2015
DOI: 10.1063/1.4919013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical study of the S809 airfoil aerodynamic performance using a co-flow jet active control concept

Abstract: A Co-Flow Jet (CFJ) active flow control concept is implemented on the S809 airfoil and numerically investigated by using an in-house code based on Reynoldsaveraged Navier-Stokes equations and the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model, aiming to systematically study the jet effect on the airfoil aerodynamic performance. The solver is validated by comparing the computed results with the baseline experiment measurement. The calculated aerodynamic force and moment coefficients agree fairly well with the experimental d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Actually, considering the aerodynamic analysis for CC implementation in Section 3.3, it is possible for the drag to reach a negative value if the Coanda jet is injecting at a sufficiently high momentum coefficient. It was also found in previous studies of co-flow jet control [37] and Coanda jet control [21] that the jet reaction force is the main contribution to the negative drag. Here, we would highlight this phenomenon by explaining more from a different perspective rather than just repeat the finding.…”
Section: Aerodynamic Analysis and Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 70%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Actually, considering the aerodynamic analysis for CC implementation in Section 3.3, it is possible for the drag to reach a negative value if the Coanda jet is injecting at a sufficiently high momentum coefficient. It was also found in previous studies of co-flow jet control [37] and Coanda jet control [21] that the jet reaction force is the main contribution to the negative drag. Here, we would highlight this phenomenon by explaining more from a different perspective rather than just repeat the finding.…”
Section: Aerodynamic Analysis and Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…The present CFD code is validated in previous publications, including the S809 airfoil at different Reynolds numbers [37][38][39], the DU97-W-300 and DU97-Flatback airfoils [21], and the CC020-010EJ airfoil [21]. In Xu et al [21], the grid independency study was performed on the DU97-W-300 airfoil rather than the DU97-Flatback airfoil, and the grids for DU97-Flatback and CC airfoil are directly generated based on the scale of the chosen mesh for DU97-W-300 after the grid independency study.…”
Section: Validation Of Cfd Codementioning
confidence: 99%
“…More details about the governing equations and boundary conditions can be found in [21]. The dual-time stepping method [23] is adopted to advance the time-accuracy solution with pseudo time marching by means of the LU-SGS method [24].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The static prediction precision of the solver has been validated in a previous study [21] by comparing the numerical results of NREL S809 airfoil static characteristics with the experiment conducted in the Delft University of Technology [34]. Here, the dynamic prediction precision of the solver will be validated by comparing results with experiment conducted at Ohio State University (OSU) [22].…”
Section: Baseline Simulation and Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation