0
Flows in Complex Systems

Plasma Control for a Maneuvering Low-Aspect-Ratio Wing at Low Reynolds Number

[+] Author and Article Information
Donald P. Rizzetta

Senior Research Aerospace Engineer
e-mail: Donald.Rizzetta@wpafb.af.mil

Miguel R. Visbal

Technical Area Leader
e-mail: Miguel.Visbal@wpafb.af.mil
Computational Sciences Branch,
Aerospace Systems Directorate,
Air Force Research Laboratory,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
OH 45433-7512

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Fluids Engineering. Manuscript received July 4, 2012; final manuscript received October 19, 2012; published online November 20, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Shizhi Qian.

This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Fluids Eng 134(12), 121104 (Nov 20, 2012) (19 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4007947 History: Received July 04, 2012; Revised October 19, 2012

Plasma-based flow control was explored as a means of enhancing the performance of a maneuvering flat-plate wing. For this purpose, a numerical investigation was conducted via large-eddy simulation (LES). The wing has a rectangular planform, a thickness to chord ratio of 0.016, and an aspect ratio of 2.0. Computations were carried out at a chord-based Reynolds number of 20,000, such that the configuration and flow conditions are typical of those commonly utilized in a small unmanned air system (UAS). Solutions were obtained to the Navier–Stokes equations, that were augmented by source terms used to represent body forces imparted by plasma actuators on the fluid. A simple phenomenological model provided these body forces resulting from the electric field generated by the plasma. The numerical method is based upon a high-fidelity time-implicit scheme and an implicit LES approach, which were applied to obtain solutions on an overset mesh system. Specific maneuvers considered in the investigation all began at 0 deg angle of attack, and consisted of a pitch-up and return, a pitch-up and hold, and a pitch-up to 60 deg. The maximum angle of attack for the first two maneuvers was 35 deg, which is well above that for static stall. Two different pitch rates were imposed for each of the specified motions. In control situations, a plasma actuator was distributed in the spanwise direction along the wing leading edge, or extended in the chordwise direction along the wing tip. Control solutions were compared with baseline results without actuation in order to assess the benefits of flow control and to determine its effectiveness. In all cases, it was found that plasma control can appreciably improve the time integrated lift over the duration of the maneuvers. The wing-tip actuator could achieve up to a 40% increase in the integrated lift, above that of the baseline value.

Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic representation of asymmetric single dielectric-barrier-discharge plasma actuator

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Geometry for the empirical plasma-force model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Unsteady maneuvers for ω = 0.05

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Unsteady maneuvers for ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Flat-plate wing geometry and actuator arrangement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Overset mesh system for flat-plate wing configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Initial flow fields at α = 0 deg: instantaneous isosurfaces of the Q-criterion (colored by streamwise velocity) and contour lines of pressure coefficient at the midspan

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Time histories of the aerodynamic force coefficients for the PUAR maneuver with ω = 0.05

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Temporal evolution of the time-integrated aerodynamic force coefficients for the PUAR maneuver with ω = 0.05

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Time histories of the aerodynamic force coefficients for the PUAH maneuver with ω = 0.05

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Temporal evolution of the time-integrated aerodynamic force coefficients for the PUAH maneuver with ω = 0.05

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Time histories of the aerodynamic force coefficients for the PU maneuver with ω = 0.05

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Temporal evolution of the time-integrated aerodynamic force coefficients for the PU maneuver with ω = 0.05

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Time histories of the aerodynamic force coefficients for the PUAR maneuver with ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Temporal evolution of the time-integrated aerodynamic force coefficients for the PUAR maneuver with ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Time histories of the aerodynamic force coefficients for the PUAH maneuver with ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Temporal evolution of the time-integrated aerodynamic force coefficients for the PUAH maneuver with ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Time histories of the aerodynamic force coefficients for the PU maneuver with ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Temporal evolution of the time-integrated aerodynamic force coefficients for the PU maneuver with ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Time histories of the aerodynamic force coefficients for the PU maneuver with ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Temporal evolution of the time-integrated aerodynamic force coefficients for the PU maneuver with ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Instantaneous planar contours of the u velocity at the symmetry plane (z = 0.0) for the pitch-up portion of maneuvers with ω = 0.05

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Instantaneous planar contours of the spanwise vorticity at the symmetry plane (z = 0.0) for the pitch-up portion of maneuvers with ω = 0.05

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Instantaneous isosurfaces of the Q-criterion (colored by streamwise velocity) for the pitch-up portion of maneuvers with ω = 0.05

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Instantaneous results for the PU maneuver at α = 60.0 deg withω = 0.05: (a) contours of the u velocity (z = 0.0), (b) contours of the spanwise vorticity (z = 0.0), (c) isosurfaces of the Q-criterion (colored by streamwise velocity)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Instantaneous planar contours of the u velocity at the symmetry plane (z = 0.0) for the pitch-up portion of maneuvers with ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Instantaneous planar contours of the spanwise vorticity at the symmetry plane (z = 0.0) for the pitch-up portion of maneuvers with ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Instantaneous isosurfaces of the Q-criterion (colored by streamwise velocity) for the pitch-up portion of maneuvers with ω = 0.20

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Instantaneous results for the PU maneuver at α = 60.0 deg with ω = 0.20: (a) contours of the u velocity (z = 0.0), (b) contours of the spanwise vorticity (z = 0.0), (c) isosurfaces of the Q-criterion (colored by streamwise velocity)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In