COMSATS Institute of Information Technology Sahiwal

Pressure Coefficient as a
Function of Angle of Attack
CFD Analysis of Change in Coefficient of Pressure along the Upper and the
Lower Surfaces of NACA 2414 Airfoil as a Function of Angle of Attack

Awais Ahmad Shah

SP13-BME-007
Muhammad Sufyan
SP13-BME-011

Supervised by:
Dr. Tareq Manzoor
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

Abstract
The report is about the computational study of subsonic, inviscid, incompressible air flow
over NACA 2414 airfoil. The study parameter is pressure coefficient whose distribution,
along the upper and the lower surfaces of the airfoil, for different angles of attack is simulated.
The analysis involves the 2D assessment and the results obtained are in agreement with the
expected values.

1
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

Contents
1. Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
2. Literature Review ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
2.1. Pressure Coefficient ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
2.2. Airfoil Nomenclature --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
2.3. Standard NACA Airfoils ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2.3.1. NACA 4-Digit Airfoils (N2414) --------------------------------------------------------- 5
2.4. The CFD Process -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2.4.1. Discretization ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
2.4.2. Grid Generation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
2.4.3. Boundary Conditions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
3. Methodology------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
3.1. Preprocessing------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
3.1.1. Geometry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
3.1.2. Meshing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
3.1.3. Applied Boundary Conditions ---------------------------------------------------------- 11
3.2. Solution ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
3.3. Post-Processing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
3.3.1. Color Diagrams --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
3.3.2. Data Plots ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
4. Results Discussion ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

2
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

1. Introduction
Pressure coefficient is an important aerodynamic parameter which determines the relative
pressure at a point in the flow field. It is a dimensionless number. Since it is related to the lift
generation, therefore its significance in the aeronautics is no less than other dimensionless
numbers such as lift coefficient and drag coefficient.

An airfoil is a two-dimensional cross section of a streamlined body. It is usually not a regular

shape. The purpose of such a shape is to create a pressure difference between the upper and
the lower surfaces, so that a net upward or downward is generated. In case of lifting flow such
as over the wings of an aircraft, the upper surface has lower pressure than the bottom surface,
providing a net upward force. However, this phenomenon is reversed in case of automobiles
where the reverse airfoil shapes are extensively used for creating the downforce.

CFD provides a good approximation of the flow parameters such as velocity, pressure,
turbulence, forces etc.; pressure coefficient being one of them. The Navier-Stokes equations
are the governing equations of inviscid incompressible flow. In this study, we have simulated
a low speed subsonic flow over a cambered airfoil NACA 2414 at three different angles of
attack. We used Modified Petrov-Glerkin Method for our solution. The distribution of
pressure coefficient at the upper and the lower surfaces of the airfoil was determined. The
data obtained was plotted to understand the variation of pressure coefficient with the angle of
attack.

The initial section of this report give a theoretical background and a mathematical description
of pressure coefficient. This literature review section also deals with the nomenclature and
the theory of airfoils. The remaining sections of the report explain our computational
methodology and the results obtained.

3
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

2. Literature Review [1] [2]

2.1. Pressure Coefficient

The pressure coefficient is a dimensionless number which describes the relative pressures
throughout a flow field. Mathematically, it is given as

=
1 2
2
Where,

= Stagnation Pressure

P = Free-stream pressure

1 2 = Dynamic Pressure
2
The above definition is used throughout aerodynamics, from incompressible to hypersonic
flow. In the aerodynamic literature, it is very common to find pressures given in terms of
rather than the pressure itself. Indeed, the pressure coefficient is another similarity parameter.
For incompressible flow, can be expressed in terms of velocity only. Using Bernoullis
equation, we get

2
= (1 )

Where,

V = Local velocity

V = Free stream velocity

2.2. Airfoil Nomenclature

Airfoil: Any section of the wing cut by a plane perpendicular to the wingspan is called an
airfoil. Fig. 1.

Fig. 1: Geometry of an Airfoil

4
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

Mean Camber Line: The mean camber line is the locus of points halfway between the upper
and lower surfaces as measured perpendicular to the mean camber line itself.

Leading Edge and Trailing Edge: The most forward and rearward points of the mean camber
line are the leading and trailing edges, respectively.

Chord line and Chord: The straight line connecting the leading and trailing edges is the chord
line of the airfoil, and the precise distance from the leading to the trailing edge measured
along the chord line is simply designated the chord c of the airfoil.

Camber: The camber is the maximum distance between the mean camber line and the chord
line, measured perpendicular to the chord line.

Thickness: The thickness is the distance between the upper and lower surfaces, also measured
perpendicular to the chord line.

2.3. Standard NACA Airfoils

The shape of the airfoil at the leading edge is usually circular, with a leading-edge radius of
approximately 0.02c. The shapes of all standard NACA airfoils are generated by specifying
the shape of the mean camber line and then wrapping a specified symmetrical thickness
distribution around the mean camber line.

2.3.1. NACA 4-Digit Airfoils (N2414)

The NACA identified different airfoil shapes with a logical numbering system. For example,
the first family of NACA airfoils, developed in the 1930s, was the four-digit series, such as
the NACA 2414 airfoil. Here, the first digit is the maximum camber in hundredths of chord,
the second digit is the location of maximum camber along the chord from the leading edge in
tenths of chord, and the last two digits give the maximum thickness in hundredths of chord.
For the NACA 2414 airfoil, the maximum camber is 0.02c located at 0.4c from the leading
edge, and the maximum thickness is 0.14c. It is common practice to state these numbers in
percent of chord, that is, 2 percent camber at 40 percent chord, with 14 percent thickness. An
airfoil with no camber, that is, with the camber line and chord line coincident, is called a
symmetric airfoil. Clearly, the shape of a symmetric airfoil is the same above and below the
chord line.

2.4. The CFD Process

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) involves replacing the partial differential equations
with discretized algebraic equations that approximate the partial differential equations. These
equations are then numerically solved to obtain flow field values at the discrete points in
space and/or time. Since the NavierStokes equations are valid everywhere in the flow field
of the fluid continuum, an analytical solution to these equations provides the solution for an

5
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

infinite number of points in the flow. However, analytical solutions are available for only a
limited number of simplified flow geometries. To overcome this limitation, the governing
equations can be discretized and put in algebraic form for the computer to solve. The CFD
simulation solves for the relevant flow variables only at the discrete points, which make up
the grid or mesh of the solution (discussed in more detail below). Interpolation schemes are
used to obtain values at non-grid point locations.

2.4.1. Discretization
The process of discretization involves developing a set of algebraic equations (based on
discrete points in the flow domain) to be used in place of the partial differential equations. Of
the various discretization techniques available for the numerical solution of the governing
differential equations, the following three types are most common:

1) The finite difference method,

2) The finite element (or finite volume) method, and
3) The boundary element method.

In each of these methods, the continuous flow field (i.e., velocity or pressure as a function of
space and time) is described in terms of discrete (rather than continuous) values at prescribed
locations. Through this technique the differential equations are replaced by a set of algebraic
equations that can be solved on the computer.

Finite Element Method: For the finite element (or finite volume) method, the flow field is
broken into a set of small fluid elements (usually triangular areas if the flow is two-
dimensional, or small volume elements if the flow is three-dimensional). The conservation
equations (i.e., conservation of mass, momentum, and energy) are written in an appropriate
form for each element, and the set of resulting algebraic equations for the flow field is solved
numerically. The number, size, and shape of elements are dictated in part by the particular
flow geometry and flow conditions for the problem at hand. As the number of elements
increases (as is necessary for flows with complex boundaries), the number of simultaneous
algebraic equations that must be solved increases rapidly. Problems involving one million (or
more) grid cells are not uncommon in todays CFD community, particularly for complex
three-dimensional geometries.

Boundary Element Method: For the boundary element method, the boundary of the flow
field (not the entire flow field as in the finite element method) is broken into discrete segments
and appropriate singularities such as sources, sinks, doublets, and vortices are distributed on
these boundary elements. The strengths and type of the singularities are chosen so that the
appropriate boundary conditions of the flow are obtained on the boundary elements. For
points in the flow field not on the boundary, the flow is calculated by adding the contributions
from the various singularities on the boundary. Although the details of this method are rather

6
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

mathematically sophisticated, it may (depending on the particular problem) require less

computational time and space than the finite element method.

Finite Difference Method: The finite difference method for computational fluid dynamics is
perhaps the most easily understood and widely used of the three methods listed above. For
this method the flow field is dissected into a set of grid points and the continuous functions
(velocity, pressure, etc.) are approximated by discrete values of these functions calculated at
the grid points. Derivatives of the functions are approximated by using the differences
between the function values at local grid points divided by the grid spacing. The standard
method for converting the partial differential equations to algebraic equations is through the
use of Taylor series expansions.

2.4.2. Grid Generation

CFD computations using the finite difference method provide the flow field at discrete points
in the flow domain. The arrangement of these discrete points is termed the grid or the mesh.
The type of grid developed for a given problem can have a significant impact on the numerical
simulation, including the accuracy of the solution. The grid must represent the geometry
correctly and accurately, since an error in this representation can have a significant effect on
the solution.

The grid must also have sufficient grid resolution to capture the relevant flow physics,
otherwise they will be lost. This particular requirement is problem dependent. For example,
if a flow field has small-scale structures, the grid resolution must be sufficient to capture these
structures. It is usually necessary to increase the number of grid points (i.e., use a finer mesh)
where large gradients are to be expected, such as in the boundary layer near a solid surface.
The same can also be said for the temporal resolution. The time step, t, used for unsteady
flows must be smaller than the smallest time scale of the flow features being investigated.

Generally, the types of grids fall into two categories: structured and unstructured, depending
on whether or not there exists a systematic pattern of connectivity of the grid points with their
neighbors.

Structured Grid: As the name implies, a structured grid has some type of regular, coherent
structure to the mesh layout that can be defined mathematically. The simplest structured grid
is a uniform rectangular grid, as shown in Fig. 2(a). However, structured grids are not
restricted to rectangular geometries. Fig. 2(b) shows a structured grid wrapped around a
parabolic surface. Notice that grid points are clustered near the surface (i.e., grid spacing in
normal direction increases as one moves away from the surface) to help capture the steep flow
gradients found in the boundary layer region. This type of variable grid spacing is used
wherever there is a need to increase grid resolution and is termed grid stretching.

7
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

Fig. 2: Structured Grids (a) Rectangular Grid (b) Grid around a parabolic surface

Unstructured Grid: For the unstructured grid, the grid cell arrangement is irregular and has
no systematic pattern. The grid cell geometry usually consists of various-sized triangles for
two-dimensional problems and tetrahedrals for three-dimensional grids. An example of an
unstructured grid is shown in Fig. 3. Unlike structured grids, for an unstructured grid each
grid cell and the connection information to neighboring cells is defined separately. This
produces an increase in the computer code complexity as well as a significant computer
storage requirement. The advantage to an unstructured grid is that it can be applied to complex
geometries, where structured grids would have severe difficulty. The finite difference method
is restricted to structured grids whereas the finite volume (or finite element) method can use
either structured or unstructured grids.

Fig. 3: Unstructured Grid over a NACA 0012 airfoil

8
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

2.4.3. Boundary Conditions

The same governing equations, the NavierStokes equations, are valid for all incompressible
Newtonian fluid flow problems. Thus, if the same equations are solved for all types of
problems, how is it possible to achieve different solutions for different types of flows
involving different flow geometries? The answer lies in the boundary conditions of the
problem. The boundary conditions are what allow the governing equations to differentiate
between different flow fields (for example, flow past an automobile and flow past a person
running) and produce a solution unique to the given flow geometry. It is critical to specify the
correct boundary conditions so that the CFD simulation is a well-posed problem and is an
accurate representation of the physical problem. Poorly defined boundary conditions can
ultimately affect the accuracy of the solution. One of the most common boundary conditions
used for simulation of viscous flow is the no-slip condition. Thus, for example, for two-
dimensional external or internal flows, the x and y components of velocity (u and v) are set to
zero at the stationary wall to satisfy the no-slip condition. Other boundary conditions that
must be appropriately specified involve inlets, outlets, far-field, wall gradients, etc. It is
important to not only select the correct physical boundary condition for the problem, but also
to correctly implement this boundary condition into the numerical simulation.

3. Methodology

3.1. Preprocessing

3.1.1. Geometry
The first problem regarding the airfoil geometry was its non-trivial shape which is
approximated by parametric interpolation formulas. We found it feasible to avoid using these
formulas. Instead, an alternative approach was adopted. We got the data points [3] for
NACA2414 and imported them in the Autodesk Inventor. The chord was plotted in the +x
direction and thickness above and below the y-axis. An interpolation spline was used to
generate the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil, Fig. 4. The chord length of the airfoil was
taken as 1000 mm. A rectangular control surface was also sketched around the airfoil, Fig. 5.
We developed three models of airfoils at three angles of attack of 0o, 5o and 10o.

Fig. 4: Sketch geometry of NACA 2414 airfoil at 0o AoA

9
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

Fig. 5: Surface geometry showing control surface around the airfoil

3.1.2. Meshing
The surface model of the airfoil was imported in Autodesk CFD. The materials were
assigned to the airfoil and the control surface. An automatic meshing was used as initial
meshing approach. Then, we applied two refinement regions one around the airfoil to the
boundary edge and the other just around the airfoil. Fig. 6. This mesh refinement increased
the calculated time but it certainly improved the results as the model was better approximated.
The structured mesh of the boundary layer region and the unstructured mesh of the remaining
portion are shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 6: Meshed surfaces showing refinement regions

10
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

Fig. 7: Structured and Unstructured Meshing

3.1.3. Applied Boundary Conditions

We used velocity and pressure boundary conditions. The given Mach No. 0.15 corresponds
to 52 m/s. This velocity was applied as inlet boundary condition and a gage pressure of 0 Pa
was applied at the outlet. The top and bottom edges of the control surface were given
slip/symmetry condition as there was no flow in the y-direction.

3.2. Solution
The solution scheme used for all simulations was Modified Petrov-Glerkin Advection
Method. The solution converged between 600-800 iterations for all three cases.

3.3. Post-Processing

3.3.1. Color Diagrams

A colored contour plot was generated for the pressure coefficient distribution. It showed a
clearly distinction between the high pressure and the low pressure regions around the airfoil.
Fig. 8, 9 and 10 show the coefficient of pressure distribution around the airfoil for 0o, 5o and
10o angles of attack, respectively.

11
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

Fig. 8 (a): Cp distribution around N2414 at 0o

Fig. 8 (b): Cp distribution around N2414 at 5o

Fig. 8 (c): Cp distribution around N2414 at 10o

12
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

3.3.2. Data Plots

Our primary objective was to discuss the distribution of pressure coefficient along the upper
surface and the lower surface of the airfoil. In our 2D analysis, these surfaces correspond to
the edges. The extraction of coordinates for these edges caused some serious problems. It
took a lot of time and effort to come to resolve the issue. Finally, we extracted the geometry
coordinates from the Inventor model, performed some tedious manipulations and
incorporated them into our analysis file. Pressure distribution plots along the upper and lower
surfaces for three angles of attack were generated.

Fig. 9 (a): Cp along the UPPER surface of N2414 at 0o AoA

Fig. 9 (b): Cp along the LOWER surface of N2414 at 0o AoA

13
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

Fig. 10 (a): Cp along the UPPER surface of N2414 at 5o AoA

Fig. 10 (b): Cp along the LOWER surface of N2414 at 5o AoA

Fig. 11 (a): Cp along the UPPER surface of N2414 at 10o AoA

14
Pressure Coefficient as a Function of Angle of Attack CFD

Fig. 11 (b): Cp along the LOWER surface of N2414 at 10o AoA

4. Results Discussion
Fig. 9 through 11 show the distribution of pressure coefficient at the upper and the lower
surfaces of the airfoil.

For all three cases, the value of Cp is maximum at the leading edge. This is because of the
stagnation point at the leading edge. However, its maximum possible value is 1 because the
flow is inviscid. This approximation is very accurate for low speed subsonic flows because
the compressibility effects are negligible. Cp decreases rapidly as the air flows over the upper
surface of the airfoil. It becomes zero in the interval 800 mm < x < 1000 mm for all three
cases.

At 0o angle of attack, Cp < 0 for the most part at the upper surface as well as lower surface.
This shows a net downward pressure which causes downforce. As the angle of attack
increases, values of Cp rise on the lower surface and become positive on the upper surface.
This shows a net positive (upward) force on the airfoil.

References
1. Anderson, J. D. (2011). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.
2. Munson, B. R. (2009). Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3. Airfoil Tools. Retrieved from http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=n2414-il

15