Global linear and nonlinear stability of viscous confined plane wakes with co-flow

The global stability of confined uniform density wakes is studied numerically, using two-dimensional linear global modes and nonlinear direct numerical simulations. The wake inflow velocity is varied between different amounts of co-flow (base bleed). In accordance with previous studies, we find that the frequencies of both the most unstable linear and the saturated nonlinear global mode increase with confinement. For wake Reynolds number Re = 100 we find the confinement to be stabilising, decreasing the growth rate of the linear and the saturation amplitude of the nonlinear modes. The dampening effect is connected to the streamwise development of the base flow, and decreases for more parallel flows at higher Re. The linear analysis reveals that the critical wake velocities are almost identical for unconfined and confined wakes at Re ≈ 400. Further, the results are compared with literature data for an inviscid parallel wake. The confined wake is found to be more stable than its inviscid counterpart, whereas the unconfined wake is more unstable than the inviscid wake. The main reason for both is the base flow development. A detailed comparison of the linear and nonlinear results reveals that the most unstable linear global mode gives in all cases an excellent prediction of the initial nonlinear behaviour and therefore the stability boundary. However, the nonlinear saturated state is different, mainly for higher Re. For Re = 100, the saturated frequency differs less than 5% from the linear frequency, and trends regarding confinement observed in the linear analysis are confirmed.

The post-processed Galerkin method applied to non-linear shell vibrations

We present the results of a computational study of the post-processed Galerkin methods put forward by Garcia-Archilla et al. applied to the non-linear von Karman equations governing the dynamic response of a thin cylindrical panel periodically forced by a transverse point load. We spatially discretize the shell using finite differences to produce a large system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). By analogy with spectral non-linear Galerkin methods we split this large system into a 'slowly' contracting subsystem and a 'quickly' contracting subsystem. We then compare the accuracy and efficiency of (i) ignoring the dynamics of the 'quick' system (analogous to a traditional spectral Galerkin truncation and sometimes referred to as 'subspace dynamics' in the finite element community when applied to numerical eigenvectors), (ii) slaving the dynamics of the quick system to the slow system during numerical integration (analogous to a non-linear Galerkin method), and (iii) ignoring the influence of the dynamics of the quick system on the evolution of the slow system until we require some output, when we 'lift' the variables from the slow system to the quick using the same slaving rule as in (ii). This corresponds to the post-processing of Garcia-Archilla et al. We find that method (iii) produces essentially the same accuracy as method (ii) but requires only the computational power of method (i) and is thus more efficient than either. In contrast with spectral methods, this type of finite-difference technique can be applied to irregularly shaped domains. We feel that post-processing of this form is a valuable method that can be implemented in computational schemes for a wide variety of partial differential equations (PDEs) of practical importance.

Mathematical relationships between representations of structure in linear interconnected dynamical systems

A dynamical system can exhibit structure on multiple levels. Different system representations can capture different elements of a dynamical system's structure. We consider LTI input-output dynamical systems and present four representations of structure: complete computational structure, subsystem structure, signal structure, and input output sparsity structure. We then explore some of the mathematical relationships that relate these different representations of structure. In particular, we show that signal and subsystem structure are fundamentally different ways of representing system structure. A signal structure does not always specify a unique subsystem structure nor does subsystem structure always specify a unique signal structure. We illustrate these concepts with a numerical example. © 2011 AACC American Automatic Control Council.