School of Engineering

Taylor’s University

MEC4513
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD)

Individual Project 1

Flow Past a NACA Airfoil Test

NAME : CHIN JITVE

ID NO : 1002B71539

YEAR/SEM : YEAR 4 / SEMESTER 7

School of Engineering

Taylor’s University

Malaysia

14th October 2012

1
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………...3
1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..3
Project Objective ………………………………………………………………....4
Problem Statement ………………………………………………………………..4

2.0 Literature Review …………………………………………………………………5

NACA Airfoil …………………………………………………………………….5
Bernoulli’s Principle ……………………………………………………….……..6
Lift and Drag ……………………………………………………………...……...6

3.0 Research Methodology …………………………………………………………...7

Physical Model ……………………………………………………………………7
Computational Domain …………………………………………………………...8
Solution Setup …………………………………………………………………….9
Turbulence Model ……………………………………………………………….11

4.0 Results and Discussions …………………………………………………………15

Coefficient of Pressure ……………………………………………….………….15
Coefficient of Lift and Drag on Increasing AoA—Inviscid …………….…...…17
Coefficient of Lift and Drag on Increasing AoA—Spallart-Allmaras ……..…..18
Bernoulli’s Principle Concept ………………………………………….………..22

5.0 Recommendation ………………………………………………………………..24

Drag Coefficient ………………………………………………………………...24
Settings for Fluent ……………………………………………………………....24
Suggestion for Further work …………………………………………………….25

6.0 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………25

References …………………………………………………………………………………26

Appendix ………………………………………………………………………………….29

2
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

ABSTRACT
The complex commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software, FLUENT offers a
convenient way to model a fluid dynamic problem. This study involves a subsonic fluid flow
past a two dimensional NACA airfoil 0012. The procedure is done following a reliable tutorial
from Cornell University. The geometry and meshes used are the same for every test or model.
However, computational set up such as inlet, outlet, boundary condition and turbulence model
are varied to see if there is any improvement as close as the experimental data. Lift and drag
coefficients, pressure and velocity component are determined using two types of turbulence
models, inviscid and Spallart-Allmaras. Theories of aircraft are explained and comparison
showed excellent agreement among the results.

1.0 Introduction
Advances in computing technology and software have revolutionized the design process of
engineering vehicles such as aircraft and automobiles. In the area of fluid dynamics, there are
many commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) packages available for modeling flow in
or around objects [1]. There are three main components to the implementation of CFD
methodology: pre-processing, solving and post processing. Pre-processing includes the creation
of geometry, mesh generation, physics and fluid properties and boundary conditions. There are
many ways to solve the pre-processing problem, ranging from transport equations, physical
models and solver settings. Lastly, we can interpret and view the results in form of XY plots,
velocity vectors, contour and so on. Figure 1 bellows shows the flow chart of the overall
analysis.

3
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Figure 1: Flowchart of The Three Main Elements of a CFD Analysis [2]

Project Objective
The foremost objective of this project is to reproduce published or experimental data for NACA
0012 in the subsonic flow regimes in order to become familiar with the software interface and
functions. This project is to expand ones understanding about the concept of the software by
creating a situation or environment of a real life problem, and also to find a suitable method to
get the desired results by varying inputs supported by solid evidence.

Problem Statement
Lift and drag coefficient is the most fundamental parameters in flight of an aircraft. It is to
determine whether if the wing would generate lift instead of induced drag, moving through the
high rate mass flow with other parameters involved such as angle of attack (AoA) and shape and
sizes of airfoil. The motivation of this study is to know how to obtain the lift and drag coefficient
using CFD software, FLUENT because it convenient as the user can do many setting. The data
gained in this FLEUNT can provide answers to problems. The problem addressed are as follows:
1. For inviscid model, does the pressure coefficient at AoA of 6 degrees coincide with the
benchmark value?
2. For inviscid model, does the lift and drag coefficient at AoA of 6 degrees coincide with
the benchmark value?

4
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

3. How does the lift and drag coefficient change on increasing AoA?
4. Validate the principle behind Bernoulli’s principle

2.0 Literature Review

This section contains brief literature review of basic knowledge of what is needed for the project.

NACA Airfoil
It is important to know the fundamentals of an airfoil or wings of an aircraft. This can
specifically determine what is needed to be analyzed by varying the components of the airfoil.
Figure 2 below shows the nomenclature of airfoil of an aircraft in the aviation field.

Figure 2: Airfoil Nomenclature [3]

The NACA airfoils are airfoil shapes for aircraft wings developed by the National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). The NACA airfoil shape and sizes is determined using
series of code either from the commonly four-digit series to a more complex five-digit series or 8
digit series. Definition of four digit series are as follows [4]:
Four digit series : 1 2 3 4
1—maximum camber as percentage of the chord
2—distance of maximum camber from the airfoil leading edge in tens of percent’s of the chord
34—maximum thickness of the airfoil as percent of the chord.

5
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

In this project, NACA 0012 is used. It was chosen because it has been used for many
applications such as the B-17 Flying Fortress and Cessna 152. The helocpter Sikorsky S-61 SH-3
Sea King as well as horizontal and vertical axis wind turbines [5]. NACA 0012 has a maximum
camber of 0% located 0% from the leading leading edge with a maximum thickness of 12% of
the chord, which makes it a symmetric airfoil.

Bernoulli’s Principle
Bernoulli’s principle describes the behavior of a fluid moving along a streamline. It states that an
idea fluid without viscosity of friction, running through along a closed pipeline, the total energy
remains constant throughout its length. Basically what stated here is an increase in flow speed
lead to a reduction of pressure, and conversely, if the flow speed is reduced the pressure
increases. The Bernoulli’s equation is given by [6]:

Where P = pressure Assumptions:

density
points 1 and 2 lie on a streamline,
V = velocity
the fluid has constant density,
g = gravitational acceleration
the flow is steady, and
h = elevation
there is no friction

Lift and Drag

Lift and drag depends on the density of air, square of velocity, the air’s viscosity and
compressibility, the size and shape of the body and the body’s inclination to the flow [7,8]. All
these parameters are complex. To overcome this problem, lift and drag (CL and CD) coefficient is
used to characterize the dependence with a single variable.

[7]

[8]

6
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

3.0 Research Methodology

This section explains specifically about the methodology of CFD analysis. Physical setup,
computational domain, solution setup and choices of turbulence model are explained in order as
procedure.

PROCEDURE
The procedure of this project is done following a tutorial on ‘Flow over an Airfoil’ section from
Cornell University [9].

1. For this case, a symmetrical NACA 0012 airfoil is used the velocity entering is at six
degree angle of attack, with total magnitude of 1. The gauge pressure at the inlet is to be
0. As for the outlet, gauge pressure is also assumed to be 0. The airfoil will be treated as a
wall.

Physical Model
2. The geometry of NACA 0012 airfoil can be generated at NACA 4 Digits Series Profile
Generator website as shown in Figure 3 [10]. These coordinates are then imported into
Excel worksheet and saved as text file.

Figure 3: Airfoil Profile Generator

7
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

3. ANSYS Design Modeler configured to 2D analysis and opened in the project schematic
window. Coordinate files are imported into the Design Modeler by using ‘Concept 3D
Curve’.

4. After the outline of the airfoil is generated, a surface is needed to be created within the
outline. This is done so by clicking ‘Concepts Surface from Edges’.

Computational Domain
5. Next, a control fluid volume is needed to specify boundary conditions. This is done by
creating a plane at the tail end of the wing and using simple sketching tool to draw a
semicircle and a rectangle around the airfoil.

6. The sketches drawn are made to a surface with ‘Concept Surface from sketches’.
Operation is set to frozen as to prevent the geometry airfoil from combining with the
geometry that is created after freeze. Also Boolean is created between the C-mesh
domain surface and the airfoil.

7. The control fluid volume is sliced and divided into four parts. Slicing the fluid volume
into smaller volumes allows for greater control over mesh sizing. Then, the divided lines
created by sketches will be projected onto the surface of the fluid volume to create the
four quadrants.

8. Next, mapped face meshing control is applied to the geometry. Edge sizing is done to
help smooth the transition between the four separate fluid volumes and creates a refined
mesh around the airfoil. For the wall of the control fluid, number of divisions are set to
50 and behavior is set to hard. The first bias or the second bias type for the upper section
and lower section, and bias factor of 150 is set. As for the curve part of the control fluid,
number of division is set to 100 and hard, but the edges are not biased. Mesh is then
generated as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

8
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Figure 4: Full Domain Mesh

Figure 5: Close-up Mesh around Airfoil

Solution Setup
9. Setup is then opened. Density based solver is chosen and viscous model is chosen to be
inviscid. Flow of fluid is assumed to have no viscosity (frictional force). Density of air is
assumed to be 1 kg/m3 for simplified calculations. Material chosen is air and the density
is set to be constant.

9
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

10. Figure 6 shows that as for boundary condition, the inlet velocity is at six degree angle
which means cos and sin for both X-velocity and Y-velocity component. In this case,
velocity inlet for X-velocity is cos6=0.9945 m/s and for Y-velocity is sin6=0.1045 m/s.

Figure 6: Velocity Inlet at 6 Degree

11. The outlet boundary condition type is set to pressure-outlet as for the airfoil is wall.

12. After that, solution method is configured by setting second order upwind for flow spatial
discretization. This is to make the results more accurate.

13. Before simulation can be started, setting of FLUENT will solve simulation is based on
user’s desire method. Here, the absolute convergences criteria are changed to 1e-6 to give
more refine results or data. The method is initialized and then calculated for a number of
iterations until the solution converges as shown in Figure 7.

10
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Figure 7: Convergence of Residual Plots against Number of Iterations

Turbulence Model
14. The same procedure is repeated with different velocity and reynold’s number and also
supposedly using different turbulence model such as shown in Table 1 to make better
comparison against one another. But only inviscid and Spallart-Allmaras was considered
in this project as there was benchmark for the purpose of this project as benchmark for
other models is hard to find and more complex.

11
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Table 1: Comparison of RANS Turbulence Model [11]

Inviscid flow past an airfoil

Inviscid flow is used to simplify a complex problem. It is the flow of an ideal fluid that assumes
no viscosity. The assumption that viscous forces are negligible can be used to simplify
the Navier-Stokes solution to the Euler equations.
Navier-stokes equation :

[12]
This type of flow involves a balance between pressure gradients and convective acceleration.
Since the flow is steady, the local (unsteady) acceleration is zero. Since the fluid is inviscid
( =0), there are no viscous forces.
Convective acceleration and pressure gradients:

Spallart-Allmaras turbulent model

Another model chosen is Spallart-Allmaras turbulence model. It is a relatively simple one-
equation model that solves a modelled transport equation for the kinematic eddy (turbulent)

12
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

viscosity. It has been shown to give good results for boundary layers subjected to adverse
pressure gradients. It is economical and accurate for attached wall-bounded flows and flows with
mild separation and recirculation but weak for massively separated flows, free shear flows and
decaying turbulence, in which in this case is not significant [5].

[5]

[5]

[5]
Where ̅ = operating parameter
v = molecular viscosity
S = magnitude of vorticity
d = distance to the closest wall
dt = distrance from point in the flow field to the trip on the wall
wt= wall corticity at the trip
= difference between velocity at the field point and that at the trip,
gt = min (0.1, / wt
= grid spacing along the wall at the trip

Therefore, these two models were selected as there was a benchmark to compare.

13
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Table 2: Summary of Parameter Settings

Inviscid Spallart-Allmaras
Type of airfoil NACA 0012
Analysis type 2D
Length of chord 1m
Dimension of fluid volume Radius of semicircle (front)–12.5 m
(C-Mesh domain) Horizontal length of rectangular block (back) –12.5 m
MESH (Mesh Statistics)
Nodes 40400
Elements 40000
Edge Sizing (rectangular)
Number of Divisions 100
Behavior Hard
Bias Type _____ ___ _ _ (first option)
Bias Factor 150
Edge Sizing 2 (rectangular)
Number of Divisions 100
Behavior Hard
Bias Type _ _ ___ _____ (second option)
Bias Factor 150
Edge Sizing 3 (semicircle)
Number of Divisions 100
Behavior Hard
Bias Type No Bias
SETUP (double precision and series processor)
Solver Density based
Convergence Absolute 1e-6
Criteria (all residual eq)
Number of iterations 5000
BOUNDARY CONDITION
Gauge pressure at inlet and 0

14
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

outlet
Velocity inlet Magnitude 1 m/s 43.82204082
Angle of attack (degree) 6 (benchmark testing), 0-20 0-20
X-velocity 0.9945 Varies
Y-velocity 0.1045 Varies
Density (kg/m3) 1 1.225
Viscosity -- 1.7894x10-5
Reynold’s number -- 3x106

4.0 Results and Discussions

This section answers the issues as stated in problem statement above. All necessary comparisons
were made in conjunction with benchmark available.

Inviscid—Coefficient of Pressure (Cp) at AoA = 6 degrees

The pressure coefficient along the airfoil is compared for the experimental data and the CFD
simulation [9].

Figure 8: Coefficient of Pressure of Experimental Data and FLUENT Simulation [9]

15
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Figure 9: Coefficient of Pressure of Obtained

As can be seen from Figures above, the CP obtained can be represent the red crosses in Figure 8,
that is 40000 elements. The pattern of the graph of CP obtained is similar to the experimental
data just that the y-axis is inverted. It also can be seen that the peak for the positive value of CP is
1 and the tail end of the graph at 1m is approximately 2.5. However, the peak value of negative
CP is slightly different with the experimental data which may be due to meshing problems which
involve accuracy, types and way of meshing, nodes and elements and so on.

16
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Inviscid—Coefficient of Lift (CL) and Drag (CD) at AoA = 6 degrees

The lift and drag coefficient was determined at angle of attack of 6 degrees and also the velocity
magnitude of air.

Table 3: Comparison of Coefficient of Drag and Lift of Obtained and Experimental Data
Obtained Data Experimental Data [9,13,14]
Lift Coefficient (CL) 0.68215323 0.6630
Drag Coefficient (CD) 0.0036004795 0.0090

Table 1 shows that at that particular velocity of air and angle of attack, the CL obtained,
068215323 is very close to the experimental data, 0.6630. Contrariwise, drag coefficient shows
the opposite. The CD for obtained is 0.0036004795 which is far apart from the experimental
value, 0.0090. The percentage error for CL is = 2.89% which is in the

acceptable range whereas percentage error for CD is = 60% which lies

outside the acceptable error margin. This may be due to inaccuracy and unsuitability of settings
in the boundary conditions as FLUENT interface is complex. It is very hard to determine the
accurate CD values in FLEUNT as other works is found to have 20% error in CD and 5-10% error
in CL [15].

17
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Spallart-Allmaras (SA) --Performance of Lift and Drag Coefficient (CL & CD) of Airfoil on
Increasing AoA

Table 4: Lift Coefficient on Increasing AoA

Angle of
Attack(O) Drag Coefficient Lift Coefficient
0 0.009981315 -7.20E-05
5 0.012809639 0.52885362
10 0.024619832 0.9959853
15 0.25374234 1.1405255
20 0.21935411 0.81872978

Lift Coefficient (CL) against the angle of attack

(AoA)
1.40E+00

1.20E+00

1.00E+00
y = -0.0003x3 + 0.0023x2 + 0.1027x - 0.0017
8.00E-01 R² = 0.9998

6.00E-01

4.00E-01

2.00E-01

0.00E+00
0 5 10 15 20
-2.00E-01

Figure 10: Data Obtained for Lift Coefficient Against Angle of Attack (AoA)

18
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Figure 11: Comparison between experimental data from Abbott et al and three different
turbulent models simulation results of the lift coefficient curve for NACA 0012 airfoil [5]

Table 4 and Figure 10 and Figure 11 show that lift coefficient increases when angle of attack
increases. The dimensionless lift coefficient increased linearly with angle of attack. Flow was
attached to the airfoil throughout this regime. At an angle of attack roughly 15 to 16o, the flow on
the upper surface of the airfoil began to develop [16].
Stall is said to happen. Stall is an undesirable phenomenon in which the aircraft wings produce
an increased air resistance and decreased lift. It usually occurs when critical angle attack of
airfoil is exceeded. The critical angle is usually around 16o for light aircraft, without high-lift
devices.

19
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Figure 12: Stalled Airfoil [16]

Drag Coefficient (CD) against the Angle of

0.35 Attack (AoA)
0.3

0.25
y = -5E-05x4 + 0.0017x3 - 0.0166x2 + 0.048x + 0.01
0.2 R² = 1

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 5 10 15 20
-0.05

Figure 13: Data Obtained for Drag Coefficient Against Angle of Attack (AoA)

20
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Figure 14: Comparison between experimental data for fully turbulent boundary layer from
Johansen and three different turbulent models simulation results of the drag coefficient curve for
NACA 0012 airfoil [5]

As for drag coefficient, the obtained data and the experimental data is very different. The
obtained graph shows that the drag coefficient value is almost ten times as much compared to the
experimental value. Also, the pattern of the graph in Figure 13 and Figure 14 is obvious, that the
obtained data for drag coefficient fluctuates and AoA increases whereas it should have been a U-
shape parabolic curve. The errors are explained further Recommendation section.

21
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Show the concept of Bernoulli’s principle

Inviscid flow at velocity magnitude of 1 m/s and angle of attack of 10 degrees.

Figure 15: Velocity Vector of Airfoil from Top Isometric and Side View

22
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Figure 16: Pressure Contour of Airfoil from Top Isometric and Bottom Isometric View

Bernoulli’s principle can be explained by referring to Figure 15 and Figure 16. As stated before
in Literature Review, Bernoulli’s principle is simply means that pressure is inversely
proportional to the velocity. Because airfoil has a smoother surface at the upper surface, the air
tends to travel faster on the upper surface compared to the lower surface as shown in Figure 15
by the green-ish to red-ish zone colour which indicates high velocity. The lower surface has
lower velocity indicated by the blue-ish zone colour. When there is high velocity, there is low
pressure and vice versa as shown in Figure 16 by the zone colours. Air in the region of high
pressure will travel to the lower pressure, thus generating lift. Thus, this proves that simulation
using FLUENT can provide clarity to explain certain characteristics through graphics and
numerical problem solving method.

23
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

5.0 Recommendation
All errors and inaccuracy of data obtained and how to improve is explained in this section.

Drag coefficient
It is found that drag coefficient obtained using FLUENT are always higher or lower than the
experimental data when using turbulent model. This prediction are expected as the front half of
the airfoil has laminar flow. The turbulence models cannot calculate the transition point from
laminar to turbulent and consider that the boundary layer is turbulent throughout its length.
Johansen (1997) contained experimental data of CD for NACA 0012 airfoil and Re=3x106, where
boundary layer formed around airfoil is fully turbulent. It is established that for accurate CD, the
most accurate model was the k-w SST model, second came the Spallart-Allmaras and latest in
precision was the Realizable k-e as shown in Figure 14[5]. Thus, the turbulent model k-w SST
model should be used instead but there is not enough information and time to do the simulation.

Settings for FLUENT

The results and data obtained is less accurate and far from the experimental due to several factors
such as meshes, turbulence model, boundary conditions and so on. To overcome this problem,
the meshes around the airfoil should be C-type grid topology with high enough number of
elements in such a way that meshes around airfoil edge is smooth. The type of element used
should be hybrid between quadrilateral, triangular and tetrahedral elements.

Figure 17: Flow Regions around the Airfoil [5]

Other than that, computational domain could be split into two different domains as shown in
Figure 17 to run on mixed laminar and turbulent flow. It is found that the maximum error gained

24
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

is about 3.6%(closest as of now) for comparison of split grid and experimental data from
McCroskey for transitional boundary layer [5]. The only downside is that the transition point
have to be calculated through trial and error using CD as a benchmark. A new grid have to be
generated if the transition point had to change (Silisteanu-Botez, 2010) [5].

Suggestion for Further Work

The investigation of vortex generation should be implemented for better understanding of airfoil
drag and lift. 3D analysis should be done instead of 2D for accuracy. Other turbulence model
such as

6.0 Conclusion
In brief, the flow of NACA airfoil can be simulated in every way possible depending on user
input parameters using FLUENT. Multiple problems can be solved without the need of building
a physical setup everytime for testing, thus cost effective. It also can provide better
understanding and explanation through graphics and animation such as the Bernoulli’s principle
as the airfoil travels in a fluid medium with varying angle of attack. For this case, as for inviscid
flow, the results gained does coincide with the experimental value, like pressure and lift
coefficient. However, more improvement is needed for calculating drag coefficient as it has high
error percentage from the experimental data. Besides that, Spallart-Allmaras model is needed to
be tested with more configuration to fully utilize the accuracy of this turbulent model.

25
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

References
[1] Yassin, A.A.A.A & Elbashir A.M.A, 2011, Report of Simulation of Aerofoil NACA 4412 ,
University of Khartoum, Scribd.com, [online] Accessed on 8th October 2011 from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60960153/Report-of-Fluent-Simulation-of-Aerofoil-NACA-
4412

[2] Salim M.S., 2012, CFD Solution Procedure—Part A, Accessed on 8th October 2012

[3] Sharma A., 2012, Evaluation of Flow Behavior Around An Airfoil Body, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Thapar University, India, [online] Accessed on 9th October
2012 from
http://dspace.thapar.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/10266/2043/1/aman+sharma+801081033.
pdf

[4] The NACA Airfoil Series, undated, [online] Accessed on 10th October 2012 from
http://people.clarkson.edu/~pmarzocc/AE429/The%20NACA%20airfoil%20series.pdf

[5] Eleni D.C., Athanasios T.i. and Dionissios M.P., 2012, Evaluation of the turbulence
models for the simulation of the flow over a National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics (NACA) 0012 airfoil, Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research, Vol 4
(3), pp. 100-111.

[6] Bernoulli’s Equation, undated, [online] Accessed on 7th October 2012 from
http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/Bernoulli.html

[7] Benson T., undated, The Lift Equation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, [online] Accessed on 10th October 2012
from
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/lifteq.html

26
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

[8] Benson T., undated, The Drag Equation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, [online] Accessed on 10th October 2012
from
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/drageq.html

[9] Mullen B.J., 2011, FLUENT Learning Module: Flow over an Airfoil, Cornell University,
[online] Accessed on 7th October 2012 from
https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/SIMULATION/ANSYS+WB+-+Airfoil+-
+All+Pages

[10] Trapp J. and Zores R., undated, NACA 4 Digits Series Profile Generator, [online]
Accessed on 7th October 2012 from
http://www.ppart.de/aerodynamics/profiles/NACA4.html

[11] Bakker A., 2002, Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics—Turbulence Models,

Dartmouth College, [online] Accessed on 11th October from http://www.bakker.org.

[12] Bakker A., 2002, Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics—Classification of Flows,

Dartmouth College, [online] Accessed on 11th October from http://www.bakker.org.

[13] Sheldahl, R. E. and Klimas, P. C., March 1981, 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, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, [ online] Accessed on 13th October 2012 from
http://www.cyberiad.net/library/airfoils/foildata/n0012cd.htm

[14] Sheldahl, R. E. and Klimas, P. C., March 1981, 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, Albuquerque, New
Mexico. [online] Accessed on 13th October 2012 from

27
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

http://www.cyberiad.net/library/airfoils/foildata/n0012cl.htm

[15] Calculating Drag Coefficient from FLUENT, 2000, CFD Online, [online] Accessed on
14th October 2012 from www.cfd-online.com

[16] Aerodynamics: Stall and Spin, undated, [online] Accessed on 12th October 2012 from
http://adamone.rchomepage.com/index6.htm

28
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Appendix
Inviscid || velocity=1m/s || angle of attack=10 degree

Figure 18 : Streamline of Airfoil

29
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Figure 19: Pressure Gradient of Airfoil

30
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Figure 20: Vortex Swirling Strength

31
School of Engineering
Taylor’s University

Figure 21: Overall Contours vectors of airfoil

32