Designing_and_studying_Airfoils_on_XFLR5 .pptx

How to use xflr 5 to design and analyze and airfoil , how to acheive desired performance parameters based on the shape of designed airfoil

1. Design & Fabrication of an Airfoil Incompressible Aerodynamics Minahil Naeem 220101077 Manal Sajid 220101035 M.Abdullah 220101028 Zainab Abid 200101070

2. Select different airfoils and perform analysis. Perform  modifications.  Manufacture the wing by using designed airfoil. Wind tunnel testing. Comparison of computational and experimental results. Objectives:

3. WHY? Computational analysis Selection of an airfoil Modification in airfoil Fabrication of wing Testing of airfoil Comparison of the results HOW? Select different airfoils and utilized XFLR-5 for computational analysis. Examined pressure distribution Cl, and Cl/ Cdmax graphs across stall angles. Conducted detailed analysis Compared computational results Fabricated a wing Conducted wind tunnel testing on the fabricated wing. Compared wind tunnel test results with computational findings. WHAT?  To implement the theory and observation of the steady flow of incompressible fluid To achieve maximum Cl/ Cd max    To improve the pressure distribution performance. To delay stall angle.

4. Step 1 Airfoil Selection

5. Selection Criteria Basic Airfoil Characteristics at Re= 2*10⁶ Selection of eight airfoils array Chose high-performance airfoils P lotted the airfoils on XFLR C onducted aerodynamic analysis

6. CL/CD vs α at RE=2*10⁶

7. Cm vs α at RE=2*10⁶

8. NACA 63A210 Objective To design an airfoil by modification of NACA 63A210 such that its lift and performance characteristics exceed those of CLARK Y and STRAND High-lift.

9. Step 2 Airfoil Design

10. Modification Parameters The following are design parameters that we manipulate to achieve the required airfoil performance: Camber Thickness Distribution L.E Radius A total of 14 trial airfoils were designed and analyzed, the most efficient designs are discussed here.

11. Tr ia l 3 Straightening the lower surface Substantial increase in LE radius. Upper camber increase Steep thickness distribution. Trial 4 Minor LE radius increase Substantial decrease in thickness of airfoil Increase in upper camber Increase in lower camber Downward deflection of trailing edge to give flap effect

12. T ria l 7 Further modification in trial 4 More Decrease in LE radius Increase in chord length Further thickness decreased

13. Comparison of Trials

14. A batch analysis on multiple Reynolds numbers was conducted for the MV1

15. A batch analysis on multiple Reynolds numbers was conducted for the MV1

16. Results and Final Design Final Design T rial 4 was selected to be the final design T his design provides a 67.25% increase in lift, with a CL(max) of 1.89 when compared to the airfoil we modified (NACA 63A210) which had a CL(max) of 1.13. Results Enhance d moment coefficient Average stall angle range is 13° to 17° High lift without flaps Ideal for acrobatics aircraft Highest Cl/Cd ratio L ower Cm and CD

17. Step 3 Wing Design

18. Wing Design S pan of 23cm C hord length of 8.8cm A slender 13cm-long and 4.5 mm wide gap accommodates an aluminum rod Parameters: Area = 0.0184 m² Span=b=0.23 m e = aprox 0.75 Chord= c =0.088 m

19. Computational analysis of Wing

20. Computational analysis of Wing

21. Step 4 Win d Tunnel Testing

22. Wind Tunnel Testing Finally, the fabricated wing was tested in the Arm feild C-2 subsonic wind tunnel. The wing was mounted in the tunnel using a 4.4 mm aluminum rod and was tested on a range of 3 angles of attack and 4 different velocities.

23. Results Wind Tunnel Wing Analysis at α=0° Wind Tunnel Wing Analysis at α=6° Wind Tunnel Wing Analysis at α=12°

24. Graphs CL/CD vs Alpha CD vs Alpha

25. Step 5 Comparison

26. Airfoil Vs Wing Airfoils generate more lift. Wing stall is lower than airfoil stall Cl max of the airfoil is higher than wing Deviation in results is due to induced drag in wings Lower L/D ratios in wings compared to airfoils. Wings have more drag due to the added induced drag factor

27. Conclusion 8 airfoils were selected and analysis was done on xflr-5 to choose the best one NACA63A210 was selected and manipulated further to enhance its performance Trial 4 was selected as it provided the maximum Cl/Cd ratio, lower Cm and Cd and delayed stall as well Fabrication was done in subsonic wind tunnel and results were compared with practical wing as well as a wing designed on software.

28. Thank you