Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T19:57:38.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the leading-edge suction and stagnation-point location in unsteady flows past thin aerofoils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2020

Kiran Ramesh Open the ORCID record for Kiran Ramesh [Opens in a new window]
Kiran Ramesh*
Affiliation:
Aerospace Sciences Division, School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, GlasgowG12 8QQ, UK
*
†Email address for correspondence: kiran.ramesh@glasgow.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unsteady thin-aerofoil theory is a low-order method for calculating the forces and moment developed on a camber line undergoing arbitrary motion, based on potential-flow theory. The vorticity distribution is approximated by a Fourier series, with a special ‘$A_{0}$’ term that is infinite at the leading edge representing the ‘suction peak’. Though the integrated loads are finite, the pressure and velocity at the leading edge in this method are singular owing to the $A_{0}$ term. In this article, the principle of matched asymptotic expansions is used to resolve the singularity and obtain a uniformly valid first-order solution. This is performed by considering the unsteady thin-aerofoil theory as an outer solution, unsteady potential flow past a parabola as an inner solution, and by matching them in an intermediate region where both are asymptotically valid. Resolution of the leading-edge singularity allows for derivation of the velocity at the leading edge and location of the stagnation point, which are of physical and theoretical interest. These quantities are seen to depend on only the $A_{0}$ term in the unsteady vorticity distribution, which may be interpreted as an ‘effective unsteady angle of attack’. The leading-edge velocity is proportional to $A_{0}$ and inversely proportional to the square root of leading-edge radius, while the chordwise stagnation-point location is proportional to the square of $A_{0}$ and independent of the leading-edge radius. Closed-form expressions for these in simplified scenarios such as quasi-steady flow and small-amplitude harmonic oscillations are derived.

JFM classification

Mathematical Foundations: Computational methods
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 886 , 10 March 2020 , A13
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by 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.)

References

Bird, H. J. A., Otomo, S., Ramesh, K. & Viola, I. M.2019 A geometrically non-linear time-domain unsteady lifting-line theory. AIAA Paper 2019–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, H. J. A. & Ramesh, K. 2018 Theoretical and computational studies of a rectangular finite wing oscillating in pitch and heave. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Computational Mechanics (ECCM 6) and the 7th European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics (ECFD 7), pp. 3944–3955. International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE).Google Scholar
Darakananda, D. & Eldredge, J. D. 2019 A versatile taxonomy of low-dimensional vortex models for unsteady aerodynamics. J. Fluid Mech. 858, 917–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deparday, J. & Mulleners, K. 2018 Critical evolution of leading edge suction during dynamic stall. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1037 (2), 022017.Google Scholar
Deparday, J. & Mulleners, K. 2019 Modeling the interplay between the shear layer and leading edge suction during dynamic stall. Phys. Fluids 31 (10), 107104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drela, M. 1989 XFOIL: an analysis and design system for low Reynolds number airfoils. In Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics, pp. 1–12. Springer.Google Scholar
Eldredge, J. D. & Jones, A. R. 2019 Leading-edge vortices: mechanics and modeling. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 75–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, J. D., Wang, C. & Ol, M. V.2009 A computational study of a canonical pitch-up, pitch-down wing maneuver. AIAA Paper 2009-3687.Google Scholar
Epps, B. P. & Roesler, B. T. 2018 Vortex sheet strength in the sears, Küssner, Theodorsen, and Wagner aerodynamics problems. AIAA J. 56 (3), 889–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrick, I. E.1937 Propulsion of a flapping and oscillating airfoil. NACA Report 567.Google Scholar
Granlund, K., Ol, M. V. & Bernal, L. P. 2013 Unsteady pitching flat plates. J. Fluid Mech. 733 (1), R5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirato, Y., Shen, M., Gopalarathnam, A. & Edwards, J. R. 2019 Vortex-sheet representation of leading-edge vortex shedding from finite wings. J. Aircraft 56 (4), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, E. C.1983 Leading edge separation criterion for an oscillating airfoil. DTIC document AD-P004, 175.Google Scholar
von Kármán, T. & Burgers, J. M. 1963 General Aerodynamic Theory – Perfect Fluids, Aerodynamic Theory: A General Review of Progress, Durand, W. F., vol. 2. Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Plotkin, A. 2000 Low-Speed Aerodynamics. Cambridge Aerospace Series.Google Scholar
Leishman, J. G. 2002 Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics. Cambridge Aerospace Series.Google Scholar
Lighthill, M. J. 1951 A new approach to thin aerofoil theory. Aeronaut. Q. 3 (3), 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, W. J. & Rusak, Z. 2013 Stall onset on aerofoils at low to moderately high Reynolds number flows. J. Fluid Mech. 733, 439–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narsipur, S., Gopalarathnam, A. & Edwards, J. R. 2018 Low-order model for prediction of trailing-edge separation in unsteady flow. AIAA J. 57 (1), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramesh, K., Gopalarathnam, A., Edwards, J. R., Ol, M. V. & Granlund, K. 2013 An unsteady airfoil theory applied to pitching motions validated against experiment and computation. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 27 (6), 843–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramesh, K., Gopalarathnam, A., Granlund, K., Ol, M. V. & Edwards, J. R. 2014 Discrete-vortex method with novel shedding criterion for unsteady airfoil flows with intermittent leading-edge vortex shedding. J. Fluid Mech. 751, 500–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramesh, K., Granlund, K., Ol, M. V., Gopalarathnam, A. & Edwards, J. R. 2018 Leading-edge flow criticality as a governing factor in leading-edge vortex initiation in unsteady airfoil flows. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 32 (2), 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramesh, K., Monteiro, T. P., Silvestre, F. J., Bernardo, A., Neto, G., Versiani, S., de Souza, T. & Gil Annes da Silva, R. 2017 Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Post-Flutter Limit Cycle Oscillations on a Cantilevered Flat Plate. International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics.Google Scholar
Ramesh, K., Murua, J. & Gopalarathnam, A. 2015 Limit-cycle oscillations in unsteady flows dominated by intermittent leading-edge vortex shedding. J. Fluids Struct. 55, 84–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusak, Z. 1993 Transonic flow around the leading edge of a thin airfoil with a parabolic nose. J. Fluid Mech. 248, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusak, Z. 1994 Subsonic flow around the leading edge of a thin aerofoil with a parabolic nose. Eur. J. Appl. Maths 5 (3), 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saini, A. & Gopalarathnam, A. 2018 Leading-edge flow sensing for aerodynamic parameter estimation. AIAA J. 56 (12), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratford, B. S. 1959 The prediction of separation of the turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 5 (1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suryakumar, V. S., Babbar, Y., Strganac, T. W. & Mangalam, A. S. 2016 Unsteady aerodynamic model based on the leading-edge stagnation point. J. Aircraft 53 (6), 1626–1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodorsen, T.1935 General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter. NACA Report 496.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, M.1956 Second-order subsonic airfoil theory including edge effects. NASA TR 1274.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, M. 1964 Perturbation Methods in Fluid Mechanics, vol. 136. Academic press.Google Scholar
Wang, E., Ramesh, K., Killen, S. & Viola, I. M. 2018 On the nonlinear dynamics of self-sustained limit-cycle oscillations in a flapping-foil energy harvester. J. Fluids Struct. 83, 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D. J. & Persson, P. 2014 Multiple-fidelity computational framework for the design of efficient flapping wings. AIAA J. 52 (12), 2840–2854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xia, X. & Mohseni, K. 2017 Unsteady aerodynamics and vortex-sheet formation of a two-dimensional airfoil. J. Fluid Mech. 830, 439–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar