Proc.

of the 5
th
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME-2011), J une 06-08, 2011
S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat 395 007, Gujarat, India

318

Experimental Anal ysis of Flow Separati on Control over a
Hump

Ajay Pratap Singh
1*
, Akshoy Ranjan Paul
2
, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta
3*
, Anuj J ain
1

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, AKGEC, Ghaziabad
2
Department of Applied Mechanics, MNNIT, Allahabad
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, GLA University, Mathura
*e-mails: ajay.pratap.singh86@gmail.com, sanjeev.mnnita@gmail.com

Hump (or bump) is a common shaped obstacle, which creates adverse pressure
gradient, and hence, there is a chance of separation at the downstream of hump,
which further leads to an increase in drag coefficient. To delay the flow
separation, both co-rotating and counter-rotating submerged vortex generators
(SVG), are located at various positions over the hump. Vortex generators
themselves create drag, but they also reduce drag by preventing flow separation
at downstream. The overall effect of vortex generators can be calculated by
totaling these positive and negative effects. In the present experiment, three
different sizes of humps are chosen based on a cosine function. Depending on
the height (h) of humps, it is named as small (h = 35 mm), medium (h = 50 mm)
and big (h = 100 mm). It is evident that static pressure increase to a great extent
for all sizes of hump attached to the co-rotating and counter rotating SVG
positioned at upstream. However, for an upstream flow of 15 m/s, the static
pressure increases for all sizes of humps, only when counter-rotating SVG are
attached to the hump midstream and co-rotating SVG are attached to the hump
downstream. Hence it is said that the use of SVG at the hump upstream delays
flow separation to an extent. For a high upstream flow of 30 m/s, total pressure
decreases for all sizes of humps while attached to the co-rotating and counter-
rotating SVG positioned at upstream. However, for lower upstream flow (15 m/s),
the total pressure decreases for all sizes of humps only when SVG (both co- and
counter-rotating) are attached to the downstream of it. The experiments on
different combinations of co-rotating and counter-rotating vortex generators do
not indicate a particular trend, for which drag coefficient becomes minimum for
all combinations. However, for both the upstream velocities (15 m/s and 30 m/s),
the co-rotating vortex generators positioned at the mid-stream and downstream
cause a considerable reduction in drag coefficient.

Keywords: Hump, Flow Separation, Submerged Vortex Generator, Drag Reduction

1. Introduction

Flow separation is mostly an undesirable phenomenon as it increases the drag over a
body of interest. Boundary layer control is, therefore, an important technique for flow
separation problems. Hump is a common shaped obstacle, which creates adverse pressure
gradient, and hence, there is a chance of flow separation at the downstream of hump. One of
the main causes of aerodynamic drag for hump is the flow separation of flow near its rear end
(Krishnan et al., 2006). To delay the flow separation, vortex generators are tested, which are
located at various positions over the hump. Commonly used on aircraft wings to prevent flow
separation, vortex generators themselves create drag, but they also reduce drag by
preventing flow separation at downstream. The overall effect of vortex generators can be
calculated by totaling these positive and negative effects (Laver, 2007).
In the present study, three different sizes of humps are chosen based on a cosine function
as proposed by Larsen and Kertscher (1993) and is furnished below.
| |
2
( ) 2 cos h x h x ha =
(1)

Proc. of the 5
th
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME-2011), J une 06-08, 2011
S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat 395 007, Gujarat, India

319

where,
2 2 ha x ha s s

Depending on the height (h) of the humps, it is named as small (h =35 mm), medium
(h =50 mm) and big (h =100 mm). The schematic diagram of such hump is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure1. Geometry of the hump.

Several researchers (Lin 1991, Lin 1999, Bernard 2000, J enkins 2002, Lin 2002) have
contributed towards the effective design of vortex generators. These generators are thin
plates of triangular or trapezoidal shape, placed normal to the surface and at a lateral angle to
the flow (referred to as vortex generator angle). They are staggered in either as co-rotating
(parallel) or counter-rotating (V -shape) configurations. The orientations are decided
depending upon the directions of vortices shedding into the downstream of flow. In this
experiment, vortex generators with a maximum height of 2 mm are used for flow control,
whereas the maximum boundary layer measured over the hump surface is 5 mm. Therefore,
the vortex generators are practically submerged under the boundary layer, and hence, it is
called as submerged vortex generators (SVG). The configurations tested here are not far
from the optimal sets as reported by Lin (2002). Six such vortex generators are arranged
along the width of the hump (Fig. 2).


(a) SVG in co-rotating sequence (b) SVG in counter-rotating sequence
Figure 2. Arrangement of submerged vortex generator (SVG) on hump surface


2. Experimental Methodology

Experiments are performed on a blow-down type open circuit wind tunnel. The
experiments are mainly concerned with the study of boundary layer development over the
surface of the humps with the help of boundary layer probe and determination of the drag
coefficient over the humps with or without SVG. Boundary layer probe is used for boundary
Proc. of the 5
th
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME-2011), J une 06-08, 2011
S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat 395 007, Gujarat, India

320

layer study, whereas, a pre-calibrated five-hole static pressure probe is used to measure flow
field at the humps upstream (25 mm ahead of the hump tip) and downstream (40 mm behind
the hump tail). Wall static pressure is measured along the mid-line of the hump length using
29 surface pressure tapings for different upstream flow velocities (U

=15 m/s and 30 m/s).

SVG are arranged along the width of the hump, maintaining 8 mm distance between
two successive SVG, and are fixed at three different locations, namely, upstream (x/L =0.25),
midstream (x/L =0.50), and downstream (x/L =0.75). These vortex generators are arranged
on the hump surface in co-rotating and counter-rotating sequence, depending on the
directions of vortices shedding at the flow downstream and are shown in Fig. 2 (a, b).

3. Result and Discussion

To study the variation of drag coefficient (C
D
) and wall static pressure coefficient (C
P
), a
number of parameters are varied, namely hump size (small, medium and big), upstream
velocity (U

=15 m/s and 30 m/s), vortex generator location (at upstream, midstream and
downstream) and vortex generator orientation (co-rotating and counter-rotating). Based on
these variations, experimentations are carried out for 42 configurations. The drag coefficient
(C
D
) and wall static pressure coefficient (C
P
) are defined below
Drag force,
( )
up down D f
F P P A = (2)
where, P
up
and P
down
are the average static pressure measured at upstream and
downstream of the hump respectively using five-hole static pressure probe, and A
f
is the
frontal area of the hump.
Drag coefficient,
2
D
0.5
D f
C F U A

= (3)
Wall static pressure coefficient, ( )
2
P 1
0.5
i
C P P U

= (4)
where, P
i
is the static pressure measured at any station on the hump surface, P
1
is the
static pressure measured at just upstream (i.e. station-1 at x/L =0.03) on the hump surface,
and is the density of air taken as 1.225 kg/m
3
.


Figure 3. Wall static pressure coefficient along hump length without SVG at U

=15 m/s.

The installation of VG energizes the flow locally and injects momentum into the flow,
which carries further into the downstream. As the separation bubble decreases, the effective
Proc. of the 5
th
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME-2011), J une 06-08, 2011
S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat 395 007, Gujarat, India

321

area in the channel (in which the hump is placed) increases. For a constant mass flow
condition, this further decreases the flow velocity. As a result, static pressure at the
downstream increases. Hence the increase of static pressure along the direction of flow can
be considered as a good effect since it indicates flow separation.
A close observation of wall pressure reading for bare hump (Fig 3) shows that the value
becomes negative at x/L =0.25 for all hump geometries and remains negative till x/L =0.9.
This signifies that a large portion of hump surface is exposed to negative static pressure,
which is prone to flow separation. Wall static pressure distribution with co-rotating and counter
rotating SVGs at the midstream (x/L =0.50) as shown in Fig. 4 and 5 reveals that the value
becomes negative at x/L =0.30 for all hump geometries and remain negative till x/L =0.83.
This signifies that a large portion of hump surface is still exposed to negative static pressure;
however, flow separations are delayed to some extent

Figure 4. Wall static pressure coefficient along hump length with co-rotating SVG placed at
midstream.


Figure 5. Wall static pressure coefficient along hump length with counter-rotating SVG placed
at midstream

Proc. of the 5
th
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME-2011), J une 06-08, 2011
S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat 395 007, Gujarat, India

322

4. Conclusion

Experimental studies on hump in a channel are conducted and various combinations of
vortex generators are considered. The major findings from the study are summarized here.
- It is observed that drag coefficient C
D
reduces for all the humps when co-rotating
vortex generator installed at midstream and downstream for upstream flow 15 m/s and 30
m/s.
- It is evident that wall static pressure coefficient (C
P
) changes to a great extent for all
sizes of hump attached to the co-rotating and counter rotating vortex generators
positioned at upstream.
- However, for 15 m/s upstream flow, the static pressure increases for all sizes of
humps, only when counter-rotating VG are attached to the hump midstream (x/L =0.50)
and co-rotating VG are attached to the hump downstream (x/L =0.75).
- For a high upstream flow 30 m/s total pressure decreases for all sizes of humps,
while attached to the co-rotating and counter-rotating VG positioned at upstream (x/L =
0.25).
- However, for lower upstream flow (15 m/s), the total pressure decreases for all sizes
of humps only when VG (both co- and counter-rotating) are attached to the downstream
(x/L =0.75) of it.

Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India
for providing DST-FIST grant to build up the experimental facilities at the Compressible Flow
laboratory, Department of Applied Mechanics, MNNIT Allahabad which were used for this
research. The necessary computational and infrastructural facilities provided by the
Department of Applied Mechanics, MNNIT, Allahabad are also acknowledged.

References

[1] P. Larsen, U. Kertscher, Turbulent Separating Flow Over Hump in an Open Channel, in
Physics of Separated Flows- Numerical, Experimental and Theoretical Aspects, Notes on
Numerical Fluid Mechanics, K. Gersten, ed. 40, Vieweg, Germany, 1993
[2] V. Krishnan, D. K. Squires, R. J . Forsythe, Prediction of Separated Flow Characteristics
over a hump, AIAA J . 40 (2), pp. 252-262, 2006.
[3] J .M. Laver, Experimental Investigation of the flow Past Vortex Generators,, M.Sc. Thesis,
Fluid Mechanic Section MEK, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, 2007.
[4] J .C. Lin, G.V. Selby, F.G. Howrad, Exploratory study of vortex-generating devices for
turbulent flow separation control, AIAA paper no.: 91-0042, 1991.
[5] J .C. Lin, Control of turbulent boundary layer separation using micro-vortex generators,
AIAA paper no.: 99-3404, 1999
[6] J .C. Lin, Review of research on low-profile vortex generators to control boundary-layer
separation, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 38, pp. 389-420, 2002.
[7] A. Bernard, P. Dupont, J .M. Foucaut, M. Stanislas, Decelerating boundary layer: A new
scaling and mixing length model, AIAA J . 41 (2), pp. 248-255, 2003.
[8] L. J enkins, S.A. Gorton, S. Anders, Flow control device evaluation for an internal flow with
an adverse pressure gradient, AIAA paper no.: 2002-0266, 2002.