CHIN. PHYS. LETT. Vol. 29, No.

4 (2012) 044701

*
Characterization of the Flow Separation of a Variable Camber Airfoil
YANG Wen-Chao(杨文超), WANG Hui(王辉), YANG Jian-Ting(杨剑挺), YANG Ji-Ming(杨基明)**
Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230027

(Received 25 August 2011)

An experimental investigation is carried out to study the flow separation behaviors of a variable camber airfoil.
The aerodynamic load measurements and related flow visualization show that there are two types of stalls caused
by the deformation on the camber: the leading-edge stall and the trailing-edge stall. Static measurements of
aerodynamic force show a drastic leading-edge stall, while the serial measurements on an airfoil with camber
deformation illustrate a trailing-edge stall and gradual bending-over on the aerodynamic coefficient curve. Under
flow separation circumstances, the flow structure is related not only to current boundary conditions, but also the
previous flow characteristics, so the quasi-steady aerodynamic characteristics are significantly distinct from those
of the static measurements.

PACS: 47.15. Cb, 47.32.Ff, 47.85. Gj DOI:10.1088/0256-307X/29/4/044701

The performance of low Reynolds-number airfoils
is greatly determined by the relatively feeble separa-
tion resistance of the laminar boundary layer. Better
understanding and ultimately control of laminar sep-
aration is therefore valuable for improving the flight
mechanics of low Reynolds-number aircraft, such as
micro air vehicles (MAVs). Hence, laminar separation
is a canonical topic in low speed flow, having been in-
tensively investigated both from the viewpoint of fun-
damental fluid mechanics and in the context of the
aerodynamics of airfoils and wings.[1−3]
Many approaches were implemented to describe
the separation flow of low Reynolds-number airfoils,
including numerical efforts, aerodynamic load mea-
surements and flow visualization methods. The early
studies mainly concentrated on the structure of the
laminar separation bubble (LSB) and the hystere-
sis loop of aerodynamic load coefficients.[2,4] Most
of these studies focused on parameters such as free-
stream turbulence or angle of attack (AOA). Hoff-
mann Jon[4] found that the effects of free-stream tur-
bulence can greatly affect the hysteresis loop of the
aerodynamic coefficient for a low Reynolds-number
airfoil. Serhiy et al.[5] studied the development of
coherent structures in the separated shear layer and
wake of an airfoil in low Reynolds-number flows for
a range of airfoil chord Reynolds numbers and AOAs,
experimentally. With the development of smart mate-
rials in aircraft construction, the effect of airfoil shape
on the characteristics of flow separation has recently
received much more attention. David and Jamey[6]
indicated that oscillating the curvature of the upper
surface of an NACA 4415 airfoil has a pronounced ef-
fect in reducing the degree of separation. Through the
particle-image-velocimetry method, Gerontakos and
Lee[7] studied the influence of both upward and down-
ward trailing-flap deflections on the velocity and vor-
ticity flow fields around an NACA 0015 airfoil sub-
jected to deep-stall oscillations. Lian and Shyy[8]
found that the self-excited flexible surface vibration
can affect the separation and transition positions.
Stephan and Rolf[9] used a combined experimental and
computational study, which was presented for an air-
foil undergoing a combined pitching and plunging mo-
tion to see whether airfoil flexibility can have a posi-
tive impact on the propulsive efficiency. These studies
have revealed the huge potential of airfoil deformation
on flow control. Moreover, aircraft morphing, espe-
cially the variable camber airfoil, has the potential to
greatly improve system performance over an aircraft’s
nominal operational envelope to allow a single aircraft
to perform multiple missions efficiently, and even to
significantly expand its operating envelope.[10] Thus
the effect of an airfoil’s camber on the characteristics
of laminar separation is a challenge for future aerody-
namics research. In this Letter, the camber effects on
flow separation are investigated experimentally.
Firstly, a particular type of variable camber air-
foil was designed, whose camber could be smoothly
changed from zero to the desired extent. The base-
line airfoil was assumed to have an NACA 0015 pro-
file. A rigid D-spar, the primary load carrying mem-
ber, extended from the leading edge of the airfoil to
30 percent chord (Fig. 1(a)). The D-spar did not un-
dergo any deformation in the chordwise direction, and
consequently only the aft section of the D-spar can
deform.[11] This aft section of the spar was specially
designed to have an internal substructure as shown
in Fig. 1(b). The substructure comprised five rows of
hinge-like units ranked serially along the chordwise
direction. The design of the substructure was to sup-
port the flexible skin, which provides the aerodynamic

* Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No 90816026, and the Knowledge Innovation

Project of Chinese Academy of Sciences (No KJCX-YW-L05).

** To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: jmyang@ustc.edu.cn

© 2011 Chinese Physical Society and IOP Publishing Ltd

044701-1
 CHIN. PHYS. LETT. Vol. 29, No. 4 (2012) 044701
shape and is capable of morphing. A servomotor was
fixed in the D-spar to offer power to pull the lower
surface of the aft section into the D-spar to a certain
extent, with the help of gearing. As part of the lower
surface was pulled into the D-spar, the discrepancy be-
tween the area of the upper and lower surfaces came
up and the airfoil then became asymmetric, in other
words it had some camber. The D-spar was made by
acrylic materials and the skin of the aft section was
polypropylene plastics. The airfoil camber produced
due to actuation loading can be quantified in differ-
ent ways, including vertical tip deflection or equiva-
lent flap angle.[11] In the present study the former is
used, so we use the deflection ratio 𝑑* = 𝑑/𝑐 to define
the camber, where 𝑐 is the airfoil chord and 𝑑 is the
trailing-edge deflection, as shown in Fig. 1(a).
Rigid D-spar Compliant section
(a)
Morphed
(cambered) airfoil
c (chord)
(b) Servomotor Gear Scroll
Axis Hinge-like unit
Fig. 1. Construction of the variable camber airfoil: (a)
basic design, (b) internal structure.
Flow
Leading edge
Force balance
D-spar
Morphing part
Half arc drive End disk
Fig. 2. Sketch of the experimental setup.
The aerodynamic load measurements, obtained via
a five-component force balance, were carried out in a
low-speed wind tunnel at the University of Science
and Technology of China. The variable camber air-
foil, with a chord of 200 mm and a span of 116 mm,
was used as the test model. The Reynolds number was
fixed at 1.1 × 105 so the wind velocity was 8.0 m/s and
measured with a hot-wire anemometry. The two ends
of the wing model were fitted with 30 cm diameter end
disks to reduce three-dimensional effects. The force
balance was measured to an accuracy of ±0.04 N in
the lift direction and ±0.025 N in the drag direction.
One side of the force balance was connected to the
test model and the other side was fixed on a half arc
drive, which can provide a variable angle of attack. In
the experiments, a digital video camera (CASIO EX-
F1) was employed to record the deformation and the
related flow field of the variable camber airfoil. The
whole arrangement of the model and support is shown
in Fig. 2.
Serial measurement:
0.8
Aerodynamic coefficients
0.6
0.4
0.2
Undeformed
0.0
(baseline) airfoil
0 5 10 15 20
d (trailing-edge Angle of attack (deg)
deflection)
Fig. 3. Coefficients of lift and drag vs angle of attack.
In order to find the differences between the effects
of variable camber and the normal behaviors of a wing
pitching motion, some experiments on the variations
of aerodynamic coefficients versus AOA were carried
out as a first step, although they were not an empha-
Skin
sis, except for the purpose of direct comparison. In
the tests there are two methods to obtain aerodynamic
lift and drag. Both were carried out on undeformed
(Baseline) airfoil, so the results are similar to those of
the NACA 0015 airfoil. One process is to set the AOA
Window of tunnel
at a given angle at wind-off conditions, and then the
tunnel speed is increased to the test Reynolds num-
ber. Once the flow settles down in the tunnel, the
Digital camera measurements can be made. This kind of measure-
ment is described as the “static measure” in this study.
The other routine is to set the model to 0∘ AOA un-
der the wind-off condition, and then the tunnel speed
is increased to the test Reynolds number. Once the
tunnel stabilized, AOA was increased to about 20∘ ,
while the data was collected at prescribed AOA, so
the measurement process was called the “serial mea-
sure”. After its maximum value, AOA was decreased
back to 0∘ without stopping the tunnel. As shown in
Fig. 3, the static measure underwent an increase in 𝐶𝑙
prior to its drastic stall at 𝛼𝑠𝑠 = 16.5∘ . On the other
hand, the curve for serial measures shows a significant
hysteresis loop with a span of about 3∘ . There ap-
pears to be a downward shift in the lift curve between
16.5∘ and 19.5∘ . The similar hysteresis loop can also
be found in the 𝐶𝑑 curve. In addition, the results of
the static measure obviously correspond to the lower
side of the hysteresis loop obtained by changing AOA
at fixed wind speeds.
In the investigation on the effect of camber on
044701-2
 CHIN. PHYS. LETT. Vol. 29, No. 4 (2012) 044701

flow separation, we used two similar methods to mea-
sure the aerodynamic lift and drag. To better reveal
the effect of camber on flow separation, we set the
initial angle of attack (AOA) at the maximum lift
AOA𝑙max = 16.5∘ for all the cases of the two meth-
ods. First we use static measure to study the drastic
stall camber. We increase 𝑑/𝑐 from 0 to 0.11 with a
step length of 0.01. As shown in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b),
the maximum lift is obtained at the camber deflection
ratio 𝑑/𝑐 of 0.03, after which 𝐶𝑙 will drastically drop
and 𝐶𝑑 will abruptly increase.
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
Camber
process as shown in Fig. 4. (3) The camber 𝑑/𝑐 is set
to about 0.07 at the wind-off condition, and then the
tunnel speed is increased to the test Reynolds num-
ber. Once the tunnel is stabilized, the camber 𝑑/𝑐 is
increased to about 0.13 and then decreased back to
nearly 0, while collecting data at the prescribed cam-
ber. (4) The motion is started like path 3, but the
camber 𝑑/𝑐 of the airfoil is fixed at 0.13, as described
in path 2 after the increased process. All of these
paths are shown in Fig. 4. Each step of camber 𝑑/𝑐
deformation was about 0.007, and the time for each
camber deformation is about 0.5 s, while the airfoil
will subsequently stay in such a shape for 10 s. This
Path 1 kind of route is used to study the quasi-steady aero-
Path 2
Path 3 dynamic character, so each deformation is very small
Path 4
and the time for the whole route is large enough to
avoid the effect of deformation velocity.

0.04

0.02

0.00

0 100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)
(a)

Fig. 4. Camber vs time for four paths.

1.1 (a)

1.0

0.9
Static airfoil
0.8 Path 1 (b)
Path 2
0.7
Path 3 Fig. 6. Smoke wire visualization results at the maxi-
Path 4
0.6 mum camber (𝑑/𝑐 = 0.13) under an AOA of 14.5∘ and
0.5 𝑅𝑒 = 6.8 × 104 : (a) path 2, (b) path 4.
0.4

0.32
The aerodynamic force of each step was averaged
(b)
0.30
corresponding to the specific shape of the airfoil to
0.28
describe the relationship between aerodynamic forces
0.26
and camber. The results of the four paths are plotted
in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b). For path 1, the stall does not
0.24
Static airfoil
Path 1
completely happen before deformation, so the curves
0.22
Path 2 of 𝐶𝑙 and 𝐶𝑑 are similar to those of the static mea-
0.20 Path 3
Path 4 sure prior to the stall camber. However the curve
0.18
of path 1 doesn’t show a drastic drop in 𝐶𝑙 for fur-
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
ther camber deflection. Instead there is a gradual
Camber
bending-over of the lift curve at maximum lift. As for
Fig. 5. Aerodynamic coefficients vs camber: (a) coeffi- the explanation of the mechanism, similar phenomena
cient of lift, (b) coefficient of drag.
might be found on the stall characters between thinner
To investigate the quasi-steady aerodynamic char- and thicker airfoils referred by Anderson,[12] although
acteristics and the effect of different initial flow con- in the present case the corresponding parameter was
ditions, we designed four types of paths for the serial camber instead of AOA. We can therefore infer that
measures. (1) Camber 𝑑/𝑐 is set to 0 at the wind-off different stall types determine the distinction in the 𝐶𝑙
condition, and then the tunnel speed is increased to curve trend between the two measuring processes. For
the test Reynolds number. Once the tunnel is stabi- the static measure the stall is a kind of leading-edge
lized, the camber 𝑑/𝑐 is gradually increased to about stall. During this stall process, flow separation takes
0.13 and then decreased back to near 0, while data is place rather suddenly and abruptly over the entire top
collected at the prescribed camber. (2) The motion is surface of the airfoil, with the origin of this separa-
started like path 1, but the camber 𝑑/𝑐 of the airfoil is tion occurring at the leading edge, so the lift curve of
fixed at 0.13, more than 1 minute after the increased the static measure shown in Fig. 5(a) is rather sharp-
044701-3
 CHIN. PHYS. LETT. Vol. 29, No. 4 (2012) 044701
peaked in the vicinity of 𝐶𝑙max , with a rapid decrease
in 𝐶𝑙 near the stall. However, for path 1 the stall
is a kind of trailing-edge stall. In this kind of stall
a progressive and gradual separation from the trail-
ing edge toward the leading edge takes place as the
camber is increased. Thus the trailing-edge stall is a
kind of “soft” one compared to the leading-edge stall.
Moreover, no significant hysteresis loop was found in
either the life curve or drag curve of path 1. This is
quite different from the curves based on the variation
of AOA. The baseline airfoil is close to NACA 0015,
which is a kind of thin airfoil defined by Anderson,[12]
hence its lift curve for the camber’s variation in static
measure is a kind of leading-edge stall. On the con-
trary, the stall of path 1 is a kind of trailing-edge stall.
This kind of stall is caused by a gradual movement of
separation from the trailing edge toward the leading
edge, thus the process is reversible and has no obvious
hysteresis character. For path 2 both the lift curve
and drag curve are similar to those of path 1, so it
can be concluded that the trailing-edge stall of path
1 is a kind of quasi-steady phenomenon when the 𝑑/𝑐
reaches 0.13. In path 2 the trailing-edge of the air-
foil keeps a camber deflection of 26 mm for at least
1 minute from the axis of symmetry after a consec-
utive increase. In Figs. 5(a) and 5(b), both the lift
curve and the drag curve of path 2 have a group of
dense points overlapping at the maximum position of
the camber, which means that the aerodynamic force
remains stable after reaching its maximum camber. It
is clearly seen that the flow around the airfoil will stay
at the above-mentioned steady state even if the static
measure shows an obvious drop in the lift curve under
the same airfoil shape. The results of path 2 prove
that the difference in aerodynamic forces between the
static measure and the serial measures of path 1 does
not come from the velocity of deformation, because
even if the deformation stops at the maximum camber,
the aerodynamic forces show no noticeable distinction
from the deformation process. It can therefore be con-
cluded that the trailing-edge stall for paths 1 and 2 is
a kind of quasi-steady character which is independent
of deformation velocity.
In path 3, the airfoil whose initial camber 𝑑/𝑐 was
around 0.07, first experienced a leading-edge stall after
the tunnel speed was increased to the test Reynolds
number. The airfoil then deformed to the maximum
camber and ultimately recovered to an undeformed
airfoil under the test Reynolds number. Due to the
leading-edge stall, the airfoil remained in poor aero-
dynamic performance for a long time until its trailing-
edge got back to the stall camber position, as shown
in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b). Moreover, the position where
the airfoil in path 3 transits from leading-edge stall to
044701-4
reattached flow is almost the same as that of the static
measure. This character is similar to the analogous re-
sult on AOA as shown in Fig. 3. As expected, the lift
and drag curves of path 4 show a leading-edge stall
throughout, which is close to the results in the static
measure. At the position of maximum camber, the
aerodynamic forces convey a stable stall character no
matter how long the airfoil keeps this shape. Although
both paths 2 and 4 remain at the same maximum cam-
ber for a long time and have the same boundary condi-
tions, their aerodynamic characters are totally differ-
ent. Therefore under flow separation circumstances,
the flow structure is related not only to current en-
vironment but also to the previous flow characters,
so the history of flow evolvement must be considered
in the design of low Reynolds-number aircraft. This
conclusion is also supported with the help of flow vi-
sualization, as shown in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b). A similar
technique on smoke wire by Liu et al.[13] was used to
depict the flow separation structure. The incoming
flow speed was 5 m/s and the AOA was set at 14.5∘
(in the vicinity of the static-stall AOA in such a flow
speed). Figure 6(a) describes the flow of path 2 at
the maximum camber. Figure 6(b) depicts the flow at
the corresponding camber of path 4. From the flow
visualization it is easy to tell the difference between
the leading-edge stall and the trailing-edge stall, al-
though the two flow phenomena have the same bound-
ary conditions and airfoil shapes. It is worth noting
that the aerodynamic forces between paths 3 and 4
differ slightly during the stall stage. Since the history
of flow evolvement can affect the separation character-
istics and the leading-edge stall is extremely unstable,
slight variations in the wind tunnel’s starting proce-
dures may lead to the different separation features and
locations between various measurements.
References
[1] Lissaman P B S 1983 Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 15 223
[2] Mueller T J and DeLaurier J D 2003 Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech.
35 89
[3] Ishak A 2009 Chin. Phys. Lett. 26 034701
[4] Hoffmann Jon A 1991 AIAA J. 29 9
[5] Yarusevych S, Sullivan PE and Kawall JG 2009 J. Fluid
Mech. 632 245
[6] Munday D and Jacoby J 2002 J. Aircraft 39 1
[7] Gerontakos P and Lee T 2008 Exp. Fluids 45 955
[8] Lian Y and Shyy W 2007 AIAA J. 45 1501
[9] Bansmer S, Radespiel R, Unger R, Haupt M and Horst P
2010 AIAA J. 48 1959
[10] Szodruch J and Hilbig R 1988 Prog. Aerospace Sci. 25 297
[11] Gandhi F and Anusonti-Inthra P 2008 Smart Mater. Struct.
17 015025
[12] Anderson J D 2007 Fundamentals of Aerodynamics (New
York: McGraw-Hill Education)
[13] Liu Y, Yang W C and Yang J M 2011 J. Visualization 14
141