applied

sciences
Article
Computational Study of the Plasma Actuator Flow Control for
an Airfoil at Pre-Stall Angles of Attack
Takuto Ogawa 1,∗ , Kengo Asada 2 , Makoto Sato 3 , Tomoaki Tatsukawa 2 and Kozo Fujii 2,∗
1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Tokyo University of Science, Tokyo 125-8585, Japan
2 Department of Information and Computer Technology, Tokyo University of Science, Tokyo 125-8585, Japan
3 Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, Kogakuin University, Tokyo 163-8677, Japan;
* Correspondence: 4418701@ed.tus.ac.jp (T.O.); fujii@rs.tus.ac.jp (K.F.); Tel.: +81-3-5876-1696 (T.O. & K.F.)

Abstract: Large-eddy simulations of the flows over an NACA0015 airfoil were conducted to investi-
gate a flow control authority of a dielectric barrier discharge plasma actuator at pre-stall angles of
attack. The Reynolds number was set to 63,000, and angles of attack were set to 4, 6, 8, and 10 degrees.
The plasma actuator was installed at 5% chord length from the airfoil’s leading edge. Good flow
control authority was confirmed in terms of lift-to-drag ratio increase and drag reduction. These
improvements mainly result from the reduction of the pressure drug, which is due to the change in
pressure distribution accompanying the movement and shrink of the laminar separation bubble on
the airfoil surface. Additionally, although flow control using a burst drive with a nondimensional
burst frequency of six improves the lift-to-drag ratio at all angles of attack, the phenomena leading
to the improvement differ between near-stall angles (10 and 12 degrees) and the other lower angles.
At near-stall angles, the turbulent transition is rapidly promoted by PA, and the flow is reattached.
Whereas, at the lower angles, the transport of two-dimensional vortex structures, which maintain



their structures up to downstream and suppress the turbulent transition, makes the flow reattachment.


Citation: Ogawa, T.; Asada, K.; Sato,
M.; Tatsukawa, T.; Fujii, K.
Keywords: flow control; plasma actuator; airfoil; pre-stall angles; duty cycle; burst; computational
Computational Study of the Plasma
fluid dynamics; large eddy simulation
Actuator Flow Control for an Airfoil
at Pre-Stall Angles of Attack. Appl.
Sci. 2022, 12, 9073. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app12189073
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Josep Maria
Flow control using a dielectric barrier discharge plasma actuator (PA) has been widely
Bergadà and Gabriel Bugeda
studied for the last 10 to 20 years because PA has the advantages of thin/light simple
Castelltort
structures and easy to use. PA only consists of two electrodes with a dielectric layer
Received: 9 August 2022 between them (Figure 1), and can be attached to an existing body surface without changing
Accepted: 5 September 2022 the original shape of the body surface. PA can be attached on flat or curved surfaces,
Published: 9 September 2022 corners, or edges and flow separation is controlled [1–3]. PA is also used for the control
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
of boundary layer flows [4–9] and many researchers have tried to reduce skin friction
with regard to jurisdictional claims in drag by PA. To enhance the authority of PA, studies for PA expand over wide areas of
published maps and institutional affil- research: low-temperature plasma discharge, flow structures induced by PA, use of duty
iations. cycles, etc. Geometry of the electrodes and the layout of multiple PAs were also studied. A
good review of different types of PAs was written by Wang, Choi, and others [10], where
review papers for conventional use of flow control by PA were presented. Up to the present,
there has been active research on the application of various types of PA in a variety of
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. devices [11–13].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. For the flow separation control over an airfoil, PA is installed near the leading edge
This article is an open access article on the suction side of the airfoil surface except for in a few cases [14]. Most of the studies
distributed under the terms and
used a two-dimensional spanwise electrode, which induces coherent spanwise jet flows.
conditions of the Creative Commons
Some studies used effective duty cycles (so-called burst actuation compared to regular
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
continuous actuation), where still more effective flow control is achieved by a proper choice
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
of the PA parameters. When duty cycles are used, two-dimensional coherent discrete
4.0/).

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189073 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 2 of 21

vortex structures are induced at every cycle of the duty. Thus, PAs—especially in the
burst actuation—have three important flow features: jet flow near the airfoil surface, two-
dimensional vortex structures with the merger of these structures, and introduction of
flow disturbances. Good authority of PA comes from the fact that each of these features
may become dominant with proper choice of electric parameters [15]. Furthermore, in the
flow control for airfoil flows, saw-tooth, serpentine spanwise electrodes, or line up of the
chordwise electrodes—which create chordwise vortex structures and others—were studied
by several authors [16–19].

Atmospheric side Exposed electrode DBD plasma actuator

Dielectric
Plasma

Airfoil side Insulated electrode

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the DBD plasma actuator (PA) and the example of practical applications.

In either case, most of the former studies were conducted at post-stall angles of
attack [4,20–22] and lift characteristics were mainly discussed since interest was in the
control of the separated shear layer over an airfoil. Effective parameters of PA, such
as locations, burst frequencies, and others, were discussed both computationally and
experimentally. Although computational studies showed that drag reduction [23] occurred
in many cases, the mechanism of the drag reduction was not well discussed. From the
observation of the flow fields computationally simulated by the present authors’ group,
pressure drag was identified to be the main source of drag reduction for the flows at
the Reynolds number of order of 104 to 105 , where laminar separation bubbles play an
important role for the airfoil aerodynamic characteristics. Since laminar separation bubbles
exist at angles of attack lower than the stall, we may expect a similar drag reduction even
at pre-stall angles of attack. UAV or MAV would be considered for the application of flow
control by PA at this Reynolds number range. Atmospheric wind would influence much for
the flow conditions for these type of flight vehicles, and it is necessary to understand flow
features and achieve high L/D for a wide range of angles of attack, and discuss flow control
authority of PA. Several researchers investigate the flow at pre-stall angles of attack [24–26],
but most of their work is aimed at evaluating aerodynamic characteristics, and analysis of
the flow feature is not their major focus.
Regarding pre-stall conditions, we have conducted two types of computational studies
in the past. First, we showed that better L/D (lift-to-drag ratio) is obtained at cruise
conditions than that of the well-recognized airfoil geometry [27]. Here, the detailed flow
structure was discussed, but for only a single angle of attack α = 6 deg. The result indicated
that burst actuation tends to keep sequential spanwise vortex structures over the upper
surface and keeps flow laminar until near the trailing edge in contrast to the promotion
of turbulent transition at near stall angle [15]. The resultant flow field became similar
to the flow over a well-recognized high-performance airfoil at a low Reynolds number
flow regime. Second, a survey of several angles of attack was carried out [28]. Here,
time-averaged aerodynamic characteristics were mainly discussed, and unsteady flow
features were not discussed in conjunction with the aerodynamic characteristics at each
angle of attack.
The present study aims to understand the PA-controlled flow features by performing
high-fidelity LESs at a broader range of pre-stall angles of attack and discuss the relation
with the aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoil. The flow fields over an NACA0015
airfoil at angles of attack α = 4, 6, 8, and 10 deg are considered. NACA0015 airfoil flows
have been investigated in many previous studies [8,23,29–31], and a wealth of experimental
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 3 of 21

and numerical data are available for comparison. The thickness of this airfoil is not
practical for actual flights. However, such a thick airfoil is less restrictive in structural
design and has the advantage that a large amount of fuel can be loaded inside a wing.
Therefore, the range of aircraft design possibilities will expand if the flow controls can
improve the aerodynamic characteristics. The Reynolds number was set to 63,000, which
was considered in the previous experimental and computational studies [8,29,30,32], and
reliability of the flow simulations has been well established. Previous studies [8,30] show
that small fluid fluctuations such as turbulence play an important role in fluid control
using PA. In the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equation (RANS) method, the small
fluctuations induced by PA are immediately damped. Therefore, in the present study,
wall-resolved LESs are conducted to resolve small fluid fluctuations properly. The obtained
results are discussed together with the result of the post-stall condition (α = 12).
Throughout the obtained results, the flow fields and the relationship between the
aerodynamic characteristics are discussed. Focus is laid on the drag reduction, but the
lift and the lift-to-drag ratio are also discussed. The results show the good flow control
authority of PA for the aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoil at pre-stall angles of attack.
In the cases of burst actuation, although the aerodynamic characteristics are improved
at all angles of attack, the phenomena leading to the improvement are different between
near-stall angles (including the post-stall angle) and lower angles. At near-stall angles,
the turbulent transition is rapidly promoted by PA, and the flow is reattached. Whereas,
at lower angles, the transport of two-dimensional vortex structures, which maintain their
structures downstream and suppresses the turbulent transition, allow the flow reattachment.
Furthermore, the strategy of parameter settings of burst actuation of PA at angles of attack
less than stall is indicated.

2. PA Drive Methods and Computational Cases

The plasma actuator is installed at 5% chord length from the leading edge. This position
is close to the separation point of the flow at α = 12 and is effective for flow separation
control [8]. Two PA drive methods are considered in the present study.
The continuous actuation is a standard drive method of PA. The AC voltage, which
is based on a base frequency f base is continuously applied to the PA. The burst actuation
is the other method of driving PA. The AC voltage modulated with the duty cycle is
applied to PA during the burst actuation. Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of the AC
voltage waveform for the burst actuation. Parameters of the waveform are defined as in
Equation (1). f base is a base frequency of the AC voltage waveform. ton and tburst are the
driving time and burst period, respectively. f burst denotes the burst frequency. F + , Fbase ,
and BR are non-dimensional f burst , non-dimensional f base , and burst ratio, respectively.
Previous studies [30,33] have shown that the burst actuation controls flow separations
more efficiently than the continuous actuation at low Reynolds numbers (Re ' 104 –105 ) at
post-stall angles of attack.
The studies show that the burst actuation with F + = 6 and BR = 0.1, which promotes
a turbulent transition, is effective for suppressing a flow separation at α = 12. In the present
study, the burst actuation with those burst parameters was employed to confirm a flow
control authority of PA at pre-stall angles of attack.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 4 of 21

t base = 1/f base ton

Vol

Time t burst = 1/f burst

Figure 2. Alternating current (AC) voltage waveform for the burst actuation.

Hereafter, we call a computational case of the continuous drive a “Continuous” case

and the burst drive a “Burst” case. In both cases, Fbase is set to 60 according to the previous
experimental and computational studies [8,31]. In addition to the computational cases
with PA, Flows without PA are considered, called “PA-OFF” cases, as baseline flows.
Four angles of attack α = 4, 6, 8, and 10 are considered. Therefore, the total number of
computational cases is 12. In addition, each case at α = 12 is used to discuss the difference
in the phenomena at pre-stall and post-stall angles.

f burst c f base c ton

F+ = , Fbase = , BR = . (1)
U∞ U∞ tburst

3. Computational Approach
3.1. Governing Equations
Three-dimensional compressible Navier–Stokes equations with the source term added
were solved in the present study. The equations are non-dimensionalized by the free-stream
density, free-stream velocity, and chord length of the airfoil and are represented as follows:

∂ρ ∂ρu j
+ = 0, (2)
∂t ∂x j


∂ρui ∂ ρui u j + pδij 1 ∂τij
+ = + Dc Si , (3)
∂t ∂x j Re ∂x j


∂e ∂ (e + p)u j 1 ∂uk τjk 1 ∂q j
+ = − 2
+ Dc S j u j , (4)
∂t ∂x j Re ∂x j (γ − 1) PrReM∞ ∂x j

where ρ, ui , p, e, qi , xi , t, and τij denote the non-dimensional forms of the density, velocity
vector, pressure, energy per unit volume, heat flux vector, position vector, time, and stress
tensor, respectively. δij is the Kronecker delta. Equations (2)–(4) follow Einstein notation.
The subscript i is a free index, and j and k are dummy indices. The indices take the value 1, 2,
or 3. Re, M∞ , and Pr denote the Reynolds number, free-stream Mach number, and Prandtl
number, respectively. They are defined as follows:

ρ∞ U∞ c U∞ µ ∞ cp
Re = , M∞ = , Pr = , (5)
µ∞ a∞ κ∞

where ρ∞ , U∞ , c, µ∞ , a∞ , cp , and κ∞ denote the density, velocity, chord length, viscosity,

sound speed, constant pressure specific heat, and heat conduction coefficient, respec-
tively. Here, a quantity with subscript ∞ denotes the quantity in the free-stream condition.
The viscosity is calculated using Sutherland’s law. Dc Si and Dc S j u j in Equations (3) and (4)
correspond to the body force and power added to the unit volume by PA, respectively.
Hereinafter, x, y, z, u, v, and w are used to represent the position and flow velocity of x1 , x2 ,
x3 , u1 , u2 , and u3 , respectively, for ease of discussion. In the present study, the free-stream
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 5 of 21

Mach number is set to 0.2, which reduces the computational time. The compressibility of
the fluid is almost negligible although the Mach numbers in the present study and previous
experimental studies [29,30] are different.

3.2. Plasma Actuator Modeling

The body force term for PA was modeled with Dc Si and Dc uk Sk in the Navier–Stokes
equations, as in Equations (3) and (4). The Suzen–Huang model [34] is utilized to obtain Si .
The non-dimensional body force vector Si is represented as follows:
 
∂φ
Si = ρ c − f ( t )2 , (6)
∂xi

where f (t) is the waveform function of the input voltage, ρc is the net charge density, and φ
is the electric potential. The following equations are solved to obtain ρc and φ:
!
∂ ∂φ
εr = 0, (7)
∂x j ∂x j
!
∂ ∂ρc ρc
εr = , (8)
∂x j ∂x j λ2d

where ε r is the relative permittivity of the medium, and λd is the Debye length.
The following plasma actuator was considered in the present study: The exposed
electrode was 2 mm wide, and the insulated electrode was 8.75 mm wide. The electrodes
were 0.1 mm thick and separated by a 0.1 mm thick dielectric. The streamwise spacing of
electrodes was 0.5 mm. The dielectric was Kapton, and ε r was 2.7. In the air, ε r was 1.0. For
λd , the same 1 mm as in the previous study was used [34]. These length parameters were
non-dimensionalized by the reference length c = 0.1 m. Equations (7) and (8) were solved
by the successive over-relaxation (SOR) method using a 1201 × 801 two-dimensional mesh.
Boundary conditions for Equation (7) are given as follows:

on outer boundaries, ∂φ/∂ni = 0,

on exposed electrode, φ = 1.0,
on insulated electrode, φ = 0,

where ni is the unit normal vector. The boundary conditions for Equation (8) are given as:

on outer boundaries and in dielectric, ρc = 0,

on the surface of dielectric above the insulated electrode, ρc = G ( x 0 ),
on the other surface of PA, ∂ρc /∂ni = 0.

G ( x 0 ) is given by a half Gaussian distribution as follows:

x 02
 
G ( x 0 ) = exp − 2 , (9)
2δ

where x 0 is the chordwise length measured from the edge of the insulated electrode, and δ
was 0.3le in the present study. le is the insulated electrode length. In the present study,
the input voltage is a standard alternating current. Therefore, the waveform f (t) is the
sinusoidal wave:
f (t) = sin(2πFbase t). (10)
Figure 3 shows the distribution of the body force magnitude in the x direction (Sx )
when f (t) = 1. The body force vectors are also shown in an enlarged view near PA.
The length of the model region is 0.15c in the chordwise direction and 0.05c in the wall-
normal direction. The body force in the spanwise direction was not implemented so that
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 6 of 21

no disturbance in the spanwise direction could be included in the plasma actuation of

the present simulations. The magnitude of the body force was determined by the non-
dimensional input voltage parameter, Dc , which is defined as follows:

ρc,max φmax
Dc = 2
, (11)
ρ∞ U∞

where ρc,max and φmax are the maximum values of ρc and φ. In the present study,
Dc = 0.04 was used. The maximum induced velocity produced by continuous actua-
tion with Dc = 0.04 in quiescent air reaches approximately 3.4 m/s if the reference velocity
is U∞ = 10 m/s [32]. This value is equivalent to the induced velocity produced by PA with
a peak-to-peak applied voltage of 9 kV [31]. In the present body force model, the fluc-
tuation is modeled by the square of the sinusoidal function. The direction of the body
force produced by this fluctuation does not change within a single AC cycle, and even
if the phase of the AC voltage changes, the body force in the opposite direction is not
generated. This characteristic is similar to that of the “push-push type” model suggested
by Font et al. [35]. Fbase was set to 60, which corresponds to the frequency used in previous
experiments [29,30]. Although the present model is simple, we validated it by comparing
the LES results and the experimental results [23]. In addition, we also confirmed that the
LES results using this model were not significantly different from those using a high-fidelity
model [36]. Note that the flow induced by the plasma actuator in quiescent air conditions
is considered to be unchanged for freestream velocities below 100 m/s [37]. In the present
study, the freestream velocity is assumed to be 10 m/s. Therefore, the model equations
were not solved concurrently with Navier–Stokes equations but in advance.

Figure 3. Distribution of body force in the x direction based on the Suzen–Huang model [34]
and body force vectors near PA. Gray and orange areas represent the airfoil surface and exposed
electrode, respectively.

The obtained body force is mapped to the computational grid for LES after rotating
around the downstream edge of the exposed electrode to match the tangential direction of
the airfoil surface.

3.3. Computational Method

We employ the flow solver LANS3D, which has been developed and verified to
achieve high-fidelity simulations [38–40]. Generalized curvilinear coordinates (ξ, η, ζ) were
adopted to solve the governing equations. The spatial derivatives of the convective and
viscous terms, metrics, and Jacobians were evaluated using a sixth-order compact difference
scheme [41]. At the first and second points off the wall boundary, a second-order explicit
difference scheme was adopted. Tenth-order low-pass filtering [41,42] was used with a
filtering coefficient of 0.495. A backward second-order difference formula was used for time
integration, and five sub-iterations [43] were adopted to ensure time accuracy. For time
integration, the lower-upper symmetric alternating direction implicit and symmetric Gauss–
Seidel (ADI-SGS) [44] methods were used. The time step size nondimensionalized by the
free-stream velocity and the chord length was 4 × 10−5 . The maximum Courant number
was approximately 2.0. The nondimensional time step based on the wall units was lower
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 7 of 21

than 0.025 at the attached turbulent boundary layer. Choi and Moin [45] indicated that
a time step of less than 0.4 is sufficient for the LES on a turbulent boundary layer. In the
present study, wall-resolved LESs were conducted. The LES using the compact difference
scheme with the high-order low-pass filter is well-validated and shows comparable results
with standard LESs with explicit sub-grid-scale models when the computational grid
resolution is fine enough [46–48]. The high-order low-pass filter adds numerical viscosity
to computations at the only coarse grid region and implicitly acts as sub-grid scale models.
Thus, the explicit sub-grid scale models were not used in the present study to avoid
unpreferable turbulence decay. Utilized grid resolutions in the present study are explained
in Section 3.4.
All variables were extrapolated from the point inside the outflow boundary into the
point at the boundary. At the outflow boundary, all variables were extrapolated from the
grid points next to the boundary into the grid points at the boundary, and the static pressure
was fixed as the free stream value. At the wall boundary, adiabatic and no-slip conditions
were applied. For the boundaries in the spanwise direction, a periodic boundary condition
was adopted. At the inflow boundary, a uniform free stream condition without disturbance
was employed.
All LESs were performed using the JAXA Supercomputer System Generation 2 and
3 (JSS2 and JSS3) at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. Approximately 80 nodes
(2560 cores) were used for each case.
The computations were conducted until the aerodynamic coefficients became quasi-
steady before obtaining the time-averaged flow field and aerodynamic coefficients. The com-
putational time in nondimensional time before obtaining the data was longer than 30.
The data obtaining duration was five in nondimensional time.

3.4. Computational Grid

The computational grids and the computational domain with a schematic diagram of
the inflow are shown in Figure 4. The zonal method [49] using two computational grids
with different resolutions were employed to treat small fluid fluctuations induced by PA
in the present LES. The computational grids consist of a C-type grid around the airfoil
(zone1: blue and red) and a fine grid around PA (zone 2: green). The body force of the
Suzen–Huang model was obtained in advance and mapped to zone 2. Equations (2)–(4)
were solved for zones 1 and 2, and physical values were exchanged with each other at
every time step.

z z z
x x x
y
25c
0.15 c
25c
Airfoil
c

(a) Over view. (b) Cross-sectional view. (c) Computational domain.

Figure 4. Computational grids and domain. The grids were visualized for every four points.

The distance from the airfoil surface to the outer boundary was 25c, and the width of
the span-wise computational domain was 0.2c. The grid points of zone 1 and zone 2 were
approximately 1.8 × 107 and 2.0 × 106 , respectively, as shown in Table 1. The minimum
grid spacing in the wall-normal direction was 0.00012c. The maximum grid sizes based
on the wall unit were (∆ξ + , ∆η + , ∆ζ + ) . (8, 9, 1) at the attached turbulent boundary layer
region. The present grid resolution and the computational methods were validated in the
previous study [23].
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 8 of 21

Table 1. Number of computational grid points.

ξ η ζ Total Point
Zone 1 759 134 179 18,205,374
Zone 2 149 134 111 2,216,226

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Validation
Here, the present LESs are validated by comparing them with the experimental results.
The experimental data were acquired using the same facility at the Institute of Space
and Astronautical Science, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), utilized in the
previous study [30]. The test section size of the wind tunnel was 100 mm in width, 400 mm
in height, and 700 mm in length. The turbulence intensity at the center of the tunnel was
verified to be approximately 0.08% at a freestream velocity of 6.6 m/s. A two-dimensional
NACA0015 wing model with a chord length of 100 mm and a span length of 100 mm was
used. The model surface had a total of 29 pressure ports, and the time-averaged pressure
measurements were conducted, but the pressure around x/c = 0.05 could not be measured
due to the PA installation on the airfoil surface. The freestream velocity was set to 10 m/s,
corresponding to the Reynolds number of approximately 63,000, based on the chord length
and the freestream velocity, which is the same as the present LES. The applied voltage of
PA was 3.5 kVpp (peak-to-peak voltage). The details may be found in the literature [30]. It
should be noted that the experimental results include the effect of the wind tunnel’s side
walls and the freestream disturbance.
Figure 5 compares pressure coefficient (Cp ) distributions at α = 6, 8, and 10 obtained
by the LESs and experiments. The shape of the NACA0015 airfoil is shown in gray on
the background. Table 2 shows mean absolute errors (MAE) between the Cp distributions
obtained by the LESs and the experiments.

α=6 (CFD) α=6 (CFD) α=6 (CFD)

-3 α=6 (EXP) -3 α=6 (EXP) -3 α=6 (EXP)
α=8 (CFD) α=8 (CFD) α=8 (CFD)
α=8 (EXP) α=8 (EXP) α=8 (EXP)
-2 -2 -2
α=10(CFD) α=10(CFD) α=10(CFD)
α=10(EXP) α=10(EXP) α=10(EXP)
Cp

Cp

Cp

-1 -1 -1

0 0 0

1 1 1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c

(a) PA-OFF. (b) Continuous. (c) Burst.

Figure 5. Pressure coefficient (Cp ) distributions around the airfoil in each case of the computations
(CFDs) and experiments (EXPs).

Table 2. Mean absolute errors (MAE) between the Cp distributions obtained by the LESs and
the experiments.

α [deg]
6 8 10
PA-OFF 0.076 0.078 0.064
Continuous 0.115 0.098 0.097
Burst 0.094 0.059 0.078
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 9 of 21

In the PA-OFF case at α = 10 (Figure 5a) and the Burst cases (Figure 5c), the LES
results show quantitative agreement with the experimental results at all angles of attack.
The MAE values are relatively low in these case. On the other hand, in the PA-OFF case
at α = 6 and 8 and the Continuous case, the LESs overestimate the plateau region of Cp
distribution. This discrepancy between the LESs and experiments is probably because of a
tripping effect of the PA electrodes on the airfoil surface and a freestream disturbance [30].
These disturbances would make the Continuous case’s flow of experiments close to that
of the Burst case. The parameter Dc uncertainty, which is set to match the maximum
value of the PA-inducing velocity, also might affect the computational results. Although a
discussion of the Continuous case needs to be conducted carefully; we consider that the
LES results are reliable enough to discuss the effectiveness of PA because the LESs can
predict the quantitative agreement of the Burst cases and the qualitative tendency that the
plateau region in each case becomes smaller as the angle of attack increases. In addition,
the computational method and the PA model used in the present study have been validated
even at the angle of attack after stall [8,23].

4.2. Aerodynamic Characteristics

Figure 6 shows the average value of the lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) with the minimum
and maximum values in each case. The Continuous and Burst cases show the L/D value
superior to the PA-OFF cases except for the Burst case at α = 4. This result indicates that
the flow control using PA helps the improvement in the aerodynamic characteristics even
at lower angles of attack than the stall angle.

30
Burst
Continuous
25
PA-OFF

20
L/D

15

10

0
4 6 8 10 12
α [deg]

Figure 6. Lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) versus angle of attack (α).

Figure 7 shows the lift coefficient (CL ) and drag coefficient (CD ) in each case. The CL
of the Continuous case was higher than the PA-OFF case in all cases, while CL of the Burst
case at α = 4 and 8 was lower than PA-OFF. The CD values of Continuous and Burst cases
were more stable than the PA-OFF case at any angle of attack and control method, and the
fluctuation was slight. At the post-stall angles of attack, L/D improved by a CL increase
and a CD decrease [23]. However, at α = 8, which is a pre-stall angle of attack, CL of the
Burst case was lower than the PA-OFF case. On the other hand, the CD of the Burst case
was lower than the PA-OFF case, and as a result, L/D was higher than the PA-OFF case. In
other words, at the pre-stall angle of attack, the reduction of CD contributes more to the
improvement of L/D than the improvement of CL .
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 10 of 21

1 0.2
Burst Burst
Continuous Continuous
0.8 PA-OFF
0.15 PA-OFF

0.6

CD
CL
0.1
0.4

0.05
0.2

0 0
4 6 8 10 12 4 6 8 10 12
α [deg] α [deg]

(a) CL (b) CD

Figure 7. Lift coefficient (CL ) and drag coefficient (CD ) versus angle of attack (α).

Figure 8 shows the breakdown of CD : viscous drag (CDv ) and pressure drag (CDp ) in
each case. Although there was no significant change in CDv by using PA, CDp decreased in
both pre-stall and post-stall angles. In particular, the reduction in CDp was more remarkable
in the Burst cases than in the Continuous cases. The CDp reduction effect of the Burst cases
is discussed in detail in the following section (Section 4.3).

Burst CDv
0.15 Continuous
PA-OFF

0.1
CD

CDp

CDv
0.05
CDv
CDv
CDv CDp
CDp
CDp CDp
0
4 6 8 10 12
α [deg]

Figure 8. Pressure drag coefficient (CDp ) versus angle of attack (α).

4.3. Averaged Flow Feature

In this section, we discuss what flow changes with the PA control cause an aerody-
namic characteristic change. In the following discussion, the results at α = 4 are omitted
because their overall tendency is similar to that at α = 6, and arguments will be made with
the results at α = 6, 8, and 10.
Figure 9 shows the pressure coefficient (Cp ) distribution around the airfoil obtained
in each case. The shape of the NACA0015 airfoil is drawn in gray on the background.
The black up- and down-pointing triangle symbols indicate the highest and lowest airfoil
surface positions at each angle of attack, respectively. The characteristic changes in the
Cp distribution with the PA control are mainly observed on the airfoil’s upper surface.
In the Continuous cases, the Cp value at the suction peak near the leading edge lowered,
and the plateau region moved toward the trailing edge and slightly shrunk. In the Burst
cases, the Cp plateau region was significantly reduced, and the Cp value at the suction peak
became low at α = 6 and 10. The local variation of Cp seen at 0.2 . x/c . 0.5 in the Burst
cases at α = 6 and 8 was due to the merging of the two-dimensional vortex structures. The
details are discussed in Section 4.4. Additionally, at α = 8, the pressure on the underside of
the airfoil was slightly lower than that of the PA-OFF and Continuous cases.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 11 of 21

Burst Burst Burst

-3 Continuous -3 Continuous -3 Continuous
PA-OFF PA-OFF PA-OFF

-2 -2 -2
Cp

Cp

Cp
-1 -1 -1

0 0 0

1 1 1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c

(a) α = 6. (b) α = 8. (c) α = 10.

Figure 9. Pressure coefficient (Cp ) distributions around the airfoil.

We discuss the Cp distribution in more detail from the perspective of reducing CDp .
Since the force due to the surface pressure acts perpendicularly to the airfoil surface,
the force contribution direction (thrust or drag) depends on the orientation of the airfoil
surface. When there is no inflection point on the suction side, such as the NACA0015
airfoil, the surface pressure at the front half region from the highest point of the airfoil
contributes to thrust, while the surface pressure at the back half part from the highest point
contributes to drag increase. In Figure 9, since the suction peak exists upstream from the
highest point in each case, the lower the pressure at the peak position, the more significant
the contribution to thrust and the lower CDp . On the contrary, in the PA-OFF case shown in
Figure 9, most of the plateau region caused by the separation bubbles exists downstream
from the highest point; thus, the negative pressure contributes to the drag.
Figure 10 shows the distribution of the skin-friction coefficient (Cf ) on the airfoil’s
upper surface in each case. In the PA-OFF case at α = 6, Cf is negative in the range
of 0.1 . x/c . 0.5, indicating that the flow is separated and forms separation bubbles.
The negative Cf region coincides with the plateau region in Figure 9a. In the Continuous
cases in Figure 9, the pressure of the suction peak is reduced at any angle of attack. On the
other hand, as shown in Figure 10, the plateau region in Figure 9 is moved to the trailing
edge side due to the movement of the separation bubble position (the area where Cf is
negative) to the downstream. The movement of this plateau region to the downstream
contributes to the CDp increase. However, since the contribution of the CDp decrease
because the pressure decrease in the suction peak is larger and CDp slightly decreases at
any angle of attack, as shown in Figure 8. In the Burst cases, the suction peak value of
Cp near the leading edge is lower than the other cases at α = 6 and 10 (Figure 9a,c). In
addition, the plateau region is reduced at all angles of attack, and therefore, CDp value
becomes lower than the Continuous cases.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 12 of 21

Burst Burst Burst

0.02 Continuous 0.02 Continuous 0.02 Continuous
PA-OFF PA-OFF PA-OFF

0.01 0.01 0.01

Cf

Cf

Cf
0 0 0

-0.01 -0.01 -0.01

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c

(a) α = 6. (b) α = 8. (c) α = 10.

Figure 10. Skin friction coefficient (Cf ) distributions on the airfoil’s upper surface.

The relationship between the flow field and the pressure distribution on the airfoil
surface is discussed in more detail. Figure 11 shows time- and spanwise-averaged flows
colored with the chordwise velocity normalized by the freestream velocity (u/U∞ ) for each
case, and Figure 12 shows the displacement thickness (δ∗ ) on the airfoil’s upper surface.
Figures 11 and 12 are helpful in understanding the separation bubble size in the wall-
normal direction of the airfoil. The displacement thickness is nondimensionalized by the
chord length. The NACA0015 airfoil is shown in the background to the same scale as the
displacement thickness. In all cases, the flow separates from around x/c ' 0.1, forming a
separation bubble, although it is difficult to see in the Burst cases.

z z z
x x x

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(a) α = 6, PA-OFF. (b) α = 8, PA-OFF. (c) α = 10, PA-OFF.

z z z
x x x

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(d) α = 6, Continuous. (e) α = 8, Continuous. (f) α = 10, Continuous.

z z z
x x x

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(g) α = 6, Burst. (h) α = 8, Burst. (i) α = 10, Burst.

0 1.5
u/U∞

Figure 11. Time- and spanwise-averaged flows colored with the chordwise velocity (u/U∞ ).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 13 of 21

0.1 0.1 0.1

Burst Burst Burst
Continuous Continuous Continuous
0.08 PA-OFF 0.08 PA-OFF 0.08 PA-OFF

0.06 0.06 0.06

δ*

δ*

δ*
0.04 0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02 0.02

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c

(a) α = 6. (b) α = 8. (c) α = 10.

Figure 12. Displacement thickness (δ∗ ) on the airfoil’s upper surface.

The flow on the airfoil’s upper surface (suction side) generally accelerates due to the
flow bending at the leading edge of the airfoil (the red region in Figure 11), creating the
suction peak, as seen in Figure 9. In the present flow fields, the shape of the separation
bubble existing in this acceleration region changes due to the PA control; thus, the value
of the suction peak also changes in each case. The pressure distribution in the presence of
the separated region on the airfoil surface can be predicted by assuming that the airfoil
thickness increases as much as the thickness of the separated region. The smaller the
displacement thickness, the lower the effect of the boundary layer and separated area,
and the flow becomes closer to the potential flow of the NACA0015 airfoil.
In Figure 12, the displacement thicknesses of the Continuous and Burst cases are
smaller than that of the PA-OFF case in the region of 0.1 . x/c . 0.4 at any angle of
attack. When the flow bends, the pressure inner side of the curved flow becomes lower
as the radius of curvature becomes smaller. Therefore, in the Continuous and Burst cases
with the thin displacement thickness, the radius of curvature of the flow near the leading
edge of the airfoil is smaller than in the PA-OFF case, and the pressure is lower. However,
in Figure 9b, the suction peak value of the burst case at α = 8 is almost the same as that
of the PA-OFF case. The exceptional suction value of the burst case at α = 8 may be
caused by the flow separation near the trailing edge on the suction side. At x/c ' 0.9 in
Figure 10b, Cf is almost zero, and in Figure 11h, the low-speed region is larger near the
trailing edge than in the other cases. Due to this trailing edge separation, in Figure 10b,
the displacement thickness of the Burst case near the trailing edge (0.8 . x/c . 1) becomes
the thickest, and the radius of curvature on the airfoil’s upper surface increases, resulting
in weakening the acceleration of the flow near the leading edge and affecting the value of
the suction peak.

4.4. Unsteady Flow Feature

In this section, we discuss the relationship between the instantaneous flow field for
each case and the plots up to Section 4.3. Figure 13 shows the instantaneous flow fields
of the PA-OFF and Continuous cases at α = 6. The isosurface is the second invariant
of the velocity gradient tensor (Q = 6250), colored by the chordwise velocity (u/U∞ ).
Figures 14 and 15 show the turbulent-kinetic-energy (TKE) distributions and the power
spectral densities (PSDs) of the chordwise velocity fluctuations of the PA-OFF and Con-
tinuous cases, respectively. The PSD shows the value at the position where the TKE is
the largest (indicated by the black cross symbol in Figure 14) at each cord length position.
The gray dashed line indicates the slope of Kolmogorov’s −5/3 power law. As shown in
Figure 13, the instantaneous flow fields of the PA-OFF and Continuous cases are similar. In
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 14 of 21

Figure 15, the spectrum shows a −5/3 power slope at x/c = 0.5 and downstream there
in both PA-OFF and Continuous cases, indicating the flow transitions to turbulent flow.
Although, at first glance, the instantaneous fields of the PA-OFF and Continuous cases
are very similar, due to the momentum addition by PA, the laminar flow separation in
the Continuous case is delayed more than that in the PA-OFF case, as shown in Figure 10,
and the separated shear layer of the Continuous case is closer to the airfoil surface. As
a result, as shown in Figure 12a, the displacement thickness of the Continuous case is
thinner than that of PA-OFF in most regions. The position of the turbulent transition in the
Continuous case is delayed, and a region where TKE is high is seen downstream compared
to that in the PA-OFF case. Although only the case at α = 6 was discussed here, the flow
characteristics of the PA-OFF and Continuous cases are the same for other angles of attack.

z z
x x
y y

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

(a) PA-OFF. (b) Continuous.

0 1.5
u/U∞

Figure 13. Instantaneous flows with the isosurface of the second invariant of the velocity gradient
tensor colored with the chordwise velocity (u/U∞ ) at α = 6.

z z
x x

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(a) PA-OFF. (b) Continuous.

0 0.125
TKE

Figure 14. Turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) distributions at α = 6.

Figure 16 shows the instantaneous flow fields of the burst case at each angle of
attack. The isosurface is the second invariant of the velocity gradient tensor (Q = 6250),
colored by the chordwise velocity (u/U∞ ). The flow fields in the Burst cases differ
from those in the PA-OFF and Continuous cases, where the large separated region is
formed under the separated shear layer. At α = 6 and 8 in Figure 16, two-dimensional
vortex structures are induced by the burst drive of PA near the leading edge and move
downstream. These two-dimensional vortex structures maintain their spanwise shape
up to near the trailing edge. Such stable two-dimensional vortex structures are not
observed in the controlled flows at post-stall angles. These two-dimensional vortex
structures merge several times in the process of moving. Where large two-dimensional
vortex structures merge, local variations of Cf and Cp are seen. Specifically, in the region
of 0.4 . x/c . 0.5, a small plateau region is seen in Figure 9a,b, and a local decrease in
Cf is seen in Figure 10a,b.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 15 of 21

102 102
x/c=0.1 x/c=0.1
100 x/c=0.3 100 x/c=0.3

10-2 x/c=0.5 10-2 x/c=0.5

x/c=0.7 x/c=0.7
10-4 10-4

PSD

PSD
x/c=0.9 x/c=0.9
10-6 10-6

10-8 10-8

10-10 10-10

10-12 10-12 -1
10-1 100 101 102 103 10 100 101 102 103
St St

(a) PA-OFF. (b) Continuous.

Figure 15. Power spectrum densities (PSDs) of the chordwise velocity fluctuations at the point of the
maximum TKE directly above each code length at α = 6.

z z z
x x x
y y y

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

(a) α = 6. (b) α = 8. (c) α = 10.

0 1.5
u/U∞

Figure 16. Instantaneous flows with the isosurface of the second invariant of the velocity gradient
tensor colored with the chordwise velocity (u/U∞ ) in the Burst cases.

The difference between the flow fields at α = 6 and α = 8 is remarkable near the
trailing edge. As shown in Figure 16b, the flow at α = 8 separates near the trailing edge
while maintaining the two-dimensional vortex structures. The flow at α = 10 is different
from those at α = 6 and 8, the two-dimensional vortex structures induced by PA rapidly
collapse into the two-dimensional vortex structures (Figure 16c). This flow resembles the
controlled flows investigated in the previous study [8] at the post-stall angles.
Figures 17 and 18 show the TKE distributions and the PSDs of the chordwise velocity
fluctuations for the Burst case at each angle of attack. The PSD shows the value at the
position where the TKE is the largest (indicated by the black cross symbol in Figure 17) at
each cord length position. The TKE distribution differs at each angle of attack, reflecting
the characteristics of the instantaneous flow fields. At α = 6, the TKE increases from
x/c ' 0.3 toward downstream due to the passing of the two-dimensional vortex structures.
A turbulent transition occurs at 0.7 . x/c . 0.8, and the region where TKE is particularly
high (red region) locally spreads. In the PSD of Figure 18a, at x/c = 0.3, the frequency
St = 6 and its harmonics are dominant due to the passing of the two-dimensional vortex
structures induced by the burst drive of PA. At x/c = 0.7, the energy in the high-frequency
range begins to increase due to the turbulent transition, and at x/c = 0.9, a PSD decay of the
−5/3 slope can be confirmed. The position, where the −5/3 slope reveals, is downstream
of that in the PA-OFF case (Figure 15a). These PSD characteristics indicate that transporting
the two-dimensional vortex structures suppresses the turbulent transition. At α = 8,
the TKE increases from x/c ' 0.2 by the passing of the two-dimensional vortex structures,
similar to that at α = 6. At x/c ' 0.8, the two-dimensional vortex structures begin to move
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 16 of 21

away from the airfoil surface; thus, the high TKE region is also seen away from the airfoil
surface. The two-dimensional vortex structures are relatively stable compared to those
at the other angles of attack, and the turbulent transition is suppressed. Therefore, even
at x/c = 0.9, the PSD decay of the −5/3 slope is not seen (Figure 18b). At α = 10, TKE
increases sharply at 0.1 . x/c . 0.3 due to rapid turbulent transition. The PSD also has
high energy in the high-frequency range at x/c = 0.3, and the slope of the energy decay is
close to the −5/3 slope.

z z z
x x x

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(a) α = 6. (b) α = 8. (c) α = 10.

0 0.125
TKE

Figure 17. Turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) distributions in the Burst cases.

102 102 102

x/c=0.1 x/c=0.1 x/c=0.1
100 x/c=0.3 100 x/c=0.3 100 x/c=0.3

10-2 x/c=0.5 10-2 x/c=0.5 10-2 x/c=0.5

x/c=0.7 x/c=0.7 x/c=0.7
10-4 10-4 10-4
PSD

PSD

PSD
x/c=0.9 x/c=0.9 x/c=0.9
10-6 10-6 10-6

10-8 10-8 10-8

10-10 10-10 10-10

10-12 10-12 10-12 -1

10-1 100 101 102 103 10-1 100 101 102 103 10 100 101 102 103
St St St

(a) α = 6. (b) α = 8. (c) α = 10.

Figure 18. Power spectrum densities (PSDs) of the chordwise velocity fluctuation at the point of the
maximum TKE directly above each code length in the Burst cases.

In Section 4.3, the possibility that the trailing edge separation affects the peak value
of Cp at α = 8 in the burst case is discussed. At α = 8, as shown in Figures 16b and 18b,
the two-dimensional vortex structures induced by PA keep their structure and move away
from the airfoil surface, near the trailing edge, while the flows in the burst cases at α = 6
and 8 occur as turbulent transitions and maintain attached near the trailing edge. Therefore,
the promotion of turbulent transition at α = 8 could suppress the trailing edge separation,
the negative Cp peak value could become lower, and CL could be improved.
In the previous study [27], the control effects of F + = 1 and 10 were discussed by
performing LESs at the angle of attack of α = 6. In the case of F + = 1, a turbulent
transition occurred relatively upstream after a large-scale two-dimensional vortex structure
shedding, while in the case of F + = 10, two-dimensional vortex structures keep their
structures flowing up to the trailing edge of the airfoil. This result suggests the possibility
of promoting a turbulence transition by using frequencies lower than the burst frequency,
which induces stable two-dimensional structures, in a flow with a relatively small pressure
gradient at low angles of attack. In other words, for the Bust case at α = 8 of the present
study, using frequencies lower than F + = 6 could promote the turbulent transition and
reduce the low-velocity region at the trailing edge. The characteristics of the controlled
flow at the pre-stall condition differ depending on the angle of attack and the PA drive
condition. A method of dynamically changing the PA drive method depending on the flow
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 17 of 21

conditions at post-stall angles of attack to select an optimum PA drive is proposed [50]. If

the optimum control method can be dynamically selected according to the flow conditions,
even at pre-stall angles of attack, further improvements in aerodynamic characteristics
could be expected.

4.5. Comparison with Controlled Flow at Post-Stall Angle of Attack

This section discusses the differences between the controlled flows at the pre- and
post-stall angles of attack.
Figure 19 shows Cp and Cf distributions at the post-stall angle of attack (α = 12). In the
PA-OFF case, a massive separation occurs from the leading edge of the airfoil, and thus,
the Cp shows a flat distribution on the suction side, and the Cf value takes a negative value
on most of the airfoil surface. Because of the massive separation, the CL of the PA-OFF
case is significantly lower compared to the pre-stall angles (Figure 7a). The burst drive
with F + can suppress the massive flow separation and create flow reattachment, while
the continuous drive cannot. The flow reattachment in the Burst case increases the CL
and decreases the CD significantly. Both the CL increase and CD decrease contribute to
L/D improvement, as shown in Figures 6 and 7. The detailed discussion may be found
in [15]. On the other hand, at the pre-stall angles of attack, in the PA-OFF case, a separation
bubble, which does not exist at the post-stall angle of attack, is formed on the airfoil’s
upper surface, and its position and size affect the aerodynamic coefficients, as discussed
in Section 4.3. The change in the separation bubble by PA control does not contribute
much to the CL increase but mainly reduces the CD and contributes to the increase in L/D
(Figures 6 and 7). At α = 4 and 8, the CL decreases due to the shrink of the separation
bubble, but the CD reduction is larger than the CL decrease, so the L/D increases.

0.03
Burst Burst
-3 Continuous Continuous
PA-OFF 0.02 PA-OFF

-2

0.01
Cp

Cf

-1

0
0

-0.01
1

-0.02
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c

(a) Cp . (b) Cf .

Figure 19. Pressure coefficient (Cp ) and skin friction coefficient (Cf ) distributions on the airfoil’s
upper surface at α = 12.

The difference in the flows in the Burst case at each angle of attack becomes more
apparent when the discussion includes the instantaneous flow at α = 12. Figure 20 shows
the instantaneous flow of the Burst case at α = 12. This flow resembles that at α = 10
shown in Figure 16c. The two-dimensional vortex structures induced by PA rapidly break
down into fine vortices. Figures 21 and 22 show the TKE distributions and the PSDs of the
chordwise velocity fluctuations for the Burst case at α = 12. The PSD shows the value at
the position where the TKE is the largest (indicated by the black cross symbol in Figure 21)
at each cord length position. The region where TKE is locally high is seen at 0.1 . x . 0.4,
and a PSD decay of the −5/3 slope is seen at all stations in Figure 22 because the turbulent
transition rapidly occurs. The turbulence growth shown by these TKE and PSDs also
resembles those at α = 10. The rapid turbulent transition draws the shear layer and reduces
the separation region. On the other hand, as discussed in Section 4.4, at the lower angles of
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 18 of 21

attack (α = 4, 6, and 8), the burst actuation induces the two-dimensional vortices, which
maintain their spanwise shape (Figure 16). The transport of the two-dimensional vortices
draws the shear layer to the airfoil surface and shrinks the separation bubble. Additionally,
those two-dimensional vortices suppress the turbulent transition. The suppression of
turbulence transition can be confirmed by the spectrum in Figure 18.

z
x
y

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 1.5
u/U∞

Figure 20. Instantaneous flows with the isosurface of the second invariant of the velocity gradient
tensor colored with the chordwise velocity (u/U∞ ) in the Burst cases at α = 12.

z
x

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0 0.125
TKE

Figure 21. Turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) distribution in the Burst case at α = 12.

As discussed above, the control mechanism is different between near the stall angle
of attack (α = 10 and 12) and at lower angles of attack (α = 4, 6, and 8). This may be
because the pressure gradient on the airfoil surface increases as the angle of attack increases.
The pressure gradient may promote the collapse of the two-dimensional vortices induced
by PA near the stall angle of attack. For post-stall angle flows, previous studies [15,21]
have shown that using F + ' 1 maintains large two-dimensional vortex structures up
to downstream. On the other hand, in the case of F + = 6, the two-dimensional vortex
structures are maintained up to downstream at the low angles of attack in the present study.
Whether or not the two-dimensional vortex structure is maintained may be determined by
the relationship with the pressure gradient on the airfoil surface, and further research on
this relationship is required.
Note that the magnitude of the pressure gradient on an airfoil surface depends on
not only the angle of attack but also the curvature of the airfoil surface. For relatively thin
airfoils, the flow control mechanism may differ from the cases of the NACA0015 airfoil.
Further research on the relationship between the airfoil geometry and the flow control
mechanism is required.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 19 of 21

102
x/c=0.1
100 x/c=0.3

10-2 x/c=0.5
x/c=0.7
10-4

PSD
x/c=0.9
10-6

10-8

10-10

10-12 -1
10 100 101 102 103
St

Figure 22. Power spectrum densities (PSDs) of the chordwise velocity fluctuation at the point of the
maximum TKE directly above each code length in the Burst case at α = 12.

5. Conclusions
LES of the flows controlled by PA over an NACA0015 airfoil was performed at angles of
attack before a stall. The flow control authority of PA was investigated, and the relationship
between the aerodynamic coefficient and the flow field was clarified through the LES results.
The Continuous and Burst cases using PA at the angles of attack before the stall
improved L/D compared to PA-OFF. The improvement in L/D is mainly owing to the
reduction in CDp in addition to the improvement in CL . The primary causes of the reduction
in CDp are (1) lower pressure at the suction peak and (2) reduction in the plateau region
of Cp as the separation bubble is moved or shrunk on the upper surface of the airfoil.
The second effect is remarkable in the Burst cases with F + = 6. Although, in the Bust
case, the lift-to-drag ratio is improved at all angles of attack, the phenomena leading to
the improvement differ between near-stall angles (α = 10 and 12) and other lower angles
(α = 4, 6, and 8). At near-stall angles, the turbulent transition is rapidly promoted by PA,
and the flow is reattached. Whereas, at lower angles, the transport of two-dimensional
vortex structures, which maintain their structures downstream and suppress the turbulent
transition, creates flow reattachment. At α = 4 and 8, the L/D of the Continuous case
was higher than that of the Burst case because the suction peak value of Cp in the Burst
case was not improved compared to the PA-OFF case due to the trailing edge separation.
The trailing edge separation may be caused by the suppression of the turbulent transition
by the two-dimensional vortices whose structures are maintained even near the trailing
edge in addition to the reverse pressure gradient. Therefore, applying flow control methods
that promote turbulence transition could possibly suppress the trailing separation and
improve aerodynamic characteristics. Based on the results of the previous study [27],
frequencies lower than F + = 6 may be effective, and further investigation is required. In
addition, a control method that dynamically changes the PA drive conditions according to
the angle of attack is needed for robust control.
It should be noted that these phenomena in the present study would depend on the
airfoil geometry and flow conditions. Future studies on the influence of the airfoil geometry
such as a thin airfoil and the flow conditions such as freestream turbulence are required.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.O. and K.F.; Data curation, T.O.; Formal analysis, T.O.;
Funding acquisition, K.F.; Investigation, T.O.; Methodology, T.O.; Project administration, T.O.; Re-
sources, T.O. and M.S.; Software, T.O., K.A., T.T. and K.F.; Supervision, K.A. and K.F.; Validation,
T.O.; Visualization, T.O.; Writing—original draft, T.O.; Writing—review & editing, K.A. and K.F. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 18H03816
in Japan.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 20 of 21

Acknowledgments: The flow field computations presented in the present study are performed on the
“JAXA Supercomputer System Generation 2 and 3 (JSS2 and JSS3)” in the Japan Aerospace Exploration
Agency (JAXA) and on the “SX-Aurora TSUBASA” in the Cyberscience Center, Tohoku University.
Supports by the system and center staffs are very much acknowledged. The authors would like
to thank Satoshi Sekimoto of Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology for conducting the
experiments to validate the present simulations.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Corke, T.C.; Enloe, C.L.; Wilkinson, P.S. Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Actuators for Flow Control. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.
2010, 42, 505–529. [CrossRef]
2. Jukes, T.N.; Choi, K.S. Control of unsteady flow separation over a circular cylinder using dielectricbarrier-discharge surface
plasma. Phys. Fluids 2009, 21, 094106. [CrossRef]
3. Greenblatt, D.; Schneider, T.; Schuele, C.Y. Mechanism of flow separation control using plasma actuation. Phys. Fluids 2012,
24, 077102. [CrossRef]
4. Post, M.L.; Corke, T.C. Separation Control on High Angle of Attack Airfoil Using Plasma Actuators. AIAA J. 2004, 42, 2177–2184.
[CrossRef]
5. Jukes, T.N.; Choi, K.S.; Johnson, G.A.; Scott, S.J. Turbulent Drag Reduction by Surface Plasma through Spanwise Flow Oscillation.
In Proceedings of the 3rd AIAA Flow Control Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 5–8 June 2006; AIAA-2006-3693. [CrossRef]
6. Visbal, M.R.; Gaitonde, D.V.; Roy, S. Control of Transitional and Turbulent Flows Using Plasma-Based Actuators. In Proceedings
of the 36th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, San Francisco, CA, USA, 5–8 June 2006; AIAA-2006-3230. [CrossRef]
7. Bénard, N.; Jolibois, J.; Moreau, E. Lift and drag performances of an axisymmetric airfoil controlled by plasma actuator. J.
Electrost. 2009, 67, 133–139. [CrossRef]
8. Sato, M.; Nonomura, T.; Okada, K.; Asada, K.; Aono, H.; Yakeno, A.; Abe, Y.; Fujii, K. Mechanisms for laminar separated-flow
control using dielectric-barrier-discharge plasma actuator at low Reynolds number. Phys. Fluids 2015, 27, 1–29. [CrossRef]
9. Thomas, F.O.; Corke, T.C.; Duong, A.; Midya, S.; Yates, K. Turbulent drag reduction using pulsed-DC plasma actuation. J. Phys. D
Appl. Phys. 2019, 52, 434001. [CrossRef]
10. Wang, J.J.; Choi, K.S.; Feng, L.H.; Jukes, T.N.; Whalley, R.D. Recent developments in DBD plasma flow control. Prog. Aerosp. Sci.
2013, 62, 52–78. [CrossRef]
11. Vernet, J.A.; Orlu, R.; Soderblom, D.; Elofsson, P. Plasma Streamwise Vortex Generators for Flow Separation Control on Trucks.
Flow Turbul. Combust. 2018, 100, 1101–1109. [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, Z.; Wu, Y.; Jia, M.; Song, H.; Sun, Z.; Zong, H.; Li, Y. The multichannel discharge plasma synthetic jet actuator. Sens.
Actuators A Phys. 2017, 253, 112–117. [CrossRef]
13. Bhattacharya, S.; Gregory, J.W. Effect of Three-Dimensional Plasma Actuation on the Wake of a Circular Cylinder. AIAA J. 2015,
53, 958–967. [CrossRef]
14. Feng, L.H.; Jukes, N.T.; Choi, K.S.; Wang, J.J. Flow control over a NACA 0012 airfoil using dielectric-barrier-discharge plasma
actuator with a Gurney flap. Exp. Fluids 2012, 52, 1533–1546. [CrossRef]
15. Fujii, K. Three Flow Feature behind the Flow Control Authority of DBD Plasma Actuator: Result of High-Fidelity Simulations
and the Related Experiments. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 546. [CrossRef]
16. Wang, L.; Wong, C.W.; Alam, M.M.; Zhou, Y. Post-stall flow control using a sawtooth plasma actuator in burst mode. Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 2020, 107, 106251. [CrossRef]
17. Riherd, M.; Roy, S. Serpentine geometry plasma actuators for flow control. J. Appl. Phys. 2013, 114, 083303. [CrossRef]
18. Segawa, T.; Matsunuma, T. Applications of String-type DBD Plasma Actuators for Flow Control in Turbomachineries. In
Proceedings of the 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, National Harbor, Md, USA, 13–17 January 2014; AIAA 2014-1126. [CrossRef]
19. Kolbakir, C.; Hu, H.; Liu, Y.; Hu, H. An experimental study on different plasma actuator layouts for aircraft icing mitigation.
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2020, 107, 106325. [CrossRef]
20. Visbal, M.R. Strategies for control of transitional and turbulent flows using plasma-based actuators. Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn.
2010, 24, 237–258. [CrossRef]
21. Ebrahimi, A.; Hajipour, M. Flow separation control over an airfoil using dual excitation of DBD plasma actuators. Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 2018, 79, 658–668. [CrossRef]
22. Wu, B.; Gao, C.; Liu, F.; Xue, M.; Zheng, B. Simulation of NACA0015 flow separation controlby burst-mode plasma actuation.
Phys. Plasmas 2019, 26, 063507. [CrossRef]
23. Sato, M.; Aono, H.; Yakeno, A.; Nonomura, T.; Fujii, K.; Okada, K.; Asada, K. Multifactorial Effects of Operating Conditions of
Dielectric-Barrier-Discharge Plasma Actuator on Laminar-Separated-Flow Control. AIAA J. 2015, 53, 2544–2559. [CrossRef]
24. Liu, R.; Niu, Z.; Wang, M.; Hao, M.; Lin, Q. Aerodynamic control of NACA 0021 airfoil model with spark discharge plasma
synthetic jets. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2015, 58, 1949–1955. [CrossRef]
25. Erfani, R.; Kontis, K. MEE-DBD Plasma Actuator Effect on Aerodynamics of a NACA0015 Aerofoil: Separation and 3D Wake.
Comput. Methods Appl. Sci. 2019, 28. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9073 21 of 21

26. Cui, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Zheng, J.; Li, J.M.; Khoo, B.C. Separation Control over a NACA0015 Airfoil Using Nanosecond Pulsed Plasma
Actuator. In Proceedings of the 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Grapevine, TX, USA, 9–13 January 2017; AIAA-2017-0715.
[CrossRef]
27. Asano, K.; Sato, M.; Nonomura, T.; Oyama, A.; Fujii, K. Control of Airfoil Flow at Cruise Condition by DBD Plasma Actuator-
Sophisticated Airfoil vs. Simple Airfoil with Flow Control. In Proceedings of the 8th AIAA Flow Control Conference, Washington,
DC, USA, 13–17 June 2016; AIAA-2016-3624. [CrossRef]
28. Ogawa, T.; Asada, K.; Tatsukawa, T.; Fujii, K. Computational Analysis of the Control Authority of Plasma Actuators for Airfoil
Flows at Low Angle of Attack. In Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, Orlando, FL, USA, 6–10 January 2020; AIAA
2020-0578. [CrossRef]
29. Asada, K. ; Ninomiya, Y.; Oyama, A.; Fujii, K. Airfoil Flow Experiment on the Duty Cycle of DBD Plasma Actuator. In Proceedings
of the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, FL, USA,
5–8 January 2009; AIAA-2009-531. [CrossRef]
30. Sekimoto, S.; Nonomura, T.; Fujii, K. Burst-Mode Frequency Effects of Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Actuator for Separation
Control. AIAA J. 2017, 55, 1385–1392. [CrossRef]
31. Sekimoto, S.; Fujii, K.; Hosokawa, S.; Akamatsu, H. Flow-control capability of electronic-substrate-sized power supply for a
plasma actuator. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2020, 306, 111951. [CrossRef]
32. Aono, H.; Sekimoto, S.; Sato, M.; Yakeno, A.; Nonomura, T.; Fujii, K. Computational and experimental analysis of flow structures
induced by a plasma actuator with burst modulations in quiescent air. Mech. Eng. J. 2015, 2, 1–16. [CrossRef]
33. Sato, M.; Okada, K.; Aono, H.; Asada, K.; Yakeno, A.; nd Kozo Fujii, T.N. LES of Separated-flow Controlled by DBD Plasma
Actuator around NACA 0015 over Reynolds Range of 104 –106 . In Proceedings of the 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
Kissimmee, FL, USA, 5–9 January 2015; AIAA 2015-0308. [CrossRef]
34. Suzen, Y.B.; Huang, P.G. Simulations of Flow Separation Contorl using Plasma Actuator. In Proceedings of the 44th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 9–12 January 2006; AIAA-2006-877. [CrossRef]
35. Font, G.I.; Enloe, C.L.; McLaughlin, T.E. Plasma Volumetric Effects on the Force Production of a Plasma Actuator. AIAA J. 2010,
48, 1869–1874. [CrossRef]
36. Chen, D.; Asada, K.; Sekimoto, S.; Fujii, K.; Nishida, H. A high-fidelity body-force modeling approachfor plasma-based flow
control simulations. Phys. Fluids 2021, 33, 037115. [CrossRef]
37. Pereira, R.; Ragni, D.; Kotsonis, M. Effect of external flow velocity on momentum transfer of dielectric barrier discharge plasma
actuators. J. Appl. Phys. 2014, 103301. [CrossRef]
38. Kawai, S.; Fujii, K. Analysis and Prediction of Thin-Airfoil Stall Phenomena Using Hybrid Turbulent Methodology. AIAA J. 2005,
43, 953–961. [CrossRef]
39. Kojima, R.; Nonomura, T.; Oyama, A.; Fujii, K. Large-Eddy Simulation of Low-Reynolds-Number Flow Over Thick and Thin
NACA Airfoils. J. Aircr. 2013, 50, 187–196. [CrossRef]
40. Lee, D.; Kawai, S.; Nonomura, T.; Anyoji, M.; Aono, H.; Oyama, A.; Asai, K.; Fujii, K. Mechanisms of surface pressure distribution
within a laminar separation bubble at different Reynolds numbers. Phys. Fluids 2015, 27, 023602. [CrossRef]
41. Lele, S.K. Compact Finite Difference Schemes with Spectral-like Resolution. J. Comput. Phys. 1992, 103, 16–42. [CrossRef]
42. Gaitonde, D.V.; Visbal, M.R. Padé-Type Higher-Order Boundary Filters for the Navier-Stokes Equations. AIAA J. 2000, 38, 2103–
2112. [CrossRef]
43. Visbal, M.R.; Rizzetta, D.P. Large-Eddy Simulation on Curvilinear Grids Using Compact Differencing and Filtering Schemes. J.
Fluids Eng. 2002, 124, 836–847. [CrossRef]
44. Fujii, K. Simple Ideas for the Accuracy and Efficiency Improvement of the Compressible Flow Simulation Methods. In Proceedings
of the International CFD Workshop on Supersonic Transport Design, Tokyo, Japan, 16 March 1998; pp. 20–23. (later published as
JAXA-SP-06-029E, pp. 25–28).
45. Choi, H.; Moin, P. Effects of the Computational Time Step on Numerical Solutions of Turbulent Flow. J. Comput. Phys. 1994,
113, 1–4. [CrossRef]
46. Visbal, M.R.; Rizzetta, D.P. Large-eddy Simulation on General Geometries Using Compact Differencing and Filtering Schemes.
In Proceedings of the 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 14–17 January 2002; AIAA-2002-288.
[CrossRef]
47. Rizzetta, D.P.; Visbal, M.R.; Gaitonde, D.V. Large-Eddy Simulation of Supersonic Compression-Ramp Flow by High-Order
Method. AIAA J. 2001, 39, 2283–2292. [CrossRef]
48. Kawai, S.; Fujii, K. Compact Scheme with Filtering for Large-Eddy Simulation of Transitional Boundary Layer. AIAA J. 2008,
46, 690–700. [CrossRef]
49. Fujii, K. Unified Zonal Method Based on the Fortified Solution Algorithm. J. Comput. Phys. 1995, 118, 92–108. [CrossRef]
50. Ogawa, T.; Asada, K.; Sekimoto, S.; Tatsukawa, T.; Fujii, K. Dynamic Burst Actuation to Enhance the Flow Control Authority of
Plasma Actuators. MDPI Aerospace 2021, 8, 396. [CrossRef]