This paper explores the effects of compressibility, sweep and excitation location on active separation control at high Reynolds numbers. The model, which was tested in a cryogenic pressurized wind tunnel, simulates the upper surface of a 20 percent thick Glauert-Goldschmied type airfoil at zero angle of attack. The flow is fully turbulent since the tunnel sidewall boundary layer flows over the model. Without control, the flow separates at the highly convex area and a large turbulent separation bubble is formed. Periodic excitation is applied to gradually eliminate the separation bubble. Two alternative blowing slot locations as well as the effect of compressibility, sweep and steady suction or blowing were studied. During the test the Reynolds numbers ranged from 2 to 40 million and Mach numbers ranged from 0.2 to 0.7. Sweep angles were 0 and 30 deg. It was found that excitation must be introduced slightly upstream of the separation region regardless of the sweep angle at low Mach number. Introduction of excitation upstream of the shock wave is more effective than at its foot. Compressibility reduces the ability of steady mass transfer and periodic excitation to control the separation bubble but excitation has an effect on the integral parameters, which is similar to that observed in low Mach numbers. The conventional swept flow scaling is valid for fully and even partially attached flow, but different scaling is required for the separated 3D flow. The effectiveness of the active control is not reduced by sweep. Detailed flow field dynamics are described in the accompanying paper.
[1]
I. Wygnanski,et al.
Delay of Airfoil Stall by Periodic Excitation
,
1996
.
[2]
Avi Seifert,et al.
Active control of separated flows on generic configurations at high Reynolds numbers
,
1999
.
[3]
A. Seifert,et al.
Oscillatory Control of Separation at High Reynolds Numbers
,
1999
.
[4]
A. Seifert,et al.
Dynamics of Active Separation Control at High Reynolds Numbers
,
2000
.
[5]
D. A. Dress,et al.
Operating envelope charts for the Langley 0.3-meter transonic cryogenic wind tunnel
,
1986
.
[6]
E. J. Ray,et al.
Studies of sidewall boundary layer in the Langley 0.3 meter transonic cryogenic tunnel with and without suction
,
1983
.
[7]
I. Wygnanski,et al.
Oscillatory Blowing: A Tool to Delay Boundary-Layer Separation
,
1993
.
[8]
I. Wygnanski,et al.
Sweep Effect on Parameters Governing Control of Separation by Periodic Excitation
,
1998
.
[9]
Edward J. Ray,et al.
Evolution, calibration, and operational characteristics of the two-dimensional test section of the Langley 0.3-meter transonic cryogenic tunnel
,
1987
.
[10]
A. Elsenaar,et al.
Measurements in a three-dimensional incompressible turbulent boundary layer in an adverse pressure gradient under infinite swept wing conditions
,
1972
.
[11]
B. Nishri,et al.
Effects of Periodic Excitation on Turbulent Flow Separation from a Flap
,
1998
.