SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Politeknik Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 29 Sayı: 4

Numerical Comparison of Turbulence Models For a Naca 0012 Aerofoil With Gurney Flap

Gurney Flaplı Naca 0012 Kanat Profili için Türbülans Modellerinin Sayısal Karşılaştırılması

Gökhan Çal(DUMLUPINAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-8451-9808
Halit Arat(DUMLUPINAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-6634-2535
Pages
1–10
Publication Date
2026-04-21
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that the k-ε Realizable model, which yields the highest lift-to-drag ratio (CL/CD) particularly at an angle of attack of α = 8°, is the most suitable turbulence model for CFD-based aerodynamic optimization studies involving passive flow control devices such as Gurney flaps.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study presents a computational investigation on the aerodynamic behavior of a NACA 0012 aerofoil equipped with a 1.5%c height Gurney flap, utilizing various turbulence models in ANSYS Fluent.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A mesh independence study was conducted to ensure numerical reliability, and the results were interpreted considering prior studies that investigated Gurney flap performance on symmetric airfoils.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that the k-ε Realizable model, which yields the highest lift-to-drag ratio (CL/CD) particularly at an angle of attack of α = 8°, is the most suitable turbulence model for CFD-based aerodynamic optimization studies involving passive flow control devices such as Gurney flaps.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:NACA 0012 · Gurney flap · Hesaplamalı Akışkanlar Dinamiği (HAD)

Abstract

This study presents a computational investigation on the aerodynamic behavior of a NACA 0012 aerofoil equipped with a 1.5%c height Gurney flap, utilizing various turbulence models in ANSYS Fluent. Five widely recognized turbulence models—Spalart-Allmaras, Standard k-ε, Realizable k-ε, SST k-ω, and Transition SST—were employed to assess their predictive accuracy under identical flow conditions. The primary objective was to determine the most appropriate model to capture the aerodynamic effects caused by the trailing-edge Gurney flap, particularly in terms of lift coefficient, drag coefficient, and lift-to-drag ratio. A mesh independence study was conducted to ensure numerical reliability, and the results were interpreted considering prior studies that investigated Gurney flap performance on symmetric airfoils. According to results, it is demonstrated that the Transition SST model provides the highest aerodynamic efficiency from 0° to 4° while k-ε Realizable model gives the best of that after 6o until 12o. Among the models investiagted, the k-ε Realizable model exhibited superior consistency in predicting both lift enhancement and flow separation behavior. The findings reveal that the k-ε Realizable model, which yields the highest lift-to-drag ratio (CL/CD) particularly at an angle of attack of α = 8°, is the most suitable turbulence model for CFD-based aerodynamic optimization studies involving passive flow control devices such as Gurney flaps. In this context, this study provides an important perspective on turbulence model selection for low Reynolds number applications.

Özet

Bu çalışma, firar kenarına %1.5c yüksekliğinde Gurney flap entegre edilmiş NACA 0012 kanat profilinin aerodinamik davranışını, farklı türbülans modelleri kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen sayısal analiz yoluyla incelemektedir. ANSYS Fluent yazılımı kullanılarak, Spalart-Allmaras, Standard k-ε, Realizable k-ε, SST k-ω ve Transition SST olmak üzere beş farklı türbülans modeli, aynı akış koşulları altında aerodinamik performansın öngörülmesindeki başarıları açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, Gurney flap uygulamasının kaldırma kuvveti katsayısı, sürükleme katsayısı ve kaldırma/sürükleme oranı üzerindeki etkilerini doğru şekilde tahmin edebilen en uygun türbülans modelini belirlemektir. Sayısal güvenilirliğin sağlanması amacıyla ağdan bağımsızlık (mesh independence) çalışması gerçekleştirilmiş ve elde edilen sonuçlar, simetrik kanat profilleri üzerinde yapılan önceki Gurney flap araştırmaları ile karşılaştırılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar incelendiğinde, Transition SST modelinin 0°'den 4°'ye kadar en yüksek aerodinamik verimliliği sağladığı, k-ε Realizable modelinin ise 6°'den 12°'ye kadar en iyi aerodinamik verimliliği sağladığı ortaya konulmuştur. Ele alınan modeller arasında, k-ε Realizable modeli hem kaldırma kuvveti artışı hem de ayrılma bölgesi öngörüsünde en tutarlı sonuçları vermiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, özellikle α = 8° hücum açısında en yüksek kaldırma/sürükleme oranını (CL / CD) sağlayan k-ε Realizable modelinin, Gurney flap gibi pasif akış kontrol elemanlarını içeren CFD tabanlı aerodinamik optimizasyon çalışmaları için en uygun türbülans modeli olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bağlamda, düşük Reynolds sayılı uygulamalarda türbülans modeli seçimine yönelik önemli bir içgörü sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çal, G., Arat, H. (2026). Numerical Comparison of Turbulence Models For a Naca 0012 Aerofoil With Gurney Flap. Politeknik Dergisi, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 4, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.1699998

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. R. H. Liebeck, “Design of subsonic airfoils for high lift,” Journal of Aircraft, no. 9, vol. 15, pp. 547–561, (1978).
  2. Y. Zhou, M. M. Alam, H. X. Yang, H. Guo and D. H. Wood, “Fluid forces on a very low Reynolds number airfoil and their prediction,” International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, no. 1, vol. 32, pp. 329–339, (2011).
  3. Y. Li, J. Wang and P. Zhang, “Effects of Gurney flaps on a NACA0012 airfoil,” Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, no. 1, vol. 68, pp. 27–39, (2002).
  4. M. Y. Iqbal, S. I. A. Shah and A. Hassan, “CFD analysis of NACA-0012 airfoil with various porous Gurney flap geometries,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Aerospace Science & Engineering (ICASE), (2019).
  5. S. B. Pope, Turbulent Flows, Cambridge University Press, (2000).
  6. S. M. Mousavi, J. Aminian, N. Shafiei and A. Dadvand, “Numerical simulation of subsonic turbulent flow over NACA0012 airfoil: Evaluation of turbulence models,” Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, no. 1, vol. 35, pp. 133–155, (2017).
  7. E. I. Basri, A. A. Basri and K. A. Ahmad, “Computational fluid dynamics analysis in biomimetics applications: A review from aerospace engineering perspective,” Biomimetics, no. 3, vol. 8, (2023).
  8. F. Z. Wang, I. L. Animasaun, T. Muhammad and S. S. Okoya, “Recent advancements in fluid dynamics: Drag reduction, lift generation, computational fluid dynamics, turbulence modelling, and multiphase flow,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, no. 8, vol. 49, pp. 10237–10249, (2024).
  9. J. Priyadumkol et al., “CFD modelling of vertical-axis wind turbines using transient dynamic mesh towards lateral vortices capturing and Strouhal number,” Energy Conversion and Management: X, (2025).
  10. K. Karthikeyan and R. Harish, “CFD analysis of Gurney flap orientation and plasma actuation for turbulent flow control over NACA4412 airfoil,” Results in Engineering, vol. 26, (2025).
  11. S. Evran and S. Z. Yıldır, “Numerical and statistical aerodynamic performance analysis of NACA0009 and NACA4415 airfoils,” Politeknik Dergisi, no. 3, vol. 27, pp. 849–856, (2024).
  12. H. Gökçe, U. Küçük and İ. Şahin, “Effects of curvature and area distribution on S-shaped subsonic diffuser performance,” Mechanika, no. 6, vol. 24, (2018).
  13. K. M. Almohammadi, “Assessment of several modeling strategies on the prediction of lift-drag coefficients of a NACA0012 airfoil at a moderate Reynolds number,” Alexandria Engineering Journal, no. 3, vol. 61, pp. 2242–2249, (2022).
  14. S. Durmuş and A. Ulutaş, “Numerical analysis of NACA 6409 and Eppler 423 airfoils,” Politeknik Dergisi, no. 1, vol. 26, pp. 39–47, (2023).
  15. I. Celik, Introductory Turbulence Modeling, University of Alabama at Birmingham, (1999).
  16. R. B. Langtry and F. R. Menter, “Correlation-based transition modeling for unstructured parallelized computational fluid dynamics codes,” AIAA Journal, no. 12, vol. 47, pp. 2894–2906, (2009).
  17. Y. F. Görgülü, M. A. Özgür and R. Köse, “CFD analysis of a NACA 0009 aerofoil at a low Reynolds number,” Politeknik Dergisi, no. 3, vol. 24, pp. 1237–1242, (2021).
  18. H. Soğukpınar, “Numerical investigation of aerodynamic characteristics,” Uludağ Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 1, vol. 22, pp. 169–178, (2017).
  19. M. M. Yavuz, “Flow and mechanical characteristics of a modified NACA wing geometry,” Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 3, vol. 36, pp. 815–825, (2021).
  20. D.-H. Kim and J.-W. Chang, “Low-Reynolds-number effect on the aerodynamic characteristics of a pitching NACA0012 airfoil,” Aerospace Science and Technology, no. 1, vol. 32, pp. 162–168, (2014).
  21. G. Çal and H. Arat, “Aerodynamic analysis of the NACA0012 wing profile for different turbulence models,” Proceedings of the International Istanbul Scientific Research Congress, pp. 688–694, (2025).
  22. İ. Göv and M. H. Doğru, “Aerodynamic optimization of NACA 0012 airfoil,” The International Journal of Energy & Engineering Sciences, no. 2, vol. 5, pp. 146–155, (2020).
  23. A. İ. Gölcük and M. Erbaş, “Düşük Reynolds sayılarında NACA 0012 kanat profilinin k-ω SST türbülans modeli kullanılarak hesaplamalı akışkanlar dinamiği ile modellenmesi,” Ulusal Havacılık ve Uzay Konferansı Bildiriler Kitabı, (2020).