Experiments in Fluids

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 241–254 | Cite as

Time resolved PIV analysis of flow over a NACA 0015 airfoil with Gurney flap

  • D. R. TroolinEmail author
  • E. K. Longmire
  • W. T. Lai
Research Article


A NACA 0015 airfoil with and without a Gurney flap was studied in a wind tunnel with Re c = 2.0 × 105 in order to examine the evolving flow structure of the wake through time-resolved PIV and to correlate this structure with time-averaged measurements of the lift coefficient. The Gurney flap, a tab of small length (1–4% of the airfoil chord) that protrudes perpendicular to the chord at the trailing edge, yields a significant and relatively constant lift increment through the linear range of the C L versus α curve. Two distinct vortex shedding modes were found to exist and interact in the wake downstream of flapped airfoils. The dominant mode resembles a Kàrmàn vortex street shedding behind an asymmetric bluff body. The second mode, which was caused by the intermittent shedding of fluid recirculating in the cavity upstream of the flap, becomes more coherent with increasing angle of attack. For a 4% Gurney flap at α = 8°, the first and second modes corresponded with Strouhal numbers based on flap height of 0.18 and 0.13. Comparison of flow around ‘filled’ and ‘open’ flap configurations suggested that the second shedding mode was responsible for a significant portion of the overall lift increment.


Vortex Streamwise Velocity Strouhal Number Chord Length Lift Coefficient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors thank the University of Minnesota Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics Department for the use of the facilities and for fabrication of the airfoil test sections.


  1. Adrian R (1991) Particle-imaging techniques for experimental fluid mechanics. University of Illinois, Annual Review Fluid Mechanics, vol 23, pp 261–304Google Scholar
  2. Adrian R (1997) Dynamic ranges of velocity and spatial resolution of particle image velocimetry. Meas Sci Technol 8:1393–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adrian R, Christensen K, Liu Z (2000) Analysis and interpretation of instantaneous turbulent velocity fields. Exp Fluids 29:275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake W (1986) Mechanics of flow-induced sound and vibration, vol II. Academic, New York, pp 756–782Google Scholar
  5. Jacobs E, Anderson R (1930) Large-scale aerodynamic characteristics of airfoils as tested in the variable density wind tunnel, NACA Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory (Langley Field, VA, United States), NACA TR 352, pp 421–450Google Scholar
  6. Jacobs E, Sherman A (1937) Airfoil section characteristics as affected by variations of the Reynolds number, NACA Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory (Langley Field, VA, United States), NACA Report 586, pp 41Google Scholar
  7. Jang C, Ross J, Cummings R (1998) Numerical investigation of an airfoil with a Gurney flap. Aircraft Des 1:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeffrey D, Zhang X, Hurst D (2000) Aerodynamics of Gurney flaps on a single-element high-lift wing. J Aircraft 37(2):295–301Google Scholar
  9. Liebeck R (1978) Design of subsonic airfoils for high lift. J Aircraft 15(9):547–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Neuhart D, Pendergraft O (1988) A water tunnel study of Gurney flaps. NASA TM 4071Google Scholar
  11. Solovitz S, Eaton J (2004a) Spanwise response variation for partial-span Gurney-type flaps. AIAA J 42(8):1640–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Solovitz S, Eaton J (2004b) Dynamic flow response due to motion of partial-span Gurney-type flaps. AIAA J 42(9):1729–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Storms B, Jang C (1994) Lift enhancement of an airfoil using a Gurney flap and vortex generators. J Aircraft 31(3):542–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wadcock A (1987) Investigations of low-speed turbulent separated flow around airfoils. NASA CR 177450Google Scholar
  15. Wereley S, Gui L (2001) PIV measurement in a four-roll-mill flow with a central difference image correction (CDIC) method. In: 4th International symposium on particle image velocimetry, September 17, Göttingen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  16. Wynbrandt J (2002) Ban, or banner? AOPA Pilot, pp 97–101Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TSI IncorporatedShoreviewUSA
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace Engineering and MechanicsUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations