AERODYNAMICS OF WINGS AT LOW REYNOLD'S

NUMBERS: BOUNDARY LAYER SEPARATION AND

REATTACHMENT BY JOHN McARTHUR (2008)
- My Understanding
INTRODUCTION
1.
Thesis related to improving aerodynamics of aerofoil by studying lift and drag
coefficients with Reynolds number between 104 and 105.
Doubt: Reynolds number for flow of marine vessels is greater than 10 6
(http://geophysics.ou.edu/geol1114/notes/running_water/Reynolds_number.html). Would
the findings of the paper be applicable to marine vessels?
2.
Nomenclatures discussed: Chord Line - Line connecting front edge to back edge
of aerofoil (longitudinal direction); Span - from wing root to wing tip (transverse
direction). Aspect ratio = span/ chord.
CONCEPTS
3.
Below critical Reynolds number between 10 4 and 106, the drag polar (ratio of lift
coefficient CL to drag coefficient CD) sharply decreases - Schmitz's results, due to
formation of Laminar Separation Bubble (LSB), as per previous papers. Thus, drag
coefficient increases at lower Reynolds numbers for medium values of lift coefficients.
However, studies by many authors were not matching at lower Reynolds number below
6 104.
Doubt: Does lift coefficient have an effect on marine vessels as well?
4.
Lift measurements made in previous papers by strain gauges (force balance
using Wheatstone's Bridge) while drag measurements can be made by both strain
gauges and wake measurements. However, wake varies non-uniformly across the
span at lower values of Re and is not reliable.
Doubt: The paper mentions that it is very difficult to undertake force measurements in a
water channel. Would the experiments be therefore restricted to flow field
measurements?
5.
LSB occurs due to adverse pressure gradient. The boundary layer gets
separated and the flow starts becoming turbulent. At a particular value of turbulence, the
momentum is transferred from the free stream to the surface, thereby closing the

separation. Both experimental and computational methods can be used for visualising
LSB.
Additional Note: Paper on effect of LSB on hydrofoil performance - https://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/hal-01087843
6.
Another parameter which is claimed to improve the performance of airfoils by
reducing drag and increasing lift, is the Leading Edge Vortex (LEV). This is a vortex
that is reported to be formed at the leading edge (the edge that cuts the water), and
spans across the wing transversely. This phenomenon was observed in flying and
swimming animals. However, the paper states that no studies have been made to
identify how LEV improves efficiency for fixed wing objects or how design changes of
the wing could improve performance.
Additional Note: Video of LEV in aquatic animals:
http://gfm.aps.org/meetings/dfd-2014/5417408969702d585cab0200
EXPERIMENTS
7.
The author used three types of airfoils flat plate, light + less camber foil, and
thick + more camber foil (Eppler 387), each of 3.5 cm chord length. Further, a 9 cm
Eppler 387 airfoil was also used to compare results with other authors. Both wind tunnel
and water channel were used. The turbulence in wind tunnel was kept at around 0.025
%. Force measurements were made by Wheatstones bridge, while flow visualisation
was obtained by PIV and dye injection methods.
8.
Tests were conducted for both 2D and 3D flow. For 2D flow, tests were
conducted with an without end plates, while for 3D flow, a finite aspect ratio of 6 was
kept for the foil (it is infinite for 2D flow). The force measurements showed that light +
less camber foil had more lift (better performance) than Eppler 387 foil. This proved that
thicker airfoils dont provide better lift at low Re. Further, the light + less camber foil
displayed a jump in lift for Re 2104 at a particular incidence angle.
Doubt: What is the significance of end plates?
RESULTS
9.
The flat plate airfoil was used to compare with previous experiments and the
theoretical drag obtained from Blasius boundary layer theory. It was observed that CL
increases and CD decreases as Re and Aspect Ratio increase. It was also observed
that greater camber produced greater lift. Further, there was a mismatch with the
Blasius theory at higher Re, which was ascertained to be due to formation of transient
boundary layer. Even the lifting line theory - which related 2D and 3D measurements

by adding the induced drag term was observed to be inaccurate at higher Re (i.e >
2104)
10.
Captured images displayed a dark region near the trailing edge. This was termed
as the separation streak line, mainly observed in both the cambered foils. It was also
mentioned that at low Re, this streak line moves closer to trailing edge due to thicker
boundary layer and minimum pressure there. The sudden changes in the position of
separation point (point at which flow reverses direction) was observed along with
increase in CD at lower Re, and increase in CL at higher Re.
Doubt: Unable to understand the concept of separation line
11.
Force balance measurements validated point 3. The author also states that 2D
measurements have a high uncertainty due to end plates, and display hysteresis, the
cause of which was not known. However, a new theory was developed for LSB. It
stated that drag increase at moderate lift coefficients at Re 610 4 (point 3) is not due to
LSB but only laminar separation and no reattachment. LSB occurs only at higher
incidence angle and reduces drag. This was displayed by using PIV to capture the flow
field velocities.
12.
Further, by using laser beam at maximum power and moving it along both the
streamline and span, it was observed that the separation point moved towards the
leading edge at higher Re and incidence angle. It was also observed that decreasing
the surface roughness lead to effects similar to reducing the Re.
Doubt: Confused between this and the 10th point
13.
LEV was observed using dye visualisation (in water channel) and smoke
visualisation (in wind tunnel). The water channel experiment displayed the LEV
travelling parallel and at an angle to the leading edge, in two different cases. The wind
tunnel experiment displayed the formation, stretching and end of vortex across the span
of the wing. Force measurements state that the vortex has no effect on the force
generated.
Doubt: Even though the Lift vs Drag ration decreases with increasing swept angle, the
observation by the author states that there is no effect of the vortex formation on force
generated. Couldnt understand the concept.
CONCLUSIONS
14.

Overall, following conclusions were made by the report:

a.

Thin airfoil performs better than thick airfoil.

b.
Lifting line theory does not apply to high Re Eppler 387 foils, even though
the theory was developed for high Re. This deviation was observed at a critical
range of Re in between 10 4 and 105. It was suggested that this was due to
varying flow across the span at this Re.
c.
At Re = 20k, a sudden jump in the separation point was observed in the
cambered foil, which was attributed to the formation of LSB. Further, at high
angles of incidence, the drag decreases with increase in lift due to LSB. But the
drag increase at moderate lift is purely due to laminar separation and not LSB.
d.
The small LEV has no effect on the wing forces. More factors, other than
sweep angle, must be considered for effective vortex formation and its impact on
force generation..