- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Fluids

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Physically consistent formulation for the bound vortex sheet strength in the Wagner model

George Lucas S. Torres1,*, Ashok Gopalarathnam2, and Flávio D. Marques1

  • *Contact author: george.torres@usp.br
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 11, 074701 – Published 6 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/hcd2-znt5

Abstract

Unsteady thin-airfoil theory (UTAT) coupled with discrete-vortex methods has been widely employed in reduced-order aerodynamic modeling. Due to the nonuniqueness of potential-flow solutions, the Kutta condition is imposed to determine the circulation around the airfoil. Although the unsteady Kutta condition is commonly associated with the zero-loading condition at the trailing edge, its implications for the continuity of the vortex-sheet strength remain comparatively underexplored. In particular, the classical series expansion employed for the bound vorticity in unsteady thin-airfoil theory is not uniformly convergent at the trailing edge, leading to mathematical inconsistencies in the vortex-sheet and pressure distributions. In this context, the present work seeks to advance the mathematical framework of unsteady thin-airfoil theory through a physically consistent formulation of the bound vortex-sheet strength for the Wagner problem. A recurrence relation is derived for the Wagner coefficients, allowing the construction of a uniformly convergent series expansion for the bound vorticity. The proposed formulation ensures continuity between the bound and wake vortex sheets while simultaneously recovering zero pressure loading at the trailing edge, thereby providing a mathematically consistent representation of the unsteady Kutta condition. To investigate the implications of the modified framework, a discrete-vortex method based on UTAT is developed and compared with the classical formulation. The results demonstrate that the proposed approach eliminates spurious oscillatory behavior near the trailing edge and significantly improves the regularity of the computed vorticity and pressure distributions. Although both formulations appear to approach Wagner's classical lift response at large times, the classical representation remains inconsistent during the transient stage due to the discontinuity of the vortex-sheet strength. The proposed methodology establishes a more robust theoretical foundation for reduced-order unsteady aerodynamic models and provides a consistent basis for future extensions involving arbitrary airfoil kinematics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (70)

  1. D. D. Chin and D. Lentink, Flapping wing aerodynamics: From insects to vertebrates, J. Exp. Biol. 219, 920 (2016).
  2. W. Shyy, H. Aono, S. K. Chimakurthi, P. Trizila, C. K. Kang, C. E. Cesnik, and H. Liu, Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 46, 284 (2010).
  3. S. Narsipur, K. Ramesh, A. Gopalarathnam, and J. R. Edwards, Discrete vortex modeling of perching and hovering maneuvers, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 37, 445 (2023).
  4. B. Hand and A. Cashman, A review on the historical development of the lift-type vertical axis wind turbine: From onshore to offshore floating application, Sustainable Energy Technol. Assess. 38, 100646 (2020).
  5. J. Deparday and K. Mulleners, Modeling the interplay between the shear layer and leading edge suction during dynamic stall, Phys. Fluids 31, 107104 (2019).
  6. D. O. Izquierdo and F. D. Marques, Experimental analysis of passive bio-inspired covert feathers for stall and post-stall performance enhancement, Meccanica 56, 2671 (2021).
  7. J. Deparday, X. He, J. D. Eldredge, K. Mulleners, and D. R. Williams, Experimental quantification of unsteady leading-edge flow separation, J. Fluid Mech. 941, A60 (2022).
  8. R. Miotto, W. Wolf, D. Gaitonde, and M. Visbal, Analysis of the onset and evolution of a dynamic stall vortex on a periodic plunging aerofoil, J. Fluid Mech. 938, A24 (2022).
  9. A. Daliri, M. J. Maghrebi, and M. R. Soltani, Experimental assessment of Theodorsen's function for uncoupled pitch–plunge motion, Phys. Fluids 35, 037114 (2023).
  10. E. A. Camacho, M. M. da Silva, A. R. R. Silva, and F. D. Marques, Real-time optimization of wing drag and lift performance using a movable leading edge, Phys. Fluids 36, 016128 (2024).
  11. K. Ramesh, A. Gopalarathnam, K. Granlund, M.V. Ol, and J. R. Edwards, Discrete-vortex method with novel shedding criterion for unsteady aerofoil flows with intermittent leading-edge vortex shedding, J. Fluid Mech. 751, 500 (2014).
  12. Z. Liu, J. C. Lai, J. Young, and F. B. Tian, Discrete vortex method with flow separation corrections for flapping-foil power generators, AIAA J. 55, 410 (2017).
  13. H. E. Taha and A. S. Rezaei, On the high-frequency response of unsteady lift and circulation: A dynamical systems perspective, J. Fluids Struct. 93, 102868 (2020).
  14. S. Narsipur, P. Hosangadi, A. Gopalarathnam, and J. R. Edwards, Variation of leading-edge suction during stall for unsteady aerofoil motions, J. Fluid Mech. 900, A25 (2020).
  15. A. SureshBabu, A. Medina, M. Rockwood, M. Bryant, and A. Gopalarathnam, Theoretical and experimental investigation of an unsteady airfoil in the presence of external flow disturbances, J. Fluid Mech. 921, A21 (2021).
  16. A. Saini, S. Narsipur, and A. Gopalarathnam, Leading-edge flow sensing for detection of vortex shedding from airfoils in unsteady flows, Phys. Fluids 33, 087105 (2021).
  17. A. Martínez, G. He, K. Mulleners, and K. K. Ramesh, Modulation of the leading-edge vortex shedding rate in discrete-vortex methods, in AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 2022), p. 2416.
  18. H. Ramanathan and A. Gopalarathnam, Prediction of leading-edge-vortex initiation using criticality of the boundary layer, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 37, 397 (2023).
  19. H. Wagner, über die entstehung des dynamischen auftriebes von tragflügeln, Z Angew. Math. Mech. 5, 17 (1925).
  20. T. Theodorsen, General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter, NACA Report No. 496, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, 1935.
  21. I. E. Garrick, Propulsion of a flapping and oscillating airfoil, NACA Report No. 567, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, 1936.
  22. T. Kármán and J. M. Burgers, General Aerodynamic Theory: Perfect Fluids (Julius Springer, Berlin, 1935).
  23. H. G. Küssner, Zusammenfassender bericht über den instationären Auftrieb von Flügeln, Luftfahrtforschung 13, 410 (1936).
  24. W. Sears, A systematic presentation of the theory of thin airfoils in non-uniform motion, PhD. thesis, California Institute of Technology, 1938.
  25. R. T. Jones, Operational treatment of the nonuniform-lift theory in airplane dynamics, Technical Report, No NACA-TN-667 (1938).
  26. I. E. Garrick, On some reciprocal relations in the theory of nonstationary flows, NACA Report No. 629, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, 1938.
  27. R. Vepa, On the use of Padé approximants to represent unsteady aerodynamic loads for arbitrarily small motions of wings, in 14th Aerospace Sciences Meeting (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1976), AIAA Paper No. 76-17.
  28. R. Isaacs, Airfoil theory for flows of variable velocity, J. Aeronaut. Sci. 12, 113 (1945).
  29. J. M. Greenberg, Airfoil in sinusoidal motion in a pulsating stream, Technical Report, NACA-TN-1326, (1947).
  30. V. Motta, A. Guardone, and G. Quaranta, Influence of airfoil thickness on unsteady aerodynamic loads on pitching airfoils, J. Fluid Mech. 774, 460 (2015).
  31. C. Strangfeld, H. Müller-Vahl, C. N. Nayeri, C. O. Paschereit, and D. Greenblatt, Airfoil in a high amplitude oscillating stream, J. Fluid Mech. 793, 79 (2016).
  32. S. Ōtomo, S. Henne, K. Mulleners, K. Ramesh, and I. M. Viola, Unsteady lift on a high-amplitude pitching aerofoil, Exp. Fluids 62, 6 (2021).
  33. M. Gennaretti and R. Giansante, Kutta–Joukowski theorem for unsteady linear aerodynamics, AIAA J. 60, 5779 (2022).
  34. S. Tiomkin and J. W. Jaworski, Unsteady aerodynamic theory for membrane wings, J. Fluid Mech. 948, A33 (2022).
  35. L. Schwarz, Berechnung der Druckverteilung einer harmonisch sich verformenden Tragfläche in ebener Strömung, Luftfahrtforschung 17, 379 (1940).
  36. H. Söhngen, Die lösungen der integralgleichung und deren anwendung in der tragflügeltheorie, Math. Z. 45, 245 (1939).
  37. J. Katz and D. Weihs, Behavior of vortex wakes from oscillating airfoils, J. Aircr. 15, 861 (1978).
  38. H. Glauert, The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1926).
  39. K. K. Ramesh, A. Gopalarathnam, M. Ol, K. Granlund, and J. Edwards, Augmentation of inviscid airfoil theory to predict and model 2D unsteady vortex-dominated flows, in 41st AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 2011), AIAA Paper No. 2011-3578.
  40. K. Ramesh, On the leading-edge suction and stagnation-point location in unsteady flows past thin aerofoils, J. Fluid Mech. 886, A13 (2020).
  41. S. Narsipur, A. Gopalarathnam, and J. R. Edwards, Low-order modeling of dynamic stall on airfoils in incompressible flow, AIAA J. 61, 206 (2023).
  42. S. Narsipur, A. Gopalarathnam, and J. R. Edwards, Low-order model for prediction of trailing-edge separation in unsteady flow, AIAA J. 57, 191 (2019).
  43. A. E. P. Veldman, A simple interaction law for viscous–inviscid interaction, J. Eng. Math. 65, 367 (2009).
  44. N. Ramos-García, J. N. Sørensen, and W. Z. Shen, A strong viscous–inviscid interaction model for rotating airfoils, Wind Energy 17, 1957 (2014).
  45. N. Ramos-García, J. N. Sørensen, and W. Z. Shen, Three-dimensional viscous-inviscid coupling method for wind turbine computations, Wind Energy 19, 67 (2016).
  46. M. L. Paturle, C. Bose, I. M. Viola, and K. K. Ramesh, Dynamic detection of flow separation using integral formulation of unsteady boundary layer equations, in AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 2022), AIAA Paper No. 2022-4138.
  47. P. J. Phlips, R. A. East, and N. H. Pratt, An unsteady lifting line theory of flapping wings with application to the forward flight of birds, J. Fluid Mech. 112, 97 (1981).
  48. J. S. Izraelevitz, Q. Zhu, and M. S. Triantafyllou, State-space adaptation of unsteady lifting line theory: Twisting/flapping wings of finite span, AIAA J. 55, 1279 (2017).
  49. J. Boutet and G. Dimitriadis, Unsteady lifting line theory using the Wagner function for the aerodynamic and aeroelastic modeling of 3D wings, Aerospace 5, 92 (2018).
  50. H. J. A. Bird and K. Ramesh, Unsteady lifting-line theory and the influence of wake vorticity on aerodynamic loads, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 35, 609 (2021).
  51. B. P. Epps and B. T. Roesler, Vortex sheet strength in the Sears, Küssner, Theodorsen, and Wagner aerodynamics problems, AIAA J. 56, 889 (2018).
  52. K. Ramesh, Correct wake vorticity shedding in time-stepping unsteady thin-airfoil theory, AIAA J. 63, 3024 (2025).
  53. S. W. Rienstra, A note on the Kutta condition in Glauert's solution of the thin aerofoil problem, J. Eng. Math. 26, 61 (1992).
  54. D. S. Jones, The Theory of Generalised Functions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982).
  55. D. G. Crighton, The Kutta condition in unsteady flow, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 17, 411 (1985).
  56. X. Xia and K. Mohseni, Unsteady aerodynamics and vortex-sheet formation of a two-dimensional airfoil, J. Fluid Mech. 830, 439 (2017).
  57. J. Katz and A. Plotkin, Low-Speed Aerodynamics (Cambridge University Press, 2001), Vol. 13.
  58. B. T. Roesler and B. P. Epps, Discretization requirements for vortex lattice methods to match unsteady aerodynamics theory, AIAA J. 56, 2478 (2018).
  59. R. Krasny, Desingularization of periodic vortex sheet roll-up, J. Comput. Phys. 65, 292 (1986).
  60. M. A. Jones, The separated flow of an inviscid fluid around a moving flat plate, J. Fluid Mech. 496, 405 (2003).
  61. S. Alben, Regularizing a vortex sheet near a separation point, J. Comput. Phys. 229, 5280 (2010).
  62. J. D. Eldredge, Mathematical Modeling of Unsteady Inviscid Flows (Springer, 2019), Vol. 50.
  63. G. L. Torres and F. D. Marques, Nonlinear geometric decomposition of airfoils into the thickness and camber contributions, Meccanica 59, 889 (2024).
  64. M. Legua and L. M. Sánchez-Ruiz, Cauchy principal value contour integral with applications, Entropy 19, 215 (2017).
  65. D. A. Peters, S. Karunamoorthy, and W. M. Cao, Finite state induced flow models. I-two-dimensional thin airfoil, J. Aircr. 32, 313 (1995).
  66. S. T. Dawson and S. L. Brunton, Improved approximations to Wagner function using sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics, AIAA J. 60, 1691 (2022).
  67. J. Abate and W. Whitt, A unified framework for numerically inverting Laplace transforms, INFORMS Journal on Computing 18, 408 (2006).
  68. W. J. Thompson, Fourier series and the Gibbs phenomenon, Am. J. Phys. 60, 425 (1992).
  69. S. Abbott, Understanding Analysis (Springer, 2015).
  70. T. Tao, Analysis II, 3rd ed., Texts and Readings in Mathematics, Vol. 38 (Springer, Singapore, 2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 11, 074701– Published 6 July, 2026
  • Received 9 July 2025
  • Accepted 10 June 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2026 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation