Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T06:35:12.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of a swept-wing boundary layer using ring-type plasma actuators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2018

Nima Shahriari ,
Matthias R. Kollert  and
Ardeshir Hanifi Open the ORCID record for Ardeshir Hanifi [Opens in a new window]
Nima Shahriari
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics, Linné FLOW Centre, and Swedish e-Science Research Centre (SeRC), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Matthias R. Kollert
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics, Linné FLOW Centre, and Swedish e-Science Research Centre (SeRC), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Ardeshir Hanifi*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics, Linné FLOW Centre, and Swedish e-Science Research Centre (SeRC), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
*
†Email address for correspondence: hanifi@kth.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Application of ring-type plasma actuators for control of laminar–turbulent transition in a swept-wing boundary layer is investigated thorough direct numerical simulations. These actuators induce a wall-normal jet in the boundary layer and can act as virtual roughness elements. The flow configuration resembles experiments by Kim et al. (2016 Technical Report. BUTERFLI Project TR D3.19, http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/id/eprint/46529). The actuators are modelled by the volume forces computed from the experimentally measured induced velocity field at the quiescent air condition. Stationary and travelling cross-flow vortices are triggered in the simulations by means of surface roughness and random unsteady perturbations. Interaction of vortices generated by actuators with these perturbations is investigated in detail. It is found that, for successful transition control, the power of the actuators should be increased to generate jet velocities that are one order of magnitude higher than those used in the experiments by Kim et al. (2016) mentioned above.

JFM classification

Boundary Layers: Boundary layer control Boundary Layers: Boundary layer stability Instability: Transition to turbulence
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 844 , 10 June 2018 , pp. 36 - 60
Copyright
© 2018 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bippes, H. 1999 Basic experiments on transition in three-dimensional boundary layers dominated by crossflow instability. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 35 (4), 363–412.10.1016/S0376-0421(99)00002-0Google Scholar
Bonfigli, G. & Kloker, M. 1999 Spatial Navier–Stokes simulation of crossflow-induced transition in a three-dimensional boundary layer. In New Results in Numerical and Experimental Fluid Mechanics II, pp. 61–68. Springer.10.1007/978-3-663-10901-3_9Google Scholar
Carpenter, A. L., Saric, W. S. & Reed, H. L.2009 In-flight receptivity experiments on a 30-degree swept-wing using micron-sized discrete roughness elements. AIAA Paper 2009-590.10.2514/6.2009-590Google Scholar
Dörr, P. C. & Kloker, M. J. 2015a Numerical investigation of plasma-actuator force-term estimations from flow experiments. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 48 (39), 395203.10.1088/0022-3727/48/39/395203Google Scholar
Dörr, P. C. & Kloker, M. J. 2015b Stabilisation of a three-dimensional boundary layer by base-flow manipulation using plasma actuators. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 48 (28), 285205.10.1088/0022-3727/48/28/285205Google Scholar
Dörr, P. C. & Kloker, M. J. 2016 Transition control in a three-dimensional boundary layer by direct attenuation of nonlinear crossflow vortices using plasma actuators. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 61 B, 449–465.10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2016.06.005Google Scholar
Eliasson, P. 2002 Edge, a Navier–Stokes solver for unstructured grids. In Proc. to Finite Volumes for Complex Applications III, pp. 527–534.Google Scholar
Fischer, P. F., Lottes, J. W. & Kerkemeier, S. G.2008 Nek5000 Web page. http://nek5000.mcs.anl.gov.Google Scholar
Hellsten, A. K. 2005 New advanced k–𝜔 turbulence model for high-lift aerodynamics. AIAA J. 43 (9), 1857–1869.10.2514/1.13754Google Scholar
Högberg, M. & Henningson, D. 1998 Secondary instability of cross-flow vortices in Falkner–Skan–Cooke boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 368, 339–357.10.1017/S0022112098001931Google Scholar
Hosseini, S. M., Tempelmann, D., Hanifi, A. & Henningson, D. S. 2013 Stabilization of a swept-wing boundary layer by distributed roughness elements. J. Fluid Mech. 718, R1.10.1017/jfm.2013.33Google Scholar
Hosseini, S. M., Vinuesa, R., Schlatter, P., Hanifi, A. & Henningson, D. S. 2016 Direct numerical simulation of the flow around a wing section at moderate Reynolds number. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 61 A, 117–128.10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2016.02.001Google Scholar
Kachanov, Y. s., Borodulin, V. I. & Ivanov, A. V.2015 Transition experiments with controlled freestream turbulence level and controlled acoustic pertubations. Technical Report. RODTRAC project TR D4.3.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H. & Choi, K.-S.2016 Report on the properties and operation conditions of the actuators producing a spanwise row of wall-normal jets and the flow induced in the preliminary tests. Technical Report. BUTERFLI Project TR D3.15.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., Forte, M. & Choi, K.-S.2016 Report on the experimental results on transition delay in the ‘Juju’ TRIN1 wind tunnel by the VR DBD actuators based on wall-normal jets. Technical Report. BUTERFLI Project TR D3.19, http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/id/eprint/46529.Google Scholar
Kriegseis, J., Grundmann, S. & Tropea, C. 2012 Airflow influence on the discharge performance of dielectric barrier discharge plasma actuators. Phys. Plasmas 19 (7), 073509.10.1063/1.4736995Google Scholar
Lerche, T. 1996 Experimental investigation of nonlinear wave interactions and secondary instability in three-dimensional boundary-layer flow. In Advances in Turbulence VI, pp. 357–360. Springer.10.1007/978-94-009-0297-8_101Google Scholar
Lerche, T. & Bippes, H. 1996 Experimental investigation of cross-flow instability under the influence of controlled disturbance excitation. In Transitional Boundary Layers in Aeronautics (ed. Henkes, R. & van Ingen, J. L.). North Holland.Google Scholar
Li, F., Choudhari, M., Chang, C.-L., Streett, C. L. & Carpenter, M. H.2009 Roughness based crossflow transition control: a computational assessment. AIAA Paper 2009-4105.10.2514/6.2009-4105Google Scholar
Maday, Y. & Patera, A. T. 1989 Spectral element methods for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. In State of the Art Surveys on Computational Mechanics, vol. 1, pp. 71–143. ASME.Google Scholar
Malik, M. R., Li, F. & Chang, C.-L. 1996 Nonlinear crossflow disturbances and secondary instabilities in swept-wing boundary layers. In IUTAM Symposium on Nonlinear Instability and Transition in Three-Dimensional Boundary Layers, pp. 257–266. Springer.10.1007/978-94-009-1700-2_25Google Scholar
Malik, M. R., Li, F., Choudhari, M. M. & Chang, C.-L. 1999 Secondary instability of crossflow vortices and swept-wing boundary-layer transition. J. Fluid Mech. 399, 85–115.10.1017/S0022112099006291Google Scholar
Örlü, R. & Schlatter, P. 2013 Comparison of experiments and simulations for zero pressure gradient turbulent boundary layers at moderate Reynolds numbers. Exp. Fluids 54 (6), 1547.10.1007/s00348-013-1547-xGoogle Scholar
Patera, A. T. 1984 A spectral element method for fluid dynamics: laminar flow in a channel expansion. J. Comput. Phys. 54 (3), 468–488.10.1016/0021-9991(84)90128-1Google Scholar
Rizzetta, D. P., Visbal, M. R., Reed, H. L. & Saric, W. S. 2010 Direct numerical simulation of discrete roughness on a swept-wing leading edge. AIAA J. 48 (11), 2660–2673.10.2514/1.J050548Google Scholar
Sakov, P.2011 gridgen-c: an orthogonal grid generator based on the CRDT algorithm (by conformal mapping). https://github.com/sakov/gridgen-c.Google Scholar
Saric, W. S., Carpenter, A. L. & Reed, H. L.2008 Laminar flow control flight tests for swept wings: strategies for LFC. AIAA Paper 2008-3834.Google Scholar
Saric, W. S., Carpenter, A. L. & Reed, H. L. 2011 Passive control of transition in three-dimensional boundary layers, with emphasis on discrete roughness elements. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 369 (1940), 1352–1364.10.1098/rsta.2010.0368Google Scholar
Saric, W. S., Reed, H. L. & White, E. B. 2003 Stability and transition of three-dimensional boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 35 (1), 413–440.10.1146/annurev.fluid.35.101101.161045Google Scholar
Saric, W. S., Ruben, C. Jr. & Reibert, M.1998 Leading-edge roughness as a transition control mechanism. AIAA Paper 98-0781.10.2514/6.1998-781Google Scholar
Saric, W. S., West, D. E., Tufts, M. W. & Reed, H. L.2015 Flight test experiments on discrete roughness element technology for laminar flow control. AIAA Paper 539, 2015.Google Scholar
Schrauf, G. 2005 Status and perspectives of laminar flow. Aeronaut. J. 109 (1102), 639–644.10.1017/S000192400000097XGoogle Scholar
Schuele, C. Y., Corke, T. C. & Matlis, E. 2013 Control of stationary cross-flow modes in a mach 3.5 boundary layer using patterned passive and active roughness. J. Fluid Mech. 718, 5–38.10.1017/jfm.2012.579Google Scholar
Tufo, H. M. & Fischer, P. F. 2001 Fast parallel direct solvers for coarse grid problems. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 61 (2), 151–177.10.1006/jpdc.2000.1676Google Scholar
Wallin, S. & Johansson, A. V. 2000 An explicit algebraic Reynolds stress model for incompressible and compressible turbulent flows. J. Fluid Mech. 403, 89–132.10.1017/S0022112099007004Google Scholar
Wassermann, P. & Kloker, M. 2002 Mechanisms and passive control of crossflow-vortex-induced transition in a three-dimensional boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 456, 49–84.10.1017/S0022112001007418Google Scholar
Wassermann, P. & Kloker, M. 2003 Transition mechanisms induced by travelling crossflow vortices in a three-dimensional boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 483, 67–89.10.1017/S0022112003003884Google Scholar
White, E. B. & Saric, W. S. 2005 Secondary instability of crossflow vortices. J. Fluid Mech. 525, 275–308.10.1017/S002211200400268XGoogle Scholar