 Open Access
 Authors : Sudip Chakraborty, Subhadip Bhattacharjee, Saroj Karmakar, Susanta Sadhukhan, Arijit Mukherjee, Dr. Ranjan Kumar
 Paper ID : IJERTCONV9IS11018
 Volume & Issue : NCETER – 2021 (Volume 09 – Issue 11)
 Published (First Online): 16072021
 ISSN (Online) : 22780181
 Publisher Name : IJERT
 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
A Comparative Study of Boeing 737 and NACA 2412 Airfoils using CFD
Sudip Chakraborty [1]
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering
ADAMAS University BARASAT, INDIA
Subhadip Bhattacharjee [2]
Undergraduate Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering
JIS College of Engineering KALYANI, INDIA
Saroj Karmakar [3]
Undergraduate Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering
JIS College of Engineering KALYANI, INDIA
Susanta Sadhukhan [4]
Undergraduate Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering
Sarojmohan Institute of Technology
HOOGLY, INDIA
Mr. Arijit Mukherjee [5]
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering
ADAMAS University BARASAT, INDIA
Dr. Ranjan Kumar [6]
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering
ADAMAS University BARASAT, INDIA
Abstract In this work flow analysis of two airfoils (NACA 2412 and Boeing 737) was investigated. By varying angle of attack, change in drag force and lift force were also analyzed. The outcome of this investigation was shown and computed by using ANSYS workbench 19.0. The pressure distribution as well as change in lift and drag force of these two aerofoils were visualized and compared. From this result, we compared the better aerofoil between these two aerofoils. The whole analysis is solely based on the principle of finite element method and computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
Keywords NACA 2412, Boeing 737, CFD, ANSYS.

INTRODUCTION
Aerodynamics is the study of how air interacts with moving bodies. It is primarily concern with the forces of drag and lift, which are caused by air passing over and around solid bodies. The flow of air over the aerofoils is the most important thing that has to be considered during designing an aircraft, missile, sport vehicles or any other aerodynamic objects. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a branch of fluid mechanics that uses numerical analysis and data structures to analyze and solve problems that involve fluid flows. Computational fluid dynamics provides a qualitative and sometimes even quantitative prediction of fluid flow by means of mathematical modeling, numerical method and software tools. ANSYS is vast computational software that enables researchers to analyze the problems related to different engineering sectors. ANSYS Mechanical finite element analysis software is used to simulate computer models of structures, electronics, or machine components for analyzing strength, toughness, elasticity, temperature distribution, electromagnetism, fluid flow, turbulence, industrial machineries, explicit dynamics and other attributes.
Mustafa Yilmaz et. al., A Comparative CFD analysis of NACA 0012 and NACA 4412 airfoils, they had investigated that 70 angle of attack is the optimum value for NACA 0012 and 60 angle of attack is the optimum value for NACA 4412.[1] Liyana Kharulaman et. al., Research on Flows for NACA 2412 Airfoil using Computational Fluid Dynamics Method, they observed that the velocity magnitude for compressible flow was much higher compared to incompressible flow.[2] Douvi C. Eleni et. al., Evaluation of the turbulence models for the simulation of the flow over a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 0012 airfoil, they observed that the computational grid split in two regions, a laminar and a turbulent region.[3] Mohamed AboZeed Mohamed Atiah et. al., Boeing 737700NG Airplane Flow Simulation, they demonstrate the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft.[4] MD. Safayet Hossain et.al., A COMPARATIVE FLOW ANALYSIS OF NACA 6409
AND NACA 4412, They investigate that the NACA 4412 is better than NACA 6409 in terms of less wake generation and less negative pressure on the upper surface of the aerofoil for same angle of attack.[5] Mohamed A. Fouad Kandil et.al., Performance of GOE387 Airfoil Using CFD, they observed that the magnitude of the aerodynamic moment remains nearly constant when the area.[7] Ovais Gulzar et.al., Impact of Variation in Angle of Attack on NACA 7420 Airfoil in Transonic Compressible Flow Using SpalartAllmaras Turbulence Model , they observed that the 40 angle of attack has been found suitable as the pressure, velocity, mach number encountered are within safe limits for an subsonic flow.[8]
In this study, pressure distribution was analysed along with lift and drag force of two aerofoils (NACA 2412 and Boeing
737) by varying angle of attack and velocity. Later, lift and drag force was compared between these aerofoils to find out the suitable one.
angle of attack changes.[6] Mragank Pratap Singh et. al., CFD Simulation of an Airfoil at different Angle of Attack, they concluded that lift and drag force also depend on the wing planform and on the wing Theoritical Analysis
The lift phenomenon can be explained by using Bernoullis equation. Bernoulli's principle states that an increase in speed must accompany any reduction in pressure; and a speed decrease must accompany any pressure increase. When the air passes over the aerofoil, velocity increases as the air continues to flow from its leading edge to the upper surface of the aerofoil and the pressure is decreased in that area. But on the other hand, velocity decreases as the air passes through the bottom of the aerofoil and the pressure is increased. This positive pressure acting upward acts as the key ingredient for generating lift.
Wake can be defined as a region of flow trailing the body where the effects of the body on velocity are felt. Wake consists of vortices which are responsible for creating drag by creating negative pressure in that region. Wake can occur in an aerodynamic body having a large angle of attack (more than 150 for maximum aerofoil). Separation of boundary layer also depends upon the Reynolds Number, if the number is more, the flow exhibits early transaction from laminar to turbulent.
Fig. 1(a). Lift force generation
Fig. 1(b). Lift, Drag and Angle of Attack on the Airfoil
Reynolds number Re is defined by,
.

ANALYSIS
For carrying out the simulation ANSYS 19.2 has been used and the steps involving into research work are as follows

GEOMETRY
In the following figures (i.e. Fig. 2 & 3), NACA2412 and Boeing 737 profiles are shown as 2d sketch, respectively. The coordinates of the airfoils were taken from airfoil database. The coordinates of the airfoil were imported to ANSYS Workbench and to create the geometry of the airfoils.
Fig. 2. Geometry of NACA 2412
Fig. 3. Geometry of Boeing 737

MESH GENERATION
In our study, it is important to catch wakes in leading edge and trailing edge. Therefore, to obtain reliable resolution after trailing edge, it had better attain tight cells in terms of mesh size. Four different analyses have been done by taking tetrahedron methods and maximum number of elements which has been taken is 1683040.
Here x is the thickness of boundary layer where the transition from laminar to turbulent starts.
Fig. 4. Mesh generation

INITIAL INLET CONDITION
The analysis consists of flow around an airfoil at various angles of attack (5, 0, 5, 10, 15, 50, 70 degree). The inputs and boundary conditions are shown in the table below
Table 1. Initial Inlet conditions for simulation
Number of iterations for the solution
500
Turbulence Model
RNG kepsilon model, SST k omega model
Air Density ()
1.225 kgm3
Dynamic Viscosity ()
1.789 x 105 kg/msec
Initial Inlet Velocity (InVel)
125 m/sec
Initial Angle of Attack (AoA)
5 degree

SIMULATION RESULTS
The simulation results of NACA 2412 and Boeing 737 has shown below
Fig. 5. Pressure Contour
Fig. 6. Velocity Contour
Fig. 7. Total Pressure Contour

SIMULATION RESULTS FOR NACA 2412 RNG K EPSILON MODEL ANALYSIS
Table 2. Variation of lift and drag force with angle of attack keeping inlet velocity = 125 m/sec
Angle of Attack (AoA) (Degree)
Lift Force (N)
Drag Force (N)
5
3034.4
94.296
0
3220.6
72.70
5
8524.8
182.69
10
11338
549.09
15
17288
3547.2
50
50357
48874
70
39174
72347
Table 3. Variation of lift and drag force with inlet velocity keeping angle of attack = 0 degree
Inlet Velocity (InVel) (m/sec)
Lift Force (N)
Drag Force (N)
100
2052.6
48.061
125
3220.6
72.698
150
4658.4
102.06
175
6435.0
136.42
200
8325.2
174.09
225
10202
221.83
250
12570
266.61

SIMULATION RESULTS FOR NACA SST K OMEGA MODEL ANALYSIS
Table 4. Variation of lift and drag force with angle of attack keeping inlet velocity = 125 m/sec
Angle of Attack (AoA) (Degree)
Lift Force (N)
Drag Force (N)
5
3058.9
98.341
0
3191.7
76.334
5
8489.6
183.81
10
10859
601.47
15
15467
2490.6
50
50278
48623
70
39296
72501
Table 5. Variation of lift and drag force with inlet velocity keeping angle of attack = 0 degree
Inlet Velocity (InVel) (m/sec)
Lift Force (N)
Drag Force (N)
100
2018.5
50.703
125
3199.1
76.56
150
4636.9
107.37
175
6396.2
142.64
200
8289.1
182.16
225
10107
234.1
250
12423
279.84

SIMULATION RESULTS FOR BOEING 737 RNG K EPSILON MODEL ANALYSIS
Table 6. Variation of lift and drag force with angle of attack keeping inlet velocity = 125 m/sec
Angle of Attack (AoA) (Degree)
Lift Force (N)
Drag Force (N)
5
4281.5
2938.3
0
1711.6
2617.7
5
12925
3579.6
10
34410
6152
15
57513
8262.4
50
1.34*105
1.2*105
70
79768
1.632*105
Table 7. Variation of lift and drag force with inlet velocity keeping angle of attack = 0 degree
Inlet Velocity (InVel) (m/sec)
Lift Force (N)
Drag Force (N)
100
808.39
1687.7
125
1169.4
2629.2
150
1754.4
3772.0
175
2489
5117.9
200
3325.1
6667.7
225
4252.4
8421.6
250
5274.4
10379

SIMULATION RESULTS FOR BOEING 737 SST K OMEGA MODEL ANALYSIS

Table 8. Variation of lift and drag force with angle of attack keeping inlet velocity = 125 m/sec
Angle of Attack (AoA) (Degree)
Lift Force (N)
Drag Force (N)
5
2450.6
2975.3
0
1840.4
2628.3
5
11836
3506.8
10
34604
5884.3
15
57921
8303.9
50
1.31*105
1.2*105
70
79859
1.63*105
Table 9. Variation of lift and drag force with inlet velocity keeping angle of attack = 0 degree
Inlet Velocity (InVel) (m/sec)
Lift Force (N)
Drag Force (N)
100
691.45
1703.3
125
1840.4
2628.3
150
3144.8
3757.7
175
3456.8
5122.6
200
3801.9
6689.7
225
1822.5
8591.1
250
5827.3
10642


RESULT AND CONCLUTION

FOR NACA 2412 AEROFOIL USING RNG KEPSILON AND SST KOMEGA MODEL, THE VARIATIONS OF LIFT AND DRAG FORCE WITH ANGLE OF ATTACK AND INLET VELOCITY ARE REPRESENTED USING GRAPHS.
Fig. 8. Lift Force – Angle of Attack
Fig. 9. Drag Force – Angle of Attack
Fig. 10. Lift Force – Inlet Velocity
Fig. 11. Drag Force – Inlet Velocity

For Boeing 737 aerofoil using RNG kepsilon and SST komega model, the variations of lift and drag force with angle of attack and inlet velocity are represented using graphs.
Fig. 12. Lift Force – Angle of Attack
Fig. 13. Drag Force – Angle of Attack
Fig. 14. Lift Force – Inlet Velocity
Fig. 15. Drag Force – Inlet Velocity

It is observed that between NACA 2412 and Boeing 737, Boeing 737 aerofoil can be used where inlet velocity will be much higher generation of otherwise positive lift force is impossible with 00 degree of angle of attack.

Boeing 737 generates higher lift force with the increment of angle of attack compared to NACA 2412 aerofoil.

Based on the present result for a general instance (Angle of Attack = 50 and Inlet velocity =125 m/s), the lift to drag ratio for NACA 2412 is more than that of Boeing 737 and it is better suited for generating sufficient lif force at normal condition.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We are very much thankful to each other for contributing our best in this pandemic and whichever was possible has been done by us. This is an outcome of our research project relevant to the engineering applications. Our team work has inspired us to do research work farther on this particular field.
REFERENCES

Mustafa Ylmaz, Hasan Koten, Erkan Ã‡etinkaya, Ziya Coar, A comparative CFD analysis of NACA0012 and NACA4412 airfoils,
Journal of Energy Systems, ISSN:26022052, 2018

Liyana Kharulaman, Abdul Aabid, Fharukh Ahmed Ghasi Mehaboobali, Sher Afghan Khan, Research on Flows for NACA 2412 Airfoil using Computational Fluid Dynamics Method, International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT) ISSN: 2249 8958,
October 2019

Douvi C. Eleni, Tsavalos I. Athanasios, Margaris P. Dionissios, Evaluation of the turbulence models for the simulation of the flow over a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 0012 airfoil, Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research, ISSN 21412383, March 2012

Mohamed AboZeed Mohamed Atiah, Ahmed Wael Mansour Abd Elkader, Mohamed Essam Ali Ashour, Boeing 737700NG Airplane Flow Simulation, 4th IUGRC International Undergraduate Research Conference, July 2019

MD. Safayet Hossain, Muhammad Ferdous Raiyan, Mohammed Nasir Uddin Akanda, Nahed Hassan Jony, A COMPARATIVE FLOW ANALYSIS OF NACA 6409 AND NACA 4412 AEROFOIL, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Oct 2014

Mohamed A. Fouad Kandil, Abdelrady Okasha Elnady, Performance of GOE387 Airfoil Using CFD, International Journal of Aerospace Sciences, 2017

Mragank Pratap Singh, Dr. Mahendra Singh Khidiya, Sahil Soni, CFD Simulation of an Airfoil at different Angle of Attack, International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Online ISSN : 23944099, 2016

Ovais Gulzar, Saqib Gulzar, Sanjay Bhatele, Neelesh Soni, Impact of Variation in Angle of Attack on NACA 7420 Airfoil in Transonic Compressible Flow Using Spalart Allmaras Turbulence Model, International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology, ISSN : 22495762 (Online), 2014