Apostolis Mek-Fm-Ep-2010-07

Author:
Apostolos Tentolouris Piperas
Investigation of Boundary Layer Suction on a

Wind Turbine Airfoil using CFD
Supervisor:
Martin O.L. Hansen
Wind Energy
Building 403
Kongens Lyngby
Master’s Thesis
5th August 2010
Acknowledgements
There is not much to acknowledge really. People without whom I would never have survived
my studies and who helped me realize that there is plenty of beauty to be shared despite
the smothering workload of these past two years, a period that eventually lead to the present
document, do not need this page to be aware of it and most likely will never read it in the first
place. I would like however to express my gratitude to my supervisor Martin O.L. Hansen,
probably the smartest person on the planet, for taking the time to bother with me and my
questions, and Dalibor Cavar with Juan Pablo Murcia without whom my work would have
taken twice the time and effort. Finally, I would like to thank whoever was responsible for my
admittance to DTU. I may not have become a better engineer in the direction I was hoping,
but I ended up becoming a better person, which is something I could have never hoped for.
i
Preface
This report is part of the requirements to achieve the Master of Science in Engineering (M.Sc.Eng.)
at the Technical University of Denmark. It represents 30 ECTS points and was carried out at
the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark from Fe-
bruary until August 2010.
iii
Abstract
The present Master Thesis deals with the investigation of suction as a mean of boundary layer
control on a wind turbine root airfoil using CFD. Flow around a NACA 4415 airfoil is simula-
ted in ANSYS CFX 12.1 environment and transition to turbulence as well as flow separation
are studied for various arrangements of suction. The coefficients of lift and drag are computed
for different angles of attack and the lift and drag curves after applying suction are compared
with the corresponding values of the clean airfoil. Finally, a simplistic analysis is carried out
in order to evaluate the impact and the usability of boundary layer suction on a wind turbine
blade.
v
Table of Contents
List of Figures xi
List of Symbols 1
1 Introduction 1
1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Boundary Layer Theory 3

2.1 Boundary Layer Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Laminar and Turbulent flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Boundary Layer Thickness - Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5 External Pressure Gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6 Boundary Layer Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.7 Separation Bubbles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.8 Boundary Layer Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.9 Boundary Layer Suction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3 CFD Implementation 25
3.1 Setting up the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.2 Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.3 Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.1.4 Solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4 Results 37
4.1 Suction Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2 Discrete Suction versus Distributed Suction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3 Suction Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.4 Finer Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5 Wind Turbine Performance Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
vii
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.5.1 Blade Element Momentum Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.5.2 BEM algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.5.3 BEM results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.6 The Blade as a Centrifugal Pump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5 Conclusions and Perspectives 63

5.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.2 Suggestions for Further Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
A Appendix 69
List of Figures
2.1 Boundary layer development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Thickness and shear variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Laminar and turbulent non-dimensionalised velocity profile. . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 Turbulent boundary layer profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Turbulent boundary layer structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.6 Diplacement thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.7 Boundary layer thicknesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.8 Shear stress coefficient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.9 Shear stress distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.10 Transition from laminar flow to turbulent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.11 Tollmien Schlichting waves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.12 Ribbon frequency effect on boundary layer response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.13 Neutral Stability Curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.14 Pressure distribution on an airfoil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.15 Effect of pressure gradient on boundary layer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.16 Velocity profiles and gradients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.17 Boundarly layer profiles and point of inflection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.18 Flow separation on an airfoil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.19 Effect of adverse pressure gradient on the boundary layer. . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.20 Separation bubbles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.21 Vortex generators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.22 Boundary layer aceleration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.23 Boundary layer control via suction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.24 Comparison between continuous and discrete suction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.25 Critical value of suction coefficient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.26 Skin friction variation under optimum suction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1 Relative error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2 Generated Mesh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3 Image of the domain for the LE suction case prior the import into the Solver.. 30
3.4 No suction for 0 degrees angle of attack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.5 No suction for 15 degrees angle of attack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
ix
x LIST OF FIGURES
3.6 Transient simulation for no suction case at 15 degrees angle of attack. . . . . 33

3.7 Leading edge distributed suction (Cq = 0.03) for 15 degrees angle of attack. . 34
3.8 Leading edge distribution - Tight convergence, higher number of iterrations . 34
3.9 Transient simulation for (Cq = 0.03) at 15 degrees angle of attack . . . . . . 35
4.1 Eddy viscosity for 10o angle of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.2 Point of transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3 Non dimensionalized eddy viscosity and shear stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.4 Application of suction at maximum thickness point and at leading edge . . . 40
4.5 Point of transition to turbulent flow at different angles of attack . . . . . . . . 41
4.6 Location of distributed suction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.7 Velocity gradient for clean airfoil and distributes suction . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.8 Flow separation at 17o angle of attack for a clean airfoil. . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.9 Pressure coefficients for different angles of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.10 Pressure coefficient at 17o angle of attack for different suction cases. . . . . . 43
4.11 Flow separation for different distributed suction cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.12 Lift and drag curves for discrete suction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.13 Lift and drag curves for distributed suction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.14 C L and C D values for different suction coefficients at 15o angle of attack . . . 46
CL
4.15 CD ratio for different suction coefficients at 15o angle of attack . . . . . . . . 46
4.16 Pressure coefficient for different suction coefficients at 15o angle of attack . . 47
4.17 Eddy viscosity for different suction coefficients at 15o angle of attack . . . . . 47
du
4.18 Velocity gradient dy for different suction coefficients at 15o angle of attack . . 50
4.19 Streamlines for different suction coefficients at 15o angle of attack . . . . . . 50
4.20 Lift coefficient response for different angles of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.21 Lift and drag curves for the clean airfoil and Cq = 0.08 case . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.22 Suction effect on aerodynamic coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.23 Velocities at rotor plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.24 Tjaereborg wind turbine characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.25 Angle of attack variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.26 Chord distribution of the Tjaereborg blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.27 Lift and drag curves of root segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.28 Power contribution of each of the three first segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.29 Power curve of the Tjaereborg wind turbine after suction . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.30 Power ratio between the clean blade and suction cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.31 Weibull distribution with A = 8 and k = 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.32 Power contribution of each of the two close to hub segments for reduced chord 60
4.33 Tjaereborg power curve after suction and 25%chord reduction . . . . . . . . 60
4.34 Tjaereborg power coefficient curve after suction and 25%chord reduction . . 61
4.35 Thrust on the rotor for a range of wind speeds from cut-in speed to rated power 61
5.1 Mass flow distribution at suction location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

LIST OF FIGURES xi
A.1 Distributed suction location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

A.2 Eddy viscosity for different turbulence models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
A.3 Eddy viscosity for normal and 45o inclined suction for different angles of attack 71
A.4 Sensitivity check for steady state simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
A.5 FFT of lift coefficient response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
A.6 Lift coefficient response at 60o angle of attack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
A.7 Suction arrangement for pump driven suction on a glider plane . . . . . . . . 73
List of Symbols
a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . axial induction coefficient []

a! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tangential induction coefficient []
A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rotor area [m 2 ]
AEO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . annual energy output [GWh]
C D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . drag coefficient []
C f x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . local shear stress coefficient []
C f L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . averaged shear stress coefficient []
C L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lift coefficient []
Cn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . normalized normal to the rotorplane force []
C p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pressure coefficient []
C P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . power coefficient []
Ct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . normalized tangential to the rotorplane force []
l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . distance along the wall [m]
L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lift force [N]
D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .drag force [N]
F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prandtl’s correction factor []
M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . torque [Nm]
P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . power [W]
Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . suction flux [ mkg3 ]
Re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reynolds number []
Re x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Reynolds number based on x representative length []
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . velocity components [ ms ]
u, v, w
uw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . suction velocity [ ms ]
U0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . undisturbed velocity [ ms ]
U f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . friction velocity [ ms ]
v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . transversal velocity component [ ms ]
y+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . non dimensional wall distance []
x, y, z. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cartesian coordinates []
α . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . angle of attack [radian]
δ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . boundary layer thickness [m]
δ∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . displacement thickness [m]
δ ∗ ∗. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kinetic energy thickness [m]
xiii
xiv LIST OF FIGURES
θ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . momentum thickness [m] when referred in chapter 2

θ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . twist angle[radian] when referred in chapter 4
µ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dynamic viscosity [Pa s]
2
ν . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kinematic viscosity [ ms ]
ρ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . density [ mkg3 ]
σ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . solidity []
τ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . shear stress [Pa]
τ0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . shear stress at the wall [Pa]
φ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . flow angle [radian]
ω . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .angular velocity [radian/s]
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 General
Wind turbines are capable of transforming the kinetic energy of the wind to mechanical energy
in a shaft and finally into electric energy in a generator. The rotation of the shaft is achieved
by the aerodynamic forces acting on the blades as the wind is passing through the rotor. Maxi-
mizing the lift component of these wind forces allows the turbine to yield its rated power for
lower wind speeds or using thinner blades, whereas minimizing the drag component results in
smaller bending moments at the root of the blade, thus allowing the reduction of the material
needed to withstand the created stresses.
Using suction as a mean of boundary layer control, it is possible to delay stall to higher
angles of attack, thus enhancing the airfoil’s lifting capabilities. In addition, suction of the
boundary layer can extend its laminar region along the airfoil, i.e. move the transition to
turbulent boundary layer further downstream, thus reducing the drag.
1.2 Previous Work

As early as in his first paper published in 1904, Prandtl demonstrated the effect of boundary
layer suction by applying it via a slit on one side of a cylinder. On the suction side the flow
adhered to the surface wall over a significantly longer part of the cylinder arc compared to
the no suction side, and separation was supressed. This lead to the reduction of drag and the
creation of lift, a perpendicular to the flow force caused by the asymmetry of the flow patttern.
This was a first indication that adverse pressure gradients and wall friction, which determine
the seperation process, can be effectively countered with boundary layer suction. From then
on and throughout the twentieth century, extensive research has been carried out within the
aviational industry on the application of boundary layer suction on airplane wings in order to
minimize fuel consumption, as documented by Braslow [1].
In recent years, considerable effort has been devoted to the investigation of the applica-
tion of suction either through open slots or porous wall strips for the purpose of skin friction
drag reduction and boundary layer control in general, resulting to the conclusion that suction
could indeed delay transition and separation and consequently control the flow . A significant
number of studies (including Eppler [2], Oyewola [3] and Gad el Hak [4]) have focused on the
effect of distributed low suction rates as well as concentrated wall suction through short porous
wall strips on turbulent boundary layers. Results show that if the suction rate is sufficiently
high, relaminarisation of the flow occurs almost immediately downstream the suction location.
Some researchers, including Abbot and Doenhoff [5], have related the momentum thickness
Reynolds number at the suction location with the suction rate coefficient and postulate that
relaminarisation can take place only under certain correlation of the two.
1
2 1. Introduction
Numerous designs have been suggested for the implementation of suction. The two main
ideas that have been investigated in the past are discrete suction through slots and distributed
suction. The former allows an abrupt pressure increase at the location of the slot whereas the
latter is achieved via a porous surface through which the air is sucked. The exact location
where the suction is taking place along the airfoil as well as the amount of fluid that is being
sucked is of crucial importance to the performance of the airfoil.
1.3 Scope
The present Master Thesis will attempt to model suction at a typical wind turbine blade root
airfoil using ANSYS CFX 12.1. After modeling a clean (no suction applied) airfoil and ve-
rifying the validity of the results, suction will be implemented in the form of normal to the
airfoil’s surface velocity boundary conditions, and new lift and drag curves will be derived.
If suction can improve Clmax and CCdl , it could lead to the production of more slender blades,
which are cheaper to build and present lower extreme loads due to a reduced chord. Using the
BEM algorithm the turbine’s new power curve will be derived, and subsequently the quanti-
fication of the chordline’s reduction along the spanwise direction ( c(r) ) while maintaining
the clean blade power output will be computed. In addition, the possiblity of using the rota-
ting turbine blade as a centrifugal pump by cutting off its tip, in order to create the necessary
sub-pressure within it that would drive the suction, will be investigated.
Chapter 2
Boundary Layer Theory
Boundary layer theory has been for over a hundred years one of the most important achieve-
ments of fluid mechanics. Its significance stems from the fact that it provides a high degree
of correlation between theory and experiment and thus unifies theoretical hydrodynamics with
hydraulics, two divergent branches of fluid dynamics which used to contradict one another.
The former evolved from the equations of motion assuming frictionless and non-viscous flow,
whereas the latter was a highly empirical science based on a large number of experimental
data. It was evident in most cases that the discordance between classical hydrodynamics and
experiments was due to the fact that the theory neglected completely fluid friction. In addi-
tion, as far as air and water were concerned, the two most important and commonly used fluids,
their viscosity was very small and as a result the forces due to viscous friction were very low
compared to the gravitational and pressure forces. It was therefore difficult to comprehend that
by omitting the frictional forces the behavior of the fluid would alter at such an extent.
It was Ludwig Prandtl in 1904 that first presented an analysis of viscous flows concerning
cases of practical importance. His paper proved that the flow around a body fully immersed
in a fluid can be divided into two regions, one thin layer in the very close vicinity of the body
called boundary layer, in which frictional forces play an important role, and the remaining
outer region where friction forces can be neglected and the flow can be approximated as po-
tential flow. This approach of the phenomenon allowed Prandtl to theoretically interpret the
experimental results with simplified mathematics. The numerous applications of boundary
layer theory include the calculation of skin friction drag, the interpretation of the phenomena
occurring at the maximum lift point of airfoils as well as phenomena connected with stall.
Boundary layer flow under certain ambient and geometric conditions can become reversed
and subsequently detach from the surface of the solid wall. This phenomenon, known as
boundary layer separation, is linked with the creation of eddies in the wake and is connected
with a great drag increase in addition to the sudden drop of lift, on streamlined bodies such
as an airfoil. Various methods of boundary layer control have been proposed to confront this
problem, such as motion of the solid wall, acceleration of the boundary layer (blowing) and
suction. The present case study deals with the latter.
2.1 Boundary Layer Basics

During the flow of a frictionless and incompressible fluid, no tangential forces and therefore
no shear stresses are present between two consecutive layers. The only interaction with one
another is via normal forces. This means that an ideal fluid does not present any internal
resistance to a change of shape, which leads to the inability of the frictionless, incompressible
approach of the flow to account for the drag of a body. The absence of tangential forces implies
that in the close region of the solid wall, there is a difference between the tangential velocity
of the fluid and the wall surface, in other words there is a slip. This slip does not exist in
3
4 2. Boundary Layer Theory
real flows due to the fact that in a microscopic level the fluid particles adhere to the wall, thus
producing shear stresses. The property of the fluid that accounts for these friction forces is
viscosity, it is heavily dependent on the fluid’s temperature and, according to Newton’s law of
friction, it is the proportionality factor between the shear stress between layers of a uniform
flow and the velocity gradient in the direction normal to the layers :
∂u
τ=µ . (2.1)
∂y
µ in known as dynamic viscosity, however when frictional and inertial forces interact it
is important to take into account the viscosity to density ratio ν = µρ known as kinematic
viscosity.
The no slip condition implies that fluid particles are being retarded by the frictional forces,
and is responsible for the velocity gradient ∂u
∂y . This thin layer around the body within which
the flow velocity increases from the zero value until the free stream velocity is the boundary
layer. The thickness of this boundary layer δ increases along the downstream direction of the
flow over the wall, as seen in figure 2.1 taken from [6].
Figure 2.1 – Boundary layer development.
The continuously increasing thickness of the boundary layer can be explained by the fact
that as the flow proceeds downstream, larger quantities of fluid become affected by the fric-
tional forces, and the adjacent to the wall particles are continuously being subject to retarding
force from the shear stress. These particles, due to their lower velocity, retard adjacent par-
ticles further out from the wall, thus making the boundary layer thicker. As the boundary layer
becomes thicker, the velocity gradient at the wall becomes smaller and therefore, as seen in
figure 2.2 taken from [7], the shear stress decreases. There is also a correlation between the
boundary layer thickness and the viscosity, presented in section 2.3. However, even at high
Reynolds numbers, i.e. for relative low viscosity values, the shearing stresses in the boundary
layer still have a considerable effect on the flow, due to the high velocity gradient in the y
direction, equation 2.1, at the immediate wall neighborhood, which diminishes in the outer
regions of the flow.
The retarded fluid particles of the boundary layer do not remain within it for the entire wet-
ted length of the boundary wall. In some cases the flow becomes reversed and the decelerated
particles are forced outwards, thus separating the flow from the wall. This boundary layer se-
paration, described in section 2.6, is always linked with vortex generation in the body’s wake,
as well as with great energy losses. The decelerated flow at the wake of the body induces large
drag due to the large deviation of the pressure distribution in respect with the potential flow.
2.2. Laminar and Turbulent flows 5
Figure 2.2 – a) Thickness variation along a flat plate. b) Shear variation along a flat plate -
effect of transition.
2.2 Laminar and Turbulent flows
Boundary layer flows can exist in two different regimes, laminar and turbulent. In laminar
flow the fluid layers slide over one another without any fluid mass interchange taking place
between neighboring layers. Therefore, the developed shear produced by the velocity gradient
is entirely due to viscosity, and there is no momentum interchange between the layers. On the
other hand in turbulent flow, velocity fluctuations both in the streamwise as well as in the per-
pendicular to the flow direction are taking place resulting in significant mass and momentum
transfer between neighboring layers. Due to these fluctuations the velocity profile is varying
with time, however it is possible for a time averaged profile to be defined. The interchange
of the streamwise component of the momentum between adjacent layers results in shearing
stresses between them, the magnitude of which, at regions of the boundary layer away from
the wall, is greater than those developed as a result of the fluid’s viscosity as seen in figure
2.9. Therefore, the shape of the velocity profile of a turbulent boundary layer is dominated by
these stresses, termed Reynolds stresses.
Assuming zero pressure gradient, figure 2.3 taken from [8] depicts two typical boundary
layers, one for each of the aforementioned regimes. For the laminar case it is evident that a
considerable portion of the boundary layer has significantly reduced velocity, since viscosity
is the only medium with which energy from the free stream is transferred towards the inner
retarded particles. In the turbulent boundary layer the Reynolds stresses are responsible for the
penetration of energy from the free stream to the layers close to the wall surface, which results
in a relatively high value of fluid velocity in the layers close to the wall seen in figure 2.3.
Within the layers closer to the wall the perpendicular velocity fluctuations are dampened down
and viscosity dominates the flow. In this region, called viscous sublayer, the shearing stresses
become purely viscous and the velocity decreases rapidly until zero in a linear manner. Since
τwall = µ( ∂u
∂y )wall , it is evident that the friction stress of the turbulent boundary layer is greater
than the laminar one, owing to the much higher velocity gradient.
It should be noted that for a flat plate, i.e. zero pressure gradient, the laminar profile
Figure 2.3 – Laminar and turbulent non-dimensionalised velocity profile.
has a constant shape at each point along the surface, with the thickness growing along the
downstream direction. In other words, the nondimensional velocity distribution (Uu0 over δy )
does not vary from section to section along the plate.
The velocity distribution in the turbulent boundary layer, presented in figure 2.4 taken
from [7], can be segregated into three main zones, each of which described by a different set
of equations. The zone adjacent to the surface is the viscous sublayer, wherein the flow is
essentially laminar and the shear is virtually constant and equal to the shear stress at the wall.
The flow outside the viscous sublayer is turbulent, it can be described by the logarithmic law
and is therefore called logarithmic layer. Between the aforementioned zones lies the buffer
zone, which can mainly be described by empirical expressions.
Figure 2.4 – Turbulent boundary layer profile.
Figure 2.5 from [9] depicts the structure of the boundary layer and the different velocities
distributions inside it. The dimensionless
! wall distance y+ quantity refers to the law of the wall
yU
and is equal to y+ = ν f where U f = τρ0 is the friction velocity. The corresponding y+ to
each region is presented in table 2.1. In the outer region, the velocity distribution is satisfied
by the velocity defect law as seen in 2.5b.
2.3. Boundary Layer Thickness - Drag 7
Table 2.1 – y+ values per region for the turbulent boundary layer
Viscous sublayer Buffer zone Logarithmic layer

y+ 0-5 50 - 70 70 - 500 ∼1000
(a) Velocity distribution in a turbu- (b) Flow regions within a turbulent boundary layer
lent boundary layer
Figure 2.5 – Turbulent boundary layer structure.
2.3 Boundary Layer Thickness - Drag

Due to the fact that the velocity values of the outer regions of the boundary layer tend to ac-
quire the free stream value asymptotically, the boundary layer thickness is used to be defined
as the distance from the wall where the velocity is equal to 99% of the value of the undisturbed
flow. The inertia force per unit volume in the x axis can be expressed as mα du
V = ρα = ρ dt where
u is the horizontal component of the free stream velocity. For steady flow the aforementioned
∂u dx ∂u ∂u
relation becomes ρ dudt = ρ ∂x dt = ρu ∂x . For a flat plate of length l the gradient ∂x is propor-
2
tional to Ul and therefore the inertia force per unit volume is in the order of ρUl . In a similar
∂2 u
manner, the friction force per unit volume is ∂τ ∂ ∂u
∂y = ∂y (µ ∂y ) = µ ∂2 y . The velocity gradient in the
normal to the plate direction is proportional to Uδ , therefore the friction force per unit volume
is in the order of µU
δ2
. Equalizing the friction and the inertia forces and solving for the boundary
layer thickness the following relation is acquired:
"
νl
δ∼ , (2.2)
U
where ν is the kinematic viscosity. It is evident that the boundary layer thickness over a
flat plate is dependent on the fluid characteristics, the flow conditions of the free stream and
the running distance from the plates leading edge. Blasius has shown that the numerical factor
missing from the above relation is approximately
! equal to 5, figure 2.10, therefore for laminar
νl
flow in the boundary layer we have δ = 5 U and after non dimensionalising we get δl = √5Re .
l
Evidently, δ increases with the square root of the downstream running distance x. In addition,
having in mind that the Reynolds number expresses the ratio of the inertia forces over the fric-
tional forces, as Re approaches infinity the previous equation suggests that the boundary layer
thickness diminishes. For the turbulent case , the corresponding relation is δl = 0.161 . Due to
Rel7
the vagueness of the boundary layer thickness concept, more precise definitions can be given,
each one offering different information regarding its characteristics.
#∞
Displacement thickness ( δ∗ = 0 (ρU0 − ρu) dx )
Due to the presence of the boundary layer over a surface, the mass flow within a stream tube
that prior to its encounter with the boundary layer had a value of ρU0 is now decreased to a
smaller value ρu. Therefore, for continuity reasons, the crossection of the streamtube must
increase, which for the 2D case means that the widths of the streamtubes within the boundary
layer will increase thus displacing the streamtubes of the free flow away from the surface. The
effect on the free flow will be equivalent with the displacing of the surface into the stream with
no boundary layer present. Under such conditions, this into the stream displacement is called
boundary layer displacement thickness δ∗ , and is presented in figure 2.6 taken from [10].
Figure 2.6 – Diplacement thickness.
#∞
Momentum thickness (θ = 0 ( Uu0 )(1 − Uu0 ) dx)
This term is connected with the momentum flow rate within the boundary layer, which owing
to the presence of the boundary layer is less than the momentum flow rate if no boundary layer
existed, since in that case the velocity near the wall would be equal to the free stream velocity.
The distance through which the surface must be displaced into the stream in order for the total
flow momentum at that particular position when no boundary layer is present to be equal with
the actual flow momentum is called momentum thickness θ. This quantity is often used for the
calculation of the skin friction losses.
#∞
Kinetic energy thickness (δ∗∗ = 0 ( Uu0 )(1 − ( Uu0 )2 ) dx)
The kinetic energy thickness is connected with the kinetic energy defect within the boundary
layer and is defined in a similar manner with the momentum thickness.
The aforementioned thicknesses can be seen in 2.7 taken from [8].
The shear stress on the wall can be computed by Newton’s law of friction. Following
the same proportionality
! train of thought, the shear stress on the surface for tha laminar case
is proportional to µU ρU 2
µl and after non dimensionalizing with ρU it is evident that it is
dependent on the Reynolds number alone:
2.3. Boundary Layer Thickness - Drag 9
Figure 2.7 – Boundary layer thicknesses.
"
τ0 µ 1
∼ = √ . (2.3)
ρU 2 ρUl Rel
τ0
The local shear stress coefficient, cf x = 1 2
, is heavily dependent on the wall roughness
2 ρU
and differs from laminar to turbulent flows. Figure 2.8 from [7] depicts the variation of the
averaged shear stress coefficient Cf L with the Reynolds number, indicating the significance of
the flow regime on the shear.
Figure 2.8 – Shear stress coefficient.
As far as the
$ drag force is concerned, by multiplying the shear with the plate surface, the
relation D ∼ b ρµU 3 l is derived, where b is the surface width, which shows that the laminar
3 1
frictional drag is proportional to U 2 and l 2 . The non linear dependence of the drag with the
body length can be explained by the fact that as the flow proceeds downstream, its thickness
increases thus producing lower shear at the regions close to the trailing edge compared to the
leading edge.
Adjacent to the surface, i.e. at the base of the boundary layer, the shear stress in the fluid is
entirely dependent on viscosity and is equal to µ(∂u∂y )wall as seen in figure 2.9 from [9], whereas
in further away from the wall the Reynolds stresses dominate the shear.
Figure 2.9 – Shear stress distribution.
2.4 Transition
As the fluid proceeds on a flat plate, the laminar boundary layer continues to grow and viscous
stresses are less capable of damping disturbances in the flow. Therefore a point is reached
where these disturbances are amplified and lead to a turbulent state. Irregular patterns appear
after a critical Reynolds number is reached and radial fluctuations occur, causing the mixing of
the fluid laminae and thus making the flow turbulent. The exchange of momentum across the
thickness of the boundary layer produces a more even cross-sectional area, as seen in figure
2.3.
For the case of the flat plate, which implies no pressure gradient in the downstream di-
rection as in the case of airfoils, the transition from laminar to turbulent flow is taking place
for high values of the external velocity. A severe increase in the boundary layer thickness as
well as in the shear stress is taking place at the point of transition, as depicted in figure 2.10
from [6]. Evidently, the based on the running distance variable x critical Reynolds number is
approximately 3.2x105 which corresponds to a critical Reynolds number based on the displa-
cement thickness Reδ = 2800. The point of transition along the plate can be derived through
Re xcrit . However, it should be noted that the numerical value of the critical Reynolds number
depends on the amount of disturbance in the external flow, and for extremely low disturbances
in the flow higher critical Reynolds values can be reached. According to the one-step method
of Michel found in [10] transition occurs when Reθ = 2.9Rex 0.4 where Reθ = U(x)θ(x) ν and
U(x)x
Re x = ν .
As mentioned earlier, transition occurs because of the amplification of small disturbances
in the boundary layer. These disturbances may originate from surface roughness, turbulence in
the free stream or vibrations of the surface itself. Experiments have shown that the boundary
layer can be simulated as a nonlinear oscillator that under certain conditions has an initially
linear response to external stimuli [8]. Figure 2.11 from [8] presents the transition of a
boundary layer over a flat plate with disturbances generated by a harmonic line source. The
conversion of these disturbances into low amplitude waves is very complex due to the fact that
that wave length of a typical external disturbance is much larger than the wave length of the
2.4. Transition 11
Figure 2.10 – Transition from laminar flow to turbulent.
response of the boundary layer.
Figure 2.11 – Tollmien Schlichting waves.
After these low amplitude waves within the boundary layer have been generated, they will
propagate downstream and will be either damped and eventually decayed or amplified and
eventually lead to turbulent flow. While their amplitude remains small, these growing waves
are mainly two-dimensional and are known as Tollmien Schlichting waves in honor of the
researchers who studied them. As depicted in figure 2.11 the linear phase extends to a great
portion of the transitional region. The linearity is based on the fact that due the very small
value of the wave amplitudes their products may be neglected, however as the disturbance
amplitude increases so does the complexity of the boundary layer response. In addition to the
dissipative effect of viscosity in removing energy from a disturbance, Prandtl realized that it
also plays a significant role in the development of wave disturbances by causing energy to be
transferred to the disturbance. This energy transfer process is termed energy production by the
Reynolds stress.
For the proper study of Tollmien-Schlichting waves, artificially generated waves had to be
generated in a controlled manner. A vibrating ribbon with controlled frequency was therefore
placed within the boundary layer in order to generate waves, as opposed to studying the waves
generated by natural causes such as the ones mentioned earlier. It was found that the boundary
layer response was dependent on the wave frequency as seen in figure 2.12 from [8]. High
ribbon frequencies resulted in the dampening of the generated waves, whereas waves produced
by intermediate ribbon frequencies attenuated downstream of the ribbon, then began to grow
and eventually they decayed. Low frequencies however produced waves of growing amplitude
which eventually lead to transition to turbulence.
Figure 2.12 – Ribbon frequency effect on boundary layer response.
A neutral stability curve is therefore possible to be mapped out, which can separate the
frequencies that produce wave amplification from the ones that will get damped out. Figure
2.12 presents such a curve of non dimensional frequency over the local Reynolds number,
which denotes whether a boundary layer is stable or unstable. Within the neutral stability curve
the energy produced by the Reynolds stresses exceeds viscous dissipation whereas the opposite
occurs outside the curve. Evidently, there is a critical frequency and a critical Reynolds number
that act as a barring threshold to the Tollmien Schlichting wave propagation, however it has
been observed that the transitional Reynolds number is greater than the critical one. This is due
to the fact that it takes some time, and therefore distance, for the amplified disturbance, denoted
by the critical Re, to evolve into turbulence, signified by the transitional Re. An approach to
increase the transitional Reynolds number, and thus mitigate turbulence phenomena, is through
wave cancellation via appropriately located disturbance generators. A control system would
detect the dominant element of the disturbance spectrum (phase, orientation, frequency) and
the generators would be used to suppress or cancel out the detected disturbance [4].
Neutral stability curves can also be used in order to study the effect of an external pressure
gradient on the boundary layer, which in turn is presented in section 2.5. As presented in
2.4. Transition 13
Figure 2.13 – Neutral Stability Curve.
figure 2.13 from [8], after replacing the local Reynolds number with the one referring to the
boundary layer thickness Reδ = Uν0 δ which also grows along the surface, an adverse pressure
gradient results in a smaller critical Reynolds number as well as a very wide range of unstable
disturbance frequencies. The opposite holds for a favorable pressure gradient, i.e. low critical
frequency and high critical Reynolds number. For streamline bodies such as airfoils, for 105 <
ReL < 107 the transition to turbulence will occur shortly downstream of the point of minimum
pressure, and for a constant ReL an increase of the angle of attack would mean the upstream
displacement of the point of minimum pressure and subsequently the moving forward of the
transition point. By designing an airfoil with its minimum pressure point further aft, as seen
in figure 2.14 from [8] it is possible to postpone transition, however this would give rise to
a more severe adverse pressure gradient after that point which could cause separation of the
flow. In order to prevent separation and maintain laminar flow as long as possible the use of
suction methods can be implemented.
Figure 2.14 – Pressure distribution on an airfoil.

This boundary layer transition is of great aerodynamical interest when it comes to blunt
bodies. The turbulent mixing makes the flow more resistant to separation and thus the accele-
ration effect of the flow on the suction side of the airfoil lasts longer. The further downstream
movement of the boundary layer detachment point produces a significant decrease of the indu-
ced vortices region at the wake and thus reduces pressure drag. The more slender a body is the
less profound the reduction of drag will be since the gradual pressure increase in the downs-
tream direction may be overcome without separation. The separation point in streamlined
bodies is greatly affected by the pressure conditions of the external flow, as described in sec-
tion 2.5. For a negative pressure gradient along the downstream direction, i.e. for decreasing
pressure along the flow, the boundary layer is laminar until the point of minimum pressure.
The pressure gradient then becomes positive and the pressure increases further downstream
making the flow turbulent. A laminar boundary layer can support only a small pressure in-
crease, it is therefore preferable for an airfoil to have developed a turbulent boundary layer
on it suction side in order to achieve high values of lift, but in the same time and in order to
reduce skin friction (which is higher for turbulent flows), the point of transition needs to be
displaced as far downstream as possible.
2.5 External Pressure Gradient

The effect of a pressure change in the streamwise direction has a great effect on the behavior
of the boundary layer. A decreasing pressure along the surface is called a favorable pressure
gradient due to the fact that the streamwise pressure forces tend to help the flow to counter
the shearing effects, thus resulting in a less retarded flow close to the wall and subsequently a
fuller profile. When the pressure is increasing along the wall, the pressure gradient becomes
adverse due to the fact that the streamwise pressure forces now enhance the shearing action.
Consequently, the flow decelerates even more at the wall region and the boundary layer grows
more rapidly as depicted in figure 2.15, taken from [8].
Figure 2.15 – Effect of pressure gradient on boundary layer.
The velocity profile under these conditions is much less full and may develop a point of
inflexion, i.e. a point where the velocity gradient ∂u
∂y changes sign, in other words a point where
∂2 u 2
∂2 y
= 0. Owing to the boundary layer equations, at the wall surface we have : µ(∂∂2uy )y=0 = ddxp
therefore in the immediate neighborhood of the wall, the velocity profile curvature is solely
2.6. Boundary Layer Separation 15
2
dependent on the pressure gradient. For a favorable pressure gradient ddxp < 0, ( ∂∂2uy )wall < 0
and therefore the curvature will maintain its negative sign throughout the entire boundary layer.
2
For an adverse pressure gradient however the curvature at the wall is positive, (∂∂2 uy )wall > 0,
∂2 u
but since at a large distance from the wall ∂2 y
< 0, it follows that a point must exist where
∂2 u
∂2 y
= 0. These arguments can be visualized in figure 2.16, taken from [6].
(a) Favorable pressure gradient (b) Adverse pressure gradient
Figure 2.16 – Velocity profiles and gradients.
For a sufficiently strong or prolonged adverse pressure gradient the flow near the wall is
so greatly decelerated that it begins to reverse direction, indicating that the flow has separated
from the surface, as seen in figure 2.17 from [10].
The point of separation can be defined as the limit between the upstream and downstream
flow within the adjacent to the wall layer:
∂u
( )y=0 = 0. (2.4)
∂y
In the region of retarded potential flow an inflexion point will always be present in the
velocity profile, and since the profile exhibits a zero tangent at the point of separation, it
follows that separation can only occur when the potential flow is retarded.
2.6 Boundary Layer Separation

The main cause of boundary layer separation in streamlined bodies such as an airfoil is adverse
pressure gradient, which may be impressed on the boundary layer by the external pressure
conditions. The significance of separation in airfoils is great since it is strongly connected with
its lifting capabilities. Figure 2.18 from [6] depicts an airfoil at different angles of attack. An
increase in the incidence produces a steeper pressure gradient and after a certain value causes
the separation of the flow. Furthermore, the prevention of boundary layer separation reduces
the total drag to such an extent that a symmetrical airfoil that achieves laminar boundary layer
for most of its wetted length can produce the same drag as a circular cylinder with a diameter
nearly 150 times smaller than the airfoil’s chordline [6].
Figure 2.19 from [8] depicts a boundary layer flow over a surface with gradual, convex
curvature, such as the surface of an airfoil past the maximum thickness point. Owing to the
Bernoulli principle, the velocity in the vicinity of the surface is decreasing and the pressure is
rising. It should be noted however that there is no pressure variation in the direction normal
to the surface, which means that the pressure at the edge of the boundary layer is imprinted to
the layer adjacent to the surface. Since ∂p
∂x > 0, the net pressure at the depicted fluid element
ABCD is tending to decelerate it and in combination with the viscous shears acting on the
Figure 2.17 – Boundarly layer profiles under different pressure gradients. Effect on point of
inflection.
Figure 2.18 – Flow separation on an airfoil.
sides AB and CD the element is further retarded as it moves downstream. This slowing down
effect has a more profound effect at the layers close to the solid wall resulting in a change in
the shape of the velocity profiles.
After the separation point S where (∂u∂y )wall = 0, the boundary layer thickness increases
rapidly in order to satisfy continuity. After the separation point, the direction of the flow in
2.7. Separation Bubbles 17
Figure 2.19 – Effect of adverse pressure gradient on the boundary layer.
the close vicinity of the wall is in the upstream direction thus creating a circulatory movement
in the near surface region. Due to the greater extent of lower energy fluid at the wall region
in laminar boundary layers,presented in 2.3, separation due to adverse pressure gradient will
occur sooner in comparison with turbulent boundary layers.
Boundary layer separation in the rear half of an airfoil results in a significant increase of
the wake flow thickness, which subsequently results in a decrease of the pressure rise that
should occur in the trailing edge. This means that the forward acting pressure components
of the rear part of the airfoil do not develop and therefore the rearward acting pressure forces
of the frontal stagnation point are not countered. As a result the pressure drag of the airfoil
increases greatly. For large angles of attack, separation takes place at a point located a small
distance downstream of the point of minimum pressure, thus creating a large wake which in
turn diminishes the low pressure conditions at the area downstream the leading edge which is
responsible for the creation of lift. Favorable pressure gradients has the exact opposite effect,
since energy is added to the slow moving flow near the solid wall thus making the flow more
resistant to separation.
2.7 Separation Bubbles

Laminar separation might occur in airfoils with large upper surface curvature when relatively
high angles of attack are reached. Small disturbances in separated flows grow easily in small
Reynolds numbers, therefore the transition to turbulent flow that may subsequently take place
leads to a rapid thickening of the detached boundary layer which might be sufficient for the
lower edge to reach the solid wall once again, thus leading to the reattachment of the separated
flow, which is now within the turbulent regime.
As seen in figure 2.20, taken from [8], a bubble of fluid is trapped between the separation
point and the point where the flow comes back into contact with the surface and reattaches.
Within this bubble two regions exist : A pocket of stagnant fluid within which the pressure
is constant, and downstream of that pocket, an area where circulatory motion is taking place
and within which the pressure is increasing significantly towards the point of reattachment.
Two distinct categories of separation bubbles have been observed to occur, a short bubble
Figure 2.20 – Separation bubbles.
extending over 1% of the chordline (100 displacement thicknesses at the separation point) and
a long bubble extending over a greater portion of the chordline, around 10000 displacement
thicknesses at the separation point. The former has a negligible effect on the peak suction
whereas the latter’s effect is significant. The criterion as to which bubble is formed is the value
of the displacement thickness based Reynolds number at the separation point. If Reδ∗ < 400 a
long bubble is most likely to occur while for Reynolds values over 550 a short bubble is more
probable. The length of long bubbles increases rapidly with increasing angle of attack and
might extend up until the trailing edge of the airfoil, thus causing a continuous reduction of
the leading edge suction peak or even stall. On the other hand, the response of short bubbles
at an increase of the angle of attack is to move slowly upstream without changing their length.
Stall might occur either due to the upstream movement of the rear separation point or by
breakdown of the short bubble near the leading edge due to the failure of the separated flow to
reattach onto the wall surface.
2.8 Boundary Layer Control
Laminar boundary layers can support very small adverse pressure gradients before flow se-
paration occurs. According to [4], for a deceleration of ambient incompressible fluid greater
than U0 ∼ x−0.09 the boundary layer will separate from the surface. For the case of turbulent
boundary layers this value is much greater and separation is avoided up until U0 ∼ x−0.23 , thus
making them capable of overcoming larger adverse pressure gradients, owing to the conti-
nuous flow of momentum from the free stream towards the wall. However, even in turbulent
flow separation cannot always be prevented, therefore numerous methods of boundary layer
control have been developed in order to tackle the problem, such as:
Motion of the solid wall

This method can in a way prevent the development of the boundary layer by eliminating the
difference between the fluid’s velocity and the velocity of the solid wall. By taking advantage
of the no slip condition, the wall moves along with the stream and the velocity gradient is
suppressed. Experimental investigations of a moving boundary on an airfoil, by forming a
part of the upper surface into an endless belt, have yielded very high maximum lift coefficients
(Clmax = 3.5) at very high angles of attack (α = 55o ) [6].
2.8. Boundary Layer Control 19
Shaping
As mentioned earlier, transition from laminar to turbulent flow can be delayed with the use of
suitably designed airfoils which relegate the point of transition further downstream thus redu-
cing the total frictional drag of the body. The favorable pressure gradient extends up until the
point of minimum pressure, it is therefore desirable to move the latter as far back as possible.
However, the more aft that point is located the steeper the adverse pressure gradient will be-
come beyond it. As a result, the range of angles of attack within which this gradient change
can be achieved without separation is very narrow. Depending on the Reynolds number, the
airfoil shape, the surface roughness and the incidence angle, the boundary layer beyond the
minimum pressure point either becomes turbulent shortly after or it temporarily dettaches for-
ming the separation bubbles mentioned earlier.
Wall cooling
Generally, an increase in air temperature will result in an increase of its viscosity. Therefore,
the removal of heat from the body surface results in ∂µ
∂y < 0, causing an increase of the velocity
gradient on the wall which produces a more full and stable profile [4]. In addition, the critical
Reynolds number is increased and the range of frequencies that lead to disturbance amplifica-
tion is reduced.
Turbulators
As mentioned in section 2.2, a turbulent boundary layer is more resistant to separation and
therefore transition may be desirable in lifting devices in order to avoid stall. Transition usually
occurs for values of the local distance from the leading edge Reynols number close to 106 . It
can be advanced by exposing the boundary layer to large disturbances, in connection with
section 2.4, by placing single, multiple or distributed roughness elements on the wall. The
height of these elements can be quantified by the corresponding Reynolds number Reκ = u(κ)κ ν ,
where κ denotes the roughness length. Reκ is used to assess the effect of surface roughness
on transition, signified by the based on the displacement thickness Reynolds number Reδ∗ .
For a smooth surface, transition occurs at Reδ∗ ≈ 2600 whereas for Reκ = 600 transition
takes place at Reδ∗ ≈ 1000 , and increasing Reκ to 1000 Reδ∗ decreases even more at 300
[4]. It is important for the turbulator however to suppress laminar separation without making
the boundary layer unnecessarily thick, since thick turbulent boundary layers are more prone
to separation than thin ones. This limits the range of Reynolds numbers wherein roughness
elements can aid airfoils to achieve higher performance to Rec < 105 , where Rec = Uν0 c . In
general, roughness will enhance turbulence, which is much needed in high angles of attack,
but it also increases skin drag so great care should be put into their design.
Vortex generators, seen in figure 2.21 from [11], also can be used for the energy enrichment of
the near wall flow, by creating a tip vortex which draws air from the outer flow regions into the
boundary layer. They are typically rectangular or triangular, with a height comparable to the
boundary layer thickness, and are positioned near the leading edge, upstream of where laminar
separation is expected. As a result, fluid particles with high streamwise momentum are swept
along helical paths towards the surface where they mix with the near wall flow and replace the
retarded particles. If however the separation location can be accurately predicted, the vortex
generetors can be placed accordingly and their size can be greatly reduced, thus reducing the
drag.
Figure 2.21 – Vortex generators.
Boundary layer acceleration

By supplying additional energy to the retarded fluid particles near the surface and thus modi-
fying the velocity profile, it is possible to delay separation until larger angles of attack. This
can be achieved either by the discharge of fluid from within the airfoil or through the imple-
mentation of a slat in the leading edge, as depicted in figure 2.22a, taken from [6].
(a) Boundary layer control via (b) High lift devices.

blowing.
Figure 2.22 – Boundary layer aceleration.
Different movable elements that permit the alteration of the airfoil geometry and subse-
quently its aerodynamic characteristics can be seen in figure 2.22b, taken from [5]. Through
the delay of stall they allow higher lift coefficients and higher angles of attack.
Transpiration
Another method to avoid separation is by changing the curvature of the velocity profile via
the withdrawal of the near wall fluid through slots or porous surfaces. The effect of suction
consists of the removal of the retarded fluid particles located at the region close to the surface
thus preventing the reversal of the flow. The resulting boundary layer, depicted in figure 2.23
from [8], that is created is much thinner and more capable of overcoming the adverse pressure
gradient, allowing the flow to progress further downstream the surface wall without separating.
The implementation of suction techniques allows the suppression of separation at higher
2.9. Boundary Layer Suction 21
Figure 2.23 – Boundary layer control via suction.
angles of attack, thus achieving high lift coefficients. In addition, suction can result in the shif-
ting of the transition point further downstream thus reducing frictional drag, since an extended
laminar region implies smaller shear on the surface. A more detailed presentation of boundary
layer suction is presented in the chapter 2.9,
2.9 Boundary Layer Suction

The kinetic energy of the fluid layers adjacent to the surface can be increased by removing low
energy air through suction slots or a porous surface. Suction suspends boundary layer growth
and leads to a fuller velocity profile. It can therefore be used to delay transition, postpone
separation or relaminarize an already turbulent flow. By changing the curvature of the velocity
profile at the wall the stability characteristics of the flow can be enhanced, thus preventing the
critical Reynolds number Reδcrit , referring to the neutral stability curves seen in figure2.13, to
be reached.
The quantity of fluid sucked away can be expressed by the ratio of the suction velocity
at the wall over the free stream velocity Cq = |uUw0| . The transition delay and the separation
prevention should be achieved with the minimum suction flow rate possible in order to reduce
the power needed for the suction. According to [4] separation on a symmetrical airfoil can be
prevented for Cq = 1.12Re−0.5L when distributed suction is implemented, whereas for discrete
suction the maximum effectiveness, according to [5], can be reached when the sucked air
is equal to the air quantity that would pass through the diplacement thickness δ∗ at the slot
location with the local external velocity. For typical airfoils Cq values between 0.002 and
0.004 are sufficient for separation prevention [4]. The position along the airfoil where suction
is taking place should be a short distance downstream the nose where, at large angles of attack,
steep adverse pressure gradients occur. By concentrating the suction shortly downstream of
the minimum pressure point, the extending of the airfoil’s lift curve to higher angles of attack
can become possible. Figure 2.24 from [6] presents the increase of maximum lift ∆CLmax over
the suction coefficient. Evidently, for the same lift increase, continuous suction needs much
less air quantity removed compared to the discrete case.
A minimum suction coefficient can be derived by assuming a uniformal suction along the
whole extent of a surface and applying as a boundary condition the wall-normal velocity to be
equal to the suction velocity. The equations that describe such a flow, according to [6], result
Figure 2.24 – Comparison between continuous and discrete suction.
uw y
in a velocity profile in the form of u(y) = U0 [1 − e ν ] and a displacement thickness equal to
δ∗ = −uν w . This solution is realized at some point downstream the leading edge, despite the fact
that suction is applied earlier on, and it does so in an asymptotic manner. It is therefore termed
asymptotic suction profile.
∗
After investigating the stability of this profile, the critical Reynolds number Reδ∗ = U0νδ
was found to acquire the very high value of 70000, which can then be used in order to calcu-
late the asymptotic displacement thickness and subsequently the suction velocity. Finally the
condition of stability forms at −u w 1
U 0 = C q > 70000 , however experiments have shown that the
quantity of air that needs to be removed in order for laminar flow to be maintained is higher.
Introducing the parameter ξ = Cq2 Uν0 x , the resulting critical Reynolds numbers are derived, and
presented in figure 2.25, taken from [6]. Evidently the limit of stability is never crossed at any
point along the length if Cq > 8500 1
which results in Cqcrit = 1.2.10−4 .
Figure 2.25 – Critical value of suction coefficient.
The variation of the skin friction coefficient for the aforementioned case, in connection
with figure 2.8, under the condition of optimal suction which denotes the smallest Cq that
2.9. Boundary Layer Suction 23
suffices for transition prevention, is depicted in figure 2.26, found in2 [6]. The save in drag
corresponds to the distance between the turbulent and the optimum suction curve at any given
Reynolds number.
Figure 2.26 – Skin friction variation under optimum suction
The stabilizing effect of suction on the boundary layer can also be detected in the induced
large increase of the critical Reynolds number. The corresponding neutral stability curves,
according to [6], denote a critical Re over 100 times larger than the no suction case.
Chapter 3
CFD Implementation
The programm used for the investigation of airfoil suction is ANSYS CFX 12.1 and the results
are subsequently processed within MATLAB environment. For the purposes of the present
case study, the NACA 4415 airfoil is used, and the suction effect on lift and drag will be
extrapolated for the Tjaereborg blade root airfoil. The notation NACA 4415 suggests that the
airfoil has a maximum camber of 4% located at a distance from the leading edge equal to 40%
of the chord length with a maximum thickness of 15% of the chord.
3.1 Setting up the model

Within ANSYS CFX 12.1 environment, the ANSYS Workbench tool will be used. It segre-
gates the modeling process into 5 steps, Geometry, Mesh, Setup, Solution and Results.
3.1.1 Geometry
The geometry of the airfoil is created in Autodesk Inventor Professional 11 via the import of
the point coordinates that define the airfoil profile. For this purpose 47 points were used for
the suction side of the airfoil and 49 for the pressure side, which were subsequently connected
via a spline curve. The airfoil has a chord length equal to 1m and its leading edge is located
10m from the domain inlet, whereas the flow domain consists of a 30mx10m parallelogram.
The design is saved as an .igs file and is imported into ANSYS. Due to the inability of CFX
to simulate 2D cases, the flow domain along with the airfoil itself are created as an extrusion
of unit length. The produced parallelepiped will then be meshed with a single element depth
so that the third dimension is diminished, and the top and bottom faces of the extrusion will
be set as symmetry planes later in the process. It should be noted that that the extrusion length
should not exceed the maximum lenghtscale of the mesh, but in the same time it should have
a value that will not cause visibility problems later in the building process of the model. The
proposed dimensions result in a relatively low blockage ratio factor, as the boundaries are not
too close to the airfoil and the flow is not constrained.
As far as the suction region is concerned, it will be created as a cut-in in the airfoil in order
for the definition of different boundary conditions along the airfoil curve to become possible.
3.1.2 Mesh
During the creation of the mesh, great care must be taken at the vicinity close to the airfoil
surface since it is there where the boundary layer will be formed. The accuracy of the model
increases with the total number of elements used, however so does the simulation time nee-
ded to produce results. In addition, by refining the mesh, convergence issues may arise since
25
26 3. CFD Implementation
smaller flow features such as shedding phenomena are resolved, which coarser meshes cannot
capture. Depending on the scope of the study, these issues should be handled with the proper
setup of the simulation.
After the regions of the model have been defined, the background mesh length scale of
the model is specified by using the Body Spacing option. This length scale corresponds to the
coarsest length scale required anywhere in the domain, before any Face Spacing or Controls
are applied to any regions of the model. The Maximum Spacing within the Body Spacing
menu specifies the maximum element size which will be used when creating triangles on the
domain’s surface and tetrahedra in the domain’s volume. The default value for this parameter
is around 5% of the maximum extent of the model.
A Face Spacing is used to specify the mesh length scale on a face and in the volume ad-
jacent to that face. The Default Face Spacing applies to all faces that have not been explicitly
assigned a specific length scale. In the present case study the Volume Spacing option is used
for Default Face Spacing, which implements the same spacing on the face as the Maximum
Spacing specified in Body Spacing. For the airfoil however an explicit Face Spacing is applied
and the Relative Error option is used, due to the fact that it allows the edge length on parti-
cular faces to vary depending upon the local curvature. It is therefore possible for the mesh
at the curved surfaces of the airoil to be automatically refined. The value of the relative error
specifies the level of the curvature resolution as the ratio ∆x
x , reffering to figure 3.1 from [12],
which specifies the maximum deviation of the resulting mesh away from the geometry face.
Figure 3.1 – Relative error.
The refinenment of the mesh in specific regions of the model can be accomplished via the
use of Mesh Controls. The mesh refining effect decays with distance from the control region,
and progressively coarser elements are produced. Two types of Control have been implemen-
ted in the present case study, Point Control for the close vicinity of the airfoil, and Triangle
Control for the broader neighborhood around the airfoil extending from a few meters upstream
of the leading edge until several chord lengths downstream, while in the same time the mesh
refinement is broadening downstream. The spacing attributes for the aforementioned controls
differ from one another, and are specified via the Point Spacing option, which in turn requires
three definition values : the Length Scale, which determines the mesh size in the locality of
the point, the Radius of Influence which defines the radial extent of meshed spaced filled with
elements the size of which was defined in Length Scale, and the Expansion Factor, which de-
termines the coarsening rate of the mesh outside the Radius of Influence.
In near wall regions, the velocity gradients produced by boundary layer phenomena need
elements with high aspect ratios, in order to be resolved in a computationally efficient manner.
3.1. Setting up the model 27
For this reason, CFX-Mesh implements prisms to create a mesh that is finely resolved normal
to the wall but coarse parallel to it, by inflating the 2D local face elements into 3D prism
elements. In the present case study, this Inflation is applied on the airfoil surface in order to
take into account the effect of the boundary layer on its aerodynamic behavior.
The parameters that control the Inflation should be carefully chosen in order to capture
the flow phenomena within the boundary layer, such as transition or separation. The Number
of Inflated Layers denotes the number of inflation layers applied and must not exceed 100.
If the inflation layer thickness is specified by the First Layer Thickness option, which in the
present simulation is indeed the case, then Number of Inflated Layers specifies the maximum
number of inflation layers. The Expansion Factor determines the relative thickness of adjacent
inflation layers, i.e. each successive layer in the normal to the wal direction is thicker than a
previous one by one Expansion Factor.
By selecting First Layer Thickness as the option that will control the creation of the in-
flation layer instead of Total Thickness, the transition from the inflated prism elements to the
tetrahedral mesh elements is smoother [12]. First Layer Thickness however does not control
the total height of the inflation layer, but it creates prisms based upon the first layer thickness,
the Expansion Factor and the Number of Inflated Layers. The first layer thickness is defined
in the present report by a target y+ value, given the Reynolds Number and a Reference √ Length.
−13
ANSYS CFX calculates the first layer thickness (∆y) using the formula ∆y = L∆y+ 80Re 14 .
After the first layer is created, thicker layers, the height of which is defined by the Expansion
Factor, are added on top of it until the ratio of height over base length reaches unity. Additio-
nal prisms are then added in case the Extended Layer Growth option is enabled, which is the
case in the present case study, until the Number of Inflated Layers is reached.
Advanced quality checking can be done by changing the Number of Spreading Iterations,
that controls how far the effects of deleted elements propagate, which which is of no iportance
the present simulation since no adjacent inflation boundaries are overlapping, the Minimum
Internal Angle, which controls the minimum allowed angle in the triangular face of a prism
nearest to a surface before it is marked unacceptable and up for deletion, and the Minimum
External Angle, which controls the respective element property for a prism farthest from a
surface. The aforementioned parameters have not been changed from their default values.
Proceeding to Surface Meshing, the Delauny Surface Mesher has been selected due to its
speed and its ability to mesh closed faces. The Meshing Strategy selected is Extruded 2D
Mesh in order to generate a 2D mesh of one element thickness. The 2D Extrusion Option is
set to Full so the mesh is generated using the full extent of the geometry and the Number of
Layers is set to 1. The proper planes are then selected for the Extruded Periodic Pair and the
Periodic Type Option is set to Translational. Finally the Surface Meshes and the Volume Mesh
are generated. Figure 3.2 presents the final mesh of the domain.
Table 3.1 presents the properties chosen for the creation of the mesh using CFX-Mesh.
Fields that do not appear in the table have been left with their default values.
In order to check the effect the mesh quality has on the results of the simulation, a refined
mesh is created, by halving the element sizes of the previous mesh, and some cases are run
twice using two different meshes.
3.1.3 Setup
The first thing to do in the Setup is to specify the Analysis Type of the simulation. Steady
state analysis should be used to model flows that do not change over time, whereas transient
analysis should be used to model time dependent flows. Flows around streamlined bodies may
exhibit dynamic phenomena due to the vortex shedding that will occur after certain angles of
attack, it is therefore preferable to use transient analysis for the simulation, with a carefully
Table 3.1 – Mesh properties
Spacing Default Body Spacing Maximum Spacing [m] 1.0

Default Face Spacing Option Volume Spacing
Option Relative Error
Relative Error 0.0123116
Minimum Edge Length [m] 0.001
Airfoil Spacing Maximum Edge Length [m] 1.5
Radius of Influence [m] 1.0
Expansion Factor 1.2
Controls Length Scale [m] 0.01

Airfoil Vicinity Radius of Influence [m] 1
Length Scale [m] 0.1
Broader Vicinity Radius of Influence [m] 1
Point Control Point 0.5[m], 0[m], 0[m]
Spacing Airfoil Vicinity
Point -3[m], 0[m], 0[m]
Triangle Control Point 7[m], 3.5[m], 0[m]
Point 7[m],-3.5[m], 0[m]
Inflation Inflation Number of Inflated Layers 60
Number of Spreading Iterations 0
Minimum Internal Angle [Degrees] 2.5
Maximum Internal Angle [Degrees] 10.0
Option First Layer Thickness
Define First Layer By y+
y+ 1.0
Reynolds Number 1.5e6
Inflation Options Reference Length [m] 1.0
First Prism Height [m] 1.646695e-5
Extended Layer Growth Yes
Layer by Layer Smoothing No
Options Surface Meshing Option Delaunay
Meshing Strategy Option Extruded 2D Mesh
2D Extrusion Option Option Full
Number of Layers 1
(a) Flow Domain. (b) Airfoil Vicinity
(c) Inflation Layer.
Figure 3.2 – Generated Mesh.
chosen timestep in order to capture the vortex shedding and avoid aliasing with the Strouhal
frequency. The total time of the simulation should be long enough so that parameters like
the lift or drag on the body reach a relatively constant value. Transient analyses however
occupy extreme amounts of disk space until these fluctuations over time diminish, therefore
when used in the present project, the results will not be stored at each timestep but only at
the beginning and the end of the simulation. The forces acting on the airfoil however will be
monitored throughout the run in order to be utilized later on. Steady state analyses will be used
throughout the present case study, with a supplementary transient simulation for some cases
for comparison reasons. Once a general trend of the airfoil’s response to suction has been es-
tablished using steady state simulations, the optimal cases will be simulated once again using
transient analysis.
Boundary conditions must be applied to all the regions in the domain. They can be Inlets,
Outlets, Openings, Walls or Symmetry Planes. The values and properties applied to each
boundary of the simulation are presented in table3.2. It should be noted that the flow is always
subsonic and from Left to Right, with a value of 23.52ms in order to achieve a Reynolds number
of 1.5e106 which typical for wind turbines, and the implementation of the different angles
of attack is achieved by the modification of the inlet velocity from the Left and Down inlet
with the corresponding trigonometric functions. For the 0 angle of attack case, the boundary
conditions at the Upper and Down faces have been set to Free Slip Wall. Pressure boundary
conditions are applied at the domain outlets and the Average Static Pressure option is used
in order to allow the pressure to vary locally on the boundary. Suction is implemented by
setting the corresponding location along the airfoil as an outlet and setting velocity boundary
conditions in order to control the suction quantity. The image of the domain in the 3D Viewer
window of ANSYS, after the setup process is finished, is depicted in figure 3.3.
As far as the domain and model properties are concerned, they are presented in table3.3.
The Gamma Theta transitional turbulence model has been chosen for advanced turbulence
control of the Shear Stress Transport model (SST), due to its ability to capture the influence of
different factors that affect transition such as the free stream turbulence and pressure gradients.
It implements the use of experimental correlations that relate the turbulence intensity in the free
Figure 3.3 – Image of the domain for the LE suction case prior the import into the Solver.
stream to the momentum thickness based Reynolds number [12]. Other models are also tried
out and presented in chapter 4 in order to justify the superiority of the Gamma Theta model
in regards to the purpose of the present case study. For convergence control, the value of the
root mean square normalized residual over the whole domain is chosen to be below 10−4 , and
the maximum amount of iterations has been set to 750. A sensitivity check will be carried out
later on by reducing the RMS residual to 10−6 in order to check its effect on the results. Table
3.3 presents the values and the properties used for the analysis.
3.1.4 Solver
The simulations are run in HP MPI Distributed Parallel mode on the DTU cluster of com-
puters, and the result files after the simulation ends are transferred back to the PC for further
process. The monitoring of the residuals allows the estimation of the level of correspondance
of the results to reality, since convergence indicates whether the equations have been solved.
In most of the cases studied in the present report the steady state residuals do not converge,
indicating the need for transient simulations.
Figure 3.4 presents the residuals of the mass and momentum equations as well as the force
applied on the body in the Y direction as shown in figure 3.3, for the 0 angle off attack case
with no suction. It is evident that despite the fact that the relatively loose convergence target
of 10−4 is not reached, the Lift force stabilizes at approximately 150 N, which deems the
simulation relatively accurate.
For the 15o angle of attack case however, the Y force is fluctuating with an amplitude of
approximately 60N as seen in figure 3.5, suggesting that boundary layer separation has made
the steady state simulation impossible to converge and indicating in a clear manner the need
for transient simulations.
Table 3.2 – Boundary Conditions
Location Boundary Type

Body No Slip Wall Smooth Wall
Inlet Flow Regime Subsonic
Mass and Momentum Cart. Vel. Components U = Vrel cos(α) [m/s]
Down V = Vrel sin(α) [m/s]
W = 0[m/s]
Turbulence Low (Intensity=1%)
Inlet Flow Regime Subsonic
Mass and Momentum Cart. Vel. Components U = Vrel cos(α) [m/s]
In V = Vrel sin(α) [m/s]
W = 0[m/s]
Turbulence Low (Intensity=1%)
Outlet Flow Regime Subsonic
Out Mass and Momentum Average Static Pressure
Relative Pressure 0 [Pa]
Outlet Flow Regime Subsonic
Up Mass and Momentum Average Static Pressure
Relative Pressure 0 [Pa]
Suction Outlet Flow Regime Subsonic
Mass and Momentum Normal Speed Vsuc = Cq Vrel [m/s]
Symmetry Planes Symmetry
(a) Residuals (b) Y force
Figure 3.4 – No suction for 0 degrees angle of attack.
Figure 3.6 presents the residuals and the Y force for such an analysis. A time step of 0.01
seconds has been used and a total simulation time of 3 seconds which, given the fact that
the flow has a velocity of 23.52ms , allows the fluid to travel apporoximatelly 70 chordlines
throughout the simulation, thus providing enough time for the development of the flow. Small
oscillations in the Y component of the aerodynamic force can be observed, in the order of
20N, which can be linked to the vortex shedding.
Table 3.3 – Steady State Setup properties
Analysis Type Option Steady State

Default Domain
Basic Settings Material Air at 25 C
Morphology Continuous Fluid
Reference Pressure [atm] 1
Domain Motion Stationary
Fluid Models Heat Transfer
Option Isothermal
Fluid Temperature [C] 25
Turbulence
Option Shear Stress Transport
Transitional Turbulence Gamma Theta Model
Initialization Velocity Type Cartesian
Cartesian Velocity Components [m/s] U = Vrel cos(α)
V = Vrel sin(α)
W=0
Solver Control Advection Scheme High Resolution
Turbulence Numerics High Resolution
Convergence Control
Min. Iterations 1
Max. Iterations 750
Convergence Criteria
Residual Type RMS
Residual Target 1.e-4
Figure 3.5 – No suction for 15 degrees angle of attack.
Figure 3.6 – Transient simulation for no suction case at 15 degrees angle of attack.
It appears that applying suction as a mean of boundary layer control on the NACA 4415
airfoil, the convergence criteria are met even for higher angles of attack, as seen in figure3.7,
and therefore the results appear to be usable for further analysis.
As a verification of the validity of the results, the residual target is reduced to 10−6 and the
maximum number of iterations is increased to 1500. The results are presented in figure3.8.
The mass and momentum equations residuals as well as the Y force, fluctuate in a periodic
manner around the value of 10−5 and 450N respectively, indicating convergence problems,
and therefore a transient simulation supplements the results, using again a time step of 0.01
seconds and a total simulation time of 3 seconds, and presented in figure3.9.
Figure A.4 in the appendix reveals the inability of the steady state simulations to accurately
predict the separation point at 15o angle of attack for the leading edge suction case. Evidently,
depending on the residuals target value and the mesh element size, separation occurs at 60%,
70% or 90% of the chord. For this reason, the majority of the simulations will be run in steady
Figure 3.7 – Leading edge distributed suction (C q = 0.03) for 15 degrees angle of attack.
Figure 3.8 – Leading edge distributed suction (C q = 0.03) for 15 degrees angle of attack -
Tight convergence, higher number of iterrations
state mode and after a reasonable pattern has been established regarding the airfoil’s behavior
when different kinds of suction are applied, the optimal suction arrangement will be run once
again using transient analysis in order to derive more accurate results.
Figure 3.9 – Transient simulation for leading edge distributed suction (C q = 0.03) for 15
degrees angle of attack
Chapter 4
Results
Before moving on to the investigation of the effect of suction on the boundary layer, some
further validation of the Setup options chosen is carried out. The choice of the Shear Stress
Transport Gamma Theta transitional turbulence model over the SST Fully Turbulent and the
Kappa Omega model is justified in figures 4.1 and 4.2. As mentioned in section 2.9, suction
is expected to enhance the airfoil’s performance by delaying transition and preventing sepera-
tion or at least producing a more narrow wake. The delay of transition would create a shorter
turbulent regime thus decreasing skin friction. It is therefore necessary for the CFD simulation
to use a model that can capture transition in order for comparisons with the clean (no suction)
airfoil to be possible. The quantity used to detect transition is the eddy viscosity, which can be
defined as the proportionality factor that relates the Reynolds stresses and the mean velocity
gradient. When transition to turbulence takes place, the Reynolds stresses values will rise due
the existence of fluctuating horizontal and transversal velocities and therefore a jump in the
values of eddy viscosity will be observed. The point along the airfoil where this eddy viscosity
jump takes place will be considered as the transition point to turbulence.
Figure 4.1 depicts the eddy viscosity distribution along the upper side of the NACA 4415
airfoil at 10o angle of attack for a Reynolds number of 1.5e6 . It is evident that when using the
SST Fully Turbulent as well as the Kappa Omega model, the flow is turbulent right from the
leading edge, whereas the SST Gamma Theta model is able to simulate the laminar flow that
takes place for a short extent downstream the leading edge before the transition to turbulence
takes place. The low eddy viscosity values of the graph can be explained by the fact that they
are measured on the layer adjacent to the surface of the airfoil.
ï7
x 10
2.5
Gamma Theta
Kappa Omega
Fully Turbulent
2
Eddy Viscosity [Pa s]
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x [m]
Figure 4.1 – Eddy viscosity for 10 o angle of attack
37
38 4. Results
In order to verify the CFX results, a comparison against the results from XFOIL is un-
dertaken. XFOIL is an interactive program for the design and analysis of subsonic isolated
airfoils with the use a simple linear-vorticity stream function panel method combined with an
integral boundary layer analysis, [13]. Figure 4.2 depicts the variation of the transition point
along the airfoil over the angle of attack. Due to the increasing steepness of the adverse pres-
sure gradient, transition to turbulence occurs closer to the leading edge for an increasing angle
of attack. It is clear that from the three aforementioned models, only the SST Gamma Theta
model is able to capture adequately the transitional behavior of the boundary layer, and follow
the same trend as the XFOIL results, and will therefore be used henceforth.
0.7
Xfoil
Distance between point of transition and LE [m] SST Gamma Theta
0.6 Kappa Omega
SST Fully turbulent
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle of attack [deg]
Figure 4.2 – Point of transition
Figure A.2 in the Appendix presents the variation of the eddy viscosity along the airfoil
surface, for the three turbulence models for different angles of attack. It is evident in the SST
Gamma Theta case that the eddy viscosity jump occurs closer to the leading edge as the angle
of attack increases. In connection with figure2.2, the shear stress along with the eddy viscosity
over the airfoil surface (non dimensionalized by their maximum values) are plotted in figure
4.3. Both quantities depend on the velocity gradient du dy and consequently are suitable for the
detection of transition, however only the eddy viscosity will be used in the present case study
for that purpose.
4.1 Suction Location

As mentioned in section 2.4 the adverse pressure gradient, which essentially is the cause of
flow separation and therefore stall, starts downstream the minimum pressure point on the upper
airfoil surface. It is therefore a reasonable assumption to apply suction at that point in order
to enhance the airfoil’s efficiency. For that purpose, a 0.007m suction slot, as suggested by
[5], is implemented at the miminum pressure point, corresponding to 0o angle of attack, and
a normal to the wall velocity is applied as a boundary condition to the suction outlet, such
that the suction coefficient is equal to Cq = 0.03. CFX results however reveal that suction
will delay transition only for those angles of attack where the clean airfoil transition point is
downstream the suction location, whereas for higher angles of attack where the transition point
has moved upstream the suction location, suction has no effect. Changing the directionality of
the suction from normal to 45o inclined also has no effect on transition, as can be seen in figure
A.3 in the Appendix. Results however differ significantly when suction is applied upstream
4.2. Discrete Suction versus Distributed Suction 39
5 degrees AoA
1
Wall shear
Eddy viscosity
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
12 degrees AoA
1
Wall shear
Eddy viscosity
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
17 degrees AoA
1
Wall shear
Eddy viscosity
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
Figure 4.3 – Non dimensionalized eddy viscosity and shear stress
the earliest transition point. For the same slot dimensions and the same suction coefficient,
CFX shows that slot suction applied close to the leading edge can greatly improve tha airfoil’s
aerodynamic behavior. Transition is delayed almost until the trailing edge for small angles
of attack and for higher angles the transition point is notably moved downstream. Figure
4.4 presents the eddy viscosity distribution along the airfoils surface for these cases, clearly
indicating the beneficiary effect of leading edge suction.
Figure 4.5 shows the variation of the distance of the transition point from the leading edge
over the angle of attack. Evidently, the application of discrete suction at the leading edge
upstream from the point of transition results in significant transition delay. The importance of
the suction location can be also seen by the behavior of the suction at the 0 degrees minimum
pressure point curve, where it is clear that transition is delayed only for the angles of attack
where transition occurs downstream the suction location. For higher angles of attack, the curve
almost coincides with the clean airfoil curve.
4.2 Discrete Suction versus Distributed Suction

As shown in figure 2.24, when distributed suction is used the maximum lift obtained is much
higher than the corresponding value obtained by applying discrete suction for the same suction
coefficient Cq . Two different cases of distributed suction will be applied in ANSYS, leading
edge suction and trailing edge suction. Leading edge distributed suction will be appplied in
a region that extends mostly on the upper side but a small portion of it will be located in
the lower side of the airfoil. More specifically it extends over 5.7% of the airfoil’s upper side
length and 2.6% of the pressure side. The choice of such an arrangement is based on the results
found in [6], depicted in figure A.1. Trailing edge distributed suction will extend downstream
40 4. Results
ï7
x 10
6
0 degrees
5 degrees
10 degrees
5
12 degrees
15 degrees
17 degrees
4
Eddy viscosity [Pa s]

3
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
(a) No suction
ï7
x 10
4.5
0 degrees
4 5 degrees
10 degrees
12 degrees
3.5 15 degrees
17 degrees
3 Suction slot location
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
(b) Discrete suction at maximum thickness
ï7
x 10
8
0 degrees
5 degrees
7 10 degrees
12 degrees
6 15 degrees
17 degrees
Suction slot location
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
(c) Discrete suction at leading edge
Figure 4.4 – Application of suction (C q = 0.03) at maximum thickness point and at leading
edge
1
Xfoil results
0.9 No suction
Distance between point of transition and LE [m]

Suction with Cq = 0.03 at min. pressure point
0.8 Suction with Cq = 0.03 at Leading Edge
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4.5 – Point of transition to turbulent flow at different angles of attack
of the clean airfoil seperation point for the 15o case, as presented in figure 4.6.
(a) Leading edge suction (b) Trailing edge suction
Figure 4.6 – Location of distributed suction
The suction coefficient is kept constant at CQ = 0.03 and the simulations are run again
with different boundary conditions in order to maintain the same mass flow with the discrete
case. Flow separation will be evaluated using the velocity gradient along the aifoil’s upper
surface and will be detected by regions where du dy is negative for a significant extent. Figure 4.7
depicts the velocity gradient distribution at 0, 10 and 17 degrees angle of attack for the clean
airfoil and the leading edge distributed suction cases.
For the clean airfoil at 0o angles of attack, no separation is present apart from a small
bubble at approximately the middle of the airfoil. At 10o , the bubble has moved upstream, in
accordance with section 2.7. At 17o however, the flow appears to be reversed over a region
that starts from apporoximately the middle of the chord and extends up until the trailing edge,
indicating that the flow has dettached from the surface. The separation of the flow for this
case can be visualized in figure 4.8. The application of distributed suction at the leading edge
clearly enhances the airfoil in that regard, as no separation bubble occurs for the first two angles
of attack, and for the third one flow dettachment is significantly delayed from the middle of
the airfoil to approximately 70% of the chord, as can be seen in figure4.11b. The zero values
of the gradient close to the leading edge are explained by the fact that the velocity boundary
42 4. Results
4 Clean airfoil 5 Leading edge slot suction

x 10 x 10
14 3.5
0 degrees 0 degrees
12 10 degrees 10 degrees
3
17 degrees 17 degrees
10
2.5
8
2
du/dY gradient
du/dY gradient
6
1.5
4
1
2
0.5
0
ï2 0
ï4 ï0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x [m] x [m]
Figure 4.7 – Velocity gradient at different angles of attack for clean airfoil and leading edge
distributed suction.
conditions at that region have been set in a way that the air is sucked with a perpendicular to
the surface direction, and therefore the gradient is approximately zero.
Figure 4.8 – Flow separation at 17 o angle of attack for a clean airfoil.
The benefficiary effect of suction can be also depicted with pressure coefficient curves. Fi-
gure 4.9 reveals that the application of suction can increase the lifting force due to the pressure
difference between the upper and the lower side of the airfoil, only for high angles of attack.
Figure 4.10 presents the pressure curves for the NACA 4415 airfoil at 17o angle of attack
as were derived from CFX. Once again it is evident that discrete suction has no effect when
applied downstream the transition point, whereas the pressure difference between the upper
and lower sides increases when slot suction is applied close to the leading edge. Distributed
suction at the trailing edge produces better results than the discrete cases, while leading edge
suction enhances the airfoil performance even more.
The narrower wake produced by leading edge suction can be visualised in figure 4.11.
Apparently, a suction coefficient at the trailing edge of Cq = 0.03 is not enough for the flow
7 7
0 degrees 0 degrees
6 10 degrees 6 10 degrees
17 degrees 17 degrees
5 5
p
Pressure Coefficient ïC
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
ï1 ï1
ï2 ï2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x [m] x [m]
(a) Clean airfoil (b) Discrete leading edge suction
7
0 degrees
6 10 degrees
17 degrees
5
p
ï1
ï2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x [m]
(c) Distributed leading edge suction
Figure 4.9 – Pressure coefficients for different angles of attack
7
No suction
6 Slot suction at minimum pressure point
Slot suction at leading edge
Distributed suction at trailing edge
5 Distributed suction at leading edge
Pressure coefficient ï Cp
ï1
ï2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x [m]
Figure 4.10 – Pressure coefficient at 17 o angle of attack for different suction cases.
to reattach on the airfoil surface, however if the suction is applied before transition the flow is
more resistant to the adverse pressure gradient and remains attached for a larger portion of the
airfoil.
44 4. Results
(a) Trailing edge distributed suc- (b) Leading edge distributed suc-
tion tion
Figure 4.11 – Flow separation at 17 o angle of attack for trailing and leading edge distributed
suction
Higher velocity gradients on the wall, in addition to making the flow more resilient to
separation, also produce higher skin drag according to equation (2.1). If however the pressure
drag decrease from the narrower wake is high enough then the flow control through boundary
layer suction is deemed succesful.
The aerodynamic coefficients of lift and drag are the final criteria of whether the application
of suction can enhance the performance of the airfoil. Lift and drag forces can be derived via
the X and Y force components that CFX calculates, modified by the corresponding angle of
attack as seen in equations (4.1) and (4.2).
FY cos(α) − FX sin(α)
CL = 1
. (4.1)
ρV 2
2
FY sin(α) + F X cos(α)
CD = 1
. (4.2)
ρV 2
2
Figures 4.12 and 4.13 present the lift and drag coefficients of the discrete an distributed
suction cases respectively. Apparently, inclined discrete suction at 45o induces higher lift
values without increasing the drag compared to the normal suction case, whereas the normal
leading edge slot suction although it extends the airfoil’s lifting capabilities to higher angles
of attack, it induces higher drag values possibly related to the skin friction drag caused by the
higher velocity gradients.
Distributed suction on the other hand expands the range of the lift producing angles of
attack even more for both the trailing and leading edge suction. Due to the narrower wake
created by the leading edge suction, the lift values are higher for higher angles of attack com-
pared to the trailing edge results, while at the same time keeping drag low, even below the
clean airfoil values. The high drag values of the trailing edge case, especially for the low
angles of attack, can be explained by the fact that the distributed suction in that case extends
for almost 40% of the chord (figure 4.6b) thus creating high skin friction due to the high values
of du
dy .
4.3. Suction Quantity 45
Lift Curve Drag Curve

2 0.2
No Suction
0.18 Normal suction with Cq = 0.03
1.8 Inclined suction with C = 0.03
q
0.16 Leading edge suction with Cq = 0.03
1.6 Xfoil results
0.14
1.4
Drag coefficient
0.12
Lift coefficient
1.2 0.1
0.08
1
0.06
0.8 No Suction
Normal suction with Cq = 0.03 0.04
Inclined suction with C = 0.03
0.6 q
Leading edge suction with Cq = 0.03 0.02
Xfoil results
0.4 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle of attack [deg] Angle of attack [deg]
Figure 4.12 – Lift and drag curves for discrete suction

1.8 0.2
No Suction
Trailing edge distributed suction with Cq = 0.03
0.18
1.6 Leading edge distributed suction with Cq = 0.03
Xfoil results
0.16
1.4
0.14
1.2
0.12
Drag coefficient
Lift coefficient
1 0.1
0.08
0.8
0.06
0.6
0.04
No Suction
Trailing edge distributed suction with Cq = 0.03
0.4
Leading edge distributed suction with Cq = 0.03 0.02
Xfoil results
0.2 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4.13 – Lift and drag curves for distributed suction
4.3 Suction Quantity

Having derived that distributed suction at the leading edge of the NACA 4415 airfoil increases
its performance to a higher extent than the other suction arrangements that were tried out, a
simple analysis is carried out with the suction coefficient Cq as a parameter in order to derive
the optimum suction quantity. Figure 4.14 presents the lift and drag coefficient for a varying
suction coefficient Cq .
It appears that beyond Cq = 0.08 the drag of the airfoil increases. Figure 4.15 depicts the
CL
CD ratio, indicating that a suction coefficient of 0.08 would produce the highest performance
since the lift to drag ratio beyond that point remains approximately constant, despite the fact
that the suction quantity is increased. However, if the use of the airfoil is such that the increased
drag can be withstood, for instance if the root of the wind turbine blade can hold the created
bending moments, then higher suction coefficients can be used, assuming of course that the
suction mechanism can reach the corresponding values of Cq .
The pressure curves are presented in figure 4.16, indicating that higher Cq induces higher
46 4. Results
2 0.11
1.9 0.105
1.8 0.1
1.7 0.095
Drag coefficient
Lift coefficient
1.6 0.09
1.5 0.085
1.4 0.08
1.3 0.075
1.2 0.07
1.1 0.065
1 0.06
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Suction coefficient Cq = Vsuc/V0 Suction coefficient Cq = Vsuc/V0
Figure 4.14 – C L and C D values for different suction coefficients at 15 o angle of attack
28
26
24
22
CL/CD ratio
20
18
16
14
12
10
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Suction coefficient Cq = Vsuc/V0
CL
Figure 4.15 – CD ratio for different suction coefficients at 15 o angle of attack
C p , while the eddy visocosity distribution, figure 4.17, reveals that only for high Cq is transi-
tion delayed.
Figure 4.18 presents the velocity gradient along the upper side of the airfoil at 15o angle of
attack. It appears that for the high suction case, except from a small separation bubble downs-
tream the leading edge, no flow separation is observed since the velocity gradient does not
acquire negative values for a significant extent, whereas for Cq = 0.08 separation is observed
approximately at 85% of the chord. The high values of du dy however, exept from preventing
separation are also responsible for the high drag values observed in figure4.14.
A better visualization of the suction effect is achieved when the flow streamlines are pre-
sented in CFX. Figure 4.19 shows that higher Cq can allow the flow to remain attached to
the airfoil for an increasing extent. The flow velocity values are also higher for higher suc-
tion coefficients, suggesting that the increase in the lift is caused by the enhancement of the
acceleration of the flow on the upper side of the airfoil.
4.4. Finer Analysis 47
7
Cq = 0.02
6 Cq = 0.04
Cq = 0.08
5
Cq = 0.15
Pressure Coefficient ïCp

4
ï1
ï2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x [m]
Figure 4.16 – Pressure coefficient for different suction coefficients at 15 o angle of attack
ï6
x 10
1.5
Cq = 0.02
Cq = 0.04
Cq = 0.08
Cq = 0.15
Eddy viscocity [Pa s]
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x [m]
Figure 4.17 – Eddy viscosity for different suction coefficients at 15 o angle of attack
4.4 Finer Analysis

More accurate results can be acquired if finer meshes and transient analyses are implemented.
Table 4.1 presents the mesh properties that result after halving the element size compared to
the previous cases presented in table 3.1, while table 4.2 presents the setup properties of the
transient simulations. It should be noted that the implementation of the normal to the wall
velocity for the distributed suction has been modified, and is presented in table4.3.
Using transient analysis and a finer mesh, the clean airfoil and the Cq = 0.08 cases are
simulated once again. With a timestep of 0.01 seconds, 3 seconds of flow around the NACA
4415 airfoil were simulated in CFX. Apparently, as presented in figure4.20, some algorithmic
fluctuations occur at the beginning of the simulation. For this reason, the values of the lift and
drag forces that will be used further will consist of the mean value of the last second of the
force time series, i.e. timesteps 201 to 300 .
Evidently, the clean airfoil has gone into stall at 20o since heavy fluctuations caused by the
vortex shedding can be observed. It is possible to derive the Strouhal frequency by such a si-
gnal, however longer simulation data should be acquired. FigureA.5 in the Appendix presents
48 4. Results
Table 4.1 – Finer mesh properties
Spacing Default Body Spacing Maximum Spacing [m] 1.0

Default Face Spacing Option Volume Spacing
Option Constant
Constant Edge Length [m] 0.0123116
Airfoil Spacing Radius of Influence [m] 1.0
Controls Length Scale [m] 0.005
Airfoil Vicinity Radius of Influence [m] 1
Length Scale [m] 0.05
Broader Vicinity Radius of Influence [m] 1
Point Control Point 0.5[m], 0[m], 0[m]
Spacing Airfoil Vicinity
Point -3[m], 0[m], 0[m]
Triangle Control Point 7[m], 3.5[m], 0[m]
Point 7[m],-3.5[m], 0[m]
Inflation Inflation Number of Inflated Layers 60
Number of Spreading Iterations 0
Minimum Internal Angle [Degrees] 2.5
Maximum Internal Angle [Degrees] 10.0
Option First Layer Thickness
Define First Layer By y+
y+ 0.5
Reynolds Number 1.5e6
Inflation Options Reference Length [m] 1.0
First Prism Height [m] 8.23347e-6
Extended Layer Growth Yes
Layer by Layer Smoothing No
Options Surface Meshing Option Delaunay
Meshing Strategy Option Extruded 2D Mesh
2D Extrusion Option Option Full
Number of Layers 1
4.4. Finer Analysis 49
Table 4.2 – Transient Setup Properties
Analysis Type Option Transient

Time Duration Option Total Time
Total Time 3 [s]
Time Steps Option Timesteps
Timesteps 0.01[s]
Initial Time Option Automatic with Value
Timesteps 0 [s]
Material Air at 25 C
Basic Settings Morphology Continuous Fluid
Reference Pressure 1 [atm]
Domain Motion Stationary
Heat Transfer
Option Isothermal
Fluid Models Fluid Temperature 25 C
Turbulence
Option Shear Stress Transport
Transitional Turbulence Gamma Theta Model
Velocity Type Cartesian
Initialization Cartesian Velocity Components [m/s] U = Vrel cos(α)
U = Vrel sin(α)
W=0
Advection Scheme High Resolution
Transient Scheme Second Order Backward Euler
Timestep Initialization Automatic
Turbulence Numerics High Resolution
Convergence Control
Solver Control Min. Coeff. Loops 1
Max. Coeff. Loops 10
Timescale Control Coefficient Loops
Convergence Criteria
Residual Type RMS
Residual Target 1e-4
Table 4.3 – Suction boundary conditions
Outlet Flow Regime Option Subsonic

Suction Mass and Momentum Option Mass Flow Rate
Mass Flow Rate 0.0156 [kg/s]
Mass Flow Update Option Constant Flux
50 4. Results
5
x 10
4
Cq = 0.02
3.5 Cq = 0.04
Cq = 0.08
3
Cq = 0.15
Velocity gradient du/dy

2.5
1.5
0.5
ï0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x [m]
du
Figure 4.18 – Velocity gradient dy for different suction coefficients at 15 o angle of attack
(a) Cq = 0.01 (b) C q = 0.08 (c) Cq = 0.15
Figure 4.19 – Streamlines for different suction coefficients at 15 o angle of attack
3.5 3.5
0 degrees AoA 0 degrees AoA
15 degrees AoA 15 degrees AoA
3 20 degrees AoA 3 20 degrees AoA
2.5 2.5
Lift coefficient
Lift coefficient
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) Clean airfoil (b) Distributed suction at leading edge with

Cq = 0.08
Figure 4.20 – Lift coefficient response for different angles of attack
the power spectrum of this short 3 seconds signal, revealing a small peak at approximately
5 Hz, which is relatively close to the corresponding value of a flow around a cylinder with a
diameter equal to the airfoil’s chord ( f = S LtV , where S t ( 0.23 according to [6]). Taking the
mean value of the last second for each of the angles of attack, figure 4.21 can be produced
4.5. Wind Turbine Performance Enhancement 51
which depicts the aerodynamic curves of such an analysis.

2 0.2
0.18
1.8
0.16
1.6
0.14
Drag coefficient
1.4
Lift coefficient
0.12
1.2 0.1
0.08
1
0.06
0.8
0.04
0.6
0.02
0.4 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
No Suction No Suction
Leading edge distributed suction with C = 0.08 Leading edge distributed suction with C = 0.08
q q
Xfoil results Xfoil results
Figure 4.21 – Lift and drag curves for the clean airfoil and C q = 0.08 case
Apparently, the lift capabilities of the NACA 4415 airfoil have been extended to higher
angles of attack whereas figure 4.22a reveals that an increase of the lift coefficient up to 20%
is possible, while CD can decrease up to 30%. It is worth mentioning that maximum lift occurs
at higher angles than the clean airfoil, implying that in the case of applying suction on a wind
turbine blade, the pitch angle should be modified accordingly.
1.25 1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
D, clean
L, clean
1.1
1.15
/C
/C
1
D, suction
L, suction
1.1
0.9
C
0.8
1.05
0.7
1
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
C C
(a) Effect on Lift ( CL,suction
L,clean
) due to the applica- (b) Effect on Drag ( CD,suction
D,clean
) due to the appli-
tion of leading edge distributed suction cation of leading edge distributed suction
Figure 4.22 – Suction effect on aerodynamic coefficients
4.5 Wind Turbine Performance Enhancement

The aerodynamic coefficients of the NACA 4415 airfoil after suction is applied were derived
in section 4.4 and will be used to estimate the impact of suction on a wind turbine. For this
purpose, the Tjaereborg wind turbine will be used, the aerodynamic data of which were provi-
ded by DTU. The NACA 4415 suction results will act as a starting point for the modification
52 4. Results
of the Tjaereborg root airfoil coefficients, which will in turn be used as an input in the Blade
Element Momentum method (BEM). After the Lift and Drag forces on the root segments of
the Tjaereborg blade have been derived, a new power curve corresponding to a turbine where
boundary layer suction is applied in the root airfoils will be computed. Moreover, the possible
reduction of the modified airfoil’s chordline will be quantified, while maintaining the same
Lift force with the clean airfoil case.
4.5.1 Blade Element Momentum Method

The BEM method combines the 1-D momentum theory with with the actual geometry of the
rotor by implementing in the algorithm various local attributes of the blade, such as the twist
and chord distribution and the aerodynamic behavior of the specific airfoils used. The blade
is segregated in segments, each with its own properties and independent of the others. Figure
4.23 from [14] presents the components and the angles related to the relative velocity at the
rotor plane of a wind turbine airfoil. θ denotes the twist angle, α the angle of attack and φ the
flow angle.
Figure 4.23 – Velocities at rotor plane.
For a given wind speed, the following procedure is followed in order to calculate the
turbine’s power output.
4.5.2 BEM algorithm

1. The first step of the BEM method is the initialization of the induction factors at zero.
They will later be recalculated and their final value will be defined when two consecutive
induction factors (axial or tangential, a or a! respectively, not to be confused with the
angle of attack α) acquire identical values.
2. The solidity of the turbine σ is calculated via :
c(i)B
σ(i) = , (4.3)
2πr(i)
where c is the chordline, B the number of blades and r is the segment’s distance from
the hub. The index ’i’ signifies the radial position along the blade.
3. Calculation of the flow angle φ.
(1 − a)V0
φ(i) = atan . (4.4)
(1 + a! )ωr(i)
4. Due to the fact that BEM assumes that the force from the blades on the flow is constant
in each annular element, which corresponds to a rotor with an infinite number of blades,
Prandtl’s tip loss factor is implemented in order to correct this assumption.
2 B(R−r(i))
F= arccos(e− 2r(i)sin(φ(i)) ). (4.5)
π
5. The angle of attack α is calculated via the earlier derived flow angle φ and the local pitch
angle of the blade θ. The latter is a combination of the pitch angle and the twist of the
blade
α(i) = φ(i) − θ(i). (4.6)
6. Using the lift and drag coefficients, Cn and Ct are calculated which correspond to the
non-dimensionalised normal and tangential to the rotor plane forces.
Cn (i) = C L (i)cos(φ(i)) + CD (i)sin(φ(i)). (4.7)
Ct (i) = C L (i)sin(φ(i)) − CD (i)cos(φ(i)). (4.8)
7. Due to the fact that for high values of the axial induction factor the simple momen-
tum theory breaks down and does not produce results that are verified experimentaly,
Glauert’s correction is implemented in order to acquire results that are closer to reality.
The recalculated value of the axial induction factor is :
 1


 a ≤ 0.2
 4F sin2 φ(i)
+1
anew =
 σCN (4.9)

 CT
a > 0.2
4F(1−0.25(5−3a)a)
(1−a)2 C N σ
where CT = sin2 φ
. The tangential induction factor is then computed :
σCt
a!new = . (4.10)
4F sinφ(i)cosφ(i) − σ(i)Ct (i)
A relaxation method is implemented so that the newly calculated values of the induction
factors consist of 90% of the previous value and 10% of the new.
8. The difference between the old and the new values of the axial induction factor is com-
puted and as long as it is above a certain threshold value, the induction factors of the last
step are substituted in the first one the and the process is repeated until two consecutive
values converge.
54 4. Results
9. For the axial induction factor computed, the relative velocity can be calculated and sub-
sequently the lift and the drag forces which will lead to the tangential to the rotor plane
force pt :
(1 − a)V0
Vrel = . (4.11)
sinφ(i)
1
L(i) = c(i)C L (i)Vrel 2 . (4.12)
2
1
D(i) = c(i)C D (i)Vrel 2 . (4.13)
2
pt (i) = L(i)sinφ(i) − D(i)cosφ(i). (4.14)
pn (i) = L(i)cosφ(i) + D(i)sinφ(i). (4.15)
10. The torque of each blade is computed via :
1 1
M(i) = A(ri+1 3 − ri3 ) + B(ri+1 2 − ri2 ), (4.16)
3 2
where
pt,i+1 − pt,i
A= . (4.17)
ri+1 − ri
pt,i ri+1 − pt,i+1 ri

B= . (4.18)
ri+1 − ri
11. Lastly the power of each segment is computed via:
P(i) = ωM(i). (4.19)
Subsequently, the power contributed by each blade segment is summed and the result is
multiplied by the total number of blades.
12. The same procedure is followed for a range of free wind velocities until the turbine’s
power curve is derived.
2500 0.6
0.5
2000
0.4
1500
Power [kW]
p
0.3
C
1000
0.2
500
0.1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Wind speed [m/sec] Wind speed [m/s]
(a) Power curve (b) Power coefficient curve
Figure 4.24 – Tjaereborg wind turbine characteristics
4.5.3 BEM results
Figure 4.24 presents the power curve and the power coefficient curve of the 2MW Tjaereborg
fixed speed wind turbine. The turbines angular velocity is ω = 2.3195rad s and the twist angle
distribution varies from 8o at the root to 0.16o at the blade tip. Apparently rated power is
reached at 15m/s and the maximum power coefficient is reached at 9m/s.
Due to the fact that the beneficiary effect of suction takes place for a certain range of
angles of attack, it is important to know at which angles of attack does the turbine blade
operate. According to figure 4.22, the angle of attack should be above 15o in order for the
airfoil’s performance to be enhanced. Figure 4.25a depicts the variation of the angle of attack
over the free wind speed for different radial positions, whereas4.25b presents the variation of
the angle of attack over the span of the blade for different free wind speeds. Evidently, only
the root segments of the blade operate in the range of angles of attack wherein suction could
have an improving effect. This can be explained by the fact that the tangential component
of the relative velocity of each segment, in connection with figure 4.23, is proportional to its
distance from the hub and since the normal to the rotorplane component of the velocity does
not vary radially, segments close to the tip will experience small angles of attack. This can be
mitigated by the twisting of the blade, however the twist angle distribution over the blade has
not been designed for such purpose.
The chord distribution of the blade is presented in figure 4.26. It should be noted that the
airfoils used for the two segments closest to the hub are identical.
The aerodynamic data of the Tjaereborg blade root airfoil are modified following the trend
of the CFX results of the NACA 4415 airfoil, in order to simulate the effect suction would
have on them. Figure 4.27 depicts the new lift and drag curves which were produced based on
figure 4.22. After a certain angle of attack, suction is expected to not have any effect on neither
C
lift or drag. ANSYS simulations reveal that the CL,suction
L,clean
ratio approcahes unity (1.077) at a 60o
angle, as presented in figure A.6 in the Appendix, therefore beyond that point the suction and
the clean curve will coincide.
The power contribution of each of the three first segments is presented in figure4.28. In
accordance to figure 4.25, figure 4.28 reveals that for blade segments away from the hub,
suction can improve the segment’s power output only for high free wind speeds.
The turbine’s power curve after the application of suction on its first two segments is
presented in figure 4.29. Apparently rated power is reached for a lower wind speed, however
56 4. Results
50 50
6.46m ï 9.46m segment V = 6 m/s
0
45 9.46m ï 12.46m segment 45 V0 = 9 m/s
12.46m ï 15.46m segment V = 12 m/s
40 40 0
24.46m ï 27.46m segment
V = 15 m/s
0
35 35

30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 10 15 20 25 30
Free wind speed [m/s] Radial distance from rotor center [m]
(a) Angle of attack over free wind speed (b) Angle of attack over blade span
Figure 4.25 – Angle of attack variation
3.5
2.5
Chord length [m]
1.5
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Blade span [m]
Figure 4.26 – Chord distribution of the Tjaereborg blade
no significant increase of the total power is observed.

Figure 4.30 presents the power gain due to suction as a function of the free wind speed.
Only a 2% increase can be obtained at the rated power wind speed. The total energy gain
due to the application of suction can be also quantified via the annual energy output (AEO)
computation. Assuming that the wind speed within one year follows a Weibull distribution
with a shape coefficient equal to 2 and a size coefficient equal to 8, as presented figure4.31,
the AEO can be computed using equations 4.20 and 4.21, according to [15].
)
AEO = AT w(Vi )C P (Vi ), (4.20)
Vi
where A is the rotor plane area and T is the time within the frame of interest in seconds, in
the present case a year, and
1
w = ρV 3 pd f (V). (4.21)
2
1.5 1.4
1.2
1
1
Drag coefficient
Lift coefficient
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
LE suction LE Suction
Clean segment Clean segment
Figure 4.27 – Lift and drag curves of the Tjaereborg root blade segment located from 6.46m
until 12.46m from the rotor center
Under these conditions, the Tjaereborg turbine produces 4.1029GWh per year, whereas
when suction is applied the AEO rises to 4.1197GWh, i.e. there is a gain of 0.0168GWh or a
0.4096% increase.
However, this minimal gain of the power output is not the only way to exploit boundary
layer suction. Due to the increased lift forces, a decrease of the chord of the root segments
while maintaining their power output contribution is possible. After reducing the chord length
of the segments located between 6.46m − 9.46m and 9.46m − 12.46m to the 75% of their initial
length, their power curves are computed and presented in figure4.32
The wind turbine power curve is then computed and, as seen in figure4.33, no significant
difference between the clean blade and the suction with reduced root chord length cases is
evident. The case of the clean blade with the same chord reduction is also plotted for compa-
rison reasons.
In order to acquire a better view of the effect of suction on the turbine’s performance, the
power coefficient for the cases of the clean blade, the blade with suction, and the reduced root
chord blade with suction, are presented in figure 4.34.
The annual energy output of the Tjaereborg wind turbine when suction is applied and the
close to the hub segments of the blades are reduced by 25% is almost equal to the original
Tjaereborg turbine, with a 0.2% deviation.
It is important to note that due to the lift force increase produced by the application of
boundary layer suction, the thrust force acting on the rotor would also rise. Figure4.35 depicts
the variation of the thrust force. This increase in thrust will create higher bending moments
on the wind turbine tower root which must be accounted for in the final design of the wind
turbine.
58 4. Results
80 120
Clean airfoil Clean airfoil
LE sution LE sution
70
100
60
80
50
Power [kW]
Power [kW]
40 60
30
40
20
20
10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Free wind speed [m/s] Free wind speed [m/s]
(a) Segment located between 6.46m and (b) Segment located between 9.46m and
9.46m 12.46m
120
Clean airfoil
LE sution
100
80
Power [kW]
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Free wind speed [m/s]
(c) Segment located between 12.46m and

15.46m
Figure 4.28 – Power contribution of each of the three first segments
2500
LE suction for 6.46m ï 12.46m segment LE suction for 6.46m ï 12.46m segment
Clean airfoil 2150 Clean airfoil
2000 2100
2050
1500
Power [kW]
Power [kW]
2000
1000 1950
1900
500
1850
0
5 10 15 20 25 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5
(a) Power curve (b) Zoom-in at rated power
Figure 4.29 – Power curve of the Tjaereborg wind turbine after suction is applied over the
range 6.46m − 12.46m from the rotor’s center
4.6. The Blade as a Centrifugal Pump 59
1.1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
Power ratio
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4.30 – Power ratio between the clean blade case and the LE suction over the range
6.46m − 12.46m from the rotor’s center
12
Weibull distribution
Cutïin speed
10
8
Probability [%]
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4.31 – Weibull distribution with A = 8 and k = 2
4.6 The Blade as a Centrifugal Pump

An idea for the application of suction on the wind turbine blades is to not implement it via a
power consuming pump, but to achieve it by cutting off the blade tip. The centrifugal forces
created by the turbine’s rotation would then produce an inner blade spanwise flow which could
drive the suction. Assuming that the blade itself acts as a radial impeler blade, the necessary
torque M that needs to be delivered in order to create a flow rate Q according to [10] is equal
to:
M = ρQω(r2 2 − r1 2 ), (4.22)
where r2 and r1 signify the distance from the hub of the blade tip and the blade root respec-
tively. The flow rate Q can be computed via the total area of the suction location multiplied by
the wind speed the blade experiences, after the latter is multiplied with the suction coefficient
Cq . It is important to note that the velocity each segment of the blade experiences is not the
60 4. Results
60 70
LE sution LE sution
60
50
50
40
Power [kW]
Power [kW]
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
(a) Segment located between 6.46m and (b) Segment located between 9.46m and
9.46m 12.46m
Figure 4.32 – Power contribution of each of the two close to hub segments after 25% chord
reduction
2500
LE sution reduced chord LE sution reduced chord
2100
Clean blade Clean blade
2000 Clean blade reduced chord Clean blade reduced chord
2050
1500
Power [kW]
Power [kW]
2000
1000 1950
1900
500
1850
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 12 13 14 15 16 17
(a) Power curve (b) Zoom-in at rated power
Figure 4.33 – Power curve of the Tjaereborg wind turbine after suction is applied over the
range 6.46m − 12.46m from the rotor’s center and the corresponding chord-
lengths have been reduced by 25%
same due to its rotation, as can be visualised in figure 4.23, and therefore the suction velocity
along the blade must vary accordingly.
In order to compute the suction quantity for the Tjaereborg airfoil, the difference in geo-
metry between the ANSYS simulated airfoil and the Tjaereborg airfoils needs to be taken into
account. For this reason, the ratio of the suction surfaces will be assumed equal to the ratio of
the chordlines, as seen in equation (4.23).
csegment
A segment = AANS YS (4.23)
cANS YS
After taking into account each blade segment’s dimensions, the total suction quantity for
3
each blade is found equal to 3.82ms , which results in a torque needed equal to 9.65kNm,
according to equation 4.22.
4.6. The Blade as a Centrifugal Pump 61
0.5
0.45 LE Suction LE Suction
LE Suction reduced chord 0.44 LE Suction reduced chord
0.4
0.42
0.35
Power coefficient [ï]
Power coefficient [ï]

0.3 0.4
0.25
0.38
0.2
0.15
0.36
0.1
0.34
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 11 12 13 14 15 16
(a) Power coefficient curve (b) Zoom-in at rated power
Figure 4.34 – Power coefficient curve of the Tjaereborg wind turbine after suction is applied
over the range 6.46m − 12.46m from the rotor’s center and the corresponding
chordlengths have been reduced by 25%
Thrust Thrust
220
225
200
220
180
215
160
210
140
Thrust [kN]
Thrust [kN]
205
120
200
100
195
80
Clean Blade 190 Clean Blade
60 LE Suction LE Suction
185
LE Suction ï reduced chord LE Suction ï reduced chord
40
180
20
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5
(a) Thrust over free wind speed (b) Zoom-in at rated power
Figure 4.35 – Thrust on the rotor for a range of wind speeds from cut-in speed to rated power
The Tjaereborg wind turbine acquires its maximum power coefficient at a free wind speed
of 9 ms , and for that wind speed the contributing torque of each blade after suction is applied
and the chord of the close to the hub segments has been reduced by 25% is 89.275kNm.
Therefore, cutting off the tip of the blade in order to implement boundary layer suction is
deemed to be possible, since the torque needed to achieve the desired suction coefficients is
10.8% of the total torque produced by the blade’s rotation. For a free wind speed of 14ms the
torque percentage drops to below 4%. It must be stressed however that the torque needed for
the application of suction is a direct loss in power according to equation (4.19), and therefore
the usability of this suction mechanism should be studied and optimized further.
Of course, some form of control needs to be implemented as well in order to keep the
suction coefficients within a satisfactory range. This can be achieved with a properly designed
ducting in the interior of the turbine blade or with the use of vanes that would control the
inner blade spanwise flow, depending on the turbine’s rotation and the relative velocities the
blade encounters. Any additional power needed for the control of the boundary layer could
be simulated by an additional equivalent drag coefficient in order to evaluate the feasibility of
such an endeavor.
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Perspectives
5.1 Conclusions
Boundary layer control through different suction arrangements has been investigated for a
NACA 4415 airfoil using ANSYS CFX 12.1. The applicability of the Gamma-Theta transi-
tion model was verified with the XFOIL results, and it was concluded that suction affects the
transition and separation of the flow only when it is applied upstream the clean airfoil transi-
tion point. Due to the fact that the transition point is moving towards the leading edge as the
angle of attack increases, it was deemed necessary to apply suction on the nose of the airfoil in
order to enhance the airfoil’s performance at high angles of attack. The extent of the suction
location as well as the suction quantity were also investigated and the results have shown that
distributed suction produces superior results compared to discrete suction for the same suction
quantity, reaching values of Clmax up to 20% higher than the clean airfoil.
Extrapolating the derived results from CFX to the airfoils used on the Tjaereborg wind
turbine, a minor increase on the wind turbine’s power output was observed, rated power was
reached for lower wind speed, but the contribution of suction to the total annual energy ou-
tout was negligible. By applying suction however it was possible to reduce the chord length
of the close to the hub segments of the blade by 25% while maintaining their initial power
contribution. This chord reduction can lead to the production of slender blades which would
subsequently present reduced bending moments at the root of the blade.
The possibility of using the rotating turbine blade as a centrifugal pump by cutting off its tip
was also investigated, and results showed that the suction quantity needed for the enhancement
of the blade performance can be achieved by the torque created by the blade’s rotation, but with
a significant loss of power.
5.2 Suggestions for Further Work

Further analysis on boundary layer suction using CFD programs should include transient si-
mulations in order to capture its effect on the dynamic phenomena of boundary layer transition
to turbulence and flow separation. The time step as well as the number of itterations at each
timestep must be such that the flow is properly resolved and the simulation converges.
The directionality of the suction, both for the discrete as well for the distributed cases, is
a topic that could be further investigated. The effect on the airfoil performance of the angle
by which the air exits through the suction location could lead to imporved lift and drag results
without the need of higher suction quantity. Given the use for which the airfoil is intended and
depending on the dominating angle of attack during its operation, an optimal suction angle
could be derived.
63
64 5. Conclusions and Perspectives
Since a solid conclusion of the present case study is that leading edge distributed normal
suction enhances the airfoil’s behavior to a higher extent than other suction arrangements,
more research could be done on the exact location it should be applied, the percentage of the
airfoil surface it should cover, what portion of it should lie on either side of the airfoil, and the
dependence of the above on the angle of attack.
Moreover, further investigation could be done regarding the distribution of the mass flow
along the suction area itself in order to achieve the optimal airfoil performance, as suggested
by [2] for the active control case. Figure 5.1 presents the mass flow contour at the leading
edge suction location. It appears that the outflow is not uniformally distributed, but there are
certain location in the upper and lower side of the airfoil where the flow rate is higher than the
rest of the suction area. By modifying the sucked air distribution, further enhancement of the
airfoil’s performance may become possible.
Figure 5.1 – Distribution of mass flow as it is sucked away for C q = 0.08 at 5o angle of attack
In practice, according to [16], the desired suction distribution can be realized by a suction
sandwich structure on top of the usual structural sandwich structure. The suction sandwich
structure can be divided in buffers within which the air is sucked through a carbon fiber ou-
ter skin with many small holes, then flows through a perforated honeycomb core and finally
through throttling holes of the structural sandwich faces, into the inner space of the wing, as
presented in A.7. According to [16], the suction distribution can be controlled by varying the
diameter of the holes in the honeycomb core and by the diameter of the throttling holes by
which the sucked air is driven into the inner part of the blade.
Cases of interest that could be studied in the future include different arrangements of suc-
tion in order to derive high lift to drag ratios and high maximum lift coefficients with the
minimum sucked air quantity possible. Multiple slot suction (as investigated by [3]) against
distributed suction for the same suction coefficient can be compared, i.e. applying discrete suc-
tion in multiple locations along the airfoil (leading edge, transition point, minimum pressure
point, trailing edge) and while keeping the total sucked mass flow rate constant, investigate
whether better results than the leading edge distributed suction can be reached.
Furthermore, an analysis of how the airfoil’s roughness could alter the effect of suction
could produce a roughness length threshold above which transition may not be influenced.
The possibility that the suction location (slot, porous plate, permeable surface) could itself in-
5.2. Suggestions for Further Work 65
duce turbulence downstream (i.e. act as a turbulator) at certain flow conditions is also a topic
that could be studied. Additionally, the effect of the free stream turbulence intensity and the
Reynolds number may also produce useful results regarding the extent of the influence boun-
dary layer suction can have on the flow around the airfoil.
Finally, the modeling of a 3D blade and the investigation of suction on all three compo-
nents of the velocity profile should be the next step regarding the investigation of boundary
layer suction since it will produce a much more accurate and detailed picture of how suction
can affect the flow. For the wind turbine blade case, the effect of the local properties of the
blade such as varying chord length, pitch angle and Reynolds number must be taken into ac-
count, and transition and seperation lines along the spanwise direction of the blade can be
derived for the clean blade and the suction cases. Moreover, the distribution of the suction
flow rate along the spanwise direction of the blade can be studied in order to derive the op-
timal performance. Furthermore, an attempt to detect and capture the Tolmienn Schlichting
waves using CFD could be undertaken in order to investigate whether boundary layer suction
can modify their frequency and consequently the boundary layer flow. The internal ducting of
the blade (as seen in [17] for the active control case on airplane wings) is of crucial importance
if suction is to be applied in a passive manner as suggested in section4.6, therefore great care
needs to be taken in order to achieve the desired suction coefficient at the radial stations of
interest along the blade span.
Bibliography
[1] A. L. Braslow, A History of Suction-Type Laminar-Flow Control with Emphasis on Flight

Research. NASA History Division, 1999.
[2] R. Eppler, “Airfoils with boundary layer suction, design and off design cases,” Aerospace
Sci. Technol., vol. 3, pp. 403–415, 1999.
[3] R. A. O. Oyewola, L. Djenidi, “Influence of localised double suction on a turbulent

boundary layer,” Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 23, pp. 787 – 798, 2007.
[4] J.-P. B. Mohamed Gad-el Hak, Andrew Pollard, Flow Control, Fundamentals and Prac-
tices. Springer, 1998.
[5] A. E. v. D. Ira H. Abbott, Theory of Wing Sections. Dover Publications, 1958.
[6] H. Schlichting, Boundary-Layer Theory. McGraw-Hill Book Company, seventh ed.,

1979.
[7] J. A. R. Layton T. Crowe, Donald F. Elger, Engineering Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., seventh ed., 2001.
[8] P. C. E. L. Houghton, Aerodynamics for Engineering Students. Butterworth Heinemann,

fifth ed., 2003.
[9] B. M. Sumer, Lecture Notes on Turbulence. Technical University of Denmark, 2007.
[10] F. M. White, Fluid Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, fifth ed., 2003.
[11] “Vortex generator, aerospaceweb website. [online] [cited: 05 22, 2010.]

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0255.shtml.”
[12] ANSYS, “Cfx-mesh help,” January 2007.
[13] H. Y. Mark Drela, “Xfoil 6.9 user primer,” November 2001.
[14] M. O. Hansen, Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines. Earthscan, second ed., 2008.
[15] L. Battisti, “Lecture notes on wind turbine ice prevention systems selection and design,”
June 2009.
[16] L. Boermans, “Practical implementation of boundary layer suction for drag reduction
and lift enhancement.,” tech. rep., TU Delft, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, The
Netherlands.
[17] A. G. Rawcliffe, “Suction-slot ducting design,” tech. rep., Aeronautical Research Coun-
cil, 1952.
67
Appendix A
Appendix
Figure A.1 – Different locations for distributed suction
69
70 A. Appendix
ï8 SST Fully Turbulent model

x 10
3.5
0 degrees
5 degrees
3 10 degrees
12 degrees
15 degrees
2.5 17 degrees

2
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
(a) SST Fully Turbulent model
ï8
x 10
5
0 degrees
4.5 5 degrees
10 degrees
4 12 degrees
15 degrees
3.5 17 degrees
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
(b) SST Kappa Omega model
ï7
x 10
4.5
0 degrees
4 5 degrees
10 degrees
12 degrees
3.5 15 degrees
17 degrees
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
(c) SST Gamma Theta model
Figure A.2 – Eddy viscosity for different turbulence models and different angles of attack
71
ï7
x 10
4.5
0 degrees
4 5 degrees
10 degrees
12 degrees
3.5 15 degrees
17 degrees
Eddy visocity [Pa s]
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
(a) Normal suction
ï7
x 10
4.5
0 degrees
4 5 degrees
10 degrees
12 degrees
3.5 15 degrees
17 degrees
Eddy visocity [Pa s]
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
(b) 45o inclined suction
Figure A.3 – Eddy viscosity for normal and 45 o inclined suction for different angles of attack
72 A. Appendix
5
x 10
5
Refined Mesh
Convergence Threshold = eï6
Convergence Threshold = eï4
4
Velocity gradient du/dy

3
ï1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m]
Figure A.4 – Velocity gradient du o

dy for leading edge suction at 15 angle of attack using dif-
ferent convergence criteria and different mesh element size
Figure A.5 – Fast Forrier analysis of the lift coefficient response at 15 o angle of attack for
the clean airfoil
73
5.5
No suction
5 LE suction
4.5
4
Lift coefficient
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time [s]
Figure A.6 – Lift coefficient response at 60 o angle of attack
Figure A.7 – Suction arrangement for pump driven suction on a glider plane

Apostolis Mek-Fm-Ep-2010-07

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Apostolis Mek-Fm-Ep-2010-07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Author:

Apostolos Tentolouris Piperas

Investigation of Boundary Layer Suction on a

2 Boundary Layer Theory 3

4.5.1 Blade Element Momentum Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5 Conclusions and Perspectives 63

2.1 Boundary layer development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.1 Relative error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.6 Transient simulation for no suction case at 15 degrees angle of attack. . . . . 33

4.1 Eddy viscosity for 10o angle of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.1 Mass flow distribution at suction location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

A.1 Distributed suction location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . axial induction coefficient []

θ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . momentum thickness [m] when referred in chapter 2

1.2 Previous Work

Boundary Layer Theory

2.1 Boundary Layer Basics

Figure 2.1 – Boundary layer development.

2.2 Laminar and Turbulent flows

Figure 2.3 – Laminar and turbulent non-dimensionalised velocity profile.

Figure 2.4 – Turbulent boundary layer profile.

Viscous sublayer Buffer zone Logarithmic layer

Figure 2.5 – Turbulent boundary layer structure.

2.3 Boundary Layer Thickness - Drag

Figure 2.6 – Diplacement thickness.

The aforementioned thicknesses can be seen in 2.7 taken from [8].

Figure 2.7 – Boundary layer thicknesses.

Figure 2.8 – Shear stress coefficient.

Figure 2.9 – Shear stress distribution.

Figure 2.10 – Transition from laminar flow to turbulent.

response of the boundary layer.

Figure 2.11 – Tollmien Schlichting waves.

Figure 2.12 – Ribbon frequency effect on boundary layer response.

Figure 2.13 – Neutral Stability Curve.

Figure 2.14 – Pressure distribution on an airfoil.

2.5 External Pressure Gradient

Figure 2.15 – Effect of pressure gradient on boundary layer.

(a) Favorable pressure gradient (b) Adverse pressure gradient

Figure 2.16 – Velocity profiles and gradients.

2.6 Boundary Layer Separation

Figure 2.18 – Flow separation on an airfoil.

Figure 2.19 – Effect of adverse pressure gradient on the boundary layer.

2.7 Separation Bubbles

Figure 2.20 – Separation bubbles.

2.8 Boundary Layer Control

Motion of the solid wall

Figure 2.21 – Vortex generators.

Boundary layer acceleration

(a) Boundary layer control via (b) High lift devices.

Figure 2.22 – Boundary layer aceleration.

Figure 2.23 – Boundary layer control via suction.

2.9 Boundary Layer Suction

Figure 2.24 – Comparison between continuous and discrete suction.

Figure 2.25 – Critical value of suction coefficient.

Figure 2.26 – Skin friction variation under optimum suction

3.1 Setting up the model

Figure 3.1 – Relative error.

Table 3.1 – Mesh properties

Spacing Default Body Spacing Maximum Spacing [m] 1.0

Controls Length Scale [m] 0.01

(a) Flow Domain. (b) Airfoil Vicinity

(c) Inflation Layer.