Airfoil Selection of MAV (Miniature Air Vehicle)

for Low Reynolds Number

Mayur S. Marathe & S. N. Bansode

K.J Somaiya College of Engineering, Mumbai University
E-mail : marathemayu90@yahoo.com sangitabansode@yahoo.com

II. DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Abstract This paper discusses issues and practical

requirements of Airfoil for MAV. Here considering the
MAV which travel with the speed range between 9-20 m/s.
The Airfoil which is been selected on various criteria, i.e. stable flight, cover maximum distance with minimum
force. So here the NACA 2204 is been selected for MAV.
The Fluent analysis is done on the airfoil for lift to drag
ratio. These MAV are having some purpose i.e.:- they can
be use as a spy in enemy area, inspection of hazardous
area, where human resource cant reach. Aerodynamic
performance and stability should be considered in the
context of the airfoil structural integrity. Particular
attention should be paid to the unsteady nature of the flow.

Several areas need to be carefully considered for the

selection of a practical airfoil, including aerodynamics.
These will be covered in turn, following a discussion of
the benefits of airfoil. Consider the simple wing
geometry as shown in figure 1 [1]
This geometry will be used throughout the
remainder of this paper as a baseline. Here the airfoil is
at angle of attack with relative wind (V).
III. EFFICIENCY

Keywords MAV, NACA 2204, Lift to Drag ratio, Fluent

analysis.

I.

For a selected airfoil, we are principally interested

in maximizing lift L and minimizing the drag D, or
alternatively, maximizing the lift-to-drag ratio, L_D
(also written as the ratio of lift coefficient (C_l) to drag
coefficient (C_d) or C_l /C_d, defined below). It is also
necessary to look out on the overall efficiency of a wing.
This ratio depends on wing geometry & air flow
condition. These flow conditions are expressed as
dimensionless parameters such as the Reynolds number
Re and Mach number M. A selected airfoil profile will
have vastly different lift and drag characteristics over
the possible ranges of Re and M for a profile selected.
Thus, airfoils are typically designed for a narrow range
of flow conditions for optimum performance.
Alternatively, one could design an airfoil that will
operate over a wide range of air flow conditions.

INTRODUCTION

Airfoil for MAV is very important, as it has to

travel comparatively more distance & stable flight for
the given forces. Here NACA 2204 is been selected as
its a low camber airfoil. The lower surface of airfoil is
somewhat flat, so it doesnt allow the air flow away
from it when it glides down to the surface. The air that
hits to the lower surface of an airfoil try to push or lift
the MAV, as the MAV is coming down the forces the
resultant force will be in downward direction, so it will
glide down to surface comparatively at slow speed,
which will cause minimum damage. At the same time
the airfoil also has to be good lifting coefficient i.e. Lift
to drag ratio has to be high. As the MAV has to attain
the height within in short range of distance, the stalling
angle of airfoil also has to be high.

Lift capability & drag capability of an airfoil is

depended on Lift & Drag coefficient, which is given as
follows [1]
L=0.5**V^2*S*C_l
D=0.5**V^2*S*C_d
Furthermore, the total drag is further subdivide into
number of drag, such as, form, pressure, skin friction,
parasitic, induced & wave drag. The induced drag can
be estimated in terms of wing geometry by

Fig. 1: Airfoil with angle of attack

ISSN : 2319 3182, Volume-2, Issue-4, 2013

38

International Journal on Theoretical and Applied Research in Mechanical Engineering (IJTARME)

D_i= (C_l^2)/AR

IV. AERODYNAMICS

In steady & level flight the Drag force has to be

balance by thrust & weight must be balance by Lift
force.

Below fig will compare the symmetric & nonsymmetric (cambered) airfoil. The air is flown over the
airfoil at different angle of attack [4]. The symmetric
airfoil stall at greater angle of attack as compare to
cambered airfoil. Even at zero angle of attack, cambered
airfoil will generate some positive lift coefficient, but in
symmetric it produces zero lift coefficients.

Fig 2 : Level flight condition

T=D
L=W
Above quation conclude that as we increase the lift
i.e.:- C_l, the weight carrying capacity increase. For
increasing the lift to drag ratio, drag has to reduce, as the
drag decrease, the thrust require to lift the flight is
comparatively less, due to which the flight efficiency
increases & hence the performance also increase. Hence,
it can be say that with increase the lift to drag ratio, the
efficiency of the flight increase

Fig 4: Comparison between cambered & symmetric

airfoil
From above fig 4 it can be say that cambered airfoil
has a lower stall angle than the symmetric one. Thus
from here it can be conclude that cambered airfoil is
used.

L/D=C_l/C_d
Lift & drag also help to reduce the gliding angle,
lesser the gliding angle more will be the distance travel
in horizontal direction & vice-versa. If a glider is in a
steady (constant velocity and no acceleration) descent, it
loses altitude as it travels. The glider's flight path is a
simple straight line, shown as the inclined red line in the
figure. The flight path intersects the ground at an angle
called the glide angle [2]. If the flown distance (d) is
known to us and the altitude change h is also known to
us, the glide angle can be easily calculated using
trigonometry.

As the airfoil is selected, the gliding of the flight

should be good. So airfoil has to be selected in such a
way that has less cambered as compared to other
airfoils, i.e.: the lower surface of an airfoil has to be
nearly equal to flat. Reason for such airfoil is that the
flat surface doesnt allow the air to flow away from the
edges of an airfoil, due to which italways try to lift the
flight against the gravity, which indirectly increase lift
to drag ratio & hence the efficiency. Form above reason
NACA-2204 is chosen, which satisfy requirements.

Fig 5: NACA-2204
V. CFD ANALYSIS OF AIRFOIL
Here NACA-2204 airfoil is selected, so here the
CFD analysis is done on the airfoil so that the lift to
drag ratio is determine at various angle of attack. CFD
analysis is done in ANSYS. For analysis, the CAD
model is prepared in CATIA or AUTOCAD or any
other CAD software. These CAD model is import in

Fig 3: Gilding angle

From above fig 3 it can be easily conclude that lesser the
gliding angle more will be the distance travel.

ISSN : 2319 3182, Volume-2, Issue-4, 2013

39

International Journal on Theoretical and Applied Research in Mechanical Engineering (IJTARME)

meshing software, here the meshing is done in ICEM.

Below fig6 give the view of mesh airfoil.

rate in planar jets is predicted reasonably well, but

prediction of the spreading rate for axis-symmetric jets
is unexpectedly poor) is considered to be mainly due to
the modeled dissipation equation
VIII. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Inlet: - Velocity inlet boundary conditions are used to
define the flow velocity, along with all relevant scalar
properties of the flow, at flow inlets. The total (or
stagnation) properties of the flow are not fixed, so they
will rise to whatever value is necessary to provide the
prescribed velocity distribution.
This boundary condition is intended for
incompressible flows, and its use in compressible flows
will lead to a nonphysical result because it allows
stagnation conditions to float to any level. You should
also be careful not to place a velocity inlet too close to a
solid obstruction, since this could cause the inflow
stagnation properties to become highly non-uniform.

Fig 6 :Mesh of an airfoil

Accuracy of the result depends on the quality of
mesh that has made; high quality of mesh will give good
results. This mesh airfoil is imported in ANSYS fluent
for fluid analysis. Here the operating condition will be
as per the requirements, i.e.:- the velocity should be 9 20 m/s, angle of attack should vary from -5 to 5. Here
the in-viscid flow is considered, as air is for MAV incompressible flow, it is travelling at lower altitude

Outlet: - Pressure outlet boundary conditions require the

specification of a static (gauge) pressure at the outlet
boundary. The value of static pressure specified is used
only while the flow is subsonic. Should the flow become
locally supersonic, the specified pressure is no longer
used; pressure will be extrapolated from the flow in the
interior. All other flow quantities are extrapolated from
the interior.

VI. FLUENT ASSUMPTIONS

Fluent calculation is done on the 2D airfoil with inviscid, in-compressible flow & with no shock waves. It
solves the conservation of energy, momentum & mass
across the grid of an airfoil with Mach number ranging
from 0.026 0. 054. The grid used for this analysis is
having coarse mesh around the inlet, outlet & boundary
& the grid is dense around the airfoil, as we can see in
above fig 6.

A set of ``backflow'' conditions is also specified to

be used if the flow reverses direction at the pressure
outlet boundary during the solution process.
Convergence difficulties will be minimized if you
specify realistic values for the backflow quantities
Wall: - Wall boundary conditions are used to bound
fluid and solid regions. In viscous flows, the no-slip
boundary condition is enforced at walls by default, but
you can specify a tangential velocity component in
terms of the translational or rotational motion of the wall
boundary, or model a ``slip'' wall by specifying shear.

VII.REALIZABLE K- SOLUTION PROCEDURE

The Realizable k- solution procedure is an
essential part of the present design/analysis method. The
term ``realizable'' means that the model satisfies certain
mathematical constraints on the normal stresses,
consistent with the physics of turbulent flows. To
understand this, consider combining the Boussinesq
relationship and the eddy viscosity definition to obtain
the following expression for the normal Reynolds stress
in an incompressible strained mean flow

IX. RESULTS
The results presented here are aimed to select the
best airfoil for MAV. The polar graphs were calculated
by specifying sequence of angle of attack in increment
of 1 degree. Since a good initial guess was available for
each point from the previous angle of attack, realizable
required at least 10000 iteration to coverage
solution.

The weakness of the standard - model or other

traditional - models lies with the modeled equation for
the dissipation rate (). The well-known round-jet
anomaly (named based on the finding that the spreading

Below graph 1 will show the Lift versus angle of

attack for FLUENT. The angle of attack is varied from 5 to 5 with 1 of interval.
ISSN : 2319 3182, Volume-2, Issue-4, 2013

40

International Journal on Theoretical and Applied Research in Mechanical Engineering (IJTARME)

Table 2: Values of C_d varies with

As in this paper the main concentration is the lift to
drag ratio, so below graph 3 will give the clear view that
how does C_l/C_d varies with respect to angle of attack.
From below graph it can be conclude that NACA-2204
is having maximum C_l/C_d at 3 angle of attack.

Graph 1 : C_l vs

Table 1: Values of C_l varies with

Graph 3: C_l /C_d vs graph

Below graph 2 will show the Drag versus angle of

attack for FLUENT. The angle of attack is varied from 5 to 5 with 1 of interval.

Table 3: Values of C_l/C_d varies with

Pressure distribution of airfoil is also factor for
determination of lift. In this paper NACA- 2204 is
having very less cambered due to which it has somewhat
low surface is flat & hence the more pressure is acting
on the flat surface which help to increase the lift over
the airfoil. So below fig 7 will give you clear view of

Graph 2 : C_d vs graph

ISSN : 2319 3182, Volume-2, Issue-4, 2013

41

International Journal on Theoretical and Applied Research in Mechanical Engineering (IJTARME)

pressure distribution on the surface of an airfoil at 0

angle of attack.

X. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a viscous analysis method
suitable for incompressible and low Reynolds number
airfoils. The Realizable k- solution is been used for
analysis helps to converge our results. The Boussinesq
relationship has helped us to predict the lift & drag
coefficient of an airfoil. The results show that the
present analysis method can accurately predict airfoil
performance at low Reynolds numbers.
XI. REFERENCES
[1]

Introduction to flight by John D Anderson

[2]

BY VANCE A. TUCKER AND G. CHRISTIAN

PARROTT, AERODYNAMICS OF GLIDING
FLIGHT IN A FALCON AND OTHER BIRDS,
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 26
September 1969

[3]

Steven D. Miller, Lift, Drag & Moment for a

NACA-0015 airfoil, The OHIO state university,
28 MAY 2008

[4]

10. Torres, G. E., Aerodynamics of Low Aspect

Ratio Wings at Low Reynolds Numbers with
Applications to Micro Air Vehicle Design,
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana,
2002.

[5]

Model aircraft Aerodynamics by Martin Simsons

(page -64-65)

Fig 7: Pressure co-efficient on surface of airfoil

Fig 8: Pressure coefficient vs chord length graph

For making it clearer, the effect of fluid over the

airfoil is explained by velocity vector. Fluid is always
having some impact on the airfoil, from below fig 9 it
can be seen that near the leading edges of an airfoil is
experiencing the high impact of fluid.

Fig 9: Velocity vector on airfoil

ISSN : 2319 3182, Volume-2, Issue-4, 2013

42