Introducing CFD and Wind Tunnel Testing in an ... CFD and Wind Tunnel Testing in an Undergraduate Fluid Mechanics Course 506 courses. For more than a decade, instructors have been

Journal of Energy and Power Engineering 9 (2015) 505-516 doi: 10.17265/1934-8975/2015.06.001

Introducing CFD and Wind Tunnel Testing in an

Undergraduate Fluid Mechanics Course

Wael Mokhtar and Shirley Fleischmann

School of Engineering, Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI 49504, USA

Received: February 27, 2015 / Accepted: April 16, 2015 / Published: June 30, 2015. Abstract: CFD (computational fluid dynamics) is following the trend of CAD and FEA (finite element analysis) to undergraduate education especially with recent advances in commercial codes. It will soon take its place as an expected skill for new engineering graduates. CFD was added as a component to an experiment in a junior level fluid mechanics course. The objectives were to introduce CFD, as an analysis tool, to the students and to support the theoretical concepts of the course. The students were asked to complete an experimental two-dimensional study for a wing in a wind tunnel, to use CFD to simulate the flow, and to predict the aerodynamic lift using CFD as well as the experimentally obtained pressure distribution. In addition, they had to compare their results to published data for the studied wing. Details of the course, the wind tunnel test and the CFD simulations are presented. Samples from the students’ work are used in the discussion. The lab activities were successfully completed by the students and the learning objectives were well addressed. One of the valuable outcomes from this lab was the opportunity for the students to integrate multiple fluid mechanics analysis tools and learn about the limits for each tool. CFD also enhanced the learning in the lab activities and increased students’ interest in the subject. Key words: Undergraduate teaching, computational fluid dynamics, experimental fluid mechanics.

1. Introduction

In the last two decades, engineering hands-on skills

have expanded to include numerical methods. CAD

was the first skill to make its way to industry. Later,

FEA (finite element analysis) was added as a powerful

design tool. It is now expected that, a mechanical

engineering graduate will know the basics of CAD and

FEA. Most engineering schools offer courses to support

these design skills. Software developing companies

are competing to develop more user-friendly packages

with wider varieties of built-in tools to attract more

users. From an educational point of view, it is very

important to teach the students the limits of these

numerical tools and stress the fact that physical testing

is not being totally replaced by numerical simulation.

The integration of experimental and numerical

methods should be the goal of the users.

Corresponding author: Wael Mokhtar, Ph.D., assistant director, research fields: teach methods, CFD and aerodynamics. E-mail: [email protected].

CFD (computational fluid dynamics) is currently

following the same track to be added to hands-on

skills. Starting as a research tool taught at the graduate

level, it has recently started to appear in undergraduate

level courses. Mokhtar [1] introduced CFD to an

undergraduate fluid mechanics course. In his course,

he introduced basic concepts of CFD through a set of

projects in the lab where the students built their skills

by a practice-learning approach. He indicated that, the

use of CFD supported the introduction of critical

thinking and creativity. Later, Mokhtar [2] expanded

his project-based learning to teach an undergraduate

CFD course. Recently, Mokhtar [3] discussed the

introduction of a wind energy project in his CFD

undergraduate course. In his examples, Mokhtar

presented assessment data to show the success of

introducing CFD in the undergraduate level. He

presented a balanced approach between software

training and theoretical foundation. He used a

commercial CFD package (Star CCM+) in these

D DAVID PUBLISHING

Introducing CFD and Wind Tunnel Testing in an Undergraduate Fluid Mechanics Course

506

courses. For more than a decade, instructors have been

exploring the introduction of CFD to undergraduate

courses, Hailey, et al. [4] introduced CFD concepts in

junior level fluid mechanics course. Their goals were:

to support the fluid mechanics topics of the course, to

motivate the students to take the advanced CFD

course, and to introduce the students to CFD tools

used in summer internships. In their courses, they

used an in-house CFD solver. The authors indicated

the success of introducing the CFD at undergraduate

level with some minor concerns on the students’

responses to the software.

Sert, et al. [5] used CFD as a teaching tool for a

basic fluid mechanics course. In their approach, the

students were given virtual flow lab software

(FlowLab) where they used a simplified version of

CFD to solve basic problems. Details of the numerical

methods were not the focus, instead, CFD general

concepts such as meshing, boundary condition and

flow properties were the main objectives. Blekhman [6]

presented further evaluation of using FlowLab to

support experiments in a fluid mechanics course. He

also indicated the success of using CFD as a teaching

tool for undergraduate students with a limited

introduction for its concepts.

Cummings, et al. [7] discussed the development of

an undergraduate CFD aerodynamics course in the US

Air Force Academy. The focus of the course was on

the use of CFD as a practical tool. Topics such as

accuracy, stability, meshing and turbulence modeling

were covered in the course. Commercial software

packages were used for meshing and post-processing

such as GridGen, FieldView, Tecplot and MatLab.

In-house panel method (vortex-lattice) software was

used as solvers. The authors indicated that, advanced

topics such as the details numerical algorithms and

turbulence modeling were not deeply covered. They

also reported that, the course helped the students to

better understand fluid mechanics concepts and

introduced them well to CFD as a design and analysis

tool.

In another example, Guessous, et al. [8] developed

a hands-on undergraduate course in CFD. Through a

set of experiments and the use of a commercial code

(Fluent), senior students were introduced to CFD as a

testing tool without getting into the details of it. The

authors reported that, the course was successful and

the learning objectives were met. The objectives of

this approach were to introduce CFD as a “black box”

tool and support the fluid mechanics concepts taught

in the course. Navaz, et al. [9] presented two courses

for undergraduate students where CFD was introduced.

The first was an applied CFD course where basics of

CFD including some solver details were covered in

the lecture while in the lab the students used CFD

commercial codes (Fluent) and a couple of pre- and

post-processing tools. In the second course, CFD was

utilized to teach compressible flow without focusing

on the details for CFD methods. Both courses had

experimental lab activities where CFD results were

verified. They reported that, the two courses were

successful to introduce the students to CFD and teach

them through practice the limits of both computational

and experimental tools.

Bullough, et al. [10] developed modules in fluid

mechanics lab where the students studied several

designs of diffusers using CFD, experimental and

analytical methods. Fluent was used for the CFD part

and it was used as an analysis tool without many

details about its theory. The objective was to teach the

students the importance of using these three methods

and to get them to observe the limits for each

approach. The authors indicated that, their students

learned through this hands-on experience some of the

challenges and limits to generate accurate results

using CFD. As a design tool, Stubley, et al. [11]

introduced CFD to undergraduate students. In their

course, a brief overview about CFD concepts was

presented in the beginning of the course. Then, a set of

pre-computed simulations was given to the students

where the focus was to use this CFD tools to analyze

complex flow. The simulations were made by a


507

commercial package (CFX) and the students used the

post-processing tool that came with the package in

their study. The authors indicated that using CFD as

teaching tool was helpful to add the realization and

visualization aspect of fluid mechanics. Stern, et al. [12]

presented the details of a virtual fluid mechanics lab

that was developed by CFD. In this tool, details CFD

concepts were not the main focus. The main objective

was to provide fluid mechanics instructors with an

easy to use teaching tool to support the concepts

covered in their courses.

Burban [13] used CFD as a design tool for a team

of undergraduate students in the SAE (Society of

Automotive Engineering) Super-Mileage competition.

As he reported, over a year of mentoring, his team was

successful to utilize CFD in the design of their vehicle.

The focus on this case was the correct use of CFD

with limited information about the theoretical

concepts. Mazumder [14] mentored undergraduate

students in a CFD research study. He reported that the

students were successful to use a commercial package

(Fluent) to complete a two phase flow study. He

indicated that the students utilized CFD with limited

knowledge in its theoretical details. Their results

compared well with the published experimental data.

2. Present Approach

It can be noticed that, over the last two decades,

CFD has been introduced to undergraduate students.

The advances in commercial software could be one of

the reasons that helped this transition. Four forms of

CFD introduction can be summarized as follows:

an applied CFD course with limited background

in CFD methods;

project-based learning for CFD packages;

introducing CFD as a teaching tool in

undergraduate courses without focusing on its details;

CFD as a design and research tool for

extracurricular students’ activities.

It is clear that CFD as an applied tool is ready for

undergraduate students. In the present approach, CFD

was introduced to support a lab activity in junior level

undergraduate fluid mechanics course. Basics of CFD

were introduced and the students completed a wind

tunnel test for a wing. They then compared results

from both the experimental and CFD study to the

published data for the studied wing. Details of the lab

philosophy are presented follow by the wing wind

tunnel test details and the CFD component that was

added. Results from the students’ work are also

presented.

3. Design in the Fluid Mechanics Lab

In the mechanical engineering program at Grand

Valley State University, fluid mechanics course is

taught in the end of the junior year as the second

required course in the thermo-fluid track. The first

course is thermodynamics and the last course is heat

transfer. Throughout the thermo-fluid track, design

skills are introduced in the form of design projects, lab

activities and research topics. Fleischmann, et al. [15]

presented more information about the design

philosophy in the thermo-fluid track. Fluid mechanics

is the first course to include a lab in the track. The lab

is a three-hour session every week and the lecture part

is also 3 h. The focus in this paper is on the lab

portion. The lab activities support the theoretical part

of the course and introduce design skills in the form of

experimental design and a final design and build

project.

Each week, the lab starts with a brief introduction

of the experiment objectives and the tools that can be

used in the study. Then the students form teams and

develop their experimental plan. After the instructor

approval, each team preforms the experimental study.

Then, each student is individually responsible to

report this data and interpret the results.

4. Preparation for the Wing Experiment

The wing experiment occurred at the middle of the

semester. In preparation to understand the concept of

determining force by integrating a surface pressure


508

distribution on flat as well as curved surfaces, the

students completed homework problems and an

experiment using a hydrostatic pressure distribution.

This experiment was completed by the third week of

the semester. Just before the wing experiment they

completed a measurement of drag on a circular

cylinder using an experimentally obtained surface

pressure distribution. In this case, the model is very

similar to the wing model in that it vertically spans the

1 foot by 1 foot test section using the top and bottom

of the test section as end plates to assure 2-D flow.

Pressure taps are located around the mid-section of the

cylinder at 15° increments just as the surface pressure

taps are located around the mid-section of the wing at

various percent of chord on the top and bottom of the

wing. And also with a 4 inch diameter, the cylinder

shows blockage effects just as the wing does at high

angles of attack. The models are physically similar.

In our wind tunnel, the maximum ReD is 2.2 × 105

which, for a smooth cylinder assures a laminar

attached boundary layer with a turbulent wake and an

early separation point. The speed is close enough that

a slight trip (a sand strip on the front) will transition

the boundary layer and on half of the cylinder students

will observe very low pressures associated with high

acceleration in the flow outside the boundary layer

affecting the attached flow. Flow separates much later

on this half and follows the ideal flow (CP = 1 – 4sin2θ)

much longer. This allows students to see what

separated flow looks like so that they will recognize

stall from the surface pressure distribution. They will

recognize regions of favorable and unfavorable

pressure gradient and the effects on the surface

pressure distribution when flow stays attached

longer—as it will on an un-stalled wing.

The blockage effect also clearly shows up as CP

values even less than -3 as predicted by the ideal flow

with perfect no-slip wall but only for the attached flow

(the turbulent boundary layer side). The regular

geometry of the cylinder enables the students to

evaluate drag coefficient as an integral of the pressure

coefficient times the cosine of the angle relative to

forward stagnation. For the wing, with a more

complex geometry—especially at various angles of

attack—it is clear that, the lift can be evaluated by this

method of integrating the pressure distribution but the

drag would be difficult. This sets the stage for

recognizing the benefit of CFD modeling. Because it

is also easy to compare the predicted pressure

coefficient for ideal flow to the experimental pressure

coefficient, students are prepared to expect differences

between viscous and inviscid solutions. This is easily

obtained with the software used.

5. Wing Experiment

At this point, students were ready to benefit from an

experimental study of a two-dimensional wing (airfoil).

The goal of the experiment was to calculate the

aerodynamic lift by integrating the measured surface

pressure. The study showed the effect of wind speed

and angle of attack. The experiment was conducted in

the open loop closed test section wind tunnel, as shown

in Fig. 1. The model was mounted to a base plate in

the floor of the test section that could be turned for a

range of angles of attack. Fig. 2 shows a Clark-Y wing

model that was used in the experiment. As was the

case for the circular cylinder, the model vertically

spanned the test section using the upper and lower

walls as end plates to allow for the two dimensional

study. The wing was equipped with 18 pressure openings

located at 0%, 7.5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%,

60% and 70% chord on both the upper and lower

surfaces. Fig. 3 shows the wing inside the test section.

The aerodynamic lift was covered in the lecture part

of the course before this lab activity. Also the lab

manual summarized the basics and the method to

calculate the lift from the surface pressure coefficient.

Fig. 4 shows part of the theoretical concepts that were

given to the students in the beginning of the lab. Each

team was asked to develop the details of their

experiment including the wind speeds, angles of attack

and wind tunnel settings.


509

Fig. 1 A photo of the wind tunnel used in the study.

Fig. 2 Clark-Y wing model.

Fig. 3 The wing model inside the test section.

Lift bottomtopsurface

L cosdcosdd FFFF L

Fig. 4 Basics presented to the students.

6. CFD Component

The wing experiment had been a part of the lab in

fluid mechanics for many years however without a

substantial comparison to inviscid flow solutions or

other predictive tools such as CFD. The availability of

CFD tools as well as free software that could be easily

downloaded made this a natural improvement to the

lab. An overview of basics of CFD was presented to

the students using a commercial code (Star CCM+)

that is used in the technical elective taught in the

senior year [2]. The demonstration included the

general features of an effective mesh and some of the

capabilities and limits of CFD as an analysis tool. At

this level, no further details about CFD algorithms and

solver schemes could be presented. A case study

similar to the wing experiment was used in the

demonstration to make the discussion more relevant to

the students. Figs. 5 and 6 show a zoom in for the

two-dimensional mesh and part of the post-processing

for the studied airfoil. The demonstration also

included some the flow structures such as boundary

layer separation, wake formation, stagnation regions

and lift force calculation. Having a commercial code

allows the use of flow animation and tools such as

vector field and pressure and velocity contours to

enhance the discussion.

Fig. 5 CFD class demonstration, zoom in mesh.


510

Fig. 6 CFD class demonstration, velocity contours.

A commercial code (Star CCM+) was successfully

used before to introduce CFD to undergraduate

students in fluid mechanics course through a series of

demonstrations similar to the one outlined here [1].

This training needed more time in the class and lab

which was not case for this course. To shorten the

needed training time and achieve the learning

objectives, simplified software—XFOIL was

introduced. It is a panel method code that was

developed by Drela [16] to study airfoil sections.

XFOIL includes several features such as:

boundary layer formation [17];

trailing edge treatment [18];

boundary layer tripping;

meshing control tools;

aerodynamic loads calculation;

inviscid and viscous analysis;

airfoil design tools (inverse method);

and more features [19-21].

In the lab, basics of XFOIL use were presented to

the students with a focus on the importance of

meshing, inviscid and viscous modeling. The profile

of the Clark-Y airfoil section was given to the students

as well. Fig. 7 shows the airfoil section and examples

of meshing (paneling) that could be used in XFOIL to

add clustering near to the leading and trailing edges.

7. Published Data

Another important part of the lab activities was to

get the students to compare their experimental and

CFD results to the published data. Clark-Y airfoil

section has been used in low speed applications since

the 1930’s. The students were asked to research and

report their references for the polar curves of this

Fig. 7 Part of the XFOIL demonstration.

airfoil. Among references, NASA (National Aeronautics

and Space Administration) [22] reported wind tunnel

data in 1930 for a long list of airfoil section including

Clark-Y. A more recent source was a book by Lyon, et

al. [23] where they also reported data for many airfoil

sections. XFOIL was one of the tools used besides

wind tunnel testing in this book.

8. Students’ Work

The students were divided into teams where each

team developed the experiment plan and complete the

wind tunnel test for the wing. Each team was from

four to five students. Fig. 8 shows one of the teams

during the wind tunnel test. Each student was asked to

complete the CFD study, research the published data

and interpret all the data in a written report. In this

section, samples from the students’ results will be

discussed to observe the level students’ responses to

the lab activities. Parameters that each team decided

were:

range of wind speeds;

range of angle of attack;

wind tunnel accuracy;

similarity requirements between CFD and wind

tunnel test;

sources for published data.

Figs. 9-14 show the pressure coefficient distribution

reported by three students. Student A presented the

upper and lower surface in separate graphs for three


511

Fig. 8 One of the students during the wind tunnel testing.

Fig. 9 Pressure distribution on upper surface, student A.

Fig. 10 Pressure distribution on lower surface, student A.

Fig. 11 Pressure coefficient as function of position for α of 0°, student B.

Fig. 12 Pressure coefficient as function of position for α of 15°, student B.

Fig. 13 Pressure distribution for α of 0°, student C.

1.0

1.0

-1.0

-2.0

α = 0°

α = 10°

α = -10°

Pres

sure

coe

ffic

ient

Pres

sure

coe

ffic

ient

α = 0°

α = 10°

α = -10°

CP

Chord position (ft)

0°

0°

Chord position (ft)

CP

15°

15°

CP

Percent of chord


512

Fig. 14 Pressure distribution for α of 14º, student C.

angles of attack: 0°, 10° and -10°. Student B reported

separate graphs angles of attack: 0°, 7° and 15°. The

third student reported angles of attack: 0°, 4° and 14°.

Student A studied positive and negative values for the

angle of attack which is suitable for cambered airfoil

section such as Clark-Y. Students B and C ran a high

angle of cases to explore the stall conditions. Student

C ran two sets of testing through these angles with

wind speeds: 80 mph and 100 mph to report the effect

of the wind speed. The first two students did not

report that part of the study. Students A and B plotted

the pressure coefficient Cp in regular scale while the

usual practice in aeronautical application is to have Cp

presented in a reverse scale as the way student C

reported his data.

To run a CFD simulation using XFOIL, the students

had to meet the similarity conditions between the two

cases. Reynolds (Re) and Mach (M) numbers were

calculated for the tested wing and the same values

were used in the simulations. Figs. 15-20 show

samples of the CFD results reported by the students

using XFOIL. The software allows both inviscid and

viscous modeling. Students A and B used viscous

modeling and student C used inviscid modeling, all of

them used the right modeling condition (Re and M). It

can be seen that, the measured pressure distribution

compared well with the CFD results.

The next step in the study was to calculate the lift

coefficient CL. The CFD software, XFOIL, reports the

Fig. 15 Simulated pressure coefficient for an angle of attack α = 0°, XFOIL results, student A.

Fig. 16 Simulated pressure coefficient for an angle of attack α of 10° , XFOIL results, student A.

Fig. 17 Simulated pressure coefficient for an angle of attack α of 7°, XFOIL results, student B.

Percent of chord

CP


513

Fig. 18 Simulated pressure coefficient for an angle of attack α of 15°, XFOIL results, student B.

Fig. 19 Simulated pressure coefficient for an angle of attack α of 0°, XFOIL results, student C.

Fig. 20 Simulated pressure coefficient for an angle of attack α of 14°, XFOIL results, student C.

values directly. For the wind tunnel test, the students

had to calculate the lift coefficient by integrating the

measure pressure distribution. Fig. 21 shows the set of

equations reported by one of the students for

calculating CL. Tables 1-4 show samples of the lift

coefficients reports by four students. The first

student compared their results to the published

data while the rest compared the wind tunnel and the

CFD results. All of them commented on the reasons

of differences between the data. One of the lessons

they learn at this part was that, each method had its

own sources uncertainty. Below are some the error

sources:

accuracy of pressure measurements, wind tunnel;

blockage interference at high angle of attack,

wind tunnel;

mesh refinements near to leading and trailing

edge, CFD;

large separation regions, CFD.

9. Further Discussion and Assessment

Performing a fluid mechanics study using a wind

tunnel and CFD and verifying the results against

published data were the main goal of this experiment.

In the process, the students got to learn about the

limits and accuracy of each method. In this section,

some of their concluding statements will be discussed.

d d cos top0

d cos bottom0Surface

d cos d cos00

∞ d cos 0

cos dd shown in Fig. 4

∞ d dd0

∞ d0

d d cos shown in Fig. 4

∞ d cos0

0.5 2 ∞ d cos0

∞ d cos0

0.5 2 cos

d0

Fig. 21 Calculation of the drag coefficient, student sample.


514

Table 1 Lift coeficient, student A.

Angle of attack 0° 10° -10°

Experimental 0.81 1.34 -0.16

Published 0.42 1.25 -0.50

CFD analysis 0.4350 1.6285 -0.7721

Table 2 Lift coeficient, student B.

Angle of attack Experimental CL Theoretical CL

0° 0.4987 0.4350

4° 1.1209 0.9160

14° 1.8916 2.0941

Table 3 Lift coeficient, student C.

95 ft/s 105 ft/s

0° -0.77 -0.71

6° -0.80 -0.73

10° -0.80 -0.77

Table 4 Lift coeficient, student D.

α EXP XFOIL Error Uncertainty

0° 0.8820 0.47 87.7 16.0

10° 1.4900 1.306 14.1 18.4

-10° 0.0834 -7.52 -98.9 13.8

One of the students reported in his conclusion the

following statement:

“…Simulations provide an effective tool for

evaluating the validity of experimental measurements

and vice versa, but regions of separation and

unpredictable flow are very difficult to model

correctly….”

It is clear that, he learned through the practice, the

limits of a CFD study and that there are some flow

conditions where wind tunnel testing will be more

accurate than CFD. Another student commented about

the wind tunnel blockage:

“…The cross-sectional area of the wind tunnel in

which the airfoil was placed was 1 foot by 1, and

when the angle of attack for the airfoil was adjusted to

±10°, it took up a considerable amount of

cross-sectional area. This set-up could cause

interference between the affected boundary layer

around the wing and the sides of the tunnel and in

return could affect the pressure at the wing…”

The limits of wind tunnel testing and the size of the

tested model is one of the standard constraints for

accurate testing. It is clear that, this student got this

part when comparing his results to CFD and published

data. In another student’s comment about the accuracy

in calculating the lift coefficient by integrating the

pressure distribution, he reported:

“…From the previously presented data, the

accuracy of the coefficient of lift increased as the

angle of attack increased. This was due to the

difficulty of numerically integrating Cp versus chord

length plots that have outliers, which are present at the

stagnation point in situations with a smaller angle of

attack…”

Some of the students focused on one source of error

while others commented on more than one source of

uncertainty. They all realized the value of the

integration of CFD and wind tunnel. It is also

important to mention that, some of the students did

not get that deep in the discussion and got busy with

reporting the results without focusing on the big

picture. However, this group also completed both


515

sides of the lab activities successfully.

The authors ran this lab activities several times in

the last couple of years. From their point of view, this

integrated lab activities (CFD and wind tunnel)

enriched the lab experience for the students and

expanded their view for value of both tools. Nearly all

the students learned the CFD software after one

demonstration with minimal assistance after that. The

lab also encouraged many students to take the CFD

technical elective in their senior year. One of the

students who completed this lab, student A in the

previous sections, took the CFD technical elective and

another independent study in CFD before his

graduation. Another student got even more interested

in CFD and he is currently working on his master

degree in CFD applications.

10. Conclusions

A lab activity was designed to integrate CFD and

wind tunnel testing in an undergraduate fluid

mechanics course. Details of the lab were discussed

through samples from the students’ work. This lab

activity was repeated several times in the last couple

of years.

The majority of the students were attracted to the

CFD tool. Many of them learned the limits of using

CFD and the accuracy of running a wind tunnel test to

complete a fluid mechanics study. Positive feedback

from both the students and the instructors about this

lab activity was observed.

As a final remark, CFD can serve as a good tool to

support junior level fluid mechanics classes. This

work is an example of that use. Usually, students learn

this type of software very fast and that saves time for

the instructors to focus on theoretical parts of the

course. In addition, CFD provides the students with a

good visualization tool to enhance the learning

environment.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the students who

participated in the lab activity and provided the

samples presented in this paper.

References

[1] Mokhtar, W. 2010. “Using Computational Fluid

Dynamics to Introduce Critical Thinking and Creativity

in an Undergraduate Engineering Course.” The

International Journal of Learning 17 (9): 441-58.

[2] Mokhtar, W. 2011. “PBL (Project-Based Learning)—An

Effective Tool to Teach an Undergraduate CFD Course.”

In Proceedings of the ASEE (American Society for

Engineering Education) Annual Conference, 973.

[3] Mokhtar, W. 2014. “Introducing Wind Energy to an

Undergraduate CFD Course.” In Proceedings of the

ASEE North Central Section Conference, 110.

[4] Hailey, C., and Spall, R. 2000. “An Introduction of CFD

into the Undergraduate Engineering Program.” In

Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, 1556.

[5] Sert, C., and Nakiboglu, G. 2007. “Use of CFD

(Computational Fluid Dynamics) in Teaching Fluid

Mechanics.” In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual

Conference, 1560.

[6] Blekhman, D. 2007. “Lessons Learned in Adopting a

CFD Package.” In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual

Conference, 830.

[7] Cummings, R., and Morton, S. 2005. “Computational

Aerodynamics Goes to School: A Course in CFD for

Undergraduate Students.” In Proceedings of the 43rd

AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics)

Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1072.

[8] Guessous, L., Bozinoski, R., Kouba, R., and Woodward,

D. 2003. “Combining Experiments with Numerical

Simulations in the Teaching of Computational Fluid

Dynamics.” In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual

Conference, 2220.

[9] Navaz, H., Henderson, B., Berg, R., and Nekcoei, S. 2000.

“A New Approach to Teaching Undergraduate

Thermal/Fluid Sciences—Courses in Applied

Computational Fluid Dynamics and Compressible Flow.”

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering

Education 30 (1): 35-49.

[10] Bullough, W., Hart, J., and Chin, S. 2003. “Comparative

Studies: CFD, Experimental and Analytical Techniques

in the Fluids Laboratory.” International Journal of

Mechanical Engineering Education 31 (2): 150-9.

[11] Stubley, G., and Hutchinson, B. 2002. “The Role of Case

Studies in CFD Education.” ASME (American Society of

Mechanical Engineers).

[12] Stern, F., Xing, T., Yarbrough, D., Rothmayer, A.,

Rajagopalan, G., Otta, S., Caughey, D., Bhaskaran, R.,

Smith, S., Hutchings, B., and Moeykens, S. 2004.

“Development of Hands-on CFD Educational Inter Face


516

for Undergraduate Engineering Courses and

Laboratories.” In Proceedings of the ASEE AC (Annual

Conference) Conference, 1526.

[13] Burban, P., Hegna, H., and Zavodney, L. 2008. “Role of CFD in Undergraduate Research in the Design of a Supermileage Competition Vehicle.” Presented at the ASEE NC (North Central) Conference, Arizona, USA.

[14] Mazumder, Q. 2009. “Integration of Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis in Undergraduate Research Program.” In Proceedings of the ASEE North Central Regional Conference, 73.

[15] Fleischmann, S., Sozen, M., and Mokhtar, W. 2010. “A Green Heat Transfer Design Project to Introduce Globalization and Society Awareness.” In Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, IMECE2010-38285.

[16] Drela, M. 1989. “XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for Low Reynolds Number Airfoils.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Aerodynamics, 1-12.

[17] Drela, M. and Giles, M. B. 1987. “Viscous-Inviscid

Analysis of Transonic and Low Reynolds Number Airfoils.” AIAA Journal 25 (10): 1347-55.

[18] Drela, M. 1989. “Integral Boundary Layer Formulation for Blunt Trailing Edges.” Presented at the 7th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Seattle, USA.

[19] Drela, M. 1990. “Elements of Airfoil Design Methodology.” In Applied Computational Aerodynamics, edited by Henne, P. Vol. 125. Washington, DC: AIAA Inc., 167-89.

[20] Drela, M. 1988. “Low-Reynolds Number Airfoil Design for the MIT Daedalus Prototype: A Case Study.” Journal of Aircraft 25 (8):724-32.

[21] Drela, M. 1998. “Pros and Cons of Airfoil Optimization.” In Frontiers of Computational Fluid Dynamics, edited by Caughey, D. A., and Hafez, M. M. Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

[22] Louden, F. 1930. Collection of Wind-Tunnel Data on Commonly Used Wind Sections. NASA report.

[23] Lyon, C., Broeren, A., Giguere, P., Gopalarathnam, A., and Selig, M. 1997. Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data. Vol. 3. Virginia: SoarTech Publications.

Documents

Introducing CFD and Wind Tunnel Testing in an ... CFD and Wind Tunnel Testing in an Undergraduate Fluid Mechanics Course 506 courses. For more than a decade, instructors have been