, all steps
of the investigation including aerodynamic performance,
simulation, calculation and comparison of various Mach
numbers and angels of attacks are discussed in detail.
Fig. 2  Domain extent independence study

Fig. 1  Boundary conditions and a view of the entire grid generation

Vol:.(1234567890)
SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:1283 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1334-2 Research Article

as inlet velocity and outlet are considered as pressure out- The transport equations for the SST k–ω model are
let. Furthermore, the no-slip boundary condition is used given by [14]:
for the airfoil wall. A closer view of the grid generation is
illustrated in Fig. 3.
( )
𝜕 𝜕 ( ) 𝜕 𝜕k
(𝜌k) + 𝜌kui = 𝛤k + Gk − Yk (5)
𝜕t 𝜕xi 𝜕xj 𝜕xj

3 Governing equations and numerical

( )
𝜕 𝜕 ( ) 𝜕 𝜕𝜔
(𝜌𝜔) + 𝜌𝜔ui = 𝛤𝜔 + G𝜔 − Y𝜔 + D𝜔
method 𝜕t 𝜕xi 𝜕xj 𝜕xj
(6)
The compressible Navier–Stokes equations are selected where Гk and Гω define as the effective diffusivity of k and
as governing equations of the flow field. These governing ω, respectively. ­Gk and ­Gω indicate the generation of k and
equations can be expressed as follows for steady and two- ω due to mean velocity gradients, respectively. ­Yk and ­Yω
dimensional flow [13]: are the dissipation of k and ω, respectively. ­Dω denotes the
( ) cross-diffusion term.
All present simulations are carried out with the density-
( )
𝜕 𝜌ux 𝜕 𝜌uy
+ =0 (1) based finite volume solver of the commercial software
𝜕x 𝜕y
ANSYS Fluent 16 due to the fluid compressibility assump-
tion. In addition, SIMPLE coupled algorithm [13, 18, 19] is
( ) ( ) 𝜕P adopted for pressure–velocity coupling and upwind sec-
𝜕x 𝜌ux ux + 𝜕y 𝜌ux uy = − + 𝜕x 𝜏xx + 𝜕y 𝜏xy (2)
𝜕x ond order method is used for discretizing the governing
equations.
( ) ( ) 𝜕P
𝜕x 𝜌ux uy + 𝜕y 𝜌uy uy = −
𝜕y
+ 𝜕x 𝜏xy + 𝜕y 𝜏yy (3)

4 Grid independence study

𝜕ux 𝜕uy
( ) ( )
2 𝜕ux
𝜏xx = − 𝜇 + + 2𝜇
3 𝜕x 𝜕y 𝜕x Grid independence study is conducted for different cells by
𝜕u 𝜕uy considering ­CL and C ­ D as parameters. Four different grids
( ) ( )
2 𝜕u x y 𝜕u x
𝜏xy = − 𝜇 + +𝜇 + (4) with cell numbers of 15,144, 29,571, 52,170 and 77,321 are
3 𝜕x 𝜕y 𝜕x 𝜕x
(
𝜕u
) (
𝜕u
) generated to evaluate grid independency which all the
2 𝜕ux y y
𝜏yy = − 𝜇 + + 2𝜇 results are compared to each other. In order to calculate lift
3 𝜕x 𝜕y 𝜕y
and drag coefficients, Ma = 1 and α = 20° are used which is
indicated in Table 1. There is a negligible difference between
the results of the smallest grid and the grid with 52,170 cells.
where u is velocity, µ is the viscosity, ρ is density, P is pres-
Thus, in order to save computation time and gain better
sure and τ is shear stress.
accuracy, the grid with 52,170 cells are adopted to compute
In this study, RANS equations are solved with the SST
the results. Figures 4a, b and 5a, b show the lift and drag
k–ω turbulence model for turbulence simulation. SST k–ω
coefficients for α = 16° and 20°, respectively. Airfoil is consid-
turbulence model provides good predictive capability for
ered as biconvex with a thickness of 0.07 which its maximum
flows with separation [14–17].
thickness is 0.4. The distance of the nearest node from the

Fig. 3  A closer view of the grid

generation

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Article SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:1283 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1334-2

Table 1  Grid independence Grid Number of cells Growth factor Height of the Y+ CL CD
study at α = 20° and Ma = 1 first cell

#1 15,144 1.1 5 × 10−4 7.52 1.06 0.37

#2 29,571 1.1 1 × 10−4 4.38 1.22 0.49
#3 52,170 1.1 1 × 10−5 0.86 1.32 0.61
#4 77,321 1.1 2 × 10−6 0.51 1.324 0.614

Fig. 4  Grid independence study at α = 16° and Ma = 1 for a lift coefficient and b drag coefficient

Fig. 5  Grid independence study at α = 20° and Ma = 1 for a lift coefficient and b drag coefficient

Vol:.(1234567890)
SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:1283 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1334-2 Research Article

6 Results and discussion

6.1 Changes of lift and drag coefficients

Figure 7a depicts the changes of lift coefficient ­(CL) based

on the angle of attack (α). In this figure, three different
Ma = 1, Ma = 1.2 and Ma = 1.4 are compared with each
other. The lift coefficient enhances with the increment of
the angle of attack so that the increase of lift coefficient for
the Mach number of 1.4 is greater than the Mach number
of 1 and 1.2, which this increment is more significant at
α = 22°. The value of the lift coefficient increases by increas-
ing the Mach number. At angles of attack less than 4°, the
values of lift coefficient are almost the same for all three
Fig. 6  Comparison between the pressure coefficient ­(Cp) with the Mach numbers so that the difference of these values is
results of Tulita et al. [20] at α = 0° about 5%. As it is obvious, the stall occurs at α = 22° at
a Ma = 1 and also stall occurs at Ma = 1.2 and Ma = 1.4 at
α = 28° and α = 30°, respectively. It is important to note that
airfoil surface is 1 × 10−5 which certifies that the near wall ­Y+ the stall occurs at higher angles of attack by increasing the
is kept less than 1 as shown in Table 1. Mach number.
Also, Fig. 7b demonstrates the changes of drag coef-
ficient ­(CD) based on the angle of attack for three Ma = 1,
5 Validation Ma = 1.2 and Ma = 1.4. Similar to the lift coefficient, by
increasing the angle of attack, the drag coefficient has also
The changes of pressure coefficient (­C P ) at α = 0° in increased. The value of the drag coefficient decreases by
terms of the airfoil chord length are compared with the increasing the Mach number. The lowest amount of drag
results of Tulita et al. [20], which numerically studied the coefficient has obtained at Ma = 1.4. At α = 32° which the
flow control techniques on a biconvex airfoil for verify- highest amount of drag coefficient is obtained, the drag
ing the accuracy of the computational results (Fig. 6). coefficient at Ma = 1 is about 8% and 30% higher than
The results are in good agreement with the results of Ma = 1.2 and Ma = 1.4, respectively.
Tulita et al. [20], suggesting the accuracy of the com-
putational results.

Fig. 7  Changes of a lift coefficient and b drag coefficient for three different Mach numbers

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Article SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:1283 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1334-2

6.3 Changes of pressure coefficient ­(CP)

around a biconvex airfoil

The pressure coefficient ­(Cp) for the three Mach numbers

of 1, 1.2 and 1.4 at α = 12° and 20° is compared with each
other (Fig. 9). By considering these cases, it can be seen
that the pressure coefficient increases on the upper and
lower surfaces of the biconvex airfoil by increasing Mach
number, so that these changes are less with the increment
of Mach number. The pressure coefficient can be written
as [21]:

p − p∞
Cp = 1 (7)
𝜌 u2
2 ∞ ∞

Fig. 8  Changes of lift-to-drag ratio based on the angle of attack for where ­P∞ is the free flow pressure, ρ∞ is the fluid density
three different Mach numbers of free flow, ­u∞ is the free flow velocity and P is the point

6.2 Changes of the lift‑to‑drag ratio

Figure 8 indicates the changes of lift-to-drag ratio ­(CL/CD)

based on the angle of attack (α). In this figure, three differ-
ent Ma = 1, Ma = 1.2 and Ma = 1.4 are compared with each
other. As it is obvious, the lift-to-drag ratio is greater at
lower angles of attack and with the increase of angle of
attack, this ratio decreases with a large slope. The value
of ­CL/CD at Ma = 1 is less than two other Mach numbers.
Moreover, the lift-to-drag ratio decreases with the same
slope in all three Mach numbers at angles of attack from
14° to 26°.

Fig. 10  Velocity contours at Ma = 1

Fig. 9  Changes of pressure coefficient at a α = 12° and b α = 20° for three different Mach numbers

Vol:.(1234567890)
SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:1283 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1334-2 Research Article

Fig. 11  Velocity contours at Ma = 1.2 Fig. 14  Pressure contours at Ma = 1.2

Fig. 12  Velocity contours at Ma = 1.4 Fig. 15  Pressure contours at Ma = 1.4

6.4 Velocity and pressure contours

around a biconvex airfoil

Figures 10, 11 and 12 shows the velocity contours around

a biconvex airfoil at α = 26° for three Mach numbers of 1,
1.2 and 1.4. As it can be seen, a deep stall occurs at this
angle when the Mach number is equal to 1. Increasing
of Mach number causes to delay the flow separation. In
Fig. 10, flow separation occurs near the trailing edge of
the airfoil at 0.84 of the airfoil chord length at a Mach
number of 1.2. Finally, flow separation occurs near the
leading edge of the airfoil at 0.96 of the airfoil chord
length at a Mach number of 1.4.
Moreover, Figs. 13, 14 and 15 demonstrate the pres-
Fig. 13  Pressure contours at Ma = 1
sure contours around a biconvex airfoil at α = 26° for
three Mach numbers of 1, 1.2 and 1.4. As it can be
pressure where the pressure coefficient is taken into seen, the pressure on the upper surface of the airfoil
account. has its lowest value and it has a maximum value on the
lower surface of the airfoil and the maximum pressure
observes near the leading edge at the lower surface.

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Article SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:1283 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1334-2

7 Conclusions 6. Tharkude TS, Li ZH (2018) Simulation study of supersonic natural

laminar flow on wing with biconvex airfoil. IJERT 7(3):1–8
7. Ovsyannikov MP (1976) Allowance for gas blowing in supersonic
This study mainly focused on the numerical investigation flow over a wedge. J Eng Phys Thermophys 30(6):663–668
of the turbulent flow over a biconvex airfoil at compressi- 8. Raghunathan S, Gillan MA, Cooper RK, Mitchell RD, Cole JS
ble and high Mach numbers flow using CFD technique. The (1999) Shock oscillations on biconvex aerofoils. Aerosp Sci Tech-
nol 3(1):1–9
flow is considered as turbulent, two-dimensional, steady
9. Al-Garni AZ, Saeed F, Al-Garni AM (2008) Experimental and
and compressible. In addition, three Reynolds number of numerical investigation of 65-degree Delta and 65/40-degree
2.4 × 107, 2.9 × 107 and 3.3 × 107 are considered. The steady double-delta wings. J Aircr 45(1):71–76
RANS equations are solved with the SST k–ω turbulence 10. Hamid MA, Hasan AT, Alimuzzaman SM, Matsuo S, Setoguchi T
(2014) Compressible flow characteristics around a biconvex arc
model for simulating the turbulence. The results indicated
airfoil in a channel. Propul Power Res 3(1):29–40
that the lift coefficient enhanced with the increment of 11. Rahman MM, Hasan AT, Islam AS, Matsuo S, Setoguchi T (2015)
angle of attack so that the increase of lift coefficient for Computation of transonic internal flow around a biconvex airfoil
the Ma = 1.4 is greater than the Ma = 1 and Ma = 1.2. The with cavity. J Mech Sci Technol 29(6):2415–2421
12. Rahman MM, Hasan T, Rabbi MS (2017) Effects of cavity size on
drag coefficient has also increased with the increment of
the control of transonic internal flow around a biconvex circular
the angle of attack, and as the Mach number increased arc airfoil. AIP conference proceedings, 1851(1). AIP Publishing
at the same angles of attack, the value of the drag coef- 13. Fatahian E, Nichkoohi AL, Fatahian H (2019) Numerical study of
ficient decreased. By considering the value of the lift-to- the effect of suction at a compressible and high Reynolds num-
ber flow to control the flow separation over Naca 2415 airfoil.
drag ratio, it was concluded that the value of lift-to-drag Prog Comput Fluid Dyn 19(3):170–179
ratio decreased with the same slope in all three Mach num- 14. Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence mod-
bers. The stall occurred at α = 22°, 28° and 30° for Ma = 1, 1.2 els for engineering applications. AIAA J 32(8):1598–1605
and 1.4, respectively. It is clear that stall occurred at higher 15. Catalano P, Amato M (2003) An evaluation of RANS turbulence
modeling for aerodynamic applications. Aerosp Sci Technol
angles of attack by increasing Mach number. 7(7):493–509
16. Menter FR, Kuntz M, Langtry R (2003) Ten years of industrial
experience with the SST turbulence model. Turbul Heat Mass
Compliance with ethical standards Transf 4(1):625–632
17. Fatahian H, Salarian H, Eshagh Nimvari M, Fatahian E (2018)
Numerical study of suction and blowing approaches to control
Conflict of interest No conflict of interest was declared by the au-
flow over a compressor cascade in turbulent flow regime. Int J
thor.
Autom Mech Eng 15(2):5326–5346
18. Genç MS, Kaynak U, Yapici H (2011) Performance of transition
model for predicting low Re aerofoil flows without/with single
References and simultaneous blowing and suction. Eur J Mech B Fluids
30(2):218–235
19. Monir HE, Tadjfar M, Bakhtian A (2014) Tangential synthetic jets
1. Hodson JD, Christopherson AP, Deaton JD, Pankonien AM, Reich
for separation control. J Fluids Struct 45(1):50–65
GW, Beran PS (2019) Aeroelastic topology optimization of a mor-
20. Tulita C, Raghunathan S, Benard E (2004) Drag reduction and
phing airfoil in supersonic flow using evolutionary design. AIAA
buffeting alleviation in transonic periodic flow over biconvex
Scitech 2019 Forum
aerofoils. In: 24th international congress of the aeronautical sci-
2. Hari N, Schetz JA, Kapania RK (2019) Numerical prediction of
ences, pp 1–13
interference drag of a strut-surface intersection in supersonic
21. Vuddagiri A, Halder P, Samad A, Chaudhuri A (2016) Flow analy-
flow. AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum
sis of airfoil having different cavities on its suction surface. Prog
3. Manshadi MD, Aghajanian S (2018) Computational aerodynamic
Comput Fluid Dyn Int J 16(2):67–77
optimization of wing-design concept at supersonic conditions
by means of the response surface method. J Braz Soc Mech Sci
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Eng 40(5):254–265
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
4. Askari S, Shojaeefard MH, Goudarzi K (2011) Numerical and ana-
lytical solution of compressible flow over double wedge and
biconvex airfoils. Eng Comput 28(4):441–471
5. Keith TG, Cioc S, Jiang H (2019) Spreadsheet computations of a
symmetric double wedge airfoil in supersonic flow. Int J Mech
Eng Educ 0(0):1–16

Vol:.(1234567890)