Frequency Scaling Laws for Flat Plate Wing Active Separation Control

TL;DR

This study develops and validates frequency scaling laws for active separation control on flat-plate wings using plasma actuators, linking optimal forcing frequencies to natural vortex shedding and insect wing flapping frequencies.

Contribution

It introduces universal Strouhal number scaling laws for active separation control, applicable across various flow conditions and related to insect wing flapping frequencies.

Findings

Optimal forcing Strouhal number around 0.26 for lift enhancement.

Universal Strouhal number of approximately 0.16 applies to active separation control.

Insect wing flapping frequencies align with the optimal forcing range when scaled appropriately.

Abstract

Dimensionless frequency scaling laws for active separation control on flat-plate wings, using dielectric barrier discharge plasma actuators, were examined on the basis of maximum increases to lift coefficient, and compared with hovering insect wing-flapping frequencies. Data for a range of angles of attack ($24^\circ$ to $32^\circ$), Reynolds numbers (3,000 to 20,000) and semispan wing aspect ratios (0.75 to $\infty$), collapsed best when scaled with the streamwise-directed height of the chord length. The ``forcing Strouhal number'' that produced the largest lift coefficient increments, equal to $0.26 \pm 0.04$, was linked to the conventional bluff-body Strouhal number by recognizing that drag and lift on flat plate wings are directly proportional at a fixed angle of attack. Flowfield measurements, to determine the time-averaged separation bubble height and local velocity at separation, showed that the universal Strouhal number of approximately $0.16 \pm 0.01$ --developed for bluff-body and separation bubble vortex shedding--can be further generalized to active separation control, when the natural shedding frequency is substituted by the forcing frequency. Insect wing flapping frequencies in hover were examined on the basis of Strouhal number scaling and corresponded reasonably well to the optimum forcing Strouhal number range, although angle of attack estimates were a source of uncertainty. Furthermore, universal Strouhal number scaling can only be validated with accurate separation bubble height and separation velocity measurements.