Husainie, S. N., & Qamar, A.

WIND TUNNEL & AIRFOIL DRAG ANALYSIS

Abstract
This experiment was conducted on NACA 0015 airfoil to calculate and analyze the as velocity coefficient, the mean velocity, theoretical velocity and drag. This was achieved by using a basic two dimensional momentum equation which relates the forces on an airfoil inside the wind tunnel to the velocity and pressures on the test section walls. Some reasonable assumptions were made for the low speed flow to simplify analysis and calculate theoretical velocity. Actual velocity value obtained from a pitot-static tube in the test section. The velocity coefficient was calculated by relating theoretical velocity and actual velocity. This varies only slightly with change in velocity in the tunnel and could therefore be used as a correction factor. The small subsonic wind tunnel along with appropriate manometers and other apparatus were used with different baffle settings to record varying pressure readings. Drag values of 5.968 N for 10o, 34.596 N for 15o and 156.027 N for 20o were then recorded using pressure readings from the manometer rake. Coefficients of drag were subsequently calculated for the three angles of attack (0.025, 0.141, 0.620) and compared with published values.

Introduction1
Wind tunnels have been constructed and used extensively after the initial failure of humans to build any machines which could harness the aerodynamic forces to fly. Today, no aircraft, spacecraft or space launch or re-entry vehicle is built or committed to flight until after its design and components have been thoroughly tested in wind tunnels. Every modern aircraft and space rocket has made its maiden flight in a wind tunnel. Although CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) have added another dimension in testing recently, still wind tunnels are used to familiarize and appreciate aerodynamic forces at work. It is essential to recognize fluid properties and changes that affect the accuracy throughout the test section. This experiment is aimed at determining drag forces experienced by a NACA 0015 airfoil, subjected to a constant inlet velocity, with varying angles of attack. It is expected that as the angle of attack of the airfoil increases, the drag will also increase due to the effects of flow separation.

Figure 1 2D view of the wind tunnel

Husainie, S. N., & Qamar, A.

Theory1
The experimental setup included an airfoil of NACA 0015 placed in the wind tunnel. An infinite wing was used to restrict the flow to two dimensional variations. This meant that tip vortices, consequently induced drag, were avoided. Fig. 1 shows a section of the wind tunnel. Consider the cross-section area A1, velocity V1 and density of air 1 at position 1. Similarly at the outlet position 2; A2, V2 and 2 are present. Assuming no mass is lost between positions 1 and 2, by mass conservation an equation can be written as follows: 1 1 1 = 2 2 2 1 1 = 2 2 [1]

Since the flow can be assumed to be incompressible (for low velocities), 1 and 2 are constant throughout the wind tunnel and [1] reduces to: [2]
1 2

For simplicitys sake, it can be assumed that the air is inviscid therefore by Bernoullis equation:
1 2

1 +

1 2 = 2 + 2 =

2 2

[3]

By solving [2] and [3] for the theoretical velocity, the following expression is obtained:
2(1 2 )/
1( 2 )2 1

[4]

The pitot-static tube can be used to calculate the actual velocity of the flow V2act: 2 =
2

[5]

where,

= specific gravity of the fluid w = density of the fluid g = gravitational acceleration L = length of manometer fluid due to pressure difference a = density of air Given V2act and V2th, a velocity coefficeint Cv is calculated as follow which can be used as a correction factor if it does not vary with changing flow velocities: 2 = 2 [6]

Husainie, S. N., & Qamar, A. The pressure and shear stress acting on the airfoil produce a resultant force R which according to Newtons third law produces an equal and opposite reaction force on the air in the control volume as shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 2 Force due to pressure and shear stress

A steady state momentum equation can be derived, where isolating the resultant vector for the horizontal component due to the flow being parallel to airfoil. In given condition of low subsonic speeds, we can assume pressure as well as density over the airfoil to remain almost equal. Therefore dropping the pressure integral:
2 2 2 2 = = ( ) = + = ( )

[7]

where,

Procedure1

ui = inlet velocity uo = outlet velocity .= integral from bottom to top of airfoil surface

1. Safety checks were made. 2. Baffle was set to fully open (5/5) position and the wind tunnel was started. 3. Wind tunnel manometer reading and pitot-tube reading was recorded. Air temperature and pressure of the room was also recorded. 4. Procedures 1 and 3 were repeated for the 4/5, 3/5, 2/5, and 1/5 baffle positions. 5. V2act, V2th and Cv were calculated for each wind tunnel setting. 6. The wind tunnel was turned off. The zero reading on the rake pitot tubes was recorded. The angle of attack was set to 10 and the baffle was opened fully. 7. The tunnel was started and all pitot tube values of the rake were recorded. 8. The manometer value from the wind tunnel was also recorded. Step 7 was repeated for 15 and 20 angles of attack.

Husainie, S. N., & Qamar, A.

Results and Discussions

The results obtained during the lab are summarized below. Calculations are given in the appendices.
Vtheoretical (m/s) 28.76 27.246 22.562 13.662 5.449 Vtrue (m/s) 29.591 27.774 22.83 13.075 4.566 Cv 1.028894 1.019379 1.011878 0.957034 0.837952

Table 1 The theoretical velocity was calculated using the pressure taps on the airfoil. The true velocity was calculated by using the pressure obtained from a pitot-tube in the wind tunnel. The coefficient of velocity relates the two velocities by a factor of approximately 1.0137.

Vtrue vs. Vtheoretical

35 30 Vtrue (m/s) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Vtheoretical (m/s)
Figure 3 The results from Table 1 were used for this graph. This graph shows that by using the coefficient of velocity can be approximated as 1.0137 and it can be used as a correction factor for Vtheoretical to find Vtrue. The error bars represent an error of 5%.

y = 1.0137x

Since a linear correlation is found between theoretical velocity and true velocity, the coefficient of velocity may be used as a correction factor for the theoretical velocity. This result is further demonstrated in Fig. 4.

Husainie, S. N., & Qamar, A.

Cv vs. Vtrue
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Vtrue (m/s)
Figure 4 The very low slope of the trendline here indicates that the coefficient of velocity changes only slightly with the actual velocity. This change is small enough to be negated for the purposes of this lab and hence Cv may be used as a correction factor. The error bars represent an error of 5%.

y = 0.0072x + 0.8306

Cv

Angle of Attack 10 15 20

Drag (N) 5.968; -724.446 34.596; -726.089 156.027; -634.929

Table 2 The negative values of drag were calculated using inlet velocity from Table 1. The positive values of drag were calculated using uomax from the wake profile.

The wind tunnel that was used in this lab had a small area relative to the airfoil. Therefore, when the airfoil was pitched up during the second part of the lab the decrease in area was substantial enough to create disturbances upstream of the airfoil. By equation [2], as area decreases velocity increases and hence by pitching the airfoil up, the inlet velocity becomes higher than it actually is. Therefore, uomax (the velocity at the wall found from Fig. 5)Appendix B was used to calculate the drag as explained in Table 2. Using the chord length as 0.1524m and for an airfoil of unit length, the CD for the three angles of attack can be calculated using the following formula: =
()2 () 2( )

[8]

Husainie, S. N., & Qamar, A.

Angle of Attack 10 15 20 CD 0.025 0.141 0.620

Table 3 The values of CD correspond with published values of 10o and 15o.

The published values given for NACA 0015 give the coefficient for drag as 0.0215, 0.120, and 0.2820 for angles of attack 10, 15, and 20 degrees respectively. The first two drag coefficients were within 16% of the published values.2 The value of the drag coefficient for 20o angle of attack differed from the published value by 119.858%. This may be due to the fact that the wind tunnel used during the lab was not suitable to determine characteristics for large angles of attack as it was quite small relative to the airfoil. When the airfoil was pitched to large angles of attack the velocity upstream of the airfoil could no longer be considered as free-stream velocity due to the effects of equation [2]. Therefore, the assumption uomax > ui is a valid one in this case because of the small size of the wind tunnel relative to the airfoil. The measurements of drag using the wake rake may be improved by adding more pitot-tube to the rake, while decreasing the distance between each pitot tube.

Conclusion
Overall the experiment proved to be an effective way in observing the various characteristics of an airfoil in a wind tunnel. The drag forces as initially calculated were, -724.446 N for 10o, 726.089 N for 15o and -634.929 N for 20o, these were then corrected by adjusting the velocities appropriately giving 5.968 N for 10o, 34.596 N for 15o and 156.027 N for 20o. The drag coefficients that were calculated demonstrates that wind tunnels can be reliable systems to study airfoils as they provide consistent/steady airflow, low turbulence, and the ability to make precise/controlled measurements, and reproducible conditions and results. Although the drag coefficients at 10o and 15o were found to be accurate within 16% of the published values, it was observed that the coefficient at 20o angle of attack was in disagreement with the listed value. This could be reasoned by arguing that the upstream velocity of the airfoil could no longer be taken as the free stream velocity, as the large angle of attack decreases the effective area of the incoming velocity for the wind tunnel system used. In general this experiment can be improved by taking into the account the viscocity and density of the air, which were assumed to be constant. Also the skin friction losses alosng the edges of the wind tunnel could be considered, which were ignored in drag calculation. From the velocity calculated in part two of the lab, it was observed that velocity uomax increases at higher angles of attack in wake rake profile. Hence the assumption that uomax > ui is valid with our experimental data.

Husainie, S. N., & Qamar, A.

References
1. Walsh, P., and Karpynczyk, J., AER 504 Aerodynamics Laboratory Manual, Ryerson University, 2010. 2. Sheldahl, R. E., and Klimas, P. C., Aerodynamic Characteristics of Seven Airfoil Sections Through 180 Degrees Angle of Attack for Use in Aerodynamic Analysis of Vertical Axis Wind Turbines, Sandia National Laboratories, 1981.

Husainie, S. N., & Qamar, A.

Appendix A
Results presented in the lab report were calculated numerically, using formulas mentioned in the theory section. The MATLAB code that was used to calculate the results is given below.
function windtunnel clc; g = 9.81; a = [2.10; 1.85; 1.25; 0.41; 0.05]; b = [1.95; 1.75; 1.20; 0.44; 0.07]; z = [a b]; zsi= z*0.0254; A = 24.6 - [6.4; 6.3; 6.3; 6.4; 6.2; 6.3; 6.3; 6.4; 6.4; 6.4; 6.4; 6.5; 6.4; 6.5; 8.8; 8.9; 6.6; 6.5; 6.5; 6.5; 6.5; 6.5; 6.5; 6.6; 6.4; 6.4; 6.6; 6.5; 6.5; 6.6; 6.5; 6.7; 6.6; 6.5; 6.5; 24.6]; B = 24.6 - [5.6; 5.6; 5.6; 5.6; 5.6; 5.6; 5.8; 5.8; 5.8; 6.0; 6.0; 6.1; 6.8; 8.6; 9.7; 10.0; 9.2; 8.8; 8.2; 7.4; 7.0; 6.4; 6.2; 6.1; 6.0; 6.0; 6.1; 6.0; 6.0; 6.3; 6.1; 6.0; 5.9; 5.9; 6.0; 24.6]; C = 24.4 - [5.1; 5.0; 5.1; 5.0; 5.0; 5.1; 5.1; 5.1; 5.1; 5.3; 5.5; 6.2; 7.6; 10.2; 12.7; 15.6; 17.4; 18.2; 17.2; 15.6; 15.1; 10.0; 8.0; 6.5; 5.6; 5.2; 5.3; 5.2; 5.3; 5.4; 5.3; 5.5; 5.4; 5.4; 5.3; 24.4]; T = [A B C]; Tsi = T*0.0254; fprintf(' Pitot-Tube Length(mH2O) Tunnel Manometer Length(mH2O)\n'); fprintf('%18.3f %24.3f\n',zsi); disp(' '); rhofluid = input('Input manometer fluid density (997.61 kg/m^3 as per lab): '); rhoair = input('Input air density (1.1923 kg/m^3 as per lab): '); gamma = input('Input specific gravity of water (9810 N/m^3 as per lab): '); csin = input('Input cross-sectional area of inlet (2304 in^2 as per lab): '); csout = input('Input cross-sectional area of outlet (278.875 in^2 as per lab): '); vtrin = (2*g*rhofluid*zsi(:,1))/(rhoair); vtr = vtrin.^(0.5); vthin = ((gamma*2*zsi(:,2))/(rhoair))/(1-(csout/csin)^2); vth = vthin.^(0.5); cv = vtr./vth; Vrakein = ((gamma*2*sind(20)*Tsi)/(rhoair))/(1-(csout/csin)^2); % Manometer angle (20 degrees) being used Vrake = Vrakein.^(0.5); disp(' '); fprintf(' Vtrue(m/s) Vtheoretical(m/s) Velocity Coefficients\n'); vbaffle = [vtr vth cv]'; fprintf('%12.3f %18.3f %15.3f\n', vbaffle); disp(' '); disp(' '); fprintf(' AoA = 10 AoA = 15 AoA = 20\n'); Vrake(36,:) = Vrake(35,:); disp(Vrake); disp(' ');

Husainie, S. N., & Qamar, A.

Dr = 0; D1 = 0; Dr1 = 0; D2 = 0; Dr2 = 0; D3 = 0; Dro = 0; D1o = 0; Dr1o = 0; D2o = 0; Dr2o = 0; D3o = 0; %drag for 10 degrees angle of attack for c=1:35 Dr = (-1)*(rhoair)*(0.5)*(0.01)*((((Vrake(c,1))^2)+((Vrake((c+1),1))^2)) - (2*(Vrake(36,1))^2)); D1 = (D1 + Dr); Dro = (-1)*(rhoair)*(0.5)*(0.01)*((((Vrake(c,1))^2)+((Vrake((c+1),1))^2)) - (2*(vtr(1))^2)); D1o = (D1o + Dro); end disp(' '); fprintf('The drag (in Newtons) on the airfoil at 10 degrees of attack is: %.3f %12.3f\n', D1, D1o); %drag for 15 degrees angle of attack for c=1:35 Dr1 = (-1)*(rhoair)*(0.5)*(0.01)*((((Vrake(c,2))^2)+((Vrake((c+1),2))^2)) - (2*(Vrake(36,2))^2)); D2 = (D2 + Dr1); Dr1o = (1)*(rhoair)*(0.5)*(0.01)*((((Vrake(c,2))^2)+((Vrake((c+1),2))^2)) (2*(vtr(1))^2)); D2o = (D2o + Dr1o); end disp(' '); fprintf('The drag (in Newtons) on the airfoil at 15 degrees of attack is: %.3f %12.3f\n', D2, D2o); %drag for 20 degrees angle of attack for c=1:35 Dr2 = (-1)*(rhoair)*(0.5)*(0.01)*((((Vrake(c,3))^2)+((Vrake((c+1),3))^2)) - (2*(Vrake(36,3))^2)); D3 = (D3 + Dr2); Dr2o = (1)*(rhoair)*(0.5)*(0.01)*((((Vrake(c,3))^2)+((Vrake((c+1),3))^2)) (2*(vtr(1))^2)); D3o = (D3o + Dr2o); end

Husainie, S. N., & Qamar, A.

disp(' '); fprintf('The drag (in Newtons) on the airfoil at 20 degrees of attack is: %.3f %12.3f\n', D3, D3o); figure(1) subplot(1,2,1); plot(vth, vtr) title('Actual Velocity vs. Theoretical Velocity') subplot(1,2,2); plot(vtr, cv) title('Velocity Coefficient vs. Actual Velocity') y = (1:36); figure(2) subplot(1,3,1); plot(Vrake(:,1), y') subplot(1,3,2); plot(Vrake(:,2), y') subplot(1,3,3); plot(Vrake(:,3), y')

10

Husainie, S. N., & Qamar, A.

Appendix B
This appendix includes Figures 5 and 6 mentioned in the lab report.
Figure 5 Graphs (a), (b), and (c) represent the wake profiles of angles of attack 10, 15, and 20 respectively. The outlet velocity (m/s) is represented by the x-axis while the pitottubes 1-36 (separated by 0.01m) are represented by the y-axis.

Figure 6 This graph represents the relationship between the coefficient of drag and the angle of attack this can be compared with published values.

11