January 2014

NASA/CR–2014-218146

Investigation of Active Flow Control to Improve 

Aerodynamic Performance of Oscillating Wings

Robert P. Narducci

The Boeing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Rodney Bowersox

Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas

Richard Bussom and Michael McVeigh

The Boeing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Surya Raghu

Advanced Fluidics, LLC, Elliott City, Maryland

Edward White

Texas A&M University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA scientific and technical information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI program operates under the 

auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. 

It collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and 

disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI 

program provides access to the NASA Aeronautics 

and Space Database and its public interface, the 

NASA Technical Report Server, thus providing one 

of the largest collections of aeronautical and space 

science STI in the world. Results are published in 

both non-NASA channels and by NASA in the 

NASA STI Report Series, which includes the 

following report types:

 TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

Programs and include extensive data or 

theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data and 

information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers, but 

having less stringent limitations on manuscript 

length and extent of graphic presentations.

 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis.

 CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

 CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and 

technical conferences, symposia, seminars, 

or other meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

 SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, 

often concerned with subjects having 

substantial public interest.

 TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include organizing 

and publishing research results, distributing 

specialized research announcements and feeds, 

providing information desk and personal search 

support, and enabling data exchange services.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

 Access the NASA STI program home page 

at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

 E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

 Fax your question to the NASA STI 

Information Desk at 443-757-5803

 Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at 

443-757-5802

 Write to:

 STI Information Desk

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Langley Research Center Prepared for Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 under Contract NNL13AA03C

January 2014

NASA/CR–2014-218146

Investigation of Active Flow Control to Improve 

Aerodynamic Performance of Oscillating Wings

Robert P. Narducci

The Boeing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Rodney Bowersox

Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas

Richard Bussom and Michael McVeigh

The Boeing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Surya Raghu

Advanced Fluidics, LLC, Elliott City, Maryland

Edward White

Texas A&M University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

443-757-5802

The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accurate reporting and does not constitute an 

official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration.
i

Table&of&Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

Technical!Approach ........................................................................................................................3

Wind!Tunnel!Modifications............................................................................................................4

The!Wind!Tunnel!Model...............................................................................................................19

AFC!Actuator!Description .............................................................................................................21

Notional!WindHTunnel!Test!Matrix...............................................................................................27

CFD!Simulations............................................................................................................................35

Summary ......................................................................................................................................51

References....................................................................................................................................53

Appendix!A:!Pressure!Reconstruction!ProofHofHConcept .............................................................54

Appendix!B:!Coordinates!of!the!VRH7!with!3!Degree,!4%!tab.......................................................63

Appendix!C:!Optimal!Pressure!Tap!Locations...............................................................................66
ii

List of&Figures

Figure!1:!TAMU!LSWT!circa!1948. ..................................................................................................4

Figure!2:!Current!layout!of!the!TAMU!LSWT. .................................................................................5

Figure!3:!Power!scaling!for!various!testHsection!sizes. ...................................................................6

Figure!4:!Power!scaling!for!various!testHsection!sizes!with!Mach!numbers!reflecting!a!6×5!test!

section. ...................................................................................................................................7

Figure!5:!Mach!0.5!Diffuser!power!loss!design!estimates. .............................................................8

Figure!6:!DiffuserHinsert!frames!and!splitter!plates........................................................................9

Figure!7:!Diffuser!sheet!metal!design.............................................................................................9

Figure!8:!Turning!vane!airfoil!shape!modification........................................................................12

Figure!9:!Turning!vane!airfoil!shape!modification........................................................................12

Figure!10:!Modified!turning!vanes!and!pitot!traverse..................................................................13

Figure!11:!Total!pressure!losses!across!an!asHbuilt!and!modified!cornerH2!turning!vane. ...........14

Figure!12:!Vane!suctionHside!tuft!flow!visualization.!Flow!is!from!left!to!right.!The!tufts!indicate!

attached!flow........................................................................................................................15

Figure!13:!WholeHcircuit!loss!for!the!7×10!LSWT!configuration...................................................16

Figure!14:!General!features!of!the!wind!tunnel!model. ...............................................................19

Figure!15:!Modules!of!the!wind!tunnel!model;!leading!edge!(left),!spar!(middle),!trailing!edge!

(right)....................................................................................................................................20

Figure!16:!Results!of!an!optimization!to!define!45!pressureHtap!locations!for!accurate!force!and!

moment!measurements!during!dynamic!stall......................................................................20

Figure!17:!Notional!arrangement!of!actuators!in!the!array!and!arrays!in!the!wind!tunnel!model.

..............................................................................................................................................21

Figure!18:!Variations!in!jet!spacing!using!the!same!jet!array.......................................................22

Figure!19:!Arrangement!of!sweeping!jet!actuator!(orange)!installed!in!the!wind!tunnel!model.23

Figure!20:!An!actuator!array!showing!the!air!inlets!to!the!plenum!and!the!holes!to!attach!the!

array!to!the!airfoil.................................................................................................................23

Figure!21: Top!view!of!a!section!of!the!array ...............................................................................24

Figure!22:!Actuator!Array!and!a!closeHup!view!of!the!exit!geometry...........................................24

Figure!23:!Experimental!set!up!for!preliminary!testing!of!the!array. ...........................................25

Figure!24:!Spectra!from!microphone!signals!for!supply!pressure!of!5!psi.!!Frequency!~!1.9!

kHz........................................................................................................................................25
iii

Figure!25:!Spectra!from!microphone!signals!for!supply!pressure!of!8!psi.!Frequency!~!2.2!KHz. 26

Figure!26:!Lift!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!standard!conditions!(Chord!

=!1!ft). ...................................................................................................................................36

Figure!27:!Pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!standard!

conditions!(Chord!=!1!ft).......................................................................................................36

Figure!28:!Chordwise!Mach!number!contours!(black!indicates!separation)!for!the!VRH7!at!Mach!

0.5;!seaHlevel!standard!conditions!(chord!=!1!ft).!The!angle!of!attack!is!12°........................37

Figure!29:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!1,!M∞ =!0.4,!α =!10!±!5,!k!=!0.05,!chord!=!1!ft. ........................38

Figure!30:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!2,!M∞ =!0.4,!α =!10!±!5,!k!=!0.10,!chord!=!1!ft. ........................38

Figure!31:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!3,!M∞ =!0.4,!α =!6!±!10,!k!=!0.05,!chord!=!1!ft. ........................39

Figure!32:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!4,!M∞ =!0.4,!α =!6!±!10,!k!=!0.10,!chord!=!1!ft. ........................39

Figure!33:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!5,!M∞ =!0.3,!α =!10!±!5,!k!=!0.05,!chord!=!1!ft. ........................40

Figure!34:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!6,!M∞ =!0.3,!α =!10!±!5,!k!=!0.10,!chord!=!1!ft. ........................40

Figure!35:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!7,!M∞ =!0.3,!α =!6!±!10,!k!=!0.05,!chord!=!1!ft. ........................41

Figure!36:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!8,!M∞ =!0.3,!α =!6!±!10,!k!=!0.10,!chord!=!1!ft. ........................41

Figure!37:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!9,!M∞ =!0.2,!α =!10!±!5,!k!=!0.05,!chord!=!1!ft. ........................42

Figure!38:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!10,!M∞ =!0.2,!α =!10!±!5,!k!=!0.10,!chord!=!1!ft. ......................42

Figure!39:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!11,!M∞ =!0.2,!α =!6!±!10,!k!=!0.05!chord!=!1!ft. .......................43

Figure!40:!Lift!and!pitching!moment!predictions!from!OVERFLOW!for!the!VRH7!at!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions!for!Case!12,!M∞ =!0.2,!α =!6!±!10,!k!=!0.10,!chord!=!1!ft. ......................43

Figure!41:!Contours!of!chordwise!velocity!(black!indicates!separation)!for!the!VRH7!for!flow!near!

the!peak!of!the!lift!hysteresis.!The!dynamic!stall!condition!is!Mach!0.4,!α =!6°±10°,!k!=!

0.05,!chord!=!1!ft,!seaHlevel!standard. ..................................................................................44

Figure!42:!TwoHdimensional!CFD!evaluation!of!steady!blowing!on!a!stationary!15”Hchord!VRH7!

airfoil!at!Mach!0.5,!seaHlevel!standard!conditions................................................................45
iv

Figure!43:!Flow!field!visualization!with!and!without!steady!blowing!from!the!10%!chord!

location.!The!simulation!is!the!15”Hchord!VRH7!airfoil!at!Mach!0.5,!α =!12°,!seaHlevel!

standard!conditions..............................................................................................................46

Figure!44:!Computational!grid!for!the!theeHdimensional!calculations.........................................47

Figure!45:!ThreeHdimensional!CFD!evaluation!of!sweeping!jets!on!a!stationary!15”Hchord!VRH7!

airfoil!at!Mach!0.4,!seaHlevel!standard!conditions;!Mjet =!0.92,!x/Cjet =!0.08,!fjet =!350!Hz. ..48

Figure!46:!Flow!field!of!the!active!flow!control!jet!in!Mach!0.4!flow!at α =!15°. .........................49

Figure!47:!The!effect!of!sweeping!jets!on!lift!of!the!VRH7!airfoil!at!Mach!0.4,!k!=!0.1,!α =!

6+10sin(ωt);!Mjet =!0.92,!x/Cjet =!0.08,!fjet =!350!Hz. .............................................................50

Figure!48:!Schematic!of!a!basic!pressure!tubing!system..............................................................54

Figure!49:!(a)!Acoustic!and!(b)!stepHresponse![2]!benchHtop!block!diagrams!used!to!determine!

the!pneumatic!tubing!transfer!function ...............................................................................56

Figure!50:!(a)!StepHresponse!benchHtop!configuration!with!(b)!an!enlarged!image!of!the!solenoid!

valve!and!pressure!manifold ................................................................................................57

Figure!51:!Transfer!function!(a)!gain!and!(b)!phase!for!18Hinch!tubing!from!experimental!results!

and!Bergh!and!Tijdeman!analytic!model![1].........................................................................58

Figure!52:!(a)!FFT!of!pressure!stepHresponses!and!(b)!signalHtoHnoise!ratios!of!the!reference!and!

pneumatically!attenuated!signals!with!noise!threshold!indicated!at!600!Hz.......................59

Figure!53:!Reconstruction!of!multiHfrequency!signal!(a)!4,!22,!40,!57,!75,!93,!110,!128!Hz,!(b)!4,!

31,!57,!84,!110!Hz,!and!(c)!4,!40,!75,!110,!145,!180!Hz!for 18Hinch!length!Tygon!tubing. ....60

Figure!54:!Reconstruction!of!(a)!step!function!with!closeHup!on!(b)!initial!impulse!and!(c)!

overshoot!for!an!18Hinch!length!Tygon!tubing. ....................................................................61
v

List&of&Tables

Table!1:!Mach!0.5!power!requirement!estimates. .......................................................................17

Table!2:!Table!of!analysis!conditions!for!the!VRH7........................................................................37
vi

Acknowledgements

The! authors! would! like! to! thank! Brian! Allan! and! Susan! Gorton! for! their! expert! technical!

guidance! throughout! this! project.! Also,! we! would! like! to! thank! Jamie! Weber! of! Texas! A&M!

University! for! her! thorough evaluation! of! pressure! instrumentation.! Finally,! we! would! like! to!

acknowledge!Arvin!Shmilnovich!and!Andrew!Weddle!of!The!Boeing!Company!for!their!work!in!

active!flow!control!modeling!in!CFD.
1

Introduction

Future! advanced! civil! and! military! rotorcraft! are! being! designed! to! meet! requirements! to!

operate!at!high!cruise!speeds.!In!the!case!of!commercial!transport!rotorcraft,!this!is!driven!by!

the!need! for!increased!productivity,!longer! range,!and!larger!payloads;! for!military! rotorcraft,!

higher!speed!provides!reduced!mission!timeHtoHtarget,!increased!surprise,!enhanced!maneuver!

capability,!and!improved!survival!of!rescued!wounded!personnel.!For!conventional!helicopters,!

achieving!these!goals!requires!the!ability to!control!airfoil!dynamic!stall!that!causes!unfavorable!

changes!in!the!blade!aerodynamics!and!results!in!loss!of!performance!and!high!blade!loads.

Control! of! dynamic! stall! requires! control! of! the! upperHsurface! boundary! layer.! As! the! blade!

pitches,! flow! tends! to! remain! attached! at! angles! of! attack! greater! than! the! stall! angle! of! a!

stationary!blade.!However, when!separation!occurs,!a!vortex!forms!near!the!leading!edge!and!

travels! along! the! upper! surface! towards! the! trailing! edge! then! sheds into! the! wake.! This

dynamic!stall!vortex!produces!increases!in!lift!and!large!noseHdown!pitching!moments!greater!

than!the!static!values,!which,!in!turn,!produce!large!control!loads,!increased!vibration,!and!an!

increase! in! rotor! drag.! The! endHresult! is! increased! powerHrequired,! reduced! cruise! speed,!

increased!maintenance!costs!and!increased! rotor!loads!that limit!maneuver!capability! for! the!

helicopter.

The!objective!of!this!work!is!to!design,!fabricate,!and!evaluate!a!promising!active!flow!control!

(AFC)!concept!for!application!to!a!helicopter!rotor!blade!to!mitigate!the!effects!of!dynamic!stall,!

which!generally!occurs as!the!blades!pass!through!the!retreating!side!of!the!rotor!disk.!This!is!a!

very! challenging! application! of! active! flow! control! technology! because! the! rotor! flow!

environment! is! highly! unsteady! and! the! airfoils! experience! both! high! and! low!Mach! number!

flow!conditions!during!a!single!revolution.!

Two! types!of!AFC!actuators!are!being!developed!in! the!industry:! fluidic!actuators!and!plasma!

actuators.! This! investigation! focuses! on! the! effectiveness! of! small! fluidic! actuators! for!

controlling!dynamic!stall.!Fluidic!actuators!inject!highHenergy!air!into!the!boundary!layer!using!

blowing! to! control! separation.! Periodic! blowing! requires! an! orderHofHmagnitude! less! power!

than!steady!blowing.!Recent!developments!in! the!capabilities!of!fluidic actuators!suggest! that!

they!may!offer!a!very!effective!and!practical!method!for!onHblade!control!of!dynamic!stall.!The!

issue! of! how! sufficient! air! is provided! to! the! actuators! on! the! blades may! be! solved! by!

developments!in!very!compact!electric!blowers!used!in! the!automotive!racing!industry.!These!

blowers!may!be!able!to!fit!in!the!root!of!a!rotor!blade.

Plasma!actuators!are!attractive!because! they!are!electrically!powered,!compact,!and!conform!

to! the! airfoil! surface,! but! have! outstanding! issues! of! operation! that! need! to! be! addressed:!

effects!of! rain,!EMI,! resilience!of! the!airfoil!surface! to! the!plasma,!and!visual!detection!of! the!

corona!by!enemy!forces.!Nevertheless,!experiments!have!demonstrated!some!level!of!dynamic!

stall! alleviation! at! lowHtoHmid! Mach! numbers! [1,! 2].! Plasma! actuators! apply! a! high! voltage!

between!electrodes! fitted! flush! to! the!airfoil! surface,! producing!a! surface!layer! of!ionized!air!

(plasma).!In!the!presence!of!the!electric!field,!the!plasma!exerts!a!body!force!on!the!boundary!

layer!air!to!produce!a!chordwise!tangential!wallHjet!that!adds!energy!to!maintain!attachment.
2

Fluidic! actuators! are! of! two! types: zeroHmassHflow! blowing! using a! vibrating! membrane!

(‘speaker’! type),! and! sweepingHjet! actuators! (SJAs).! The! electrically powered! zeroHmass!

actuators! have! demonstrated! improved! lift!and! reduced! drag! on!a! VRH7! oscillating!airfoil! [3].!

However,!subsequent!tests!on!a!VRH12!blade!section!in!the!US!Army!7’×10’!wind!tunnel!did!not!

show!significant!benefit![4].!In!these!experiments, the!airfoil!tended!to!separate!suddenly!from!

the! leading! edge,! in! contrast! to! prior! experiments! with! the! VRH7! section, which! separated!

gradually!from!the!trailing!edge.!The!control!jet,!placed!at!20%!chord!and!limited!to!an!exit!jet!

Mach!number!of!0.4,!could!not!influence!an!already!separated!boundary!layer.

We!have!chosen!to!evaluate!the!SJA!concept!for!this!project!due!to!its!small!size!and!potential!

to! generate! much! stronger! jets.! The! modern! SJA! is! a! simple! nonHmechanical! device! that!

produces! a! highHspeed! jet! that! oscillates! from! sideHtoHside! to! energize! the! airfoil! boundary!

layer.!These!devices!require!no!electric!power,!but!do!require!a!source!of!compressed!air!in!the!

13!psig!range.!Research!reported!in!Refs![5,!6]!has!demonstrated!suppression!of!separation!on!

wings!and!flaps!beyond!what!is!achievable with!zeroHmass!jets. A!substantial!advantage!of!the!

SJA! is! that! each! actuator! can! be! made! very! small,! typically! about! 0.1”! thick,! measuring!

approximately!0.5”×0.7”!and!weighing!only!grams.!They!are!capable!of!jet!speeds!up! to!sonic!

velocities! depending! on! the! pressure! applied.! SJAs! can! be! manufactured! inexpensively! and!

fitted!into!almost!any!object.

This! report!presents!a!plan! for! the!experimental! testing!of!SJAs on!a!VRH7!airfoil! section.!The!

plan!involves!the!modification!of!the!Low!Speed!Wind!Tunnel!at!Texas!A&M!University!(TAMU)!

so!that!testing!can!be!performed!at!conditions!up!to!Mach!0.5.!The!wind!tunnel!is!ideally!suited!

because, with!the!modifications, the!facility!will!allow!for!lowHcost!testing!of!passive!and!active!

flow! controlled! airfoils! throughout! rotorHrelevant! Mach! numbers,! both! statically! and!

dynamically.!The!facility!is!equipped!to!make!many!types!of!flow!measurements!including!PIV,!

hot! film,! and! surface! pressures! so! that! fundamental! physics! can! be! understood.! The! plan! is!

complemented! by CFD! analysis! to! provide substantiation! to! theories! prior! to! wind! tunnel!

testing!and!to!aid!in!the!design!of!the!wind!tunnel!model.

The! plan! was! generated! by! researchers! from! The! Boeing! Company, TAMU,! and! Advanced!

Fluidics,!LLC.!It!is!presented!in!this!report,!first!with!the overall!approach,!followed!by!designs!

for!the!wind!tunnel!modifications.!A!wind!tunnel!model!design!is!presented!next,! followed!by!

designs!for!sweepingHjet!actuation.!A!notional!runHmatrix!is!presented,!targeting!a!15Hday!entry!

with!an! optional! five!additional days! for! PIV!measurements.! CFD!was! used! to! provide!insight!

into!the!physics!of!sweeping!jets!for!dynamic!stall!control!on!a!VRH7.!Details!of calculations!are!

presented!before!the!final!section, which!offers!recommendations!and!conclusions.
3

Technical&Approach

The!Boeing!Company!has!teamed!with Texas!A&M!University and Advanced!Fluidics!to!develop!

a! program! to!apply! sweeping!jet! technology! to!mitigate! the! detrimental!effects! of! retreating!

blade! stall.! The! program! is! primarily! experimental! focusing! on! twoHdimensional! testing! of! an!

oscillating! VRH7! airfoil! section.! Complementing! the! experimental! measurements! are! CFD!

analyses.

Practical! dynamic! stall! control! for! rotorcraft! means! achieving! control! across! the! range! of!

reduced! frequencies! from 0.0! to! 0.15! and! Mach! numbers! of! 0.0! to! 0.5.! To! test! at! these!

conditions,! modifications! to! the! Texas! A&M! Oran! W.! Nicks! low! speed! wind! tunnel! are!

necessary.! The! modifications! reduce! the! test! section! area! to! achieve! the! desired! Mach!

numbers.!The!proposed!experimental!tests!fall into!three!segments:!(1)!a!detail!assessment!of!

uncontrolled! dynamic! stall! flow! fields! for! the!airfoil!across!a! range! of! reduced! frequency!and!

Mach! number;! (2)! experimental! trade! studies! to! optimize! actuator! placement! and!

characteristics;!and!(3)!a!detailed!assessment!of!controlled!dynamic!stall!flow!fields.!NearHrealH

time! integration! of! surface! pressure! to! obtain! lift! and! pitching! moment! will! be! available! to!

assess!AFC!effectiveness.!The! flow! field!will!be!measured!using!highHresolution!particle!image!

velocimetry!(PIV)!for!offHbody!visualization.

The! wind! tunnel! model! spans! the! 5Hfoot! test! section! and! can! be! stationary! or! oscillating in!

pitch.! The! airfoil! is! a! 15Hinch! chord! VRH7! section! similar! to! previous! VGARD! tests! to! provide!

tieback to! flow! control! experiments! with! zeroHmass! jets.! The! model! is! modular! with! a!

detachable!leading!edge, which!would!allow! for!alternate!AFC!configurations!or!devices! to!be!

tested.

Computational! fluid! dynamics! offers! insight! into! the! mechanics! of! flow! control.! HighHfidelity!

solutions! based! on! the! NavierHStokes! equations! will! capture! the! jet! interaction! with! the!

surrounding! flow! field!and!give!an idea!of!promising!chordwise!locations! for! the!sweepingHjet!

actuators.! In! addition,! the! CFD! model! will! be! used! as! a! guide! in! the! development! of! the!

experimental!test!matrix.

Details! of! SJA! technology,!experimental! program,!model! hardware,! data!acquisition,!and! CFD!

calculations!are!provided!in!the!following!sections.
4

Wind&Tunnel&Modifications

The! Texas! A&M! University! LowHSpeed! Wind! Tunnel! (LSWT)! is! one! of! just! several! large,! lowH

speed! wind! tunnels! at! U.S.! universities.! It! was! originally! constructed! in! the! late! 1940s! as! an!

openHreturn!tunnel!(Figure!1)!with!a!7’× 10‘ (68!ft2)!test!section!capable!of!200!mph,!Mach 0.26!

operation.! The! fan! is! a! variableHpitch! BH29! propeller! driven! by! a! 900HRPM! 1250Hhp! motor.! A!

decade! later,! work! began! to! close! the! circuit! and! yielded! the! present! configuration! of! the!

tunnel! (Figure!2).!The!closedHcircuit!design!offers!many!advantages! to!open!design.!However,!

the! current! tunnel! retains! the! fan! directly! downstream! of! the! test! section,! an! undesirable!

feature!of!its!original!open!layout.

Figure&1:&TAMU&LSWT&circa&1948.
5

Figure&2:&Current&layout&of&the&TAMU&LSWT.

In!the!2000’s,!research!led!by!coHPI!Prof.!Rodney!Bowersox and!funded!by!the!Army!Research!

Office!made!measurements! of! dynamic! stall! on!a! characteristic! helicopter! blade!airfoil!in! the!

LSWT.! That! work! used! PIV! to! image! the! leading! edge! and! examined! the! vortex! rollup! under!

dynamic!stall!conditions.!No!load!or!surface!pressure!measurements!were!made.!A! feedbackH

controlled!hydraulic!actuator!provided!pitch!rates!up!to!10!Hz!on!12HinchHchord!blades.

To! accommodate! the! pitch! mechanism! for! those! tests,! testHsection! inserts! were! constructed!

that!reduced!the!testHsection!size!to!7’!× 7’.!Besides!providing!18!inches!at!each!sidewall!for!the!

pitch!system,!reducing!the!test!section!size!from!68!ft2 to!49!ft2 enabled!the!tunnel!to!exceed!

Mach 0.3.! In! addition! to! the! test! section! liners,! short! contraction! liners! were! installed! to!

provide!a!smooth!interface!between!the!asHbuilt!contraction!and!the!reducedHsize!test!section.!

No!change!was!made! to! the!diffuser!so!both!sideHwalls!of! the! test!section!ended!with!an!18H

inchHtall!backward!facing!step!at!the!beginning!of!the!diffuser.

Building!on!the!work!using!the!7’!× 7’test!section,!liners!were!constructed!to!provide!a!5HfootH

tall! × 7HfootHwide,! 35! ft2 test! section.! That! size! is! sufficiently! small! that! Mach! 0.4! would! be!

possible!with! the! 1250! hp!motor.!Additional! contraction!liners! plus! short! diffuser!liners!were!

constructed.! However,! the! system! proved! incapable! of! reaching! Mach 0.4.! The! most! likely!

culprit!was!separation!in!the!diffuser!resulting!from!inadequately!long!liners!whose!equivalent!

cone!angle!exceeded!guidelines!for!avoiding windHtunnel!diffuser!separation.

Prior!to!the!start!of!this!project,!the!original!1930sHera!1250!hp!motor!was!replaced!with!a!new!

variableHspeed!3000!hp!motor!capable!of!up!to!1200!RPM.!The!project!began!with!the!premise!

that!the!LSWT!would!be!marginally!capable!of!providing!Mach 0.5!flow!using!the!existing!5’!×7’!

testHsection!liners!and!the!new!motor, provided!that!new!diffuser!liners!were!designed!to!meet!

design! guidelines.! The! power! required! to! drive! a! tunnel! scales! as! the! mass! flow! times! the!
6

velocity! squared! or,! equivalently,! the! testHsection! area! dynamic! pressure! to! the! 3/2! power.!

Data! from!the!asHbuilt!7’!× 10’!test!section!plus!Bowersox’s!work!with! the!7’!× 7’!test!section!

was! used! to! generate! Figure! 3 that! projects! a! net! 11%! efficiency! improvement! is! needed! to!

achieve! Mach 0.5! in! the! 5’! × 7’! test! section! using! 3000! hp.! This! requires! the! design! of! an!

efficient!diffuser,!as!well!as finding!additional!efficiencies!elsewhere!in!the!system.!If!additional!

losses!could!not!be!corrected,!a!furtherHreduced!test!section!size!could!be!used!to!achieve!the!

MachHnumber!target.

Figure&3:&Power&scaling&for&various&testKsection&sizes.

After! the! project! began,! design! estimates! for! the! new! windHtunnel! model! showed! that! the!

intended!7Hfoot!span!would!exceed!material!strength!limits!and! that!only!a!5Hfoot!span!could!

meet! design! constraints.! This! increases! the! number! of! LSWT design! modifications! because! it!

requires! new! testHsection! inserts! and! contraction! liners! in! addition! to! the! improved! diffuser.!

However,!by!moving!to!a!6HfootHtall!× 5HfootHwide!test!section,!the!area!is!further!reduced!to!30!

ft2 while!the!blockage!(ratio!between!chord!and!tunnel!height!in!a!2D!configuration)!is!reduced.!

The!reduced!cross!section!lowers the!anticipated!power!requirement!at!Mach!0.5!to!2857!hp,!a!

5%!power!margin!(Figure!4).!
7

Figure&4: Power&scaling&for&various&testKsection&sizes&with&Mach&numbers&reflecting&a&6×5&test§ion.

The!5%!power!margin!is!the!projection!based!on!performance!of!the!old!1250!hp!motor.!While!

a! precise! improvement! value! is! unknown,! the! new! motor! undoubtedly! has! better! power!

efficiency!than!the!old motor.!Even!a!5%!improvement!in!motor!power!efficiency!would!double!

the! anticipated! power! margin! for! Mach 0.5.! This! suggests! that! almost! any! nonHseparated!

diffuser!design!and!no!new!efficiency!improvements!could!be!all!that is!required!to!achieve!the!

MachHnumber!target.!Nevertheless,!efficiency!improvements!are!explored!and!described.

Diffuser&Design

The! most! critical! aspect! of! the! tunnel! modifications! is! the! diffuser! insert! design.! As! noted!

above,! the! fan! is! located! directly! downstream! of! the! test! section,! 46.5! feet! behind! the! testH

section! exit! plane.! The! challenge! is! to! expand! the! cross! sectional! area! from! 30! ft2 to! 123! ft2

(12.5Hfoot! diameter)! over! that! short! length! while! avoiding! diffuser! separation.! The!

recommendation! for! doing! so! is!to!maintain! equivalent! diffuser! cone! angles! at! less! than! 3°.!

Given!the!length!constraint,!doing!this!is!only!possible!using!splitter!plates!in!some!or!all!of!the!

diffuser.!Splitter!plates!divide!the!flow!into!parallel!channels!of!reduced!expansion!angle!but!do!

so!at!the!expense!of!increased!wall!friction.

The!eventual!design!choice!for!the!diffuser!is!a!20HfootHlong!1Hduct!section!followed!by!a!26.5H

footHlong! 4Hduct! section! with two! splitter! plates.! The! first! section! expands! the! 6’! × 5’!

rectangular! cross! section! to! a! 7.5HfootHdiameter! 12Hsided! polygon.! The! second! section!
8

maintains! the! shape! and! expands! to a 12.5Hfoot! diameter polygon.! Figure! 5 shows! how! the!

streamwise!location!of!the!transition!and!the!diameter!at!that!point!affect!diffuser!power!loss!

at! Mach! 0.5.! Note! the! selected! design! is! not! the! minimumHpower! point.! The! design! instead!

minimizes!the!expansion!angle!and!separation!risk!in!both!sections!of!the!diffuser.!The!angles!

are! 2.6°! and! 2.5°! for! the! first! and! second! sections,! respectively.! This! reduced! separation! risk!

comes!with!marginally!increased!power!requirements!due!to!increased!wall!friction!losses.

Figure&5:&Mach&0.5&Diffuser&power&loss&design&estimates.

The!mechanical!design!of!the!diffuser!liners!must!provide!the!desired!geometry!while!utilizing

parts!that!can!be!handHcarried!into!the!diffuser,!adjusting for!asHbuilt!variations!in!the!existing!

diffuser! and! sustaining a! 350! psf! pressure! difference,! the! approximate! dynamic! pressure! at!

Mach 0.5.!The!final!design!consists!of!eleven!4HfootHspaced!frames!consisting!of!2!inch!× 2!inch!

structural!steel!tubing!(0.25HinchHthick!wall)!with!adjustable!feet!that!push!out!against!concrete!

structure.! These! frames! fit in! place! and! then! anchor! to! the! concrete! with! masonry! screws!

through!anchor!points.!The!diffuser!shape!is!provided!by!1/16”!sheet!steel!that!is!to!be!precut!

to! the! diffuser! design! and! attached! in! place.! That! thickness! passes! finiteHelement! analysis!

factorHofHsafety! checks! at! 350! psf.! Implementing! this! design! will! be! laborHintensive! but! not!

complicated.!The!frame!and!splitter!plates!are!shown!in!Figure!6 while!a!cutaway!of!the!sheet!

steel!(blue)!compared!to!the!existing!structure!(gray)!is!shown!in!Figure!7.
9

Figure&6:&DiffuserKinsert&frames&and&splitter&plates.

Figure&7:&Diffuser&sheet&metal&design.
10

Contraction&Design

The! contraction! provides!a! strong! favorable! pressure!gradient! so!its! design! details!are! not!as!

critical!to!achieving!Mach!0.5!as!the!diffuser!details.!Nevertheless,!changing from!a!7’!×10’ test!

section! to! a! 6’! × 5’ test! section! increases! the! risk! of! contraction! separation! because! the!

contraction! ratio!increases! from!10.4! to!20.2.!Guidelines! for!contraction!design! recommend!a!

contraction! length! 1.25! times! the! inlet! diameter! and! 5thHdegree! polynomial! shape! with! the!

steepest! gradient! at! the! midpoint! of! the! contraction! length.! The! current! length! is! only! 0.85!

times! the! inlet! diameter.! Its! shape! is! (apparently)! circular! arcs! tangent! at! the!midpoint.! This!

design!is!more!prone!to!separation!than!the!polynomial!shape.

The!optimum!diffuser!design!would!apply!the!polynomial!shape!from!the!second!screen!to!the!

test! section! inlet! plane.! The! test! section! inlet! plane! can! be! moved! 2! feet! downstream! to!

lengthen! the! contraction.! Because! the! start! of! the! contraction! is! a! circular! arc! and! the! test!

section!wall!inserts!are!inset!from!the!asHbuilt!walls,!the!optimum!polynomial!shape!would!not!

interfere!with!the!asHbuilt!contraction.!The!challenge!of!this!design!is!that!thin!liners!would!be!

required!over! the!steepest!part!of! the!existing!contraction.!These!would! require!a!substantial!

number!of!anchors!through!the!existing!concrete.!This!would!require!much!labor!at!heights!up!

to! 30! feet!above!ground! inside!and! outside.!The! risk,! time!and!expense! of! this approach!are

deemed!too!great!to!pursue.

An!alternative!contraction!design!was!selected!that!leaves!the!first!half!of!the!contraction!as!is!

and! modifies! only! the! part! downstream! of! the! existing! maximum! slopeHpoint.! The! plan! is! to

start!the!wall!liners!at!the!(approximate)!maximum!slope!point!and!end!2!feet!into!the!existing!

test!section.!Sheet!metal!(1/16Hinch!thick!as!in!the!diffuser)!will!be!bent!to!approximately!match!

a!5thHdegree!polynomial!shape!with!the!6!boundary!conditions!set!by!the!(x,z)!coordinates!plus!

slope,!zs,!and!second!derivative,!zss!=!0,!at!the!maximumHslope!point!in!the!contraction!plus!the!

coordinates! (x,z),!slope,!zs!=!0,!and!second!derivative,!zss!=!0,!of!the!testHsection!inlet.!Primary!

structural!support!will!be!provided!by!4!inch!× 4!inch!structural!steel!tubing!cantilevered!from!

the! test!section!with!2!inch!× 2!inch!steel!extending! to!support! the!bent!sheet!steel.!The!last!

portion!of!sheet!steel!where!it!meets!the!maximumHslope!point!will!be!anchored!to!the!asHbuilt!

concrete! but! no! other! modifications! are! necessary! to! the! existing! contraction! and! all! the!

needed! work! can! occur! inside! without! scaffolding.! This! increases! safety! and! substantially!

reduces!labor! cost! of!installation.!A!local! company!in! College!Station,!Exosent,!Inc.,! has! been!

identified! that! can! cut! and! bend! sheet! steel! to! the! appropriate! dimensions! using! CNC!

equipment.! Exosent! can! also! assist! with! the! welding! required! to! fabricate! the! contraction!

framework!in!place.

Efficiency&Improvements

Together,! the! reduced! testHsection! area! and! improved! motor! efficiency! are! believed! to! be!

sufficient!to!provide!Mach!0.5!flow.!Therefore,!tunnel!efficiency!improvements!are!not!believed!

to! be! required.! Nevertheless,! improved! efficiency! would! reduce! operating! costs! and! could!

improve! flow! quality! at! all! velocities.! Furthermore, improvements! in! power! margin! could! be!

beneficial!at!any! speed!and!were!aggressively! pursued.!First,!a!large! number! of!leaks!around!

the! tunnel! were! located! and! sealed.! The! tunnel! vents! to! atmosphere! at the! testHsection! exit!

plane! but! the! test! section! operates several! psf! below! atmospheric! pressure.! All! other! points!

around!the!tunnel!are!at!a!higherHthanHambient!static!pressure.!This!higher!pressure!drives!air!
11

out! through!leaks.!To! conserve!mass,!equivalent!air!must! be! drawn!into! the! test! section!and!

pass!through!the!fan.!This!leads!to!increased!power!draw!by!the!fan!because!more!mass!flow!

passes! through! the! fan! than! passes! through! the! test! section.! Sealing! approximately! 1! ft2 of!

leaks!(a!reasonable!estimate!for!the!work!completed,!especially!at!hatches)!and!assuming!a!fan!

efficiency!of!75%!would!save!approximately!25!hp!at!100!psf!operation!(Mach!0.26)!and!160!hp!

at!350!psf!(Mach!0.5).!At!Mach 0.5,!that!represents!about!5%!of!the!power!estimated!from!the!

projection!in!Figure!4.

The!second!efficiency!improvement!approach!was!attempting!to!identify!and!correct!separated!

flow!downstream!of!the!fan.!At!the!outset!of!the!project,!separation seemed!most!likely!from!

the!downstream!end! of! the!motor! housing!and from! the wooden!inserts! on! the! tunnel!walls!

between!the!fan!and!corner!2.!Yarn!tufts!were!installed!on!these!surfaces!and!video!recordings!

were!made!at!testHsection!dynamic!pressures!up!to!50!psf!(Mach 0.18).!These!images!showed!

that the!suspect! areas! maintain! reasonably! well! attached! flow.! However,! the! corner! 1! and!

corner!2!turning!vanes, which!were!also tufted, showed!violentlyHseparated!flow!at!the!leading!

edge.! The! vanes! are! sawHcut! 0.25HinchHthick! steel! bent! into! a! 90°! bend! with! an! extended,!

straight!trailing!edge.!They!are!spaced!2.5!feet!apart.!The!likely!reason!for!the!separation!is!the!

absence!of!a!rounding!leading!edge and nonHaligned!flow!at!the!start!of!the!corner.

Separated!flow!on!the!cornerH1!and!cornerH2!vanes!represents!a!substantial!power!loss!because!

the!area!is! still! relative! small! (18Hfoot! diameter)! so! the!local! dynamic! pressure!is! high.!A!loss!

coefficient!for!a!wellHdesigned!90°!bend!with!turning!vanes!is!k!=!0.15.!At!a testHsection!dynamic!

pressure! of! 100! psf,! the! local! dynamic! pressure! is! approximately! 7.2! psf.! At! k! =! 15%,! this!

translates! to! a! 40! hp! power! loss! for! each! set! of! vanes.! Given! the! separation! observed,! the!

actual!loss!is!likely!to!be!at!least!double!this value.

To!determine!the!potential!efficiency!improvement!that!could!be!achieved!using!turning!vane!

reconditioning,! three!proofHofHconcept!vane!covers!and!rib!sets!were! fabricated!and!installed.!

BeforeHandHafter! vane wake! surveys! were! made! to! measure! the! loss! coefficient! with! and!

without! the! vane! covers.! The! cross! section! of! the! modified! vanes! is! shown! in! Figure! 8.! The!

pressure! side! is! the! existing! vane! while! the! suction! side! is! the! same! as! the! SAH070.61! vane!

developed!by!Sahlin!and!Johansson![7]. The!suction!side!was!fabricated!as!3HfootHtall!sections!of!

bent! galvanized! steel! sheet! metal.! The! ribs! are! lumber! cut! using! a! CNC! router.! Individual!

components!are!shown!in!Figure!9.
12

Figure&8:&Turning&vane&airfoil&shape&modification.

Figure&9:&Turning&vane&airfoil&shape&modification.
13

Upstream!and downstream!velocity!profiles!were!measured!using!a!pitot!tube!mounted!to!an!

automated! 1D! traverse.! The! traverse! was! oriented! such! that! it! moved! parallel! to! the! vane!

cascade! with! the! pitot! tube! oriented! at! a! 45°! angle,! directly! into! the! oncoming! flow.! The!

traverse!is!shown!upstream!of!modified!blades!in!Figure!10.!Upstream!and!downstream!static!

pressures!are!essentially!uniform!across! the! flow.!The!dynamic!pressure!upstream!is! similarly!

uniform! while! the! downstream! dynamic! pressure! shows! a! characteristic! wake! profile! (Figure!

11).! Subtracting! the! integral! of! the! total! pressure! (static! plus! dynamic! pressure)! measured!

across!one!cascade!spacing!downstream!of!the!cascade!from!a!similar!integral!upstream!gives!

the!vane!loss.!Prior!to!modification,!the!loss!is!measured!to!be!4.5%!of!the!testHsection!dynamic!

pressure!or!k!=!63%!using!the!local!dynamic!pressure.!After!modification!that!loss!is!reduced!to!

1.0%! of! the! testHsection! dynamic! pressure!(k!=! 14%),!almost!exactly! the!expected!value! for!a!

correctlyHdesigned!vane.

Figure&10:&Modified&turning&vanes&and&pitot traverse.
14

Figure&11:&Total&pressure&losses&across&an&asKbuilt&and&modified&cornerK2&turning&vane.

The!actual!potential!improvement!in!vane!performance!is!not!as!dramatic!as!Figure!11 would!

indicate.! The! corresponding! dynamic! pressure! plot! (not! shown)! for! the! asHbuilt! vane, fails! to!

satisfy! massHconservation! requirements.! This! suggests! that! the! blockage! of! the! traverse! is!

sufficient! to! divert! flow! from! the! cascade! passage! of! interest! and! corrupt! the!measurement.!

This!artificially!increases!the!measured!loss!given!in!Figure!11.!Mass!conservation!is!satisfied!in!

the!modifiedHvane!measurement!so!k!=!14%.!Regardless!of!the!precise!asHbuilt!loss!coefficient,!

the! modified! vanes! are! a! dramatic! improvement! as! they! provide! attached! flow.! Besides!

meeting! massHconservation! requirements,! tuft! tests of! the! modified! vanes! showed! that! the!

flow!remains!attached!on!the!suction!side!of!the!vanes!(Figure!12).
15

Figure&12:&Vane&suctionKside&tuft&flow&visualization.&Flow&is&from&left&to&right.&The&tufts&indicate&attached&flow.&

A! wholeHtunnel! circuit! efficiency! measurement! was! made! by! measuring! total! pressures! at!

various! stations! around! the! entire! tunnel! circuit.! These! are! presented! in! Figure! 13 as! total!

pressure! coefficients,! Cp0 =! (p0 – p0,TS)/qTS,! using! the! test! section! total! pressure!and! dynamic!

pressure!as!reference!quantities.!Measurements!between!qTS =!50!and!100!psf!collapse!to!the!

curve! shown.! For! comparison,! a! design! estimate! for! the! LSWT! is! also! given.! Pressure! losses!

were estimated using!NASA!TN!DH8243! [8].!These!measurements!show!the!total!pressure!loss!

across! corners! 1! and! 2! is! about! 65%! larger! than! predicted! using! k! =! 15%.! This! value! likely!

underestimates!the!present!loss!because!the!measurement!just!upstream!of!corner!1!is!thought!
16

to! underestimate! the!total! pressure! there! due! to! the! turbulent! flow! downstream! of! the! fan.!

Therefore,! a! current! loss! coefficient! for! the! existing! corner! 1! and! corner! 2 turning! vanes! is!

between!k!=!25%!(circuit!total!pressure!measurements)!and!k!=!63%!with!the!actual!value!likely!

closer!to!the!low!end!of!the!range.

Figure&13:&WholeKcircuit&loss&for&the&7×10&LSWT&configuration.&

The! measurements! suggest! that! the! worstHperforming! parts of! the! LSWT! system! are! the!

turbulence!screens!upstream!of! the!contraction.!Indeed,!improving! the!screens!would!lead! to!

substantially! reduced! total!pressure!loss!around! the!circuit.!The!power!loss!associated!with!a!

pressure!loss!is! proportional! to! the!local!velocity.! Because! the! speeds at! corners! 1!and! 2!are

nearly!triple!that!at!the!screens,!improving!the!corners!is!a!much!higher!priority.!Moreover,!a!

preliminary!screen!replacement!cost!is!$300,000!while!corners!1!and!2!could!be!reconditioned!

for!less!than!$50,000.

Unfortunately,! turbulent! flow!contaminated! the! totalHpressure!measurement!upstream!of! the!

fan! so! the! increase! in! total! pressure! across! the! fan! is! unknown.! Using! NASA! TN! DH8243! to!

estimate! the! upstream! total! pressure! and! disregarding! any! measurement! error! downstream!

suggests! ∆p0 ≈! 0.15! qTS.! Corresponding! motor! power! measurements! indicate! the! combined!

motor!and!fan!efficiency!is!between!65%!and!75%.!With!a!reducedHarea!test!section,!the!mass!

flow!across! the! fan!will! not!exceed!current!values! so! similar!efficiencies!are!expected! for! the!

target!Mach!numbers.

Our!calculations!show!that!Mach!0.5!flow!can!be!achieved!in!a!6’!× 5’ test!section!in!the!TAMU!

LSWT! using! the! new! 3000! hp! motor.! Although! the! efficiency! of! the! existing! circuit! is! poor!

relative! to!modern!design!expectations,! the!motor!is! sufficiently!powerful! to!overcome! these!
17

losses!using!a!straightforward!extrapolation!to!Mach 0.5.!Without!improvement, the!reducedH

area!test!section!gives!a!5%!power!margin.!Every!factor!considered!increases!this!margin.!Most!

significantly,! the! extrapolation! uses! data! from! the! old! 1250! hp! motor.! Improved! motor!

efficiency!at!least!doubles!the!margin!and!potentially!gives!a!much!larger!margin.!Even!sealing!

tunnel!leaks!is!likely!to!have!increased!the!margin!from!5%!to!10%.

Work!on!circuit!efficiency!improvements!show!that!the!tunnel!losses!at!corners!1!and!2!could!

likely!be!halved! for!relatively!modest!cost!using! turning!vane!covers.!Because! the! test!section!

area! will! be! reduced! to! achieve! increased!Mach! numbers,! the! tunnel! losses! shift! from!being!

largely!due!to!these!corners!to being largely!due!to!wall!friction!in!the!test!section!and!diffuser.!

In!fact,!with!Mach!0.5!in!a!6’!× 5’!test!section,!there!is!less!mass!flow!through!the!system!than!

there!is!presently!at!Mach 0.26.!The!breakdown!of!the!estimated!total!power!for!the!modified!

tunnel!(without!turning!vane!modifications),!is!presented!in!Table 1.!In!Table 1,!Total!power!is!

the!power!dissipated!by!windHtunnel!losses,!“Total!with!ηf”!is!the!power!required!by!the!motor!

to!deliver!the!power!required!by!the!flow,!and!efficiency,!ηf,!is!the!net!motor!and!fan!efficiency.!

This shows! that! the! majority! of! the! required! power! comes! from the! highHspeed! sections,!

namely the! test! section! and! two! diffuser! sections.! Thus, modifications! to! the! remaining!

portions! of! the! system! are! valuable! for! normal! operations! but! offer! little! for! highHspeed,!

reducedHarea!operation.

Table 1:&Mach&0.5&power&requirement&estimates.&

Number Type Mach K [NA] P [hp] Circuit P 

%

1 Constant Area Duct 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.0

2 Contraction 0.02 0.02 0.3 0.0

3 Test Section 0.50 0.02 250.8 27.8

4a Diffuser (1st Section) 0.50 0.02 209.7 23.3

4b Diffuser (2nd Section) 0.33 0.06 307.1 34.1

5 Power Section (Contraction) 0.11 0.00 0.4 0.0

6 Power Section (Diffuser) 0.13 0.02 14.7 1.6

7 Diffuser 0.09 0.01 4.4 0.5

8 Corner 1 0.08 0.14 48.5 5.4

9 Diffuser 0.07 0.01 1.5 0.2

10 Corner 2 0.06 0.14 31.6 3.5

11 Diffuser 0.05 0.06 8.7 1.0

12 Contraction 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.0

13 Corner 3 0.02 0.15 2.5 0.3

14 Constant Area Duct 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.0

15 Corner 4 0.02 0.15 2.5 0.3

16 Constant Area Duct 0.02 0.00 0.0 0.0

17 Screen 0.02 0.57 9.3 1.0

18 Screen 0.02 0.57 9.3 1.0

Total 901.3

Total with ηf = 75% 1,201.7

Total with ηf = 50% 1,802.6
18

These results!initially!seem!at!odds!with!the!projections!in!Figure!13, 2857!hp!versus!1803!hp!

for! the! same! conditions.! The! differences reflect! both! the! unknown, but! certainly! favorable,

increase!in!efficiency! of! the! new!motor.!Figure!13 was!generated! using! oldHmotor! data!while!

the!estimate!of!65%!to!75%!net!efficiency!was!made!for!the!new!motor.!Furthermore,!the!Aq3/2

scaling! used! in! Figure!13 does! not! account! for! the!observation that, as! the! test! section! area!

decreases, the! losses! through! the! unmodified! portion! of! the! tunnel! quickly! decrease! in!

importance!relative!to!those!of!the highHspeed!section.!When!the!test!section!is!reduced!to!30!

ft2,! the! test!section!and!diffuser! represent!85%!of! the! total!power!loss.!For! the!68! ft2! tunnel,!

those!same!sections!contribute!only!43%!of!the!loss!while!corners!1!and!2!are!30%!of!the!power!

loss!and! the!screens!are!13%.!So,!again,! the!estimate!of!a!5%!power!margin!at!Mach 0.5!is!a!

highly!conservative!estimate.!The!actual!margin!may!exceed!40%.
19

The&Wind&Tunnel&Model

The! wind! tunnel! model! fits in! the! planned! 6’! × 5’! test! section! of! the! TAMU! wind! tunnel,

designed!to!achieve!Mach!0.5!flow.!The!model!spans!the!width!of!the!test!section!to!connect!to

the outsideHmounted!pitchHoscillating!rig!for!frequencies!up!to!10!Hz.!The!model!is!of!the!VRH7!

airfoil,!with!a!15Hinch!chord,!and!a!4%!tab!angled!3!degrees!trailingHedge!up!from!the!chord!line.!

This!represents!the!airfoil!used!on today’s!CHH47!Chinook!helicopters.

Figure! 14 presents! the! general! features! and! arrangement! of! the! airfoil!model.! The! model! is!

modular!with!a! separable!leading!edge! containing! the!AFC!actuators.!The! spar!is! the! primary!

structure!and!is!made! of! steel.!It!is! sized! by! the!magnitude! of!alternating!aerodynamic!loads!

that!are!larger!than!the!inertial!loads!from!the!dynamic!motion.!The!spar!holds!ESP!modules,!air!

supply! for! the! AFC! actuators,! and! instrumentation! wires.! The! trailing! edge! is! of! lightweight!

aluminum!and!contains instrumentation primarily!for!pressure!measurements.!Figure!15 shows!

images!of!the!modules.

Figure&14:&General&features of&the&wind&tunnel&model.

The!design!allows! for!easy!assembly.!First,!the!AFC!actuators!are!installed!in!the!leading!edge!

and!held!in!place!by screws.!Movement!of!the!actuators!is!further!prevented!by!the!filler!block,

which!also!serves!to!align!the!actuators!and!constrain!the!air!hoses!from!moving.!Second,!the!

ESP!modules!are!installed!in!the!spar!and pressure!taps!are!connected!to!it.!Next, the!leading!

edge!is!connected! to! the!spar!and!aligned!with!pins.!The!upper!pin!engages!both! the!leading!

edge!and!the!filler!block.!The!leading!edge!is!bolted!to!the!spar!from!the!aft!surface.!Finally, the!

trailing! edge!module! is! attached! to! the! spar.! The! upper! and! lower trailingHedge! surfaces! are!

bolted!together!at!the!ribs!and!the!assembly!is!connected!to!the!spar!with!a!piano!hinge!pin.
20

Figure&15:&Modules&of&the&wind&tunnel&model; leading&edge&(left),&spar&(middle),&trailing&edge&(right)

FortyHfive! pressure tap! locations! were defined! to! maximize! accuracy! in! integrated! force! and!

moment!measurements.!The!positions!are!a!result!of!an!optimization!algorithm!that!utilized!20!

snapshots!of!the!pressure!distribution!from!a!dynamic!stall!simulation.!The!locations!are!shown!

in!Figure!16 and!tabulated!in!Appendix!C.

Figure&16:&Results&of&an&optimization&to&define 45&pressureKtap&locations&for&accurate&force&and&moment&

measurements&during&dynamic&stall.

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

-8.0 11.0

-7.0

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

x (ft)

Pressure Coefficient

z (ft)

CFD Cp

Tap Cp

Tap x/C

Tap x/C

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

-8.0 2.50

-7.0

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

z (ft)

Pressure Coefficient

x (ft)

CFD Cp

Tap Cp

CFD z/C

Tap z/C

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

z (ft)

x (ft)

CFD z/C

Tap z/C

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

Mach = 0.4,

α=6°±10°,

k = 0.05
21

AFC&Actuator&Description

Control!of!flow!separation!on a!dynamically!oscillating!airfoil!at!Mach!0.5!may!require!sweeping!

jets!operating!up!to!their!maximum!jet!speed!capability!of!Mach!1.0.!Based!on!previous!studies!

by!Advanced!Fluidics! [9],!the!requirement to!produce! this!speed!and! fit!in! the!available!small!

space! inside! the! airfoil! leading! edge,! sizes! the! actuators! to! 0.5! × 0.5! inches! with! jet! exit!

dimensions!of!1.0!mm!high!by!2.0!mm!wide.

The!actuators!will!be!manufactured in! five,!10.5Hinch!long,!identical!arrays!each!containing!20!

jets.!These!arrays!will!be!used!to!span!the!wing.!One quarter!of!an!inch!is!reserved!on!both!ends!

of!each array! to! fasten!it! securely! to! the!wind tunnel!model.!A!gap!of! 1!inch!between!arrays!

provides structural!integrity!of!the!wind!tunnel!model.!Figure!17 shows!this!arrangement.!The

design provides! the! option!to test!actuators!arrangements!with!two!larger! spacings! of!1!inch!

and! 1.5! inches! by! blocking! every! other! actuator! or! every! two! actuators! respectively.! This! is!

shown!in Figure!18.

Figure&17:&Notional&arrangement&of&actuators&in&the&array&and&arrays&in&the&wind&tunnel&model.
22

Figure&18:&Variations&in&jet&spacing&using&the&same&jet&array.

The! required! mass! flow! into! the! arrays,! assuming! 100! jets! and! a! sonic! jet! Mach! number,! is!

approximately!11!lbs/min.!Air!is!supplied!to!the!manifold!that!feeds!the!actuators!through!four!

1/8”! pipe! fittings! spaced! throughout! each! length! of! the! array.! For! continuous! operation,! the!

jets!will!be!fed!from!shop!air!at!about!30!psi.

The!sweeping!jet!actuators!install!in!the!model!according!to!the!arrangement!shown!in!Figure!

19.!The!actuator!will! be! bolted! to! the!leading!edge!by!a! pair! of 1⁄4H20 screws on! the!actuator!

segments. The!jet!exits!will!be!positioned!at!8%!of!the!chord,!which!is!the!nearest!to!the!leading!

edge!they!can!be!due!to!geometric!constraints.!The!angle!that!the!emerging!jets!make!with!the!

local! tangent!of! the!airfoil! surface!is!30!degrees. The!chordwise!location!of! the!actuators!is!a!

subject!for!further!investigation.!Larger!chord!airfoils!will!not!be!subject!to!the!same!geometric!

constraints!as!the!current!model and!sweeping!jet!actuators!may!prove!more!effective!if!they!

are!placed!forward!of!shocks!that!develop!in!High!Mach!number!flows.

Leading Edge

All jets functional

2”

Leading Edge

Every-other jet functional

2.5”

Leading Edge

Every-third jet functional

2.5”
23

Figure&19:&Arrangement&of&sweeping&jet&actuator&(orange)&installed&in&the&wind&tunnel&model.

Each jet!is!designed!to!sweep!through!a total!angle ranging!from 30!to 100!degrees relative!to!

the! chordHline! direction,! with! no! tunnel! flow.! With! tunnel! flow,! the! sweep! angles! will! be

reduced!due!to!the!interaction!with!the!free!stream.!The!reduction!depends!on!the!windHtunnel!

speed. The!current!intent!is! to!obtain!a sweep!angle!between!60!and 75 degrees.!To!provide!

this,!the!angle!built!into!the!jet!exits!is!120 degrees. This!should!work!for!Mach!numbers!from!

0.2!to!0.5.

The! design! of! the!actuator!array! is! shown! in! Figure!20 and! Figure!21, and! the!manufactured!

prototype!in!Figure!22. The!prototype!was!benchHtop! tested! for!basic! functionality.!Figure!23

shows! the! experimental! arrangement! for! testing! the! array.! A compressor! supplied! air! to! a

manifold!having! four outlets.!The! outlets!were! then! connected! to! the! four! ports!in! the!array!

with!1/16”!NPTH27!barbs!having!an!inside!diameter!of!0.1”.!A!microphone!obtained!the!acoustic!

data! from! the! sweeping! jets.! The! microphone! was! placed! about! 1⁄4”! above! the! exit! of! the!

actuators!as!shown!in!the!figure.!The!data!from!the!microphone!was!processed!to!provide!the!

spectra!of!the!signals.

Figure&20:&An&actuator&array&showing&the&air&inlets&to&the&plenum&and&the&holes&to&attach&the&array&to&the&airfoil.
24

Figure&21:&Top&view&of&a§ion&of&the&array&

Typical!spectra!at!5!and!8!psi!are!shown!in!Figure!24 and!Figure!25,!respectively.!Because!of!the!

limited! air! supply,! only! 3! jet! exits! were! open,! and! the! rest! were! taped! closed.! The! sweep!

frequency!of! the!jet!is!manifested!in! the!acoustic!signature!with!oscillations!of!approximately!

1.9KHz!with!5psi!air!supplied!and!2.2!KHz!with!8!psi.

Figure&22:&Actuator&Array&and&a&closeKup&view&of&the&exit&geometry.
25

Figure&23:&Experimental&set&up&for&preliminary&testing&of&the&array.

Figure&24:&Spectra&fromµphone&signals&for&supply&pressure&of&5&psi.&&Frequency&~&1.9&kHz
26

Figure&25:&Spectra&fromµphone&signals&for&supply&pressure&of&8&psi.&Frequency&~&2.2&KHz.
27

Notional&WindKTunnel&Test Matrix

The matrix!of!wind!tunnel test runs is!outlined!in!this!section.!It!is!comprised!of a!combination!

of! baseline!runs! without! AFC! and! runs! with! AFC.! All!test! points! will! obtain surface! pressure!

measurements,!which!will!be!integrated!to!obtain!lift,!drag,!and!pitching!moments.!Certain!key!

evaluation!points!will!be!further!investigated!using!PIV!to!quantify!offHbody!flow!features.

The! test! will! begin! with! an! evaluation! of! the! flow! quality! in! the! empty! tunnel.! The! new! test!

section,!contraction,!and!diffuser,!warrant!a!mapping!of!flow!quantities!to!document!uniformity!

and!flow!angularity.!This!evaluation!will!be!conducted!across!the!Mach!number!range!from!0.2!

to!0.5.!If!the!flow!quality!is!satisfactory,!the!next!step!is!to!install!the!model,!conduct!runs!(no!

pitching,!no!AFC)!without!boundary!layer!trips!then!install!the!boundary!layer!trips!and!rerun.!

The! boundary! layer! trips! will! be! installed! ahead! of! the! 8%! chord! point.! Surface! flow!

visualization!will!be!conducted!to!ensure!that!the!tripping!is!effective.

QuasiHsteady,!and!dynamic!key!conditions!will!be!measured! for!both! the!baseline!and!several!

active!flow!control!configurations.!The!conditions!will!span!the!Mach!number!range!and!focus!

on! pitch! frequencies! and! angleHofHattack! ranges! for! which! there! is!modest! separation! on! the!

upper! surface.! The! spacing! between! sweepingHjet! actuators! will! be! varied! as! follows:! all! jets!

open,!everyHother!jet!open,!and!every! third!jet!open. Shop!air!will! regulate! the!actuators’!jet!

frequency.! At! the! conclusion! of! this! group! of! tests,! we! will! select! an! AFC! configuration! for!

further!testing.!Measurements!of!the!baseline!and!the!selected!AFC!configuration!flow!field!will!

be!obtained!using!PIV.

The! baseline! and! AFC! configuration! evaluation! will! be! expanded! in! the! next! two! run! groups.!

Here! the!effect! of!additional!mean! pitch!angles,!amplitudes,!and! reduced! frequencies!will! be!

tested.! The! conditions,! covering! the! range! of! Mach! numbers! from! 0.2! to! 0.5,! will! be!

characterized!by!light,!medium,!and!deep!stall.

The! final! section! of! the! run! matrix! is! reserved! for! additional! PIV! measurements.! Preliminary!

conditions! have! been! selected, however! these! will! likely! be! replaced! when! actual! data! is!

obtained.

Considering! the! time! required! by! test! section! installation,! model! installation,! testing,! and!

removal! of! equipment! at! the! end! of! the! test! to! return! the! wind! tunnel! to! its! original!

configuration,!the!test!matrix!shown!is!aggressive!and!is!not!likely!to!fit!within!the!allotted!time.!

When! the! test! time! nears,! a! conference! will! be! held! to! reduce! the! test! conditions! to! a!

manageable!number.!
28

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

Flow Quality Survey

1 0.5 NA NA NA NA

2 0.4 NA NA NA NA

3 0.3 NA NA NA NA

4 0.2 NA NA NA NA

No AFC

5 0.5 6 10 0.100 7.1 

2 0.4 6 10 0.100 5.7 

3 0.3 6 10 0.050 2.1 

4 0.2 6 10 0.010 0.3 

Baseline AFC: All jets open

5 0.5 6 10 0.100 7.1 

6 0.4 6 10 0.100 5.7 

7 0.3 6 10 0.050 2.1 

8 0.2 6 10 0.010 0.3 

Revision 1 AFC: Every-other jet closed

9 0.5 6 10 0.100 7.1 

10 0.4 6 10 0.100 5.7 

11 0.3 6 10 0.050 2.1 

12 0.2 6 10 0.010 0.3 

Revision 2 AFC: Every two jet closed

13 0.5 6 10 0.100 7.1 

14 0.4 6 10 0.100 5.7 

15 0.3 6 10 0.050 2.1 

16 0.2 6 10 0.010 0.3 

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

AFC Configuration Down Selection

No AFC

17 0.5 6 10 0.100 7.1  

18 0.4 6 10 0.100 5.7  

19 0.3 6 10 0.050 2.1  

20 0.2 6 10 0.010 0.3  

AFC with Selected Configuration

21 0.5 6 10 0.100 7.1  

22 0.4 6 10 0.100 5.7  

23 0.3 6 10 0.050 2.1  

24 0.2 6 10 0.010 0.3  

No AFC

25 0.5 9 5 0.005 0.4 

26 0.5 9 5 0.020 1.4 

27 0.5 9 5 0.050 3.6 

28 0.5 9 5 0.100 7.1 

29 0.5 9 5 0.120 8.5 

30 0.5 10 5 0.005 0.4 

31 0.5 10 5 0.020 1.4 

32 0.5 10 5 0.050 3.6 

33 0.5 10 5 0.100 7.1 

34 0.5 10 5 0.120 8.5 

35 0.5 11 5 0.005 0.4 

36 0.5 11 5 0.020 1.4 

37 0.5 11 5 0.050 3.6 

38 0.5 11 5 0.100 7.1 

39 0.5 11 5 0.120 8.5 
29

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

40 0.56 10 0.005 0.4



41 0.56 10 0.020 1.4



42 0.56 10 0.050 3.6



43 0.56 10 0.100 7.1

44 0.56 10 0.120 8.5



45 0.57 10 0.005 0.4

46 0.57 10 0.020 1.4



47 0.57 10 0.050 3.6



48 0.57 10 0.100 7.1

49 0.57 10 0.120 8.5



50 0.58 10 0.005 0.4

51 0.58 10 0.020 1.4



52 0.58 10 0.050 3.6



53 0.58 10 0.100 7.1



54 0.58 10 0.120 8.5



55 0.59 10 0.005 0.4

56 0.59 10 0.020 1.4



57 0.59 10 0.050 3.6

58 0.59 10 0.100 7.1



59 0.59 10 0.120 8.5



60 0.495 0.005 0.3

61 0.495 0.020 1.1



62 0.495 0.050 2.8

63 0.495 0.100 5.7



64 0.495 0.120 6.8



65 0.4 105 0.005 0.3



Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

66 0.4 105 0.020 1.1



67 0.4 105 0.050 2.8



68 0.4 105 0.100 5.7



69 0.4 105 0.120 6.8

70 0.4 115 0.005 0.3



71 0.4 115 0.020 1.1

72 0.4 115 0.050 2.8



73 0.4 115 0.100 5.7



74 0.4 115 0.120 6.8

75 0.46 10 0.005 0.3



76 0.46 10 0.020 1.1

77 0.46 10 0.050 2.8



78 0.46 10 0.100 5.7



79 0.46 10 0.120 6.8



80 0.47 10 0.005 0.3



81 0.47 10 0.020 1.1

82 0.47 10 0.050 2.8



83 0.47 10 0.100 5.7

84 0.47 10 0.120 6.8



85 0.48 10 0.005 0.3



86 0.48 10 0.020 1.1

87 0.48 10 0.050 2.8



88 0.48 10 0.100 5.7

89 0.48 10 0.120 6.8



90 0.49 10 0.005 0.3



91 0.49 10 0.020 1.1



92 0.49 10 0.050 2.8


30

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

93 0.4 9 10 0.100 5.7 

94 0.4 9 10 0.120 6.8 

95 0.3 9 5 0.005 0.2 

96 0.3 9 5 0.020 0.9 

97 0.3 9 5 0.050 2.1 

98 0.3 9 5 0.100 4.3 

99 0.3 9 5 0.120 5.1 

100 0.3 10 5 0.005 0.2 

101 0.3 10 5 0.020 0.9 

102 0.3 10 5 0.050 2.1 

103 0.3 10 5 0.100 4.3 

104 0.3 10 5 0.120 5.1 

105 0.3 11 5 0.005 0.2 

106 0.3 11 5 0.020 0.9 

107 0.3 11 5 0.050 2.1 

108 0.3 11 5 0.100 4.3 

109 0.3 11 5 0.120 5.1 

110 0.3 6 10 0.005 0.2 

111 0.3 6 10 0.020 0.9 

112 0.3 6 10 0.050 2.1 

113 0.3 6 10 0.100 4.3 

114 0.3 6 10 0.120 5.1 

115 0.3 7 10 0.005 0.2 

116 0.3 7 10 0.020 0.9 

117 0.3 7 10 0.050 2.1 

118 0.3 7 10 0.100 4.3 

119 0.3 7 10 0.120 5.1 

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

120 0.3 8 10 0.005 0.2 

121 0.3 8 10 0.020 0.9 

122 0.3 8 10 0.050 2.1 

123 0.3 8 10 0.100 4.3 

124 0.3 8 10 0.120 5.1 

125 0.3 9 10 0.005 0.2 

126 0.3 9 10 0.020 0.9 

127 0.3 9 10 0.050 2.1 

128 0.3 9 10 0.100 4.3 

129 0.3 9 10 0.120 5.1 

130 0.2 9 5 0.005 0.1 

131 0.2 9 5 0.020 0.6 

132 0.2 9 5 0.050 1.4 

133 0.2 9 5 0.100 2.8 

134 0.2 9 5 0.120 3.4 

135 0.2 10 5 0.005 0.1 

136 0.2 10 5 0.020 0.6 

137 0.2 10 5 0.050 1.4 

138 0.2 10 5 0.100 2.8 

139 0.2 10 5 0.120 3.4 

140 0.2 11 5 0.005 0.1 

141 0.2 11 5 0.020 0.6 

142 0.2 11 5 0.050 1.4 

143 0.2 11 5 0.100 2.8 

144 0.2 11 5 0.120 3.4 

145 0.2 6 10 0.005 0.1 

146 0.2 6 10 0.020 0.6 
31

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

147 0.2 6 10 0.050 1.4 

148 0.2 6 10 0.100 2.8 

149 0.2 6 10 0.120 3.4 

150 0.2 7 10 0.005 0.1 

151 0.2 7 10 0.020 0.6 

152 0.2 7 10 0.050 1.4 

153 0.2 7 10 0.100 2.8 

154 0.2 7 10 0.120 3.4 

155 0.2 8 10 0.005 0.1 

156 0.2 8 10 0.020 0.6 

157 0.2 8 10 0.050 1.4 

158 0.2 8 10 0.100 2.8 

159 0.2 8 10 0.120 3.4 

160 0.2 9 10 0.005 0.1 

161 0.2 9 10 0.020 0.6 

162 0.2 9 10 0.050 1.4 

163 0.2 9 10 0.100 2.8 

164 0.2 9 10 0.120 3.4 

AFC with Downselected Configuration

165 0.5 9 5 0.005 0.4 

166 0.5 9 5 0.020 1.4 

167 0.5 9 5 0.050 3.6 

168 0.5 9 5 0.100 7.1 

169 0.5 9 5 0.120 8.5 

170 0.5 10 5 0.005 0.4 

171 0.5 10 5 0.020 1.4 

172 0.5 10 5 0.050 3.6 

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

173 0.5 10 5 0.100 7.1 

174 0.5 10 5 0.120 8.5 

175 0.5 11 5 0.005 0.4 

176 0.5 11 5 0.020 1.4 

177 0.5 11 5 0.050 3.6 

178 0.5 11 5 0.100 7.1 

179 0.5 11 5 0.120 8.5 

180 0.5 6 10 0.005 0.4 

181 0.5 6 10 0.020 1.4 

182 0.5 6 10 0.050 3.6 

183 0.5 6 10 0.100 7.1 

184 0.5 6 10 0.120 8.5 

185 0.5 7 10 0.005 0.4 

186 0.5 7 10 0.020 1.4 

187 0.5 7 10 0.050 3.6 

188 0.5 7 10 0.100 7.1 

189 0.5 7 10 0.120 8.5 

190 0.5 8 10 0.005 0.4 

191 0.5 8 10 0.020 1.4 

192 0.5 8 10 0.050 3.6 

193 0.5 8 10 0.100 7.1 

194 0.5 8 10 0.120 8.5 

195 0.5 9 10 0.005 0.4 

196 0.5 9 10 0.020 1.4 

197 0.5 9 10 0.050 3.6 

198 0.5 9 10 0.100 7.1 

199 0.5 9 10 0.120 8.5 
32

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

200 0.4 9 5 0.005 0.3 

201 0.4 9 5 0.020 1.1 

202 0.4 9 5 0.050 2.8 

203 0.4 9 5 0.100 5.7 

204 0.4 9 5 0.120 6.8 

205 0.4 10 5 0.005 0.3 

206 0.4 10 5 0.020 1.1 

207 0.4 10 5 0.050 2.8 

208 0.4 10 5 0.100 5.7 

209 0.4 10 5 0.120 6.8 

210 0.4 11 5 0.005 0.3 

211 0.4 11 5 0.020 1.1 

212 0.4 11 5 0.050 2.8 

213 0.4 11 5 0.100 5.7 

214 0.4 11 5 0.120 6.8 

215 0.4 6 10 0.005 0.3 

216 0.4 6 10 0.020 1.1 

217 0.4 6 10 0.050 2.8 

218 0.4 6 10 0.100 5.7 

219 0.4 6 10 0.120 6.8 

220 0.4 7 10 0.005 0.3 

221 0.4 7 10 0.020 1.1 

222 0.4 7 10 0.050 2.8 

223 0.4 7 10 0.100 5.7 

224 0.4 7 10 0.120 6.8 

225 0.4 8 10 0.005 0.3 

226 0.4 8 10 0.020 1.1 

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

227 0.4 8 10 0.050 2.8 

228 0.4 8 10 0.100 5.7 

229 0.4 8 10 0.120 6.8 

230 0.4 9 10 0.005 0.3 

231 0.4 9 10 0.020 1.1 

232 0.4 9 10 0.050 2.8 

233 0.4 9 10 0.100 5.7 

234 0.4 9 10 0.120 6.8 

235 0.3 9 5 0.005 0.2 

236 0.3 9 5 0.020 0.9 

237 0.3 9 5 0.050 2.1 

238 0.3 9 5 0.100 4.3 

239 0.3 9 5 0.120 5.1 

240 0.3 10 5 0.005 0.2 

241 0.3 10 5 0.020 0.9 

242 0.3 10 5 0.050 2.1 

243 0.3 10 5 0.100 4.3 

244 0.3 10 5 0.120 5.1 

245 0.3 11 5 0.005 0.2 

246 0.3 11 5 0.020 0.9 

247 0.3 11 5 0.050 2.1 

248 0.3 11 5 0.100 4.3 

249 0.3 11 5 0.120 5.1 

250 0.3 6 10 0.005 0.2 

251 0.3 6 10 0.020 0.9 

252 0.3 6 10 0.050 2.1 

253 0.3 6 10 0.100 4.3 
33

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

254 0.3 6 10 0.120 5.1 

255 0.3 7 10 0.005 0.2 

256 0.3 7 10 0.020 0.9 

257 0.3 7 10 0.050 2.1 

258 0.3 7 10 0.100 4.3 

259 0.3 7 10 0.120 5.1 

260 0.3 8 10 0.005 0.2 

261 0.3 8 10 0.020 0.9 

262 0.3 8 10 0.050 2.1 

263 0.3 8 10 0.100 4.3 

264 0.3 8 10 0.120 5.1 

265 0.3 9 10 0.005 0.2 

266 0.3 9 10 0.020 0.9 

267 0.3 9 10 0.050 2.1 

268 0.3 9 10 0.100 4.3 

269 0.3 9 10 0.120 5.1 

270 0.2 9 5 0.005 0.1 

271 0.2 9 5 0.020 0.6 

272 0.2 9 5 0.050 1.4 

273 0.2 9 5 0.100 2.8 

274 0.2 9 5 0.120 3.4 

275 0.2 10 5 0.005 0.1 

276 0.2 10 5 0.020 0.6 

277 0.2 10 5 0.050 1.4 

278 0.2 10 5 0.100 2.8 

279 0.2 10 5 0.120 3.4 

280 0.2 11 5 0.005 0.1 

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

281 0.2 11 5 0.020 0.6 

282 0.2 11 5 0.050 1.4 

283 0.2 11 5 0.100 2.8 

284 0.2 11 5 0.120 3.4 

285 0.2 6 10 0.005 0.1 

286 0.2 6 10 0.020 0.6 

287 0.2 6 10 0.050 1.4 

288 0.2 6 10 0.100 2.8 

289 0.2 6 10 0.120 3.4 

290 0.2 7 10 0.005 0.1 

291 0.2 7 10 0.020 0.6 

292 0.2 7 10 0.050 1.4 

293 0.2 7 10 0.100 2.8 

294 0.2 7 10 0.120 3.4 

295 0.2 8 10 0.005 0.1 

296 0.2 8 10 0.020 0.6 

297 0.2 8 10 0.050 1.4 

298 0.2 8 10 0.100 2.8 

299 0.2 8 10 0.120 3.4 

300 0.2 9 10 0.005 0.1 

301 0.2 9 10 0.020 0.6 

302 0.2 9 10 0.050 1.4 

303 0.2 9 10 0.100 2.8 

304 0.2 9 10 0.120 3.4 

Flow Visualization

305 0.5 9 5 0.100 7.1  

306 0.5 9 5 0.100 7.1  
34

Run

No. Mach

Angle of Attack Frequency

Mean Amp. Red. Hz Press. PIV

307 0.5 11 5 0.100 7.1  

308 0.5 11 5 0.100 7.1  

309 0.5 7 10 0.100 7.1  

310 0.5 7 10 0.100 7.1  

311 0.5 9 10 0.100 7.1  

312 0.5 9 10 0.100 7.1  

313 0.4 9 5 0.100 5.7  

314 0.4 9 5 0.100 5.7  

315 0.4 11 5 0.100 5.7  

316 0.4 11 5 0.100 5.7  

317 0.4 7 10 0.100 5.7  

318 0.4 7 10 0.100 5.7  

319 0.4 9 10 0.100 5.7  

320 0.4 9 10 0.100 5.7  

320 0.3 9 5 0.100 4.3  

321 0.3 9 5 0.100 4.3  

322 0.3 11 5 0.100 4.3  

323 0.3 11 5 0.100 4.3  

324 0.3 7 10 0.100 4.3  

325 0.3 7 10 0.100 4.3  

326 0.3 9 10 0.100 4.3  

327 0.3 9 10 0.100 4.3  
35

CFD$Simulations

Calculations!of!static!and!dynamic!stall!can!provide!insight!to!the!placement!and!effectiveness!

of! sweeping9jet! actuators! for! flow! control.! The! calculations! are! resource! intensive! and! are!

subject!to!the!limitations!of!numerical!accuracy!that may!be!significant!in!simulations!with!large!

separated!flows.!Nevertheless,!results!from!computational!fluid!dynamics!are!presented!in!this!

section! because! they! are! generally! accurate! up! until! the! inception! of! stall.! Both! static! and!

dynamic! scenarios! are! presented.! Two! levels! of! fidelity! are! offered.! The! first! is! strictly! two9

dimensional! and! is! useful! to! identify! conditions! which! will! benefit! from! flow! control.! The!

second! is! three9dimensional!where! higher! fidelity! is! sought! in! the!modeling! of! the! separated!

flow! region!and! for! the!interactional!aerodynamics!with! the!sweeping!jets.!In!both!situations,!

simulations!are!produced!by!OVERFLOW [10].

Two1Dimensional$Flow$Simulations

Two9dimensional! calculations! were run! on! the! VR97! geometry! using! a! C9grid! topology. The!

surface! contains! 549! points! including! 13! points! along! the! finite9thickness! trailing! edge.! The!

wake!is!captured!with!73!points!leading!to!the!far9field!which!is!25!chord9lengths!away.!There!

are!241!points!normal!to!the!surface, with!the!initial!spacing!set!to!produce!a!y+!<!1!for!most!

conditions!analyzed.!The!turbulence!in!the!boundary!layer!is!modeled!with!the!Spalart9Allmaras!

equations!and!calculations!assume!fully!turbulent!conditions.

Results!were!obtained!for!both!a!static!and!pitching!VR97!across!the!Mach!number!range!from

0.2! to! 0.5.! The! uncontrolled! static! results! are! shown! in! Figure! 26 for! lift! and! Figure! 27 for!

pitching!moment.!The!results!indicate!a!gentle!reduction!in!lift!coefficient!past!the!stall!angle,!in!

contrast!to!an!abrupt!reduction!which!is!a!typical!indicator!of!leading9edge!separation.!The!flow!

visualization!in!Figure!28, just!beyond!the!maximum!lift!coefficient!at!Mach!0.5,!confirms!that!

the! flow!is! still!attached! through! the! front! section! of! the!airfoil. This!is!a!good!indicator! that!

active!flow control!with!actuators!placed!near!the!leading!edge!could!improve!flow!attachment!

beyond!the!angle!of!natural!separation.!Fluidic!control!devices!in!a!region!of!separated!flow!are!

not!generally!effective.

A! number! of! dynamic! simulations! were! also! evaluated! to! address! flow! controllability! under!

conditions! which! are! more! representative! of! an! airfoil! on! a! rotor.! Table! 2 summarizes! the!

conditions!and!Figure!29 to!Figure!40 show!the!lift!and!pitching!moment!hysteresis!curves!for!

the!cases.!Generally,!low!Mach!number!cases!have!small!hysteresis!loops!and!no!large!adverse!

pitching!moment!excursions.!Benefits!of!active!flow!control!would!appear!most!prominently!at!

Mach!numbers!of!0.4!and!greater!for!traditional!helicopters.!Flow!visualization!for!Case!1!near!

the! peak! angle! of! attack! reveals! separated! flow! creeping! from! the! trailing! edge! and! moving!

forward;! a! scenario! where! sweeping! jets! AFC! is! expected! to! help.! However, the! simulation!

repeated! at! a! higher! reduced! frequency! (Case! 2)! has! a! hysteresis! loop! with! characteristic!

leading9edge!separation.!This!situation!is!more!challenging!to!control.
36

Figure$26:$Lift$predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level$standard$conditions$(Chord$=$1$ft).

Figure$27:$Pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level$standard$conditions

(Chord$=$1$ft).

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Lift Coefficient

Angle of Attack

M"="0.2 M"="0.3 M"="0.4 M"="0.5

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Lift Coefficient

Drag Coefficient

M"="0.2 M"="0.3 M"="0.4 M"="0.5
37

Figure$28:$Chordwise$Mach$number$contours (black$indicates$separation)$for$the$VR17$at Mach$0.5;$sea1level$

standard$conditions$(chord$=$1$ft).$The$angle$of$attack$is$12°.

Table$2:$Table$of$analysis$conditions$for$the$VR17.

Case% Mach% α

Min$

α

Max k"

1" 0.4$ 10# 5" 0.05$

2" 0.4$ 10# 5" 0.10$

3" 0.4$ 6" 10# 0.05$

4" 0.4$ 6" 10# 0.10$

5" 0.3$ 10# 5" 0.05$

6" 0.3$ 10# 5" 0.10$

7" 0.3$ 6" 10# 0.05$

8" 0.3$ 6" 10# 0.10$

9" 0.2$ 10# 5" 0.05$

10# 0.2$ 10# 5" 0.10$

11" 0.2$ 6" 10# 0.05$

12# 0.2$ 6" 10# 0.10$
38

Figure$29:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard$conditions$

for$Case$1,$M∞ =$0.4,$α =$10$± 5,$k$=$0.05,$chord$=$1$ft.

Figure$30:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard$conditions$

for$Case$2,$M∞ =$0.4,$α =$10$± 5,$k$=$0.10,$chord$=$1$ft.

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack
39

Figure$31:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard$conditions$

for$Case$3,$M∞ =$0.4,$α =$6$± 10,$k$=$0.05,$chord$=$1$ft.

Figure$32:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard$conditions$

for$Case$4,$M∞ =$0.4,$α =$6$± 10,$k$=$0.10,$chord$=$1$ft.

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack
40

Figure$33:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard conditions$

for$Case$5,$M∞ =$0.3,$α =$10$± 5,$k$=$0.05,$chord$=$1$ft.

Figure$34:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard$conditions$

for$Case$6,$M∞ =$0.3,$α =$10$± 5,$k$=$0.10,$chord$=$1$ft.

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack
41

Figure$35:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard$conditions$

for$Case$7,$M∞ =$0.3,$α =$6$± 10,$k$=$0.05,$chord$=$1$ft.

Figure$36:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard$conditions$

for$Case$8,$M∞ =$0.3,$α =$6$± 10,$k$=$0.10,$chord$=$1$ft.

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack
42

Figure$37:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard$conditions$

for$Case$9,$M∞ =$0.2,$α =$10$± 5,$k$=$0.05,$chord$=$1$ft.

Figure$38:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard conditions$

for$Case$10,$M∞ =$0.2,$α =$10$± 5,$k$=$0.10,$chord$=$1$ft.

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack
43

Figure$39:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard$conditions$

for$Case$11,$M∞ =$0.2,$α =$6$± 10,$k$=$0.05 chord$=$1$ft.

Figure$40:$Lift and$pitching$moment predictions$from$OVERFLOW$for$the$VR17$at$sea1level standard$conditions$

for$Case$12,$M∞ =$0.2,$α =$6$± 10,$k$=$0.10,$chord$=$1$ft.

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack
44

α =!14.763°

α =!15.298°

α =!15.685°

α =!15.921°

α =!16.000°

Figure$41:$Contours$of$chordwise$velocity$(black$indicates$separation)$for$the$VR17$for$flow$near$the$peak$of$the$

lift$hysteresis.$The$dynamic$stall$condition$is$Mach$0.4,$α =$6°±10°,$k$=$0.05,$chord$=$1$ft,$sea1level standard.
45

Two9dimensional!simulations!are!attractive!since!they!are!an!order9 of9magnitude!faster!to!run.!

However,!to!analyze!sweeping!jet!effects,!two!dimensional!analysis!misses!much!of!the!physics!

since!the!cross!flow!is!absent.!Two9dimensional!analysis!can!model!a!steady!jet!from!a!slot!and!

the! impact! of! the! jet! on! the! separated! flow! can! be! quantified.! This! analysis! was! done! for! a!

stationary!airfoil!subject!to!Mach!0.5!flow.!Note!that!the!chord!was!increased!to!15!inches,!the!

same!as! the!wind9tunnel!model.!The! results!on!lift!and!pitching!moment!are! shown!in!Figure!

42.!In!this!simulation,!the!jet!was!positioned!at!10%!chord!and!angled!at!30!degrees!to!the!local!

surface.!The!momentum!coefficient,!defined!as

!! = 2 !

!

!!

!!

!

, (1)

is!set!to!0.3%, which!value!produces!a!jet!Mach!number!of!approximately!1.0.!The!jet!produces

more! than! a! 10%! increase! in! the! maximum! lift! coefficient! and! the! flow! remains! attached!

beyond! the! angle! where! separation! would! occur under! natural! condition.! Though! surely! not!

conclusive! because! of! the! limited! nature! of! the! two9dimensional! calculation,! nevertheless,! it!

does!show!the!benefit!of!a!strong!jet!from!a!slot.

Figure$42:$Two1dimensional CFD$evaluation$of$steady$blowing$on$a$stationary$15”1chord$VR17$airfoil$at$Mach$0.5,$

sea1level standard$conditions.

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient

Angle of Attack

No Blowing

Blowing

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01

Lift Coefficient

Pitching Moment Coefficient

No Blowing

Blowing
46

Figure$43:$Flow$field$visualization$with$and$without$steady$blowing$from$the$10%$chord$location. The$simulation$

is$the$15”1chord$VR17$airfoil$at$Mach$0.5,$α =$12°,$sea1level standard$conditions.

Three1Dimensional$Flow$Simulations

Three9dimensional! flow!calculations!over!the!airfoil!section!not!only!offer!the!ability!to!model!

the! sweeping!jet! by!adding! the! cross! flow! direction,!it!also!allows! for! better!modeling! of! the!

separated!flow!region, which!is!inherently!three9dimensional.!To!perform!the!calculations,!the!

two9dimensional!grid!was!extruded!in!the!spanwise!direction!over!a!distance!equivalent!to!the!

width! of! a! sweeping!9jet! actuator! (0.5”).! There! are! 81! computational! planes! in! the! spanwise!

direction.!Periodic!boundary!conditions!were applied!at the!edges!to!simulate!an!infinitely!long!

wing!with!an!array! of!actuators.!The!jet!is!modeled!with!a! sprinkler9type! boundary! condition!

where!the!mass!flow,!sweep!angle,!and!oscillation!frequency!are!specified.!The!jet!is!placed!at!

the!mid!span!of!the!CFD!model!over!a!width!of!1mm.!The!periodic!boundary!conditions!which!

endplate! the! computational! domain!means! that! the! simulation! will! capture! the!effects! of! an!

array!of!perfectly!synchronous!jets;!however, this!may!not!be!the!ideal!mode!of!operation!nor!

is!it!something!that!can!be!controlled!in!the!lab.

The! sweeping! jet,! located! at! 8%! chord, is! modeled! within! an! embedded! block! that! has! an!

increased!cell!density!to!capture!interactional!aerodynamic!effects.!Though!the!jet!is!located!at

α = 12, No AFC

α = 12, With AFC

Cμ = 3%
47

the!center!of!the!computational!domain,!the!embedded!grid!runs!across!the!span!of!the!airfoil.!

It!has!a!slot!to!direct!the!jet!at!a!30!degree!angle!to!the!airfoil!surface.!The!CFD!grid!is!shown!in!

Figure!44 with!an!expanded!view!of!the!embedded!block.!The!dark!patch!is!the!location!of!the!

jet.

Figure$44:$Computational$grid$for$the$thee1dimensional$calculations.

In! the! calculations! presented! herein,! the! boundary! layer! turbulence! is! modeled! using! the!

Spalart9Allmaras! approach; detached9eddy! simulation! is! used! elsewhere.! This! approach!

captures!some!very!fine!details!in!the!turbulent!wakes!of!massively!separated!flow,!though!the!

limited!spanwise!extent!of!the!domain!may!not!be!sufficiently!wide!to!capture!these!with!great!

accuracy.

Static! stall! calculations! were! revisited! with! the! three9dimensional! CFD! model first.! For! low!

angles of!attack!below! the!inception!of! stall,! the!model!was! run!in!OVERFLOW’s! steady9state!

mode.!For!angles of!12.5!degrees!and!higher,!the!calculations!are!time9accurate!using!a!time9

step! such! that! 100! iterations! are! executed! within! one! period! of! an! oscillating! jet.! Twenty!

Newton!sub9iterations!are!used!to!converge!the!solution!between!time9steps.!

The! static! calculations! simulate! Mach! 0.4! flow! over! the! VR97! airfoil at! sea9level standard!

atmospheric!conditions.!For!the!jet,!a!mass!flow!rate!was used to produce a!jet!of!roughly!Mach!

0.92.!The!jet!was!set!to!oscillates!between!±60!degrees!at!a!frequency!of!350!Hz,!which!is!much!

slower! than! the!expected!sweep! frequency range!between!1!and!2!KHz.!The!lower! frequency!

was! chosen! to! avoid! excessive!simulation!run! times,! particularly! in! dynamic! stall! simulations!

where!several!airfoil!pitch!cycles!are!desired.!It!turns!out!that!the!period!of!an!oscillating!jet!is!

nearly!the!same!as!the!length!of!time!required!by!a!particle!to!travel!the!distance!of!one!chord!

length.! The! uncontrolled! simulation!was run! for! a! sufficient! number! of! solution! iterations! to!
48

establish!a!mean!of! the!lift,!drag, and!pitching!moment.!Similarly! for! the! flow9control!case, a!

mean!was established!for!the!forces!and!moments well!within!the!100!jet!cycles!simulated.

Figure! 45 presents! the! results! of! the! simulation! with! and! without! blowing.! Only! modest!

improvements! in! lift! are! predicted! beyond! the! natural! stall! and! there! is! no! increase! in! the!

maximum! lift! coefficient.! This! is! in! contrast! to! the! two9dimensional! results!that indicated! an!

improvement! for! a! jet! blown! through! a! slot! along the! length! of! the! airfoil.! However, the!

visualization!of!the!three9dimensional!flow!solution!(Figure!46),!shows!that!the!jet!does!impact!

the! flow! across! the! span! of! the! computational! domain.! One! period! of! the! sweeping! jet! is!

shown,!with! the!direction!of! the!jet!indicated!by!black!arrows.!Section!cuts!of!vorticity,! taken!

every!1⁄49inch,!shows!the!roll9up!of!a!vortex!as!the!flow!interacts!with!the!jet.!In!this!sense,!the!

sweeping!jet!behaves!as!a!vortex!generator,!but, in!addition to!producing!vortices,!the!jet adds!

momentum!to!the!flow. The!small!change!in!calculated!lift!and!pitching!moment!may!be!caused!

by!the!low!value!of!sweeping!frequency!used.!In!practice,!the!jets!usually!sweep!in!the!kilohertz!

range!at!least!three!times!larger!than!what!was!simulated.!Again,!the!low!frequency!was!used!

to!minimize!the!computational!cost.!However,!the!simulation!results!are!encouraging!since!they!

appear!to show!what!would!be!expected!from!flow!physics.

Figure$45:$Three1dimensional$CFD$evaluation$of$sweeping$jets$on$a$stationary$15”1chord$VR17$airfoil$at$Mach$0.4,$

sea1level standard$conditions;$Mjet =$0.92,$x/Cjet =$0.08,$fjet =$350$Hz.

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coeffient

Angle of Attack

Blowing

No Blowing

Steady-State Time Accurate

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00

Lift Coefficient

Pitching Moment

Blowing

No Blowing
49

Figure$46:$Flow$field$of$the$active$flow$control$jet$in$Mach$0.4$flow$at$α =$15°.$
50

Calculations!to!quantify!the!effectiveness!of!sweeping!jets!AFC!under!dynamic!conditions!were!

made for!Case!4!(see!Table!2).!This!is!a!representative!Mach!number!with!a!large!angle!of!attack!

excursion! from! the!mean.! This! case! is! of! interest!because! it! occurs! on! each! rotor! blade! of! a!

50,000lbs!Chinook!flying!at!130!knots,!at!4,000!feet!on!a!95!°F!day.!Figure!47 shows!the!lift!and!

moment! hysteresis! curves.! The! uncontrolled! results! resemble! the! two9dimensional!

counterparts!shown in!Figure!32.

The!sweeping!jet!shows!that!it!reduces!the!size!of!the!loop!of!the!lift!hysteresis!curve!and!the!

pitching!moment!excursion!after!stall.!For!this!case,!the!jet!was!sweeping!at!350!Hz!while!the!

airfoil!was!oscillating!at!11.4!Hz.!Thus,!the!jet!is!not!pointed!in!the!same!direction!each!time!the!

airfoil! reaches!its! peak!angle! of!attack.!To! thoroughly!evaluate! the!jet!effects,! the! simulation!

should!go!through!several!pitch!cycles!to!quantify!an!average!effect!of!the!jet.!For!the!sake!of!

computational!resources,!only!two!pitch!cycles!were!computed!with!no!appreciable!difference!

in!the!hysteresis!loops.

Figure$47:$The$effect$of$sweeping$jets$on$lift$of$the$VR17$airfoil$at$Mach$0.4,$k$=$0.1,$α =$6+10sin(ωt);$Mjet =$0.92,$

x/Cjet =$0.08,$fjet =$350$Hz.

-0.8

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Lift Coefficient

Angle of Attack

No Blowing

Blowing

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Pitching Moment Coefficient (Pressure)

Angle of Attack
51

Summary

This!report!summarizes!the!work!accomplished!in!the!first!year!of!what!was!originally!a!three9

year!program!to!investigate!the!use!of!active!flow!control!(AFC)!to!improve!the!performance!of!

airfoils! on! a! helicopter! rotor! blade.! Unfortunately,! budget! constraints! modified! the! plan! and!

reduced! the! original! program! to! one! year.! The! AFC! technique! selected! uses! sweeping9jet!

actuator!inserted!in!the!upper!surface!near!the!leading!edge!of!an!oscillating!airfoil!subject!to!

flow! velocities! up! to! Mach! 0.5.! The! application! is! to! helicopter! rotors! that! are! subject! to!

dynamic! stall! in! high9speed! forward! flight.! The! planned! approach! is! primarily! experimental,!

with!CFD!introduced!to!lend!insight!to!actuator!flow!effects!and!actuator!placement,!as!well!as!

underlying!flow!physics.

The! CFD! approach! utilizes!the! OVERFLOW! code to! model! a! section! of! the! airfoil! having! the!

width! of! one! sweeping9jet! actuator.! Detached9eddy! simulation! with! the! Spalart! Allmaras!

turbulence!model in!the!boundary!layer!was used!to!capture!the!jet!interactional!aerodynamics!

and! potentially! large! regions! of! separated! flow in! the! wake.! The! jet! was modeled! with! a!

sprinkler9jet!boundary!condition!with!specified!mass9flow.

The!larger!experimental!portion!of!this!program!would!use!the!Oran!W.!Nicks!Low!Speed!Wind!

Tunnel!located!on!the!campus!of!Texas!A&M!University.!The!facility!is!ideally!suited!for!this!test!

because! of!its! oscillating9pitch! rig,! PIV!measurement! capability,!and!affordability.!The! current!

configuration! is! not! capable! of! reaching! the! desired! rotor9relevant! Mach! numbers! without!

several! modifications.! A! design! is! presented! for! a! reduced! cross9sectional! area! test! section,!

contraction!section,!diffuser!section,!and!tunnel!circuit!efficiency!improvements.!These!tunnel!

improvements!promise!to!make!the!LSWT!at!TAMU!more!capable!for!future!programs.

The!test!model!would!use!a!59ft!span!wing!having!a!159inch!chord!VR97!airfoil.!The wing!would!

span!a!new! 6x5! ft!insert! to! the! test! section!of! the! 7!x! 10! ft!Texas!A&M!wind! tunnel! so!as! to!

produce!Mach! 0.5! flow,! appropriate! to! the! helicopter! high9speed! flight! condition! of! interest.!

The! test! article! is! modular,! featuring! an! interchangeable leading! edge! designed! to! contain!

fluidic! actuator! arrays! positioned! at! 8%! chord! with! the! jet! angled! at! 30! degrees! to! the! local!

airfoil! surface.! The! actuator! array! can! contain! up! to! 100! jets! to! span! the! 59foot! wide! airfoil!

section,! spaced! nominally! 0.5! inches! apart.! In! future! tests,! the! interchangeable! leading! edge!

could!be!modified!to!test!other!active!flow!devices,!such!as!plasma!actuators.!

The!primary!recordable!data!are!surface!pressures!along!a!chord!section.!Data!will!be!measured!

at! 45! locations! with ESP! modules.! These! locations! were! determined! using! a! design9of9

experiments! optimization! process! to! minimize! numerical! error! from! lift,! drag,! and! pitching!

moment!integration.!Particle!Image!Velocimetry!and!hot!film!measurements!are!planned.
52

A! lot! has! been! accomplished! in! this! abbreviated! one! year! study.! A! sweeping9jet! active9flow9

controlled!airfoil!model!has!been!designed,!and!required!improvements!to!the!Texas!A&M!7!x!

10! wind! tunnel! have! been! defined,! analyzed,! and! detailed.! In! addition,! a! CFD! model! of! a

sweeping!jet!has!been!developed!and!exercised!to!predict!the!detailed!physics!of!the!unsteady!

flows!from!the!actuators!and!the!effect!on!the!flow!over!pitching!airfoils.!

It!is!hoped!that!the!work!described!in!this!report!may!be!continued.
53

References

1. Post,! M.L.,! and! Corke,! T.C.,! “Separation! Control! using! Plasma! Actuators! 9 Stationary! and!

Oscillatory!airfoils,”!AIAA!Paper!200490841,!2004.

2. Roupassov! D,! Nikipelov! A,! Nudnova!M,! Starikovskii! A! (2009)! “Flow! Separation! Control! by!

Plasma! Actuator! with! Nanosecond! Pulsed9Periodic! Discharge,”! AIAA! Journal,! 2009,! vol.47!

no.1!(1689185).

3. Hassan,!A.A.,!Straub,!F.K.,!JanakiRam,!R.D.,!Weems,!D.,!“Boeing!VGART!(Variable!Geometry!

Advanced! Rotor! Technology)! Phase!II! Program! (Active! Rotor! Technologies),! Final! Report,”!

Boeing!Report!No.!L9K69FR903301,!March!2003.

4. Narducci,! R.P.,! Tadghighi,! H.,! “Rotor! Designs! with! Improved! Static! /! Dynamic! Stall!

Characteristics,”! Final! Report! prepared! for! the! National! Rotorcraft! Technology! Center! /!

Center!for!Rotorcraft!Innovation,!March!2010.

5. T.! Srinivas,! B.! Vasudevan! &! A.! Prabhu,! “Performance! of! Fluidically! Oscillating! Jet”!

Turbulence! Management! and! Relaminarization,! H.! Liepmann! &! R.! Narasimha! editors!

(IUTAM!Symposium!Bangalore!1987).

6. Lucas,!N.,!Taubert,!L.,!Woszidlo,!R.,!Wygnanski,!I.,!McVeigh,!M.A.,!“Discrete!Sweeping!Jets!as!

Tools! for! Separation! Control”,! AIAA! 200893868,! 4th! Flow! Control! Conference,! Seattle,!

Washington,!June!23926,!2008.

7. Sahlin,!A.,!Johansson,!A.V.,!“Design!of!guide!vanes!for!minimizing!the!pressure!loss!in!sharp!

bends,”!Physics!of!Fluids!A!(ISSN!089998213),!vol.!3,!Aug.!1991,!p.!193491940.

8. Eckert,!Mort,!Jope,!“Aerodynamic!Design!Guidelines!and!Computer!Program!for!Estimation!

of!Subsonic!Wind!Tunnel!Performance,” NASA!TN!D98243, 1976.

9. Raghu,!S.,!“Compact!Fluidic!Jet!Arrays!for!Flow!Control,”!Report!No.!AF9NASA92011901,!June!

2011.

10. Nichols,! R.,! Buning,! P.,! “User’s! Manual! for! OVERFLOW! 2.1,”! University! of! Alabama! at!

Birmingham,!Birmingham,!AL.
54

Appendix A:$Pressure$Reconstruction$Proof1of1Concept

Steady!pressure!measurements!are!common!in!wind! tunnel!experimentation,!utilizing surface!

pressure! integration! to! determine!aerodynamic! properties! of! lift,! pressure! drag, and! pitching!

moments.!This!experimental!measurement! technique!involves!employing tubing! systems! that!

connect! surface! pressure! ports! to! pressure! transducers,! shown! in Figure! 48.! For! steady!flow!

conditions,!the!pressure!as!measured!by!the!transducer,!PT ,!is!equal in!magnitude!to!the!true!

surface!pressure,!PS.!However,! frictional!and!viscous!effects! from! the! fluid9tubing!interactions!

and!pressure!wave!acoustic!resonance!cause!distortion!in!amplitude!and!phase!of!the!unsteady!

pressure! wave.! The! result! is! that! the! pressure! measured! by! the! transducer! is! no! longer!

representative! of! the!local! surface! pressure.!This!error! propagates! through! the! data!analysis,!

leading!to!incorrect!representation!of!forces!and!moments!on!the!airfoil.!

Figure$48:$Schematic$of$a$basic$pressure$tubing$system.

There! are! two! common! approaches! to! increase! the! fidelity! of! the! unsteady! pressure!

measurements.! The! first! is! to! implement! higher! quality! transducers,! such! as! those!

manufactured! by! Kulite! or! Endevco.! Transducers! such! as! these! eliminate the! need! for! a!

pneumatic!line!connecting!the!surface!pressure!tap!to!the!transducer,!as!they!are!typically!flush!

mounted! to! the! surface.! However,! these! are! fragile,! easily! damaged,! and! prohibitively!

expensive.!An!alternative!approach!is! to!implement!a!conventional!pressure!system!and! then!

apply! a! correction,! typically! by! developing! a! system! transfer! function.! The! experimental!

definition!of!the!transfer!function!is!simply!the!ratio!of!the!system output!to!the!system!input!in!

the!complex!frequency!domain.

! = !!(!)

!!(!) (1)

The! de! facto! analytic! transfer! function! for! pneumatic! pressure! systems! for! aerospace and!

mechanical! applications! is! the! Bergh! and! Tijdeman[1]! model.! This! relation! was derived! from!
55

basic! Navier9Stokes! equations! with! assumptions! based! upon! small! sinusoidal pressure!

disturbances!for!tubing!with!small!inner!diameters,!and!is!defined!as

!!(!)

!!(!) = !

!"#$( !)!

!!

! !! !"#$(!) (2)

where! the! parameter! L! is! the! tubing! length,! V! is! the! internal! volume! of! the! tubing,! k! is the!

polytropic!factor!and!Γ is!the!wave!propagation!factor.!The!wave!propagation!factor is!further!

defined!as

 = !

!

!!!(!!/!!)

!!!(!!/!!)

!/!

(3)

for!which!a!is!the!mean!velocity!of!sound,!Jn is!the!Bessel!function!of!the!first!kind!of order!n,!

and! γ is! the! ratio! of! specific! heats.!The! polytropic! constant,!k,!models! the!wave compression!

and!expansion!and!is!defined!as

! = 1 + !!!

!

+ !!(!!/!! !")

!!(!!/!! !")

!!

(4)

where!Pr!is!the!Prandtl!number!and!s!is!the!shear!wave!number!which!provides!a!measure of!

the!tube!wall!shear!effects!as!a!function!of!tubing!diameter,!D,!air!density,!ρ,!and viscosity,!μ.

! = ! !"

!! (5)

Bench9top! tests! were designed! to! experimentally! determine! the! transfer function,! (1),! and!

compare!the!results!to!the!analytic!transfer!function,!(2).!Having validated!the!relationship,!the!

analytic!transfer!function!was!then!utilized!to!reconstruct attenuated!and!distorted!signals.!The!

reconstructed! signals! were! then! compared! to! the reference! signals,! validating! accurate!

reconstruction.
56

Experimental$Methods

Two! bench9top! experiments! were! conducted! to! describe! the! transfer! function! relating! the!

reference! unsteady! pressure,! PS,! to! the! pneumatically! attenuated! pressure,! PT, illustrated! in!

Figure!49.!For!the!acoustic!configuration,!Figure!49a,!sinusoidal!pressure!waves were!generated!

from! a! loud9speaker! in! a! closed! volume! for! specified! frequencies.! An Endevco! 29psi! fast!

response!sensor!was!used!as!the!reference!transducer!to!quantify!the un9attenuated!pressure!

wave.! Tygon! tubing! was! used! to! connect! the! closed! volume! of! the loud9speaker to! a! single!

pressure! port! on! a! 59psi! Esterline! ESP.! The! pressure! measured! by the! ESP! represented! the!

pneumatically! distorted! signal.! This! configuration! was! utilized since! the! approach! is! easily!

implemented.!However,! the! signal!generated!is! of!a!low pressure,!is!limited!in! the! frequency!

content!by!the!frequency!rating!of!the!speaker!(209280!Hz),!and!is!not!readily!adaptable!to!in9

situ!calibration.

A!second!bench9top!setup!was!constructed!and!modeled!after!the!Whitmore!et!al.[2] and!Strike!

et!al.[3]!configurations,!shown!in!Fig!2b.!Compressed!air!was!used!to!pressurize an!accumulator!

tank,! which! was! connected! to! a! solenoid! valve,! which! led! into! a! pressure manifold.! The!

reference! transducer! and! the! pneumatic! tubing! were! connected! to! the manifold! such! that!

equivalent!pressures!were!applied!to!both.!A!semi9infinite!tubing line!was!also!connected!to!the!

manifold!and!performed!as!a!anti9resonance!tube!bundle, which!allowed!for!signal!conditioning!

of! the! step! response.! The! step9function! pressure wave! was! generated! by! the! opening! of! the!

valve.!The! benefit! of! this! configuration!is that! the! compressed!air! source!generated! pressure!

signals!of!much!higher!pressure!ranges as!compared!to!the!acoustic!configuration.!Additionally,!

the!step!response!allowed!for modeling of!sharp!transitions!from!low9to9high9pressures,!and!for!

the! determination! of the! spectral! response! of! all! of! the! odd! frequencies! up! to! the! Nyquist!

sampling!frequency.

(a) (b)

Figure$49:$(a)$Acoustic$and$(b)$step1response [2]$bench1top$block$diagrams$used$to determine$the$pneumatic$

tubing$transfer$function
57

Both! bench9top! experiments! were! performed! using an 189inch! length! of! Scanivalve! Tygon!

tubing! with! an! inner! diameter! of! 0.034! ± 0.004! in.! The! acoustic! configuration! generated

sinusoidal!pressure!waves!at! frequencies!of! 5! to! 300!Hz!at! 5!Hz!increments,!and! the transfer!

function!was!established!at!each!increment.!Data!was! collected!at!a! sampling frequency! of! 1!

kHz.! The! acoustic! tests! were! performed! for! three! different! ESP! pressure ports! to! establish!

uniformity! within! the! ESP.! The! results! presented! for! the! step9function configuration! are! the!

ensemble!averages!of!250!tests.!The!data!acquisition!frequency!was 3!kHz!and!28!samples!were!

collected!per!test.

(a) (b)

Figure$50:$(a)$Step1response$bench1top$configuration with$(b)$an$enlarged$image of$the$solenoid$valve$and$

pressure$manifold

Results

The!experimental!transfer!function!for!both!methods!was!found!as!the!ratio!of!the pneumatic!

response!to!that!of!the!reference!signal!in!the!frequency!domain,!Equation (1) Bode plots!of!the!

transfer!function!gain!and!magnitude!from!the!experimental!results!are compared!against!the!

Bergh!and!Tijdeman!analytic!model! [1]!and!are!shown!in!Figure!51. For! frequencies!up! to! the!

speaker! rating! (280! Hz),! the! results! from! the! acoustic! and step9function! experiments! are! in!

good! agreement! and! within! the! analytic! transfer! function uncertainty.! At! higher! frequencies,!

the! experimental! results! from! the! step9function! tests become! noise! dominated! and! diverge!

from! the! analytic! model! at! approximately! 600! Hz. This! divergence! is! attributed! to! system!

limitations! in! the! experiment.! At! frequencies above! 600! Hz,! the! step9function! pressure! wave!

reaches!a!noise9threshold,!indicated!in!the gain!and!phase!plots.

The!noise9threshold!is!further!illustrated!in!Figure!52.!An FFT!was!applied!to!both!the reference!

and! pneumatic! signals! from! the! step9response! and! the!magnitudes! are! shown! in Figure! 52a.!

The!signal9to9noise!ratio,!SNR,!of!both!the!reference!and!pneumatic!signals!are shown!in!Figure!

52b.!Both!plots!approach!a!mean!constant!minimum!value!at!frequencies greater!than!600!Hz,!

corresponding!to!the!noise9threshold!observed!in!the!transfer!function Bode!plots.!Beyond!this!

threshold,! the! signal! contains! mostly! white! noise! with! noise! on the! same! magnitude! as! the!

signal,!indicated!by!a!SNR!of!approximately!1.

To!demonstrate!the!capabilities!of!the!established!transfer!function,!pneumatic!pressure signals!

were! reconstructed! and! compared! to! the! reference! signal.! For! the! reconstruction, various!

pressure!waves!were!generated,!and!data!was!collected!at!a!sampling!rate!of 1kHz,!such!that!
58

the!Nyquist! frequency!was! below! the! noise! threshold.!Figure!53 shows the! reconstruction! of!

multi9frequency! signals! using! the! acoustic! bench9top! configuration. Additionally,! the!

reconstruction! of! the! step9response! is! also! shown! in! Figure! 54.! The! results indicate! that! the!

established! transfer! function! is! capable of! reconstructing! a! variety! of signals! for! a! broad!

frequency!range.

(a)

(b)

Figure$51:$Transfer$function$(a)$gain$and$(b)$phase$for$181inch$tubing$from$experimental$results$and$Bergh$and$

Tijdeman$analytic$model$[1].
59

(a)

(b)

Figure$52:$(a)$FFT$of$pressure$step1responses$and$(b)$signal1to1noise$ratios$of$the$reference$and$pneumatically$

attenuated$signals$with$noise$threshold$indicated$at$600$Hz.
60

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure$53:$Reconstruction$of$multi1frequency$signal$(a)$4,$22,$40,$57,$75,$93,$110,$128$Hz,$(b)$4,$31,$57,$84,$110$Hz,$

and$(c)$4,$40,$75,$110,$145,$180$Hz$for$181inch$length$Tygon$tubing.
61

(a)

(b) (c)

Figure$54:$Reconstruction$of$(a)$step$function$with$close1up$on$(b)$initial$impulse$and$(c)$overshoot$for$an$181

inch$length$Tygon$tubing.

Conclusions

Two!bench9top!experiments!were!performed!to!establish!the!experimental!transfer function!of!

a! pneumatic! system! for! 189inch! length! Tygon tubing.! The! experimental! results were! then!

compared! to! the! analytic! Bergh! and! Tijdeman! transfer! function! and! were! found in! good!

agreement!up!to!280!Hz.!From!280!to!600!Hz,!the!experimental!results!from!the step9response!

bench9top!configuration!are!within!the!analytic!uncertainty.!Above!600!Hz, the!signals!reach!a!

noise! threshold!and! the!experimental! transfer! function!deviates! from the!analytic!model.!The!

capabilities!of!the!transfer!function!were!demonstrated!by!the reconstruction!of!the!attenuated!

pressures! as! compared! to! reference! signals.! The! results indicate! that! the! transfer! function! is!

capable!of!reconstructing!signals!up!to!600!Hz.
62

References

1. Bergh!H.,!and!Tijdeman!H.,!“Theoretical!and!Experimental!Results!for!the!Dynamic Response!

of! Pressure! Measuring! Systems,"! National! Aero! and! Astronautical! Research Institute,!

Amsterdam,!Report!NLR9TRF,!1965,!pp.!328.

2. Whitmore! S.,! Wilson! M.! D.,! and! Eilers! S.! D.,! “Novel! Technique! for! Reconstructing High9

Frequency!Transient! Rocket! Chamber9Pressure!Measurements,"!Journal( of Spacecraft( and(

Rockets,!Vol.!47,!No.!3,!2010.

3. Strike!J.,!Hind!M.!D.,!Saini!M.!S.,!Naughton!J.!W.,!Wilson!M.!D.,!and!Whitmore S.,!“Unsteady!

Surface! Pressure! Reconstruction! on! an!Oscillating! Airfoil!Using! the Wiener! Deconvolution!

Method,"!Mechanical(Engineering,!July!2010.
63

Appendix$B:$Coordinates$of$the$VR17$with$3$Degree, 4%$tab

X/C Y/C

1.000000 0.000719

0.998725 0.000656

0.994713 0.000452

0.988286 0.000124

0.982533

-

0.000170

0.979558

-

0.000322

0.972688

-

0.000672

0.962887

-

0.001202

0.956679

-

0.001608

0.948328

-

0.002224

0.940678

-

0.002758

0.929307

-

0.003520

0.920373

-

0.004136

0.910828

-

0.004806

0.900065

-

0.005566

0.885672

-

0.006586

0.877576

-

0.007163

0.864494

-

0.008096

0.854996

-

0.008774

0.841323

-

0.009741

0.823737

-

0.010948

0.808968

-

0.011909

0.796290

-

0.012685

0.781617

-

0.013538

0.764011

-

0.014514

0.754161

-

0.015044

0.738650 -

X/C Y/C

0.015870

0.722667

-

0.016722

0.709640

-

0.017419

0.697383

-

0.018073

0.681444

-

0.018920

0.665745

-

0.019751

0.655457

-

0.020298

0.643081

-

0.020956

0.633453

-

0.021468

0.618053

-

0.022283

0.606293

-

0.022904

0.593633

-

0.023570

0.583689

-

0.024098

0.571569

-

0.024735

0.557582

-

0.025474

0.545017

-

0.026148

0.534180

-

0.026733

0.524382

-

0.027271

0.513130

-

0.027877

0.501569

-

0.028472

0.488496

-

0.029084

0.475199

-

0.029633

0.459342

-

0.030211

0.444461

-

0.030702

0.430106

-

0.031133

0.415266 -

X/C Y/C

0.031516

0.401564

-

0.031800

0.388038

-

0.032012

0.372035

-

0.032171

0.359144

-

0.032221

0.340709

-

0.032195

0.324389

-

0.032112

0.310031

-

0.032009

0.298499

-

0.031905

0.287022

-

0.031783

0.273968

-

0.031619

0.261080

-

0.031429

0.250701

-

0.031256

0.237762

-

0.031012

0.227646

-

0.030794

0.214407

-

0.030467

0.203459

-

0.030173

0.192376

-

0.029859

0.182918

-

0.029558

0.172010

-

0.029150

0.162850

-

0.028763

0.156166

-

0.028463

0.145612

-

0.027958

0.135119

-

0.027396

0.127451

-

0.026935

0.120016 -
64

X/C Y/C

0.026442

0.113495

-

0.025973

0.105953

-

0.025387

0.100137

-

0.024905

0.093405

-

0.024318

0.087493

-

0.023773

0.080322

-

0.023079

0.073034

-

0.022310

0.066270

-

0.021537

0.060621

-

0.020861

0.054918

-

0.020165

0.047625

-

0.019224

0.040302

-

0.018194

0.034562

-

0.017334

0.027340

-

0.016099

0.023910

-

0.015429

0.021529

-

0.014923

0.018760

-

0.014279

0.016134

-

0.013599

0.014066

-

0.013005

0.013115

-

0.012712

0.012202

-

0.012416

0.010785

-

0.011922

0.009795

-

0.011546

0.008324

-

0.010926

0.007340

-

0.010458

0.006201

-

0.009843

0.005187-

X/C Y/C

0.009211

0.004374

-

0.008628

0.003587

-

0.007974

0.002641

-

0.007021

0.002172

-

0.006454

0.001628

-

0.005688

0.001035

-

0.004658

0.000638

-

0.003755

0.000366

-

0.002920

0.000175

-

0.002074

0.000077

-

0.001408

0.000037

-

0.000987

0.000000 0.000000

0.000075 0.001513

0.000508 0.003502

0.001034 0.005078

0.001937 0.007068

0.003215 0.009287

0.004857 0.011648

0.007301 0.014624

0.010204 0.017683

0.013294 0.020512

0.016204 0.022855

0.019479 0.025279

0.024115 0.028457

0.029065 0.031529

0.034398 0.034592

0.039630 0.037346

0.047162 0.040947

0.052875 0.043514

0.059026 0.046127

0.070347 0.050487

0.079208 0.053564

0.088547 0.056665

0.098601 0.059815

0.107870 0.062426

X/C Y/C

0.116159 0.064540

0.126299 0.067007

0.136099 0.069288

0.151427 0.072500

0.166097 0.075140

0.177421 0.076985

0.190260 0.079015

0.201068 0.080610

0.213627 0.082209

0.226745 0.083633

0.239667 0.084849

0.254975 0.086056

0.264733 0.086695

0.282663 0.087601

0.301095 0.088207

0.319827 0.088495

0.336985 0.088477

0.351732 0.088265

0.372057 0.087732

0.395172 0.086844

0.411138 0.086008

0.428774 0.084827

0.440336 0.083924

0.453004 0.082846

0.468285 0.081441

0.479383 0.080346

0.494144 0.078781

0.507962 0.077198

0.526069 0.074968

0.539055 0.073268

0.551177 0.071608

0.563612 0.069834

0.577118 0.067813

0.597264 0.064653

0.610719 0.062486

0.624810 0.060192

0.636643 0.058262

0.651635 0.055822

0.666575 0.053396

0.679700 0.051259

0.698057 0.048246
65

X/C Y/C

0.716153 0.045254

0.736054 0.041968

0.751313 0.039471

0.771478 0.036198

0.787647 0.033576

0.806846 0.030431

0.827900 0.026848

0.843089 0.024124

0.856674 0.021593

0.874227 0.018185

0.886250 0.015762

0.897739 0.013380

0.911865 0.010362

X/C Y/C

0.922290 0.008073

0.930173 0.006298

0.938371 0.004388

0.941600 0.003640

0.943297 0.003261

0.945063 0.002893

0.947342 0.002475

0.948680 0.002271

0.950074 0.002094

0.951171 0.001979

0.952315 0.001882

0.954138 0.001778

0.955577 0.001739

X/C Y/C

0.957127 0.001740

0.959847 0.001843

0.961402 0.001922

0.967176 0.002217

0.974230 0.002577

0.981654 0.002956

0.989048 0.003333

0.993640 0.003567

0.997393 0.003759

1.000000 0.003881
66

Appendix$C:$Optimal$Pressure$Tap$Locations

Id X/C Y/C Id X/C Y/C 

1 1.24020 0.00040 24 0.03991 0.04150

2 1.20950 -0.00117 25 0.06212 0.05263

3 1.09300 -0.00924 26 0.08635 0.06254

4 0.98259 -0.01661 27 0.14503 0.08063

5 0.86172 -0.02312 28 0.21026 0.09436

6 0.74484 -0.02932 29 0.27478 0.10363

7 0.61786 -0.03603 30 0.33171 0.10842

8 0.51891 -0.03940 31 0.39389 0.11057

9 0.40545 -0.04014 32 0.46030 0.10981

10 0.32777 -0.03931 33 0.51963 0.10716

11 0.24428 -0.03743 34 0.59027 0.10133

12 0.15805 -0.03359 35 0.65089 0.09456 

13 0.08200 -0.02682 36 0.71049 0.08641 

14 0.05854 -0.02390 37 0.77751 0.07581

15 0.03641 -0.02053 38 0.84080 0.06551 

16 0.02484 -0.01818 39 0.89938 0.05588 

17 0.01309 -0.01476 40 0.95976 0.04599 

18 0.00413 -0.00963 41 1.02480 0.03531 

19 0.00009 0.00189 42 1.08750 0.02378 

20 0.00430 0.01204 43 1.14520 0.01178 

21 0.01188 0.02123 44 1.21040 0.00284 

22 0.02112 0.02923 45 1.23990 0.00435 

23 0.02872 0.03463

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

z (ft)

x (ft)

CFD z/C

Tap z/C
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Contractor Report

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Investigation of Active Flow Control to Improve Aerodynamic 

Performance of Oscillating Wings 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

NNL13AA03C

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Narducci, Robert P.; Bowersox, Rodney; McVeigh, Michael; Raghu; 

White, Edward

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 23681 

 

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Langley Technical Monitor: Brian G. Allan

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 34

Availability: NASA CASI (443) 757-5802

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

The objective of this effort is to design a promising active flow control concept on an oscillating airfoil for on-blade 

alleviation of dynamic stall. The concept must be designed for a range of representative Mach numbers (0.2 to 0.5) and 

representative reduced frequency characteristics of a full-scale rotorcraft. Specifications for a sweeping-jet actuator to mitigate 

the detrimental effects of retreating blade stall experienced by edgewise rotors in forward flight has been performed. Wind 

tunnel modifications have been designed to accommodate a 5x6 test section in the Oran W. Nicks Low Speed Wind Tunnel at 

Texas A&M University that will allow the tunnel to achieve Mach 0.5. The flow control design is for a two-dimensional 

oscillating VR-7 blade section with a 15- inch chord at rotor-relevant flow conditions covering the range of reduced 

frequencies from 0.0 to 0.15 and Mach numbers from 0.2 to 0.5. A Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis has been 

performed to influence the placement of the flow control devices for optimal effectiveness. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

CFD; dynamics stall; flow control; fluid dynamics; rotor; sweeping jet

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

77

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(443) 757-5802

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

380046.02.07.03.02.02 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA/CR-2014-218146

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 01 - 2014