Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545

The control of #ow separation by periodic excitation

David Greenblatt*, Israel J. Wygnanski
Department of Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer, Faculty of Engineering, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel

Abstract

This paper presents a review of the control of #ow separation from solid surfaces by periodic excitation. The emphasis
is placed on experimentation relating to hydrodynamic excitation, although acoustic methods as well as traditional
boundary layer control, such as steady blowing and suction, are discussed in order to provide an appropriate historical
context for recent developments. The review examines some aspects of the excited plane mixing-layer and shows how its
development lays the foundation for a basic understanding of the problem. Flow attachment to, and separation from,
a de#ected #ap is then shown to be a paradigm for isolating controlling parameters as well as understanding the basic
mechanisms involved. Particular attention is paid to separation control on airfoils by considering controlling parameters
such as optimum reduced frequencies and excitation levels, performance enhancement, e$ciency, reduction of post-stall
unsteadiness, compressibility and other important features. Additional topics covered include excitation of separation
bubbles, control and exploitation of di!user #ows, three-dimensional e!ects, the in#uence of longitudinal curvature and
possible applications to unmanned air vehicles. The review closes with some recent developments in the control and
understanding of incompressible dynamic stall, speci"cally illustrating the control of dynamic stall on oscillating airfoils
and identifying the crucial time-scale disparity between dynamic stall and periodic excitation.  2000 Elsevier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
1.1. Flow separation: The problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
1.2. Traditional boundary layer control (BLC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
1.3. Flow control by excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
2. Objectives, scope and layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
3. Historical perspective*basic principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
3.1. Boundary layer control (BLC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
3.2. Airfoil separation control by acoustic excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
4. The Excited mixing-layer*basis for separation control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
5. Actuators and actuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
5.1. Quantifying momentum addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
5.2. Some aspects of actuator calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
6. Fundamentals of separation control*the de#ected #ap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
6.1. Governing parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
6.2. Basic mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
6.3. E!ect of net mass-#ux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
7. Airfoil studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
7.1. Controlling factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
7.2. NACA 0015 experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506

* Corresponding author. Tel.: #00972-3-640-8957; fax: #00972-3-640-7334.

E-mail address: greenb@eng.tau.ac.il (D. Greenblatt).

0376-0421/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 6 - 0 4 2 1 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 8 - 7
488 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545

Nomenclature dH boundary layer displacement thickness

* indicates the di!erence between two quantities
c airfoil chord
cycle phase
C drag coe$cient ("D/cq) g airfoil power e$ciency ("C /(C #C ))
" * " #
C form-drag coe$cient ("Dp/cq) j wavelength of eddies (or large coherent struc-
"N tures)
C skin-friction coe$cient ("q/cq)
D K sweep angle
C lift coe$cient ("/cq)
* h boundary layer momentum thickness
C maximum lift coe$cient
*  h> dimensionless momentum thickness ("f h/; )
C pitching moment coe$cient ("M/cq) 
+ o air density
C pressure coe$cient ("(p!p )/q)
.  k air dynamic viscosity
C input power coe$cient ("= /q; c)
# G  q dimensionless time ("t; /); skin friction
c steady momentum coe$cient ("J/cq) 
I
1c 2 oscillatory momentum coe$cient ("1J2)/cq)
I Abbreviations
C total (combined) moment coe$cient (c , 1c 2)
I I I AFC active #ow control
E allowable moment excursions
 DSV dynamic stall vortex
("C !C )
+  +  BLC boundary layer control
f excitation frequency
 FS #ap shoulder
f airfoil pitching frequency
f acoustic excitation frequency LCS large coherent structure
 LE leading edge
f natural shedding frequency
 MAV micro aerial vehicle
f> reduced forcing frequency ("f x/; )
 MEMS micro electrical-mechanical systems
F> reduced forcing frequency ("f X /; )
   PIV particle image velocimetry
FM "gure of merit ("g/(C /C ))
* " rms root mean square
G general step-height or slot-width length
g step height TE trailing edge
h slot width TS Tollmien-Schlichting
H boundary layer shape factor ("dH/h) UAV unmanned aerial vehicle
J steady jet momentum ("o;h) 1 2 rms quantity
H
1J2 oscillatory jet momentum ("ouh)
H Superscripts
k reduced airfoil frequency ("nf c/; )
 a rms of a
generic length scale a time-mean value of a
#ap length a
D phase-locked (averaged) instantaneous value a
Ma Mach Number
M #uid mass Subscripts
p local pressure 0 referring to baseline conditions
q free-stream dynamic pressure ("o; /2) 1,2 respective streams in a two-dimensional mix-

R (; !; )/(; #; ) ing layer
   
Re chord Reynolds number ("o; c/k) a #uid available for entrainment

St Strouhal number act relating to an actuator
t time; airfoil thickness att attachment
period of oscillation avg average value
u oscillatory velocity component b relating to steady blowing
; time-mean velocity component B based on bubble length
;> dimensionless velocity (";/; ) D based on cylinder diameter
O
; friction velocity ("(q/o) Df based on cylinder face
O
; LCS phase velocity e entrained #uid; excitation; boundary layer edge
(
x chordwise or surface-wise coordinate (from exc excursions
the origin) h based on step height
X normal distance from delta-wing LE to reat- i refers to upstream conditions

tachment line j refers to two-dimensional jet issuing from a slot
X recirculation bubble length f based in #ap length
X airfoil center of pressure max maximum value

X distance from slot or actuator to trailing edge mean time-mean value

y cross-stream normal coordinate min minimum value
y reference distance at ;"(; #; ) opt optimum value
    
or ;"; ro naturally occurring attachment
 
z spanwise coordinate r relating to attachment
a instantaneous incidence angle R relating to di!user ramp length
a mean incidence angle so naturally occurring separation
d, d #ap de#ection angle s relating to separation; static stall
D
d(x) boundary layer thickness (as a function of x) st relating to a step
d vorticity thickness R free-stream conditions
T
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 489

7.3. E$ciency considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510

7.4. Performance enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
7.5. Control of post-stall unsteadiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
7.6. High-lift systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
7.7. Airfoil drag anomalies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
8. Di!user studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
9. Excitation of reattaching #ows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
9.1. Natural excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
9.2. Imposed excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
10. E!ects of curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
10.1. Maximum pressure recovery and concave curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
10.2. Convex curvature*Coanda cylinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
10.3. Constant curvature*the circular cylinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
11. Three-dimensional e!ects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
11.1. The swept back wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
11.2. The delta wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
11.3. Three-dimensional excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526
12. Engineering implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527
13. Dynamic separation control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527
13.1. Unsteady separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527
13.2. Onset of dynamic stall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527
13.3. Forced dynamic attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529
14. Control of airfoil dynamic stall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
14.1. Experimental setup and objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
14.2. Summary of important results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
15. Conclusions and future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539

1. Introduction old tradition: the steady-yow assumption. Conventional

1.1. Flow separation: the problem
Flow separation is generally accepted to be the break-
away or detachment of #uid from a solid surface (e.g.
[1}4]). Whether caused by a severe adverse pressure
gradient (e.g. [5,6]), a geometrical aberration (e.g. [7,8])
or by any other means, separation is generally accom-
panied by signi"cant thickening of the rotational #ow
region adjacent to the surface with a marked increase in
the velocity component that is normal to the surface.
Thus our traditional means for analysis, namely the
boundary layer equations, are summarily invalidated.
Separation is almost always associated with losses of
some kind, including loss of lift, drag increase, pressure
recovery losses, etc. Consequently, engineers have been
preoccupied, for almost a century, with altering its loca-
tion or avoiding it entirely. The multitude and variety of
hydro and aerodynamic vehicles and devices, taken for
granted today, bear testimony to the tremendous ad-
vances that have been made in the development of means
that avoid or modify separation.
Notwithstanding these advances, the development of
commercial and military vehicle aerodynamics has been
severely stunted in recent decades. The underlying prob-
lem is a design philosophy which is steeped in a century
wisdom tells us that so-called steady two-dimensional
separation is well understood, with a satisfactory analyti-
cal foundation (e.g. [4]). Experimental data reveals, how-
ever, that separation is only steady in a time-averaged
sense, while the rich time-dependent coherence is acknow-
ledged, but it is certainly not exploited. For highly turbu-
lent #ows which are on the verge of separation (e.g. [5,9]),
or known to have an underlying deterministic structure
(e.g. turbo-machinery), the Reynolds-averaged equations
have limited the designer to basic assumptions which,
by their very de"nition, negate the phenomenon of time
dependence.
Apart from the need to delay transition and control
mixing, the familiar shapes of products which move
through #uids or determine #uid motion are a direct
consequence of the need to avoid separation. For
example, the maximum thickness or camber of wings,
and the length and shape of di!users and inlets, evolved
from this constraint whose norms are still dictated by the
steady-#ow assumption. For the better part of this cen-
tury, methods for aircraft control have been rooted in the
limiting steady-#ow assumptions. A classical example is
wing warping initiated by the Wright brothers (see, e.g.
[10]), which evolved into ailerons, #aps and slats prom-
inently displayed on today's aircraft (e.g. observe the
multitude of moving surfaces on a Boeing 747 prior to
490 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
landing). They are e!ective, but they are also complex,
costly, cumbersome and heavy. Consider a maneuverable
aircraft with no large moving parts or control surfaces, or
a single-rotor helicopter with no tail rotor or no heavy
NOTAR-type cylinder and compressor. Consider a coni-
cal di!user whose divergence angle exceeds 453, or thrust
vectored jet without vectoring nozzles. All of these are
possible, by adding periodic motion to the #ow rather
than traditional boundary layer control (BLC) methods,
discussed below, which involve injecting or removing
large amounts of momentum and mass in a steady
fashion. In fact, periodic addition of momentum can
attain the same degree of control authority as is achieved
by traditional BLC, with one important di!erence: the
cost, in terms of momentum input, is less by anything
from factors to orders of magnitude [11].
1.2. Traditional boundary layer control (BLC)
One year after the "rst powered #ight, Prandtl [12]
introduced the concept of the boundary layer and pro-
posed a means (i.e. suction through a slot) to control its
attachment to a solid surface. The next ten years saw
little progress in boundary layer research [13], but the
race for air superiority, spawned universal research and
development e!orts in which BLC studies were given
high a priority. The depth and breadth of international
research up to the early 1960s is apparent from the two
volumes edited by Lachmann [14,15], which provided
exhaustive treatment of theoretical, experimental as well
as applied BLC methods. The contributions indicated
that steady blowing or suction from various locations on
the wing surface, and on various con"gurations, could
produce signi"cant increases in lift as well as reductions
in drag. In fact, a large number of experimental aircraft
were built, which convincingly demonstrated the e!ec-
tiveness of BLC. Some of these aircraft reached mass
production (for example Lockheed's F-104, which re-
mained in production from 1955 to 1983 and the MIG-21
of which thousands still #y in the former Eastern Bloc and
in `Non-Aligneda countries), but BLC fell far short of the
high expectations of the 1960s. There were two main
reasons for this: "rstly, the plumbing systems required for
BLC introduced excessive technical complexity and
weight, and secondly, the systems were not e$cient, re-
quiring auxiliary compressors or excessive compressor
bleed in order to obtain meaningful lift enhancements
(see, e.g. [16]). Some BLC systems, such as that used on
the MIG-21, utilize engine combustion gases and rely on
the thermal inertia of the plumbing to withstand the heat
for the short duration of application prior to landing.
1.3. Flow control by excitation
The seeds for #ow control by excitation were sewn by
Schubauer and Skramstad [17] who introduced periodic
perturbations in a laminar boundary layer to trigger
a known instability, i.e. to initiate Tollmien-Schlichting
(TS) waves. This breakthrough technique became a ma-
jor diagnostic aid for studying #ow stability but it was
also considered a tool for controlling laminar separ-
ation and transition (e.g. [18,19]). Since periodic per-
turbations trigger a premature transition to turbulence
and a turbulent #ow is less susceptible to separation, #ow
separation could be delayed by initiating transition.
Sound was initially used to demonstrate these ideas on
airfoils at low Reynolds numbers (see [20]). Although
laminar}turbulent transition could be e!ected, the
manipulation of turbulent shear #ows was traditionally
considered to be unattainable because of the belief that
turbulence is a random process, determined largely by
local #ow conditions. However, experiments such as
those of Brown and Roshko [21] and Winant and
Browand [22] in the mixing layer demonstrated that
large coherent structures (LCSs) are primarily respon-
sible for the transport of momentum across the #ow
domain. Moreover, the introduction of periodic mechan-
ical excitation at the #ow origin was shown to be an
e$cient and convenient method for the control of mixing
(e.g. [23}25]). Excitation accelerates and regulates the
generation of large coherent structures, particularly when
the mean #ow is unstable, thereby transferring high mo-
mentum #uid across the mixing layer.
The last decade has witnessed progress in #ow control
where the fundamental studies of the 1970s and 1980s,
such as those in free shear layers (see [26,27]), set the
scene for e!ective, e$cient and practical separation con-
trol. Speci"cally, it was shown that a turbulent mixing
layer could be attached to a de#ected surface [28,29] and
the ensuing attached #ow separation could be delayed
[30,31] by periodic addition of momentum with or with-
out the concomitant addition of mass #ux. The same
concept was also applied to airfoils (e.g. [32,34]) and was
further extended to other applications. This method was
shown to be much more e!ective than the traditional
steady blowing and at times attained a saving of two
orders of magnitude in the momentum coe$cient re-
quired to achieve a prescribed improvement in perfor-
mance. The actuators required may thus be autonomous,
small, light, energy e$cient and decoupled from the main
propulsive systems } thereby overcoming all of the de"-
ciencies of traditional BLC.
To date, separation control (acoustic or hydrodynamic)
has been demonstrated in a wide variety of relatively
simple con"gurations, such as #ow over backward-facing
steps and ramps (e.g. [35,36]), on sharp leading-edge
wedges [37], on blu! bodies (e.g. [38,39]), on various
airfoils (e.g. [40}42]), delta wings [43], circular cylinders
(see e.g. [44]) and behind two-dimensional fences (e.g.
[45]). These studies laid the groundwork for an extremely
wide variety of potential future applications to both "xed
wing (e.g. [46]) as well as rotary wing (e.g. [47]) aircraft.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
The emphasis of this paper is on experimental data
which either isolate parameters governing separation
control or elucidate underlying physical mechanisms.
This paper does not cover other issues related to
separation control, including theoretical (e.g. [48,49]) or
computational prediction methods (e.g. [50}52,216,217]),
energy-e$cient micro-elecromechanical systems (MEMS
} e.g. [53]) for actuation, `smarta or adaptive structures
(e.g. [54]), separation detection methods (e.g. [55]) and
control theory/neural-nets (e.g. [56,57]). This paper also
does not cover passive methods of separation control,
even those which may exploit #ow instabilities (see e.g.
[4]). As the title suggests, the content of this paper is
limited to #ows where separation is controlled by excita-
tion, i.e. an inherent instability is exploited to achieve the
desired results. Consequently, separation control by
blowing and suction or actuation which does not clearly
exploit #ow instability (e.g. [58,59]), or similar methods
which create pseudo-surfaces (e.g. [47]), are not con-
sidered to be within the scope of this paper.
In writing this article, the authors have endeavored to
incorporate enough background material for the non-
expert, while still maintaining adequate scope and depth
for practitioners of the art. The authors also wish to point
out that this review is unavoidably biased in favor of
their own work as well as that of their colleagues. As
such, important studies pertaining to separation control
may have been unintentionally omitted. One positive
aspect of this, however, is that relevant data, hitherto
languishing in Hebrew-language graduate theses, is now
available to the general reader.
2. Objectives, scope and layout
The global objective of this paper is to review separ-
ation control by periodic excitation. The emphasis of the
review is placed on hydrodynamic, as opposed to acous-
tic, excitation methods since these have become domi-
nant in recent years. However, acoustic excitation as well
as traditional active BLC methods, such as steady blow-
ing and suction, are initially discussed in order to provide
an appropriate historical background and isolate those
aspects that are important in the context of this review.
The review continues with a summary of the excited
plane mixing layer, as well as some actuation methods,
and emphasizes those aspects which are important from
a separation control perspective. This is followed by an
examination of the generic #ap data, which illustrates
some of the basic principles of separation control and
provides a context for the remainder of the review. This is
followed by aspects of actuators (excitation methods),
which relate to the content of the review. Since separ-
ation control on airfoils represents the area of most
active recent research, a detailed review of these studies is
presented.
491
The review also considers other `fundamentala con"g-
urations, such as excited separation bubbles over back-
ward-facing steps and axially mounted blunt cylinders.
Important aspects of curvature are highlighted by con-
sidering excitation in conjunction with cross-#ow over
circular cylinders, the excited `Stratford rampa and the
in#uence of excitation on the wall jet #owing over a con-
vex surface (the Coanda e!ect). Three-dimensional e!ects
are considered by examining the e!ect of sweep and
delta-wing studies. Various applications, such as applica-
tions of excitation to separation control on unmanned air
vehicles (UAVs), are also considered.
The last part of the review is dedicated to dynamic
e!ects associated with excitation-controlled separation,
where once again the de#ected #ap is used as the guiding
paradigm. An approach is adopted which emphasizes the
di!erence between the time-scales of #ows which separ-
ate or attach dynamically and time scales associated with
separation control. Furthermore, the e!ect of dynamic
stall control by excitation, on oscillating airfoils, is con-
sidered.
3. Historical perspective=basic principles
3.1. Boundary layer control (BLC)
Boundary layer (or #ow) control, as a means of preven-
ting separation, has traditionally been associated with
the injection of #uid to, or the removal of a #uid from,
a boundary layer; or the motion of a surface in the
general direction of the stream (e.g. [60,61]). Excitation
can often be regarded as oscillatory addition of momentum
as opposed to steady addition of momentum. Moreover,
steady momentum or mass (blowing or suction) may be
superimposed on excitation and therefore a brief review
of the traditional BLC, from an excitation perspective, is
appropriate here. Furthermore, for much of the data
presented in this review oscillatory and steady addition
of momentum are compared in order to provide a quant-
itative assessment of excitation.
Historically, suction was the "rst method ever pro-
posed for the control of separation [12]. The basic
principle is to remove decelerated #uid near a surface
and de#ect the high-momentum free-stream #uid to-
wards the surface. The remarkable e!ects of suction
were demonstrated on a variety of wind tunnel models
and even on experimental aircraft (e.g. [62,63]) but, to
date, the method has not been applied to the wings or
control surfaces of a production aircraft. Due to the
mechanical complexity and additional weight, any
aerodynamic gains made by suction are o!set by the
power required to operate the suction device (e.g. [62]).
The e!ect of superimposing a small amount of suction
on excitation, however, is considered in this review in
Section 6.3.
492 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
The purpose of steady blowing is to directly impart
additional momentum to retarded #uid within the
boundary layer near the surface and thus delay separ-
ation [61,64]. Blowing is usually achieved by an auxiliary
blower or compressor bleed (e.g. [65]), but can also be
achieved passively by diverting #uid from the free-
stream to the surface. (Probably the most successful ap-
plication of passive blowing is through the use of a slot
that allows air from the lower surface of an upstream
wing-element to pass over the upper surface of a down-
stream wing-element. Passive blowing in conjunction
with excitation for high-lift devices is considered in
Section 7.6.1.) Steady blowing has been investigated
for a variety of di!erent locations on wings but the most
successful application was that at the shoulder of a de-
#ected #ap [16].
Poisson-Quinton [66] showed that separation control
is governed by momentum (rather than mass) addition
and that a quantity, similar to the thrust coe$cient, was
required in order to quantify the propulsive e!ect of
blowing. Dimensional considerations gave rise to the
so-called momentum coe$cient, c , which remains the
I
standard measure of relative momentum addition. In
certain circumstances, particularly when the momentum
coe$cient is `lowa, i.e. c (2%, blowing can be detri-
I
mental [16,67]. (Note that momentum coe$cient is
quoted throughout in percentage terms for convenience
when compared with excitation.) Thus many investiga-
tions of steady blowing present data for c '3%. This is
I
primarily due to a local decrease in near-wall momentum
if the jet velocity does not exceed the local velocity
outside the boundary layer. Furthermore, Poisson-Quin-
ton and Lepage [68] showed that for c (5%, blowing
I
is most e!ective with the largest dC /dc being measured
* I
in this range. For larger c , boundary layer control is
I
superseded by circulation control which is less e!ective,
i.e. although lift continues to increase, dC /dc is re-
* I
duced.

BLC by means of surface motion generally involves
moving the surface at or close to the free-stream velocity
and thereby eliminating the boundary layer. Such
methods are mostly used in wind tunnels, for studying
ground e!ect and aerodynamics of cars, but other than
that they are technological failures due to insurmount-
able technical problems. Nevertheless, research on rotat-
ing cylinders located at blunt trailing edges (e.g. for truck
applications, e.g. [69]) continues to date. In the context
of excitation, surface motion generally applies to a #ip-
eron, fence, ribbon or any other mechanical device
which oscillates in some manner, thereby introducing
oscillatory momentum into the #ow.
 The term `#iperona is used to describe a small oscillating
#ap; the term &&#aperon'' generally refers to a combined #ap and
aileron.
3.2. Airfoil separation control by acoustic excitation
Until the 1960s, successful and practical approaches to
separation control relied on the principle of direct mo-
mentum addition to the near-wall region, as discussed
in the previous section. In 1975, however, Collins and
Zelenevitz [20] demonstrated that acoustic excitation
can increase the momentum near the surface by transfer-
ring it from the free-stream, without resorting to the
traditional, direct injection of momentum. Following this
experiment, acoustic excitation was demonstrated on
a variety of airfoils and experimental facilities, usually at
low Reynolds Numbers. The technique involves intro-
ducing sound into a wind-tunnel from the walls of the
test section (e.g. [70,71]) by using speakers or acoustic
drivers. An example of how these disturbances are intro-
duced is provided by Zaman et al. [70] who showed
that excitation was e!ective whenever acoustic standing
waves in the tunnel induced a transverse velocity com-
ponent close to the airfoil surface. These investigations
provided some impetus for current advances because
they demonstrated that separation control can be
achieved by means of an externally supplied excitation
source. (Studies involving `internal acoustic excitationa
are not quoted here since, within the framework of this
article, these are considered hydrodynamic disturbances
(or oscillatory addition of momentum) and are cited in
Section 7.)
A summary of representative investigations, with
important results, is presented in Table 1. The table
illustrates both the important bene"cial results as
well as some drawbacks. Firstly, it can be seen that
separation control is not con"ned to a particular type
or class of airfoil. In fact, excitation can be bene"cial
on a #at plate [74] as well as on a 17% thickness-to-
chord ratio airfoil such as Ahuja et al.'s [71] GA(W)-1.
Furthermore, increases in C at a given incidence (but
*
not C ) can be signi"cant } typically on the order
*
of 50%.
The drawbacks, however, outweigh these positive as-
pects. Consider for example, the extensive investigations
of Ahuja et al. [71] and Zaman et al. [70]. Here, excita-
tion is facility dependent, since the acoustic drivers em-
ployed by Zaman et al. and Ahuja et al. e!ectively excited
the respective wind tunnel's resonant modes, which in
turn excited the separating shear layers, thus leaving
serious doubts concerning aircraft applications. This was
re#ected, for example by signi"cant lift increases at some
incidence angles, with lift decrement at others. Moreover,
high levels of excitation were required, up to 156 db
in order to obtain some signi"cant e!ects, once again
calling into question the practical application of the
method. A further problem arises when attempting
to compare the various investigations since there is no
uniform measurement location, with sound levels
being measured at the wall or on the airfoil surface.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 493

Table 1
Summary of airfoil data for acoustic excitation

Investigator (s) Airfoil Re (;10) Optimum St Disturbance or a range Max. *C

*
range input level (deg) (%)

Collins and Zelenevitz [20] NACA 2412 0.53 24}90 100}134 dB on airfoil 20, 24 56
Ahuja et al. [71] GA(W)-1 0.6 4 156 dB on wall &18 40
Ahuja and Burrin [72] NACA 65 -213 0.25 2.7 147 on airfoil 16 50

Marchmann et al. [73] Wortmann 0.2 27 * 15 *
Zaman et al. [70] LRN(1)-1007 0.04}0.14 1}5 104 dB on wall )8 50
4}25 *18
Nishioka et al. [74] Flat Plate 0.04 3.8}27 Below airfoil 8}14 *
Zaman [75] LRN(1)-1007 0.075 2}5 u/; )3% near LE 18 50


Furthermore, the method has only been demonstrated
for low Reynolds numbers, namely Re)600,000, and
therefore its e!ect on transition is intertwined with its
e!ect on separation.
An additional drawback is the large range of e!ective
reduced frequencies St"f c/; which varies widely, by
 
two orders of magnitude, from O(1) [76] to O(100) [20].
Certain investigations, however, indicate a pronounced
shift to lower St when the excitation levels are high. For
example, Zaman [75] showed that when the excitation
amplitude is increased, the optimum Strouhal number
can be orders of magnitude lower than that correspond-
ing to the linear inviscid stability of the separated shear
#ow. He demonstrated that lower Strouhal numbers
2)St)5, combined with `largea disturbance ampli-
tudes (u/; +3%) resulted in the highest lift in-

crements. Furthermore, with large disturbance levels of
&156 dB, Ahuja and his co-workers [71,72] observed
that St+4. In addition, Nishioka et al. observed that the
maximum rms associated with the vorticies generated by
excitation were four times larger for St"1.9 than for
St"30 when `stronga acoustic excitation was employed.
The above observations indicate a clear trend towards
lower e!ective frequencies St&O(1) at high excitation
levels.
Despite the above-mentioned drawbacks, acoustic ex-
citation illustrated the e!ectiveness of excitation per se
and the principle that separation delay is e!ective at
lower frequencies when excitation amplitudes are
large. These observations form an important prerequisite
for the discussion that follows. It is also important to
note that excitation amplitudes for acoustic excitation
are typically u/; )3% (near separation), while rela-

tive steady blowing jet velocities are ; /; *200%
H 
for typical blowing-slot widths. The interval between
these two limits is enormous but remains impractical in
the context of either steady blowing or acoustic excita-
tion. This paper will show, however, that it is in this
`middle grounda that hydrodynamic excitation is most
e!ective.
4. The excited mixing-layer=basis for separation control
The previous section indicated that excitation of
the separated shear layer was an important factor
a!ecting separation control. In this connection, two im-
portant questions arise: Firstly, why should excitation of
the shear layer be important for understanding separ-
ation control? Secondly, what are the reasons for the
large range of e!ective excitation frequencies? To begin
answering these questions, consider the statistical, time-
mean, description of the shear layer } where, in general,
two streams (of velocity ; and ; , ; (; ) are pres-
   
ent (cf. [77,78]). Disregarding, for now, the existence of
coherent motion in the mixing layer, the high degree of
shear at the discontinuity generates turbulence which
accelerates the slower (or stagnant) #uid, entraining it
into the mixing layer, while concurrently the faster
stream slows down.
If we now consider the coherent motion, speci"cally
when subjected to excitation, (e.g. [23,26,27,79,209]), it is
widely accepted that large quasi-deterministic, vortical,
spanwise structures are the essential `building blocksa of
the mixing layer and are responsible for virtually all of
the momentum transfer across its extent. It has been
clearly shown that the spreading rate, and hence the
entrainment, can be signi"cantly altered by two-dimen-
sional, small amplitude (large, in terms of acoustic excita-
tion) excitation applied at the origin of the shear layer
(see, e.g. [23]). For example, observe the smoke #ow
visualization patterns in a mixing layer that is excited at
two di!erent frequencies in Figs. 1a and b.
Consider now the non-dimensionalized development
of a mixing layer presented in Fig. 2, which is periodically
excited at its origin by small amplitude perturbations,
and is divided into three regions (see [23]). The portion of
the mixing layer downstream of the excitation location
 More detailed answers to these questions are presented in
Sections 6 and 7.
494 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 1. Flow visualization of a two-dimensional mixing layer
excited at two di!erent frequencies [(a) 40 Hz and (b) 80 Hz)]
showing large spanwise vortical structures which are responsible
for large-scale momentum transfer. Ratio of upper to lower
stream velocity: ; /; "0.4 [23].
 
Fig. 2. Dimensionless spreading rate of the actively excited
mixing layer showing the division into three regions (adapted
from [27]).
(region I of Fig. 2) diverges, principally as a result of the
ampli"cation of quasi two-dimensional waves, enhanced
by a Kelvin}Helmholz instability mechanism (e.g.
[23,80]). At some point, the mixing layer becomes neu-
trally stable to the imposed disturbances and if larger
scales are not present, its growth ceases over a signi"cant
streamwise extent. This occurs at a momentum thickness-
based Strouhal number h>"hf /;M +0.075, where

;M "(; #; )/2 and is referred to as region II. The
 
location underlying the onset of neutral stability depends
upon the frequency and amplitude of excitation. This
onset is associated with `rollupa of instability waves into
discrete vorticies and if lower frequency waves are also
present in the #ow, vortex merging may be the dominant
factor further downstream. For this example, region II
extends over the approximate range 1(Rf >(2, where
f >"f x/;M and R"(; !; )/(; #; ). Beyond
    
Rf >+2, the mixing layer continues to spread linearly
(region III), although the spreading rate is somewhat
lower than in the linearly unstable region (region I).
The above description relates the frequency of the
imposed excitation to the spreading-rate of the mixing
layer, and indicates its e!ect on the momentum transfer
across it. A large spreading rate implies that a larger
volume of #uid is entrained from the slower (or stagnant)
#uid. As a simpli"ed example to illustrate the rami"ca-
tions for separation control, assume that only one stream
is present, say the top stream (; ), and that a `virtual

#apa is de#ected below the mixing layer (see Fig. 3). The
premise adopted here is that the #ow will `attacha to the
virtual #ap when the mass of #uid entrained into the
mixing layer (M ) exceeds that available for entrainment

(M ). From Fig. 3 it can easily be shown that

1 V
M /M J d(x) dx (4.1)
 x
 
over an arbitrary streamwise distance x . Now, since

h(x)Jd(x), h>,f h(x)/; and f >,f x/; , equation
     
(4.1) can be written as

1 D>
M /M J h>( f >) df > (4.2)
 f >
 
where f >,f x /U . Numerical integration of the data
    
presented in Fig. 2, are shown in Fig. 4 and indicate that
the optimum momentum transfer is attained when
( f >) "O(1), where small variations in excitation am-
 
plitude are assumed to be responsible for the experi-
mental scatter. Notwithstanding the scatter, Fig. 4 shows
that the shear layer neutral stability is a crucial factor in
establishing the optimum reduced frequency.
It should be noted, however, that higher excitation
levels cause an overshoot of h> in region II, followed by
a contraction to a lower value, thus resulting in a higher
( f >) (e.g. [80]). Furthermore, halving the excitation
 
amplitude can also result in a higher ( f > ) (e.g.
 
[215,27]). Therefore, without precise quanti"cation of the
disturbance amplitude (or periodic momentum addition),
determination of ( f >) can only be expected to yield an
 
order of magnitude approximation. It is therefore ex-
pected * and indeed will be shown * that the same
principle applies to attaching a free shear layer to a real
surface. Thus the above discussion partially answers the
questions posed at the beginning of this section, while in
Section 6 and the remaining sections, the practical im-
plications of the above mentioned arguments will be-
come apparent within the context of separation control.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 3. Mean-#ow mixing layer schematic for illustrating the mass ratio of #uid entrained (M ) to #uid available for entrainment (M ).
Fig. 4. Numerical integration of the data presented in Fig.
2 according to Eq. (4.2).
5. Actuators and actuation
This paper is concerned primarily with the e!ects of
actuation and does not consider the speci"c character-
istics of individual actuators or actuation techniques.
However, some techniques are considered in as much as
they apply to the objectives of this paper. In this context,
actuators are considered to be devices that interact with
the #ow hydrodynamically to produce oscillatory addi-
tion of momentum, with or without superimposed mass
(5.1)
#ux. Thus, externally mounted acoustic drivers, used for
acoustic excitation (e.g. [70,71]) perturb the entire `free
streama in the wind tunnel and are further enhanced in
the regions of concentrated vorticity (such as the tunnel
wall boundary layers) that are receptive to the imposed
excitation. Therefore, excitation of the ambient #ow does
not fall into this category.
Periodic #ow oscillation can be achieved from two-
dimensional slots by means of internally mounted
495

speakers/acoustic drivers, [81], pistons, oscillatory-#ow
valve-systems [82] or piezoelectric-based diaphragms
(see [47]), etc. When no net mass-#ux is superimposed
on these #ows, they are sometimes referred to as syn-
thetic-jets (e.g. [83]) or Zero Mass Blowing jets (ZMBs).
Furthermore, periodic #ow disturbances can be achieved
by surface mounted mechanical actuators such as rib-
bons (e.g. [33]), #iperons [81], piezo-based benders [84]
etc., where the common denominator in all cases is
the oscillatory addition of momentum to the #ow. It
should be noted that the term `microa, as in Micro-
electromechanical System (MEMS), generally `means
small compared to the scale of the overall #ow to be
controlleda [85] and thus includes the devices referred to
above.
5.1. Quantifying momentum addition
An attempt has been made in this paper to standardize
the quanti"cation of momentum addition as much as
possible. In concordance with historical and practical
considerations (see Section 4.1), the oscillatory mo-
mentum coe$cient is quoted or inferred wherever pos-
sible. For a 2-D con"guration, we de"ne the total (mean
and oscillatory) momentum coe$cient as a ratio of the
momentum added, to that in the free-stream, namely
(see [66]):
o ;G
C "
I 1/2o ;
 
where j refers to a two-dimensional jet, G is either the slot
width h or step-height g, and is usually taken as the
length of the body under consideration (e.g. chord c, or
#ap length ).
D
The jet velocity in this instance contains both mean
and oscillatory components: ; ";M #u . Substituting
the mean and oscillatory components into Eq. (5.1),
496 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545

considering incompressible #uid, and time averaging, was provided by an acoustic speaker, as well as a #iperon
gives to delay #ow separation from a de#ected surface
(described in Section 6). Figs. 5a and b show the results of



2G ;M  2G u  excitation by both methods for 1c 2"0.02 and 0.01%,
C "
#
(5.2) I
I ; ; respectively, on the #ow separation delay angle d . The
  Q
"gures clearly demonstrate the appropriateness of the
where u is the mean square of the oscillatory jet velocity

quantity 1c 2 for quantifying oscillatory momentum
component. When steady and oscillatory momentum are I
addition as well as the equivalent net e!ect of di!erent
added simultaneously, the momentum coe$cient is ex-
actuation methods.
pressed in the shorthand form: C "(c , 1c 2), where the
I I I It should be noted that for all airfoil data presented, for
term enclosed in parentheses refers to the two right-hand
example in Section 7, C is always based on the chord of
side terms in Eq. (5.2) and the overbar is dropped for I
the airfoil. This has been done for historical reasons, but
convenience. In this paper, when no confusion arises (i.e.
may not be the most accurate measure of the e!ectiveness
we employ either steady or oscillatory addition of mo-
of excitation. For example, it may be more appropriate to
mentum), we simply use the term C .
I base C on the length measured downstream of the
In order to remain consistent with the above de"ni- I
excitation location, i.e. X , much like the de"nition of
tion, when no slot is present and excitation is achieved by 
F> (see Section 6).
a mechanical means, the oscillatory momentum coe$c-
ient is de"ned by


1 
1c 2" o u dy (5.3)
I 1/2o ; 
   The description and calibration principles presented
where u is the #uctuating component of velocity adjacent
to, and downstream of, the actuator. Although basic
design di!erences exist between two di!erent methods of
actuation, from an excitation viewpoint we regard their
net e!ect on the #ow at a given frequency to be virtually
identical. An example of this is provided by Nishri [81],
who used both a two-dimensional slot, where excitation
5.2. Some aspects of actuator calibration
above are necessarily simpli"ed to be consistent with the
objectives of this review. Within the ambit of #ow and
separation control, however, a wide variety of di!erent
actuator types have been proposed, where a simple calib-
ration based on the above arguments is not straightfor-
ward (e.g. [86]). As an example, consider the schematics
of two relatively simple surface-mounted actuator-types

Fig. 5. A comparison of two di!erent methods of excitation (periodic slot blowing/suction by means of an acoustic speaker and
excitation by means of a #iperon) on the maximum angle that a #ap can be de#ected without separating, (a) 1c 2"0.02%, (b)
I
1c 2"0.01% (adapted from [81]).
I
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 497

Fig. 6. An example of surface mounted elements used for separation control by excitation (a) two-dimensional surface-mounted #iperon
(or ribbon), (e.g. [33,87,88]); (b) similar to (a) but with a cavity below the actuator; (c) top view of multiple-element three-dimensional
actuation [84].

presented in Figs. 6a and b. Fig. 6a shows the side view of
a two-dimensional surface-mounted #iperon (or ribbon),
which is hinged on one side and oscillates about the hinge
between the wall and the stream (e.g. [33,87}89]). As the
actuator moves downwards it expels the #uid between it
and the surface and generates a transient #ow that is
similar to a wall jet. As the actuator moves upwards it
generates a positive (clockwise) vortex which is shed
downstream at some point during the downward motion
[87]. Thus there are at least two mechanisms by which
this simple device can add momentum to the #ow. In
reality, additional factors become important such as the
height and nature of the upstream boundary layer rela-
tive to the actuator dimensions and bending modes of the
actuator itself. Thus the calibration and characterization
of the #ow-"eld generated by this relatively simple device
is a challenge in itself.
The schematic con"guration presented in Fig. 6b has
an additional complexity due to the existence of a cavity
into which the actuator descends (see [84]). In this in-
stance, as the actuator descends into the cavity, the cavity
#uid is compressed and a jet issues from between the
actuator tip and the cavity trailing-edge (TE). Seifert et al.
[84] introduced a further innovation by replacing the
two-dimensional actuator with an array of "nite-span
actuator that are adjacent to one another (three such
actuators are shown in Fig. 6c). The actuators were then
operated in anti-phase (1803 out-of-phase), e.g. when the
center actuator shown in Fig. 6c was at its peak upper
position, the two adjacent actuators were at their lowest
position in the cavity, and vice versa. The authors refer-
red to this as a three-dimensional mode of excitation and
for purposes of calibration, this introduced additional
complexity. Data relating to separation control using
these actuators in the two-dimensional (in-phase) and
three-dimensional (anti-phase) modes is presented in
Section 7.3.
6. Fundamentals of separation control 0 the de6ected
6ap
When considering the basic principles of separation
control, a question bound to arise is: Why use a straight
de#ected #ap as the quintessential model for demonstrat-
ing separation control? There are other important gen-
eral aerodynamic shapes, which have been extensively
studied, such as certain airfoils or cylinders, which would
appear to take precedence. There are a number of com-
pelling reasons for this: Firstly, the de#ected #ap is the
498 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545

ubiquitous time-honored high-lift device of choice. Sec-

ondly, attachment of otherwise separated #ow to a #ap,
not only has profound impact on lift, but is the most
technologically successful form of BLC to date. Thirdly,
the general problem being considered is complex, with
many independent variables and no general theoretical
model. Thus the elimination of e!ects such as curvature
as well as uncertain upstream conditions (laminar,
transitional or turbulent) and moving separation loca-
tions, such as occur on airfoils, are vital. With a geomet-
rically simple con"guration, one can isolate the most
important governing parameters. Fourthly, for a basic
Fig. 7. Schematic representation of the generic #ap and shoul-
understanding, it is essential to avoid complications asso- der region (cf. [81]).
ciated with three-dimensional e!ects such as those on
a delta wing [90,91]. Fifthly, the control of separation
over a de#ected #ap illustrates the important di!erences
between forced attachment of a separated #ow and separ-
ation delay, which are entirely di!erent phenomena and
require di!erent ranges of dimensionless parameters for
e!ective control. For `simplea con"gurations such as
#ow separation from a backward-facing step (e.g. [35])
the location of separation is established by the geometry
and thus periodic excitation deals with the issue of reat-
tachment only. Similarly, forced separation on a #at sur-
face (e.g. [59]) will always involve a #ow that has already
separated and then reattaches further downstream.
A sixth, and "nal, point is that the #ap allows detailed
study of dynamic attachment as well as separation (dy-
namic stall) for a geometrically static scenario with
a minimum of additional parameters. It has recently been
Fig. 8. Minimum C required to attach an initially separated
shown that this is critical for understanding the prin- I
#ow to a de#ected #ap, as a function of F> for various values of
ciples of dynamic stall control [181], and is discussed
*d (from [31,81]).
further in Section 13. 

6.1. Governing parameters occurs in the absence of periodic excitation) or to d , the

Consider a generic-#ap con"guration (Fig. 7), where
the upstream boundary layer is fully turbulent and dis-
turbances are introduced either by two-dimensional jet
excitation or a #iperon (see [31,81]). Dimensional analy-
sis shows that dependent variables, such as bubble-length
X or C describing the state of the #ow over the #ap, are
. I
primarily functions of the variables:
*d, x/ , F>, C
D I
The parameter *d describes a de#ection that exceeds the
angles at which separation or reattachment occur nat-
urally, i.e.: *d "(d !d ), *d "(d !d ). In this way
     
the initial condition of the #ow is accounted for, since d
is either referred to d (the angle at which separation

 Note that in this paper, attachment is used in the context of
a #ow which was initially separated; a reattachment location

implies an upstream separation location with a bubble or recir-
culation region between the two.

angle at which attachment occurs. The dimensionless
frequency: F>,f X /; , where X is the distance
   
between the excitation location and #ap trailing edge.
Thus for the current #ap con"guration X , . As in
 D
Section 5, total momentum coe$cient above is desig-
nated: C ,(c , 1c 2), and at times is used to denote
I I I
either steady momentum c or periodic excitation 1c 2.
I
With the #ow (shear layer) initially detached from the
#ap, the introduction of two dimensional, periodic oscil-
lations increase entrainment from the `dead-air regiona
above the #ap and ultimately lead to #ow attachment.
Fig. 8 shows the minimum C required to attach the #ow
I
as a function of F> [31,81]. The "gure clearly indicates
that that F>+1 is the optimum reduced frequency and
that this result is Reynolds number independent. This
data ties in with the discussion presented in Section 4,
and shows that the determination of an optimum F> can
only be considered accurate if it is associated with the
minimum excitation amplitude, Ck with that of the
excited shear layer presented in Section 4 (cf. 1)
( f >) )1.4) and indicates, in a clear and convincing
 
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
manner, how entrainment and shear layer stability a!ect
#ow attachment.
After attaching, the #ow encloses a large bubble whose
size may be reduced by increasing F> or C or both (this
I
will be discussed further in Section 9.2 in the context
of unconditionally attached bubbles). Determination of
the minimum C for separation prevention can be made
I D
in the same manner as that for e!ecting attachment,
and is centered around the dimensionless frequencies
2&(F>:4. At high excitation frequencies (F>94) the
#ow separates from the trailing edge since the Large
Coherent Structures (LCSs) dissipate before reaching the
end of the #ap. Hysteresis between attached and separ-
ated conditions is typical to this bi-stable #ow and it may
be induced not only by changing d, but also by changing
some of the other parameters listed above such as F> and
C . In general the ratio between the 1c 2 required for
I I P
attachment and the 1c 2 needed to prevent separation
I 
may be as large as an order of magnitude.
6.2. Basic mechanisms
Upon reattachment, due to periodic excitation at
F>&O(1), the mean bubble dimension is commensurate
with the length of the #ap and a similar bubble may exist
just prior to complete separation. The time-averaged
pressure distribution shown in Fig. 9a for C "0.01% is
I
Fig. 9. (a) Time-mean pressure distribution and (b) time mean
vorticity contours on the de#ected #ap, showing the approxim-
ate bubble size (from [33,93]).
499
indicative of this situation, where there is an almost
constant pressure region extending up to 30% of the #ap
length, followed by an increase in pressure up to the
trailing edge. Flow-"eld measurements with a PIV, show
time-mean vorticity contours (Fig. 9b) and the mean
streamline tM "0 indicated that the bubble dimensions
vary between 40}55% of depending on the value of
C used for the prescribed (d!d ). The #ow can be
I 
maintained in this state as long as the C supplied pro-
I
vides a su$cient margin of safety to prevent separation
by a bubble-bursting mechanism. Since the #ow bound-
ing the bubble is similar to the familiar mixing layer
(at least over the initial, constant pressure region), an
increase in the excitation frequency shortens X for two
reasons. Firstly, the streamwise distance between success-
ive rolled-up vortices decreases and secondly these struc-
tures amplify over a shorter distance from the actuator or
slot and thus the ampli"cation terminates closer up-
stream than for those structures generated at lower fre-
quencies. Since dissipation takes over further down-
stream, the perturbations may decay below the threshold
required for keeping the #ow attached. As a consequence,
there is a limit to separation control by a simple increase
in the excitation frequency. Since the e!ectiveness of the
momentum transfer mechanism diminishes over the in-
creasing distance between the reattachment location and
the trailing edge of the #ap, separation reoccurs when the
local disturbance amplitude falls below the threshold
level required for that de#ection angle (provided d'd ).

Under these circumstances, separation commences near
the trailing edge where the amplitudes of the imposed
perturbations have dissipated.
The pressure distribution over the #ap, when the am-
plitude of the imposed perturbations was decreased to
Fig. 10. Time-mean pressure distribution on the #ap at two
reduced excitation frequencies (from [31,81]).
500 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 11. Phase-locked vorticity contours on the #ap at various
stages of the excitation cycle (from [33,93]). Same conditions as
Fig. 9.
the minimum level necessary to keep the #ow attached
(i.e. to C +(10\%), is very sensitive to F>. Two limit-
I 
ing cases are shown in Fig. 10. At F>"0.7, the reduction
in amplitude generated a mean bubble whose dimensions
were commensurate with the length of the #ap. Thus,
a small additional increase in the bubble length caused it
to burst. In this case the #ow is already separated over
most of the #ap in spite of the large normal force it
generates. At F>"7.5 the size of the bubble was insigni-
"cant but the boundary layer at the trailing edge was
thick and depleted of momentum. Thus a small reduction
in C caused separation which propagated upstream
I I
from the trailing edge.
Although the resulting time-mean #ow-"eld is of pri-
mary practical importance, it belies the generation and
evolution of the LCSs, which are its very basis for exist-
Fig. 12. Phase-locked pressure distributions on the #ap at vari-
ous stages of the excitation cycle (from [33,93]). Same conditions
as Fig. 9.
ence. Insight into this process, which is independent of
Reynolds number, is provided by phase-locked PIV vor-
ticity measurements (Fig. 11) [92] and phase-locked sur-
face pressures (Fig. 12). Fig. 11 shows the high degree of
structural coherence near the origin of excitation as well
as the relatively slow moving structures in this region.
Further downstream, the structures dissipate due to tur-
bulent di!usion with a concomitant increase in their
phase velocities. Thus the apparent time-mean recircula-
tion bubble is, for the most part, a manifestation of these
traveling structures. These observations are re#ected by
phase-locked pressure data which indicate the progress-
ively increasing wavelength with distance along the
#ap (see the successively increasing wavelength j with
distance downstream in Fig. 12). The high degree of
vorticity coherence is associated with relatively large
surface pressure excursions and the increasing phase-
velocity j ) f .
6.3. Ewect of net mass-yux
Consider an initially separated #ow over the de#ected
#ap, under the conditions Re"0.45;10 and
(d !d )"1.53. Initiating steady blowing, at c "0.1%,
  I
did not attach the #ow to the #ap (Fig. 13). Attachment
was only achieved when c "0.18% and enclosed a large
I
bubble that extended over most of the #ap. The bubble
was still present at c "0.4% (see Fig. 13) in the absence
of oscillatory input. Gradually reducing the blowing
intensity resulted in total separation when c "0.18%.
I
Flow attachment by periodic excitation required only
1c 2+0.012% at a reduced frequency of F>"1.5 while
I
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 501

Fig. 13. Surface pressures for steady blowing, excitation and

a combination of the two (from [81]).

separation was prevented at 1c 2+0.002% at F>"3.

I
These were close to the optimal frequencies for the
respective conditions (see [31]), indicating that, for
blowing, attachment required 15 times more momentum
input while 90 times more momentum was required for
separation prevention.
A combination of steady and oscillatory blowing was
not very e!ective in this case either, because the slot was
located where separation occurred naturally and there-
fore there was no need to advect the imposed oscillations
further downstream. For example, oscillatory amplitude
of 1c 2"0.02% generated a bubble that covered less
I
than 40% of the #ap chord (according to the criterion
discussed by Nishri and Wygnanski [31]), and had
a minimum C "!0.8 (Fig. 13). The steady c of 0.4%
. I
was inferior, since it contained a bubble whose length
was 60% of the chord. A combination of blowing and
excitation at a combined C ,(c , 1c 2)"(0.1, 0.02)%
I I I
was inferior to pure excitation at 1c 2"0.02%. A com-
I
bined C "(0.18, 0.02)% was required to achieve, in this
I
case, the same results as excitation alone.
The mean vorticity distribution over the #ap, mea-
sured by PIV, with and without steady blowing is shown
in Figs. 14a and b, respectively. The closed contours
marked by dotted lines near the surface represent nega-
tive vorticity indicating the presence of reversed #ow,
while the rest represent positive vorticity. In the absence
of steady blowing, the mean #ow reattaches to the surface
around 40% of the #ap length [this was also deduced on
the basis of the pressure distribution (Fig. 13)]. The
positive vorticity downstream of the mean reattachment
position indicates a high level of skin friction, suggesting
that separation is not imminent. The addition of steady
blowing at a combined C "(0.16, 0.02)% resulted in
I
a longer and thicker average bubble that extended over
80% of the #ap and a weak positive vorticity region
downstream of reattachment. In addition, the maximum
vorticity contour in the vicinity of the slot was approxim-
Fig. 14. Time-mean vorticity contours, illustrating the di!er-
ence between excitation and excitation superimposed with
steady blowing (from [33,93]).
ately 50% lower than in the absence of steady blowing
(see [31,92]).
Detailed PIV measurements were carried out using
both steady suction or blowing that was superimposed
on the periodic excitation at F>"1.2 and
1c 2"0.02%. The steady #ow passing through the slot
I
was measured in terms of c , where net suction through
I
the slot is denoted as !c . The separating streamline
I
bounding the bubble, calculated from the PIV data for
various values of !0.16%*c *0.16%, is plotted in
I
Fig. 15. The "gure covers only 35% of the #ap length for
the sake of clarity. In the absence of steady mass #ow
though the slot the mean bubble boundary is initiated at
x/ +8% while the addition of blowing not only in-
D
creases the distance at which the bubble forms, but also
increases its height relative to the #ap. Suction, on the
other hand, initiates the bubble formation closer to the
slot and shortens its length. With c "!0.16%, the
I
bubble was initiated at x/ +4% and it reattached at
D
x/ +32%. One should remember however that this is
D
not a steady #ow (see Figs. 11 and 12) and therefore the
502 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 15. E!ect of steady blowing or suction, superimposed on
excitation, on bubble dimensions. Prevailing conditions:
d!d "63, F>"1.2 and 1c 2"0.02% (from [33,93]).
 I
mean streamlines represent boundaries that oscillate sub-
stantially around the average. For example in the ab-
sence of steady blowing and at one phase angle relative to
the excitation (
"03 in Fig. 11), the bubble is not visible cant fraction of this section will review selected represen-
at x/ (30% while at
"903 it is initiated at the slot. tative data. This section will also deal with a host of
D
At still another
"2703, the reverse #ow region is in- additional aspects that relate to airfoil separation con-
itiated at x/ +20% and it terminates at x/ (40%.
D D
In short, the travelling reverse #ow region near the solid
surface results from the clockwise eddies that are initiated
by the #apping motion of the mixing layer originating at
the discontinuity in the surface (the leading edge of the
#ap). These eddies feed on the spanwise vorticity avail-
able in the #ow and may induce a reverse #ow region
near the surface if their circulation is su$ciently strong.
A larger array of such eddies, resulting from higher
F> and 1c 2, may generate a net skin-friction thrust as
I
a consequence of averaging the mostly negative skin
friction. This idea is examined further in the context of
airfoils (see Sections 7.7 and 14.2.1), where periodic exci-
tation resulted in form drag exceeding the total drag.
In the context of #apped airfoils, pulsed blowing
(i.e. a combination of steady blowing and excitation
 *
discussed above) was observed to signi"cantly enhance
airfoil performance (e.g. [67]). It should be appreciated,
however, that the combined momentum coe$cients
used were approximately 10 times larger than those
considered here (for more details see Section 7.2).
7. Airfoil studies
It was pointed out in Section 4.2 that, historically,
acoustic excitation set the precedent for latter demon-
strations of airfoil separation delay by employing hy-
drodynamic excitation. Problems such as facility depend-
ence, high acoustic excitation levels, and a bewilderingly
large e!ective reduced frequency range (i.e. from O(1) to
O(100), see Section 3.2) added impetus to seek a di!erent
approach to excitation. The method employing hy-
drodynamic disturbances, or oscillatory addition of
momentum, was suggested by Viets et al. [94] and
Huang et al. [32] and demonstrated on speci"c airfoil
pro"les by Neuburger and Wygnanski [34] (also see
[95]). Numerous additional studies followed, e.g. Bar-
Sever [96], Hsiao et al. [97], Shepshelovich and Koss
[98], Chang [99], Seifert et al. [40}42], Hsiao et al.
[100], Darabi [101], Seifert et al. [67], Tinapp et al.
[102], Smith et al. [103], Seifert and Pack [104], Seifert
et al. [84], Naveh et al. [105] and others (see Table 2).
It will be shown in this section that, in contradistinc-
tion to acoustic excitation, these investigations are facil-
ity independent and they can signi"cantly enhance airfoil
performance at relatively modest expense. The e!ective
reduced frequencies, for the vast majority of investiga-
tions, occupy a relatively small range. Moreover, much of
the data will be compared with steady blowing, in order
to illustrate the relative e$ciency of the method. In recent
years, a disproportionately large emphasis has been
placed on NACA 0015 airfoil studies, and thus a signi"-
trol, including high-lift systems, high Re and high sub-
sonic Mach numbers (Ma) #ows and reduction of un-
steadiness associated with separation.
7.1. Controlling factors
The two most important questions that arise when
surveying a cross-section of experimental data are (a)
which investigations yield the most signi"cant airfoil per-
formance improvements and (b) what are the primary
controlling factors or parameters. Table 2 distils this in-
formation by considering airfoil type; Reynolds number;
reduced frequency of excitation; disturbance input-level
and location as well as lift enhancement (relative to the
baseline maximum and at a speci"c post-stall angle). Note
the di!erence between *C , and *C at a given angle,
*
which are de"ned in Fig. 16. Also, in order to maintain
uniformity, the original data from the various investiga-
tions has been cast in terms of the dimensionless frequency
F> (,f X /; ) and where possible, in terms of 1c 2.
   I
The table reveals a number of important statistics. As
with acoustic excitation, studies have been performed on
a wide variety of airfoils, although here the vast majority
have been relatively thick (t/c515%). Also, with the
exception of Seifert and Pack [104,107], all investigations
have been performed at low Reynolds numbers:
150,000)Re)900,000. For most investigations, excita-
tion is applied close to the leading-edge at x/c(10%.
Notable exceptions are those of Neuburger and Wyg-
nanski [34,108] and Seifert et al. [40,67,84].
7.1.1. Reduced frequency ewect
When compared to the relatively simple de#ected #ap,
separation control over airfoils presents additional
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 503

Table 2
Representative summary of airfoil data: separation delay by periodic excitation

Investigator (s) Airfoil Re (;10) E!ective Disturbance or Dist. x/c *C Post-stall

* 
F>,f X /; input level (%) (%) *C (%)
   *
Viets et al. [94] * 0.1 0.4, 0.5 Rotating mechanical 19.5 * *
element

Huang et al. [32] * 0.034 0.94 115 dB at slot exit 15 30 140

Neuberger and  NACA 0015 0.2}0.4 0.4}2.6 Vibrating ribbon: 10}20 42 86

Wygnanski [34] Wortmann 0.2 0.3}1.8 u/; "0.5}5% 10}60 9.4 70

Neuberger [95] FX63-137 * *
Bar Sever [96] LRN(1)-1010 0.15 0.7}2.7 Oscillating wire, !1 12 39
amplitude a function
of frequency
Hsiao et al. [97] NACA 63 -018 0.3 0.1}10 95 dB at slot exit 1.25 3 47

Chang et al. [99] NACA 63 -018 0.3 1.4 Slot C "0.02% 1.25 22 83
 I
0.3 4.0 Slot C "0.01% 1.25 22 83
I
Seifert et al. [40] IAI P255 0.2 2 Flaperon 8 8.4 140
NACA 0015 0.15 2 C "(0.8,0.8)% 75 63 68
I
(w/#ap)
Zhou et al. [37] Back-to-front 0.66 1 Oscillating #ap: 0 * 70
airfoil 0.05%}0.1%c peak-
to-peak oscillation
Hsiao et al. [100] NACA 63 -018 0.31 0.35}0.5 1.25 30

*
(high alpha)
Seifert et al. [67] NACA 0015 0.3 0.6 C "0.1% 0 21 92
I
Also see Darabi (#apped airfoils) 0.3}0.9 2 C "(3.2, 2.7)% 0 63 90
I
[101] PR8-40 (IAI) 0.14 1.75 C "0.015% 70 40 50
I
E214F 0.2 0.57 C "0.3% 70 10 10
I
SPCA-1 0.15 2 C "(0.8, 0.8)% 75 60 110
I
Erk et al. [106] Wortmann FX 0.25 54}81 160 dB at slot 2 * 40
61-184
Smith et al. [103] Cylinder#NACA 0.3 10.1 C "0.17%, double- 6 120 240
I
aft-portion slot at center 20%
span
Seifert and Pack NACA0015 (LE) 31 0.7}2.1 C "(0.27, 0.05)% 10 15 47
I
[104] NACA0015 (FS) C "0.05% 70
I
* * * *
Seifert et al. [84] PR8-40-SE (IAI) 0.5 1.2 Piezo elements 41 22 36
u/; "20%

Naveh et al. [105] NACA 0015 0.16 0.45 C "0.1% 66 30 50
I
Amitay et al. [44] Cylinder with 0.31 10, 15, 20 C "0.18% 6 120 240
I
NACA Aft-section

complications since, in general, the separation point is
not "xed, curvature e!ects can be signi"cant and the
upstream conditions are not well de"ned (i.e. laminar,
transitional or turbulent). In some investigations, excita-
tion levels (or amplitudes) are not reported and in many
they are stated, but it is not clear if an optimum reduced
frequency F> is achieved for the minimum addition of
momentum. It is the opinion of these authors that,
for a given airfoil, this is a prerequisite for establishing
F> .

Table 2 also shows that, for the majority of cases, the
optimum reduced frequencies F> (,f X /; ) are in
  
504 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 16. Schematic representation of the e!ect of excitation on
lift, de"ning the quantities used in Table 2.
the range 0.3)F>)4 which is consistent with the de-
#ected #ap study described in the previous section. Thus
the range of frequencies, when de"ned on the basis of F>,
is signi"cantly smaller than the range e!ective for acous-
tic excitation, described in Section 3.2, and provides
additional clari"cation to the second question posed at
the beginning of Section 4. However, some investigations,
particularly those of Glezer and his co-workers
[44,103] suggest that higher reduced frequencies, namely
F>"10 or 20, can be e!ective. Thus, for certain classes
of airfoils, the length-scale X may be inappropriate,

and a better choice might be bubble length X (cf.
Section 9). The majority of data, however, indicates
that notwithstanding e!ects due to various airfoil geo-
metries, excitation methods and upstream conditions,
similar mechanisms to those observed on the generic
#ap are responsible for observed improvements in airfoil
performance.
The limits of the analogy between the generic #ap
discussed in Section 6 and the airfoil studies of this
section cannot be accurately assessed due to the dearth of
detailed studies of airfoil #ow-"elds. However, NACA
0015 smoke #ow visualization photographs of (amongst
others) Neuburger [95], for F>"2.6 in Figs. 17a and b,
clearly show the di!erence between separated and at-
tached scenarios, and a$rm the existence of LCSs above
the airfoil surface. Moreover, Darabi [101] measured
separated pro"les of the baseline and excited mixing
layers above the airfoil (Fig. 18) and showed that the
mixing layer above the airfoil is similar to that above the
generic #ap. With the #ow attached to the airfoil surface,
Seifert et al. [67] measured phase-locked surface pres-
sures (see Fig. 19a with further discussion in Section 7.2),
Fig. 17. Smoke #ow visualization over the top surface of a (trun-
cated)  NACA 0015 airfoil (a) baseline data, (b) excitation by

means of an oscillating ribbon near the leading edge:
Re"40,000 (from [95]).
observed the physical impact of the LCSs and showed
their similarity to the generic #ap case (cf. Fig. 12).
The e!ect of F> on lift increment on a NACA 0015 for
a variety of Reynolds numbers, as well as two di!erent
excitation locations, is presented in Fig. 20 (see Fig. 25 for
a schematic of the airfoil). The two cases presented in the
"gure are for a symmetric airfoil with leading-edge exci-
tation in the post stall regime and a #apped airfoil at zero
incidence with #ap-shoulder excitation. The "gure indi-
cates that the e!ective excitation range for this airfoil is
approximately 0.5)F>)1.0. The "gure also shows,
within the limits of experimental scatter, that excitation is
e!ectively independent of Reynolds number, even for
Re"150,000, indicating that the state of the upstream
boundary layer does not signi"cantly a!ect the optimum
F>. A larger reduced frequency range, 0.5)F>)10, for
the same airfoil is presented in Fig. 21 (see [93]) for
various momentum input levels. The "gure con"rms the
previous observations indicating that F>"O(10) is
completely ine!ective for this airfoil. Zhou et al. [38]
show a very similar result for a back-to-front airfoil,
with a peak F>&1 which gradually diminishes and be-
comes ine!ective at F>&10. At the larger C , the e!ec-
I
tive frequency range is increased to approximately
0.5(F>(3, but the trend remains similar at high F>.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 18. Mixing layer velocity pro"les above the surface of
a NACA 0015 airfoil for (a) baseline data, and (b and c) mixing
layer subjected to excitation at di!erent amplitudes
(y( ,(y!y )/d , where y

 T 

is the reference distance at
;"; and d is the vorticity thickness). From [101].
  T lift. Two examples for NACA 0015 and 0012 (symmetric)
It is important to note here that 6 times the momentum
input did not result in signi"cantly higher *C . Further
*
details, pertaining to comparative airfoil pressure distri-
butions can be found in Greenblatt et al. [93].
7.1.2. Excitation levels

Table 2 indicates that e!ective excitation levels are
in the approximate range: 0.01%(C (3%. This
I I
translates to typical e!ective relative peak jet velocities
(u /; ) [with typical slot-widths h/c(0.5%], or per-
 *

turbation velocities u/; in the approximate range:
 *

10}300%. As pointed out in Section 4.2 these distur-
bances are large in the context of acoustic excitation, but
they are small when compared to e!ective blowing jet
velocities. It is important to note that these disturbance
levels can be generated by two dimensional slots, but the
upper limits of oscillatory (`microa) mechanical devices,
such as #iperons, Piezoelectric benders, etc., such as those
discussed in Section 5, remains to be established.
505
Fig. 19. (a) Phase-locked pressure measurement on the upper
surface of a NACA 0015 airfoil for high amplitude excitation; (b)
integrated, phase-locked pressures illustrating lift and center-
of-pressure excursions (adapted from [67]).
In general, once an e!ective frequency has been estab-
lished at a minimum (or threshold) C , further addition
I
of momentum has a relatively small e!ect on maximum
airfoils with leading-edge excitation are shown in
Figs. 22a and b, respectively [67,134]. The "gures both
show baseline data with excitation at respectively e!ec-
tive reduced frequencies, where C &0.1% and C &1%
I I
are considered for both cases. Notwithstanding quantit-
ative di!erences between the two airfoils, excitation at
low C increases C , but the most signi"cant e!ects
I *
are on *C in the post stall regime (cf. Table 2 and Fig.
*
16). An order of magnitude increase in C does not have
a signi"cant impact on lift, and only further increases
C by approximately 10% for both airfoils.

Comparisons of C for leading-edge excitation and

steady blowing for both airfoils, are presented in
Figs. 23a and b. The "gures con"rm the well-known
observations (e.g. [16]), that steady blowing at
C (2}3% is ine!ective and even detrimental to lift. On
I
the other hand, excitation at C &0.01}0.1% is e!ective.
I
In some instances, the e!ectiveness of excitation is re-
duced with increasing C . In the case of the NACA 0015
I
at F>"0.6 (Fig. 23a), the lift increment saturates at
506 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 20. The in#uence of leading-edge and #ap-shoulder re-
duced excitation frequency on NACA 0015 lift for a relatively
small reduced frequency range: 0(F>(2. Reynolds number
range for both data sets: 150,000)Re)600,000 and
ck"0.08% (adapted from [67]).

Fig. 21. The in#uence of leading-edge reduced excitation fre-
quency on NACA 0015 lift for a relatively large frequency range
0(F>(10 at two excitation amplitudes (from [93]).
C "0.08% and in fact decreases with addition mo-
I
mentum input. There is currently no clear explanation
for this, but it may be related to the slot being adjacent to
a region of extremely high curvature at the leading edge.
For the NACA 0012, C increases monotonically
*

with excitation amplitude, but its e!ectiveness tends to-
wards that of blowing for C '3%. Data from these
I
airfoils further illustrate that the e!ective C , for an
I
e!ective reduced frequency is in the approximate range
0.01}3%.
7.1.3. Excitation location and slot orientation
In general, hydrodynamic excitation must be applied
at, or close to, the separation line (point). Illustrative
examples are at the shoulder of a de#ected #ap (e.g.
[40,67]) or at the leading-edge of a sharp airfoil (e.g.
[38]). However, the precise location, relative to the separ-
ation point, i.e. slightly upstream or downstream is not
clear and may vary for various airfoils. It is clear that
excitation, close to the leading edge, i.e. x/c)10% can
be e!ective for a wide variety of airfoils (see Table 2).
Hsiao et al. [97] considered the e!ect of excitation at
chordwise locations between 1.25%)x/c)13.75% for
various post-stall incidence angles on a NACA 63 -018

(see Fig. 24 with the leading edge detail inset). (It is
assumed that separation occurred close to the leading
edge due to the relatively large post-stall angles con-
sidered.) They observed maximum lift enhancement
for excitation at x/c"1.25%, which almost halved at
6.25% and completely disappeared at 13.25%. The slot
angle also varied from &1603 (almost directly towards
the free-stream at zero incidence) to &1003 (approxim-
ately vertically upward). Despite the change in excitation
angle, it appears that the primary reason for the reduc-
tion in e!ectiveness is that excitation was applied too far
from the vicinity of separation. A similar observation was
made by comparing the x/c"0% slot employed by
Greenblatt [109] resulting in a 40% C increase with
*
the 10% slot data presented by Seifert and Pack [107]
which resulted in a modest increase of about 10%.
The investigation of Smith et al. [103], employing a
faired cylinder with NACA aft-portion, is the only invest-
igation where the excitation location was varied while the
slot angle, relative to the surface, was kept constant. They
observed that slot location has little e!ect on C /C for
* "N
the range of 1% (lower surface))x/c)10% (upper
surface). At transonic Mach numbers (M "0.55), Seifert
and Pack [107] observed that excitation has a profound
positive e!ect when introduced upstream of the shock.
Although various slot orientations have been con-
sidered by di!erent investigators, including a 03 (wall-jet)
slot [67], a 453 slot [93], wall-normal slots [103] as well
as slots that are orientated at an angle that is upstream
relative to the #ow [97], the systematic evaluation of slot
orientation for a given con"guration has not been as-
sessed. In future research the e!ects of location and
orientation should be evaluated independently as
a means of maximizing e!ectiveness.
7.2. NACA 0015 experiments
Extensive experiments carried out on the NACA 0015
airfoil section including #ap de#ection [40,67], sweep
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 507

Fig. 22. A comparison of leading-edge excitation for (a) NACA 0015 and (b) NACA 0012 airfoils at two excitation amplitudes. Insets:
detail of leading-edge slots (adapted from [101,134]).

Fig. 23. Comparison of leading-edge excitation and blowing for (a) a NACA 0015 where the incidence angle is "xed at a"223 and (b)
a NACA 0012 airfoil where the data is extracted from C versus a sweeps (adapted from [67,134]).
*

[105], high Re [104], high subsonic Ma [107], high exception of sweep and high Re studies, the above-
turbulence levels [110] as well as dynamic pitching mentioned experiments were carried out on an airfoil
[111,112], have provided basic understanding of separ- that is equipped with center-span pressure taps and in-
ation control by excitation on this airfoil. With the corporated a 25% trailing edge #ap (see Fig. 25 for
508 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 24. The e!ect of excitation location on post-stall lift of
a 63 -018 airfoil. Inset airfoil leading-edge detail (adapted from
 sured in the boundary layer at three streamwise locations
[97]).

Fig. 25. Schematic of the NACA 0015 airfoil showing slot loca-
tions and the de#ectable #ap.
schematic). The main body of the airfoil is essentially
hollow with the interior serving as a plenum chamber.
Excitation was introduced by an oscillatory #ow emanat-
ing from either the #ap shoulder or leading edge slot, or
by means of a ribbon or #iperon.
The e$ciency of #ap excitation (with simultaneous
steady blowing) from the #ap shoulder slot at 203 de#ec-
tion may be deduced from Fig. 26, where the dependence
of the lift coe$cient on incidence (Fig. 26a) is plotted
together with the form-drag polar (Fig. 26b). Here, the
excitation amplitude (C ) is relatively large, but it is small
I
in the context of a blown #ap with C &10% (see [16]),
I
and the di!erence between the two cases is emphasized in
these "gures. The combination of excitation and blowing,
shifted the entire lift curve upwards by *C "0.65 prior
*
to stall and by *C "0.9 at a of the baseline con"g-
*

uration, i.e. an increase of 63% in C (Fig. 26a). The
*

form drag was eliminated by excitation at incidences
corresponding to 0.7(C (1.5 (Fig. 26b). The intro-
*
duction of pure excitation (without blowing) at F>"2
had the most profound e!ect on the total drag which was
reduced by a factor of 3.6 (i.e. to 28% of its baseline value)
at C "1 (Fig. 27). Comparable drag reductions were
*
observed at all lift coe$cients smaller than C
*
 * 
because the base #ow over the #ap was separated even at
incidence corresponding to C "0. Replicating this
*
form-drag polar by steady blowing required C "10%,
I
i.e. a factor of 6.25 larger (Fig. 26). It is also important to
note, from Fig. 26a, that excitation from the #ap shoulder
does not signi"cantly a!ect a , while blowing reduces

a by approximately 43.

Experiments similar to the ones described above were
repeated at various #ap de#ections, Reynolds numbers
and blowing intensities. The additional observations
were qualitatively similar, with some e!ects accentuated
at the larger #ap de#ections (see [67]).
To understand and exploit the e!ects of excitation on
airfoil performance, mean velocity pro"les were mea-
above the upper surface of the #ap and one above the
main body of the airfoil, just upstream of the slot [40].
The data shown in Fig. 28 were measured at the inci-
dence angle corresponding to C of the baseline con-
*
"guration (i.e., a"123). The solid lines represent baseline
data, dashed lines are blowing (C "0.8%) and the dot-
I
ted line represent blowing with superimposed excitation
[C "(0.8, 0.8)%]. The hatched area corresponds ap-
I
proximately to the region of reversed #ow. The "gure
clearly shows that just downstream of the slot, blowing
accelerated the #ow near the wall but the overall e!ect on
the boundary layer was relatively small. The excess mo-
mentum of the jet dissipated rapidly with x due to en-
trainment of the low momentum #uid above it. On
the other hand, the superposition of excitation signi"-
cantly increased entrainment from free stream, all
but eliminating the upstream wake. In this instance
a new, thick, sub-boundary layer developed which, to-
gether with the elimination of the wake, was responsible
for the lift increase and pressure drag elimination evident
in Fig. 26.
A plot of the phase-locked pressure #uctuations (CI )
.
about the mean is provided (see Fig. 19) in order to show
more clearly the presence of at least two large coherent
structures at every phase of the imposed oscillation at
F>"1.1 and C "1.3%. A typical wavelength of the
I
large eddies (the size of their `footprinta in the x direc-
tion) is e!ectively doubled during their travel above the
upper surface of the airfoil. This can be seen by compar-
ing the relative lengths of j and j . Furthermore, the
 
amplitude of the pressure oscillations above the upper
surface of the airfoil decreased with increasing stream-
wise distance and essentially vanished near the trailing
edge (Fig. 19a). One practical implication of the presence
of two or more eddies above surface of the airfoil is that
the integration of the instantaneous pressure distribu-
tions does not result in signi"cant oscillations of the
integrated forces and moments. This is true even for the
relatively large amplitude excitation (C "1.3%) con-
I
sidered here. For example, consider the oscillations in lift
(CI ) and center of pressure (XI ) over a cycle, plotted in
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 509

Fig. 26. The e!ect of high amplitude #ap-shoulder blowing and combined blowing-excitation on the performance of a NACA 0015
airfoil. (a) C versus a depicting three regions and (b) C versus C polar plot (adapted from [67]).
* * "N

Fig. 28. Comparison of velocity pro"les, downstream of the

#ap, for steady blowing and combined blowing-excitation
(adapted from [40]; also see [113]).

for 6.7;10)Re)23.5;10, with #ap d "203 in

Fig. 27. C versus C polar plot for #ap-shoulder excitation on
* "
the performance of a NACA 0015 airfoil (adapted from [67]).
Fig. 19b, where these data are obtained by integrating the
oscillatory pressures shown in Fig. 19a. Peak-to-peak
variations in C are approximately $3% and center of
*
pressure peak-to-peak variations are 0.2% of the chord
in the absence of steady blowing.
The investigation of Seifert and Pack (also see [107]) is
unique in that it considered Reynolds numbers consider-
ably larger than 10 (see Table 2). They observed signi"-
cant lift enhancement, with concomitant drag reduction,
D
conjunction with #ap-shoulder excitation, particularly at
low incidence. This was achieved at relatively low excita-
tion levels of C "0.05%, which are typical of the gen-
I
eric-#ap levels discussed in Section 6 and indicates that
separation delay can be achieved e$ciently at high
Reynolds numbers.
Conventional steady blowing methods are known to
become less e!ective in compressible #ows (e.g. [68]). For
such #ows, porous strips and wall bumps (e.g. [114]) as
well as vortex generators (e.g. [115,116]) have been
shown to exert some in#uence on shock-induced #ow
separation. Hites et al. [117] showed that excitation
remains e$cient up to Ma)0.4 and is far more e!ective
510 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545

than steady blowing. Although C decreases with

* 
increasing Ma, with excitation at x/c"10%, Seifert and
Pack [107] showed that the percentage increase in
C at Ma"0.28 was the same as that for Ma"0.4.
* 
They also showed that unsteady shock-induced separ-
ation (or bu!et) was signi"cantly reduced with leading
edge excitation in the vicinity of the stall angle (see
Section 7.5).

7.3. Ezciency considerations

Possibly the main failing of both steady blowing and

acoustic excitation techniques is that they require an
inordinately large input in order to be e!ective (i.e.
C &10% for blowing and acoustic sound levels
I
'150 dB). In the context of excitation e$ciency, there
are two principal ways to quantify system e$ciency. If
the system is de"ned as the airfoil only, then the appropri-
ate quantity for comparison purposes is the momentum
coe$cient C and as such we rede"ne the conventional
I
airfoil or wing e$ciency (C /C ) as C /(C #C ). On
* " * " I
the other hand, if the system includes the external means
for ewecting excitation, then the power input = must be
G
taken into account in the form of the input power coe$c-
ient (see [84]), de"ned as:
Fig. 29. A comparison of blowing and excitation e$ciencies by
=
C , G considering an `airfoil onlya system (adapted from [67]).
# 1/2oS;

and analogously, the airfoil power e$ciency is then
indicated comparable performance in both excitation
C modes for C (1.1, while for C '1.1 the 2-D mode
g, * * *
C #C was superior. The FM versus C data in Fig. 30b,
" # *
however, indicated that the ratio of power to aero-
Finally, the Figure-of-Merit (FM), which is the ratio of dynamic e$ciency is almost twice as large when the
power and aerodynamic e$ciencies: elements operate in the 3-D mode for C (1.1. For
*
g C '1.2, however, the ratio for both becomes compara-
FM, *
ble. Depending on what is most important, consideration
C /C
* " of the data in this manner allows informed decision-
can be used as a criterion for operating the separation making for an airfoil (or aircraft). For example, if /D is
control device and determine the optimal modes to be of overriding importance and ample power is available,
used for a speci"c #ight condition. then the 2-D excitation mode is appropriate, particularly
For illustrative purposes, consider two airfoil only sys- for C '1.1. On the other hand, if power is in short
*
tems, such as those presented in Figs. 26b and 27. Fig. 27 supply, then the 3-D excitation mode is the obvious
contains data plotted as C versus C #C and Fig. 29 choice, particularly for C (1.1.
* " I *
contains the data from Fig. 26b plotted as C versus The investigation cited above, was not conducted in
*
C #C . For both cases considered (i.e. Figs. 27 and su$cient detail to determine if the streamwise vortices
"N I
29), both blowing and excitation curves move to the generated by the 3-D excitation mode were bene"cial or
right. Note, however, that throughout the a range the detrimental. However, for the two modes, the authors
net ewect of excitation remains bene"cial for both cases, noted a factor of about four di!erence in the power
while blowing is highly ine$cient throughout. required to generate a given actuator oscillation ampli-
An example of accounting for overall e$ciency which tude (namely 2.4W for the 2-D mode versus 0.65W for the
includes the excitation means, is presented in Figs. 30a 3-D mode). The authors presumed that this was due to
and b, where composite piezoceramic-based elements the bene"cial interaction between adjacent actuators (see
are operated in a 2-D mode and a 3-D mode on a Section 5 and Figs. 6b and c) as the downward motion of
thick single-element airfoil (see [84] and Section 5). The alternate actuators assists the upward motion of their
traditional aerodynamic e$ciency, presented in Fig. 30a, immediate neighbors.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 511

Fig. 31. NACA 0015 airfoil moment data for two leading-edge
excitation amplitudes; corresponding to the lift data of Fig. 22a
(adapted from [101]).

be aerodynamically ine$cient. For example, Amitay

et al. [44] showed that at *C "120%, their airfoil
*

was essentially ine$cient with /D &3.
N
An important feature of all the studies involving lead-
ing-edge excitation is that *C in the post-stall regime
*
can be signi"cantly improved } thus indicating that the
most pronounced e!ects are to be found in the post-stall
regime. This aspect is particularly important for dynamic
stall control, since the airfoil spends an appreciable frac-
Fig. 30. A comparison of di!erent excitation modes by consid-
ering the airfoil as well as the external means for e!ecting tion of its cycle in the post-stall regime. Related to this,
excitation (from [84]). the control of the airfoil pitching moment is of crucial
importance in the context of dynamic stall, but few of the
above investigations reported this. A notable exception is
7.4. Performance enhancement Darabi [101] who showed that static moment stall can
be delayed by approximately 33 on the NACA 0015
The quantity *C is the simplest indication of the under the excitation conditions F>"1.1 and C "0.1%
*
 I
e!ectiveness of an excitation method. Table 2 shows that, and up to 83 for C "1.3% (see Fig. 31). In accordance
I
in contrast to acoustic excitation, signi"cant increases in with lift data (cf. Fig. 23), steady blowing has an in-
C can be obtained by hydrodynamic excitation, for consequential e!ect on pitching moment for C )2%
*
 I
a wide variety of airfoils. Of particular note is the large (not shown here).
maximum lift increment of Seifert et al. [40,67] cited
above where excitation is at the shoulder of de#ected 7.5. Control of post-stall unsteadiness
#aps. Large increases in C , e.g. on a shortened 
*
 
NACA 0015 [33] and a cylinder with NACA aft portion Airfoils in the deep post-stall regime exhibit well
[44], for example, indicate the enormous potential for known `blu!-body sheddinga of vortices at St+0.2
separation control on non-aerodynamically shaped bo- (e.g. [61,118]). However, close to the onset of static stall,
dies, such as stores, undercarriages as well as rotorcraft Zaman et al. [76] and others have observed low-fre-
fuselages. It should be noted, however, that although quency periodic oscillations with St&0.01. Zaman et al.
improvements in C are signi"cant the body may still showed that these oscillations are not associated with the
*

512 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 32. Control of large low frequency oscillations in lift and
moment near static stall by means of low amplitude excitation
(from [93]).
Karman vortex street, but rather with periodic switching
between attached and separated states. Although the
mechanism is not understood, these oscillations could be
modi"ed by acoustic `trippinga. Greenblatt et al. [93]
considered a NACA 0012 with an e!ective leading-edge
trip and observed a similar phenomenon at one degree
beyond the static stall angle (a"123). Instantaneous
surface pressure measurements were integrated to yield
lift and pitching-moment time histories (see Fig. 32). The
data con"rmed the "ndings of Zaman et al. and indicated
the abrupt nature of separation and attachment, which
induced signi"cant peak-to-peak C excursions, up to
*
*C "0.3 about a mean value of C "0.8, while the
* *
moment excursions even exceeded their associated mean
value. Hot-wire measurements in the upper surface
boundary layer at x/c"0.3 indicated a prefered reduced
switching frequency St&0.001 which is an order of
magnitude less than that observed by Zaman et al. [76].
Similar stall behavior was observed on a NACA 0012
airfoil at Re"4;10 [211].
Greenblatt et al. employed two-dimensional excitation
at 140 Hz (F>"1.5) and 320 Hz (F>"3.5) to control
these oscillations, which cannot be detected on this time-
scale. The "gure indicates that excitation eliminates
C and C oscillations almost entirely at both reduced
* +
frequencies. Hot-wire measurements in the upper surface
boundary layer at x/c"0.3 indicated that the boundary
layer was fully turbulent and that the perturbations re-
sulting from the relatively small values of 1c 2 required
I
to eliminate the large amplitude oscillations (1c 2"
I
0.075%) completely dissipated by x/c"0.3. Increasing
the incidence angle well into the post-stall regime showed
that the peak oscillations in lift between 123)a)163
could be more than halved, while moment oscillations
were reduced by two-thirds [109].
Seifert and Pack [107] showed that considerable con-
trol could be exerted over bu!et, even with excitation
introduced upstream of the shock wave. This was in-
dicated by steadier wake #uctuations throughout the
measured frequency and particularly at low frequencies
which are more likely to interact with an airframe.
7.6. High-lift systems
Over the last few decades, multi-element airfoils have
become established as the main means for achieving high
lift in large-scale transport aircraft. In the context of
#ow control, two aspects appear to be of primary import-
ance: Firstly, can #ow control produce signi"cant gains
when applied to existing high-lift systems? And, secondly,
can #ow control reduce the number of wing elements,
thereby reducing cost, weight and complexity? A recent
study by McLean et al. [119] shows that the potential
bene"ts of applying #ow control to high-lift systems are
signi"cant.
7.6.1. A multi-element airfoil
The question of how excitation can be used to enhance
lift on a multi-element con"guration was investigated
by Seifert et al. [67] on a cambered 19% thick PR8-40
airfoil with a 30% chord slotted #ap, at low Reynolds
numbers (1.4;10)Re)6;10). Excitation ema-
nated from either of two locations: one from the trailing
edge of the main element (ME) and the other from the
leading edge of the #ap (see Fig. 33a). This airfoil illus-
trated the e!ect of the passive blowing, occurring
between the main element and the #ap, on the e!ective-
ness of the location from which the perturbations are
introduced.
The e$ciency of thick airfoils is signi"cantly reduced
at low Re due to #ow separation. The separation creeps
up from the trailing edge on the upper surface with
increasing incidence. To arrest this process, slots are
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 33. (a) Schematic of the two-element PR8-40 airfoil, show-
ing the main-element and #ap slot locations; (b) comparison of
lift on the two-element PR8-40 airfoil for steady blowing and
excitation (d "303, Re"140,000; from [67]).
D 1c 2"0.02% for the two excitation locations described
introduced in the aft section of the airfoil. The high
momentum #ow emerging from the slot mixes with the
sluggish boundary layer #ow above it, making it more
resistant to separation. The amount of momentum
needed to overcome the strong adverse pressure gradient
with increasing #ap de#ections is ultimately not su$-
cient, and this problem is exacerbated by viscous e!ects
at low Re.
An important observation made by Seifert et al. [67]
on multi-element airfoils is that it is more e!ective to
introduce excitation from the surface of the #ap than
from the trailing edge of the main element. A similar
observation was made by Lin [120] using micro-vortex
generators on a similar con"guration. Fig. 33b shows
that the lift coe$cient increased from 1.9 to 2.5 when
1c 2"0.015% was introduced on the #ap. Seifert et al.
I D
[67] observed that a momentum input of nearly "ve
times this value (not shown) was required to generate
a comparable C when the perturbations were introduc-
*
ed from the trailing edge of the main element. Further-
more, with #ap perturbations the corresponding drag
coe$cient (not shown) decreased from 0.125 to 0.06 while
a factor of 15 increase in main element perturbations was
required to generate a comparable glide ratio (C /C ).
* "
In the latter case the oscillations enhanced the mixing
513
Fig. 34. Surface pressure coe$cients on the two-element PR8-
40 airfoil comparing the introduction of excitation from the
surface of the #ap with excitation from the trailing edge of the
main element (from [67]).
between the wake of the main element and the potential
#ow above it, while the perturbations introduced from
the #ap interacted "rst with the new boundary layer
initiated by the #ow through the slot.
The above discussion can be further elucidated by
considering pressure distributions measured on the sur-
face of the airfoil at a"83, with and without excitation at
I
above (see Fig. 34). The #ow over the #ap was completely
separated without excitation and was only partially at-
tached with excitation emanating from the main element.
Signi"cant #ow attachment was achieved with identical
1c 2 applied along the #ap surface: the minimum pres-
I
sure coe$cient, C , near the #ap leading edge was re-
.
duced to !2, with pressure recovery over most of the
#ap chord. Pressure distributions over the entire airfoil
indicate an overall performance improvement resulting
from the #ow attachment over the #ap, and further
explain the signi"cant lift increments evident in Fig. 33b.
7.6.2. Single element airfoils with large yap deyections
Of great practical importance, particularly with regard
to a commercial aircraft, is the viability of reducing the
cost, weight and complexity by eliminating one or more
wing elements. This involves investigating the viability of
excitation at large #ap de#ections (i.e. d '403), typical
of landing con"gurations [119]. Such an investigation
was carried out by Greenblatt et al. [93] on a NACA
0015 (see Fig. 25) at a"03 where excitation was applied
at the #ap shoulder.
For this airfoil, a #ap de#ection of d "203, with
D
a"03, generates a large lift increment (*C "0.82) in
*
the absence of #ap-shoulder excitation (Fig. 35), but the
e$cacy of the simple #ap wanes at higher #ap de#ections.
This can be seen by increasing the #ap de#ection by
514 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545

Fig. 35. Lift-enhancement with large #ap de#ections on the NACA 0015 airfoil (from [93]).

*d "203 beyond d "503, which results a much small-
D D
er *C "0.1. Steady blowing at C "1.2% increased
* I
the lift generated at d "203 from *C "0.82 to 0.95
D *

[i.e. (*C ) "0.13], but was totally ine!ective at
*

d *403. Periodic excitation at identical C was more
D I
e!ective than steady blowing at all #ap de#ections. Spe-
ci"cally, with F>"2.5, (*C ) "0.23 even at d "653
* D
(due to the particular construction of airfoil d could not
D
exceed 653). Excitation at F>"2.5 was more e!ective
than F>"1.1 for all values of d * particularly with
D
regard to form-drag reduction (Fig. 35b) where the di!er-
ence in form drag at C "1.4 is C +0.03. When com-
* "N
pared to baseline or steady blowing data, the reduction in
C due to excitation (F>"2.5) at C "1.4 is 0.07 and it
"N *
approaches 0.1 at C "1.5. Increasing the momentum
*
coe$cient by a factor of 205 at F>"1.1 has a negligible
e!ect on C (Fig. 35c), while low frequency excitation
*
(F>"0.3) is e!ective at low #ap de#ection angles
(Figs 35c and d).
7.6.3. The highly curved yap
To assess the e!ects of curvature, the regular NACA
0015 #ap was replaced by a circular arc #ap (see Fig. 36a)
described by Greenblatt et al. [93]. At an incidence of
a"!83 the airfoil provides no lift and the #ow is
attached to its upper surface. Flow separation initiates
near the trailing edge and progresses upstream with in-
creasing a; thus the lift slope reduces in a continuous
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 515

Fig. 36. (a) a schematic of a NACA 0015 airfoil with a highly curved #ap; (b) and (c) performance of the airfoil subjected to #ap-shoulder
excitation (adapted from [93]).

manner with increasing a (Fig. 36b). The maximum lift
due to the modi"cation of the airfoil increased from
C +1 to C "2.2, although this was accom-
*
 *

panied by large form drag, C , yielding C /C +18 at
"N * "N
C "1.5 (Fig. 36c). Steady blowing, from the slot loca-
* 
tion shown in Fig. 36a, at C "0.8% did not increase
I
C , it in fact decreased C at all pre-stall incidence
*
 *
angles (a(153). Its e!ect on form drag was even more
detrimental increasing it by approximately 30% at low
C (Fig. 36c). Periodic excitation, at a reduced frequency
* 
of F>"2.9, reduced the form drag signi"cantly thus
increasing C /(C #C ) to 27 at C "1.3. For this
* "N I *
con"guration, to increase C by a mere 10% required
*
 *
a periodic perturbation of C "2% (not shown) while
I
a similar C on a straight #ap increased the C
I *
 *

63% (see Fig. 26 and Table 2).
Based on the above data, it appeared that convex
curvature has a negative impact on lift enhancement in
the presence of periodic excitation. Previous experience
however, suggested that the actuator should be located in
the vicinity of the separation point, e.g. at the shoulder of
a de#ected #ap [31] or at the leading-edge of an airfoil
[67]. This clearly was not the case here, since the location
of the actuator remained "xed at X "75% chord as it
was for the straight #ap. The authors assumed that the
actuator was too far upstream of the separation location
and thus excitation was ine!ective since the amplitude
decayed between the actuator location X and the sep-

aration point X . This problem was partially solved by
de#ecting the #ap to d "203, as this brought the natural
D
separation location closer to the actuator and generated
a larger *C than was achieved previously (Fig. 37a).
This di!erence was particularly obvious for a(33, but
by C did not increase above its naturally attained base-
line value of 2.3. The form drag (C ) was reduced to  of
"N 
its natural value over the entire range of C 's (Fig. 37b).
*
Lower frequency excitation at F>"1.6 was as e!ective
in reducing C up to a"53 while steady blowing did
"N
516 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545

Fig. 37. Performance of the highly curved #ap airfoil subjected to #ap-shoulder excitation with #ap de#ection (adapted from [93]).

not increase the lift nor did it generate a large reduction It should be appreciated that these studies are in their
in C . The quantity C /(C #C ) for this case (not infancy and that the application of periodic excitation to
"N * "N I
shown explicitly) increased almost linearly with increas- high-lift systems has not yet seriously begun; the preced-
ing C and dropped sharply at stall. The maximum value ing examples present only an indication of what is pos-
*
of C /(C #C ) was almost doubled due to excitation sible. For multi-element airfoils, e!ective control will
* "N I
but even steady blowing increased C /(C #C ) require extensive optimization to apply the system to
* "N I

from 11 to 14. Increasing C to 2% at F>'1 did not a complex airfoil. This will involve tying together the
I
improve the performance of the airfoil except near detailed geometry of the airfoil as well as Reynolds num-
C (Fig. 37c), however when the same amplitude is ber to parameters such as amplitude, frequency and the
*

applied at a lower frequency of F>"0.33 the ensuing location from which the oscillations emanate. In terms of
*C is greatly increased but at the cost of increasing reducing complexity, the e!ects of curvature, #ap angle,
*
C (Fig. 37d). actuator location, etc. will demand extensive study.
"N
The preceding sections illustrated separation control Indeed, McLean et al. [119], identi"ed the acquisition of
on slotted airfoils as well as the e!ect of excitation com- data to de"ne basic aerodynamic performance as their
bined with large #ap de#ections and a highly curved #ap. highest-priority item.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
7.7. Airfoil drag anomalies
The observations made at large #ap de#ections (Sec-
tion 7.6.2) and on the curved #ap (Section 7.6.3) suggest
that frequency and amplitude are not decoupled at high-
er levels of C and this coupling may be exacerbated by
I
curvature and the addition of steady blowing. A similar
observation was "rst made on the generic #ap [31,81]
where an increase in C caused the #ow to reattach at
I
lower values of F>. Pressure distributions on the curved
airfoil suggest that the low frequency excitation generates
a form of time-dependent supercirculation resulting from
the strong, large vortices that are continuously present
over the upper surface of the #ap. The results at large
#ap de#ections over the NACA 0015 show similar
trends when C is large and F> is low. In both cases the
I
downward pointing surface over which control is exerted,
generates a low pressure region, thus causing a large C .
"N
However, since the mean-#ow is not separated from the
surface the total drag might in fact be smaller.
This phenomenon was indeed observed on various
airfoils at large #ap de#ection or high angle of incidence
(e.g. [93,109]). Typical results, for the airfoil pro"le of
Fig. 38a, are presented in Fig. 38b and illustrate the total
drag and the form drag polars corresponding to a"03
for a case with a 30% #ap de#ected at 03(d (503.
D "N
In the absence of excitation and prior to separation the
drag was low with negligible di!erence between C and
"
Fig. 38. Illustration of the total-drag}form-drag anomaly on an
airfoil at zero inidence, with #ap-shoulder excitation. Flap
de#ection angle increases from d "03 to d "503 (from [93]).
D D
517
C visible on this scale. At d "153 the #ow separated
"N D
from the #ap and thereafter there was a rapid increase in
drag mostly attributed to C . However, since the #ow
"N
over the main body was not separated C was always
"
larger than C as expected.
"N
With excitation initiated at the #ap-shoulder, however,
Greenblatt et al. observed an apparently anomalous re-
sult, namely C was consistently larger than C for all
"N "
#ap de#ections considered. Initially this was thought
to be due to the C `thrust e!ecta, but this could only
I
account for part of the di!erence as seen by the magni-
tude of C indicated at the top of Fig. 38b. There are at
I
least two additional possible explanations for the mea-
sured further di!erence in drag. One possible explanation
is that eddies, generated by high amplitude excitation,
were strong enough to turn the external #ow around the
#ap shoulder while concomitantly generating strong re-
verse #ow at the surface. A second possible explanation is
that the eddies interact with the wake in a manner not yet
properly understood. Regarding the former explanation,
the average skin friction resulting from the reverse #ow
on the surface would be negative and thus provide thrust!
Due to the di$culty of measuring the magnitude and
direction of skin friction, no de"nitive statements can be
made, although skin friction thrust would need to ac-
count for approximately C !C +0.025 at C "1.1
" *
for example (Fig. 38). Pressure and PIV measurements
have shown (see Section 6) that high-frequency excitation
would increase the duty cycle of the skin-friction thrust
and thus provide larger drag reduction. On the other
hand, low frequencies generate fewer but stronger eddies
that generate additional lift.
Notwithstanding a proper understanding, the reduc-
tion in total drag can be enormous. For example, at
C "1.1, C is reduced from 0.17 to 0.02. Thus the large
* "
drag reduction, coupled with the form-drag}total-drag
anomaly renders this problem fascinating from both
basic as well as applied perspectives, and therefore merits
further investigation. It should also be noted that in the
above-mentioned experiment C was measured by a rake
"
of Pitot tubes and was therefore susceptible to errors
resulting from high turbulence levels. Although these
errors were estimated at less than 4%, an independent
measurement method, such as a hot-wire anemometer,
should be used to con"rm these results.
8. Di4user studies
Tollmien apparently related (see [14,15]) that
Prandtl's interest in hydrodynamics was initiated when
he failed to achieve the expected recovery in a di!user.
Since Prandtl went on to invent boundary layer control
(BLC), a review of separation control in di!users is, at
the very least, of historical signi"cance. Possibly the
simplest di!user-type con"guration is a two-dimensional
518 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
backward-facing ramp within a wind tunnel. Viets et al.
[36] examined such a con"guration, where disturbances
were introduced upstream of a ramp discontinuity at
reduced frequencies in the range 0.2)F>)0.8, where
0
the ramp length is used in the de"nition of
0
F>,f /; . They found that pressure recovery on
0  0 
the ramp could be improved to some degree throughout
the F> range tested, but 0.7)F>)0.8 was the most
0 0
e!ective. Nishri [121] (also see [28,29]) considered a sim-
ilar con"guration, where disturbances were supplied by
means of a #iperon at the ramp discontinuity for
1.5)F>)6. Nishri ascertained that, although signi"-
0
cant pressure recovery could be attained throughout the
range of reduced frequencies, there was no clearly dis-
cernable optimum F>. Both investigations revealed that
0
the most e!ective reduced frequencies were F>"O(1).
0
Recently, Pack and Seifert [122] studied #ow attach-
ment to the walls of a short, wide-angle di!user, which
was attached to the nozzle of a circular jet exit by means
of excitation introduced at the junction between the
nozzle exit and the di!user inlet. Jet vectoring was
achieved by applying the excitation over a fraction of the
circumference of the circular jet, thereby enhancing its
spreading rate on the excited side and therefore its tend-
ency to reattach to that side. In a similar manner to
previous di!user studies, cited above, jet de#ection angles
did not show a marked sensitivity to excitation fre-
quency, but rather to relative direction between the exci-
tation and the jet #ow.
9. Excitation of reattaching 6ows
In many instances of practical importance, a separated
#ow reattaches downstream of the separation point,
without active excitation. Thus there is no breakaway or
detachment of the #ow and a natural recirculating region
or separation bubble is formed. Due to the prevalence of
these #ows, for example on wings (e.g. [123,124]), many
investigations have been conducted which seek to under-
stand their mean structure (e.g. [125]) and time-depen-
dent features (e.g. [126]). Separation bubbles, at the point
of separation, can be both laminar or turbulent. In the
former case, for practical Reynolds numbers, transition
evolves in the free shear layer downstream of separation,
and the #ow reattaches as a turbulent boundary layer (see
e.g. [124]). In the latter case, #ow is turbulent throughout.
In contradistinction to #ows presented in Sections 6}8,
the present section deals mainly with actively forced or
excited separation bubbles, which reattach uncondi-
tionally. Thus, these #ows involve the control of a separ-
ated region, rather than the control of separation, per se.
Their inclusion in this article is based on the fact that
excited separation bubbles can constitute a signi"cant
fraction of a #ow that would otherwise be separated, such
as that on #aps (Section 6) or airfoils (Section 7). To this
end, research carried out in actively excited separation
bubbles is reviewed within the context and theme of this
article. In addition, although the main thrust of this
review is on actively excited #ows, due attention is paid
to some features of naturally excited separation bubbles,
since they are an important prerequisite for understanding
bubbles subjected to active excitation. Finally, de#ected
#ap data is included at the end of this section, in an
attempt to synthesize naturally and actively excited bubble
data, as well as to explain certain anomalies present.
9.1. Natural excitation
Mabey [126] analyzed low-speed reattachment data
from a wide variety of natural bubbles including airfoils,
steps, cavities, expansions and fences and found that all
exhibit broadly similar pressure #uctuation peaks near
the reattachment point. Mabey observed that the fre-
quency associated with pressure #uctuation peaks,
could be used to construct a frequency parameter, based
on bubble length, namely St ,f X /; , where
6  
0.5(St (0.8 for all cases considered. Sigurdson and
6
Roshko (see e.g. [127,128]) further analyzed di!erent
separating #ows and established that a Strouhal number,
based on bubble-height h and velocity at separation ; ,
Q 
namely St "f h /; , has a universal value of approx-
F  
imately 0.08. This value was found to be consistent with
Levi's [129] `Universal Stouhal Lawa. They suggested
that the #ow is characterized by both the Kelvin}Hel-
moltz instability of the free shear layer as well as a shed-
ding-type instability of the entire bubble. The former
interacts with itself and the latter with its images result-
ing from the presence of the wall. Kiya et al. [135]
proposed the separation bubble is a self-excited #ow
maintained by a feed back loop. On the basis of this
argument, they showed that St +0.5, which is consis-
6
tent with Mabey [126] as well as other investigations.
9.2. Imposed excitation
With imposed excitation, analysis of separation bub-
bles is further complicated due to a number of additional
factors which are not universally addressed. Firstly, in
addition to Kelvin}Helmholtz and shedding type in-
stabilities an additional excitation frequency f is intro-

duced. Secondly, excitation level, measured in terms of
percentage of free-steam or relative momentum addition,
can have a signi"cant impact on certain characteristics of
the #ow, such as bubble length and height (c.f. Section 6).
Thirdly, the method, and particularly the location, of
excitation can profoundly a!ect the #ow. A comparison
of various con"gurations, with various methods and
levels of excitation are presented in Table 3. In addition,
each investigator's original frequency parameter is
presented in the table, along with a frequency parameter
based on bubble length, i.e. F>,f X /; (cf. [126]).
 
Table 3
Summary of bubble excitation data

Con"guration Investigator (s) Original parameter for Excitation method and F>"f X /; Comment
 
minimum bubble length location

Backward-facing step Reisenthel et al. [87] f h /; "0.05}0.1 Oscillating #ap; 0.2}0.4 Excitation most e!ective near
 D 
h "#ap height Variable location in separation; Decrease in bubble
D
reattachment region length with increasing #ap
amplitude
Roos and Kegelman [35] f h /; "0.29 Oscillating #ap at separation 1.3}1.8 Laminar and turbulent #ow;
  
h "step height point &30% reduction in bubble length

Huppertz and Janke [131] f h /; "0.18 Hydrodynamic, with speaker 0.44 Laminar #ow;
  
at separation point &63% reduction in bubble length
Coaxially mounted Sigurdson and Roshko [127] f h /; &0.16}0.4 Hydrodynamic, with speaker &1.3}3 Drag on cylinder face reduces with
 
ciruclar cylinder Sigurdson [128] f D/; "&2.5}4 at separation point reducing bubble size; Higher
 
h "bubble height excitation frequencies result in
; "velocity at smaller bubbles.

separation
Kiya et al. [135] f D/; &2.5}4 Hydrodynamic, with speaker &0.5 High amplitude excitation can
 
D"cylinder diameter at separation point eliminate the recirculation region
Two-dimensional Siller and Fernholz [45] f h /; "0.05 Hydrodynamic, with speaker &0.09 Reattachment length reduced by
 D 
fence h "fence height upstream of fence &50%.
D
Sound pressure in chamber"
137 dB
De#ected #ap Nishri and Wygnanski [31] F>,f /; &1
Hydrodynamic (with speaker) &0.7 Bubble length can be reduced by
 
or #aperon at #ap-shoulder increasing frequency or excitation
D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545

level

Parameter for minimum drag on cylinder face.

Optimum reduced frequency for #ow attachment.
519
520 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
For the remainder of this section, particular attention
is paid to excited separation bubbles over backward-
facing steps, blunt axially-mounted cylinder/cylinders
and the de#ected #ap.
9.2.1. The backward-facing step
The two-dimensional backward facing step is one of
the simplest con"gurations demonstrating a "xed point
of separation, followed by downstream #ow reattach-
ment and boundary layer development. Due to its im-
portance as a generic paradigm of #ow reattachment,
signi"cant e!ort has been expended in understanding its
time-mean features as well as organized structures within
the #ow (e.g. [7,8,132,133]).
Reisenthel et al. [87], Roos and Kegelman [35] and
Huppertz and Janke [131] studied excitation of these
#ows by employing a spoiler like #ap located at the base
of the step, an oscillating #ap at the separation point and
oscillatory blowing and suction holes at the separation
point, respectively. These investigations showed that ex-
citation enhances vortical structures and increases en-
trainment (cf. Sections 4 and 6), and in so-doing exerts
substantial control over the reattachment length. The
traditional means for presenting backward-facing step
data is to non-dimensionalize quantities with respect to
the step height h , e.g. St "f h /; (e.g. [35]) although
 F   
Reisenthel et al. suggest that oscillating #ap-height
should be used.
It is pointed out here, however, that there is no means
for objectively comparing the relative e!ectiveness of the
above-mentioned investigations since none of them
clearly presents the level of momentum added to the #ow
(cf. Section 6). Related to this is the di$culty associated
with determining an optimum reduced frequency (based
on minimum bubble length for example) if excitation
levels are not explicitly accounted for. For example, in
the mixing layer, Cohen [80] showed that high excitation
levels cause an overshoot of h> in region II (see Section
4), followed by a contraction to a lower value, thus
resulting in a higher e!ective reduced frequencies.
In the context of separation control, larger excitation
levels tend to have lower e!ective frequencies (e.g.
[31,75,109,134]). These points are illustrated further by
Table 3, which shows a range of reduced frequencies both
when based on step height (0.18}0.29) or bubble length
F> (cf. [26]; 0.2 versus 1.8 [35,87]).
It might appear that the upstream state of the bound-
ary layer is responsible for the large di!erences, but for an
upstream laminar boundary layer Huppertz and Janke
achieve a 60% rediction in bubble length at F>"0.44
while Roos and Kegelman only achieved half of this
value at F>"1.3. Plotting the data of Roos and Kegel-
man to include F> (see Fig. 39) shows that the most
signi"cant bubble shortening is achieved in the fully
turbulent regime. They show that the reattachment
length for both laminar and turbulent upstream condi-
Fig. 39. Backward-facing step data, illustrating the e!ect of
excitation on bubble length (adapted for the addition of F>;
from [35]).
tions is of the same order, and suggest that the vortical
structures in the shear layer are dominant and override
the natural (i.e. unexcited) di!erences in the laminar and
turbulent shear layer development. They further point
out that when the separating #ow is transitional, single
frequency excitation is less e!ective in regularizing the
development of the large-scale vortical structures and
hence less e!ective at reducing bubble length.
9.2.2. The blunt axially-mounted cylinder
Sigurdson and Roshko [127,128] and Kiya et al. [39]
(also see [135,136]) have both carried out extensive in-
vestigations of excitation separation bubbles formed at
the leading-edge of an axially mounted blunt-faced cylin-
der. Sigurdson and Roshko (see Table 3 and Fig. 40)
determined that e!ective reduced frequencies at a wide
range of excitation amplitudes, for minimizing cylinder
face pressure drag (C ), were in approximate the range:
"D
0.16)f h /; )0.4 (alternatively 2.5)F>,f D/;
  "  
)4, where D is the cylinder diameter). Sigurdson further
determined that pressure drag reduction on the blunt
cylinder face is linearly dependent on excitation
amplitude.
Kiya et al. considered minimum bubble reattachment
length, for a similar range of excitation frequencies and
amplitudes, and also found that the approximate opti-
mum frequency range is 2.5)F>)4, for excitation
"
amplitudes less than 10%. Kiya et al. showed that
bubble-length reduces logarithmically with excitation
amplitude (see Fig. 41). In fact, for excitation amplitudes
larger than about 14% the bubble is virtually eliminated.
This should be contrasted with the above-mentioned
data of Sigurdson and Roshko which shows that the
maximum drag reduction is a linear function of excita-
tion amplitudes up to 24%. Kiya et al. further show
that increasing the frequency well above the optimum,
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 40. Normalized pressure drag on the cylinder face as a func-
tion of frequency and excitation amplitude. Symbols in the key
of the "gure refer to u/; , i.e. relative rms amplitudes of

excitation (from [128]).
Fig. 41. Minimum bubble length as a function of relative rms
amplitudes of excitation (from [135]).
approximately 10(F>(50, at constant excitation am-
"
plitude of 1%, results in a slight increase in unexcited
bubble size. Further increases, 50(F>(170 have
" 
a negligibly small e!ect on bubble length. Sigurdson
[128] compared his normalized form drag data, with the
normalized bubble-length data of Shimizu et al. [136],
for similar excitation amplitudes (see Fig. 42). He found
a striking correlation between the two for a wide range of
the reduced frequency f h /; , with its optimum value at
 
around 0.35, which is more than four times larger than
f h /; .
 
9.2.3. The deyected yap
Separation control on a de#ected #ap, discussed in
detail in Section 6, is an excellent example of the role of
a separation bubble as it pertains to separation control.
In the current context, this #ow is suggested as a para-
digm for resolving the di!erences in reduced frequencies
for unforced and forced data discussed above. One of the
principal di!erences between a #ap (or airfoil), and
the two cases presented above, is the fact that #ow over
521
Fig. 42. Comparison of percentage reduction in bubble length
[135] and normalized cylinder-face form-drag reduction [128]:
u/;+6% for both cases (from [128]).
the #ap does not attach unconditionally. In Section 6
we considered the minimum momentum addition neces-
sary to a!ect attachment as well as prevent separation.
Here, for a given excitation frequency, we consider the
minimum momentum required to prevent the bubble from
bursting.
Consider, once again Fig. 9b, which illustrates #ow
attached to the #ap for F>"1.2 where a reduction in
C results in separation from the #ap by the mechanism
I
of bubble bursting. Therefore, just prior to separation,
F>"0.66 which is in the naturally excited bubble range
proposed by Mabey [126] and close to that of Kiya et al.
[130]. Moreover, normalizing the data with respect
to bubble height and velocity at separation, yields
f h /; +0.08, which is the same as that proposed by
 
Sigurdson and Roshko [127]. Reducing f and perform-

ing the same analysis at F>"0.7 (see Fig. 10), where the
bubble tends to the end of the #ap, results in similar
values for F> and f h /; . As pointed out in Section 6, a

small additional increase in the bubble length, due to
additional de#ection or reduced C , caused it to burst.
I
The analysis presented here is inappropriate for high
values of F>. For example, at F>"7.5 (see Fig. 10),
bubble size was an insigni"cant fraction of the #ap length
and separation occurred as a result of momentum de-
pletion in the boundary layer near the #ap trailing edge.
The above analysis shows that an analogy between
naturally and actively excited bubbles may only be ap-
propriate if it is based on the minimum momentum
required to prevent bubble bursting. Fig. 43 [81] empha-
sizes this by showing how the bubble dimensions change
with increasing 1c 2. When viewed in this context, it
I
appears that conditionally attached #ows are best suited
for illustrating these principles. Moreover, the universal
Sigurdson}Roshko reduced frequency f h /; +0.08,
 
based on the natural (shedding) frequency, is also appro-
priate for exited bubbles in the form f h /; , providing
 
522 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 43. E!ect of increased excitation amplitude on the de#ec-
ted-#ap bubble length. Prevailing conditions: Re "450,000,
D useable volume per unit surface area and greater struc-
d!d "13, F>"1.6 and G/ "0.5% (from [81]).
 D
the minimum momentum (or amplitude) required to prevent
bubble bursting is considered.
10. E4ects of curvature
The e!ect of excitation on #ows over curved surfaces is
important since curvature is known to have a profound
e!ect on the development of turbulent boundary layers
(see e.g. [137]). For example concave curvature is known
to initiate the generation of streamwise vortices through
a centrifugal instability of the #ow. This instability mech-
anism may compete with the in#ectional instability ex-
ploited by excitation and limit the spanwise coherence of
the eddies. Consequently, this may have a detrimental
impact on separation control. Conversely, an adverse
pressure gradient in the presence of convex curvature
Fig. 44. Setup for the `Statford rampa experiment, intended to examine the e!ects of concave surface curvature (from Elsbery [140,141];
also see Wygnanski [11]).
may reduce the intensity of the streamwise vortices while
enhancing the in#ectional instability.
This section is concerned with fundamental studies
which elucidate the e!ects of curvature as well as attempt
to isolate controlling parameters when radius of curva-
ture is "xed (i.e. two-dimensional circular cylinders).
Curvature, in the context of an airfoil #ap used as a high-
lift device, is discussed in Section 7.6.
10.1. Maximum pressure recovery and concave curvature
It is generally desirable to minimize the distance over
which the deceleration of a boundary layer takes place.
Some applications include maximizing the surface area
over which an airfoil #ow is laminar or providing greater
tural e$ciency, as well as a reduction in length and
weight for di!users. Clearly, this desire must be tempered
by the requirement to avoid separation. The competing
priorities have led several investigators to examine the
largest adverse pressure gradient that can be sustained
without causing massive separation from the surface. The
idea that the boundary condition giving the maximum
rate of pressure recovery corresponds to vanishingly
small wall stress was "rst proposed by Stratford [9,138].
Although his derivations are based on the Reynolds
averaged equations, which may not apply in the presence
of excitation, the #ow is of considerable interest because
of its application to airfoil design (e.g. [124,139]).
Elsberry et al. [140,141] (also see [11]) considered the
impact of excitation on #ow over a concave-shaped
`Stratford Rampa (see Fig. 44). For the baseline #ow on
the verge of separation, it was ascertained that h de-
veloped linearly with x and that the shape factor,
H,dH/h, was approximately constant at H"2.5.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Consideration of the two-dimensional integral momentum
equation revealed that the experimentally observed vari-
ation in free stream velocity, namely ; &x\
 was

consistent with vanishingly small skin friction coe$cient:
C +0 and constant H. Mean velocity pro"les, plotted
D
in wall variables (not shown), were dominated by the
wake component and well exceeded the value obtained
by Spangenberg and Roland [142] who experimented
with the Stratford concept in the absence of curvature.
Excitation at an imposed amplitude of u/; "0.2%

was tested for its ability to increase C when the geo-
D
metry is prescribed. Two frequencies were used: one at
f h /; "0.016 and the other at 0.032, corresponding to
 G G
40 and 80 Hz for the upstream free stream reference
velocity ; "15 m/s. (Note that a reduced frequency F>,
G
based on a streamwise length-scale with either free steam
or local velocity, is inappropriate here.) The lower excita-
tion frequency oscillations underwent large ampli"cation
yet they did not result in a notable increase in the skin
friction. Nevertheless, the mean velocity pro"les became
fuller near the surface (Fig. 45) suggesting a transfer of
momentum toward the wall. The higher frequency excita-
tion, on the other hand, resulted in a signi"cant increase
in the skin friction despite the fact that its integrated
intensity decayed by an order of magnitude over the
distance considered. Elsberry et al. further showed that
the maximum value of ;>,;/; reduced from 80 to
O
60 (also see [11]) and the shape factor H decreased from
2.5 to 2.2 indicating that a boundary layer forced in such
a manner may well sustain a larger pressure gradient
without separating.
The e!ectiveness of the present method of separation
control was attributed to the rapid ampli"cation of the
forced perturbations by the preexisting inviscid instabil-
ity of the mean #ow. From the above data, however, it
is not clear whether concave curvature (or increasing
"d; /dx") enhances this instability by providing addi-

tional transport of momentum across the boundary
Fig. 45. Near-wall velocity pro"les on the Straford ramp down-
stream of the excitation location, for baseline and excited #ow
(from [140,141]).
523
layer, or whether it has a detrimental e!ect due to com-
peting instability mechanisms.
10.2. Convex curvature~Coanda cylinder
To separate the e!ects of curvature from those of
pressure gradient, Neuendorf and Wygnanski [143] (also
see [144]) considered the evolution of a two-dimensional
wall jet #owing over the exterior of a circular cylinder
(see Fig. 46). For such a #ow, the wall jet spreads outward
to a far greater extent than that on a corresponding #at
surface, indicating that the centrifugal instability intro-
duced by the curvature contributes to the transport of
momentum across the #ow. Wygnanski [11] suggests
that the addition of periodic excitation, may interact with
both instabilities (in#ectional and centrifugal) and am-
plify the perturbations more e!ectively. Wygnanski [11]
presented a comparison of two case with no free-stream
is present: with and without excitation. It was shown that
excitation induces separation by enhancing the transport
of momentum away from the surface at a far smaller
angle (i.e. approximately 303 less) than when no excita-
tion is imposed. The opposite may occur when the cylin-
der is placed in a free stream where the direction of
momentum transport will be reversed. In such a case, the
nature of the stability will change, unless a strong wall jet
is employed. One possible application of such a scenario
is a slotted #ap, where the #ow emerging from the slot
e!ectively constitutes a wall jet.
10.3. Constant curvature~the circular cylinder
Cross-#ow over a two-dimensional circular cylinder is
a problem of signi"cant practical and theoretical interest.
Fig. 46. A schematic representation of the the Coanda cylinder
experiment (see [144]; also see [11]).
524 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Amongst other problems of importance, drag reduction,
control of vortex shedding as well as the generation of lift
are the three most intimately connected to separation
control. Initially sound was used to demonstrate the
e!ect on separation (e.g. [145,146]), but in recent years,
hydrodynamic excitation has been applied to the prob-
lem (e.g. [44,97,147}151]).
The above investigations determined profound e!ects
of excitation on lift, separation location and vortex shed-
ding frequency at sub-critical Reynolds numbers. For
example Hsiao et al. [97] used asymmetric excitation and
showed that a suction peak could be generated on one
side resulting in C "0.6 with the excitation location at
*
1003 and F>,f D/; &1. Similar observations were
"  
made by Amitay et al. [44] for F>"1.5. Furthermore,
"
Amitay et al. showed that the separation point could be
moved by approximately 603 resulting in a 25% reduc-
tion in form drag. While exciting the #ow at F>"2, Liu
"
and Brodie [151] observed wake momentum de"cit re-
ductions associated with delay of separation as well as
the location of vortex shedding. It should be noted that,
for the above-mentioned cases, excitation frequencies
were typically an order of magnitude larger than the
natural shedding frequency. Heine et al. [150] observed
a reduction in the turbulent coherent energy with excita-
tion at a subharmonic of the natural shedding frequency
with F>"0.1.
"
It is di$cult to provide precise values for
F>,f X /; or F>,f X /; in the current invest-
    
igations, since attachment length, bubble length and exci-
tation amplitude are not accurately known. However,
for the vast majority of investigations cited above, excita-
tion was found to be e!ective when applied near the
laminar separation point at &903. Thus, it seems that
neither curvature nor the state of the separating bound-
ary layer has a signi"cant e!ect on optimum reduced
frequencies, since F>"O(1) and F>:1. The investiga-
tions also con"rm the observations of the previous
sections that separation control is most e!ective when
the excitation location is in the vicinity of the separation
point. This provides further evidence that excitation
should not be applied to the stable #ow near the leading
edge, as the disturbances decay before becoming
unstable.
11. Three-dimensional e4ects
In 1987, Gad-el-Hak and Blackwelder observed that
1 regardless of K. The comparison is
excitation along the leading edge of a 603 delta wing
signi"cantly a!ected the evolution of the bound shear
0.3. For the
layer originating from the leading edge. They ascertained
that the maximum changes to the vortices occurred when
the excitation frequency was a subharmonic of the natu-
ral shedding frequency corresponding to F> ,f c/;
"  
"5.5 and C "0.42% (c is the root chord). This was
I
the "rst demonstration of the potential for periodic
excitation in the context of three dimensional, and in
particular swept back, con"gurations.
11.1. The swept back wing
The application of excitation to three-dimensional
#ows requires, "rst and foremost, an understanding of
the simplest possible con"guration } namely the yawed
cylinder of in"nite span, i.e. the e!ects of sweep
[105,152]. Furthermore, if the method is to be used as
a design tool, a set of transformations is needed to
convert data obtained in two dimensions to the cases
involving sweep (cf. [153]). To this end, experiments
were conducted on an 18% thick, airfoil where the pro-
"le became equivalent to that of a NACA 0015 at
sweep-back of 303. The airfoil was equipped with a 1/3
chord #ap and with an excitation slot located at the #ap
shoulder.
By assuming that the swept-back con"guration is of
in"nite span and the sweep is attained by rotating the
basic two-dimensional con"guration, Reynolds number
is de"ned as (see [105] and Fig. 47):
Re "Re cos K (11.1)
" "
Similarly, since the pressure distribution and thus the
separation line are mainly governed by the chordwise
component of velocity (; cosK): C "C cosK
 N" N"
and C "C cos K (cf. [153]). Following similar
*" *"
arguments Naveh et al. [105] de"ned
F> "F> /cos (K) (11.2)
" "
and
C "C /cos(K) (11.3)
I" I"
Lift and pressure distributions on the airfoil, with the
#ap de#ected at 203, were compared for K"03 and
K"303 (see Figs. 48 and 49). The two data sets essential-
ly collapsed on one another when the transformation was
used, for the baseline case as well as for the case with
active excitation. This demonstrates the validity of the
above transformation and facilitates the comparison of
pressure distributions at various sweep angles, K. The
validity of this transformation can be further assessed by
comparing the C measured near the front stagnation
.
points where C
.
satisfactory, except in the reattachment zone of the lead-
ing edge bubble, which occurs around x/c
baseline case, #ow over the #ap was separated, while
excitation forced the #ow to reattach over the #ap, result-
ing in the reinstitution of the adverse pressure gradient at
x/c'0.7 and an increase in circulation over the entire
airfoil.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 525

Fig. 47. Experimental setup and de"nitions for the swept NACA 0015 experiment (from [105,152]).

Fig. 48. Pressure distributions on the NACA 0015 airfoil, with
the #ap de#ected at 203 for K"03 and 303 illustrating the
transformation between 2D and swept con"gurations (from
[105,152]).
Fig. 49. Lift versus incidence angle for the NACA 0015 airfoil,
with the #ap de#ected at 203 at K"03 and 303 illustrating the
transformation between 2D and swept con"gurations (from
[105,152]).

#ow is separated should cause reattachment, scaling with

11.2. The Delta wing the dimensionless frequency:
f X
It was suggested by Wygnanski [154] that the results F> "   +1 (11.3)
"6 ; cos K
obtained for yawed cylinder of in"nite span in the pre- 
vious section (i.e. the swept back wing) may be extrapo- where X is the distance between the leading edge and

lated to a "nite wing planform. This suggests that peri- the reattachment location normal to the leading edge,
odic excitation applied to a delta wing over which the and ; cos K is the normal component of velocity as

526 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
above. This assumption appears to be tenuous because it
is based on extrapolating a transformation that relies on
in"nitely yawed wing section to a "nite delta wing. Thus
it would not be expected to apply in the vicinity of the
apex or the wing-tip.
An experiment, reported by Wygnanski [11] was con-
ducted on a 603 sharp-leading edge delta wing and in-
dicated that changing the frequencies of excitation
altered X in accordance with Eq. (11.3). This result is
illustrated in Figs. 50, which shows adapted results of
oil-surface #ow visualization for baseline and excited
#ow over the delta wing. The #ow visualization indicates
that, with excitation, the reattachment line on the wing
surface is approximately parallel to the leading-edge,
apart from the region near the apex of the wing. The
result was similar to #ow visualization (not shown) car-
ried out by Naveh [152] on the yawed wing discussed in
the previous section, and is attributed to the presence the
tunnel wall (modeled as an vortex image) that represents
the plane of symmetry at the apex.
Investigations carried out by Guy et al. [43] deter-
mined that vortex breakdown over a 703 delta wing could
be extended by about 25% of the chord by introducing
periodic perturbations at the leading edge. The delay in
the breakdown resulted in a high velocity "eld on the
upper surface of the wing that in turn increased the
negative pressure there. In an associated study, Guy et al.
[155] observed a signi"cant increase in maximum
lift under the conditions F> "1.4 and C "0.4% (see
" I
Fig. 51).
11.3. Three-dimensional excitation
Within the context of the control of 2-D #ows, it is
generally assumed that 2-D excitation is more e!ective
than 3-D excitation. There are two main reasons for this:

Fig. 50. Adaptation of oil-surface #ow visualization on the
surface of a 603 delta wing for baseline and excited con"gura-
tions (adapted from [11]).
Fig. 51. E!ect of excitation on the `lift indexa of a 703 delta wing
(from [43]).
"rstly 2-D disturbances are often easier to introduce and
quantify; and secondly, the (possibly mistaken) notion
has its historical basis in Squire's [156] Theorem which
implies that states that 2-D disturbances are `more
dangerousa in the context of laminar-turbulent transition
and, therefore, `more e!ectivea in the context of #ow
control (see e.g. [61]).
It is apparent however, that three-dimensional distur-
bances such as those produced by vortex generators, and
introduce streamwise counter-rotating vortices, can sig-
ni"cantly delay airfoil stall, resulting in up to 40% in-
crease in maximum lift (see e.g. [2,120]). Such streamwise
vortices can also be produced by steady jets (e.g. [157]).
McManus and co-workers (e.g. [158}160]) suggest using
pulsed jets in an e!ort to combine the bene"cial e!ects of
streamwise vortices with the LCSs that are generated by
pulsating the #ow. The concept has been demonstrated
on airfoils [158,159] as well as on a generic "ghter
aircraft con"guration. Airfoil data show a 50% increase
in post-stall lift and a 30% increase in C . A generic
*
"ghter aircraft con"guration data exhibited a 7% in-
crease with reduced frequency f c/; "1.
 
Seifert et al. [84] employed spanwise, surface mounted
actuators on an airfoil that could be operated in a 2-D
mode (all actuators in-phase), or a 3-D mode (adjacent
actuators 1803 out-of-phase). They found that the same
lift increment could be achieved with both 2-D and 3-D
actuation at F>"1.2 (also see Section 5, Figs. 6b, c and
30). However, 3-D actuation required approximately  of

the power required by 2-D actuation to achieve the same
lift increment. Kiya et al. [130] demonstrated stall
alleviation by introducing upstream-generated three-
dimensional vortex rings into the separated layer. They
 Squire actually proved that a two-dimensional #ow becomes
unstable at a higher Reynolds number when the disturbance is
assumed to be 3-D than when it is assumed to be 2-D.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
ascertained that the minimum wake de"cit occurs at
f c/; "4, where f is the frequency at which the up-
  
stream vortex rings were introduced.
12. Engineering implementation
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) present a logical
starting point for the application of separation control
concepts. This is primarily due to cost considerations as
well as the elimination of exposing a pilot and passengers
to danger. Moreover, in recent years, the use of UAVs
has increased substantially and unmanned combat aerial
vehicles (UCAVs) are gaining ground as alternatives to
conventional combat aircraft [161]. Recently attention
has focussed on Micro Aerial Vehicles (MAVs), which are
signi"cantly smaller than conventional UAVs } typically
from 150 mm down to insect size (e.g. [162,213]). These
aircraft bring with them a host of new challenges relating
to #ight and separation control, since conventional #ight
theory does not apply at Re(70,000, which is typical for
these aircraft. Particularly, at low Reynolds numbers
wings stall at small incidence angles and hysteresis can be
signi"cant [153]. Amongst other methods, conventional
steady BLC (e.g. [163,164]) as well as #apping and #ex-
ible wings have been proposed [162,165] in the academic
and popular press.
Seifert et al. [166] wind-tunnel tested a UAV incorpor-
ating an Eppler 214 wing section with a simply-hinged
30% #ap at Re"270,000. Excitation was introduced by
means of an axial fan and rotating valve which delivered
C "(0.18, 0.03)% in the reduced frequency range
I tion method that controls dynamic detachment or reat-
0.5)F>)0.7 at the #ap shoulder. The results in-
dicated, for the entire vehicle, increases in C and
*
 here. A problem immediately apparent here is that both
(/D) of 0.15 and 2 respectively. Although these results
 separation and the means to e!ect its control are un-
seem modest, one should bear in mind that the fuselage
parasite drag is large. More importantly, and with pos-
sible application to MAVs, separation control by #ap-
shoulder excitation on one wing was able to generate
a rolling moment comparable to that of a conventional
aileron. Moreover, the substitution of a conventional
aileron with an excitation device, does not have the
familiar adverse yaw e!ects.
Greenblatt and Wygnanski [108,154] recently showed
that periodic excitation on airfoils at very low Reynolds
numbers (30,000)Re)50,000) can increase lift and
glide ratio by a factor of four and an order of magnitude,
respectively, thereby restoring conventional low
Reynolds number performance.
13. Dynamic separation control
13.1. Unsteady separation
Historically, the notion of unsteady separation has
confounded traditional notions of so-called steady separ-
527
ation. The reasons is that for steady, two-dimensional,
separation the point of zero skin friction is coincidental
with the point of separation, while in unsteady #ows skin
friction can be zero, or even negative, with no apparent
breakaway of #ow from the surface (e.g. [4]). Due to the
complexity of unsteady separation, some controversy still
exists over its precise de"nition. While analyzing revers-
ing unsteady #ow in the vicinity of a stagnation point
Rott [167] observed no singularity nor invalidation of
the boundary layer assumptions. Further investigations
by Sears [168] and Moore [169] gave rise to the notion
of simultaneous vanishing of velocity and shear, either at
a point above a moving wall or in a reference frame
moving with the separation point on a "xed wall. This
well-known Moore}Rott}Sears (MRS) criterion has ser-
ved as a basis for the analysis of various cases of unsteady
separation (e.g. [170,171]). Sears and Telionis [172,173]
showed that boundary layer separation singularities ac-
company #ow detachment, while more recent investiga-
tions have found di!erent dominant mechanisms, such as
van Dommelen}Shen interaction (e.g. [174}176,214]).
Despard and Miller [177], however, were the "rst to
provide experimental evidence that reversed #ow can
exist within an otherwise attached unsteady boundary
layer. Moreover, they made the important observation,
which will be expanded upon in the sections that follow,
that #ow oscillation frequency has a profound e!ect on
the reversed #ow region.
The viewpoint adopted here (see Section 1), is that #ow
breakaway (or detachment) is the key feature of both
steady or unsteady separation (e.g. [3]). Thus any excita-
tachment is considered to be within the scope presented
steady! In an attempt to shed light on this problem,
dynamic separation from the generic #ap (cf. Section 6) is
used once again as the paradigm for studying the mecha-
nisms of dynamic separation control. In particular, em-
phasis is placed on the large time-scale disparity between
the time required for the #ow to separate (or stall) and the
characteristic time associated with the excitation used
in separation control. The principles embodied in this
section are then used for analyzing data on airfoils
presented in Section 14.
13.2. Onset of dynamic stall
13.2.1. Dynamic stall simulation on a stationary yap
The onset of separation and formation of the DSV can
be simulated on a stationary #ap (see Section 6) in the
following manner. Consider a boundary layer that is
forced to remain attached to a #ap under the conditions:
F>"1.2, (d!d )"43 and C "0.06%. At time t"0,
 I
C is reduced abruptly from its prevailing value to zero
I
thereby precipitating total separation of the #ow from
528 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 52. Surface pressures at various locations along the #ap as
a function of dimensionless time after cessation of excitation
(from [33]; also see [93]).
the surface. Instantaneous pressure data is then sampled
and phase averaged to determine dynamic changes that
occur during the separation process as a function of time
(Fig. 52). It is expedient to de"ne the dimensionless time
q"t; / and note that the large coherent structures
 D
in a shear layer (or a mixing layer) propagate over the
#ap at an approximate phase velocity ; +; . Thus,
(  
the time required for the information to travel the length
of the #ap is /; +2 /; and corresponds to
D ( D 
q+2, which should not be confused with the period of
the excitation, 1/f that is also marked on the "gure for

reference. Note that for the special case F>"1, q"t ) f .

Surface pressure data, described below, is based mainly
on the work of Darabi [33]; also see [93].
The time records provided by the various pressure taps
located along the #ap re#ect the delay in the arrival of
the information to the given tap (Fig. 52). Thus at
x/ "96% the information about the cessation of actu-
D
ation arrived at q+2. The diagonal hatched line in the
range 0(q(2, shown in Fig. 52, represents the approx-
imate onset of separation at the prescribed streamwise
location. At small x/ the separating streamline (not
D
shown), that initially follows the sharp bend in the sur-
face, straightens up and its radius of curvature increases
with time. Flow separation results in a decrease in the
pressure that existed near the #ap leading edge
(see the time history of the pressure tap located at
x/ "9%). In viscous #ow, the free streamline repres-
D D
ents a mixing layer that is very unstable and rolls up into
discrete vortices; therefore where the rollup occurs,
a bubble is formed and the pressure in the bubble de-
creases. This can be observed by the pressure tap located
at x/ "29% after a time delay q+0.7. As the DSV
D
builds up and increases in size, the pressure on the solid
surface that bounds it, decreases. Consequently at
x/ "29% the pressure dropped until q+2 and there-
D
after remained approximately constant up to q+5.
Fig. 53. Spatial surface pressure distributions over the #ap,
measured at various dimensionless times after cessation of exci-
tation (from [92]; also see [93]).
During this time interval the DSV increased in size and at
q+5 its center was located around x/ +50%. At this
D
point in time the DSV tore itself loose from the mixing
layer (i.e. from the continuous vortical sheet) and was
convected downstream. The downstream motion of the
DSV was accompanied by an increase in pressure over
the taps located upstream of the DSV. The generation
and advection of the DSV is a slow process that requires
q+25 for completion (i.e. for the DSV to leave the
trailing edge of the #ap). This is indicated by the coales-
cence of all the pressure tap signatures into a single curve
at q+25.
The spatial pressure distributions over the #ap, mea-
sured at various times after the cessation of excitation are
plotted in Fig. 53. The adverse pressure gradient existing
over the #ap at q+0 represents the forcefully attached
#ow. The onset of separation is marked by the creation of
a DSV (or bubble) that increases in size with time. Since
the areas under these curves represent the normal force
experienced by the #ap during the separation process one
may assess what happens during the creation and advec-
tion of the DSV. Consider the pressure distribution mea-
sured at q+4 and compare it to the pressure distribution
prevailing at the initiation of the process. As the size of
the DSV increased over the time interval considered, the
suction peak near the leading-edge decreased, while
!C increased simultaneously for approximately
.
x/ '22. Nevertheless, the integrated normal force,
calculated from these pressures, increased during this
time interval due to the increasing size of the DSV. This
is a well known characteristic of airfoil dynamic stall
(e.g. [178]) and is discussed further in Section 14.
13.2.2. Static-yap~dynamic-airfoil analogy
An analogous scenario to the process described above,
is that of a thin airfoil pitching past the static stall angle
(see [109]) } thus in both cases, at an instant marked by
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 529

airfoil half-cycle time (q+30). Of crucial importance here

is that the DSV and LCS time-scales (or frequencies)
di!er by a factor of about 30, while the detailed compari-
son is of secondary importance. This result forms the
basis of the stark contrast between the destructive nature
of the DSV and separation-suppression attribute of exci-
tation. The experiment described above was repeated at
di!erent free-stream velocities and #ap lengths with the
data scaled up at the appropriate ratios thereby a$rming
e!ective Reynolds number independence. It should also
be noted that a pitch-and-hold motion executed by the
airfoil, from a pre-stall to a post-stall incidence, would
also have provided a suitable analogy. It should be further
appreciated that dynamic stall on a stationary #ap can be
controlled by abruptly changing the reduced frequency
F> at constant C . This form of dynamic separation
I
without the dynamic stall vortex is discussed by Green-
blatt et al. [179] and expanded upon by Darabi [33].

13.3. Forced dynamic attachment

Starting with a separated #ow over the #ap one may

turn the excitation `ona at a prescribed time q"0 and
force the reattachment of the mixing layer to the surface.
A similar process occurs on a pitching airfoil when the
instantaneous incidence angle falls below an angle, typi-
Fig. 54. Comparison of dynamic stall on a pitching airfoil with cally less than the static stall angle a , which depends on

dynamic stall simulation on the de#ected #ap (from [93]; also the frequency of the pitching motion, k. In order to
see [109]). analyze the coherent mechanisms of the attachment pro-
cess, the procedure was repeated 200 times and the data
ensemble averaged. During the transient process, care
q"0, we have attached #ow in a natural (unforced) was taken to repeat the experiment at precisely the same
post-stall regime. Figs. 54a and b compare the static #ap phase of the excitation in order to assess its coherence
with airfoil dynamic stall for C and C , on the basis of
* + over the reattachment period. As with dynamic separ-
q, where q"t; /c for a NACA 0012 airfoil with
 ation control, generation of the normal force on
a"93#53sin(2nf t!903), k"0.05 and Re"0.24 the #ap takes a long time relative to the interval of the
;10 (see Section 14 for more details). Note that the #ap
data is plotted from the cessation of forcing while the
airfoil data is plotted for a*a during one-half of the

pitch cycle. Notwithstanding the quantitative di!erences
between the #ap and airfoil, the overall trends are mark-
edly similar. The vortex formation on the pitching airfoil
is apparent from the increase in lift with simultaneous
drop in the  chord pitching moment. The same phenom-

enon is apparent on the stationary #ap discussed in the
previous section. Following lift-stall, the moments for
both airfoil and #ap increase, since the #ow tends toward
reattachment in the former case, while total separation
prevails in the latter case. During dynamic stall, the
pressure distributions over the airfoil and #ap exhibit the
same basic trend for both cases, namely: a sharp rise in
C near the leading edges, accompanied by a more mod-
.
erate decrease in C over the large remainder of the
.
chord [93]. Fig. 55. Phase-averaged surface pressures on the #ap for various
Fig. 54 also indicates the extent of one half of the LCS streamwise locations. All measurements are referenced to the
dimensionless time (q"1) and contrasts this with the excitation-initiation time (from [92]; also see [93]).
530 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 56. Initial stage of the phase-locked surface pressures on the
#ap, for various streamwise locations (from [92]; also see [93]).
excitation. This interval may be considered complete
when the last pressure tap located near the trailing
edge of the #ap responds to the amplitude of the forcing
frequency in a stationary, but periodic, manner (see
Fig. 55). The "gure indicates that all pressure taps further
downstream responded while the overall pressure distri-
bution over the #ap was still changing. The "gure indi-
cates that the total dimensionless time required for re-
attachment is q+20 and, within the time resolution of
the measurement, is of the same order of magnitude as
the time required for separation.
There is a short transient, however, that results in an
increase in a normal force before the generation of lift is
initiated (Fig. 55). Expanding the time scale of the signal
to 0(q(5 reveals that, in the vicinity of x/ "30%,
D
the separated mixing layer attaches to the surface "rst
(Fig. 56). This attachment results in a positive C (i.e.
.
a transient stagnation point) and distorts the wave form
of the excitation. Once again the enhanced rollup of the
free mixing layer is detected by the surface pressure taps
for x/ '30%. The increased pressure region is con-
D
vected downstream at a representative ; +; . By
(  
the time this pressure disturbance reached the trailing
edge, the `pumping actiona (due to the entrainment of
the mixing layer) reduced the C near the leading edge of
. *
 "
the #ap to approximately !0.2 or by approximately
25% of its asymptotic, steady state, attached value.
The attachment therefore is initiated at the location
corresponding to the "rst rollup of the mixing layer and
it proceeds downstream. By initiating the excitation at
random phases of the perturbation signal the forcing
frequency is smeared out by the averaging pro-
cedure resulting in a clearer observation of the transient
increase in C . Darabi et al. [92] identi"ed a minimum
.
attachment time q +16 at a reduced frequency in

the vicinity of F>"1, which did not reduce signi"cantly
beyond a threshold C . This result was used by
I
Greenblatt et al. [182] for intermittent excitation
on oscillating airfoils and is described further in
Section 14.2.4.
14. Control of airfoil dynamic stall
Dynamic stall is often the primary factor limiting heli-
copter (e.g. [178,207]), "ghter aircraft (e.g. [183]) and
wind turbine [184] performance and as a consequence
much basic research has focussed on controlling (manag-
ing) or eliminating the phenomenon. BLC (see [185]) has
been proposed for rotorcraft applications and includes
methods such as steady blowing [178,186] suction
[187,188] and pulsed blowing [189,190,212] as well as
control of boundary layer transition [191}193]. Modi"-
cations to airfoil geometry, such as leading-edge slats
[194}196] leading-edge droop [195], rotation of the
leading-edge [197] as well as dynamically deforming
geometries [198,208] have been investigated. In all cases,
these changes are geared speci"cally to the leading-edge
region where the dynamic-stall vortex originates. Re-
cently, periodic excitation has been shown as an e!ective
method for delaying incompressible dynamic stall (e.g.
[11,93,109,111,112,179}182,199,210]). A brief summary
of important "ndings, all of which involve incompressible
wind tunnel testing, is presented below.
14.1. Experimental setup and objectives
Dynamic stall control in incompressible #ows was
performed on a NACA 0012 airfoil as well as the NACA
0015 airfoil described in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. The NACA
0012 was of similar construction to the 0015, but was
equipped with only one slot at x/c"5%, angled at 453 to
the chord-line, and was not equipped with a #ap. Both
airfoils were tested in a closed loop wind-tunnel (see e.g.
[40]) and oscillated by either $53 or $103 in pitch
about their 1/4 chord positions at typical rotorcraft
reduced frequencies k. By measuring dynamic surface
pressure and wake velocities, two interrelated objectives
were pursued: The "rst objective was to maximize
dynamic airfoil performance by means of periodic exci-
tation (e.g. increase C and/or decrease C ), provid-

ing that the moment coe$cient excursions (C ) were
+
within bounds typical of pre-stall values (C +0.04
+
and 0.06 for NACA 0012 and 0015 respectively. For
the remainder of this section, the symbol E denotes
`allowable moment excursionsa). The second objec-
tive was to explain and analyze the "ndings on
the basis of the dynamic #ap data presented in
Section 13.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 57. The e!ect of leading-edge blowing and oscillatory excitation on `lighta dynamic stall of a NACA 0012 airfoil [109];
a"93#53 sin(2pf t!903); E refers to allowable moment excursions.
14.2. Summary of important results
14.2.1. Leading-edge excitation
Figs. 57a and b illustrate the e!ect of oscillating the
NACA 0012 by $503 such that the static stall angle is
exceeded by 33 with k"0.05. Baseline, excitation and
blowing data are presented in the "gures, where solid
lines indicate the upstroke while hatched lines indicate
the downstroke. As is well known, dynamically pitching
an airfoil past the static stall angle results in higher lift
than could be obtained statically and this is clearly evi-
dent from Fig. 57a. However, the higher lift associated
with the baseline data is accompanied by destructive
nose-down pitching moment excursion shown in Fig.
57b, which is associated with the DSV. When excitation
is employed (currently F>"1.5 and C "0.5%), the
I
same lift is achieved, but the DSV is eliminated, as can be
seen from the moment excursions that are commensurate
with pre-stall values, which were &0.04 for the NACA
0012. As expected from static #ap and airfoil studies (see
Sections 6 and 7), steady blowing at the same C had
I
a negative impact on airfoil performance.
A summary of data for C , C as well as
*
 +
C and C , under the conditions of Figs. 57a
"
  "N
 
and b, is presented for a range of momentum inputs at
two e!ective reduced frequencies in Figs. 58a}c. The
"gure shows that steady blowing at low momentum
input coe$cients had an adverse e!ect on the baseline
data and only starts being e!ective at C +2%; this is
I
531
consistent with both static data presented in Sections
6 and 7 as well as dynamic data on the NACA 0015. Both
excitation frequencies, on the other hand, were e!ective
in attenuating the DSV. In particular, for F>"3.5 at
C "0.02%, drag was reduced by approximately 20%,
I
resulting in an exceedingly low relative momentum input:
C /*C "0.1%. Note that steady blowing must supply
I "
a full two-orders of magnitude more momentum in order
to achieve comparable drag reductions. The 0012 data
presented here indicated that, in general, larger C results
I
in greater gains, e.g. slightly higher lift, lower drag or
smaller moment excursions. This was somewhat di!erent
to the 0015 data, where optimum momentum inputs were
observed for various reduced excitation frequencies.
In accordance with PIV measurements presented in
Section 6 and airfoil data in Section 7.7, Fig. 58c shows
that time-mean total drag is at times less than the form
drag, speci"cally when F>"3.5. As in Section 7.7, it is
surmised here that, on average, the skin friction on the
upper surface may be negative, i.e. a separated #ow
region exists but it is controlled and orderly and its net
e!ect is positive. This reiterates the importance of the
time-scale disparity introduced in Section 13 and shows
how control of a separated region can be further used in
a positive manner.
Figs. 59a}d illustrate the e!ect of both increasing the
maximum incidence to 63 beyond the static stall angle,
as well the e!ect of airfoil oscillation rate on excitation
performance. For this `deepa stall case the baseline data
532 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 58. Summary of important aerodynamic indicators for
`lighta dynamic stall control by leading-edge blowing and exci-
tation on a NACA 0012 airfoil [109].

exhibits signi"cant lift hysteresis, coupled with large mo-
It should be noted that the e!ects of small amplitude
leading-edge excitation (C &0.1%) on the NACA 0015
I
(e.g. [93,112]) were signi"cant at angles very much larger
than a (&a #103), whereas for the 0012 small ampli-
 
tude excitation was e!ective up to a #33. This was

attributed to the observation that stall begins in the
trailing-edge region on the NACA 0015 and moves grad-
ually upstream with increasing incidence, with full lead-
ing edge stall at &a #103. For the 0012, stall occurs

abruptly from the leading edge, due to the high leading
edge radius-of curvature (cf. Fig. 32 of Section 7.5). Con-
sequently, in the deep stall regime, the 0012 required
a signi"cantly larger C in order to e!ect meaningful
I
control.
McCroskey et al. [200] (also see [178]) showed that
the incidence angle rate-of-change in the vicinity of stall
is of paramount importance for characterizing dynamic
stall. Speci"cally, a so-called `matched pitch-ratea can be
obtained by increasing incidence angle excursions while
concomitantly reducing the airfoil pitch-rate. To deter-
mine if this principle applies to dynamic stall control as
well, the following two cases were considered:
Case I: a"123#53 sin(2pf t!903) for k"0.15,
Case II: a"73#103 sin(2pf t!1803) for k"0.1.
Plotting the lift and moment coe$cients for the two cases
illustrated the similarity that exists in the vicinity of
maximum incidence for both baseline and controlled
data (Figs. 60a}d). Small di!erences in airfoil acceler-
ation near maximum incidence were considered to be
responsible for slight disparity between the two cases, for
both baseline and controlled scenarios.
14.2.2. Flap-shoulder excitation
Before considering dynamic stall control by excitation
at the #ap shoulder, consider again the NACA 0015 static
case presented in Section 7.2 (see Fig. 26a). The "gure
illustrates typical baseline C vs. a characteristics for
*
a #apped or aft-loaded airfoil, where three distinct re-
gions may be discerned [I } pre-stall a(03; II } partial-
stall emanating from the trailing-edge region
(03(a(123); III } leading-edge stall (a"123)]. Note
that, although excitation increases C , it is too far aft
*
to signi"cantly a!ect the static-stall angle. Steady blow-
ing, on the other hand, at more than six times the mo-
mentum coe$cient, decreases a for the same C .

ment excursions, which is typical of deep stall. Excitation
at F>"1.4 with C "2% succeeds in increasing
I
C by up to 35% (relative to baseline) and reduces
*
 D
moment excursions, to approximately one-third of their
baseline value, resulting in moment excursions that are
commensurate with pre-stall values. An important e!ect

of excitation is that it almost entirely eliminates the e!ect
of k on airfoil performance. Similar observations were
made on the NACA 0015 airfoil.
  *
To illustrate a dynamic case, consider the represen-
tative example presented in Figs. 61a and b, for
d "203, Re"0.3;10, k"0.1 and a"103#53
sin(2pf t!903). At low incidence (region II) both blow-
ing and excitation increase lift, much like in the static
case. However, as the airfoil approaches a , surface
pressures (not shown here) reveal that the yow over the
yap separates for blowing, thereby increasing the entire
upper surface pressure, but #ow over the #ap remains
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 533

Fig. 59. The e!ect of leading-edge excitation on a NACA 0012 airfoil pitching at various rotorcraft reduced frequencies [109].

attached during excitation } in accordance with static
data. As the airfoil pitches down, #ow over the blown #ap
remains separated and signi"cantly increases upper sur-
face pressure, resulting in large lift hysteresis and unac-
ceptably large moment excursions. For the actively excit-
ed case, the #ow over the #ap remains attached and,
as a consequence, lift hysteresis is eliminated and mo-
ment excursions are well within acceptable limits
(C +0.06). It should be noted from Fig. 61b that
+
excitation introduces a mean nose-down pitching mo-
ment as a result of attaching the #ow to the #ap. Al-
though elimination of this feature was not considered
central to the objectives of the investigations cited above,
it is undesirable, and would require an airfoil pitch axis
somewhat aft of the  chord position in order to produce

a small mean moment.
The impact on total drag, for the above-mentioned
case, can be assessed from phase-locked and time-mean
velocity measurements in the wake, which are represent-
ed here as momentum de"cit (Figs. 62a}d and 63). At
a"53 the form of the pro"les is similar, but the large lift
increment caused by blowing and excitation is evident
from the location of the momentum de"cit peaks, as well
as the de"cit disparity on the top and bottom parts of the
wake. As the airfoil pitches up to 103, the lift di!erence
becomes more clearly manifested from the relative loca-
tions of the momentum de"cit peaks. At a"153, the
e!ect of dynamic yap stall for the blown-#ap case is
534 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545

Fig. 60. The principle of `matched pitch-ratea on a NACA 0012 airfoil applied to both baseline and leading-edge controlled scenarios
[109].

characterized by a large momentum de"cit in the wake
above the airfoil surface. During the pitch-down motion,
at a"103, the e!ectiveness of excitation is clearly evident
by comparing 14.6b and 14.6d, where the data associated
with excitation are virtual mirror images of one another.

The time-mean momentum de"cit data (Fig. 63) provides
an overall picture of this process and indicates that the
mean drag is more than halved with excitation, while
blowing only achieves an 11% reduction.
The method of excitation presented above is not neces-
sarily intended for #apped airfoils, but rather for aft-
loaded airfoils or even symmetric airfoils where stall
commences in the trailing-edge region. For example, on
a symmetric NACA 0015, #ap-shoulder excitation (i.e.
when the #ap was not de#ected) increases dC /da and
*
consequently the C excursion (C ), in addition to
* *
increasing in C , which is equally important for an
*
advancing rotorcraft (see Section 14.2.4). It is important
to note that a further increase in incidence, for the above
example, resulted in leading-edge stall, which could not
be controlled by #ap-shoulder excitation. This highlights
an important di!erence between leading-edge and
#ap-shoulder dynamic stall control: for leading-edge
excitation the airfoil pitch-up past the static stall angle
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 61. The e!ect of high-amplitude #ap-shoulder blowing and excitation on a pitching NACA 0015 airfoil [109,112].
provides the additional lift and the DSV is eliminated by
excitation, while #ap-shoulder excitation eliminates dy-
namic #ap stall and in that manner increases C with
*

simultaneous control of C excursions. Finally, it is
+
pointed out that for the symmetry NACA 0015 airfoil, for
a wide range of F> and C , #ap-shoulder excitation was
I
more e!ective than leading-edge excitation for increasing
C and reducing mean drag.
*

The authors wish to emphasize that #ap-shoulder exci-
tation cannot control the traditional DSV that is gener-
ated in the leading-edge region of the airfoil. Rather,
#ap-shoulder excitation controls dynamic separation over
the yap (or aft-region) and is therefore benexcial only when
the traditional leading-edge DSV is not present.
14.2.3. The projected impact of compressibility
Carr et al. [201,206] show that the main features of
compressibility during dynamic stall are that the suction
peak on the upper surface is attenuated due to local
supersonic velocity in this region, and compressibility
e!ects can completely change the #ow behavior com-
pared to that observed at low Mach numbers (Ma(0.3).
In future, these e!ects must be seriously considered be-
cause typical full-scale Mach numbers on a rotorcraft
retreating blade in the vicinity of dynamic stall are in the
range 0.3}0.5.
Although the investigations cited above do not directly
address the issue of compressibility, the static data of
Seifert and Pack [107], together with the discussions
presented in this section and Section 13, can be used to
535
put forward some `informed speculationa. Seifert and
Pack investigated the e!ect of periodic excitation on a
static NACA 0015 airfoil under the conditions
0.28)Ma)0.55 and Re&O(10). For all cases, excita-
tion had a bene"cial e!ect on lift and drag, with the most
signi"cant e!ects in the post-stall regime. In fact, Seifert
and Pack showed that upper surface suction that is
attenuated as a result of an increase in Ma from 0.28 to
0.4, can be restored by excitation at extremely low per-
turbation amplitudes. Greenblatt et al. [93], on the other
hand, showed that the net result of excitation is essential-
ly insensitive to whether the airfoil is stationary or oscil-
lating in pitch. As pointed out in detail in Section 13, this
is due to the large disparity between the time-scales
characterizing the airfoil pitch oscillations and those
characterizing the excitation-generated LCSs. It is thus
tentatively speculated that periodic excitation will also be
e!ective in controlling dynamic stall under compressible
conditions. It is the opinion of the authors that evalu-
ation of the excitation under compressible conditions
should be singled out as a future research priority in the
context of dynamic stall control.
14.2.4. Intermittent excitation
While performing dynamic stall control with excita-
tion from the leading edge and #ap shoulder on the
NACA 0015, a number of problems were identi"ed. First-
ly, excitation from the LE, while the airfoil was in the
pre-stall regime, caused an increase in form drag due to
a pressure increase in that region. It was ascertained that
536 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545

Fig. 62. Phase-locked (to the airfoil pitch phase) momentum de"cit measurements in the wake of a pitching NACA 0015 airfoil for
high-amplitude #ap-shoulder blowing and excitation, corresponding to Fig. 61 [109,112].

if the excitation was initiated and terminated near the
static stall angle, such that excitation was active only in
the post-stall regime, increases in pre-stall form drag could
be eliminated. Secondly, with #ap-shoulder excitation or
LE excitation entirely in the post-stall regime, lift excur-
sions C , which are of crucial in determining the max-
*
imum speed of a rotorcraft, could not be signi"cantly
controlled. It was ascertained that signi"cant control over
the lift excursions could be achieved, without diminishing
C , by employing excitation in an intermittent man-
*

ner [182], and two examples of this are presented below.
NACA 0015 lift and moment data for a deep stall
scenario, where the mean incidence angle is a full 83
above the static-stall angle, is shown is Figs. 64a and b.
The graphs shows the dramatic e!ect of excitation in the
post-stall regime, where post-stall lift is increased by 50%
while, simultaneously, containing the moment excur-
sions. However, continuous excitation is clearly not e!ec-
tive for this incidence angle range because lift excursions
C , are small. The "gures clearly indicate that intermit-
*
tent excitation, for this case, enables airfoil oscillation
between baseline and continuous excitation limits, while
maintaining acceptable moment excursions. Excitation
initiation and termination e!ectively causes controlled
dynamic stall and attachment, during the airfoil pitch
cycle. For this case, excitation is applied for approxim-
ately 80% of the total pitching cycle. It was noted in
Section 13 that the typical dimensionless time for dy-
namic separation and attachment was q+20. Notwith-
standing the added complexity of the pitch oscillations,
these time-scales, now based on the airfoil chord, are
consistent with the data presented in Fig. 64.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545 537

Fig. 63. Time-mean momentum de"cit measurements in the

wake of a pitching NACA 0015 airfoil for high-amplitude #ap-
shoulder blowing and excitation, corresponding to Figs. 61 and
62 [109,112].

An example of intermittent #ap-shoulder excitation,

with d "203, is presented in Figs. 65a and b. As before
D
(see Figs. 61), even though the maximum incidence angle
is 43 above the static stall angle, dynamic stall is light for
the baseline case, as can be best seen from the moment
excursions (Fig. 65b), due to the relatively high reduced
pitch-rate (k"0.1) considered here. As in the leading-
edge excitation case demonstrated above, continuous
excitation brings about signi"cant lift increases which are
maintained throughout the entire cycle. In contrast, how-
ever, instantaneous dC /da is not signi"cantly a!ected.
*
As before (Fig. 61), the moment excursions are not signi"-
cantly a!ected, but excitation induces a further mean
nose-down pitching moment of C &0.05. Al-
+
 
though intrinsically di!erent to the previous case,
a similar control strategy was applied for #ap-shoulder
excitation. Here, excitation is initiated soon after the
commencement of pitch-up, and terminated in the region
where the continuous excitation down-stroke lift data
begins to increase. As indicated on the "gure, this control
strategy brought about the maximum possible lift excur-
sions, namely between the minimum baseline and
maximum excitation limits (C "0.86). It should be
*
appreciated that the time-scales characterizing the airfoil
pitch-rate are associated with the airfoil chord, whereas
those governing separation and attachment are asso-
ciated with the airfoil #ap-length. This di!erence should
be accounted for when estimating the fraction of the cycle
during which separation and attachment take place.
Fig. 64. Intermittent leading-edge excitation on a NACA
0015 airfoil with the airfoil entirely in the post stall regime [182].
14.2.5. Post-stall unsteadiness
Finally, we conclude with a comment on unsteady
loads during dynamic stall. Greenblatt et al. [181] com-
pared the phase-averaged aerodynamic quantities during
the pitch-cycle to those measured instantaneously on
a NACA 0015 airfoil for a"203#53sin(2pf t!903)
subjected to a variety of pitching frequencies for both
baseline and leading-edge control scenarios. In general,
during the upstroke, the di!erences between phase-aver-
aged and instantaneous data were relatively small for
both baseline and controlled cases. Near maximum inci-
dence and during the downstroke, however, large excur-
sions in baseline instantaneous data were present. This
was particularly evident from the lift data, which exhib-
ited large excursions during the downstroke. Flow visual-
ization data of Piziali [202] shows that dynamic stall has
a strong three-dimensional character and this may
explain the large excursions evident here. Excitation, on
the other hand, signi"cantly reduced the high level of
538 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
Fig. 65. Intermittent #ap-shoulder excitation a NACA 0015
airfoil illustrating lift excursion control in the pre-stall regime
[180}182].
unsteadiness associated with the downstroke data. These
observations highlight the di$culties associated with
two-dimensional modeling of baseline deep dynamic
stall (e.g. [203}205]). On the other hand, 2-D slot
excitation increases the spanwise coherence of the result-
ing LCSs, which signi"cantly reduces cycle-to-cycle
aberrations and validates the use of two-dimensional
modeling.
15. Conclusions and future research
The review presented in this paper outlined some of
the recent developments in separation control by peri-
odic excitation, which is generated by hydrodynamic
means. As a basis for the paper, the authors endeavoured
to illustrate the importance of the excited mixing layer for
understanding separation control, by showing how it
attaches to a de#ected #ap. An attempt was also made to
illustrate important di!erences, as well as similarities,
between both BLC and acoustic excitation, and hydro-
dynamic excitation. The de#ected #ap was then further
used as a paradigm to isolate governing parameters
and illustrate the principles and mechanisms of separ-
ation control. Amongst the most important conclusions
was the identi"cation of the reduced frequency
F>,f X /; "O(1) as optimum to cause attachment
  
of an otherwise separated #ow to the #ap and the ap-
proximate range 2(F>(4 as optimum to prevent sep-
aration, providing that the upstream boundary layer was
fully turbulent. The generation and advection of LCSs,
transferring high momentum #uid to the #ap surface was
found to be the principle mechanism responsible for the
control of separation. A small amount of steady blowing,
superimposed on the excitation was found to have a det-
rimental e!ect on separation control, while the opposite
was true for a small amount of superimposed steady
suction.
A detailed analysis of two-dimensional airfoil data
showed that, for the overwhelming majority of investiga-
tions, the reduced frequency: 0.3)F>)4 was e!ective,
while the state of the upstream boundary layer (i.e.
laminar, transitional or turbulent) did not have a signi"-
cant e!ect. Unlike either steady blowing or acoustic
excitation, the e!ective momentum addition was in the
approximate range 0.01%(C (3%. Experimental
I
data showed that excitation at the shoulder of a de#ected
#ap was particularly e!ective, even up to large #ap defec-
tion angles d &603 and was e!ectively independent of
D
Reynolds number. A wide range of data showed conclus-
ively that excitation is much more e!ective and e$cient
than steady blowing by anything up to two orders of
magnitude. Moreover, for aerodynamically ine$cient
bodies, excitation could bring about large increases in lift
and/or reductions in drag. Additional important con-
clusions were that excitation e!ectiveness decreases as
the distance between the actuator (or slot) and the separ-
ation location increases; and signi"cant reduction of
post-stall vortex-shedding and bu!et can be achieved.
Three-dimensional e!ects were considered by accounting
for the e!ect of pressure gradient, and thus boundary
layer development, on an in"nite swept wing. This result-
ed in a transformation from two-dimensional to three-
dimensional #ows and assisted in the analysis of #ow
control over delta wings.
The e!ects of surface curvature were investigated by
considering the #ow over a curved #ap, a `Stratford-
rampa, a Coanda cylinder and circular cylinders. Flow
over the curved #ap emphasized the importance of the
excitation location and showed that excitation too far
upstream was ine$cient for performance enhancement.
Excitation of the #ow over the Stratford ramp, with
a boundary layer continually on the verge of separation,
revealed an e$cient transfer of momentum toward the
wall. This resulted in signi"cant increases of the skin
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
friction accompanied by substantial decreases in the
wake component of the boundary layer. On the Coanda
cylinder, provisional data suggests that excitation inter-
acts with both in#ectional and centrifugal instabilities,
thus amplifying the perturbations more e!ectively. Here
too, the location of excitation has a profound e!ect on
the #ow. For #ow over circular cylinders, excitation had
profound e!ects of on lift, separation location and vortex
shedding frequency at sub-critical Reynolds numbers.
In this context, apparently curvature did not have a
signi"cant e!ect on optimum reduced frequencies, with
F>"O(1).
"
An analysis of unexcited #ows with recirculation bub-
bles, particularly for backward facing steps and axially
mounted blunt-faced cylinders, showed broad agreement
of the Strouhal numbers based on shedding frequency:
0.5(f X /; (0.8 [126] and f h /; +0.08 [127].
   
Similar values for F>,f X /; and f h /; were as-
   
certained on the de#ected #ap providing that the min-
imum momentum (or amplitude) required to prevent
bubble bursting, was supplied.
Dynamic attachment and separation (stall) was
studied by terminating or initiating excitation supplied to
#ow over a static defected #ap. It was ascertained that
dynamic stall from a static de#ected #ap bears signi"cant
similarities to well-known rotorcraft-blade dynamic stall.
The analysis further emphasized the principle of time-
scale disparity between the dynamic stall vortex and the
structures which a!ect its control. Parametric studies,
aimed at controlling dynamic stall from airfoils oscillat-
ing at rotorcraft reduced frequencies, showed signi"cant
lift increases while simultaneously containing drag and
moment excursions. Moreover, the generation and ad-
vection of LCSs were not signi"cantly a!ected by the
periodic pitching motion and thus reduced frequencies
F>, observed to be e!ective on static airfoils, were also
e!ective for dynamic stall control. On the basis of the
time-scale disparity, intermittent excitation was used to
further improve performance.
From an applications perspective, separation control
by excitation, is in its infancy. Provisional data presented
in this paper shows a wide range of possible applications,
from high-lift devices to the elimination of control sur-
faces. To this end, areas which will demand attention in
the near future include applications to UAVs, including
low Reynolds number problems associated with MAVs.
Aircraft, or components of aircraft, which include in-
herent aerodynamic ine$ciencies should be targeted as
areas of immediate research as the returns could be
considerable. In the context of dynamic stall, future re-
search should address the issue of compressibility.
From a fundamental perspective is strongly recom-
mended that experimental data be reported with a calib-
ration of disturbance amplitude as well as frequency, so
as to facilitate comparison of relative performance for
various generic con"gurations. A priority area that
539
should be researched vigorously is the e!ect of curvature.
For example, a combination in#ectional and centrifugal
instability may embody performance enhancements
hitherto unexploited. A further, and possibly related, area
is that of examining large #ap de#ection. This may have
profound implications for commercial aircraft. An addi-
tional area of fundamental importance, that has not
received appropriate attention, is the e!ect of excitation
location and orientation on separation control.
In closing it should be noted that the Wright brothers
#ew the "rst powered aircraft a year before Prandtl
uncovered the secrets of the boundary layer. The prin-
ciple basis for design was their own empirical data. To be
successful, at least in the short term, control of separation
by periodic excitation may follow a similar route. Theor-
etical understanding and numerical prediction methods
will, hopefully, follow in due course.
Acknowledgements
The authors are deeply indebted to Dr. A. Seifert for
critically reviewing the draft and providing numerous
insightful suggestions. The authors also wish to thank
Dr. B. Nishri, Messrs. A. Darabi, D. Neuburger and
T. Naveh for actively assisting in the preparation of much
of the material presented here.
References
[1] Maskell EC. Flow separation in three dimensions. RAE
Report Aero 2565, 1955.
[2] Chang PK. Control of separation. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1976.
[3] Telionis DP. Review } Unsteady boundary layers, separ-
ated and attached. ASME J Fluids Eng 1979;101:
29}43.
[4] Gad-el-Hak M, Bushnell DM. Separation control:
review. J Fluid Engng 1991;113:5}30.
[5] Simpson RL. Turbulent boundary layer separation.
Annu Rev Fluid Mech 1989;21:205}34.
[6] Simpson RL. Aspects of turbulent boundary layer separ-
ation. Prog Aerospace Sci 1996;32(5):457}521.
[7] Bradshaw P, Wong FYF. The reattachment and relax-
ation of a turbulent shear layer. J Fluid Mech Part
1 1972;52:113}35.
[8] Kim J, Kline SJ, Johnston JP. Investigation of a reattach-
ing turbulent shear layer: #ow over a backward-facing
step. J Fluids Eng 1980;102 (9).
[9] Stratford BS. The prediction of separation of the turbu-
lent boundary layer. J Fluid Mech 1959;5:1}16.
[10] Anderson Jr JD. Introduction to #ight, 3rd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1989.
[11] Wygnanski I. Boundary layer #ow control by periodic
addition of momentum (Invited). AIAA Paper 97-2117
4th AIAA Shear Flow Conference, Snowmass Village,
CO, June 29}July 2, 1997.
540 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
[12] Prandtl L. UG ber FluK ssigkeitsbeweung bei sehr kleiner-
Reibung. Proceedings of Third International Mathemat-
ical Congress, Heidelberg, 1904, p. 484}91.
[13] Dryden HL. Fifty years of boundary layer theory and
experiment. Sciences 1955;121:375}80.
[14] Lachmann GV. Boundary layer and #ow control. Its
principles and application, vol. 1. New York: Pergamon
Press, 1961.
[15] Lachmann GV. Boundary layer and #ow control. Its
principles and application, vol. 2. New York: Pergamon
Press, 1961.
[16] Attinello JS. Design and engineering features of #ap
blowing installations. In: Lachmann GV, editor. Bound-
ary layer and #ow control. Its principles and application,
vol. 1. New York: Pergamon Press, 1961. p. 463}515.
[17] Schubauer GB, Skramstad HK. Laminar boundary layer
oscillations and transition on a #at pate. NACA Rep 909,
1948.
[18] Mangiarotty RA. Control of laminar #ow in #uids by
means of acoustic energy. US Patent 4,802,642, 1989.
[19] Meier HU, Zhou MD. Method and apparatus for in-
#uencing a laminar turbulent boundary layer transition
on bodies in #ow. US Patent 4,989,810, 1991.
[20] Collins FG, Zelenevitz J. In#uence of sound upon separ-
ated #ow over wings. AIAA J 1975;13(3):408}10.
[21] Brown GL, Roshko A. On density e!ects and large
structure in turbulent mixing layers. J Fluid Mech
1974;64:775}816.
[22] Winant CD, Browand FK. Vortex pairing: the mecha-
nism of turbulent mixing layer growth at moderate
Reynolds number. J Fluid Mech Part 2 1974;63:
237}56.
[23] Oster D, Wygnanski I, Dziomba B, Fiedler H. The e!ect
of initial conditions on the two-dimensional, turbulent
mixing layer. In: Fiedler H, editor. Structure and mech-
anics of turbulence. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 75.
Berlin: Springer, 1978. p. 48}64.
[24] Ho CM, Huang LS. Subharmonics and vortex merging in
mixing layers. J Fluid Mech 1982;119:119}42.
[25] Browand FK, Ho CM. The mixing layer: an example
of quasi two-dimensional turbulence. Journal de
Mecanique, 1983.
[26] Ho CM, Huerre P. Perturbed free shear layers. Annu Rev
Fluid Mech 1984;16:365}424.
[27] Wygnanski I, Petersen RA. Coherent motion in excited
free shear #ows. AIAA J 1987;25(2):201}13.
[28] Katz Y, Nishri B, Wygnanski IJ. The delay of turbulent
boundary layer separation by oscillatory active control.
AIAA Paper 98-0975, 1989.
[29] Katz Y, Nishri B, Wygnanski I. The delay of turbulent
boundary layer separation by oscillatory active control.
Phys Fluids 1989;1:179}81.
[30] Nishri B, Wygnanski I. On #ow separation and its con-
trol. Computational methods in applied sciences. New
York: Wiley, 1996. p. 471}82.
[31] Nishri B, Wygnanski I. E!ects of periodic excitation on
turbulent separation from a #ap. AIAA J 1998;36(4):
547}56.
[32] Huang LS, Maestrello L, Bryant TD, Separation control
over airfoils at high angles of attack by sound emanating
from the surface. AIAA Paper 87-1261, 1987.
[33] Darabi A. On the mechanism of forced #ow reattach-
ment. PhD Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 2000.
[34] Neuburger D, Wygnanski I. The use of a vibrating ribbon
to delay separation on two-dimensional airfoils: somep-
reliminary observations. Presented at the Workshop on
Unsteady Separated Flow, Air Force Academy, July 1987.
[35] Roos FW, Kegelman JT. Control of coherent structures
in reattaching laminar and turbulent shear layers. AIAA
J 1986;24(12):1956}63.
[36] Viets H, Piatt M, Ball M. Boundary layer control by
unsteady vortex generation. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn
1987;7:135}44.
[37] Zhou MD, Fernholz HH, Ma HY, Wu JZ, Wu, JM.
Votrex capture by a two-dimensional airfoil with a small
iscillating leading-edge #ap, AIAA Paper 93-3266, 1993.
[38] Jacot D, Mabe J. Boeing active #ow control system.
AIAA Paper 2000-2473, Fluids 2000, Denver CO, June
19}22, 2000.
[39] Kiya M, Shimizu M, Mochizuki O, Ido Y, Ogura Y. Active
control of a turbulent separated #ow zone. XVIIIth
ICTAM, pp. 1}13, Haifa, Israel, 22}28 August 1992.
[40] Seifert A, Bachar T, Koss T, Shepshelovich M, Wyg-
nanski I. Oscillatory blowing, a tool to delay boundary
layer separation. AIAA J 1993;31(11):2052}60.
[41] Seifert A, Bachar T, Wygnanski I, Koss D, Shepshelovich
M. Oscillatory blowing, a tool to delay boundary layer
separation. AIAA Paper 93-0440, 31st AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, January 1993.
[42] Seifert A, Darabi A, Nishri B, Wygnanski I. The e!ects of
forced oscillations on the performance of airfoils. AIAA
Paper 93-3264, AIAA Shear Flow Conference, July 1993.
[43] Guy Y, Morrow J, Mclaughlin T. Control of vortex
breakdown on a delta wing by periodic blowing and
suction. AIAA Paper 99-132, 37th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 12}15, 1999.
[44] Amitay M, Smith BL, Glezer A. Aerodynamic #ow con-
trol using synthetic jet technology. AIAA Paper 98-0208,
36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV,
January 12}15, 1998.
[45] Siller HA, Fernholz H-H. Control of the separated #ow
downstream of a two-dimensional fence. Euromech Col-
loquium 361 * Active Control of Turbulent Shear
Flows, Berlin, 17}19 March 1997.
[46] Wlezien RW, Horner GC, McGowan AR, Padula SL,
Scott MA, Silcox RJ, Simpson JO. Aircraft morphing
program. SPIE Proceedings, vol. 3326. Paper C: 3326-
20, 1998, p. 176}87.
[47] Hassan AA. Numerical simulations and potential ap-
plications of zero-mass jets for enhanced rotorcraft
aerodynamic performance. AIAA Paper 98-0211, 36th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV,
January 12}15, 1998.
[48] Chernyshenko SI. Stabilization of trapped vortices by
alternating blowing suction. Phys Fluids 1995;4:802}7.
[49] Goldstein ME. Generation of instability waves in #ows
separating from smooth surfaces. J Fluid Mech
1984;145:71}94.
[50] Donovan JF, Kral LD, Cary AW. Active #ow control
applied to an airfoil. AIAA Paper 98-0210, 36th Aero-
space Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January
12}15, 1998.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
[51] Wu JZ, Vakili AD, Wu JM. Review of the physics of
enhancing vortex lift by unsteady excitation. Prog Aero-
space Sci 1998;28:73}131.
[52] Wu JZ, Lu XY, Denny AG, Fan MF, Wu JM. Post-stall
#ow control on an airfoil by local unsteady forcing.
J Fluid Mech 1998;371:21}58.
[53] McMichael JM. MEMS and challenges of #ow control.
Invited oral presentation, AIAA 3rd Shear #ow control
conference, Orlando, FL, July 1993.
[54] Friedman PP, Millott T. Vibration reduction in rotor-
craft using active control } A comparison of various
approaches. AIAA J Guidance Control Dyn 1995;18(4):
664}73.
[55] Ramiz MA, Acharya M. Detection of #ow state in an
unsteady separating #ow. AIAA J 1992;30(1):117}23.
[56] Ha CM. Neural networks approach to AIAA Aircraft
Control design challenge. AIAA Paper 91-2672, 1991.
[57] Faller WE, Schreck SJ. Neural networks: applications
and opportunities in aeronautics. Prog Aerospace Sci
1996;32(5):433}56.
[58] D'Andrea R, Behnken RL, Murray RM. Active control of
an axial #ow compressor via pulsed air injection. J Tur-
bomachinery 1997;119(4):742}52.
[59] Nelson C, Koga D, Eaton J. Unsteady separated #ow
behind an oscillating two-dimensional #ap. AIAA Paper
89-0288, 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV,
January 9}12, 1989.
[60] Flatt J. The history of boundary layer control research in
the United States of America. In: Lachmann GV, editor.
Boundary layer and #ow control. Its principles and ap-
plication, vol. 1. New York: Pergamon Press, 1961.
p. 122}43.
[61] Schlichting H. Boundary layer theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1979.
[62] Betz A. History of boundary layer control in Germany.
In: Lachmann GV, editor. Boundary layer and #ow con-
trol. Its principles and application, vol. 1. New York:
Pergamon Press, 1961. p. 1}20.
[63] Head MR. History of research on boundary layer control
for low drag in UK. In: Lachmann GV, editor. Boundary
layer and #ow control. Its principles and application, vol.
1. New York: Pergamon Press, 1961. p. 104}21.
[64] Carriere P, Eichelbrenner EA. Theory of #ow reattach-
ment by a tangential jet discharging against a strong
adverse pressure gradient. In: Lachmann GV, editor.
Boundary layer and #ow control. Its principles and ap-
plication, vol. 1. New York: Pergamon Press, 1961.
p. 209}31.
[65] Attinello JS. Flow control } the integration of power
plant and airframe for future aircraft. Bureau of Aero-
nautics Research Division, Report No. DR-1745, 1952.
[66] Poisson-Quinton Ph. Recherches theH oriques et expeH ri-
mentales sur le contro( l de couche limits. 7th Congress of
Applied Mechanics, London, September 1948.
[67] Seifert A, Darabi A, Wygnanski I. Delay of airfoil stallby
periodic excitation. AIAA J Aircraft 1996;33(4):691}8.
[68] Poisson-Quinton Ph, Lepage L. Survey of French re-
search on the control of boundary layer and circulation.
In: Lachmann GV, editor. Boundary layer and #ow con-
trol. Its principles and application, vol. 1. New York:
Pergamon Press, 1961. p. 21}73.
541
[69] Modi VJ, Hill SS, Yokomizo T. Drag reduction of trucks
through boundary-layer control. J Wind Eng Ind Aero-
dyn 1995;54:583}94.
[70] Zaman KBMQ, Bar-Sever A, Mangalam SM. E!ect of
acoustic excitation on the #ow over a low-Re airfoil.
J Fluid Mech 1987;182:127}48.
[71] Ahuja KK, Whipkey RR, Jones GS. Control of turbulent
boundary layer #ow by sound. AIAA Paper 83-0726,
1983.
[72] Ahuja KK, Burrin RH. Control of #ow separation by
sound. AIAA Paper 84-2298, 1984.
[73] Marchmann JF, Sumantran V, Shaefer CG. Acoustic
and turbulence in#uences on stall hysteresis. AIAA
J 1987;25(1):50}1.
[74] Nishioka M, Asai M, Yoshida S. Control of separation by
acoustic excitation. AIAA J 1990;28(11):1909}15.
[75] Zaman KBMQ. E!ect of acoustic excitation on stalled
#ows over an airfoil. AIAA J 1992;30(6).
[76] Zaman KBMQ, McKinzie DJ, Rumsey CL. A natu-
ral low-frequency oscillation of #ow over an airfoil
near stalling conditions. J Fluid Mech 1989;202:
403}42.
[77] Liepmann HW, Laufer J. Investigation of free turbulent
mixing. NACA TN 1257, 1947.
[78] Rajaratnam N. Turbulent jets. Amsterdam: Elsevier Sci-
enti"c Publishing Company, 1976.
[79] Oster D, Wygnanski I. The forced mixing layerbetween
parallel streams. J Fluid Mech 1982;123:91.
[80] Cohen J. Instabilities and resonances in turbulent free
shear #ows. PhD thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson,
1985.
[81] Nishri B. On the dominant mechanisms governing active
control of separation. PhD thesis, Tel Aviv University,
1995 [in Hebrew].
[82] Bachar T. Alternating #ow generator. Patent Pending
1998.
[83] Smith BL, Glezer A. The formation and evolution of
synthetic jets. Phys Fluids 1998;10(9):2289}97.
[84] Seifert A, Eliahu S, Greenblatt D, Wygnanski I. Use of
piezoelectric actuators for airfoil separation control.
AIAA J 1998;36(8):1535}7.
[85] DARPA. Proposer Information Pamphlet for BAA 98-
19: Enabling thechnologies for micro adaptive #ow con-
trol, 1998. http://www.darpa.mil/tto/mafc/pip..html,
Accessed on 17/03/99.
[86] LoK fdahl L, Gad-el-Hak M. MEMS applications in turbu-
lence and #ow control. Prog Aerospace Sci
1999;35(2):101}203.
[87] Reisenthel PH, Nagib HM, Koga DJ. Control of separ-
ated #ows using forced unsteadiness. AIAA Paper 85-
0556, AIAA Shear Flow Control Conference, Boulder,
Colorado, 12}14 March 1985.
[88] Wygnanski I. Method and apparatus for delaying the
separation of #ow from a solid surface. US Patent
5,209,438,1993.
[89] Nagib H, Reisenthel P, Koga D. On the dynamical scal-
ing of forced unsteady separated #ows. AIAA Paper
85-0553, 1985.
[90] Gad-el-Hak M, Blackwelder RF. Control of the dis-
crete vortices from a delta wing. AIAA J 1987;25(8):
1042}9.
542 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
[91] Guy Y, Morrow J, Mclaughlin T. Pressure measurement
and #ow "eld visualization on a delta wing with periodic
blowing and suction. AIAA Paper 99-4178, AIAA Atmo-
spheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Port-
land, OR, August 9}11, 1999.
[92] Darabi A, Lourenco L, Wygnanski I. On #ow reattach-
ment by periodic excitation. Eighth European Turbu-
lence Conference, Advances in Turbulence VIII, Bar-
celona, Spain, 2000, pp. 201}4.
[93] Greenblatt D, Darabi A, Nishri B, Wygnanski I. Some
factors a!ecting stall control with particular emphasis
on dynamic stall. AIAA Paper 99-3504, 30th AIAA
Fluid Dynamics Conference, Norfolk, VA, 28 June}1
July 1999.
[94] Viets H, Piatt M, Ball M. Unsteady wing boundary layer
energization. AIAA Paper 79-1631, 1979.
[95] Neuburger D. An active delay of separation on two-
dimensional airfoils. MSc thesis, Tel Aviv Univer-
sity,1989 [in Hebrew].
[96] Bar-Sever A. Separation control on an airfoil by periodic
forcing. AIAA J 1989;27(6):820}1.
[97] Hsiao F-B, Liu C-F, Shyu J-Y. Control of wall-separated
#ow by internal acoustic excitation. AIAA J 1990;28(8):
1440}6.
[98] Shepshelovich M, Koss T, Wygnanski I, Seifert A. Active
#ow control on low Re airfoils. AIAA Paper 89-0538,
January 1989.
[99] Chang RC, Hsiao F-B, Shyu RN. Forcing level e!ects of
internal acoustic excitation on the improvement of airfoil
performance. AIAA J 1992;29(5):823}9.
[100] Hsiao F-B, Shyu R-N, Chang RC. High angle of attack
airfoil performance improvement by internal acoustic
excitation. AIAA J 1994;32(3):655}7.
[101] Darabi A. The e!ect of oscillatory blowing on a stalling
airfoil. MSc thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1995 [in He-
brew].
[102] Tinapp F, Stumpf E, Nitche W. Separation control on
a high-lift con"guration. Euromech Colloquium 361
} Active Control of Turbulent Shear Flows, Berlin, 17}19
March 1997.
[103] Smith D, Amitay M, Kibens V, Parekh D, Glezer A.
Modi"cation of lifting body aerodynamics using syn-
thetic jet actuators. AIAA Paper 98-0209, 36th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 12}15,
1998.
[104] Seifert A, Pack LG. Oscillatory control of separation at
high Reynolds numbers. AIAA Paper 98-0214, 36th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV,
January 12}15, 1998.
[105] Naveh T, Seifert A, Tumin A, Wygnanski I. Sweep e!ect
on parameters governing control of separation by peri-
odic excitation. AIAA J 1998;35(3):510}2.
[106] Erk P, Graichen K, Fernholz H-H. Separation control on
an airfoil using strong acoustic perturbations. Euromech
Colloquium 361 } Active Control of Turbulent Shear
Flows, Berlin, 17}19 March 1997.
[107] Seifert A, Pack LG. Oscillatory excitation of unsteady
compressible #ows over airfoils at #ight Reynolds
numbers. AIAA Paper 99-0925, 37th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 11}14,
1999.
[108] Greenblatt D, Wygnanski I. The use of periodic excita-
tion to enhance airfoil performance at low Reynolds
numbers. AIAA J Aircraft 2001; to appear.
[109] Greenblatt D. Dynamic stall control by oscillatory exci-
tation. PhD Thesis, Tel-Aviv University, November
1999.
[110] Bachar T, Wygnanski I, Ashpis D. Active control of
separation in the presence of high freestream turbulence.
Abstract JK.01, Control of Turbulent Flows, APS Meet-
ing 1998.
[111] Greenblatt D, Wygnanski I. Dynamic stall control by
oscillatory forcing. AIAA Paper 98-0676, 36th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 12}15,
1998.
[112] Greenblatt D, Wygnanski I. Parameters a!ecting dy-
namic stall control by oscillatory excitation. AIAA Paper
99-3121, 17th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference,
Norfolk, VA, 28 June}1 July 1999.
[113] Wygnanski I. On active #ow control: a personal pespec-
tive, 39th Israel Annual Conference on Aerospace
Sciences, February 1999.
[114] Delery JM. Shock wave/turbulent boundary layer inter-
action and its control. Prog Aerospace Sci 1985;22:209}80.
[115] Wallis RA, Stuart CM. On the control of shock-induced
boundary layer separation with discrete air jets. ARC CP
No. 595, 1962.
[116] McCormick DC. Shock-boundary layer interaction with
low pro"le vortex generators and passive cavity. AIAA
Paper 92-0064, 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno,
NV, 6}9 January 1992.
[117] Hites M, Nagib H, Sytsma B, Wygnanski I, Seifert A,
Bachar T. Lift enhancement using pulsed blowing at
compressible #ow conditions. 50th Annual Meeting of
The APS's Division of Fluid Dynamics, San Francisco,
23}25 November 1997.
[118] Roshko A. On the drag and shedding frequency of two-
dimensional blu! bodies. NACA TM 3169, 1954.
[119] McLean JD, Crouch JD, Stoner RC, Sakurai S, Seidel
GE, Feifel WM, Rush HM. Study of the application of
separation control by unsteady excitation to civil trans-
port aircraft. NASA/CR-1999-209338, 1999.
[120] Lin JC. Control of turbulent boundary-layer separations
using micro-vortex generators. AIAA Paper 99-3404,
30th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Norfolk, VA, 28
June}1 July 1999.
[121] Nishri B. The delay of turbulent boundary layer separ-
ation by oscillatory active control. MSc thesis, Tel Aviv
University, Israel, 1989 [in Hebrew].
[122] Pack LG, Seifert A. Periodic excitation for jet vectoring
and enhanced spreading. AIAA Paper 99-0672, 37th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno,
Nevada, January 11}14, 1999.
[123] Schmidt GS, Mueller TJ. Analysis of low Reynolds num-
ber separation bubbles using semi-empirical methods.
AIAA J 1989;27(8):993}1001.
[124] Liebeck RH. Laminar separation bubbles and airfoil de-
sign at low Reynolds numbers. AIAA Paper 92-2735-CP,
1992.
[125] Horton HP, Laminar separation bubbles in two and
three dimensional incompressible #ow. PhD thesis, Uni-
versity of London, London, 1968.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
[126] Mabey DG. Analysis and correlation of data on pressure
#uctuations in separated #ow. AIAA J Aircraft 1972;9(9):
642}5.
[127] Sigurdson LW, Roshko A. Controlled unsteady excita-
tion of a reattaching #ow. AIAA Paper 85-0552, AIAA
Shear Flow Control Conference, Boulder Colorado,
12}14 March 1985.
[128] Sigurdson LW. The structure control of a turbulent reat-
taching #ow. J Fluid Mech 1995;298:139}65.
[129] Levi E. A universal stouhal law. ASCE J Eng Mech
1983;109(3):718}27.
[130] Kiya M, Mochizuki O, Suzuzki N. Separation control by
vortex projectiles. AIAA Paper 99-3400, 30th AIAA
Fluid Dynamics Conference, Norfolk, VA, 28 June}1
July 1999.
[131] Huppertz A, Janke G. Some new results on the control of
the #ow over a backward-facing step. Euromech Collo-
quium 361 } Active Control of Turbulent Shear Flows,
Berlin, 17}19 March 1997.
[132] Eaton JK, Johnson JP. A review of research on subsonic
turbulent #ow reattachment. AIAA J 1981;19(9):
1093}100.
[133] Troutt TR, Scheelke B, Norman TR. Organized struc-
tures in a reattaching separated #ow"eld. J Fluid Mech
1984;143:413}27.
[134] Hasdai G. Delay of airfoil stall by periodic oscillatory
excitation: NACA 0012. Final Year Research Report, Tel
Aviv University, 1999 (also see Hasdai G. Delay of airfoil
stall by periodic oscillatory excitation on a NACA 0012
Aifoil. Mechonot, Issue No. 28, pp. 32}35, March 2000.)
[135] Kiya M, Shimizu M, Mochizuki O. Sinusoidal forcing of
a turbulent separation bubble. J Fluid Mech 1997;342:
119}39.
[136] Shimizu M, Kiya M, Mochizuki O, Ido Y. Response of an
axisymmetric separation bubble to sinosoidal forcing.
Trans JSME 1993;B59:721}7 [in Japanese].
[137] Patel VC, Sotiropoulos F. Longitudinal curvature e!ects
in turbulent boundary layers. Prog Aerospace Sci
1997;33(1-2):1}70.
[138] Stratford BS. An experimental #ow with zero skin friction
throughout its region of pressure rise. J Fluid Mech
1959;5:17}35.
[139] Liebeck RH. On the design of subsonic airfoils for high
lift. AIAA 9th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference,
San Diego, California, 14}16 July 1976.
[140] Elsberry K. The Stratford ramp. MSc thesis, University
of Arizona, Tucson, 1996.
[141] Elsberry K, Loe%er J, Zhou MD, Wygnanski I. An
experimental study of a boundary layer that is main-
tained on the verge of separation. J Fluid Mech 2000; in
press.
[142] Spangenberg WR, Roland NE. Measurements in a turbu-
lent boundary layer maintained in a nearly separating
condition. In: Sovran G, editor. Fluid mechanics of inter-
nal Flow. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing Company,
1967.
[143] Neuendorf R, Wygnanski I. On a turbulent wall jet
#owing over a circular cylinder. J Fluid Mech 1999;381:
1}25.
[144] Neuendorf R. Turbulent wall jet along a convex curved
surface. PhD thesis, Technical University, Berlin, 2000.
543
[145] Peterka JA, Richardson PD. E!ects of sound on separ-
ated #ow. J Fluid Mech 1969;37:265}87.
[146] Blevins RD. The e!ect of sound on vortex shedding from
cylinders. J Fluid Mech 1985;161:217}37.
[147] Williams D, Acharya M, Bernhardt J, Yang P. The mech-
anism of #ow control on a cylinder with the unsteady
bleed technique. AIAA Paper 91-0039, 29th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, 1991.
[148] Schewe G. On the forced #uctuations acting on acircular
cylinder in a cross-#ow from sub-critical to trans-critical
Reynolds number. J Fluid Mech 1983;133:265}85.
[149] Pal D, Sinha K. Controlling an unteady separating
boundary layer on a cylinder with an active compliant
wall. AIAA Paper 97-0212, 35th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, Reno, NV, 1997.
[150] Heine C, Spiess MC, MoK ser M, Fiedler HE. The in#uence
of feedback control on the vortex dynamics in a turbulent
cylinder wake. Euromech Colloquium 361 } Active Con-
trol of Turbulent Shear Flows, Berlin, 17}19 March 1997.
[151] Liu WP, Brodie G. A demonstartion of active turbulence
transition with MEMS sensors. Abstract YC06.06,
American Physical Society Centennial Meeting Pro-
gram, March 20}26, Atlanta, GA, 1999.
[152] Naveh T. The e!ect of sweep on separation control
over an airfoil. MSc thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1997
[in Hebrew].
[153] McCormick BW. Aerodynamics, aeronautics and #ight
mechanics. New York: Wiley, 1979.
[154] Wygnanski I. Some new observations a!ecting the con-
trol of separation by periodic excitation (Invited). AIAA
Paper 2000-2314, Fluids 2000, Denver CO, June 19}22,
2000.
[155] Guy Y, Morrow J, Mclaughlin T. Parametric investiga-
tion of the e!ects of active #ow control on the normal
force of a delta wing. AIAA Paper 2000-0549, 38th Aero-
space Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January
12}15, 2000.
[156] Squire HB. On the stability of three-dimensional distri-
bution of viscous #uid between parallel walls. Proc Roy
Soc London A 1933;142:621}8.
[157] Johnson JP, Nishi M. Vortex generator jets * a means
for #ow separation control. AIAA J 1990;28:989.
[158] McManus KR, Joshi PB, Legner HH, Davis SJ. Active
control of aerodynamic stall using pulsed jet actuators.
AIAA Paper 95-2187, 26th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Con-
ference, San Diego, CA, June 19}22, 1995.
[159] McManus K, Magill J. Separation control in incompress-
ible and compressible #ows using pulsed jets. AIAA Pa-
per 96-1948, 27th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference,
New Orleans, LA, June 17}20, 1996.
[160] McManus K, Magill J. Airfoil performance enhancement
using pulsed jet separation control. AIAA Paper 97-1971,
28th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Snowmass Vill-
age, CO, June 29}July 2, 1997.
[161] Cannan JW. Seeing more, and risking less, with UAVs.
Aerospace America, October 1999. p. 26}34.
[162] Shyy W, Berg M, Ljungqvist D. Flapping #exible wings
for biological and micro air vehicles. Prog Aerospace Sci
1999;35(5):455}505.
[163] Nordwall BD. Micro air vehicles hold great promise,
challenges. Aviation Week Space Technol 1997;68}70.
544 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
[164] Englar RJ, Hudson GG. Development of advanced circu-
lation control wing high-lift airfoils. AIAA J Aircraft
1984;21:476.
[165] Shyy W, Jenkins DA, Smith RW. Study of adaptive shape
airfoils at low Reynolds number in oscillatory #ows.
AIAA J 1997;35:1545}8.
[166] Seifert A, Bachar T, Wygnanski I, Kariv A, Cohen H,
Yoeli R. Application of active separation control to a
small unmanned air vehicle. AIAA J Aircraft 1999;36(2):
474}7.
[167] Rott N. Unsteady viscous #ow in the vicinity of a stagna-
tion point. Quart Appl Math 1956;13:444}51.
[168] Sears WR. Some recent developments in airfoil theory.
J Aeronaut Sci 1956;23:490}9.
[169] Moore FK, On the separation of the unsteady laminar
boundary layer. In: GoK rtler H, editor. Boundary layer
research. Berlin: Springer, 1958, p. 296}310.
[170] Williams III JC, Johnson WD. Note on unsteady bound-
ary layer separation. AIAA J 1974;12:1427}9.
[171] Walker, JDA. Unsteady boundary layer separation
in two dimensional #ows. Workshop on Supermaneu-
verability: physics ofseparated #ows at high angle of
attack, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, April 9}10,
1992.
[172] Sears WR, Telionis DP. Unsteady boundary-layer separ-
ation. In: Eichelbrenner EA, editor. Recent research on
unsteady boundary layers, vol. 1. Quebec, Canada:
Presse de l'Universite Laval, 1972; p. 404}42.
[173] Sears WR, Telionis DP. Boundary layer separation of
unsteady #ow. J Appl Math 1975;28:215}35.
[174] Van Dommelen L, Shen SF. The spontaneous generation
of the singularity in a separating laminar boundary layer.
J Comput Phys 1980;38:125}40.
[175] Choudhuri PG, Knight DD, Visbal MR. Two-dimen-
sional unsteady leading-edge separation on a pitching
airfoil. AIAA J 1994;32(4):673}81.
[176] Shih C, Lourenco LM, Krothapalli A. Investigation of
#ow at leading trailing edges of pitching-up airfoil. AIAA
J 1995;33(8):1369}76.
[177] Despard RA, Miller JA. Separation in oscillating laminar
boundary layer #ows. J Fluid Mech 1971;47:21}31.
[178] Carr LW. Progress in the analysis and prediction of
dynamic stall. AIAA J Aircraft 1988;25(1):6}17.
[179] Greenblatt D, Darabi A, Nishri B, Wygnanski I. Separ-
ation control by periodic addition of momentum with
particular emphasis on dynamic stall. American Heli-
copter Society Paper T3-4, Gifu, Japan, April 21}23,
1998.
[180] Greenblatt D, Nishri B, Darabi A, Wygnanski I. Dy-
namic stall control by oscillatory addition of momentum.
Part I: Mechanism. AIAA J Aircraft 2000a; in press.
[181] Greenblatt D, Wygnanski I. Dynamic stall control by
oscillatory addition of momentum. Part II: Parametric
study, AIAA J Aircraft 2000b; in press.
[182] Greenblatt D, Neuburger D, Wygnanski I. Dynamic stall
control by intermittent excitation. AIAA J Aircraft, 2001;
to appear.
[183] Herbst, W. Supermaneuverability. AFOSR/FJSRL/Uni-
versity of Colorado Workshop on unsteady Separated
Flows, US Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO,
August 1983.
[184] Wikens RH, Wind-tunnel investigation of dynamic stall
of NACA 0018 airfoil oscillating in pitch. Aero Note
NAE-AN-27, NRC24262, National Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa, Canada, February 1985.
[185] Stepniewski WZ, Keys CN. Rotary-wing aerodynamics.
New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1984.
[186] McCloud III KL, Hall LP, Brady JA. Full-scale wind
tunnel tests of blowing boundary layer control applied to
helicopter rotor. NASA TN D-335, 1960.
[187] Addington GA, Schreck SJ, Luttges MW. Static and
dynamic #ow "eld development about a porous suction
surface wing. AIAA Paper 92-2628-CP, 1992.
[188] Karim MA, Acharya M. Suppression of dynamic-stall
vortices over pitching airfoils by leading-edge suction.
AIAA J 1994;32(8):1647}55.
[189] Luttges MW, Robinson MC, Kennedy DA. Control of
unsteady separated #ow structures on airfoils. AIAA
Paper 85-0531, AIAA Shear Flow Control Conference,
1985.
[190] Weaver D, McAlister KW, Tso J. Suppression of dy-
namic stall by steady and pulsed upper-surface blowing.
AIAA Paper 98-2413,16th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, Albuquerque, NM, June 15}18, 1998.
[191] Green RB, Gilbraith RAMcD. An investigation of dy-
namic stall through the application of leading edge
roughness. Paper No. 137, 18th European Rotorcraft
Forum, Avignon, France, 1992.
[192] Wilder MC, Chandrasekhara MS, Carr LW. Transition
e!ects on compressible dynamic stall of transiently
pitching airfoils. AIAA Paper 93-2978, AIAA 24th Fluid
Dynamics Conference, Orlando, FL, July 6}9,
1993.
[193] Chandrasekhara MS, Wilder MC, Carr LW. Boundary
layer tripping studies of compressible dynamic stall #ow.
AIAA Paper 94-2340, 25th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Con-
ference, Colorado Springs, CO, June 20}23, 1994.
[194] Carr LW, McAlister KW. The e!ect of a leading-edge slat
on the dynamic stall of an oscillating airfoil. AIAA Paper
83-2533, AIAA/AHS Aircraft Design System and Opera-
tions Meeting, 1983.
[195] Yu YH, Lee S, McAlister KW, Tung C, Wang C. Dy-
namic stall control for advanced rotorcraft application.
AIAA J 1995;33(2):289}95.
[196] Carr LW, Chandrasekhara MS, Wilder MC, Noonan
KW. The e!ect of compressibility on suppression of
dynamic stalls using a slotted airfoil. AIAA Paper 98-
0332, 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,
Reno, NV, January 12}15, 1998.
[197] Freymuth P, Jackson S, Bank W. Toward dynamic separ-
ation without dynamic stall. Exp Fluids 1989;7:187}96.
[198] Chandrasekhara MS, Wilder MC, Carr LW. Control of
#ow separation using adaptive airfoils. AIAA Paper No
97-0655, 1997.
[199] Greenblatt D, Seifert A, Wygnanski I. Dynamic stall
management by oscillatory forcing. Euromech Collo-
quium 361: Active Control of Turbulent Shear Flows,
1997.
[200] McCroskey WJ, McAlister KW, Carr LW, Pucci SL. An
experimental study of dynamic stall on advanced airfoil
sections; vol. 1. Summary of the experiment. NASA TM
84245, July 1982.
 D. Greenblatt, I.J. Wygnanski / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 36 (2000) 487}545
[201] Carr LW, Chandrasekhara MS. Compressibility e!ects
on dynamic stall. Prog Aerospace Sci 1996;32:523}73.
[202] Piziali RA. 2-D and 3-D oscillating wing aerodynamics
for a range of angles of attack including stall. NASA TM
4632, 1994.
[203] Ekaterinaris JA, Menter FR. Computation of oscillating
airfoil #ows with one- and two-equation turbulence mod-
els. AIAA J 1994;32(12):2359}65.
[204] Ko S, McCroskey WJ. Computations of unsteady separ-
ating #ows over an oscillating airfoil. AIAA J 1997;35(7):
1235}8.
[205] Ekaterinaris JA, Platzer MF. Computational prediction
of airfoil dynamic stall. Prog Aerospace Sci 1997;33:
759}846.
[206] Carr LW, Chandrasekhara NJ, Brock NJ. Quantitative
study of compressible #ow on an oscillating airfoil. AIAA
J 1994;31(4):892}8.
[207] Carr LW, McCroskey WJ. A review of recent advances in
computational and experimental analysis of dynamic
stall. IUTAM Symposium on Fluid Dynamics of High
Angle of Attack, Tokyo, Japan, September 13}17, 1992.
[208] Chandrasekhara MS, Wilder MC, Carr LW. Unsteady
stall control using dynamically deforming airfoils. AIAA
J 1998;36(10):1792}800.
[209] Fiedler HE, Fernholz H-H. On management and control
of turbulent shear #ows. Prog Aerospace Sci 1990;27:
305}87.
545
[210] Greenblatt D, Seifert A, Wygnanski I. Dynamic stall
control by oscillatory forcing. Patent Pending, USA,
Europe & Japan, 1998.
[211] McAlister KW, Pucci SL, McCroskey WJ, Carr LW. An
experimental study of dynamic stall on advanced airfoil
sections, vol. 2. Pressure and force data. NASA TM
84245, 1982.
[212] Magill JC, McManus KR. Control of dynamic stall using
pulsed vortex generator jets. AIAA Paper 98-0675, 36th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV,
Januarny 12}15, 1998.
[213] Mullins J. Palmtop planes. New Scientist, April 1997.
[214] Shih C, Lourenco L, Van Dommelen L, Krothapalli A.
Unsteady #ow past an airfoil pitching at a constant rate.
AIAA J 1992;30(5):1153}61.
[215] Weisbrot I. A mixing layer excited by two frequencies.
MSc Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1985.
[216] Wu JM, Lu XY, Denny AG, Fan MF, Wu JZ. Post-stall
lift enhancement on an airfoil by local unsteady control.
Part I. Drag and pressure characteristics. AIAA Paper
97-2063, 4th AIAA Shear Flow Conference, Snowmass
Village, CO, June 29}July 2, 1977.
[217] Wu JZ, Lu XY, Wu JM. Post-stall lift enhancement on an
airfoil by local unsteady control. Part II. Mode competi-
tion and vortex dynamics. AIAA Paper 97-2063, 4th
AIAA Shear Flow Conference, Snowmass Village, CO,
June 29}July 2, 1977.