P. 1
Noise from Forced Mixers

Noise from Forced Mixers

|Views: 2|Likes:
Published by 4953049530
Correlating RANS Computed Mean Flow with Forced Mixed Jets
Correlating RANS Computed Mean Flow with Forced Mixed Jets

More info:

Categories:Types, Speeches
Published by: 4953049530 on May 12, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/04/2015

pdf

text

original

Noise from Forced Mixers

Funded by the Indiana 21
st

Century Research and
Technology Fund
Correlating RANS Computed
Mean Flow with Forced Mixed
Jets
C. Wright, G. Blaisdell, A. Lyrintzis

School of Aeronautics & Astronautics
Purdue University
Goals of Project
• The primary goal is to develop a greater
understanding of the how noise from
forced mixed jets may be correlated to the
RANS calculated mean flow field.
• The ultimate goal is to develop quantitative
correlations that could be used as input for
a semi-empirical model
Approaches
• Careful selection of numerical tools such as the
turbulence model and CFD code are very
important. Validation should concentrate on a
detailed comparison of flow contours rather than
integrated quantities.
• Grid development and validation should likewise
concentrate on the details of the flow.
• Qualitative trends and observations regarding
the relationship between noise data and CFD
results should be investigated before attempting
to quantify the results.


Internally Forced Mixed Jet
Bypass
Flow
Mixer
Core
Flow
Nozzle
Tail Cone
Exhaust
Flow
Exhaust / Ambient
Mixing Layer
Lobed Mixer
Mixing Layer
Forced Mixer
H
Lobe Penetration
(Lobe Height)
H:
3-D Mesh
WIND Code options
• 2
nd
order upwind scheme
• 1.7 million/7 million grid points
• 8-16 zones
• 8-16 LINUX processors
• Spalart-Allmaras/ SST turbulence model
• Wall functions
Grid Dependence
1.7 million grid points 7 million grid points
Density
Vorticity
Magnitude
Spalart-Allmaras and and Menter SST at
Nozzle Exit Plane
Spalart
SST
Density
Vorticity
Magnitude
Vorticity Magnitude at Nozzle Exit
(¼ Scale Geometry)
Low Penetration
Mid Penetration
High Penetration
Turbulent Kinetic Energy at Nozzle Exit
(¼ Scale Geometry)
Low Penetration Mid Penetration
High Penetration
High Penetration Mixer Flowfield
• Case is for a high throttle
setting at Mach 0.2
• Used Menter SST
Turbulence Model
• Good overall agreement
with experiment. TKE is a
little low for X/D = 1.0 and
X/D = 2.0. CFD results
tend to be overly sharp and
defined.
• CFD and experiment both
show a substantial amount
of interaction between the
free shear layer and the
streamwise vortices.
Medium Penetration Mixer Flowfield
• Case is for a high throttle
setting at Mach 0.2
• Used Menter SST
Turbulence Model
• The agreement between the
CFD and the experiment is
about the same as for the
high penetration case.
• The free shear layer and the
streamwise vortices exist as
separate and distinct flow
structures through at least
X/D = 1.0.
Experimental Results (1/4 Scale Model)
Experimental Results (1/4 Scale Model)
Current State of Project
• Finishing up CFD runs. Using WIND and Menter
SST turbulence model.
• Currently studying noise data along with RANS
results and PIV experiments (including low
penetration case not shown).
• Have identified some interesting trends, and are
preparing more CFD runs to finalize these
comparisons.
• Specifics of research is being published in a
paper for the AIAA Reno conference (Jan. 2004).
Development of a Semi-Empirical
Jet Noise Model for Forced Mixer
Noise Predictions

L. Garrison, Purdue University
W. Dalton, Rolls-Royce Indianapolis
A. Lyrintzis and G. Blaisdell
Purdue University
• Four-Source Model Comparisons
– Four-Source method implementation
– Predictions for the confluent mixer
• Two-Source Model
– Formulation
– Optimization procedure
– Optimized results for the 12 lobe mixers
– Optimized parameter correlations
Outline
Practical Configuration Geometry
Secondary Flow
Primary Flow
Flow Mixer
Nozzle Wall
Tail Cone
(Bullet)
Final Nozzle Exit
Dual Flow Configurations
• Four-Source method
developed for a
coplanar, coaxial jet

• The configuration for the
practical case has a
buried primary flow in a
convergent nozzle with a
center body (tail cone or
bullet)
• Based on an „Equivalent Coaxial Jet‟
– Approach developed by B. Tester and M.
Fisher
• Define primary and secondary jets at the
final nozzle exit plane
• Assumptions
– Isentropic flow in the nozzle
– Primary and secondary flows do not mix in the
nozzle
– Static pressure of the two flows at the exit
plane are equal
Single Jet Property Calculation
Single Jet Property Calculation
• Jet Areas at the Final Nozzle Exit
– Guess A
p
– Calculate A
s

– Calculate M
exit

– Calculate P
static

– Iterate until the primary and secondary static
pressures are equal
p n s
A A A ÷ =
( ) 1 2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
÷
+
÷
÷
(
¸
(

¸

+
+
=
¸
¸
¸
¸
cs
exit
exit
cs
cs
exit
M
M
M
M
A
A
1
2
2
1
1
÷
|
.
|

\
|
÷
+ =
¸
¸
¸
exit
static
o
M
P
P
J
Four-Source Method Implementation
• Primary and Secondary Jet Properties
– Calculated at the final nozzle exit

• Mixed Jet and Effective Jet Properties
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+ +
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
=
λβδ 1
λβ 1
T T
βδ λ 1
λβδ) λβ)(1 (1
D D
λβδ 1
βδ λ 1
V V
p m
2
1
2
p m
2
p m
p
s
p
s
p
s
ρ
ρ
δ
A
A
β
V
V
λ
=
=
=
( )
p e
1/2
2
p e
p e
T T
β λ 1 D D
V V
=
+ =
=
7 dB
e
÷ = A
Current Prediction Method Comparisons
• Four-Source / Single Jet / Experimental
Data Comparisons
– Confluent Mixer, Low Power Operating Point
– ARP876C Method used for all single jet
noise predictions
• Bass and Sutherland correction for atmospheric
attenuation
– Four-Source coaxial jet prediction
• Based on equivalent coaxial jet properties
– Single jet prediction
• Based on fully mixed flow at the final nozzle exit
Current Prediction Method Comparisons
Forced Mixer Experimental Data
• Four Mixer Configurations
– Confluent Mixer (CFM)
– Low Penetration 12 Lobe Mixer (12CL)
– Mid Penetration 12 Lobe Mixer (12UM)
– High Penetration 12 Lobe Mixer (12UH)
• Low Power Operating Point
H
Forced Mixer Experimental Data
• Objective:
– Match the experimental data SPL spectrum at all
angles and all frequencies using two single stream
jet sources.
• Formulation:


s s s s 1 s 0 U
SPL ( , ) SPL(V ,T ,D , , ) 10lo B g ( d F , )
c
f f f f u u = + + A
Single Jet
Prediction
Source
Strength
Spectral
Filter
Variable Parameters:
m m m m 1 m 0 D
SPL ( , ) SPL(V ,T ,D , , ) 10lo B g ( d F , )
c
f f f f u u = + + A
s m
Spectral Filter Cut-off Frequency
, Source Strengt ΔdB Δ hs ) d B B (d
c
f
Two-Source Model
Two-Source Model
AdB
AdB
Af
c
Af
c
• Variable Parameters

1/3 Octave Band Number 1/3 Octave Band Number
1
/
3

O
c
t
a
v
e

S
P
L

[
d
B
]

1
/
3

O
c
t
a
v
e

S
P
L

[
d
B
]

Effects of Variations in AdB Effects of Variations in f
c
• Optimization Procedure
– For a given geometry and operating condition,
optimize the source strength parameters
(Adb
s
, Adb
m
) for a range of cut-off frequencies

– Find the set of optimized parameters that
minimize the prediction error for all operating
conditions

– Correlate the final set of parameters to the
changes in the mixer design
Two-Source Model Optimization
• Optimization Challenges
– Optimum Criterion
• Maximum Error
• Average Error
• Weighted Error
– Solution Non-Uniqueness
– Local Minima
– Non-Linear Behavior
• Optimization Tools
– Nonlinear Least Squares
• MATLAB: lsqnonlin (Levenberg–Marquadt Optimization
Method )
Two-Source Model Optimization
Two-Source Model Optimization
15 Microphone locations (90 º to 160 º in 5º increments)
1 Sound Pressure Level (SPL) spectrum per microphone
27 Frequency Bands per spectrum (1/3 Octave Bands)

405 SPL values per data point
Microphone Locations
Jet
80
observer
J
r
D
~
Two-Source Model Optimization
• Optimum Criterion
– Based on a „OASPL type‟ weighting
– At each observer angle:



– Weighted error values:
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) exp exp
max
0.1 SPL , SPL ,
, 10
i i
f f
w i
E f
u u
u
( ÷
¸ ¸
=
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
, , , ,
w exp pred
Error f E f SPL f SPL f u u u u ( = ÷
¸ ¸
Two-Source Model Results
• Test Case
– Low Penetration Mixer
– Low Power Operating Point
• Two-Source Model
– Upstream Source: Secondary Jet
– Downstream Source: Mixed Jet
Prediction
Method
Maximum
Error [dB]
Average
Error [dB]
Weighted
Error [dB]
Four-Source 13.18 2.56 0.41
Single Jet 12.02 2.53 0.64
Two-Source 8.35 1.29 0.36
Optimized Two-Source Results
Optimized Two-Source Results
• Current jet noise predictions do not
accurately model the noise from jets with
internal forced mixers
• Forced mixer jet noise can be modeled by
a combination of two single jet sources
• Optimized Two-Source model source
strengths and cut-off Strouhal numbers
appear to correlate linearly with the
amount of lobe penetration
Summary
• Fisher, M.J., Preston, G.A., and Bryce, W.D., “A Modelling of the
Noise from Simple Coaxial Jets Part I: With Unheated Primary
Flow,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 209(3):385-403, 1998
• Fisher, M.J., Preston, G.A., and Mead, C.J., “A Modelling of the
Noise from Simple Coaxial Jets Part II: With Heated Primary Flow,”
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 209(3):405-417, 1998
• “ARP87C: Gas Turbine Jet Exhaust Noise Prediction,” Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc., November, 1985.
• Bass, H.E., Sutherland, L.C., Zuckerwar, A.J., Blackstone, D.T., and
Hester, D.M., “Atmospheric Absorption of Sound: Further
Developments,” Journal of the Acoustical Society America,
97(1):680-683, 1995

References
Two-Source Model Optimization
SPL
exp
- SPL
pred
SPL
exp
– SPL
exp
max

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->