Applsci 10 07258 v2

applied
sciences
Article
Experimental Study on Aerodynamic Characteristics
of a Gurney Flap on a Wind Turbine Airfoil under
High Turbulent Flow Condition
Junwei Yang 1,2,3 , Hua Yang 1,2, *, Weijun Zhu 1,2 , Nailu Li 1,2 and Yiping Yuan 4
1 College of Electrical, Energy and Power Engineering, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225127, China;
yangjunwei@yzu.edu.cn (J.Y.); wjzhu@yzu.edu.cn (W.Z.); nlli@yzu.edu.cn (N.L.)
2 New Energy Research Center, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China
3 College of Hydraulic Science and Engineering, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China
4 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Hi-Tech Research for Wind Turbine Design, Nanjing University of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China; yuanyiping@nuaa.edu.cn
* Correspondence: yanghua@yzu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-138-1583-8009

Received: 20 September 2020; Accepted: 14 October 2020; Published: 16 October 2020
Abstract: The objective of the current work is to experimentally investigate the effect of turbulent flow
on an airfoil with a Gurney flap. The wind tunnel experiments were performed for the DTU-LN221
airfoil under different turbulence level (T.I. of 0.2%, 10.5% and 19.0%) and various flap configurations.
The height of the Gurney flaps varies from 1% to 2% of the chord length; the thickness of the Gurney
flaps varies from 0.25% to 0.75% of the chord length. The Gurney flap was vertical fixed on the pressure
side of the airfoil at nearly 100% measured from the leading edge. By replacing the turbulence grille
in the wind tunnel, measured data indicated a stall delay phenomenon while increasing the inflow
turbulence level. By further changing the height and the thickness of the Gurney flap, it was found
that the height of the Gurney flap is a very important parameter whereas the thickness parameter
has little influence. Besides, velocity in the near wake zone was measured by hot-wire anemometry,
showing the mechanisms of lift enhancement. The results demonstrate that under low turbulent
inflow condition, the maximum lift coefficient of the airfoil with flaps increased by 8.47% to 13.50%
(i.e., thickness of 0.75%), and the Gurney flap became less effective after stall angle. The Gurney flap
with different heights increased the lift-to-drag ratio from 2.74% to 14.35% under 10.5% of turbulence
intensity (i.e., thickness of 0.75%). However, under much a larger turbulence environment (19.0%),
the benefit to the aerodynamic performance was negligible.
Keywords: wind tunnel experiment; wind turbine airfoil; turbulence; Gurney flap;
aerodynamic characteristics
1. Introduction
Wind power generation technology has been maturely developed in the past decades. Airfoil is
a basic element of a wind turbine blade, and its aerodynamic characteristics have a major influence
on the wind energy conversion efficiency. Among the conventional rotor aerodynamic design
strategy, the blade add-ons were of particular interest to further improve wind energy efficiency.
Therefore, mounting flap to the airfoil trailing edge was one of the most feasible methods to improve
the aerodynamic performance of wind turbines. In addition to power production, such a technique can
also effectively reduce the aerodynamic loads both of wind turbine blades and tower. If a sophisticated
controller was implemented, the flap can further reduce turbulence-induced fatigue loads, so that
longer lifetime was guaranteed. After the pioneering work of Liebeck [1], a large number of studies
have been conducted to explain the phenomena induced by the presence of this device. More recently,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258; doi:10.3390/app10207258 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 2 of 21
research objects were most focused on airfoil attached various shapes of flaps, such as Gurney
flaps [2,3], triangular flaps [4], separate trailing edge flaps [5,6] and deformable trailing edge flaps [7,8].
For experiment tests, Zhang et al. [9] and Amini et al. [10] studied the aerodynamic effect of a Gurney
flap based on the airfoil through wind tunnel experiments. T Lee et al. [11] carried out a wind tunnel
test of the lift force and pitching moment coefficients of both trailing edge flaps and Gurney flaps
with different shape parameters. Based on a 5 MW reference wind turbine, Chen et al. [12] designed
and optimized a trailing edge flaps such that the blade mass can be further reduced but still maintain
the desired power performance. Medina et al. [13] explored the flow mechanisms of a flap at a high
deflection angle. When the flap works in a separated flow region, he provided some ideas for realizing
instantaneous action or alleviating extra aerodynamic loads on wind turbines. Elsayed et al. [14]
studied the flap tip vortexes and characterized the flow structures behind a flap in a low-speed wind
tunnel by using particle image velocimetry. Little et al. [15] designed a trailing edge flap by using
a single medium plasma driver which resulted in a higher lift force. Bergami et al. [16] designed
an active controller of a trailing edge flap on a 5 MW reference wind turbine and proved that the
flap could effectively control aerodynamic loads. Edward et al. [17] also conducted experiments on
a flaps noise drop. According to the wind tunnel tests based on a full-size rotor, Straub et al. [18]
found that flaps could also be used to control noise and vibration such that the noise generated by
blade vortex interaction could be reduced by 6 dB. For numerical simulations and theoretical analyses,
Traub et al. [19] fitted a semi-empirical equation by summarizing the performance of a large number
of flaps. Lario et al. [20] numerically solved the unsteady flow field of Gurney flaps at high Reynolds
numbers through the discontinuous Galerkin method. By analyzing dynamic characteristics of an
airfoil with Gurney flaps through the numerical simulation, Li et al. [21] found that flaps were capable
to reduce unsteady aerodynamic loads of wind turbines. Zhu et al. [22] numerically simulated the
airfoil with trailing edge flaps using the immersed boundary method and found that flaps could
be combined with the paddle movement to adjust the aerodynamic loads of a wind turbine airfoil.
Ng et al. [23] investigated the trailing edge flap together with an aeroelastic analysis. It was noted that
the trailing edge flap could be a smart device to control aeroelastic deformation.
All the above researches on the flaps were built on the uniform inflow of low turbulence
intensity. In the past, there were few studies carried out by flow over flaps under high turbulence
intensity [24,25], however, such a flow condition often occurs on wind turbines operating in a wind
farm. Considering wind turbines operate in a turbulence environment, the conclusions obtained from
the previous studies might not be accurate. Therefore, to simulate wind turbines under turbulence
environment, active and passive wind tunnel turbulence generation methods can be used. The active
technology includes a vibrating grille and multi-fan wind tunnel; the maximum turbulence intensity can
reach more than 20% [26]. The passive control structure was relatively simple, which can be divided into
grille, wedge, and rough square types among the passive turbulence generators, it was more convenient
to construct grilles, which have gain very popular use. In this experiment, specific turbulence levels
were passively controlled by a grille with proper grid size.
The investigations presented in this paper were focused on the coupled effects of Gurney
flap and turbulence inflow. The Gurney flaps were experimentally investigated under various
turbulence intensities and flap configurations. The desired turbulent flow passes the airfoil was
achieved by changing the grille size as well as the distance between the grille and the airfoil model.
The hot-wire anemometer was used to record the wind speed and turbulence intensity in a flow
cross-section. The quantitative information obtained during the experiment includes: (1) turbulent
field descriptions, (2) airfoil pressure coefficients, (3) lift-to-drag coefficients, (4) wake measurements.
On that basis, the aerodynamic performance of Gurney flaps with different heights and thicknesses
was researched. The values of lift and pitching-moment coefficients were obtained through the
integration of surface pressures. The wake rake array was also used to determine the values of drag
coefficient. Furthermore, the flow fields near the trailing edge of airfoil were tested which could further
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 3 of 21
verify the reason for lift improvement. Finally, concluding remarks accompany the discussion of the
experimental investigations.
2. Experimental Setup
The experiments were carried out in a wind tunnel located at Yangzhou University. It was a
close-loop type wind tunnel which contains two experimental sections. The measurements were
conducted in the smaller section with the cross-section parameters of 3 m × 1.5 m, and the length
is 3 m. The operational wind speed range was 0~50 m/s and the calibrated maximum turbulence
intensity in the free stream was 0.2%. The DTU-LN221 airfoil model [27], as shown in Figure 1,
was adopted which has a chord length of 0.6 m and a span length of 1.5 m. The airfoil model was
vertically placed in the test section. The bottom part of the airfoil section was connected by the rotating
shaft, which was fixed on a rotational plate, as demonstrated in Figure 2. Therefore, the angle of attack
can be remotely controlled via a shaft connection with a motor below the wind tunnel. The airfoil
model was made of aluminum alloy where small taps were drilled on the surface of the middle section,
with the location sketched in Figure 1. The arc length between the taps was approximately spaced
every 2.5% of chord length starting from the leading edge to 90% of the trailing edge. The hollow
plastic hoses were connected on the reverse side of the airfoil surface which has an outer diameter of
1.2 mm. Thus, a total of 77 pressure taps were arranged for the pressure measurement on the surface
of the airfoil. The pressures on the airfoil surface were sensed by the electronic pressure acquisition
system of PSI (Pressure Systems Inc., Hampton, VA, USA). The pressure system used in the experiment
has a sampling frequency of 333.3 Hz, a measuring range of ±2.5 kPa and a measuring accuracy of
±0.05%. Figure 1 also shows the chord-wise position, so the lift and pitching-moment of the test airfoil
were achieved by integrating the pressure and the position of the taps on the surface. The lift coefficient
and pitching-moment coefficients were given by
Cl = Cn cos α − Ct sin α
R1 (1)
Cm = Cpl − Cpu (0.25 − x̂)dx̂
0
where
R1
Cn = Cpl − Cpu dx̂
0
ŷuR max (2)
Ct = Cp,be − Cp,a f d ŷ
ŷl max
where Cl and Cm are the lift coefficient and pitching-moment coefficient, respectively; αrepresents
the angle of attack; x̂ is the relative chord length; ŷ is the thickness value relative to the chord length;
Cpu and Cpl are the pressure coefficient on the suction and pressure sides of the airfoil, respectively;
Cn and Ct are the normal force coefficient and tangential force coefficient, respectively. Cp ,be and
Cp ,af are the pressure coefficient before and after the maximum thickness of airfoil; ŷu max and ŷl max
represent the maximum thickness values of the suction and pressure sides relative to chord length.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 4 of 21
Appl.
Appl.Sci.
Sci.2020,
2020,10,
10,7258
7258 44ofof21
21
600mm
600mm
150mm
150mm
Pressure
Pressuretaps
taps
lift,
lift,pitching-
pitching-
normal
normalforce
force ∫integral
∫integral moment
momentobtained
obtained
lift
lift Drag
Drag(pressure
(pressuredrag)
drag)
y/c
Thickness y/c
Pitching
Pitching wake
wakerake
rakearray
array
Thickness
moment
moment
tangential
tangentialforce
force
Chord
Chordline
line Drag
Dragobtained
obtained
Rotating
Rotatingcenter
center
Angle (pressure
(pressuredrag
drag++
Angleofof
attack
attack frictional
frictionaldrag)
drag)
00 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.3
0.3 0.40.4 0.5
0.5 0.60.6 0.70.7 0.80.8 0.9
0.9 1.0
1.0
Chord-wise
Chord-wiseposition
position x/c
x/c
Inflow
Inflow Connect with
Connect with
servo
servomotor
motor
through
throughaashaft
shaft
Figure
Figure 1.1.Schematic
Figure1. Schematicdiagram
Schematic diagramof
diagram ofmeasuring
of measuringposition.
measuring position.
position.
Grilles
Grilles
Airfoil
Airfoilsection
section 420mm Wake
Airfoil
Airfoilsection
section
420mm Wakerake
rakearray
array
Gurney
Gurneyflap
flap
incoming
incomingflow
flow
1500mm
1500mm
Wake
Wakerake
rakearray
array pressure
pressuretaps
taps
1600mm
1600mm Pitot
Pitottube
tube
rotary
rotaryplate
plate
3000mm
3000mm
Figure2.2.Experimental
Figure Experimentaltest
testdevice.
device.
At
Ataasmall
smallangle
angleofofattack,
attack,thetheaerodynamic
aerodynamicdrag draglargely
largelyconsists
consistsof offrictional
frictionaldrag,
drag,while
whilethe
the
data
datameasured
measuredby bysurface pressuretaps
surfacepressure tapscannot
cannotaccurately
accuratelyrepresentrepresentthe thedrag
dragforce,
force,sosothe
thedrag
dragcan
can
be
bemeasured
measuredby bythe
themomentum
momentummethod methodmore moreprecisely.
precisely.As As shown
Asshown
shownin in
inFigure
Figure2,2,aawake
wakerake
rakearray
array
was
was placed at 0.7 chord length behind the trailing edge of the airfoil and at the same verticallevel
placed at 0.7 chord length behind the trailing edge of the airfoil and at the same vertical levelasas
the
thepressure
pressuretaps.
taps.The
Themeasurement
measurementrange rangeof ofthethewake
wakeprobesprobeswas was80.8 80.8cm,
cm,102102total pressurepipes
totalpressure pipes
(with
(withananouter
an outerdiameter
outer diameter
diameter ofof1.2
of mm)
1.2
1.2mm)
mm)andand
and4 static
44static pressure
static pressure
pressure pipes pipes(with
pipes (withan outer
(with an diameter
anouter
outer of 2 mm)
diameter
diameter ofof22were
mm)
mm)
averagely
were arranged,
wereaveragely with
averagelyarranged, an
arranged,with 20 cm
withan apart
an2020cm for
cmapart the static
apartfor forthe pressure
thestatic pipes.
staticpressure To
pressurepipes. prevent
pipes.To air leakage,
Toprevent
preventair all pressure
airleakage,
leakage,allall
tubes were
pressure connected
tubes were by plastic
connected hoses
by to
plastic the pressure
hoses to the measurement
pressure device.
measurement
pressure tubes were connected by plastic hoses to the pressure measurement device. Besides, two Besides, two
device. Pitot
Besides, tubes
two
were
Pitotinstalled
Pitot tubes
tubeswere at 1.6
were m measured
installed
installed atat1.6
1.6m from
m the downstream
measured
measured from
fromthe of grilles where
thedownstream
downstream of the free
ofgrilles
grilles stream
where
where thevelocity
the free was
freestream
stream
recorded.
velocity
velocitywasTherecorded.
was drag coefficients
recorded. The
Thedrag
dragwere given aswere
coefficients
coefficients follows
were given
givenas asfollows
follows
PP −  
Z r  r 
2 22 PP01 0101−
P PP PP
P
Cd = Cd d  
  01
11− PP −PP  ds
 ∞ds
0101
C 1 ds (3)
(3)
c ccw PP0P − 
PP∞
P 
  P  P 
 
 

w 0 0  0 0
0 
∞
w
where
whereCCdCdis
where d is
is
thethe
the drag
dragdrag coefficient;
coefficient;
coefficient; cc isischord
c is the the
the chord
length,length,
chord w is thewwrange
length, isis the
theofrange
range of of integration;
integration; integration; ss isis the
s is the coordinate the
coordinate
coordinate along
along the
the thickness
thickness direction
direction of
of the
the wake
wake rake
rake array;
array; PP
along the thickness direction of the wake rake array; P∞ and P0 are the static pressure and total pressure∞∞ and
and PP0 0are
are the
the static
static
pressure
pressureand
measured and
by total
thetotal pressure
Pitot tubes; P measured
pressure P01 areby
measured
and bythe
the the Pitot
Pitot
static tubes;
tubes;
pressure PPand
and andPP
total 0101are
arethe
pressure the static
staticpressure
measured pressure
by the wake and
and
total
totalpressure
pressure measured
measured by
by the
the wake
wake rake
rake array.
array. It
Itshould
should be
be noted
noted that
that
rake array. It should be noted that there is a total pressure loss along the Pitot tubes to the wake rake there
there is
isa a total
totalpressure
pressure
loss
loss along
array, along the
therefore Pitot
thethePitot tubes
tubes
total to
to the
pressure the wake
losswake
shouldrakebearray,
rake addedtherefore
array, therefore
to each totalthe total
total pressure
thepressure pressure
measuring loss should
losspoint
shouldof thebe
be
added
wake to
rake each
array. total pressure measuring point of
added to each total pressure measuring point of the wake rake array. the wake rake array.
Figure
Figure333presents
presents
presents the
thethe schematic
schematic
schematic diagram
diagram
diagram of
of the
of the the grille
grille geometry.
geometry.
grille geometry. The
The grilles
The grilles assembled
assembled
grilles with many
assembled with
with
many
manysquared
squared alloys alloys
squared with with
withgeometry
geometry
alloys specified
geometry specified
by four
specified by four
fourparameters
parameters
by a, b, c a,
parameters a,b,b,cd.
and cand
These
and d.
d.These
Thesesmall
small smallsquares
squares were
squares
were
were bolted
bolted together
together and and onon toptop of of the
the grille
grille the
the rubber
rubber pads pads were were attached.
attached. DuringDuring the the
measurements,
measurements, two two types
types of of grilles
grilles were
were implemented.
implemented. The The dimensions
dimensions of of the
the two
two grilles
grilles werewere
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 5 of 21
provided in Table 1. The width of the longitudinal grille and the transverse grille were denoted5 by
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258
a
of 21
and c, respectively; the width and the height of the spacing were denoted by b and d, respectively,
the thickness along the flow direction was e.
bolted together and on top of the grille the rubber pads were attached. During the measurements,
two types of grilles were implemented. The dimensions
Table 1. Dimensions of the two
of the experiment grilles were provided in Table 1.
grilles.
The width of the longitudinal grille and the transverse grille were denoted by a and c, respectively;
a (cm)b (cm)c (cm)d (cm)e (cm)
the width and the height of the spacing were denoted by b and d, respectively, the thickness along the
Scheme 1 3 34 3 32 3
flow direction was e.
Scheme 2 6 31.4 6 29.8 3
a
Rubber pads
b d
c
Anchor bolts
(a)
Section8 Section1
Grille
200 200 100 100 100 100 200

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
Anchor bolts
1000mm 1000mm
(b)
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of experimental grille. (a) Front view; (b) side view.
view.
Behind the grille, there Table

were 1. Dimensions
eight of the experiment
measurement grilles.
sections designed for velocity recording. At
each of the section, 15 measurementa (cm) points bwere
(cm) uniformly
c (cm) dspaced.
(cm) eThe (cm) center of the topmost
measurement point corresponds to the geometrical center of the wind tunnel section. The horizontal
Scheme 1 3 34 3 32 3
and vertical spacing of measuring points were 10 cm, as displayed by the black spots in Figure 3a. In
Scheme 2 6 31.4 6 29.8 3
addition, we set eight measurement sections one to two meters behind the grille, as shown in Figure
3b. The wind speed was measured through a Dantec hot-wire probe (type 55P61). The sampling
Behindwas
frequency the 5grille,
kHz,there were
and the eight
test windmeasurement
speeds were sections designed
consistent with for
thatvelocity recording.
in the airfoil At each
experiment.
of the section,
Figure 15 measurement
4 displays the device ofpoints were uniformly
turbulence measurement. spaced. The center
Besides, wake of the topmost measurement
measurements in this paper
point corresponds
were carried out ontoantheelectronically
geometrical center of the
controlled wind tunnel
traverser section.
consisting of aThe horizontal andprobe,
two-dimensional vertical
as
spacing of measuring
displayed in Figure 5. points were 10 cm, as displayed by the black spots in Figure 3a. In addition,
we set eight measurement sections one to two meters behind the grille, as shown in Figure 3b. The wind
speed was measured through a Dantec hot-wire probe (type 55P61). The sampling frequency was
5 kHz, and the test wind speeds were consistent with that in the airfoil experiment. Figure 4 displays
the device of turbulence measurement. Besides, wake measurements in this paper were carried out on
an electronically controlled traverser consisting of a two-dimensional probe, as displayed in Figure 5.
Appl.
Appl.Sci. 2020,10,
Sci.2020, 10,7258
7258 66ofof21
21
Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2020,
2020, 10,
10, 7258
7258 66 of
of 21
21
Figure 4. Grille turbulence generated device.

Figure 4. Grille turbulence generated device.
Figure 5. Wake measurements.

Figure
Figure 5.
5. Wake
Wake measurements.
measurements.
The influence of the flap height and thickness were two key parameters which influence the
The
overall influence of
Theaerodynamic
influence of the
the flap height
performance
flap height and
of and thickness
the airfoil.
thickness were
Forwere two key
this reason,
two keyaparameters
parameters which
total of ninewhich influence
typesinfluence the
of flaps were
the
designed
overall
overall in the experiments,
aerodynamic
aerodynamic performance
performance namely,
of
of the
thethe flap with
airfoil.
airfoil. For heights
For this
this reason,h ofaa1%,
reason, total1.5%
total of andtypes
of nine
nine 2% chord
types length
of flaps were(6
designed in the experiments, namely, the flap with heights h of 1%,
designed in the experiments, namely, the flap with heights h of 1%, 1.5% and 2% chord length (6chord
mm, 9 mm and 12 mm, respectively) and with relative thicknesses d of1.5% and
0.25%, 2%
0.5% chord
and length
0.75% (6
mm,
9length
mm,mm9and (1.512
mm mm,
andmm,123 respectively)
mm and
mm, 4.5 mm,
respectively) respectively).
and withandrelative The diagram
with relative thicknesses
thicknesses d ofof0.25%,
the
d of flap used
0.25%,
0.5% in 0.75%
0.5%
and theandexperiment
0.75% length
chord was
chord
given
length
(1.5 mm,in 3Figure
(1.5 mm,
mm and36.mmAs
4.5shown,
and
mm, the
mm,flap has an
4.5respectively).
respectively).
TheL shape; theofbottom
The diagram
diagram part
of the
the flap has
flap
used athe
used
in width
in of experiment
the 7 mm was
experiment which was
was
given
given in
inattached Figure
Figure 6. to As 6. As
theshown, shown,
pressure thesidethe
flapofflap
has has
the an
anairfoilL shape;
trailing
L shape; the bottom
edge. During
the bottom part has
part hasthe a width of
experiments,
a width 7 mm
of 7 mmthe which was
flap was
which was
vertically
attached toattached
to thepressure
the near
pressure the
side
side ofposition
of airfoil
the oftrailing
the airfoil 100% of theedge.
trailing
edge. chordDuring
During length,
the theseeexperiments,
experiments, Figurethe2flapwiththethe
was specific
flap was
vertically
vertically
experimental
attached attached
near setup.
the near
Thethe
position of position
coordinate of
the100%
100% of system chord oflength,
behindthe the
chord length,
trailing
see Figure 2 see
edge with Figure
was 2 with
thedefined
specific forthe specific
subsequent
experimental
experimental
wake The
setup. setup.
measurements, The coordinate
also the
coordinate system x and
behind system
theytrailingbehind
axis were the
edge set
wasin trailing edge
the vertical
defined was defined
and thewake
for subsequent for
forward subsequent
directions,
measurements,
respectively.
wake
also the x and yThe
measurements, axisblackalso
were spots
setthe in the
x and
in the Figure
y axis
vertical and6were
represented
the set in the
forward thevertical
hot-wire
directions, and measuring Thepositions
the forward
respectively. setinat
directions,
black spots
respectively.
the Figure 6 represented the hot-wire measuring positions set at downstream of the trailing edge. at
downstream The
of black
the spots
trailing in
edge. the Figure 6 represented the hot-wire measuring positions set
downstream of the trailing edge.
x
x
y
d y
d
h
h 2mm
2mm
7mm
7mm
Figure 6. Flap geometry.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 7 of 21
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 7 of 21

3. Experimental Results and Analysis
3. Experimental Results and Analysis
In the experiment, the free stream flow velocity was 20 m/s, and the corresponding Reynolds
number In based
the experiment, the free
on the airfoil stream
chord flow
length wasvelocity
0.8 × was
106 , 20 m/s, andwind
although the corresponding
turbines oftenReynolds
operate at
number based on the airfoil chord length was 0.8 × 106, although wind turbines
wind speed below 20 m/s, but the magnitude of the Reynolds number was up to an order often operate at wind
of 106 .
speed below 20 m/s, but the magnitude of the Reynolds number was up to an order
Therefore, the experimental value of the Reynolds number was chosen to approach an order of of 10 6. Therefore,
the experimental value of the Reynolds number was chosen to approach an order of magnitude
magnitude corresponding to those obtained from full-scale wind turbines. Two types of grilles generate
corresponding to those obtained from full-scale wind turbines. Two types of grilles generate
different turbulence levels in the wind tunnel, such that the experiments were mainly separated into
different turbulence levels in the wind tunnel, such that the experiments were mainly separated into
low and high turbulence cases. To be specific, a grille was placed at the upstream of the airfoil test
low and high turbulence cases. To be specific, a grille was placed at the upstream of the airfoil test
section which results in different aerodynamic characteristics of flow over the airfoil with and without
section which results in different aerodynamic characteristics of flow over the airfoil with and
a Gurney
without flap.
a Gurney flap.
3.1. Experimental Results of Grille Turbulence Generator
3.1. Experimental Results of Grille Turbulence Generator
The Themeasurements
measurementswere were first conductedfor
first conducted forthethetwo
two grilles.
grilles. Figure
Figure 7 illustrates
7 illustrates the time
the time seriesseries
of
of the
theinstantaneous
instantaneousvelocityvelocity at the central measuring point of the 6th section. As shown in FigureFigure
at the central measuring point of the 6th section. As shown in 7, the 7,
theincoming
incoming windwind became
became highly
highly disturbed,
disturbed, for reason,
for this this reason, a statistical
a statistical analysis analysis
was done wasfordone for the
the flow
flow field.
field. The decay
The decay of turbulence
of turbulence intensityintensity
from thefrom thetowards
grilles grilles the
towards
airfoil the
test airfoil
sectiontest
wassection
reported was
reported in Figure 8a. Within the scope of the test, the averaged turbulence
in Figure 8a. Within the scope of the test, the averaged turbulence intensity was recorded along 8 intensity was recorded
along 8 downstream
downstream sectionssections (each measured
(each measured with 15with 15 points).
points). Besides,Besides,
the marginthe margin
of errorof inerror
Figure in 8a
Figure
was 8a
was expressed
expressed as as thethe standard
standard deviation
deviation of of each
each section
section data.
data. According
According to Figure
to Figure 8a,8a,thethe average
average
turbulence
turbulence intensity
intensity of of downstream
downstream in scheme
in scheme oneone dropped
dropped from from
13.5%13.5% at position
at the the positionof 1.0ofm1.0 m
behind
behind the grille to 9.4% at the position of 2.0 m; the average turbulence intensity
the grille to 9.4% at the position of 2.0 m; the average turbulence intensity of the downstream in scheme of the downstream
twoin was
schemehighertwothanwasscheme
higher 1,than
whichscheme 1, which
decreased fromdecreased
27.7% at thefrom 27.7% of
position at 1.0
themposition
behind the of 1.0 m to
grille
behind
15.9% the position
at the grille to 15.9%
of 2.0atm. theThe
position of 2.0deviations
standard m. The standard deviations
of turbulence of turbulence
intensity of the intensity
two schemesof
the two schemes drops quickly towards the test section. The change in turbulence
drops quickly towards the test section. The change in turbulence level indicates that there were very level indicates that
there
high were veryfluctuations
turbulence high turbulence just fluctuations just behind
behind the grille whichthe grille which
yielded yielded very
very unstable flowunstable
field. The flowflow
field. The flow became gradually stabilized owing to the mutual dissipation
became gradually stabilized owing to the mutual dissipation over a propagation distance. To ensure a over a propagation
distance. To ensure a homogeneous and isotropic turbulent field, so the distance 1.6 m (from the
homogeneous and isotropic turbulent field, so the distance 1.6 m (from the leading edge of the airfoil
leading edge of the airfoil to the grille) was selected for placing the leading edge of the airfoil. The
to the grille) was selected for placing the leading edge of the airfoil. The turbulence intensity measured
turbulence intensity measured at the 6th section of the two schemes was 10.5% and 19.0%,
at the 6th section of the two schemes was 10.5% and 19.0%, respectively. Figure 8b illustrates the power
respectively. Figure 8b illustrates the power spectral density (PSD) of the wind speed at the two
spectral density (PSD) of the wind speed at the two grille schemes measured at the central measuring
grille schemes measured at the central measuring point of the 6th section (1.6 m measured from
point of the 6th section (1.6 m measured from grille to the hot-wire probes). Obviously, the larger
grille to the hot-wire probes). Obviously, the larger the turbulence intensity was generated, the
thelarger
turbulence intensityofwas
the amplitude the generated,
power spectral the larger
densitythewasamplitude
observed. of the power spectral
Moreover, the power density
spectra was
observed. Moreover, the power spectra amplitude in the downstream
amplitude in the downstream direction was consistent with the corresponding Karman spectra, and direction was consistent with
theit corresponding
dropped down rapidly Karman spectra,
after and it dropped
the frequency over 30 Hz, downwhichrapidly after
suggests thethe
that frequency over was
grille distance 30 Hz,
which
moresuggests
proportionalthat the grille
to the distance
turbulent was energy.
kinetic more proportional to the turbulent kinetic energy.
24
Scheme 1
22
Scheme 2
20
wind velocity (m/s)
18
16
14
12
10
8
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
Thetime
Figure7.7. The
Figure time series
series of theofinstantaneous
the instantaneous streamwise
streamwise velocity
velocity (the (the 6th
6th section, section,
central central
measuring
point). point).
measuring
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 8 of 21
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2020,
2020, 10,
10, 7258
7258 88 of
of 21
21
T.I. of scheme 1
0.4 20
T.I. of scheme 2 0.1
densitySdensityS u
intensity intensity
Average velocity of scheme 1
velocity (m/s)
T.I. of scheme
Average velocity1 of scheme 2 18
0.4 20
0.3
T.I. of scheme 2 0.01
0.1
u
turbulence
Average velocity of scheme 1
Power spectral
wind (m/s)
16
Average velocity of scheme 2 18
0.3
0.001
0.01
velocity
0.2
turbulence
14
Power spectral
16 Experiment (Scheme 1, 1.6m)
Downwind
average
1E-4
0.001 Karman(Scheme 1, 1.6m)
average wind
0.2 12 Experiment(Scheme 2, 1.6m)
0.1 14
Experiment (Scheme 1, 1.6m)
Downwind
Karman (Scheme 2, 1.6m)

1E-5
1E-4
10 1 Karman(Scheme
10 1, 1.6m)
100 1000
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 12 Experiment(Scheme 2, 1.6m)
0.1
Distance (m) Frequency（Hz）
Karman (Scheme 2, 1.6m)
1E-5
10 1 10 100 1000
1.0 1.2
(a)
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
(b)
Frequency（Hz）
Distance (m)
Figure 8. Description of the flow field behind the grilles. (a) Turbulence intensity and average
(a) (b)
velocity (Re: 0.8 × 106); (b) Comparison of the PSD (1.6 m behind the grille).
8. Description
Figure 8. Descriptionofofthe flow
the field
flow behind
field the grilles.
behind (a) Turbulence
the grilles. intensity
(a) Turbulence and average
intensity velocity
and average
3.2. Experimental
(Re: 0.8 ×
velocity 1060.8
(Re: Results
); (b)
× 10 of(b)
6); theComparison
ComparisonBaseline
of theAirfoil
PSD (1.6PSD
of the m behind
(1.6 m the grille).
behind the grille).
To verify theResults
3.2. Experimental
Experimental accuracyof theofBaseline
the the experiment,
Airfoil the experimental data from the wind tunnel of LM
3.2. Results of Baseline Airfoil
Wind Power were selected as a reference [28]. The aerodynamic data of the DTU-LN221 airfoil
To verify
verifythe accuracy of the experiment, the experimental data fromfrom the wind tunnel of LMofWind
underTouniform the accuracy
inflow wereofmeasured
the experiment,
in the the LMexperimental
wind tunneldata experiment the at windthe tunnel
approximate LM
Power were
Wind Power selected as a
wereofselected reference [28]. The aerodynamic data of the DTU-LN221 airfoil under uniform
Reynolds number 1.5 × 10as. The
6 a reference
lift and [28].drag The dataaerodynamic
were selecteddata as aofcross-validation
the DTU-LN221case. airfoil
In
inflow uniform
under were measured inflow in the LM
were wind tunnel
measured inwindtheexperiment
LM wind at the approximate
tunnel experimentblockage Reynolds number of
at the approximate
consideration of the interference effect of tunnel wall, the maximum ratio in this
1.5 × 106 . number
Reynolds The lift of and drag data were
lift selected asdata
a cross-validation case. In consideration of the
experiment was about1.5 8.4%,× 10so6. The
the experimentand drag measured were dataselected as
of the airfoil a cross-validation
were corrected by case. In
after
interference
consideration effect
of the of wind tunnel wall, the maximum blockage ratio in this experiment was about
the reference [29], andinterference
the experimental effect dataof wind tunnel
analyzed belowwall,werethe all
maximum
corrected. blockage
In orderratio in this
to perform
8.4%, so the wasexperiment measured data of the airfoil were corrected by after the reference [29], andafter the
aexperiment
comparison, Figure about9 8.4%,
showssothe thecomparison
experiment ofmeasured
experimental data data
of theof airfoil were
the DTU-LN221 corrected
airfoilbyunder
experimental
the reference data
[29], analyzed below
and the experimental were all corrected. In order to perform a comparison, Figure 9
uniform inflow condition. To minimizedata theanalyzed
uncertainty, below were all corrected.
measurements were In order to perform
performed several
ashows
times
the comparison
comparison,
for comparison
ofshows
Figure 9test experimental
at the
data of the
theapproximate
comparison of DTU-LN221 airfoil
experimental
Reynolds number data under
ofof1.5
uniform inflow
the× DTU-LN221
106, YZU1, YZU2,
condition.
airfoil under
YZU3
To minimize
uniform inflow the uncertainty,
condition. measurements
To repeated
minimize experiments.were performed
the uncertainty, several
measurements times for
were comparison
performed test at the
several
represents the results of the As shown in Figure
6 , YZU1, YZU2, YZU3 represents the results of the repeated
9, the lift and drag
approximate Reynolds
times for comparison number
test at the of 1.5 × 10
approximate Reynolds
coefficients were very similar before the stall angle, while number
there were of some
1.5 × 10 6, YZU1, YZU2,
discrepancies in theYZU3stall
experiments.
represents theAs shownofinthe
results Figure 9, the lift and drag coefficients were very similar before thedrag
stall
state. Consider the cause of flowrepeatedseparation, experiments.
the deviation Asof shown
results ofindragFigure
is quite9, the lift and
considerable, but
angle, while
coefficients there
were were
very some
similar discrepancies
before the stall in the
angle, stall
whilestate.
there Consider
were somethe cause of
discrepancies flow separation,
in the stall
the stall angles tested in the two wind tunnels were nearly the same. The reason for this may be that
the deviation
state. Consider ofthe
results
causeof drag is separation,
quite considerable, but theofstall angles tested is in the considerable,
two wind tunnels
although the airfoils wereofofflowthe same type, the they deviation
were individually results ofmanufactured,
drag quite for example the but
were nearly
the stall angles the same.
tested The
in the reason
two wind for this may be that although the airfoils were ofthis
themay same type,
roughness of the airfoil surface maytunnels
affect the wereexperimental
nearly the same. The Besides,
results. reason for there werebesome that
they werethe
although individually manufactured, for example the roughness of the airfoil surface formay affect the
the
differences in airfoils were
drag measurements, of the same LM type,
adopted theytheweremodelindividually manufactured,
surface pressure distribution example
in a certain
experimental
roughness results. Besides, there were some thedifferences in drag measurements,there LM adopted the
range of theof the of
angle airfoil
attack, surface
while YZU may affect
used the wakeexperimental
probes at all results.
angles.Besides,
Similar phenomena were some were
model surface
differences pressure
in drag distribution
measurements, in a certain
LM adopted range
theIn of
modelthe angle of attack,
surface pressure while YZU
distribution used the wake
in a certain
seen in different wind tunnel laboratories [30–32]. the following, for reason of comparisons, the
probes at
range of the all angles.
angle Similar phenomena were seen in different wind tunnel laboratories [30–32]. In the
measured data are of attack, while YZU used the wake probes at all angles. Similar phenomena were
averaged.
following,
seen for reason
in different windoftunnel
comparisons, the measured
laboratories [30–32]. In data
theare averaged.for reason of comparisons, the
following,
measured data are averaged. 0.16
1.5 LM
0.14
YZU
1.0 0.12
0.16 YZU-2
1.5 0.10 YZU-3
LM
0.14
0.5 YZU
0.08
Cl
Cd
1.0 0.12
YZU-2
0.0 0.06
LM 0.10 YZU-3
0.5 YZU 0.04
0.08
Cl
Cd
-0.5 YZU-2 0.02

0.0 YZU-3 0.06
LM 0.00
-1.0 YZU 0.04
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.5 YZU-2 0.02
α/ (°) YZU-3 α/ (°)
-1.0
0.00
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
(a)α/ (°) (b)α/ (°)
Figure
Figure 9.9. Comparison
Comparisonof ofexperimental
experimentaldata
dataof
ofthe
theDTU-LN221
DTU-LN221airfoil
airfoil(uniform
(uniforminflow,
inflow, Re:
Re: 1.5 1066).).
1.5 ××10
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) Lift
Lift coefficient
coefficient comparison;
comparison; (b) drag coefficient comparison.
Figure 9. Comparison of experimental data of the DTU-LN221 airfoil (uniform inflow, Re: 1.5 × 106).
(a) Lift coefficient comparison; (b) drag coefficient comparison.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 9 of 21
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 9 of 21
3.3. Experimental Results of the Gurney Flap under Uniform Inflow
This subsection
3.3. Experimental starts
Results of to
theinvestigate
Gurney Flapthe
under aerodynamic
Uniform Inflow characteristics of the effect of Gurney flap
in low turbulent inflow condition, the Reynolds number was decreased to 0.8 × 106. Seen from the
This subsection starts to investigate the aerodynamic characteristics of the effect of Gurney flap
Figure 10, three lift and drag curves were compared with the original at the angle of attack ranged
in low turbulent inflow condition, the Reynolds number was decreased to 0.8 × 106 . Seen from the
from −9.6° to 14.4°. As shown, the lift coefficients increased with the increase of the height of the
Figure 10, three lift and drag curves were compared with the original at the angle of attack ranged from
Gurney flap before the stall angle, while it was also realized that the effect of the Gurney flap was
−9.6◦ to 14.4◦ . As shown, the lift coefficients increased with the increase of the height of the Gurney
limited at a high angle of attack. The lift coefficient slopes and the stall angles of the flapped airfoil
flap before the stall angle, while it was also realized that the effect of the Gurney flap was limited
remain essentially unchanged compared to the baseline airfoil, but the flapped airfoil caused a
at a high angle of attack. The lift coefficient slopes and the stall angles of the flapped airfoil remain
leftward shift compared to the baseline airfoil. In order to show the changes of aerodynamic
essentially unchanged compared to the baseline airfoil, but the flapped airfoil caused a leftward shift
characteristics clearly, the following lift and drag differences were defined:
compared to the baseline airfoil. In order to show the changes of aerodynamic characteristics clearly,
the following lift and drag differences were defined: clbs -clgf
cl =  100% (4)
clbs
clbs − clgf
∆cl = cd -cd × 100% (4)
clbsbs gf
cd =  100% (5)
cd bs
cdbs − cdgf
∆cd = cld bs -cld gf × 100% (5)
cld = cdbs  100% (6)
cld
cldbs − bs cldgf
∆cld = × 100% (6)
where clbs and cd bs are the lift and dragcldcoefficients bs obtained from the baseline airfoil,
respectively.
where clbs and and
clgf cdbs are cdthe
gf
areand
lift thedrag
lift and drag coefficients
coefficients obtained
obtained from from the
the baseline flapped
airfoil, airfoil.
respectively.
clgf bsand
cld cdgfcld
and arebsthearelift
theand drag coefficients
lift-to-drag obtained
ratio obtained from
from thethe flapped
baseline andcld
airfoil.
airfoil bs and cld
flapped bs are the
airfoil.
lift-to-drag ratio obtained from the baseline airfoil and flapped airfoil.
2.0 0.16
0.14
1.5
0.12 Flap 12mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
1.0 0.10
Flap 6mm*4.5mm
0.08 Baseline airfoil
Cd
Cl
0.5
0.06
Flap 12mm*4.5mm
0.0 0.04
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
Flap 6mm*4.5mm 0.02
-0.5 Baseline airfoil 0.00
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
α/ (°) α/ (°)
(a) (b)
-0.06 120
Flap 12mm*4.5mm 90
-0.08 Flap 9mm*4.5mm
Flap 6mm*4.5mm 60
Baseline airfoil
-0.10 30
Cl/Cd
Cm
-0.12 0
Flap 12mm*4.5mm
-30 Flap 9mm*4.5mm
-60 Baseline airfoil
-0.16 -90
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
α/ (°) α/ (°)
(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 10.
10. Variation
Variationofofthetheaerodynamic
aerodynamiccharacteristics
characteristics withwith different
different heights
heights of
of Gurney
Gurney flaps
flaps
(uniform
(uniform flow,
flow, Re:
Re: 0.8
0.8× ×1010
6 6
). (a) LiftLift
). (a) coefficient
coefficientcomparison;
comparison;(b) drag coefficient
(b) drag comparison;
coefficient (c)
comparison;
pitching-moment
(c) pitching-momentcoefficient comparison;
coefficient comparison;(d) (d)
lift-to-drag ratio
lift-to-drag comparison.
ratio comparison.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 10 of 21
When the flap height changes to 6 mm, 9 mm and 12 mm, the maximum lift coefficients were
increased by 8.47%, 9.56% and 13.50% at 9.4 degrees, respectively. Looking into the drag coefficients
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 10 of 21
shown in Figure 10b, within the range of −9.6~10.4°, the drag coefficients show regular change where
the frictional drag dominates as expected. The drag coefficients rise rapidly in the stall state, at this
time the change
When the inflap
drag coefficient
height changeswas to 6 dominated
mm, 9 mm and by pressure
12 mm, the drag. For example,
maximum at an were
lift coefficients angle of
attackincreased
of 12.4°,by with the9.56%
8.47%, flap heights
and 13.50% of 6atmm, 9 mm, 12
9.4 degrees, mm the drag
respectively. coefficients
Looking into the dragwerecoefficients
increased by
shown in Figure the range of −9.6~10.4 ◦ , the drag coefficients show regular change where
39.67%, 59.92% and 10b, within respectively.
113.43%, According to Figure 10c, the Gurney flap generated a
the frictional drag dominates as expected.
prominent increase in the pitching-moment coefficient compared The drag coefficients rise to
rapidly in the stall
the baseline state, at
airfoil, thethisvalue
time the change in drag coefficient was dominated by pressure
increased with the heights of the Gurney flaps and reached negative peak values at approximately drag. For example, at an angle of
attack of 12.4◦ , with the flap heights of 6 mm, 9 mm, 12 mm the drag coefficients were increased
4.4°. Based on Figure 10d, the lift-to-drag ratios were compared. When the angle of attack was less
by 39.67%, 59.92% and 113.43%, respectively. According to Figure 10c, the Gurney flap generated
than 8.4°, the lift-to-drag ratios were all larger than the baseline airfoil. However, the maximum
a prominent increase in the pitching-moment coefficient compared to the baseline airfoil, the value
lift-to-drag ratios of the Gurney flap at three heights were smaller than the baseline airfoil. When the
increased with the heights of the Gurney flaps and reached negative peak values at approximately
flap heights
◦
4.4 . Based wereon 6 mm,10d,
Figure 9 mm the and 12 mm,
lift-to-drag the were
ratios corresponding
compared. When maximum the anglelift-to-drag
of attack wasratioslesswere
decreased
than 8.4by◦ ,17.16%, 22.79% ratios
the lift-to-drag and 24.47%,were allrespectively.
larger than the In the rangeairfoil.
baseline after the stall angle,
However, the presence
the maximum
of thelift-to-drag
Gurney flap ratiosreduces the lift-to-drag
of the Gurney flap at threeratios
heightsand werethesmaller
higherthan thethe
flap height,
baseline the more
airfoil. When the the lift
efficiency decreases. When the angle of attack was 12.4°, for example, the lift-to-drag ratios of the
flap heights were 6 mm, 9 mm and 12 mm, the corresponding maximum lift-to-drag ratios were
decreased
flap with by 17.16%,
heights of 6 mm, 22.79% 9 and
mm24.47%,and 12respectively.
mm wereIndecreased the range after the stall angle,
by 26.55%, 38.11% theand
presence
52.20%,
of the Gurney flap reduces the lift-to-drag ratios and the higher
respectively. Meanwhile, we observed the same trend from the other thicknesses of the Gurney the flap height, the more the liftflaps
◦
(i.e., efficiency
of 1.5 mm), decreases.
WhenWhen the flapthe angle
height of attack
changes was to
12.46 ,mm,for example,
9 mm the andlift-to-drag
12 mm, ratios of the flap lift
the maximum
with heights of 6 mm, 9 mm and 12 mm were decreased by 26.55%, 38.11% and 52.20%, respectively.
coefficients were increased by 9.27%, 9.78% and 14.08% at 9.4 degrees.
Meanwhile, we observed the same trend from the other thicknesses of the Gurney flaps (i.e., of 1.5 mm),
The following study in this section will be focused on the effect of the thickness of the Gurney
When the flap height changes to 6 mm, 9 mm and 12 mm, the maximum lift coefficients were increased
flap. by
Figure 11 illustrates the changes in the aerodynamic characteristics of the baseline airfoil and
9.27%, 9.78% and 14.08% at 9.4 degrees.
airfoil with a height of
The following 9 mm
study in thisof section
Gurney willflaps underonuniform
be focused the effectflow. As seen of
of the thickness from the figure,
the Gurney flap. by
changing
Figurethe thicknessthe
11 illustrates ofchanges
the Gurney flap, the lift-to-drag
in the aerodynamic characteristicscurves
of theofbaseline
the flapped airfoils
airfoil and airfoilwith
different
withthicknesses
a height of 9 almost overlaps,
mm of Gurney flapsit seems that theflow.
under uniform flap thickness
As seen from doesthenot have
figure, byobvious
changingeffectthe in
the aerodynamic
thickness of the performance.
Gurney flap, The results imply
the lift-to-drag that
curves theflapped
of the small increase
airfoils withof the flap thickness
different thicknessesdoes
almost overlaps,
not change the degree it seems that the flap
of downward thickness
turning does
of the meannot have
flowobvious effect in theflow
and recirculation aerodynamic
around the
performance. The
trailing edge of the airfoil. results imply that the small increase of the flap thickness does not change the degree
of downward turning of the mean flow and recirculation flow around the trailing edge of the airfoil.
2.0 0.16
0.14
1.5 Flap 9mm*4.5mm
0.12 Flap 9mm*3mm
Flap 9mm*1.5mm
1.0 0.10 Baseline airfoil
0.08
Cd
Cl
0.5
0.06
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
0.0 Flap 9mm*3mm 0.04
Flap 9mm*1.5mm 0.02
-0.5 Baseline airfoil
0.00
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
α/ (°) α/ (°)
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Cont.
Appl. Sci.
Appl.2020, 10, 7258
Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 11 of 11
21 of 21
-0.06 120
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*3mm 90
Baseline airfoil 60
-0.10 30
Cl/Cd
Cm
-0.12 0
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
-30
Flap 9mm*3mm
-60
Baseline airfoil
-0.16 -90
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
α/ (°) α/ (°)
(c) (d)
Figure 11. Variation
Figure of the
11. Variation aerodynamic
of the aerodynamiccharacteristics with different
characteristics with differentthicknesses
thicknesses of Gurney
of Gurney flapsflaps
(uniform flow, Re: 0.8 × 10 6 ). (a) Lift coefficient comparison; (b) drag coefficient comparison;
(uniform flow, Re: 0.8 × 10 ). (a) Lift coefficient comparison; (b) drag coefficient comparison; (c)
6
(c) pitching-moment
pitching-moment coefficient
coefficient comparison;
comparison; (d) lift-to-drag
(d) lift-to-drag ratio
ratio comparison.
comparison.
3.4. Experimental Results of Gurney Flap under 10.5% Turbulence Intensity
3.4. Experimental Results of Gurney Flap under 10.5% Turbulence Intensity
This subsection starts to investigate the aerodynamic characteristics of the Gurney flap under
This subsection
a turbulent inflow starts
withto aninvestigate
intensity ofthe aerodynamic
10.5%. Figure 12characteristics
shows the changes of the in Gurney flap under a
the aerodynamic
turbulent inflow with
characteristics of thean intensity
baseline of and
airfoil 10.5%. Figure flaps
the Gurney 12 showswith athe changes
thickness in mm
of 4.5 the aerodynamic
when the
turbulence of
characteristics intensity of the incoming
the baseline airfoil and flow thewas 10.5%. flaps
Gurney The measured angle of attack
with a thickness of 4.5ranged
mm when from the
−9.6 ◦ to 20.4◦ . As shown, under the present turbulence intensity of 10.5%, all cases induced a stall
turbulence intensity of the incoming flow was 10.5%. The measured angle of attack ranged from
−9.6°delay. The As
to 20.4°. stallshown,
angle was undernearly
thedelayed
presentfrom the original
turbulence 9.4◦ to about
intensity 16.4◦all
of 10.5%, under
casesturbulent
induced flow.
a stall
In Figure 12a, with the increase of turbulence intensity, the maximum lift coefficient of the baseline
delay. The stall angle was nearly delayed from the original 9.4° to about 16.4° under turbulent flow.
airfoil reaches 1.611 and increases by 17.59% as compared with uniform inflow condition. An interesting
In Figure 12a, with the increase of turbulence intensity, the maximum lift coefficient of the baseline
observation was that in such a turbulence environment, the lift coefficients were not significantly
airfoildifferent
reaches 1.611 and increases by 17.59% as compared with uniform inflow condition. An
from each other under the current three flapped configurations. For the flap heights of 6 mm,
interesting
9 mm and observation
12 mm, the was that in lift
maximum such a turbulence
coefficients environment,
were increased the lift
by 15.21%, coefficients
17.19% and 17.26% were at not
significantly different
18.4 degrees, from each
respectively. other under
The increase rate was thefound
current
largerthree
thanflapped
that underconfigurations. For the flap
the uniform turbulence
heights of 6 mm,
condition. The9 margin
mm and of 12 mm,
error the maximum
in Figure lift coefficients
12a was expressed were increased
as the variance by 15.21%, 17.19%
of the time-averaged lift
and 17.26%
coefficient.at As
18.4candegrees,
be seen fromrespectively.
the Figure The increase
12a, the pressurerate was found
uncertainty largerwith
increased than thethat under
increase of the
the angle
uniform of attack,
turbulence and the lift
condition. Thecoefficient
margin of fluctuations caused12a
error in Figure by was
the pressure
expressed fluctuations were the
as the variance of the
most obvious pronounced when the attack angle reaches the stall angle.
time-averaged lift coefficient. As can be seen from the Figure 12a, the pressure uncertainty increased According to Figure 12b,
with the
theincrease
increase in of
thethe
lift of the flapped
angle airfoil
of attack, and wastheat lift
a cost of increasing
coefficient drag. The drag
fluctuations causedcoefficient
by the ofpressure
the
flapped airfoils was also non-linearly raised in the stall state. For example, when the angle of attack
fluctuations were the most obvious pronounced when the attack angle reaches the stall angle.
was 20.4◦ , the drag coefficients were increased by 12.50%, 37.50% and 44.53%, respectively. As can be
According to Figure 12b, the increase in the lift of the flapped airfoil was at a cost of increasing drag.
seen from Figure 12c, compared with the baseline airfoil, the Gurney flap also generated a prominent
The drag coefficient of the flapped airfoils was also non-linearly raised in the stall state.◦ For example,
increase in the pitching-moment coefficient, the negative peak values delay to about 6.4 compared
whenwith thetheangle of attack
uniform inflow was 20.4°,As
condition. thedemonstrated
drag coefficientsin Figure were
12d,increased
the peak valueby 12.50%, 37.50% and
of the lift-to-drag
44.53%,
ratiorespectively.
becomes less As can be seen
as compared withfrom Figure flow
the uniform 12c, condition
compared in with the Unlike
all cases. baseline theairfoil, the Gurney
low turbulence
flap condition,
also generated a prominent
the maximum increase
lift-to-drag of Gurney in the
flap pitching-moment
with different heightscoefficient, the negative
slightly increased relative topeak
valuesthedelay
baselineto about
airfoil. 6.4°compared with the uniform
The maximum lift-to-drag inflow9.15%
raised 14.35%, condition.
and 2.74%As respectively
demonstrated when in the
Figure
12d, flap
the heights were 6 of
peak value mm, 9 mm,
the and 12 mm,
lift-to-drag respectively,
ratio becomeswith lesstheasmaximum
compared lift-to-drag
with the ratio occurredflow
uniform
at the smallest flap height. Besides, in contrast to the situations
condition in all cases. Unlike the low turbulence condition, the maximum lift-to-drag of Gurneyof 1.5 mm thickness of the Gurney flap
with flaps, the Gurney
different heightsflaps also achieved
slightly increased a lift increasetounder
relative 10.5% turbulence
the baseline intensity.
airfoil. The The maximum
maximum lift-to-drag
lift coefficient was increased by 14.77%, 14.83%, and 16.44% for height equals to 6 mm, 9 mm and
raised 14.35%, 9.15% and 2.74% respectively when the flap heights were 6 mm, 9 mm, and 12 mm,
12 mm, respectively. The two thickness configurations both had maximum lift-to-drag efficiency at
respectively, with the maximum lift-to-drag ratio occurred at the smallest flap height. Besides, in
6 mm height, for the three heights, respectively.
contrast to the situations of 1.5 mm thickness of the Gurney flaps, the Gurney flaps also achieved a
lift increase under 10.5% turbulence intensity. The maximum lift coefficient was increased by
14.77%, 14.83%, and 16.44% for height equals to 6 mm, 9 mm and 12 mm, respectively. The two
thickness configurations both had maximum lift-to-drag efficiency at 6 mm height, for the three
heights, respectively.
Sci. 2020,
Appl. Sci. 10, 7258
2020, 10, 7258 12 of 21
2.5 0.20
0.18
2.0
0.16
1.5 0.14
Flap 12mm*4.5mm
0.12 Flap 9mm*4.5mm
1.0
Cd
Cl
0.10 Flap 6mm*4.5mm

0.08
Flap 12mm*4.5mm
0.0 Flap 9mm*4.5mm 0.06
Flap 6mm*4.5mm 0.04
0.02
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
α/ (°) α/ (°)
(a) (b)
-0.06 50
Flap 12mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*4.5mm 40
Baseline airfoil 30
-0.10 20
Cl/Cd
Cm
10
-0.12
0 Flap 12mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
-0.14 -10 Flap 6mm*4.5mm
-0.16
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
α/ (°) α/ (°)
(c) (d)
Figure 12.
12.Variation
Variationof of
thethe
aerodynamic
aerodynamiccharacteristics with with
characteristics different heights
different of Gurney
heights flaps (T.I.
of Gurney of
flaps
10.5%, 6). (a) 6Lift coefficient comparison; (b) drag coefficient comparison; (c)
(T.I. of Re: 0.8 Re:
10.5%, × 100.8 × 10 ). (a) Lift coefficient comparison; (b) drag coefficient comparison;
pitching-moment
(c) pitching-momentcoefficient comparison;
coefficient (d)(d)
comparison; lift-to-drag ratio
ratio comparison.
In addition, the effects of various

various flap
flap thicknesses
thicknesses were
were investigated. Figure 13 indicates the
investigated. Figure
change of the aerodynamic
characteristicsof ofthe
thebaseline
baselineairfoil
airfoiland
andairfoil
airfoilwith
witha height of of
a height 4.54.5
mm mmof
thethe
of Gurney
Gurneyflapsflaps
whenwhen
the turbulence intensity
the turbulence was 10.5%.
intensity was As Figure
10.5%. As13Figure
shows,13 likeshows,
low turbulence
like low
conditions,conditions,
turbulence after changing
after the thickness
changing of the Gurney
the thickness of the flap
Gurney under
flapturbulence condition
under turbulence of 10.5%,
condition of
the aerodynamic
10.5%, characteristics
the aerodynamic of flapped
characteristics ofairfoil
flappedalmost show
airfoil no change.
almost show no Thechange.
main difference
The main in
the Figure in
difference 13d thewas concentrated
Figure in the large lift-to-drag
13d was concentrated in the largeratio zone, obviously
lift-to-drag ratio zone,because the pressure
obviously because
fluctuations
the pressure caused by thecaused
fluctuations turbulence
by theand the flowand
turbulence separation
the flowatseparation
the airfoil at
surface resultsurface
the airfoil in the
deviation
result of deviation
in the the measurement.
of the measurement.
2.5 0.20
0.18
2.0
0.16 Flap 9*4.5mm
1.5 0.14 Flap 9*3mm
Flap 9*1.5mm
0.12
Cd
Cl
0.10
0.5 0.08
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*3mm 0.06
0.0
Flap 9mm*1.5mm
Baseline airfoil
0.04
-0.5
0.02
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
α/ (°) α/ (°)
(a) (b)
turbulence conditions, after changing the thickness of the Gurney flap under turbulence condition of
10.5%, the aerodynamic characteristics of flapped airfoil almost show no change. The main
difference in the Figure 13d was concentrated in the large lift-to-drag ratio zone, obviously because
the pressure fluctuations caused by the turbulence and the flow separation at the airfoil surface
result in 2020,
Appl. Sci. the deviation
10, 7258 of the measurement. 13 of 21
2.5 0.20
0.18
2.0
0.16 Flap 9*4.5mm
1.5 0.14 Flap 9*3mm
Flap 9*1.5mm
0.12
Cd
Cl
0.10
0.5 0.08
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*3mm 0.06
0.0
Flap 9mm*1.5mm
Baseline airfoil
0.04
-0.5
0.02
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 α/ (°) α/ (°) 13 of 21
(a) (b)
-0.06 50
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*3mm 40
Baseline airfoil 30
-0.10 20
Cl/Cd
Cm
10
-0.12
0 Flap 9mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*3mm
-0.14 -10 Flap 9mm*1.5mm
-0.16
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
α/ (°) α/ (°)
(c) (d)
13. Variation
Figure 13. Variation of the aerodynamic characteristics with different thicknesses of Gurney flaps
(T.I. of
of 10.5%,
10.5%, Re: 0.8 6).6 (a) Lift coefficient comparison; (b) drag coefficient comparison; (c)
(T.I. 0.8 ××1010 ). (a) Lift coefficient comparison; (b) drag coefficient comparison;
pitching-moment
(c) pitching-moment coefficient comparison;
coefficient comparison;(d)(d)
lift-to-drag ratio
ratio comparison.
3.5. Experimental Results

3.5. Experimental Results of
of Gurney
Gurney Flap
Flap under
under the
the 19.0%
19.0% Turbulence
Turbulence Intensity
Intensity
To
To study
study thethe aerodynamic
characteristics of of the
the Gurney
Gurney flap
flap under
under high high turbulence
turbulence conditions,
conditions,
Figure 14 shows the changes of aerodynamic characteristics under
Figure 14 shows the changes of aerodynamic characteristics under the turbulence condition ofthe turbulence condition of 19.0%.
19.0%.
The measured angle of attack ranged from −9.6 ◦ to 24.4◦ . As seen in Figure 14, the presence of
The measured angle of attack ranged from −9.6° to 24.4°. As seen in Figure 14, the presence of
turbulence
turbulence enhanced
enhanced the the lift
lift coefficient
coefficient andand drag
drag coefficient
coefficient for
for all
all cases.
cases. InIn Figure
Figure 14a,14a, with
with the
the
increase of turbulence intensity, the maximum lift coefficient continually
increase of turbulence intensity, the maximum lift coefficient continually increased, and the increased, and the maximum
lift coefficient
maximum liftofcoefficient
the baseline airfoil
of the reaches
baseline 1.781reaches
airfoil at 18.5 degree,
1.781 atwith18.5adegree,
30.00% with
increase relativeincrease
a 30.00% to that
under
relativelowto turbulence
that under low condition.
turbulenceThe maximum
condition. lift Thecoefficients
maximum increased by 2.13%,
lift coefficients 3.37%,by
increased 5.39%
2.13%,at
18.5 degrees, respectively relative to the baseline airfoil, when the heights
3.37%, 5.39% at 18.5 degrees, respectively relative to the baseline airfoil, when the heights of the flapsof the flaps were 6 mm,
9were
mm,6andmm,129 mm.mm, Furthermore, since the pressure
and 12 mm. Furthermore, since the fluctuations
pressure were determined
fluctuations wereby the fluctuation’s
determined by the
energy of the turbulent flow, the fluctuations of lift coefficient were increased
fluctuation’s energy of the turbulent flow, the fluctuations of lift coefficient were increased relative relative to that under
the turbulence
to that under the condition
turbulenceof 10.5%. According
condition to Figure
of 10.5%. According14b, the drag coefficient
to Figure 14b, the dragof the baseline airfoil
coefficient of the
changes more obvious than those under the low turbulence condition.
baseline airfoil changes more obvious than those under the low turbulence condition. The drag The drag coefficients were no
longer gentle within the range before stall, and it also rises sharply in the
coefficients were no longer gentle within the range before stall, and it also rises sharply in the stall stall state. Such a trend
was ◦,
state.more
Suchnoticeable
a trend was after adding
more the Gurney
noticeable flap. For
after adding theexample,
Gurney flap. at the Forangle of attack
example, at the was 22.4of
angle
the drag
attack coefficients
was 22.4°, theincreased by 32.11%,
drag coefficients 37.22%by
increased and 37.96%,
32.11%, when and
37.22% the flap heights
37.96%, when werethe6flap
mm,heights
9 mm,
and 12 mm respectively. As can be seen from Figure 14c, the Gurney
were 6 mm, 9 mm, and 12 mm respectively. As can be seen from Figure 14c, the Gurney flap also flap also produced a significant
increase
produced inathe pitching-moment
significant increase in coefficient and such situation
the pitching-moment still existed
coefficient and such in turbulent
situationflowstill condition.
existed in
Based on Figure 14d, unlike that under the condition of 10.5%, the lift gain
turbulent flow condition. Based on Figure 14d, unlike that under the condition of 10.5%, the lift gain obtained with Gurney flap
is, unfortunately, coupled to a larger increase in drag. Adding Gurney
obtained with Gurney flap is, unfortunately, coupled to a larger increase in drag. Adding Gurney flap with different heights at
most of thedifferent
flap with angles reduces
heightsthe at lift-to-drag
most of the relative
anglestoreduces
the baseline airfoil, and the
the lift-to-drag Gurney
relative flapbaseline
to the doesn’t
airfoil, and the Gurney flap doesn’t show obvious effect under the turbulence condition of 19.0%. At
the same time the same situation occurred at other thicknesses of the Gurney flaps.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 14 of 21
Appl. Sci.
show 2020, 10,effect
obvious 7258 under the turbulence condition of 19.0%. At the same time the same 14 of 21
situation
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 14 of 21
occurred at other thicknesses of the Gurney flaps.
2.5 0.28
2.5 0.28
2.0 0.24
2.0 0.24
1.5 0.20 Flap 12mm*4.5mm
1.5 0.20 Flap 12mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
0.16 Flap 6mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
1.0
CdCd
ClCl
1.0 0.16 Flap 6mm*4.5mm

Baseline airfoil
0.5 0.12
0.5 Flap 12mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
12mm*4.5mm 0.08
0.0 Flap
0.08
0.0 Flap 6mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
0.04
Flap 6mm*4.5mm
Baseline airfoil
-0.5 0.04
0.00
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0.00 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
α/ (°) α/ (°)
α/ (°) α/ (°)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
-0.08 50
-0.08 50
-0.10 40
-0.10 40
30
-0.12 30
Cl/Cd
-0.12 20
Cm
Cl/Cd
20
Cm
-0.14 10
-0.14 10
0 Flap 12mm*4.5mm
-0.16 Flap 12mm*4.5mm 0 Flap 12mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
Flap 12mm*4.5mm -10 Flap 6mm*4.5mm
9mm*4.5mm
Flap
Flap 6mm*4.5mm
Flap 9mm*4.5mm -10 Flap 6mm*4.5mm
Flap 6mm*4.5mm
Baseline airfoil -20 Baseline airfoil
-0.18 -20
Baseline airfoil
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
° α/ (°)
° α/ (°)
(c) (d)
(c) (d)
Figure 14. Variation of the aerodynamic characteristics with different heights of Gurney flaps (T.I. of
Figure
Figure 14.14.Variation
Variationofofthetheaerodynamic
characteristicswithwithdifferent
differentheights
heightsofof
Gurney flaps
Gurney (T.I.(T.I.
flaps of of
19%, Re: 0.8 × 106). (a) Lift coefficient comparison; (b) drag coefficient comparison; (c)
19%,
19%, Re: 0.8 6× 10 6). (a) Lift coefficient comparison; (b) drag coefficient comparison; (c)
Re: 0.8 × 10 ). coefficient
(a) Lift coefficient comparison; (b) drag coefficient comparison; (c) pitching-moment
pitching-moment comparison; (d) lift-to-drag ratio comparison.
pitching-moment
coefficient coefficient
comparison; comparison;
(d) lift-to-drag (d)comparison.
ratio lift-to-drag ratio comparison.
Figure 15 exhibits the changes in the aerodynamic characteristics of the baseline airfoil and
Figure
Figure1515exhibits
exhibitsthe
the changes
changes inin the
the aerodynamic characteristicsofofthe
aerodynamic characteristics thebaseline
baseline airfoil
airfoil andand
airfoil with Gurney flaps of height 4.5mm under the turbulence condition of 19.0%. As can be seen
airfoil with
airfoil withGurney
Gurneyflaps
flapsofofheight
height 4.5mm
4.5mm under the turbulence
under the turbulencecondition
conditionofof19.0%.
19.0%.AsAscancan
be be seen
seen
from it, with the increase of turbulence intensity, obviously, there were more pressure fluctuations.
from
from it,it,with
withthe
theincrease
increaseofof turbulence
turbulence intensity,
intensity,obviously,
obviously,there
therewere
weremore
more pressure fluctuations.
pressure fluctuations.
The curves of flapped airfoils with different thickness no longer overlap totally, in the majority of
TheThe curvesofofflapped
curves flappedairfoils
airfoils with
with different thickness no
nolonger overlap totally, in the majority of
angles, the difference from 2% to 5%,different
though itthickness
may sometimeslonger overlap
reach 20%. totally, in the majority of
angles, the difference from 2% to 5%,
angles, the difference from 2% to 5%, though it though it may sometimes reach 20%.
sometimes reach 20%.
2.5 0.28
2.5 0.28
2.0 0.24
2.0 0.24 Flap 9mm*4.5mm
0.20 Flap9mm*3mm
Flap 9mm*4.5mm
1.5
1.5 0.20 Flap9mm*1.5mm
Flap 9mm*3mm
0.16 Flap 9mm*1.5mm
Baseline airfoil
1.0
CdCd
ClCl
1.0 0.16 Baseline airfoil

0.12
0.5 Flap 9mm*4.5mm 0.12
0.5 Flap9mm*3mm
Flap 9mm*4.5mm 0.08
0.0 Flap9mm*1.5mm
Flap 9mm*3mm 0.08
0.0 Flap 9mm*1.5mm
Baseline airfoil 0.04
-0.5 Baseline airfoil 0.04
-0.5 0.00
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0.00-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
α/ (°) α/ (°)
α/ (°) α/ (°)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 15. Cont.
Appl. Sci.
Appl. 2020,
Sci. 10,10,7258
2020, 7258 1521of 21
15 of
-0.08 50
-0.10 40
30
-0.12
Cl/Cd
20
Cm
-0.14 10
Flap 9mm*4.5mm 0 Flap 9mm*4.5mm
-0.16 Flap 9mm*3mm
Flap 9mm*3mm
Flap 9mm*1.5mm
-10 Flap 9mm*1mm
-0.18 Baseline airfoil -20 Baseline airfoil
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

(°) α/ (°)
(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 15.15.Variation
Variationof of
thethe aerodynamic
characteristics with
with different
different thicknesses
thicknesses of Gurney
of Gurney flapsflaps
(T.I. of
(T.I. of 19%, Re:
6 0.8 × 10 6). (a) Lift coefficient comparison; (b)drag coefficient comparison; (c)
19%, Re: 0.8 × 10 ). (a) Lift coefficient comparison; (b)drag coefficient comparison; (c) pitching-moment
pitching-moment
coefficient coefficient
comparison; comparison;
(d) lift-to-drag (d)comparison.
ratio lift-to-drag ratio comparison.
3.6. Surface
3.6. SurfacePressure
PressureCharacteristics
Characteristics
ToTo analyze
analyze thethe mechanismofofturbulent
mechanism turbulentinflow
inflowcoupled
coupledwith
withGurney
Gurneyflap, flap,Figure
Figure1616illustrates
illustratesthe
pressure coefficient distribution of the baseline airfoil and airfoil attached with the Gurney flapflap
the pressure coefficient distribution of the baseline airfoil and airfoil attached with the Gurney under
under different
different turbulentturbulent inflow
inflow when when Reynolds
Reynolds number Re = 0.8 Re
number × 10=6 .0.8
The× x-axis
106. The x-axis
shows theshows the
chord-wise
chord-wise position x/c and the y-axis shows the pressure coefficients C p. The pressure coefficients
position x/c and the y-axis shows the pressure coefficients Cp . The pressure coefficients Cp on the airfoil
Cp on the
surface wereairfoil
given surface were given
pi − p0
CpC == pi -p0 2 (7)
0.5ρU (7)
p
0.5 U002
where pi is the pressure at the pressure tap of i (i = 1:77), p0 is the free stream static pressure at the
where pi is the pressure at the pressure tap of i (i = 1:77), p0 is the free stream static pressure at the
Appl. Sci.tested
airfoil 2020, 10, byx theFORPitot PEER tube,REVIEW ρ is the air density and U0 is the free stream velocity. 16 of 21
airfoil tested by the Pitot tube, ρ is the air density and U 0 is the free stream velocity.
-3.0
Figure 16 illustrates that the pressure coefficients -3.0
of the baseline airfoil -3.0 under different
-3.0
-2.5 AOA=-9.6° conditions with-2.5 AOA=-9.6° -2.5 AOA=-9.6°
turbulence Baseline, T.I.=0.2%
small angles
AOA=-9.6° were similar-2.5 to each other. However, -2.0
with the increase of
-2.0 -2.0 -2.0
Baseline, T.I.=10.5%
angle
-1.5 of attack, the differences
Baseline, T.I.=19.0% -1.5 become more pronounced
-1.5 at the leading edge.
-1.5 In contrast to the
-1.0 -1.0 -1.0
-1.0
Cp
Gurney flaps, Figure 16a shows that at the angle = −9.6°, the differences between the flapped airfoils
Cp
Cp
Cp
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0
were small. With the increase 0.0 of the angle of attack, as
0.5
the angle of −3.6°, compared 0.5
with the baseline
0.5 0.5
Baseline, T.I.=0.2% Baseline, T.I.=10.5% Baseline, T.I.=19.0%
airfoils, the intersection of 1.0
1.0 the airfoil with Gurney flap moves
Flap 9mm*4.5mm,T.I.=0.2%
1.0 to the leading edge under
1.0 different
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
conditions. Besides, the pressure coefficients (with the angle = −3.6° and 2.4°), the
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 pressure
0.6 0.8 1.0
distribution indicate a larger the pressure difference in the range of 0.8 < x/c < 0.9. When the angle of

x/c x/c x/c x/c
attack was 2.4° and 8.4°, both the pressure coefficient (a) absolute values of the baseline airfoil and the
Gurney flap tendency to increase with the increase of turbulence intensity, and the flapped airfoil
becomes more obvious than the baseline airfoil. At a large angle of attack, due to the condition of
stalling (Figure 16e,f), there was significant flow separation both on the suction side of flapped
airfoil and baseline airfoil under uniform inflow. The larger the turbulent inflow, the larger the peak
value on the leading edge of the suction side, and also the larger pressure coefficient on the pressure
side.
(b)
Figure 16. Cont.
(c)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 16 of 21
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 16. The surface pressure coefficients under different angle of attack (Re: 0.8 × 106 ). (a) α = −9.6◦ ;
(b) α = −3.6◦ ; (c) α = 2.4◦ ; (d) α = 8.4◦ ; (e) α = 12.4◦ ; (f) α = 18.4◦ .
Figure 16 illustrates that the pressure coefficients of the baseline airfoil under different turbulence
conditions with small angles were similar to each other. However, with the increase of angle of
attack, the differences become more pronounced at the leading edge. In contrast to the Gurney flaps,
Figure 16a shows that at the angle = −9.6◦ , the differences between the flapped airfoils were small.
With the increase of the angle of attack, as the angle of −3.6◦ , compared with the baseline airfoils,
the intersection of the airfoil with Gurney flap moves to the leading edge under different conditions.
Besides, the pressure coefficients (with the angle = −3.6◦ and 2.4◦ ), the pressure distribution indicate a
larger the pressure difference in the range of 0.8 < x/c < 0.9. When the angle of attack was 2.4◦ and 8.4◦ ,
both the pressure coefficient absolute values of the baseline airfoil and the Gurney flap tendency to
increase with the increase of turbulence intensity, and the flapped airfoil becomes more obvious than
the baseline airfoil. At a large angle of attack, due to the condition of stalling (Figure 16e,f), there was
significant flow separation both on the suction side of flapped airfoil and baseline airfoil under uniform
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 17 of 21
Appl. Figure
Sci. 2020,16.
10,The
7258 surface pressure coefficients under different angle of attack (Re: 0.8 × 106). (a) α 17
= of 21
−9.6°; (b) α = −3.6°; (c) α = 2.4°; (d) α = 8.4°; (e) α = 12.4°; (f) α = 18.4°.
inflow.
As The
seenlarger
from the
theturbulent
above, the inflow, the larger
influence the peakinflow
of turbulent value coupled
on the leading edge of flap
with Gurney the suction
on the
side, and also the larger pressure coefficient on the pressure side.
pressure coefficients of airfoil was complicated. Turbulent inflow changes the flow around the airfoil
Asand
surface seenrestrains
from thetheabove, the influence
flow separation, of attaching
after turbulenttheinflow coupled
Gurney flap, with Gurneydistribution
the pressure flap on the
pressure coefficients of airfoil was complicated. Turbulent inflow changes
on both suction and pressure sides changed more significantly. Especially in the turbulence the flow around the airfoil
surface and restrains the flow separation, after attaching the Gurney flap, the pressure
condition, the trailing edge pressure distributions were farther apart for the flapped airfoil. In these distribution on
both suction
situations, theand pressurepeak
increased sidesvalues
changed of more significantly.
pressure Especially
coefficients in the turbulence
at the leading condition,
edge increased the
the trailing edge pressure distributions were farther apart for the flapped
integral area of the pressure coefficients, so the lift force was therefore increased. airfoil. In these situations,
the increased peak values of pressure coefficients at the leading edge increased the integral area of the
pressure
3.7. Wake coefficients, so the lift force was therefore increased.
Profile Characteristics
Figure
3.7. Wake 17 presents
Profile the distribution of wake velocity measured by the wake rake array under
Characteristics
uniform inflow. As can be observed, when the angle of attack was 8.4°, which was before the stall
Figure 17 presents the distribution of wake velocity measured by the wake rake array under
angle of attack, the wake of airfoil with the Gurney flap was inclined◦ to the pressure side of the
uniform inflow. As can be observed, when the angle of attack was 8.4 , which was before the stall
airfoil. When the angle of attack was 11.4°, which was after the stall angle, the Gurney flap weaken
angle of attack, the wake of airfoil with the Gurney flap was inclined to the pressure side of the airfoil.
the ability of the wake position ◦deflection. Moreover, the wake velocity deficit was significantly
When the angle of attack was 11.4 , which was after the stall angle, the Gurney flap weaken the ability
increased, and the Gurney flap began to have side effects on the aerodynamic characteristics of the
of the wake position deflection. Moreover, the wake velocity deficit was significantly increased, and the
airfoil. The higher the Gurney flap is, the larger the wake velocity deficit is, so it indicates a higher
Gurney flap began to have side effects on the aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoil. The higher the
mean drag.
Gurney flap is, the larger the wake velocity deficit is, so it indicates a higher mean drag.
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
u/U
u/U
AOA=8.4°
AOA=11.4°
0.7 0.7
Baseline airfoil,T.I.=0.2% Baseline airfoil,T.I.=0.2%
Flap 6mm*4.5mm,T.I.=0.2% Flap 6mm*4.5mm,T.I.=0.2%
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
X(m) X(m)
(a) (b)
Figure 17.
Figure Thewake
17. The wake velocity
velocity measured
measured by by
the the
wakewake
rakerake
arrayarray (uniform
(uniform inflow,
inflow, Re:
Re: 0.8 × 100.8 × 10
6). (a) α6=).
= 8.4
(a) α(b)
8.4°; ◦ (b) α = 11.4 .
α =; 11.4°. ◦
By comparing
By comparingthe theflows
flowsin in
thethe
nearnear
trailing edgeedge
trailing regionregion
of the airfoil
of the with Gurney
airfoil with flap. Theflap.
Gurney resultant
The
velocity distribution of the baseline airfoil and the airfoil attached with Gurney
resultant velocity distribution of the baseline airfoil and the airfoil attached with Gurney flap (9 mm flap (9 mm in height
and 4.5 mm ◦ (before the stall angle) and 11.4◦ (after the stall
in height andin4.5 thickness) at the angle
mm in thickness) at theof attack
angle of 8.4attack 8.4° (before the stall angle) and 11.4° (after
angle)
the stallunder
angle) uniform
under inflow
uniform were depicted
inflow wereindepicted
Figure 18. The vertical
in Figure direction
18. The verticalY direction
denoted the forward
Y denoted
distance from the hot-wire probe to the trailing edge, and the horizontal
the forward distance from the hot-wire probe to the trailing edge, and the horizontal direction direction X denoted the lateral
X
distance from the hot-wire probe to the trailing edge. As shown in Figure
denoted the lateral distance from the hot-wire probe to the trailing edge. As shown in Figure 18, 18, the black solid spots
the
were the
black actual
solid spots measurement
were the actual positions by using the
measurement electronically
positions by using controlled traverser. As
the electronically shown,
controlled
◦
traverser. As shown, the wake flows shift to the pressure side in both the two situations. When8.4
the wake flows shift to the pressure side in both the two situations. When the angle of attack was the,
the airfoil
angle with was
of attack Gurney8.4°,flap
the had a larger
airfoil velocity flap
with Gurney deficithadthan the baseline
a larger velocityairfoil,
deficitwhich suggests
than the an
baseline
increased drag. When the angle of attack was 11.4 ◦ , the velocity deficit of the baseline airfoil was also
airfoil, which suggests an increased drag. When the angle of attack was 11.4°, the velocity deficit of
lessbaseline
the than theairfoil
Gurney wasflap, but
also there
less than wastheno obvious
Gurney difference
flap, but there between
was nothe offset difference
obvious direction caused
betweenby
the offset
the flapped airfoil and
direction the baseline
caused airfoil which
by the flapped airfoilwere
and the being similarairfoil
baseline to thewhich
far field results
were measured
being similar by
to
the wake rake array.
the far field results measured by the wake rake array.
Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2020,
2020,10,
10,7258
7258 1818ofof2121
0.0
0.0
19.50
0.5 0.5
17.38
1.0 1.0
15.25
1.5 1.5
13.13
Y(cm)
Y(cm)
2.0 2.0
11.00
2.5 2.5
8.875
3.0 3.0 6.750
3.5 3.5 4.625
4.0 4.0 2.500

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
m/s
X(cm) X(cm)
(a) (b)
0.0 0.0
19.00
0.5
0.5
17.50
1.0
1.0
16.00
1.5
1.5 14.50
Y(cm)
Y(cm)
2.0
2.0 13.00
2.5
2.5 11.50
3.0
3.0 10.00
3.5
3.5 8.500
4.0
4.0 7.000
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
m/s
X(cm) X(cm)
(c) (d)
Figure18.
Figure 18. Velocity
Velocity distribution
distribution of the region
region behind
behind trailing
trailingedge
edge(uniform
(uniforminflow,
inflow,Re:Re:0.80.8
× 10 ). 6(a)
× 610 ).
(a) = 8.4baseline
α =α 8.4°, ◦ , baseline
airfoil; (b) (b)
airfoil; = 8.4
α =α8.4°, ◦ , Gurney
Gurney flap flap
9 mm × 4.5×mm;
9 mm α = 11.4
(c) α =(c)11.4°,
4.5 mm; ◦ , baseline
baseline airfoil;airfoil;
(d) α =
(d) α = Gurney
11.4°, 11.4◦ , Gurney
flap 9 mm
flap ×9 4.5
mmmm.× 4.5 mm.
Figure
Figure19 19presents
presentsthe thepower
powerdensity
densityspectrum
spectrummeasured
measuredby bythe
theregion
region11cm cmdirectly
directlybehind
behindthe the
trailing ◦
trailingedgeedgeunder
underuniform
uniforminflow.
inflow.As Ascancanbe beobserved,
observed,atatthe theangle
angleofofattack
attack8.4 , both
8.4°, bothalong-wind
along-wind
and
andacross-wind
across-wind display
displayan obvious peak inpeak
an obvious the power
in thedensitypowerspectrum,
density meanwhile
spectrum, the across-wind
meanwhile the
energy increased
across-wind in theincreased
energy flapped airfoil. It indicates
in the flapped thereItare
airfoil. counterthere
indicates rotating
are vortices
countergenerated by the
rotating vortices
Gurney
generated flap,bywhile the wakeflap,
the Gurney of baseline
while the airfoil
wake doesof not showairfoil
baseline the existence
does not of show
vortexthe shedding [33].
existence of
Gurney flaps also have a wake structure similar to the Karman vortex
vortex shedding [33]. Gurney flaps also have a wake structure similar to the Karman vortex street street behind the cylinder at
bigger
behindReynolds
the cylindernumber at bigger 0.8 × 106number
(i.e., ofReynolds ), the flow oscillations
(i.e., of 0.8 × 10 were caused
6), the flow by the separating
oscillations of the
were caused
shear
by the layer on the pressure
separating of the shear side layer
and suction
on the side of theside
pressure trailing
and edge.
suction The Karman
side of the vortex
trailingstreet
edge.both
The
can be found in uniform flow and turbulent flow, so the increased
Karman vortex street both can be found in uniform flow and turbulent flow, so the increased lift lift produced by the Gurney flap
seems
producedcan be byexplained
the Gurney in turbulent
flap seemsflow can condition,
be explained either. Moreover,flow
in turbulent from the lift coefficients
condition, shown
either. Moreover,
above,
from the size of structures was affected by turbulence level. Besides, as
lift coefficients shown above, the size of structures was affected by turbulence level. compared with the reference
data under
Besides, as similar
compared condition
with the [33], with the
reference increase
data underofsimilar
the Reynolds
condition number, from
[33], with = 1 × 10
theReincrease of5 the
to
0.8 6
× 10 , the Strouhal number 5
1 × 10 ,number × 1015 ,×
Reynolds number, from Re = decreased
1 × 105 to from
0.8 × 0.151
106, the(Re:Strouhal 2% chord length) tofrom
decreased 0.1280.151
(Re: 2(Re:
2%
105chord length)
, 2% chord and toto0.088
length) 0.128(Re: 2×
(Re:0.8 × 1056,, 2%
1.5% chordlength)
chord length). and to 0.088 (Re: 0.8 × 106, 1.5% chord
length).
Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2020, 10,7258
2020,10, 7258 19of
19 of21
21
0.1 0.1
Power spectral density S(f)
Power spectral density S(f)

0.01 0.01
0.001 0.001
along-wind along-wind
1E-4 across-wind 1E-4 across-wind
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
frequency (Hz) frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 19.
19. Comparison
Comparisonof of the
the power
power density
density spectrum
spectrum (uniform
(uniform inflow,
inflow, Re: 0.8
0.8 ×× 10 (a)αα ==8.4°,
1066).).(a) 8.4◦ ,
baseline
baseline airfoil; (b) αα ==8.4°,
airfoil; (b) ◦
8.4 ,Gurney
Gurneyflap
flap99mm
mm××4.54.5mm.
mm.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
In summary,
In summary,this paper
this paperpresented
presented a study a of the aerodynamic
study of the aerodynamicperformance of airfoils with/without
performance of airfoils
the Gurney flap under different turbulence
with/without the Gurney flap under different turbulence conditions by meansconditions by means of wind tunnel experiments.
of wind tunnel
The experimental
experiments. observations observations
The experimental were as follows: were as follows:
The Gurney
The Gurney flap flap deflects
deflects thethe wakewake position
positionfrom from the the pressure
pressure side side of
of the
the airfoil,
airfoil, increasing
increasing the the
vertical distance between the airfoil chord and the middle arc.
vertical distance between the airfoil chord and the middle arc. The surface pressure characteristicsThe surface pressure characteristics
revealed that
revealed that thethe pressure
pressure difference
difference of of the
the trailing
trailing edgeedge was was larger
larger forfor the
the flapped
flapped airfoil
airfoil in in the
the
turbulence condition. Moreover, due to the special wake structure,
turbulence condition. Moreover, due to the special wake structure, the Gurney flap also indicates the the Gurney flap also indicates
the vortex
vortex generated
generated at theattrailing
the trailing
edge, whichedge, results
which results in a lift
in a greater greater
of thelift of the
airfoil. The airfoil. The lift
lift increment
increment
obtained obtained
from Gurney from
flapGurney flap was by
was influenced influenced by the intensity,
the turbulence turbulence intensity, meanwhile
meanwhile a large increase a largein
increase in drag was observed as well. Under a medium range
drag was observed as well. Under a medium range of turbulence intensity (i.e., of 10.5%), the of turbulence intensity (i.e., of 10.5%),
the maximum
maximum lift-to-drag
lift-to-drag ratiosratios
increasedincreased
from from14.35% 14.35%
(flap 6(flap
mm6×mm × 4.5a mm,
4.5 mm, a =to12.4
= 12.4°)
◦ ) to 14.47%
14.47% (flap 6
(flap 6 mm × 1.5 mm, a = 12.4 ◦ ), the 1.0% Gurney flap case has the
mm × 1.5 mm, a = 12.4°), the 1.0% Gurney flap case has the best performance, that’s probably because best performance, that’s probably
because
the the decrease
decrease of boundary of boundary layer thickness
layer thickness under turbulent
under turbulent conditions,conditions,
so the so the height
height of 1.0% of 1.0%
was
was optimal. However, under a much larger turbulence inflow (i.e.,
optimal. However, under a much larger turbulence inflow (i.e., of 19.0%), all experimental data have of 19.0%), all experimental data
have shown that the impact was negligibly small. The drag increment
shown that the impact was negligibly small. The drag increment was found to surpass the benefit of was found to surpass the benefit
of the
the increase
increase in lift,
in lift, resulting
resulting in ainworse
a worse lift-to-drag
lift-to-drag ratio
ratio thanthanthethe baseline
baseline airfoil.
airfoil.
It was of importance to note that there are two kinds of
It was of importance to note that there are two kinds of measurement uncertainties couldmeasurement uncertainties couldaffect
affect
the acquired results. One was stochastic uncertainties caused by
the acquired results. One was stochastic uncertainties caused by the discrete pressure data which can the discrete pressure data which
caneliminated
be be eliminated by multiple
by multiple measurements.
measurements. TheThe otherotheroneonewas wassystematic
systematicuncertainties
uncertaintiescaused causedby by
measuring instruments which can be reduced by calibration
measuring instruments which can be reduced by calibration of the instruments before the of the instruments before the experiment.
Based on the observations from the present measurements, it was found that under very high
experiment.
turbulence
Based on level,
thee.g., with 19% of
observations fromturbulence
the presentintensity, the Gurneyitflap
measurements, was has very that
found smallunderinfluence
veryon the
high
airfoil aerodynamic performance. The measurement results show the
turbulence level, e.g., with 19% of turbulence intensity, the Gurney flap has very small influence on Gurney flap may be used in areas
with
the slightly
airfoil lower turbulence.
aerodynamic performance.Nevertheless, wind turbines
The measurement in real
results showlife the
were running
Gurney flapin may
the turbulent
be used
atmospheric boundary layer, as shown above, the effects of Gurney
in areas with slightly lower turbulence. Nevertheless, wind turbines in real life were running in the flap are highly dependent on
turbulent inflow, it seems that the Gurney flap would be installed
turbulent atmospheric boundary layer, as shown above, the effects of Gurney flap are highly as a scalable form and preferred to
have smaller
dependent onsize, such that
turbulent it would
inflow, it seemsget more
that the potential
Gurney benefits at all periods
flap would be installedof rotation. In addition,
as a scalable form
it should be noted that the incoming flow is often a combination of
and preferred to have smaller size, such that it would get more potential benefits at all periods of rotational wake from the previous
wind turbines.
rotation. In addition,Research on thebelift
it should increment
noted that the ofincoming
Gurney flap flowwas not isolated,
is often a combinationit always interacted
of rotational
with such
wake fromhighly unsteady
the previous windaerodynamic
turbines. issues.
Research Therefore,
on the lift to analyze
increment more of precisely
Gurney flap the effects
was not of
combining such turbulence levels with Gurney flap, further experiments
isolated, it always interacted with such highly unsteady aerodynamic issues. Therefore, to analyze should be carried out for the
rotor blades
more precisely in highly turbulent
the effects of flows.
combining This wassuchinturbulence
progress onlevels a windwith turbineGurneyblade flap,
composedfurther of
several DTU-LN221 wing sections.
experiments should be carried out for the rotor blades in highly turbulent flows. This was in
progress on a wind turbine blade composed of several DTU-LN221 wing sections.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 20 of 21
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.Y.; conducted the data collection, J.Y. and Y.Y.; funding acquisition,
H.Y.; supervision, N.L., H.Y. and W.Z.; formal analysis, J.Y., H.Y., W.Z.; writing—original draft preparation,
J.Y.; writing—review and editing, H.Y., W.Z.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province
under grant number KYCX19_2104 and Youth Fund Project of Jiangsu Natural Science Foundation under grant
number BK20170510.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to express acknowledgement to the Postgraduate Research &Practice
Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province under grant number KYCX19_2104 and Youth Fund Project of Jiangsu
Natural Science Foundation under grant number BK20170510.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Liebeck, R.H. Design of subsonic airfoils for high lift. J. Aircr. 1978, 15, 547–561. [CrossRef]
2. Amini, Y.; Emdad, H.; Farid, M. Adjoint shape optimization of airfoils with attached Gurney flap.
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2015, 41, 216–228. [CrossRef]
3. Xu, H.R.; Yang, H.; Liu, C. Numerical value analysis on aerodynamic performance of DU series airfoil with
thickened trailing edge. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2014, 30, 101–108.
4. Yashodhar, V.; Humrutha, G.; Kaushik, M.; Khan, S.A. CFD Studies on Triangular Micro-Vortex Generators
in Flow Control. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017;
Volume 184, p. 012007.
5. Lee, T.; Su, Y.Y. Unsteady airfoil with a harmonically deflected trailing-edge flap. J. Fluids Struct. 2011, 27,
1411–1424. [CrossRef]
6. Seyednia, M.; Masdari, M.; Vakilipour, S. The influence of oscillating trailing-edge flap on the dynamic stall
control of a pitching wind turbine airfoil. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2019, 41, 192. [CrossRef]
7. Lu, W.S.; Tian, Y.; Liu, P.P. Aerodynamic optimization and mechanism design of flexible variable camber
trailing-edge flap. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2017, 30, 988–1003. [CrossRef]
8. Zhang, W.G.; Bai, X.J.; Wang, Y.F.; Han, Y.; Hu, Y. Optimization of sizing parameters and multi-objective
control of trailing edge flaps on a smart rotor. Renew. Energy 2018, 129, 75–91. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, H.; Zhao, Z.D.; Zhou, G.X.; Kang, S. Experimental investigation of the effect of Gurney flap on
DU93-W-210 airfoil aerodynamics performance. Acta Energ. Solaris Sinica 2017, 38, 601–606.
10. Amini, Y.; Liravi, M.; Izadpanah, E. The effects of Gurney flap on the aerodynamic performance of NACA
0012 airfoil in the rarefied gas flow. Comput. Fluids 2018, 170, 93–105. [CrossRef]
11. Lee, T.; Su, Y.Y. Lift enhancement and flow structure of airfoil with joint trailing-edge flap and Gurney flap.
Exp. Fluids 2011, 50, 1671–1684. [CrossRef]
12. Chen, Z.J.; Stol, K.A.; Mace, B.R. Wind turbine blade optimization with individual pitch and trailing edge
flap control. Renew. Energy 2016, 103, 750–765. [CrossRef]
13. Medina, A.; Ol, M.V.; Mancini, P.; Jones, A. Revisiting Conventional Flaps at High Deflection Rate. AIAA J.
2017, 55, 1–10. [CrossRef]
14. Elsayed, O.A.; Asrar, W.; Omar, A.A.; Kwon, K.; Jung, H.J. Experimental Investigation of Plain and
Flapped-Wing Tip Vortex. J. Aircr. 2009, 46, 254–262. [CrossRef]
15. Little, J.; Nishihara, M.; Adamovich, I.; Saminy, M. High-lift airfoil trailing edge separation control using a
single dielectric barrier discharge plasma actuator. Exp. Fluids 2010, 48, 521–537. [CrossRef]
16. Bergami, L.; Poulsen, N.K. A smart rotor configuration with linear quadratic control of adaptive trailing
edge flaps for active load alleviation. Wind Energy 2015, 18, 625–641. [CrossRef]
17. Edward, T.; Christoph, B. Upstream shear-layer stabilization via self-oscillating trailing edge flaplets.
Exp. Fluids 2018, 59, 145.
18. Straub, F.K.; Anand, V.R.; Lau, B.H.; Birchette, T.S. Wind Tunnel Test of the SMART Active Flap Rotor. J. Am.
Helicopter Soc. 2018, 63, 012002. [CrossRef]
19. Traub, L.W. Prediction of Gurney-Flap Lift Enhancement for Airfoils and Wings. AIAA J. 2014, 52, 2087–2090.
[CrossRef]
20. Lario, A.; Arina, R. Discontinuous Galerkin Method for the Study of Active Gurney Flaps. J. Aircr. 2017, 54,
1–11. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 21 of 21
21. Li, C.F.; Xu, Y.; Zhao, X.L.; Xu, J.Z. Analysis on Dynamic Performance Trailing Edge Flap on Wind
Turbine Airfoil. J. Eng. Thermophys. 2014, 35, 883–887.
22. Zhu, W.J.; Behrens, T.; Shen, W.Z.; Sørensen, J.N. Hybrid Immersed Boundary Method for Airfoils with a
Trailing-Edge Flap. AIAA J. 2013, 51, 30–41. [CrossRef]
23. Ng, B.F.; Palacios, R.; Kerrigan, E.C.; Graham, J.M.R.; Hesse, H. Aerodynamic load control in horizontal axis
wind turbines with combined aeroelastic tailoring and trailing edge flaps. Wind Energy 2016, 19, 243–263.
[CrossRef]
24. Colman, J.; Marañón Di Leo, J.; Delnero, J.S.; Martinez, M.; Boldes, U.; Bacchi, F. Lift and drag coefficients
behaviour at low Reynolds number in an airfoil with Gurney flap submitted to a turbulent flow: Part 1.
Lat. Am. Appl. Res. 2008, 38, 195–200.
25. Di Leo, J.M.; Martínez, M.A.; Delnero, J.S.; Saínz, M.G. Experimental study of the effect of the wake generated
by oscillating Gurney flap. Lat. Am. Appl. Res. 2019, 49, 289–296.
26. Li, W.J.; Zhang, P.; Yang, S.F.; Fu, X.H.; Xiao, Y. An Experimental Method for Generating Shear-Free Turbulence
Using Horizontal Oscillating Grids. Water 2020, 12, 591. [CrossRef]
27. Cheng, J.T.; Zhu, W.J.; Fischer, A.; García, N.R.; Madsen, J.; Chen, J.; Shen, W.Z. Design and validation of the
high performance and low noise CQU-DTU-LN1 airfoils. Wind Energy 2013, 17, 1817–1833. [CrossRef]
28. ROHA. LSWT Campaign Report on DTU-C21; LM Internal Report: Jupitervej, Denmark, 2012.
29. Allen, H.J.; Vlncenti, W.G. Wall Interference in a Two-Dimensional Flow Wind Tunnel, with Consideration of
the effect of Compressibility. NACA Rep. 1944, 782, 155–184.
30. Timmer, W.A.; van Rooij, R.P.J.O.M. Summary of the Delft University Wind Turbine Dedicated Airfoils. J. Sol.
Energy Eng. 2003, 125, 11–21. [CrossRef]
31. Llorente, E.; Gorostidi, A.; Jacobs, M.; Timmer, W.A.; Munduate, A.; Pires, A. Wind Tunnel Tests of Wind
Turbine Airfoils at High Reynolds Numbers. J. Phys. Conf. 2014, 524, 012012. [CrossRef]
32. Pires, O.; Munduate, X.; Ceyhan, O.; Jacobs, M.; Madsen, J.; Schepers, J.G. Analysis of the high Reynolds
number 2D tests on a wind turbine airfoil performed at two different wind tunnels. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2016,
749, 012014. [CrossRef]
33. Troolin, D.R. A Quantitative Study of the Lift-Enhancing Flow Field Generated by an Airfoil with a
Gurney Flap. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, MN, USA, 2009.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Applsci 10 07258 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applsci 10 07258 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applsci 10 07258 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258; doi:10.3390/app10207258 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

200 200 100 100 100 100 200

Behind the grille, there Table

Figure 4. Grille turbulence generated device.

Figure 5. Wake measurements.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7258 7 of 21

Karman (Scheme 2, 1.6m)

-0.5 YZU-2 0.02

0.10 Flap 6mm*4.5mm

In addition, the effects of various

3.5. Experimental Results

1.0 0.16 Flap 6mm*4.5mm

1.0 0.16 Baseline airfoil

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

3.0 3.0 6.750

3.5 3.5 4.625

4.0 4.0 2.500

Power spectral density S(f)

Power spectral density S(f)

1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000

frequency (Hz) frequency (Hz)

You might also like