Experiments in Fluids

, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp 883–901 | Cite as

Shallow and deep dynamic stall for flapping low Reynolds number airfoils

  • Michael V. Ol
  • Luis Bernal
  • Chang-Kwon Kang
  • Wei Shyy
Research Article

Abstract

We consider a combined experimental (based on flow visualization, direct force measurement and phase-averaged 2D particle image velocimetry in a water tunnel), computational (2D Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes) and theoretical (Theodorsen’s formula) approach to study the fluid physics of rigid-airfoil pitch–plunge in nominally two-dimensional conditions. Shallow-stall (combined pitch–plunge) and deep-stall (pure-plunge) are compared at a reduced frequency commensurate with flapping-flight in cruise in nature. Objectives include assessment of how well attached-flow theory can predict lift coefficient even in the presence of significant separation, and how well 2D velocimetry and 2D computation can mutually validate one another. The shallow-stall case shows promising agreement between computation and experiment, while in the deep-stall case, the computation’s prediction of flow separation lags that of the experiment, but eventually evinces qualitatively similar leading edge vortex size. Dye injection was found to give good qualitative match with particle image velocimetry in describing leading edge vortex formation and return to flow reattachment, and also gave evidence of strong spanwise growth of flow separation after leading-edge vortex formation. Reynolds number effects, in the range of 10,000–60,000, were found to influence the size of laminar separation in those phases of motion where instantaneous angle of attack was well below stall, but have limited effect on post-stall flowfield behavior. Discrepancy in lift coefficient time history between experiment, theory and computation was mutually comparable, with no clear failure of Theodorsen’s formula. This is surprising and encouraging, especially for the deep-stall case, because the theory’s assumptions are clearly violated, while its prediction of lift coefficient remains useful for capturing general trends.

List of symbols

CL

Airfoil lift coefficient per unit span

c

Airfoil chord (= 152.4 mm)

f

Airfoil oscillation pitch–plunge frequency

ω

Pitch–plunge circular frequency

h

Plunge position as function of time

h0

Nondimensional plunge amplitude

k

Reduced frequency of pitch or plunge, k = ωc/2U∞: = πfc/U

St

Strouhal number, 2fch0/U∞: = 0.08

U

Freestream (reference) velocity (cm/s)

Re

Reynolds number, Re = c U/ν, ν taken as 0.93 × 10−6 in SI units for water at 23°C

α

Kinematic angle of incidence due to pitch

A

Pitch amplitude (in degrees)

α0

Mean angle of attack (i.e., the constant pitch angle offset from zero)

αe

Total angle of attack from trigonometric combination of pitch and plunge

xp

Pitch pivot point: fraction of chord downstream from airfoil leading edge (= 0.25)

t/T

Dimensionless time, in fractions of one oscillation period

φ

Phase difference between pitching and plunging; positive → pitch leads

λ

Ratio of pitch-amplitude to plunge-induced angle of attack

References

  1. Anderson JM, Streitlien K, Barrett DS, Triantafyllou MS (1998) Oscillating foils of high propulsive efficiency. J Fluid Mech 360:41–72MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Carr L (1988) Progress in analysis and prediction of dynamic stall. J. Aircraft 25:6–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carr L, McCroskey WJ (1992) A review of recent advances in computational and experimental analysis of dynamic stall. In: IUTAM symposium on fluid dynamics of high angle of attackGoogle Scholar
  4. Dickinson MH, Götz KG (1993) Unsteady aerodynamic performance of model wings at low Reynolds numbers. J Exp Biol 174:45–64Google Scholar
  5. Ellington CP (1984) The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. I. The quasi-steady analysis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci B 305:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choudhuri PG, Knight DD (1996) “Effects of compressibility, pitch rate, and Reynolds number on unsteady incipient leading-edge boundary layer separation over a pitching airfoil. J Fluid Mech 308:195–217MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jeon D (2000) Dissertation, CaltechGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones KD, Dohring CM, Platzer MF (1996) Wake structures behind plunging airfoils: a comparison of numerical and experimental results. AIAA Paper 96-0078Google Scholar
  9. Kamakoti R, Thakur S, Wright J, Shyy W (2006) Validation of a new parallel all-speed CFD code in a rule-based framework for multidisciplinary applications. AIAA-3063Google Scholar
  10. Kang C-K, Baik YS, Bernal LP, Ol MV, Shyy W (2009) Fluid dynamics of pitching and plunging airfoils of Reynolds number between 1 × 10^4 and 6 × 10^4. AIAA-0536Google Scholar
  11. Koochesfahani MM (1989) Vortical patterns in the wake of an oscillating airfoil. AIAA J. 27(9):1200–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kramer B (2002) Experimental evaluation of superposition techniques applied to dynamic aerodynamics. AIAA-0700Google Scholar
  13. Lehmann F-O (2004) The mechanisms of lift enhancement in insect flight. Naturwissenschaften 91:101–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leishman JG (2000) Principles of helicopter aerodynamics. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Lian Y, Shyy W (2007) Aerodynamics of low reynolds number plunging airfoil under gusty environment. AIAA Paper-0071Google Scholar
  16. Liiva J (1969) Unsteady aerodynamic and stall effects on helicopter rotor blade airfoil sections. J Aircraft 6(1):46–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu H, Kawachi K (1998) A numerical study of insect flight. J Comput Phys 146:124–156MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCroskey WJ (1982) Unsteady airfoils. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 14:285–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCroskey WJ, Carr LW, McAlister KW (1976) Dynamic stall experiments on oscillating airfoils. AIAA J. 14(1):57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Menter FR (1993) Zonal two equation k-ω turbulence models for aerodynamic flows. AIAA-2906Google Scholar
  21. Ohmi K, Coutanceau M, Loc TP, Dulieu A (1990) Vortex formation around an oscillating and translating airfoil at large incidences. J Fluid Mech 211:37–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ohmi K, Coutanceau M, Daube O, Loc TP (1991) Further experiments on vortex formation around an oscillating and translating airfoil at large incidences. J Fluid Mech 225:607–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ol M (2007) Vortical structures in high frequency pitch and plunge at low Reynolds number. AIAA-4233Google Scholar
  24. Ol M, McAuliffe BR, Hanff ES, Scholz U, Kaehler Ch (2005) Comparison of laminar separation bubble measurements on a low Reynolds number airfoil in three facilities. AIAA-5149Google Scholar
  25. Platzer M, Jones K (2006) Flapping wing aerodynamics—progress and challenges AIAA-0500Google Scholar
  26. Poelma C, Dickinson MH (2006) Time-resolved reconstruction of the full velocity field around a dynamically-scaled flapping wing. Exp Fluids 41:213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Radespiel R, Windte J, Scholz U (2007) Numerical and experimental flow analysis of moving airfoils with laminar separation bubbles. AIAA J 45(6):1346–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rao Y-J (1997) In-fibre bragg grating sensors. Meas Sci Tech 8(4):355–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shyy W (1985) A study of finite difference approximations to steady-state, convection-dominated flow problems. J Comput Phys 57(3):415–438MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. Shyy W (1994) Computational modeling for fluid flow and interfacial transport. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  31. Shyy W, Udaykumar HS, Rao MM, Smith RW (2007) Computational fluid dynamics with moving boundaries. Taylor & Francis, Washington DC (1996, rev. printing 1997, 1998 & 2001); Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Shyy W, Lian Y, Tang J, Viieru D, Liu H (2008) Aerodynamics of low Reynolds number flyers. Cambridge University Press,  Google Scholar
  33. Taylor GK, Nudds RL, Thomas ALR (2003) Flying and swimming animals cruise at a Strouhal number tuned for high power efficiency. Nature (London) 425:707–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas PD, Lombard K (1978) The geometric conservation law—a link between finite-difference and finite-volume methods of flow computation on moving grids. AIAA-1208Google Scholar
  35. Usherwood JR, Ellington CP (2002) The aerodynamics of revolving wings I. Model hawkmoth wings. J Exp Biol 205:1547–1564Google Scholar
  36. Visbal M, Shang JS (1989) Investigation of the flow structure around a rapidly pitching airfoil. AIAA J. 27(8):1044–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. von Karman T, Sears WR (1938) Airfoil theory for nonuniform motion. J Aeronaut Sci 5(10):379–390Google Scholar
  38. Willert CE, Gharib M (1991) Digital particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 10(4)Google Scholar
  39. Young J, Lai JCS (2004) Oscillation frequency and amplitude effects on the wake of a plunging airfoil. AIAA J 42(10):2042–2052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang L, Zhang W, Bennion I (2002) In-fiber grating optic sensors. In: Yu FTS, Yin S (eds) Fiber optic sensors. Marcel Dekker, NY, pp 123–181Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael V. Ol
    • 1
  • Luis Bernal
    • 2
  • Chang-Kwon Kang
    • 2
  • Wei Shyy
    • 2
  1. 1.Air Force Research LabWright-Patterson AFBDaytonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations