Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-qgx5f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T03:06:29.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Asynchronous and synchronous quenching of a globally unstable jet via axisymmetry breaking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2022

Abhijit K. Kushwaha*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong
Nicholas A. Worth
Affiliation:
Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
James R. Dawson
Affiliation:
Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway
Vikrant Gupta
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, PR China
Larry K.B. Li*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong KongGuangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Joint Laboratory for Data-Driven Fluid Mechanics and Engineering Applications, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong
*
†Email addresses for correspondence: akkushwaha@connect.ust.hk, larryli@ust.hk
†Email addresses for correspondence: akkushwaha@connect.ust.hk, larryli@ust.hk

Abstract

We explore experimentally whether axisymmetry breaking can be exploited for the open-loop control of a prototypical hydrodynamic oscillator, namely a low-density inertial jet exhibiting global self-excited axisymmetric oscillations. We find that when forced transversely or axially at a low amplitude, the jet always transitions first from a period-1 limit cycle to $\mathbb {T}^2$ quasiperiodicity via a Neimark–Sacker bifurcation. However, we find that the subsequent transition, from $\mathbb {T}^2$ quasiperiodicity to $1:1$ lock-in, depends on the spatial symmetry of the applied perturbations: axial forcing induces a saddle-node bifurcation at small detuning but an inverse Neimark–Sacker bifurcation at large detuning, whereas transverse forcing always induces an inverse Neimark–Sacker bifurcation irrespective of the detuning. Crucially, we find that only transverse forcing can enable both asynchronous and synchronous quenching of the natural mode to occur without resonant or non-resonant amplification of the forced mode, resulting in substantially lower values of the overall response amplitude across all detuning values. From this, we conclude that breaking the jet axisymmetry via transverse forcing is a more effective control strategy than preserving the jet axisymmetry via axial forcing. Finally, we show that the observed synchronization phenomena can be modelled qualitatively with just two forced coupled Van der Pol oscillators. The success of such a simple low-dimensional model in capturing the complex synchronization dynamics of a multi-modal hydrodynamic system opens up new opportunities for axisymmetry breaking to be exploited for the open-loop control of other globally unstable flows.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press.
Figure 0

Figure 1.Diagram of the experimental set-up. The measurement diagnostics include four microphones mounted flush along the transverse wall of the enclosure, a hot-wire probe positioned on the jet centreline, and a particle image velocimetry system (not shown). MFC: mass flow controller. DAQ: data acquisition system.

Figure 1

Figure 2.Characterization of the jet base flow: (a) normalized time-averaged streamwise velocity, and (b) its local fluctuations, both as functions of the radial position. Also shown is (c) the transverse curvature as a function of the square root of the Reynolds number. The data are acquired with a hot-wire anemometer positioned just beyond the nozzle outlet ($x/D \approx 0.1$).

Figure 2

Figure 3.Decomposition of the acoustic pressure field in the jet enclosure. The modal amplitude is shown as a function of $m$ at five different locations in a planar acoustic standing wave: a pressure antinode (position $\mathbb {A}$), a pressure node (position $\mathbb {E}$), and between a pressure antinode and node (positions $\mathbb {B}$, $\mathbb {C}$ and $\mathbb {D}$). At the pressure node (position $\mathbb {E}$), the superposition of the $m=\pm 1$ helical modes leads to a transverse flapping motion. In the experiments, three full standing waves are present in the jet enclosure, but for illustration purposes, only one is shown here.

Figure 3

Figure 4.(a) Normalized amplitude and (b) PSD of the HWA velocity fluctuations in the unforced jet over a range of $Re$. Panel (b) is for the forward path only. In our forced synchronization tests (§ 5), we consider an operating point (regime IV: $Re = 800$) at which the jet is dominated by global hydrodynamic instability. The resultant self-excited oscillations are axisymmetric ($m=0$), as shown in the schlieren snapshot (see inset).

Figure 4

Figure 5.Synchronization maps from the forced jet experiments. The surface colours denote the normalized response amplitude ($\eta _\gamma \equiv \gamma ^{\prime \ast }_{rms}/\gamma ^\prime _{rms}$), shown in a parameter space defined by the forcing amplitude ($a$) and the normalized forcing frequency ($f_f/f_n$). The minimum value of $a$ required for lock-in, $a_{loc}$, is indicated by circular markers, which form the lower boundaries of the $1:1$ Arnold tongue. The filled (black) markers denote a saddle-node bifurcation along the phase-locking route to lock-in, whereas the hollow (white) markers denote an inverse Neimark–Sacker bifurcation along the suppression route to lock-in.

Figure 5

Figure 6.The same as for figure 5 but from the forced VDP model ((3.1) and (3.2)).

Figure 6

Figure 7.Spatial distribution of the jet dynamics, as measured with stereoscopic time-resolved PIV: (a–c) the root-mean-square of the total velocity fluctuation $V^\prime _{rms}$; (d–f) the normalized PSD of $V^{\prime }$ along the jet centreline ($y/D=0$); (g–i) the dominant DMD mode with contours of the out-of-plane vorticity fluctuation; and (j) the normalized histogram of the phase shift $\varTheta$ between the left and right shear layers. Three representative conditions are shown: (left) unforced, (middle) pure axial forcing at $a_{loc}$, and (right) pure transverse forcing at $a_{loc}$. With either axial or transverse forcing, the forcing frequency is fixed at $f_f/f_n = 1.09$.

Figure 7

Figure 8.Synchronization dynamics of the jet when forced axially (position $\mathbb {A}$) at a frequency close to its natural global frequency: $f_f/f_n=1.04$. The (a) time trace, (b) PSD, (c) temporal evolution of $\Delta \phi _{f,\gamma }$, and (d) one-sided Poincaré map are shown for nine forcing amplitudes, including the unforced case ($A=0$). Lock-in occurs via the phase-locking route, which involves a Neimark–Sacker bifurcation at $A = 0 \rightarrow 0.25$ followed by a saddle-node bifurcation at $A = 0.93 \rightarrow 1$. The unforced state is shown in green, the quasiperiodic states are shown in blue, and the onset of lock-in is shown in red.

Figure 8

Figure 9.The same as in figure 8 but for the axially forced model at $\omega _f/\omega _n=1.04$.

Figure 9

Figure 10.Synchronization dynamics of the jet when forced axially (position $\mathbb {A}$) at a frequency far from its natural global frequency: $f_f/f_n=1.17$. The (a) time trace, (b) PSD, (c) temporal evolution of $\Delta \phi _{f,\gamma }$, and (d) one-sided Poincaré map are shown for nine forcing amplitudes, including the unforced case ($A=0$). Lock-in occurs via the suppression route, which involves a Neimark–Sacker bifurcation at $A = 0 \rightarrow 0.18$ followed by an inverse Neimark–Sacker bifurcation at $A = 0.91 \rightarrow 1$. The unforced state is shown in green, the quasiperiodic states are shown in blue, and the onset of lock-in is shown in red.

Figure 10

Figure 11.The same as in figure 10 but for the axially forced model at $\omega _f/\omega _n=1.17$.

Figure 11

Figure 12.Synchronization dynamics of the jet when forced transversely (position $\mathbb {E}$) at a frequency close to its natural global frequency: $f_f/f_n=1.04$. The (a) time trace, (b) PSD, (c) temporal evolution of $\Delta \phi _{f,\gamma }$, and (d) one-sided Poincaré map are shown for nine forcing amplitudes, including the unforced case ($A=0$). Lock-in occurs via the suppression route, which involves a Neimark–Sacker bifurcation at $A = 0 \rightarrow 0.14$ followed by an inverse Neimark–Sacker bifurcation at $A = 0.92 \rightarrow 1$. The unforced state is shown in green, the quasiperiodic states are shown in blue, and the onset of lock-in is shown in red.

Figure 12

Figure 13.The same as in figure 12 but for the transversely forced model at $\omega _f/\omega _n=1.04$.

Figure 13

Figure 14.Synchronization dynamics of the jet when forced transversely (position $\mathbb {E}$) at a frequency far from its natural global frequency: $f_f/f_n=1.17$. The (a) time trace, (b) PSD, (c) temporal evolution of $\Delta \phi _{f,\gamma }$, and (d) one-sided Poincaré map are shown for nine forcing amplitudes, including the unforced case ($A=0$). Lock-in occurs via the suppression route, which involves a Neimark–Sacker bifurcation at $A = 0 \rightarrow 0.49$ followed by an inverse Neimark–Sacker bifurcation at $A = 0.95 \rightarrow 1$. The unforced state is shown in green, the quasiperiodic states are shown in blue, and the onset of lock-in is shown in red.

Figure 14

Figure 15.The same as in figure 14 but for the transversely forced model at $\omega _f/\omega _n=1.17$.

Figure 15

Figure 16.Evidence of asynchronous quenching in the jet: spectral power as a function of the forcing power for (a,b) axial forcing, and (c,d) transverse forcing. For both types of forcing, lock-in occurs via the suppression route. Two representative values of $f_f$ are shown: (a,c) one below $f_n$, and (b,d) one above $f_n$.

Figure 16

Figure 17.The same as in figure 16 but for the axially or transversely forced model.

Figure 17

Figure 18.Evidence of synchronous quenching in (a,c) the jet, and (b,d) the model: spectral power as a function of the normalized forcing frequency for (a,b) axial forcing, and (c,d) transverse forcing. The forcing amplitude is (a) $a = 0.998$ Pa, (b) $b = 0.019$, (c) $a = 1.320$ Pa, and (d) $b = 0.049$.