& Aero

tics sp

Journal of Aeronautics & Aerospace

au Baig et al., J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng 2018, 7:1
rnal Aeron

ac
DOI: 10.4172/2168-9792.1000206

eE
ngineeri
of

Engineering
ou

J ng
ISSN: 2168-9792

Research Article Open Access

A New Methodology for Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of a Small Scale

Blended Wing Body
Baig AZ, Cheema TA*, Aslam Z, Khan YM, Sajid Dar H and Khaliq SB
Department of Mechanical Engineering, GIK Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, Topi, 23460, KPK, Pakistan

Abstract
The blended wing body (BWB) concept is a relatively new concept of an aircraft. The wings and the fuselage blend
into one integral structure greatly reduce drag and increases lift thus making it a highly efficient design. The aim of the
research was to design a radio controlled small scale BWB aircraft for use over long ranges at low altitudes in order
to deliver payloads. The BWB was divided into the center body and the outer wing. Four airfoils, HS522, LA2573A,
NACA 25111 and MH78 were analyzed in XFLR5. In consideration of their lift and moment characteristics, NACA
25111 and MH78 were selected for the center body and the wing respectively. The stall speed and wing loading were
the primary factors used in determining the area and size of the aircraft which converged to a design having a five feet
wingspan. Center of gravity was placed ahead of aerodynamic center to provide static and dynamic stability in pitch.
Twist, dihedral and sweep were given to increase stability and controllability. The final design was tested in XFLR5 for
stability and in commercial computational fluid dynamic code ANSYS-Fluent for comparison. These simulation results
were compared to wind tunnel tests of a 20% scaled down prototype. 3D Panel Method results in XFLR5 were found
to be very close to wind tunnel results but CFD results were seen to be not conforming to the wind tunnel results after
10° angle of attack. Thus, CFD was deemed to be unnecessary for designing a plane of this size. Ultimately, a larger
test prototype was made out of polystyrene foam and a successful flight was achieved.

Keywords: Blended Wing Body (BWB); XFLR5; Computational data from flight tests or previous experiments. This issue was addressed
Fluid Dynamics (CFD); Small Scale Aircraft; Wind tunnel; Stability by Martinez [7] in his research. He optimized the control surfaces
area and achieved a 12% reduction in area from his baseline design,
Introduction consequently reducing the drag and weight of the aircraft [7]. This
showed that stability issues can be solved by design thus proving a BWB
The conventional tube and wing design has been popular for
superior in all aspects. Thomson et al. [4] made a 5-meter wingspan
several decades and has nearly reached its asymptote of efficiency BWB unmanned air vehicle (UAV). Stability was improved by moving
around the size of an Airbus A380 [1]. Depleting world resources have center of gravity in front of the center of pressure and by using reflex
promulgated the need for developing higher efficiency air vehicles to airfoils to reduce aerodynamic moments [4]. Dehpanah and Nejat [8]
reduce fuel consumption, environmental impact and cost. Blended placed an external mass that could move along the centerline to provide
Wing Body (BWB) is a new and novel concept that is gaining popularity stability in pitch. Kuntawala [2] had added dihedral, twist, and sweep in
very rapidly and promises a revolutionary change in the future of the outer wing of the BWB to improve its stability and delay stall.
aviation [1]. The blending of the wings with the fuselage makes it
aerodynamically more efficient. It does not have a tail that significantly XFLR5 is very reliable software for modeling small planes but not
for large aircrafts [9]. Vortex Lattice Method (VLM) and 3D-Panel
contributes to drag generation [2]. Majority of lift is created by center
Method are two common methods for analyzing planes in XFLR5. VLM
body [2] thus eliminating the aerodynamically redundant fuselage from
is independent of the wind speed (is linear) and will give reliable results
the conventional configuration [3,4].
for all kinds of wings [9]. The 3D-Panel method is a refined form of
In the first attempt, NASA Langley Research Center funded VLM and takes into account the full 3D characteristics. It takes wing
McDonnell Douglas [5] to design an aircraft carrying 800 passengers thickness in consideration whereas VLM only considers the mean
with a 7000-n mile range at Mach 0.85. The team considered a sphere, camber line [9]. XFLR5 has been used by Martinez [1] in analyzing
a cylinder and a disk, capable of carrying 800 passengers load. The disk wings and a BWB model at Mach 0.3 by VLM and 3D-Panel methods to
configuration turned out to be the best option because of its lesser wetted find lift, drag and stability of an aircraft. It was also used by Hassanalian
area [5]. This led to the BWB being the best design for the purpose. Further, et al. [10] to design a micro air vehicle and the analysis of its lift and
Lieback in his article explained that since the disc configuration has a drag forces.
33% lesser wetted area and cruise lift to drag ratio is related to the wetted
area aspect ratio, b2/Swet ; the BWB configuration is significantly better in
all aspects [3]. A comparative study between a BWB and a conventional *Corresponding author: Cheema TA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, GIK
Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, Topi, 23460, KPK, Pakistan, Tel:
aircraft was carried out by Ikeda [6]. A conventional Airbus A380 +92-938-271858; E-mail: tacheema@giki.edu.pk
was taken as the reference and a BWB was designed keeping the same
Received January 08, 2018; Accepted January 24, 2018; Published January 31,
mission profile requirements and a constraint of maximum wingspan 2018
of 80m due to airport restrictions. Simplified models for both aircrafts
Citation: Baig AZ, Cheema TA, Aslam Z, Khan YM, Sajid Dar H, et al. (2018) A
were made in Computer Aided Design and simulated in Computational New Methodology for Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of a Small Scale Blended
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software. The BWB greatly surpassed the A380 in Wing Body. J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng 7: 206. doi: 10.4172/2168-9792.1000206
aerodynamic performance and efficiency [6]. Copyright: © 2018 Baig AZ, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
There are significant stability challenges with the BWB design. It use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
does not have a tail and as the concept is novel it does not have enough source are credited.

J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng, an open access journal

ISSN: 2168-9792 Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000206
Citation: Baig AZ, Cheema TA, Aslam Z, Khan YM, Sajid Dar H, et al. (2018) A New Methodology for Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of a Small
Scale Blended Wing Body. J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng 7: 206. doi: 10.4172/2168-9792.1000206

Page 2 of 6

The goal of this research was to construct a very efficient plane

that can cruise for long distances for long hours and carry a significant
amount of payload. BWB, because of its proven advantages of efficiency
and its payload capacity, was the best choice. The BWB concept has
majorly been studied for its use in passenger aircrafts, and hardly
ever has its use in small scale aircrafts has been analyzed. Utilizing
its superior aerodynamic benefits in small scale aircrafts will yield
significant benefits. A goal was to make the design approach simple and
efficient. Thus, XFLR5 was used because of its relative simplicity and
reliability. Analysis was also done in CFD software in ANSYS-Fluent
to compare the results with the wind tunnel experiments. The present Figure 3: Variation in CL/CD at various angle of attack.
study also discusses the final 5 feet prototype that was constructed from
polystyrene foam and its successful flight.
Average CM (0° < Max. Cl/Cd
Air-foils Cl (α=5°)
α < 10°) (efficiency)
Design Methodology LA 2573A 0.62 0.02 123
An extensive analysis of all the aspects of the design was carried HS 522 0.70 -0.01 100
out. Mentioned below are the salient points of the whole design process. MH 78 0.60 0.04 10 5
NACA 25111 0.82 -0.01 122
Air-foil selection
Table 1: Summary of XFLR5 simulation results.
The BWB was divided into two parts – the center body and the
outer wing. The majority of the lift was to be produced by the center variation in, CL, CM and efficiency at various angle of attack (AoA)’
body and the wing would have the control surfaces to maneuver the are shown in Figures 1-3 respectively. The results are summarized in
Table 1.
airplane. Therefore, a high lift co-efficient (CL) airfoil was required in
the center. It was realized that with high CL (high camber) comes a The goal is to make the center body acting as the main lift generating
relatively more negative moment of coefficient (CM) [4] thus the outer portion; hence an airfoil which provides maximum CL is to be selected.
wing must have a positive CM in order to balance out its effects. CM Pitching moment can be compromised to an extent provided it does not
contributes significantly to the longitudinal stability of tail less aircrafts become too negative. From Table 1, NACA 25111 is the best possible
since they do not have a tail to counter the negative pitching moment option to be used in the center body. NACA 25111 has highest CL.
(nose down) of the cambered airfoils [11]. Several airfoils were analyzed Negative CM in NACA 25111 can be compensated by using an airfoil
and the list was later shortened to only reflex airfoils because of their having positive CM in the outer body. The outer wing was assumed to
higher longitudinal stability [12]. After reviewing the commonly used play more important part in stability than in producing lift. Thus to
airfoils for flying wings and BWBs and analyzing their feasibility in the counter the negative moment by NACA 25111, the airfoil used in this
given case, the list was shortened to only four airfoils: LA 2573A, HS section needs to have a higher positive CM. According to the results,
522, MH78 and NACA 25111. MH 78 is the airfoil with the highest positive moment. Thus it was
selected for the outer wing.
XFLR5 was used to analyze these four airfoils and graphs showing
Critical performance parameters
Wing loading, stall speed and the maximum lift coefficient are
essential to determine whether the plane will fly or not. The aircraft is
to be designed such that it stalls below 10 m/s. The main portion of the
lift is generated from the center body. Additionally, a 2°degree twist has
been given to the center body to ensure that it stalls first. Therefore, if
stall condition is applied only to the center body then the minimum
wing loading can be found.
From Figure 1, it can be noted that the maximum CL is approximately
1.4 for NACA 25111. The following lift equation can be used to calculate
the wing loading [13].
Figure 1: Variation in CL at various angle of attack.
W 1 2
= ρ v (C ) (1)
A 2 s lmax
Where the left side denotes the wing loading (weight/area), ρ is the
air density, vs is the stall speed and is the maximum CL. The equation
(1) yields a wing loading of 85.8 N/m2. Any velocity less than 10 m/s at
the max CL will cause the plane to stall, thus this is the minimum wing
loading that is to be achieved.
The expected weight of the plane including the battery, motors,
electronics and the payload (1200 g) is approximately 2.4 kg. Thus
working with the equation will give us a minimum area of 0.27 m2. The
plane was then designed in such a way that the area of the center body
Figure 2: Variation in CM at various angle of attack.
was 0.32 m2, well above the limit.

J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng, an open access journal

ISSN: 2168-9792 Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000206
Citation: Baig AZ, Cheema TA, Aslam Z, Khan YM, Sajid Dar H, et al. (2018) A New Methodology for Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of a Small
Scale Blended Wing Body. J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng 7: 206. doi: 10.4172/2168-9792.1000206

Page 3 of 6

Center of gravity, twist, dihedral and sweep

Till now, the air-foils that are to be used and the total wing area
required to keep the aircraft in the air have been determined. Using
the already determined total wing area, which was required to keep the
aircraft in the air and the knowledge accumulated from literature review
of previous models considering the fact that there are certain features
common to BWB aircrafts; the conceptual design was given proper
configuration. It was determined that it is best suited to use seven air-foil
sections in the plane and to interpolate the surfaces in between. NACA
25111 was used at first four sections (the center body). MH 78 was used Figure 4: Top view of sections.
in the outer wing. Several other features were also incorporated in the
design.
Center of gravity
BWB is very unstable in pitch because of lack of tail section. Setting
the center of gravity (CG) ahead of the neutral point of the aircraft is
essential for the plane to be statically and dynamically stable [4,14]. This
will ensure that the aircraft recovers from any disturbance. The neutral
point was found from XFLR5 by moving the CG back and forth. It was
ensured that the center of gravity is placed ahead of it.
Figure 5: Isometric view of final design.
Winglets
High pressure on the lower surface of the wing creates a natural airflow From Offset
Section center (from Chord/ Air-foil Thickness
that makes its way to the wingtip and curls upward around it. This produces # chord center)/ in name %
Twist/° Dihedral/°
wingtip vortices and induces drag. Winglets help reduce the strength of /in in
wingtip vortices [12]. Thus, they were added at the wing tip. NACA
1 0 0 31.0 11 2 0
25111
Dihedral NACA
2 2 3.5 27.5 11 2 0
25111
A positive dihedral is given to improve roll stability of an aircraft.
NACA
It makes a plane self-stable, i.e., able to restore its stable position after 3 4 7.5 23.5
25111
10.6 1 0
a disturbance [15]. Thus a positive dihedral was given at the end of NACA
4 6 9.5 21.5 8.2 0 0
wingspan to improve roll or longitudinal stability. 25111
5 9 12.6 14.5 MH 78 6.9 0 2
Sweep 6 12.3 15.8 9.5 MH 78 5.2 0 2
A sweep was given because of many reasons. A sweep improves the 7 24 28.0 3.0 MH 78 4 0 -
yaw or lateral stability of an aircraft. After a disturbance the drag forces Aspect ratio 4.6 CG 16.31” from Y Taper ratio 0.1 Wing Area 658 in2
change their moment arm on both wings enabling the aircraft to return Table 2: Final plane configuration.
to its original position [13]. A wing sweep will also help to increase the
area of control surfaces and increase their moment arm from the center The center body can be approximated to be a trapezium thus its
of gravity of the aircraft. Moreover, vertical stabilizers were placed at area will be:
winglets to enhance yaw stability. A= ½ (height) (sum of parallel sides)
Twist where,
Twist can be either geometric or aerodynamic. Geometric twist ℎ = 9.5 𝑖𝑛 × 2
involves varying the wing incidence angle along the span. Aerodynamic and
twist involves changing the airfoil section along the span [11]. A positive
physical twist in the center body airfoils was given to ensure that the S𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑠 = 31 𝑖𝑛 + 21.5 𝑖𝑛.
center stalls first and the pilot has time to react before the stall reaches This gives an area of 498 in2 equivalent to 0.32 m2. The real area will
the control surfaces on the outer wing and reaches the wing tip [16]. be less than this due to approximation but will be greater than 0.27 m2.
Thus it satisfies the wing loading condition as mentioned in section 3.2.
With respect to desired thickness at a given cross section, the
Also, an area of 160 in2 remains for the outer wings, this shows that the
corresponding air-foil was sized to that thickness percentage using
lift produced here will be a relatively small portion of the overall lift.
XFLR5. Top view and seven sectional side view sketches with varying
This again emphasizes that the center body produces most of the lift.
thickness were imported from XFLR5 to SolidWorks and a desired
chord length was decided for all the sections. The thickness and chord Results and Discussion
length was decided so that the space inside the plane can be maximized
without compromising the aerodynamics or structural continuity. The analysis of the whole plane was carried out using two softwares.
XFLR5 was used to find lift and carry out stability analysis due to its in-
The final configuration given in Figures 4 and 5 shows the complete built modules. Fluent, ANSYS was used to find the lift at varying angles
3D model. The air-foil configuration is shown in Table 2. of attack so that the validity of the results can be compared.

J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng, an open access journal

ISSN: 2168-9792 Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000206
Citation: Baig AZ, Cheema TA, Aslam Z, Khan YM, Sajid Dar H, et al. (2018) A New Methodology for Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of a Small
Scale Blended Wing Body. J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng 7: 206. doi: 10.4172/2168-9792.1000206

Page 4 of 6

XFLR5 analysis
The plane was analyzed in XFLR5 for lift and stability in pitch and yaw.
It can be seen from Figure 6 that the lift has nearly a linear relation
with AoA. With increasing AoA, the lift also increases thus is making
sense and is very intuitive. This can be corroborated by the graphs
[8,14]. The curve in Figure 7 is downward sloping which entails that:

∂CM (3)
C =
Mα ∂α
And this is an essential condition for static longitudinal stability Figure 9: Dynamic response of yaw disturbance with time.'
[13]. Although the line does not pass directly through the origin, trim
conditions can be applied to achieve stability at any desired angle of
attack [14]. Further, Figures 8 and 9 show the dynamic stability in pitch
and yaw respectively. After a disturbance is given to the aircraft it will
oscillate and return to its stable state. Thus the aircraft is both statically
and dynamically stable.
Fluent analysis
CFD analysis was performed to find the lift and drag more

Figure 10: Mesh of the BWB.

Figure 6: Variation in CL at various angle of attack.

Figure 11: Pressure contours of the BWB.

accurately. A 3D steady flow solver was used with the simple algorithm.
A free tetrahedral mesh was used mainly because of the complex
geometry [17] involved and a body of influence was given in the
downwash region to capture the effects of downwash very precisely.
Inflation was applied at the boundary to improve resolution. The image
of the mesh is shown in Figure 10. The one equation model Spalart-
Allmaras was used. The Spalart-Allmaras model is designed specifically
Figure 7: Variation in CM at various angle of attack.
for aerospace applications involving wall-bounded flows and has been
shown to give good results for boundary layers subjected to adverse
pressure gradients [18]. Spalart-Allmaras model is effectively a low-
Reynolds-number model, requiring the viscosity-affected region of
the boundary layer to be properly resolved [18]. The model has a wall
bounded flow, is a low Reynold number flow (because of low speeds
and small aircraft), and the viscosity affected region, the boundary
layer, analysis is crucial. Thus, it matches the problem setup. A mesh
independence study was carried out using five different meshes. The
final mesh took approximately 30 hours to converge on an i7-3400U
processer at 3.4 GHz.
The pressure contours in Figure 11 show the highest pressure, the
Figure 8: Dynamic response of pitch disturbance with time.
stagnation point, at the nose tip. The pressure over the center body is

J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng, an open access journal

ISSN: 2168-9792 Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000206
Citation: Baig AZ, Cheema TA, Aslam Z, Khan YM, Sajid Dar H, et al. (2018) A New Methodology for Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of a Small
Scale Blended Wing Body. J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng 7: 206. doi: 10.4172/2168-9792.1000206

Page 5 of 6

negative showing that it is contributing to the lift. The pressure is very

low at the wing’s leading edge showing that it is contributing to the
lift too. However, due to the fact that the center body has the greatest
area and shows a significant pressure reduction, it will be the main lift
generating body (Figure 12).
Wind tunnel testing
To verify the CFD results a 20% carbon fiber prototype was made
and tested in a wind tunnel. The model is shown in Figure 13. The
prototype was 30 cm in wing span and was made with a single sheet of
carbon fiber. The wind tunnel speed was varied from 5 m/s to 25 m/s in Figure 14: The final BWB prototype (5 ft wingspan).
5 m/s intervals and the data was recorded. The values of CL were then
found for all readings and values of the same AoA were averaged to provide a convenient and quick enough way to rightly predict the lift.
give an averaged CL at every AoA. XFLR5, on the other hand, is ideal for designing a small plane and can
be relied upon without cross checking from CFD.
The results of CFD and the wind tunnel testing have been plotted
in Figure 12. Flight
It can be seen that CFD results are close to wind tunnel results at The final plane was made out of polystyrene foam by using hot
small angle of attacks (<10°) but diverge at higher AoA. The XFLR5 wire cutter and ply wood ribs. It was made in pieces of Styrofoam
results are very close to the wind tunnel results, particularly, 3D Panel that were then glued and attached with carbon rods to give strength.
Method result. The VLM slightly under predicts the lift after 20°. This It was tried to exactly translate the CAD model in physical form but
discrepancy is minimal and can be explained by the fact that 3D Panel is precision errors would always be there as the foam was cut manually
more accurate because it captures all 3D effects and takes the thickness using manual operations.
of the wing in consideration [9]. The CFD results have a tendency to Finally, the plane was made and it was made aesthetically appealing
often overestimate results thus it does not come as a surprise that CFD by painting on it as shown in Figure 14. An Emax BL2820 motor was
results are higher than the wind tunnel results. However, it can be used. A 5200 mAh Lithium Polymer battery was used to power it.
seen that CFD is a highly computationally intensive tool and does not The plane made a successful take off and landed perfectly. The flight
visually showed characteristics of the plane being stable and able to lift
a payload of 1200 g. However, due to lack of facilities in manufacturing
an exact copy of the final model could not be made and tested. Thus,
the conclusions drawn from this flight are limited.

Conclusion
The center body and outer wing approach that was used in
designing the blended wing body turned out to be a relatively simple
but powerful approach. Through this approach, the task of airfoil
selection was made easier and more intuitive – a high lift airfoil was the
criteria of the center body and a high moment airfoil was the criteria
of the outer wing. It was also relatively simple to deal with stall speed
and the wing loading because no averaging of coefficient of lifts for
different airfoils was required when only the center body was used for
calculations. Also, after outlaying the seven sections (Table 1) it was
Figure 12: CL against AoA from wind tunnel, CFD, VL method and 3D panel easy to decide where to give dihedral, twist or sweep. The design then
method. underwent analysis in XFLR5, CFD and wind tunnel. The results were
compared and wind tunnel results matched most closely with 3D Panel
Method results in XFLR5. CFD was deemed to be unnecessary for
designing a small scale BWB. The design made in this research is highly
efficient and stable. The same process can be used for designing larger
BWBs such as to be used as UAVs, parcel delivery, etc. There is still
room for doing extensive CFD analysis and assessing the possibility of
it being better than XFLR5. It is also possible to further improve this
design by performing optimization or iterative studies by changing the
twist, dihedral and sweep and noting its effect of lift, drag and moment.
References
1. Martinez RM (2014) Design and analysis of the control and stability of a
blended wing body aircraft. Master's thesis, Royal Institute of Technology
(KTH), Dameriguda, India.
2. Kuntawala NB (2011) Aerodynamic shape optimization of a blended-wing-body
aircraft configuration.

Figure 13: The carbon fiber model that was tested. 3. Liebeck RH (2004) Design of the blended wing body subsonic transport. J
Aircraft 41:10-25.

J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng, an open access journal

ISSN: 2168-9792 Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000206
Citation: Baig AZ, Cheema TA, Aslam Z, Khan YM, Sajid Dar H, et al. (2018) A New Methodology for Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of a Small
Scale Blended Wing Body. J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng 7: 206. doi: 10.4172/2168-9792.1000206

Page 6 of 6

4. Thompson DJ (2011) The design and construction of a blended wing body 11. Jiangtao SZ, Hao S, Junqiang B (2006) Airfoil design of tailless unmanned air
UAV. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics AIAA, Reston, vehicle (UAV). Cal 1: 2.
VA, USA. p: 841.
12. Goodman AS (2014) Conceptual aerodynamic design of delta-type tailless
5. Ordoukhanian E, Madni AM (2014) Blended wing body architecting and design: unmanned aircraft. Int J Unmanned Systems Engineering 2:1.
current status and future prospects. Procedia Computer Science 28: 619-625.
13. Anderson JD (1999) Aircraft performance and design. WCB/McGraw-Hill,
6. Ikeda T (2006) Aerodynamic analysis of a blended-wing-body aircraft Boston, UK.
configuration.
14. Carley M (2012) Some note on aircraft and spacecraft stability and control.
7. Merino Martínez R (2014) Design and analysis of the control and stability of a Cranfield: Cranfield University, UK.
blended wing body aircraft.
15. Teixeira ER, Yokota BHdF, Neto DF (2015) The study and analysis of using
8. Dehpanah P, Nejat A (2015) The aerodynamic design evaluation of a blended- wing dihedral on the side of an Aircraft’s Static Stability. In: Proceedings of the
wing-body configuration. Aerospace Science and Technology 43: 96-110. World Congress on Engineering.

9. Deperrois A (2009) XFLR5 analysis of foils and wings operating at low Reynolds 16. Loth J (2007) Engineering approach to aerodynamics and aircraft performance,
numbers. Guidelines for XFLR5. McGraw-Hill. New York, USA.

10. Hassanalian M, Khaki H, Khosravi M (2015) A new method for design of fixed 17. Fluent A (2007) Documentation. Help.
wing micro air vehicle. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 229: 837-850. 18. Fluent A (2007) Documentation.

J Aeronaut Aerospace Eng, an open access journal

ISSN: 2168-9792 Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000206