Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 39

Study of Leading Edge Rotating Cylinder in a Subsonic Wind Tunnel

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

SUBMITTED BY

Md. NURUL HUDA STUDENT NO: 201222037

TABASSUM AHMED STUDENT NO: 201222023

SM SHAKIL AHMED STUDENT NO: 201222018

Supervised By
Gp Capt Abdus Md Salam (BAF)
Head of Department of Aeronautical Engineering
MIST, Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka.
Instructor, Class-A
Military Institute of Science and Technology

DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING


MILITARY INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY MIRPUR CANTONMENT, DHAKA-1216

DECEMBER, 2015
CERTIFICATION

This thesis paper entitled Study of Leading Edge Rotating Cylinder in a Subsonic
Wind Tunnel submitted by the group under mention, has been accepted as
satisfactory in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor
of Science in Aeronautical Engineering, for Level-4, Term-1 & 2
(Session:2011-2012).

Group Members

Md. NURUL HUDA STUDENT NO: 201222037

TABASSUM AHMED STUDENT NO: 201222023

SM SHAKIL AHMED STUDENT NO: 201222018

Supervisor

Gp Capt Md Abdus Salam (BAF)


Instructor, Class-A
Department of Aeronautical Engineering
Military Institute of Science and Technology
Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka.
DECLARATION

This is to certify, that the contents of the thesis are the outcome of the works sincerely carried
out by the undersigned students and supervised by Gp Capt Md Abdus Salam (BAF),
Instructor-Class-A, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Military Institute of Science
and Technology (MIST), Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka-1216, Bangladesh.

We also declare that, neither of this paper nor any part of this has been submitted elsewhere
for the award of any degree or other qualifications.

Md. NURUL HUDA

(Student Number: 201222037)

TABASSUM AHMED
(Student Number: 201222023)

SM SHAKIL AHMED
(Student Number: 201222018)

Gp Capt Md Abdus Salam


Instructor, Class-A
Department of Aeronautical Engineering
Military Institute of Science and Technology
Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka.
(SUPERVISOR)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praises to the Almighty Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful, who best owed
upon us the will, for the successful competition of our thesis paper within the scheduled
time, which the paper would not have been possible.

With due sincerity, we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude and indebtedness to the
thesis supervisor Gp Capt Md Abdus Salam (BAF), Instructor, Class-A, Department of
Aeronautical Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Technology (MIST), whose
encouragement, continuous guidance, valuable suggestions, close co-operation and cordial
support from the initial to the final level enable due to complete the paper properly. His
advice, initiative, moral support and patience are very gratefully acknowledged.

We are thankful to our respected Head of the Department, Gp Capt Md Abdus Salam and
our faculty members for their support and co-operation.
DEDICATED
To

Our beloved family, who has devoted themselves to put us in todays


platform.
Abstract
In the ever growing aviation industry, the need of high-performance aircraft is increasing day by day. Moreover,
high performance aircraft demands improved aerodynamic characteristics such as high lift to drag ratio (L/D). Ever
since the concept of boundary layer introduced by Prandtl, scientists all over the world are trying to solve the
problem of boundary layer flow separation, thus try to increase the aerodynamic characteristics (L/D) and reduce
aerodynamic drag (D). In this research paper, it is attempted to reduce the effect of flow separation over an airfoil
using a rotating cylinder in front of a modified NACA 0010 symmetrical airfoil. This airfoil was modified with a
leading edge rotating cylinder .The experiment was conducted in a subsonic wind tunnel. First the aerodynamic
parameters of the setup were taken at different angles of attack while the rotation of the cylinder was kept zero.
After that the aerodynamic parameters of the setup were measured at different angles of attack while changing the
rpm of the cylinder. Then coefficient of lift (CL) and coefficient of drag (CD) were plotted with respect to angle of
attack and results were compared with and without the rotation of the leading edge cylinder. Although it is believed
that NACA 0010, a symmetrical airfoil, does not provide any lift at zero angle of attack but at zero angle of attack
with a rotating cylinder in the leading edge of the same airfoil produces sufficient amount of lift. Moreover, at
different angles of attack a rotating cylinder improves the flow separation at the trailing edge, thus improves the lift
to drag ratio (L/D) and decreases the induced drag.

Key words: Symmetric Airfoil; Lift to drag ratio; Subsonic wind tunnel; Rotating Cylinder; Angle of Attack.

Acronyms
CL Coefficient of lift

CD Coefficient of drag

L - Lift

D - Drag

UC Tangential velocity of the rotating cylinder

U - Velocity of the wind tunnel flow

Fm - The Magnus force vector

w - Angular velocity vector of the object

v - Velocity of the fluid (or velocity of object, depends on perspective)

S- Air resistance coefficient across the surface of the object


Chapter 1
Introduction
1. Introduction

1.1 Background of the Project

The experiment has been conducted with the intent to apply MAGNUS EFFECT on aircraft wing to increase the
lift by limiting the flow separation on the upper and lower surface of the wing. The Magnus effect uses principals
from Bernoulli's equation. Bernoulli's equation states that if the velocity of a moving fluid increased, the pressure
must decrease.in case of this study the rotating cylinder increases the velocity in the upper surface thus decreases the
pressure, thus the pressure difference causes lift.

1.2 Definition of Used Term

1.2.1 Magnus Effect

According to the definition of Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc Magnus effect, generation of a sidewise force on a
spinning cylindrical or spherical solid immersed in a fluid (liquid or gas) when there is relative motion between the
spinning body and the fluid.

Named after the German physicist and chemist H.G. Magnus, who first (1853) experimentally investigated the
effect; it is responsible for the curve of a served tennis ball or a driven golf ball and affects the trajectory of a
spinning artillery shell.

The Magnus force


It can be seen, from the Fig 1, that the lower side of the ball has a larger speed relative to the air than the upper side.
This results in a larger drag force acting on the lower surface of the ball than on the upper surface. If we think of
drag forces as exerting a sort of pressure on the ball then we can readily appreciate that when the unequal drag
forces acting on the ball's upper and lower surfaces are added together there is a component of the resultant force
acting upwards. This is known as the Magnus force.

The force of the Magnus effect can be calculated with the following equation:

According to Newtons third law of motion, the equal and opposite reaction of the Magnus force vector (Fm) is lift
(L) in this study.
Fig 1: Magnus Effect in a rotating cylinder [10]

1.2.2 Symmetrical Airfoil

An airfoil that has the same shape on both sides of its centerline (the centerline is thus straight) is called symmetrical
airfoil.

Fig 2: Symmetrical airfoil [10]


Symmetrical airfoil properties

1. Symmetrical airfoils have identical upper and lower surfaces.


2. They are suited to rotary-wing applications because they have almost no center of pressure travel.
3. Travel remains relatively constant under varying angles of attack, affording the best lift-drag ratios for the
full range of velocities from rotor blade root to tip.
4. However, the symmetrical airfoil produces less lift than a nonsymmetrical airfoil and also has relatively
undesirable stall characteristics.
5. The helicopter blade (airfoil) must adapt to a wide range of airspeeds and angles of attack during each
revolution of the rotor.
6. The symmetrical airfoil delivers acceptable performance under those alternating conditions.
7. Other benefits are lower cost and ease of construction as comparedto the nonsymmetrical airfoil.

NACA 0010 Symmetrical airfoil

For this study NACA 0010 Symmetrical airfoil was used. Properties of NACA 0010 Symmetrical airfoil for
Reynolds Number range 50000 to 1000000 are given below.

Fig 3: NACA 0010 symmetrical airfoil[10]


1.2.3. Boundary layer

According to the definition of Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc Boundary layer, in fluid mechanics, thin layer of a
flowing gas or liquid in contact with a surface such as that of an airplane wing or of the inside of a pipe.

Fig 4: Formation of a Boundary Layer [10]

Laminar and Turbulent Boundary Layers

A boundary layer may be laminar or turbulent. A laminar boundary layer is one where the flow takes place in layers,
i.e., each layer slides past the adjacent layers. This is in contrast to Turbulent Boundary Layers shown in
Fig.2 where there is an intense agitation.

In a laminar boundary layer any exchange of mass or momentum takes place only between adjacent layers on a
microscopic scale which is not visible to the eye. Laminar boundary layers are found only when the Reynolds
numbers are small.

Fig 5: Typical velocity profiles for laminar and turbulent boundary layers [10]

A turbulent boundary layer on the other hand is marked by mixing across several layers of it. The mixing is now on
a macroscopic scale. Packets of fluid may be seen moving across. Thus there is an exchange of mass, momentum
and energy on a much bigger scale compared to a laminar boundary layer. A turbulent boundary layer forms only at
larger Reynolds numbers.

Fig 6: Typical velocity profiles for laminar and turbulent boundary layers [10]

1.2.4. Separation of Flow

Pressure gradient is an is one of the factors that influences a flow immensely. It is easy to see that the shear stress
caused by viscosity has a retarding effect upon the flow. This effect can however be overcome if there is a negative
pressure gradient offered to the flow. A negative pressure gradient is termed a Favourable pressure gradient. Such a
gradient enables the flow. A positive pressure gradient has the opposite effect and is termed the Adverse Pressure
Gradient. Fluid might find it difficult to negotiate an adverse pressure gradient. Sometimes, we say the the fluid has
to climb the pressure hill.

Fig 7: Separation of flow over a curved surface [10]

Depending on the flow conditions the recirculating flow terminates and the flow may become reattached to the
body. On aerofoils sometimes the separation occurs near the leading edge and gives rise to a short bubble. What can
be dangerous is the separation occurring more towards the trailing edge and the flow not reattaching. In this situation
the separated region merges with the wake and may result in stall of the aerofoil (loss of lift).

Fig 8: Separation bubble over an aerofoil [10]

1.2.5. Drag

Drag is a force that opposes motion. An aircraft flying has to overcome the drag force upon it, a ball in flight, a
sailing ship and an automobile at high speed are some of the other examples. It is clear that viscosity is an agent that
causes drag. We have seen that it gives raise to boundary layers on solid surfaces. There is shear stress in boundary
layers that do tend to retard the motion of fluid past the solid surface. This is sketched for an aerofoil surface in Fig
6.This is termed Skin friction Drag.

Fig 9: Shear stress on a body [10]

There is another agent that can cause drag. This is the pressure difference upon the flow. This could come about due
to geometrical effects that induce separation as happens with a cylinder to be discussed later. This is called Pressure
Drag or Form Drag, since it is due to the body geometry.

The sum of pressure drag and skin friction drag constitutes Drag about the body or Profile Drag.

1.2.6. Drag coefficient (CD)

The drag coefficient is a number that aerodynamicists use to model all of the complex dependencies of shape,
inclination, and flow conditions on aircraft drag. The drag coefficient then expresses the ratio of the drag force to the
force produced by the dynamic pressure times the area.
Figure 10: CD values for familiar two-dimensional objects. [11]

Figure 11: CD Values for familiar three-dimensional objects.[11]

The total drag coefficient Cd is equal to the drag coefficient at zero lift C D-0 plus the induced drag coefficient CD-i.
CD = CD-0 + CD-i

1.2.7. Lift

Lift is the force that directly opposes the weight of an airplane and holds the airplane in the air. Lift is generated by
every part of the airplane, but most of the lift on a normal airliner is generated by the wings. Lift is a mechanical
aerodynamic force produced by the motion of the airplane through the air. Because lift is a force, it is a vector
quantity, having both a magnitude and a direction associated with it. Lift acts through the center of pressure of the
object and is directed perpendicular to the flow direction. There are several factors which affect the magnitude of
lift.

Fig 12: Lift production in thin aerofoil. [11]

1.2.8. Lift coefficient (CL)

The lift coefficient is a number that aerodynamicists use to model all of the complex dependencies of shape,
inclination, and some flow conditions on lift. This equation is simply a rearrangement of the lift equation where we
solve for the lift coefficient in terms of the other variables.

Fig 13: Lift production in thin aerofoil. [11]


Chapter 2
Theoretical Background
2. Theoretical Background
The study of leading edge rotating cylinder is based on the KuttaJoukowski theorem which is a fundamental
theorem of aerodynamics, that can be used for the calculation of the lift of an airfoil, or of any two-dimensional
bodies including circular cylinders, translating in a uniform fluid at a constant speed large enough so that the flow
seen in the body-fixed frame is steady and attached.

KuttaJoukowski theorem relates lift to circulation much like the Magnus effect relates side force (called Magnus
force) to rotation. The theorem refers to two-dimensional flow around an airfoil (or a cylinder of infinite span) and
determines the lift generated by one unit of span. When the circulation is known, the lift (L)per unit span (or L)
of the airfoil can be calculated using the following equation:

. (1)

(2)
Lift forces for more complex situations

The lift predicted by Kutta Joukowski theorem within the framework of inviscid potential flow theory is quite
accurate even for real viscous flow, provided the flow is steady and unseparated.[6]

Kutta Joukowski Theorem for steady irrotational flow: In deriving the KuttaJoukowski theorem, the
assumption of irrotational flow was used. When there are free vortices outside of the body, as may be the case for a
large number of unsteady flows, the flow is rotational. When the flow is rotational, more complicated theories
should be used to derive the lift forces. Below are several important examples.

Impulsively started flow at small angle of attack: For an impulsively started flow such as obtained by suddenly
accelerating an airfoil or setting an angle of attack, there is a vortex sheet continuously shed at the trailing edge and
the lift force is unsteady or time-dependent. For small angle of attack starting flow, the vortex sheet follows a planar
path, and the curve of the lift coefficient as function of time is given by the Wagner function. [7] In this case the initial
lift is one half of the final lift given by the Kutta Joukowski formula. [8] The lift attains 90% of its steady state value
when the wing has traveled a distance equal to seven chord lengths.

Impulsively started flow at large angle of attack: When the angle of attack is high enough, the trailing edge
vortex sheet is initially in a spiral shape and the lift is singular (infinitely large) at the initial time. [9] The lift drops
for a very short time period before the usually assumed monotonically increasing lift curve is reached.

Starting flow at large angle of attack for wings with sharp leading edges: If, as for a flat plate, the leading edge
is also sharp, then vortices also shed at the leading edge and the role of leading edge vortices is two-fold(1) they
are lift increasing when they are still close to the leading edge, so that they elevate the Wagner lift curve,(2) they are
detrimental to lift when they are convected to the trailing edge, inducing a new trailing edge vortex spiral moving in
[10]
the lift decreasing direction. For this type of flow a vortex force line (VFL) map can be used to understand the
effect of the different vortices in a variety of situations (including more situations than starting flow) and may be
used to improve vortex control to enhance or reduce the lift. The vortex force line map is a two dimensional map on
which vortex force lines are displayed. For a vortex at any point in the flow, its lift contribution is proportional to its
speed, its circulation and the cosine of the angle between the streamline and the vortex force line. Hence the vortex
force line map clearly shows whether a given vortex is lift producing or lift detrimental.

Lagally Theorem: When a (mass) source is fixed outside the body, a force correction due to this source can be
expressed as the product of the strength of outside source and the induced velocity at this source by all the causes
except this source. This is known as the Lagally theorem.[11] For two-dimensional inviscid flow, the classical Kutta
Joukowski theorem predicts a zero drag. When, however, there is vortex outside the body, there is a vortex induced
drag, in a form similar to the induced lift.

Generalized Lagally Theorem: For free vortices and other bodies outside one body without bound vorticity and
without vortex production, a generalized Lagally theorem holds,[12] with which the forces are expressed as the
products of strength of inner singularities (image vortices, sources and doublets inside each body) and the induced
velocity at these singularities by all causes except those inside this body. The contribution due to each inner
singularity sums up to give the total force. The motion of outside singularities also contributes to forces, and the
force component due to this contribution is proportional to the speed of the singularity.

Individual force of each body for Multiple-body rotational flow: When in addition to multiple free vortices and
multiple bodies, there are bound vortices and vortex production on the body surface, the generalized Lagally
theorem still holds, but a force due to vortex production exists. This vortex production force is proportional to the
vortex production rate and the distance between the vortex pair in production. With this approach, an explicit and
algebraic force formula, taking into account of all causes (inner singularities, outside vortices and bodies, motion of
all singularities and bodies, and vortex production) holds individually for each body [13] with the role of other bodies
represented by additional singularities. Hence a force decomposition according to bodies is possible.

General three dimensional viscous flow: For general three-dimensional, viscous and unsteady flow, force formulas
are expressed in integral forms. The volume integration of certain flow quantities, such as vorticity moments, is
related to forces. Various forms of integral approach are now available for unbounded domain[8][14][15] and for
artificially truncated domain.[16]The Kutta Joukowski theorem can be recovered from these approaches when applied
to a two-dimensional airfoil and when the flow is steady and unseparated.

Lifting line theory for wings, wing tip vortices and induced drag: A wing has a finite span, and the circulation at
any section of the wing varies with the spanwise direction. This variation is compensated by the release of
streamwise vortices (called trailing vortices), due to conservation of vorticity or Kelvin Theorem of Circulation
Conservation. These streamwise vortices merge to two counter-rotating strong spirals, called wing tipe vortices,
separated by distance close to the wing span and may be visible if the sky is cloudy. Treating the trailing vortices as
a series of semi-infinite straight line vortices leads to the well-known lifting line theory.
Chapter 3
Literature Review
Fluid Dynamics of Airfoils with Moving Surface Boundary-Layer Control F. Moktarian* and V. J. Modit
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (Aug. 18-20, 198).

Effectiveness of the moving surface boundary-layer control was assessed with reference to a symmetrical
Joukowsky airfoil modified with a leading-edge rotating cylinder. Results of the test program and the numerical
models suggest the following:

1) The surface singularity method is essential in modeling the complicated flow. With the inclusion of the boundary-
layer correction scheme; it becomes an effective tool for obtaining useful information concerning moving surface
boundary-layer control. The predicted pressure distributions are in good agreement with experiment almost up to the
point of complete separation from the airfoil surface, except in the separation region, where the prediction of
separated boundary layers with flow reversal would require the solution of the full Navier-Stokes equations.

2) The concept of moving surface boundary-layer control appears


quite promising. The tests showed a significant improvement in maximum lift and stall characteristics. With
cylinder rotation, the flow never separated completely from the upper surface for angles of attack as high as 48
deg. The higher rates of rotation (UC/U>1, Uc = cylinder surface velocity, U = free stream velocity) promoted
reattachment of the partially separated flow, giving an increase in lift coefficient by as much as 150%for
Ue/U = 4.

Summary of the study

Based on the numerical and experimental results, the following general conclusions was made:
1) The numerical procedure appears to be quite reasonable, considering the very complicated nature of the flow, and
is capable of predicting useful information concerning moving surface boundary-layer control.
2) Experimental results suggest that the concept of moving surface boundary-layer control is sound and effective.
The
availability of such a high value of lift from an analytical shape airfoil suggests that landing and takeoff speeds of a
STOL-type airplane using this form of boundary-layer control could be drastically reduced.

Effect of Moving Surfaces on the Airfoil Boundary-Layer Control, V. J. Modi* and F. Mokhtariant,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada and T.Yokomizo Kanto Gakuin University, Yokohama,
Japan ( Aug. 15-17, 1988) VOL. 27, NO. 1.

The concept of moving surface boundary-layer control, as applied to a Joukowsky airfoil, is investigate through
a planned experimental program complemented by a flow visualization study. The moving surface was provided by
rotating cylinders located at the leading and trailing edges of the airfoil. The leading-edge rotating cylinder extends
the lift curve without substantially affecting its slope, thus effectively increasing the maximum lift and delaying
stall. In general, the performance improves with an increase in the ratio of cylinder surface speed Uc to the
freestream speed V. A rotating trailing-edge cylinder affects the airfoil characteristics in a fundamentally different
manner. It acts as a flap and shifts the CL vs curves to the left, thus increasing the lift coefficients before stall. For
example,at a = 4 deg, it increased the CL by about 320%. In conjunction with the leading-edge cylinder, it can
provide significant improvements hi lift over the entire range of small to moderately high angles of incidence (a <>
18 deg).A flow visualization study substantiates, rather spectacularly, effectiveness of the concept.

.
Summary of the study

The experimental investigation with a symmetrical Joukowsky airfoil using leading- and trailing-edge rotating
cylinders brings to light several interesting points of information: .

1) In general, rotation of the leading-edge cylinder results in increased suction over the nose. It is the propagation of
this lower pressure downstream; however, that determines the effectiveness of the rotation. This depends mainly on
the geometry of the nose and smoothness of transition from the cylinder to the airfoil surface. A large gap ( > 3mm)
substantially decreases beneficial effect of the cylinder rotation.

2) The increased momentum injection into the boundary layer, with an increase in speed of rotation, delays the
separation of flow from the upper surface (stall) resulting in a higher Q max- The existence of a critical speed is also
evident beyond. Which momentum injection through a moving surface appears to have relatively less effect.

3) With the rotation of the leading-edge cylinder, the onset of flow separation occurs at relatively higher angles of
attack. The upper surface flow remains attached up to a distance downstream of the leading edge at which point it
separates, leading to a large separation bubble, with reattachment towards the trailing edge. The flow, therefore, is
not completely separated from the airfoil, thus resulting in a flatter stall peak.

4) The use of a leading-edge cylinder extends the lift curve without substantially changing its slope, thus
considerably increasing the maximum lift coefficient and stall angle. The Joukowsky model showed an increase in
CLlIiax by around 130%, with the stall delayed from 10 to 28 deg.

5) In contrast to the leading-edge cylinder, the use of a trailing-edge cylinder substantially increases the lift before
stall. The rotating trailing-edge cylinder acts like a flap shifting the CL vs a plot to the left. A high rate of rotation of
this cylinder results in a dramatic increase in suction, over the airfoil upper surface, thus giving a larger lift.
Furthermore, it can be used in conjunction with the leading-edge cylinder, resulting in impressive values of lift over
the whole range of low to moderately high angles of incidence (a < 19 deg). For both the cylinders rotating at UC/U
= 4, the CL>max increased by around 195%, compared to the unmodified base airfoil.

6) The flow visualization study confirmed effectiveness of the concept in a spectacular fashion. It gave better
appreciation of the complex flow with a separation bubble and a large turbulent wake. The unsteady flow field is not
stable, but oscillates in the stream wise direction. Furthermore, it substantiated the flow features revealed by the
measured pressure profiles in a qualitative fashion.
Moving Surface Boundary-Layer Control as Applied to Two-Dimensional Airfoils V. J. Modi,* F. Mokhtarian,
and M. S. U. K. Fernando,The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and
T.Yokomizo Kanto Gakuin University, Yokohama, Japan(Jan. 9-12, 1989).

The concept of moving surface boundary-layer control, as applied to a Joukowsky airfoil, is investigated through
an experimental program complemented by a flow visualization study. The moving surface was provided by rotating
cylinders located at the leading edge and upper surface of the airfoil. The results suggest that the leading-edge
rotating cylinder effectively extends the lift curve without substantially affecting its slope, thus increasing the
maximum lift and delaying stall. When used in conjunction with a second cylinder on the upper surface, further
improvements in the maximum lift and stall angle are possible. The maximum coefficient of lift realized was
around 2.73, approximately three times that of the base airfoil. The maximum delay in stall was around 48 deg. In
general, the performance improves with an increase in the ratio of cylinder surface speed Uc to the free stream speed
However; the additional benefit derived progressively diminishes with an increase in UC/U and becomes virtually
negligible for Ut/U > 4. There appears to be an optimum location for the cylinder at the upper side of the leading
edge that gave quite promising results. Although the C Lmax obtained was a little lower than the two-cylinder
configuration (2.35 against 2.73), it offers a major advantage in terms of mechanical simplicity.

Summary of the study

The experimental investigation with a symmetrical Joukowsky airfoil using leading-edge and upper-surface rotating
cylinders brings to light several interesting points of information:

1) In general, rotation of the leading-edge cylinder results in increased suction over the nose. It is the propagation of
this lower pressure downstream, however, that determines the effectiveness of the rotation. This depends mainly on
the geometry of the nose and smoothness of transition from the cylinder of the airfoil surface. A large gap (>3 mm)
substantially decreases beneficial effect of the cylinder rotation.

2) The increased momentum injection into the boundary layer, with an increase in speed of rotation, delays the
separation of flow from the upper surface (stall), resulting in a higher CLtmax. The existence of a critical speed is also
evident beyond which momentum injection through a moving surface appears to have relatively less effect.
3) With the rotation of the leading-edge cylinder, the onset of flow separation occurs at relatively higher angles of
attack. The upper surface flow remains attached up to a distance downstream of the leading edge, at which point it
separates, leading to a large separation bubble, with reattachment toward the trailing edge. The flow, therefore, is
not completely separated from the airfoil, thus resulting in a flatter stall peak.

4) The use of a leading-edge cylinder extends the lift curve without substantially changing its slope, thus
considerably increasing the maximum lift coefficient and stall angle. The Joukowsky model showed an increase in
CL,max by Ground 125%, with the stall delayed from 10 to 28 deg.

5) In contrast to the leading-edge cylinder, the use of a trailing-edge cylinder substantially increases the lift before
stall. The rotating trailing-edge cylinder acts like a flap shifting the CL vs a plot to the left. A high rate of rotation of
this cylinder results in a dramatic increase in suction over the airfoil upper surface, thus giving a larger lift.
Furthermore, it can be used in conjunction with the leading-edge cylinder, resulting in impressive values of lift over
the whole range of low to moderately high angles of incidence (a < 18 deg).

6) Presence of a steep positive pressure gradient near the leading edge of the airfoil at large angles of attack requires
the rotation of the nose-cylinder to avoid separation at that point. But depending on the angle of attack, the adverse
pressure gradient may still cause flow separation further downstream. Since the flow remains attached at the leading
edge, the lift continues to increase with the angle of attack, whereas the flow remains separated over most of the
upper surface, resulting in an increase in pressure drag (as evident from a reduced pressure recovery at the trailing
edge). The use of a second cylinder is now required to further improve the lift and stall characteristics.
7) Protrusion of the upper-surface cylinders in the flow has an adverse effect on the aerodynamic characteristics of
the airfoil at low angles of attack. In absence of the cylinder rotation, the flow separates at the location of the
cylinder, resulting in a decrease in lift and an increase in drag. However, their rotation increases the C^max and
delays stall. The forward upper-surface cylinder is particularly effective in this respect. This is, in fact, expected
since the adverse pressure gradient is highest close to the leading edge. Further improvements in the C^max and stall
angle are possible when the forward upper-surface cylinder is used in conjunction with the leading-edge cylinder.
This configuration is expected to result in lower drag due to almost complete recovery of pressure at the trailing
edge even at moderately high angles of attack. The increase in CXmax was observed to be around 210%, with the stall
delayed to 36 deg (UC/U = 4 for both the cylinders).

8) The configuration with a rotating cylinder on the upper side of the leading edge appears to be quite promising.
Although the peak CLmax realized with the cylinder rotation was slightly less (2.35 against 2.73) compared to the two
cylinder configuration, it does have a major advantage in being mechanically simple in terms of design and
application. The increase in Qmax at UC/U =4 by around 167% and the delay in stall from 10 to 48 deg is quite
impressive.

9) A reliable method for blockage correction at a high angle of attack, when the airfoil behaves as a bluff body with
an unsteady separation bubble and the wake, is badly needed. In absence of such a procedure, the results have been
purposely presented without wall confinement corrections. The flow visualization pictures clearly show the effect of
momentum injection at a given blockage.

High-Performance Airfoil with Moving Surface Boundary-Layer Control V. J. Modi,* S. R. Munshi, and G.
Bandyopadhyay, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada and T.
Yokomizo Kanto Gakuin University, Mutsuura, Kanazawa, Yokohama 236, Japan, Vol. 35, No. 4, July August
1998.

All airfoils are known to stall at high angles of attack as a result of flow separation, resulting in a
sudden loss of the lift force. To avoid flow separation, it is necessary to introduce some form of boundary layer
control. The present study focuses on the performance of an airfoil with moving surface boundary layer control
(MSBC). Effects of the angles of attack, rate of momentum injection, as well as rotating
cylinder surface condition on the surface pressure distribution and aerodynamic coefficients are assessed.
A comprehensive study involving wind-tunnel investigation, numerical simulation, and flow visualization
clearly demonstrates that the momentum injection through MSBC results in a significant delay in the
stall angle (from 10 to 50 deg) and an increase in the lift coefficient by more than 200% at high angles
of attack (at 30 deg). The results show that a multi element panel method, modeling the flow separation
using free vortex lines, predicts the overall aerodynamics of an airfoil with the MSBC quite accurately.
The airfoil performance can be improved further by judicious selection of the rotating cylinder surface
condition. Among the three different surface roughness conditions studied, the cylinder with axial splines
was found to be the most effective.

Summary of the study

Based on the wind-tunnel, numerical, and flow visualization results, the following comments can be made:
1) Significant improvement in the lift coefficient as well as the delay in the stall angle could be achieved by
judiciously selecting the rate of the momentum injection and cylinder surface geometry.

2) A momentum injection ratio of UC/U = 4 indicates a practical limit to the beneficial effect of the momentum
injection in increasing the lift. A further increase in the momentum injection is not likely to provide higher lift, but
may affect the drag adversely.
3) Among the three different surface roughness condition was studied, the cylinder with axial splines was found to
be the most effective. A 210% increase in the lift coefficient was achieved in this case.

4) In presence of the MSBC the stall becomes gradual and could be delayed to 50 deg.

5) The numerical scheme provides good approximation of the actual dynamics of the MSBC as applied to a multi
element airfoil at high angles of attack.

6) The flow visualization results dramatically confirm effectiveness of the MSBC in delaying separation.
Chapter 4
Experimental setup
4. Experimental setup

4.1. Subsonic wind tunnel (AF100)

A compact, practical open-circuit suction wind tunnel for studying aerodynamics. The wind tunnel saves time and
money compared with full-scale wind tunnels or airborne laboratories, and it offers a wide variety of experiments.
The wind tunnel gives accurate results and is suitable for undergraduate study and research projects.

Fig 14: AF-100 subsonic wind tunnel

AF100 Features

1. Saves time and money compared to full-scale wind-tunnels or airborne laboratories


2. Operates at meaningful Reynolds numbers.
3. Compact, open-circuit suction design.
4. Wide variety of experiments in aerodynamics.
5. Comprehensive selection of optional instrumentation, models and ancillaries.
6. High levels of safety.
7. Controls and instrumentation conveniently mount on a separate, free standing frame.
AF100 Experiments

A wide variety of subsonic aerodynamics experiments (some need ancillaries), including:

1. Flow past bluff and streamlined bodies with pressure and velocity observations in the wake.
2. Investigations into boundary layer development.
3. Influence of aspect ratio on aerofoil performance.
4. Performance of an aerofoil with flap, influence of flap angle on lift, drag and stall.
5. Pressure distribution around a cylinder under sub and super-critical flow conditions.
6. Study of characteristics of models involving basic measurement of lift and drag forces.
7. Study of the characteristics of three-dimensional aerofoils involving measurement of lift, drag and pitching
moment.
8. Study of the pressure distribution around an aerofoil model to derive the lift and comparison with direct
measurements of lift.
9. Drag force on a bluff body normal to an air flow.
10. Flow visualisation.

The experiment was conducted in AF100 (subsonic wind tunnel). AF-100 subsonic wind tunnel is an open circuit
suction type wind tunnel and offers variety of experiments. The tested specimen is the combination of a rotating
cylinder and a modified NACA 0010 zero camber airfoil. The original airfoil coordinate is modified to
accommodate the rotating cylinder properly in the leading edge of the wing. The final dimensions used for the
experiment are tabulated below.

Table 1: Aerofoil and cylinder data

Specimens Dimension (mm)


Chord of modified NACA 0010 airfoil 150
Diameter of rotating cylinder 13
Span of the wing 300
Distance between cylinder and airfoil 1.5
Maximum thickness 14 (at 25% chord)
Fig 15.Chord of modified airfoil with cylinder
Fig 16: Span of modified airfoil with cylinder

Fig 17: Dimension of modified airfoil with cylinder

A holder (included with the AF100 wind tunnel) supports the model in the tunnel. The model has the characteristics
of a three dimensional airfoil. The results from the full-width airfoil (the modified NACA 0010 airfoil with rotating
cylinder) with the tapped (NACA 0010 airfoil) airfoil model can be compared.
Fig 18: Modified NACA 0010 airfoil with cylinder

To control the rotating cylinder an "Arduino" was used to run a DC geared motor. The shaft of DC geared motor
was inserted into one end of the cylinder. A potentiometer was used to control the motor rpm which goes as 30, 60,
90,120 rpm corresponding the wind tunnel velocity.
Fig 19: Model with setup to rotate cylinder
Chapter 5
Results
5. Results
According to the formula stated earlier it is clear that, to increase the Magnus force vector (F m), the angular velocity
vector of the object (w) must be increased.

[As velocity of the fluid (v), air resistance coefficient across the surface of the object (S) is kept constant]

The rotation of the cylinder (i.e. w) was increased to see the resulting lift increment. The experiment results were
compared with the available NACA 0010 airfoil to justify its effect on wing performance. Coefficient of lift (C L)
and coefficient of drag (CD) NACA 0010 at different angle of attack was plotted in a graph keeping the wind tunnel
air flow velocity 30 ms-1.

Fig 20: CL for NACA 0010 150mm airfoil at 30 ms-1


Fig 21: CD for NACA 0010 150mm airfoil at 30 ms-1

To calculate the coefficient of lift and coefficient of drag variation, modified NACA 0010 airfoil was first inserted in
the wind tunnel with keeping the rotation of the cylinder zero (U c/U=0) and then rotating the cylinder twice the
velocity of wind tunnel air flow (Uc/U=2).
5.1. When the leading edge rotating cylinder was kept at zero RPM (U c/U=0)

To compare the CL, CD for Uc/U=0, data obtained in the experiment were plotted in the graphs.

Fig 22: Comparison of CL,CD (when Uc/U=0) at 30 ms-1

Fig 23: Comparison of CL at 30 ms-1


5.2. When the leading edge rotating cylinder was kept at twice tangential velocity that of airflow velocity
(Uc/U=2)

To compare the CL, CD for Uc/U=2, data obtained in the experiment were plotted in the graphs.

Fig 24: Comparison of CL,CD (when Uc/U=0) at 30 ms-1

Fig 25: Comparison of CL,CD (when Uc/U=2) at 30 ms-1


Chapter 6
Discussion
6. Discussion
Study of NACA 0010 Symmetric Airfoil with Leading Edge Rotating Cylinder in a Subsonic Wind Tunnel
highlights the following findings.

6.1. When the leading edge rotating cylinder was kept at zero RPM (U c/U=0)

The coefficient of lift (CL) decreased (around 60% of NACA 0010 airfoil) substantially because of vorticity created
by the gap between the cylinder and airfoil. The coefficient of drag (CD) increased (around 135% of NACA 0010
airfoil) substantially because of the motor mount and the supporting stick. The surface roughness of the model
certainly contributed to the generation of drag. There was no such significant improvement of C L/CD for Uc/U=0
because of the high coefficient of drag (CD) and low coefficient of lift (CL).There was a sharp downfall of drag due
to minimum flow separation at the upper and lower surface.

6.2. When the leading edge rotating cylinder was kept at twice tangential velocity that of airflow velocity
(Uc/U=2)
Rotating cylinder at the leading edge evidently improved suction over the nose. The efficiency mainly depends on
the surface smoothness, as the tested specimen had surface roughness it affected the experimental result. Increased
rotation of leading edge cylinder delayed the flow separation from the upper surface. This resulted in a higher C Lmax
(145% at 16 degree angle of attack) compared to theoretical delay in flow separation. It occurred practically in a
slower way, because the motor mounted to rotate the cylinder in the model created much disturbance in the upstream
flow. The onset flow separation was delayed up to higher angle of attack (10-20 degree) resulting in a flatter stall
peak.
7. Conclusion
Limitations of tested model include the motor mount to rotate the cylinder which creates a substantial amount of
drag, unavailability of any other effective mechanism. Another limitation was the limited size of the model. As wind
tunnel can accommodate a (300*300mm) model, but the model size was reduced (300*150mm) to accommodate the
motor. This affected the co-efficient of lift (CL) tremendously. NACA 0010 model that came with the wind tunnel
had a nice coating which made the surface smooth but the tested model had surface roughness which contributed to
the generation of drag. To get better result from this experiment, a better model with smooth surface coating and
minimum gap between the rotating cylinder and modified NACA 0010 150 mm airfoil is required. Further research
can be done obtaining data at Uc/U=3, Uc/U=4 and making comparison for drawing logical conclusions.

8. References
1. F. Moktarian* and V. J. Modi Fluid Dynamics of Airfoils with Moving Surface Boundary-Layer
Control, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada,( Febryary 1988) VOL. 25, NO. 2.
2. V. J. Modi* and F. Mokhtariant Effect of Moving Surfaces on the Airfoil Boundary-Layer Control,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada and T.Yokomizo Kanto Gakuin University,
Yokohama, Japan ( Aug. 15-17, 1988) VOL. 27, NO. 1.
3. Roskam,j.Methods of estimating drag poler of subsonic airplanes,published by aurther,1971.
4. Torenbeek, EG Synthesis of subsonic airplane design,Klumen academic publishers,1982.
5. T.H.G megson, Aircraft structures for engineering students (4th edition).
6. UIUC airfoil co-ordinate database.
7. Aerofoil investigate database.
8. Hoemer,s Fluid dynamic drag,published by aurther ,1958.
9. Encyclopdia Britannica, Inc.
10. Aerospace, Mechanical & Mechatronic,University of Sydney.
11. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.