Impact of Gurney Flaplike Strips

on the Aerodynamic and Vortex

T. Lee
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
McGill University,
Montreal, QC H3A 2K6, Canada
Flow Characteristic of a Reverse
Delta Wing
The impact of Gurney flaplike strips, of different geometric configurations and heights,
on the aerodynamic characteristics and the tip vortices generated by a reverse delta wing
(RDW) was investigated via force-balance measurement and particle image velocimetry
(PIV). The addition of side-edge strips (SESs) caused a leftward shift of the lift curve,
resembling a conventional trailing-edge flap. The large lift increment overwhelmed the
corresponding drag increase, thereby leading to an improved lift-to-drag ratio compared
to the baseline wing. The lift and drag coefficients were also found to increase with the
strip height. The SES-equipped wing also produced a strengthened vortex compared to
its baseline wing counterpart. The leading-edge strips (LESs) were, however, found to
persistently produce a greatly diffused vortex flow as well as a small-than-baseline-wing
lift in the prestall a regime. The downward LES delivered a delayed stall and an
increased maximum lift coefficient compared to the baseline wing. The LESs provide a
potential wingtip vortex control alternative, while the SESs can enhance the aerodynamic
performance of the RDW. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4032301]

1 Introduction or inverted delta wings have also been employed extensively in the
wing-in-ground effect craft [9], e.g., RFB X-114.
Delta wings have been employed in high-speed flight. The flow-
Most recently, the RDWs were employed to the control of the
field is characterized by two counterrotating streamwise leading-
wingtip vortex generated by a rectangular NACA 0012 wing at
edge vortices (LEVs) which energize the flow and provide
Re ¼ 3.45  105 by Lee and Su [10] and Lee and Choi [11]. Lee
nonlinear vortex lift, thereby rendering a high static-stall angle. At
et al. [10,11] found that, regardless of its root chord and sweep
sufficiently high angles of attack, the LEVs can, however,
angle, the tip-mounted reverse half-delta wings always caused a
undergo vortex breakdown, leading to lift deterioration and an
rapid diffusion and breakdown of the wingtip vortex, suggesting a
increased pitch-up moment. The unsteady nature of flow down-
potential alternative for wingtip vortex wake alleviation. The vor-
stream of the LEV breakdown, which is sensitive to the exact
tex produced by the small half-delta wing interacted with the vor-
nature of the vortex structure and to the flowfield in which the vor-
tex from the regular NACA 0012 wing, causing both vortices to
tex is embedded, may also affect the stability of the aircraft and
break down, which gave the benefit of reduced lift-induced drag.
cause buffeting. Extensive experimental and numerical investiga-
They also found that the full RDW, however, generated a lower
tions of the vortex flow structure and characteristics over slender
lift and drag in comparison to the conventional full delta wing. In
delta wings have been conducted by researchers elsewhere (see,
addition, the RDW vortices were found to be located outside the
for example, Refs. [1–4]). Typical reviews can be found in the
RDW in contrast to the inboard location of the LEVs over the
work of Nelson and Pelletier [5] and Gursul et al. [6].
delta wing. The LEVs were, however, found to be more concen-
On the other hand, it has also been observed that an RDW,
trated and had a higher circulation and peak tangential velocity
which also resembles forward-swept-wing aircraft, can produce
than the RDW vortex. It should be noted that despite the observed
some certain favorable aerodynamic characteristics [7]. The RDW
drag reduction, the potential application of the RDW was over-
design was found to generate additional lift at low subsonic
shadowed by its inferior lift generation capability. The application
speeds, reducing power requirements and therefore noise, during
of Gurney flaplike strips was therefore employed not only to
environmentally crucial takeoff and landing phases. Recently,
increase the lift generation of the RDW (e.g., in the application of
Altaf et al. [8] investigated the vortex structure and characteristics
wing-in-ground effect vehicles) but also for potential wingtip vor-
of a sweep angle K ¼ 75 deg RDW by using PIV and force-
tex control.
balance measurement at selected angles of attack a (¼ 5 deg,
The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of
10 deg, 15 deg and 20 deg) for two fixed streamwise positions
Gurney flaplike SESs and LESs, of different heights and configu-
x/c ¼ 1.359 and 3.418 with a chord Reynolds number
rations, on the aerodynamic loads of a RDW through force-
Re ¼ 3.82  105. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation
balance measurements at Re ¼ 4.06  105 and 1.1  104. The
of the streamlines, velocity vectors, and surface pressure contours
results were also compared to its regular delta wing counterpart.
was also carried out. They found that the RDW exhibited a lower
The vortical flowfield generated by the RDW was also examined
magnitude of tangential velocity, circulation, and vorticity than the
by using PIV. It is noteworthy that the application of Gurney flaps
regular delta wing, and also generated a lower lift and drag coeffi-
on both delta and nondelta wings have been studied extensively
cient than the conventional delta wing. Despite the interesting find-
by researchers elsewhere (see, for example, Refs. [12] and [13]).
ings reported by Altaf et al., detailed streamwise RDW vortex flow
Special emphasis was also placed on the impact of these strips on
measurements are still needed. It is noteworthy that the RDW shape
the streamwise growth and development of the RDW vortex at
also resembles the gliding flight of butterflies and kites. The reverse
different a.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the 2 Experimental Methods
JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received June 20, 2015; final manuscript
received November 9, 2015; published online February 18, 2016. Assoc. Editor: The PIV experiment was conducted in a 20 cm  27.5 cm
Feng Liu.  75 cm water tunnel at McGill University. A 65-deg RDW

Journal of Fluids Engineering Copyright V

C 2016 by ASME JUNE 2016, Vol. 138 / 061104-1

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/28/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 model, constructed from flat-plate aluminum with a chord of
c ¼ 10.8 cm, a span of b ¼ 10.1 cm and a thickness-to-chord (t/c)
of 0.93%, was used as the test model. The model was mounted at
the center of the test section. The RDW pitch axis was located at
the 1=2-c location. The origin of the coordinate system was located
at the midspan of the leading edge of the RDW. The flowfield,
seeded with Dantec Model 80A4011 PSP-20 polyamid particles
of a mean diameter of 20 lm, was illuminated by two 1-mm-thick
laser light sheets, generated by a dual head Continuum Nd:YAG
laser (Model SureLite II). The two laser light sheets were pulsed
at 5 Hz and separated by a time delay of 2.38 ms. Particle images
were digitally acquired using a TSI PowerView 4MP Plus charge-
coupled device (CCD) camera (Model 630059) via a 64-bit frame
grabber installed in an HP Workstation XW9400. Timing and
control of the PIV system, which includes the lasers, CCD cam-
era, frame grabber, and synchronizer, was accomplished by a pro-
grammable LaserPulse synchronizer (Model 610035) with a time
resolution of 1 ns. The magnifying ratio was set at 6.1. Figure 1(a)
depicts the schematics of the PIV experimental setup. The PIV images
were analyzed by using the INSIGHT 3 G (version 8.0.4.0) software pack-
age developed by TSI Inc. The size of the interrogation window was
set to either 32  32 or 64  64 (representing a physical size of
roughly 1.5 and 2 mm, or 2% and 2.6%c, respectively), with a 50%
overlapping of the interrogation windows. The field of view was
75 mm by 35 mm with a total of 4350 vectors, which gave a vector
density of 1 vector/0.723 mm. The particle image was 3–5 pixels in di-
ameter. Vorticity values were obtained by centrally differentiating the
velocity field, which were estimated to be within 5% accuracy. The

Fig. 1 Schematics of (a) PIV setup and (b) wing models

061104-2 / Vol. 138, JUNE 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/28/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 RDW was also equipped with Gurney flaplike LESs and SESs of dif-
ferent heights (with h ¼ 1.5%c and 3%c) and orientations. Subscripts
u and d denote upward and downward directions, respectively. Figure
1(b) shows the details of the wing models. The PIV experiment was
conducted at Re ¼ 1.1  104. The maximum blockage ratio was esti-
mated to be 6%.
Smoke-wire flow visualization of the RDW was performed in a
20 cm  20 cm  180 cm suction-type wind tunnel at McGill Uni-
versity at Re ¼ 1.1  104. Two 100 -lm-diameter Nichrome wires
were employed to visualize simultaneously the RDW vortices and
the spanwise flow developed on the upper wing surface. The
RDW vortices were also visualized by using two 1-mm-diameter
dye injectors, positioned close to the tips of the RDW. The visual-
ized vortex flow patterns were recorded by using a high-speed dig-
ital camera (Casio Model EX-FH25) at 120 frames per second.
For the force balance measurements, a two-component wind-
tunnel force balance, installed at the bottom floor of a
Fig. 2 Impact of SES and LES on RDW aerodynamic characteristics at Re 5 4.06 3 105. RDW and DW denote reverse delta
wing and regular delta wing, respectively.
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/28/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
0.9 m  1.2 m  2.7 m wind tunnel, was employed to obtain the
CL and CD information, with a maximum uncertainty for the lift
and drag coefficient of 60.025 and 60.005, respectively, at
Re ¼ 4.06  105. A 65 deg RDW with a chord of 42 cm and a
bevel of 15 deg and a t/c ¼ 1.5% was employed. A seven-hole
pressure probe, with a diameter of 2.6 mm, was also employed to
obtain the flowfield information around the RDW, with and with-
out the Gurney-flaplike strips, at x/c ¼ 1.01 for a ¼ 16 deg to
supplement the force-balance measurements. The uncertainty in
axial flow velocity measurement was estimated to be within 3%.
A Rolling Hill Research Corporation (RHRC) one-component in-
ternal strain-gage force balance was also used to measure the nor-
mal force at Re ¼ 1.1  104 in the water tunnel with a resolution
of 0.41 volts per Newton in the water tunnel. Note that since there
is no axial gage on the RHRC balance, the measured normal force
was multiplied by cosa to more appropriately compare with lift
force.
JUNE 2016, Vol. 138 / 061104-3
 3 Results and Discussion
The impact of SESs and LES, of h ¼ 1.5% and 3%c, on the
aerodynamic characteristics of the RDW was investigated first,
followed by PIV flowfield measurements.
3.1 Aerodynamic Characteristics
3.1.1 Baseline RDW. Figure 2 illustrates the aerodynamic
characteristics of the baseline RDW and their comparison with the
regular delta wing at Re ¼ 4.06  105. The results of Altaf et al.
[8] of a K ¼ 75 deg delta wing and RDW at Re ¼ 3.8  105 are
also included in Fig. 2 for a direct comparison. As can be seen,
the delta wing had a better lift generation capability compared to
the RDW for a  11 deg (Fig. 2(a)). A 28.2% CL reduction of the
RDW at, for example, a ¼ 24 deg compared to the DW was
observed. For a < 11 deg, the delta wing, however, had a slightly
lower-than-RDW CL, which can be attributed to the fact that at
low a the LEVs were absent and the lift was mainly produced by
the potential or attached-flow developed on the delta wing. At
higher a, the large LEV-induced vortex lift overwhelmed the
RDW lift production. The lower CL of the RDW can be attributed
to the outboard location of the RDW vortices, which suggests that
the RDW vortices did not contribute to the RDW lift generation.
Figure 2(a) further indicates that the delta wing had a maximum
lift coefficient CL,max of 1.285 at ass of 35 deg in comparison to
1.03 and 35 deg of the RDW; ass is the static-stall angle. Also, in
contrast to the LEV breakdown-induced stalling of the DW, the
RDW stalling was triggered by the breakdown of the multiple
spanwise vortex filaments (SVFs), or the loss SVFs coherence,
developed over the RDW upper surface (Fig. 3).
The overall behavior of the SVFs and the RDW vortices can be
illustrated from the smoke-wire and dye-injection flow visualiza-
tions at a ¼ 14 deg and 24 deg, respectively. At a ¼ 14 deg
(Figs. 3(a) and 3(c)), the RDW vortices, originating from the
spanwise leading-edge vortex as a result of the roll-up of the
lower-wall shear layers along the RDW leading edge, were con-
centrated and stable compared to those at a ¼ 24 deg (Figs. 3(b)
and 3(d)). Due to the location of the smoke wire the spanwise
leading-edge vortex filament was not visualized, the presence of
the leading edge vortex filament can be found from the CFD simu-
lation of Altaf et al. [8]. Figure 3(a) further indicates that at
a ¼ 14 deg the surface flow structure was characterized by three
clearly defined multiple SVFs (i.e., SVF1, SVF2, and SVF3). The
appearance of these well-defined SVFs is due to the fact that at
low a the strong pressure gradients were confined to the trailing
apex region of the RDW, where they did not interfere with the
laminar boundary layer development, which, in turn, allowed
the SVFs to be unaffected, and led to a better lift generation than
the delta wing. The SVFs, however, became diffused as a was
increased. At a ¼ 24 deg (see Fig. 3(b)), the SVFs were disrupted
by the separated crossflow originating in the trailing apex region
of the RDW. In the vicinity of a ¼ 35 deg (not shown here), the
massive SVFs breakdown gave rise to a largely separated flow
over the RDW surface, leading to the stalling of the RDW.
The force-balance measurements also reveal that the presence
of the LEVs and its subsequent breakdown on the delta wing pro-
duced a higher profile drag and subsequently a higher drag coeffi-
cient CD compared to the RDW for a > 14 deg (Fig. 2(b)). By
contrast, the presence of the SVFs on the RDW upper surface led
to a higher profile drag for a < 14 deg instead. Note that at the
same lift condition the RDW was, however, found to produce a

Fig. 3 Photos of visualized baseline RDW flow patterns at a 5 14 deg and 24 deg. The flow is
from right to left. Smoke-wire flow visualization: (a) a 5 14 deg and (b) a 5 24 deg. Dye-injection
flow visualization: (c) a 5 14 deg and (d) a 5 24 deg. SVF denotes spanwise vortex filament.

061104-4 / Vol. 138, JUNE 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/28/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 4 Normalized iso-axial velocity contours at x/c 5 1.01 for
a 5 16 deg

higher CD than the delta wing (Fig. 2(c)), leading to a lower

CL/CD value (Fig. 2(d)).

3.1.2 RDW With SES and LES. Figure 2(a) shows that the
addition of h ¼ 3%c SES caused a leftward shift of the CL–a
curve, resembling the employment of a conventional trailing-edge
flap, thereby giving a greater CL,max ( ¼ 1.25) and also a small
stall delay (with ass ¼ 37.5 deg) compared to the baseline RDW.
The observed CL increase can be attributed to the SES-induced
spanwise camber effects and the alleviation of the crossflow leak-
age at the side edges, which thereby rendered an increased
bottom-surface pressure and consequently an increased CL com-
pared to the baseline wing. The smaller the h, the lesser extent of
the leftward CL–a shifting. A 43% and 28.4% increase in CL at,
for example, a ¼ 24 deg was obtained by the SES wing with
h ¼ 3%c and 1.5%c, respectively. The CL,max and ass were, how-
ever, found to be insensitive to h. Figure 2(a) further indicates
that the h ¼ 3%c SES wing produced a CL higher than the delta
wing for both prestall (up to a ¼ 26 deg) and post-stall a regimes.
Undesirably, the employment of SESs also produced a higher Fig. 5 Combined spatial progression of normalized isovortic-
CD compared to the baseline RDW at the same a (see Fig. 2(b)). ity contours at a 5 16 deg. (a) BW and SES wing, (b) BW and
LESd wing, and (c) BW and LESu wing. BW denotes baseline
The increase in CD can also be understood from the iso-u/u1 con- RDW.
tours, obtained by a seven-hole pressure probe, at a ¼ 16 deg
(Fig. 4). The separated wake behind the h ¼ 3%c SES wing had a
lesser extent but a larger wake, or momentum, deficit in compari- noticed for the h ¼ 1.5%c case, but to a lesser extent, in compari-
son to the baseline RDW (Figs. 4(a) and 4(b)), as a consequence son with the h ¼ 3%c case.
of the SES-caused interruption of the higher momentum fluid The influence of upward and downward LESs (designated as
transfer from the bottom surface to the upper surface. Special LESu and LESd, respectively) on the aerodynamic load coeffi-
attention should also be given to the wake-like core axial flow of cients is also discussed. The presence of LES always gave a lower
the SES-wing vortex (with a core axial velocity uc ¼ 0.52 u1) CL for the prestall a regime while a higher CL for the post-stall a
compared to the jet-like core flow of the baseline RDW vortex regime (Fig. 2(a)). The larger the h, the smaller (or larger) the CL
(with uc ¼ 1.09 u1). The entrainment of the turbulent shear layer for the pre-stall (or post-stall) a regime. The addition of LESd also
flow, separating from the bottom surface of the SES wing, by the led to a delayed stall and an increased CL,max compared to the
RDW vortex as it progressed downstream, however, led to a baseline RDW. The larger the h is, the higher the ass and CL,max
wake-like core flow. Surprise enough, the increase in CL outper- become. The LESu wing gave a small CD reduction (Fig. 2(b)), as
formed the corresponding CD increase (Fig. 2(c)), rendering an a result of the smaller extent and deficit of the separated wake
improved CL/CD compared to the baseline RDW and the DW as flow behind the LESu wing compared to the baseline RDW (see
well (Fig. 2(d)). Similar change in CL, CD, and CL/CD was also Fig. 4(c)). The reduction in CD of the LESd wing was not able to

Journal of Fluids Engineering JUNE 2016, Vol. 138 / 061104-5

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/28/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 6 Variation of vortex flow parameters with x/c at a 5 16 deg

outperform the corresponding CL reduction (see Fig. 2(c)), result-

ing in a lowered CL/CD compared to the baseline RDW
(Fig. 2(d)).

3.2 RDW Vortex Flow Characteristics. Now, the impact of

SES and LES on the RDW vortex was investigated by using PIV
at Re ¼ 1.1  104. It is noteworthy that the PIV technique not only
provides the best resolution in the study of low-Reynolds-number
vortex flow but also eliminates the interference of the mechanical
probes with the vortex flow [14]. Figures 5(a)–5(c) depict the
joint plots of the spatial progression of the normalized isovorticity
(fc/u1) contours of the RDW vortex, with and without strips, for
x/c  1.5 at a ¼ 16 deg. The corresponding vortex flow parameters
are summarized in Fig. 6. To save space, the baseline RDW
results are plotted on the right-hand side in Figs. 5(a)–5(c) and the
controlled cases are plotted on the left-hand side. The streamwise
vorticity f (¼ @w/@y @v/@z) was calculated from the ensemble-
averaged cross-flow (vw) velocity components by using a central
differencing scheme to evaluate the derivatives. The PIV results
shown here are ensemble-averaged over 60 PIV images. Note that
a large number of PIV images would be needed to elucidate the
vortex turbulence dynamics [15].
Figures 5(a)–5(c) show that the RDW vortices are characterized
by an “arm-and-fist” vortex flow pattern and that the extent of the Fig. 7 Normalized tangential velocity across the vortex center
“arm” grew as the RDW vortex progressed downstream. For the at x/c 5 1.5 for a 5 16 deg

061104-6 / Vol. 138, JUNE 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/28/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 8 CL–a curves at Re 5 1.1 3 104. DW denotes regular delta
wing.
baseline RDW, a single and axisymmetric vortex exhibited at
x/c ¼ 1.5 (see Fig. 5(a)). The RDW vortex was also located out-
board and above the RDW (see also Figs. 6(a) and 6(b)), which
helps explain the inferior lift generation of the baseline RDW
Fig. 9 Variation of vortex flow parameters with a at x/c 5 1.01
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/28/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
compared to the regular delta wing and also the fact that the RDW
vortex breakdown is not a direct contributor to the stalling of the
RDW. The peak vorticity fpeak and tangential velocity vh,peak (in-
dicative of the strength of the vortex) of the baseline RDW vortex
were found to increase with x/c, reaching a local maximum at
around x/c ¼ 0.3 (suggesting a spanwise leading-edge vortex with
a diameter of around 0.3 c), and began to drop for x/c  0.3 (Figs.
6(c) and (6d)). The vh,peak was obtained from the vh distribution
across the RDW vortex center (see, for example, at x/c ¼ 1.5 in
Fig. 7). Note that for an asymmetric vortex (with
vh,peak 6¼vh,max 6¼ |vh,min|), a circumferentially averaged value was
used. The present measurements also indicate that the total circu-
lation Co of the baseline RDW vortex, computed via Stokes theo-
rem, increased with x/c up to 0.7 and attained a rather constant
value for x/c  0.7 (Fig. 6(e)), suggesting a near completion of the
RDW vortex roll-up.
For the SES wing vortex, the iso-fc/u1 contours (presented on
the left-hand side in Fig. 5(a)) remained concentrated and well-
defined. The change in fpeak and vh,peak with x/c of the SES-wing
vortex followed the trend of the baseline RDW vortex but had a
higher magnitude (Figs. 6(c) and 6(d)). A more direct comparison
of the SES-wing vortex and the baseline RDW vortex can be
reflected from the enlarged views at x/c ¼ 0.6 and 0.9, which man-
ifests the higher vorticity level of the SES wing vortex compared
to the baseline wing vortex at the same x/c and a. The SES-wing
vortex center was also found to be located further inboard
and closer to the wing upper surface (Figs. 6(a) and 6(b)).
More importantly, the Co of the SES-wing vortex also became
invariant with x/c for x/c > 0.7 with Co  0.246cu1, which
translates into a 42% increase compared to its baseline RDW
(with Co  0.173cu1). The 42% increase in Co is in agreement
with the observed 39% increase in CL of the SES wing in
JUNE 2016, Vol. 138 / 061104-7
 comparison to the baseline RDW at a ¼ 16 deg for Re ¼ 1.1  104
(see Fig. 8). Note that the variation in CL with a at Re ¼ 1.1  104
followed that at Re ¼ 4.06  105 but had a smaller magnitude.
Also shown in Fig. 8 are the CL data of the regular delta wing and
the RDW with LESs at Re ¼ 1.1  104.
The PIV measurements also indicate that the presence of LESd
produced a diffused vortex (see Fig. 5(b)) with a smaller fpeak and
vh,peak and Co compared to the baseline wing (Figs. 6(c)–6(e)).
Enlarged iso-fc/u1 contours at x/c ¼ 0.6 and 0.9 were also plotted
in Figs. 5(b) and 5(c) for a better comparison. The RDW vortex
was also found to move further inboard and closer to the LESd
wing surface with increasing x/c (Figs. 6(a) and 6(b)). The extent
of diffusion and irregularity of the RDW vortex was further ele-
vated for the LESu wing (Fig. 5(c)). Typical vh distributions across
the center of the RDW vortex illustrating the axisymmetry and
asymmetry of the RDW vortex are given in Fig. 7. Due the irregu-
larity of the vortex, only the vortex trajectory, fpeak and Co of the
LESu-wing vortex are summarized in Fig. 6.
Finally, the vortex flow parameters as a function of a
(¼ 4–30 deg) was also investigated at x/c ¼ 1.10. Figure 9(a)
shows that the total circulation of the RDW vortex persistently
increased with a and was accompanied by a further inboard
movement of the vortex (Fig. 9(b)). The baseline RDW vortex
was found to remain concentrated and axisymmetric for

Fig. 10 Normalized isovorticity contours at x/c 5 1.01 for selected a

061104-8 / Vol. 138, JUNE 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/28/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 a  16 deg but became diffused for 16 deg < a  23 deg (see delay and CL,max increase. Finally, the application of LESs can
Figs. 10(a1)–10(a3)). For a > 23 deg, the RDW vortex was provide a potential tip vortex suppression scheme while the SESs
circulation-like flow with patches of small vorticity can give an enhanced aerodynamic performance of the RDW.
(Figs. 10(a4)–10(a6)). The fpeak and vh,peak of the baseline RDW
vortex were also found to increase with a, reaching a local maxi- Acknowledgment
mum at a ¼ 16 deg, and started to drop for a > 16 deg (Figs. 9(c)
and 9(d)). The measured Co and b0 (the distance between the The author would like to thank S. Choi, J. Jeong, L.S. Ko,
RDW vortices) of the baseline RDW vortex were also used to M. Mou, and Y.Y. Su for their assistance with the experiment and
compute the PIV-derived CL value via the Kutta–Joukowski theo- figure preparation.
rem (L ¼ qu1Cob0 , where L is the lift force). The PIV-derived CL
value (denoted by 䉬 symbols in Fig. 8) is in good agreement with Nomenclature
the force-balance data. The PIV-derived CL technique had also
b¼ geometric span
been employed by Kaplan et al. [16] to a 63.5 deg-sweep delta
c¼ wing chord
wing at Re ¼ 8  103 and 2.4  104.
CL ¼ total lift coefficient
Figures 10(b1)–10(b6) show that the SES-wing vortex
h¼ height
remained concentrated up to a ¼ 24 deg. The vortex was also
Re ¼ chord Reynolds number, ¼ cu1/
strengthened and moved closer the wing centerline with a com-
uc ¼ core axial vortex flow velocity
pared to the baseline RDW (see also Figs. 9(a) and 9(b)). The
u1 ¼ freestream velocity
higher vortex strength also translates into a more rigorous vortex
v,w ¼ vertical and spanwise velocity
rotation and peak vorticity level (Figs. 9(c) and 9(d)). No PIV-
vh ¼ tangential velocity
derived CL values were obtained for the SES or LES-equipped
vh,peak ¼ peak vh
wings. The employment of LESd and LESu, however, persistently
x,y,z ¼ streamwise, vertical, and spanwise directions
gave rise to a greatly diffused and sometimes ill-defined RDW
yc ¼ vertical vortex center position
vortex throughout the a range tested (Figs. 9 and 10(c1)–10(d6)).
zc ¼ horizontal vortex center position
The LESu-wing vortex, however, exhibited a higher (or
a¼ angle of attack
lower) fpeak compared to its LESd counterpart for a < 13.5 deg
ass ¼ static-stall angle
(or a > 13.5 deg). The LESu wing also had a total circulation
K¼ sweep angle
comparable to its BW counterpart. Due to the asymmetry of the
f¼ streamwise vorticity
LESu-wing vortex, no circumferentially averaged vh,peak value is
fpeak ¼ peak f
reported here.
Co ¼ total circulation
¼ fluid kinematic viscosity
4 Conclusions
The impact of Gurney flaplike strips on the aerodynamic and
vortex flow characteristics of a 65 deg-sweep RDW was investi- References
gated experimentally. The results show that the upper surface flow [1] Morton, S., Forsythe, J., Mitchell, A., and Hajek, D., 2002, “Detached-Eddy
Simulations and Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Simulations of Delta Wing
of the baseline RDW was characterized by multiple SVFs and that Vortical Flowfields,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 24(4), pp. 924–932.
the stalling was caused by the breakdown of these SVFs. More- [2] Wang, F. Y., Milanovic, I. M., Zaman, K. B., and Povinelli, L. A., 2005, “A
over, the RDW vortices (originated from the spanwise leading- Quantitative Comparison of Delta Wing Vortices in the Near-Wake for Incom-
edge vortex filament) were found to be located outside the RDW, pressible and Supersonic Free Streams,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 127(6),
pp. 1071–1084.
which suggests that the RDW vortices have little relevance to the [3] Liu, T., Makhmalbaf, M. M., Vewen Ramasamy, R., Kode, S. S., and Merati,
lift generation. The upper surface of the RDW acts more like a P. P., 2015, “Skin Friction Fields and Surface Dye Patterns on Delta Wings in
wake generator. Meanwhile, the roll-up of the RDW vortex was Water Flows,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 137(7), pp. 202–214.
completed for x/c  0.7, leading to an invariant total circulation [4] Lowson, M. V., and Riley, A. J., 1995, “Vortex Breakdown Control by Delta
Wing Geometry,” J. Aircr., 32(4), pp. 832–838.
and an axisymmetric vortex. The peak vorticity and tangential [5] Nelson, R. C., and Pelletier, A., 2003, “The Unsteady Aerodynamics of Slender
velocity of the RDW vortex were, however, found to increase Wings and Aircraft Undergoing Large Amplitude Maneuvers,” Prog. Aerosp.
with a up to a ¼ 16 deg and persistently exhibited a local maxi- Sci., 39(2–3), pp. 185–248.
mum at x/c ¼ 0.3. [6] Gursul, I., Wang, Z., and Vardaki, E., 2007, “Review of Flow Control Mecha-
nisms of Leading-Edge Vortices,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 43(7–8), pp. 246–270.
The addition of the SES caused a leftward shifting of the CL–a [7] Gerhardt, H. A., 1996, “Supersonic Natural Laminar Flow Wing,” U.S. Patent
curve, especially for the h ¼ 3%c case, resembling the employ- No. 5,538,201.
ment of a trailing-edge flap of a rectangular wing, and thereby led [8] Altaf, A., Omar, A. A., Asrar, W., and Jamaluddin, H. B. L., 2011, “Study of
to a significant lift increase comparable to that of a regular delta the Reverse Delta Wing,” J. Aircr., 48(1), pp. 277–286.
[9] Rozhdestven, K. V., 2006, “Wing-in-Ground Effect Vehicles,” Prog. Aerosp.
wing. The CL increase overwhelmed the CD increase, rendering Sci., 42(3), pp. 211–283.
an improved CL/CD compared to the baseline RDW. The SES [10] Lee, T., and Su, Y. Y., 2012, “Wingtip Vortex Control Via the Use of a Reverse
wing-generated vortex remained similar to its baseline RDW Half-Delta Wing,” Exp. Fluids, 52(6), pp. 1593–1609.
counterpart but had a higher strength and peak vorticity and [11] Lee, T., and Choi, S., 2015, “Wingtip Vortex Control Via Tip-Mounted
Half-Delta Wings of Different Geometric Configurations,” ASME J. Fluids
tangential velocity. The larger the strip height is, the higher the Eng., 137, pp. 1–9.
SES-wing vortex strength and lift generation become. The SES- [12] Zhan, J. X., and Wang, J. J., 2004, “Experimental Study on Gurney Flap and
wing vortex was also found to remain concentrated up to Apex Flap on a Delta Wing,” J. Aircr., 41(6), pp. 1379–1383.
a ¼ 24 deg while the baseline RDW vortex stayed well-defined for [13] Wang, J. J., Li, Y. C., and Choi, K.-S., 2008, “Gurney Flap—Lift Enhancement,
Mechanisms and Applications,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 44(1), pp. 22–47.
a  16 deg. On the other hand, the employment of the LES always [14] Payne, F. M., Ng, T. T., and Nelson, R. C., 1989, “Seven Hole Probe Measure-
led to a diffused RDW vortex and also a reduced (or an increased) ment of Leading Edge Vortex Flows,” Exp. Fluids, 7(1), pp. 1–8.
CL for the pre-stall (or post-stall) a regime compared to the base- [15] Wu, H., Miorini, R. L., Tan, D., and Katz, J., 2012, “Turbulence Within the
line wing. The downward LES-wing produced a lower vortex Tip-Leakage Vortex of an Axial Waterjet Pump,” AIAA J., 50(11),
pp. 2574–2587.
strength and lift compared to their upward counterpart. The LESd [16] Kaplan, S. M., Altman, A., and Ol, M., 2007, “Wake Vorticity Measurements
also caused a large stall delay and CL,max increment compared to for Low Aspect Ratio Wings at Low Reynolds Number,” J. Aircr., 44(1),
the baseline wing. The larger the strip height, the larger the stall pp. 241–251.

Journal of Fluids Engineering JUNE 2016, Vol. 138 / 061104-9

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/28/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use