Effect of triangular cavity and protrusion on a symmetrical

airfoil at various angles of attack

Athota Rathan Babu1, K. Sai Nihal2, Safiuddin Ahmed Syed3 , Syed Saadullah4, Mo-
hammed Aijaz Farooq5, Basel Najeeb Iqbal6, A. Rama Bhanu Ashish7, Amaan Khan8,
Sakshi Bang9 and Abdullah Yakoob10
1
Institute of Aeronautical Engineering, Hyderabad, India
[email protected]

Abstract: Current research aims to improve the performance of an aerodynamic efficiency by

manipulating the flow over a symmetrical airfoil using a triangular cavity and protrusion. Com-
parison is made between clean airfoil and airfoil with triangular cavity and protrusion at 25 %
and 75 % of the chord with a Reynolds number of 1e-06. Numerical simulations are done at
various angles of attack such as 0, 4, 8,12, 16, 20 deg using opensource (OpenFOAM) software.
Results have shown that the L/D ratio for clean airfoil is higher till 12 deg, after stall the perfor-
mance of cavity airfoil is increased by capturing low energy flow near the airfoil wall. Finally,
the cavity at 75 % of the chord can be deployed to increase the aerodynamic efficiency at higher
angles of attack. In future the parametric study of different shapes cavity and protruding surface
will be investigated to verify the effectiveness of increase in aerodynamic efficiency

Keywords: CFD, Symmetrical Airfoil, Triangular Cavity, Triangular Protrusion, Stall

angle, Aerodynamic efficiency.

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction
The performance of an aircraft is determined by the aerodynamic efficiency of an air-
foil. The ratio of coefficient of lift to coefficient of drag is considered as aerodynamic
efficiency. Flow separation is one of the main factors which effect the aerodynamic
efficiency of an airfoil. Creating surface roughness over the surface of an airfoil ma-
nipulates the flow separation which in turn alters the aerodynamic efficiency. Flow
separation occurs when the boundary layer travels far enough against adverse pressure
gradient. Creating roughness at certain potions considering various parameters will
have impact on delaying in flow separation.
1.2 Phenomenon of flow separation
When the boundary layer travels far enough against an adverse pressure gradient that
the speed of the boundary layer relative to the object falls almost to 0, the flow becomes
detached from the surface of the object creating flow separation
2

Total drag is the sum of skin friction drag and pressure drag. Flow separation creates
pressure drag which in turn increases total drag. Pressure drag is formed due to the
pressure differential between the front and rear surfaces of the airfoil as it travels
through the air.
1.3 Effect of roughness
Adverse pressure gradient is decreased due to surface roughness which delays the
boundary layer separation. Due to this phenomenon, there is an effective decrease in
pressure drag which in turn leads to decrement in total drag over an airfoil. As we know
pressure drag is more for laminar and less for turbulent flow, surface roughness over
an airfoil makes the flow turbulent which in turn leads to the decrease in pressure drag
and hence the total drag over the airfoil is decreased.
1.4 Roughness configuration
In this project CFD analysis is done over an NACA0012 symmetrical airfoil on which
a circular roughness is created. Two distinct positions are considered one at 25% of
chord length ad other at 65% of chord length of the airfoil. Simulation is done for the
above cases for two different Reynolds number. The airfoil has a chord length of
250mm. The circular roughness created over the airfoil is having a radius equivalent to
1% chord length which is equal to 2.5 mm
1.5 Advantages of surface roughness
The advantages of surface roughness are as follows:

∙ Delay in flow separation.

∙ Decrease in total drag at higher angle of attack.
∙ Increase in stall angle.
∙ Effective increase in aerodynamic efficiency at higher angle of attack.
1.6 Limitations
Surface roughness has a negative impact at lower angle of attack.

2 Literature Survey & Problem Identification

2.1 Introduction
One of the major challenges for the aviation industry is the development of aerody-
namic efficiency and reduction of drag. There has been considerable research on their
feasibility and their applications. This research has been presented in the form of re-
search papers and journals.
2.2 Dynamic roughness as a means of leading-edge separation flow control
P. D. Gall [1], W. W. Huebsch [2] and A.P. Roth Mayer [3] has done research on effect
of dynamic roughness to control the leading-edge flow separation. Numerical and ex-
perimental analysis is performed. A NACA 0012 airfoil was tested in the West Virginia
University flow visualization wind tunnel. The model had a 151 mm span and a 152
 3

mm chord. It was tested at Reynolds numbers of 100,000 and 150,000. The mechanism
used to create the dynamic roughness consisted of a thin latex rubber (0.08 mm thick-
ness) sheet cemented to a thin wire mesh. Computational analysis was done with the
basic airfoil with a one-meter chord length and a thickness ratio of 12% (NACA 0012).
The dynamic roughness initially consisted of a series of 14 humps placed in 14 zones
beginning at the 0.6% chord location and extending to the 3.2% chord location.
Results of this study indicate that dynamic roughness can be used as an effective means
of leading-edge flow control. Dynamic roughness has to ability to eliminate both the
short and long separation bubbles inherent in a low Reynolds number leading edge flow
operating at a moderate angle of attack. This type of flow control has the potential to
be more efficient than the traditional boundary layer control methods.
2.3 Aerodynamic performance of rear roughness aerofoils
A. Dhiliban, P. Meena, P.S. Narasimhan, M. VivekS.Nadaraja Pillai and K.M. Pa-
rammasivam [4] has done research on aerodynamic performance of airfoils with rear
roughness. Triangular shaped roughness is implemented on the upper and lower surface
of the airfoil from 55 % to 90 % of the chord on NACA 0018 airfoil. Experimental and
CFD analysis is performed on the airfoil. According to the results of CFD analysis ad-
dition of surface roughness has proven to be effective in altering the flow properties
desirably. With such flow, the resultant lift and drag forces are also altered effectively.
Primarily the surface roughness on the lower side is proved to be the most suitable
surface modification. This can be seen clearly by studying the outcome of the results of
this work. Especially the lower surface triangular roughness which is placed on 90% of
chord gives the maximum efficiency to the airfoil. Also, there is a significant reduction
in total drag when the roughness is on the upper surface of the airfoil when Į is above
5 degrees.
2.4 Effects of Surface Roughness on Aerodynamic Performance of a Wind
Turbine Airfoil.
Deshun Li, Rennian Li, Congxin Yang &XiuyongWang [5] has done research on the
aerodynamic performance with surface roughness of a DU 95-W-180 airfoil. Numer-
ical simulation is performed over different roughness height and locations.
At 10% of the chord location on suction surface, the lift coefficient decreases more
rapidly when roughness height increases from 0mm to 0.5mm, but, decreases very
slowly when roughness height is more than 0.5mm. At 100% of the chord location
on pressure surface, the lift coefficient decreases when the roughness height in-
creases from 0mm to 0.1mm, but increases when roughness height is more than 0.
1mm.The drag coefficient increases when roughness height increases from 0mm to
1.5mm.
2.5 Ordered roughness effects on NACA 0026 airfoil
Z Harun*, A.A Abbas, R Mohammed Dheyaa and M I Ghazali [6] has done research
on the NACA 0026 airfoil with Converging – diverging riblets. Airfoil is fabricated
with a riblet strip applied on it, where the angle of flow is zero and 10 degrees, rela-
tive to the air flow. The height of the riblet is 1 mm and the spacing 1 mm. It is shown
that the skin friction flows past the converging and diverging pattern have 25 – 30%
4

less than that of the flow past riblets aligned with the flow (= 0°). The results are
consistent with vortex generator studies, which have reported an increase in turbulent
intensities in rough surface of the flow field and a decrease in turbulent intensities
within the smooth region. The higher order turbulence statistics also show marked
different between these flows. These results are very encouraging in the sense that a
small strip of vortex generator applied at a leading edge of an engineering application
can have up to 20 – 25% reduction in skin friction, hence reduction in total drag, and
more importantly reduction in energy or fuel.
2.6 Numerical and Experimental Study on the Ability of Dynamic Roughness
to Alter the Development of a Leading-Edge Vortex
Christopher D Griffin, Wade W Huebsch, Alric P. Rothmayer and Jay P. Wilhelm
[7] has done research on NACA 0012 airfoil. Both computational and experimental
results show the ability of dynamic roughness to alter the development of a LEV on
a rapidly pitching airfoil.
Computational simulations were performed in a Reynolds number range from 25,000
to 50,000 at a reduced frequency of 0.1, while experiments included this range as
well as runs up to a Reynolds number of 200,000 and reduced frequencies of 0.1,
0.15, and 0.2. The lift-to-drag ratio was increased by approximately 60% at 15°
AOA.
2.7 The effect of roughness at high Reynolds number on the performance of
DU 97-W-300Mod.
W.A. Timmer and A.P. Schaffarczyk [8] has done research on the performance of
airfoil with roughness effect at high Reynolds number. Experiment was performed
on a modified DU 97-W300 airfoil at Reynolds numbers between 1x10^6 and
10x10^6 in the cryogenic wind tunnel.
The airfoil was modified by reducing the trailing edge thickness from 1.74% to
0.49%. Although the measurements showed large scatter when flow separation oc-
curred on the mode it was possible to establish the variation with Reynolds number
of the maximum lift coefficient, the maximum lift-drag ratio and the design-lift co-
efficient for a Mach number of 0.2. Furthermore, the effect of wrap-around Carbo-
rundum roughness and zigzag tape of 0.4 m thickness at upper and lower surface was
studied. The measurements indicate that there was no significant variation in the
maximum lift-coefficient with Reynolds number for the clean airfoil. In contrast to
the RFOIL
 5

Table 1. Airfoil parameters

S. No Measuring Factors Values
1 Chord Length 1m
2 Roughness Width 0.0127 m
3 Roughness Height 0.011 m
4 Angle of triangle 60 deg
5 Roughness position (Cavity & Protruding) 25% & 75%
calculations the experimental maximum lift-drag ratio decreased with Reynolds num-
ber from an average of 95 at R=3x106 to about 85 at R=10 x 106.
2.8 Problem Identification
The main aim of this project is to improve the performance of an aircraft by flow ma-
nipulation over the airfoil using surface roughness. The aerodynamic characteristics
such as lift and drag are majorly developed due to wing and airfoil shape. Computa-
tional fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis will be done over an airfoil with surface rough-
ness. Roughness may delay the boundary layer separation by creating the turbulence
over the surface. This project is focused on the roughness effect to evaluate the flow
in order to examine the flow dynamics around airfoil for better aerodynamic effi-
ciency.

3 Methodology

3.1 Introduction
Flow analysis is performed and analyzed in OpenFOAM over a NACA 0012 airfoil
with triangular roughness at two distinct positions, by using cavity and protruding sur-
faces at 25 and 75 percent of airfoil sections.
3.2 Design and Analysis
NACA 0012 airfoil will be designed in CATIA V5 with airfoil data. A surface rough-
ness of triangular shape is designed at 25% chord length and another similar airfoil at
75% chord length. Meshing over the designed airfoil is developed in the blockMeshDict
file of OpenFOAM and CFD analysis is done in OpenFOAM software. Plots of coeffi-
cient of pressure, lift and drag are obtained for varying angle of attacks from 0-20 de-
grees with 4-degree intervals using Paraviewsoftware.The specifications of the airfoil
are mentioned in table.1
3.3 Meshing
Structural meshing is done with C – grid over the airfoil is shown in the figure 3.1
below. The number of grid points used in the mesh is 0.15 million.

Fig.3.1 Airfoil Mesh

 6

Fig.3.2(a) Fig.3.2(b) Fig.3.3(a) Fig.3.3(b)

Fig.3.2 Airfoil with cavity and protrusion at 0.25c & 0.75c

For the above meshing is taken at cavity at 25% of cord in the Fig.3.2(a) whereas at the
tailing edge the cavity is at 75% is taken at chord can be seen in Fig.3.2 (b)
3.31 Equations
The equations are
L = N cos α – A sin α
D = N sin α + A cos α

4 Results and Discussions

4.1 Clean airfoil

At 0 deg:

Fig 4.1: Pressure and velocity contour at 0 deg angle of attack.

At 4 deg:

Fig 4.2: Pressure and velocity contour at 4 deg angle of attack.

At 8 deg:

Fig 4.3: Pressure and velocity contour at 8 deg angle of attack.

At 12 deg:

Fig 4.4: Pressure and velocity contour at 12 deg angle of attack.

 7

At 16 deg:

Fig 4.5: Pressure and velocity contour at 16 deg angle of attack.

At 20 deg:

Fig 4.6: Pressure and velocity contour at 20 deg angle of attack.

Airfoil with cavity:

At 25 percent of chord
Pressure and velocities at 0deg,4deg,8deg angle of attack.

Fig 4.7: Pressure and velocity at 0 deg& at Fig 4.8.a at 4 deg angle of attack

Airfoil with cavity:

At 75 percent of chord

Fig 4.8velocity Fig4.9 Pressure & velocity contour at 8 deg of angle of attack

Results of clean airfoil:

Fig4.9 Pressure and velocity at 16 deg angle of attack

 8

Table 2. Forces generated at different angles of attack

S. No Angle of attack Normal Force Axial Force Lift Drag Force L/D
(α) (N) (A) Force (D)
(L)
1 0 deg 0N 0714337 N 0N 0.0714337 N 0
2 4 deg 9.73176 N -0.47393 N 9.7411 N 0.206 N 47.286

3 8 deg 19.1477 N -2.07244 N 19.248 N 0.615 N 31.29

4 12 deg 25.4376 N -2.86969 N 25.47 N 2.455 N 10.37
5 16 deg 17.2519 N 0.749276 N 16.375 N 5.475 N 3
6 20 deg 35.458 N 0.626593 N 13.897 N 12.71 N 2.61

Table 2. Results of cavity at 25% of the chord

S.no Angle of at- Normal Axial Force Lift Drag L/D

tack Force (A) Force Force
(α) (N) (L) (D)
1 0 deg -2.19432 N 0.3919 N -2.19432 N 0.3919 N -5.59
2 4 deg 1.61308N 0.429405 N 1.579 N 1.639 N 0.9633

3 8 deg 5.7783 N -0.101244N 5.73681 N 0.704 N 8.1488

4 12 deg 9.4276 N -0.687688N 9.3638 N 1.2875 N 7.2763
5 16 deg 8.85137 N 0.119505 N 8.475 N 2.325 N 3.645
6 20 deg 16.3479 N 0.0198369 N 15.354 N 5.60 N 2.741

Table 3. Results of cavity at 75 % of the chord

S.no Angle of at- Normal Axial Force Lift Drag L/D

tack Force (A) Force Force
(α) (N) (L) (D)
1 0 deg -2.11311 N 0.249326 N -2.11311 N 0.249326 N -8.47
2 4 deg 2.87321 N 0.0665914 N 2.8611 N 0.26526 10.786

3 8 deg 8.01375 N -0.747203 N 8.039 N 0.3754 N 21.41

4 12 deg 13.1979 N -2.22648 N 13.37 N 0.566 N 23.622
5 16 deg 17.2957 N -3.97831 N 17.72 N 0.949 N 18.67
6 20 deg 17.7229 N -0.15234 N 16.70 N 5.91 N 2.8257
 9

Table 4. Results of protruding surface at 25% of the chord

S.no Angle of at- Normal Axial Force Lift Drag L/D

tack Force (A) Force Force
(α) (N) (L) (D)
1 0 deg -2.44168 N 0.466093 N -2.44168 N 0.466093 N -5.2327
2 4 deg 1.90186 N 0.528315 N 1.8604 N 0.66 N 2.8181

3 8 deg 5.88832 N 0.253437 N 5.795 N 1.072 N 5.4057

4 12 deg 8.0058 N 0.00798703 N 7.823 N 1.6555 N 4.7268
5 16 deg 12.9336 N 0.096448 N 12.406 N 3.657 N 3.39 N
6 20 deg 14.9163 N 0.0566546 N 13.991 N 5.1527 N 2.71 N

Table 5. Results of protruding surface at 75% of the chord

S.no Angle of at- Normal Axial Force Lift Drag L/D

tack Force (A) Force Force
(α) (N) (L) (D)
1 0 deg -3.04922 N 0.310621 N -3.04922 N 0.310621 N -9.816
2 4 deg 2.31194 N 0.167222 N 2.29 N 0.328 N 6.98 N

3 8 deg 7.02209 N -0.511548 N 7.024 N 0.4707 N 14.922 N

4 12 deg 7.73077 N 0.0873735 N 7.54 N 1.69 N 4.461 N
5 16 deg 11.1952 N 0.363516 N 10.66 N 3.435 N 3.10 N
6 20 deg 17.5382 N -0.0354151 N 16.492 N 5.9651 N 2.764 N

When we compare the results of clean airfoil and airfoil with cavity at 25 % & 75%,
protruding surface at 25 % &75%, the L/D ratio for clean airfoil is higher till 12 deg,
after stall the performance of cavity airfoil is increased by capturing low energy flow
near the airfoil wall. The aerodynamic efficiency has increased when we cavity at 75
% of the chord. At 12 deg the efficiency increased by 128%, at 16 deg of angle of attack
the efficiency increased by 522 % and at 20 deg of angle attack the efficiency increased
by 8.26 %. Finally, the cavity at 75 % of the chord can be deployed to increase the
aerodynamic efficiency at higher angles of attack. In future the parametric study of
different shapes cavity and protruding surface will be investigated to verify the effec-
tiveness of increase in aerodynamic efficiency.

5 Acknowledgment

I would like to acknowledge and give special thanks to the department Aeronautical
and I would like to thank my members for comments and suggestions. And warmest
thanks for advisors and Board committee.
10

6 References

[1] Christopher D Griffin Wade W Huebsch, AlricP. Rothmaver and Jay P. Wilhelm
“Numerical and Experimental Study on the Ability of Dynamic Roughness to Alter the
Development of a Leading-Edge Vortex”-2016.
[2] Deepanshu Srivastav BE (Hons.) “Flow Control over Airfoils using Different
Shaped Dimples”- International Conference on Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamic-
sTechnologies -2012.
[3] W.A. Timmer DUWIND, Delft University Wind Energy Institute, “The effect of
roughness at high Reynolds numbers on the performance of DU 97-W-300Mod.” “Fun-
damentals of aerodynamics” –book by John D. Andreson.
[4] MichaelF.Kerho and Michael B. Bragg (1997) University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign, Urbana, AIAAjournalIllinois61801-2935“Airfoil Boundary Layer Devel-
opment and Transition with Large Leading-Edge Roughness”
[5] P. D. Gall, W. W. Huebsch and A.P. RothmayerWest Virginia University, Morgan-
town, WV Iowa State University, Ames, IA “Dynamic roughness as a means of leading-
edge separation flow control”
[6] CHANA R. and VISHWANATHI, P. R., “Base Drag Reduction Caused by Riblets
on a GAW (2) Airfoil”, National Aerospace Laboratories, Journal of Aircraft, Volume
35. No. 6, November-December 1998.
[7] RENEAUX, J., “Overview on drag reduction Technologies for Civil transport air-
craft”, European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engi-
neering ECCOMAS, 2004.
[8] ZERIHAN, J., “An Investigation into the Aerodynamics of Wings in Ground Ef-
fect”, PhD Thesis, university Southampton, School of Engineering, 2001.
[9] LAMBERT, S. and MORRISON, J.F., Fundamental Studies of Active Dimples,
2006, AIAA-2006-3182.
[10] WU, J.Z. and WU, J.M., Vorticity dynamics on boundaries, Adv. in Appl Mech,
1996, 32, pp 119-275