, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 1481–1494 | Cite as

Three-dimensional suction flow control and suction jet length optimization of NACA 0012 wing

  • Kianoosh YousefiEmail author
  • Reza Saleh


A three-dimensional suction flow control study was performed to investigate the aerodynamic characteristics of a rectangular wing with a NACA 0012 airfoil section. In addition, the optimum suction jet length was determined. In this study, the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations were employed in conjunction with a k–ω SST turbulent model. Perpendicular suction was applied at the leading edge of the wing’s upper surface, with two different types of slot distributions: i.e., center suction and tip suction. The suction jet lengths were varied by 0.25–2 of the chord length, and the jet velocity was selected to be 0.5 times the freestream velocity. Most importantly, in both cases, the results indicated that the lift-to-drag ratio increased as the suction jet length rose. However, the improvement in aerodynamic characteristics was more pronounced with center suction, and these characteristics were extremely close to those of the case considering suction over the entire wing such that the jet length was equal to wingspan. Moreover, in the center suction case, vortexes frequently abated or moved downstream. Interestingly, under similar conditions, a greater number of vortexes were removed with center suction than with tip suction. Ultimately, when the jet length is less than half the wingspan, tip suction is the better of the two alternatives, and when the jet length is greater than half the wingspan, center suction is better suited.


3D simulation NACA 0012 wing Flow control Suction Jet length 



The authors thank Dr. Mehrdad Jabbarzadeh, Dr. Majid Vafaei Jahan, and Mr. Soheil Namvar for providing vital resources for the supercomputer cluster. We also thank Dr. Behrooz Zafarmand for his valuable suggestions during the planning and development of this research.


  1. 1.
    Thibert JJ, Reneaux J, Moens F, Priest J (1995) ONERA activities on high lift devices for transport aircraft. Aeronaut J 99:395–411Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hazen DC (1968) Boundary layer control. J Fluid Mech 29:200–208Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Richards EJ, Burge CH (1943) An airfoil designed to give laminar flow over the surface with boundary layer suction. Aeronautical Research Council, R&M 2263Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walker SW, Raymer WG (1946) Wind tunnel test on the 30 percent symmetrical griffith aerofoil with ejection of air. Aeronautical Research Council R&M 2475Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braslow AL (1999) A history of suction type laminar flow control with emphasis on flight research, NASA History Division, Monograph in Aerospace HistoryGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dannenberg RE, Weiberg JA (1952) Section characteristics of a 10.5 % thick airfoil with area suction as affected by chordwise distribution of permeability, NACA technical note 2847Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dannenberg RE, Weiberg JA (1954) Section characteristics of an NACA0006 airfoil with area suction near the leading edge, NACA technical note 3285Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Howe HJ, Neumann BJ (1982) An experimental evaluation of a low propulsive power discrete suction concept applied to an axisymmetric vehicle, David W. Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center TM 16-82/02Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dirlik S, Kimmel K, Sekelsky A, Slomski J (1992) Experimental evaluation of a 50-percent thick airfoil with blowing and suction boundary layer control, AIAA Paper No. AIAA-92-4500Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shan H, Jiang L, Liu C (2005) Direct numerical simulation of flow separation around a NACA 0012 Airfoil. Comput Fluids 34(9):1096–1114CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoarau Y, Faghani D, Braza M, Perrin R, Anne-Archard D, Ruiz D (2003) Direct numerical simulation of the three-dimensional transition to turbulence in the incompressible flow around a wing. Flow Turbul Combust 71(1–4):119–132CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bourdet S, Bouhadji A, Braza M, Thiele F (2003) Direct numerical simulation of the three-dimensional transition to turbulence in the transonic flow around a wing. Flow Turbul Combust 71(1–4):203–220CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martinat G, Braza M, Hoarau Y, Harran G (2008) Turbulence modeling of the flow past a pitching NACA 0012 Airfoil at 105 and 106 reynolds numbers. J Fluids Struct 24(8):1294–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uranga A, Persson P, Drela M. Peraire J (2009) Implicit large eddy simulation of transitional flows over airfoils and wings. In: 19th AIAA computational fluid dynamics, AIAA 2009-4131, San Antonio, TexasGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Im HS, Zha GC (2011) Delayed detached eddy simulation of a stall flow over NACA0012 airfoil using high order schemes. In: 49th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, AIAA 2011-1297, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilarranz JL, Traub LW, Rediniotis OK (2005) A new class of synthetic jet actuators—part II: application to flow separation control. ASME J Fluids Eng 127(2):377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Timor I, Ben-Hamou E, Guy Y, Seifert A (2007) Maneuvering aspects and 3D effects of active airfoil flow control. Flow Turbul Combust 78(3–4):429–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Troshin V, Seifert A (2013) Performance recovery of a thick turbulent airfoil using a distributed closed-loop flow control system. Exp Fluids 54(1), Article 1443Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buchmann NA, Atkinson C, Soria J (2013) Influence of ZNMF jet flow control on the spatio-temporal flow structure over a NACA-0015 airfoil. Exp Fluids 54(3), Article 1485Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deng S, Jiang L, Liu C (2007) DNS for flow separation control around an airfoil by pulsed jets. Comput Fluids 36(6):1040–1060CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brehm C, Mack S, Gross A, Fasel HF (2008) Investigations of an airfoil at low reynolds number conditions. In: 4th flow control conference, AIAA 2008-3765, Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    You D, Moin P (2008) Active control of flow separation over an airfoil using synthetic jets. J Fluids Struct 24(8):1349–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bres GA, Williams DR, Colonius T (2010) Numerical simulations of natural and actuated flow over a 3D, low-aspect-ratio airfoil. In: 40th fluid dynamics conference and exhibit, AIAA 2010-4713, Chicago, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Yousefi K, Saleh R (2014) The effects of trailing edge blowing on aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA0012 airfoil and optimization of the blowing slot geometry. J Theor Appl Mech 52(1):165–179Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huang L, Huang PG, LeBeau RP (2004) Numerical study of blowing and suction control mechanism on NACA0012 Airfoil. J Aircr 41(5):1005–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Alfonsi G (2009) Reynolds-averaged navier-stokes equations for turbulence modeling. Appl Mech Rev 62(4):040802CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Menter FR, Kuntz M, Langtry R (2003) Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model. In: Proceedings of 4th international symposium on turbulence, heat and mass transfer, Turkey, pp 625–632Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoarau Y, Braza M, Ventikos Y, Faghani D, Tzabiras G (2003) Organized modes and three-dimensional transition to turbulence in the incompressible flow around a NACA 0012 wing. J Fluids Mech 496:63–72CrossRefADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marsden O, Bogey C, Bailly C (2006) Direct noise computation around a 3D NACA 0012 Airfoil. In: 27th AIAA aeroacoustics conference, AIAA 2006–2503, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spentzos A, Barakos G, Badcock K, Ruchards B, Wernert P, Schreck S, Raffei M (2004) CFD investigation of 2D and 3D dynamic stall. In: AHS 4th decennial specialist’s conference on aeromechanics, San Fransisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jacobs E, Sherman A (1937) Airfoil section characteristics as affected by variations of the reynolds number, NACA report no. 586–231Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Critzos CC, Heyson HH, Boswinkle W (1955) Aerodynamics characteristics of NACA0012 airfoil section at angle of attacks from 0° to 180°, NACA technical note 3361Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mc Croskey WJ (1987) A critical assessment of wind tunnel results for the NACA 0012 Airfoil”, NASA TM 100019Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Buresti G (2009) Notes on the role of viscosity, vorticity and dissipation in incompressible flows. Meccanica 44(4):469–487CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Graziani G, Bassanini P (2002) Unsteady viscous flows about bodies: vorticity release and forces. Meccanica 37(3):283–303CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mashhad BranchIslamic Azad UniversityMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations