pith. sign in

arxiv: 2410.01015 · v4 · submitted 2024-10-01 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Role of Duty Cycle in Burst-Modulated Synthetic Jet Flow Control

Adnan Machado , Ali Shirinzad , Kecheng Xu , Pierre E. Sullivan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 19:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn
keywords synthetic jetduty cycleflow controlairfoil reattachmentmomentum coefficientlift improvementburst modulationpower efficiency
0
0 comments X

The pith

Synthetic jet flow control reattaches stalled airfoil flow above a momentum coefficient threshold, with efficient reattachment at 5% duty cycle.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines how duty cycle and blowing ratio affect synthetic jet actuators on a stalled airfoil. It shows that flow reattachment happens once a certain momentum coefficient is reached, whether by increasing duty cycle or blowing ratio. Lift improves substantially even at very low duty cycles like 5%, suggesting short bursts are power-efficient. However, lower duty cycles lead to less stable flow control because the spanwise vortices dissipate inconsistently.

Core claim

Flow reattachment was achieved once a threshold momentum coefficient was met via increasing either the DC or blowing ratio. Control effectiveness increased sharply upon reattachment, with additional momentum providing incremental improvements in lift, spanwise control, and flow stability that eventually saturated. Substantial lift improvements are observed at DCs as low as 5%, indicating that brief, high-momentum bursts were the most power-efficient for achieving reattachment.

What carries the argument

The momentum coefficient, varied through duty cycle or blowing ratio in burst-modulated synthetic jet actuation, which determines when reattachment occurs.

If this is right

  • Control effectiveness increases sharply upon reaching the momentum threshold for reattachment.
  • Incremental momentum beyond the threshold gives diminishing returns as effects saturate.
  • Low duty cycles achieve reattachment but reduce flow stability due to inconsistent vortex dissipation.
  • Higher duty cycles provide more consistent boundary layer control at higher power cost.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Power-efficient control strategies could reduce energy use in applications like aircraft wings or turbine blades by using pulsed rather than steady actuation.
  • Similar thresholds might exist in other flow control scenarios, such as over different airfoil shapes or at higher Reynolds numbers.
  • Testing the effect of changing actuation frequency while holding momentum coefficient constant would check if the threshold is universal.

Load-bearing premise

The reattachment threshold depends only on the momentum coefficient achieved by varying duty cycle or blowing ratio, without influence from untested factors like frequency or geometry.

What would settle it

Observing reattachment at a significantly different momentum coefficient when the actuation frequency is changed would show the claim does not hold.

read the original abstract

The effect of duty cycle (DC) and blowing ratio on synthetic jet flow control over a stalled NACA 0025 airfoil at Re_c=10^5 was investigated experimentally. A finite-span microblower array operating with burst modulation was tested across a wide range of control parameters to assess aerodynamic performance, power consumption, and flow stability. Flow reattachment was achieved once a threshold momentum coefficient was met via increasing either the DC or blowing ratio. Control effectiveness increased sharply upon reattachment, with additional momentum providing incremental improvements in lift, spanwise control, and flow stability, though these effects eventually saturated. Substantial lift improvements are observed at DCs as low as 5%, indicating that brief, high-momentum bursts were the most power-efficient for achieving reattachment. However, flow stability was reduced at low DCs due to the inconsistent streamwise dissipation of spanwise vortices responsible for flow control. Higher DC control strategies resulted in more consistent boundary layer control. These results provide a framework for selecting control strategies that balance aerodynamic performance and stability with power efficiency.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an experimental study on burst-modulated synthetic jet flow control over a stalled NACA 0025 airfoil at Re_c=10^5 using a finite-span microblower array. It reports that flow reattachment occurs once a threshold momentum coefficient C_μ is reached by increasing either duty cycle (DC) or blowing ratio, with low DCs (down to 5%) providing the most power-efficient reattachment and substantial lift gains, although flow stability decreases at low DCs due to inconsistent spanwise vortex dissipation; higher DCs yield more consistent boundary-layer control at the cost of higher power.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work supplies a practical framework for trading off aerodynamic performance against power consumption and stability in synthetic-jet actuators, particularly by demonstrating that brief high-momentum bursts can achieve reattachment efficiently.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that reattachment occurs at a C_μ threshold reached equivalently by raising DC or blowing ratio, and that low-DC bursts are generally most power-efficient, rests on experiments performed at a single fixed actuation frequency and array geometry. No cross-checks are described in which frequency or geometry is varied while C_μ is held constant, leaving open the possibility that the observed threshold and efficiency ranking are specific to the chosen burst timing and vortex-formation conditions rather than a universal property of C_μ.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported trends in lift, stability, and power lack any mention of error bars, repeated runs, or uncertainty quantification on the reattachment threshold or the low-DC efficiency advantage, which weakens the ability to judge whether the claimed threshold is robust or influenced by measurement variability.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript should explicitly state how C_μ is computed from the measured jet velocity and array geometry, including any assumptions about density or velocity profile.
  2. Figures comparing lift or stability metrics across DCs would benefit from consistent axis scaling and clear indication of the reattachment threshold value.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We respond point-by-point to the major comments and indicate planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that reattachment occurs at a C_μ threshold reached equivalently by raising DC or blowing ratio, and that low-DC bursts are generally most power-efficient, rests on experiments performed at a single fixed actuation frequency and array geometry. No cross-checks are described in which frequency or geometry is varied while C_μ is held constant, leaving open the possibility that the observed threshold and efficiency ranking are specific to the chosen burst timing and vortex-formation conditions rather than a universal property of C_μ.

    Authors: The experiments were performed at fixed actuation frequency and array geometry, as detailed in the methods. Within this configuration the data show reattachment once a C_μ threshold is reached, whether by increasing DC or blowing ratio. The manuscript does not assert that the threshold or efficiency ranking is universal across all frequencies or geometries. We will revise the abstract and conclusions to state explicitly that the reported threshold and efficiency trends apply to the tested frequency and geometry. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported trends in lift, stability, and power lack any mention of error bars, repeated runs, or uncertainty quantification on the reattachment threshold or the low-DC efficiency advantage, which weakens the ability to judge whether the claimed threshold is robust or influenced by measurement variability.

    Authors: Multiple runs were performed during the campaign to confirm repeatability, although quantitative uncertainty was not reported in the abstract or highlighted in the figures. We agree that explicit uncertainty quantification would improve the presentation. In the revised manuscript we will add error bars to the lift and power curves and include a brief discussion of measurement repeatability and uncertainty in the results section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Purely experimental study; no derivations or equations present.

full rationale

The paper reports experimental observations of flow reattachment on an airfoil using burst-modulated synthetic jets. Reattachment is stated to occur once a threshold momentum coefficient C_mu is reached by varying duty cycle or blowing ratio. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or self-citations of uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text. All claims rest on direct measurements at fixed frequency and geometry; the threshold is reported as an observed outcome rather than derived from prior results or reduced by construction to inputs. This is the most common honest finding for experimental work and warrants score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental study; no free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are introduced. Relies on standard wind-tunnel measurement practices and the definition of momentum coefficient.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Momentum coefficient is the controlling parameter for reattachment in this configuration.
    Abstract states reattachment occurs once a threshold momentum coefficient is met via DC or blowing ratio.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5719 in / 1145 out tokens · 19423 ms · 2026-05-23T19:58:57.408391+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Review of research on low-profile vortex generators to control boundary-layer separation,

    Lin, J. C., “Review of research on low-profile vortex generators to control boundary-layer separation,”Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 38, 2002, pp. 389–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-0421(02)00010-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0376-0421(02)00010-6 2002

  2. [2]

    Effects of Surface Roughness on Separated and Transitional Flows over a Wing,

    Zhou, Y., and Wang, Z. J., “Effects of Surface Roughness on Separated and Transitional Flows over a Wing,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 50, 2012, pp. 593–609. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J051237

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j051237 2012

  3. [3]

    Load control on a dynamically pitching finite span wind turbine blade using synthetic jets,

    Taylor, K., Leong, C. M., and Amitay, M., “Load control on a dynamically pitching finite span wind turbine blade using synthetic jets,”Wind Energy, Vol. 18, 2015, pp. 1759–1775. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1789

    work page doi:10.1002/we.1789 2015

  4. [4]

    Flow Control for Unmanned Air Vehicles,

    Greenblatt, D., and Williams, D. R., “Flow Control for Unmanned Air Vehicles,”Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 54, 2022, pp. 383–412. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-032221-105053

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-032221-105053 2022

  5. [5]

    The challenges and opportunities of battery-powered flight,

    Viswanathan, V., Epstein, A. H., Chiang, Y.-M., Takeuchi, E., Bradley, M., Langford, J., and Winter, M., “The challenges and opportunities of battery-powered flight,”Nature, Vol. 601, 2022, pp. 519–525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04139-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04139-1 2022

  6. [6]

    Wygnanski

    Greenblatt, D., and Wygnanski, I. J., “The control of flow separation by periodic excitation,”Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 36, 2000, pp. 487–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-0421(00)00008-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0376-0421(00)00008-7 2000

  7. [7]

    The formation and evolution of synthetic jets,

    Smith, B. L., and Glezer, A., “The formation and evolution of synthetic jets,”Physics of Fluids, Vol. 10, 1998, pp. 2281–2297. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.869828

    work page doi:10.1063/1.869828 1998

  8. [8]

    Synthetic Jets,

    Glezer, A., and Amitay, M., “Synthetic Jets,”Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , Vol. 34, 2002, pp. 503–529. https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.34.090501.094913

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.34.090501.094913 2002

  9. [9]

    Seifert and L

    Seifert, A., and Pack, L. G., “Oscillatory Control of Separation at High Reynolds Numbers,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 37, 1999, pp. 1062–1071. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.834

    work page doi:10.2514/2.834 1999

  10. [10]

    A comparison between synthetic jets and continuous jets,

    Smith, B. L., and Swift, G. W., “A comparison between synthetic jets and continuous jets,”Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 34, 2003, pp. 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-002-0577-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-002-0577-6 2003

  11. [11]

    On the near field of an axisymmetric synthetic jet

    Cicca, G. M. D., and Iuso, G., “On the near field of an axisymmetric synthetic jet,”Fluid Dynamics Research, Vol. 39, 2007, pp. 673–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluiddyn.2007.03.002. 25

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fluiddyn.2007.03.002 2007

  12. [12]

    Masset, R

    Salunkhe, P., Tang, H., Zheng, Y., and Wu, Y., “PIV measurement of mildly controlled flow over a straight-wing model,” International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow,Vol.62,2016,pp.552–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2016.08.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2016

  13. [13]

    Rice, Keith Taylor, and Michael Amitay

    Rice, T. T., Taylor, K., and Amitay, M., “Quantification of the S817 airfoil aerodynamic properties and their control using synthetic jet actuators,”Wind Energy, Vol. 21, 2018, pp. 823–836. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2197

    work page doi:10.1002/we.2197 2018

  14. [14]

    Flow reattachment on a naca 0025 airfoil using an array of microblowers

    Xu, K., Lavoie, P., and Sullivan, P., “Flow Reattachment on a NACA 0025 Airfoil Using an Array of Microblowers,”AIAA Journal, 2023, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J062512

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j062512 2023

  15. [15]

    Roll Contrial via Active Flow Control: From Concept to Flight,

    Seifert, A., David, S., Fono, I., Stalnov, O., and Dayan, I., “Roll Contrial via Active Flow Control: From Concept to Flight,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 47, 2010, pp. 864–874. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.45910

    work page doi:10.2514/1.45910 2010

  16. [16]

    Manipulation of vortex rings for flow control

    Toyoda, K., and Hiramoto, R., “Manipulation of vortex rings for flow control,”Fluid Dynamics Research, Vol. 41, 2009, p. 051402. https://doi.org/10.1088/0169-5983/41/5/051402

    work page doi:10.1088/0169-5983/41/5/051402 2009

  17. [17]

    Momentum Coefficient as a Parameter for Aerodynamic Flow Control with Synthetic Jets,

    Goodfellow, S. D., Yarusevych, S., and Sullivan, P. E., “Momentum Coefficient as a Parameter for Aerodynamic Flow Control with Synthetic Jets,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 51, 2013, pp. 623–631. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J051935

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j051935 2013

  18. [18]

    Smith, Valdis Kibens, David E

    Amitay, M., Smith, D. R., Kibens, V., Parekh, D. E., and Glezer, A., “Aerodynamic Flow Control over an Unconventional Airfoil Using Synthetic Jet Actuators,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 39, 2001, pp. 361–370. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.1323

    work page doi:10.2514/2.1323 2001

  19. [19]

    On the use of synthetic jet actuator arrays for active flow separation control

    Tang,H.,Salunkhe,P.,Zheng,Y.,Du,J.,andWu,Y.,“Ontheuseofsyntheticjetactuatorarraysforactiveflowseparationcontrol,” Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, Vol. 57, 2014, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2014.03.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2014.03.015 2014

  20. [20]

    Feero, Philippe Lavoie, and Pierre E

    Feero, M. A., Lavoie, P., and Sullivan, P. E., “Influence of synthetic jet location on active control of an airfoil at low Reynolds number,”Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 58, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-017-2387-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-017-2387-x 2017

  21. [21]

    Shuster, J., Pink, R., McEligot, D., and Smith, D.,The Interaction of a Circular Synthetic Jet with a Cross-Flow Boundary Layer, AIAA, 2005, p. 4749. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-4749, URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2005-4749

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2005-4749 2005

  22. [22]

    OptimizationofSyntheticJetActuatordesignfornoisereductionandvelocityenhancement,

    Jeyalingam,J.,andJabbal,M.,“OptimizationofSyntheticJetActuatordesignfornoisereductionandvelocityenhancement,” 8th AIAA Flow Control Conference,AmericanInstituteofAeronauticsandAstronautics,2016. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-4236

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2016-4236 2016

  23. [23]

    Three-dimensional interaction of a finite-span synthetic jet in a crossflow,

    Van Buren, T., Beyar, M., Leong, C. M., and Amitay, M., “Three-dimensional interaction of a finite-span synthetic jet in a crossflow,”Physics of Fluids , Vol. 28, No. 3, 2016, p. 037105. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4943493, URL https: //doi.org/10.1063/1.4943493

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4943493 2016

  24. [24]

    Sullivan

    Yang, E., Ekmekci, A., and Sullivan, P. E., “Phase evolution of flow controlled by synthetic jets over NACA 0025 airfoil,” Journal of Visualization, Vol. 25, 2022, pp. 751–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12650-021-00824-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s12650-021-00824-5 2022

  25. [25]

    Three-dimensional span effects of high-aspect ratio synthetic jet forcing for separation control on a low Reynolds number airfoil,

    Feero, M. A., Lavoie, P., and Sullivan, P. E., “Three-dimensional span effects of high-aspect ratio synthetic jet forcing for separation control on a low Reynolds number airfoil,”Journal of Visualization, Vol. 20, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12650- 016-0365-7. 26

    work page doi:10.1007/s12650- 2017

  26. [26]

    Experimentalstudyonairfoilflowseparationcontrolviaanair- supplementplasmasyntheticjet,

    Liu,R.-B.,Wei,W.-T.,Wan,H.-P.,Lin,Q.,Li,F.,andTang,K.,“Experimentalstudyonairfoilflowseparationcontrolviaanair- supplementplasmasyntheticjet,” Advances in Aerodynamics,Vol.4,2022,p.34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42774-022-00126-w

    work page doi:10.1186/s42774-022-00126-w 2022

  27. [27]

    Visualizing three-dimensional effects of synthetic jet flow control,

    Machado, A., Xu, K., and Sullivan, P. E., “Visualizing three-dimensional effects of synthetic jet flow control,”Journal of Visualization, Vol. 27, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12650-024-00992-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s12650-024-00992-0 2024

  28. [28]

    Controlled transients of flow reattachment over stalled airfoils,

    Amitay, M., and Glezer, A., “Controlled transients of flow reattachment over stalled airfoils,”International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 23, 2002, pp. 690–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-727X(02)00165-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0142-727x(02)00165-0 2002

  29. [29]

    Aspects of Low- and High-Frequency Actuation for Aerodynamic Flow Control,

    Glezer, A., Amitay, M., and Honohan, A. M., “Aspects of Low- and High-Frequency Actuation for Aerodynamic Flow Control,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 43, 2005, pp. 1501–1511. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.7411

    work page doi:10.2514/1.7411 2005

  30. [30]

    Feero, Sebastian D

    Feero, M. A., Goodfellow, S. D., Lavoie, P., and Sullivan, P. E., “Flow Reattachment Using Synthetic Jet Actuation on a Low-Reynolds-Number Airfoil,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 53, 2015, pp. 2005–2014. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J053605

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j053605 2015

  31. [31]

    Duty cycle and directional jet effects of a plasma actuator on the flow control around a NACA0015 airfoil,

    Borghi, C. A., Cristofolini, A., Neretti, G., Seri, P., Rossetti, A., and Talamelli, A., “Duty cycle and directional jet effects of a plasma actuator on the flow control around a NACA0015 airfoil,”Meccanica, Vol. 52, 2017, pp. 3661–3674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-017-0692-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11012-017-0692-3 2017

  32. [32]

    Response of the Separated Flow over an Airfoil to a Short-Time Actuator Burst,

    An, X., Williams, D. R., da Silva, A. F., Colonius, T., and Eldredge, J., “Response of the Separated Flow over an Airfoil to a Short-Time Actuator Burst,”47th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-3315

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2017-3315 2017

  33. [33]

    Pulse modulation of synthetic jet actuators for control of separation,

    Rice, T. T., Taylor, K., and Amitay, M., “Pulse modulation of synthetic jet actuators for control of separation,”Physical Review Fluids, Vol. 6, 2021, p. 093902. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.6.093902

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.6.093902 2021

  34. [34]

    Effect of varying frequency of a synthetic jet on flow separation over an airfoil,

    Kim, M., Essel, E. E., and Sullivan, P. E., “Effect of varying frequency of a synthetic jet on flow separation over an airfoil,” Physics of Fluids, Vol. 34, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0077334

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0077334 2022

  35. [35]

    Parametric study of a frequency-modulated pulse jet by measurements of flow characteristics,

    Abdolahipour, S., Mani, M., and Taleghani, A. S., “Parametric study of a frequency-modulated pulse jet by measurements of flow characteristics,”Physica Scripta, Vol. 96, 2021, p. 125012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ac2bdf

    work page doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ac2bdf 2021

  36. [36]

    Spanwise control authority of synthetic jets on a stalled airfoil,

    Machado, A., Xu, K., and Sullivan, P. E., “Spanwise control authority of synthetic jets on a stalled airfoil,”Physics of Fluids, Vol. 36, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0212135

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0212135 2024

  37. [37]

    Delta Wing Stall and Roll Control Using Segmented Piezoelectric Fluidic Actuators,

    Margalit, S., Greenblatt, D., Seifert, A., and Wygnanski, I., “Delta Wing Stall and Roll Control Using Segmented Piezoelectric Fluidic Actuators,”Journal of Aircraft , Vol. 42, No. 3, 2005, pp. 698–709. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.6904, URL https: //doi.org/10.2514/1.6904

    work page doi:10.2514/1.6904 2005

  38. [38]

    Coherent Structures in the Actively Controlled Wake of a High-Lift Configuration,

    Steinfurth, B., and Haucke, F., “Coherent Structures in the Actively Controlled Wake of a High-Lift Configuration,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, 2018, pp. 3848–3856. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J057094

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j057094 2018

  39. [39]

    InfluenceofExcitationFrequency,PhaseShift,andDutyCycleonCoolingRatioinaDynamically Forced Impingement Jet Array,

    Berthold,A.,andHaucke,F.,“InfluenceofExcitationFrequency,PhaseShift,andDutyCycleonCoolingRatioinaDynamically Forced Impingement Jet Array,”Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 142, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4046616. 27

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4046616 2020

  40. [40]

    Dynamic characterization of piezoelectric micro-blowers for separation flow control,

    Chovet, C., Lippert, M., Keirsbulck, L., and Foucaut, J.-M., “Dynamic characterization of piezoelectric micro-blowers for separation flow control,”Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, Vol. 249, 2016, pp. 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2016. 08.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.sna.2016 2016

  41. [41]

    Computational and experimental study of spanwise synthetic jet flow control,

    Ho, H. H., and Machado, A., “Computational and experimental study of spanwise synthetic jet flow control,”Thirteenth International Symposium on Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena (TSFP13) , 2024

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    The mechanics of an organized wave in turbulent shear flow,

    Hussain, A. K. M. F., and Reynolds, W. C., “The mechanics of an organized wave in turbulent shear flow,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 41, 1970, pp. 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112070000605

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112070000605 1970

  43. [43]

    Influence of ZNMF jet flow control on the spatio-temporal flow structure over a NACA-0015 airfoil,

    Buchmann, N. A., Atkinson, C., and Soria, J., “Influence of ZNMF jet flow control on the spatio-temporal flow structure over a NACA-0015 airfoil,”Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 54, 2013, p. 1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-013-1485-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-013-1485-7 2013

  44. [44]

    Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows,

    Hunt, J., Wray, A., and Moin, P., “Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows,”Studying Turbulence Using Numerical Simulation Databases, 2. Proceedings of the 1988 Summer Program , 1998, pp. 193–208

    work page 1988

  45. [45]

    Role of actuation frequency in controlled flow reattachment over a stalled airfoil

    Amitay, M., and Glezer, A., “Role of Actuation Frequency in Controlled Flow Reattachment over a Stalled Airfoil,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 40, 2002, pp. 209–216. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.1662. 28

    work page doi:10.2514/2.1662 2002