NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF THE AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CIRCULATION CONTROL WING SECTIONS

A Thesis Presented to The Academic Faculty

by Yi Liu

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Aerospace Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology April 2003

Copyright 2003 by Yi Liu

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF THE AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CIRCULATION CONTROL WING SECTIONS

Approved:

Lakshmi N. Sankar, Chairman

Krishan K. Ahuja

Robert J. Englar

D. Stefan Dancila

Richard Gaeta

Date Approved

DEDICATION

To my wife, Qiang Le And to my parents

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Lakshmi N. Sankar, my teacher and dissertation advisor, for his encouragement and support throughout the research period. His delightful personality and detailed knowledge of this research topic has guided me along the way. I would not be here without all that he has done. I would also like to thank Dr. K. Ahuja, Mr. R. Englar, Dr. D. Dancila and Dr. R. Gaeta, members of my thesis committee, for their thorough review of the thesis and for their valuable comments. I am especially appreciative to Bob Englar for providing the experimental data, and for helpful suggestions from his many years of experience. I would like to acknowledge NASA Langley Research Center for sponsoring this research under the Breakthrough Innovative Technology Program, Grant-NAG1-2146. I thank Ms. Mary Trauner of High Performance Computing Group of the Office of Information Technology at Georgia Tech, for her understanding and support during my last semester of thesis work. I would like to thank all my colleagues in the CFD lab for their warm friendship and support during my Ph.D. studies. I would also like to thank my old friends in China, for their constant encouragement through all these years. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Mr. Feng Liu and Mrs. Yuhua Peng, for their continued support throughout my education at Georgia Tech. I would also like to acknowledge the warm support and caring of my dear wife, Qiang Le. Without her encouragement and enthusiasm, this work could not have been completed. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix LIST OF NOMENCLATURE ...................................................................................... xiv SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... xix 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Motivation and Objectives........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Circulation Control Technology ............................................................................... 6 1.2.1 The Circulation Control Wing Concept............................................................. 6 1.2.2 The Advanced Circulation Control Airfoil ........................................................ 9 1.2.3 Applications and Benefits of the Circulation Control Wing............................ 11 1.3 Previous Research Work......................................................................................... 14 1.4 Overview of the Present Work................................................................................ 19 2. MATHEMATICAL AND NUMERICAL FORMULATION ................................ 21 2.1 The Governing Equations ....................................................................................... 22 2.1.1 Governing Equations in Cartesian Coordinates............................................... 22 2.1.2 Governing Equations in Curvilinear Coordinates............................................ 28 2.2 Numerical Procedure .............................................................................................. 34 2.2.1 Temporal Discretization................................................................................... 34 v

2.2.2 Linearization of the Difference Equations....................................................... 36 2.2.3 Approximate Factorization Procedure ............................................................. 38 2.2.4 Spatial Discretization of the Inviscid Terms.................................................... 39 2.2.5 Spatial Discretization of the Viscous Terms.................................................... 41 2.2.6 Implementation of Low Pass Filters ................................................................ 42 2.3 Turbulence Models ................................................................................................. 45 2.3.1 Baldwin-Lomax Turbulence Model................................................................. 47 2.3.2 Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model................................................................ 49 2.4 Initial and Boundary Conditions............................................................................. 51 2.4.1 Initial Conditions ............................................................................................. 52 2.4.2 Outer Boundary Conditions ............................................................................. 52 2.4.3 Solid Surface Conditions ................................................................................. 54 2.4.4 Boundary Conditions at the Cuts in the C Grid ............................................... 55 2.4.5 Jet Slot Exit Conditions with Given C ........................................................... 56 2.4.6 Jet Slot Exit Conditions with Given Total Jet Pressure ................................... 59 3. TWO DIMENSIONAL STEADY BLOWING RESULTS ..................................... 61 3.1 Code Validations with a NACA 0012 Wing........................................................... 62 3.2 Unblown and Steady Blowing Results ................................................................... 63 3.2.1 Configuration Modeled.................................................................................... 63 3.2.2 Computational Grid ......................................................................................... 64 3.2.3 Blowing and Unblown Results Comparison.................................................... 65 3.2.4 Steady Blowing with Specified Total Pressure................................................ 69

vi

3.3 Effects of Parameters that Influence the Momentum Coefficient .......................... 70 3.3.1 Free-stream Velocity Effects with Fixed C and Fixed Jet Slot Height .......... 71 3.3.2 Jet Slot Height Effects with Fixed C and Fixed Free-stream Velocity .......... 72 3.4 Other Simulations for the CC Airfoil...................................................................... 73 3.4.1 Comparisons with the Conventional High-Lift System................................... 73 3.4.2 Leading Edge Blowing .................................................................................... 74 4. TWO DIMENSIONAL PULSED BLOWING RESULTS...................................... 93 4.1 Jets Pulsed Sinusoidally.......................................................................................... 94 4.2 Jets Pulsed with a Square Wave Form.................................................................... 96 4.2.1 Pulsed Jet Flow Behavior................................................................................. 96 4.2.2 Effects of Frequency at a Fixed C .................................................................. 99 4.2.3 Strouhal Number Effects................................................................................ 100 4.3 Summary of Observations..................................................................................... 103 5. THREE DIMENSION CIRCULATION CONTROL WING SIMULATIONS. 117 5.1 Tangential Blowing on a Wing-flap Configuration .............................................. 118 5.2 Spanwise Blowing over a Rounded Wing-tip....................................................... 121 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................. 137 6.1 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 138 6.2 Recommendations................................................................................................. 141 APPENDIX A. GENERALIZED TRANSFORMATION........................................ 144 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 149 VITA............................................................................................................................... 159

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 The Computed Time-averaged Lift Coefficient for the Case One (U and Lref fixed, Strouhal number varying with the frequency) 4.2 The Computed Time-averaged Lift Coefficient for the Case Two (Strouhal number and Lref fixed, U varying with the frequency) 4.3 The Computed Time-averaged Lift Coefficient for the Case Three (Strouhal number and U fixed, Lref varying with the frequency) 5.1 The Total Lift Coefficient and Drag Coefficient for the Wing Tip Configuration

Page 105

105

106

123

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1a 3.1b 3.1c 3.1d 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Normalized Noise Levels of Aircraft by Year of Certification Airframe Noise Sources Boeing 737 Wing/Flap System Basics of Circulation Control Aerodynamics Dual Radius CCW Airfoil with LE Blowing The Outer Boundary Conditions for Sample C Grid The Solid Surface Boundary Conditions for Viscous Flow The Wake-cut Boundary Conditions for C Grid The Jet Slot Boundary Conditions CP Distribution over NACA 0012 Wing Sections at 34% Span CP Distribution over NACA 0012 Wing Sections at 50% Span CP Distribution over NACA 0012 Wing Sections at 66% Span CP Distribution over NACA 0012 Wing Sections at 85% Span Lift Coefficient Distribution along Span at Angle of Attack 8 Degrees The Circulation Control Wing Airfoil with 30-degree Flap The Body-fitted C Grid near the CC Airfoil Surface The Lift Coefficients in Different Grid Spacing Cases (C = 0.15) Variation of the Lift Coefficient with Momentum Coefficients at = 0

Page 2 3 4 7 10 53 55 56 57 76 76 77 77 78 78 79 79 80

ix

Figure 3.7 3.8 3.9 The Variation of the Lift Coefficient with Angle of Attack The Streamlines over the CC Airfoil at Two Instantaneous Time Step Time History of the Lift Coefficient for the Unblown Case (U = 94.3 ft/sec) 3.10 Time History of the Lift Coefficient for the Unblown Case (U = 220 ft/sec) 3.11 3.12a 3.12b 3.13 3.14 3.15 The FFT of the Lift Coefficient Variation with Time (U = 220 ft/sec) Streamlines over the TE of the CC Airfoil (Unblown Case) Streamlines over the TE of the CC Airfoil (Blowing Case) The C Variation with the Total Jet Pressure for Steady Blowing Case The Lift Coefficient Variation with C for Steady Blowing Case Lift Coefficient vs. Free-stream Velocity (C = 0.1657, h = 0.015 inch and V, exp = 94.3 ft/sec) 3.16 Drag Coefficient vs. Free-stream Velocity (C = 0.1657, h = 0.015 inch and V, exp = 94.3 ft/sec) 3.17 Mass Flow Rate vs. Free-stream Velocity (C = 0.1657, h = 0.015 inch and V, exp = 94.3 ft/sec) 3.18 3.19 Lift Coefficient vs. Jet Slot Height (V = 94.3 ft/sec) Drag Coefficient vs. Jet Slot Height (V = 94.3 ft/sec)

Page 80 81 82

82

83 84 84 85 85 86

86

87

87 88

Figure 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 The Efficiency vs. Jet Slot Height (V = 94.3 ft/sec) The Mass Flow Rate vs. Jet Slot Height (V = 94.3 ft/sec) The Shape of the Multi-element Airfoil and the Body-fitted Grid The Drag Polar for the Multi-element Airfoil and the CC Airfoil The Efficiency (Cl/Cd+ C) for the Multi-element Airfoil and the CC Airfoil 3.25a 3.25b 3.25c 3.26 3.27 4.1 The Grid for the Leading Edge Blowing Configuration The Grid Close to the Leading Edge Jet Slot The Grid Close to the Trailing Edge Jet Slot Lift Coefficient vs. The Angle of Attack Drag Coefficient vs. The Angle of Attack The Time History of the Momentum Coefficient (Sinusoidal Wave, Frequency = 400 Hz, C,0 = 0.04) 4.2 The Time History of the Lift Coefficient (Sinusoidal Wave, Frequency = 400 Hz, C,0 = 0.04) 4.3 The Time History of the Mass Flow Rate (Sinusoidal Wave, Frequency = 400 Hz, C,0 = 0.04) 4.4 4.5 4.6 Time-averaged Lift Coefficients vs. Frequency Time-averaged Mass Flow Rate vs. Frequency The Time History of the Momentum Coefficient (Square Wave Form, Frequency = 40 Hz, C,0 = 0.04) xi

Page 88 89 89 90 90

91 91 91 92 92 107

107

108

108 109 109

Figure 4.7 The Time History of the Lift Coefficient (Square Wave Form, Frequency = 40 Hz, C,0 = 0.04) 4.8 The Time History of the Mass Flow Rate (Square Wave Form, Frequency = 40 Hz, C,0 = 0.04) 4.9 The Incremental Lift Coefficient vs. Time-averaged Momentum Coefficient 4.10 4.11 The Incremental Lift Coefficient vs. Time-averaged Mass Flow Rate Time-averaged Mass Flow Rate vs. Time-averaged Momentum Coefficient 4.12 4.13 4.14 The Efficiency vs. Time-averaged Momentum Coefficient The Efficiency vs. Time-averaged Mass Flow Rate Time-averaged Lift Coefficient vs. Pulsed Jet Frequency (Ave. C,0 = 0.04) 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 5.1 5.2 The Efficiency vs. Pulsed Jet Frequency (Ave. C,0 = 0.04) Time History of the Lift Coefficient for a 40Hz Pulsed Jet Time History of the Lift Coefficient for a 200Hz Pulsed Jet Time-averaged Lift Coefficient vs. Frequency Time-averaged Lift Coefficient vs. the Frequency & Strouhal Number The Wing-flap Tangential Blowing Configuration The Grid of the 3-D Wing-flap Configuration with a 300 Partial Flap

Page 110

110

111

111 112

112 113 113

114 114 115 115 116 119 125

xii

Figure 5.3 The Lift Coefficient Distribution along Span for the Wing-flap Configuration 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 The Vorticity Contours for Noblowing Case The Vorticity Contours for Constant Blowing Case The Vorticity Contours for Gradual Blowing Case The Wing Tip Configuration The H-Grid for the Wing Tip Configuration (Side View at Spanwise Station) 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 The O-Grid around the Rounded Wing Tip (Front View) The Surface Grid for the Rounded Wing Tip The Detailed Grid Close to the Jet Slot The Vorticity Contours around the Wing Tip (x/C = 0.81) The Vorticity Contours around the Wing Tip (x/C = 1.0) The Vorticity Contours around the Wing Tip (x/C = 1.50) The Velocity Vectors around the Wing Tip (x/C = 0.81) The Lift Coefficient Distribution along Span for Wing Tip Configuration 5.17 The Drag Coefficient Distribution along Span for Wing Tip Configuration

Page 126

127 128 129 122 130

130 131 131 132 133 134 135 136

136

xiii

LIST OF NOMENCLATURE

a ajet Ajet A, B, C Cp Cv Cl, CL Cd , CD C C,0 Et E, F, G f F+ Fkleb J k Kc Lref lm

Speed of sound Speed of sound of the jet Area of the jet slot Flux Jacobian matrices Specific heat at constant pressure Specific heat at constant volume Lift coefficient Drag coefficient Jet momentum coefficient Time-averaged momentum coefficient for pulsed jets Total energy per unit volume Inviscid flux matrices Frequency Non-dimension frequency Klebanoff intermittency correction Jacobian of transformation Thermal conductivity Clausers constant Reference length Mixing length xiv

 m

Mass flow rate Normal vector of cell surface Free-stream Mach number Jet Mach number Order of variable Pressure Pressure at the jet slot exit Total pressure Total pressure at the jet slot exit, Duct pressure Prandtl number State variable vector Heat transfer by conduction Viscous flux matrices Reynolds number Wing area Strouhal number Time in the physical domain Temperature Temperature at the jet slot exit Total temperature at the jet slot exit, Duct temperature Cartesian coordinates Cartesian velocities

M Mjet O(.) P Pjet P0 P0, jet Pr q qx, qy, qz R, S, T Re S Str t T Tjet T0, jet x, y, z u, v, w

xv

U, V, W Ujet Va

Contravariant velocities Jet velocity from CFD calculation Jet velocity obtained in experiments Forward difference operator Backward difference operator Angle of attack Central difference operator Kronecker Delta function Turbulent dissipation rate Specific heat ratio Second coefficient of viscosity Eigenvalues Coefficient of viscosity Kinematic viscosity Density Jet density Non-dimensional time Viscous stress Vorticity Computational domain coordinates

ij , , jet ij , ,

xvi

Subscripts i, j, k t w Indices in three coordinate directions Derivative with respect to physical time Variable on the wall surface Derivative with respect to time in (, , ) coordinates Derivatives with respect to generalized coordinates Derivatives with respect to Cartesian coordinates Free-stream value Reference value of non-dimension Variable at the jet slot

, ,
x, y, z ref jet

Superscripts n, n+1 * ^ Time level Non-dimensional variable Variable in the computational domain Mean value of the flow variables Fluctuation quantity after average

Acronyms and Abbreviations 2-D 3-D ADI Two dimensional Three dimensional Alternating Direction Implicit

xvii

AF BVI CC CCW CFD DNS DTNSRDC FAA FFT GTRI HBPR HSCT LE LES NACA NASA RANS RHS STOL TE

Approximate Factorization Blade Vortex Interaction Circulation Control Circulation Control Wing Computational Fluid Dynamics Direct Numerical Simulation David Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center Federal Aviation Administration Fast Fourier Transformation Georgia Tech Research Institute High Bypass-ratio High Speed Civil Transport Leading Edge Large Eddy Simulation National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics National Aeronautics and Space Administration Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Right Hand Side Short Take-off and Landing Trailing edge

xviii

SUMMARY

Circulation Control technology is a very effective way of achieving very high lift coefficients needed by aircraft during take-off and landing. This technology can also directly control the flow field over the wing. Compared to a conventional high-lift system, a Circulation Control Wing can generate the same high lift during take-off/ landing with fewer or no moving parts and much less complexity. In this work, an unsteady three-dimensional Navier-Stokes analysis procedure has been developed and applied to CCW configurations. This method uses a semi-implicit ADI scheme that is second or fourth order accurate in space, and first order in time. The solver can be used in both a 2-D and a 3-D mode, and can thus model airfoils as well as finite wings. The jet slot location, slot height, and the flap angle can all be varied easily and individually in the grid generator and the flow solver. Steady jets, pulsed jets, the leading edge and trailing edge blowing can all be studied with this solver. The effects of 2-D steady jets and 2-D pulsed jets on the aerodynamic performance of CCW airfoils have been investigated. It is found that a steady jet can generate very high lift at zero angle of attack without stall, and that a small amount of blowing can eliminate the vortex shedding, a potential noise source. A thin jet is also found to be more beneficial than a thick jet from an aerodynamic design perspective, although the power requirements of generating thin jets can be high. It is also found that the pulsed jet can achieve the same high lift as the steady jet but at less mass flow rates, xix

especially at a high frequency, and that the Strouhal number has a more dominant effect on the pulsed jet performance than just the frequency. Three-dimensional simulations have also been done for two cases. The first is a streamwise tangential blowing on a wing-flap configuration. It is demonstrated that a gradually varied CC blowing can totally eliminate the flap-edge vortex, thus reducing the flap-edge noise. The second case involves spanwise tangential blowing over a rectangular wing with a rounded wing tip. It is found that CC blowing can not totally cancel or eliminate the tip vortex. However, it can control and modify the location of the tip vortex, and increase the vertical clearance between the wing and the tip vortex, thus reducing the blade vortex interaction and the BVI noise.

xx

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Motivation and Objectives

During the past three decades, there has been a significant increase in air travel, and thus a rapid growth in commercial aviation. At the same time, environmental regulations and restrictions on aircraft operations have become a critical issue that threatens to affect and limit the growth of commercial aviation. For instance, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and similar agencies in other countries have issued stringent regulations on the legal use and operation of airports that satisfy community concerns [1, 2]. In particular, the noise pollution from aircraft, especially around the airport, has become a major problem that needs to be solved. Thus, reducing aircraft noise has become a priority for airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and NASA researchers. In response to this challenge, NASA has proposed a plan to double aviation system capacity while reducing perceived noise by a factor of two (10dB) by 2011, and to triple system capacity while reducing perceived noise by a factor of four (20dB) by 2025 [3]. In general, the aircraft noise may be divided into two major categories based on noise sources. The first is jet engine noise, which is primarily produced from fan and exhaust, although other components such as compressors, turbines, and combustors also

contribute to this. The second is the airframe noise, which is generated by components such as fuselage, wing, under-carriages, slat and flap edges, etc. In the case of jet engines, due to improvements to the technology from the early turbojet engines to current generation high bypass-ratio (HBPR) turbofan engines, todays new jet transport airplanes are about 20dB quieter than those introduced in the 1960s [4]. Figure 1.1 indicates the noise levels of aircraft as a function of the year they were first introduced into service. It is clearly seen that the noise has been reduced significantly by the use of better jet engines over the past forty years.
History 10.0 Stage 2
B-737-200 B-737-200 DC9-10 B-727-100

Current

Future Goals

JT3D, JT8D, JT9D,CF6,CFM56 JT8D-200,PW2000,PW4000,V2500,CF6,GE90

0.0 Average Noise Level Relative to Stage 3 (EPNdB) -10.0

v in erag Se e B-747-100 rvi ce B-747-200 B-727-100

DC-10-40 B-747-200 A300

B-727-200 A

Stage 3
B-747-200 B-747-SP MD-80 A300B4-620 B-747-300

Negotiated Out of Service*

MD-82 A300-600R MD-87 MD-11 A330-300 757-200 A310-222 A310-300 A320-200 767-300ER 777-200 747-400 MD-90-30

Stage 4

Impact of current Noise Reduction program goal of 5 dB Impact of achieving NASA goal (additional 5 dB) -20.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year of Certification

Figure 1.1: Normalized Noise Levels of Aircraft by Year of Certification [4]

Airframe-generated noise can be the dominant component of the total noise radiated from commercial aircraft, particularly for large aircraft and especially during the landing approach when the engines are at a relatively low power setting and the high-lift

systems are fully deployed. Figure 1.2 from Chapter 7 of Reference [5] illustrates some of the airframe noise sources, which include the fuselage, main wing, landing gear, and high-lift devices, etc. Since the mid-80s, many researchers have pointed out that the airframe noise predominantly emanates from high-lift devices and the landing gear of subsonic aircraft [6, 7]. Depending on the type of aircraft, the dominant source varies between flap, slat, and landing gear. Recent studies by Davy and Remy [8] on a scaled model of Airbus aircraft also indicate that high-lift devices and landing gear are major sources of airframe noise when the aircraft is configured for landing. The studies mentioned here are just a few examples of the work that has been done in this area, and point to high-lift system as a dominant noise source. For a more detailed review of airframe noise studies, the reader is referred to Reference [9].

Figure 1.2: Airframe Noise Sources [5] 3

Current generation large commercial aircraft are dependent on components that can generate high lift at low speeds during take-off or landing in order to use existing runways. As shown in Figure 1.3 from Englars paper [10], conventional high-lift systems include flaps, slats, with the associated flap-edges and gaps. In addition to their contribution to noise, these high-lift systems also add to the weight of the aircraft, and are costly to build and maintain.

Figure 1.3: Boeing 737 Wing/Flap System [10]

An alternative to the conventional high-lift systems is the Circulation Control Wing (CCW) technology. This technology and its aerodynamic benefits have been

extensively investigated over many years by Englar et al at Georgia Tech through experimental studies [11, 12]. A limited number of numerical analyses [11, 13, 14] have also been done. Work has also been done on the acoustic characteristics of Circulation Control Wings [15]. These studies indicate that very high CL values (as high as 8.5 at =0) may be achieved with Circulation Control (CC) wings. Because many mechanical components associated with the high-lift system are no longer needed, the wings can be lighter and less expensive to build. Some of the major airframe noise sources, such as flap-edges, flap-gaps, and trailing/leading edge flow-separation can all be eliminated with the use of CCW systems. To further understand the aeroacoustic characteristics and benefits of the Circulation Control Wing, Munro, Ahuja and Englar [16, 17, 18, 19] have recently conducted several acoustic experiments comparing the noise levels of a conventional high-lift system with that of an advanced CC wing at the same lift setting. The present Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) study [20] is intended to be a complement to this work, and to numerically investigate the aerodynamic characteristics and benefits associated with the CC airfoil. CFD studies such as the one presented here can also help the design of CCW configurations.

1.2 Circulation Control Technology

1.2.1 The Circulation Control Wing Concept Conventional airfoils, such as the NACA series airfoils, all have a sharp trailing edge. The Kutta condition [21] will be readily satisfied for this kind of the airfoil, and determines the circulation over the airfoil at a given free-stream condition and angle of attack. This sharp trailing edge design is very efficient for fixing circulation and lift, and is widely used both in nature and on man-made lifting surfaces. However, there are two limitations associated with it. First, the lift generated by a sharp trailing edge airfoil is only a function of angle of attack, camber, and free-stream conditions, and it can not be otherwise controlled. Secondly, the maximum lift achieved is limited, because the adverse pressure gradient on the upper surface eventually causes boundary layer separation and static stall with the increase in angle of attack. Thus, in order to obtain the high lift coefficient required during take-off or landing, high-lift devices must be used on a commercial aircraft. However, a high-lift system always contains many moving parts, and results in a significant weight penalty, and noise. The Circulation Control (CC) airfoil overcomes these drawbacks in another way. It takes advantage of the Coanda effect by blowing a small, high-velocity jet over a highly curved surface, such as a rounded trailing edge. Since the airfoil trailing edge is not sharp, the Kutta condition is not fixed and the trailing edge stagnation point is free to move along the surface. In addition, the upper surface blowing near the trailing edge energizes the boundary layer, increasing its resistance to separation. With blowing, the

trailing edge stagnation point location moves toward the lower airfoil surface, thus changing the circulation for the entire wing and increasing lift. Since the jet flow mass rate is readily controlled, this results in direct control of the separation point location, and thus the circulation and lift, as suggested by the name of this concept. Figure 1.4 shows a typical traditional CC airfoil with a rounded trailing edge.

Figure 1.4: Basics of Circulation Control Aerodynamics [10]

The Coanda effect is named after the Romanian inventor Henri Coanda [22] who had discovered and used it in the 1930s. As shown in Figure 1.4, this effect is due to a balance within the jet sheet between the pressure gradient normal to the surface and the centrifugal force caused by the streamline curvature. The curved trailing edge region is thus known as the Coanda Surface. In general, the Coanda effect will move the stagnation point aft, and delay the separation. Eventually, the momentum within the jet and the boundary layer will decrease, and the adverse pressure gradient along the surface will increase. It is this adverse pressure gradient which eventually causes the jet to separate and leave the surface. The location of the separation point will depend upon several 7

parameters, including the jet momentum coefficient C, the turbulent characteristics of the jet and the Reynolds number [23]. The jet momentum coefficient C is defined as, C =  mVjet qS , and will be discussed in the next chapter.

Also as shown in Figure 1.4, at low momentum coefficients, especially when C is less than 0.01 [23], the tangential blowing will add some energy to the slow moving flow near the surface. This will delay or eliminate the separation as in conventional boundary layer control. If the momentum coefficients are high, the lift of the wings will be increased significantly. The lift augmentation, which is defined as CL/C, and as a measure of the effectiveness of the blowing in generating lift, can exceed 80. This latter effect of generating lift via blowing in the manner described above is referred to as Circulation Control. The Circulation Control concept is superior to boundary layer control. While boundary layer control aims to eliminate or postpone separation, CC aims to increase the maximum CL value. This reduces the take-off and landing velocity by a factor of 2 or so, thereby reducing the runway distance. This is achieved without the penalty of noise associated with high-lift systems. The physics of CC airfoils is highly complex and nonlinear. Wood [24], however, suggests that there are two characteristics of a CC airfoil that determine its performance. The first is the velocity difference between the jet and the external flow. The second characteristic is the outer boundary layer momentum deficit. Specifically, Wood also suggests that the ratio of the jet momentum to outer boundary layer momentum deficit determines the lift increment due to blowing. Based on this theory and some experimental

evidence, Wood predicts that, for low C values, CL varies linearly with C, while for higher C values, the C L C with low free-stream velocities. Eventually, however, the lift will cease to increase with the momentum coefficient. This phenomenon is known as jet stall, and is defined as the condition at which CL/C = 0.

1.2.2 The Advanced Circulation Control Airfoil The earlier designs of the CC airfoils used rounded trailing edges with large radius to maximize the lift benefit. However, these designs also produced very high drag [25]. In particular, the high drag associated with the blunt, large radius trailing edge can be prohibitive under cruise conditions when Circulation Control is no longer necessary. One way to reduce the drag is to reduce the trailing edge radius. This, however, causes a loss of lift compared to a large radius configuration. It was also found that the small radius CC airfoil with larger slot height could cause jet detachment and sudden lift loss at higher momentum coefficients [25]. Thus a compromise was needed. The advanced CC airfoil, i.e., a circulation hinged flap [11, 25, 26], was developed to replace the original rounded trailing edge CC airfoil. The advanced CC airfoil developed by Englar is shown in Figure 1.5. The upper surface of the CCW flap is a large-radius arc surface, but the low surface of the flap is flat. The flap could be deflected from 0 degrees to 90 degrees. When an aircraft takes-off or lands, the flap is deflected. Then this large radius on the upper surface produces a large jet turning angle, leading to a high lift. When the aircraft is in cruise, the flap is retracted and a conventional sharp trailing edge shape results, greatly reducing the drag. This kind 9

of flap does have some moving elements, which increase the weight and complexity over an earlier CCW design shown in Figure 1.4. But overall, the hinged flap design still maintains most of the Circulation Control high lift advantages, while greatly reducing the drag in cruising condition associated with the rounded trailing edge CCW designs.

Figure 1.5: Dual Radius CCW Airfoil with LE Blowing [10]

The CCW flap is similar to a blown flap. However, it is important to note that compared to a flat blowing surface in the case of a blown flap, the upper surface is highly curved for the CCW flap. The curvature is either a curve built from a single radius, or from multiple radii. A dual-radius configuration is shown in Figure 1.5. The size of the CCW flap is also much smaller than the blown flap. The governing difference between CCW flap and the blown flap is that, for CCW flap, there will be a continuously curved surface downstream of the tangentially blowing jet, and the force modification and high lift are mainly produced by changes to the jet blowing parameters. On the other hand, for a blown flap, the surface downstream of the blowing jet is flat, and lift is produced with the change of the angle of the sharp flap trailing edge or the jet angle relative to the chord-line. 10

1.2.3 Applications and Benefits of the Circulation Control Wing Circulation Control technology has many potential applications for both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, as well as ground vehicles. All of these applications take advantage of the high lift benefits and the ability of directly controlling the flow field associated with the CC technology. For fixed wing vehicles, the high lift generated by CC wings makes them ideal candidates for short take-off and landing (STOL) and high lift aircraft. To find ways of improving the aircraft operation from carriers, the Navy sponsored a full-scale flight test program on an A-6/CCW STOL demonstrator in 1979 [27, 28]. The airfoil used was a rounded trailing edge CC airfoil. Using only available bleed air from the engines, it could achieve CL values that were 120% higher than a conventional Fowler flap, or a 140% increase in the usable lift coefficient at take-off/approach angles of attack. The researchers were also aware of the drag penalty, and improvements with use of smaller cylinder trailing edges and hinged flaps have been recommended [25, 29]. For commercial aircraft, compared to a conventional high-lift system, the advanced CCW flap system can give the same high lift in take-off/landing and small drag in cruise, but greatly reduce the complexity and weight of the wing. The manufacturing cost will also be significantly reduced. An experimental and computational study by Englar et al [11, 12] was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of applying this concept to an Advanced Subsonic Transport. As shown in Figure 1.3, a typical wing such as that found on a Boeing 737 has 15 moving parts. A CCW system, on the other hand, will have a maximum of 3 components per wing even with leading edge blowing. Using only fan

11

bleed air, the CCW flap will give at least triple the usable lift at taking off and will reduce the ground roll compared to the conventional high-lift system. Recently, experimental evaluations were also conducted on the use of blown high-lift devices and control surfaces on the High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) aircraft [30]. These studies found that the advanced pneumatic high-lift devices produced large lift increases as well as significant drag reductions, and confirmed the effectiveness of combined pneumatic highlift devices and control surfaces on these HSCT aircraft. The ability of controlling the lift directly without angle of attack change gives the CC airfoil potential of being used on rotary wing aircraft as well. This concept allows the use of higher harmonic control of helicopters, where cyclic lift variations are usually at frequencies higher than one per revolution. Suppression of these high frequency components can result in considerable reduction of rotor vibration, fatigue and noise. In 1979, a CC rotor flight demonstrator based on a Kaman H-2 helicopter was tested [31, 32]. Instead of using a conventional mechanical cyclic and collective blade pitch control system, a pneumatic aerodynamic and control system was applied. It was found that the CC rotor had the potential of eliminating the mechanical blade lift and control devices in hover and forward flight, and also had the ability of achieving higher harmonic control. It also suggested that the elimination of the angle of attack control could also result in reducing the hub complexity, number of mechanical parts, size, and drag. However, due to a control system phasing problem, the flight test envelope was limited. Another application of the CCW technology is the X-wing stopped rotor aircraft. In this design, a four-blade CC rotor would be used during vertical take-off and landing,

12

and the rotor assembly would be locked into a stationary position during forward flight, and function as a fixed wing [33]. Since the wing area was relatively small, the Circulation Control technology had been used to achieve high lift coefficient during both the rotary wing and fixed wing modes. Because the rotor blades in such a design need to be functional both in rotary as well as in fixed forward flight mode, they must be foreand-aft symmetrical. CC airfoils, with their rounded leading and trailing edges, are ideally suited to this application. During the rotary wing mode, as mentioned above, the cyclic variation of the lift coefficient may be controlled by variation of the jet momentum coefficient, rather than pitching motion. This concept was tested full-scale in the NASA Ames wind tunnel and successfully completed the transition from hover to forward flight. Besides these applications in flying vehicles, a number of non-flying applications have also been investigated, where the Circulation Control technology was used to modify or control the flow field around moving objects. One investigation by Englar [34] is to improve the performance, economics and safety of heavy vehicles (i.e. large tractor/trailer trucks). There are many other potential applications for the Circulation Control or Pneumatic Aerodynamic technology besides these mentioned above. The reader is strongly referred to the Reference [10], which summarizes many of this effort from beginning to the year 2000.

13

1.3 Previous Research Work

Circulation Control research based on the Coanda effect originates back in the 1930s [22]. Because of the great benefits of the Circulation Control technology, many experimental and numerical studies have since then been done to investigate the characteristics and performance of CC airfoils. The early research work was done in England. Cheeseman et al [35] applied blowing to helicopter rotors. Kind [36] gave a simplified calculation method for Circulation Control by tangential blowing around a bluff trailing edge. After 1970, this concept was pursued in the United States by Navy researchers. The David Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center (DTNSRDC) became a major center for Circulation Control research. Experiments by Williams and Howe [37], Englar [38, 39], Abramson [40], Abramson and Rogers [41], and others examined the effect of a wide range of parameters on Circulation Control airfoils, including geometric factors such as the thickness, camber, angle of attack, and free-stream conditions such as Mach number. For a summary of this research work for the years 1969 through 1983, the reader is referred to Reference [42]. This work by Englar et al also provides a summary of CCrelated research conducted by other agencies outside the Navy. In addition to these basic aerodynamic experiments, recently, many studies have been focused on CCW applications for the rotary and fixed wing aircraft. Some of the studies were mentioned in section 1.2.3, and Reference [10] gives a detailed description of many such studies made until the year 2000.

14

Compared to so many aerodynamic studies, however, the acoustic studies for the CCW are very limited. Salikuddin, Brown and Ahuja [15] experimentally examined the changes in noise produced by an upper surface with and without blowing. Carpenter et al [43] have experimentally investigated the noise emitted from supersonic jet flows over axisymmetric Coanda surfaces. Howe [44] recently analytically studied the noise generated by a hydrofoil with a Coanda wall jet Circulation Control device. Munro and Ahuja [16, 17, 18, 19] compared the noise characteristics of a CC wing and a conventional flap wing at the same lift setting, and studied the fluid dynamics and aeroacoustics of a high aspect-ratio jet. It was found that a CC wing had a significant acoustic advantage over a conventional wing for the same lift performance. There have only been a limited number of computational studies of CCW configurations. In the earliest studies, panel methods combined with boundary layer analysis and wall jet models were used. Some good results were obtained by using a potential flow solver developed by Dvorak et al [45, 46], but the solutions did not appear to have the accuracy needed for CC airfoil designs. Determining the performance of CC airfoils using analytical or numerical methods has proven to be extremely difficult due to the viscous flow region that needs to be modeled. The flow over a CC airfoil is greatly complicated by the rounded trailing edge or Coanda surface, and the introduction of the jet blowing. There are strong interactions between the jet region and the overall flow due to circulation coupling. An accurate analysis of the flow field requires a procedure that accounts for this highlycoupled nature of the viscous and inviscid flow regions. This could not be done by the

15

simple potential methods until the 1980s. Due to this highly-coupled, nonlinear viscous behavior of the flow field, the Navier-Stokes equations present the best prospects of modeling this problem. However, even the Navier-Stokes methods are challenged due to the lack of accurate turbulence models for highly curved flows with strong adverse pressure gradients. Many numerical studies were conducted during the 1980s, which examined the possibility of using Navier-Stokes equations to predict the characteristics of CC airfoils. Berman [47] of DTNSRDC computed the flow over the aft 50% chord of a CC airfoil using a MacCormack explicit solver with the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model [48]. The results showed trends consistent with the experiments. However, the magnitudes of the computed pressure coefficients were not as large as those found experimentally. Pulliam et al. [49] also employed an implicit formulation of the Navier-Stokes equations with the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model to compute the flow over CC airfoils. Their results faithfully reproduced the experimental results of Abramson and Rogers [41] for the higher blowing rates, although they also concluded that better turbulence models were needed. Viegas et al [50] computed the flow field over the trailing edge of the CC airfoil used in the experiment of Spaid and Keener [51], and a good agreement with the measured pressure distribution was also obtained. Shrewsbury [52, 53, 54] of Lockheed Martin used an implicit formulation of the compressible Reynolds-average Navier-Stokes equations (RANS) with a modified form of the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model. The turbulence model included a correction by Bradshaw [55] to account for the curvature of the Coanda surface. This method performed well and provided lift and pressure

16

distribution results in close agreement with the experimental data. Shrewsbury [53] also concluded that better turbulence models were needed to more accurately calculate the flow field characteristics around CC airfoils. These studies have demonstrated that the Navier-Stokes equations can indeed provide good estimates of the lift, pressure distribution, and pitch moments of CC airfoils at various flight conditions provided the turbulence model is able to give a reasonable good estimate of the jet separation point from the Coanda surface. More recently, the solutions of Navier-Stokes equations have also been used to predict the static and dynamic performance of CC airfoils. Shrewsbury [13, 14, 56] conducted a study of an oscillating CC airfoil to determine the dynamic stall characteristics. Williams and Franke [57] also developed a computational procedure based on Navier-Stokes equations to predict the aerodynamic performance of a CC airfoil for a range of jet blowing rates. The results were shown to be dependent on an empirical curvature constant in the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model to account for the curved flow over the blunt trailing edge, and the development of accurate turbulence models for CC airfoils was also recommended. Linton [58] computed the post jet-stall behavior of a CC airfoil using a fully implicit Navier-Stokes code and the Baldwin-Lomax and - turbulence models. Numerical solutions for the stalled and unstalled flow over a CC airfoil were obtained, and it was found that the post-stall behavior of a CC airfoil was a highly regular periodic oscillation. Liu et al [59] investigated the unsteady flow around a CC airfoil with a Navier-Stokes method. The calculations included the flow around a CC airfoil with a pulsating jet, the flow around an oscillating CC airfoil, and the flow around

17

an oscillating airfoil with pulsed jet. Wang and Sun [60] also studied the Circulation Control with multi-slot blowing. It was found that at small and medium C, the multi-slot CC blowing could increase the lift of the airfoil and reduce the amount of the energy expenditure, so that it could improve the aerodynamic performance of CC airfoils at higher Mach number by avoiding the compressibility stall. All of above studies were based on the traditional rounded trailing edge CC airfoils. For the advanced small hingeflap CC airfoil, Smith et al [61] calculated the pressure coefficient distribution over a dual-radius CC airfoil with aft CCW flap at 900 and Krueger flap at 600. The agreement with the experimental data was quite good. Around 2000, thanks to great improvements in computer speed, more complicated and accurate methods began to be used to numerically investigate the Circulation Control or separation control phenomena. Slomski et al [62] investigated the influence of turbulence models on the performance of CC airfoils. Instead of using the traditional Baldwin-Lomax model, three advanced turbulence models were used: the standard model, the modified - model, and a full Reynolds stress model. It was found that for small C, the - and modified - turbulence models could predict the lift generated by the CC airfoil reasonably well. However, at higher C, only the Reynolds stress turbulence model could capture the physics of the Circulation Control problem, allowing a reasonable prediction of the lift. Large-eddy Simulation (LES) [63] and Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) [64] methods have also been reported in last two years, primarily for the numerical investigation of boundary layer separation control.

18

1.4 Overview of the Present Work

The main objectives of the current study are to numerically investigate the aerodynamic characteristics and benefits of Circulation Control Airfoils/Wings. The present study is aimed at understanding the physical phenomena associated with the CC concept, and at extending these 2-D studies to 3-D applications, and to pulsed jet configurations. Specifically this work is aimed at answering the following questions, which have not been fully numerically investigated to the knowledge of the author: SCan pulsed jets be used to replace steady blowing to generate the same high lift with relative lower mass flow rate? If so, what is the optimum value for jet blowing coefficient C, pulsed jet frequency, wave shape and duty cycle? What are the benefits and drawbacks of pulsed jets relating to steady jets? SIn many instances, it may be desirable to retrofit an existing wing with Circulation Control. What are the aerodynamic benefits and drawbacks? For example, can the vortices generated at flap edges be reduced in strength or altogether eliminated using Circulation Control and why? Can the tip vortex of a wing be weaken or eliminated by jet blowing over the rounded wing tip? Of course these issues can, and should also be, studied in good quality wind tunnels. CFD provides a powerful way of taking a first look at the problems before an experiment is designed. Thus it is hoped that one of the benefits of this work will be a comprehensive matrix of calculations that will assist the experimental aerodynamics researchers in designing the experiments.

19

The CC airfoil configuration used in present study is the advanced hinge-flap CC wing tested in References [9, 11, 12] and [16, 17, 18, 19]. This configuration was chosen for the following reasons. This design is proven to be aerodynamically highly beneficial during both take-off/landing and cruise conditions, and also less noisy than a conventional high-lift system. An extensive set of experimental data for the twodimensional steady blowing is available for comparison and validation. The rest of this thesis is organized as follows. In Chapter II, the mathematical and numerical formulation of the governing equations is presented. It also includes the mathematical representation of the turbulence models. The initial and boundary conditions, which include the jet exit slot boundary condition, are addressed at the end of Chapter II. The numerical results for the two-dimensional steady blowing are presented in Chapter III. It includes a validation study for a NACA0012 wing, and comparisons with the experimental measurements for steady jets. The effects of several parameters on the static performance of the CC airfoil are also included. Simulations of the use of pulsed jets on CCW configurations are given in Chapter IV. In particular, the wave form and frequency effects on pulsed jet performance are discussed. Some preliminary results for three-dimensional Circulation Control wing simulations are presented in Chapter V. They include effects of tangential blowing on a wing-flap configuration to eliminate the flap-edge vortex, and a spanwise blowing over a rounded wing tip to control the tip vortex. Finally, the conclusions and recommendations for the further improvement of the CC technology studies are given in Chapter VI.

20

CHAPTER II

MATHEMATICAL AND NUMERICAL FORMULATION

In order to analyze the flow field around the Circulation Control Airfoils/Wings, solution of two-dimensional or three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations is required. Because of the complexity of wing/airfoil configurations and the strong viscous effects, it is impossible to obtain an analytical solution of the Navier-Stokes equations for practical configurations. Thus numerical techniques have to be used to solve those equations. In this chapter, the governing equations and the numerical procedures employed in the present study are documented. The formulation given below has been applied to many fixed wing and rotorcraft studies by Sankar and his co-workers [65, 66, 67, 68]. In section 2.1, the governing equations for the three-dimensional unsteady compressible flow are presented in Cartesian coordinates and Curvilinear coordinates separately. The numerical discretization procedure and the alternating directing implicit (ADI) scheme used to solve the governing equations are given in section 2.2. The turbulence models used in the present study are discussed in section 2.3. Finally the initial conditions, boundary conditions, and the special jet slot boundary condition applied to the solver are described in section 2.4.

21

2.1 The Governing Equations

Navier-Stokes equations are a set of partial differential equations for the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. These may be derived by applying the principle of classical mechanics and thermodynamics. These equations are based on Newtons hypothesis, that the normal and shear stresses are linear functions of the rates of deformation, and that the thermodynamic pressure is equal to the negative of one-third the sum of the normal stresses.

2.1.1 Governing Equations in Cartesian Coordinates The divergence form of three-dimensional compressible Navier-Stokes equations in Cartesian coordinates without external body forces or outside heat addition can be written as [69]:
q E F G R S T + + = + + + t x y z x y z

(2.1)

Here q is the flow vector or the unknown flow variables, which include the density and velocities. E, F and G are the inviscid flux vectors and R, S and T are the viscous flux vectors in the x, y and z directions, respectively.

22

The flow vector and the inviscid flux terms are:

u q = v w E t
(2.2) u u 2 + p E = uv uw (E t + p)u v uv 2 F = v + p vw (E t + p) v w uw G = uw w 2 + p (E t + p) w

Here, Et is the total energy, and it can be expressed as: 1 E t = C v T + ( u 2 + v 2 + w 2 ) 2

(2.3)

In above equations, the density , the velocity components (u, v, w) in the (x, y, z) directions and total energy Et are the unknown flow parameters. The pressure is related to the total energy and velocities by the following equations:

p = RT

(2.4)

and: 1 p = ( 1) E t (u 2 + v 2 + w 2 ) 2 23 (2.5)

In Equation (2.5), is the specific heat ratio. Since the working fluid is air, a value of 1.4 is used. The viscous terms in equation (2.1) are: 0 yx S = yy , yz E y5

0 xx R = xy , xz E x 5

0 zx T = zy zz E z 5

(2.6)

As stated earlier, the Newtonian fluid assumption has been made to link the stress tensor with the pressure and velocity components [70]. Then the following relations can be obtained: E i 5 = u j ij q i u u j + u k ij ij = i + x j x i x k i, j = 1, 2, 3 (2.7)

where ij is the Kronecker delta function; Subscripts 1, 2, 3 represent the tensors in the x, y, and z directions. The effect of fluid compressibility is expressed by the dilatation term in conjunction with the second coefficient of viscosity . In the current study, the fluid is assumed to be in a state of local thermodynamic equilibrium [71], i.e., Stokes hypothesis [72] is used to relate the first and second viscosity coefficients in the above equation (2.7). Thus,

24

2 = 3

(2.8)

The stress terms and heat transfer terms in equation (2.6) can now be written as follows: 2 u v w 2 3 x y z

xx =

u v xy = + y x u w xz = + z x 2 v u w yy = 2 3 y x z v w yz = + z y zz = 2 w u v 2 3 z x y (2.9)

E x 5 = u xx + v xy + w xz + q x E y5 = u xy + v yy + w yz + q y E z 5 = u xz + v yz + w zz + q z (2.10)

Under local equilibrium conditions, Fouriers law [73] is used to relate the heat transfer rates qx, qy and qz with the temperature gradient:

25

T x T q y = k y T q z = k z q x = k

(2.11)

The thermal conductivity, k, can be related to the molecular viscosity using the kinetic theory of gases [74]: C P C V = Pr Pr

k=

(2.12)

where Cp is the specific heat at constant pressure. For a calorically perfect gas, it is a constant and defined as C P =

R . Here R is the gas constant and is the specific heat 1

ratio, which is equal to 1.4 for air. Furthermore, Pr is the Prandtl number; and Pr = 0.72 for air. The local speed of sound is given by:

E 1 a = RT = ( 1) t u 2 + v 2 + w 2 2

(2.13)

In numerical simulations, it is convenient if all quantities in the Navier-Stokes equations are non-dimensionalized by some reference values. The advantage in doing this is that the number of parameters in the flow reduces to a few, such as Mach number,

26

Reynolds number, and Prandtl number. Also, by non-dimensionalizing the equations, the flow variables will be of the order of O(1). The following reference values have been used in the present studies: L ref = Chord of the airfoil Vref = a , Freestream speed of sound ref = , Freestream density ref = , Freestream vis cos ity Tref = T , Freestream temperature (2.14)

The non-dimensional flow variables are expressed as follows: x* = u* = * = x L ref u Vref ref y* = v* = p* = y L ref v Vref p 2 ref Vref z* = z L ref w Vref T Tref t* = t / Vref (2.15)

L ref

w* =

* = E* = t

ref Et 2 ref Vref

T* =

where the non-dimensional variables are denoted by an asterisk. Substituting the non-dimensional variables in equation (2.15) into the equation (2.1), an equation very similar to (2.1) is obtained, but there are two non-dimensional coefficients that appear in front of the inviscid and viscous terms. These coefficients are the Mach number and Reynolds number, which are defined as follows: V L ref

M =

V RT

Re Lref =

(2.16)

27

For a detailed description and expression of the non-dimensional equations, the reader is referred to Reference [69]. In the following discussions, all variables (, u, v, p etc) are non-dimensional. The asterisk has been dropped for convenience.

2.1.2 Governing Equations in Curvilinear Coordinates To obtain solutions for the flow past arbitrary geometries and handle arbitrary motions, a body-fitted coordinate system is desired so that the boundary surfaces in the physical plane can be easily mapped onto planes or lines in the computational domain. The compressible Navier-Stokes equations can be written in terms of a generalized nonorthogonal curvilinear coordinate system ( , , ) using the generalized transformation described in Appendix A: = ( x , y, z, t ) = ( x , y, z, t ) = ( x , y, z, t ) =t (2.17)

Applying the transformation to the equation (2.1), the following non-dimensional governing equations in the curvilinear coordinate system can be obtained.

M q + E + F + G = (R + S + T ) Re

(2.18)

Here,

28

 u 1 q = v J w e

(2.19)

J is the Jacobian of transformation, and it is given by:

J=

1 y (x z x z ) + y (x z x z ) + y (x z x z )

(2.20)

The quantities E, F, G and R, S, T are related to their counterparts E, F, G, and R, S, T as follows:

1 E = (E x + F y + G z + q t ) J 1 F = (E x + F y + Gz + qt ) J 1 G = (E x + F y + G z + q t ) J (2.21) 1 R = (R x + S y + T z ) J 1 S = (Rx + S y + Tz ) J 1 T = (R x + S y + T z ) J

29

In numerical simulations, the contravariant velocities U, V, and W are used as the velocity components in the generalized coordinates, which are related to the original velocities (u,v and w) as: U = ( u x ) x + ( v y ) y + ( w z ) z = t + u x + v y + w z V = ( u x ) x + ( v y ) y + ( w z ) z = t + ux + v y + wz W = ( u x ) x + ( v y ) y + ( w z ) z = t + u x + v y + w z where: (2.22)

t = x x yy z z t = x x yy zz t = x x y y z z
(2.23)

The contravariant velocity components U, V and W are in directions normal to the constant , and surfaces, respectively. The quantity (x, y and z) is the velocity of any points on the grid in an initial frame. In the present work, the body is not in motion and these velocities are zero. The inviscid E, F, G and viscous R, S, T flux vectors in the transformed coordinate system are:

30

U uU + p x  1 E = vU + y p J wU + z p (e + p )U t p

(2.24a)

V uV + p x 1 F = vV + y p J wV + z p (e + p )V t p

(2.24b)

W uW + p x = 1 vW + y p G J wW + z p (e + p )W t p

(2.24c)

0 + + y xy z xz x xx = 1 x xy + y yy + z yz R J + y yz + z zz x xz x E x 5 + y E y 5 + z E z 5

(2.24d)

31

0 + + y xy z xz x xx = 1 x xy + y yy + z yz S J x xz + y yz + z zz x E x 5 + y E y 5 + z E z 5

(2.24e)

0 + + x xx y xy z xz 1 T = x xy + y yy + z yz J + y yz + z zz x xz x E x 5 + y E y 5 + z E z 5

(2.24f)

The viscous flux terms with the shear stresses in the transformed coordinates are:
2 2(u x + u x + u x ) ( v y + v y + v y ) ( w z + w z + w z ) 3 2 yy = 2(v y + v y + v y ) (u x + u x + u x ) ( w z + w z + w z ) 3 2 zz = 2(w z + w z + w z ) (u x + u x + u x ) ( v y + v y + v y ) 3 xy = (u y + u y + u y + v x + v x + v x ) xx =

]
(2.25)

xz = (u z + u z + u z + w x + w x + w x ) yz = ( v z + v z + v z + w y + w y + w y )

where the Stokes hypothesis for bulk viscosity has been used, as discussed earlier.

32

The auxiliary functions are: a 2 a 2 a 2 x + x + x Pr ( 1) (2.26)

E x 5 = u xx + v xy + w xz +

E y 5 = u xy + v yy + w yz +

a 2 a 2 a 2 y + y + y Pr ( 1) a 2 a 2 a 2 z + z + z Pr ( 1)

E z 5 = u xz + v yz + w zz +

The quantities x, y, z etc. are called the metrics of transformation, Pr is Prandtl number, a is the speed of sound, and a2 = RT. is the specific heat ratio and a value of 1.4 has been given for air. Those values can be earlier computed on a body fitted grid [69], as discussed later. The time derivative in the transformed plane is related to the time derivative in

the physical plane

as follows: t t =
x , y ,z

+ t + t + t ,,

(2.27)

with t, t and t appropriately defined as shown in equation (2.23). If the body is not moving, or the grid is not moving, = . t

33

2.2 Numerical Procedure

The governing equations (2.1) can be solved analytically only for some very simple cases. For most aerodynamic applications, the equations have to be solved numerically. There are two major approaches to solve these equations numerically in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). One is the Finite Difference method, in which the governing equations in the continuous domain are transformed into a computational domain with uniform grid spacing and then discretized. The second is the Finite Volume method, in which the conservation principles are applied to a fixed region in physical space known as a control volume. The governing equations are thus represented in integral forms for finite volume method, which are discretized directly in the physical domain. In the present work, a semi-implicit finite difference scheme based on the Alternating Direction Implicit (ADI) [75, 76, 77] method was used. A brief description of this finite difference scheme will be given in this section. For a detailed review of the development of the finite difference scheme and the ADI method, the reader is referred to the Reference [78].

2.2.1 Temporal Discretization The unsteady compressible Navier-Stokes equations are a mixed set of hyperbolic-parabolic equations. Since the governing equations are parabolic in time, they may be solved with advancing in time using a stable, dissipative scheme. Because of the

34

time step restriction from stability considerations for the explicit method, an implicit first-order accurate scheme is used: q
n +1

q = q +
n

n +1

+ O()

(2.28)

Here, the superscript n+1 represents the new, or unknown time level, and the superscript n represents the previous, or known time level. A second order scheme could also have been used, but the first-order scheme gives better stability properties. If the time step is small enough to maintain the stability for Navier-Stokes equations, a satisfactory temporal accuracy is still achieved. The Navier-Stokes equation (2.18) then can be written in a semi-discrete form as: q
n +1

= ( E + F + G )

n +1

n M ( R + S + T) Re

(2.29)

where, for example, E is a numerical approximation to the derivative E , and standard fourth-order or second-order central differencing is used to calculate these derivatives. The viscous terms are evaluated explicitly by using the old time level values, and added to the right-hand side of the equation. The details of the spatial discretization procedure will be discussed later. Substitute equation (2.29) into equation (2.28), the following equation is obtained: M q n +1 = q n ( E n +1 + F n +1 + G n +1 ) + ( R n + S n + T n ) Re (2.30)

35

Note that the inviscid terms are at the new time level n+1 (or treated implicitly), while the viscous terms are explicitly computed using known information at the old time level n. For this reason, this approach is a semi-implicit scheme.

2.2.2 Linearization of the Difference Equations Because the flux vectors E , F , and G are nonlinear, the algebraic equations shown in (2.30) for the unknown vector, q n+1 , are nonlinear. However, this non-linearity may be removed, while maintain the temporal accuracy, by using a linearization procedure. In the present study, following the method proposed by Beam and Warming [79], those nonlinear flux vectors are linearized about the non-linear solution at an earlier time level n as follows:

E n+1 = E n + [ A n ](q n +1 q n ) + O( 2 ) F n+1 = F n + [B n ](q n +1 q n ) + O( 2 ) G n+1 = G n + [Cn ](q n +1 q n ) + O(2 )

where [A], [B] and [C] are the Jacobian matrices: [ A] = E q [B ] = F q and [C] = G q (2.32) (2.31)

For the Euler equations, these 5*5 matrices can be evaluated analytically and are given by Pulliam [80]. The viscous terms are modeled explicitly, and no linearization is needed.

36

The detailed forms of those matrices are shown below: 0 t x y z 2 u ( 2)u y u x v z u x w x x x 2 x v y u y ( 2) v z v y w y [A] = y v 2 y w z v z ( 2) w z z w x w z u ( 2 E) x E u y E v z E w t + where: 2 = ( 1)(u 2 + v 2 + w 2 ) / 2 = x u + y v + z w = 1 = t + E= e 2 (2.34)

(2.33)

The matrices [B] and [C] may be similarly conducted if and are used in the above equations, respectively, instead of . After substituting the linearized flux vectors equations (2.31) into (2.30), the following systems of linear equations for q n+1 can be achieved:

[I + ( A n + B n + C n )](q n +1 q n ) = RHS n

(2.35)

The RHS in above equation is the steady state portion of the governing equations, and is known as the residual. For Navier-Stokes calculations, the residual is given by: M RHS n = ( E n + F n + G n ) + ( R n + S n + T n ) Re (2.36)

37

In steady flow problems, the residual should go to zero asymptotically after a sufficiently long period of time, starting from an arbitrary initial value for the flow variables. By defining q n +1 = q n +1 q n in equation (2.35), the so called delta form equation is obtained: [I + ( A n + B n + C n )]q n +1 = RHS n (2.37)

There are several advantages using the delta form of the equations. First, the delta form is convenient and makes the equations analytically simpler. Secondly, the delta form algorithm is easier to code and modify, and also provides a steady-state solution that is independent of the time step. The boundary conditions are also more easily applied in the delta form. However, the delta form equations are slightly less stability than the nondelta form [78]. But the instabilities of both forms are very weak, and can be easily controlled by taking somewhat smaller time steps.

2.2.3 Approximate Factorization Procedure The matrix form on the left hand side of equation (2.35) sparsely links a cell (or node) to its six neighbors, yet the dimension of the matrix is large. If classical finite difference methods are used to discretize this matrix, a seven-diagonal equation will be obtained. A direct inversion of this system is so costly that it would negate the advantages of an implicit scheme. To simplify the inversion of this system, without reducing the accuracy of the method, an approximate factorization scheme by Beam and Warming [79] was used in the present studies: [I + ( A + B + C)] [I + ( A)][I + ( B)][I + ( C)] + o( 2 ) 38 (2.38)

This factorization method has not reduced the temporal accuracy of the method, but it has changed a large, sparse matrix into the product of three easily inverted tridiagonal matrices. Thus, the computational efficiency is greatly increased. After the approximate aactorization (AF) procedure, the system equations for q n +1 are solved by three successive block-tridiagonal inversions: [I + ( A n )]q1 = RHS n [I + ( B n )]q 2 = q1 [I + ( C n )]q n +1 = q 2 (2.39)

2.2.4 Spatial Discretization of the Inviscid Terms The right hand side of equation (2.37), RHS n , contains inviscid derivative terms such as E , where E includes the flux of mass, momentum and energy, and viscous terms such as R . To numerically model those derivatives, a spatial discretization is required. For those inviscid terms, a standard second or fourth order central differencing is used. Second Order: and Fourth Order: E = E i + 2, j,k + 8E i +1, j,k 8E i 1, j,k + E i 2, j,k 12 39 (2.40b) E = E i+1, j,k E i1, j,k 2 (2.40a)

It is possible to obtain fourth-order spatial accuracy without increasing the coding work too much, while preserving the block-tridiagonal nature of the system. In order to further save the computation time, in the present study, just two directions, streamwise and normal directions, are treated implicitly, while the spanwise term is treated semi-implicitly. That is, the values obtained from the n and n+1 time levels in direction are used in the right hand side of the equation (2.37), instead of the left hand side. Thus, equation (2.37) yields: [I + A n ][I + C n )]q n +1 = RHS n ,n +1

(2.41)

and the right hand side becomes: RHS n ,n +1 = ( E n + F n ,n +1 + G n ) + M ( R n ,n +1 + S n ,n +1 + T n ,n +1 ) Re (2.42)

where the term, F n ,n +1 , means using the latest value available (in the new time level or the old time level) to evaluate the flux term. This type of semi-implicit difference method was first used by Rizk and Chausee [81] with the Beam and Warming algorithm. This algorithm is unconditionally stable from the stability analysis. However, due to the nonlinearity in direction, this scheme is best suitable for the geometries and grids in which the spacing is much larger in one direction ( direction here) than others. For fixed wings and rotor blades, in spanwise direction, the spacing of the grid is generally much larger than it in the streamwise and normal directions. Thus the semi-implicit scheme works very well for these applications.

40

Treatment of the spanwise (or -derivative) in this scheme leads to the following equations that require just two tridiagonal matrix inversion: [I + ( A n )]q1 = RHS n ,n +1 [I + ( C n )]q n +1 = q1

(2.43)

Notice that in equation (2.43), the inversion directions have been uncoupled, hence the name Alternating Direction. In general, the two inversions are called as the -sweep/i-sweep and -sweep/k-sweep, respectively. These inversions are done at each fixed span station. The calculations are done at one -plane at a time, sweeping from the root to beyond the tip in the span direction. The marching direction is reversed after each iteration to avoid any dependence the solution may have on the sweep direction.

2.2.5 Spatial Discretization of the Viscous Terms As mentioned before, the viscous terms of the Navier-Stokes equations are evaluated explicitly and added to the right hand side of the equation (2.37). This approach also allows very easy modeling of the Euler as well as Navier-Stokes equations, and saves a lot of computer time. It has been found by Tannehill et at [82] that, for high Reynolds numbers, an artificial explicit treatment of the viscous terms is stable provided a suitable low pass filter is used which filters out the high spatial frequency noise in the solution at each time step, before moving onto the next step.

41

Unlike the inviscid derivative terms, the derivatives of the viscous terms are differenced about the half points. A typical term such as R is written as (R as
i +1 / 2

R i1/ 2 . Because the R itself contains the derivatives of the velocities, such

u , the use of half points differencing limits the second-order differences to three x

points in each coordinate direction, while second-order spatial accuracy is maintained. For example, u can be expressed in the transformed coordinates as: x u u u u x + x = x + x

(2.44)

At half points (i+1/2, j, k), the standard central differences are used: u u ui = i+1 i+1/ 2, j,k

(2.45)

2.2.6 Implementation of Low Pass Filters The use of central difference equations in the above numerical procedure can lead to an odd-even decoupling which manifests itself as high frequency saw-tooth like waves. These waves are non-physical, and must be filtered out with the use a low-pass filter before they grow and contaminate the solution. In some literatures, these low pass filters, which dissipate the energy contained in high frequency waves, are also called artificial dissipation terms. 42

Artificial dissipation was first used by Von Neumann and Richtmyer [83] in 1950. A second-order low pass filter was used for the unsteady 1-D flow equations to capture the shock. By second order, it is meant that these filter terms are proportional to O(2), where is the grid spacing. Since then, artificial dissipation has been successfully used by many researchers for the numerical solution to virtually all types of flow problems, such as, Lax and Wendoff [84], Lapdius [85], Lindmuth and Killeen [86], and McDonald and Briley [87]. For a detailed material review of related studies, the reader is also referred to Reference [78]. Based on Beam and Warming [79] and Steger [88] s work, a set of fourth-order low-pass filter terms has been added explicitly to the right hand side of the governing equations. The magnitude of these terms is of order O(4), and will drop to zero as the grid is refined and as the grid space goes to zero. Also, second-order low-pass filter terms have been added implicitly to the left hand side. After adding the implicit and explicit low-pass filter terms, the above blocktridiagonal equation (2.43) becomes: [I + ( A n ) + I D I, ]q1 = RHS n ,n +1 E D E [I + ( C ) + I D I, ]q
n n +1

= q

(2.46)

where DE is the fourth-order explicit filter term, and D I , and D I , are implicit filter terms in the and directions, respectively. The coefficients I and E are user-input to control the amount of filtering. Excessive filtering can filter out physical meaningful information such as vorticity, tip vortex etc. Thus, these coefficients must be kept small. 43

In present study, a non-linear filter with eigenvalue scaling was used. Thus the fourth-order explicit low pass filter term is defined as: D E = D E , + D E , + D E , where D E , = [( ,i+1, j J i+11, j + ,i , j J i,1 ) i(,2j) q in, j ] + [( ,i, jJ i,1 ) (i,4j) q in, j ] j j (2.48)

(2.47)

In above equation, represents a forward difference in direction, and denotes a backward difference in direction. The is the largest eigenvalue of the flux matrix A, which is defined as follows: = U + a ( 2 + 2 + 2 )1/ 2 x y z and the coefficients i(,2j) and i(,4j) are defined as follows: i(,2j) = k 2 max( i1, j , i , j , i+1, j ) i(,4j) = max(0, k 4 i(,2j) ) and i , j = p i+1, j 2p i , j + p i1, j p i+1, j + 2p i , j + p i1, j (2.50) (2.49)

The typical values of the constant k2 and k4 are 0.25 and 0.01. In the and directions, the explicit filter terms DE, and DE, are defined in a similar manner, with the scaling factors and , respectively.

44

The second-order, implicit filter terms in equation (2.46) are defined as: D I, = J i,1 ( ,i , j J i, j ) j (2.51) D I , = J ( ,i , j J i , j ) For a detailed description of the non-linear low pass filter terms, the reader is referred to the Reference [56].
1 i, j

2.3 Turbulence Models

In many practical CCW applications, the Reynolds number based on the airfoil chord is usually very high, and the flow region is turbulent. Although the Navier-Stokes equations can be used to solve turbulent flows from first principles, extremely small grid sizes are required to accurately simulate the instantaneous flow quantities and capture the smallest scale eddies. Thus solving the turbulent flow behavior by a direct numerical simulation (DNS) requires very large computer resources [89]. To reduce the computational time, the RANS (Reynolds Average Navier-Stokes System of equations) are employed in this work. These equations are derived by decomposing the flow variables in the conservation equations into time-mean and fluctuating components, and then time averaging the entire Navier-Stokes equations. The time-averaged Navier-Stokes equations lead to the Reynolds stresses ( u v , u w , vw , u 2 , v 2 , w 2 ), which can not be solved directly from the equations, and must be modeled. 45

To model these Reynolds Stresses, based on the theory that the stresses are proportional to the strain, a simple algebraic model is used. For example, the Reynolds Stress u v can be expressed as:

u v =

u v y + x

(2.52)

where u v is the time-averaged values of the product u , v , and u , v are the instantaneous velocity fluctuations about the mean velocities of u and v, respectively. The term T/ is the turbulent viscosity coefficient, and is also called as the eddy viscosity. In the present RANS equations based modeling of the turbulent flow, (
+

T) is

used in the dimensional form of Navier-Stokes equations instead of . Also in the energy equation, /Pr is replaced by (/Pr + T/PrT), where the turbulent Prandtl number, PrT, is given as 0.91, and Pr is 0.72 for air. Since T is an unknown parameter and depends on the turbulent flow field, a turbulence model is needed to evaluate the value of the eddy viscosity T. There are many turbulence models used in CFD to simulate the turbulent flow [90]. However, most of them are just good under some specific flow situations. A proper choice of turbulence models is important and can have a large effect on the accuracy of the simulations. The turbulence models used in this work are the Baldwin-Lomax Model (zero-equation model) [48], and the Spalart-Allmaras Model (one-equation model) [91].

46

2.3.1 Baldwin-Lomax Turbulence Model The Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model is a two-layer algebraic model. It does not require solving any transport equation. Thus it is called a zero-equation model. In Baldwin-Lomax model, the eddy viscosity is treated differently in the inner and outer layers. In the inner layer close to the wall, the eddy viscosity T is given by: T = ( T )inner = l 2 m

for d<dc

(2.53)

where d is the distance from the surface of the body, and dc is the value of d for which

( T )inner = ( T )outer . The quantity, lm, is the Prandtl mixing length, which is the product of
the distance from the wall and Van Driest damping factor. The expression for lm is: z w w l m = z 1 exp 26 w

(2.54)

Here, k is the Von Karman constant, set to 0.4. The variable z represents the physical distance from the nearest wall. The subscript w refers to conditions at the wall, and w is the shear stress at the wall. In equation (2.53), the magnitude of the local mean vorticity is defined as:

w v u w v u = y z + z x + x y
2

(2.55)

In the outer layer, the eddy viscosity is computed with the following equation:

47

( T )outerlayer = K c C cpFwake Fkleb

where:
2 0.25z max U dif Fwake = min z max Fmax , Fmax

(2.56)

z w w F(z) = z 1 exp( ) 26 w U dif =

(u

+ v2 + w 2 Fkleb =

) ( u
max

+ v2 + w 2

(2.57)

min

1 0.3z 1 + 5.5 z max

6

In equation (2.57), the constant Kc = 0.0168 is the Clausers constant, and Ccp = 1.6 is an empirical constant. The Klebanoff intermittency correction, Fkleb, and the function Fwake are based on a formulation given by Cebeci [92]. The quantity zmax is the distance from the wall where F(z) reaches the maximum value of Fmax. In this turbulence model, the distribution of vorticity has been used to determine length scales. So, the necessity of finding the boundary-layer thickness used in models such as the Cebeci-Smith model is removed. It is seen that many empirical constants are used in this model. These constants were obtained by the original developers based on simple benchmark calibrations. Thus there is a limitation of applying this model to real configurations. This is common to all turbulence models. In the present work, the constants from the original work by Baldwin and Lomax were used without modifications.

48

2.3.2 Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model In the Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model, a partial differential equation is solved that models the production, dissipation, diffusion, and transport of an eddy-viscosity like quantity at each time step. Thus this is a one-equation model. The turbulent eddy viscosity t is equal to t, and t is given by: ~ 3 , = 3 3 + c v1

t = ~f v1 , f v1 = 1

(2.58)

where is the molecular viscosity. transport equation.

The working variable, ~ , is governed by the

D~ ~ 1 = c b1 (1 f t 2 )S ~ + [.(( + ~ )~ + c b 2 (~ ) 2 ] + Dt
2 c b1 ~ 2 c w1f w 2 f t 2 d + f t1U

(2.59)

Here, ~ S = S+ Also, fv2 = 1 1 + f v1 (2.61) ~ f v2 , 2d 2 (2.60)

where S is the magnitude of the vorticity, and d is the distance to the closest wall.

49

The function fw in the destruction term is given by the following expression: 1 + c6 f w = g 6 w63 g + cw3 where g = r + c w 2 (r 6 r ) ~ r~ 2 2 S d (2.63)
1 6

(2.62)

For large values of r, fw asymptotically reaches a constant value; therefore, large values of r can be truncated to 10 or so. In simple zero equation models, the transition region is abruptly modeled as a single line or plane. Upstream of this line, the flow is laminar, and the eddy viscosity is only computed downstream. To better represent the transition from the laminar flow to turbulent conditions, the Spalart-Allmaras model has a set of terms to provide control over the laminar regions of the shear layers. The first of these terms is the ft2 function, which goes to unity upstream of the transition point. f t 2 = c13 exp(c14 2 ) A trip function ft1 is obtained from the following equation: 2 2 f t1 = c t1g t exp c t 2 t 2 d + g 2 d 2 t t U (2.64)

(2.65)

where g t = min(0.1,

U ) and t is the wall vorticity at the trip point and dt is the t z

50

distance from the field point to the trip point, a user specified transition location, and
U is the difference between the velocity at the field point and that at the trip point. Use

of the trip function allows the eddy viscosity to vary gradually in the transition region. However, the user still needs to specify the transition location, or compute it using a criterion, such as Michals [93] or Epplers [94] transition model.
The wall boundary condition is ~ = 0. In the free-stream and outer boundary ~ =

10 , and this value is also used as the initial conditions. The constants used in this model were given by Spalart et al, based on many successful numerical tests [91]. These constant values used in our work are: cb1 = 0.1335, cw2 = 0.3, cb2 = 0.622, cw3 = 2,

=2 /3,
cv1 = 7.1,

= 0.41,
ct1 = 1,

c w1 = ct2 = 2,

c b1 (1 + c b 2 ) + 2 ct3 = 1.1 , ct4 = 2

These are the constants in the original work of Spalart and Allmaras, and no attempt was made to change these constants for the present application.

2.4 Initial and Boundary Conditions

Because the governing equations (2.1) are parabolic with respect to time and elliptic in space, initial and boundary conditions are required to solve these equations. In general, the initial flow conditions are set to free-stream values inside the flow field, which is enough to get the final convergence solution with the time marching scheme. The boundary conditions must be carefully specified to obtain meaningful solutions, and

51

their implementation is usually based on physics. For instance, non-slip conditions are appropriate for the viscous surface, and slip conditions may be used in an inviscid simulation. For the CCW simulations, jet slot exit boundary condition must be specified to simulate the jet flow effects.

2.4.1 Initial Conditions Because the numerical scheme for equation (2.1) uses a time-marching technique, the solution of the equations at new time n+1 level depends upon the values at the old time n level, and the boundary conditions. Thus a meaningful initial condition must be specified before the calculation starts. In the present study, at the start of the calculation, the airfoil or wing is impulsively started from rest. The flow properties everywhere in the system are assumed to be uniform. Thus, the free-stream properties are specified as the initial conditions everywhere.

2.4.2 Outer Boundary Conditions The outer boundary is usually placed far from the airfoil surface, at least six chords away. One common boundary condition is to assume that the outer boundary is a permeable surface, where instability waves emitted from the body are free to pass and are not reflected back. In this study, a non-reflecting boundary condition is used at the outer boundary as shown in Figure 2.1.

52

2a + u n leaves 1

2a u n enters 1
No vorticity or entropy enters from upstream since the boundary faces uniform flow.

Vorticity, Entropy, Acoustic properties (Riemann invariant 2a + u n) are allowed to 1 leave the domain Downstream pressure field can influence upstream components. Riemann invariant

2a u n is allowed to 1 enter in.

Figure 2.1: The Outer Boundary Conditions for Sample C Grid

The boundary conditions must allow the correct number of characteristic waves to leave, since each characteristic wave that leaves the computational domain corresponds to one piece of the physical information such as isentropic/acoustic waves, entropy and vorticity, etc, leaving the domain. The number of the waves (acoustic, entropy, vortical) depends on the flow conditions on the outer boundary. To satisfy the non-reflecting boundary conditions, one quantity should be extrapolated from the information inside for every wave that leaves the domain. For example, at the subsonic-inflow boundary (upstream), one characteristic should be allowed to leave. Thus density is extrapolated from the interior while four other quantities (u, v, w, and Et), are fixed to the free-stream values. However, at the subsonic-outflow boundary (downstream), four characteristics should leave, so the four quantities (,u, v, and w) are extrapolated from the interior, while the pressure, p, is fixed to free-stream value. Many researchers have also used Riemann equations to specify these boundary conditions. 53

2.4.3 Solid Surface Conditions On the airfoil surface, the boundary conditions must be properly specified for accurate solutions. In inviscid flows, in the absence of transpiration, the flow must be tangent to the airfoil surface:  Vb n = 0  where n is the unit vector normal to surface and Vb is the velocity vector. In viscous flows, the no-slip conditions is applied, which is state that all components of the velocity with respective to the airfoil surface are zero at the surface:  Vb = 0

(2.66)

(2.67)

The density at the airfoil surface is extrapolated from the interior using the following expression: 0 or i1 = (4 i 2 i 3 ) / 3 n (2.68)

where, i1 represents the point on the surface, i2 is the point next to the surface, and i3 is the point next to the point i2 in normal direction. Away from jet slots, the pressure at the surface is also determined from the specification that the pressure gradient at the surface be zero. That is: P =0 n

(2.69)

54

The numerical expression of this is: Pi1 = (4Pi 2 Pi3 ) / 3

(2.70)

Thus, for a viscous flow without jet blowing, the boundary conditions shown in Figure 2.2 are applied.

u = v = w = 0; No slip

P = 0 (Simplification of normal n momentum equation) T =0 n Adiabatic wall

Figure 2.2: The Solid Surface Boundary Conditions for Viscous Flow

2.4.4 Boundary Conditions at the Cuts in the C Grid When C-type grids are used, there will be a branch cut across the wake region to maintain a simply connected region. Since physically the flow variables are continuous across this cut, the properties on this cut are specified as averages of the variables one point above and one point below the cut line. The grid should contain sufficient resolution in this region to avoid the errors introduced by this condition.

55

Figure 2.3: The Wake-cut Boundary Conditions for C Grid

As shown in the Figure 2.3, at the wake cut, the points B and C are at the same physic location that happens to fall on both sides of the cut. Thus q B = q C . Continuity of 1 properties is ensured by setting q B = q C = (q A + q D ) . 2

2.4.5 Jet Slot Exit Conditions with Given C In most Circulation Control Wing studies, the driving parameter is the momentum coefficient, C, defined as follows.  mU jet 1 2 V S 2 (2.71)

C =

Here, the jet mass flow rate is given by:  m = jet U jet A jet

(2.72)

where Ajet is the area of the jet slot, and S is the area of the whole wing section. In 2-D simulations, Ajet is the height of the jet slot and S is the chord of the CC airfoil. 56

In the present study, the following boundary conditions are specified at the slot exit: the total temperature of the jet T0, which is approximately equal to the total temperature of free-stream, the momentum coefficient C as a function of time, and the flow angle at the exit. In this simulation, the jet velocity direction is normal to the jet slot exit and tangential to the surface. Since the jets are nearly always under-expanded, the jet slot exit location will be assumed as the minimum area of the nozzle, i.e., the throat. The physics of the jet slot boundary conditions are shown in Figure 2.4.

P0 = Total pressure depends on upstream conditions T0 = Total temperature also depends on upstream conditions Flow angularity depends on slot geometries These are specified. In subsonic jets, P must be continuous. PA + PC = PB 2 In supersonic jets, P should be specified.

Figure 2.4: The Jet Slot Boundary Conditions

For subsonic jets, one characteristic can propagate upwind into the slot. Thus the pressure at the jet exit is extrapolated from the outside values using the same constraints as equation (2.70). Then the static pressure at the jet slot exit can be obtained as: Pjet = Pi1 = (4Pi 2 Pi 3 ) / 3 (2.73)

57

From equation (2.71), the momentum coefficient can also be expressed as: jet U 2 A jet jet 1 2 V S 2

C =

(2.74)

From the ideal gas law and the equation of state, the following relations can be obtained: 2 R (T0, jet Tjet ) 1

U2 = jet

and

jet =

Pjet RTjet

(2.75)

Substituting equation (2.75) into (2.74), another expression for C with just one unknown parameter can be obtained: 2 A jet Pjet (T0, jet Tjet ) C = 1 1 V 2S Tjet 2

(2.76)

The only unknown variable is Tjet, which can be easily solved from equation (2.76). After the Tjet is calculated, the other jet flow variables, such as Ujet and jet, can be obtained from equation (2.75). These parameters are also non-dimensionalized by corresponding reference values before used in the solver as the boundary conditions. For supersonic jets, no information can be propagated upstream into the slot, thus the extrapolation of jet exit pressure from the outside points is not correct. Because the jet slot is assumed to be the throat of the nozzle, the local Mach number at the jet slot should be unity. And the jet velocity at the exit should be equal to the local speed of sound. 58

From the isentropic relations for the total temperature and jet exit temperature: 1 2 M jet 2

T0, jet Tjet

=1 +

(2.77)

where Mjet = 1, and the Tjet can be easily solved as the T0,jet is known. After the Tjet is obtained, other jet flow quantities could be determined for the supersonic flow from the equations (2.74) and (2.75).

2.4.6 Jet Slot Exit Conditions with Given Total Jet Pressure In experiments, C could not be directly measured from the wind tunnel. Instead, it is the ratio of the jet total pressure to free-stream static pressure, P0, jet P , and the jet total

temperature to free-stream temperature,

T0, jet T

, that are specified as the blowing

conditions. Then the momentum coefficient is calculated from the measured data. Again, the momentum coefficient C is defined as:

C =

 mVa qC

(2.78)

 where m is the mass flow rate of the jets defined as equation (2.72), q is the free stream
dynamic pressure, which is equal to

1 2 V , and Va is the jet slot velocity obtained 2

assuming that the flow was expanded to the free-stream pressure.

59

Then the local Mach number at the jet exit slot is determined from the isentropic relationship: 2 P0, jet 1 Pjet
1

M jet = M i1 =

(2.79)

If Mjet is less than 1.0, which indicates a subsonic jet, then the local density can be obtained from Pjet by the following relationship: Pjet jet 1 2 (1 + M ) Pi1 T0, jet P 2 = = i1 T0, (1 + 1 M 2 ) jet 2

(2.80)

and the local speed of sound: a jet = a i1 = Pi1 i1 (2.81)

with the local values of the Mach number, speed of sound and pressure, using the equation of state with the geometric considerations, the other flow properties u, v, w, and total energy can be easily obtained. If Mjet is great than 1.0, which indicates a supersonic jet, then the Mach number is constrained to 1.0 as mentioned above, and the local pressure is calculated from the following expression instead of equation (2.73). + 1 Pjet = Pi1 = P0, jet 2
1

(2.82)

The local density, speed of sound and velocities (u, v, w) etc can subsequently be determined using the same method as above. 60

CHAPTER III

TWO DIMENSIONAL STEADY BLOWING RESULTS

In the following studies, an unsteady three-dimensional compressible NavierStokes solver based on the numerical scheme and boundary conditions described in Chapter II is being used. The solver, called GT-CCW3D, can model the flow field over isolated wing-alone configurations with or without Circulation Control jets. Both 3-D finite wings and 2-D airfoils may be simulated with the same solver, and both leading edge blowing and trailing edge blowing can be simulated. In this chapter, the results of two-dimensional unblown and steady blowing cases are presented. First, this code is validated with a rectangular wing with NACA0012 airfoil sections, and the results are compared with the experimental measurement. Next, the flow field over the CC airfoil with steady blowing is simulated and compared with the unblown case. After validation of the analysis through a comparison of the lift coefficients at different momentum coefficients with the experimental data, results are presented on the effects of control parameters such as the momentum coefficient, the total pressure, the free-stream velocity, and jet slot heights, etc, on the performance of the CC airfoil. Finally, a series of studies, comparing the CC airfoil to the conventional high-lift system, and the leading edge blowing, are presented.

61

3.1 Code Validations with a NACA 0012 Wing

Prior its use to model CCW configurations, the Navier-Stokes solver is validated by modeling the viscous subsonic flow over a small aspect-ratio wing made of NACA 0012 airfoil sections. The wing aspect ratio is 5 and the angle of attack is 8 degrees. The free-stream Mach number is 0.12, and the Reynolds number based on wing chord is 1.5 million. Measured surface pressure data and the lift coefficient distribution along span for this wing at these conditions have been documented by Bragg and Spring [95]. Figure 3.1 shows the computed and measured surface pressure distributions at four spanwise stations (34%, 50%, 66% and 85% SPAN) on a 121*21*41 coarse grid. There were 121 points in the wrap-around C-direction, 21 points along the span, and 41 points in the direction normal to the wing. Good agreement with measurements is observed at 34%, 50% and 66% span locations. However, at the 85% span location, the calculated lift is over-predicted because the grid spacing is sparse. A fine grid, which has the dimension of 151*51*51, has been used for the grid study case. As shown in Figure 3.2, the lift coefficient at each spanwise station is much closer to the measured data for the fine grid case (151*51*51) than the coarse grid (121*21*41) case. The turbulence model effects have also been studied with this case. It is found that the Spalart-Allmaras model gives somewhat better predictions of lift distribution along the span, particularly at the tip region, compared to the BaldwinLomax model. However, the computed load around the wing tip region is still overpredicted compared to the experimental data, because the very strong tip vortex could not

62

be accurately captured by the Reynolds average Navier-Stokes codes with the BaldwinLomax turbulence model. To exactly capture the tip vortex, a better turbulence model and an even fine mesh in the tip region are likely required.

3.2 Unblown and Steady Blowing Results

The 3-D solver validated above can also be used to study flow over 2-D airfoils. In the 2-D mode, the spanwise derivative is set to zero, and the flow properties at only one span location need to be calculated. The solver in 2-D mode was used to study the effects of steady jets on the performance of CC airfoils. The effects of pulsed jets will be discussed in the next chapter.

3.2.1 Configuration Modeled As mentioned earlier, a supercritical airfoil with a simple hinged dual-radius CCW flap shown in Figure 3.3 designed by Englar et al [11] was used in all the simulations shown here. The jet slot is located at 88.75% chord length at the upper surface of the airfoil, and the jet slot height is about 0.2% of the chord length. The CCW flap is just aft of the jet slot, and is fixed at 30 degrees. From existing experimental data [11], it is known that this CCW hinged flap design at this (lower) flap angle of 30 can maintain most of the advantages of increased circulation attributable to the Coanda effect at a lower drag, compared to conventional CC airfoils with a rounded trailing edge and/or CCW flap airfoils with larger flap angles. According to recent aeroacoustic studies [9],

63

the tone noise emitted from the 30-degree flap is also much less than that from the 90degree flap CCW airfoil.

3.2.2 Computational Grid A hyperbolic three-dimensional C-H grid generator was used in all calculations. The three-dimensional grid is constructed from a series of two-dimensional C-grids with an H-type topology in the spanwise direction. The grid is clustered in the vicinity of the jet slot and the trailing edge to accurately capture the jet behavior over the airfoil surface. For 2-D studies, the grid at a single span station was used in the solver. The near field grid is shown in Figure 3.4. The slot location, slot height, and flap angle can all be varied easily and individually in the grid generator and the flow solver. The construction of a high-quality grid about CC airfoils is made difficult by the presence of the jet channel that originates in an interior plenum. Shrewsbury [52, 53, 54] and Williams et al [57] solved this problem by treating the jet slot as a grid-aligned boundary. Pulliam et al [49] used an innovative spiral grid topology as well as a multi-block grid. Berman [47] used a non-rectangular computational domain. In the present study, the method similar to Shrewsbury was used, with the jet slot boundary condition described in Chapter II. The grid close to the jet slot is clustered to accurately simulate the jet flow behavior. In the present study, it was found that at least 7 points should be used across the jet slot. The grid close to the trailing edge of the CC airfoil should also be adequately clustered, since the attached jet flow will turn at the corner of the trailing edge if the C is

64

high, and the turning angle will affect the total circulation and the lift over the CC airfoil. As shown in Figure 3.5, a grid-sensitivity study has been done to investigate the effect of grid spacing near the trailing edge on the lift coefficient. It is found that a spacing of 0.001 chord length between the trailing edge point and the first point in the wake is needed to correctly capture the high lift over the CC airfoil at a large momentum coefficient, which is equal to 0.15 in this case. In the following studies, the trailing edge spacing is always at 0.001 chord length, and 51 points have been placed in the wake region. Thus, the total dimension of the grid is 221*51, with 221 points in the streamwise direction and 51 points in the normal direction.

3.2.3 Blowing and Unblown Results Comparison In the steady blowing studies, the flow conditions are the same with the experimental studies of Englar et al [11]. The free-stream velocity was approximately 94.3 ft/sec (28.74 m/sec) at a dynamic pressure of 10 psf and an ambient pressure of 14.2 psia (0.979 bar). The free-stream density was about 0.00225 slugs/ft3 (1.1596 kg/m3), and the chord of the CC airfoil is about 8 inch (0.2032 m). These conditions are translated into a free-stream Mach number 0.0836 and a Reynolds Number of 395,000 in current numerical simulations. Figure 3.6 shows the variation of lift coefficient with respect to C at a fixed angle of attack (=0 degree) for the CC airfoil with a 30-degree flap. Excellent agreement with measured data from experiment by Englar [11] is evident. It is seen that very high lift can be achieved by Circulation Control technology with a relatively low C. A lift coefficient

65

as high as 4.0 can be obtained at a C value of 0.33, and the lift augmentation Cl/C is greater than 10 for this 30-degree flap configuration. Figure 3.7 shows the computed Cl variation with the angle of attack, for a number of C values, along with measured data. It is found that the lift coefficient increases linearly with angle of attack until stall, just as it does for conventional sharp trailing edge airfoils. This is expected due to the increase in circulation with the angle of attack. However, due to the presence of the jet blowing, and the change of the rearward stagnation point location, the relation of lift coefficient with angle of attack for CC airfoils is quite complex. Also as shown in Figure 3.7, the increase of lift with angle of attack breaks down at high enough angles. This is due to static stall, and is much like that experienced with a conventional airfoil, but occurs at very high Cl,max values, thanks to the beneficial effects of Circulation Control. The calculations also correctly reproduce the decrease in the stall angle observed in the experiments at high momentum coefficients. Unlike conventional airfoils, this is a leading edge stall. The computed stall angle is lower than the experimental measurement, possibly due to the relatively simple turbulence model used, which may not be accurate enough to capture the separation behavior of the flow at high angles of attack. Figure 3.8 shows the streamlines around the CC airfoil at an angle of attack of 6 degrees, and C = 0.1657. In this case, a leading edge separation bubble forms, and then spreads over the entire upper surface, resulting in a loss of lift. However, the flow is still attached at the trailing edge because of the strong Coanda effect. The leading edge stall at high C may be explained as follows. As C increases, the 66

circulation around the airfoil increases, leading to large pressure suction levels over the upper surface. As angle of attack () increases, this large suction level generates a steep adverse pressure gradient near the leading edge, leading to local separation bubbles, and ultimately stall. Of course, with CC airfoils, it is seldom necessary to operate at high angles of attack since high lift is easily achieved at low values and modest amounts of blowing. These simulations also give some insight into the physics of the flow. For example, consider a typical case at = 0. Without any blowing, trailing edge separation and vortex shedding occur over the CCW flap, and the lift coefficient varies from 0.768 to 0.854 as shown in Figure 3.9. The measured data have an average of 0.878. When CC blowing is applied with a moderate C of 0.1657, the 2-D lift coefficient increases to a value of 3.07. This is in excellent agreement with the measured value of 3.097. These values can be attained in conventional wings only with the use of complex flaps and at a higher flap angle or a higher angle of attack, which would considerably increase the mechanical complexity and weight of the wing. For comparison, a 30-degree Fowler flap on this same airfoil experimentally yielded only a lift coefficient of 1.8 at = 0 [11]. In Figure 3.9, it is seen that the variation is periodic with a dimensional frequency around 400Hz at a free-stream velocity of 94.3 ft/sec. This is due to the vortex shedding over the trailing edge flap. In the acoustic experimental work of Munro [9, 16], it was also found that there was a strong tone noise at a specified frequency for the unblown case. To get more understanding into this vortex shedding frequency, a simulation at freestream velocity of 220 ft/sec, which is the same as in the acoustic experimental study [9], 67

has also been done. As shown in Figure 3.10, Cl also varies periodically with time, and the extracted frequency is about 1080 Hz (Strouhal number = f*Chord/U = 3.27). The experimental studies [9] indicated that vortex shedding was present at a higher frequency of 1600 Hz (Strouhal number = 4.84). To explain this difference, a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) has been done to transfer the computed periodic variation of the lift coefficient with time into the frequency domain. As shown in Figure 3.11, in the frequency domain, there is a dominant peak frequency at about 1080 Hz, which matches the extracted frequency from the calculations. But there are secondary peak frequencies due to the complex non-linearity of the flow, one of which occurs at 1600 Hz, which is the same with the acoustic measurement. However, the flow characteristics for the vortex shedding and separation are likely too complicate to be properly simulated here simply with a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equation with a simple turbulence model. For more accurate results, more advanced methods and improved boundary conditions may be necessary. One of the methods is to use a higher order interpolation across the wake cut boundary. It is suggested by Dancila and Vasilescu [96] that this method can smoothly capture the vortex passage across the wake cut boundary, and give a better prediction of the vortex shedding. Figure 3.12 shows the streamlines around the trailing edge of the CC airfoil for the blowing and unblown cases at a typical instance in time. It is clearly seen that the trailing-edge vortex shedding, a potential source of noise, can be eliminated by even blowing a small amount of jets.

68

3.2.4 Steady Blowing with Specified Total Pressure In above CFD simulations, the moment coefficients C, was directly specified as the boundary condition using the method described in Chapter II. However, in experiments, C can not be directly specified, and it is instead calculated from the measured jet total pressure in the pneumatic chamber. In this section, some calculations have been done with the specified total jet pressure as the boundary condition, and the results have been compared with the ones obtained from previous simulations, where the momentum coefficient is specified as the boundary condition. In this case, the control parameter is P0,jet/P, instead of C, and the C is subsequently calculated as C =
 mVa , qC

 where m is the mass flow rate and Va is the slot velocity obtained from the assumption that the flow were expand to the free-stream pressure. Thus, from equations (2.79) to (2.82), a relation between C and P0,jet/P can be obtained as follows: P0, jet C = G P
1

1.0

(3.1)

where, G is a constant coefficient that is dependent on the area of the jet slot, the freestream dynamic pressure and the area of the wing. The C variation with P0,jet is shown in Figure 3.13, and the lift coefficient variation with C is shown in Figure 3.14. From those figures, it is seen that the C is a unique function of the total jet pressure. The predicted Cl values by changing the total jet pressure are similar in behavior to the results computed by changing the specified momentum coefficient. Both these results are very close to the experimental 69

measurements at the same C. Thus it is reasonable to use C as the driving parameter in the numerical studies, instead of varying the jet total pressure as in experiments.

3.3 Effects of Parameters that Influence the Momentum Coefficient

As mentioned in Chapter II, the driving parameter of the Circulation Control is the momentum coefficient, C, which is defined as follows. jet U 2 A jet jet C = = 1 1 2 2 VS VS 2 2  mU jet

(3.2)

Thus, besides the jet velocity, the momentum coefficient is also a function of the area of jet slot and the free-stream velocity. In general, it is assumed in experiments and numerical simulations that the lift of CC airfoils achieved is the same for a given C. But some questions have arisen during the studies: 1) What happens to the lift and drag if one doubles or halves the blowing slot height or free-stream velocity with the same C? 2) Would a thin wall jet be more beneficial than a thicker, slower jet at the same C? To answer these questions, some simulations have been done to investigate the effects of those parameters that influence the momentum coefficient, on the performance of CC airfoils at a fixed C. In following sections, the effects of two most important parameters, the free-stream velocity and the jet slot area (or jet slot height for a 2-D airfoil), have been investigated. 70

3.3.1 Free-stream Velocity Effects with Fixed C and Fixed Jet Slot Height At first, a simulation was done to study the effects of the free-stream velocities on the lift and drag coefficients for the 2-D steady blowing. In this case, the jet momentum coefficient, C, is fixed at 0.1657, and the jet slot height is also fixed at 0.015 inch, which is about 0.2% of the chord. However, the free-stream velocities are varying from 0.5 to 1.8 times of the experimental free-stream velocity, which is equal to 94.3 ft/sec, thus the jet velocity will vary with the free-stream velocity to keep a constant C. As shown in Figures 3.15 and 3.16, for a given momentum coefficient, the lift coefficient and drag coefficient do not vary significantly with the change of the freestream velocity except at the very low free-stream velocities. The reason for the production of low lift and high drag at low free-stream velocities is that the jet velocity is too low to generate a sufficiently strong Coanda effects that eliminates separation and the vortex shedding. It can be concluded that the performance of CC airfoils is independent of the free-stream velocity under the fixed C and fixed jet slot height conditions, and that C is an appropriate driving parameter for CC blowing if the slot-height is fixed. From Figure 3.17, the total mass flow rate increases linearly with the increase in the free-stream velocity. This is because the C is non-dimensionalized by the free-stream dynamic pressure, which includes the free-stream velocity. Thus the jet velocity and the mass flow rate have to be increased with the free-stream velocity to keep a constant C when the jet slot height is also fixed.

71

3.3.2 Jet Slot Height Effects with Fixed C and Fixed Free-stream Velocity According to the acoustic measurements [9], the jet slot height has a strong effect on the noise produced by the CC airfoil, and a larger jet slot will reduce the noise at the same momentum coefficient compared to a smaller one. To investigate the effect of jet slot heights on the aerodynamic characteristics of CC airfoils, simulations at several slot heights (from 0.006 inch to 0.018 inch) have been done, at a fixed low C (C =0.04) and a fixed high C (C =0.1657) value, and at a constant free-stream velocity of 94.3 ft/sec. From Figure 3.18, it is found that a higher lift coefficient can be achieved with a smaller slot height even for the same momentum coefficient, and that the lift coefficient is decreased by 20% as the slot height is increased from 0.006 inch to 0.018 inch. A similar behavior is seen for the drag coefficient as shown in Figure 3.19. Thus the efficiency of the airfoil, which is defined as Cl/(Cd+C), and is corrected by adding C to the drag considering the momentum induced by the jet flow, does not vary much with the change of the jet slot height. As shown in Figure 3.20, the efficiency decreases by about 7.6% for C =0.1657 case, and increases by about 5.3% for C =0.04 case when the slot height is changed. However, as shown in Figure 3.21, the mass flow rate, which measures the total amount of the jet needed, is increased by at least more than 60% when the slot height is increased from 0.006 inch to 0.018 inch, due to the larger jet slot area. Since it is always preferable to obtain higher lift with as low a mass flow rate as possible, a thin jet is more beneficial than a thick jet. However, a higher pressure is required to generate a jet issuing through a smaller slot than through a larger slot at the same momentum coefficient. The power needed by a compressor to produce the required 72

high pressures can thus increase, neglecting any beneficial effects of Circulation Control for very thin jets. In general, within the range of power consumption, a smaller jet slot height is preferred from an aerodynamic design perspective. However, as mentioned above, a larger jet slot height is preferred from an acoustic design perspective. Thus, a compromise should be made for the jet slot height between the aerodynamic and acoustic considerations of CC airfoils.

3.4 Other Simulations for the CC Airfoil

3.4.1 Comparisons with the Conventional High-Lift System Some preliminary calculations were also done for a high-lift system configuration with the same supercritical airfoil and a 30-degree Fowler flap to determine how this configuration performs relative to a CC airfoil configuration. The solver used to simulate the high-lift systems is also developed at Georgia Tech, and has been validated by Bangalore and Sankar [97, 98] for a number of applications. The multi-element airfoil configuration and the grid close to the surface are shown in Figure 3.22. Figure 3.23 shows the airfoil drag polar, i.e., lift variation with drag, for the multielement airfoil and the CC airfoil with blowing. For both these cases, the flap angle is fixed at 30 degrees. For the multi-element airfoil, the lift and drag are varied with the change of the angle of attack. But for the CC airfoil, the angle of attack is fixed at 0 degree, and the lift and drag variations are achieved by changing the jet momentum coefficient. It is seen that the CC airfoil configuration has a consistently lower drag at a

73

given lift compared to the multi-element airfoil, and that it can achieve very high lift without stall. Figure 3.24 shows the efficiency, Cl/Cd+C for these two configurations, and it is seen that the CC airfoil is much more efficient than a multi-element airfoil at the same lift coefficient.

3.4.2 Leading Edge Blowing As mentioned in section 3.2.3, and as shown in Figure 3.7, the stall angles of CC airfoils are quickly decreased with the increase in the jet momentum coefficient. The same behavior happens for the conventional two-element high lift airfoil studied earlier. To avoid leading edge stall, a third element, the slat, is usually added to the two-element airfoil, giving a three-element high-lift configuration. Both experiments [99] and CFD simulations [100] show that a slat can control the flow field around the leading edge of the airfoil, and greatly increase the stall angle. However, the slat will also add more moving parts and weight to the wing. Leading edge blowing is an effective way of alleviating stall and achieving the desired performance at higher angle of attack. To understand the effects of the leading edge blowing, a dual-slot CC airfoil was designed, and simulations have been done for both the leading edge (LE) blowing and trailing edge (TE) blowing cases. Figure 3.25 shows the grid for the leading edge blowing configuration. The jet slot height at the LE is half that of the slot at the TE. Figure 3.26 shows the lift coefficient variation with the angle of attack for three different combinations of LE and TE blowing. For the first case, there is only a TE

74

blowing with C= 0.08, and it is seen that the stall angle is very small, at approximately 5 degrees. But if a small amount of LE blowing is used (C= 0.04), while keeping the TE blowing at C= 0.08 as before, the stall angle will be greatly increased (from 5 degrees to 12 degrees). If more LE blowing is used, e.g. a LE blowing of C= 0.08 and a TE blowing of C= 0.04, the stall angle will be increased to more than 20 degrees, but the total lift is decreased at the same angle of attack compared to the previous case even when the total momentum coefficients (C,LE + C,TE) of the both cases are the same, which is equal to 0.12 here. Figure 3.27 shows the drag coefficient variation with the angle of attack. It shows the same behavior as the lift coefficient. An increase in TE blowing produces higher drag. In conclusion, the leading edge blowing is seen to increase the stall angle, replacing the slat, while the trailing edge blowing could produce higher lift. Leading edge blowing can also reduce the large nose down pitch moment due to the high lift and the large level of suction peak in the vicinity of the slot. In general, operating at high angles of attack is not necessary for CC airfoils since high lift can be readily achieved with low angles of attack and a moderate amount of blowing. But in simulations where the CC airfoil must operate at high angles of attack, a combination of leading edge and trailing edge blowing could be used to achieve the best performance.

75

-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5

34% SPAN

Exp

CFD

Cp

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Chord

Figure 3.1a: Cp Distribution over NACA 0012 Wing Sections at 34% Span

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5

50% SPAN

Exp
-1

CFD

Cp
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Chord

Figure 3.1b: Cp Distribution over NACA 0012 Wing Sections at 50% Span

76

-3 -2.5

66% SPAN
-2 -1.5 -1

Cp

Exp

CFD

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Chord

Figure 3.1c: Cp Distribution over NACA 0012 Wing Sections at 66% Span

-2.5

-2

85% SPAN Exp CFD

-1.5

-1

Cp

-0.5

0.5

1.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 CHORD 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Figure 3.1d: Cp Distribution over NACA 0012 Wing Sections at 85% Span

77

0.8

0.6

Cl
0.4

Exp 8 DEG CFD, BL Model, Coarse Grid

0.2

CFD, SA Model, Coarse Grid CFD, BL Model, Fine Grid

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Span, Y/C

Figure 3.2: Lift Coefficient Distribution along Span at Angle of Attack 8 Degrees (Rectangular Wing with NACA 0012 Airfoil Sections)

0.5 0.4 0.3 Jet S Location lot 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Figure 3.3: The Circulation Control Wing Airfoil with 30-degree Flap 78

Figure 3.4: The Body-fitted C Grid near the CC Airfoil Surface

2.5

2 DX

Cl

1.5

Dx=0.001, Cl_ave=2.96
0.5

Dx=0.002, Cl=2.88 Dx=0.005, Cl=2.53

0 0 4000 8000 12000 16000

Iterations

Figure 3.5: The Lift Coefficients in Different Grid Spacing Cases (C = 0.15) (Dx: The distance between the trailing edge point (A) and the first point in the wake (B))

79

Cl
2

Cl, Measured
1

Cl, Computed
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Figure 3.6: Variation of the Lift Coefficient with Momentum Coefficients at =0

4

EXP, Cmu = 0.0

C=0.1657

EXP, Cmu = 0.074 EXP, Cmu = 0.15

3
C=0.074

CFD

Lift Coefficient, Cl

C=0.0

0 -4 -2 0 2 4

Angle of Attack

10

12

14

16

Figure 3.7: The Variation of the Lift Coefficient with Angle of Attack

80

Figure 3.8: The Streamlines over the CC airfoil at Two Instantaneous Time Step (C = 0.1657, Angle of Attack = 60) 81

0.9 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.82

t = 1.578693 msec t = 4.128484 msec t = 6.678274 msec

Cl

0.8 0.78 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (msec)

Figure 3.9: Time History of the Lift Coefficient for the Unblown Case (U=94.3 ft/sec)
0.885

0.88

0.875

0.87

Cl

0.865

0.86

0.855

0.85

0.845 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (msec)

Figure 3.10: Time History of the Lift Coefficient for the Unblown Case (U=220 ft/sec)

82

30

Dominant Vortex
25

20

FFT

15

10

Munro[9]s measurement = 1600Hz

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 3.11: The FFT of the Lift Coefficient Variation with Time (U=220 ft/sec)

83

Figure 3.12a: Streamlines over the TE of the CC Airfoil (Unblown Case, 30-degree Flap)

Figure 3.12b: Streamlines over TE of the CC Airfoil (Blowing Case, C=0.04, 30-degree Flap)

84

0.6

0.4

C 0.2 0 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Pjet-total / Pinf 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

Figure 3.13: The C Variation with the Total Jet Pressure for Steady Blowing Case

Cl
2

Cl, Measured Cl, Computed by Specified Cmu

1 Cl, Computed by Specified Jet Total Pressure 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Figure 3.14: The Lift Coefficient Variation with C for Steady Blowing Case 85

3.5

Cl

2.5

2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 (Vinf in CFD) / (Vinf in Exp.)

Figure 3.15: Lift Coefficient vs. Free-stream Velocity (C = 0.1657, h = 0.015 inch and V, exp = 94.3 ft/sec)
0.2

0.15

Cd

0.1

0.05

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 (Vinf in CFD) / (Vinf in Exp.)

Figure 3.16: Drag Coefficient vs. Free-stream Velocity (C = 0.1657, h = 0.015 inch and V, exp = 94.3 ft/sec)

86

0.004 0.0035 0.003 Mass Flow Rate 0.0025 0.002 0.0015 0.001 0.0005 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 (Vinf in CFD) / (Vinf in Exp.)

Figure 3.17: Mass Flow Rate vs. Free-stream Velocity (C = 0.1657, h = 0.015 inch and V, exp = 94.3 ft/sec)
4

Cmu = 0.04 Cmu = 0.1657

3

Lift Coefficient

0 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.018

Jet Slot Height (inch)

Figure 3.18: Lift Coefficient vs. Jet Slot Height (V= 94.3 ft/sec)

87

0.25

Cmu = 0.04 Cmu = 0.1657

0.2

Drag Coefficient

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 0.006

0.009

0.012

0.015

0.018

Jet Slot Height (inch)

Figure 3.19: Drag Coefficient vs. Jet Slot Height (V= 94.3 ft/sec)
20

15

Efficiency Cl/(Cd+Cmu)

10

Cmu = 0.04 Cmu = 0.1657

5

0 0.006

0.009

0.012

0.015

0.018

Jet Slot Height (inch)

Figure 3.20: The Efficiency vs. Jet Slot Height (V= 94.3 ft/sec) 88

0.0025

Cmu = 0.04 Cmu = 0.1657

0.002

Mass Flow Rate (slugs/sec)

0.0015

0.001

0.0005

0 0.006

0.009

0.012

0.015

0.018

Jet Slot Height (inch)

Figure 3.21: The Mass Flow Rate vs. Jet Slot Height (V= 94.3 ft/sec)

0.5

-0.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Figure 3.22: The Shape of the Multi-element Airfoil and the Body-fitted Grid (30-degree Fowler flap)

89

3.5

2.5

Lift Coefficient, Cl

1.5

Multi-element Airfoil with 30 degrees fowler flap

1

CCW Airfoil with 30 degrees flap, Cd not corrected CCW Airfoil with 30 degrees flap, Cd corrected with Cd + Cmu

0.5

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Drag Coefficient, Cd

Figure 3.23: The Drag Polar for the Multi-Element Airfoil and the CC Airfoil
25

20

Efficiency, L/D Ratio

15

10

Multi-element Airfoil with 30 degrees fowler flap CCW Airfoil with 30 degrees flap, Cd corrected with Cd + Cmu

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4

Lift Coefficient, Cl

Figure 3.24: The Efficiency (Cl/Cd+C) for the Multi-Element Airfoil and the CC Airfoil 90

Figure 3.25 (a) The Grid for the Leading Edge Blowing Configuration

(b)

(c)

Figure 3.25 (b): The Grid Close to the Leading Edge Jet Slot Figure 3.25 (c): The Grid Close to the Trailing Edge Jet Slot

91

3.5 LE Blowing, C = 0.04 TE Blowing, C = 0.08 3

Lift Coefficient, Cl

2.5

LE Blowing, C = 0.08 TE Blowing, C = 0.04 LE Blowing, C = 0.00 TE Blowing, C = 0.08

1.5

0.5

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Angle of Attack (degrees)

Figure 3.26: Lift Coefficient vs. The Angle of Attack

0.25

LE Blowing, C = 0.00 TE Blowing, C = 0.08

LE Blowing, C = 0.04 TE Blowing, C = 0.08

0.2

Drag Coefficient, Cd

0.15

LE Blowing, C = 0.08 TE Blowing, C = 0.04

0.1

0.05

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Angle of attack

Figure 3.27: Drag Coefficient vs. The Angle of Attack

92

CHAPTER IV

TWO DIMENSIONAL PULSED BLOWING RESULTS

During the past five years, there has been increased interest in the use of pulsed jets, and "massless" synthetic jets for flow control and performance enhancement. Wygnansky et al [101, 102] studied the effects of the periodic excitation on the control of separation and static stall. Lorber et al [103], and Wake et al [104] have studied the use of directed synthetic jets for dynamic stall alleviation of the rotorcraft blade. Hassan [105] has studied the use of synthetic jets placed on the upper and lower surfaces of an airfoil surface as a way of achieving desired changes in lift and drag, offsetting vibratory airloads that otherwise would occur during blade-vortex interactions. Pulsed jets and synthetic jets have also been used to affect mixing enhancement, thrust vectoring, and bluff body flow separation control. In 1972, Olyer and Palmer [106] experimentally studied the pulsed blowing of blown flap configurations. More recently, some numerical simulations employing a pulsed jet have also been reported for separation control of highlift systems [107], and traditional rounded trailing edge CC airfoils with multi-port blowing [108]. Most of the studies above were focused on the use of low momentum coefficient or zero-mass blowing to control the boundary layer separation or static and dynamic stall. Only a few studies [106] considered the use of pulsed jets for lift augmentation, at smaller mass flow rates compared to steady jets.

93

The present computational studies were aimed at answering the following questions: Can pulsed jets be used to achieve desired increases in the lift coefficient at lower mass flow rates relative to a steady jet? What are the effects of the pulsed jet frequency on the lift enhancement at a given time-averaged C? What is the optimum wave shape for the pulsed jet, i.e. how should it vary with time? In the calculations below, the angle of attack was set at zero, and the dual-radius CC airfoil flap angle was fixed at 30 degrees. The shape of the CC airfoil, free-stream Mach number, slot height, chordwise location of the slot, and Reynolds number were all, likewise, held fixed as in the steady jet studies mentioned in Chapter III. In the present studies, the following variation of the momentum coefficient with time was assumed: C (t ) = C ,0 [1 + F( t )]

(4.1)

where, C ,0 is the time-averaged momentum coefficient, which is also the value of the steady jet used for comparison. F(t) is a function of time, which varies from 1 to 1, and determines the temporal variation of the pulsed jet.

4.1 Jets Pulsed Sinusoidally

Prior to the use of square wave form pulsed jets, a set of preliminary calculations were done using a sinusoidal function form pulsed jet, i.e, F(t) is equal to sin(2ft) in equation (4.1). It was found that this sinusoidal form was not an effective wave shape to use compared to the square wave form. 94

Figure 4.1 shows a typical sinusoidal variation of the momentum coefficient with time. The frequency is defined as the number of cycles per second. For the 400 Hz pulsed jet, the time period between the peaks is 0.0025 seconds. Since the time-averaged C,0 is 0.04, C sinusoidally changes between a maximum value of 0.08, and a minimum of zero. Figure 4.2 shows the lift coefficient variation with time for this sinusoidal form pulsed jet. It is seen that the lift coefficient variation also follows a periodic variation like sinusoidal form, no appreciable improvement in Cl compared to the steady jet. The mass flow rate variation with the time is shown in Figure 4.3. It is seen that the change of mass flow rates is also periodic, and that the average mass flow rate is less than the steady flow, but very close to it. Figure 4.4 shows the time-averaged lift coefficient of the sinusoidal pulsed jet as a function of the frequency, with a comparison to the square wave pulsed jet and the steady jet. It is seen that the differences between the sinusoidal wave and square wave pulsed jet are small as far as the average values of Cl are concerned. Also a higher Cl can be achieved at higher frequency in both cases. However, as shown in Figure 4.5, the mass flow rate required for the sinusoidal pulsed jet is much higher than that for the square wave jet. For this case with an average C,0 of 0.04, the sinusoidal pulsed jet requires 92% of the steady jet mass flow, while the square wave pulsed jet requires just 73% of the steady jet mass flow to achieve nearly the same lift as the sinusoidal pulsed jet. Since the main advantage of the pulsed jets is to produce the comparable lift at lower mass flow rates, the square wave pulsed jet is seen to be more efficient for the practical applications.

95

4.2 Jets Pulsed with a Square Wave Form

Improved results were obtained when the function F(t) in equation (4.1) was chosen to be a square wave with a 50% duty cycle. Under this setting, F(t) equals to +1 for half the cycle, and F(t) equals to -1 for the other half of a cycle, as shown in Figure 4.6. It shows a square wave pulsed jets with frequency at 40 Hz, and the average momentum coefficient is 0.04. The frequency f indicates the number of cycles that the jet was turned on and off per second. Note that the instantaneous C is zero during one half of the cycle, and equals 2 C,0 during the other half of the cycle. Thus the time-averaged value is C,0, which is also the value of the steady jet used for comparison. Figure 4.7 shows the lift coefficient variation with time for this square wave pulsed jet. It is seen that the Cl variation of the square wave pulsed jet is neither sinusoidal nor like a square wave because of a time delay that exists in reducing or increasing the circulation when the jet is turned off or on. At this low frequency of 40 Hz, over large portion of the time the beneficial effects of Circulation Control are lost, and the airfoil behaves like a conventional trailing edge stalled airfoil. However, the mass flow rate variation, as shown in Figure 4.8, is still like a square wave, and the average mass flow rate is lower than the steady jet.

4.2.1 Pulsed Jet Flow Behavior Figures 4.9 and 4.10 show the variation of the time-averaged incremental lift coefficient Cl over and above the base-line unblown configuration at three frequencies, 96

40 Hz, 120 Hz and 400 Hz. Figure 4.9 shows the variation with the average momentum coefficient C,0, and Figure 4.10 shows the variation with the average mass flow rate. Figure 4.11 shows the relation between the average mass flow rate and the average momentum coefficient. It is seen that the average mass flow rate is the same for pulsed jets at different frequencies with a given C,0. Mass flow rate is a linear function of the jet velocity. Since the average momentum coefficient is independent of the frequency, the average jet velocity and the mass flow rate do not depend on the frequency as well. Figures 4.12 and 4.13 show the behavior of the time-averaged lift-to-drag ratio Cl/(Cd+C,0) with C,0 and mass flow rate, respectively. As done previously, the drag coefficient has been corrected by adding C,0 to account for the momentum imparted by the jet into the wake. For comparison, the corresponding values of the steady jet with the same C,0 are also shown in these figures. For a given value of C,0, a steady jet gives a higher value of Cl compared to a pulsed jet as shown in Figure 4.9. This is to be expected because the pulsed jet is operational only half the time during each cycle as where the steady jet is continuously on. The benefits of the pulsed jet are more evident in Figure 4.10. At a given mass flow rate, it is seen that the time-averaged values of lift are higher for the pulsed jet compared to the steady jet, especially at higher frequencies. This superior performance of the pulsed jet can be explained as follows. The momentum coefficient is proportional to the square of the jet velocity, where as the mass flow rate is proportional to jet velocity Vjet. As a consequence, doubling the instantaneous momentum coefficient to twice its average value increases the instantaneous mass flow rate only by a factor of square root of 2, 97

compared to a steady jet. Thus, the mean mass flow rate of the square wave form pulsed jet is just about 70% of the mean mass flow rate of a steady jet at the same average C,0 value. The Coanda effect, on the other hand, is dependent on the jet velocity squared, and greatly benefits from these brief increases in the momentum coefficient. This leads to higher lift for the same mass flow rate, compared to a steady jet as seen in Figure 4.10. Since the mass flow rate is not a function of frequency as shown in Figure 4.11, a much higher lift can be achieved at higher frequencies for the same mass flow rate. At first glance, Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10 will appear to show opposite trends. Figure 4.10 appears to favor high frequencies i.e. Cl increases as frequency increases, and pulsed jet produces a higher Cl than a steady jet. This appears to be consistent with experiments [106]. However, Figure 4.9 appears to show the opposite trend steady jet appears to be always more efficient than a pulsed jet, and produces a large Cl. To resolve this apparent inconsistency between Figure 4.9 and 4.10, four points A, B, C, D are shown in Figure 4.9. These points are at the same mass flow rate of 0.00088 slug/sec. It is seen that point A is above point B. That is, a steady jet is indeed able to produce a higher Cl than a low frequency 40 Hz jet. This is because the flow separates over a period of time before a new cycle of blowing begins, destroying the lift generation. However, points C and D (120 and 400 Hz jets) are higher than point A. In these cases, bound circulation over the airfoil has not been fully shed into the wake before a new cycle begins. The time-averaged lift at the same specified averaged mass flow rate is thus higher compared to a steady jet. This is consistent with Figure 4.10.

98

The lift-to-drag ratio for the steady jet is, however, still better compared to the pulsed jet case as seen in Figures 4.12 and 4.13, partly because the Cd values have been augmented by the momentum coefficient C,0.

4.2.2 Effects of Frequency at a Fixed C As mentioned above, the frequency has a strong effect on the performance of the CC airfoil. To further investigate this, pulsed jet simulations have also been done at a fixed time-averaged value of C,0 equal to 0.04, while parametrically changing the frequency f. Figures 4.14 and 4.15 show the variation of the average lift coefficient and the efficiency with the frequency, respectively. It is seen that higher frequencies are, in general, preferred over lower frequencies. For example, as shown in Figure 4.14, when the frequency is equal to 400 Hz, the square form pulsed jet only requires 73% of the average steady jet mass flow rate while it can achieve 95% of the lift achieved with a steady blowing. Examination of the flow field over an entire cycle indicates that it takes some time after the jet has been turned off before all the beneficial circulation attributable to the Coanda effect is completely lost. If a new blowing cycle could begin before this occurs, the circulation will almost instantaneously reestablish itself as shown in Figures 4.16 and 4.17. At high enough frequencies, as a consequence, the pulsed jet will have all the benefits of the steady jet at considerably lower mass flow rates. For the 40 Hz jet, as shown in Figure 4.16, it is found that it takes about 0.00335 seconds (for a 8 inch chords airfoil at a free-stream velocity of 94.3 ft/sec) before the

99

Coanda benefit is lost completely. After that, the flow behaves like a conventional airfoil and vortex shedding occurs during the rest time of the duty cycle until the jet is turned on again. However, it just takes 0.00137 seconds to regain the Coanda effect after the jet is turned on. This behavior is also observed as the frequency increased to 200 Hz, as shown in Figure 4.17. During the first half of the duty cycle, when the jet is turned off, it is seen that the lift coefficient is always decreasing but has not reach a minimum as in the 40Hz case. It takes about 0.00248 seconds for the Coanda effect to be lost, which is just equal to the jets-off time of the duty cycle. However, during the second half of the duty cycle, when the jet is turned on, it is seen that it just takes 0.00113 seconds for lift coefficient to reach the 98% of the maximum value, and the airfoil operates at this value for the remainder of the duty cycle, for about 0.00137 seconds. The average lift coefficient will much higher for a 200 Hz pulsed jet than that for a 40 Hz pulsed jet. As stated earlier, these two cases have the same time-averaged mass flow rate. Thus, the 200 Hz pulsed jet performs better than the 40Hz pulsed jet.

4.2.3 Strouhal Number Effects For aerodynamic and acoustic studies, the frequency is usually expressed as nondimensional quantity called the Strouhal number. A simulation has been done to calculate the average lift generated by the pulsed jet at fixed Strouhal numbers to answer the following question: which of them, the frequency or the Strouhal number, has the a more dominant effect on the pulsed jet performance?

100

The Strouhal number is defined as following: Str = f L ref U (4.2)

In equation (4.2), f is the frequency of the pulsed jets. Lref is the reference value of the length, which is the chord length of the airfoil, and U is the free-stream velocity. In some applications, the vertical length of the flap has been chosen as Lref. Here the chord length of the airfoil is used to simplify the analysis. In the present study, for the baseline case, the Lref is 8 inches, and the U is equal to 94.3 ft/sec. For a 200 Hz pulsed jet, the Strouhal number is equal to 1.41. It should be noticed that another dimensionless frequency, F+, has also been used in many pulsed jet and synthetic jet studies [101, 102, 108], which is defined as follows: F+ = f Lf U (4.3)

Here, Lf is the length of the flap chord. In this case, the Lf is 1 inch, and the F+ is about 0.17625. Since F+ is linearly related to the Strouhal number, the present discussion will just focus on the Strouhal number. From equation (4.2), besides the frequency, there are other two parameters that could affect the Strouhal number, which are the free-stream velocity and Lref (Chord of the CC airfoil). Thus, three cases have been studied. In the first case, as shown in Table 4.1, the free-stream velocity and the Chord of the CC airfoil are fixed, and the Strouhal number is varied with the change of frequency. In the second case, as shown in Table 4.2, the Strouhal number is fixed at 1.41 and the chord of the CC airfoil is also fixed. The 101

frequency is varied along with the free-stream velocity to achieve the same Strouhal number. In the third case, as shown in Table 4.3, the Strouhal number is fixed at 1.41 and the free-stream velocity is also fixed, while the frequency is varied along with the chord of the CC airfoil. The Mach number and Reynolds number are also functions of the freestream velocity and the airfoil chord, and were changed appropriately. The time-averaged momentum coefficient, C,0, is fixed at 0.04 in these studies. Figure 4.18 shows the lift coefficient variation with the frequency for these three cases. From tables 4.2 and 4.3, it is seen that the computed time-averaged lift coefficient varies less than 2% when the Strouhal number is fixed. Table 4.2 indicates that the same Cl can be obtained at a much lower frequency with a smaller free-stream velocity as long as the Strouhal number is fixed. Table 4.3 shows that for a larger configuration, the same Cl can be obtained at a lower frequency provided the Strouhal number is fixed. Table 4.1, on the other hand, shows that varying the frequency and Strouhal number while holding the other variables fixed can lead to a 12% variation in Cl. Thus, it can be concluded the Strouhal number has a more dominant effect on the average lift coefficient of the pulsed jet than just the frequency. Figure 4.19 shows that the lift coefficient is general increased with the Strouhal number as it does with the frequency, when the momentum coefficient, the free-stream velocity, and the chord of the airfoil are fixed. When the Strouhal number is about 2.8, the square form pulsed jet can achieve 95% of the lift achieved with a steady blowing while using only 73% of the average steady jet mass flow rate.

102

4.3 Summary of Observations

In Chapter III and IV, a number of studies have been presented on the effects of the steady and pulsed jets on the behavior of CC airfoils. Before moving onto 3-D configurations, it is worthwhile to summarize some observations from 2-D simulations. S Very high lift could be achieved by CC blowing with a relative low momentum coefficient, and the trailing edge vortex shedding, a potential noise source, can be eliminated by the CC blowing. SThe stall angle of the CC airfoil is decreased with the increase in the momentum coefficient, and it is a leading edge stall. SUnder steady blowing conditions, the momentum coefficient has a unique relation with the jet total pressure. The variation of Cl with C is the same as the variation of Cl with P0,jet/P. Thus, it is reasonable to just vary C as the driving parameter for CCW computational studies. In experiments, it is of course more convenient to vary P0,jet as the driving parameter. SAt a fixed momentum coefficient, the performance of the CC airfoil does not vary with changes to the free-stream velocity and free-stream Reynolds number. As a result, one can study CCW performance in low speed tunnels with small models. SBetter performance is achieved for a CC airfoil with a smaller jet slot height than the one with a larger jet slot height. In practice, thin jets may require high plenum pressure, which translates into higher power requirements of compressors that will supply the high pressure air.

103

SCompared to a conventional multi-element airfoil, the CC airfoil can achieve a higher L/D at the same lift coefficient, and it can generate much higher lift coefficient prior to stall. SLeading edge blowing can increase the stall angle, and allow the CC airfoil to operate at high angles of attack. SThe sinusoidal pulsed jet is not very effective compared to a square wave form pulsed jet due to higher mass flow rates required with sinusoidal jets. SThe square wave form pulsed jet can generate the same lift of the steady jet at a much lower mass flow rate, and the performance of the pulsed jet improves with the increase in frequency. SThe Strouhal number has a more dominant effect on the performance of the pulsed jet than just the frequency. For a larger configuration or at a small freestream velocity, the same lift coefficient can be obtained at a lower frequency provided the Strouhal number is fixed. This means low frequency actuators that are more readily available may be used on full-scale aircraft.

104

Table 4.1: The Computed Time-averaged Lift Coefficient for the Case one (U and Lref fixed, the Strouhal number varying with the frequency) Baseline Frequency (Hz) Free-Stream Velocity U (ft/sec) Chord of the Airfoil Lref (inch) Strouhal Number Computed Average Lift Coefficient (Cl) Computed Average Mass Flow Rate (slugs/sec) 0.0006194 0.0006200 0.0006210 1.6804 1.5790 1.8026 8 1.41 8 0.705 8 2.82 94.3 94.3 94.3 200 Half Frequency 100 Double Frequency 400

Table 4.2: The Computed Time-averaged Lift Coefficient for the Case Two (Strouhal number and Lref fixed, the U varying with the frequency) Baseline Frequency (Hz) Free-Stream Velocity U (ft/sec) Chord of the Airfoil Lref (inch) Strouhal Number Computed Average Lift Coefficient (Cl) Computed Average Mass Flow Rate (slugs/sec) 0.0006194 105 0.0003070 0.001288 1.6804 1.6601 1.7112 8 1.41 8 1.41 8 1.41 94.3 47.15 118.6 200 Half Velocity 100 Double Velocity 400

Table 4.3: The Computed Time-averaged Lift Coefficient for the Case Three (Strouhal number and U fixed, the Lref varying with the frequency) Baseline Frequency (Hz) Free-Stream Velocity U (ft/sec) Chord of the Airfoil Lref (inch) Strouhal Number Computed Average Lift Coefficient (Cl) Computed Average Mass Flow Rate (slugs/sec) 0.0006194 0.001240 0.0003100 1.6804 1.7016 1.6743 8 1.41 16 1.41 4 1.41 94.3 94.3 94.3 200 Double Chord 100 Half Chord 400

106

0.09 DT = 0.0025 0.08

Sin Form Wave Pulsed Jets Steady Jets

0.07

Momentum Coefficient,C

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0 0.21 0.212 0.214 0.216 0.218 0.22

Real Time (sec)

Figure 4.1: The Time History of the Momentum Coefficient (Sinusoidal Wave, Frequency = 400 Hz, C,0 = 0.04)
2.5

Lift Coefficient, Cl

1.5

Sin Form Wave Pulsed Jets Steady Jets

0.5

0 0.21

0.212

0.214

0.216

0.218

0.22

Real Time

Figure 4.2: The Time History of the Lift Coefficient (Sinusoidal Wave, Frequency = 400 Hz, C,0 = 0.04)

107

0.0014

Sin Form Wave Pulsed Jets

0.0012

Steady Jets

0.001

Mass Flow Rate

0.0008

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002

0 0.21

0.212

0.214

0.216

0.218

0.22

Real Time

Figure 4.3: The Time History of the Mass Flow Rate (Sinusoidal Wave, Frequency = 400 Hz, C,0 = 0.04)

1.6

Lift Coefficient, Cl

1.2

0.8

Steady Jet, Cmu=0.04 Sinusoidal Pulsed Jet, Ave. Cmu=0.04

0.4

Square Wave Pulsed Jet, Ave. Cmu=0.04

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4.4: Time-averaged Lift Coefficient vs. Frequency

108

0.001

0.0008

Mass Flow Rate (slug/sec)

0.0006

0.0004

Steady Jet, Cmu=0.04

0.0002

Sinusoidal Form Pulsed Jet, Ave. Cmu=0.04 Square Wave Form Pulsed Jet, Ave. Cmu=0.04

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4.5: Time-averaged Mass Flow Rate vs. Frequency

Square Wave Pulsed Jet

0.09

DT = 0.025 sec
0.08 0.07

Steady Jet

Momentum Coefficient,C

0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.44

0.45

0.46

0.47

0.48

0.49

Real Time

Figure 4.6: The Time History of the Momentum Coefficient (Square Wave Form, Frequency = 40 Hz, C,0 = 0.04)

109

2.5

Lift Coefficient, Cl

1.5

Square Wave Pulsed Jet

0.5

Steady Jet

0 0.44

0.45

0.46

0.47

0.48

0.49

Real Time

Figure 4.7: The Time History of the Lift Coefficient (Square Wave Form, Frequency = 40 Hz, C,0 = 0.04)
0.0014

Square Wave Pulsed Jet Steady Jet

0.0012

0.001

Mass Flow Rate

0.0008

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002

0 0.44 0.445 0.45 0.455 0.46 0.465 0.47 0.475 0.48 0.485 0.49

Real Time

Figure 4.8: The Time History of the Mass Flow Rate (Square Wave Form, Frequency = 40 Hz, C,0 = 0.04)

110

Steady Jet
2.5

Pulsed Jet , f = 40Hz Pulsed Jet, f = 120 Hz

2

Pulsed Jet, f = 400 Hz

Cl

1.5

D A C B

0.5

0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

Time-Averaged Momentum Coefficient, C0

Figure 4.9: The Incremental Lift Coefficient vs. Time-averaged Momentum Coefficient
3

Steady Jet
2.5

Pulsed Jet , f = 40Hz Pulsed Jet, f = 120 Hz

2

Pulsed Jet, f = 400 Hz

Cl

1.5

D C A

0.5

0 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016

Time Averaged Mass Flow Rate (slug/sec)

Figure 4.10: The Incremental Lift Coefficient vs. Time-averaged Mass Flow Rate

111

0.002 0.0018

Time Averaged Mass Flow Rate (slug/sec)

Steady Jet Pulsed Jet , f = 40Hz Pulsed Jet, f = 120 Hz Pulsed Jet, f = 400 Hz

0.0016 0.0014 0.0012 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0 0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Time-Averaged Momentum Coefficient, C0

Figure 4.11: Time-averaged Mass Flow Rate vs. Time-averaged Momentum Coefficient
25

20

Efficiency, C l/(Cd+C)

15

10

Steady Jet Pulsed Jet , f = 40Hz

5

Pulsed Jet, f = 120 Hz Pulsed Jet, f = 400 Hz

0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

Time-Averaged Momentum Coefficient, C0

Figure 4.12: The Efficiency vs. Time-averaged Momentum Coefficient 112

25

20

Efficiency, C l/(Cd+C)

15

10

Steady Jet Pulsed Jet , f = 40Hz

5

Pulsed Jet, f = 120 Hz Pulsed Jet, f = 400 Hz

0 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016

Time Averaged Mass Flow Rate (slug/sec)

Figure 4.13: The Efficiency vs. Time-averaged Mass Flow Rate

2

1.6

Lift Coefficient, Cl

1.2

0.8

Steady Jet, Cmu=0.04

0.4

Pulsed Jet, Ave. Cmu=0.04

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4.14: Time-averaged Lift Coefficient vs. Pulsed Jet Frequency (Ave. C,0 = 0.04)

113

20 18 16 14

Efficiency, L/D

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400

Steady Jet, Cmu=0.04 Pulsed Jet, Ave. Cmu=0.04

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4.15: The Efficiency vs. Pulsed Jet Frequency (Ave. C,0 = 0.04)
2.5

DT-cycle = 0.02501 sec

2

Lift Coefficient, Cl

1.5

0.5 DT-up = 0.00137 sec DT-down = 0.00335 sec 0 0.455 0.46 0.465 0.47 0.475 0.48 0.485 0.49 0.495

Real Time (sec)

Figure 4.16: Time History of the Lift Coefficient for a 40 Hz Pulsed Jet 114

2.5

DT-cycle = 0.00501 sec 2

Lift Coefficient, Cl

1.5

1
DT-down = 0.00248 sec DT-up = 0.00113

0.5

0 0.21

0.212

0.214

0.216

0.218

0.22

Real Time (sec)

Figure 4.17: Time History of the Lift Coefficient for a 200 Hz Pulsed Jet
2

1.8

Lift Coefficient, Cl

1.6

Case 1 Case 2
1.4

Case 3

1.2 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Frequency

Figure 4.18: Time-averaged Lift Coefficient vs. Frequency (Case 1. Strouhal number was not fixed; U and Lref were fixed) (Case 2. Strouhal number and Lref were fixed; U was not fixed) (Case 3. Strouhal number and U were fixed; Lref was not fixed) 115

1.6

Lift Coefficient, Cl

1.2

Pulsed Jet, Ave. Cmu=0.04

0.8

Steady Jet, Cmu=0.04

0.4

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400

Frequency (Hz)
0 1.414 2.828

Stouhal Number ( f * Chord / Vinf)

Figure 4.19: Time-averaged Lift Coefficient vs. Frequency & Strouhal Number

116

CHAPTER V

THREE DIMENSION CIRCULATION CONTROL WING SIMULATIONS

The previous two chapters dealt with the use of Circulation Control for enhancing the lift characteristics of 2-D airfoil configurations. It was demonstrated that both steady and unsteady (pulsed) jets are effective in achieving high values of lift without resort to the use of complex multi-element configurations. Circulation Control has a number of other uses. It may be used to modify the spanwise lift distribution of wing sections, effectively altering the span loading of lift forces. Since the trailing vortex structures are directly affected by, and related to the bound circulation, one can modify the strength (or spatial distribution) of trailing vortex structures, including the strong vortex that forms at the wing tips. This chapter addresses the uses and benefits of 3-D Circulation Control. Two cases have been studied. The first is a streamwise tangential blowing on a wing-flap configuration. The second is a spanwise tangential blowing over a rectangular wing with a rounded wing tip. Some interesting results have been obtained for both cases, demonstrating that there are many potential practical applications for the Circulation Control technology, beyond high lift applications.

117

5.1 Tangential Blowing on a Wing-flap Configuration

As mentioned in Chapter I, the flap edge vortex is always a strong source of the airframe noise, especially when high lift devices are fully deployed during take-off or landing. According to Prandtls classic lifting-line theory [21], a trailing vortex will be generated whenever there is a change in the bound circulation over the wing. For a wingflap configuration, the lift and hence the bound circulation is much higher over the flap than on the main wing. Thus the circulation will not be continuous at the interface between the wing and the flap, and a very strong vortex will be generated here. These vortices have been seen in many experiments and flight tests. For example, the experimental [109] and computational [110] studies indicated that a very strong vortex was generated at the flap-edge due to the sudden increase in the lift. This vortex, due to its interaction with the flap gap, will generate a strong noise, commonly labeled as flapedge noise. A number of approaches have been proposed to eliminate this noise source. Vortex fences and serrated flap edges have been proposed and tested. These devices add to the weight and cost of manufacturing of the wing. Because these are passive devices, they can be at best optimized for a single operating condition (e.g. a specified flap angle, flow angle of attack, and free-stream velocity), and can not be expected to work for all conditions.

118

Symmetry BC 15 C 5C 5C

Small blowing to suppress vortex shedding

This region is modeled as shown in next figure 2-D BC

Figure 5.1: The Wing-flap Tangential Blowing Configuration

The purpose of present research is to determine if the Circulation Control technology may be used to modify the lift distribution along the span, thereby weakening or eliminating the flap-edge vortex. Figure 5.1 shows a sketch of this concept a wingflap configuration with tangential blowing over the main wing. Only the left half of this wing-flap configuration has been simulated, and the flow has been assumed symmetric. In this region, the wing section within the first five chord-length from the central boundary has a 30-degree flap, and there is a weak jet blowing (C 0.01) over the flap to suppress the vortex shedding. The other part of the wing has no flap, but a scheduled CC blowing is put in this section of the wing to generate high lift that is comparable with the lift generated by the 30-degree flap. Figure 5.2 shows details of the grid around this configuration. There are two regions that are very important in these simulations. Region A is the interface 119

between the blowing section of the main wing and the unblown section of the main wing, and region B is the interface between the blowing section of the main wing and the wingflap section. Three cases have been studied. In the first case, there is no blowing on the main wing, so it is just a regular wing-flap configuration. In the second case, there is a constant blowing, which means the C is constant along the span, over some sections of the main wing (from 15C to 20C). Finally, a gradual blowing case has been studied, where the C is gradually increased along the span over some sections of the main wing (from 10C to 20C). Figure 5.3 shows the lift coefficient distribution along the span of this wing-flap configuration for these three cases. When there is no blowing, a steep jump in lift coefficient is found at the interface between the main wing and the flap. It is expected because the sectional lift generated in the vicinity of the 30-degree flap is much higher than the main wing. In the second case, when a constant blowing is put over a section of the main wing, the lift at these stations will be greatly increased due to the Coanda effect. Thus in Region B, the difference of lift between the blowing section of the main wing and the flap will be reduced, but a jump in the lift is still found at the interface between the blowing section of the main wing and the unblown section. In the third case involving the gradually blowing, it is seen that the lift is smoothly increased along the span, from 0.25 to 1.4 over the flap without a sudden change. This is due to the gradual increase in the blowing momentum coefficient, C. According to the lift distribution and the Prandtls lift ling theory, case 1 and 2 should generate strong vortices in Region B and A, respectively, while in case 3, there is

120

a weakening or a total elimination of the flap-edge vortex. This has been observed in the vorticity contours shown in Figures 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6. It should be noted that the disturbance along the boundary of the flap-edge is due to the grid discontinuity along the interface between the main wing and the flap, which is not a vortex. In summary, the preliminary conclusions for the 3-D tangential streamwise blowing over the wing-flap configuration are: 1) the flap-edge vortex is generated by the suddenly increase in the lift along the flap-edge interface; 2) CC blowing with a constant momentum coefficient can not eliminate the flap-edge vortex, but can weaken and move the location of this vortex from the flap-edge towards the main wing; 3) a gradually varying CC blowing can totally eliminate the vortex. It should be noted that this is just a preliminary simulation, and that the model used here is very simple. To fully understand the effect of the CC blowing on the flap-edge vortex, more detailed simulations are recommended.

5.2 Spanwise Blowing over a Rounded Wing-tip

The vortex over the wing tip region is also a strong noise source. In rotor wing applications, this vortex can interact with other blades, giving rise to blade vortex interaction (BVI) noise. Tip vortex is generated by the pressure differences between the upper and lower surface of the lift wing. Since in general, the pressure at the lower surface is much higher than that at the upper surface, the vorticity of the fluid particles within the boundary layer at the lower surface will flow around the wing tip, roll-up, and

121

form a tip vortex. The tip vortex formation may be drastically altered by generating a flow in a direction opposite to that of the boundary layer. To investigate the feasibility of this concept, a wing-tip configuration has been studied on the effects of tangential spanwise blowing on the flow field around the wing-tip region. Figure 5.7 below shows a sketch of this concept for a rounded wing tip. The wing is a simple rectangular wing with NACA 0012 airfoil sections, but the wing tip is round. The angle of attack was 8 degrees, giving rise to sufficient lift and a strong tip vortex. The jet slot is located above the rounded wing tip edge, and the jet is coming in the spanwise direction. Figures 5.8 through 5.11 show the configuration and the body fitted grid in the vicinity of the rounded wing tip and the jet slot.

Figure 5.7: The Wing Tip Configuration

Three cases have been studied. In the first case, there is no blowing, simulating a rectangular wing with a rounded wing tip. In the second case, there is a small amount of blowing with C = 0.04. In the third case, there is a stronger blowing with C = 0.18. Figures 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14 show the vorticity contours around the wing tip region at three different streamwise locations, which are x/c = 0.81, 1.0 and 1.50, respectively. From those figures, it is seen that there is a strong tip vortex if there is no blowing, which

122

is expected. If there is a small amount of blowing over the wing tip in the opposite direction, the tip vortex will be pushed away from the wing tip, but the vortex could not be eliminated. Even when the blowing is increased, the tip vortex is just pushed down and far away from the wing. Another weaker vortex with an opposite rotation direction has been generated. Figure 5.15 shows the velocity flow field around the wing tip region at x/c = 0.81. It shows the same qualitative behavior as the vorticity contour. Figures 5.16 and 5.17 show the lift and drag coefficients distribution along span for this wing tip configuration. It is seen that the tangential blowing over the wing tip can also increase the lift around whole wing, especially when there is a strong CC blowing. The calculated overall lift coefficient and drag coefficient for the whole wing are tabled as follows:

Table 5.1: The Total Lift Coefficient and Drag Coefficient for the Wing Tip Configuration Total Lift Coefficient CL Noblowing Case Less Blowing, Cm = 0.04 More Blowing, Cm = 0.18 0.6064 0.04342 0.04685 0.4850 0.5215 Total Drag Coefficient CD 0.02997 0.03078 Computed Drag from the Inviscid Relation CD,C = (CL)2/(e) 0.02997 0.03465

where is the aspect-ratio of the wing, which is equal to 4 for this configuration, and the e is the efficiency of the lift distribution, which is set at 0.6246 from the noblowing case 123

calculation. It is seen that the total drag of the wing has been reduced by about 10% by CC blowing, when the drag has been corrected for the increase in CL. The preliminary conclusions for the 3-D spanwise blowing over a rounded wing tip configuration is that the jet blowing around the rounded wing tip can modify and change the location of the tip vortex. It can not totally cancel or eliminate the tip vortex, but can change or increase the vertical clearance between the wing and the vortex. Since the blade vortex interaction of rotors is strongly influenced by the clearance between the following blades and the tip vortex, this approach does have the potential of reducing BVI noise. It can also slightly reduce the drag of the whole wing tip configuration by pushing the tip vortex away from the wing, and increasing the aspect-ratio.

124

10 Region A

15

20 Region B

25

Figure 5.2: The Grid of the 3-D Wing-flap Configuration with a 300 Partial Flap

125

1.6

1.4

Noblowing on Main Wing Constant Blowing on Main Wing

1.2

Gradual Blowing on Main Wing

Lift Coefficient, Cl

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Span, Y/C

Figure 5.3: The Lift Coefficient Distribution along Span for the Wing-flap Configuration

126

Case 1: Noblowing Case

Flap

Main Wing
Blowing Section Unblown Section

Figure 5.4: The Vorticity Contours for Noblowing Case

127

Case 2: Constant Blowing Case

Flap

Main Wing
Blowing Section Unblown Section

Figure 5.5: The Vorticity Contours for Constant Blowing Case 128

Case 3: Gradual Blowing Case

Flap

Main Wing
Blowing Section Unblown Section

Figure 5.6: The Vorticity Contours for Gradual Blowing Case

129

Figure 5.8: The H-Grid for the Wing Tip Configuration (Side View at Spanwise Station)

Figure 5.9: The O-Grid around the Rounded Wing Tip (Front View)

130

Figure 5.10: The Surface Grid for the Rounded Wing Tip

Figure 5.11: The Detailed Grid Close to the Jet Slot

131

No-Blowing Case

Less Blowing Case (C= 0.04)

More Blowing Case (C= 0.18)

Figure 5.12: The Vorticity Contours around the Wing Tip (x/C = 0.81)

132

No-Blowing Case

Less Blowing Case (C= 0.04)

More Blowing Case (C= 0.18)

Figure 5.13: The Vorticity Contours around the Wing Tip (x/C = 1.0)

133

No-Blowing Case

Less Blowing Case (C= 0.04)

More Blowing Case (C= 0.18)

Figure 5.14: The Vorticity Contours around the Wing Tip (x/C = 1.50)

134

No-Blowing Case

Less Blowing Case (C= 0.04)

More Blowing Case (C= 0.18)

Figure 5.15: The Velocity Vectors around the Wing Tip (x/C = 0.81)

135

1.4

Noblowing
1.2

Blowing, Cmu = 0.04 Blowing, Cmu = 0.18

0.8

Cl
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Span, Y/Ytip

Figure 5.16: The Lift Coefficient Distribution along Span for Wing Tip Configuration
0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12

Noblowing Blowing, Cmu = 0.04 Blowing, Cmu = 0.18

Cd

0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Span, Y/Ytip

Figure 5.17: The Drag Coefficient Distribution along Span for Wing Tip Configuration 136

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In the present study, a three-dimensional unsteady Reynolds-average NavierStokes analysis capable of modeling the Circulation Control Wings/Airfoils has been developed. The method uses a semi-implicit finite difference scheme to solve the governing equations on a body-fitted grid. A zero-equation Baldwin-Lomax and a oneequation Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model have been implemented in the solver to account for the turbulence effects. Physically appropriate boundary conditions are used to model the jet exhausts from the slot located over the CCW flap. The solver can be used both in a 2-D mode to compute the CC airfoil performance and in a 3-D mode for studying CC wings. The configuration selected is an advanced hinge-flap CC airfoil developed by Englar, which has been extensively tested by Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI). Prior to this work, the numerical studies for this kind of CC airfoils have been very limited. Prior to its use, a code-validation study has been done for a rectangular wing with NACA 0012 airfoil sections. Subsequently, two-dimensional steady blowing simulations have been done and compared with experimental data. The influence of some parameters such as the slot-height and free-steam velocity on the performance of the CC airfoil has

137

also been studied. The CCW configuration has also been compared with the baseline unblown configuration and a conventional high-lift system. The effects the 2-D pulsed jet on the CC airfoil performance have also been investigated. The effects of the wave shape and the frequency of the pulsed jet have been specifically studied. Finally, some simulations have been done for two three-dimensional configurations with the use of the Circulation Control technology. The first involves a streamwise tangential blowing on a wing-flap configuration to eliminate the flap-edge vortex. The second study deals with the use of a spanwise blowing on a rounded wing-tip configuration to control the tip vortex. In this chapter, the conclusions of this research are presented in Section 6.1. The recommendations for the future work are given in Section 6.2.

6.1 Conclusions

The investigation in the present study leads to the following major conclusions: 1. Navier-Stokes simulations are necessary for the CC wings/airfoils studies due to the complexity of the flow field and the strong viscous effects. The results indicate that this approach is an efficient and accurate way of modeling CC airfoils with steady and pulsed jets. 2. The Circulation Control Technology is a useful way of achieving very high lift at even zero angle of attack. It can also eliminate the vortex shedding in the trailing edge region, which is a potential noise source. The lift coefficient of the CC

138

airfoil is also increased with the angle of the attack as the conventional sharp trailing edge airfoil. However, the stall angle of the CC airfoil is decreased quickly with the increase in the blowing momentum coefficient. This stall phenomenon occurs in the leading edge region, and may be suppressed by leading edge blowing. In practice, because high CL values are achievable at low angles of attack, it may seldom be necessary to operate CC wings at high angles of attack. However, because there is always a large nose down pitch moment for the CC airfoil, leading edge blowing is generally used to reduce this pitch moment for the large amount of blowing case even at zero angle of attack. 3. The jet momentum coefficient varies uniquely with the total pressure of the jet plenum. The behavior of computed lift coefficient is similar whether the momentum coefficient or total jet pressure is varied. In experimental studies, it may be more convenient to vary the jet total pressure, thereby changing the momentum coefficient. 4. When the momentum coefficient is fixed, the computed lift coefficient does not vary with the free-stream velocity. However, at a fixed C, Cl is influenced by the jet slot height. A thin jet from a smaller slot is preferred since it requires much less mass flow, and has the same efficiency in generating the required Cl values as a thick jet. From a practical perspective, much higher plenum pressure may be needed to generate thin jets for a given C. This may increase the power requirements of compressors that provide the high pressure air.

139

5. The CC airfoil with trailing edge blowing can generate higher lift and avoid static stall compared to a conventional Fowler flap airfoil. It also achieves higher efficiencies (Cl/(Cd+C)) without the moving parts associated with the high-lift system. 6. Sinusoidal pulsed jet was found not to be very effective compared to the square wave pulsed jet due to higher mass flow rates required. A square wave shape pulsed jet configuration gives larger increments in lift over the baseline unblown configuration, when compared to the steady jet with the same time-averaged mass flow rate. Pulsed jet performance is improved at higher frequencies due to the fact that the airfoil has not fully shed the bound circulation into the wake before a new pulse cycle begins. 7. The non-dimensional frequency, Strouhal number, has a more dominant effect on the performance of the pulsed jet than just the frequency. Thus, the same performance of a pulsed jet could be obtained at lower frequencies for a larger configuration or at smaller free-stream velocities provided the Strouhal number is kept the same. Furthermore, at a Strouhal number of 2 or above, the Cl due to pulsed jets is nearly 90% of Cl achieved with the steady jet, while the mass flow rate required is only 70% of the steady jet. Of course, an optimal Strouhal number may be dependent on other physical parameters such as slot height, flap angle and flap chord, etc. Nevertheless, it is clear that Strouhal number, and not the frequency, is the dominant parameter.

140

8. From

the

preliminary

studies

about

the

three-dimensional

CC

wing

configurations, it is found that a gradual streamwise tangential CC blowing near the flap-edge can weaken or totally eliminate the flap-edge vortex, a strong noise source. Spanwise tangential blowing over a rounded wing tip can push the tip vortex down away from the wing tip. Thus an effective control of the tip vortex position is feasible with Circulation Control.

6.2 Recommendations

While a number of computational issues have been addressed in this work, additional work remains to be done before CFD based analysis such as the present work can be confidently used to design CCW system. Research in following areas is recommended: 1. Turbulence models are very important for the CC wing study, especially in the area where strong separation and vortex shedding are present. The BaldwinLomax and the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence models did a satisfactory job of modeling the flow when the flow is attached and when there was no separation, especially for the advanced CC airfoil with a sharp trailing edge flap. However, to accurately simulate the strong tip vortex, the vortex shedding of the unblown configuration, and the traditional rounded trailing edge CC airfoil, a systematic study of improved turbulence models is necessary. Furthermore, many of the existing models were developed or calibrated using steady flow data. Further

141

calibrations or adjustments of the constants in these models may be necessary for modeling the pulsed jet and unsteady flow. 2. The pulsed jet is a very effective way of obtaining the same high lift as a steady jet while requiring lower mass flow rates. However, the desired high frequencies are hard to achieve in experiments, especially when the test configuration is small. Methods of improving the pulsed jet performance at low frequencies will be very useful. One possibility is to vary the total jet pressure periodically instead of the momentum coefficient. A second possibility is to change the slot height dynamically while keeping a constant jet total pressure to generate a square wave pulsed jet. However, the computational grid needs to be dynamically modified with the change of the slot height. The current solver could not deal with this grid, but this method is highly recommended for the future research of the pulsed jet. 3. There are many potential applications of the Circulation Control technology for practical three-dimensional configurations beyond what has been studied in this work. Some applications include: (a) drag reduction of bluff bodies and vehicles such as trucks and automobiles, (b) Modification to the leading edge and exhaust flow around engine nacelles, (c) suppression of vortex shedding from automobile antennae and mirrors. The potential of this concept is limitless and should be further explored, just keeping in mind the effect and cost involved in having a readily available air source with some pressure.

142

4. This work has addressed only the aerodynamic benefits of Circulation Control wings. Elimination of high lift devices with this simple yet powerful approach can reduce high lift system noise. However, it must be remembered that the high speed steady or pulsed jet itself can be a source of noise. Thus a combined aerodynamic/aeroacoustic analysis from a system wide perspective is necessary. A companion experimental work by Munro [9], also funded by NASA (our sponsor), looks at the issue of CCW noise in a careful manner. The numerical studies of the aeroacoustic characteristics of CCW airfoils are recommended. In conclusion, a first principle-based approach for modeling the Circulation Control wing/airfoils has been developed and validated. It is hoped that this work will serve as a useful step for the further investigations in this exciting area.

143

APPENDIX A

GENERALIZED TRANSFORMATION

The generalized transformation is used to transform the governing equation from the physical domain (x, y, z, t) to the computational domain (, , , ). In general, the coordinates (, , ) in computational domain are assumed to be uniform spacing, and they are the functions of (x, y, z) as follows: = ( x, y, z, t ) = ( x, y, z, t ) = ( x , y, z, t ) =t For the time derivatives, the t, t and t are given in terms of the grid velocity x, y and z as: t = x t = x t = x y z z x y y z x y z y z x y z (A.2) (A.1)

and the x, y and z are the grid velocity, and equal to zero if there is no body or grid moving. 144

For the spatial derivatives, using the chain rule of the partial differentiation, the partial derivatives for coordinates (x, y, z) become: = + + x x x x = + + y y y y = + + z z z z In above equation, for simplicity, the following expressions will be used for the derivatives: x = x = x = , y = , z = x y z , y = , z = x y z , y = , z = x y z and x = and y = and z = x x x , x = , x = (A.4) (A.3)

y y y , y = , y = z z z , z = , z =

Then, the differential expressions by the partial difference can be written as: d = x dx + y dy + z dz d = x dx + y dy + z dz d = x dx + y dy + z dz (A.5)

145

Equation (A.5) could be written in a matrix form as:

d x d = x d x

y y y

z dx z dy z dz

(A.6)

Similarly, the (dx, dy, dz) can be expressed by (d, d, d) as the following matrix form:

dx x dy = y dz z

x y z

x d y d z d

(A.7)

Combining equation (A.6) and (A.7), the following equation can be obtained:

x x x

y y y

z z = z

x y z

x y z

x y = J z

yz y z y z y z y z yz

x z x z x z x z x z x z

x y x x y x x y x

(A.8)

Thus, the derivatives of (, , ) can be expressed as:

x = J (yz y z ) z = J (x y x y ) x = J (yz yz ) z = J (x y x y ) x = J (yz y z ) z = J (x y x y ) y = J (x z x z ) y = J (x z x z ) y = J (x z x z )

(A.9)

146

where J is the Jacobian Matrix of the transformation, which is given as:

x J = x x

y y y

z x z = 1 / y z z

x y z

x y z

(A.10)

=1 / [x ( y z y z ) x ( y z y z ) + x ( y z y z )
x , y , z etc could be obtained by the differencing method. For instance, using
the second-order central difference, x , y , z etc are expressed as follows: x ,i , j,k = x ,i , j,k = x ,i , j,k = y ,i, j,k = x i+1, j,k x i1, j,k x = 2 i , j,k x i, j+1,k x i , j1,k x = 2 i , j,k x i , j,k +1 x i , j,k 1 x = 2 i , j,k y i+1, j,k y i1, j,k y = 2 i, j,k y i, j+1,k y i, j1,k y = 2 i , j,k y i, j,k +1 y i , j,k 1 y = 2 i , j,k (A.11)

y ,i , j,k = y ,i , j,k = z ,i, j,k =

z i+1, j,k z i1, j,k z = 2 i , j,k z i , j+1,k z i , j1,k z = 2 i , j,k

z ,i , j,k = z ,i , j,k =

z i , j,k +1 z i, j,k 1 z = 2 i , j,k

147

As for the fourth-order central difference, the following expressions could be obtained for x , x , x : x ,i , j,k = x ,i, j,k = x ,i , j,k = x i+ 2, j,k + 8x i+1, j,k 8x i1, j,k + x i2, j,k x = 12 i , j,k x i, j+ 2,k + 8x i , j+1,k 8x i , j1,k + x i , j2,k x = 12 i , j,k x i , j,k + 2 + 8x i , j,k +1 8x i , j,k 1 + x i , j,k 2 x = 12 i , j,k (A.12)

The similar equations could be obtained for y , y , y and z , z , z with y and z, respectively. Note that in most practical applications, the grid in the computational domain is assumed to be uniform, thus the grid spacing , , and are equal to one.

148

REFERENCES

1.

Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36, Federal Aviation Administration, November 1969. Policies and Procedures For Considering Environmental Impacts, Federal Aviation Administration Order 1050.1D, December 1986. Goldin, D. S., et al., National Aeronautics and Space Administration Strategic Plan, NPD 1000.1B, pp. 42-43, September 2000. Huff, D., Recent Progress in Engine Noise Reduction for Commercial Aircraft Applications. Seminar, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, April 8, 2003. Smith, M. J. T., Aircraft Noise, Cambridge University Press, 1989. Crighton, D. G., Aircraft Noise in Aeronautics of Flight Vehicles: Theory and Practice, Vol. 1: Noise Sources, NASA PR 1258, pp. 391-447, 1991. Sen, R., A Study of Unsteady Fields Near Leading-edge Slats, AIAA Paper 971696, 1997. Davy, R. and Remy, H., Airframe Noise Characteristics on a 1/11 Scale Airbus Model, AIAA Paper 98-2335, June 1998. Munro, S., Jet Noise of High Aspect-Ratio Rectangular Nozzles with Application to Pneumatic High-Lift Devices, Ph.D Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2002. Englar, R. J., Circulation Control Pneumatic Aerodynamics: Blown Force and Moment Augmentation and Modification; Past, Present & Future, AIAA Paper 2000-2541, June 2000. Englar, Robert J., Smith, Marilyn J., Kelley, Sean M. and Rover, Richard C. III., Application of Circulation Control to Advanced Subsonic Transport Aircraft, Part I: Airfoil Development, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.31 No.5, pp. 1160-1168, Sep. 1994.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

149

12.

Englar, Robert J., Smith, Marilyn J., Kelley, Sean M. and Rover, Richard C. III., Application of Circulation Control to Advanced Subsonic Transport Aircraft, Part II: Transport Application, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.31, No.5, pp. 1169-1177, Sep. 1994. Shrewsbury, G. D. and Sankar, L. N., Dynamic Stall of an Oscillating Circulation Control Airfoil, International Symposium on Nonsteady Fluid Dynamics, oronto, Canada, June 4-7, 1990, Proceedings. New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 15-22, 1990. Shrewsbury, G. D. and Sankar, L. N., Dynamic Stall of Circulation Control Airfoils, AIAA Paper 90-0573, January 1990. Salikuddin, M., Brown, W. H. and Ahuja, K. K., Noise From a Circulation Control Wing with Upper Surface Blowing, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.24, pp5564, Jan. 1987. Munro, S., Ahuja, K., and Englar, R., Noise Reduction Through Circulation Control Technology, AIAA Paper 2001-0666, Jan. 2001. Munro, S. and Ahuja, K. K., Aeroacoustics of a High Aspect-Ratio Jet, AIAA paper 2003-3323, 2003, presented at the 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 12-14 May 2003. Munro, S. and Ahuja, K. K., Fluid Dynamics of a High Aspect-Ratio Jet, AIAA paper 2003-3129, 2003, presented at the 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 12-14 May 2003. Munro, S. and Ahuja, K. K., Development of a Prediction Scheme for Noise of High-Aspect Ratio Jets, AIAA paper 2003-3255, 2003, presented at the 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 12-14 May 2003. Liu, Y., Sankar, L. N., Englar, R. J. and Ahuja, K. K., Numerical Simulations of the Steady and Unsteady Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Circulation Control Wing Airfoil, AIAA paper 2001-0704, January 2001. Anderson, J. D. Jr., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Second Edition, McGrawHill, Inc. 1991. Metral, A. R., On the Phenomenon of Fluid Veins and their Application, the Coanda Effect, AF Translation, F-TS-786-RE, 1939.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

150

23.

Levinsky, E. S. and Yeh, T. T., Analytical and Experimental Investigation of Circulation Control by Means of a Turbulent Coanda Jet, NASA CR-2114, September, 1972. Wood, N. J., Circulation Control Airfoils: Past, Present and Future, AIAA paper 85-0204. Englar, R. J. and Huson, G. G., Development of Advanced Circulation Control Wing High Lift Airfoils, AIAA paper 83-1847, presented at AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, July 1983. Nichols, J. H. Jr, Englar, R. J., Harris, M. J. and Huson, G. G., Experimental Development of an Advanced Circulation Control Wing System for Navy STOL Aircraft, AIAA paper 81-0151, presented at AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting, January 1981. Englar, R. J., Hemmerly, R. A., Moore, H., Seredinsky, V., Valckenaere, W. G. and Jackson, J. A., Design of the Circulation Control Wing STOL Demonstrator Aircraft, AIAA paper 79-1842, August, 1979. Pugliese, A. J. and Englar, R. J., Flight Testing the Circulation Control Wing, AIAA paper 79-1791, August 1979. Englar, R. J., Low-speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Small FixedTrailing-Edge Circulation Control Wing Configuration Fitted to a Supercritical Airfoil, David Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, DTNSRDC Report ASED-81/08, March 1981. Englar, R. J., Niebur, J. S. and Gregory, S. D., Pneumatic lift and control surface technology for high speed civil transports, Journal of Aircraft, vol. 36, no.2, pp.332-339, Mar.-Apr., 1999. Wilkerson, J. B., Reader, K. R. and Linck, D. W., The Application of Circulation Control Aerodynamics to a Helicopter Rotor Model, American Helicopter Society Paper AHS-704, May 1973. Wilkerson, J. B., Barnes, D. R. and Bill, R. A., The Circulation Control Rotor Flight Demonstrator Test Program, American Helicopter Society Paper AHS7951, May 1979. Williams, R. M., Leitner, R. T. and Rogers, E. O., X-Wing: A New Concept in Rotary VTOL, Presented at AHS Symposium on Rotor Technology, August 1976.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

151

34.

Englar R. J., Development of Pneumatic Aerodynamic Devices to Improve the Performance, Economics, and Safety of Heavy Vehicles, SAE Paper 2000-012208, June 2000. Cheeseman, I. C. and Seed, A. R., The Application of Circulation Control by Blowing to Helicopter Rotors, Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol. 71, July 1966. Kind, R. J., A Proposed Method of Circulation Control, Ph.D Thesis, Cambridge University, England, 1967. Williams, R. M. and Howe, H. J., Two-Dimensional Subsonic Wind Tunnel Tests on a 20% thick, 5% Cambered Circulation Control Airfoil, NSRDC TN AL-176, Aug. 1970. Englar, R. J., Two-Dimensional Transonic Wind Tunnel Tests of Three 15Percent Thick Circulation Control Airfoils, NSRDC Rept. ASED-182, Dec. 1970. Englar, R. J., Circulation Control for High Lift and Drag Generation on STOL Aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.457, May 1975. Abramson, J., Two Dimensional Subsonic Wind Tunnel Evaluation of a 20 percent Thick Circulation Control Airfoil, DTNSRDC Report ASED-311, 1975. Abramson, J. and Rogers, E. O., High-Speed Characteristics of Circulation Control Airfoils, AIAA paper 83-0265, 1983. Englar, R. J. and Applegate, C. A., Circulation Control A Bibliography of DTNSRDC Research and Selected Outside References (January 1969 through December 1983), DTNSRDC Report 84-052, 1984. Carpenter, P. W., Bridson, D. W. and Green, P. N., Features of Discrete Tones Generated by Jet Flow over Coanda Surfaces, AIAA paper 86-1685, 1986. Howe, M. S., Noise Generated by a Coanda Wall Jet Circulation Control Device, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 249, No.4, pp. 679-700, Jan. 2002. Dvorak, F. A. and Kind, R. J., Analysis Method for Viscous Flow Over Circulation-Controlled Airfoils, AIAA paper 78-157, January 1978. Dvorak, F. A. and Choi, D. H., Analysis of Circulation Controlled Airfoils in Transonic Flow, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 20, pp.331-337, April 1983.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

152

47.

Berman, H. A., A Navier-Stokes Investigation of a Circulation Control Airfoil, Presented at AIAA 23rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 1985, AIAA paper 85-0300. Baldwin, B. S., and Lomax, H., Thin Layer Approximation and Algebraic Model for Separated Turbulent Flows, AIAA Paper 78-257, Jan. 1978. Pulliam, T. H., Jespersen, D. C. and Barth, T. J., Navier-Stokes Computations for Circulation Control Airfoils, AIAA paper 85-1587. Viegas, J. R., Rubesin, M. W. and MacCormack R. W., Navier-Stokes Calculations and Turbulence Modeling in the Trailing Edge Region of A Circulation Control Airfoil, Proceedings of the Circulation Control Workshop, pp.1-22, 1986. Spaid, F. W. and Keener, E. R., Boundary-layer and Wake Measurements on a Swept, Circulation-control Wing, Proceedings of the Circulation Control Workshop, pp. 239-266, 1986. Shrewsbury, G. D., Analysis of Circulation Control Airfoils using an Implicit Navier-Stokes Solver, AIAA paper 85-0171, January 1985. Shrewsbury, G. D., Numerical Evaluation of Circulation Control Airfoil Performance Using Navier-Stokes Methods, AIAA paper 86-0286, January 1986. Shrewsbury, G. D., Numerical Study of a Research Circulation Control Airfoil Using Navier-Stokes Methods, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.29-34, 1989. Bradshaw, P., Effects of Streamline Curvature on Turbulent Flow (applied to boundary layer conditions on wing sections and turbomachine blades), AGARDAG-169, 1973. Shrewsbury, G. D., Dynamic Stall of Circulation Control Airfoils, Ph.D Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1990. Williams, S. L. and Franke, M. E., Navier-Stokes Methods to Predict Circulation Control Airfoil Performance, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 29, No.2, pp.243-249, March-April 1992. Linton, S. W., Computation of the Poststall Behavior of a Circulation Controlled Airfoil, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 1273-1280, Nov. Dec. 1994.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

153

59.

Liu, J., Sun, M., and L. Wu, Unsteady Flow about a Circulation Control Airfoil, Science in China (Series E), Vol. 39, No. 1, Feb. 1996. Wang, C., and Sun, M., Aerodynamic Properties of Circulation Control Airfoil with Multi-slot Blowing, Acta Aerodynamica Sinica, vol. 17, no. 4, pp.378-383, 1999. Englar, R. J., Smith, M. J., Kelley, S. M. and Rober, R. C. III, Development of Circulation Control Technology for Application to Advanced Subsonic Transport Aircraft, AIAA paper 93-0644, presented at 31st Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 1993. Slomski, J. F., Gorski, J. J., Miller, R. W. and Marino, T. A., Numerical Simulation of Circulation Control Airfoils as Affected by Different Turbulence Models, AiAA paper 2002-0851, 2002. Yang, Z. Y. and Voke, P. R., Large-eddy Simulation of Boundary-layer Separation and Transition at a Change of Surface Curvature, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 439, pp. 305-333, 2001. Li, J. and Liu, C., Direct Numerical Simulation for Flow Separation Control with Pulsed Jets, 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno NV, 2003, AIAA paper 2003-0611. Kwon, J. and Sankar, L.N., Numerical Study of the Effects of Icing on Finite Wing Aerodynamics, AIAA Paper 90-0757. Bangalore, A., Phaengsook, N. and Sankar, L. N., Application of a Third Order Upwind Scheme to Viscous Flow over Clean and Iced Wings, AIAA Paper 940485. Sankar, L. N. and Wake, B., Solutions of the Navier-Stokes Equations for the Flow about a Rotor Blade, In National Specialists' Meeting on Aerodynamics and Aeroacoustics, Arlington, TX, Feb. 25-27, 1987. Sankar, L. N., Ruo, S. Y., Wake, B. E. and Wu, J., An Efficient Rrocedure for the Numerical Solution of Three-dimensional Viscous Flows, Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, 8th, Honolulu, HI, June 9-11, 1987, AIAA Paper 871159. Tannehill, J. C., Anderson, D. A., and Pletcher, R. H., Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer, Second edition, Taylor & Francis, Washington, 1997.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

154

70.

Schlichting, H., Boundary-Layer Theory, 7th ed., translated by J. Kestin, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979. Vincenti, W. G., and Kruger, C. H., Introduction to Physical Gas Dynamics, John Wiley, New York, 1965. Stokes, G. G., On the Theories of Internal Friction of Fluids in Motion, Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc., Vol. 8, pp. 287-305, 1845. Fourier, J., The Analytical Theory of Heat, 1822, trans. By A. Freeman, 1878; reprinted by Dover, New York, 1955. Chapman, S., and Cowling, T. G., The Mathematical Theory of Non-uniform Gases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1939, 1952. Douglas, J., On the Numerical Integration of ut = uxx + uyy by Implicit Methods, Journal of Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 3, No.1, March 1955. Peaceman, D. W. and Rachford, H. H., The Numerical Solution of Parabolic and Elliptic Differential Equations, Journal of Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 3., No.1, March 1955. Briley, W. and McDonald, H., Solution of Multi-Component Navier-Stokes Equations by Generalized Implicit Method, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol.24, p. 372, 1977. Wake, B. E., Solution Procedure for the Navier-Stokes Equations Applied to Rotors, Ph.D Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 1987. Beam R. and Warming R. F., An Implicit Finite Difference Algorithm for Hyperbolic Systems in Conservation Law form, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol.22, Sep. 1976, pp.87-110. Pulliam, T. H., and Chaussee, D. S., A Diagonal Form of An Implicit Approximation Factorization Algorithm, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 39, pp. 347-363, 1981. Rizk, Y. M. and Chausee, D. S., Three-Dimensional Viscous-Flow Computations Using a Directionally Hybrid Implicit-Explicit Procedure, AIAA Paper 83-1910, 1983.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

155

82.

Tannehill, J. C., Holst, W. L. and Rakish, J. V. Numerical Computation of TwoDimensional Viscous Blunt Body Flows with an Impinging Shock, AIAA Journal, Vol. 14, No.2, pp.204, 1976. Von Neumann, J. and Richtmyer, R. D. A Method for the Numerical Calculation of Hydrodynamic Shocks, Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 21, pp. 232, 1950. Lax, P. D. and Wendoff, B., Systems of Conservation Laws, Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 13, pp. 217, 1960. Lapidus, L., A Detached Shock Calculation by Second-Order FiniteDifferences, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 2, pp. 154, 1967. Lindmuth, I. And Killeen, J., Alternating Direction Implicit Techniques for Two-Dimensional Magnetohydrodynamics Calculations, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 13, pp. 372, 1977. McDonald, H. and Briley, W., Three-Dimensional Supersonic Flow of a Viscous or Inviscid Gas, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 19, pp. 150157, 1975. Steger, J. L., Implicit Finite-Difference Simulation of Flow about Arbitrary TwoDimensional Geometry, AIAA Journal, Vol. 16, No. 7, 1978. Kim, J., Moin, P., and Moser, R., Turbulence Statistics in Fully Developed Channel Flow at Low Reynolds Number, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 177, 1987, pp. 133-166. Pope, S. B., Turbulent Flows, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Spalart, P. R., and Allmaras, S. R., A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows, AIAA Paper 92-0439, Jan. 1992. Cebeci, T., Calculation of Compressible Turbulent Boundary Layers with Heat and Mass Transfer, AIAA Paper 70-741, AIAA 3rd Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, Los Angeles, CA, June 1970. Michel, R., and Arnal, D., Investigation of the Conditions for Tripping Transition with Roughness Elements and their Influence on Boundary Layer Development, ESA Boundary Layer Control by Transition Fixing (ESA-TT909), pp.103-113, 1984. Eppler, R., and Fasel, H., Laminar-turbulent Transition, Proceedings of the Symposium, Stuttgart, West Germany, September 16-22, 1979. 156

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90. 91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

Bragg, M. B., and Spring, S. A., An Experimental Study of the Flow Field about an Airfoil with Glaze Ice, Presented at the AIAA 25th Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, Nevada, AIAA paper 87-0100, Jan 12-15, 1987. Dancila, D. S. and Vasilescu, R., Modeling of Piezoelectrically Modulated and Vectored Blowing For a Wing Section, AIAA paper 2003-0219, presented at 41st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, Jan. 6-9, 2003. Bangalore, A. K., Sankar, L. N., and Tseng, W., A Multi-zone Navier-Stokes Analysis of Dynamic Lift Enhancement Concepts, AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, 32nd, Reno, NV, Jan. 10-13, 1994, AIAA Paper 94-0164. Bangalore, A. K., and Sankar, L. N., Numerical Analysis of Aerodynamic Performance of Rotors with Leading Edge Slats, AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 13th, San Diego, CA, June 19-22, 1995, AIAA Paper 95-1888. Valarezo, W. O., Dominik, C. J., McGhee, R. J., and Goodman, W. L., High Reynolds Number Configuration Development of a High-Lift Airfoil, AGARD Conference Proceedings 515, AGARD-CP-515, No.10, 1993. Cock, K. de, High-Lift System Analysis Method using Unstructured Meshes, AGARD Conference Proceedings 515, AGARD-CP-515, No.12, 1993. Seifert, A., Darabi, A. and Wygnanski, I., Delay of Airfoil Stall by Periodic Excitation, AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 4, 1996. Wygnanski, I, Some New Observations Affecting the Control of Separation by Periodic Excitation, AIAA 2000-2314, FLUIDS 2000 Conference and Exhibit, Denver, CO, 19-22 June, 2000. Lorber, P.F., McCormick, D., Anderson, T., Wake, B.E., MacMartin, D., Pollack, M., Corke, T., and Breuer, K., Rotorcraft Retreating Blade-Stall Control, AIAA 2000-2475, FLUIDS 2000 Conference and Exhibit, Denver, CO, 19-22 June, 2000. Wake, B. and Lurie, E. A., "Computational Evaluation of Directed Synthetic Jets for Dynamic Stall Control, AHS International Annual Forum, 57th, Washington, DC, May 9-11, 2001, Proceedings (A02-12351 01-05), Alexandria, VA, AHS International, 2001. Hassan, A., and Janakiram, R. D., Effects of Zero-Mass Synthetic Jets on the Aerodynamics of the NACA 0012 Airfoil, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 43, No. 4, October, 1998.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

157

106.

Oyler, T.E., and W.E. Palmer, Exploratory Investigation of Pulse Blowing for Boundary Layer Control, North American Rockwell Report NR72H-12, Jan. 1972. Schatz, M., and Thiele, F., Numerical Study of High-Lift Flow with Separation Control by Periodic Excitation, AIAA Paper 2001-0296, Jan. 2001. Sun, M., and Hamdani, H., Separation Control by Alternating Tangential Blowing/Suction at Multiple Slots, AIAA Paper 2001-0297, Jan. 2001. Radeztsky, R. H., Singer, B. A. and Khorrami, M. R., Detailed Measurements of a Flap Side-edge Flow Field, AIAA paper 98-0700, Jan. 1998. Khorrami, M. R., Singer, B. A. and Radeztsky, R. H., Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes Computations of a Flap Sied-edge Flow Field, AIAA paper 980768, Jan. 1998.

107.

108.

109.

110.

158

VITA

Yi Liu was born in Hunan province, China on June 1, 1973. He graduated from Beijing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, China, with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc) degree in Aerospace Engineering in July 1994. He worked as an aerospace engineer in the Nanhua Jet Engine Research Institute from 1994 to 1995. Then he continued his graduate study in the Department of Jet Propulsion of Beijing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, China, and earned a Master of Science (M.Sc) degree in April 1998. In September 1998, he joined the Ph.D program in the School of Aerospace Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. He is a student member of the American Helicopter Society and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

159

1 Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36, Federal Aviation Administration, November 1969. 2 Policies and Procedures For Considering Environmental Impacts, Federal Aviation Administration Order 1050.1D, December 1986. 3 Goldin, D. S., et al., National Aeronautics and Space Administration Strategic Plan, NPD 1000.1B, pp. 42-43, September 2000. 4 Huff, D., Recent Progress in Engine Noise Reduction for Commercial Aircraft Applications. Seminar, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Tech, April 8, 2003. 5 Smith, M. J. T., Aircraft Noise, Cambridge University Press, 1989. 6 Crighton, D. G., Aircraft Noise in Aeronautics of Flight Vehicles: Theory and Practice, Vol. 1: Noise Sources, NASA PR 1258, pp. 391-447, 1991. 7 Sen, R., A Study of Unsteady Fields Near Leading-edge Slats, AIAA 97-1696, 1997. 8 Davy, R. and Remy, H., Airframe Noise Characteristics on a 1/11 Scale Airbus Model, AIAA Paper 98-2335, June 1998. 9 Munro, S., Jet Noise of High Aspect-Ratio Rectangular Nozzles with Application to Pneumatic High-Lift Devices, Ph.D Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2002. 10 Englar, R. J., Circulation Control Pneumatic Aerodynamics: Blown Force and Moment Augmentation and Modification; Past, Present & Future, AIAA Paper 20002541, June 2000.

160

11 Englar, Robert J., Smith, Marilyn J., Kelley, Sean M. and Rover, Richard C. III., Application of Circulation Control to Advanced Subsonic Transport Aircraft, Part I: Airfoil Development, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.31 No.5, pp. 1160-1168, Sep. 1994. 12 Englar, Robert J., Smith, Marilyn J., Kelley, Sean M. and Rover, Richard C. III., Application of Circulation Control to Advanced Subsonic Transport Aircraft, Part II: Transport Application, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.31, No.5, pp. 1169-1177, Sep. 1994. 13 Shrewsbury, G. D. and Sankar, L. N., Dynamic stall of an oscillating circulation control airfoil, International Symposium on Nonsteady Fluid Dynamics, Toronto, Canada, June 4-7, 1990, Proceedings. New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 15-22, 1990. 14 Shrewsbury, G. D. and Sankar, L. N., Dynamic Stall of Circulation Control Airfoils, AIAA Paper 90-0573, January 1990. 15 Salikuddin, M., Brown, W. H. and Ahuja, K. K., Noise From a Circulation Control Wing with Upper Surface Blowing, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.24, pp55-64, Jan. 1987. 16 Munro, S., Ahuja, K., and Englar, R., Noise Reduction Through Circulation Control Technology, AIAA Paper 2001-0666, Jan. 2001. 17 Munro, S. and Ahuja, K. K., Aeroacoustics of a High Aspect-Ratio Jet, AIAA paper 2003-3323, 2003, presented at the 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 12-14 May 2003. 18 Munro, S. and Ahuja, K. K., Fluid Dynamics of a High Aspect-Ratio Jet, AIAA paper 2003-3129, 2003, presented at the 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 12-14 May 2003. 161

19 Munro, S. and Ahuja, K. K., Development of a Prediction Scheme for Noise of HighAspect Ratio Jets, AIAA paper 2003-3255, 2003, presented at the 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 12-14 May 2003. 20 Liu, Y., Sankar, L. N., Englar, R. J. and Ahuja, K. K., Numerical Simulations of the Steady and Unsteady Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Circulation Control Wing Airfoil, AIAA paper 2001-0704, January 2001. 21 Anderson, J. D. Jr., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1991. 22 Metral, A. R., On the Phenomenon of Fluid Veins and their Application, the Coanda Effect, AF Translation, F-TS-786-RE, 1939. 23 Levinsky, E. S. and Yeh, T. T., Analytical and Experimental Investigation of Circulation Control by Means of a Turbulent Coanda Jet, NASA CR-2114, September, 1972. 24 Wood, N. J., Circulation Control Airfoils: Past, Present and Future, AIAA paper 850204. 25 Englar, R. J. and Huson, G. G., Development of Advanced Circulation Control Wing High Lift Airfoils, AIAA paper 83-1847, presented at AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, July, 1983. 26 Nichols, J. H. Jr, Englar, R. J., Harris, M. J. and Huson, G. G., Experimental Development of an Advanced Circulation Control Wing System for Navy STOL Aircraft, AIAA paper 81-0151, presented at AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting, January, 1981. 162

27 Englar, R. J., Hemmerly, R. A., Moore, H., Seredinsky, V., Valckenaere, W. G. and Jackson, J. A., Design of the Circulation Control Wing STOL Demonstrator Aircraft, AIAA paper 79-1842, August, 1979. 28 Pugliese, A. J. and Englar, R. J., Flight Testing the Circulation Control Wing, AIAA paper 79-1791, August, 1979. 29 Englar, R. J., Low-speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Small Fixed-TrailingEdge Circulation Control Wing Configuration Fitted to a Supercritical Airfoil, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, DTNSRDC Report ASED81/08, March, 1981. 30 Englar, R. J., Niebur, J. S. and Gregory, S. D., Pneumatic lift and control surface technology for high speed civil transports, Journal of Aircraft, vol. 36, no.2, pp.332339, Mar.-Apr., 1999. 31 Wilkerson, J. B., Reader, K. R. and Linck, D. W., The Application of Circulation Control Aerodynamics to a Helicopter Rotor Model, American Helicopter Society Paper AHS-704, May, 1973. 32 Wilkerson, J. B., Barnes, D. R. and Bill, R. A., The Circulation Control Rotor Flight Demonstrator Test Program, American Helicopter Society Paper AHS-7951, May, 1979. 33 Williams, R. N., Leitner, R. T. and Rogers, E. O., X-Wing: A New Concept in Rotary VTOL, Presented at AHS Symposium on Rotor Technology, August, 1976.

163

34 Englar R. J., Development of Pneumatic Aerodynamic Devices to Improve the Performance, Economics, and Safety of Heavy Vehicles, SAE Paper 2000-01-2208, June, 2000. 35 Cheeseman, I. C. and Seed, A. R., The Application of Circulation Control by Blowing to Helicopter Rotors, Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol. 71, July, 1966. 36 Kind, R. J., A Proposed Method of Circulation Control, Ph.D Thesis, Cambridge University, England. 37 Williams, R. M. and Howe, H. J., Two-Dimensional Subsonic Wind Tunnel Tests on a 20% thick, 5% Cambered Circulation Control Airfoil, NSRDC TN AL-176, Aug. 1970. 38 Englar, R. J., Two-Dimensional Transonic Wind Tunnel Tests of Three 15-Percent Thick Circulation Control Airfoils, NSRDC Rept. ASED-182, Dec. 1970. 39 Englar, R. J., Circulation Control for High Lift and Drag Generation on STOL Aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.457, May 1975. 40 Abramson, J., Two Dimensional Subsonic Wind Tunnel Evaluation of a 20 percent Thick Circulation Control Airfoil, DTNSRDC Report ASED-311, 1975. 41 Abramson, J. and Rogers, E. O., High-Speed Characteristics of Circulation Control Airfoils, AIAA paper 83-0265, 1983. 42 Englar, R. J. and Applegate, C. A., Circulation Control A Bibliography of DTNSRDC Research and Selected Outside References (January 1969 through December 1983), DTNSRDC Report 84-052, 1984. 164

43 Carpenter, P. W., Bridson, D. W. and Green, P. N., Features of Discrete Tones Generated by Jet Flow over Coanda Surfaces, AIAA paper 86-1685, 1986. 44 Howe, M. S., Noise Generated by a Coanda Wall Jet Circulation Control Device, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 249, No.4, pp. 679-700, Jan. 2002. 45 Dvorak, F. A. and Kind, R. J., Analysis Method for Viscous Flow Over CirculationControlled Airfoils, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 16, No. 1, January 1979. 46 Dvorak, F. A. and Choi, D. H., Analysis of Circulation Controlled Airfoils in Transonic Flow, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 20, April 1983. 47 Berman, H. A., A Navier-Stokes Investigation of a Circulation Control Airfoil, AIAA paper 85-0300. 48 Baldwin, B. S., and Lomax, H., Thin Layer Approximation and Algebraic Model for Separated Turbulent Flows, AIAA Paper 78-257, Jan. 1978. 49 Pulliam, T. H., Jespersen, D. C. and Barth, T. J., Navier-Stokes Computations for Circulation Control Airfoils, AIAA paper 85-1587. 50 Viegas, J. R., Rubesin, M. W. and MacCormack R. W., Navier-Stokes Calculations and Turbulence Modeling in the Trailing Edge Region of A Circulation Control Airfoil, NASA CP-2432. 51 Spaid, F. W. and Keener, E. R., Boundary-layer and wake measurements on a swept, circulation-control wing, AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 25th, Reno, NV, Jan. 12-15, 1987, AIAA Paper 87-0156. 52 Shrewsbury, G. D., Analysis of Circulation Control Airfoils using an Implicit NavierStokes Solver, AIAA paper 85-0171, January 1985. 165

53 Shrewsbury, G. D., Numerical Evaluation of Circulation Control Airfoil Performance Using Navier-Stokes Methods, AIAA paper 86-0286, January 1986. 54 Shrewsbury, G. D., Numerical Study of a Research Circulation Control Airfoil Using Navier-Stokes Methods, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.29-34, 1989. 55 Bradshaw, P., Effects of Streamline Curvature on Turbulent Flow (applied to boundary layer conditions on wing sections and turbomachine blades), AGARD-AG169, 1973. 56 Shrewsbury, G. D., Dynamic Stall of Circulation Control Airfoils, Ph.D Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1990. 57 Williams, S. L. and Franker, M. E., Navier-Stokes Methods to Predict Circulation Control Airfoil Performance, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 29, No.2, pp.243-249, MarchApril 1992. 58 Linton, S. W., Computation of the Poststall Behavior of a Circulation Controlled Airfoil, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 1273-1280, Nov. Dec. 1994. 59 Liu, J., Sun, M., and L. Wu, Unsteady Flow about a Circulation Control Airfoil, Science in China (Series E), Vol. 39, No. 1, Feb. 1996. 60 Wang, C., and Sun, M., Aerodynamic Properties of Circulation Control Airfoil with Multi-slot Blowing, Acta Aerodynamica Sinica, vol. 17, no. 4, pp.378-383, 1999. 61 Englar, R. J., Smith, M. J., Kelley, S. M. and Rober, R. C. III, Development of Circulation Control Technology for Application to Advanced Subsonic Transport Aircraft, AIAA paper 93-0644, presented at 31st Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 1993. 166

62 Slomski, J. F., Gorski, J. J., Miller, R. W. and Marino, T. A., Numerical Simulation of Circulation Control Airfoils as Affected by Different Turbulence Models, AiAA paper 2002-0851, 2002. 63 Yang, Z. Y. and Voke, P. R., Large-eddy simulation of boundary-layer separation and transition at a change of surface curvature, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 439, pp. 305-333, 2001. 64 Li, J. and Liu, C., Direct Numerical Simulation for Flow Separation Control with Pulsed Jets, 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno NV, 2003, AIAA paper 2003-0611. 65 Kwon, J. and Sankar, L.N., Numerical Study of the Effects of Icing on Finite Wing Aerodynamics, AIAA Paper 90-0757. 66 Bangalore, A., Phaengsook, N. and Sankar, L. N., Application of a Third Order Upwind Scheme to Viscous Flow over Clean and Iced Wings, AIAA Paper 94-0485. 67 Sankar, L. N. and Wake, B., Solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for the flow about a rotor blade, In National Specialists' Meeting on Aerodynamics and Aeroacoustics, Arlington, TX, Feb. 25-27, 1987. 68 Sankar, L. N., Ruo, S. Y., Wake, B. E. and Wu, J., An efficient procedure for the numerical solution of three-dimensional viscous flows, Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, 8th, Honolulu, HI, June 9-11, 1987, AIAA Paper 87-1159. 69 Tannehill, J. C., Anderson, D. A., and Pletcher, R. H., Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer, Second edition, Taylor & Francis, Washington, 1997.

167

70 Schlichting, H., Boundary-Layer Theory, 7th ed., translated by J. Kestin, McGrawHill, New York, 1979. 71 Vincenti, W. G., and Kruger, C. H., Introduction to Physical Gas Dynamics, John Wiley, New York, 1965. 72 Stokes, G. G., On the Theories of Internal Friction of Fluids in Motion, Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc., Vol. 8, pp. 287-305, 1845. 73 Fourier, J., The Analytical Theory of Heat, 1822, trans. By A. Freeman, 1878; reprinted by Dover, New York, 1955. 74 Chapman, S., and Cowling, T. G., The Mathematical Theory of Non-uniform Gases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1939, 1952. 75 Douglas, J., On the Numerical Integration of ut = uxx + uyy by Implicit Methods, Journal of Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 3, No.1, March 1955. 76 Peaceman, D. W. and Rachford, H. H., The Numerical Solution of Parabolic and Elliptic Differential Equations, Journal of Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 3., No.1, March 1955. 77 Briley, W. and McDonald, H., Solution of Multi-Component Navier-Stokes Equations by Generalized Implicit Method, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol.24, p. 372, 1977 78 Wake, B. E., Solution Procedure for the Navier-Stokes Equations Applied to Rotors, Ph.D Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 1987.

168

79 Beam R. and Warming R. F., An Implicit Finite Difference Algorithm for Hyperbolic Systems in Conservation Law form, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol.22, Sep. 1976, pp.87-110. 80 Pulliam, T. H., and Chaussee, D. S., A Diagonal Form of An Implicit Approximation Factorization Algorithm, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 39, 1981, pp. 347363. 81 Rizk, Y. M. and Chausee, D. S., Three-Dimensional Viscous-Flow Computations Using a Directionally Hybrid Implicit-Explicit Procedure, AIAA Paper 83-1910, 1983. 82 Tannehill, J. C., Holst, W. L. and Rakish, J. V. Numerical Computation of TwoDimensional Viscous Blunt Body Flows with an Impinging Shock, AIAA Journal, Vol. 14, No.2, p.204, 1976. 83 Von Neumann, J. and Richtmyer, R. D. A Method for the Numerical Calculation of Hydrodynamic Shocks, Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 21, p. 232, 1950. 84 Lax, P. D. and Wendoff, B., Systems of Conservation Laws, Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 13, p. 217, 1960. 85 Lapidus, L., A Detached Shock Calculation by Second-Order Finite-Differences, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 2, p. 154, 1967. 86 Lindmuth, I. And Killeen, J., Alternating Direction Implicit Techniques for TwoDimensional Magnetohydrodynamics Calculations, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 13, p. 372, 1977.

169

87 McDonald, H. and Briley, W., Three-Dimensional Supersonic Flow of a Viscous or Inviscid Gas, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 19, p. 150, 1975. 88 Steger, J. L., Implicit Finite-Difference Simulation of Flow about Arbitrary TwoDimensional Geometry, AIAA Journal, Vol. 16, No. 7, 1978. 89 Kim, J., Moin, P., and Moser, R., Turbulence Statistics in Fully Developed Channel Flow at Low Reynolds Number, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 177, 1987, pp. 133166. 90 Pope, S. B., Turbulent Flows, Cambridge University Press, 2000. 91 Spalart, P. R., and Allmaras, S. R., A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows, AIAA Paper 92-0439, Jan. 1992. 92 Cebeci, T., Calculation of Compressible Turbulent Boundary Layers with Heat and Mass Transfer, AIAA Paper 70-741, AIAA 3rd Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, Los Angeles, CA, June 1970. 93 Michel, R., and Arnal, D., Investigation of the conditions for tripping transition with roughness elements and their influence on boundary layer development, ESA Boundary Layer Control by Transition Fixing (ESA-TT-909), pp.103-113, 1984. 94 Eppler, R., and Fasel, H., Laminar-turbulent transition, Proceedings of the Symposium, Stuttgart, West Germany, September 16-22, 1979. 95 Bragg, M. B., and Spring, S. A., An Experimental Study of the Flow Field about an Airfoil with Glaze Ice, Presented at the AIAA 25th Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, Nevada, AIAA paper 87-0100, Jan 12-15, 1987.

170

96 Dancila, D. S. and Vasilescu, R., Modeling of Piezoelectrically Modulated and Vectored Blowing For a Wing Section, AIAA paper 2003-0219, presented at 41st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, Jan. 6-9, 2003. 97 Bangalore, A. K., Sankar, L. N., and Tseng, W., A multi-zone Navier-Stokes analysis of dynamic lift enhancement concepts, AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, 32nd, Reno, NV, Jan. 10-13, 1994, AIAA Paper 94-0164. 98 Bangalore, A. K., and Sankar, L. N., Numerical analysis of aerodynamic performance of rotors with leading edge slats, AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 13th, San Diego, CA, June 19-22, 1995, AIAA Paper 95-1888. 99 Valarezo, W. O., Dominik, C. J., McGhee, R. J., and Goodman, W. L., High Reynolds Number Configuration Development of a High-Lift Airfoil, AGARD Conference Proceedings 515, AGARD-CP-515, No.10, 1993. 100 Cock, K. de, High-Lift System Analysis Method using Unstructured Meshes, AGARD Conference Proceedings 515, AGARD-CP-515, No.12, 1993. 101 Seifert, A., Darabi, A. and Wygnanski, I., Delay of Airfoil Stall by Periodic Excitation, AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 4, 1996. 102 Wygnanski, I, Some New Observations Affecting the Control of Separation by Periodic Excitation, AIAA 2000-2314, FLUIDS 2000 Conference and Exhibit, Denver, CO, 19-22 June, 2000. 103 Lorber, P.F., McCormick, D., Anderson, T., Wake, B.E., MacMartin, D., Pollack, M., Corke, T., and Breuer, K., Rotorcraft Retreating Blade-Stall Control, AIAA 2000-2475, FLUIDS 2000 Conference and Exhibit, Denver, CO, 19-22 June, 2000. 171

104 Wake, B. and Lurie, E. A., "Computational Evaluation of Directed Synthetic Jets for Dynamic Stall Control," to appear in the American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, 2001. 105 Hassan, A., and Janakiram, R. D., Effects of Zero-Mass Synthetic Jets on the Aerodynamics of the NACA 0012 Airfoil, Journal of the American helicopter Society, Vol. 43, No. 4, October, 1998. 106 Oyler, T.E., and W.E. Palmer, Exploratory Investigation of Pulse Blowing for Boundary Layer Control, North American Rockwell Report NR72H-12, Jan. 1972. 107 Schatz, M., and Thiele, F., Numerical Study of High-Lift Flow with Separation Control by Periodic Excitation, AIAA Paper 2001-0296, Jan. 2001. 108 Sun, M., and Hamdani, H., Separation Control by Alternating Tangential Blowing/Suction at Multiple Slots, AIAA Paper 2001-0297, Jan. 2001. 109 Radeztsky, R. H., Singer, B. A. and Khorrami, M. R., Detailed Measurements of a Flap Side-edge Flow Field, AIAA paper 98-0700, Jan. 1998. 110 Khorrami, M. R., Singer, B. A. and Radeztsky, R. H., Reynolds Averaged NavierStokes Computations of a Flap Sied-edge Flow Field, AIAA paper 98-0768, Jan. 1998.

172