EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science

Vol. 4, No. 7, July 2019

Numerical Analysis of Effect of Leading-Edge Rotating

Cylinder on NACA0021 Symmetric Airfoil
Md. Abdus Salam, Vikram Deshpande, Nafiz Ahmed Khan and M. A. Taher Ali

 Modi [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] has been pioneer in investigation of

Abstract—The moving surface boundary control (MSBC)
has been a Centre stage study for last 2-3 decades. The
preliminary aim of the study was to ascertain whether the
concept can improve the airfoil characteristics. Number of
experimental and numerical studies pointed out that the MSBC
can superiorly enhance the airfoil performance albeit for
higher velocity ratios (i.e. cylinder tangential velocity to free
stream velocity). Although abundant research has been
undertaken in this area on different airfoil performances but
no attempt was seen to study effect of MSBC on NACA0021
airfoil for and also effects of lower velocity ratios. Thus,
present paper focusses on numerical study of modified NACA
0021 airfoil with leading edge rotating cylinder for velocity
ratios (i.e.) between 1 to 1.78 at different angles of attack. The
numerical study indicates that the modified airfoil possesses
better aerodynamic performance than the base airfoil even at
lower velocity ratios (i.e. for velocity ratios 0.356 and beyond).
The study also focusses on reason for improvement in
aerodynamic performance by close look at various parameters.
Index Terms—Velocity Ratio (ζ), Moving Surface Boundary
Layer Control, Coefficient of Lift, Coefficient of Drag,
Coefficient Pressure.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the beginning of 20th century, Prandtl predicted the
boundary layer in the vicinity of the solid bodies. Since then
scientific community is in the hunt ways and means to
nullify the effects of boundary layer. A vast amount of data
has been generated since beginning of 20th century. Several
concepts of flow controls have been considered number of
times and newer solutions are being evolved. One of the
very interesting flow control mechanism i.e. moving surface
boundary layer control. This concept was first used by
Anton Flettner for propulsion of an experimental rotor
vessel in year 1924 [1]. This concept was successful for
moderate to strong wings.
However, the ship got destroyed due to strong winds.
This application of moving surface has been revisited by
scientific community for nearly last 2-3 decades for flow
control over the airfoils to improve airfoil performance.
Published on July 9, 2019.
Md. Abdus Salam is with the Department of Aeronautical Engineering,
Military Institute of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh. (email:
head@ae.mist.ac.bd)
Vikram Deshpande is with the Department of Aeronautical Engineering,
Military Institute of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh. (email:
vikramdeshpande@ae.mist.ac.bd)
Nafiz Ahmed Khan is with the Department of Aeronautical Engineering,
Military Institute of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh. (email:
nafiz375@ae.mist.ac.bd)
M. A. Taher Ali is with the Department of Aeronautical Engineering,
Military Institute of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh. (email:
matali@ae.mist.ac.bd)
effect of moving surface boundary layer control and has
presented several papers. Modi [2] undertaken a through
experimental analysis of various configurations of rotating
cylinders on a Joukowsky airfoil for different angle of attack
of the airfoil and cylinder rotational speed. The experimental
results indicated that in case of leading-edge cylinder, the
airfoil coefficient of lift increases with increasing rotational
speed of the cylinder. When these rotating cylinders were
attached to sharp edges of the other shapes such as flat plate,
rectangular shapes, semi-circle and even to automobile
vehicles, the coefficient of drag was seen to be reducing.
As reported by Modi [3], Den Hartog [8], investigated
possibilities of application of moving surface boundary
layers applied at the trailing edge of Autonomous Remotely
Controlled Submersible Underwater vehicle for directional
control. It emerged from the study that MSBC rudders can
outperform conventional deflective hydroplane system.
Modi and Triplett [4] experimentally investigated effect of
moving surface boundary layer control for NASA LS (1)-
0417 airfoil with three different configurations i.e. airfoil
leading edge rotating cylinder, flap leading edge rotating
cylinder and combination of airfoil and flap leading edge
cylinders for velocity ratios (cylinder surface tangential
velocity to free stream velocity) of 1 to 4. They concluded
that the lift characteristics of the airfoil improves very
significantly and stall angle enhances from 10o to 45o for
the base airfoil to modified airfoil. They concluded that the
combination of moving surface boundary control (MSBC)
applied to wing and flap will give outstanding performance
lift and drag characteristics. Modi and Deshpande [5],
experimentally investigated effect of leading edge MSBC
effects on Joukowski airfoil for velocity ratios of 1 to 3. In
the study, they have concluded that momentum injection due
to moving surface boundary layer significantly influences on
the airfoil creating large suction peak on cylinder and
affecting boundary layer separation, large increase in
maximum lift coefficient and delay of stall angle.
There are so much studies in the field of boundary layer
control by incorporating a rotating cylinder at the leading
edge of the symmetric NACA airfoils. In 2014, Ahmed et al.
carried out a numerical study on the usefulness of
incorporating a rotating cylinder at the leading edge of
NACA 0024 airfoil and recorded 36% increase in the
coefficient of lift and 122% delay in stall angle compared to
unmodified base airfoil [9]. Welsh et al. investigated on the
advantages of utilizing a rotating cylinder at the leading
edge of NACA 0015 airfoil in 2014 [10]. They documented
that the increase of the stall angle in the modified airfoil was
11% higher than the unmodified airfoil. But they didn’t
mention any changes to the drag. Huda et al. carried out a

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.4.7.1385 11

numerical analysis using rotating cylinder at the leading
edge of NACA 0010 airfoil and documented an increase in
maximum lift by 145% compared to the unmodified airfoil
at a velocity ratio 2 [11]. But their investigation was limited
to only two velocity ratios - 1 and 2. Faisal et al. studied
experimental and numerical on symmetric NACA 0018
airfoil using a leading-edge rotating cylinder in 2017 [12].
But they did not carry out any analysis on the pre and post
stall characteristics of the modified airfoil. Abdulla et al.
carried out numerical study on varying the gaps between the
rotating cylinder and the stationary wall of symmetric
NACA 0012 airfoil [13]. They concluded that a 3 mm gap
between the moving and stationary wall achieved the best
result. But their study was limited to only velocity ratios
higher than 1.
All the previous studies have focused on the velocity ratio
i.e. ratio of cylinder tangential velocity to free stream
velocity from 1 to 4. However, effects of velocity ratios
below 1 has not been investigated or reported. No research
literature was found wherein NACA0021 airfoil with
leading edge cylinder was investigated. Very limited papers
discuss about the flow features in the modified airfoil.
Therefore, this research paper revisits these aspects through
numerical investigation for the thick symmetric airfoil
NACA0021. A brief description of the computational
domain, initial/ boundary conditions employed, of validation
studies are presented in Section 2 of the paper. The results
of study and detailed analysis and discussion are in Section
3. Finally, conclusions drawn from the study are presented
in Section 4.
II. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND COMPUTATIONAL SETUP
In the present study base airfoil NACA0021 and modified
airfoil with leading-edge cylinder are modeled for a 2D
analysis. The computational domain and the boundary
conditions for both problem setups are presented in Figure
1.
Fig. 1. Computational domain and boundary conditions.
The computation domain was chosen in such a way that
the wake generated by the airfoil is well captured and outlet
boundary condition is correctly implemented. In order to
have optimum grid size three different grids were employed
for same domain size. All three grids provided similar
results when the coefficient of pressure and coefficient of
lift were compared. Based on the grid validation studies,
grid size of just over 0.4 million cells was chosen for entire
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.4.7.1385
EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Vol. 4, No. 7, July 2019
simulation using Fluent __ of ANSYS 18.1. The other
parameters used for the numerical analysis are as follows: -
(a) Turbulence model: RNG K- Turbulent model with
enhanced wall treatment function.
(b) Fluid: air having constant density property at sea
level condition.
(c) Modi, calculate the force coefficient, the total
length from leading edge to trailing edge for both base
airfoil as well as modified airfoil was used.
(d) The convergence criteria used was 10-6 for all
parameters.
(e) Fine meshing was defined in the vicinity of
leading-edge rotating cylinder and airfoil aft surfaces.
The present study was undertaken at flow Reynolds
number based on chord length of 2.55 X 10 5 at different
angles of attack varying from 0 degrees to 20 degrees. In
case of modified airfoil i.e. NACA0021 airfoil with leading-
edge cylinder, the momentum injection parameter or
velocity ratio as referred in paper is the ratio of tangential
velocity of the leading-edge cylinder to free stream velocity
of air. The moving boundary condition in terms of RPM in
clockwise direction was specified for the leading-edge
cylinder whenever the numerical study was to be undertaken
for velocity ratios other than zero. A constant gap of 0.33%
of chord length was maintained between the leading-edge
cylinder and airfoil aft body. The gap between the leading-
edge cylinder and NACA 0021 airfoil aft-body is referred as
channel in the study. The modified airfoil has now four
distinct surfaces viz. leading-edge cylinder, front of airfoil
(i.e. face of airfoil parallel to cylinder in the channel), top
face of airfoil aft body and bottom face of airfoil aft body.
The study and analysis include following: -
(a) Parametric study of variation of coefficient of lift,
coefficient of drag and cl/cd with respect of angles of attack
(between 0 to 20o) for different velocity ratio of cylinder
ranging from zero to 1.78.
(b) Effect of velocity ratio on delay of airfoil stall
angle.
(c) Detailed Analysis of contribution to overall
coefficient modified airfoil lift by different airfoil surfaces.
(d) Analysis of flow structures and typicality of flow
for different airfoil attitude and velocity ratios.
III. VALIDATION STUDY
As first step of the study, numerical analysis of NACA
0021 airfoil has been undertaken to validate the
experimental setup as published by [14] which was used as
benchmark case by [15] to validate the CFD results. The
experimental data has been taken by Wolfe and Ochs [15]
was taken from Gregorek, et al. [14]. A NACA 0021 airfoil
section was tested in the OSU trisonic wind tunnel at Mach
= 0.20 and Reynolds number = 1.5 X 106. Comparison of
experimental and numerical results undertaken before
present study are plotted in Figure 2. The plot shows that the
variation in simulation with respect to experimental data is
within an error of 7% for entire zone of operation except for
at 25 degrees where the error is observed about 13%.
12
 EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Vol. 4, No. 7, July 2019

Fig. 3. Variation of coefficient of lift for different velocity ratios of

modified airfoil and base airfoil

Fig. 2. Validation of numerical solution with experimental results

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect of leading-edge rotating cylinder on Variation of
Lift and drag coefficients. A thorough parametric analysis
is undertaken wherein effect of the leading-edge rotating
cylinder for a modified NACA0021 airfoil is undertaken at
Reynolds number 250000 for different angles of attack from
0 to 20o. An exception being for velocity ratio 1.78, where
the angle of attack up to 25o also investigated. The data of
coefficient of lift (cl) and coefficient of drag (cd) for the base
NACA0021 airfoil is compared with the cl and cd of the
modified airfoil for different velocity ratios (). As brought
out in the literature review, previous studies have looked
into effectiveness of the modified airfoil for velocity ratios
1-4 and not commented on airfoil performance for velocity
ratios lesser than 1. Thus, the present study covers the Fig. 4. Variation of coefficient of drag for different velocity ratios of
modified airfoil and base airfoil.
velocity ratios from 0.0 to 1.78 (i.e. xi=0.0, 0.178, 0.356,
It can be seen from the coefficient of drag plots that drag
0.71, 1.07 and 1.78).
characteristic of modified airfoil is inferior to base airfoil up
A. Variation of Force Coefficients with Velocity Ratio to xi=0.178. The modified and base airfoils showcase
Figure 3 presents variation of coefficient of lift versus similar drag performance at =0.356. However, for xi values
angle of attack for base airfoil as well as modified airfoil beyond 0.356, the drag characteristics of modified airfoil is
having different velocity ratios. The figure 3 suggests that superior to base airfoil especially beyond 5-degree AOA.
the modified airfoil with velocity ratio () values up to 0.178 The coefficient of drag values for higher angle of attacks for
is inferior to base airfoil in terms of coefficient of lift. modified airfoil with >0.71 are significantly less than base
However, for =0.356, modified airfoil shows better airfoil.
performance than base airfoil both in terms of maximum B. Contribution of lifting force by different areas of the
coefficient of lift (clmax) as well as delayed stall angle in airfoil and effect of increasing rotational speed of leading-
terms of delay in stall angle for modified airfoil. As velocity edge rotation
ratio is further increased, the modified airfoil performance
In essence, the leading-edge rotating cylinder improves
gives exceptional performance wherein clmax and stall angle
the performance of modified airfoil both in terms of
value nearly doubles. The reason for this improved airfoil
coefficient of drag and coefficient of lift. In order to analyse
performance would be analysed in detail subsequently.
the contributory factors influencing the airfoil performance a
Similarly, the coefficient of drag performance of the
detailed analysis is undertaken on flow over different parts
modified airfoil vis-à-vis base airfoil is presented in Figure 4
of the modified airfoil. The modified airfoil has four
below.
surfaces viz. top, bottom, front faces of airfoil and the
leading-edge cylinder. The contribution by each of the four
surfaces to the airfoil coefficient of lift for velocity ratios

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.4.7.1385 13
 EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Vol. 4, No. 7, July 2019

0.178 and 1.78 are compared with stationary cylinder case

(i.e. =0.0) in figures 7(a) and Figure 7(b) respectively.
Subsequent paragraphs present analysis from these plots.

Fig. 8. Coefficient of friction on the top surface of the airfoil for different
values of 

The leading-edge cylinder is seen to be second largest

(a)
contributor for the coefficient of lift after top surface. It is
nearly constant for lower speeds of cylinder rotations (lower
values of ), while at velocity ratios, the increase in angle of
attack increases the contribution to lift coefficient almost
linearly. The higher contribution to coefficient of lift by
rotating cylinder can be attributed to Magnus effect which is
evident from figure 9 wherein the coefficient of pressure for
the leading-edge cylinder for different velocity ratios is
presented. It can be seen that as the rotation speed increases,
the upper surface of the leading-edge cylinder creates
significantly higher suction (as can be seen –ve coefficient
of pressure). As angle of attack increases, this suction
further enhances due to two reasons (a) angle of incidence
of the fluid (b) attached flow over cylinder due to cylinder
rotation. This can be visualized from Figure 10, where
(b) coefficient of pressure over cylinder is plotted for varying
Fig. 7. Contribution to coefficient of lift by different faces of modified angles of attack.
airfoil for leading momentum injection parameter (a) =0.0 & =0.178 and
(b) =0.0 & =1.78.

The major contributor of lift being the top surface of the

airfoil both prior and after stall angles. Albeit, after stall
angle, relative drop in the contribution is seen but still
contribution by top surface dominates. As the rotational
speed or momentum injection of the leading cylinder
increases, the flow over the top surface improves and flow
remains closely attached on top surface for longer distance.
This can be seen from the plots of coefficient of skin friction
(cf versus X) presented in Figures 8. In figure 8, it is evident
that the value of coefficient of skin friction approaches to
zero on top surface occurs at 55% of the cord length for
=0.0. This value for =0.178 and 1.78 is at 60% and 87%
approximately. From these points on intermittent separation
bubbles starts evolve on top surface. Thus, with increase in Fig. 9. Effect of rotation speed on Coefficient of pressure over the leading-
edge cylinder for airfoil held at 10-degree angle of attack.
velocity ratio, the flow over the top surface improves which
contributes positively for overall coefficient of lift. At lower
velocity ratios the effect is not very significant, while for
higher velocity ratios it’s significant.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.4.7.1385 14
 EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Vol. 4, No. 7, July 2019

(a)
Fig. 10. Effect of angle of attack on Coefficient of pressure over the
leading-edge cylinder.

These two contributory factors i.e. angle of attack and

attached flow over cylinder positively contribute in
enhancing the overall coefficient of lift of the modified
airfoil. The drag characteristic of the airfoil is expected to
improve due to existence of the streamline body (i.e. airfoil)
in the wake zone of the rotating cylinder. The contribution
of the front face the airfoil is in negative sense to the overall
coefficient of lift. In order to reason for this behavior a close
look at the pressure in the channel and thereby wall pressure
on front face is done. Figures 11(a) and 11(b) present the
static pressure contours for stationary and rotating leading
edge cylinders of the modified airfoil respectively. An
interesting observation can be made from Figures 11 (a) and
(b). In both cases higher pressure is observed in lower
portion of the channel while reduced pressure is observed in
upper portion of the channel. This varying pressure field in (b)
Fig. 11. (a) Static pressure contours for stationary cylinder (b) Static
the channel or on the front of the airfoil contributes to pressure contours for rotating cylinder with velocity ratio of 1.78Effect of
reduction of overall lift coefficient. angle of attack on Coefficient of pressure over the leading-edge cylinder.
The static static pressure distribution in the channel
appears to alter due to rotating leading edge cylinder where The contribution of bottom face of airfoil for overall
the upper portion channel pressure increases significantly coefficient of lift is seen to be minimal from Figure 7(a) and
for rotating cylinder than for stationary cylinder. This can be 7(b). In order to analyze the reason for minimal or negative
quantified using static pressure plot on the front face of contribution of bottom surface for overall coefficient of lift,
airfoil against the curve length as plotted in Figure 12(a). the vector plots analysis is undertaken. The vector plots in
Figure 12 (a) presents increase in wall pressure on airfoil the vicinity of bottom leading edge for stationary and
front face with increasing velocity ratios. The y-axis in rotating cylinder are shown in Figure 13(a) and 13(b)
Figure 12 (a) is the % of curve length from A to B as shown respectively. From these vector plots, it is evident that air
in Figure 12 (b). The wall pressure is found to reduce enters through the lower entry of channel and moves
linearly on the curve from A to B for all velocity ratios or upwards for stationary cylinder. While in case of rotating
rotation speeds of the leading-edge cylinder. However, as cylinder, the rotating cylinder reverses the airflow direction
the velocity ratio increases, the overall static pressure in in the channel i.e. flow exits from lower channel entry as
channel increases and tries to achieve a uniform channel shown in figure 13(b) and this air stream interacts with
value pressure albeit at much higher velocity ratios. inflow air and pushes the inflow air near lower entry of
The increase in channel pressure is due to cylinder channel away from bottom of airfoil. This interaction of
transferring the work to fluid akin to vaneless compressor. opposing air flows creates circulation zone at the beginning
This reduction in the static pressure gradient in the channel of bottom surface of airfoil as evident from figure 13(b).
with increasing speed influences overall coefficient of lift of
modified airfoil.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.4.7.1385 15
 EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Vol. 4, No. 7, July 2019

V. CONCLUSIONS
The numerical investigation of the modified NACA0021
airfoil with leading edge rotating cylinder revealed that
performance of modified NACA0021 airfoil is superior to
base airfoil for velocity ratio () less than 1.0 as against all
previous studies presented studies only for velocity ratios 1-
4. The lift and drag characteristics of modified airfoil is
found to be superior to base airfoil for velocity ratio beyond
0.356 and 0.7 respectively wherein the coefficient of lift
increases and coefficient of drag reduces for all angles of
attack. The close look of the contribution to overall
coefficient of lift by the top surface is significant due to
delay in flow separation at higher angles of attack in view of
(a) (b)
momentum injection by the leading-edge cylinder. The
Fig. 12. (a) Wall pressure on front of airfoil Vs curve length (b) Curve Magnus effect of leading-edge cylinder is second major
length AB shown on front of airfoil contributor for improving the overall airfoil coefficient of
lift. The leading-edge rotating cylinder is found to act like
In order to ascertain the exact location of the flow
separation point on the bottom airfoil, skin friction
coefficient for bottom airfoil is plotted and presented in
Figure 14. Figure 14 indicates that the small separation
bubble appears and touches the bottom surface indicated by
coefficient of skin friction becoming zero at 4.4% chord
length on bottom surface of airfoil. The flow however gets
reattached to bottom surface of airfoil in a very short
distance. Figure 7(a) and (b) indicate that the coefficient of
lift contribution of the bottom surface for rotating cylinder
case is higher than stationary cylinder and its contribution
increases with higher velocity ratios. This is attributed to the
fact that at higher rotational speeds, the high-pressure air
(due to compression by rotating cylinder) from the channel
increases the bottom surfaces pressure. This is also evident
from coefficient pressure plot for bottom airfoil as shown at Fig. 14. Coefficient of skin friction near forward portion of bottom surface
Figure 15. of airfoil

vane less compressor, compressing the air in the channel

and supplying high pressure air to bottom surface and front
of airfoil which contribute marginally to improve airfoil
performance. The preliminary study indicates feasibility of
practical implementation of leading-edge cylinders for thick
airfoil for aviation, wind turbine, and other applications.

(a)

Fig. 15. Coefficient of Pressure near forward portion of bottom surface

(b)
Fig. 13. Vector plots indicating (a) air entry from bottom channel entry for
stationary cylinder and (b) air exit from bottom channel entry for rotating
cylinder

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.4.7.1385 16

REFERENCES
[1] V.J. Modi, “Moving surface boundary layer control: a review,”
Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 627-663, Aug
1997.
[2] V. J. Modi, “On the moving surface boundary-layer control”, In
Fluids 2000 Conference and Exhibit, pp. 2238. Jun 2000.
[3] V.R. Den Hartog, “Moving surface boundary layer control with
application to autonomous underwater vehicles,” M.A.Sc. Thesis,
Dept. Mech. Eng., University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada, 1999.
[4] V.J. Modi and B. Triplett, “Moving surface boundary layer control for
aircraft operation at high angles of attack,” presented at 41st
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, USA, Jan 2003.
[5] V.J. Modi and B. Deshpande, “A Joukowski Airfoil with momentum
injection,” AIAA article, pp. 4108, 2000.
[6] V. J. Modi, M. S. U. K. Fernando, and T. Yokomizo. “Moving
surface boundary-layer control as applied to two-dimensional and
three-dimensional bluff bodies,” Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 83-92, 1991.
[7] V.J., Modi and T. Yokomizo, “Pressure distribution on a roof in
presence of the moving surface boundary layer control,” Journal of
Visualization, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 255-260, 1999.
[8] V.J Modi., S.R. Munshi, G. Bandyopadhyay, and T. Yokomizo,
“High performance airfoil with moving surface boundary layer
control,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 35, no.4, pp. 544-553, 1998.
[9] S. Ahmed, A. Nazari and E. Wahba, “Numerical analysis of
separation control over an airfoil section,” International Review of
Aerospace Engineering, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 61-68, 2014.
[10] D. N. Welsh, M. Lester, M. Lopes, R. Gates and J. Hoover, “The
effects of a leading-edge rotating cylinder on the performance of a
NACA 0015 airfoil at high angles of attack,” AIAA Atmospheric
Flight Mechanics Conference, pp. 0540.
[11] M. N. Huda, T. Ahmed, T. S. M. Ahmed, M. A. Salam, M. R. Afsar,
K. M. Faisal and M. A. T. Ali, “Study of NACA 0010 symmetric
airfoil with leading edge rotating cylinder in a subsonic wind tunnel,”
presented at 11th International Conference on Mechanical
Engineering, BUET, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2015.
[12] K. M. Faisal, M. A. Salam, M. A. T. Ali, M. S. Sarkar, W. Safa and
N. Sharah, “Flow control using moving surface at the leading edge of
aerofoil”, Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 45 –
50, 2017.
[13] N. A. Najdat and F. H. Mustafa, “Effect of gap between airfoil and
embedded rotating cylinder on the airfoil aerodynamic performance,”
Res Dev Material Sci., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1 – 10, 2018.
[14] G. M. Gregorek, M. J. Hoffmann, and M. J. Berchak, “Steady state
and oscillatory aerodynamic characteristics of a NACA 0021 airfoil:
data report,” Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
[15] W.P. Wolfe, S.S. Ochs, “Predicting aerodynamic characteristic of
typical wind turbine airfoils using CFD”, no. SAND-96-2345. Sandia
National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States), 1997.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2019.4.7.1385
EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science
Vol. 4, No. 7, July 2019
Md Abdus Salam is Professor and Head of the
Department of Aeronautical Engineering (AE) in
Military Institute of Science and Technology, Mirpur
Cantonment, Dhaka Bangladesh. His Masters of
Science in Aeronautical Engineering is from the
University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China.
He has completed a
Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
from Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology (BUET). He has also done Masters of
Defense Studies at Bangladesh National University (NU).
He has 24 years of working experience in the Bangladesh Air Force. His
current position is Air Commodore. He has also 14 years of teaching
experience. One of his published books named as Title: “Study of
Aerodynamics of a Cricket Ball” published by LAP Lambert Academic
Publishing, ISBN: 978-3-659-29532-4.
Vikram Deshpande is Associate Professor of the
Department of Aeronautical Engineering (AE) in
Military Institute of Science and Technology, Mirpur
Cantonment, Dhaka Bangladesh. He did his Ph.D. in
Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology,
Delhi (IIT Delhi), India. His Masters of Science in
ME Mechanical Engineering, Defense Institute of
Advanced Technology (DIAT), Pune, India. His
Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering,
Karnataka University Dharwar, India.
He has 15 years of working experience in Indian Air Force. His current
position is Wing Commander. He has also 3 years of teaching experience.
Nafiz Ahmed khan is Lecturer of the Department of
Aeronautical Engineering (AE) in Military Institute
of Science and Technology, Mirpur Cantonment,
Dhaka Bangladesh. He did his B.Sc. in Aeronautical
Engineering, MIST, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
He has 2 years of teaching experience as a lecturer
in the corresponding department.
Md. Abu Taher Ali is Professor of the Department
of Aeronautical Engineering (AE) in Military
Institute of Science and Technology, Mirpur
Cantonment, Dhaka Bangladesh. He did his Ph.D. in
Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College,
University of London, England (1980). His Masters
of Science in Mechanical Engineering, BUET,
Dhaka, Bangladesh (1972). His Bachelor of
Engineering Mechanical Engineering, 1st class, 4th
Position, EPUET, Dhaka, Bangladesh (1966).
He has 50 years of teaching experience in the corresponding department.
17