2021
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2020.1031
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Unsteady aerodynamics of porous aerofoils

Abstract: Abstract

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In a similar investigation of circular perforated plates, Steiros et al (2020) also showed how variable distributions of holes may strongly modify the flow morphology and the resulting aerodynamic forces. Other analytical investigations of the aerodynamic forces on porous airfoils have been performed by Hajian & Jaworski (2017) and Baddoo, Hajian & Jaworski (2021). In Hajian & Jaworski (2017) a potential flow model to evaluate the aerodynamic forces on thin permeable airfoils was proposed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In a similar investigation of circular perforated plates, Steiros et al (2020) also showed how variable distributions of holes may strongly modify the flow morphology and the resulting aerodynamic forces. Other analytical investigations of the aerodynamic forces on porous airfoils have been performed by Hajian & Jaworski (2017) and Baddoo, Hajian & Jaworski (2021). In Hajian & Jaworski (2017) a potential flow model to evaluate the aerodynamic forces on thin permeable airfoils was proposed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The presence of a porous structure was described by a seepage flow rate through the permeable surface. Baddoo et al (2021) generalized this analysis to the unsteady case such as pitching and heaving motion or gust loads. Other experimental investigations focused on the drag variation of porous disks at low Reynolds numbers (Strong et al 2019) and on the fluid-structure interaction of porous flexible strips (Pezzulla et al 2020), to name a few.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the same time, its numerical solution (e.g. Baddoo, Hajian & Jaworski 2021) renders the slender body approximation redundant. There is hardly any benefit in attempting a numerical solution of an approximate model in the framework of the potential flow theory, when a fast numerical solution of the exact model in the framework of the same theory is readily available (Appendix H).…”
Section: The Aft Segmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2020) among others. Nevertheless, almost all unsteady models, starting with the pioneering efforts in the 1920s and 1930s of Wagner (1925), Theodorsen (1935) and Von Kármán & Sears (1938) until the recent work of Baddoo, Hajian & Jaworski (2021), adopted the Kutta condition. There is no legitimate alternative!…”
Section: Introduction: Meager State Of Theoretical Modelling Of Aerod...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is why numerous research reports have criticized the application of the Kutta condition to unsteady flows (Woolston & Castile 1951;Rott & George 1955;Chu 1961;Henry 1961;Shen & Crimi 1965;Abramson, Chu & Irick 1967;Orszag & Crow 1970;Basu & Hancock 1978;Daniels 1978;Satyanarayana & Davis 1978;Savage, Newman & Wong 1979;Bass, Johnson & Unruh 1982;Crighton 1985), including the recent efforts of Xia & Mohseni (2017), Taha & Rezaei (2019) and Zhu et al (2020) among others. Nevertheless, almost all unsteady models, starting with the pioneering efforts in the 1920s and 1930s of Wagner (1925), Theodorsen (1935) and Von Kármán & Sears (1938) until the recent work of Baddoo, Hajian & Jaworski (2021), adopted the Kutta condition. There is no legitimate alternative!…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%