Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T18:10:50.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unsteady propulsion near a solid boundary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2014

Daniel B. Quinn,
Keith W. Moored,
Peter A. Dewey and
Alexander J. Smits
Daniel B. Quinn*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
Keith W. Moored
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA
Peter A. Dewey
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
Alexander J. Smits
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USAMonash University, Clayton Victoria 3800, Australia
*
†Email address for correspondence: danielq@princeton.edu
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.

Experimental and computational results are presented on an aerofoil undergoing pitch oscillations in ground effect, that is, close to a solid boundary. The time-averaged thrust is found to increase monotonically as the mean position of the aerofoil approaches the boundary while the propulsive efficiency stays relatively constant, showing that ground effect can enhance thrust at little extra cost for a pitching aerofoil. Vortices shed into the wake form pairs rather than vortex streets, so that in the mean a momentum jet is formed that angles away from the boundary. The time-averaged lift production is found to have two distinct regimes. When the pitching aerofoil is between 0.4 and 1 chord lengths from the ground, the lift force pulls the aerofoil towards the ground. In contrast, for wall proximities between 0.25 and 0.4 chord lengths, the lift force pushes the aerofoil away from the ground. Between these two regimes there is a stable equilibrium point where the time-averaged lift is zero and thrust is enhanced by approximately 40 %.

JFM classification

Aerodynamics: Flow-structure interactionsBiological Fluid Dynamics: PropulsionBiological Fluid Dynamics: Swimming/flying

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 742 , 10 March 2014, pp. 152 - 170
Copyright
© 2014 Cambridge University Press 

References

Baudinette, R. V. & Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1974 Energy cost of gliding flight in herring gulls. Nature 248, 83–84.Google Scholar
Betz, A. 1912 Ein beitrag zur erklaerung des segelfluges. Z. Flugtech. Motorluftschiff. 3, 269–270.Google Scholar
Blake, R. W. 1979 The energetics of hovering in the mandarin fish (Synchropus picturatus). J. Expl Biol. 82, 25–33.Google Scholar
Blevins, E. & Lauder, G. V. 2012 Rajiform locomotion: three-dimensional kinematics of the pectoral fin surface during swimming by freshwater stingrey Potamotrygon orbignyi. J. Expl Biol. 215, 3231–3241.Google ScholarPubMed
Blevins, E. & Lauder, G. V. 2013 Swimming near the substrate: a simple robotic model of stingrey locomotion. Bioinspir. Biomim. 8, 016005.Google Scholar
Buchholz, J. H. J. & Smits, A. J. 2008 The wake structure and thrust performance of a rigid low-aspect-ratio pitching panel. J. Fluid Mech. 603, 331–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulliette, C. & Plotkin, A. 1996 Airfoil ground effect revisited. Aeronautical Journal 100 (992), 65–74.Google Scholar
Dewey, P. A., Boschitch, B. M., Moored, K. W., Stone, H. A. & Smits, A. J. 2013 Scaling laws for the thrust production of flexible pitching panels. J. Fluid Mech. 732, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drucker, E. G. & Lauder, G. V. 2001 Locomotor function of the dorsal fin in teleost fishes: experimental analysis of wake forces in sunfish. J. Expl Biol. 204, 2943–2958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godoy-Diana, R., Marais, C., Aider, J. & Wesfreid, J. E. 2009 A model for the symmetry breaking of the reverse Bénard–von Kármán vortex street produced by a flapping foil. J. Fluid Mech. 622, 23–32.Google Scholar
Hainsworth, F. R. 1988 Induced drag savings from ground effect and formation flight in brown pelicans. J. Expl Biol. 135, 431–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iosilevskii, G. 2008 Asymptotic theory of an oscillating wing section in weak ground effect. Eur. J. Mech. 27, 477–490.Google Scholar
Kang, C. K., Aono, H., Baik, Y. S., Bernal, L. P. & Shyy, W. 2013 Fluid dynamics of pitching and plunging flat plate at intermediate Reynolds numbers. AIAA J. 51 (2), 315–329.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Plotkin, A. 2001 Low-Speed Aerodynamics. 13th edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knoller, R. 1909 Die gesetze des luftwiderstandes. Flug- Motortech. 3 (21), 1–7.Google Scholar
Krasny, R. 1986 Desingularization of periodic vortex sheet roll-up. J. Comput. Phys. 65 (2), 292–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, P., Wang, T., Huang, G., Veitch, B. & Millan, J. 2010 Propulsion characteristics of wing-in-ground effect dual-foil propulsors. Appl. Ocean Res. 32, 103–112.Google Scholar
Molina, J. & Zheng, X. 2011 Aerodynamics of a heaving aerofoil in ground effect. AIAA J. 49, 1168–1179.Google Scholar
Moryossef, Y. & Levy, Y. 2004 Effect of oscillations on aerofoils in close proximity to the ground. AIAA J. 42, 1755–1764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, Y., Dong, X., Zhu, Q. & Yue, D. K. 2012 Boundary-element method for the prediction of performance of flapping foils with leading-edge separation. J. Fluid Mech. 698, 446–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, H. & Choi, H. 2010 Aerodynamic characteristics of flying fish in gliding flight. J. Expl Biol. 213, 3269–3279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rozhdestvensky, K. V. 2006 Wing-in-ground effect vehicles. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 42, 211–283.Google Scholar
Schnipper, T., Andersen, A. & Bohr, T. 2009 Vortex wakes of a flapping foil. J. Fluid Mech. 633, 411–423.Google Scholar
Sciacchitano, A., Wieneke, B. & Scarano, F. 2013 PIV uncertainty quantification by image matching. Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (045302).Google Scholar
Stanislas, M., Okamoto, K., Kahler, C. J. & Westerweel, J. 2005 Main results of the second international PIV challenge. Exp. Fluids 39, 170–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanida, Y. 2001 Ground effect in flight. JSME 44, 481–486.Google Scholar
Theodorsen, T. 1935 General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter. Tech. Rep. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.Google Scholar
van de Vooren, A. I. & de Jong, L. S. 1970 Calculation of incompressible flow about aerofoils using source, vortex or doublet distributions. Tech. Rep. Math. Inst. of the University of Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Webb, P. W. 1993 The effect of solid and porous channel walls on steady swimming of stealhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. J. Expl Biol. 178, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wie, S. Y., Lee, S. & Lee, D. J. 2009 Potential panel and time-marching free-wake coupling analysis for helicopter rotor. J. Aircraft 46 (3), 1030–1041.Google Scholar
Willis, D. J., Peraire, J. & White, J. K. 2007 A combined PFFT-multipole tree code, unsteady panel method with vortex particle wakes. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 53 (8), 1399–1422.Google Scholar
Withers, P. C. & Timko, P. L. 1977 The significance of ground effect to the aerodynamic cost of flight and energetics of the black skimmer (Rhyncops nigra). J. Expl Biol. 70, 13–26.Google Scholar
Zhu, Q. 2007 Numerical simulation of a flapping foil with chordwise or spanwise flexibility. AIAA J. 45 (10), 2448–2457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar