Paper detail

A tale of two airfoils: resolvent-based modelling of an oscillator vs. an amplifier from an experimental mean

The flows around a NACA 0018 airfoil at a Reynolds number of 10250 and angles of attack of alpha = 0 (A0) and alpha = 10 (A10) are modelled using resolvent analysis and limited experimental measurements obtained from particle image velocimetry. The experimental mean velocity profiles are data-assimilated so that they are solutions of the incompressible Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations forced by Reynolds stress terms which are derived from experimental data. Spectral proper orthogonal decompositions (SPOD) of the velocity fluctuations and nonlinear forcing find low-rank behaviour at the shedding frequency and its higher harmonics for the A0 case. In the A10 case, low-rank behaviour is observed for the velocity fluctuations in two bands of frequencies. Resolvent analysis of the data-assimilated means identifies low-rank behaviour only in the vicinity of the shedding frequency for A0 and none of its harmonics. The resolvent operator for the A10 case, on the other hand, identifies two linear mechanisms whose frequencies are a close match with those identified by SPOD. It is also shown that the second linear mechanism, corresponding to the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in the shear layer, cannot be identified just by considering the time-averaged experimental measurements as a mean flow due to the fact that experimental data are missing near the leading edge. The A0 case is classified as an oscillator where the flow is organised around an intrinsic instability while the A10 case behaves like an amplifier whose forcing is unstructured. For both cases, resolvent modes resemble those from SPOD when the operator is low-rank. To model the higher harmonics where this is not the case, we add parasitic resolvent modes, as opposed to classical resolvent modes which are the most amplified, by approximating the nonlinear forcing from limited triadic interactions of known resolvent modes.

preprint2019arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.