AIRFOIL DESIGN WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID

DYNAMICS

ABSTRACT:

In many industries, there is a need to model the flow of air over structural
components.
With sufficient information from these models, engineers can better implement these
parts into a complete design. The purpose of this paper is to provide a model of
specific airfoils using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). With computational fluid
dynamics, the characteristics of air around an airfoil can be modeled, providing useful
data to engineers who could be designing an airfoil or airplane. The CFD calculations
are performed using Python, along with the two packages Numpy and Matplotlib. The
governing equations of CFD, including Newton's Second Law, small disturbance
equation (SDE), wave propagation, etc. are discretized and transformed into partial
differentiation equations (PDE). Using the second order derivative of the wave
propagation PDE, the SDE can be solved in iterations and plotted on a graph showing
the velocity distributions for a particular airfoil. The results from the CFD
calculations show general trends in velocity distributions, regardless of airfoil shape.
These include a decrease in x-direction velocity at the ends of an airfoil with an
increase at the midsection of the airfoil. Also, y-direction velocity is generally positive
and increasing at the front of the airfoil, but negative and decreasing at the end of the
airfoil. What is important to understand is how different airfoil shapes can change
velocity distributions, moving to using 3D CFD calculations, and the possibility of
using CFD for modeling airflow over a multitude of objects.

Keywords: CFD, Fast Design Of Airfoils, Python.

INTRODUCTION:
In engineering and science, the need for modeling and simulations of airflow over
objects, such as airfoils, buildings, aircraft, and cars, is of utmost importance. Before
the advent of computers capable of performing such complex tasks, calculations had
to be done mostly by hand, which could only handle simple problems with reduced
accuracy. With the introduction of more powerful computers, computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) could be used to simulate fluid dynamics, thus allowing engineers
to model the flow of air and its interactions with objects quickly. CFD adopts
computer programs to solve partial differential equations (PDEs), which describe the
mass, momentum, and energy conservation of the flow. There are three advantages of
using CFD for engineering designs: First, it is faster than other design methods,
allowing multiple designs to be simulated within a short period of time.
Second, compared with the previous methods of design by hand, the CFD approach is
more accurate Henry Bao, the first author, participated in the Illinois junior academy
of science state fair, and abstracts of the regional winners' presentations were posted
online. (ilacadofsci.com) with the high computational power of modern computers.
Finally, the cost of design by using CFD is much less than the use of an experimental
design, for which a wind tunnel test is normally needed.
In this work, we apply CFD to the simulation of fluid dynamics around an airfoil. The
CFD calculations have been performed using Python, including packages of Numpy,
Matplotlib, and so on for different purposes. The governing equation describing the
fluid motion has been used to achieve the CFD simulation of the airfoil. Compared
with the traditional CFD methods, the current work adopts the small disturbance
equation for modeling the flow over the airfoil, which could provide a much faster
design method for the fluid dynamics over airfoils. We also visualized the flow field
over the airfoil and analyzed the different parameters describing the airfoil shape.
Finally, we conclude with the results and discussion.
SOLID WORKS:

The design and analysis of airfoils play a critical role in the development of
aerodynamic components for aircraft, turbines, and other fluid dynamic applications.
With advancements in computer-aided engineering, engineers can now simulate and
optimize airfoil performance without the need for extensive physical testing. One of
the most powerful tools enabling this advancement is Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD), which provides detailed insights into airflow behavior around
airfoils under various conditions.

This project focuses on the design of an airfoil using SolidWorks, a widely-used 3D

CAD software, integrated with SolidWorks Flow Simulation, a built-in CFD
module. The goal is to analyze key aerodynamic parameters such as lift, drag, and
pressure distribution over the airfoil surface. By varying design parameters and
boundary conditions, engineers can iteratively improve the performance of the airfoil
to meet specific objectives.

Using CFD within SolidWorks allows for a streamlined workflow—from modeling to

simulation—providing both visual and quantitative analysis. This integration not only
accelerates the design cycle but also reduces costs and enhances the accuracy of early-
stage aerodynamic assessments.

In this study, we demonstrate the complete process of airfoil design and CFD
analysis, offering insights into how design modifications influence aerodynamic
efficiency and stability. The results obtained from SolidWorks Flow Simulation are
used to validate the airfoil's performance and guide further optimization efforts.

1. Sketch the Airfoil

Open SolidWorks.

Create a new part file.

Use the Sketch tool to draw the airfoil geometry. You can:

Use airfoil coordinates from databases like UIUC Airfoil Database.

Import the airfoil shape as a .DAT file and convert it into a spline sketch.
Tip: Use the “Spline” or “Curve Through XYZ Points” feature to accurately
draw the airfoil.

2. Extrude the Airfoil

Extrude the 2D sketch into a 3D body (e.g., a thin wing section).

Keep the extrusion minimal if you are testing in 2D-like conditions (quasi-2D
simulation).

3. Set Up the Flow Simulation Add-In

Go to Tools > Add-Ins, and enable Flow Simulation.

Click on Flow Simulation > Project > Wizard.

4. CFD Setup with Flow Simulation Wizard

Select:

External flow analysis.

Air as the fluid.

Laminar or turbulent (choose turbulent for realistic airflow).

Set appropriate units, environment pressure, and initial velocity (freestream

velocity).

5. Define the Computational Domain

Enlarge the flow region (computational domain) around the airfoil to simulate far-
field boundaries.

This is crucial to avoid boundary effects. Use at least:

5 chord lengths upstream

10 chord lengths downstream

5 chord lengths above and below

6. Boundary Conditions

Inlet Velocity: Set based on wind tunnel or desired flight conditions (e.g., 30 m/s).

Pressure outlet: Set ambient pressure (101325 Pa).

Airfoil surface: Use default wall settings (no-slip condition).

7. Mesh Settings

Use Local Mesh Refinement near the airfoil to capture boundary layer effects.

Activate Boundary Layer Mesh if needed.

8. Run the Simulation

Go to Flow Simulation > Run.

Let the solver compute the airflow.

9. Post-Processing

Use the following tools:

Cut plots to visualize flow over the airfoil.

Surface plots for pressure/velocity distribution.

XY plots to analyze lift and drag coefficients.

Flow trajectories for visualizing streamlines.

10. Analyze Aerodynamic Performance

Determine:

Lift coefficient (Cl)

Drag coefficient (Cd)

Pressure coefficient (Cp) distribution

Flow separation or stall (at high angles of attack)

Optional: Automate Airfoil Testing

If you want to test multiple airfoils:

Use Parametric Study to automate angle of attack sweeps.

Export results for plotting Cl vs. AoA or Cd vs. Cl.

Export & Reporting

Export plots as images or videos.

Generate a simulation report via SolidWorks Flow Simulation.

Recommendations

Use NACA 4-digit airfoils (like NACA 2412) for beginner projects.

Validate your CFD model with known experimental data if possible.

COMMANDS:
Airfoil Geometry Creation

Tools: XFOIL, Python, or CAD software

Using XFOIL:

bash
CopyEdit
xfoil

Then in the XFOIL console:

plaintext
CopyEdit
NACA 2412 # Generate NACA 4-digit airfoil
PPAR # Paneling for better resolution
OPER # Enter operation mode
VISc # Turn on viscosity
RE 100000 # Set Reynolds number
Mach 0.1 # Set Mach number
ALFA 5 # Analyze at 5 degrees angle of attack

Using Python (e.g., airfoil coordinates from NACA):

python
CopyEdit
from airfoilprep import Airfoil

airfoil = Airfoil('2412')
airfoil.plot() # View the shape
airfoil.write_coords('naca2412.dat') # Export to file

Mesh Generation

Tools: Gmsh, Pointwise, ANSYS Meshing

Gmsh basic commands (via .geo script):

plaintext
CopyEdit
Point(1) = {0, 0, 0, 1.0};
Spline(1) = {1, 2, 3, ..., N}; # Airfoil points
Extrude{0, 0, 1}{ Surface{1}; } # Create a volume mesh

OpenFOAM meshing (blockMesh/snappyHexMesh):

bash
CopyEdit
blockMesh
snappyHexMesh -overwrite

CFD Simulation

Tools: OpenFOAM, ANSYS Fluent, SU2

OpenFOAM basic workflow:

bash
CopyEdit
cd $FOAM_RUN
blockMesh # Mesh generation
snappyHexMesh -overwrite # Mesh refinement
checkMesh # Mesh quality check
simpleFoam # Steady-state solver
postProcess -func forces # Calculate lift and drag

SU2 commands:

bash
CopyEdit
SU2_CFD inv_NACA0012.cfg # Run simulation
SU2_POST inv_NACA0012.cfg # Post-processing
Post-Processing

Tools: ParaView, Tecplot, Matplotlib

ParaView (for OpenFOAM):

bash
CopyEdit
paraFoam

Python (for plotting lift/drag):

python
CopyEdit
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

plt.plot(alpha, Cl)
plt.xlabel("Angle of Attack (deg)")
plt.ylabel("Lift Coefficient Cl")
plt.grid(True)
plt.show()

Optimization (Optional)

Tools: SU2, Python, Genetic Algorithms

SU2 shape optimization example:

bash
CopyEdit
SU2_CFD_AD joint.cfg # Adjoint-based optimization
SU2_DOT joint.cfg # Shape deformation

Python (SciPy-based optimization):

python
CopyEdit
from scipy.optimize import minimize
def objective(params):
# Run CFD simulation and return -Cl/Cd
return -compute_lift_to_drag(params)

res = minimize(objective, x0)

Common Airfoil Design Software Summary:

Software Purpose Key Command

XFOIL Airfoil generation + analysis xfoil
OpenFOAM CFD solver (open source) simpleFoam, snappyHexMesh
SU2 CFD + Optimization SU2_CFD, SU2_DOT
Gmsh Mesh generation .geo, gmsh
ANSYS Fluent GUI/CLI-based CFD solver TUI scripting or GUI
ParaView Post-processing (visualization) paraFoam
FUNCTIONS:

Geometry Definition

Function: define_airfoil_geometry(parameters)

Inputs: camber, thickness, chord length, leading/trailing edge radius, etc.

Tools: NACA airfoil generator, Bezier curves, CST (Class-Shape Transformation)

Output: 2D coordinates of airfoil surface

Example in Python:

python
CopyEdit
def define_airfoil_geometry(naca_code):
# Returns x, y coordinates for a given NACA airfoil code
from airfoil_generator import generate_naca4
x, y = generate_naca4(naca_code)
return x, y

2. Mesh Generation

Function: generate_mesh(airfoil_coordinates, domain_size, mesh_density)

Inputs: airfoil shape, far-field boundaries, refinement levels

Tools: Gmsh, Pointwise, ANSYS Meshing, snappyHexMesh

Output: CFD-ready structured or unstructured mesh

3. Boundary Condition Setup

Function: set_boundary_conditions(mesh, flow_conditions)

Inputs: freestream velocity, angle of attack (AoA), pressure, turbulence model

Output: Simulation-ready configuration files for CFD solver

4. CFD Simulation

Function: run_cfd_simulation(mesh, boundary_conditions, solver_settings)

Tools: OpenFOAM, ANSYS Fluent, SU2, Star-CCM+

Solves: Navier-Stokes equations using finite volume/element methods

Output: Pressure and velocity fields, lift & drag coefficients

5. Post-Processing

Function: analyze_results(simulation_output)

Extracts: Lift coefficient CLC_LCL, drag coefficient CDC_DCD, pressure contours,

streamlines

Tools: ParaView, Tecplot, matplotlib

Optional: Cp (pressure coefficient) distribution plotting

6. Optimization Loop (Optional)

Function: optimize_airfoil(targets, constraints)

Objective: Maximize CL/CDC_L/C_DCL/CD, minimize drag, or tailor performance

for specific Reynolds number

Methods: Genetic algorithms, gradient-based methods, machine learning

Tools: XFOIL + Python, OpenMDAO, pyOpt, Dakota

Sample Workflow

python
CopyEdit
geometry = define_airfoil_geometry('2412') # NACA 2412
mesh = generate_mesh(geometry, domain_size=5.0, mesh_density='fine')
bc = set_boundary_conditions(mesh, flow_conditions={'AoA': 5, 'velocity': 30})
results = run_cfd_simulation(mesh, bc, solver_settings={'turbulence_model': 'k-
omega SST'})
analyze_results(results)

Notes

For low-speed airfoils, XFOIL can be a lightweight alternative to full CFD.

At high Reynolds numbers or with compressibility effects, CFD is more accurate.

CFD simulations can be expensive—using surrogate models or reduced-order

models may be appropriate in design loops.

BACKGROUND:

In this section, the development of CFD methods will be reviewed to further

demonstrate the capability of CFD for different problems in engineering and science.
Then, the specific problem of designing the airfoil by using CFD will be further
discussed, which is the focus of the current work. Furthermore, we
demonstrate that the CFD approach can be useful for the fast and accurate design of
airfoils as well as many other fluid dynamics problems.
Computational Fluid Dynamics
In CFD calculations, we use computers to solve the governing equations of fluid
dynamics, which are normally PDEs. First, the conservation of mass needs to be
considered, which is also called the continuity equation. Then, the conservation of
momentum also needs to be considered. This governing equation essentially is
Newton’s second law of mechanics:

𝐹 = 𝑚𝑎

where is the force, is the mass, and is the acceleration. In addition to mass and
momentum conservation, we need to further consider energy conservation.
In fluid mechanics, Newton’s second law can be expressed as the Navier-Stokes
equation, which governs the motion of fluids around the airfoil:

𝜌 𝐷𝑢 𝐷𝑡 = −𝛻𝑝 + 𝛻 ⋅ 𝜏 + 𝜌𝑔
The Navier-Stokes equation can be rearranged and reformatted into the Small
Disturbance equation, which will be touched on later in the paper and forms the crux
of this processing model.
However, computers cannot handle continuous functions. Therefore, we need to
initially discretize these equations to solve them using computers. In mapping out
space, we can use a discretized mesh for describing the data. For example, the -axis
can be described by the array , which is
commonly selected with equal spacing such that:

𝑥1 − 𝑥0 = 𝑥2 − 𝑥1 = ⋯ = 𝑥𝑁 − 𝑥𝑁−1 = 𝛥𝑥

Then, the equations can be solved on these meshes by using proper numerical
methods.
Many different numerical methods have been developed to deal with different types
of fluid dynamics problems . Furthermore, when modeling fluid dynamics using CFD,
the more general the method, the less general the boundary geometry, which describes
the shapes of the objects it can deal with . Also, it is important to verify and validate
the results from CFD, which can be done by the quantification of uncertainty .
Different methods have been developed for CFD, for example, the finite volume
method . CFD has been successfully applied to various applications .
CFD however requires from the computer running the program sufficient memory,
efficient coding, and applicability to different situations. Without paying attention to
these factors, the CFD simulation may run slower and less efficiently than needed,
costing engineers and companies priceless time and energy. As it stands, there are
multiple types of programs that execute CFD, each of which has its
advantages and disadvantages. Thus, it is important to adopt the proper algorithms of
CFD for specific tasks. In the current project, we will investigate the specific problem
of airfoil design with CFD, for which the development of CFD-based airfoil design
will be discussed in the next section.
Airfoil Design with CFD
An important object used in engineering industries and other such industries that use
CFD analysis is the airfoil. Figure 1 gives an example of the CFD simulation results
for the pressure field over an airfoil.
The airfoil is an integral part of aircraft, wind turbines, and even structures like
bridges or buildings.
Because of the need to understand how an airfoil interacts with air to generate lift,
reduce drag, and increase stability, CFD simulations are often used to study and
analyze airfoil characteristics. In this fashion, the airfoil best suited for a certain
application can be ascertained with better certainty than by manual calculation. In
addition, the experimental test of airfoils can be very expensive. Hence, CFD
designs can be a fast and accurate way to solve airfoil design problems.

Airfoil design can be studied and perfected by analyzing CFD simulation results. For
example, three
families of airfoils (the NACA series, FX series, and S series) have been investigated
by using CFD [9].
Variable-fidelity optimization algorithms have been applied for the CFD-based
optimization of the
airfoil shape [10]. The transition model for general CFD codes has been used for
predicting the
performance of 2D airfoils [11]. It is important to acknowledge that CFD can be used
for models with
multiple dimensions, like with a 3D model or a 2D model, which usually requires less
processing and
time [12]. The use of CFD for studying airfoil design is not limited to merely
individual models of
airfoils, but also to applications that include airfoil characteristics. This can be seen in
CFD simulations
of wind turbines, which incorporate airfoils while the angle of fluid direction is
different from
simulations with individual airfoils [13-15]. This flexibility in CFD simulations when
analyzing airfoils
allows industries and this paper to determine the quality of an airfoil more efficiently.
Boundary
conditions are also necessary in CFD design, as to not include the space within the
airfoil model in the
calculations of airflow characteristics. On the surface of the airfoil, the normal force is
redirected
perpendicularly from the surface, and airflow is redirected away at differing angles
depending on the
angle of attack. The inlet where the air and airflow are located inside has boundaries
as well, which are
frictionless. This means air cannot pass through the walls of the inlet but can travel at
a uniform velocity
within it, before reaching the airfoil obstruction.
Design Approach

For the design approach, we adopt Python programming to solve the simplified
governing equations of
fluid dynamics. Subsequently, airfoils with several different shapes can be modeled.
Then, based on
these selected airfoil shapes, a new airfoil with better performance can be obtained
from the redesign
9process. The design approach of using CFD for the fluid dynamics of airfoils has
been demonstrated in
Fig. 2.
The implementation of the CFD calculations has been realized by using Python, with
the two
packages of Numpy and Matplotlib. The reason for choosing Python as the
programming language is
that it is easy to program and provides us with the mathematical functions needed for
CFD calculations.
The Numpy provides the functions of mathematical calculations, especially these
operations on arrays;
and the Matplotlib helps us to plot the data in different types of figures.
For solving the governing equations of fluid dynamics, computers can only deal with
discrete
functions rather than continuous functions. Then, when solving the PDEs with
computer algorithms, we
need to find the approximations of the derivatives based on the discrete values. For a
given function:

𝑦 = 𝑓(𝑥)

We need to discretize it into the values on the mesh grids:

𝑥0 = 0, 𝑥1 = 𝛥𝑥, 𝑥2 = 2𝛥𝑥, … , 𝑥𝑁 = 𝑁𝛥𝑥

for which is the number of grid cells and is the grid size. Then, the values on the grids
are:
𝑦0 = 𝑓(𝑥0 ), 𝑦1 = 𝑓(𝑥1 ), 𝑦2 = 𝑓(𝑥2 ), … , 𝑦𝑁 = 𝑓(𝑥𝑁)

In this way, we have transferred the original continuous function into a discrete set of
grid values. In
solving the PDEs, we also need to approximate the derivatives based on these discrete
values. For the
first-order derivative,
at the grid of index , we can approximate it as:

( 𝑑𝑦 /𝑑𝑥) 𝑖 ≈ 𝑦 𝑥 𝑖𝑖 −−𝑦𝑥 𝑖𝑖−−11 = 𝑦𝑖 − 𝛥𝑥 𝑦𝑖−1

Alternatively, we can express it as:

( 𝑑𝑦\𝑑𝑥) 𝑖 ≈ 𝑦𝑖+1 − 𝑦𝑖/ 𝛥𝑥

( 𝑑𝑦 /𝑑𝑥) 𝑖 ≈ 𝑦𝑖+1 − 𝑦𝑖−1 /2𝛥𝑥
For a PDE describing the wave propagation, the direction of the wave will determine
which method
to use for the derivative approximation. For the second-order derivative, can be
approximated as:
( 𝑑2𝑦 𝑑𝑥 2 ) 𝑖 ≈ 𝑦𝑖+1 − 2𝑦𝑖+ 𝑦𝑖−1 𝛥𝑥 2

which is called the central difference method. In most of the governing equations of
fluid dynamics, the
highest order of the derivative is the second order. Thus, we can now express the
governing equations
of fluid dynamics by using these approximations on the mesh grid.
The simplified model of the small disturbance equation (SDE) will be used for
modeling the flow
over the airfoil. The SDE can be expressed as:
(1 − 𝑀𝑎2 )𝜙𝑥𝑥 + 𝜙𝑦𝑦 = 0

where is the Mach number and is the velocity potential. The Mach number is the ratio
of the local
flow velocity to the local speed of sound. This definition can be expressed as

𝑀𝑎 = 𝑢/ 𝑐
:

where is the local flow velocity and is the local speed of sound. Therefore, with a
greater local flow
velocity comes a greater Mach number. The faster the airfoil is traveling, and the
greater the Mach
number, the more air it is displacing and disturbing. This provides a challenge to the
stability of the
airfoil and modifies the air pressure and density around the airfoil. Thus, it is
important to use the SDE
to help model the flow over the airfoil and find its best capabilities under the right
conditions. For the
current design project, we adopt the SDE, which is the simplified governing equation
of fluid dynamics.
As such, the computational cost of the CFD can be relatively low compared with
other governing
equations. In this way, we can do the design process for multiple different airfoil
shapes and obtain the
optimal design among them.
For the computation of this equation, we can use the previous formula for the second-
order
derivatives:
(𝜙𝑥𝑥)𝑖,𝑗 = ( 𝑑 2𝜙 𝑑𝑥 2 ) 𝑖,𝑗 ≈ 𝜙𝑖+1,𝑗 − 2𝜙𝑖,𝑗 + 𝜙𝑖−1,𝑗/ 𝛥𝑥 2
(𝜙𝑦𝑦) 𝑖,𝑗 = ( 𝑑 2𝜙 𝑑𝑦 2 ) 𝑖,𝑗 ≈ 𝜙𝑖,𝑗+1 − 2𝜙𝑖,𝑗 + 𝜙𝑖,𝑗−1/ 𝛥𝑦 2

Further, we select ℎ. The equation at 0 becomes

𝜙𝑖+1,𝑗 − 2𝜙𝑖,𝑗 + 𝜙𝑖−1,𝑗/ 𝛥𝑥 2 + 𝜙𝑖,𝑗+1 − 2𝜙𝑖,𝑗 + 𝜙𝑖,𝑗−1/ 𝛥𝑦 =0

:

𝜙𝑖+1,𝑗 + 𝜙𝑖−1,𝑗 + 𝜙𝑖,𝑗+1 + 𝜙𝑖,𝑗−1/ 4 − 𝜙𝑖,𝑗 = 0

2

the value negligible in calculations and approach 0. Then for this simplified equation,
we can solve it by 𝑀𝑎 is set to 0 because the airflow velocities being used in this
work are substantially low, making
iterations. The Python code for solving this equation is listed as follows:
for i in range(1, newphi.shape[0] - 1):
for j in range(1, newphi.shape[1] - 1):
A_1 = 1
A_2 = 1
B_1 = 1
B_2 = 1
C=4
dp = - newphi[i, j] + (B_1 * newphi[i, j+1] + B_2 * newphi[i, j-1] +
A_1 * newphi[i+1, j] + A_2 * newphi[i-1, j])/C newphi[i, j] += dp

Results and Discussion

We are going to model the flow over the airfoil by using CFD. The simulations have
been conducted in a two-dimensional space with x and y directions. The initial flow
velocity is in the x direction, and the orientation of the airfoil is along the x direction.
Then, the y direction is vertical to the x direction. By analyzing the velocity fields in
both the x and y direction, we can learn how the airfoil affects the fluid dynamics near
it. Importantly, the variables used in the figures are dimensionless. For example, the x
axis represents the physical length divided by the specific characteristic length in the
problem. This allows for the cancellation of units and improved flexibility of the
model to solve problems with different characteristic lengths. (e.g., different airfoil
lengths) Next, we are going to discuss several aspects of
this issue.
Airfoil Flow Characteristics

.
First, we choose the shape of the airfoil as a sin function. The results of the flow
velocity in the x
direction have been demonstrated in Fig. 3. It shows that in the front and back of the
airfoil, the flow
velocity in the x direction is lower than the incoming velocity. This is because when
the flow hits the
front of the airfoil, the flow field will diverge to the y direction, and hence the velocity
in the x direction
will be decreased. Differently, in the middle of the airfoil, due to the compression of
the flow field near
the center of the airfoil, the flow in the x direction will be accelerated and reach a
higher velocity
compared with the incoming velocity.
In Fig. 4, we demonstrate the x-direction velocity at different y locations. If the
location in the y
direction moves away from the surface of the airfoil, the modification of the flow
field is less. This is
because when we move away from the airfoil surface, the flow is less affected by the
airfoil. The closer
to the center of the airfoil in the x-direction, however, the greater the x-direction
velocity. This can be
seen in the large parabolic curve at the 1.5 x-location, which decreases and rebounds
near the endpoints
of the airfoil.
The mapped velocity distribution here is like Fig. 3, but instead of the x-direction it is
the y-direction
that is being mapped in Fig. 5. The two halves of the distribution shown appear to be
mirror images of
each other. There is a drastic positive increase in y-direction velocity at the front of
the airfoil, which
flips after crossing a point along the airfoil into a decreasing negative velocity. This
occurs because the
front of the airfoil mainly redirects air upwards quickly, which travels along the airfoil
gradually
downwards until it reaches the end of the airfoil. At the back of the airfoil, the air is
sent drastically
downwards, thus giving it a negative velocity.
.
Next, we look at the y-direction velocity distribution along the x-axis at different y-
locations. The y
direction velocity distributions in Fig. 6 show the velocities decreasing in magnitude
as the distance
from the airfoil increases, in the same fashion as the x-direction velocity distributions.
This happens because, with a greater distance from the airfoil, less air is affected by
the airfoil being an obstacle. Therefore, the y-direction velocities decrease greatly
even with a small distance away from the airfoil location. However, the velocities
follow the same general trend of increasing positively at the front of the airfoil and
then decreasing into negative velocities at the end of the airfoil, showing how the
airflow 13is still eventually affected. There is also a convergence point along the
airfoil where no matter the ylocation, the y-direction velocity is 0, corresponding to
completely linear horizontal flow.
4.2. Influence of the Airfoil Shapes
In this section, we will examine the influence of the airfoil shape by simulating the
flow fields over the
airfoils with different shapes. In the previous section, the airfoil shape has been

𝑓(𝑥) = sin[𝜋(𝑥 − 1)]

assumed as a sin function:

for the x direction range from 1 to 2. It should be noted that the shape function goes to
zero at both
which is because the shape function must be a closed curve at these two locations.
In addition to the sin function shape, we have also tested the airfoil shapes of three
other functions,
which are the parabolic function, symmetric triangle function, and asymmetric
triangle function. For the
parabolic function, we have used the form of shape function:
𝑓(𝑥) = (𝑥 − 1)(2 − 𝑥)

which also has the value of zero at both 𝑥 = 1 and. The triangle shapes have two
forms. One s
the symmetric form:
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥 − 1 when 1 < 𝑥 < 1.5
𝑓(𝑥) = 2 − 𝑥 when 1.5 < 𝑥 < 2

This function is continuous at the point of. However, the derivative of this function is
not
continuous at Another triangle shape that has been used is:
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥 − 1 when 1 < 𝑥 < 1.2
𝑓(𝑥) = 2 − 𝑥 4 when 1.2 < 𝑥 < 2

This function is also continuous at the point of. However, the derivative is not
continuous at . Furthermore, to control the shape of the airfoil, a parameter has been
multiplied by the shape
function.

Figure 7. The x-direction velocity distributions of different airfoil shapes. (a) sin
function; (b) parabolic function; (c) symmetric triangle function; (d) non-symmetric
triangle function
The CFD simulations of these four different airfoil shapes have been performed. Now
we demonstrate the results from these four different airfoil shapes and discuss the
reasons why they are
different. Figure 7 shows the x-direction velocity distribution of the four different
shapes. The top left subfigure is the result of the sin function; the top right subfigure
is the result of the parabolic function;
the left bottom subfigure is the result of the symmetric triangle function; and the right
bottom subfigure is the result of the asymmetric triangle function.
The distribution for the airfoil based on a sin function has been explained previously
in the paper, with x-direction velocity decreasing at the front and back of the airfoil
because air is being redirected in the y-direction instead of the x-direction. Airflow is
compressed at the middle of the airfoil, causing the x-direction velocity to increase
drastically. The distribution for the airfoil based on a parabolic function is like the sin
function, except for the velocity being slightly less in general and the velocity
decrease at the ends of the airfoil being less gradual. The velocity increase at the
middle of the airfoil is more gradual.
This results from the parabolic function being less steep than the sin function,
providing less of an obstacle to redirect airflow.
For the symmetric triangle shape airfoil, the x-direction velocity is less distributed, but
at a higher velocity compared to the parabolic and sin functions. This is because the
triangle shape abruptly redirects airflow instead of allowing it to travel over a curved
surface for gradual velocity change. The airflow velocity will be higher but change
less compared to the sin and parabolic function designs. The same finding holds true
for the asymmetric triangle airfoil, but because the side facing incoming airflow is
shorter and at a steeper angle than the other side, the rapid x-direction velocity
increase is closer to the front side of the airfoil. The x-direction velocity decrease at
the front and back of the airfoil still exists, but the distribution is unbalanced,
including the fact that the velocities that occur are less in magnitude compared to the
symmetric triangle shape.
Figure 8. The y-direction velocity distributions of different airfoil shapes. (a) sin
function; (b) parabolic function; (c) symmetric triangle function; (d) non-symmetric
triangle function.

Figure 8 shows the y-direction velocity distributions of different airfoil shapes, in the
same layout as the x-direction velocity distributions. The sin function y-direction
velocity distribution, as explained before, is due to the front of the airfoil quickly
redirecting air upwards, which then crosses the middle and heads gradually downward
as a negative velocity. The parabolic function-shaped airfoil shows similar behaviors,
but due to the parabolic function being less steep, the changes in y-direction velocity
are less explicit. The general positive increase in velocity in the front and negative
decrease in velocity at the back half of the airfoil is shown, but not in the same
outstanding magnitude.
The symmetric triangle airfoil also has the same general layout for the velocity
distribution but has a direct and abrupt change from a positive increase to a negative
decrease in y-direction velocity. The velocity also reaches the largest magnitude
values in the symmetric triangle model. This is because the front side of the triangle
and the back side of the triangle meet at an abrupt angle, which would therefore
abruptly change the airflow. The asymmetric triangle follows the same trend, but
because of the shorter front side, the y-direction velocity quickly increases and then
evolves into a stable negative velocity after crossing the intersection point of the two
sides. The highest y-direction velocity is also the lowest in the asymmetric triangle
compared to the other models, due to the shorter front side disallowing greater
positive increases in velocity.
Comparison with Experiments
In this section, we demonstrate the experimental data of the flow visualization over
the different airfoil
shapes.For the experiments, we have constructed the physical models of the four
different airfoils by 3D printing.
In the water tunnel, water is flowing at low velocity and the airfoil model has been put
into this laminar flow environment.
Then, dye is injected into the system to visualize the flow field over the airfoil. As
demonstrated in Fig. 9, the flow fields over the four different airfoil shapes simulated
in the previous sections have been visualized by the blue color in the experiment.
These results show consistent flow fields compared with the CFD simulation results,
which further validates the computational results demonstrated previously.

Figure 9. Experimental observations for different airfoil shapes. (a) sin function; (b)
parabolic function; (c) symmetric triangle function; (d) non-symmetric triangle
function.

CONCLUSION:

In this paper, we have performed the CFD simulations of the airfoil by using
simplified governing equations. The results show that the flow field (the velocity
distributions in both x- and y-directions) over the airfoil has some general trends.
Also, the change in the shape of the airfoil could substantially modify the flow field
over the airfoil, which is important for the design of aircraft.
The simulation results
were further compared with the experimental data.
It should be noted that the current work only calculated the 2D flow field over the
airfoil. However, for the real aircraft design, the 3D flow fields are needed for the
complex fluid dynamics over the airfoil.
In the future, the 3D fluid dynamics over airfoil should be simulated using CFD.
In addition, the simulation power of CFD
should not be limited to the cases of the airfoil. We could further extend our study to
the flow field over other objects by using CFD, for example, racing cars, buildings,
and footballs. There are many different situations in which CFD can play an essential
role in the design and prediction, which needs to be further explored.
Acknowledgements
I would like to sincerely thank my research supervisor Dr. Wenkai Liang (Princeton
University) for his
support and guidance during the research process and writing of this paper. I would
also like to thank
Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Mathematical Physics and
Computational Simulation
DOI: 10.54254/2753-8818/11/20230368
16Mr. Zhang for his help with the water tunnel experiments at AUL of SAA, SJTU.
Additionally, I would
like to thank Dr. Wu for giving some suggestions on revising my paper. Finally, I
would like to thank
my parents for their continuous support and for helping me stay motivated throughout
this research.

REFERNCE:
Hoffmann, K. A., & Chiang, S. T. (2000). Computational fluid dynamics volume I.
Engineering education system.
Kuzmin, D. (2004). Introduction to computational fluid dynamics. University of
Dortmund, Dortmund.
Hess, J. L. (1990). Panel methods in computational fluid dynamics. Annual Review of
Fluid
Mechanics, 22(1), 255-274.
Roache, P. J. (1997). Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics.
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 29(1), 123-160.
Versteeg, H. K., & Malalasekera, W. (1995). Computational fluid dynamics. The
Finite Volume Method, 1-26.
Lin, C. L., Tawhai, M. H., Mclennan, G., & Hoffman, E. A. (2009). Computational
fluid dynamics.
IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 28(3), 25-33.
Ochieng, A., Onyango, M., & Kiriamiti, K. (2009). Experimental measurement and
computational fluid dynamics simulation of mixing in a stirred tank: a review. South
African Journal of Science, 105(11), 421-426.
Wexler, D., Segal, R., & Kimbell, J. (2005). Aerodynamic effects of inferior turbinate
reduction:
computational fluid dynamics simulation. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck
Surgery, 131(12), 1102-1107.
Kaya, M. N., Kok, A. R., & Kurt, H. (2021). Comparison of aerodynamic
performances of various airfoils from different airfoil families using CFD. Wind and
Structures, 32(3), 239-248.
Koziel, S., & Leifsson, L. (2013). Multi-level CFD-based airfoil shape optimization
with automated low-fidelity model selection. Procedia Computer Science, 18, 889-
898.
Langtry, R., Gola, J., & Menter, F. (2006, January). Predicting 2D airfoil
and 3D wind turbine rotor performance using a transition model for general CFD
codes. In 44th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit (p. 395).
Klausmeyer, S. M., & Lin, J. C. (1997). Comparative results from a CFD challenge
over a 2D
three-element high-lift airfoil (No. NAS 1.15: 112858). National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Langley Research Center.
McLaren, K., Tullis, S., & Ziada, S. (2012). Computational fluid dynamics simulation
of the aerodynamics of a high solidity, small‐scale vertical axis wind turbine. Wind
Energy, 15(3), 349-361.
Piperas, A. T. (2010). Investigation of boundary layer suction on a wind turbine
airfoil using CFD.
Technical University of Denmark.
Wolfe, W. P., & Ochs, S. S. (1997). Predicting aerodynamic characteristic of typical
wind turbine airfoils using CFD (No. SAND-96-2345). Sandia National Lab.(SNL-
NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)