You are on page 1of 31

PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT

Study of Separated Flow Over Low-Pressure Turbine Blades


and Automobiles Using Active Flow Control Strategies
Submitted To

The 2012 Academic Year NSF AY-REU Program


Part of
NSF Type 1 STEP Grant

Sponsored By
The National Science Foundation

Grant ID No.: DUE-0756921


College of Engineering and Applied Science
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio

Prepared By
Michael Cline, Junior, Mechanical Engineering - ACCEND
Brandon Mullen, Sophomore, Aerospace Engineering

Report Reviewed By:

Dr. Kirti Ghia


REU Faculty Mentor
Professor of Aerospace Engineering
School of Aerospace Systems
University of Cincinnati
September 17 December 6, 2012

Study of Separated Flow Over Low-Pressure Turbine Blades


and Automobiles Using Active Flow Control Strategies
Michael Cline1 and Brandon J. Mullen2
Advisor: Dr. K. N. Ghia3
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH,45221

Flow separation is the phenomenon that occurs when the low-momentum boundary layer
on a surface separates from the surface, resulting in flow recirculation and a large wake.
This wake causes the form drag of the automobile to increase, and reduces efficiency of
turbine blades in low-pressure turbines. The wake on the body can be reduced or prevented
through momentum-addition strategies, known as flow separation controls. These controls
range from simple flow manipulation, to fluid injection, to flow ionization. The present study
examines the effect of flow separation on automobiles and low-Re low-pressure turbines
using Computational Fluid Dynamics methods. Single Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma
Actuators and Moving Surface Boundary-Layer Control will be applied to a low-pressure
turbine blade and an automobile, respectively, in order to delay or prevent the separationinduced wake and the associated drag.

Nomenclature
a

plasma field height (m)

plasma field width (m)

Ca

automobile chord length

x-distance between electrodes (m)

Undergraduate Student, Mechanical Engineering, 280 Sebastian Court, Cincinnati, OH, 45238
Undergraduate Student, Aerospace Engineering, 1804 Carlyle Dr., Piqua, OH, 45356
3
Professor of Aerospace Engineering, School of Aerospace Systems
2

ec

elementary charge (Ampere s)

Eo

maximum electric field strength (V/m)

Eb

breakdown electric field strength (V/m)

E(x,y) =

electric field strength at (x,y) (V/m)

Ex

electric field strength in x-direction (V/m)

Ey

electric field strength in y-direction (V/m)

Fx

body force in x-direction (N/m3)

Fy

body force in y-direction (N/m3)

k1

electric field scale parameter (V/m2)

k2

electric field scale parameter (V/m2)

charge density (m-3)

discharge time (s)

x-velocity (m/s)

Uo

A/C voltage (Vrms)

Free-stream velocity (m/s)

voltage frequency (Hz)

delta control function

ratio of surface velocity to free-stream velocity

I.

Introduction

FFICIENCY enhancement is the growing requirement in modern industry.

With Earths non-renewable

resources slowly dwindling, engineers are gleaning as much energy from our fuels as possible. This trend is easily
seen in the automobile industry, with high gasoline costs driving much of the technology development. On the other
hand, efficiency in the aerospace industry is not only about cost savings, but also about expanding the operating
envelope. Increased turbine efficiency makes it feasible for military aircraft to perform intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance missions in a meaningful manner.
Drag consumes much of the energy needed to operate the machines under consideration. In fact, Existing data
indicates that 16% of the total energy consumed in the United States is used to overcome aerodynamic drag in
3

transportation systems.[1] For a body moving through a viscous fluid medium, the flow near the surface is a lowmomentum flow. When subjected to an adverse pressure gradient, the flow separates from the surface, and may
generate a separation bubble of recirculating, low-velocity fluid, or the flow may fully detach from the surface.
This separated flow creates a large wake downstream of the body, resulting in large quantities of form drag and a
higher drag coefficient. More energy and, consequently, more fuel is then required to overcome the additional drag
force experienced by the moving bodies.
Flow separation control was developed to reduce or eliminate the losses due to flow separation. Flow separation
control strategies add momentum to the low-momentum fluid, and thereby delay or prevent flow separation and
hence minimize drag.
One of the newer control strategies uses Single Dielectric Barrier Discharge (SBDB) plasma actuators. These
actuators add momentum to the fluid through an electric field-induced body force. Plasma actuators have been
heavily investigated for use in low-Re flow in the low-pressure turbines of jet engines[2-7].
Moving Surface Boundary Layer Control (MSBC) has been implemented in studies on large bluff bodies, such
as tractor trailers. In this strategy, cylinders are installed in the body surface such that they are free to rotate, with a
small span-wise segment of the cylinder exposed to the moving fluid. As flow moves over the cylinders, the
cylinders rotate, thus adding momentum to the boundary-layer fluid through surface velocity. This prevents or
minimizes the extent the boundary layer separates and reduces the flow wake and resulting drag.
To study the efficiency improvement possible with flow control, the SDBD plasma actuators and MSBC
cylinders were implemented on a low-pressure turbine blade (NACA0012) and an automobile (Toyota Corolla),
respectively. For simplicity in discerning between the calculations and methods of the two implementations, each of
the forthcoming sections discuss the automobile and turbine applications.

II.

Control Strategy Background

A. Automobile Application
Moving Surface Boundary Layer Control (MSBC) is a simple form of active flow control strategy that requires
relatively little power input for significant aerodynamic drag reduction. As with most flow control strategies, the
initial research conducted on MSBCs was aimed at applications on general aircraft. NASAs Ames Research Center
actually conducted flight tests on North American Rockwells OV-10A, a small Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL)
4

aircraft developed for the U.S. Marine Corps. The aim of the program at Ames was to assess the aircraft handling
qualities at high lift configurations. The aircraft showed reasonable control up to angles of attack of minus 8 at
speeds of 29-31 m/s. This increased control could be attributed to a MSBC cylinder implementation on a flap of the
aircraft.
MSBC utilizes a surface with continuous uniform motion, usually a cylinder, to add momentum to fluid flow
passing over a body. Simply put, the moving surface adds velocity to the fluid particles in contact with it, increasing
their momentum. The increase in momentum reduces or prevents boundary-layer separation downstream of the
cylinder, thus decreasing drag.

Fig. 1. MSBC cylinders applied on a tractor trailer[9].


Extensive research on MSBCs was performed by Dr. V.J. Modi [9] on several types of objects that included
airfoils and tractor-trailers. Testing on airfoils, in particular, yielded effective results that showed significant
increases in the lift coefficient at increasing angles of attack. This was made possible by the significant decrease in
the size of the detached flow region that formed above and aft of the leading edge of the airfoil. Elimination of this
separated flow allows the boundary-layer flow to reattach to the surface of the airfoil. The decrease in the separated
flow wake decreases the drag on the object.
Dr. Modi also expanded upon his research, The concept of the MSBC presents several avenues of promising
applications. They include drag reduction of bus, truck, and tractor-trailer configurations.[9] He modeled
several configurations of the MSBC on tractor-trailer bodies, with the most successful simulation yielding a 52%
reduction in the tractor-trailers drag coefficient. The implementation of MSBC on automobiles, such as four-door
sedans holds promise and could show significant reduction in drag, warranting serious consideration of industrial
implementation of such a flow control strategy.

B. Low-Pressure Turbine Application


5

Single Dielectric Barrier Discharge (SDBD) plasma actuators comprise a primary second-generation active
flow separation control. One of the first studies utilizing these actuators was performed by Corke and Matlis [5] in
2000.
The actuator consists of two layers of electrodes, each on the opposite side of a dielectric material. A
continuously increasing A/C voltage is applied to the electrodes, and causes plasma formation on the surface on the
dielectric, just downstream of the exposed electrode (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Plasma formation from SDBD plasma actuator [6].


The plasma ionizes the surrounding fluid. This ionization causes the electrodes electric field to exert a body
force on the fluid. This body force imparts momentum to the fluid particles in the boundary layer and pushes the
fluid downstream.

This accelerates the airflow, causing reattachment, but has little effect on airflow once

reattachment occurs.
Boxx et al[7] tested the effect of plasma actuators at Reynolds numbers from 4,500 to 75,000. The tests were
performed using a flat contoured plate with a pressure distribution similar to that of an aft-loaded LPT blade. The
plasma actuator was placed just downstream of the typical separation point.
During the experiment, the streamwise velocity of the air increased as the power transmitted to the actuator
increased. Boxx and his group found that plasma actuators use produced a dual effect on the airstream; the plasma
actuator pushed the separation bubble upstream, while also shrinking the size of the separation bubble with
increased actuator voltage (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Flow velocity vector fields for Re = 16,400 for various power inputs, (a) 0; (b) 15 W; (c) 20 W; (d) 25
W[7].
They concluded that the most likely reattachment mechanism is the local static pressure reduction resulting from
the downstream acceleration induced by the actuator. More importantly, they found that the plasma actuators still
had a large impact on the 75,000-Re flows, though the impact was not as profound as that on lower-velocity
airflows.
A study conducted by Thomas et al[6] showed effective flow control for Re = 33,000. Their setup consisted
of a cylinder in a wind tunnel with four plasma actuators arranged symmetrically on the aft half of the cylinder (Fig.
4). Instead of using a separate dielectric for their actuator, they used the cylinder itself as the dielectric barrier
material.
7

Fig. 4. Thomas et al wind tunnel actuator setup[6]. 1) Dielectric surface, 2) exposed electrode, 3) covered
electrode, 4) inner cylinder surface, 5) plasma formation.
They performed their experiment initially with the plasma actuators off, and then with plasma having a
steady AC frequency of 50 Hz. Fig. 5 shows a visualization of the flow for their two settings.

Fig. 5. Smoke-flow visualization with actuators off (left) and on (right) [6].
Fig. 6 shows the velocity in the wake with no operation, cyclic operation and steady operation of the plasma
actuators. Steady actuation eliminates about 80% of losses from flow separation not a small reduction!

Fig. 6. Wake velocities in terms of percentage of free stream velocity for the airflow over the cylinder for
varying x- and y-position[6].
Given the strong effect of plasma actuators evidenced in these studies, we developed a simulation to
implement them on a NACA0012 airfoil at a low Reynolds number of 10,000 and a high angle of attack of 10 o.

III.

Setup and Calculations

A. Automobile Application
To study the application of the MSBCs on a four-door sedan, simulations were conducted following these steps.
1. Developing the Automobile Section View
In order to understand the effectiveness of the MSBCs, Fluent software from ANSYS was used to model
airflow over a two-dimensional section of a four-door sedan. A two-dimensional section was considered to reduce
the calculation costs as well as simplify mesh creation. Because of its prevalence on U.S. roadways today, the
Toyota Corolla was chosen for the MSBCs simulation. To accurately produce a two-dimensional section of the
Toyota Corolla, a photo of the side view of the car was taken and converted into a black-and-white image that
depicted the silhouette of the car.

Fig. 7. Front view of 2013 Toyota Corolla with section plane line (shown in red).
Using the MATLAB function edge, the silhouette was then further decomposed into an edge line tracing
the cars shape. A loop command then compiled a list of the x-y coordinates of individual pixels comprising the
edge line. These coordinates were then imported into the mesh development program Gambit as the vertices for the
two-dimensional section of the car. The full MATLAB code script is given in Appendix B.

Fig. 8. Image processing and model development of 2013 Toyota Corolla


2. Mesh Configuration
Upon completion of the section model development, a mesh surrounding the model was created. This mesh
included a wall boundary below the car that functioned as a road surface that would interact accordingly in the
simulations. The edges of the section model were also given a wall boundary condition. The road extended five car
lengths in front of the model, and 10 car lengths behind the model. The flow field inlet was a 90 boundary arc with
a radius of 6 car lengths and center point placed below the rear bumper on the road surface. This boundary acted
as a velocity flow inlet. The flow field was surrounded downstream by a rectangle with height equal to the radius of
the arc and length equal to that of the road behind the model. The upper length and rear height boundaries of the
10

rectangle acted as pressure outlet. These two fields were then split into several smaller faces to create areas
conducive to rectangular meshes.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 9. Mesh surrounding the model in full view (a) and focused on the model (b).
3. MSBC Configuration
In order for a MSBC cylinder to be effective at reducing flow separation it must be exposed to free stream flow
above the regular slope of the vehicle. Because of this, the original section of the vehicle had to be modified to
incorporate the MSBC. According to Modi

[9]

as well as Singh et al

[10]

, the placement is most efficient at the flow

separation point. From the baseline simulation with no control application, the earliest effective placement of a
rotating cylinder was directly above the slope of the windshield. The cylinder placed had a diameter of onetwentieth of the car length, as this was an effective dimension used in airfoil experiments conducted in Modis

[9]

review. The arc of the modeled two-dimensional cylinder exposed to the stream flow was a quarter of the
circumference of the circle. This was done to mimic the implementation of cylinders on tractor trailers in Modis [9]
as well as Singh et als [10] studies.

11

Fig. 10. Depiction of MSBC installed on surface of car above windshield


4. Modeling Momentum Addition with Varying Linear Velocity
Singh et als[10] study concluded that varying the radius of the cylinder did not change the result seen as long
as the linear to free stream velocity ratio (otherwise ) of the cylinder was constant. It appeared to them that the
effect of the MSBC was a result of the linear velocity. Proceeding from this, the prime variable tested was the ratio
of the MSBC surface velocity to the free-stream velocity, The wall boundary of the MSBC was made to rotate
about the center of the arc as a cylinder. The speed of rotation was determined as a function of as can be seen in
Fig. 11. Converting the angular velocity to revolutions per minute helps to qualitatively understand the relatively
low velocity of the MSBCs. It also enables the results to be compared to Singh et als [10] CFD study with tractor
trailers.

12

Table 1. Linear and angular velocities of MSBC cylinder as a function of 4.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6

Velocity of Cylinder
meters/sec
rad/s
n/a
n/a
24.58
-1.0794
49.16
-2.1589
77.74
-3.2383
98.32
-4.3178
122.9
-5.3972
147.48
-6.4766

rpm's
n/a
-101.73
-203.47
-305.2
-406.94
-508.67
-610.41

B. Low-Pressure Turbine Application


Considering the complexity of body force calculation and implementation in a CFD simulation, this application
was explored in two steps.
1.

Method Verification
The study by Shyy et al[8] uses a simple, rectangular geometry, and is simple to replicate. Hence, this study was

chosen to verify the CFD methods we use to simulate the plasma actuator-modified flow through direct comparison.
This study allows for a direct comparison of the results between the data from an often-referenced study[8] and the
present data, to confirm that our implementation and calculations produce nearly the same output, thereby verifying
our methods. Using Gambit software from ANSYS, the geometry from Shyys study was created, with a rectangular
field where the plasma-induced momentum addition takes place (Fig. 11).

Negative values needed for clockwise rotation of cylinder.


13

A
Fig. 11. Initial simulation geometry. Electric field area (A) shown.
The outlet and inlet dimension of the solution domain was later expanded by approximately 25 times (Fig. 12),
after the original geometry resulted in non-converging solutions in the ANSYS Fluent simulation.

Fig. 12. Expanded geometry with original geometry small rectangle in bottom left corner.
The electric-field body force applied in the rectangle shown in Fig. 11 was then calculated using equations from
Shyys paper, modified for units of V/m instead of kV/cm:
The maximum electric field strength, Eo, is calculated as follows:

(1)

With the scale parameters k1 and k2 defined and calculated as:

14

(2)

and

(3)

The electric field strength distribution E(x,y) is then obtained:

( )

(4)

Next, Ex and Ey are computed as:


(

(5)

and

(6)

Finally, the resulting body forces Fx and Fy are calculated as:


(
(

) (

)( )(

)(

)(

) )(

) (

)
(7)

and

) (

(8)

Substituting Eq. (4) into Eqs. (7) and (8) will produce the equations for the momentum sources in the rectangle
as a function of (x,y) position.
Plasma will form only in areas with an electric field value greater than a specified breakdown electric field
value, symbolized by Eb in Eqs. (2) and (3). Implementation use of a delta function facilitates implementing this
requirement, such that
15

For (

(9a)

and
for (

(9b)

Equation. (7) and (8), multiplied by the delta function illustrated in Eqs. (9a) and (9b), were incorporated into a
C-based user-defined function (UDF) in the form of an if-statement (see Appendix A, Section 1) and supplied to
the ANSYS flow simulator Fluent.
Flow was then simulated with an inlet velocity of 2 m/s, 4 m/s, 5 m/s and 10 m/s as in the control study[8]. We
then compared the normalized simulation results with those of Shyy et al[8]. We found the velocity profile results
downstream of the electrode to be comparable to Shyy et al[8] (Fig. 13). Therefore our methods and calculations can
be considered verified, and the simulation can move on to the low-pressure turbine blade, represented by a
NACA0012 airfoil.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 13. Comparison of present normalized velocity profile results (a) with Shyy et al[8] (b).
2. Developing the Airfoil Computational Mesh and Simulation
The NACA0012 airfoil shape developed in Gambit was generated from vertices acquired from an airfoil vertex
generator developed by Trapp[11]. The vertices were all normalized to a chord length of 1. We assumed the chord
length of the airfoil was 40 mm long, approximately the length of a typical low-pressure turbine blade. As a result,
we multiplied the vertices x- and y-coordinates by 40, then continued creating the grid in dimensions of mm.

16

A C-grid model was used, similar to that used by Zhang et al[12] (Fig. 14a). The electrode and electric field
rectangle were placed directly at the flow separation point on the airfoil (Fig. 14b). The separation point was
determined qualitatively from a simulation with no electrode present. For ease of meshing, the upper half of the Cgrid was split into five relatively rectangular bolcks. This allows for relatively rectangular cells over the entire
mesh.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 14. NACA0012 Gambit geometry (a) zoomed in on airfoil (b).


The user-defined function from the Shyy et al[8] validation study was modified to account for the slight angle of
the rectangle with respect to the global x-y axes (see Appendix A, Section 2).
The simulation was then run at Re = 10,000, with the airfoil chord length of .04 m used as the reference length.
The inlet velocity was approximately 3.7 m/s, with an angle of attack of 10 o. A low Reynolds number such as
10,000 and a high angle of attack such as 10o produce conditions of large-scale flow separation, while staying within
the range of real-world application.
The next section describes the results obtained for the automobile and airfoil simulations.

IV.

Results

A. Automobile Application
A simulation on the model section without addition of the MSBC was done to establish a baseline to which
simulations with MSBCs could be compared to. Several separated wakes can be seen in figure 17 that span across
the entire model. To try and eliminate all of the wakes would require multiple MSBC application sites which would

17

result in high power consumption. Therefore, one MSBC was applied on the roof of the model section near the
windshield of the car.

Fig. 15. Streamline result of control case with no control


Many velocities of the cylinder were tested for their effect on the separated flow wakes which can be seen
below. Generally, as the velocity of the cylinder increased the wake decreased in size. At a linear to free stream
velocity ratio of 6 a limit of flow separation was seen and any alterations in the flow that occurred downstream of
the model could not be directly attributed to additional increases in the cylinder velocity.

(a) = 0

(b) = 1

18

(c) = 2

(d) = 3

(e) = 4

19

(f) = 5

(g) = 6
Fig. 16. MSBC application to model at varying .
Several additional tests could be performed on this model that could not be conducted because of time and/or
resource constraints. Some of these are listed:
1.

Changing the location of the MSBC cylinder on the model could result in different separation patterns
behind the model.

2.

Placement of additional cylinders:


a.

on the roof just above the rear window

b.

on the corner of the trunk

c.

on the lower leading edge

d.

where the windshield meets the hood of the engine compartment

e.

on the lower leading edge of the bumper

f.

on the lower edge of the bumper

3.

Reducing the cylinders radius until a decreased result was seen

4.

Adjusting the mesh surrounding the model.

5.

Three dimensional modeling of the Corolla.

As discussed earlier, the reduction of the wake means a direct reduction of the drag would be seen by the car.
From the results seen above, the MSBC would be an effective separated flow control strategy when implemented on
a four door sedan such as the Toyota Corolla.

B. Low-Pressure Turbine Application


20

Initially, the airfoil simulation was run without implementing the plasma effect so as to develop a baseline
solution to judge the controls effectiveness. The resulting flow streamlines are shown in Fig. 17. Note the large
wake of recirculating flow that develops on the suction side and aft of the airfoil. This flow separation, resulting
mainly due to the non-zero angle of attack at the Re considered, results in large pressure drag, and makes the airfoil
inefficient.

Fig. 17. Streamline results of simulation with control inactive.


The simulation was then run with the electric field at the same strength used in Shyys study. Results are shown
in Fig. 18. With the implementation of the control, the wake is entirely eliminated, the airfoil is much more
efficient, and the downstream flow suffers little energy loss, which is ideal in a true low-pressure turbine, which may
have several stages of airfoils in use.

Fig. 18. Streamline for flow over NACA0012 airfoil with same electric field strength as in Shyy et al[8].
Seeing the promising results with the baseline (Shyy et al[8]) strength of the electric field, we then modified the
electric field by modifying the supplied electrode voltage and A/C voltage frequency, to dtermine the minimum
effective voltage (Fig. 19) and A/C frequency (Fig. 20) sufficient for flow control. The plasma control was still
somewhat effective at 2400 V, or 60% of the voltage in Shyy et al[8], but the wake greatly increased below that
value. Reducing the A/C frequency had very little effect on the wake, with a frequency reduction of 75% resulting
in only a slight reduction of the control effectiveness.
21

(a) Uo = 4000 V

(b) Uo = 3200 V

(c) Uo = 2400 V

(d) Uo = 2000 V
Fig. 19. Streamlines of flow with plasma control for various U o.

(a) = 3000 Hz

22

(b) = 2250 Hz

(c) = 1500 Hz

(d) = 750 Hz
Fig. 20. Streamlines of flow with plasma control for various frequency, .
From the results obtained, the plasma control seems to be effective for voltage and frequency combinations of
3200 V and 1500 Hz, and 2400 V and 750 Hz, for elimination of the wake and near-elimination of the wake,
respectively.
These results are discussed in the following section.

V.

Conclusions

A. Automobile Application
Application of a MSBC cylinder on an automobile can significantly reduce flow separation. The lower power
input required to rotate a cylinder of very small mass and dimension coupled with significant savings from drag
reduction make MSBCs strong candidates for serious consideration in application on manufactured vehicles today.
More testing would also be needed to evaluate the optimal application location as well as determining a minimal

23

operational radius. Three dimensional modeling coupled with prototype testing of MSBC could give automobile
designers a better understanding this strategy before moving to apply them.

B. Low-Pressure Turbine Application


The plasma actuator is a very strong control, completely eliminating flow separation over the airfoil Even at
reduced voltage and A/C frequency the actuator performed strongly, significantly reducing the size of the wake.
The electrodes effectiveness was revealed to be a strong function of voltage, with the A/C frequency able to drop
over 50% with no effect on the wake reduction. This strong voltage relationship will be key when developing
plasma flow control systems for the real world. The great flexibility illustrated in the investigation of minimum
effective values (4000 2400 V, 3000 750 Hz) is ideal for transition into real-world application, considering the
large role the energy/financial cost and efficiency benefit balance comes into play in industry.

That said, a

quantitative study in the future utilizing a measurable wake-loss coefficient or pressure-loss coefficient is necessary
to produce verifiable, and therefore consequential, data.

Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Dr. Urmila Ghia, Ms. Kristen Strominger, Dr. Anant Kukreti, Santosh Roopak Dungi, Rahul
Singh, Alain Kuchta, the National Science Foundation Grant No. DUE-0756921 and the University of Cincinnati.

References
[1] Wood, R., "Impact of Advanced Aerodynamic Technology on Transportation Energy Consumption," SAE Technical
Paper 2004-01-1306, 2004, doi:10.4271/2004-01-1306.
[2] Hultgren, L., & Ashpis, D. E., Boundary-Layer Separation Control Under Low-Pressure-Turbine Conditions Using GlowDischarge Plasma Actuators. NASA TM 2004-212913, 2003.
[3] Post, M. L., Phased Plasma Actuators for Unsteady Flow Control. Masters Thesis, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
IN, 2001.
[4] Newcamp, J. M., Effects of Boundary Layer Flow Control Using Plasma Actuator Discharges, Masters Thesis, Air Force
Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 2005.
[5] Corke, T. C. and Matlis, E., Phased Plasma Arrays for Unsteady Flow Control, Fluids 2000, AIAA, Denver, CO, 2000, pp.
2000-2323.
[6] Thomas, F. O., Kozlov, A., and Corke, T. C., Plasma Actuators for Cylinder Flow Control and Noise Reduction, AIAA

24

Journal, Vol. 46, No. 8, 2008, pp. 1921-1931.


[7] Boxx, I., Newcamp, J., Franke, M., Woods, N., and Rivir, R., A PIV Study of a Plasma Discharge Flow-Control Actuator on
a Flat Plate in an Aggressive Pressure Induced Separation, ASME Turbo Expo, Barcelona, Spain, 2006.
[8] Shyy, W., Jayaraman, B., and Andersson, A., Modeling of glow discharge-induced fluid dynamics, Journal of Applied
Physics, 2002, pp. 6434.
[9] Modi, V.J. Moving Surface Boundary Layer Control: A Review, Deprt. Of Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of B.C.,B.C.,
Canada, 1997.
[10] Singh, S. N., Rai, L., Puri, P., Bhatnagar, A., Effect of moving surface on the aerodynamic drag of road vehicles, Dept. of
Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India, 2004.
[11] Ladson, C.L., Brooks, Jr., and Trapp, W. Jens, Development of a Computer Program to Obtain Coordinates for NACA 4Digit, 4-digit modified, 5-digit, and 16-Series Airfoils. NASA TM X-3284, 1975.
[12] Zhang, P.F., Yan, B., Liu, A.B., and Wang, J.J., Numerical Simulation on Plasma Circulation Control Airfoil, AIAA
Journal, Vol. 48, No. 10, 2010, 2213 2226.

Appendix
A. Fluent User-Defined Function C Code
1. Shyy Reference Trial
#include "udf.h"
#define k1

4.333333*pow(10,9)

#define k2

2*k1

#define Eo

16*pow(10,6)

#define freq 3000


#define rhoc pow(10,17)
#define Eb
#define deltat

3000000
67*pow(10,-6)

#define e 1.602*pow(10,-19)
#define Uo

4000

DEFINE_SOURCE(xmom_source, c, t, dS, eqn)


{
25

real source;
real E;
real Ex;
real fx;
real x[ND_ND];
C_CENTROID(x,c,t);
E = Eo - k1*(x[0]-.0135) - k2*x[1];
if (E > Eb)
{
Ex = E*k2/pow(pow(k1,2.0)+pow(k2,2.0),.5);
fx = Ex*rhoc*e*freq*deltat;
source = fx;
dS[eqn] = 0.0;
}
else
{
source = 0.0;
dS[eqn] = 0.0;
}
return source;
}
DEFINE_SOURCE(ymom_source, c, t, dS, eqn)
{
real source;
real E;
real Ey;
real fy;
real x[ND_ND];
26

C_CENTROID(x,c,t);
E = Eo - k1*(x[0]-.0135) - k2*x[1];
if (E > Eb)
{
Ey = E*k1/pow(pow(k1,2.0)+pow(k2,2.0),.5);
fy = Ey*rhoc*e*freq*deltat;
source = fy;
dS[eqn] = 0.0;
}
else
{
source = 0.0;
dS[eqn] = 0.0;
}
return source;
}
2. NACA0012 Airfoil Trials5
#include "udf.h"
#define k1

4.333333*pow(10,9)

#define k2

2*k1

#define Eo

16*pow(10,6)

#define freq 3000


#define rhoc pow(10,17)
#define Eb

3000000

Trials 2, 3 and 4 modified Eo, Uo and (freq) in the equations. When the code was modified for those trials,

only the Eo, Uo, and freq definitions on lines 4, 5 and 10 were changed. For brevity, only the original code is
shown.
27

#define deltat

67*pow(10,-6)

#define e 1.602*pow(10,-19)
#define Uo

4000

#define pi 4.0*atan(1.0)
DEFINE_SOURCE(xmom_source, c, t, dS, eqn)
{
real source;
real E;
real Ex;
real fx;
real x[ND_ND];
real xo;
real yo;
real xrect;
real yrect;
real alpha;
real beta;
C_CENTROID(x,c,t);
xo = x[0]-.002785159;
yo = x[1]-.001631031;
alpha= pow(pow(xo,2)+pow(yo,2),.5);
if (yo > 0.0)
{
beta = atan2(yo,xo+.000000000001)*180.0/pi-12.63;
}
else
{
beta = atan2(yo,xo+.000000000001)*180.0/pi+12.63;
28

}
xrect = alpha*cos(beta*pi/180.0);
yrect = alpha*sin(beta*pi/180.0);
E = Eo - k1*(xrect) - k2*(yrect);
if (E > Eb)
{
Ex = E*k2/pow(pow(k1,2.0)+pow(k2,2.0),.5);
fx = Ex*rhoc*e*freq*deltat;
source = fx;
dS[eqn] = 0.0;
}
else
{
source = 0.0;
dS[eqn] = 0.0;
}
return source;
}
DEFINE_SOURCE(ymom_source, c, t, dS, eqn)
{
real source;
real E;
real Ey;
real fy;
real x[ND_ND];
real xo;
real yo;
real xrect;
29

real yrect;
real alpha;
real beta;
C_CENTROID(x,c,t);
xo = x[0]-.002785159;
yo = x[1]-.001631031;
alpha = pow(pow(xo,2)+pow(yo,2),.5);
if (yo > 0.0)
{
beta = atan2(yo,xo+.000000000001)*180.0/pi-12.63;
}
else
{
beta = atan2(yo,xo+.000000000001)*180.0/pi+12.63;
}
xrect = alpha*cos(beta*pi/180.0);
yrect = alpha*sin(beta*pi/180.0);
E = Eo - k1*(xrect) - k2*(yrect);
if (E > Eb)
{
Ey = E*k1/pow(pow(k1,2.0)+pow(k2,2.0),.5);
fy = Ey*rhoc*e*freq*deltat;
source = fy;
dS[eqn] = 0.0;
}
else
{
source = 0.0;
30

dS[eqn] = 0.0;
}
return source;
}

B. MATLAB Code
Image Vertex Development
%Uploads picture into MATLAB workspace
inputpic=imread('2013_toyota_corolla.jpg');
grycrpdpic=rgb2gray(inputpic);
imshow(grycrpdpic);
pause;
%Degrades gray scale image to silhouette of car.
blkwht=grycrpdpic > 236;
imshow(blkwht);
pause;
%Generates perimeter line surrounding black areas in silhouette.
edgegen=edge(blkwht);
imshow(edgegen);
%Opens .txt file and writes vertices of line from edgegen. Vertex import
%limit on GAMBIT is <150, therefore multiple files are written with
%sequencial numerical numbering.
VertexCount = 1;
FileNameCount = 0;
A = num2str(FileNameCount);
Filename = strcat('Vertices_',A,'.txt');
VertexTextFile = fopen(Filename,'wt');
for row = 1:size(edgegen,1)
for col = 1:size(edgegen,2)
if edgegen(row,col) == 1
fprintf(VertexTextFile,'%d', col);
fprintf(VertexTextFile,' -%d 0 \r\n', row);
VertexCount = VertexCount + 1;
if VertexCount == 150;
fclose('all');
FileNameCount = FileNameCount + 1;
A = num2str(FileNameCount);
Filename = strcat('Vertices_',A,'.txt');
VertexCount = 1;
VertexTextFile = fopen(Filename,'wt');
end
end
end
end

31