Journal of Ship Research, Vot. 20, No. 3, Sept. 1976, pp.

145-151

Lift Effects Associated with Drag-Reducing Polymer Injection

on Two-Dimensional Hydrofoils
Daniel H. Fruman 1
The effect of a boundary-layer injection of drag-reducing additive solutions on the lift and drag of a 10-cm
chord, NACA 63A020 symmetrical two-dimensional hydrofoil was investigated for various freestream and
injection velocities, foil incidences, and additive concentrations ranging from 50 to 400 ppm of POLYOX
WSR 301. The experimental results demonstrate that the lift of the hydrofoil can either increase or decrease depending upon whether the polymer injection is made on the suction or pressure side of the foil
surface, respectively. In both cases, however, the drag is reduced. The net result of the injection of the
drag-reducing agent is an augmentation of the lift-drag ratio. The magnitude of this augmentation and its
dependence on the freestream velocity, the injection velocity, the concentration of polymer, and the incidence of the foil are analyzed.

Introduction
.FOLLOWINGAN EARLIERPUBLICATIONby Wu [1],2 the effects
of drag-reducing polymer solutions on the lift of hydrofoils and
the thrust of propellers have been investigated by several authors,
with contradictory results. Sarpkaya [2] and Fruman et al [8]
should be consulted for a review of previous works. In substance,
the most recent available literature [8, 4] indicates that, in the
simplest case of a two-dimensional symmetrical hydrofoil with
boundary-layer injection of a drag-reducing additive, the lift-drag
ratio generally increases regardless of whether the injection is made
in the suction or pressure side of the foil surface. The magnitude
of the effect depends on the freestream and injection velocities,
on the angle of incidence, and on the polymer concentration of the
injected solution.
The present paper describes the effect of a boundary-layer injection of a drag-reducing additive solution on the lift, drag, and
lift-drag ratio of a 10-cm chord, NACA 68A020 symmetrical
two-dimensional hydrofoil. -The hydrofoil, provided with an injection slit situated one tenth of a chord downstream from the
leading edge, was tested in a recirculating high-speed channel with
freestream velocities of 7, 9 and 11 m/see. The injection rate, the
ratio between the injection and freestream velocities, was varied
from 0.01 up to 0.8, while the concentration of polymer (POLYOX
WSR 801) 3 in the ejected solution ranged from 50 to 400 ppm.
The foil was tested at four different incidence angles, 0, 2, 4 and
5 deg. The injections were performed, for each incidence, on the
suction and pressure sides of the foil surface.
After briefly describing the experimental procedure, some selected results are presented and discussed. The different force
behaviors produced by the pure solvent (water) injections and the
polymer injections at zero incidence angle are considered first as
a function of the injection rate and the polymer concentration.
The effect of a change of the foil incidence on the lift-drag ratio
is analyzed next for both the water and the polymer injection.
Finally, the effect of the polymer concentration and of the freestream velocity on the increase of the lift-drag ratio are presented.
i Hydronautics, Incorporated, Laurel Maryland.
2 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
3 Poly(ethylene oxide), manufactured by the Union Carbide Co.
Manuscript received at SNAMEheadquarters August 21, 1975;revised
manuscript received January 12, 1976.
SEPTEMBER 1976

Although these results are limited to the case of a two-dimensional hydrofoil, they clearly unveil some practical applications
of the drag-reducing additive solutions for improving the performance of practical underwater lifting bodies, such as hydrofoils,
fins, and propellers.

Experimental procedure
The tests were performed in the Hydronautics High Speed
Channel [5], Fig. 1, modified to obtain a two-dimensional flow,
thus eliminating the free-surface effects which may have otherwise
occurred at the high speeds used in the tests. This modification
incorporates a roof with a specially designed transition which was
attached to the original free-surface sluice gate of the channel. An
oversized hole allows free passage of the models through the roof.
The foils were supported vertically by means of a block gage arrangement and an incidence-control system, as indicated in Fig.
2. In order to minimize air entrainment, which may be induced
by the low pressures on the suction side of the foil, the upper side
of the roof was flooded. To create the best conditions for a two-

Fig. 1

Hydronautics, Inc. high-speed channel

145

-. _ _ ~ - - - - - .

Fig. 3

FC'~ [,

Fig. 2

.~.ffCUON
;UT

Design of the injection slit (all indicated dimensions are in

centimeters)

were recorded. The forces on the foil, measured before each of

the injections, were used to compute the changes introduced by
the injection of both the water and the polymer solution.
The injected fluids were contained in a nine-gallon reservoir,
which was pressurized so as to drive the fluids into the injection
slit through a pipe system. The injection flow rate was determined
by weighting the amount of solution dispensed in a given time
interval. Hence, the computation of the injection velocity and
the injection rate was straightforward.
The polymer used in these tests was poly(ethylene oxide), POLYOX WSR 301, which has been demonstrated to be a highly
efficient drag-reducing agent. The method of preparation of the
dilute polymer solutions has been described elsewhere [7]. Four
different polymer concentrations--50, 100, 200, and 400
ppm--were tested.

Block gages arrangement with mounted hydrofoil

Presentation of results
dimensional flow and to avoid secondary flows between the lower
and upper sections of the roof, an endplate was fitted to the cross
section of the foil, being free to move with it (Fig. 2). Since the
tests were designed to obtain comparative measurements of the
hydrodynamic characteristics of the foils with and without injection, no specific investigation of the end gap effect, tunnel blockage
effect, etc., was made during this study. The lift curve slope of
the raw data was 8.6. This value is lower than the one that can be
expected from a truly two-dimensional foil. The effective aspect
ratio of the foil can be estimated by using the correction factors
given in [6].
The cross section of the foil was a NACA 63 symmetrical profile,
10.16 cm in chord with 20 percent relative thickness. The injection slit was situated at a 10 percent chord distance from the
leading edge so that the actual distance was 1.016 cm.
The injection slit was designed so as to decrease the possible local
perturbations which may be produced by the ejected fluid. As
shown in Fig. 3, the inclination of the slit, relative to the foil tangent
at the injection station, was 7 deg. Based on the empirical relationship describing the diffusion of a dilute polymer solution over
a flat plate obtained by Fruman and Tulin [7], the gap of the injector was selected to be 0.0127 cm.
The freestream velocity in the test section was measured with
a 3-mm-dia Prandtl tube placed ahead of the hydrofoils. Although
it is known that, in general, the stagnation pressure readings of such
tubes are affected by the polymer solutions, it is believed that in
the present case the relatively small buildup of polymer concentrations in the recircu]ating water and the relatively large diameter
of the probe make any significant errors highly improbable.
The lift and drag forces were measured by means of four reluctance-type block gages attached to the foils as shown in Fig. 2.
The total lift and drag load capacities of these gages were 90 and
16 kg, respectively. The electrical output signal from the gages
was integrated over a ten-second period and the average values
146

The effect of an injection of water on the lift and drag of the foil
at zero incidence is shown in Figs. 4 and 5 as a function of the injection rate. Notwithstanding a considerable dispersion of the data
points, it is clear that the water injection produces a negative lift
and generally an increase of the drag of the foil. The polymer
injection, on the other hand, introduces a positive lift, Fig. 6, while
significantly reducing the drag, Fig. 7. The effect of the polymer
injection both on the lift and on the drag increases with the injection rate. There is an order of magnitude change of the lift
coefficients and the drag reduction for roughly the same order of
magnitude change of the injection rate.
The first conclusion to be drawn from these results is that, indeed, the injection of dilute polymer solutions into the boundary
layer of a symmetrical hydrofoil produces a lift force directed
toward the side of the foil where the injection is being made and
a significant reduction of the drag. The water injection introduces
the opposite effects in the foil forces.
The influence of the water injection on the lift-drag ratio of the
foil for different incidences and constant freestream velocity, 9
m/see, is shown in Fig. 8. When the injection is made on the
pressure side of the foil, the lift-drag ratio is increased, while it is
decreased for an injection on the suction side of the foil.
Figure 9 presents' the effect of the injection of 100-ppm polymer
solution on the lift-drag ratio of the foil at a freestream velocity
of 9 m/see. For the injection on the pressure side, the lift-drag
ratio is generally augmented and increases with the incidence angle
and the injection rate. At low incidence angles and injection rates
the lift-drag ratio is reduced when compared with the zero injection values. The polymer injection on the suction side produces
a significant augmentation of the lift-drag ratio as opposed to the
trend observed in the case of water injection.
A more detailed picture of the polymer injection effects on the
hydrofoil forces is presented in Figs. 10 through 18. Figure 10
shows the relative changes of the lift and drag forces for an injecJOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

'<I
I-Z
w

L~

,,z

<3

t.)

<

m
_a

Z
u
Z

W-

=<
u

<

0.01

0.05

0.1

0.5

0.01

1.0

0.05

I N J E C T I O N RATE t V i A /

Fig. 4

O.l

0.5

I N J E C T I O N RATE, V i / V

Absolute change of lift eoefficient for an injection of water on the

upper side of the foil at zero incidence angle

Fig. 5

Relative change of drag for an injection of water on the upper side

of the foil at z e r o incidence angle

!
0.05

F
i
....
;Oo!
V

lO

_z
u

INCIDENCE A N G L E
P O L Y O X WSR 301

E
t.

IT/

0.01

'

~"

?.
J

V U/

I00 p p m

~7 200 ppm
A 400 ppm

V = 7,9 and ll m/s

O

Injection

i
I
i

LIFT

u
u

z"

O
u

~7

O
7_
O
J

0.005 . . . . .

I
i

O "'" " O - "

5
C3

v
-J-

---i

o
,

Z0

I
I

0
0

i
0,001

0.01

0.05

0.1

-. 1-il
0.5

0.01

The

]rag is always reduced while the lift is reduced or increased, de)ending on the incidence angle and the injection rate. The inection on the suction side, Fig. 11, displays a similar behavior for

he drag but introduces a change of the lift corresponding to a

~EPTEMBER 1976

0.05

0.1

I N J E C T I O N RATE,

Absolute change of lift coefficient for a POLYOX WSR 301 injection

on the upper side of the foil at zero incidence angle

:ion on the pressure side at a freestream velocity of 7 m/sec.

I N J E C T I O N RATE, V i / V

:ig. 6

Fig. 7

0.5

V. / V
I

Relative change of drag for a POLYOX WSR 301 injection on the

upper side of the foil at zero incidence angle

significant augmentation effect. Clearly, in this case the net effect

of the polymer injection will be to enhance the hydrodynamic
performance of the hydrofoil by significantly increasing its liftdrag ratio, Fig. 12. It is interesting to note that the absolute change
of the lift-drag ratio appears to be practically independent of the
147

!f5
d

I I I I

I I I I~l
,~ LFT

O
J

V = 9 rn/s
O 2

V =9m/s

],

4
O
<

I LIFT

zS 5

l
0

A
~7

~L

<

!.!

Z
<

Z
<

-5
0.01

0.05

0.1

-5
O. 02

0.05

RATE OF INJECTION V. / V

0.1

RATE OF INJECTION, V i / V

(o)

Fig. 8

(b)

Influence of a pure water injection on the lift-drag ratio. (a) Injection on the pressure side; (b)
Injection on the suction side

10
w
u
Lu
-

40

1I n i e c ~

-q
o_

o"

V =9m/s

3o

=<

c3

3
u.

u.

2
4

--O-Oil-

20

-g

l.-

"'i

~,1

Z
<

Z
<
uI

~o

<

0.5

0.)

INJECTION RATE~ V i / V

-4

0.01

Fig. 9

0.05
0,1
INJECTION RATE, V i / V

Influence of a 100-ppm POLYOX WSR 301 injection on the lift-drag ratio.

pressure side; (b) Injection on the suction side

incidence angle, as can be observed in Fig. 13.

It can be concluded from theforegoing that the lift-drag ratio
of the hydrofoil will always increase for an injeetion of polymer
performed on the suction side of the foil surface. For an injection
performed on the pressure side, the lift-drag ratio may increase
or decrease depending on the values of the incidence angle, the
injection rate, and the freestream velocity.
The influence of the polymer concentration on the relative
change of the lift-drag ratio of the foil for a freestream velocity
148

(a) Injection on the

of 11 m/sec, an incidence angle of 5 deg, and two injection rates

0.1 and 0.15, is presented in Fig. 14. As shown, the lift-drag ratk
augmentation increases with the concentration, reaches a plateau
and then decreases. This dependency is similar to the typica
behavior of the drag reduction effect versus concentration.
Finally, the effect of a change of the freestream velocity on th(
relative change of the lift-drag ratio for an injection rate of 0.1, tw(
polymer concentrations, 100 and 200 ppm, and three incidenc(
angles--2, 4, and 5 deg--is shown in Fig. 15.
JOURNAL OF SHIP R E S E A R C I

AC L/C L
o
V
z~

=u

10
V = 7m/s

<3

I - 100 ppm

u
o
O
3

2<
q
u_
o
Z

=<
U
e

uJ

0.01

0.05

0.I

-10
0.01

0.5

INJECTION RATE, V i / V

0.05

0.I

0.5

INJECTION RATE, V i / V

Fig. 10 Relative change of lift and drag forces for an injection of a

100-ppm POLYOX WSR 301 solution on the pressure side of the foil

Fig. 11 Relative change of lift and drag forces for an injection of a

100-ppm POLYOX WSR 301 solution on the suction side of the foil

<3

d
=<
O
<
h

Z
<
1.0

0.01

0.1

0.5

0.01

: i g . 12

I n f l u e n c e of a 1 0 0 - p p m

POLYOX WSR 301 injection on the lift-.

drag ratio

;EPTEMBER 1 9 7 6 ,

0,05

0.1

0.5

INJECTION RATE, V i / V

INJECTION RATE, V i / V

Fig. 13

Absolute change of lift-drag ratio for a 100-ppm POLYOX WSR

301 injection on the suction side of the foil
149

I
I
LIFT ~,

I
I I I
Injection

I
I

20

J - = 0.1

!-( ------

100 ppm
200 ppm

P O L Y O X WSR 301
V
I I rn/s

O"

<
C3
i
.J

\'V

o
<

I0

20
..%

Z
<
V i =0.(

v-

50

1 00

500

CONCENTRATION

Fig. 14

1 000

a =5

, ppm

Influence of concentration on the relative change of the lift-drag

10

ratio
FREE STREAM. VELOCITY,

Fig. 15

Conclusions and recommendations

Several important conclusions can be drawn from the results
presented in the previous section. These are:
(i) With polymer injection the drag is generally reduced regardless of whether the injection is on the suction or pressure side
of the foil surface. For the same foil angle, freestream velocity,
and polymer concentration, the drag reduction increases with the
injection rate. For the same freestream velocity, polymer concentration, and injection rate, larger drag reduction effects are
achieved with injections made on the pressure rather than on the
suction side.
(ii) When the polymer solution is injected on the suction side
of the hydrofoil, there is, in general, a substantial increase of the
lift. As for the drag, the magnitude of the lift effect is strongly
dependent on the rate of injection. However, the lift augmentation is more pronounced for injections made on the suction side
of the foil at large incidence angles and decreases when the incidence angle decreases.
(iii) When the polymer is ejected into the pressure side of the
foil surface, increases or decreases in lift occur depending on the
foil angle, the freestream velocity, and the injection rate.
(iv) Water injection under conditions corresponding to those
tested produces either negligible effects or effects opposite to those
with polymer injection.
(v) Significant increases of the lift-drag ratio of the hydrofoil
are achieved through polymer injection on the suction side. The
absolute change of the lift-drag ratio appears to be quite independent of the incidence angle for constant freestream velocity
and injection rate.
(vi) The dependence of the lift-drag ratio augmentation on
the polymer concentration is similar to the one observed for drag
reduction effects on flat plates and pipe flows.
The present conclusions are in general qualitative agreement
with those of Lehman and Suessmann [4]. Specifically, the liftincrease and drag-reduction effects associated with polymer injection on the suction side of a two-dimensional hydrofoil have
been firmly established. The results presented by the author in
[3] for two NACA 68 series hydrofoils with different relative
thicknesses demonstrated that the larger lift-increase effects are
150

11

/sec

Influence of freestream velocity and concentration on relative

change of the lift-drag ratio

obtained with the thicker foil. The thicker foil studied earlier [3l
was identical to the NACA 68A020 foil used in the present investigation. Therefore, based on the existing data, the most favorable
injection conditions, as well as the most desirable foil shape, can
be defined.
Since the data supporting the lift-increase effect were obtained
for the case of a two-dimensional hydrofoil, further research i,,
necessary to assess the applicability of this lift augmentation
phenomenon to three-dimensional lifting bodies. Further researclq
is also necessary to achieve a better understanding of the fundamentals of the phenomenon. In this regard, pressure distributior
measurements under various injection conditions as well as detailed
visualizations of the flow pattern changes should be carried out a,,
part of future research efforts.

Acknowledgment
The work reported herein was supported by the U. S. Depart.
ment of the Navy, Office of Naval Research, under Contract No
N00014-71-C-0068, NR 062-825.
The author wishes to express his appreciation to Messrs. R. J
Altmann and R. D. Bateman for their help in the performance ot
the tests. Mr. P. Rogers was in charge of the data compute1
analysis.

References
1 Wu, J., "Lifting Reduction of Additive Solutions," Journal of Hy.
dronautics, Vol. 8, No. 4, Oct. 1969.
2 Sarpkaya,T., "On the Performance of Hydrofoils in Dilute Polyo~
Solutions," Paper presented at the International Conference on Dra~
Reduction, Cambridge, England, Sept. 1974.
8 Fruman, D. H., Sundaram, T. R., and Daugard, S. J., "Effect of Dra~
Reducing Polymer Injection on the Lift and Drag of a Two-Dimensional
Hydrofoil," Paper presented at the International Conference on Dra~
Reduction, Cambridge, England, Sept. 1974.
4 Lehman, A. F. and Suessmann, R. T., "An Experimental Study ot
JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCt

the Lift and Drag of a Hydrofoil with Polymer Ejection," Oceanics, Inc.
Report No. 72-94, Nov. 1972.
5 Johnson, V. E., Jr. and Goodman, A., "The HYDRONAUTICS,
Incorporated Variable-Pressure, Free-Surface, High-Speed Channel,"
Cavitation Research Facilities and Techniques, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1964, p. 49.
6 Etter, R. J. and Huang, T. T., "'An Experimental Investigation of
the Static Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Several Faired Cables Having
Symmetrical NACA Airfoil Sections," Hydronautics, Incorporated
Technical Report 530-1, July 1967.
7 Fruman, D. H. and Tulin, M. P., "Diffusion of a Tangential DragReducing Polymer Injection on a Flat Plate at High Reynolds Numbers,"
Hydronautics, Incorporated Technical Report 7101-3, 1973.
Since the submission of this paper, two other reports4,5 have been

issued. These reports contain some of the additional information

that the author considered necessary to achieve a better understanding of the fundamentals of the phenomenon. In particular,
the measurements of the pressure distribution on the foil surface
have demonstrated that the polymer injection decreases the value
of the local pressure on the side of the foil where the injection is
performed. On the opposite side, there is a slight augmentation
of the pressure. Based on these results, Fruman et al 4 had suggested that the lift and pressure changes during polymer injections
are due to an elongational viscoelastic effect of the injected fluid.
This effect is responsible for an alteration of the foil shape immediately downstream of the injection slit. However, the detailed
nature of the interaction between the viscoelastic effect and the
hydrodynamics of the flow remains obscure.

4 Fruman, D. H., Tulin, M. P., and Liu, H.-L., "Lift, Drag, and Pressure
Distribution Effects Accompanying Drag-Reducing Polymer Injection
on Two-Dimensional Hydrofoils," Paper presented at the 1975 Annual
Meeting of the Naval Sea SystemsCommand Hydromechanics Committee

(SEAHAC), Monterey, Calif., Oct. 1975.

5 Lehman, A. F., "Additional Investigations of the Hydrodynamic
Characteristics of a Hydrofoil Employing Polymer Ejection,' Paper
presented at the 1975 SEAHAC Meeting, Monterey, Calif., Oct. 1975.

Addendum

SEPTEMBER 1976

151