Skip to main content
Log in

Stability and receptivity analysis of flat-plate boundary layer with suction and blowing

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effect of suction and blowing on the local stability of the flat-plate boundary layer is presented using non-normal theory. The 3D governing stability equations are derived using standard procedure in the form of normal velocity and vorticity. The governing stability equations are discretized using the Chebyshev spectral collocation method. The discretized governing equations with grid stretching form an eigenvalue problem, and it is solved using the QZ algorithm with an appropriate boundary conditions. The transient energy growth is computed by the linear superposition of the non-orthogonal eigenvectors. The energy curve is obtained by singular value decomposition (SVD) of the matrix exponential. The receptivity analysis is also considered based on the input–output framework to quantify a fluid system’s response with external forcing frequencies. The optimal fluid system response corresponding to the optimal initial condition is computed for non-modal and receptivity analysis. The flow is modally stable for suction even at a higher Reynolds number \((\hbox {Re}_{\delta ^*})\), while a reverse trend is observed for blowing. In a case of suction, peak response in energy of the fluid system is detected at resonant frequency \(\omega = 0.14\) and 0.102 for \(\alpha = 0.15\), \(\beta = 1\) and \(\alpha = 0\), \(\beta = 1\), respectively. Similarly, for blowing, maximum flow response is detected at \(\omega = 0.1\) and 0.102 for \(\alpha = 0.15\), \(\beta = 1\) and \(\alpha = 0\), \(\beta = 1\). The temporal growth rate \(\omega _i\), energy growth, and resolvent norm are increased with increasing the Reynolds number or blowing intensity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hervey WD (1987) Boundary-layer control for drag reduction report. NASA Langley Res Center Aerosp 96(6):1839–1863

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schrauf G (2005) Status and perspectives of laminar flow. Aeronaut J 109(1102):639–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Libby PA, Laufman L, Harrington RP (1952) An experimental investigation of the laminar boundary layer on a porous flat plate. J. Aeronaut Sci 2:127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Reynolds GA, Saric WS (1986) Experiments on the stability of the flat-plate boundary layer with suction. J AIAA 24:202–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Saric W, Reed L (1986) Effect of suction and weak mass Injection on boundary-layer transition. J AIAA 3:383–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Huang Z, Wu X (2016) The effect of local steady suction on the stability and transition of boundary layer on a flat-plate, J. AIAA, 1–12

  7. Schmidt BE, Bitter NP, Hornung HG, Shepherd JE (2016) Injection into supersonic boundary layers. J AIAA 51(1):161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bhoraniya R, Narayanan V (2021) Global stability analysis of the spatially developing boundary layer: Effect of wall suction and injection. In: Springer lecture notes in mechanical engineering, pp 509–517

  9. Palanichamy P (2017) Heat and Mass transfer on flat plate with suction and injection. Global J Math Sci Theory Practical 9(3):367–386

    Google Scholar 

  10. Aydin O, Kaya A (2005) Laminar boundary layer flow over a horizontal permeable flat plate. App Math Comput 161:229–240

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Sadri S, Babealahi M (2013) Analysis of a laminar boundary layer flow over a flat-plate with injection or suction. J Appl Mech Tech Phys 54(1):59–67

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang S, Lei J, Zhen H, Lee C (2015) Numerical investigation of wall cooling and suction effects on supersonic boundary layer transition using large eddy simulation. Adv Mech Eng 7(2):493194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schmid Peter J, Luca B (2014) Analysis of fluid systems: stability, receptivity, sensitivity: lecture notes from the FLOW-NORDITA summer school on advanced instability methods for complex flows. Appl Mech Rev 66(2):024803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Reddy SC, Henningson DS (1993) Energy growth in viscous channel flows. J Fluid Mech 252:209–238

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Peter J (2007) Schmid, nonmodal satbility theory. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 39:129–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zuccher S, Luchini P, Bottaro A (2004) Algebraic growth in a Blasius boundary layer: optimal and robust control by mean suction in the non-linear region. J Fluid Mech 513:135–160

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Fransson JH, Corbett P (2003) Optimal linear growth in the asymptotic suction boundary layer. Eur J Mech B Fluids 22(3):259–270

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Byström MG, Levin O, Henningson DS (2007) Optimal disturbances in suction boundary layers. Eur J Fluid Mech B Fluids 26:330–343

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Kurian T, Fransson Jens HM (2011) Transient growth in the asymptotic suction boundary layer. Exp Fluids 51:771–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Butler KM, Farrell BF (1992) Three-dimensional optimal perturbations in viscous shear flow. Phys Fluids A Fluid Dyn 4(8):1637–1650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hanifi A, Schmid PJ, Henningson DS (1995) Transient growth in compressible boundary layer. Phys Fluids A 8(3):826–836

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Hamada GYR, Wolf WR, Pitz DB, Alves LSB (2023) Stability and receptivity analysis of mixed convection in unsteady stratified horizontal boundary layers. J Fluid Mech 961(A10):1–18

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Greenshields, Christopher OpenFOAM v10 User Guide, The OpenFOAM Foundation. https://doc.cfd.direct/openfoam/user-guide-v10, London, UK

  24. Roache P (1994) A method for uniform reporting of grid refinement studies. J Fluids Eng 116(3):405–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bhoraniya R, Narayanan V (2019) Global stability analysis of axisymmetric boundary layer: effect of axisymmetric forebody shapes. Pramana J Phys D 93(6):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sameen A, Govindarajan R (2007) The effect of wall heating on instability of channel flow. J Fluid Mech 577:417–442

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Taira K, Brunton SL, Dawson STM, Rowley CW, Colonius T, McKeon BJ, Schmidt OT, Gordeyev S, Theofilis V, Ukeiley LS (2017) Modal analysis of fluid flows: an overview. J AIAA 55(12):4013–4041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmid PJ, Henningson DS (2001) Stability and transition in shear flows. Springer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Nogueira PAS, Cavalieri AVG, Hanifi A, Henningson DS (2020) Resolvent analysis in unbounded flows: role of free-stream modes. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn 34:163–176

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Jovanovic MR, Bamieh B (2005) Component wise energy amplification in channel flows. J Fluid Mech 534:145–183

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Hwang Y, Cossu C (2010) Linear non-normal energy amplification of harmonic and stochastic forming in the turbulent channel flow. J Fluid Mech 664:51–73

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Orr WMF (1907) The stability or instability of the steady motions of a perfect liquid and of a viscous liquid. Part II: a viscous liquid. Proc R Irish Acad Sect A Math Phys Sci 27:69–138

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kant R, Sharma V, Bhoraniya R, Narayanan V (2022) Receptivity and sensitivity analysis of Jeffery-Hamel flow. Sadhana Indian Acad Sci 123(4):2333–2335

    Google Scholar 

  34. Drazin PG, Reid WH (1981) Hydrodynamic stability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Sundaram P, Suman V, Sengupta A, Sengupta T (2020) Effects of free stream excitation on the boundary layer over a semi-infinite flat plate. Phys Fluids 32(094110):1–19

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) Government of India for providing financial support for the research (CRC/2020/005698). We also acknowledge that we modified the existing source code of Luca Brandt [28] as per our problem and used it for stability and receptivity analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramesh Bhoraniya.

Additional information

Technical Editor: Daniel Onofre de Almeida Cruz.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Appendix A: Spatial grid convergence analysis

Table 3 Spatial grid convergence analysis for uniform suction with intensity is \(0.5\%\) of \(U_\infty (= 0.4\hbox { m/s})\) at a location of \(x = 1.5\hbox { m}\) and \(y = 1\hbox { mm}\). The \(k+1\) and k represent fine and coarse grids, respectively
Table 4 Spatial grid convergence analysis for no suction/injection case with inlet velocity, \(U_\infty =0.4\hbox { m/s}\) at a location of \(x = 1.5\hbox { m}\) and \(y = 1\hbox { mm}\). The \(k+1\) and k represent fine and coarse grids, respectively

The spatial grid convergence study is a numerical technique used to check the precision and accuracy of the CFD simulation with regard to the grid resolution. In other words, it is a technique used to determine whether the simulation result is trustworthy and independent of the grid size or not. The fundamental principle of the spatial grid convergence analysis is to run the same simulation at several grid resolutions and compare the outcomes. The grid is refined until the changes in the output parameters (i.e. velocity and pressure) become negligible, indicating that the solution has converged. Thus, the grid resolution \(2001\times {251}\) is enough for all base flow configurations with relative errors of less than \(0.1\%\) (see Tables 1, 3, and 4).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thummar, M., Bhoraniya, R., Kant, R. et al. Stability and receptivity analysis of flat-plate boundary layer with suction and blowing. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 45, 415 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-023-04328-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-023-04328-1

Keywords

Navigation