Search for: All records

The main two mechanisms of morphing wall flow control are direct injection of momentum in the streamwise direction and indirect momentum transfer via triggering instabilities. Traveling waves have been shown to perform better than standing waves, probably because they can use both mechanisms. However, the relative importance of the two mechanisms is not known. To differentiate between the mechanisms, a range of parameters (frequency, amplitude, and starting location) at stall (15 deg angle of attack) and poststall (20 deg angle of attack) is tested using wall-resolved large-eddy simulations with a sharp-interface curvilinear immersed boundary method at a low Reynolds number of [Formula: see text] over a NACA0018 airfoil. The results of the simulations demonstrate that the flow is reattached within a range of nondimensional frequencies, actuation amplitudes, and starting locations of oscillation at the stall and poststall angles of attack. Significant lift enhancement and drag reduction are also observed within these ranges. The nondimensional frequency range at which the flow is reattached is found to be similar to the dominant nondimensional frequencies of leading-edge vortex shedding of the unactuated airfoil. These indicate that the indirect transfer of momentum is the dominant mechanism because direct injection of momentum increases with the increase of amplitude and frequency; that is, separation should reduce as they increase. Nevertheless, direct injection of momentum improves the performance relative to pure excitations of standing waves when instabilities are triggered. 

Some anguilliform swimmers such as eels and lampreys swim near the ground, which has been hypothesized to have hydrodynamic benefits. To investigate whether swimming near ground has hydrodynamics benefits, two large-eddy simulations of a self-propelled anguilliform swimmer are carried out—one swimming far away from the ground (free swimming) and the other near the ground, that is, midline at 0.07 of fish length (L) from the ground creating a gap of 0.04 L . Simulations are carried out under similar conditions with both fish starting from rest in a quiescent flow and reaching steady swimming (constant average speed). The numerical results show that both swimmers have similar speed, power consumption, efficiency, and wake structure during steady swimming. This indicates that swimming near the ground with a gap larger than 0.04 L does not improve the swimming performance of anguilliform swimmers when there is no incoming flow, that is, the interaction of the wake with the ground does not improve swimming performance. When there is incoming flow, however, swimming near the ground may help because the flow has lower velocities near the ground.