Vortex generator design for unsteady flow separation control and dynamic stall suppression on pitching thick airfoils
Abstract. This study experimentally investigates the performance of vortex generators (VGs) designed for maximising lift-to-drag ratio in steady conditions to prevent unsteady flow separation. Surface pressure measurements are conducted in the TU Delft low-speed wind tunnel on a DU-97-W-300 airfoil undergoing pitch oscillations while equipped with VGs of various vane sizes and shapes. In steady conditions, vanes with heights smaller than the local boundary layer thickness optimally balance the stall delay with maximum lift-to-drag ratio among the tested triangular vane VGs. However, these same VGs with vane heights smaller than or equal to the steady local boundary layer thickness are insufficient to suppress unsteady flow separation in all pitching cycles. VGs whose vane height exceeds the local boundary layer thickness for a larger part of the pitch cycle prevent unsteady flow separation and restrict the upstream movement of the stall vortex for a larger percentage of cycles. Flow separation is less likely at higher reduced frequencies, making the number of separated flow pitching cycles less sensitive to the VG vane size. Contrary to past literature, rectangular vanes yield a higher steady aerodynamic efficiency than triangular vanes. Rectangular vanes also suppress unsteady flow separation in all pitching cycles at all tested reduced frequencies, indicating overall stronger streamwise vortices than triangular vanes and proving to be a better VG shape for steady and unsteady stall suppression on thick airfoils.
1) Review
I appreciate the effort invested in this work and its focus on aerodynamic topics that are highly relevant to modern ultra-large wind turbine blades. In contemporary designs, thicker airfoils are increasingly used in the more outboard sections, and the application of vortex generators (VGs) around the 30% thick airfoil is becoming more common. With that context in mind, I offer the following suggestions to help improve clarity and strengthen the manuscript:
# Clarification of unsteady flow separation in the abstract: I recommend providing a sharper and more explicit explanation of “unsteady flow separation” in the abstract. A clearer definition or brief description of the phenomenon and its relevance to the study would help readers immediately grasp the motivation and significance of the work.
# Comparison and evaluation of VG shapes: The manuscript suggests that the rectangular vane shape may be a preferable option. However, as indicated in Figure 6, the rectangular or larger VG array appears to induce more abrupt separation and/or unexpected hysteresis characteristics. It would be helpful to clarify the criteria used to determine which VG shape performs better. Are the conclusions primarily based on polar curves, stall delay, hysteresis behavior, or overall aerodynamic efficiency? A more explicit definition of “better” performance would strengthen the argument.
# Chordwise location of VGs: The study considers only a 30% chordwise VG location. However, for modern large blades, mid-chord placements (approximately 40–60% chord) are also commonly considered and may be more representative of practical applications. Since VG effectiveness is highly sensitive to chordwise position, the conclusions may depend strongly on this parameter. It would be valuable to discuss how different chordwise placements might influence the results and whether the current conclusions are specific to the 30% location.
# Conciseness of the conclusion section: A more concise and focused conclusion section may improve the overall impact of the paper by clearly summarizing the key findings and their practical implications.
I hope these comments are helpful in further strengthening the manuscript.
2) Some minor errors to be corrected
# Consistent angle of attack range between Figure 6 and Figure 8
# Line 44 => vane heights
# Line 65 => were one of the first to show
# Line 86 => energising
# Line 88 => is proportional to the vane height
# Line 93 => create an additional variable
# Line 150 => etc., have a significantly smaller impact
# Line 157 => high angles of attack
# Line 165 => shows that dynamic stall…
# Line 166 => exceeds
# Line 169 => its ultimate upstroke location
# Consistency: 10◦±10◦ or 10◦± 10
# Consistency: vane type VGs or vane-type VGs