See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324497076

Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach

Article · April 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 963

1 author:

Yagya Dutta Dwivedi

Institute of Aeronautical Engineering
18 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Aerodynamic analysis of corrugated winglet for MAV performance. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yagya Dutta Dwivedi on 13 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MOJ Applied Bionics and Biomechanics

Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A

Numerical Approach

Abstract Research Article

Multi element airfoils are high lift devices and provide improved aerodynamic Volume 1 Issue 2 - 2017
characteristics which are beneficial for several applications such as aircraft
wings, wind turbine blades. Simulations were performed using the computational
panel code developed in MATLAB for the airfoils, 30P30N, GA (W)-1, RAF16, NLR
7301 configurations. The results were obtained for varying angle of attacks from 1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, GITAM University,
-10 to 20 deg to include the effects of turbulence. The lift and drag coefficients are India
evaluated for the airfoil configurations, 30P30N, for Reynolds number range of 2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, VFSTR University,
1.6x105-1x106. The velocity and pressure contours distributions are illustrated India
to predict the laminar to turbulent flow characteristics on the airfoil surface. The
maximum lift coefficient for single slotted flap element is found to decrease for *Corresponding author: Vasishta Bhargava, Department
large angle of attack beyond the stall region and for slat element the increase in of Mechanical Engineering, GITAM University, Hyderabad,
lift is found to be marginal at high angle of attack. The maximum lift coefficient 502121, India, Email:
obtained including flap and slat elements is 3.62 and the drag coefficient is 0.368.
Received: April 22, 2017 | Published: October 06, 2017
Keywords: Airfoil; Lift coefficient; Drag coefficient; Pressure; Chord; Slat; Flap

Introduction bodies of any shape include potential flow which utilizes the
superposition of source and sink on x axis and in uniform
High lift devices affect the aircraft performance during the distributed flow. However, the theory does not predict accurate
landing, takeoff situations. The addition of such devices along values for flow whose leading edge has rounded shapes. Basic
the wing span ensures the flow characteristics are modified to panel methods were developed by Hess and Smith at Douglas
generate the desired lift required for landing, takeoff conditions. aircraft in late 1950s [5] for aircraft industry. Panel methods
Presence of flap element on the aircraft wing will help achieve model the potential flow by distributing sources over the body
rolling and pitching moment stability by controlling the desired lift surface. A source is point at which the fluid appears in the field
produced during the cruising condition. Dong et al. [1] performed at uniform rate while a sink is point which disappears at uniform
the numerical analysis for determining the flow behavior over rate, m3/s. Each source or sink has specific strength and vortex
the airfoil configurations which included the leading edge slat strength denoted by circulation, Simple 2D uniform lifting flows
and trailing edge flap devices. The influence of flap gaps and the [6] can be described using the following equations
trailing edge flap angles were investigated on such configurations
to quantify the change in the lift and drag coefficients. Wings of ϕ = by − ax … stream line function
cargo aircrafts usually consist of leading edge slat and trailing edge
flap configurations to provide the high aerodynamic efficiency φ bx + ay … Velocity potential function
=
although at the cost of structurally complex design [1]. Sorensen et
The resultant velocity V, at any point
al. [2] conducted wind tunnel experiments on thick multi element
along the flow direction can be written as
airfoil configurations at subsonic flows over airfoil elements and
observed the effects of slat, circulation, boundary layer, in order to
understand how such configurations provide high lift coefficients a 2 + b 2 
compared with conventional airfoils [2]. In the next sections, the
numerical panel methods are discussed which require relatively The point source or sink is distributed uniformly in all
less computational effort to predict the physics of flow around the directions of the flow field and obey the continuity equation and
airfoils and aim to study the influence of high lift devices for static irrigational motion everywhere except at the point itself. The
and dynamic stall conditions experienced by the aircraft wings. total velocity potential [2] for numerical panel method can be
The key parameters involved in the multi element airfoils design rewritten as follows
are deflection or orientation angle, overlap and gap distance φ Ux + µ
=
and its variation will enable to observe its influence on overall
Where, µ is the perturbation potential away from free stream
performance of the airfoil configurations required for intended
conditions. The airfoil geometry is discretized into finite number
application [3,4].
of panels over the surface. The panels are represented by the 2D
Methodology shape of the surface by series of straight line segment [2,4]. The
following procedure describes the calculation for 2D lifting flows.
Computational panel method
A. Numbering of end points or nodes of the panels from 1…N
Traditional methods for modeling flow around slender
B. The center points of each panel are chosen as collocation

Submit Manuscript | http://medcraveonline.com MOJ App Bio Biomech 2017, 1(2): 00012
 Copyright:
Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach ©2017 Bhargava et al. 2/7

points. The boundary condition of zero flow orthogonal to distribution over the surface of the any given airfoil coordinates.
surface is applied to the points. The airfoil trailing edge presents a unique condition for the flow
field parameters. Using panel method, the following criteria is
C. Panels are defined with unit normal and tangential vectors,
applied for the stream lines around the airfoil
n , t .
a) The streamlines leave the trailing edge with a direction along
D. Velocity vector, denoted by are estimated by considering the bisector of the trailing edge angle.
the two panels, i & j the source on the panel j which induce b) The velocity magnitudes on the upper and lower surfaces near
a velocity on panel i. The perpendicular and tangential the trailing edge of airfoil approach the same limiting values.
velocity components to the surface at the point I, are given
c) The trailing edge angle is modeled as the stagnation point for
by scalar products of v ij .n and v ij .t finite value of trailing edge angle hence the source strength
must be zero at the trailing edge.
E. The above quantities represent the source strength on
panel j and expressed mathematically as The above assumptions are known as the Kutta condition which
is essential for the successful evaluation of velocity vectors and
Vij .n = σ j N ij pressure for 2D uniform flows. It can be written in the algebraic
form of equation as

Vij .t = σ j Tij N 

∑ σ j Tt, j + γ Tt,N +1 + U ⋅ ˆt i =
j=1
(N 
− ∑ σ j Tt, j + γ Tt,N +1 + U ⋅ ˆt i
j=1

) (6)

Where N ij and Tij are the perpendicular and tangential

It must be noted that the velocity components induced at
velocities induced at the collocation panel i and known as normal any point P due to sources on panel centered at point Q can be
and tangential influence coefficients. The surfaces represented by expressed mathematically as scalar product of vector form
the panels are solid and the following conditions are applied for
the normal and tangential velocities at each of collocation points v PQ v xQ .tj + v yQ .nj
= (7)
consisting of sources strengths, vortices, and oncoming velocity,
U.
N  N ij = v PQ .ni (8)
∑ σ j N ij + γ N i,N +1 + U ⋅ nˆ i =vn (1)
i
Tij = v PQ .ti
j=1
(9)
N 
∑ σ j Tt, j + γ Tt,N +1 + U ⋅ ˆt i =
v s (2) Therefore, the resulting velocity components along with
j=1 i
known source strengths and influence coefficients are added for
N  each panel in order to obtain pressure distribution over the airfoil
∑ σ j N ij + γ N i,N +1 + U ⋅ nˆ i =
0 (3) surface. The number of panels used (order) in the simulation
j=1
ranged from 150-250 for airfoils in the MATLAB routine foil m
Individual airfoil elements are discretized into several panels in
The above system of linear algebraic equations are solved for
usual manner, for evaluating the pressure characteristics over
the N unknown source strengths, i, using matrix system and
the integrated airfoil configuration. In Figure 1 the graphical
expressed as
illustration of Kutta condition over the airfoil trailing edge is
M. a = b … (4) shown with the limiting velocity vectors. The unit normal vector
and tangential velocity are approximated with equal and opposite
Where N is an N+1 x N+1 matrix containing the Nij and ó i in directions on the trailing edge panel.
is column matrix of N elements and A is the column matrix of
N elements of unit normal velocity vectors. Matrix inversion Airfoil geometry
procedures available in MATLAB are applied to solve for the Slats are airfoil elements which are located in front of main
source strengths using the above system of equations. The airfoil and deflect the flow in the chord wise direction. They enable
pressure acting at collocation point i is given by the Bernoulli the flow separation to occur at higher AOA which as result provide
equation as [5] improved lift characteristic over the wing span [2]. Greenwell
2
studied the influence of trailing edge flaps which increase the
v  profile drag as result of the flap gap and flap deflection angle
C pi = 1 − Ti (5)
 U  however, this is countered with the reduction of induced drag.
The coordinates were obtained from the UIUC airfoil database.
The flap gap at the trailing edge is higher for GA (W)-1, NLR
Where v Ti the tangential velocity vector is determined 7301 airfoils compared to 30P30N airfoil elements [3,7]. There
using the influence coefficients. The influence coefficients are are no leading edge slat elements for the 30P30N, NLR7301, RAE
important for panel method in order to determine the pressure 16 elements. Hence, the total lift produced by them is relatively

Citation: Bhargava V, Dwivedi YD, Rao PMV (2017) Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach. MOJ App Bio Biomech
1(2): 00012. DOI: 10.15406/mojabb.2017.01.00012
 Copyright:
Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach ©2017 Bhargava et al. 3/7

lesser for same set of conditions, free stream Reynolds number,

and angle of attack. Super critical airfoils possess flat suction
surfaces which are intended to minimize the wave drag and
have high curvature in the aft sections and large leading edge
radius compared to NACA 6 series airfoils [8,9]. Although 3D
airfoil design remains complex in nature [4], the results cannot
be directly compared with experimental wind tunnel data.
Optimization of wing geometry involves the displacement of
slat and flap deflections at the trailing edge to produce high or
desired lift. Therefore, they rely on the 2D airfoil design process
which is simple to implement in numerical and experimental
conditions. The flap orientation angle is important to understand
the flow separation caused due to the boundary layer thickness
augmentation aft of the airfoil. The flap element and main element
overlap for different deflection angles whose position in chord Figure 2: Geometry of multi-element airfoils.
wise direction causes the flow to be energized and followed by
subsequent pressure rise aft of the main airfoil element. Figure
2 shows the geometry of airfoils analyzed in this article. Figure
3 depict show flap gap, overhang distance and deflection angle is
measured with respect to leading edge radius and chord line of
main element of airfoil. The super critical airfoils create increased
lift in the aft section, and hence more efficient. It effectively
reduces the shock wave drag which is observed in the transonic
and supersonic flow conditions. The shock wave occurs on the
upper surface of the airfoil and propagates downstream along the
chord. When it reaches the aft, the pressure bumps can be noticed
in the flap section of the airfoil [10]. The gap between the trailing Figure 3: Schematic of flap gap, overlap distance and deflection angle
edge and main element is measured in two directions, normal [1].
direction to surface of main element and also in vertical direction.
The deflection angle is intended for boundary layer flow over the
main element to reenergize and create delayed stall separation in Results and Discussion
the aft of airfoil. It must be noted that advantage of improved lift Pressure distribution
on airfoil configuration is created due to the combined effect of
high lift on slat section, pressure recovery on the flap sections. The Computations were performed for multi element airfoil
chord length of slat is given in terms % of main chord, maximum configuration as shown in previous section for angles of attacks 4,
thickness, %, of main element airfoil, chord length of flap element 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 degrees respectively. Since the computations
expressed in terms of % of main chord which are essential to are based upon the numerical panel method, no grid validation
construct the airfoil geometry. studies were involved in the analyses which affect the pressure
variable at different angle of attack and free stream Reynolds
number. The pressure distribution and contours of tangential
velocity for the NLR 7301 supercritical airfoil, GA (W) -1, 30P30N,
RAE 16 are discussed.. It utilized Intel 4GHz processor, 2GB RAM,
PC at GITAM University high performance computing lab. The
pressure contours near the gap region at the trailing edge flap
show dense regions with high pressure values distribution and
with discontinuous bumps in flow seen near the leading edge of
the flap in deflected position. The disturbances are produced near
the leading edge slat and translate along the chord wise direction
of the airfoil, resulting in nonlinear pressure distribution. The
presence of leading edge slats are also intended to reduce the
vibration and improve the performance. Table 1 shows the
thickness %, chord lengths of main element and the flap gap
between the trailing edge of main element and flap. In Figures 4 &
5, the pressure and velocity contours are shown with the pressure
probe on the surface of airfoil are represented on the Y-axis, and
angle of attack on the X-axis. The pressure probes are numbered
serially starting from upper and lower surfaces and leading edge
Figure 1: Graphical illustration of kutta condition. of slat element to trailing edge of flap element in continuous
manner. From Figure 4 it must be noted that the pressure peaks on

Citation: Bhargava V, Dwivedi YD, Rao PMV (2017) Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach. MOJ App Bio Biomech
1(2): 00012. DOI: 10.15406/mojabb.2017.01.00012
 Copyright:
Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach ©2017 Bhargava et al. 4/7

the suction side of NLR 7301 airfoil are highly over predicted for
the flow conditions. The pressure coefficient reaches a maximum
of 5 at 40AoA, which represents the transition to turbulent region
on the airfoil surface. Further, beyond the 20 % c of main element,
the pressure gradient is lowered towards the trailing edge. At
140AoA, the pressure coefficient is over predicted formed on the
suction side at leading edge of airfoil. It may further entail in the
formation of bubbles due to adverse pressure gradient created
on the airfoil surface at higher sonic speeds (Figure 6). Pressure
distributions of LS, MS, Natural LaminarFlow (NLF) airfoils at 1
deg Angle of attack. The pressure distribution of GAW-1, GAW-2
airfoils is shown in Figure 6 for 6deg angle of attack. The suction
side pressure peak is observed higher in case of GAW-1 due to
high thickness and for same set of flow stream and boundary
conditions. The pressure coefficient, Cp is ~6 for GAW-2 and ~7
for GAW-1. The trailing edge pressure peak on the pressure side
is constrained due to the overlap between the main element and Figure 4: Pressure distribution of NLR 7301 supercritical airfoil at 14
slotted flap with a maximum value of 1.9. It must be noted that the deg and 4 deg AOA.
main element is composed of several slots due to which pressure
bumps can be observed 20% and 60% chord of airfoil. From
Figure 6 a comparison has been made for the series of low speed
airfoil with two different thicknesses, ~14 % and 17 % commonly
used in cargo or military transport aircrafts where the payload
capacity is important criterion than top speed of the aircraft. The
flow reversal regime is seen to occur for low to medium speed, MS
313, 317at 1 deg AOA where the suction and pressure surfaces
are interchanged. For the 30P30N configuration, a single slotted
flap element is chosen at the trailing edge and a retractable
leading edge slat. At higher air speeds the slat element ensures
the oncoming flow to remain in laminar state which will cause the
formation of the boundary layer transitions to occur at large angle
of attack. The gap between the slat and main element ensures the
pressure recovery at the leading edge of main element where
the predominant lift is produced. The flow stream conditions at
the trailing edge are altered by the position of the flap and its
Figure 5: Pressure distribution of GAW-1, GAW-2 airfoils at 6deg angle
deflection angle. Further, the gap measured in normal direction
of attack.
between the flap and trailing edge of main element also affects
the overall lift produced from the configuration. However, in the
present study, no attempt was made to observe the effect of flap
deflection and overlap distances between the slotted elements
of the airfoil. From Figure 7 it can be noted that the suction side
pressure coefficient for flap and slat elements is excessively over
predicted at 9 and 11, 13deg due to the turbulent flow nature
of aft of airfoil and presence of extended flap, slat gap between
the main and flap element. The maximum pressure coefficient
obtained is~8 on the flap leading edge. The flow stream past the
surface of airfoil increases due to the presence of cove region
near the trailing edge on the main element of airfoil. Therefore,
the pressure recovery can be observed at high AOA however, the
pressure continues to drop at the leading edge of flap section as
result of the flap gap in the deflected position (Figure 8).
Table 1: Thickness chord and flap gap of multi element airfoils.
Figure 6: Pressure distribution of LS, MS, Natural LaminarFlow (NLF)
Airfoil 30P30N GAW-1/ GAW-2 NLR 7301 RAF 15 airfoils at 1 deg Angle of attack.
Thickness, % c 15 17, 13 16.5 16
The Figure 9 shows the tangential velocity around the RAF
Chord, (x/c) 1.21 1.18 1.27 1.2
16 airfoil surface for Reynolds number ~ 6.67 x 105. For larger
Flap gap, %c 2.95 2.1 2.6 1.93 flap deflections, the flow characteristics on the RAF continue with

Citation: Bhargava V, Dwivedi YD, Rao PMV (2017) Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach. MOJ App Bio Biomech
1(2): 00012. DOI: 10.15406/mojabb.2017.01.00012
 Copyright:
Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach ©2017 Bhargava et al. 5/7

higher values for relative or tangential velocity increments near and slat gap present between the trailing edge of slat and main
the trailing edge. Velocity contours indicate that magnitudes are element will influence the lift characteristic of airfoil. From Figure
higher towards the leading of flap and main section and show 13 the maximum lift coefficient for the airfoil with flap included
increasing values of relative velocity on the suction side, while reached value of 3.67 while the drag for slat increases for large
continuous decrements on the pressure side of airfoil. Figure angles of attack, the flap drag reduces due to reattachment of
10 shows the pressure contour where the maximum pressure boundary layer occurs with laminar to turbulent flow separation
coefficient is observed at the probe number 100-160 and also at the trailing edge of main airfoil.
near 240. The term vortices here refer to the local rotation of fluid
and obtained by taking the curl of velocity field vector. Circulation
on the other hand can be viewed as the local spinning of the fluid
about a fixed center. The vortices contour of the GAW-1 (LS417)
airfoil is shown in Figure 11. The probe number is shown on
the x-scale beginning from the upper surface of airfoil along the
profile boundary and used to measure the pressure on the surface
of profile in experimental analysis. For incompressible fluids it
can be seen that size of vortices becomes large as the angle of
attack (AOA) is increasing. Further, the vortices appear near the
trailing edge on upper and lower surfaces with varying size due
to augmentation of pressure aft of the airfoil. Figure 12 shows the
streamline contour of the GAW-1 airfoil. The relative size of the
vortex structure is large near the leading edge of airfoil at higher
angle of attack. It can also be seen that the frequency of vortices Figure 8: Pressure distribution of RAF 15 airfoil at 4 deg and 10deg
shed from the trailing edge is higher compared to leading edge for angle of attack.
given chord wise position of airfoil. Mathematically vortices can
be written as

∂v ∂u
ω= − = ∇ × V (10)
∂x ∂y

ϕ= [
∫ udy − vdx =
∇.V ] (11)

Figure 9: Tangential velocity and Velocity contour of RAF 15 airfoil at

Re – 6.6x105.

Figure 7: Pressure distribution of 30P30N airfoil at 9, 11 & 13deg

Angle of attack.

Lift and drag characteristics

Models designed based upon the wind tunnel testing and data
obtained from measurements are useful to validate the numerical
results. Empirical corrections are needed on such wind tunnel data
in order to compare airfoil response for efficient characterization
at different angle of attack, Mach number and airfoils with variable
camber. This data reduction enables to understand the dynamic
Figure 10: Pressure contours of RAF 15 airfoil slotted airfoil for -10
stall behavior conditions and factors that can delay the stall and
to 20 deg AOA.
improve the lift on the wing span. The relative position of slat

Citation: Bhargava V, Dwivedi YD, Rao PMV (2017) Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach. MOJ App Bio Biomech
1(2): 00012. DOI: 10.15406/mojabb.2017.01.00012
 Copyright:
Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach ©2017 Bhargava et al. 6/7

The flap deflection angle, and the overlapping gap between the
main and flap or slat element is important for increasing or
decreasing the overall lift of the wing. The flow conditions exhibit
the delayed stall characteristics due to the presence of slat element
at the leading edge enabling the high lift. The continuity of flow
over the main element in near laminar conditions is responsible
for producing pressure peaks on the suction side of airfoil and
pressure recovery obtained at the leading edge of flap element.
At higher angle of attack, the lift coefficient on the flap decreases
while it increases on slat. The drag coefficient of flap remains
steady until 10 deg and reduces to zero at higher angle of attack.
The maximum lift coefficient obtained is 3.67 including the flap
and slat element and drag coefficient is 0.36. The lift coefficients
for flap and slat elements are under predicted due to the turbulent
flow nature aft of the slat element in its deflected position

Figure 11: Vorticity contour of GAW -1 [LS 417] Airfoil.

List of Symbols and Acronyms
1. UIUC – University of Illinois Urbana Champaign
2. AOA – Angle of Attack
3. CL – Lift coefficient
4. CD – Drag coefficient
5. CP – Pressure coefficient
6. NLF – Natural Laminar Flow
7. GA – General Aviation,
8. GA (W) – General Aviation (Whitcomb)

Acknowledgement
None
Figure 12: Stream function contour of GAW -1 Airfoil.
Conflict of Interest
None

References
1. Zhang Z, Dong Li (2012) Numerical investigation of flow over multi
element airfoils with lift enhancing Tabs. 28th International congress
of the Aeronautical Sciences China, p. 1-10.
2. Zahle F, Guanaa M, Sorensen NN, Bak C (2012) Design and Wind
Tunnel Testing of Thick Multi element high lift airfoil. Wind Energy
Department, Denmark.
3. Narsipur S, Pomeroy BW, Selig M (2012) CFD Analysis of Multi
element Airfoils, for Wind Turbines. 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, USA.

Figure 13: Lift and drag characteristics of 30P30N slotted airfoil for 0 4. Ahaus L, Liggett N, Peters DA, Smith MJ (2010) Unsteady
to 20 deg AOA. aerodynamics of single and multi-element airfoils. ERF, pp. 1-12.
5. Abbot H, Doenhoff V (2000) A Theory of Wing Sections, Including
summary of airfoil data. Dover publications Inc, USA, pp. 1-704.
Conclusion
6. Haughton, Carpenter (2001) Aerodynamics for Engineering students.
Slat and flap elements produce high lift by increasing (6th edn), Elsevier publications, USA, pp. 1-740.
the effective area of the wing. The pressure distribution for
NLR7301, 30P30N, GAW-1, GAW-2, RAF16 airfoils, and lift, drag 7. Harris T, Lowry J (1942) Pressure distribution over NACA 23012
airfoil with fixed slot and slotted flap. National Advisory Committee
characteristics are evaluated using the numerical panel method.
for Aeronautics. Langley Aeronautical Lab, USA, p. 85-98.

Citation: Bhargava V, Dwivedi YD, Rao PMV (2017) Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach. MOJ App Bio Biomech
1(2): 00012. DOI: 10.15406/mojabb.2017.01.00012
 Copyright:
Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach ©2017 Bhargava et al. 7/7

8. Weber S, Platzer MF (2000) Computational simulation of dynamic 10. Wenz WH, Fisckom KA (1978) Pressure distributions for the GA(W)-
stall on the NLR 7301 airfoil. Naval postgraduate school, USA, p. 1-21. 2 airfoil with 20 % aileron, 25 % slotted flap and 30% Fowler flap,
NASA Contractor report 2948. Wichita State Univ, USA, p. 1-86.
9. B Van den Berg, Gooden JHM (1994) Gooden Low speed surface
pressure and boundary layer measurement data for the NLR 7301
airfoil section with trailing edge flap. J Global 303(2): A9.1-A9.12.

Citation: Bhargava V, Dwivedi YD, Rao PMV (2017) Analysis of Multi-Element Airfoil Configurations: A Numerical Approach. MOJ App Bio Biomech
1(2): 00012. DOI: 10.15406/mojabb.2017.01.00012

View publication stats