Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-s4m2s Total loading time: 0.3 Render date: 2021-10-24T15:39:35.142Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

A nonlinear dynamic model for unsteady separated flow control and its mechanism analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2017

Guoping Huang
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 210016, China
Weiyu Lu*
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 210016, China
Jianfeng Zhu
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 210016, China
Xin Fu
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 210016, China
Jinchun Wang
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 210016, China
Email address for correspondence:


In the analysis of the interaction between external periodic excitation and unsteady separated flow in controlling the flow separation, a new nonlinear approximate model has been established. This model is used to describe the typical chaotic and coherent characteristics of a separated flow such as small- or large-scale vortices, the injection, and the dissipation of the kinetic energy based on a simulation of a simplified cross-direction motion of free shear flows. This study presents an appropriate treatment to simulate the external periodic excitation and uses the maximum Lyapunov exponent to evaluate the degree of flow ordering in the different control states. The results of the nonlinear model are compared with experimental and numerical results, showing that the nonlinear model could be used to effectively explain the behaviours of chaotic flows and investigate the rules for controlling separated flows. In addition, as shown in the nonlinear approximate model, the self-synchronization of unsteady flow separation and periodic excitation has been analysed. Initially, the research provided an explanation of the self-synchronization mechanism, which cites that the effects of the separated flow control are independent of the phase difference between the periodic excitation and the unsteady flow. The characteristics of unsteady separated flow control have also been presented in this model, where the corresponding large eddy simulation (LES) was used for separated flows in a curved diffuser. The proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) method was used to analyse the difference between separated vortical structures with or without periodic excitation. The results showed that the model and the simulation had the same mechanism of flow control as for the separated flows. The periodic excitation transforms the original chaotic flow into a relatively ordered flow and decreases the magnitude of the chaotic unstable vortices, rather than completely eliminating the vortices, while flow mixing is reduced, inducing less energy loss.

© 2017 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Akhtar, I., Marzouk, O. A. & Nayfeh, A. H. 2009a A van der Pol–Duffing oscillator model of hydrodynamic forces on canonical structures. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dynam. 4, 17241732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akhtar, I., Nayfeh, A. H. & Ribbens, C. J. 2009b On the stability and extension of reduced-order Galerkin models in incompressible flows. A numerical study of vortex shedding. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 23, 213237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albarè, D. P. & Provansal, M. 1995 Quasi-periodic cylinder wakes and the Ginzburg–Landau model. J. Fluid Mech. 291, 191222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alobaidi, G., Smith, C. J. & Mallier, R. 2014 Waves on a Stuart vortex. Appl. Maths Comput. 227, 370383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amitay, M. & Cannelle, F. 2006 Evolution of finite span synthetic jets. Phys. Fluids 18, 645666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aref, H. 1987 Stirring by chaotic advection. J. Fluid Mech. 143, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubry, N., Holmes, P. & Lumley, J. L. 1988 The dynamic of coherent structures in the wall region of a turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 192, 115173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benettin, G., Galgani, L., Giorgilli, A. & Strelcyn, J. M. 1980 Lyapunov characteristic exponents for smooth dynamical systems; a method for computing all of them: Part I: theory, Part II. Numer. Applications Meccanica 15, 930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkooz, G., Holmes, P. & Lumley, J. L. 1993 The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 53, 321575.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, A. 2000 An introduction to the proper orthogonal decomposition. Curr. Sci. 78, 809817.Google Scholar
Chen, W., Liu, Y. & Hu, H.2014 Suppression of vortex shedding from a circular cylinder by using a traveling wave wall. AIAA Paper 2014-0399.Google Scholar
Collis, S. S., Joslin, R. D., Seifert, A. & Theofilis, V. 2004 Issues in active flow control: theory, control, simulation, and experiment. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 40, 237289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dano, B. & Liburdy, J.2006 Vortical structure of a 45 degree inclined pulsed jet in crossflow. AIAA Paper 2006-3543.Google Scholar
Dimotakis, P.1989 Turbulent free shear layer mixing. AIAA Report 1989-0262.Google Scholar
Dušek, J., Fraunié, P. & Gal, P. L. 1994 Local analysis of the onset of instability in shear flows. Phys. Fluids 6, 172186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyke, M. V. 1982 An Album of Fluid Motion. The Parabolic Press.Google Scholar
Feng, L. H., Wang, J. J. & Pan, C. 2011 Proper orthogonal decomposition analysis of vortex dynamics of a circular cylinder under synthetic jet control. Phys. Fluids 23, 014106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, P. L., Nadim, A. & Thompson, M. 2001 Hysteresis in the forced Stuart–Landau equation: application to vortex shedding from an oscillating cylinder. J. Fluids Struct. 15, 445457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaster, M. & Jordinson, R. 1975 On the eigenvalues of the Orr–Sommerfeld equation. J. Fluid Mech. 72, 121133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glezer, A. & Amitay, M. 2002 Synthetic jets. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34, 503529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gmelin, C., Steger, M., Wassen, E., Thiele, F., Huppertz, A. & Swoboda, M.2010 Unsteady RANS simulations on flow control in a compressor cascade using pulsed jets at the blade. AIAA Paper 2010-4588.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, D. & Wygnanski, I. J. 2000 The control of flow separation by periodic excitation. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 36, 487545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosch, C. E. & Salwen, H. 1978 The continuous spectrum of the Orr–Sommerfeld equation. Part 1. The spectrum and the eigenfunctions. J. Fluid Mech. 87, 3354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, A.2005 Simulation of active flow control for a low pressure turbine blade cascade. AIAA Paper 2005-869.Google Scholar
Gursul, I., Cleaver, D. J. & Wang, Z. 2014 Control of low Reynolds number flows by means of fluid–structure interactions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 64, 1755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, A.2004 Oscillatory and Pulsed Jets for Improved Airfoil Aerodynamics – A Numerical Simulation. AIAA Paper 2004-0227.Google Scholar
Hecklau, M., Wiederhold, O., Zander, V., King, R., Nitsche, W. & Swoboda, M. 2011 Active separation control with pulsed jets in a critically loaded compressor cascade. AIAA J. 49, 17291739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, C. M. & Huerre, P. 2003 Perturbed free shear layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 16, 365422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, P., Lumley, J. L. & Berkooz, G. 1996 Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems and Symmetry. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. 2009 Control of turbulent boundary layers. Phys. Fluids 15, 10931105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. & Bewley, T. R. 2007 A linear systems approach to flow control. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 39, 383417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovacic, I. & Brennan, M. J. 2011 The Duffing Equation: Nonlinear Oscillators and their Behaviour. Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ku, W. L., Girvan, M. & Ott, E. 2014 Dynamical transitions in large systems of mean field-coupled Landau–Stuart oscillators: extensive chaos and clumped states. Physics 25, 614617.Google Scholar
Lepicovsky, J., Ahuja, K., Brown, W. H. & Morris, P. J. 1986 Acoustic control of free jet mixing. J. Propul. Power 2, 323330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima, R. & Pettini, M. 1990 Suppression of chaos by resonant parametric perturbations. Phys. Rev. A 41, 726733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorenz, E. N. 1963 Deterministic nonperiodic flow. J. Atmos. Sci. 20, 130141.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumley, J. L. 1967 The structure of inhomogeneous turbulent flows. In Atmospheric Turbulence and Wave Propagation, pp. 166176. Nauka.Google Scholar
Miles, J. W. 1962 A note on the inviscid Orr–Sommerfeld equation. J. Fluid Mech. 13, 427432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monir, H. E., Tadjfar, M. & Bakhtian, A. 2013 Tangential synthetic jets for separation control. J. Fluids Struct. 45, 5065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nayfeh, A. H., Marzouk, O. A., Arafat, H. N. & Akhtar, I. 2005 Modeling the Transient and Steady-State Flow Over a Stationary Cylinder. (2005 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences) , pp. 15131523. ASME.Google Scholar
Nishioka, M., Asai, M. & Yoshida, S. 1987 Control of flow separation by acoustic excitation. AIAA J. 28, 19091915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noack, B. R., Afanasiev, K., Morzynski, M., Tadmor, G. & Thiele, F. 2003 A hierarchy of low-dimensional models for the transient and post-transient cylinder wake. J. Fluid Mech. 497, 335363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olinger, D. J. 1993 A low-dimensional model for chaos in open fluid flows. Phys. Fluids A 5, 19471951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orszag, S. A. 1971 Accurate solution of the Orr–Sommerfeld stability equation. J. Fluid Mech. 50, 689703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, F. A.1985 Effects of Periodic Forcing on Mixing in Turbulent Shear Layers and Wakes. AIAA Report 85-0570.Google Scholar
Saffman, P. G. 1992 Vortex Dynamics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saric, W. S., Reed, H. L. & Kerschen, E. J. 2002 Boundary-layer receptivity to freestream disturbances. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34, 291319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, P. J. 2008 Dynamic Mode Decomposition of numerical and experimental data. J. Fluid Mech. 656, 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, P. J., Li, L., Juniper, M. P. & Pust, O. 2010 Applications of the dynamic mode decomposition. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 25, 249259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifert, A., Greenblatt, D. & Wygnanski, I. J. 2004 Active separation control: an overview of Reynolds and Mach numbers effects. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 8, 569582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, S.1999 Active Flexible Walls for Efficient Aerodynamic Flow Separation Control. AIAA Paper 99-3123.Google Scholar
Sirovich, L. & Kirby, M. 1987 Low-dimensional procedure for the characterization of human faces. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 519524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skamnakis, D. & Papailiou, K. 2005 Flow stability analysis and excitation using pulsating jets. Comptes Rendus Mecanique 333, 628635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skop, R. A. & Balasubramanian, S. A. 1995 A nonlinear oscillator model for vortex shedding from a forced cylinder part 1: uniform flow and model parameters. Intl J. Offshore Polar Engng 5, 4.Google Scholar
Smith, B. L. & Glezer, A. 1998 The formation and evolution of synthetic jets. Phys. Fluids 10, 22812297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, J. T. 1958 On the non-linear mechanics of hydrodynamic stability. J. Fluid Mech. 4, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, J. T. 1967 On finite amplitude oscillations in laminar mixing layers. J. Fluid Mech. 29, 417440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, L. 2002 Numerical studies on exrefd Stuart–Landau model. Chinese J. Appl. Mech. 19, 6164.Google Scholar
Tan, B. T., Damodaran, M. & Willcox, K. E. 2004 Aerodynamic data reconstruction and inverse design using proper orthogonal decomposition. AIAA J. 42, 15051516.Google Scholar
Theofilis, V. 2003 Advances in global linear instability analysis of nonparallel and three-dimensional flows. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 26, 249315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, M. C. & Gal, P. L. 2004 The Stuart–Landau model applied to wake transition revisited. Eur. J. Mech. (B/Fluids) 23, 219228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, L., Li, L. & Fu, S. 2014 Numerical investigation of active flow control on a pitching NACA 0015 airfoil using detached-eddy simulation. Procedia Engng 79, 4954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, C., Xie, Y. & Wu, J. 2003 ‘Fluid roller bearing’ effect and flow control. Acta Mechanica Sin. 19, 476484.Google Scholar
Wu, C. J., Wang, L. & Wu, J. Z. 2007 Suppression of the von Kármán vortex street behind a circular cylinder by a travelling wave generated by a flexible surface. J. Fluid Mech. 574, 365391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J. Z., Ma, H. Y. & Zhou, M. D. 2006 Vorticity and Vortex Dynamics, vol. 11, pp. 2135. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, X. H., Wu, J. Z. & Wu, J. M.1991 Streaming effect of wall oscillation to boundary layer separation. AIAA Paper 91-0541.Google Scholar
Wygnanski, I. J. & Petersen, R. A. 1987 Coherent motion in exrefd free shear flows. AIAA J. 25, 201213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wygnanski, I.2004 The variables affecting the control of separation by periodic excitation. AIAA Paper 2004-2505.Google Scholar
Ye, T., Cattafesta, L. & Mittal, R.2006 Adaptive control of separated flow. AIAA Paper 2006-1401.Google Scholar
You, D. & Moin, P. 2006 Large-eddy simulation of flow separation over an airfoil with synthetic jet control. 59th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Fluid Dynamics. American Physical Society.Google Scholar
Zheng, X. Q., Zhou, X. B. & Zhou, S. 2005 Investigation on a type of flow control to weaken unsteady separated flows by unsteady excitation in axial flow compressors. J. Turbomach. 127, 489496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, J., Huang, G., Fu, X., Fu, Y. & Yu, H. 2013 Use of POD method to elucidate the physics of unsteady micro-pulsed-jet flow for boundary layer flow separation control. In ASME Turbo Expo 2013: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition, GT2013-95266.Google Scholar
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A nonlinear dynamic model for unsteady separated flow control and its mechanism analysis
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A nonlinear dynamic model for unsteady separated flow control and its mechanism analysis
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A nonlinear dynamic model for unsteady separated flow control and its mechanism analysis
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *