CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The boundary layer separation is a phenomenon of great practical

importance, which affects seriously fluid flow performances in many
technical applications . Such a flow is met in several flight phases (takeoff,
landing, maneuver, etc.), with well-known consequences: drag increase,
vibrations, partial or total loss of the airplane control, etc. To delay and
even remove this flow separation, one can bring momentum to the
boundary layer (BL) so that it can bear the strong opposing pressure
gradient. The vortices created by vortex generators transfer low energy fluid
from the surface into the mainstream, and bring higher energy fluid from
the mainstream down to the surface where a higher kinetic energy level is
able to withstand a greater pressure rise before separation occurs. Another
mechanism introduced by vortex generators is associated with the
excitation of the local instability waves that lead to an early transition to
turbulence, which delays the flow separation and reduces the size of the
separation zone. From the origin, most techniques of boundary layer
control were passive, i.e., they did not require any external energy
contribution.

Passive control was mainly carried out by vortex generators (vgs)

made of small plates or airfoils of various shapes and sizes. They are
pined on the airfoil wall and immersed in the boundary layer, upstream
to the separation point. These devices could be set by rows in the span
wise airfoil direction with a yaw angle (β) with respect to the mean flow
direction, to produce stream wise trailing vortices. The vgs are usually of
rectangular or triangular shapes with height of the order of the boundary-
layer thickness (δ). They can be arranged to produce co-rotating or
counter-rotating vortices. One of the main drawbacks of passive vgs is
that they only perform properly for a specific fluid flow condition.
Consequently, their design should be optimized for particular applications
where the separation location is relatively fixed and not too far from the
VGs. Because of drag penalty induced by these passive devices, many
1
optimization studies have guided to a significant reduction of the vortex
generator height (h), from the order of the boundary layer thickness (δ) to
only a fraction of it.

Passive devices were replaced by active ones, which can be turned off
when not necessary in order to avoid additional drag (i.e. during cruise
flight of an aircraft for instance). Many active device types were then
developed for which, depending on the control source used, the control is of
different nature (plasma actuators, fluidic actuators, etc.). However, it is
clear that many studies for active control require complex solutions to be
implemented, often starting from existing technological bricks, in terms of
control, motorization or regarding the kinematics of the devices. A strong
constraint in the specifications of such actuators is the compatibility with
the volume available in the model, taking into account, not only the vehicle
shape, of course, but also the constraints related to safety criteria, in terms
of mechanical resistance or of the integrated services and the problems of
accessibility to these elements.
Flow separation control, by means of passive devises, is today the less
expensive and the quickest solution to implement. They can be used to
control from low-speed separated flows in adverse pressure gradient to
transonic shock-induced separation. The effectiveness of passive vortex
generators, whose size, position, and orientation are fixed on the surface, is
limited to a narrow operational range. Lin et al. implemented rectangular
vortex generators located just upstream backward-facing curved ramp with
an 8-in. shoulder radius. The VGs heights were 0.8 h/δ of boundary layer
thickness arranged in counter-rotary positions. The conventional VGs were
found to produce too strong vortices which lead to an additional drag
compared to smaller VGs. They were replaced by smaller devices. The
height of VGs smaller than δ and even of the order of 0.2δ was still able to
achieve the control of separated flows with less associated drag than
conventional VGs. Of course, the stream wise life time of the
corresponding vortices is smaller. Lin.suggest that these devices should be
applied close to the separation region when it is relatively fixed.

2
 The experimental study undertaken by Betterton. Showed that a VG
size close to a quarter of boundary layer thickness can significantly reduce
=
the size of regions containing turbulent boundary layer separated flow.
Jenkins et al. used micro vortex generators (MVGs) on the shoulder of the
ramp in order to provide a baseline passive device for flow control
comparisons. The MVGs were approximately 20% of the boundary layer
height. The results showed that=MVGs are more effective than any of other
devices in recovering pressure on the ramp. The skew angle to the free
stream β determines the vortex Strength and lateral path. Godard &
Stanislaus found by decreasing β from 23° to 13° that the vortices can be
linearly strengthened up.
Actually, an optimum yaw angle exists which is found equal to β 18° for a
bump configuration. In addition, a rapid decay of the peak vorticity
downstream of the VG is observed, regardless of β. Yao et al. have concluded
that the magnitude of maximum vorticity increases downstream of a single
vane-type VG as yaw angle increases for the low-profile VG (device height,
h ≈ 20% δ), but the trend is reversed for the conventional VG with h ≈ δ,
probably due to flow stalling around the larger device at higher yaw angles.
The maximum vorticity occurred at β = 10°,or at about the same level as that
of the low-profile VG at β 23°.Gopal et al.have studied the effects of VGs
fixed on the roof of a utility vehicle at varying yaw angles of VG.
The yaw angles used were 10°, 15° and 20°. The value of drag coefficient was
reduced by90% with the addition of VG with a yaw angle of 15° and a
minimum of 20% reduction in drag is obtained for VG with a yaw angle of
10°. The VGs with a yaw angle of 15° will be useful at lower velocity. Huang
et al.have numerically studied two VGs with yaw angle of 30° to the main flow
direction mounted on the upper surface of an OAT15A airfoil in front of the
shock wave region to suppress shock wave buffet (Ma 0.73). The results show
that shock wave buffet can be significantly suppressed by VGs, the RMS level
of pressure in the buffet region is effectively reduced, and averaged shock
wave position is obviously pushed downstream, resulting in increased total lift.
As hill et al.have tested various low profiles VGs with h/δ 0.5. The VGs
geometry consists of counter- rotating vanes, single vane, forwards wedge, and
backwards wedge. The triangular vane-type VGs have constituted an optimal
geometry. The CFD undertaken by Godard & Stanislas optimized standard
3
 =

triangular and rectangular VGs forms with a co-rotating

≈ and counter-rotating
arrangement for flow control. The improvement made by the counter-rotating
triangular form was 20% higher compared to the rectangular form, as well as
its penalty on the drag. Zhen et al. used numerical and experimental
investigations to study VGs effect of triangular and rectangular form on the
NACA4415 profile aerodynamic performances. The parameters taken into
account are spacing between the VGs couple their shape and the location
according to the separation point.

The results show that the maximum lift coefficient of rectangular VGs is
higher than the triangular one by 7.8% and 7.7% according to the numerical
and experimental investigations respectively. Smith et al. modeled
= the flow
field around triangular pallets GVs in the aim to optimize them. It was
concluded that the GV’s effectiveness is related to the vortex strength. The
most beneficial span wise spacing was found to be D/d 2.4. The effect of the
distance between GVs and the separation point (Xvg) was checked for two
=
positions with 20% and 40% of the chord.
=

They concluded that the VGs can lock the stall close to the wall at a
distance from 40% of the chord. The investigation of Velte et al. have showed
that the aerodynamics performances of DU 91-W2-250 profile have been
changed when the VGs are attached to the wall at 50% chord, polar
measurements have shown that CL/CD is maximized for an AOA of α 6.5°,
and CL is maximized for an AOA of α 17.95° when vortex generators are
attached to the blade at 20% chord. This means that the separation of the
boundary layer has been delayed up an angle of 17.95°. Angle et al. studied
the behavior of the stream wise vortices from a VG for the control of a
separating boundary layer. It was found that the counter-rotating vortices
from one VG moved away from each other in the span wise direction
and slightly outward in the wall-normal direction. Bur et al. have
concluded that the spanwise spacing of vortex generator devices
appeared to be an important parameter to control the flow separation
region.

When the distance between each device is decreased, the vortices

merging are more efficient to reduce the separation. Moreover, their
4
placement upstream of the shock wave is determinant to ensure that
vortices have mixed momentum all span wise long before they reach the
separation line, so as to avoid separation cells.
Betterton et al. have completed that the stream wise decay of
vortex strength of triangular counter-rotating vane devices that are
spaced apart by at least one device height is an order of magnitude lower
on a logarithmic basis than that of joined counter-rotating vanes.
For a VGs pair, Angele et al. found that for an array of VGs, the circulation
generated per unit width was estimated by

hUVG
γe = 2k
D

where UVG is the mean velocity at the VG blade tip and k is a

coefficient which is a function of the geometry of the VG. The estimation
of γe makes it possible to rank the circulation of different VGs configurations
without measuring the velocities in the y–z plane. For the VGs array the
number of VGs increases with decreasing blade height, but h/D is constant.
However, γe increases with h since the blade reaches higher
up in the boundary layer, where the velocity is higher.