International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 67 (2017) 122–130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhff

Sensitivity of the Orr–Sommerfeld equation to base flow perturbations

with application to airfoils
Paul Ziadé a,b,∗, Pierre E. Sullivan a
a
Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, M5S 3G8, Canada
b
Department of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, T2N 1N4, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The sensitivity of the Orr–Sommerfeld equation due to base flow deviations is investigated by means of
Available online 17 June 2017 a Monte Carlo-type perturbation strategy and a Chebyshev collocation method. In particular, the sensi-
tivities of the peak growth rate and frequency, both of which are of importance in airfoil applications,
Keywords:
are investigated in the low Reynolds number regime. A separated boundary layer with a nominal shape
Transition
Flow instability
factor of H = 5.9 was perturbed for both velocity and wall-normal position deviations. Wide bands of
eigenvalue spectra are obtained due to both types of perturbations. The standard deviation of the peak
growth rate and frequency due to both perturbations does not exhibit a pronounced Reynolds number de-
pendence. To broaden the results, six boundary layers were investigated with shape factors ranging from
H = 5.9 − 22. Perturbations resulting in a standard deviation of 1% of the nominal shape factor were ap-
plied. It is found that sensitivities of both the peak growth rate and frequency are more pronounced at
lower shape factors, with a decrease in sensitivity with increasing shape factor. This result suggests that,
at low Reynolds numbers, boundary layers with larger separated regions are less sensitive to base flow
perturbations.
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction where α is the wavenumber and ω is the circular frequency. In air-

foil applications, which inspire the present work, a spatial stability
Low Reynolds number airfoils are of interest in many contem- analysis is most appropriate. In this type of analysis, the wavenum-
porary applications such as micro-air vehicles and wind turbines. ber, α , is complex and the frequency, ω, is real. Therefore, accord-
Airfoils are prone to boundary layer separation and can exhibit ing to this formulation, the unstable modes which grow in space
poor performance when the chord-based Reynolds number, Rec , are those in which the imaginary part of the computed eigenvalue
is below 106 . Following separation, the shear layer can either re- is negative (−αi ).
main separated or transition to turbulence and reattach to the sur- Substituting the flow decomposition (Eq. (1)) into the Navier–
face. Transition occurs because of the amplification of instabilities. Stokes equations and neglecting products of small perturbations
Understanding these instabilities and their growth mechanism is results in the Orr–Sommerfeld equation:
therefore important for airfoil performance prediction and the ap-   2  4 
 ω  d2 vˆ d vˆ 2ˆ
2d v
plication of flow control strategies. d U i
U− − α 2
v
ˆ − v
ˆ = − − 2 α + α 4
v
ˆ .
Hydrodynamic stability is typically investigated using linear sta- α dy2 dy2 α Re dy4 dy2
bility analysis. In most local linear stability analyses, a parallel flow
assumption is made. The flow is decomposed as follows: (3)

v ( x, t ) = V ( y ) + v ( x, t ) , p(x, t ) = P (x ) + p (x, t ), (1) The solution of the Orr–Sommerfeld equation dictates the sta-
where V and P are the mean or base flow velocity and pressure, bility of a base flow, U. Eq. (3) has been used to analyze a number
respectively, and v and p are the small perturbations. The pertur- of flows and has provided fairly accurate predictions (Yarusevych
bations are assumed of the form, et al., 2006; Boutilier and Yarusevych, 2012; Nishioka et al., 1990;
Reed et al., 1996; Orszag, 1971).
v (x, y, t ) = vˆ (y )ei(αx−ωt ) , (2) More sophisticated analyses have been performed in recent
years, such as BiGlobal and TriGlobal stability analysis (Theofilis,
∗
Corresponding author. 2003, 2011; Zhang and Samtaney, 2016). These analyses require
E-mail addresses: paul.ziade@ucalgary.ca, paul.ziade@mail.utoronto.ca (P. Ziadé). the accurate computation of the entire flow field by either direct

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2017.06.005
0142-727X/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 P. Ziadé, P.E. Sullivan / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 67 (2017) 122–130 123

numerical simulation (DNS) or high-resolution large-eddy simula- The transformed equations were solved at the Gauss–Lobatto
tion (LES) and allow for the stability computation in two and three points,
dimensions. Both TriGlobal and BiGlobal analysis lead to very large  
πj
eigenvalue problems and are computationally expensive. Further- η j = cos , j = 0, 1, . . . N, (5)
more, these methods cannot be used with experimentally-obtained N
base flow data, which does not describe the entire flow field, is
where N is the number of points in the Chebyshev domain. The
prone to data scatter, and does not have adequate resolution.
vertical velocity fluctuation in (3) is now expressed as a Chebyshev
Several papers have reported the sensitivity of this one-
polynomial series:
dimensional linear stability analysis. Bottaro et al. (2003) have
examined the effect of base flow variation using a variational 
N

technique. Investigating Couette flow, which in its ideal form is vˆ (η ) = an Tn (η ). (6)

unconditionally stable, they found that even small changes can n=1

be destabilizing. The most perturbation-sensitive eigenvalues for The applicable boundary conditions in Chebyshev space are Schmid
plane Poiseuille flow have been identified by Reddy et al. (1993) as and Henningson (2001),
those nearest to the intersection of the three branches of the Orr–
Sommerfeld spectrum. The nonnormality of the Orr–Sommerfeld 
N 
N 
N
an Tn (1 ) = 0; an Tn (−1 ) = 0; an Tn (1 ) = 0;
operator has been identified as being a key contributor to the pro-
n=1 n=1 n=1
nounced eigenvalue sensitivity (Reddy et al., 1993; Schmid et al.,
1993; Trefethen and Embree, 2005). Non-normal matrices and op- 
N
an Tn (−1 ) = 0, (7)
erators are those that do not commute with their adjoint; that is,
n=1
AA∗ = A∗ A, where A∗ is the conjugate transpose. These operators
have nonorthogonal eigenfunctions. The analysis of the sensitiv- which corresponds to vˆ (±1 ) = vˆ  (±1 ) = 0. The above Chebyshev
ity of these types of operators has been performed using matrix expansions with appropriate boundary conditions were substi-
perturbation techniques and the  -pseudospectrum (Trefethen and tuted into the Orr–Sommerfeld equation. A fourth order polyno-
Embree, 2005). A detailed discussion regarding the nonnormal- mial eigenvalue problem with matrix coefficients, Cj , and α as the
ity of the Orr–Sommerfeld operator can be found in Reddy et al. parameter is obtained (Bridges and Morris, 1984; Morris, 1992):
(1993) and Schmid et al. (1993). More recently, Boutilier and Yaru-
D4 ( α ) a = 0 , (8)
sevych (2013) examined the effect of the method of analysis on
the eigenvalue sensitivity. In this latter study, it was shown that where
the typical data scatter in experimental measurements as well as
the curve fitting approach must be considered when performing D4 ( α ) = C 0 α 4 + C 1 α 3 + C 2 α 2 + C 3 α + C 4 . (9)
linear stability analysis. This can be reformulated using the companion matrix method to
Linear stability analysis using the Orr–Sommerfeld equation re- yield a complex generalized eigenvalue problem (Bridges and Mor-
mains an important tool in aerodynamics. This present work was ris, 1984):
motivated by a recent study comparing the LES computations of ⎛⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎞
a low-Reynolds number airfoil with hot-wire measurements con- −C1 −C2 −C3 −C4 C0 0 0 0
⎜⎢ I 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢0 I 0 0⎥⎟
ducted in a low-turbulence recirculating wind tunnel at the Uni-
⎝⎣ 0 − α⎣
versity of Toronto. Despite good agreement between the compu- I 0 0 ⎦ 0 0 I 0⎦⎠
tations and experiment, minor deviations in base flow resulted in 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 I
⎧ 3 ⎫
⎨ α 2 a⎪
large discrepancies in predicted disturbance growth rates using the ⎪ ⎬
Orr–Sommerfeld equation. This paper is an attempt to quantify the α a
× = 0.
⎩ αa ⎪
effects of base flow variation on the resulting growth rates pre-
⎪ ⎭
dicted by linear stability analysis, with particular attention to air- a
foil applications. The quantification of the sensitivity due to inflex-
ion point location variation, overall level of velocity deviation, and The eigenvalues, α , were computed using the QR algorithm. The
boundary layer shape factor is sought. In addition, this paper seeks results presented in this paper were computed using 150 Cheby-
to determine whether the sensitivity to base flow variation has any shev polynomials. It was found that for a given level of base flow
dependence on the Reynolds number. variation and all other parameters remaining fixed, the relative dif-
ference in growth rate in going from N = 150 to N = 200 polyno-
mials is less than 1 percent. Excellent accuracy using relatively few
Chebyshev polynomials has been reported by several researchers
2. Orr–Sommerfeld equation solution methodology (Khorrami, 1991; Khorrami and Malik, 1993; Trefethen et al., 1999).

The Orr–Sommerfeld equation (Eq. (3)) was solved using a
Chebyshev collocation method. It has been shown by Orszag
(1971) as well as others (Biringen and Danabasoglu, 1988; Lee and
Reynolds, 1967; Morris, 1992) that accurate and efficient solutions
to the Orr–Sommerfeld equation can be obtained using Chebyshev
expansions. The semi-infinite domain of the shear layer profile, y
∈ [0, ∞), was mapped onto the Chebyshev polynomial domain,
η ∈ [−1, 1], by an algebraic mapping function, f(η). Algebraic map-
pings have been shown to be superior to logarithmic mappings
(Schmid and Henningson, 2001; Boyd, 2001; Malik, 1990). The nth
Chebyshev polynomial of the first kind is defined as:
Tn (η ) = cos(n cos−1 η ).
3. Base velocity profile
The separated shear layer profile used in this study as the base
flow is that over a NACA 0025 airfoil at a chord Reynolds number
of Rec = 10 0, 0 0 0 and an angle-of-attack of 5° obtained by hot-wire
measurement. This profile was taken at x = 0.35c, where c is the
chord length, and is just post-separation. This boundary layer has a
nominal shape factor of H = 5.9. The average step size in the wall-
normal direction is 0.13mm. It has been shown by Boutilier and
Yarusevych (2013) that analytical velocity profiles provide better
stability results than using discrete velocity points in the stability
analysis. The curve fit by Dovgal et al. (1994) (Eq. (10)) was fairly
(4) insensitive to data scatter (Boutilier and Yarusevych, 2013) and was
 124 P. Ziadé, P.E. Sullivan / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 67 (2017) 122–130
Fig. 1. Base velocity profile with analytical curve fit.
used in this study to fit the experimental data using a least-squares
method.
U ( y ) tanh[a1 (y − a2 )] + tanh(a1 a2 )
=
Ue 1 + tanh(a1 a2 )
  2 
y y
+a3 exp −1.5 + 0.5
a2 a2
In the above, a1 , a2 and a3 are the fit parameters, Ue is the edge
velocity, and y is the local wall-normal direction. The analytical
expression provides a good fit to the experimental data (Fig. 1)
with a normalized least squares residual of R = 0.0 0 01.
4. Approximation of base flow variation
In this study, two types of departure from the base flow are
considered. The first is due to velocity scatter, achieved by adding
normally-distributed noise about the local velocity with zero mean
and a prescribed standard deviation. Different levels of physically-
realistic noise were considered based on typical hot-wire measure-
ment uncertainty; a low uncertainty case with standard deviation
of σU = 0.75%, a typical uncertainty level of σU = 1.25%, and a high
noise level of σU = 2.5% (Yarusevych et al., 2008; Kawall et al.,
1983; Simpson et al., 1981). Fig. 2 shows the scatter about the base
velocity profile.
Next, the effect of changes in the wall-normal position of the
boundary layer, or inflexion point location, were analyzed by im-
posing normally-distributed perturbations in the wall-normal coor-
dinate, y . Once again, three levels of uncertainty were considered.
This wall-normal deviation from the original base flow can be at-
tributed to improper hot-wire calibration or other influences such
as hot-wire vibrations and uncertainty in the location of the wall.
The perturbed data in the wall-normal direction is shown in Fig. 3.
The perturbations were added to the discrete experimental
data. For the case of the velocity scatter, the experimental data
spacing in the y-direction was maintained. The number of data
scatter points was progressively increased in order to determine an
appropriate number of Monte Carlo realizations wherein the sta-
bility results no longer change considerably (see Section 6.1). For
each perturbation realization, the Dovgal analytical profile with a
spacing of 150 points across the boundary layer was fit to the scat-
tered data. Note that the stability analyses were performed on the
analytical velocity profiles and not the discrete experimental data
points. Shown in Fig. 4 is a set of analytical profiles fit to the per-
turbed velocity data.
5. Relation with -pseudospectra
Let A be a non-normal matrix, and let E be a perturbation ma-
trix composed of random complex elements, normally distributed,
whose norm E =   1. In addition, let σ (A) be the spec-
trum of matrix A. The perturbed matrix, A˜ = A + E leads to the  -
pseudospectrum, σ  (A), where for any  > 0, the pseudospectrum
of A is,
σ (A ) = z ∈ C : z ∈ σ (A + E ) for some E ∈ Cn×n with E  <  .
(11)
The  -pseudoeigenvalues of A are denoted by z ∈ C if z ∈ σ  (A).
The eigenvalue deviations of a normal matrix will not exceed E
(Trefethen and Embree, 2005). On the other hand, for a non-
normal matrix A, the eigenvalues of A˜ can deviate by significant
amounts (Reddy et al., 1993; Schmid et al., 1993; Trefethen and
Embree, 2005).
The non-normality of the Orr–Sommerfeld operator has been
reported as causing the pronounced eigenvalue sensitivity. The
above  -pseudospectra method has been used to quantify the sen-
sitivity of the Orr–Sommerfeld operator. The Orr–Sommerfeld op-
erator is a function of the Reynolds number, Re, the radial fre-
quency, ω, the y-position, y, and the base velocity, U. The per-
turbation matrix, E, used in the  -pseudospectra technique, which
(10) is composed of randomly distributed complex elements, essen-
tially perturbs all variables of the discrete Orr–Sommerfeld oper-
ator. This technique, therefore, does not isolate individual effects,
such as base flow variation.
This paper’s methodology of varying the base flow, U, with nor-
mally distributed noise is a special case of the  -pseudospectra
method. This sub-class of the  -pseudospectra method has also
been reported by Bottaro et al. (2003), who investigated velocity
departures from a canonical Couette flow. In their study, this alter-
nate method was termed the U-pseudospectrum where only the
base flow is perturbed. The U-pseudospectrum of a matrix A is
defined as
σU (A ) = {z ∈ C : z ∈ σ [A(U + U )]
for some U with U  ≤ r }. (12)
Previous studies examining the perturbation of the Orr–
Sommerfeld operator (Reddy et al., 1993; Schmid et al., 1993)
have largely focused on the entire eigenvalue spectrum, identify-
ing which eigenvalues are most sensitive to perturbations and the
movement of the different branches of the eigenvalue spectrum.
Since this study was motivated by transitional aerodynamic flows,
this paper focuses on the peak growth rates, defined by −αi , their
associated frequencies, and how they are affected by changes in
base flow as these are most relevant to this application.
6. Results
6.1. Required number of realizations
The amount of scatter, Ns , at each data point was investigated
at three levels; Ns = 150, 300, and 500. Ns linear stability analyses
were performed for each level of refinement on Ns curve fits, as
seen in Fig. 4. In performing stability analysis on multiple realiza-
tions, Ns growth rate-frequency profiles were generated. In this pa-
per, visualization of the possible growth rate values is presented
by plotting the envelope containing all the computed −αi corre-
sponding to the maximum disturbance growth rate at every fre-
quency. The maximum and minimum computed growth rates at
 P. Ziadé, P.E. Sullivan / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 67 (2017) 122–130 125

Fig. 2. Base velocity profile with imposed velocity scatter.

Fig. 3. Base velocity profile with imposed wall-normal scatter.

Fig. 5. Envelope of computed growth rates for velocity uncertainty with σU =

Fig. 4. A set of analytical velocity profiles fit to discrete velocity data points with
1.25%, Re = 10 0, 0 0 0 and Ns = 30 0.
σU = 2.5%.

a given frequency coincide with the upper and lower curves of
the envelope, respectively. Fig. 5 shows the eigenvalue envelope
for σU = 1.25% at a Reynolds number of Rec = 10 0, 0 0 0, computed
with 300 realizations.
Of particular interest is the variability of peak growth rates con-
tained within the envelope. The peak growth rate was recorded
for each realization. The standard deviation of the nondimen-
sional peak growth rate at the three levels of refinement is pre-
sented in Fig. 6. The resulting standard deviations are herein
denoted by std to avoid confusion with the imposed level of
scatter, σ . There is a pronounced variability in predicted peak
growth rates in going from Ns = 150 to Ns = 300 realizations;
126 P. Ziadé, P.E. Sullivan / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 67 (2017) 122–130
Fig. 6. Standard deviation of peak growth rate with imposed velocity scatter of
σU = 1.25%.
relative differences in std(−αi c ) of 8.7%, 8.4%, and 9.5% are
noted for Rec =10 0,0 0 0, 50 0,0 0 0, and 1,0 0 0,0 0 0, respectively.
The further increase in number of realizations from Ns = 300
to Ns = 500 sees relative std(−αi c ) differences of 0.55%, 1.05%,
and 0.004% at Rec =100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000, respec-
tively. This latter tolerance was deemed appropriate for the
purposes of this study. Therefore, 300 realizations were em-
ployed in all stability sensitivity analyses presented in this
paper.
6.2. Effect of velocity profile deviations
Velocity scatter or measurement uncertainty is common with
wind tunnel measurements. Velocity perturbations at three inten-
sities was normally-imposed onto the base velocity profile (Fig. 1),
as described in Section 4. The results of the successive stability
analyses are shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 shows considerable eigenvalue sensitivity due to ve-
locity perturbations. The nondimensional peak growth rates can
vary significantly, even for low base velocity profile perturba-
tion values with σU = 0.75%, shown in grey in Fig. 7. Quan-
tification of the sensitivity of the eigenvalues is performed by
plotting the standard deviation of the nondimensional peak
growth rate, −αi c (Fig. 8). An increase in imposed velocity
perturbation, σ U , clearly increases the resulting sensitivity of
the peak growth rates, std(−αi c ). The three imposed pertur-
bation levels do not exhibit any appreciable Reynolds number
dependence.
Observation of Fig. 7 reveals that deviations in the velocity pro-
file also lead to variation in peak disturbance frequency, fc/U∞ .
Knowledge of the dominant frequency is of utmost importance for
the design of airfoils as well as flow control strategies, such as syn-
thetic jet actuators. These deviations in peak disturbance frequency
have been quantified for the shear layer under investigation and
are shown in Fig. 9.
As with the peak growth rate, the variation in peak disturbance
frequency has no apparent Reynolds number dependence. For the
upper two levels of uncertainty, there is a mild initial increase in
frequency standard deviation from Rec = 10 0,0 0 0 to Rec = 50 0,0 0 0
and then a subsequent decrease once Rec = 1,0 0 0,0 0 0 is reached.
The variations in peak disturbance frequency are nonnegligible. In
dimensional terms, for the airfoil considered with c = 300 mm and
U∞ = 5 m/s, a velocity variation of σ U = 1.25% leads to a first
standard deviation in frequency, f, of approximately 13 Hz at Rec =
50 0, 0 0 0.
6.3. Effect of wall-normal position
Wind tunnel measurements can also exhibit uncertainty in the
wall-normal position. This can be due to a miscalibrated probe,
vibrations of the measurement apparatus, or the method used in
finding the wall. The following results demonstrate the eigenvalue
sensitivity due to the isolated effect of y-position uncertainty, fol-
lowing the procedure described in Section 4 (Fig. 10).
As with the velocity perturbations, imposition of y-position dis-
turbances yields nonnegligible eigenvalue sensitivity at all frequen-
cies. Comparison with Fig. 7 reveals that y-position perturbations
result in slightly less pronounced eigenvalue sensitivities, as ev-
idenced by somewhat narrower growth rate bands. Once again,
computation of the standard deviation of the peak growth rate and
frequency can help to better understand the behavior of the flow.
It is also seen that there is no pronounced Reynolds number
dependence for both the peak growth rate (Fig. 11) and frequency
(Fig. 12). A slight increase in growth rate standard deviation with
Reynolds number exists below Re = 50 0, 0 0 0. There is very lit-
tle variation in std (−αi c ) beyond Re = 50 0, 0 0 0. Standard devia-
tions of nondimensional frequency do not exhibit any discernible
Reynolds number dependence. The effect of wall-normal position
uncertainty is less pronounced than the effect due to velocity scat-
ter. Comparison of the peak growth rate and frequency standard
deviations with Figs. 8 and 9 reveals that, for the levels of y-
position perturbations considered here, the y-position sensitivity is
roughly half that due to velocity perturbations.
6.4. Boundary layer shape factor
In the preceding sections, the effect of velocity and y-position
perturbations to the base flow were investigated for a single de-
tached boundary layer. Although it might be difficult to generalize
results to all low-Reynolds number boundary layers, this section is
an attempt to broaden the results of the previous section.
The shape factor can help characterize a boundary layer. For in-
compressible flow, the shape factor, H, is
δ∗
H= , (13)
θ
where
 ∞  U

δ∗ = 1− dy (14)
0 Ue
is the displacement thickness, and
 ∞  
U U
θ= 1− dy (15)
0 Ue Ue
is the momentum thickness. The shape factor is an indicator of the
boundary layer’s proximity to separation. The larger the shape fac-
tor, the further along is the boundary layer on the route to separa-
tion.
Boundary layer profiles of several shape factors originating from
the same airfoil were obtained experimentally at different angles
of attack and at different locations along the airfoil. Small velocity
deviations from the prescribed shape factor were used to deter-
mine the sensitivity of the boundary layer to small perturbations
at different stages along the route to separation.
The methodology used in this analysis is similar to the tech-
nique previously described. Velocity perturbations were imposed
atop the undisturbed boundary layer. The boundary layer was per-
turbed to a state where the shape factor standard deviation of all
the boundary layer realizations, σ H , was 1%. The velocity scatter
imposed was incrementally increased in order to reach the desired
perturbation in shape factor. The set of boundary layers investi-
gated in this section have nominal shape factors in the range of
H = 5.9 − 22.
 P. Ziadé, P.E. Sullivan / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 67 (2017) 122–130 127

Fig. 7. Growth rate spectra for a) Rec = 10 0,0 0 0, b) Rec = 50 0,0 0 0, c) Rec = 1,0 0 0,0 0 0 due to velocity profile perturbations.

Fig. 8. Standard deviation of resulting maximum growth rates due to velocity per-
turbations.

Fig. 9. Standard deviation of peak disturbance frequency due to velocity perturba-

tions.

Fig. 13 presents the envelope of growth rates for the smallest

and largest boundary layer shape factors considered: H = 5.9 and
H = 22. From Fig. 13 it is seen that the boundary layer with the
larger shape factor (i.e., the one further along the route to sepa-
ration) has a higher absolute peak growth rate. This result agrees
with Reed et al. (1996) who stated that fuller boundary layers typ-
ically result in lower growth rates. In addition, Fig. 13 shows that
the band of possible growth rate curves appears much larger for
the boundary layer with smaller shape factor. This suggests that
linear stability analysis is more sensitive to small perturbations in
base velocity profile at smaller shape factors (i.e., fuller boundary
layers).
For the range of shape factors considered, the band of possible
growth rates is quantified by the standard deviation of the nondi-
mensional growth rate, std (−αi c ). In addition, as the peak distur-
bance frequency is often of interest in aerodynamic applications,
its variation due to shape factor perturbation is also computed.
Six boundary layer profiles within the shape factor range are con-
sidered, and their perturbations are calculated at three Reynolds
numbers within the low Reynolds number regime; Rec = 10 0,0 0 0,
50 0,0 0 0, 1,0 0 0,0 0 0.
Figs. 14 and 15 show that the peak growth rate and fre-
quency due to small shape factor perturbation have the largest
128 P. Ziadé, P.E. Sullivan / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 67 (2017) 122–130

Fig. 10. Growth rate spectra for a) Rec =10 0,0 0 0, b) Rec = 50 0,0 0 0, c) Rec = 1,0 0 0,0 0 0 due to wall-normal position perturbations.

Fig. 11. Standard deviation of resulting maximum growth rates due to wall-normal
position perturbations.
Fig. 12. Standard deviation of peak disturbance frequency due to wall-normal po-
sition perturbations.

variation at smaller shape factors. Mostly monotonic behavior is

noted in the variation of the peak growth rate. Likewise, the
peak disturbance frequency is least sensitive to shape factor per-
turbations at the highest nominal boundary layer shape factors.
Furthermore, the Reynolds number plays little role in the varia-
tion of the peak growth rate and frequency, as evidenced by the
three curves collapsing onto each other. Although the Reynolds
number plays a role in the computed absolute growth rates and
frequencies, perturbations of the boundary layer result in al-
most identical output variations at the three Reynolds numbers
computed.
This interesting and non-intuitive result merits further explo-
ration. Whereas larger shape factor boundary layers have higher
absolute growth rates (Fig. 13), these boundary layers do not ex-
hibit the same sensitivity to base flow variation. Why are fuller
boundary layers more sensitive to departures from the nomi-
nal base flow? The smaller shape factors (H = 5.9 and 7.25),
which exhibited larger variations, have their positive peak sec-
ond derivative value closer to the surface (Fig. 16). For the higher
H-values, the positive inflexion point is further from the wall.
Does the second derivative of the boundary layer, which ap-
pears in the Orr–Sommerfeld equation, and its location of in-
flexion play a dominant role in the sensitivity of the base
flow?
 P. Ziadé, P.E. Sullivan / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 67 (2017) 122–130 129

Fig. 13. Comparison of growth rates for H = 5.9 and H = 22.

Fig. 14. Standard deviation of nondimensional growth rates at various shape factors Fig. 15. Standard deviation of nondimensional peak frequency at various shape fac-
and Rec = 10 0,0 0 0, 50 0,0 0 0 and 1,0 0 0,0 0 0. tors and Rec = 10 0,0 0 0, 50 0,0 0 0 and 1,0 0 0,0 0 0.

7. Conclusions bations, there is a pronounced eigenvalue sensitivity at the three

Linear stability analysis using the Orr–Sommerfeld Equation has
been used extensively in the prediction of transition. With particu-
lar emphasis on airfoil applications, this paper quantified the sen-
sitivity of the linear stability predictions over a NACA 0025 airfoil
at several Reynolds numbers and shape factors.
The nonnormality of the Orr–Sommerfeld operator was dis-
cussed as being the key contributor to the pronounced eigenvalue
sensitivity displayed in previous research by means of computa-
tion of pseudospectra. The velocity and y-position data of a bound-
ary layer were perturbed independently using a Monte Carlo-type
method. It was found that, for physically realistic velocity pertur-
Reynolds numbers investigated; Rec = 10 0,0 0 0, 50 0,0 0 0, 1,0 0 0,0 0 0.
The band of possible values of the peak disturbance growth rate,
which is usually the variable of interest in aerodynamic applica-
tions, was quantified using the standard deviation of the nondi-
mensional growth rate. The larger velocity perturbations resulted
in higher output growth rate standard deviations. Both the stan-
dard deviation of the peak growth rate and associated peak fre-
quency exhibited no pronounced Reynolds number dependence.
Perturbation of the y-position of the boundary layer resulted in
similar qualitative trends. At the disturbance levels presented, the
variation in peak growth rate and frequency were found to be less
pronounced than for the velocity perturbation.
130 P. Ziadé, P.E. Sullivan / International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 67 (2017) 122–130
Fig. 16. Second derivative of the boundary layer.
Boundary layer profiles of different shape factors ranging from
H = 5.9 to H = 22 were perturbed with first standard deviations
of 1% of their nominal shape factor. For both the peak growth
rate and frequency, the boundary layers with smaller shape fac-
tors (i.e., fuller boundary layers) were much more sensitive to per-
turbations. This interesting result merits further exploration. No
Reynolds number dependence was noted in the standard deviation
of these variables. This finding shows that, for the cases considered
in this paper, boundary layers further along the route to separation
are less sensitive to perturbations.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Southern
Ontario Smart Computing Innovation Platform (SOSCIP) and the
Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS) program. Computations were
performed on the GPC and BGQ supercomputers at the SciNet HPC
Consortium which includes support from the Canada Foundation
for Innovation under the auspices of Compute Canada; the Gov-
ernment of Ontario; Ontario Research Fund - Research Excellence;
and the University of Toronto.
References
Biringen, S., Danabasoglu, G., 1988. Solution of the Orr-Sommerfeld Equation for
the Blausius Boundary-Layer Documentation of Program ORRBL and a Test Case.
NASA Contractor Report 4169 (August).
Bottaro, A., Corbett, P., Luchini, P., 2003. The effect of base flow variation on flow
stability. J. Fluid. Mech. 476, 293–302. doi:10.1017/S0 0221120 020 0318X.
Boutilier, M.S.H., Yarusevych, S., 2012. Separated shear layer transition over an airfoil
at a low reynolds number. Phys. Fluids 24 (8). doi:10.1063/1.4744989.
Boutilier, M.S.H., Yarusevych, S., 2013. Sensitivity of linear stability analysis of mea-
sured separated shear layers. Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 37, 129–142. doi:10.1016/j.
euromechflu.2012.09.003.
Boyd, J.P., 2001. Chebyshev and Fourier Spectral Methods, second ed. Dover Publica-
tions Inc.
Bridges, T.J., Morris, P.J., 1984. Differential eigenvalue problems in which the
parameter appears nonlinearly. J. Comput. Phys. 55, 437–460. doi:10.1016/
0 021-9991(84)90 032-9.
Dovgal, A.V., Kozlov, V.V., Michalke, A., 1994. Laminar boundary layer separation:
instability and associated phenomena. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 30 (1), 61–94. doi:10.
1016/0376-0421(94)90 0 03-5.
Kawall, J.G., Shokr, M., Keffer, J.F., 1983. A digital technique for the simultaneous
measurement of streamwise and lateral velocities in turbulent flows. J. Fluid
Mech. 133, 83–112. doi:10.1017/S0 0221120830 01809.
Khorrami, M.R., 1991. A Chebyshev spectral collocation method using a staggered
grid for the stability of cylindrical flows. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 12 (July
1989), 825–833. doi:10.1002/fld.1650120903.
Khorrami, M.R., Malik, M.R., 1993. Efficient computation of spatial eigenvalues for
hydrodynamic stability analysis. J. Comput. Phys. 104 (1), 267–272. doi:10.1006/
jcph.1993.1026.
Lee, L.H., Reynolds, W.C., 1967. On the approximate and numerical solution of orr-
sommerfeld problems. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 20 (1), 1–22. doi:10.1093/qjmam/
20.1.1.
Malik, M.R., 1990. Numerical methods for hypersonic boundary layer stability. J.
Comput. Phys. 86 (2), 376–413. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(90)90106-B.
Morris, P.J., 1992. The eigenvalue spectrum of the Rayleigh equation for a plane
shear layer. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 15, 1407–1415.
Nishioka, M., Asai, M., Yoshida, S., 1990. Control of flow separation by acoustic ex-
citation. AIAA J. 28 (11), 1909–1915. doi:10.2514/3.10498.
Orszag, S.A., 1971. Accurate solution of the Orr–Sommerfeld stability equation. J.
Fluid Mech. 50 (04), 689. doi:10.1017/S0022112071002842.
Reddy, S.C., Schmid, P.J., Henningson, D.S., 1993. Pseudospectra of the Orr-Sommer-
feld operator. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 53 (1), 15–47.
Reed, H.L., Saric, W.S., Arnal, D., 1996. Linear stability theory applied to boundary
layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 28 (1), 389–428. doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.28.010196.
002133.
Schmid, P.J., Henningson, D.S., 2001. Stability and Transition in Shear Flows.
Springer-Verlag.
Schmid, P.J., Henningson, D.S., Khorrami, M.R., Malik, M.R., 1993. A study of eigen-
value sensitivity for hydrodynamic stability operators. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn.
4, 227–240. doi:10.10 07/BF0 0417929.
Simpson, R.L., Chew, Y.-T., Shivaprasad, B.G., 1981. The structure of a separating tur-
bulent boundary layer. Part 1. Mean flow and Reynolds stresses. J. Fluid Mech.
113, 23–51. doi:10.1017/S002211208100339X.
Theofilis, V., 2003. Advances in global linear instability analysis of nonparallel
and three-dimensional flows. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 39 (4), 249–315. doi:10.1016/
S0376-0421(02)0 0 030-1.
Theofilis, V., 2011. Global linear instability. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 43 (1), 319–352.
doi:10.1146/annurev- fluid- 122109- 160705.
Trefethen, A.E., Trefethen, L.N., Schmid, P.J., 1999. Spectra and pseudospectra for
pipe poiseuille flow. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 175 (3–4), 413–420.
doi:10.1016/S0 045-7825(98)0 0364-8.
Trefethen, L.N., Embree, M., 2005. Spectra and Pseudospectra. Princeton University
Press.
Yarusevych, S., Kawall, J.G., Sullivan, P.E., 2008. Separated-shear-layer development
on an airfoil at low Reynolds numbers. AIAA J. 46 (12), 3060–3069.
Yarusevych, S., Sullivan, P.E., Kawall, J.G., 2006. Coherent structures in an airfoil
boundary layer and wake at low Reynolds numbers. Phys. Fluids 18 (4).
Zhang, W., Samtaney, R., 2016. BiGlobal linear stability analysis on low-Re flow past
an airfoil at high angle of attack. Phys. Fluids 28 (4), 044105. doi:10.1063/1.
4945005.