Advertisement

Effects of the hinge position and suction on flow separation and aerodynamic performance of the NACA 0012 airfoil

  • Esmaeel Fatahian
  • Ali Lohrasbi NichkoohiEmail author
  • Hesamoddin Salarian
  • Jahanfar Khaleghinia
Technical Paper
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

In the present study, the effect of hinge position (H) has been numerically investigated to find the appropriate position for improving the aerodynamic performance of the NACA 0012 flapped airfoil. In addition, perpendicular and tangential suctions have been applied to control the flow separation and enhance the aerodynamic performance over the NACA 0012 flapped airfoil at each different hinge positions. The simulations were carried out at a Reynolds number of 5 × 105 (Ma = 0.021) based on two-dimensional incompressible unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes calculations to determine the adequate hinge position. The turbulence was modeled using the shear stress transport kω turbulence model. The effect of perpendicular suction (θjet = − 90°) and tangential suction (θjet = − 30°) was computationally studied over NACA 0012 flapped airfoil for five different hinge positions (H = 0.7c, 0.75c, 0.8c, 0.85c and 0.9c) and a flap deflection (δf) of 15°. Based on the results, the hinge position significantly affects the aerodynamic performance of the airfoil. The lift coefficient increased clearly as the hinge position moved to the trailing edge of the airfoil. Using perpendicular suction caused to increase the lift coefficient and decrease the drag coefficient. Consequently, the maximum value of the lift-to-drag ratio (CL/CD) for perpendicular and tangential suctions was achieved about 35.8% and 25.1% higher than that of the case without suction at an angle of attack of 12° and H = 0.9c. Also, the effect of perpendicular suction was more considerable compared to the tangential suction. This caused a reduction in the size of the recirculation zone from 0.5 to 0.09 of the airfoil chord length and also transferred it from 1.13 to 1.18 of the airfoil chord length.

Keywords

Flow separation Suction Lift coefficient Drag coefficient NACA 0012 Hinge position 

List of symbols

α

Angle of attack

β

The angle between the free-stream velocity direction and the local jet surface

c

Airfoil chord length

CP

Pressure coefficient

CL

Lift coefficient

CD

Drag coefficient

Cf

Skin friction coefficient

ω (ε/k)

Specific dissipation rate

k

Turbulent kinetic energy

μ

Viscosity

ρ

Density

τ

Shear stress

δf

Flap deflection

P

Pressure

H

Hinge position

\( \rho_{\infty } \)

Free-stream density

h

Hinge moment

Sf

Reference area of the control surface

Cs

Control surface reference chord

q

Free-stream dynamic pressure

Ch

Hinge moment coefficient

Re

Reynolds number

Ma

Mach number

U

Free-stream velocity

y+

Dimensionless wall distance

θjet

Jet angle

Ljet

Jet location

Ujet

Jet velocity

Rjet

Jet velocity ratio

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Obeid S, Jha R, Ahmadi G (2017) RANS simulations of aerodynamic performance of NACA 0015 flapped airfoil. Fluids 2(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson John D (2001) Fundamentals of aerodynamics. McGraw-Hill series in aeronautical and aerospace engineering, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 283–335Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    You D, Moin P (2008) Active control of flow separation over an airfoil using synthetic jets. J Fluids Struct 24(8):1349–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Günther B, Carnarius A, Thiele F (2010) Numerical investigation of active flow control applied to an airfoil with a camber flap. In: King R (ed) Active flow control II. Springer, Berlin, pp 45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Günther B, Thiele F, Petz R, Nitsche W, Sahner J, Weinkauf T, Hege HC (2007) Control of separation on the flap of a three-element high-lift configuration. In: 45th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, p 265Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prabhakar A, Ohri A (2013) CFD analysis on MAV NACA 2412 wing in high lift take-off configuration for enhanced lift generation. J Aeronaut Aerosp Eng 2:125Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amini Y, Liravi M, Izadpanah E (2018) The effects of Gurney flap on the aerodynamic performance of NACA 0012 airfoil in the rarefied gas flow. Comput Fluids 170:93–105MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xie YH, Jiang W, Lu K, Zhang D (2016) Numerical investigation into energy extraction of flapping airfoil with Gurney flaps. Energy 109:694–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fatahian E, Nichkoohi AL, Salarian H, Khaleghinia J (2019) Comparative study of flow separation control using suction and blowing over an airfoil with/without flap. Sādhanā 44(11):220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mohammadi M, Taleghani AS (2014) Active flow control by dielectric barrier discharge to increase stall angle of a NACA0012 airfoil. Arab J Sci Eng 39(3):2363–2370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cattafesta LN III, Sheplak M (2011) Actuators for active flow control. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 43:247–272zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yang L, Li J, Cai J, Wang G, Zhang Z (2016) Lift augmentation based on flap deflection with dielectric barrier discharge plasma flow control over multi-element airfoils. J Fluids Eng 138(3):031401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Svorcan JM, Fotev VG, Petrović NB, Stupar SN (2016) Two-dimensional numerical analysis of active flow control by steady blowing along foil suction side by different URANS turbulence models. Therm Sci 20(6):1–14Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hao W, Ding Q, Li C (2019) Optimal performance of adaptive flap on flow separation control. Comput Fluids 179:437–448MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shehata H, Zakaria M, Hussein A, Hajj MR (2018) Aerodynamic analysis of flapped airfoil at high angles of attack. In: 2018 AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, p 0037Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hafien C, Mbarek TB (2019) Reduced order model for the lift coefficient of an airfoil equipped with extrados and/or trailing edge flexible flaps. Comput Fluids 180:82–95MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Genç MS, Kaynak Ü, Lock GD (2009) Flow over an aerofoil without and with a leading-edge slat at a transitional Reynolds number. Proc Inst Mech Eng G J Aerosp Eng 223(3):217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tung C, McAlister KW, Wang CM (1993) Unsteady aerodynamic behavior of an airfoil with and without a slat. Comput Fluids 22(4–5):529–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yousefi K, Saleh R, Zahedi P (2014) Numerical study of blowing and suction slot geometry optimization on NACA 0012 airfoil. J Mech Sci Technol 28(4):1297–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang L, Huang PG, LeBeau RP, Hauser T (2004) Numerical study of blowing and suction control mechanism on the NACA 0012 airfoil. J Aircr 41(5):1005–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fatahian H, Salarian H, Nimvari ME, Fatahian E (2018) Numerical study of suction and blowing approaches to control flow over a compressor cascade in turbulent flow regime. Int J Automot Mech Eng 15(2):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tadjfar M, Asgari E (2018) Active flow control of dynamic stall by means of continuous jet flow at Reynolds number of 1 × 106. J Fluids Eng 140(1):011107–011110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fatahian E, Nichkoohi AL, Fatahian H (2019) Numerical study of the effect of suction at a compressible and high Reynolds number flow to control the flow separation over Naca 2415 airfoil. Prog Comput Fluid Dyn Int J 19(3):170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ahmed T, Amin MT, Islam SR, Ahmed S (2014) Computational study of flow around a NACA 0012 wing flapped at different flap angles with varying Mach numbers. Glob J Res Eng 13:4–16Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Genç MS, Kaynak Ü, Yapici H (2011) Performance of transition model for predicting low Re aerofoil flows without/with single and simultaneous blowing and suction. Eur J Mech B Fluids 30(2):218–235zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lei J, Liu Q, Li T (2017) Suction control of laminar separation bubble over an airfoil at low Reynolds number. Proc Inst Mech Eng G J Aerosp Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410017727025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhou Y, Hou L, Huang D (2017) The effects of Mach number on the flow separation control of an airfoil with a small plate near the leading edge. Comput Fluids 156:274–282MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ma D, Li G, Yang M, Wang S (2018) Research of the suction flow control on wings at low Reynolds numbers. Proc Inst Mech Eng G J Aerosp Eng 232(8):1515–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fluent A (2009) 12.0 theory guide. Ansys Inc., 5(5)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yousefi K, Saleh R (2015) Three-dimensional suction flow control and suction jet length optimization of NACA 0012 wing. Meccanica 50(6):1481–1494MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ge M, Zhang H, Wu Y, Li Y (2019) Effects of leading edge defects on aerodynamic performance of the S809 airfoil. Energy Convers Manag 195:466–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Monir HE, Tadjfar M, Bakhtian A (2014) Tangential synthetic jets for separation control. J Fluids Struct 45:50–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liu D, Nishino T (2019) Unsteady RANS simulations of strong and weak 3D stall cells on a 2D pitching aerofoil. Fluids 4(1):40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ockfen AE, Matveev KI (2009) Aerodynamic characteristics of NACA 4412 airfoil section with flap. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 1(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yang XI, Sadique J, Mittal R, Meneveau C (2016) Exponential roughness layer and analytical model for turbulent boundary layer flow over rectangular-prism roughness elements. J Fluid Mech 789:127–165MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nichkoohi AL, Tousi AM (2014) Numerical investigation of high pressure and high Reynolds diffusion flame using Large Eddy Simulation. J Therm Sci 23(5):412–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shan H, Jiang L, Liu C (2005) Direct numerical simulation of flow separation around a NACA 0012 airfoil. Comput Fluids 34(9):1096–1114zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang W, Zhang Z, Chen Z, Tang Q (2017) Main characteristics of suction control of flow separation of an airfoil at low Reynolds numbers. Eur J Mech B Fluids 65:88–97MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32(8):1598–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vuddagiri A, Halder P, Samad A, Chaudhuri A (2016) Flow analysis of airfoil having different cavities on its suction surface. Prog Comput Fluid Dyn Int J 16(2):67–77MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Catalano P, Amato M (2003) An evaluation of RANS turbulence modelling for aerodynamic applications. Aerosp Sci Technol 7(7):493–509zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Resendiz Rosas C (2005) Numerical simulation of flow separation control by oscillatory fluid injection. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dannenberg RE, Weiberg JA (1952) Section characteristics of a 10.5-percent-thick airfoil with area suction as affected by chordwise distribution of permeability. NASA TN 2847Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W (2007) An introduction to computational fluid dynamics: the finite volume method. Pearson Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Farhadi A, Rad EG, Emdad H (2017) Aerodynamic multi-parameter optimization of NACA0012 airfoil using suction/blowing jet technique. Arab J Sci Eng 42(5):1727–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gregory N, O’reilly CL (1973) Low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of NACA 0012 aerofoil section, including the effects of upper-surface roughness simulating hoar frost. HM Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Critzos CC, Heyson HH, Boswinkle Jr RW (1955) Aerodynamic characteristics of NACA 0012 airfoil section at angles of attack from 0 deg to 180 deg (No. NACA-TN-3361). National Aeronautics and Space Administration, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jacobs EN, Sherman A (1937) Airfoil section characteristics as affected by variations of the Reynolds number. NACA report no. 586-231Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Williamson G (2012) Experimental wind tunnel study of airfoils with large flap deflections at low Reynolds numbers. Master’s thesis, aerospace engineering, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, pp 14–60Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Simpson CD (2016) Control surface hinge moment prediction using computational fluid dynamics. Master dissertation, The University of AlabamaGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Perry III B (1978) Control-surface hinge-moment calculations for a high-aspect-ratio supercritical wing. Technical memorandum 78664, NASAGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hinze JO (1975) Turbulence. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Absi R (2009) A simple eddy viscosity formulation for turbulent boundary layers near smooth walls. Comptes Rendus Mec 337(3):158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hanjalić K, Launder BE (1976) Contribution towards a Reynolds-stress closure for low-Reynolds-number turbulence. J Fluid Mech 74(4):593–610zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esmaeel Fatahian
    • 1
  • Ali Lohrasbi Nichkoohi
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hesamoddin Salarian
    • 1
  • Jahanfar Khaleghinia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nour BranchIslamic Azad UniversityNourIran
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nowshahr BranchIslamic Azad UniversityNowshahrIran

Personalised recommendations