Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T08:52:44.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A review of recent developments in flow control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

P. R. Ashill ,
J. L. Fulker  and
K. C. Hackett
P. R. Ashill
Affiliation:
QinetiQ, Bedford, UK
J. L. Fulker
Affiliation:
QinetiQ, Bedford, UK
K. C. Hackett
Affiliation:
QinetiQ, Bedford, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper reviews and highlights recent developments of certain aspects of flow control concerned with reducing the drag of, and delaying flow separation on, wings and bodies over which the flow is turbulent. The study is restricted to devices that extend beyond the viscous sub-layer but are on a smaller scale than geometric features of the aircraft (e.g. wing chord).

The review is mainly concerned with developments within the UK, although significant developments in other countries are discussed.

The review discusses types of flow that need to be controlled, basic features of flow control devices and applications. It concludes with recommendations for future research.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 109 , Issue 1095 , May 2005 , pp. 205 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2005 

References

1. Anderson, J.D., A History of Aerodynamics, Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
2. Woodward, D.S. and Lean, D.E.. Where is high-lift today? — A review of past UK research programme, AGARD-CP-515, Paper 1, 1993.Google Scholar
3. Pearcey, H.H. Shock-induced separation and its prevention by design and boundary-layer control, Part 4, Boundary-layer and flow control, Lachmann, G.V. (Ed) 1961, (2), pp 1312–1314, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
4. Maskell, E.C. and Küchemann, D.. Controlled separation in aerodynamic design, RAE TM No Aero 463 (Revised), March 1956.Google Scholar
5. Stanewsky, E.. Adaptive wing and flow control technology, Progress in Aero Sci, 2001, (37), pp 583–667.Google Scholar
6. Lin, J.C.. Review of research on low-profile vortex generators to control boundary-layer separation, Progress in Aero Sci, 2002, (38), pp 389–420.Google Scholar
7. Haines, A.B.. Know your flow: the key to better prediction and successful innovation, AIAA-98-0221, 12–15 January 1998.Google Scholar
8. Lock, R.C.. Prediction of drag of wings at subsonic speeds by viscous/inviscid interaction techniques, AGARD-R-723, Paper 10, 1985.Google Scholar
9. Ogawa, H. and Babinsky, H.. Evaluation of wave drag reduction by flow control, AIAA-2005-1415, 10–13 January 2005.Google Scholar
10. Maskell, E.C. Flow separation in three dimensions, RAE Report No Aero 2565, 1955, Rep Aero Res Coun, London, 18063.Google Scholar
11. Lighthill, M.J. Introduction. Boundary layer theory in Laminar Boundary Layers, Ch.II, Rosenhead, L. (Ed), 1963, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
12. Ashill, P.R. and Fulker, J.L. A review of flow control research at DERA, Proceedings of IUTAM Symposium on Mechanics of Passive and Active Flow Control, Meier, G.E.A. and Viswanath, P.R. (Eds) Kluwer Academic, Norwell MA, 1999, pp 43–56.Google Scholar
13. Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L. and Shires, A. A novel technique for controlling shock strength of laminar-flow aerofoil sections, Proceedings of First European Forum on Laminar Flow Technology, DGLR-AAAF-RAeS, Hamburg, Germany, 16–18 March 1992.Google Scholar
14. Ashill, P.R., Wood, R.F. and Weeks, D.J.. An improved semi-inverse version of the viscous Garabedian and Korn method (VGK), RAE TR87002, 1987.Google Scholar
15. Bur, R., Corbel, B. and Delery, J.. Study of passive control in a transonic shock-wave/boundary layer interaction, AIAA 97-217, 6–9 January 1997.Google Scholar
16. Smith, A.N., Babinsky, H., Fulker, J.L. and Ashill, P.. Control of normal shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction using streamwise slots, AIAA 2001-0739, 8–11 January 2001.Google Scholar
17. Smith, A.N., Holden, H.A., Babinsky, H., Fulker J.L. and Ashill, P.R.. Control of normal shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions using streamwise grooves, AIAA 2002-0978, 14–17 January 2002.Google Scholar
18. Smith, A.N., Babinsky, H., Fulker J.L. and Ashill, P.R.. Shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction control using streamwise slots in transonic flows, May-June 2004, J Aircr, 3, (41), pp 540–546.Google Scholar
19. Holden, H.A. and Babinsky, H.. Shock/boundary layer interaction using 3D devices, AIAA 2003-0447, 6–9 January 2003.Google Scholar
20. Hafenrichter, E.S., Yeol Lee, J., Dutton, C. and Loth, E.. Normal shock/boundary-layer interaction control using aeroelastic mesoflaps, 2003, J Prop and Power 0748-4658, 3, (19), pp 464–472.Google Scholar
21. Couldrick, J., Gai, S. and Shankar, K. Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia; Holden, H. and Babinsky, H. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Great Britain; Milthorpe, J. Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia, Active control of normal shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction using ‘smart’ piezoelectric flap actuators, AIAA-2004-2701, 2nd AIAA Flow Control Conference, Portland, Oregon, 28–1 June 2004.Google Scholar
22. Babinsky, H.. Active control of swept shock wave/boundary layer interactions, In Stanewsky, E., Delery, J., De Matteis, P.P. and Fulker, J.L. (Eds), EUROSHOCK II – Drag reduction by shock and boundary layer control, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics. Berlin, Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
23. Glauert, H., The Elements of Aerofoil & Airscrew Theory, Fourth Impression, Cambridge University Press, 1942.Google Scholar
24. Fulker, J.L. and Alderman, J.E.. Three-dimensional compliant flows for lateral control applications, AIAA 2005-0240, January 2005.Google Scholar
25. ESDU Transonic Data Memorandum, Vortex generators for control of shock-induced separation, Part 1 introduction and aerodynamics, 1993.Google Scholar
26. Rao, D.M. and Kariya, T.T.. Boundary layer submerged vortex generators for separation control – an exploratory study, AIAA 88-3546-CP, 1988.Google Scholar
27. Lin, J.C., Howard, F.G. and Selby, G.V.. Small submerged vortex generators for turbulent flow separation control, 1990, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 0022-4650, 5, (27), pp 503–507.Google Scholar
28. Lin, J.C., Howard, F.G., Bushnell, D.M. and Selby, G.V.. Investigation of several passive and active methods for turbulent flow separation control, AIAA 90-1598, June 1990.Google Scholar
29. Lin, J.C., Selby, G.V. and Howard, F.G.. Exploratory study of vortex generating devices for turbulent flow separation control, AIAA 91-0042, January 1991.Google Scholar
30. Lin, J.C.. Control of turbulent boundary-layer separation using microvortex generators, AIAA 99-3404, June/July 1999.Google Scholar
31. Schubauer, G.B. and Spangenberg, W.G.. Force mixing in boundary layers, 1960, J Fluid Mech, (8), Part 1, pp 10–32.Google Scholar
32. Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L. and Hackett, K.C.. Research at DERA on sub boundary layer vortex generators (SBVGs), AIAA 2001-0887, January 2001.Google Scholar
33. Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L. and Hackett, K.C.. Studies of flows induced by sub boundary layer vortex generators, AIAA 2002-0968, January 2002.Google Scholar
34. Yao, C-S and Lin, J.C.. Flow-field measurement of device-induced embedded streamwise vortex on a flat plate, AIAA 2002-3162, June 2002.Google Scholar
35. Thwaites, B. (Ed), Incompressible Aerodynamics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1960.Google Scholar
36. Press, A, BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre, Filton, Bristol, Unpublished communication, 2001.Google Scholar
37. Anderson, B.H., Reddy, D.R. and Kapoor, K. A comparative study of full Navier-Stokes and reduced Navier-Stokes analyses for separating flows within a diffusing inlet S-duct, 29th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA-93-2154, Montery, CA, 28–30 June 1993.Google Scholar
38. Wendt, B.J., Greber, I. and Hingst, W.R.. The structure and development of streamwise vortex arrays embedded in turbulent boundary layers, NASA TM 105211, 1991.Google Scholar
39. Wendt, B.J. and Hingst, W.R.. Flow structure in the wake of a wishbone vortex generator, November 1994, AIAA J, (32), 11, pp 2234–2240.Google Scholar
40. Lin, J.C., Howard, F.G., Bushnell, D.M. and Selby, G.V.. Investigation of several passive and active methods for turbulent separation control, AIAA 90-1598, June 1990.Google Scholar
41. Lin, J.C.. Control of turbulent boundary-layer separation using microvortex generators, AIAA 99-3404, June/July 1999.Google Scholar
42. Solana, A.G. Drag Measurements of Sub Boundary Layer Vortex Generators, MSc Thesis, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, 2004.Google Scholar
43. Wik, E. Numerical investigation of micro vortex generators, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, 2003.Google Scholar
44. Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L. and Simmons, M.J.. Sub boundary layer devices for the control of separation on swept wings, Proceedings, Royal Aeronautical Society Aerodynamics Conference, April 2000.Google Scholar
45. Bray, T., A Parametric Study of Vane and Air-Jet Vortex Generators, Engineering Doctorate Thesis, Cranfield College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, October 1998.Google Scholar
46. Wallis, R.A.. A preliminary note on a modified type of air jet for boundary layer control, ARCCP. No 513, 1960.Google Scholar
47. Lewington, N. Enhancing lift on a Three-Element Aerofoil System by Installing Air-Jet Vortex Generators, PhD Thesis, City University, London, November 2001.Google Scholar
48. Bray, T. Unpublished communication, 2001.Google Scholar
49. Freestone, M.M., Preliminary tests at low speed on vorticity produced by air-jet vortex generators, RM 85/1 City University, London, 1985.Google Scholar
50. Compton, D.A. and Johnstone, J.P.. Streamwise vortex production by pitched and skewed jets in a turbulent boundary layer, March 1992, AIAA J, 3, (30).Google Scholar
51. Zhang, X. Interaction between a turbulent boundary layer and elliptic and rectangular jets, 2nd International Conference on Turbulence Modelling, Florence, Italy, June 1993.Google Scholar
52. Warsop, C. Aeromems-II: A European Research Effort to Develop MEMS Based Flow Control Technologies, AIAA 2004-2209, 2nd AIAA Flow Control Conference, 28 June-1 July 2004, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
53. Wood, N.J., Sadri, A.M. and Crooke, A.. Control of turbulent flow separation by synthetic jets, AIAA 2000, 4331, January 2000.Google Scholar
54. Crook, A, Crowther, W.J. and Wood, N.J. A parametric study of a synthetic jet in a cross flow, ICAS 2000-2103.1, ICAS Congress, Harrogate, September 2000.Google Scholar
55. Crook, A. and Wood, N.J.. Measurements and visualisations of synthetic jets, AIAA 2001-0145, January 2001.Google Scholar
56. Liddle, S.C. and Wood, N.J.. Investigation into clustering of synthetic jet actuators for flow separation control applications, The Aeronaut J, January 2005, (109), 1091, pp 35–44.Google Scholar
57. Meyer, R., Bechert, D.W. and Hage, W. Wind Tunnel Experiments with Artificial Bird Feathers for Passive Separation Control on Airfoils, In Meier, G.E.A. and Viswanath, P.R. (Eds), IUTAM Symposium on Mechanics of Passive and Active Control, Göttingen, 7-11 September 1998. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.Google Scholar
58. Bechert, D.W., Bruse, M., Hage, W. and Meyer, R.. Biological surfaces and their technological application – laboratory and flight experiments on drag reduction and separation control, AIAA 97-1960, 29 June – 2 July 1997.Google Scholar
59. Krogmann, P. and Stanewsky, E. Transonic shock-boundary layer interaction control, Proceedings of the 14th Congress of ICAS, September 1984, Toulouse, France, Paper No 84-2.3.2.Google Scholar
60. Thiede, P. and Krogmann, P. Improvement of transonic airfoil performance through passive shock boundary/boundary-layer interaction, IUTAM Symposium Palaiseau 1985, (Ed) Delery, J., Springer, Berlin, 1986.Google Scholar
61. Reneaux, J., Thibert, J. and Schmitt, V. Onera activities on drag reduction, Proceedings of the 17th Congress of ICAS, September 1990, Stockholm, Sweden, Paper No 90-3.6.1.Google Scholar
62. Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L. and Simmons, M.J. Simulated active control of shock waves in experiments on aerofoil models, Proceedings of ICEFM, Turin, July 1994.Google Scholar
63. Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L., Simmons, M.J. and Gaudet, I.M. A review of research at DRA on active and passive control of shock waves, Proceedings of ICAS 1992, Sorrento, Italy, September 1992.Google Scholar
64. Monner, H.P., Breitbach, E., Bein, Th. and Hanselka, H.. Design aspects of the adaptive wing – the elastic trailing edge and the local spoiler bump, The Aeronaut J, February 2000, pp 89–95.Google Scholar
65. Wadehn, W., Sommerer, A., Lutz, Th., Fokin, D., Pritschow, G., and Wagner, S. Structural concepts and aerodynamic design of shock control bumps, Proceedings of ICAS 2002, Toronto, Canada, September 2002.Google Scholar
66. Smith, A.N., Babinsky, H., Fulker, J.L. and Ashill, P.R. Experimental investigation of transonic aerofoil shock/boundary layer interaction control using streamwise slots, IUTAM Symposium Transsonicum IV, Sobiesky, H. (Ed) pp 285–290, Kluwer, 2003.Google Scholar
67. Smith, A.N., Babinsky, H., Saville, A.M. and Dawes, W.N.. Computational investigation of groove controlled shock wave/boundary layer interaction, AIAA 2003-0446, 6-9 January 2003.Google Scholar
68. Qin, N., Monet, D. and Shaw, S.T. 3D bumps for transonic wing shock control and drag reduction, Paper 46 in Proceedings of CEAS Aerodynamics Aerospace research Conference, Cambridge, 10-12 June.Google Scholar
69. McCormick, D.C.. Shock-boundary layer interaction control with lowprofile vortex generators and passive cavity, AIAA 92-0064, 6-9 January 1992.Google Scholar
70. Holmes, A.E., Hickey, P.K., Murphy, W.R. and Hilton, D.A.. The application of sub-boundary layer vortex generators to reduce canopy Mach rumble interior noise on the Gulfstream III, AIAA 87-0084, 12-15 January 1987.Google Scholar
71. Holden, H.A. and Babinsky, H.. Vortex generators Near Shock/Boundary Layer Interactions, ICAS 2004-1242, January 2004.Google Scholar
72. Pearcey, H.H., Rao, K. and Sykes, D.M.. Inclined airjets used as vortex generators to suppress shock-induced separation, AGARD-CP-534, Paper 40, 1993.Google Scholar
73. Tilmann, C.P.. Enhancement of transonic airfoil performance using pulsed jets for separation control, AIAA 2001-0731, 8-11 January 2001.Google Scholar
74. Raghunathan, S., Watterson, J.K., Cooper, R.K. and Kelly, B.. A novel concept of passive vortex generator jets for separation control, AIAA 99-10004, 11-14 January, 1999.Google Scholar
75. Seifert, A. and Pack, L.G.. Oscillatory excitation of unsteady compressible flows over airfoils at flight Reynolds numbers, AIAA 99-0925, 1999.Google Scholar
76. Fulker, J. and Simmons, M.J. An investigation of active, suction and shock boundary-layer control techniques, In Stanewsky, E., Delery, J., De Matteis, P.P. and Fulker, J.L. (Eds). EUROSHOCK II – drag reduction by shock and boundary layer control, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics. Berlin: Springer 2001.Google Scholar
77. Hackett, K.C.. Application of flow control to sections designed with upper surface trailing edge separation, AIAA 2004-2214, January 2004.Google Scholar
78. Ashill, P.R. and Beaumont, W.J.. An assessment of a simple model of the flow induced by Sub Boundary-layer Vortex Generators (SBVGs), QinetiQ unpublished Note, December 2001.Google Scholar
79. Jeffrey, D., Zhang, X. and Hurst, D.. Aerodynamics of Gurney flaps on a single-element high lift wing, 2000, J Aircr, 0021-8669, 2, (37), 295–301.Google Scholar
80. Henne, P.A. and Gregg, R.D.. A new airfoil design concept, AIAA 89-2201, July 1989.Google Scholar
81. Rae, A.J., Galpin, S.A. and Fulker, J.L.. Investigation into scale effects on the performance of sub boundary-layer vortex generators on civil aircraft high-lift devices, AIAA-2002-3274, 1st Flow Control Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, 24-26 June 2002.Google Scholar
82. Broadley, and Garry, K.P.. Effectiveness of vortex generator position and orientation on highly swept wings, AIAA 97-2319, June 1997.Google Scholar
83. Innes, F. An experimental investigation into the use of vortex generators to improve the performance of a high lift system, PhD Thesis, City University, London, 1995.Google Scholar
84. Innes, F., Pearcey, H.H. and Sykes, D.M.. Improvements in the performance of a three-element high lift system by the application of airjet vortex generators, Aeronaut J, August/September 1995, pp 265–274.Google Scholar
85. Singh, C., Peake, D.J., Kokkalis, A., Galbraith, R.McD., Coton, F. and Khadogolian, V.. The application of air-jet vortex generators to suppress flow separation on helicopter rotor aerofoil sections under quasi-steady and unsteady conditions, AIAA 2004-0045, 2004.Google Scholar
86. Lin, J.C., Howard, F.G. and Selby, G.V.. Control of turbulent separated flow over a rearward facing ramp using longitudinal grooves, 1990, J Aircr, (27), pp 283–285.Google Scholar
87. Heap, H. and Crowther, B.. A review of current leading edge device technology and of options for innovation based on flow control, www.eng.man.ac.uk/Aero/WJC/papers/Leading_edge_devices_June_2003.pdf.Google Scholar
88. Küchemann, D., The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1978.Google Scholar
89. Ashill, P.R. and Riddle, G.L.. Control of leading-edge separation on a cambered delta wing, AGARD CP 548, Paper 11, October 1993.Google Scholar
90. Ashill, P.R., Riddle, G.L. and Stanley, M.J.. Control of three-dimensional separation on highly-swept wings, ICAS-94-4.6.2, 1994.Google Scholar
91. Ashill, P.R., Riddle, G.L. and Stanley, M.J.. Separation control on highly-swept wings with fixed or variable camber, 1995, Aeronaut J, (99), 988, pp 317–327.Google Scholar
92. Meyne, L.A. and James, K.D.. Full-scale wind-tunnel studies of F/A-18 tail buffet, AIAA 93-3519, 1993.Google Scholar
93. Mabey, D.G. and Pyne, C.R.. Fin buffeting at high angles of incidence on a slender wing aircraft, RAE TR 90063, December 1990.Google Scholar
94. Mabey, D.G. and Pyne, C.R.. Tangential leading-edge blowing on a combat aircraft configuration, ICAS-94-4.6.1, 1994.Google Scholar
95. Wood, N.J. and Crowther, W.J.. Yaw control by tangential forebody blowing, AGARD-CP-548, Paper 10, 1995 Aeronaut J, March 1994, 988, (99), pp 317–327.Google Scholar