Accepted Manuscript

Parametric Analysis for Synthetic Jet Control on Separation and Stall over Rotor
Airfoil

Zhao Guo-qing, Zhao Qi-jun

PII: S1000-9361(14)00055-7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2014.03.023
Reference: CJA 265

To appear in:

Received Date: 11 October 2013

Revised Date: 27 November 2013
Accepted Date: 20 December 2013

Please cite this article as: Z. Guo-qing, Z. Qi-jun, Parametric Analysis for Synthetic Jet Control on Separation and
Stall over Rotor Airfoil, (2014), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2014.03.023

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Parametric Analysis for Synthetic Jet Control on Separation and Stall
over Rotor Airfoil

Zhao Guo-qing, Zhao Qi-jun*

National Key Laboratory of Rotorcraft Aeromechanics, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China

Received 11 October 2013; revised 27 November 2013; accepted 20 December 2013

Abstract
Numerical simulations are performed to investigate the effects of synthetic jet control on separation and stall over rotor airfoils.
The preconditioned and unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations coupled with a k-ωShear Stream Transport turbulence
model are employed to accomplish the flowfield simulation of rotor airfoils under jet control. Additionally, a velocity boundary
condition modeled by a sinusoidal function is developed to fulfill the perturbation effect of periodic jets. The validity of the present
CFD procedure is evaluated by the simulated results of an isolated synthetic jet and the jet control case for airfoil NACA0015. Then,
parametric analysis is conductedspecifically for an OA213 rotor airfoil to investigate the effects of jet parameters (forcing frequency,
jet location and momentum coefficient, jet direction, and distribution of jet arrays) on the control effect of the aerodynamic
characteristics of a rotor airfoil. Preliminary results indicate that the efficiency of jet control can be improved with specific
frequencies (the best lift-drag ratio at F+=2.0) and jet angles (40° or 75°) when the jets are located near the separation point of the
rotor airfoil. Furthermore, as a result of a suitable combination of jet arrays, the lift coefficient of the airfoil can be improved by
nearly 100%, and the corresponding drag coefficient decreased by 26.5% in comparison with the single point control case.

Keywords: rotor; flow separation; flow control; synthetic jet; parametric analysis

1. Introduction1

The retreating blades of a rotor are usually manipulated with large pitch angles. Therefore, flow separation and
dynamic stall occur frequently during the forward flight of a helicopter. The dynamic stall of retreating blades is one of
the typical unsteady aerodynamic characteristics of a helicopter rotor, and it induces the loss of lift, the increase of drag
and pitching moment of the rotor, which significantly impacts the aerodynamic performance of a helicopter, threatening
the stability of the rotor and restricting the speed envelope of the helicopter. Strategies for delaying the flow separation
and stall of the rotor (airfoil) and further extending the post stall envelope of the rotor (airfoil) have been an active topic
in the field of helicopter technology for many years. The active flow control (AFC) method is a new approach in
improving the aerodynamic characteristics of the rotor (airfoil), and is considered one of the innovative technologies for
the next generation of rotorcraft. 1 Furthermore, AFC has the potential to significantly improve the aerodynamic
characteristics of airfoils without any deflecting control surfaces, which helps to retain a minimum radar cross section.
Recently, a novel method of AFC by using synthetic jet actuators has been experimentally demonstrated to be one of
the most promising AFC methods, especially for rotary wing aircraft. 2 It is because the synthetic jet actuator generates
a high-frequency jet from the flow with zero net mass injection. The synthetic jet actuator was manufactured by Smith
and Glezer in 1994. 3 A synthetic jet is created by driving one side of a cavity using a piston or piezoelectric diaphragm
in a periodic manner, and the jet is synthesized by the interactions of counter rotating vortex pairs formed at the edge of
an orifice. 4 The fluid driven out of the cavity forms a shear layer between the expelled fluid and the surrounding fluid.
This layer of vorticity rolls up to form two parallel vortices in the case of a rectangular actuator. By the time the
diaphragm begins to move away from the orifice to pull the fluid back into the cavity, the vortices have moved far away
enough. Thus a train of vortex pairs are created by the actuator. Therefore, a synthetic jet requires no mass injection, but
only electrical power.It is feasible for the flow control on the rotor and airfoil. Many experimental and numerical results
demonstrate that a synthetic jet with appropriate combinations of parameters can reattach the separation flow over the
rotor airfoils or delay its separation, 5-10 resulting in improving the aerodynamic characteristics of airfoils and delaying
stall by enlarging the stall angle.
Seifert et al. carried out active flow control experiments on a NACA 0015 airfoil by placing a synthetic jet actuator at
the leading edge, 11 and the results indicated that a jet placed just upstream of the separation location was effective on
controlling the flow separation of an airfoil. In the aspect of numerical simulations for synthetic jet control, Kral used
RANS equations to investigate the effect of synthetic jet on the flowfield of an airfoil just according to the experiments
of Seifert, 12 and good agreements were obtained between the numerical results and the test data. The results give us the
confidence that the RANS approach can be used to investigate the active flow control on rotor airfoils by using

*Corresponding author. r. Tel.: +86-025-84893753.

E-mail address: [email protected]
unsteady synthetic jets. Lorber and McCormick conducted numerical and experimental investigations on avoiding or
delaying retreating blade stalls by a directed synthetic jet (DSJ) over helicopter rotor airfoil SC2110. 13 The results
indicated that the DSJ was valuable on controlling the post and dynamic stall of a rotor retreating blade. Kim et al.
numerically investigated the flow control using a synthetic jet to improve the aerodynamic performance of tiltrotor
airfoils under various flight conditions, 14 and the calculated results revealed that the download could be efficiently
reduced by using both the leading edge and trailing edge jets in the hovering flight mode.
Although the synthetic jet has a good potential in applications for active flow control on rotors and airfoils, there are
some problems that have not been resolved. 15 The interactions of jet vortex pairs with low speed and viscous boundary
layer are still not very clear yet, and the applications of the synthetic jet on a rotor airfoil still remain theoretical because
of the large number of controlling parameters, 16 such as actuator location, forcing frequency, blowing magnitude and
direction, etc. Additionally, there are some disagreements among different references. For example, He and Cary
pointed out that the synthetic jet was not sensitive to the blowing directions, 16 while Hassan considered that the
synthetic jet had the best performance when the jet angle was about 25°. 17 Furthermore, the numerical conclusions of
Hassan preliminarily indicated that a jet array with two synthetic jet actuators could help improve the benefits of the
enhancement of aerodynamic characteristics for rotor airfoils. 17 However, the research work only involved a two point
AFC control with the actuators at a fixed location, while the control mechanism of synthetic jet arrays at various
locations and with more than two actuators has not been taken into consideration.
This paper aims at obtaining in depth the effects of several parameters (especially jet angle and jet array) about the
synthetic jet on the control efficiency of the aerodynamic characteristics of a rotor airfoil (measured by the increment
or decrement rates of the aerodynamic forces of the rotor airfoil under control compared with the baseline case or a
specified jet controlled case). Quite a number of numerical simulations have been conducted to investigate the effects of
synthetic jet control on the separation and stall over rotor airfoils. To improve the accuracy of prediction on low speed
flow induced by a synthetic jet with strong adverse pressure gradients and pressure-induced boundary layer separation,
preconditioned RANS equations and a k − ω SST turbulent model are adopted to investigate the characteristics of the
synthetic jet and the effectiveness of periodic jet control on the separation and post-stall for rotor airfoils. The feasibility
and efficiency of this method are evaluated and demonstrated. Then, based on the present method, parametric analysis
of synthetic jet control for rotor airfoil OA213 is carried out to study the control mechanism of the synthetic jet on the
aerodynamic characteristics of the rotor airfoil, and some significant conclusions are obtained.

2. Numerical Methods

2.1. Governing equations

Based on the CFD method developed by the author of this paper, 18 and to overcome the stiffness of the solution
system and improve the computational efficiency when the local Mach number is low, flows around a rotor including
unsteady perturbations induced by a synthetic jet are simulated by solving the unsteady preconditioned RANS equations.
The preconditioned N-S equations in a control volume Ω in the integral form by using absolute physical quantities as
parameters W = [ p, u, v, T ]T , can be written as
∂
Wd Ω + ∫ (F − Fv ) ⋅ ndS = 0
∂t ∫
Γ (1)

where, F, Fv denote respectively the vectors of convective and viscous fluxes. n is the unit vector normal to surface
element dS . Γ is the preconditioning matrix, and the Weiss-Smith matrix is employed in this paper. 19
⎡ Θ 0 0 ρT ⎤
⎢ Θu ρ 0 ρ u ⎥
Γ=⎢ ⎥
T
(2)
⎢ Θv 0 ρ ρT v ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ΘH − 1 ρ u ρ v ρ C p + ρT H ⎦⎥
The parameter Θ is given by
1 ρ
Θ = 2 − T , U r = min(max(| V |,| V∞ |), a) (3)
U r ρCP
where V is the local velocity, V∞ is the velocity of free stream and a is the speed of sound. The reference velocity, U r ,
acts as a cut-off velocity above which the preconditioning method is turned off.
The dual-time iterative method is employed to simulate the periodic characteristics of a synthetic jet. The spatial
discretization of Eq. 1 is accomplished by employing the Jameson finite volume scheme, and a modified artificial
dissipation term according to the changed eigenvalues and flux of the preconditioned system has to be taken into
account when implementing the spatial discretization scheme.
2.2. Turbulence Model

The K − ω SST (two equations) turbulence model of Menter is employed to simulate the boundary layer flow on the
rotor airfoil under jet control. 20 Written in time-dependent integral form for a control volume with a surface element dS ,
the SST turbulence model is
∂ 
WT d Ω + ∫ (FT − Fv ,T ) ⋅ ndS = ∫ QT dV
∂t ∫
(4)

The vector of conservative variables takes the form

⎡ρ K ⎤
WT = ⎢ ⎥ (5)
⎣ ρω ⎦
where FT , Fv ,T are vectors of convective and viscous fluxes respectively, QT is the source term. The turbulent eddy
viscosity μT is obtained by
a1 ρ K
μT = 
max(a1ω , f 2 curlv )
2
(6)
2 K 500 μ L
f 2 = tanh(arg 22 ), arg 2 = max( , )
0.09ω d ρω d 2
where a1 = 0.31 , and d denotes the minimum distance from the cell center to the surface of the airfoil.

2.3. Boundary Conditions

A suction/blowing type velocity boundary condition was constructed to model the perturbation on the flow from the
synthetic jet actuator. The non-dimensional velocity at the actuator surface is introduced by
c
v jet (ξ ,η = 0, t ) = V∞ 2 < cμ > sin(2π F + t ) f (ξ )n jet (7)
2 H jet
where ξ denotes the streamwise direction, η denotes the cross-stream direction, and n jet is determined by the
angle of the jet with the surface, as shown in Fig. 1.

θ jet

Fig.1. Jet blowing/suction boundary condition on airfoil

The spatial variation of the jet is specified by f (ξ )=1 . H jet stands for the width of the jet orifice. The
non-dimensional frequency F + relates the frequency of the jet to the convective frequency of the flow over the airfoil,
so it is
fc ωc
F+ = = (8)
U ∞ 2π U ∞
The oscillation momentum coefficient < cμ > determines the amplitude of the synthetic jet, and it is defined as
*
2 H u jet 2
< cμ >= ( ) (9)
c U∞
with < u ∗jet > being the RMS velocity of the jet oscillation.
A modified boundary condition of the wall pressure at the synthetic jet orifice is established by considering the
time-harmonic velocity perturbation, and the modified boundary condition becomes
∂p ∂v
= −ρ • n jet (10)
∂η ∂t
This condition stems from a consideration of the streamwise momentum equation, ignoring viscous effects. Eq. 10
shows that the pressure distribution over the jet orifice is determined by the percentage speed variation in the normal
direction of the jet. For simplification, the pressure over the jet orifice is considered when calculating the aerodynamic
forces of the rotor airfoil.
2.4. Grid Generation

The grid around the rotor airfoil is generated by solving Poisson equations. In order to get more details of the
synthetic jet, a clustering grid is adopted near the jet orifice. A C-type grid around NACA0012 is generated with a
resolution of 356×70 in the chordwise and normal directions of the airfoil respectively. There are 120 and 158 points on
the lower and upper surfaces of the airfoil respectively, 39 points on each of the wake cuts which extend from the
airfoil’s trailing edge to the outflow boundary of the farfield, and 11 points over the jet orifice. The grid is depicted in
Fig. 2.

Fig.2. Grids around rotor airfoils with clustering

3. Validation and Discussions

3.1. CFD method with preconditioning

Airfoil NACA0012 is taken as a numerical example with Mach number Ma=0.1, angle of attack α=3.59°, and the
multi-grid method is used to accelerate the convergence process. Fig. 3 shows the convergence process of the
simulation procedure and the pressure coefficient distribution of the airfoil with and without preconditioning. As can be
seen, the preconditioning method can not only help accelerate the convergence, but also find the correct solution for this
low-speed flow problem. In addition, the combination of the multi-grid and preconditioning methods shows significant
improvement in the convergence rate of the present simulation method.
0.5 -1.8 -1.4

0.0 Mul. and Pre.

Pre.
close-up -1.2
-1.2 Cp
-0.5 Baseline
lg(Residual/Residual0)

-1.0
-1.0 No pre.
With pre.
-0.6
-0.8
-1.5 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Cp X/c
-2.0
0.0
-2.5

-3.0 No pre.
0.6
With pre.
-3.5

-4.0 1.2
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Iteration X/c
Fig. 3 CFD convergence process and distribution of pressure coefficient of airfoil

3.2. Simulations for an Isolated Jet

Firstly, the flowfield of an isolated synthetic jet is calculated. The width of the jet orifice is 0.5mm, and the amplitude
of the velocity of the jet is 25m/s with a perturbation frequency of 1000Hz. The time history of the vorticity is
characterized in Fig.4. As can be seen, pairs of counter-rotating vortices of the opposite sign form at the orifice of the jet
and convect downstream. During the suction stroke, the vortex pair has convected a distance sufficiently away from the
orifice, so that it is not affected by the intake flow. Thus the synthetic jet seems like a steady jet far away from the
orifice.
 Vorticity: -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 Vorticity: -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000

(a)T/2 (b) 3T/2

Fig. 4 Time evolution of the vorticity for an isolated synthetic jet
Fig. 5 shows the time-averaged velocity with comparisons to the experimental[16] data, and the results are in good
agreement. As can be seen, the streamwise velocity decreases along the centerline. Although the jet is formed by a
strong time-harmonic motion, its farfield behavior is similar to a steady blowing jet.
Fig. 6 shows the mean cross-stream velocity profile over a range of distances from the orifice by comparing with the
experimental data. 21 The half-width of the jet, b, varies as a function of the distance from the wall, and it is determined
as half the width of the jet profile which has half the value of the maximum velocity. At every cross-stream, the mean
velocity profile all looks like a sinusoidal curve with a maximum value in the centerline, which is named self-similarity.
100 1.2
Exp. y/h=19.7 Cal. x/h=19.7
Exp. y/h=15.6 Cal. x/h=15.6
Gl e z e r ' s e x p e r i me n t a l dat a 1.0 Exp. y/h=9.8 Cal. x/h=9.8
Exp. y/h=23.6 Cal. x/h=23.6
Ca l c u l a t e d r e s u l t s Cal. x/h=31.5
Exp. y/h=31.5
0.8 Exp. y/h=39.4 Cal. x/h=39.4
v/v_cl
u_cl(m/s)

10 0.6

0.4

0.2

1 0.0
1 10 100 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Y/Hjet
X/b
Fig. 5 Centerline streamwise velocity Fig. 6 Mean streamwise velocity profiles
Then, a synthetic jet actuator is implemented at the leading edge of NACA0015 with the width being 0.14% the
chord length. The direction of the jet is normal to the surface of the airfoil. Fig. 7 shows the effect of < cμ > on lift
coefficient increment ( ΔCl ) with F + = 1.0 . As can be seen, ΔCl increases as the oscillation momentum coefficient
increases, and it is similar to the variation of the experimental data. 5 The numerical results are better than the results
calculated by using incompressible RANS equations from reference12 .
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
Δ Cl
0.1

0.0 Experiment
Calculation
-0.1 Reference[12]

-0.2
0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010
<Cμ >
Fig.7 Effect of blowing momentum on improvement of lift coefficient

3.3. Simulations for Active Flow Control on a NACA0012

The investigations of synthetic jet control are performed on airfoil NACA0012 (its grid is shown in Fig. 2) with a jet
actuator centering at 1.5% c and the width being 0.52%c (c is the chord length of the airfoil) on the upper surface of the
airfoil.
The simulations are conducted under the condition of a free stream Mach number being 0.4 (according to the
condition of a retreating blade) and a post-stall angle of attack α = 22 and M=0.4，Re=8.5×106. The oscillatory
momentum and frequency of the synthetic jet are < Cμ >= 0.005 , F + = 1.0 , respectively, and the jet angle
is θ jet = 25° .
Significant modifications of the flowfield are obtained as shown in Fig. 8, which demonstrates about 13% increment
in lift value, 15% and 12% decrements in drag and pitching moment of the airfoil respectively in comparison to the
baseline value. It indicates that the synthetic jet has the capability to improve the aerodynamic characteristics of rotor
airfoils.
1.2 0.1
Uncontrolled Controlled
Baseline Controlled
Cl = 0.86 Cl = 0.97
1.1 Cm= -0.114 Cm= -0.0944
0.0

1.0 Cm

Cl -0.1

0.9

-0.2
0.8

0.7 -0.3
45 50 55 60 65 45 50 55 60 65
Time Time
(a) Lift coefficient (b) Moment coefficient
0.6
Uncontrolled Controlled
Cd = 0.368 Cd = 0.324
0.5

0.4

Cd
0.3

0.2

0.1
45 50 55 60 65
Time
c) Drag coefficient
Fig. 8 Predicted time history of aerodynamic forces of airfoil
Fig. 9 further shows the streamlines over the airfoil in one jet control cycle at varied phases of ( ). As shown in Fig.
8(a), flow separation occurs almost at the leading edge on the suction surface of NACA0012. When jet control is
applied, the flow reattaches near the leading edge, and the separated region is obviously less than that of the baseline
case. The reattachment of the flow contributes to the increase in lift and reduction in drag of the airfoil. As can be seen
from the figures, periodic vortex structures form at the location of the jet exportation, and then convect downstream,
and the vortices lead to the stabilization of the boundary layer flow and decrease the local adverse pressure gradient. As
a result, the separation of the flow on the suction surface of the airfoil is prevented or delayed.
In order to observe the jet control effects on the pressure of the airfoil, instantaneous pressure distributions on the
surface of the airfoil controlled by a periodic synthetic jet are shown in Fig. 10. The presence of two coherent structures
on the suction surface of the airfoil at every phase of the forcing is seen. The amplitude of the pressure oscillations on
the suction surface decreases along the streamwise from the leading edge of the airfoil, and it is because the vortices
formed at the location of the actuator travel together and interact with the separated flow.
 (a) Uncontrolled

(b) φ = 90 (c) φ = 180

(d) φ = 270 (e) φ = 360

Fig. 9 Close-up view of the streamlines around NACA0012 in one jet cycle

-4
Unontrolled
φ = 90 °
φ =180 °
φ =270 °
-2
φ =360 °

Cp

2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/c

Fig. 10 Pressure distribution of airfoil in one jet cycle

The effects of the synthetic jet on the flowfield of airfoils depend on the two velocity components of the periodic jet.
As shown in Fig. 11, the first and dominant one is vertical to the surface of the airfoil, and it can introduce a
high-momentum outer fluid into the low-momentum inner boundary layer flow via the rotational motion of the vortex
structures. The second one, which can energize the boundary layer flow by the additional momentum, is parallel to the
streamwise flow. The two sources of vortices interact with the boundary layer and lead to the stability of the boundary
layer flow.
 U∞
Energization

η
θ jet ξ

Orifice of synthetic jet Surface of airfoil

Fig. 11 The schematic diagram of the two components of the oscillatory jet

4. Parametric Analyses

Based on the calculated results of the synthetic jet control on a rotor airfoil, parametric analyses for synthetic jet
control effect on the flowfield over rotor airfoil OA213 are performed. The control parameters of the jet include the
magnitude of blowing momentum and angle, forcing frequency, jet location and distribution of jet arrays.
The jet actuators are placed on the upper surface of the airfoil at 5%c, 15%c, 30%c, 45% c and 60%c respectively
with the width of the jet orifice being 1.0%c, and the oscillatory momentum coefficients range from 0 to 0.01. The jet
angles range from 0° to 90°. The free stream Mach number M ∞ = 0.4 and Re=8.5×106 (according to the condition of
the retreating blade), and the angles of attack are 18°, 20° and 22° respectively under a post-stall condition.

4.1. Effects of Oscillatory Frequency

The jet is placed at 5%c on the upper surface of the OA213 airfoil with the jet angle being 25°. Fig. 12 depicts the
effects of non-dimensional jet frequencies on the lift, drag and moment coefficients of the airfoil. When F + = 0.5 , the
increment of the lift coefficient due to the perturbation of the jet reaches a maximum value. As the frequency increases,
the effect of the jet on the mean lift decreases. The drag and moment coefficient of the airfoil have the largest
improvement at the frequency of 2.0 and 1.0 respectively, and the lift-drag ratio of the airfoil has a maximum value
when F + is about 2.0. Furthermore, the control effects of the synthetic jet on the aerodynamic characteristics of the
airfoil rapidly weaken when the forcing frequency is large than 2.0.
 0.05 -0.015

0.04
Baseling:Cl = 0.911 -0.010
Δ Cl
Δ Cd
0.03

-0.005 Baseline: Cd = 0.296

0.02

0.01 0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
+
F F+
(a) Lift coefficient (b) Drag coefficient
0.008 3.4

0.006
3.3
Δ Cm

C l / Cd
0.004

3.2
0.002 Baseline:Cl /Cd = 3.07
Baseline:Cm = 0.00879

0.000 3.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
+ +
F F
(c) Moment coefficient (d) Lift-drag ratio

Fig. 12 Aerodynamic characteristics of airfoil under control vs. jet frequencies

Fig. 13 shows the convergence process of the lift coefficients of the airfoil at different non-dimensional frequencies.
As can be seen, the amplitude of the lift decreases as F + increases, and the maximum values of lift are more sensitive
to the jet oscillation frequency.

1.00

0.96

Cl

0.92
F+= 2.0
F+= 0.5
F+= 3.0
F+= 1.0
F+=10.0
0.88
90 95 100
Non-dimensional time

Fig. 13 Convergence history of lift coefficients with different jet frequencies

4.2. Effects of Jet Location and Angle of Attcak

Five jet slots, located at 5%c, 15%c, 30%c, 45% c and 60%c respectively with the same width (1.0%c) and under
the same jet control condition ( F + = 1.0 and < Cμ >= 0.0007 ), are compared in terms of their effects on the lift of the
airfoil.
Fig. 14 shows the lift variations of controlled airfoils at different angles of attack with different jet locations. At the
angle of attack of 18°, the jet control has a better improvement in the lift coefficient of the airfoil when the jet actuator
is installed at 15% c from the leading edge. It is because the flow separation occurs just near the position of 15%c on
the upper surface of the OA213 airfoil at the angle of attack of 18°; the control efficiencies of the synthetic jet decrease
as the actuator is placed farther away from the separation point, as depicted in Fig.15. As the angle of attack increases,
the flow separation point moves towards the leading edge of the airfoil, and the jet at 5% c of the airfoil has a
significant effect on the airfoil lift. The promoting effect due to the perturbation of the synthetic jet decreases or even
disappears when the jet actuator is located at the separated flow region.
0.04

α =18°
0.03 α =20°
α =22°
Δ Cl
0.02

0.01

0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Jet location / c

Fig. 14 Increment of lift coefficient of OA 213 with different jet locations

30%c

15%c separation point

5%c

Fig. 15 Streamlines of baseline case around OA213 at 18° angle of attack

4.3. Effect of Blowing Momentum

A variety of jet velocities are simulated to examine the effect of blowing magnitude on the efficiency of flow
control. The oscillation momentum coefficients range from 0 to 0.01 (which denotes the maximum jet velocity is equal
to the free stream velocity). The jet slot is located at 5%c with the width of 1.0%c. The oscillatory frequency of the jet
is F + = 1.0 , and the angle of attack is 20°.
The increments of lift, drag and moment coefficients of the airfoil due to the jet control at different jet blowing
magnitudes are shown respectively in Fig. 16. As can be seen, with the increase of the forcing momentum, more energy
can be transferred into the boundary layer with low momentum, and the controlling effect (such as lift increase and drag
reduction et al. ) enlarges.

0.10 -0.04

0.08
-0.03

0.06 ΔCd
ΔCl -0.02

0.04

-0.01
0.02

0.00 0.00
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
< cμ > < cμ >
(a) Lift coefficient (b) Drag coefficient
0.020

0.015

ΔCm
0.010

0.005

0.000
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
< cμ >
(c) Moment coefficient

Fig. 16 Force coefficients of airfoil under jet control at different forcing magnitudes
Fig.17 depicts the convergence procedure of the lift coefficients of the airfoil with three jet blowing magnitudes. As
the forcing momentum increases, the lift of the airfoil increases and the amplitude increases also.
 1.1

1.0

Cl

0.9
< cμ >=0.0001
< cμ >=0.001
< cμ >=0.01
0.8
40 45 50 55 60
Non-dimensional time

Fig. 17 Lift coefficients of airfoil vs. time at different forcing magnitudes

4.4. Effect of Blowing Direction (Jet Angle)

The effects of jet blowing direction are assessed by locating the angle between the jet and the surface of the airfoil
(jet angle) from 0°to 90°. Fig. 18 shows the magnitude of changed aerodynamic force coefficients versus jet angle θ jet
with different oscillatory momentum coefficients. When the jet convects tangentially downstream, the jet control is
almost ineffective. It is because the small jet angle causes the component of the blowing momentum vertical to the
surface of the airfoil to be insufficient to introduce high-momentum fluid into the low-momentum boundary layer flow
as shown in Fig. 11. As the angle increases up to 75°, the mean lift of the airfoil increases to a stable value when
< Cμ >= 0.0007 , while there are maximum benefits at θ jet of about 40° and a corresponding < Cμ >= 0.007 .
The numerical results indicate that the jet with low momentum has the best control effect on the aerodynamic force
of an airfoil when the jet angle is large enough, while the jet with high momentum is most efficient with a much smaller
jet angle. Other than this, there are some differences between the present results and the conclusions of He [16] and
Hassan[17]. Although the investigations are conducted with different airfoils under different flow conditions, the
significant cause of the disagreements may be due to the magnitude of blowing momentum of the synthetic jet. When
the velocity of the jet is low, it requires a large angle to maintain the momentum component vertical to the surface of
the airfoil, which enables the synthetic jet with enough momentum to energize the boundary layer. On the other hand,
the synthetic jet with sufficient momentum has the highest efficiency with a smaller jet angle; if the jet angle is too large,
the interactions between the periodic jet and the boundary layer weaken the more favorable control effect on the
aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoil.
 0.10 -0.04

0.08
-0.03

0.06 Δ Cd

Δ Cl -0.02

0.04

<Cμ >=0.007 -0.01 <Cμ >=0.007

0.02 <Cμ >=0.0007 <Cμ >=0.0007

0.00 0.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
θ jet /° θ jet /°
(a) Lift coefficient (b) Drag coefficient

Fig. 18 Lift coefficients vs. time at different blowing directions

Fig.19 depicts the convergence history of the lift coefficients of the airfoil with different jet angles. The results
indicate that a large jet angle can induce a large lift coefficient and a large amplitude of the time-varying oscillatory lift
coefficient of the airfoil.

1.05
θ jet= 30°
θ jet= 0°
θ jet= 60°
θ jet= 10°
θ jet= 90°

1.00

Cl

0.95

0.90
90 95 100
Non-dimensional time

Fig. 19 Lift coefficients vs. time at different forcing magnitudes

4.5. Effect of Jet Arrays

The control effects of different jet arrays on the characteristics of OA213 airfoil are investigated. Five jet actuators
are installed at 5%c, 15%c, 30%c, 45% c and 60%c respectively with the same width (1.0%c). The numbers and the
location of the jets are shown in Fig. 20, and the combinations of the jet actuator arrays are shown in table 1. As a
supplement, the effects of jet arrays are investigated by setting jet actuators with the same phases.
 2->15%c 3->30%c 4->45%c 5->60%c
1->5%c

Fig. 20 The locations of different jet actuators at the upper surface of airfoil

Table 1 Number of combinations of jet arrays

Number of arrays 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Combinations of jet actuators 1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-2-3 1-2-4 1-2-5
Fig. 21 shows the variations of lift and drag coefficients of the airfoil under different jet array combinations, and
all the jet actuators have the same magnitude of blowing momentum (0.0007) and jet angle (25°) ( named as case 1).
Compared to a single jet actuator, the combinations of jet arrays can lead to the improvement of aerodynamic
characteristics of the airfoil, such as a maximum increment of the lift coefficient of about 26% and a maximum
decrement of drag coefficient of about 13% respectively. The numerical results indicate that by prudentially choosing
the combinations of jet arrays, the separation of flow and stall over a rotor airfoil can be prevented or delayed. At the
same time, the simulated result shows that various combinations of jet arrays can provide different improvements of
the aerodynamic force of the airfoil, and it also indicates that jet arrays with more jet actuators may unnecessarily??
achieve a better performance of the airfoil.

0.045 -0.0140
1-5 1-2-5
1-3

0.042 -0.0135
1-4 1-2-4
1-2
1-2-3
Δ Cl Δ Cd
0.039 -0.0130

Lift coefficient

0.036 Drag coefficient -0.0125

0.033 -0.0120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of combination
（Note: “Number of combination” in the figure should be “Number of combinations”）

Fig. 21 Variations of lift and coefficients with different combinations of jet arrays
 According to the conclusions above, a set of jet parameters is combined to investigate the control effect of
synthetic jet arrays on the lift and drag characteristics of an airfoil. The numbers of different combinations of jet
arrays are the same as table 1, and the jet parameters of each jet actuator are presented in table 2 (case 2) with the
blowing momentum ten times the value of case 1 and various jet angles from 40° to 75°. Fig. 22 predicts the
magnitude of the variations of lift, drag coefficients and lift-drag ratio of the airfoil. As can be seen in Fig. 22(a), the
control efficiency of the synthetic jet is improved by a maximum magnitude of about 100% in lift coefficient and
about 26.5% in drag coefficient of the airfoil respectively, as compared to the control example using only one
synthetic jet.
The numerical results of the two cases indicate that the synthetic jet control is more effective on lift coefficient
than drag coefficient. Moreover, a comparison of the lift-drag ratio is performed in Fig. 22(b), and the magnitudes of
the ratio show that synthetic jet control technology can obviously improve the control efficiency on the aerodynamic
characteristics of a rotor airfoil by understanding the mechanism of synthetic jet control and further employing an
effective combination of jet parameters including jet arrays.
Table 2 Parameters of each jet actuator (case 2)

Number of jet actuators 1 2 3 4 5

Oscillatory frequency 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Jet angle 40° 45° 55° 65° 75°

Blowing momentum 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007

0.12 -0.032 3.40 3.9

1-5 1-4 1-2-3 1-2-5

(Cl /C )case1

1-4 1-2-3 1-2-4

(Cl /C )case2
3.8
d

d
1-2-4
1-2-5 1-5
1-3 Δ Cd 1-3
Δ Cl 1-2

0.08 1-2 -0.028 3.36 3.7

Case 1
Lift coefficient
Case 2
Drag coefficient 3.6

1
1
0.04 -0.024 3.32 3.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of jet arrays Numbers of combinations
(a)Variations of lift and drag coefficients (b) Lift-drag ratio of the two different cases

Fig. 22 Variations of aerodynamic characteristics with different combinations of jet arrays

5. Conclusions

Numerical simulations are carried out to investigate the control effects of synthetic jets on delaying flow separation
and improving the aerodynamic characteristics of a rotor airfoil under post-stall states. Based upon the established
numerical method, parametric analyses are conducted specifically to investigate the effects of jet parameters on the
aerodynamic characteristics of rotor airfoil OA213 under a typical operation condition for retreating blades at M=0.4
and Re=8.5×106. Some valuable conclusions are obtained as follows:
(1) The numerical method utilizing the RANS equations and blowing/suction and pressure boundary condition of a
synthetic jet can effectively simulate the characteristics of the synthetic jet and the aerodynamic characteristics of the
rotor airfoil w/o synthetic jet control.
(2) The farfield behavior of an isolated synthetic jet is similar to a steady blowing jet, and the cross-stream velocity
profile shows a self-similar characteristic. The interactions of vortex pairs introduced by the synthetic jet and
embedding flow have the potential to lead to the stabilization of the boundary layer, thus preventing or delaying the
separation of the flow on the suction surface of the airfoil.
(3) Synthetic jet has the best performance when it is mounted near the flow separation point on the surface of the
rotor airfoil. The aerodynamic forces of the rotor airfoil have different performances with the variation of jet frequency:
a maximum lift coefficient of the airfoil appears when the jet frequency F + = 0.5 , and drag and moment coefficients
have minimum values with F + = 2.0,1.0 respectively. Synthetic blowing momentum plays a very important role in the
active flow control on the aerodynamic characteristics of the rotor airfoil, and a large magnitude of blowing momentum
can lead to a significant improvement of the aerodynamic forces of the rotor airfoil.
(4) With varied blowing momentums, the best control effects of the synthetic jet on the aerodynamic characteristics
of the rotor airfoil can be obtained at different jet angles. When the blowing momentum is low, the jet has the best
control effect on the aerodynamic forces of the airfoil when the jet angle is large enough (even up to 90°). On the other
hand, a synthetic jet with a smaller jet angle is more effective when it has higher blowing momentum.
(5) Compared to a single jet actuator, reasonable combinations of jet arrays with the same phases can more obviously
improve the jet control efficiency on preventing or delaying the separation of flow and stall over a rotor airfoil. For
example, the lift and drag coefficients can be improved by a maximum of about 100% and 26.5% respectively when the
stall of the rotor airfoil is controlled by a combination of jet arrays.
To further obtain the best combination of jet parameters and jet arrays in improving the aerodynamic performances of
rotor airfoils, the effect of phase relationships among jet arrays on control efficiency and the optimization method
should be studied in future for the investigation of stall and separation control of rotor (airfoil) by using synthetic jets.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11272150).
References

1 Melton L P, Hannon J, Yao C S, et al. Active flow control at low Reynolds numbers on a NACA 0015 airfoil.
AIAA-2008-6407; 2008.
2 Hassan A A, JanakiRam R D. Effects of zero-mass synthetic jets on the aerodynamics of the NACA-0012 airfoil.
AIAA-97-2326; 1997.
3 Smith B L, Glezer A. Vectoring of a high aspect ratio rectangular air jet using a zero net-mass-flux control jet. Bull
Am Phys Soc 1994; 39.
4 Smith B L, Glezer A. The formation and evolution of synthetic jets. Phys of Fluids 1998; 10(9): 2281-2297.
5 Seifert A, Darabi A, Wygnanski I. Delay of airfoil stall by periodic excitation. J Aircr 1996; 33(4): 691-698.
6 Hassan A A. Numerical simulations and potential applications of zero-mass jets for enhanced rotorcraft
aerodynamic performance. AIAA-98-0211; 1998.
7 Traub L W, Miller A, Rediniotis O. Effects of synthetic jet actuation on a ramping NACA 0015 airfoil. J Airc 2004;
41(5):1153-1162.
8 Nagib H, Greenblatt D, Kiedaisch J. Effective flow control for rotorcraft applications at flight Mach number.
AIAA-2001-2974; 2001.
9 Melton L P, Hannon J, Yao C S, Harris J. Active flow control at low Reynolds numbers on a NACA 0015 airfoil.
AIAA-2008-6407; 2008.
10 Han Z H, Zhang K S, Song W P, et al. Optimization of active flow control over an airfoil using a
surrogate-management framework. J Aircr 2010; 47(2):603-612.
11 Seifert A, Pack L G. Oscillatory excitation of unsteady compressible flows over airfoils at flight Reynolds numbers.
AIAA-99-0925; 1999.
12 Donovan J F, Kral L D, Cary A W. Active flow control applied to an airfoil. AIAA-98-16119; 1998.
13 Lorber P, McCormick D, Anderson B W, et al. Rotorcraft retreating blade stall control. AIAA-2000-2475; 2000.
14 Kim M, Kim S, Kim W, et al. Flow Control of tiltrotor unmanned-aerial-vehicle airfoils using synthetic jets. J Aircr
2011; 48(3):1045-1056.
15 Kral L D, Donovan J F, Cain A B, et al. Numerical simulation of synthetic jet actuator. AIAA-1997-1824; 1997.
16 He Y Y, Cary A W, Peters D A. Parametric and dynamic modeling for synthetic jet control of a post-stall airfoil.
AIAA-2001-733; 2001.
17 Hassan A A. A two-point active flow control strategy for improved airfoil stall/post stall aerodynamics.
AIAA-2006-99; 2006.
18 Zhao Q J, Xu G H, Zhao J G. New hybrid method for predicting the flowfield of helicopter in hover and forward
flight. J Aircr 2006; 43(2):372-380.
19 Weiss J M, Maruszewski J P, Smith W A. Implicit solution of preconditioned Navier-Stokes equations using
algebraic multigrid. AIAA J 1999; 37:29-36.
20 Menter F R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 1994;
32:1598-1605.
21 Smith B L, Glezer A. Vector and small-scale motions effected in free shear flows using synthetic jet actuators.
AIAA-97-0213; 1997.
Zhao Guoqing is a Ph.D. candidate in aircraft design at Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and his
research interests are active flow control of rotors, helicopter CFD and helicopter aerodynamics.

Zhao Qijun is a professor and Ph.D. supervisor in the College of Aerospace Engineering at Nanjing University of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, where he received his Ph.D. in aircraft design. His main research interests are helicopter
CFD, helicopter aerodynamics, aerodynamic shape design of rotor blades, active flow control of rotors, and rotor
aeroacoustics.