Airfoil Lift Measurement by Surface Pressure

Distribution
Lab 2
MAE 424
Evan Coleman
April 29, 2013

Spring 2013
Dr. MacLean

1
Abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the lift coefficient, leading edge moment coefficient and
center of pressure of a NACA 0012 airfoil. Each of these properties was found by analyzing the pressure
distribution on the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil. The pressure distribution was found by taking
pressure readings from nine pressure taps placed along the surface of the airfoil. Several different trials of
this experiment were conducted each at a different Reynolds number. Much of the results discussed in this
report are from the Phi group which used a Reynolds number of 153,604.

It was found that at low Reynolds numbers, the lift coefficient was not largely affected by a change in
Reynolds number. However, the published results for a large Reynolds number did exhibit different lift
coefficients. It was also found that, discounting stall, all of the calculated properties performed very closely
to that of thin-airfoil theory. Stall must be discounted because thin-airfoil theory does not account for stall.

Methodology
The experiment was conducted using an Eifel type, low-speed aerodynamic wind tunnel that has a 12-inch
square test cross-section that is 24 inches long. The airfoil that was tested was a NACA 0012 with a chord
length of 4 inches. A pitot-static tube was positioned near the top of the wind tunnels testing area to measure
the dynamic pressure and static pressure in the free-stream. The airfoil had nine taps along its surface each
connected to a pressure transducer.

The experiment began by first taking a dynamic and static pressure reading from the pitot tube. These
readings were only taken once since the free-stream velocity was constant throughout the experiment. Next,
the airfoil was set to an angle of attack of zero degrees. Then a pressure reading was taken from each
pressure tap. This reading corresponds to the upper pressure value. This process was then repeated up until
an angle of attack of 14 degrees. After each upper pressure reading was taken, then process was performed
using negative angles of attack in order to get the lower pressure readings. Using negative angles of attack
is analogous to flipping the airfoil upside-down.

Discussion of Results
The Reynolds number was first calculated by taking the value of the dynamic pressure obtained in the
beginning of the experiment and solving for the free-stream velocity. This velocity was then used to calculate
the Reynolds number as shown in equation 1 where ν∞ is the kinematic viscosity of air (1.51 ∗ 10−5 ) and c
is the chord length of the airfoil (10.16 cm).
V∞ c
Re = (1)
ν∞
The free-stream velocity was found to be 22.8 m/s and the Reynolds number was 153,600.

Next, using MATLAB (see appendix B for code), both the upper and lower pressure readings were non-
dimensionalized to find the upper and lower coefficients of pressure for each angle of attack. These values
were then input into equations 2 and 3 and numerically integrated to find the skin-friction and leading-edge
moment coefficients respectively.
Z 1
CF = (CP,l − CP,u )dξ (2)
0
Z 1
Cm,LE = − ξ(CP,l − CP,u )dξ (3)
0

where ξ = x/c is the non-dimensional distance along the chord length. Next, the lift coefficient at each angle
of attack was calculated using the skin-friction coefficient values as shown in equation 4.

2
 CL = CF cosα (4)
Finally, the non-dimensional center of pressure was calculated by dividing the negative leading-edge moment
coefficient by the skin-friction coefficient as shown in equation 5.
Cm,LE
ξCP = − (5)
CF
Both the upper and lower pressure coefficients were plotted versus the non-dimensional distance along the
chord length. Plots were made for two angles of attack, one before the stall angle and one after.

°
Pressure Coefficients vs. ξ (α = 10 )
1

0.5

0
Pressure Coefficient

−0.5

−1

−1.5

−2

−2.5

−3 CP,u
CP,l
−3.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
ξ

Figure 1: Pressure Coefficients vs. Non-dimensional Position

As shown in figure 1, for an angle of attack of 10 degrees both the lower and upper pressure coefficients are
very different at the leading edge of the airfoil. Then the pressures slowly converge until nearing zero at the
trailing edge of the airfoil. The pressure coefficients were also plotted for an angle of attack greater than the
stall angle.

3
 °
Pressure Coefficients vs. ξ (α = 13 )
0.8
CP,u
CP,l
0.6

0.4
Pressure Coefficient

0.2

−0.2

−0.4

−0.6

−0.8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
ξ

Figure 2: Pressure Coefficients vs. Non-dimensional Position

As shown in figure 2, the lower pressure coefficient displays similar behavior to that of the response for an
angle of attack before the stall angle. However, after the stall angle the upper pressure coefficient remains
relatively constant. This is an indication of flow separation which is the main cause of stalling. At a large
angle of attack the air can no longer make the turn around the leading edge of the airfoil causing the flow
around the airfoil to separate. This is why the pressure does not change along the top of the airfoil.

As mentioned previously, the lower pressure readings were taken using the upper pressure taps since the
testing apparatus did not provide lower pressure taps. This was done by using equivalent negative angles of
attack. The reason that this is allowed is because the NACA 0012 airfoil that was used in this experiment
is a symmetrical airfoil. Because the shape of the upper surface is the same as that of the lower surface, the
upper surface can be used to simulate both surfaces. For example, to take pressure readings for an angle
of attack of 2 degrees, the airfoil can be set to that angle to take the upper pressure readings and then
can be set to -2 degrees to take the lower pressure readings. If a true negative angle of attack was tested
(which would require pressure taps on both sides of the airfoil, or flipping the symmetrical airfoil), it would
be expected that the lower and upper pressure readings would be switched.

The lift coefficient versus angle of attack was plotted with published and theoretical results.

4
 Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack
1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Lift Coefficient

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Re =153604 (Phi)
−0.2 Re = 160,000 (Sandia)
Re = 3,230,000 (NACA)
Theoretical
−0.4
−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Angle of Attack (degrees)

Figure 3: Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack

As shown in figure 3, Reynolds number does seem to impact the lift coefficients. The lower Reynolds number
clearly had a lower maximum lift coefficient that occurred at a lower angle of attack while the higher Reynolds
number had a greater maximum lift coefficient at a higher angle of attack. Each experimentally determined
response demonstrates the same general shape in that the lift coefficient increases linearly with angle of
attack until it approaches the stall angle where it levels off and then begins to decrease. The theoretical
lift coefficient was determined using thin-airfoil theory. Thin-airfoil theory states that the lift coefficient
increases by 2π units per radian as demonstrated by equation 6.

Cl = 2πα (6)
Thin-airfoil theory, however, does not account for stall. This is illustrated in figure 3 by the fact that the
theoretical lift coefficient increases linearly and never levels off. The theoretical lift coefficient does match the
experimentally determined data very closely for the linear part of the response. This means that, disregarding
stall, the NACA 0012 airfoil performed as thin-airfoil theory predicted. Figure 4 shows the lift coefficient
versus angle of attack results from several different trials of this experiment each at a different Reynolds
number.

5
 Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack
0.8

0.7

0.6
Lift Coefficient

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 Re =153604 (Phi)

Re =136234 (Tau)
Re =102199 (Omega)
Re =84489 (Zeta)
0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Angle of Attack (degrees)

Figure 4: Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack

Figure 4 shows that the lift coefficient response does not change much at relatively low angles of attack.
However, there are some small differences. For examples, it seems that somewhere between a Reynolds
number of about 102,200 and 136,000 the maximum lift coefficient and thus stall angle does change. But
within these two subsets of data, the stall angle remained the same. As stated previously and reinforced
by this figure, no matter what the Reynolds number is the lift coefficient will always be the same for the
linear portion of the response. In figure 4, even after stall when the lift coefficients began to level all, they
all re-converged at a lift coefficient of about 0.5.

The moment coefficient of the leading edge was plotted versus angle of attack for several trials of the
experiment using a range of Reynolds numbers.

6
 Moment Coefficient (Leading Edge) vs. Angle of Attack
−0.02
Re =153604 (Phi)
Re =136234 (Tau)
−0.04 Re =102199 (Omega)
Moment Coefficient (Leading Edge) Re =84489 (Zeta)

−0.06

−0.08

−0.1

−0.12

−0.14

−0.16

−0.18

−0.2

−0.22
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Angle of Attack (degrees)

Figure 5: Leading Edge Moment Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack

As shown in figure 5, the response exhibits an almost logarithmic shape. The moment coefficient begins
at a low value, which is expected because the resultant force vector on the airfoil is relatively small during
level flight. Then, as the angle of attack increase, the leading edge moment coefficient becomes more and
more negative until eventually leveling off at the stall angle. The negative slope of the response is expected
because the moment should decrease until the stall angle and then stop changing because lift is no longer
increasing. There is a small dip in moment coefficient in the Omega groups trial. This is not expected and
is likely due to some experimental anomaly or error.

The non-dimensional position of the center of pressure was plotted versus angle of attack for several Reynolds
numbers.

7
 Non−Dimensional Center of Pressure vs. Angle of Attack
0.38
Re =153604 (Phi)
Re =136234 (Tau)
Re =102199 (Omega)
0.36
Non−Dimensional Center of Pressure Re =84489 (Zeta)

0.34

0.32

0.3

0.28

0.26

0.24

0.22
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Angle of Attack (degrees)

Figure 6: Non-dimensional Center of Pressure Position vs. Angle of Attack

The center of pressure for a thin airfoil is defined as the position along an airfoil where the moment is equal
to zero. Similar to figure 4, figure 6 once again shows the same grouping of responses whereas the two lower
Reynolds numbers share similar responses and the two higher Reynolds numbers share their own similar
responses. All four responses, however, still exhibit similar shapes. Each center of pressure begins at around
a value of 0.3 and slowly descends until about 0.24. Then the center of pressures for each trial shoot up
and all converge at about 0.37. Overall, there is a very small change in the center of pressure throughout
the experiment. Out of all four trials the position only ranged from about 0.23 to 0.37. This is compared
to the theoretical center of pressure for thin-airfoil theory which is one-fourth of the chord length, or 0.25
in non-dimensional terms. In general, the experimentally determined center of pressure is relatively close to
the theoretical value if stall is discounted, which is acceptable since thin-airfoil theory does not account for
stall. Also, from thin-airfoil theory it is stated that the aerodynamic center and the center of pressure are
located at the same point.

There are some discrepancies between the results found through this experiment and the results that would
be expected from an actual flying aircraft. For example, in this experiment the free-stream velocity remained
constant for all angles of attack. This is obviously not what occurs in the real world. If an aircraft were to
maintain its velocity during a climb (positive angle of attack), it would have to increase its engines. It is also
nearly impossible to maintain an exact constant velocity during a climb even with the use of the engines.
This would be extremely difficult to simulate in a wind tunnel with a fixed airfoil.

Conclusions
In conclusion, this experiment performed as expected. Discounting stall, the experimental results proved to
be nearly identical to those of thin-airfoil theory. It was also found that at low Reynolds numbers, the lift
coefficient was not drastically affected by a change in Reynolds number. The leading edge moment coefficient

8
was also found to be similar for different Reynolds numbers. The moment coefficient was found to decrease
nearly logarithmically until leveling off at the stall angle. The center of pressure was also found to behave
similarly to that of thin-airfoil theory, but again discounting stall.

Even though the results of this experiment lined up closely with theory, there are still some unexplained
anomalies that may be due to experimental error. Most importantly, the calculation of the free-stream
velocity, and consequently Reynold number, may not have been accurate. The free-stream velocity was
determined using the dynamic pressure reading that was assumed to be in the free-stream. It is possible
that there was some kind of turbulence that effected this reading because of the nature of man-made wind.
Another source of error was the angle of attack setting. The divisions on the dial were very small and difficult
to see. Also, there was a 0.5 degree error on the dial itself, and since the dial does not have divisions for
a half of a degree, this further adds to a potential error. Another source of error could be in the readings
themselves. The pressure readings were read off of a pressure transducer and input by hand into Excel. It is
entirely possible that once of these readings could have been entered incorrectly. However, any major errors
would have been apparent in the resulting plots. A final source of error could be in the pressure transducer.
The transducer was not calibrated prior to beginning the experiment. Also, it was fed pressure by small
tubes connected to each tap on the airfoil; it is possible that there were leaks in these tubes which could
have affected the pressure readings.

References
[1] Anderson, John. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.

[2] Jacobs EN, Ward KE, Pinkerton RM Characteristics of 78 related airfoil sections from tests in the
variable-density wind tunnel. T.R. No. 460, NACA 1932
[3] Sheldahl RE, Klimas PC Aerodynamic characteristics of seven airfoil sections through 180 degrees angle
of attack for use in aerodynamic analysis of vertical axis wind turbines. SAND80-2144, 1981, Sandia
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Appendix A Data Samples

Table 1: Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack

Angle of Attack (degrees) Lift Coefficient

6 0.5433
7 0.5972
8 0.6097
9 0.6871
10 0.7383
11 0.7681
12 0.7127
13 0.5105
14 0.5061

9
 Table 2: Leading Edge Moment Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack

Angle of Attack (degrees) Moment Coefficient

6 -0.1365
7 -0.1496
8 -0.1572
9 -0.1739
10 -0.1812
11 -0.1834
12 -0.1852
13 -0.1901
14 -0.1924

Table 3: Non-dimensional Center of Pressure vs. Angle of Attack

Angle of Attack (degrees) Center of Pressure

6 0.2499
7 0.2486
8 0.2554
9 0.2500
10 0.2417
11 0.2344
12 0.2542
13 0.3628
14 0.3688

Appendix B MATLAB Code

%MAE 424: Lab 2
%Data Processor

function data = ProcessData(group)

data = ParseData(group);

rho = 1.205; %density of air at STP

nu = 1.51*10^-5; %kinematic viscosity of air at STP
c = 10.16; %chord length in centimeters

data.U = sqrt((2 * data.qinf) / rho);

data.re = (data.U * (c/100)) / nu;

fields = fieldnames(data.pressure);
for i=1:numel(fields)
this = data.pressure.(fields{i});
data.cpu(:,i) = this(:,1) ./ data.qinf;
data.cpl(:,i) = this(:,2) ./ data.qinf;
end

cpdiff = data.cpl - data.cpu;

data.cf = trapz(data.xi, cpdiff);

10
%data.cmle = sum(-data.xi*trapz(data.xi, cpdiff));
for j=1:numel(fields)
for i=1:(numel(data.xi)-1)
cmle(i,j) = (data.xi(i+1) - data.xi(i)) * ((data.xi(i)*cpdiff(i,j) + data.xi(i+1)*cpdiff(i+1,j))
end
end
data.cmle = -sum(cmle);

data.cl = data.cf.*cosd(1:1:14);
data.xicp = -data.cmle ./ data.cf;

end

11