Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

Porto, Portugal, 30 June - 2 July 2014


A. Cunha, E. Caetano, P. Ribeiro, G. Mller (eds.)
ISSN: 2311-9020; ISBN: 978-972-752-165-4

Optimized vortex generators in the flow separation control


around a NACA 0015 profile
H. Tebbiche1, M.S. Boutoudj1, 2
Dpartement de Gnie Mcanique, Facult du Gnie de la Construction, Universit Mouloud Mammeri, 15 000
Tizi-Ouzou, Algrie
2
Laboratoire dEnergtique, Mcanique et Matriaux LEMM ; Universit Mouloud Mammeri, 15 000 Tizi-Ouzou, Algrie
Emails: tebbichehocine@yahoo.fr, boutoudj_ms@yahoo.fr
1

ABSTRACT: This study concerns the flow control using a new vortex generators (VGs) shape with counter-rotating vortices,
obtained by modifying a configuration already investigated. The experiments were performed in order to determine the VGs
answer when they were placed at 10% from the leading edge on the suction face of an airfoil Naca 0015 to improve the lift and
drag coefficients. An optimized geometry form is given in this paper by using the experimental designs method. The
aerodynamic measurements were accomplished in wind tunnel for several Reynolds numbers. The obtained results are analyzed
according to several parameters such as the VG height, the aperture, the space between the same VG pair and the additional
factor. A three-dimensional controlled flow pressure field was also displayed at different velocities, attack angles and taking into
account the additional element effect. The results show a profit brought by the passive devices estimated at about 14% in relative
lift increase and 16% of drag decrease.
KEY WORDS: Vortex Generators (VGs); Airfoil; Lift; Drag; Design of Experiments (DoE); Pressure coefficient.
1

INTRODUCTION

The development of flow control devices design to improve


the airfoil performance in terms of lift and drag coefficient is
of great importance for the aircraft industries. Since the
introduction of the boundary-layer concept by Prandtl, there
has been a constant challenge faced by scientists and
engineers to minimize its adverse effects and control it to
advantage.
Flow separation control, by means of passive devices, is
today the less expensive and the fastest solution to implement.
Vortex Generators [1, 2] have been rigorously investigated
and also used in practice with a various degree of success.
Passive VGs are simple use and known to bring momentum in
the boundary layer which leads to the delay or suppression of
the flow separation [3]. Several parametric investigations have
been conducted on the VGs by a number of researchers [4-6].
The configurations studied in this present investigation are
of the same form as the ones used by Lin [6]; the only
difference is in the c element addition (figure 4). The reply of
these vortex generators on the Naca 0015 profiles upper
surface resulted in improvement of the aerodynamic
coefficients in terms of lift increase and drag reduction.
Traditionally, a researcher conducts experiments
sequentially by varying parameter one after the other. This
method gives results but it is time consuming and requires a
large number of experiments. The data analysis method used
allows collecting, summarizing and presenting data in order to
obtain maximum information for further experiments. To
conduct a planned experimental research, the methodology of
experimental design is used [7] in order to have the optimized
configuration.
More and more authors are interested in the use of these
experimental designs in order to perform their tests in various
areas. Zeng and al [8] analyzed by numerical method using
experimental design the influence of various parameters on

the heat transfer and flow friction characteristics of a heat


exchanger with Vortex Generators fins. The parameters of
vortex generator fin-and-tube heat exchangers were optimized
using the Taguchi method [9].
A development of models which allows surface quality
determination of mechanical parts obtained through turning
processes was carried out by Puertas Arbizu and al [10] using
experimental designs, in particular the response surface
methodology.
Lundstedt and al [11] present a tutorial which aims to give a
simple and easily understandable introduction to experimental
design and optimization. The screening methods described in
their paper are factorial and fractional factorial designs. This
has been carried out in an efficient way and without having to
perform a large number of experiments.
The aim of the present paper is to provide an optimized
geometry for vortex generators with counter-rotating vortices
by using a full factorial design based on the principal form
already used by other authors in particular those reported
recently [6]. Various velocities of the flow were tested in wind
tunnel in order to determine the Reynolds number effect on
the control parameters. The results are analyzed in several
parameters such as the VG height, the aperture, the space
between the same VG pair and the additional factor effect.
A comparative study is also made between the proposed
optimal vortex generators geometry and the same one without
element c. The aim of the addition is to determine the utility in
improvement of the aerodynamic performances, and moreover
the state of the controlled flow is explored through the
measurement of three dimensional pressure field.
2
2.1

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Wind tunnel and acquisition system

The tests were performed in a DeltaLab type open circuit


subsonic wind tunnel. The tunnel is one meter long with a

3219

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

cross-section area of 0,3m x 0,3m equipped with a 2-axis


strain gauge balance to measure the lift and drag coefficients.
The data acquisition is obtained with a Pulse software
developed by Brel & Kjr for Sound and Vibration
Measurement, after adapting this device to the balances
transducer (Strain gauges). Each test is repeated three times
and averaged. The time of acquisition is 60 s with a 500 Hz
frequency.
The speed and the static pressure distribution along the
airfoil were measured respectively using a Pitot tube and a
differential manometer connected via capillary tubes.
2.2

Airfoil

The airfoil used is an academic Naca 0015 profile (chord


length 154 mm and spanwise length 200 mm). The model is
equipped with fourteen pressure taps in the longitudinal
direction; the locations of the pressure taps and the VGs
position from the leading edge are illustrated more explicitly
in figure 7.
Figure 1 shows the experimental setup with the airfoil
assembled in the wind tunnel.

Where:
1 : Displacement thickness (m), 2 : momentum thickness
(m), U : Freestream velocity (m/s), u : velocity component
tangential to the surface (m/s).
These quantities (2 and 3) were determined by integration
up to the tangential speed maximum value of the calculated
profile [12].
The dimensionless coordinate normal to the airfoil y + is
similar to local Reynolds number, often used in CFD to
describe how coarse or fine a mesh is for a particular flow.
The non-dimensional wall parameter is defined as:

y+ =

yU C f 2

(4)

Where:
y : Normal distance to the profile (m), C f : Skin friction
coefficient, : Kinematic viscosity (m2s-1).
By assimilating the airfoil to a flat plate, the skin friction
coefficient can be estimated from the following empiric
relation [13]:

C f 2 0.037ReL0.2

(5)

With Re L is the Reynolds number related to the chord length.


The measured forces (lift and drag) are respectively linked
to the aerodynamics coefficients by:

CL =

The same profile is designed to complete two kind of


measurement:
- statement of the wall static pressure,
- drag and lift forces.
GLOBAL SETTINGS

The use of shape factor (H12) informs us about the state of the
boundary layer. It allows the determination of the turbulent
laminar transition as well as precise positioning from the
location of turbulent boundary layer separation; its expression
is given by:

H12 =

1
2

(1)

(2)

u
u
1
dy
U U
0

2 =

3220

Cd =

U 2 S

(6)

(3)

Fx
1 U 2 S
2

(7)

With:
Fx : Drag force (N), Fy : Lift force (N), : Volumic weight
(Kg/m3), S : Surface profile (m2).
The pressure coefficient Cp is provided by the expression:

Cp =

P P0
2
2 U

(8)

With:
P : Wall static pressure,
P0 : Upstream reference pressure.
4

With:

u
1 = 1
dy
U
0

And

Figure 1. Measurement setup.

Fy

PRELIMINARY NUMERICAL STUDY

Turbulent flow around two-dimensional profile NACA 0015


was analyzed with incompressible steady Reynolds Averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations approximated by finite
volume method. The calculation was conducted at Reynolds
number equals to 2.6 105. The turbulence was approached by
the k SST model and required maintaining the
neighboring adimensional distance from the wall at y + 2.5 .

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

This numerical study is an essential step to make the


dimensionless form of VGs factor by using boundary layer
thickness ( ) .
Figure 2 illustrates the evolution of the shape factor versus
the chord length X/L. According to the state of the boundary
layer, the H12 factor takes a characteristic value for each
position along the chord. The separated flow to the upper
surface is characterized by the shape factor increase which
exceeds H12 = 2.3 [14] at X/L = 0.4 to the chord.
2.8
2.6

H12

2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
X/L

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 2. H12 versus X/L, = 13, - - CFD.


The boundary layer global characteristics deduced from the
velocity profile corresponding to the VGs height position are
shown in the following table:
Table 1. Boundary layer characteristics, =13, CFD.

X/L
0.187

U (ms1)

(m)

1 104 (m)

2 104 (m)

H12

24.84

0.010

9.906

5.080

1.95

cost. The desired information is in general to qualify the


influence of several parameters (or factors) on a given
phenomenon. Based on this information, it will be possible to
determine the behavior of the studied system in the various
possible configurations, and thus to optimize the answer. To
reach this result, the experimental designs technique proposes
a strategy of tests having a principal characteristic to minimize
the tests number to be realized [7].
The aim of this work is to provide an optimized geometry
for vortex generators with counter-rotating vortices by using
the experimental designs based on the principal form already
used by some authors in particular Lin [6] who proposed a
complete review on the recent contributions on the subject [2].
Several authors [4, 16] did a detailed study of the flow around
VGs inspired from his vortex generators type. These VGs are
plates of triangular shape, placed normal to the suction surface
and at a lateral angle to the flow.
The configurations studied in this present investigation are
of the same form than that used by Lin [6]; the only difference
is in the addition of the element c as shows in figure 4. The
various parameters of the geometry to be optimized are given
as follows:
l : Vortex generators length,
b : Distance between two passive devices,
a : Space between the same VG,
h : Vortex generator height,
c : Vortex generator additional element,
: Vortex generator aperture angle.

The numerical results validation was undertaken by


overlaying the evolution of both numerical and experimental
data (figure 3). It is supposed that the slight difference
between the two results is caused by the airfoils guard-plates
effect which do not exist in the idealistic case considered in
the numerical simulation.
-5

Figure 4. Passive VGs parameters

-4

Only four elements (a, h, c, ) related to the VGs geometry


are used. The other parameters such as the ratios l / h and
b / c are maintained constant (l/h =2.6, b/c = 3).
Level of each factor is shown in the following table, where
level 1 and level 2 represents respectively the low and high
values.

Cp

-3

-2

-1

Table 2. Variation level on each factor.


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
X/L

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Code
A
B
C
D

Figure 3. Pressure coefficient distribution versus X/L,


=13, Experimental data, - - CFD.
5
5.1

ORGANIZATION OF TESTS BY EXPERIMENTAL


DESIGNS
Formalization of the problem

The need for employing a rational step [15] to carry out


research has encouraged the engineers and researchers to
employ the statistical methods. The experimental designs have
for main goal obtaining the maximum information at lower

5.2

Factor
a/
c/
h/

Level 1
0.55
0.30
0.35
30

Level 2
0.70
0.45
0.55
48

Units
()

Experimental design selection

Using a full factorial design with four factors k and two


variation levels justifies making sixteen experiments (2k=16).
In the framework of this comparative study, we limit the
number of VGs pairs to six. The lift coefficient was selected
as objective function.

3221

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

Table 4. Response of the lift coefficient at 16 degrees.

Level 1:-1
Level 2:+1

Exp. no.

Table 3. A 24 factorial experiment.


Exp. no.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Variables
A
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

B
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

C
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

D
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

The table above shows the experiences organization and the


factor levels for each test.
5.3

The tests were performed by way of the described devices


above (figure 1) at Reynolds number of 2.6 105. The obtained
results for the references state (without vortex generators)
indicate that the airfoils stall angle is observed at 15 degrees
(figure 5).
1.2

1.1

CL

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Figure 5. Lift coefficient versus angle of attack.


The experimental response chosen corresponds to an
incidence in post-stall (16 degrees) for best understanding the
factors effects in improvement of the aerodynamic coefficient
CL and deducing the most influential parameters.

3222

5.4

B
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

C
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

D
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

Answer
YCL
0.8699
1.0479
1.1267
1.0846
1.1668
1.1810
1.2113
1.2370
1.0220
1.0693
0.9416
1.1439
1.1259
1.1157
1.1198
1.1457

Analysis of the results

The effects (interactions) are obtained via the calculation


matrix given by this expression [17]:

E=

Tests procedure

0.5

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Variables
A
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

1 t
X y
N

(9)

With:
E: Effect-vector,
N: Number of experiments,
Xt: The transposed matrix of the effects calculation,
y: Response-vector.
By calculating the effects values of principal factors and
interactions, it is possible to make a relative factors study with
respect to their influence to the response. Thus, simply, by the
effects examination, the factors can be classified according to
their capacity to vary the studied answer. This study is often
translated graphically, by histograms. The Paretos law is a
simple mean to classify the phenomenon [18]. In this case,
34.78% of causes represent 80% of effects; the Pareto law can
be used [19] with precaution.
The Pareto diagram is used here to identify the relative
importance of the different factors in order to focus on some
key cases that have the greatest impact, rather than getting lost
in the treatment of a variety causes that have less effect. To
solve the problem with maximum efficiency, we will act on
80% of the effects, so it was deemed necessary to take into
account only the influence of the following elements (C, A, B,
ABD, BD, ABCD, CD, AC and D) and neglect the rest.
Graphical analysis highlighted the importance of the C-factor,
represented by the vortex generators height, which means the
most influential factor with a contribution ratio of 22%.
Following the analysis of the results (Table 4), the C-values
taken on +1 (h = 0.55) perform better than those on -1
(h = 0.35) . Moreover, the sixteen configurations tested
have confirmed the great role of the C-factor.
With a single contribution of 10%, the factor A is also
considered a major element. Several researchers have

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

investigated the importance of the VGs spacing [4, 20] which


justifies the interesting position in the following ranking.
Thirdly, there is the B-Factor with a contribution of 9% which
is not negligible. So adding this item to the basic triangular
configuration [1, 2, 4, 5] is very beneficial for the control
through a passive device. A great interest is given to this
factor; moreover; a comparative study will be devoted in order
to detect its efficiency.
Another equally important finding is covered on D-factor.
Treated alone; it has practically no effect but it may interact
with the other factors. Then, the combined contribution (ABD,
BD, CD and D) operates on 39% of the significant effects.

Figure 7. VGs disposition: (1) perspective view; (2) top view.

0.07
100%
0.06

0.05

70%

0.04

60%
0.03
50%
0.02
40%
0.01

30%

ABD BD ABCD CD

AC

BCD BC ACD ABC AD

AB

Lift, drag and pressure measurements

6.2.1

80%

Cumulated ratio

Effects contribution

6.2

90%

20%

The lift and drag coefficients resulting from the flow around
the airfoil without vortex generators versus the incidence
angle (uncorrected for wind tunnel blockage) are shown in
figure 8 at two Reynolds numbers. We observe that at low
incidence both CL and Cd evolutions have a linear behavior.
Its also noted that the progressive incidence increase causes
a sudden drop in the lift related to a profile stall. This fall is
accompanied by an expansion of the induced drag caused by
the fluid separation.

Factors & interactions

1.4

Figure 6. Pareto diagram applied at 16 degrees, - -- cumulated ratio, effects contribution.

6
6.1

a/
0.70

c/
0.45

h/
0.55

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

Table 5. Optimized geometrical parameters.

CL
Cd

1.2

CL,Cd

The analysis results performed concerned only the


classification of the factors and interactions as well as their
contribution rates. A more comprehensive interpretation of the
test results will be undertaken in the following sections.
The comparison made between the results from baseline and
those obtained after the control by experimental designs gives
the optimized geometrical parameters of the vortex generators
summarized in the following table:

Factors
Levels

Reynolds number effect

10

15

20

10

15

20

30

Figure 8. Lift and drag coefficient versus angle of attack (left:


Re=1.58 105, right: Re=2.6 105).

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Position of the vortex generators

The vortex generators were positioned in line at 10% from the


leading edge (figure 7); the measurements of the aerodynamic
forces were performed for several incidences. When the flow
is not controlled, separation is two-dimensional [21]; only one
measurement of the pressure fields is sufficient to obtain the
pressure distribution around the profile. On the other hand,
when control intervenes, the flow will be three-dimensional.
A complete sweeping of span Z is necessary and was
possible by relocating the VGs along the Z axis (figure 14).

Furthermore, stall angles corresponding to Reynolds


numbers of 1.58 105 and 2.6 105 are respectively 13 and 15
degrees. The flow is more resistant to the stall at high
Reynolds number.
The pressure distribution on upper and lower airfoil surfaces
is, as well known, no longer the same. The Cp values become
more and more negative as the attack angle increases till
(=13, =15) respectively (Re=1.58 105, Re=2.6 105) when
a sudden increase occurs. This is due to the flow separation on
the upper surface.
Figure 9 represents the pressure distribution along the
chord. This figure shows that the flow carried at lofty
Reynolds number is strongly accelerating just after the leading
edge where a depression peak is observed. On the other hand,
with regard to the other value, one notices the formation of a
plate which is characteristic in the unhooking profile.

3223

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

0.5

-5
Re=1.58x105
Re=2.6x105

-4

Baseline
VG Control

0.45
0.4
0.35

-3

Cd

Cp

0.3
-2

0.25
0.2

-1

0.15
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
X/L

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 9. Pressure coefficient versus X/L, =14.

The purpose of this experiment is to demonstrate the vortex


generators ability to change the natural flow on the upper
surface of the airfoil. Figure 10 shows the lift coefficient
without and with the control geometry given in table 5. For
both speeds studied, lift increase is noticed. At Reynolds
number equal to 1.58 105, the control effect on the lift
coefficient is less effective than the case when Reynolds
equals 2.6 105. One can see a relative lift increase of 14% in
the case (B) and only 5% for the case (A). The results also
show an improvement in the stall angle of two degrees for the
two cases.
The analysis of the drag curves (figure 11) reveals more
efficiency of the vortex generators on the drag reduction at
low velocity flow. The drag decrease Cd is about 16% at low

10

15

20

10

15

20

Figure 11. Drag coefficient versus angle of attack, (C):


Re=1.58 105, (D): Re=2.6 105.
Comparative
contribution

study

of

the

added

B-factor

A comparative study was made between the proposed vortex


generators geometry and the same one without the factor B in
order to determine its influence in the improvement of the
aerodynamic performances. About 2% of lift increase is
noticed in figure 12 when the VGs are equipped with the
factor B for the incidences smaller than the stall angle. Figure
13 indicates an increase of about 3% at the maximum lift.
1.3
1.2

Baseline
VGs with factor "B"
VGs without factor "B"

1.1
1
CL

Optimized vortex generators in improvement of the


aerodynamic coefficients

(D)

6.2.3
6.2.2

(C)

0.1
0.05
0

0.9
0.8

Reynolds number (C) and 11% for the high speed (D).
However, the C L C d ratio is increased by 28.3% for

0.7
0.6

Re=2.6 105 and 23.6% for Re=1.58 105, respectively at 17 and


15 degrees.

[Re=1.58x105]
0.5
0

10

15

20

1.3

Figure 12. Lift coefficient versus attack angle, Re=1.58 105.

Baseline
VG Control

1.2

1.3

1.1

1.2

0.9

1.1

0.8

1
CL

CL

0.7
(A)

0.6
0.5
0

Baseline
VGs with factor "B"
VGs without factor "B"

0.9
0.8

(B)

0.7

10

15

20

10

15

20

Figure 10. Lift coefficient versus angle of attack, (A):


Re=1.58 105, (B): Re=2.6 105.

0.6
[Re=2.60x105]
0.5
0

10

15

20

Figure 13. Lift coefficient versus angle of attack, Re=2.6 105.


When the control is applied, the flow becomes threedimensional, different from the two-dimensional one without

3224

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

the VGs. The wall pressure field was investigated in order to


study the VGs impact on the pressure evolution.
The following curves show this pressure field on the upper
airfoil surface. The measurements were performed at five
pressure taps locations along the Z space (figure14). Curve
smoothing was carried out by interpolation to find the
intermediates values by using MATLAB software.
-2

Z/h

-1
0
1

Pressure field outlined in figures above shows a periodic


distribution of the wall pressure on the upper profile surface.
A strong depression is observed in the spacing defined by the
factor A (figure 15-a). The control highlights the presence of a
vortices pair which extends to a very large distance from the
leading edge. The flow is not only affected downstream of the
vortex generators as shown in the iso-values distribution
(figures: 16-a. 16-b) but also upstream of VGs. The created
vortices may thus accelerate the fluid and create a low
pressure zone. This energy supply revitalizes the previously
separated boundary layer and delays the stall angle.
b) Case without factor B:

2
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
X/L

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 14. Pressure taps positions.


a)

Case with factor B:

Figure 17-a. 3D pressure coefficient, Re=1.58 105, =15.

Figure 15-a. 3D pressure coefficient, Re=1.58 105, =15.

Figure 17-b. 3D pressure coefficient, Re=2.6 105, =16.

-3.74
-2 -3.48

-3.22

-2.97
-2.71-2.19

-1.68

Z/h

Figure 15-b. 3D pressure coefficient, Re=2.6 105, =16.

Z/h

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.2

-0.9

-2.45
-1.93

-2.71
-3.22
-2.97
-3.48
-3.74
0.3

0.4

0.5
X/L

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.3

0.4

-2.01
-3.14-2.58
-3.42

-1.45

-1.17

-2

-1.73
-2.86-2.3

2
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-1.45
0.5
X/L

0.6

-0.889 -0.326
0.7

0.8

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.9

-3.42
-1.64
-3.12
-2.83-2.23

-0.461
-0.757

-1.35

0
1

0
1

-4.01

-1

-0.607

-1
-3.99

0.5
X/L

-0.845

Figure 18-a. Iso-values of the pressure field coefficients,


Re=1.58 105, =15.

Z/h

-3.7

-1.37

-0.585

-0.383

Figure 16-a. Iso-values of the pressure field coefficients,


Re=1.58 105, =15.
-2

-1.11

-2.41 -1.89

-1.42

Z/h

-3.19
-2.93
-3.71 -3.45

2
0

0
1

-1.16 -0.642

-1

-3.45
-3.19
-2.93

-1

-1.63

-2.67
-2.15

-3.71

-2

-2.83
-3.12
-2.53
-3.42
-4.01 -4.3 -3.71
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

-1.35

-1.94
0.4

0.5
X/L

0.6

-1.05
0.7

0.8

-0.461
0.9

Figure 16-b. Iso-values of the pressure field coefficients,


Re=2.6 105, =16.

Figure 18-b. Iso-values of the pressure field coefficients,


Re=2.6 105, =16.

3225

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

Figures (17. 18) illustrate the pressure field coefficient at


two different velocities and two attack angles in the case
without the factor B. Compared with the optimized shape; we
notice an asymmetrical distribution of the pressure field. This
can be also seen in the iso-values representations.
On the other hand, the boundary layer reenergized process
is more efficient in the presence of the factor B in terms of the
pressure field distribution and lift/drag ratio enhancement
(figures 12 and 13).
7

CONCLUSION

The experimental investigation enabled us to carry out tests


relating to the control of aerodynamic unhooking by setting up
an optimization step of the vortex generators shape parameters
by the means of the experimental designs. The obtained
results highlighted the importance of the C-factor represented
by the vortex generators height which is the most influential
factor with a contribution ratio of 22%. The optimized VGs
geometry showed an improvement of 14% relative lift
compared to CL max and 16% of drag reduction.
The Reynolds number effect was also performed; it shows
that the flow at high velocity is more effective in increasing
the Lift/Drag ratio.
Comparative efficiency of the studied VGs highlighted a
significant improvement on the flow control when the vortex
generators are equipped with factor B. This result is
confirmed by the three-dimensional representation of the
pressure field as well as the iso-values curves.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

C. Bak, P. Fuglsang, J. Johansen and I. Antoniou, Wind tunnel test of


the NACA 63 415 and a modified NACA 63 415 Airfoil, Riso R-1193,
Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, 2000.
J. C. Lin, Review of research on low-profile vortex generators to control
boundary-layer separation, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 38: 389420, 2002.
A. C. Brown, H. F. Nawrocki, P.N. Paley, Subsonic diffusers designed
integrally with vortex generators, J Aircr, 5(3): 221-9, 1968.
G. Godard and M. Stanislas, Control of decelerating boundary layer.
Part 1: Optimization of passive vortex generators, Aerospace Science
and Technology, 10: 181-191, 2006.
T. K. Zhen, M. Zubair and K. A. Ahmad, Experimental and Numerical
Investigation of the Effects of Passive Vortex Generators on Aludra
UAV Performance, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 24: 577-583, 2011.
J. C. Lin, Control of turbulent boundary layer separation using microvortex generators, AIAA Paper, 3404, 1999.
D. C. Montgomery, Design and analysis of experiments, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, third edition, 1991.
M. Zeng. L. H. Tang.M. Lin. Q. W. Wang, Optimization of heat
exchangers with vortex-generator fin by Taguchi method, Applied
Thermal Engineering, 30: 1775-1783, 2010.
G. Taguchi, Taguchi on robust technology development, Bring Quality
Engineering (QE) Upstream, ASME, 1991.
I. Puertas Arbizu, C. J. Luis Prez, Surface roughness prediction by
factorial design of experiments in turning processes, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 143-144: 390-396, 2003.
T. Lundstedt and al, Experimental design and optimization,
Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 42: 3-40, 1998.
B. Thwaites, Incompressible aerodynamics: an account of the theory
and observation of the steady flow of incompressible fluid past
aerofoils, wings, and other bodies, Dover Publication, Inc, 1987.
A. Gerasimov, Modeling Turbulent Flows with FLUENT, Europe,
ANSYS, Inc, October 2006.
P. Bradshaw, The response of a constant-pressure turbulent boundary
layer to the sudden application of an adverse pressure gradient, A.R.
C.R. & M. 3575, 1967.

3226

[15] G. Sado and M. C. Sado, Les plans dexpriences, de lexprimentation


lassurance qualit, Collection AFNOR, 1991.
[16] J. G. Betterton and al, Laser Doppler anemometry investigation on subboundary layer vortex generators for the flow control, in: 10th Intl.
Symp. On Appl. of Laser Tech. to Fluid Mech., Lisbon, July 10-13
2000.
[17] J. Goupy, La mthode des plans dexpriences-Optimisation du choix
des essais & de linterprtation des rsultats, Ed Dunod, 1996.
[18] V. Pareto, Cours dconomie politique, Droz, 1896.
[19] R. Koch, the 80/20 Principle: The Secret of Achieving More with Less,
Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2001.
[20] K. A. Ahmad, J. K. Watterson, J. S. Cole, et al, Sub-boundary layer
vortex generator control of a separated diffuser flow, AIAA paper,
4650, 2005.
[21] D. C, McCormick, Boundary layer separation control with directed
synthetic jets, AIAA paper, 0519, 2000.