AFOSR

FLOW INTERACTIONS &

CONTROL
17 March 2011
DOUGLAS SMITH
Program Manager
AFOSR/RSA
Air Force Office of Scientific Research
Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 88ABW-2011-0791
 2011 AFOSR SPRING REVIEW
2307B PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW

NAME: Douglas Smith

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PORTFOLIO:

Foundational research examining aerodynamic interactions of
laminar/transitional/turbulent flows with structures, rigid or flexible,
stationary or moving.
Fundamental understanding is used to develop integrated control
approaches to intelligently modify the flow interaction to some advantage.

LIST SUB-AREAS IN PORTFOLIO:

Aerodynamic interactions with rigid & flexible structures
Flow physics modeling & feedback control
Bio-inspired Flight
 Flow Interactions & Control VISION
• Create opportunities in
• Eliminated
Gust tolerance/mitigation
flexibility
Agility lift and thrust
• Separated
Hover
• Lost versatility, agility, soaring
Integrated lift & thrust
capabilities aircraft
• Reconfigurable
• •Coordinated
Became intolerant of gusts
flight, swarming
• Enhanced efficiency

All will require an

Bio-inspiration understanding of
aerodynamic-structure
interactions and control.
3
 Flow Interactions & Control Thrusts

Flow-Structure Flow Physics

Interaction
Experiments
Flow Control

Theory/Analysis Uncontrolled
Computations Controlled

Fluid/Structure
Structure
Interactions & Control Control

Providing the scientific foundation for the understanding and control of

aerodynamic interactions where coupling between the flow and the structure is
intrinsic to the interaction.
 Scientific Challenges …
Non-linear interactions &
Flow physics & Scaling for control Opportunities for control

Bio-Inspired Flight Flexible surface & flow interactions

Lo Re # Unsteady Aerodynamics
 Control of Boundary-Layer Separation for
Lifting Surfaces
Direct Numerical Simulations (DNS) with Active Flow Control
(AFC) in realistic free-stream turbulence (FST) environment

Time- and spanwise-averaged streamlines

Tu=0.05% Uncontrolled, Tu=0

Uncontrolled, Tu=0.05%

Spanwise coherent structure

(l2 Vortex identification)
Uncontrolled, Tu=2.5%
 Separation control using high-
amplitude wall-normal blowing and
suction exploits shear-layer instability Controlled, Tu=0.05%

Tu=2.5%  Reduction of separation at low levels of

FST (typical for free flight).
Free-stream fluctuations
 Even more reduction at high levels of
FST (typical for turbomachinery flows).

 At higher levels of free-stream  Potential of Flow Control decreases as

turbulence: interaction of FST levels increase. However, at low
boundary-layer streaks and levels, AFC still proves to be beneficial.
spanwise coherent structures

Boundary-layer streaks

H. Fasel, Arizona, J. Bons, Ohio St, M. Gaster, U. London, R. Rivir, AFRL/RZ

 FLOW PHYSICS, NONLINEAR DYNAMICS AND
EFFECTIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES
AN INTEGRATED STUDY OF SEPARATION CONTROL

Flow separation induced on a finite thickness flat plate Experimental/Simulation Similarity

model with blunt trailing edge to eliminate curvature
effects present in a conventional airfoil 2D simulation
Instantaneous velocity

2D PIV

Goal: Leverage nonlinear

interactions to control
3D simulation separated flow

Koopman operator identifies flow

structures based on frequency content

Koopman mode

Koopman analysis can identify “interaction” modes of a

L. Cattafesta, Florida, R. Mittal, JHU, C.
Rowley, Princeton
fixed frequency that standard POD analysis cannot
 IDENTIFYING DEFICIENCIES IN CLASSICAL
UNSTEADY AERODYNAMIC MODELS

• Correct unsteady aerodynamic models are a requirement

Fluctuating Lift Amplitude

for energy extraction, gust suppression, and perch-landing

maneuvers
• Experiments and DNS simulations show significant
differences from Greenberg/Theodorsen model
predictions
• Longitudinal Flow Oscillations Produce Lift Amplitude
Increase and Phase Lead
• Different wake structure and periodic leading edge vortex
formation are possible sources for the discrepancies

k=fc/U
D. Williams, IIT, T. Colonius, Caltech
 Feedback Flow Control – Basic Research at USAFA, Funded by
AFOSR, Transitioning & Transforming Ocean Renewable Energy

2001: 2D bluff body flow control research starts at USAFA

Key team members: Dr. Stefan Siegel (Post Doc), Dr. Tom McLaughlin,
Dr. Kelly Cohen (ESEP), NRC Summer Faculty Fellow

2002-2005: “Feedback Flow Control”

AFOSR funded program
PM: Dr. Belinda King

2004-2006: “Feedback Flow Control Toolbox”

STTR Phase I & II w/ Cobalt Solutions LLC
PM: Dr. Belinda King

2006: “Unsteady Cyclical Propeller Feasibility Study”

USAFA/AFOSR small grant, PI: Dr. Stefan Siegel

2007-2010: “Cycloidal Propeller Wave Energy Converter”

NSF/ECCS grant, PI: Dr. Stefan Siegel

May 2010: Atargis Energy Inc. founded by Dr. Siegel and Mr. Korea
September 2010: DOE grant “Cycloidal Wave Energy Converter
TRL advancement from TRL 3 to TRL 4” awarded to Atargis
 Basic Science Responding to DoD Needs
Brownout Fluid Mechanics (MURI08)

Loss of visual cues  Flying quality problems for pilots

• Rotor wake dynamics “in ground effect” is at the root of the problem
• Unsteady, 2-phase, 3-dimensional fluid dynamics problem
Ingestion by engines Abrasion
• Wake impinging on the ground creates:
– Transient excursions in flow velocities
– Unsteady shear stresses and pressures
– Visualization
Secondary vortical flows and local regions of flow separation
– Turbulence Two-phase PIV
 Scientific Challenges …
Non-linear interactions &
Flow physics scaling for control Opportunities for control

Bio-Inspired Flight Flexible surface & flow interactions

Lo Re # Unsteady Aerodynamics
 Scientific Challenges…Inspiration

Steady, level flight Gust rejection

Integrated lift & thrust Very short TO/L Formation flying

Agile maneuvering Perching

Courtesy of Breuer & Swartz, 2010
 Challenges & Questions
CHALLENGES
Unsteady, periodic flow-fields
Three-dimensional flow-fields
Low Reynolds number flows
Laminar-transitional flows
Separation & Leading-edge vortices
Wing kinematics
Wing flexibility
QUESTIONS
To what extent can the flow be
treated as quasi-steady?
Can the flow be treated as 2-D
along the span of the wing? What
can we learn from these 2-D
treatments?
How good are inviscid
approximations?
How well must these flows be
resolved?
Why separated flow? Do LEVs
have universal formation scaling?
How sensitive are the aerodynamics
to the kinematics? Rectilinear vs
flapping?
What is the role of flexibility in
modifying aerodynamic efficiency?
 Bio-Inspired Flapping Flight
Complex & challenging
• 3D kinematics
• Flexibility
• Unique planforms
Simpler & accessible
• 2D motion
• Rigid
• Simple planforms
Unsteady Aeromechanics of Bat Flight (MURI-07)
K. Breuer, Brown U.
Biologically-Inspired, Anisotropic Flexible Wing for
Optimal Flapping Flight (MURI-07)
W. Shyy, U. Michigan
A An
Comprehensive
Integrated StudyStudy of Aeroelasticity
of Flight Stabilizationinwith
Flapping WingsMAVs
Flapping-Wing in Canoncial
(YIP-09) Urban Flows
R. R.
Wood, JHU, T. Hedrick,
Mittal,Harvard U. UNCC
Impact of Transition on Coupled Membrane Wing
Response
R. Gordnier, AFRL/RBAC
Theoretical, Computational, and Experimental
studies of the aerodynamics of perching flight
Gopalarathnam Et al, NCSU
Dependent
Unsteady Fluid-structure Interactions
lift generation for micro air and Passive
Flow Control
vehicles of Low Re # Membrane Wings
H. Babinsky Alabama
Hubner/Lang, , Ukeiley/Ifju,
and A. Jones, Florida
U. Cambridge
Flapping-Wing Propulsion Characterized
Using Optimal Vortex Formation (YIP-10)
M. Ringuette, SUNY-Buffalo
Experiments on Unsteady Aerodynamics
at Low Reynolds Numbers
M. OL, AFRL/RBAL
 Exploring the Aerodynamics of Model
Flapping Motions
Formation of
Objectives… LE Vortex
1. compare flow-field unsteadiness and
lift unsteadiness
2. assess importance of 3D, transition
and geometry
3. applications to perching and flapping

5 45 5 45
CL CL
4.5 4.5 ramp
sinusoid 40 40
Eldredge a 11
4 Eldredge a 2
Garmann a2 Re 5K 35
4 Garmann a11 Re 5K
Ol a = 11 /1.5
35 EFD & CFD agree for
3.5 Ol a = 2 /1.5 3.5
30 30 separation
3
 25
3
 25
2.5 2.5
20 20
2 2
15 15
1.5 1.5

1 10 1 10 Reattachment process
0.5 5 0.5 5 is more complex
0 0 0 0

-0.5 -5 -0.5 -5
0 2 4 6 2 4 6
t* t*
M. OL, AFRL/RBAL
 MODELING STUDIES FOR THE AERODYNAMICS OF
PERCHING FLIGHT

Recent Accomplishments: Large-Angle Unsteady Thin Airfoil Theory Developed On-going effort: Prediction of LEV formation
25 deg Pitch 45 deg Pitch with inviscid theory using a Leading-Edge
Suction Parameter (LESP)

Pivot at LE

Lift variation
with time
Pivot at 3c/4

Critical LESP

LE separation onset LEV detachment LE separation onset LEV detachment

Dye flow viz • Pitch ramp motions for flat plate about LE
from and 3c/4 points considered
experiment • LESP, based on unsteady thin airfoil theory,
plotted with angle of attack
Vorticity plots
from CFD
• Critical value of LESP corresponds to onset
of LE separation and independent of motion
• Parametric study of pitch up - hold - pitch down motion for a flat plate completed Continuing effort:
• Pitching motions about leading edge for 25-deg and 45-deg amplitudes shown • Theory: Extend methods to 3D
• Force and flow-field comparisons with experiments (water tunnel) and CFD • Computation: Develop IB method with overset
(immersed boundary method) show that theory works well even at high angles as grids for maneuvering, deforming vehicle
long as LEV is not detached • Experiment: Explore 2D/3D perching motions

A. Gopalarathnam & J. Edwards, NCSU, M. OL, AFRL/RBAL

 Low Reynolds Number Experiments on
Translating and Rotating Wings
IMPULSIVELY STARTED FLAT PLATE AT HIGH INCIDENCE

Simple model preserving …

• Unsteadiness  start/stop
• 3-D in geometry & kinematics
Waving Wing Sliding Wing
• Wing rotation  stabilize LEV

3-Phase Model of Flow Development Dye Flow Visualisation of LEV shedding

upwash LEV #2
LEV #1

LEV #3

 = 25o

Conclusions:
• Similar force history on waving and sliding wings
• Three phases of flow development
• 3D effects are small (flow almost uniform along span)
• Lift peak is associated with LEV development
• Upwash limits LEV growth and lift in established flow phase
H. Babinsky, U. Cambridge
 Flapping-Wing Propulsion Characterized Using
Optimal Vortex Formation (YIP 2010)
• Study whether “optimal vortex formation” Flow variation w/ AR
Overall vortex flow more coherent at lower AR
characterizes flow of rotating & pitching wings (rotating plates, triangular velocity profile, AOA 45°, Re=5k)
AR = 2 θ = 60° AR = 4 LEV θ = 60°
• Optimal vortex formation: limit to size/strength of LEV
vortex (vortex saturation) → relates to max force
– To date only found for translating and
oscillating plates, but not rotating wings

• Objectives for experiments w/ flapping models Motion into page TEV system, instability rolling up
– Characterize 3-D vortex structure (flow vis.) θ = 90° LEV breakdown Massive
LEV (still attached) separation
– Measure vortex circulation, saturation (DPIV)
– Determine formation parameter scaling,
relate kinematics → saturation & forces
Spanwise flow variation
S/L instability increases with span
(rotating AR=4 plate, AOA 45°, Re=5k) Tip vortex θ = 90°
Leading-edge θ = 30° Instability θ = 30°
vortex (LEV) Vorticity at 50% span confirms prolonged LEV
attachment for AR = 2, even with instability
motion LEV
motion
Initial dye blob
Trailing-edge
vortex (TEV) Instability
θ = 40° θ = 80°
30% span 75% span

M. Ringuette, SUNY-Buffalo
 THREE – DIMENSIONAL VORTEX STRUCTURE ON A PITCHING
WING
Laser-based volume imaging reveals new vortex patterns
PITCH-UP MOTION QUANTITATIVE IMAGES AT GIVEN INSTANT OF WING MOTION

ωy

Volumes of surface-normal vorticity Streamlines

with streamlines

• Determine generic types of vortex systems during unsteady maneuvers

• Interpret vortex system as origin of unsteady forces
• Perform interactive comparisons with high fidelity computations at AFRL

D. Rockwell, Lehigh U.
 High-Fidelity Simulations Elucidate Fundamental
Flow Structure Over Flapping Wings

Performed high-order implicit LES of the flow past a heaving low-aspect-ratio wing
Identified for the first time basic elements of complex 3-D flow structure of dynamic stall
These findings are expected to be applicable to broad range of wing maneuvers & gust
interactions involving large excursions in effective angle of attack

Phased-averaged transverse Unsteady Flow Structure

Velocity on crossflow plane
tip
vortex

Computation LEV

arch
vortex
Experiment,
Yilmaz & Rockwell

M. Visbal, AFRL/RBAC
 Scientific Challenges …
Non-linear interactions &
Flow physics scaling for control Opportunities for control

Bio-Inspired Flight Flexible surface & flow interactions

Lo Re # Unsteady Aerodynamics
 Characterization of the Time-Dependent Fluid-Structure
Interaction and Passive Flow Control of Low Reynolds
Number Membrane Wings
Objective:
To understand and extract the temporal nature of fluid-structure coupling and how this
coupling can passively control the flow on high- and low-AR wings with extensible
membranes in low Re flow.
Instantaneous Vorticity Contour
Comparison of membrane vibration pre- and post-fluid coupling:
Pre Post

Flow Flow

Membrane

Broadband shear layer TKE excites membrane; Sufficient membrane energy to affect flow; high
however, low fluid-structure coherence (< 0.3) fluid-structure coherence (> 0.7) at fund freq.
1.E+00 1.E+00

1.E-01 1.E-01

1.E-02 Flow: Hot Wire 1.E-02

1.E-03 1.E-03
PSD
PSD

1.E-04 1.E-04

1.E-05 1.E-05

1.E-06 Membrane: Vibrometer 1.E-06

1.E-07 1.E-07
1 10 100 1 10 100
f [Hz] f [Hz]

J. Hubner & A. Lang, U. Alabama, L. Ukeiley & P. Ifju, U. Florida

 Membrane Flexibility Enhances Thrust
Production of a Flapping Airfoil
|h*|=0.50 k=1.00 Re=2500 t/T=0.94

4.5

CD=-0.0244 Rigid
• Enhanced thrust from membrane Cp
airfoil due to a strong leading-edge
vortex inducing and acting upon Enhanced Thrust
membrane camber Production
• Membrane flexibility enables the
conversion of a net drag airfoil to a
propulsive airfoil
• Membrane flexibility may offer a -20
way to expand the thrust-producing Enhanced Thrust
range of flapping frequencies Production
Flexible
CD=-0.0844
R. Gordnier & Jaworski, AFRL/RBAC
 An Integrated Study of Flight Stabilization with
Flapping Wings in Canonical Urban Flows
Agile Micro-Aerial Vehicles (MAVs)
 MAVs expected to operate in complex urban
environments.
 Urban environments characterized by
complex unsteady flows and clutter

Study of Flight Stabilization in Insects Complex Urban Flow Environment

 Insects (such as Hawkmoths) are excellent
flyers that have evolved to fly in highly
complex environments.
 Study of flight stabilization in insects could
lead to new insights for designing agile
MAVs.
Approach
 Study moths in untethered (free) flight
subjected to flow perturbations Projectile impingement on moth
induced by incident vortex rings, bluff-
body wakes and corner flows.
 Extract data on aerodynamic forces
and body kinematics to identify flight
stabilization capabilities and
mechanisms.

Comparison of frequency/length scales of urban
flow perturbations with typical flapping wing flyers
Research Goals
 Understand how insects stabilize flight
 in unsteady environments;
 after massive mechanical
perturbations.
 Translate this understanding to MAV
designs that can operate effectively in
urban environments
Current Impact
Resulting perturbation and stabilization of the
 Have demonstrated ability to conduct moth.
experiments of perturbed flight in
untethered insects.
 Demonstrated ability to perform high-
fidelity, fully validated simulations of
flow associated with insect flight.
Direct Numerical Simulations of Moth in
Hovering Flight at Full-Scale Reynolds
number

R. Mittal, JHU, T. Hedrick, UNC

 Flow Interactions & Control
Program Trends

Flow Physics of Aerodynamic

Interactions
Flow Physics Modeling and Control
Flow Control Actuator Interactions
Complex Bio-inspired Aerodynamic
Interactions
„Traditional‟ aero-elasticity
Cross Agency Perspective

Micro Autonomous
Systems Technology

Rotorcraft Brownout

Plasma aerodynamics
Nano Air Vehicle

Turbulent flows over

geometric complexities
Flow control Aerodynamic efficiency
Flow field scaling Flow control