Numerical Study of Flow Separation Control by Tangential and Perpendicular Blowing on the NACA 0012 Airfoil

Kianoosh Yousefi, S.Reza Saleh & Peyman Zahedi
International Journal of Engineering (IJE), Volume (7) : Issue (1) : 2013 10
Numerical Study of Flow Separation Control by Tangential and
Perpendicular Blowing on the NACA 0012 Airfoil
Kianoosh Yousefi Kianoosh_py@yahoo.com
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Branch
Mashhad, 91735-413, Iran
S. Reza Saleh s_r_saleh@yahoo.com
Peyman Zahedi pzahedi96@yahoo.com
Abstract
In this study, tangential and perpendicular steady blowing at the trailing edge of NACA 0012
airfoil is investigated numerically to flow separation control and to study the effects of blowing
amplitude and blowing coefficient on airfoil aerodynamic characteristics. Flow was fully turbulent
with the Reynolds number of 5 105
and the turbulent employed model was the Menter’s shear
stress model. Blowing on airfoil is modeled in tangential (tangential blowing) and perpendicular
(perpendicular blowing) form and length of blowing jet is 3.5 percent of chord length. Considering
previous studies, blowing jet is optimum in two distances on the airfoil surface, one around 40
percent and the other around 80 percent of chord length from the leading edge, which in this
study blowing jet is placed at 80 percent of the chord length from the leading edge. Blowing
velocity from 0.1 to 0.5 is considered of freestream velocity. Results of tangential blowing show
that by increasing amplitude of blowing, lift and drag coefficients changes are inconsiderable.
Maximum increase of lift to drag ratio in amplitude of 0.5, around 16.5 percent, but in
perpendicular blowing lower amplitude of blowing is more appropriate. Also tangential blowing
has no effect on stall angle and cause gradual stall of NACA 0012 airfoil, whereas perpendicular
blowing improve stall angle from 14 to 16 degrees.
Keywords: Blowing, Blowing Amplitude and Coefficient, Flow Control, NACA 0012 Airfoil, Lift
and Drag Coefficients.
1. INTRODUCTION
The presence of boundary layer cause major problems in different fields of fluids mechanics.
However, most of studies had focused on boundary layer effects on lift and drag forces,
especially on wings. Developed methods for boundary layer management, lift coefficient increase
and drag coefficient reduction are known as flow separation control or boundary layer control.
The scope of flow separation control on an airfoil is to achieve more lift coefficient and less drag
coefficient and consequently, airfoil higher performance by increasing the lift to drag ratio. Control
methods of boundary layer are divided into two categories: passive flow separation control,
requiring no auxiliary power and no control loop, and active flow separation control, requiring
energy expenditure. Normal uniform suction and blowing which is among passive flow separation
control, has been considered in recent years and most of studies have been concentrated on
oscillatory suction/blowing near leading edge. However, effects of suction/blowing parameters
variation that could provide a suitable research area, hasn’t been considered appropriately.

Many studies have been conducted on flow separation control. Prandtl was the first scientist who
employed boundary layer suction to indicate its significant impacts on stream lines in 1904. He
used suction on cylindrical surface to delay boundary layer separation. Boundary layer separation
would be eliminated almost entirely by suction through a slot on the back of the cylinder [1]. First
experiments on flow separation control on an airfoil were done in late 1930’s to 1940. The effect
of suction on boundary layer separation using slots on airfoil surface in wind tunnels was
evaluated by NACA Langley memorial scientists. The first flight experiments in which seventeen
suction slots were installed between 20 and 60 percent of the chord length was done. Employed
airplane in this experiment was B-18 airplane [2]. Investigation on suction theoretical solution by
Inverse boundary-Value problem was examined by Abzalilov et al. [3]. The efficiency of tangential
unsteady suction and blowing in flow separation control on an airfoil TAU0015 was studied by
Ravindran [4]. He also evaluated the effects of Zero Net Mass Flux Oscillatory Jet (Synthetic Jet)
on lift coefficient increase and flight conditions in his study were Mach 0.15, Reynolds number 1.2
million at the angle of attacks 22 and 24 degree. Result showed that Lift coefficient increased
from 23 percent (angle of attack 22 degree and suction coefficient is 0.0005) to 55 percent (angle
of attack 24 degree and same suction coefficient). Also some researchers by analytical methods
[5, 6 and 7] , experimentally [8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13] and some numerically [14, 15 and 16]
showed that using flow separation control, such as suction, blowing and synthetic jets, causes the
larger lift coefficient on thick and NACA airfoils.
Huang et al. [17] studied on flow separation control on an NACA 0012 airfoil by using suction and
blowing with angle of attack 18 degree and Reynolds number of 5 Million in 2003. They proved
that when jet location and angle of attack were combined, perpendicular suction at the leading
edge, from 0.075 to 0.125 chord length, increased lift coefficient better than other suction
situations. It has been also stated that tangential blowing at downstream locations, around 0.371
to 0.8 chord length, leads to the maximum increase in the lift coefficient value. Resendiz [18]
investigated on the numerical simulation of flow separation control by oscillatory fluid injection
and his result demonstrated that the use of synthetic jets on an NACA 0012 airfoil elevated the lift
coefficient up to 93 percent. The application of evolutionary algorithm in order to optimize the flow
separation control has been studied by Beliganur & Raymond [19] in 2007. Results of their study
showed that the use of two suction jets along with two blowing jets for an NACA 0012 airfoil was
able to enhance the lift to drag ratio by 12 percent. Flow separation control by synthetic jets on
an NACA 0015 airfoil by using Large Eddy Simulation method was done in 2008 by You and Moin
[20]. Outcomes presented that lift coefficient increased 70 percent and drag coefficient decreased
18 percent while flow separation control parameters were changed. Akcayoz & Tuncer [21]
examined the optimization of synthetic jet parameters on an NACA 0015 airfoil in different angle
of attack to maximize the lift to drag ratio and their results stated that optimum jet location moved
toward leading edge and optimum jet angle went up while angle of attack increased. Kim et al.
[22] used synthetic jets to flow separation control on an NACA 23012 airfoil. They focused on
angle of attack, jet velocity and jet frequency for relatively high Reynolds numbers. This study
showed, the maximum lift was obtained when the separation point coincided with the synthetic jet
location and the non-dimensional frequency was one. Although the small vortex generated in the
low frequency range beneficially affected the separation control and the lift enhancement, it
caused the local flow structure to be easily destabilized by external disturbance or gust.
Piperas [23] in 2010 studied on flow separation control on an NACA 4415 airfoil through different
suction arrangements and increased the maximum lift coefficient value by 20 percent. Genc et al.
[24] studied on the numerical effects of suction and blowing on the NACA 2415 airfoil at transition
zone in 2011. Although separation bubbles were not entirely eliminated in suction and blowing
simulation, they either reduced or moved into the downstream. For synchronic suction and
blowing, separation bubbles were exterminated completely, lift coefficient increased and drag
coefficient decreased. They also showed the best results were obtained with the single suction
jet, intermediate results were obtained with the multi jets and the worst results were obtained with
the blowing jets. Yagiz et al. [25] worked on drag optimization on Rae5243 airfoil in transonic
conditions through suction. By optimum parameters selection they increased the lift coefficient,
3.17 percent, and decreased the total drag coefficient, 3.13 percent. In addition, Yousefi et al. [26]

in 2012 reviewed the investigations on used methods in suction and blowing systems to increase
or decrease drag and lift coefficient.
2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS
In this study the flow is assumed to be steady, incompressible and two-dimensional. So
momentum and continuity equations become:
(1)0
(2)
(3)
The Menter’s shear stress transport turbulence model (K ω SST) was used to solve turbulence
equations. This model which includes both K ω and K ε standard models improved the
calculations of boundary layer flows with separation and removed the sensitivity of K ω model
in external flows. The transport equations in Menter’s shear stress turbulence model are:
(4)∗
(5)2 1
1
In these equations, F is blending function, S is the invariant measure of the strain rate, β∗
is 0.09
and σ is 0.856. Blending function is equal to zero away from the surface (K ε model), and
switches over to one inside the boundary layer (K ω model). A production limiter, P , is used in
the Menter’s shear stress transport turbulence model to prevent the build-up of turbulence in
stagnation regions. In addition, it is important to note that the all constants are computed by a
blend from the corresponding constant of the K ε and the K ω model via α, σ , σ and etc [27
and 28].
(6)
√
∗
,
500
,
4
(7)2
1
, 10
(8)
(9), 10 ∗
3. PARAMETERS SELECTION
In this study, the numerical code was used for simulation. Values for Reynolds number of flow
and free stream velocity were 5 105
and 7.3037 m/s, respectively, and the used fluid was air.
Geometry of NACA 0012 airfoil, blowing jet location (L ), blowing angle (θ) and blowing jet length
(h) has been shown in Figure 1. The chord length of the airfoil is 1 m and blowing slots located at
80 percent of the chord length from the leading edge. Previous studies [17] shows that blowing jet
location is optimum in two distances on the airfoil surface, one around 37.1 percent and the other
around 80 percent of chord length from the leading edge. Also considering previous studies [17,
18 and 21], blowing jet at the trailing edge is more appropriate of the leading edge. So in this
study blowing jet is located at 80 percent of chord length from leading edge. The blowing jet

length is 3.5 percent of the chord length in tangential and perpendicular blowing and also blowing
amplitude (the blowing velocity to free stream velocity ratio) considered as 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 in
experiments. Examined angles of attack also are 12, 14, 16 and 18 degrees. In our investigation,
the blowing amplitude and blowing jet velocity are set as:
(10)
∞
(11). cos
(12).
Where is the angle between free stream velocity direction and the local jet surface and is also
the angle between the local jet surface and jet output velocity direction. Note that negative
represents suction condition and positive indicates blowing condition. Since tangential and
perpendicular blowing is investigated, is 90 and 0 degrees. Finally, blowing coefficient equals:
(13)
. .
. . ∞ ∞
(14)
(15).
As it has been presented in equation (15), blowing coefficient is related to two factors: blowing
amplitude (A) and blowing jet length (H). On the other hand variation of those values cause
changes in suction coefficient value. Over 220 numerical simulations have been performed to
cover all the cases.
FIGURE 1: Blowing Parameters.
4. NUMERICAL SOLUTION METHOD
First and second order upwind method was employed to discretized the governing equations.
First, equations are discrete by the use of first order upwind method, and the resulting system of
equations is then solved using the SIMPLE method. Solution procedure is terminated when a
convergence criteria of O(5) reduction in all dependent variable residuals is satisfied. Afterwards,
second order upwind method was employed to discrete of equations and again, while SIMPLE
method was employed to solve them. Convergence accuracy at this step is to the extent in which
lift and drag coefficients fully converged, which happens usually at O(7). The key point here is
that answers obtained from the first order upwind method was used as initial assumption for the
second order upwind method. It is an attempt to consider the characteristics of laboratory wind
tunnel, so the stream turbulence intensity is less than 0.1 percent. Airfoil computational area (C-
type structured mesh) is considered as multizonal blocks in order to make structured mesh
(Figure 2). The computational area grid extends from -4 chord upstream to 11 chord downstream
and the upper and lower boundary extends 4 chord from the profile. In order to check the mesh

independence of the calculated results, lift and drag coefficients have been studied at angles of
attack 10, 14 and 16 degrees with different size grids. Table 1 presented lift and drag coefficients
at angle of attack 16 degrees and Figure 3 and 4 showed meshes independent for different
angles of attack. Consequently, the grid size giving the grid independent results is selected and
the total number of cells is adopted as 41,000 nodes (Table 1, Figure 3 and 4).
Drag CoefficientLift CoefficientNumber of Meshes
0.208890.645948096
0.125441.0513417160
0.115671.0907324480
0.109381.1235240640
0.111871.1231958080
TABLE 1: Evaluation of Mesh Independence at Angle of Attack 16 Degree.
FIGURE 2: C-type Structured Mesh With Multizonal Blocks.
FIGURE 3: Mesh Independency For Lift Coefficient.

FIGURE 4: Mesh Independency For Drag Coefficient.
FIGURE 5: Lift Coefficient Convergence.
FIGURE 6: Drag Coefficient Convergence.

As demonstrated in Figure 5 and 6, the solutions in all cases, continued until lift and drag
coefficient fully converged. Then, the results were compared with the results of numerical solution
of Huang et al. [17] and experimental values of Critzos et al. [29] and Jacobs et al [30]. Huang et
al. investigated on flow separation control using suction and blowing on NACA 0012 airfoil where
the angle of attack and Reynolds number were 18 degree and 5×105
, respectively. Parameters
like jet location, suction and blowing amplitude and angle of attack were also examined by
numerical method. In order to model the suction, a jet with 2.5 percent of the chord length as
width was placed on the upper surface of airfoil. The GHOST code, based on finite volume, was
used in this study. Critzos et al. examined aerodynamic characteristics of a NACA 0012 airfoil in
laboratory experiments where Reynolds numbers were 0.5×105
and 1.8×106
and the angles of
attack changed from 0 to 180 degrees. E. Jacobs et al investigated on a symmetrically NACA
airfoils in wind tunnel over a wide range of the Reynolds number. The results of these four
solutions are compared in Figure 7. As it is seen, computation results are near the numerical
simulation of Huang et al and experimental data of Jacobs et al. The highest recorded error was 8
percent, at 14 degree angle of attack for numerical simulation and 15 percent for experimental
data of Jacobs et al. Also stall angle in both method were angle of attack 14 degree. However,
the results of laboratory measurements indicated that NACA 0012 airfoil stall occurs at 12 degree
angle of attack. We compare our computation results at low angle of attack (less than 10 degree)
with the experimental data [29, 30 and 31] in Table 2 (all experimental data at Reynolds number
of 5 105
). It can be seen that most of all the experimental data are higher than computation
results. The reason can be attributed to the closer wall effects in experiment which lead to the
increase of lift. It also important that turbulence model selection has a significant influence on stall
angle changes. So, the selection of K ε realizable model at the same condition changes the
stall angle to 16 degree. Menter’s shear stress transport turbulence model always gives better
results than K ε two-equation model. Prediction by K ε realizable model is quite good in the
pre-stall region, while it fails to predict both the stall condition and post-stall phenomena
accurately. In the K ε model, the maximum error at the angle of attack 14 degree for lift
coefficient and drag coefficient were 17 percent and 25 percent, respectively. In addition, the
results of performed studies showed that although Menter’s shear stress transport turbulence
model is more suitable model for lower Reynolds number, with larger Reynolds number K ε
model gives more reliable results.
FIGURE 7: Comparison between lift and drag coefficients of present work with Huang et al. [17] numerical
work and Critzos et al. [29] and Jacobs et al. [30] experimental results.

Experiment
Sheldahl [31]
Experiment
Jacobs [30]
Experiment
Critzos [29]
Computation
Results
Angle of Attack
0.00.00.00.00210°
0.220.18070.20530.18532°
0.550.45110.58550.47155°
1.0030.90190.95420.908710°
TABLE 2: Comparison of computation results and experimental at angles of attack less than 10 degree.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In the present study, first we examine tangential blowing at the trailing edge of the airfoil. Blowing
slot is placed at the distance of 80 percent of the chord length from leading edge and length of
blowing jet (slot) is 3.5 percent of the airfoil chord. The effect of blowing amplitude and blowing
coefficient on the lift coefficient, drag coefficient and lift to drag ratio is indicated in figures 8, 9
and 10. In these figures, three blowing amplitude, 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 with blowing coefficients of
0.00035, 0.00315 and 0.00875 are considered. By increasing blowing coefficient, lift coefficient
increases a little and drag coefficient grows to 16 degree and then decreases, generally
tangential blowing at the trailing edge of the airfoil increases the drag force. The effect of
tangential blowing on lift and drag coefficients in angles of attack less than 10 degrees is so
inconsiderable that by blowing coefficient of 0.00875 lift and drag coefficients increase only 0.5
and 5 percent respectively, but lift to drag ratio decreases about 5 percent which is unfavorable.
In angles of attack less than 14 degrees (stall angle), tangential blowing causes reduction in lift to
drag ratio and in angles of attack larger than 14 degrees it causes increasing. Because of this we
focus on blowing effects on large angles of attack. Greatest increase of lift to drag ratio occurs in
blowing coefficient of 0.00875 which increases around 16.5 percent in angle of attack of 18
degrees that in this situation lift coefficient increase by 7 percent and drag coefficient decrease by
9 percent. A considerable note about tangential steady blowing at the trailing edge of airfoil is that
changes of amplitude of blowing and of blowing coefficient have very little effect on aerodynamic
characteristics of NACA 0012 airfoil and increases of blowing amplitude from 0.1 to 0.3 and 0.5
cause changes less than 0.1 percent in lift and drag coefficient. This is also shown by Huang et
al. [17] in tangential steady blowing near leading edge and in distance of 0.371 of chord length
from leading edge. As we give energy to boundary layer by using tangential blowing, so contrary
to suction [17 and 32], in blowing by increasing blowing coefficient changes of lift and drag
coefficients and lift to drag ratio are almost stable.
FIGURE 8: Effect of Blowing Amplitude and Blowing Coefficient On Lift Coefficient For Tangential Blowing.

FIGURE 9: Effect of Blowing Amplitude and Blowing Coefficient Blowing On Drag For Tangential Blowing.
FIGURE 10: Effect of Blowing Amplitude and Blowing Coefficient On Lift To Drag Ratio
For Tangential Blowing.
Another considerable note in tangential blowing is that by increasing blowing coefficient stall
angle has no change and stall occur at the same angle of 14 degrees. In the airfoils it is tried to
prevent sudden changes of lift coefficient after stall or sudden stall itself. Generally, airfoils with
thickness of 6 to 10 percent of chord length have sudden stall and those with thickness of more
than 14 percent of chord length have a gradual stall [33, 34 and 35]. Using tangential blowing
results in 9 percent slower stall, however, experimental investigations show that NACA 0012
airfoil has a sudden stall [29, 30 and 31]. In our studies, lift coefficient during no-blowing situation
after stall has about 10 percent decreases (lift coefficient difference percentage between angles
of attack of 14 and 16 degrees), by using tangential blowing, lift coefficient has declined less than
0.4 percent. So by using steady tangent blowing as well as increasing lift to drag ratio by 16.5
percent, stall is also happening slower. On the other hand, it should be noted that by using
tangential blowing separation is delayed on the airfoil. When there is no tangent blowing on the

airfoil, at the angle of attack 18 degrees, separation occurs in a distance equals to 0.103 of chord
length from leading edge while by using blowing coefficient of 0.00875 separations occur in
distance of 0.152 of chord length from leading edge. Streamlines around the airfoil with angle of
attack 18 degrees for different blowing coefficient are shown in figure 11. As it can be seen by
increasing blowing coefficient or blowing amplitude, vortexes formed at the back of airfoil are
decreased but not eliminated.
FIGURE 11: Streamlines around the airfoil with angle of attack of 18 degrees and different
blowing coefficient for tangential blowing.
Thereafter we study the effect of blowing amplitude and blowing coefficient on lift and drag
coefficients for perpendicular steady blowing (perpendicular blowing) at the trailing edge of NACA
0012 airfoil. Lift and drag coefficient changes and lift to drag ratio changes with angles of attack in
blowing amplitudes of 0.1, 0.3 and .05 are shown in figures 12, 13 and 14. In perpendicular
blowing, contrary to tangential blowing, the increase of amplitude and/or blowing coefficient make
the condition worse so that using blowing amplitude of 0.1 in angle of attack 14 degrees
decreases lift to drag ratio by 6.5 percent and using blowing amplitude of 0.5 decreases lift to
drag ratio by 17 percent. Generally, using perpendicular blowing makes the situation worse,
before stall angle perpendicular blowing decrease lift to drag ratio intensively and after stall and in
angle of attack of 18 degrees cause 25 percent increase in lift to drag ratio. Blowing increase the
boundary layer momentum [36] and turbulence is increased by the energy added to the boundary
layer by perpendicular blowing, so the more blowing amplitude or blowing coefficient increases,
the larger are the turbulence of flow and vortex and eventually the more lift to drag ratio
decreases. In figure 15 tangential and perpendicular steady blowing in angles of attack 16 and 18
degrees and blowing amplitude of 0.5 are compared. As it can be seen, perpendicular blowing at
the trailing edge of airfoil causes larger vortexes. There is two substantial points in controlling the
flow separation in perpendicular blowing at the end of the airfoil, first by using perpendicular
blowing stall angle changes from 14 to 16 degrees, and second by increasing angle of attack
influence percent of perpendicular blowing goes up and even in angle of attack 18 degrees
results in 25 percent increase of lift to drag ratio. Changes of lift to drag ratio with blowing
amplitude of 0.1 compared to no blowing status are shown in table 3.

FIGURE 12: Effect of Blowing Amplitude and Blowing Coefficient On Lift Coefficient For Perpendicular
Blowing.
FIGURE 13: Effect of Blowing Amplitude and Blowing Coefficient On Drag Coefficient For Perpendicular
Blowing.
Percent of Lift to Drag Ratio
Increase/Decrease
Drag CoefficientLift CoefficientAngle of Attack
16.5 percent decrease0.051970.7606710˚
18.6 percent increase0.158120.9545918˚
3.31 percent increase0.274970.6814620˚
TABLE 3: Changes of lift to drag ratio with blowing amplitude of 0.1 compared to no blowing situations in
different angles of attack.

FIGURE 14: Effect of Blowing Amplitude and Blowing Coefficient On Lift To Drag Ratio For Perpendicular
Blowing.
FIGURE 15: Comparing Tangential and Perpendicular Steady Blowing.
6. CONCLUSION
In this study the effects of tangential and perpendicular steady blowing on NACA 0012 airfoil are
examined and analyzed to flow separation control. To do this the effect of changing parameters of
blowing amplitude and blowing coefficient are modeled numerically and following results are
gained. In tangential blowing by increasing blowing amplitude lift to drag ratio grows and
separation point is transferred downstream, while increasing blowing amplitude makes situation
worse in perpendicular blowing and causes larger vortexes. In other words, in perpendicular
blowing smaller value of blowing amplitude or blowing coefficient are more appropriate. In

tangential blowing greatest increase of lift to drag ratio occur in blowing amplitude of 0.5 and
blowing coefficient of 0.00875 which in this situation and with angle of attack 18 degrees, airfoil
back vortexes are declined. On the other hand, using perpendicular blowing makes situation
worse than no blowing status. Results showed that in small angles of attack flow separation
control by using blowing has no favorable effect on aerodynamics characteristics. Also using
tangential blowing on airfoil causes no change in airfoil stall angle but results show slower stall,
but perpendicular blowing changes airfoil stall angle from 14 to 16 degrees.
Also, in this numerical simulation the maximum lift coefficient increase by 7 percent and lift to
drag ratio increase by 16.5 percent for tangential blowing, in blowing coefficient of 0.00875,
blowing amplitude of 0.5 and 18 degree angle of attack. Perpendicular blowing was useful just for
angles of attack larger than stall angle, in the situation of blowing coefficient of 0.00875, blowing
amplitude of 0.5 and 18 degree angle of attack, lift to drag ratio increase by 18.5 percent.
7. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Although several studies have been carried out experimentally and numerically on suction and
blowing on the airfoil, some important suction and blowing parameters like the number of suction
and blowing slots, slot arrangements, slots entrance or exit angle, oscillatory suction and blowing
and also synthetic jet parameters have been not fully examined. Laboratory studies on suction
and blowing parameters are limited and the majority of previous investigations have been
performed on the streams with low Reynolds numbers. Therefore, future studies could be
concentrated on flows with high Reynolds numbers.
8. REFERENCES
[1] M. Gad-el-hak. Control Flow: Passive, Active and Reactive Flow Management. United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 25-35.
[2] A.L. Braslow, “A History of Suction Type Laminar Flow Control with Emphasis on Flight
Research,” NASA History Division, Monograph in Aerospace History, Number 13, 1999.
[3] D.F. Abzalilov, L.A. Aksentev and N.B. IL’Inskii, “The Inverse Boundary-Value Problem for
an Airfoil with a Suction Slot,” Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, Vol. 61, pp.
75-82, 1997.
[4] S.S. Ravindran, “Active Control of Flow Separation Over an Airfoil,” Report of Langley
Research Center, 1999.
[5] M.B. Glauert, “The Design of Suction Aerofoils with a Very Large CL-Range,” Aeronautical
Research Council, R&M 2111, 1945.
[6] M.B. Glauert, W.S. Walker, W.G. Raymer and N. Gregory, “Wind Tunnel Tests on a Thick
Suction Airfoil with a Single Slot,” Aeronautical Research Council, R&M 2646, 1948.
[7] M.B. Glauert, “The Application of the Exact Method of Aerofoil Design,” Aeronautical
Research Council, R&M 2683, 1947.
[8] S. Dirlik, K. Kimmel, A. Sekelsky and J. Slomski, “Experimental Evaluation of a 50-Percent
Thick Airfoil with Blowing and Suction Boundary Layer Control,” AIAA Paper, Vol. 92, 1992.
[9] D.M. Heugen, “An Experimental Study of a Symmetrical Aerofoil with a Rear Suction Slot
and a Retractable Flap,” Journal of Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol. 57, 1953.
[10] H.J. Howe and B.J. Neumann, “An Experimental Evaluation of a Low Propulsive Power
Discrete Suction Concept Applied to an Axisymmetric Vehicle,” David W. Taylor Naval Ship
R&D Center TM 16-82/02, 1982.

[11] J.H. Preston, N. Gregory and A.G. Rawcliffe, “The Theoretical Estimation of Power
Requirements for Slot-Suction Aerofoils with Numerical Results for Two Thick Griffith Type
Sections,” Aeronautical Research Council, R&M 1577, 1948.
[12] E.J. Richards, and C.H. Burge, “An Airfoil Designed to Give Laminar Flow Over the Surface
with Boundary Layer Suction,” Aeronautical Research Council, R&M 2263, 1943.
[13] E.J. Richards, W.S. Waler and C.R. Taylor, “Wind Tunnel Tests on 30-Percent Suction
Wing,” Aeronautical Research Council, R&M 2149, 1945.
[14] D.P. Rizzetta, M.R. Visbal and M.J. Stank, “Numerical Investigation of Synthetic Jet Flow
Fields,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 919-927, 1999.
[15] J.Z. Wu, X.Y. Lu, A.G. Denny, M. Fan and J.M. Wu, “Post-Stall Flow Control on an Airfoil by
local Unsteady Forcing,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 371, PP. 21-58, 1998.
[16] C. Nae, “Synthetics Jets Influence on NACA0012 Airfoil at High Angle of Attacks,” AIAA
Papers, PP. 98, 1998.
[17] L. Huang, P.G. Huang and R.P. LeBeau, “Numerical Study of Blowing and Suction Control
Mechanism on NACA0012 Airfoil,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2004.
[18] C.R. Rosas, “Numerical Simulation of Flow Separation Control by Oscillatort Fluid Injection,”
Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, A&M University, Texas, 2005.
[19] N.K. Beliganur and P. Raymond, “Application of Evolutionary Algorithms to Flow Control
Optimization,” Report of University of Kentuchky, 2007.
[20] D. You and P. Moin, “Active Control of Flow Separation Over an Airfoil Using Synthetic
Jets,” Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 24, pp. 1349-1357, 2008.
[21] E. Akcayoz and I.H. Tuncer, “Numerical Investigation of Flow Control Over an Airfoil Using
Synthetic Jets and its Optimization,” International Aerospace Conference, Turkey, 2009.
[22] S.H. Kim and C. Kim, “Separation Control on NACA23012 Using Synthetic Jet,” Aerospace
Science and Technology, Vol. 13, pp.172-182, 2009.
[23] A.T. Piperas, “Investigation of Boundary Layer Suction on a Wind Turbine Airfoil Using
CFD,” Master Thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark, 2010.
[24] M.S. Genc, U. Keynak and H. Yapici, “Performance of Transition Model for Predicting Low
Re Aerofoil Flows Without/With Single and Simultaneous Blowing and Suction,” European
Journal of Mechanics B/Fluids, Vol. 30, pp. 218-235, 2011.
[25] B Yagiz, O. Kandil and Y. V. Pehlivanoglu, “Drag Minimization Using Active and Passive
Flow Control Techniques,” Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 17, pp. 21-31, 2011.
[26] K. Yousefi, S.R. Saleh and P. Zahedi, “Investigation for Increase or Decrease The Lift and
Drag Coefficient on The Airfoil with Suction and Blowing,” International Conference on
Mechanical Engineering and Advanced Technology, Iran, 2012.
[27] F.R. Menter, M. Kuntz and R. Langtry, “Ten Years of Industrial Experience with the SST
Turbulence Model,” 4th
International Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer,
Turkey, 2003.

[28] L.K. Voigt, J.N. Sorensen, J.M. Pedersen and M. Crons, “Review of Four Turbulence Models
Using Topology,” 8th
International IBPSA Conference, Netherlands, 2003.
[29] C.C. Critzos, H.H. Heyson and W. Boswinkle, “Aerodynamics Characteristics of NACA0012
Airfoil Section at Angle of Attacks from 0° to 180°,” Langley Aeronautical Laboratory,
Washington, NACA Technical Note 3361, 1955.
[30] E. Jacobs and A. Sherman, “Airfoil Section Characteristic as Affected by Variations of the
Reynolds Number”, NACA Report 586,231, 1937.
[31 ] R.E. Sheldhal and Klimas, “Aerodynamic Characteristics of Seven Airfoil Sections Through
180 Degrees Angle of Attack for use In Aerodynamic Analysis of Vertical Axis Wind Tunnel”,
Sandia National Labs., Report No. SAND80-2114, Albuquerque, March 1981.
[32] M. Goodarzi, R. Fereidouni and M. Rahimi, “Investigation of Flow Control Over a NACA 0012
Airfoil by Suction Effect on Aerodynamic Characteristics”, Canadian Journal of Mechanical
Sciences and Engineering, Vol.3, No.3, pp. 102-108, 2012.
[33] I.H. Abbott and A.E. Von Doenhoff. Theory of Wing Sections. Dover, 1959.
[34] R. Eppler. Airfoil Design and Data. Springer, 1990.
[35] J. Olejniczak and A.S. Lyrintzis, “Design of Optimized Airfoils in Subcritical Flow”, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 31, No. 30, pp. 680-687, 1994.
[36] A. Seifert, A. Darabi and I. Wygnansky, “Delay of Airfoil Stall by Periodic Extinction”, Journal
of Aircraft, Vol. 33, pp. 691-698, 1996.

Numerical Study of Flow Separation Control by Tangential and Perpendicular Blowing on the NACA 0012 Airfoil

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Numerical Study of Flow Separation Control by Tangential and Perpendicular Blowing on the NACA 0012 Airfoil (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Numerical Study of Flow Separation Control by Tangential and Perpendicular Blowing on the NACA 0012 Airfoil