Advertisement

Experiments in Fluids

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 531–542 | Cite as

Experimental estimation of a D-shaped cylinder wake using body-mounted sensors

  • Oksana Stalnov
  • Vitali Palei
  • Ilan Fono
  • Kelly Cohen
  • Avi SeifertEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

The effectiveness of a small array of body-mounted sensors, for estimation and eventually feedback flow control of a D-shaped cylinder wake is investigated experimentally. The research is aimed at suppressing unsteady loads resulting from the von-Kármán vortex shedding in the wake of bluff-bodies at a Reynolds number range of 100–1,000. A low-dimensional proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) procedure was applied to the stream-wise and cross-stream velocities in the near wake flow field, with steady-state vortex shedding, obtained using particle image velocimetry (PIV). Data were collected in the unforced condition, which served as a baseline, as well as during influence of forcing within the “lock-in” region. The design of sensor number and placement was based on data from a laminar direct numerical simulation of the Navier-Stokes equations. A linear stochastic estimator (LSE) was employed to map the surface-mounted hot-film sensor signals to the temporal coefficients of the reduced order model of the wake flow field in order to provide accurate yet compact estimates of the low-dimensional states. For a three-sensor configuration, results show that the estimation error of the first two cross-stream modes is within 20–40% of the PIV-generated POD time coefficients. Based on previous investigations, this level of error is acceptable for a moderately robust controller required for feedback flow control.

Keywords

Particle Image Velocimetry Proper Orthogonal Decomposition Proper Orthogonal Decomposition Mode Particle Image Velocimetry Data Sensor Configuration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support and assistance provided by TAU technical staff, Tomer Bachar, Shlomo Paster, Shlomo Moshel, Shlomo Blivis, Eli Kronish, Avram Blas, Eli Nevo, Mark Vasserman and TAU Meadow Aerolab students and staff.

References

  1. Adrian RJ (1977) On the role of conditional averages in turbulence theory. In: Turbulence in liquids, Proceedings of the fourth biennial symposium, Rolla, Mo., September 22–24, 1975. (A77-40426 18-34) Princeton, NJ, Science Press, pp 323–332Google Scholar
  2. Balas MJ (1978) Active control of flexible systems. J Optim Theory Appl 25(3):217–236CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Baruh H, Choe K (1990) Sensor placement in structural control. J Guid Control 13(3):524–533zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blevins RD (1990) Flow induced vibration, 2nd edn. Van Nostrand reinhold, New York, pp 451Google Scholar
  5. Cohen K, Siegel S, McLaughlin T, Gillies E (2003) Feedback control of a cylinder wake low-dimensional model. AIAA J 41(8):000–1452Google Scholar
  6. Cohen K, Siegel S, Luchtenburg M, and McLaughlin T, Seifert A (2004) Sensor placement for closed-loop flow control of a ‘D’ shaped cylinder wake. 2nd AIAA flow control conference, 28 June to 1 July 2004, Portland, Oregon, AIAA-2004-2523Google Scholar
  7. Cohen K, Siegel S, Wetlesen D, Cameron J, Sick A (2004) Effective sensor placements for the estimation of proper orthogonal decomposition mode coefficients in von-Kármán vortex street. J Vib Control 10(12):1857–1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen K, Siegel S, McLaughlin T, Gillies E, Myatt J (2005) Closed-loop approaches to control of a wake flow modeled by the Ginzburg-Landau equation. Comput Fluids 34(8):927–949zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen K, Siegel S, McLaughlin T (2006) A heuristic approach to effective sensor placement for modeling of a cylinder wake. Comput Fluids 35(1):103–120zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collis S, Joslin RD, Seifert A, Theofilis V (2004) Issues in active flow control: theory, simulation and experiment. Prog Aero Sci V40:237–289 (previously AIAA paper 2002–3277)Google Scholar
  11. Deane AE, Kevrekidis IJ, Karniadakis GE, Orsag SA (1991) Low dimensional models for complex geometry flow: application to grooved channels and circular cylinder. Phys Fluids A 3:2337–2354zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillies EA (1998) Low-dimensional control of the circular cylinder wake. J Fluid Mech 371:157–178zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. He JW, Glowinski R, Metcalfe R, Nordlander A, Periaux J (2000) Active control and drag optimization for flow past a circular cylinder. J Comput Phys 163:83–117zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Holmes P, Lumley JL, Berkooz G (1996) Turbulence, coherent structures, dynamical systems and symmetry. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Lim KB (1997) A disturbance rejection approach to actuator and sensor placement. NASA CR-201623, January–FebraryGoogle Scholar
  16. Meirovitch L (1990) Dynamics and control of structures. Wiley, New York, pp 313–351Google Scholar
  17. Naim A, Greenblatt D, Seifert A, Wygnanski I (2006) Active control of cylinder flow with and without a splitter plate using piezoelectric actuators. AIAA Paper 2002–3070, June 2002. (Submitted to flow, turbulence and combustion, 2006)Google Scholar
  18. Noack BR, Afanasiev K, Morzynski M, Tadmor G, Thiele F (2003) A hierarchy of low-dimensional models for the transient and post-transient cylinder wake. J Fluid Mech 497:335–363zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Roshko A (1954) On the drag and shedding frequency of two-dimensional bluff bodies. NACA TM 3169Google Scholar
  20. Rowley CW, Juttijudata V (2005) Model-based control and estimation of cavity flow oscillations. IEEE conference on decision and controlGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerhard J, Pastoor M, King R, Noack BR, Dillmann A, Morzynski M, Tadmor G, (2003) Model-based control of vortex shedding using low-dimensional Galerkin models. AIAA paper 2003–4262Google Scholar
  22. Luchtenburg M, Tadmor G, Lehmann O, Noack BR, King R, Morzynski M (2006) Tuned POD galerkin models for transient feedback regulation of cylinder wake. AIAA paper 2006–1407Google Scholar
  23. Roussopoulos K, Monkewitz, PA (1996) Nonlinear modeling of vortex shedding control in cylinder wakes. Physica D (97):264–273Google Scholar
  24. Siegel S, Cohen K, McLaughlin T (2003) Feedback control of a circular cylinder wake in experiment and simulation. 33rd AIAA fluid dynamics conference, Orlando, AIAA 2003–3569Google Scholar
  25. Sirovich L (1987) Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. Quart Appl Math XLV:561–571MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Tadmor G, Noack BR, Morzynski M (2004a) Low-dimensional models for feedback flow control. Part I: empirical Galerkin models. 2nd AIAA flow control conference, 28 June–1 July 2004, Portland, Oregon, AIAA-2004–2408Google Scholar
  27. Tadmor G, Noack BR, Morzynski M, Siegel S (2004b) Low-dimensional models for feedback flow control. Part II: Observer and controller design. 2nd AIAA flow control conference, 28 June to 1 July 2004, Portland, Oregon, AIAA Paper 2004–2409Google Scholar
  28. Tadmor G, Noack BR (2004) Dynamic estimation for reduced Galerkin models of fluid flows. Paper WeM18.1, Proceedings of the 2004 American control conference, Boston, USA, June 30 to July 2, 2004Google Scholar
  29. von-Kármán T (1954) Aerodynamics: selected topics in light of their historic development. Cornell University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Williamson CHK (1996) Vortex dynamics in the cylinder wake. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 8:477–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yehoshua T, Seifert A (2006) Boundary condition effects on the evolution of a train of vortex pairs in still air. Aeronaut J 110(1109):397–417Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oksana Stalnov
    • 1
  • Vitali Palei
    • 1
  • Ilan Fono
    • 1
  • Kelly Cohen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Avi Seifert
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer, Faculty of EngineeringTel-Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.KAYOS Enterprise Inc.Colorado SpringsUSA
  3. 3.Meadow Aerodynamics Laboratory, Faculty of EngineeringTel-Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations