You are on page 1of 8

APPLICATION OF FFOWCS WILLIAMS AND HAWKINGS EQUATION

TO SOUND RADIATION BY VIBRATING SOLID OBJECTS IN A

VISCOUS FLUID: INCONSISTENCIES AND THE CORRECT SOLUTION.

Alex Zinoviev

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
1 INTRODUCTION
The ability to predict the amplitude of a sound wave radiated by a solid object in a fluid flow is
one of the most significant goals in aeroacoustics. Lighthill
1
made an important step in achieving
this goal in 1952, when he developed a theory, which determines that sound radiated by turbulent
flow in a fluid without solid boundaries has quadrupole characteristics. Shortly afterwards, Curle
2

extended Lighthills theory to a flow where immoveable solid objects are present. According to
Curle, a sound wave radiated by a flow in the presence of a solid object is the sum of the
Lighthills quadrupole sound and an acoustic wave generated by the distribution of dipole
acoustic sources over the surface of the object. Curle also showed that the strength of the dipole
sources is proportional to the total force per unit area on the surface. Curles equation can be
simplified for an acoustically small object, for which the amplitude of the radiated sound wave is
proportional to the total force acting upon the flow from the object.

Many practical approaches to the sound radiation problem are based on an equation derived by
Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings
3
. This equation is more general than Curles equation and
describes flow around a solid object, which moves at an arbitrary speed. Unlike Curles equation,
Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FWH) equation contains a monopole term, which depends on
the velocity of the object with respect to a stationary observer. At the same time, the main
conlusion of Curle about the dipole characteristics of the radiated sound remains unchanged in
the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings theory, and for an immoveable object the FWH equation
reduces to Curles equation.

However, despite being widely accepted, the Curle Ffowcs Williams Hawkings theory has
never been reliably verified by experiments. Earlier attempts
4,5
showed discrepancies of a few dB
between experimental data and theoretical predictions, which was attributed to imperfectness in
carrying out the experiments. On the other hand, two recent experiments
6,7
demonstrated that
experimental dependence of the total radiated sound power on the flow speed has a different
slope compared with the dependence predicted by Curles equation. Differences in slopes were
Acoustics 2002 - Innovation in Acoustics and Vibration
Annual Conference of the Australian Acoustical Society
13-15 November 2002, Adelaide, Australia
ISBN 0-909882-19-3 2002 AAS 364
observed for various sets of experimental parameters, thus making it unlikely that the discrepancy
was simply a lack of experimental accuracy.

To explain the observed discrepancy, the author and his co-author carried out a detailed analysis
of Curles equation
8
. The analysis showed that in Curles calculations the contribution of the
discontinuity of hydrodynamic stresses on the rigid surface to the radiated sound has been
erroneously omitted. By taking this discontinuity into proper consideration, an alternative
equation was obtained, which differs from Curles equation in two important aspects. First, the
strength of the dipole sources on the surface on the object depends on the acoustic component of
pressure rather than on the total pressure. Second, contrary to Curles equation, the obtained
equation contains a monopole term, for which the strength is determined by the relative motion
of the object and the fluid.

To demonstrate the difference between the two equations, they were applied to two well-known
problems of sound scattering and radiation by a rigid sphere. It was shown that Curles equation
gives predictions, which are in disagreement with results known from the literature, whereas
predictions given by the obtained equation coincide with the known results.

In the present work a detailed reconsideration is given to the more general FWH equation. It is
shown, that the algorithm used for obtaining this equation, in fact leads to an equation, which
coincides with the equation derived by in reference
8
. Difference between the obtained equations
and the FWH equation is demonstrated by an example of a thin plate vibrating in its own plane in
a fluid. New methodologies of active noise control, which can be based on the obtained equation,
are briefly discussed.
Acoustics 2002 - Innovation in Acoustics and Vibration
ISBN 0-909882-19-3 2002 AAS 365
2 DERIVATION OF AN EQUATION FOR THE RADIATED SOUND AMPLITUDE
To obtain an equation for the amplitude of a sound
wave, radiated from a moving body in a fluid flow,
an analytical approach is utilised here, which is
analogous to the approach used by Ffowcs
Williams and Hawkings
3
. A fixed volume of fluid,
V, enclosed by a surface, , is considered (see
Figure 1). The volume V is divided into regions 1
and 2 by a closed surface of discontinuity, S,
moving into region 2 with velocity, v. The velocity
of the fluid is represented by u. The outward
normal from V is l, and normal to S directed from
region 1 to region 2 is n. The subscripts 1 and 2
refer to the two regions, and an overbar implies
that the variable is regarded as a generalised
function valid throughout V.

If denotes the fluid density, the mass conservation law for the volume V can be formulated as
follows:
( ) ( ) ( )
2 1
,
i i i i i i i i
V S S
dV u l d u v n dS u v n dS
t

+ 1 1
] ]

(1)
1, 2, 3. i
By means of the divergence theorem, the integral over the closed surface can be represented as
a volume integral over V, and equation (1) takes the following form:
( ) ( ) ( )
2 1
.
i i i i i i i
V S S
i
u dV u v n dS u v n dS
t x

_
+ 1 1
] ]

,

(2)

It is necessary to emphasize that, for obtaining equation (2), no assumptions have been made
about the composition of the momentum field u. Generally, however, this field can be separated
into a potential, ( )
pot
u , and a solenoidal, ( )
sol
u , components which can each be represented
respectively as
( ) ( ) , ,
pot sol
u u A (3)
where and A are the scalar and vector potentials respectively.

Potential and solenoidal fields can be also understood using the concept of streamlines
9
. These
are lines such that the tangent to a streamline in any point gives the direction of the velocity at
this point. According to equations (3), curl of the potential component is zero and, therefore, its
integral over a closed contour is zero as well. Consequently, the streamlines for the potential
component cannot be closed and must have the beginning and the end at acoustic sources or in
infinity. Conversely, for the solenoidal component the divergence is zero, the integral over a
Figure 1.
S
n
V

l
1 2
v
Acoustics 2002 - Innovation in Acoustics and Vibration
ISBN 0-909882-19-3 2002 AAS 366
closed contour is not zero and, consequently, the streamlines for the solenoidal component are
closed lines.

As the solenoidal component is a curl of a vector, its flux through the closed surface S is zero.
Consequently, equation (2) is ambiguous with respect to the field u; it is valid not only for the
total field u, but also for the potential component of the field, ( )
pot
u . This ambiguity becomes
important at the next step of derivation.

The authors of reference
3
concluded that expressions under the integral in equation (2) can be
made equal for every point of volume V, leading to the following equation:
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
2 1
,
i i i i i i
i
u u v u v l S
t x

+ 1 1
] ]

(4)
where
( )
( )
s
S r r is a three-dimensional delta-function, and
s
r is a radius vector of a point
belonging to the surface S. However, it can be proven that equation (4) is valid only for the
potential component, ( )
pot
u , and cannot include the solenoidal component, ( )
sol
u . On the one
hand, the solenoidal component, the second term in the left-hand part of equation (2), which is
the divergence of the vector ( )
sol
u , is zero at every point of the volume V. On the other hand,
the expression in the right-hand part is zero under the integral only and may differ from zero at
different points of the surface S. Therefore, equation (4) should be, in fact, written as
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
2 1
,
pot pot
i i i i i i
i
u u v u v l S
t x

1 1
+
] ]

(5)

If region 1 is an absolutely rigid body, the following boundary conditions are satisfied
3
:

1 1
0 ,
pot sol
i i i i
u l u l 1 1
] ]
(6)
[ ] [ ]
0 0
1 1
, , p p (7)

2
,
pot sol
i i i i i
u u l v l 1 +
]
(8)
where
0
and
0
p are the fluid density and pressure in the state of equilibrium. With the use of
equations (6), (7) and (8), equation (5) takes the following form:
( ) [ ] ( )
( )
2
0
2 1 2
.
sol
i i i i
i
u u v l S
t x

1 + + 1
] ]

(9)

Let the analysis be restricted to a linear approximation, for which fluctuations of density and
velocity are small. In this case the following conditions are satisfied:

0 0
, << (10)

0 0
, ,
pot sol
c c << << u u (11)
where
0
c is the sound speed in the fluid. Taking account of equations (10) and (11) and dropping
the index 2, equation (9) is reduced to the following equation:
( )
( )
0
,
pot
i i i
i
u u l S
t x

+

(12)
Acoustics 2002 - Innovation in Acoustics and Vibration
ISBN 0-909882-19-3 2002 AAS 367
which is a generalised equation of continuity.

An equation, representing the momentum conservation law, for the case under consideration
takes the following form:

( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
2 1
,
i i j ij
V
j
ij i j j ij i j j j
S
u u u p dV
t x
p u u v p u u v l dS

_
+ +

,
+ + 1 1
] ]

(13)
, 1, 2, 3, i j
where a compressive stress tensor,
ij
p , is determined by
9
:

2
,
3
j
i k
ij ij ij
j i k
u
u u
p p
x x x

_

+ +

,
(14)
and is the viscosity of the fluid.

By means of an argument analogous to the argument used in the derivation of equation (12), it
can be proven that equation (13) must include only the potential component of the tensor
ij
p , if
equation (13) is written for every point of volume V. Thus, neglecting the nonlinear terms in the
right-hand part, equation (13) can be reduced to the following:
( ) ( )
[ ] [ ] ( )
( )
2 1
.
i i j ij j
j
u u u p p p l S
t x

+ +

(15)
With the use of equation (7), equation (15) takes the following form:
( )
( )
( )
( )
0
,
i i j ij i
j
u u u p p p l S
t x

+ +

(16)
which represents a generalised momentum equation.

Excluding
i
u from equations (12) and (16), one can obtain the following inhomogeneous wave
equation:

( )
( )
( )
( )
2
2 2
2
0 0 2 2
,
ij pot
i i i
i i j i
T
c pl S u l S
t x x x x t

_
+

,
(17)
where
ij
T is Lighthills stress tensor, determined by

2
0
,
ij i j ij ij
T u u p c + (18)
and and p are understood as perturbations of the density and the pressure from the state of
equilibrium. The solution of equation (17) can be written as the following integral equation:
( )
[ ]
( ) ( )
2
2
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4 ,
pot
ij
i
i i
V S S
i j i
T
u p
c dV l dS l dS
x x x t

1 1

] ]
+

r r r
r r r r r r
(19)
where r is the observation point, r
0
is the source point, and the quantities in square brackets are
taken at retarded times,
0 0
t c r r . Equation (19) represents the contribution of the present
paper.
Acoustics 2002 - Innovation in Acoustics and Vibration
ISBN 0-909882-19-3 2002 AAS 368
3 COMPARISON OF THE OBTAINED EQUATION WITH FFOWCS WILLIAMS
AND HAWKINGS EQUATION
Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FWH) equation in its integral form without nonlinear terms
takes the following form
10
:
( ) ( )
[ ]
( )
2
2
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4 .
ij ij
i
i i
V S S
i j i
T p
v
c dV l dS l dS
x x x t

1 1

] ]
+

r r r
r r r r r r
(20)
Comparison of the obtained equation (19) and the FWH equation (20) shows, that both equations
include identical volume integrals, which determine Lighthills quadrupole sound generated by
turbulence in the volume V. At the same time the second and the third terms in the right-hand
parts of both equations differ. The third term, which determines sound generated by a layer of
monopoles on the surface S, is discussed in detail in reference
8
. However, it may be noted briefly
that equation (20) cannot describe a simple reflection of sound from an immoveable object. The
incident sound wave would have a non-zero normal component on the surface S, which, due to
boundary conditions on an immoveable surface, must be cancelled by the velocity in the reflected
wave. On the one hand, this situation is described perfectly by equation (19), where the strength
of the monopole sources is proportional to the normal velocity in the scattered wave, which is
equal to the normal velocity in the incident wave with opposite sign. On the other hand, in the
FWH equation (20) the third term vanishes at the immoveable surface, and there will be no
monopole sources at all.

An example
8
demonstrates, that without the monopole term it is not possible to determine
correctly the amplitude of the reflected sound. Consider a situation where the solid object is a
sphere of radius, R , the volume containing turbulence is small, and its distance from the sphere
is large in comparison with the acoustic wavelength. In these circumstances, the sound radiated
by the quadrupole sources can be considered as a plane wave near the sphere, and the problem
under consideration reduces to the problem of a plane wave scattering. It is well-known
9
, that a
monopole component will be present in the sound field scattered by the sphere. Obviously,
equation (20) cannot describe the monopole component, as the lowest multipole in this equation
is the dipole. On the contrary, for the reasons mentioned above, the third term in equation (19),
which describes the monopole component, is different from zero.

The second term in equations (19) and (20) determines the amplitude of sound radiated by a layer
of dipoles on the surface S. However, the strength of the dipole sources differs in both equations.
In the FWH equation (20) the strength is determined by the compressive stress tensor in its
general form as defined in equation (14), while in the obtained equation (19) only the acoustic
pressure is essential.

The difference between the dipole terms in both equations can be demonstrated by the following
example. Let the surface S be the surface of a thin rigid plate, vibrating in its own plane in a
viscous fluid. If all plate dimensions are much smaller than the acoustic wavelength, the surface
integral in the FWH equation (20) can be simplified, so that the dipole sound amplitude will be
proportional to the total force acting upon the fluid from the object. Due to the viscosity of the
fluid there will be force acting upon the plate in the direction parallel to the plate. Therefore,
Acoustics 2002 - Innovation in Acoustics and Vibration
ISBN 0-909882-19-3 2002 AAS 369
according to the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings theory, such a plate will be a source of dipole
radiation with the dipole moment parallel to the plate.

On the contrary, according to the obtained equation (19), there will be no radiation from the
surface of the plate, because such motion of the plate cannot cause pressure fluctuations
9
. Solving
the boundary value problem directly can prove the absence of the acoustic radiation from such a
plate. Indeed, in the absence of external pressure and velocity fields the radiated sound field must
satisfy the condition of zero normal velocity on the surface of the plate that, in turn, leads to the
absence of sound radiation from the plate.

It is to be noted, that the volume of the fluid, surrounding the plate, will still radiate sound waves.
These sound waves, however, are caused by the diffusion of vorticity to the fluid
9
and described
by Lighthills quadrupole term rather than by the surface integrals in equations (19) and (20).

It is also important to note that the FWH equation (20) and the obtained equation (19) can give
identical results in some cases. However, this coincidence can be shown to be purely accidental.
For example, a known formula for the amplitude of sound radiated by a transversely oscillating
sphere in a viscous fluid can be obtained on the basis of the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings
equation
11
. At the same time it can be shown that the obtained equation results in the same
formula. Analysis shows that the predictions of both formulas coincide only due to the spherical
symmetry of the object and, therefore, the coincidence is fortuitous.

The obtained equation (19) also can be compared with the equation derived in reference
8
. Such
comparison shows that both equations coincide, although they have been derived for a moving
and immoveable object respectively. This can be explained by the fact that, at least in the linear
approximation, only the normal component of the velocity of the radiated acoustic wave is
included directly into the equations, while the velocity of the object is taken into account in the
boundary conditions.
4 IMPLICATIONS OF THE OBTAINED EQUATION FOR NOISE CONTROL
The Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings equation includes two terms related to the sound generation
by a surface, but control of noise generation can be based only on one of them, which is
proportional to the stress tensor. Therefore, the FWH equation allows only one strategy in noise
control, namely, to minimise the force acting upon the surface from the flow. This also makes a
study of the flow structure near the surface unimportant for the purpose of noise control.

Conversely, the obtained equation (19) has two terms determining sound radiation by a surface
even for an immoveable object. This leads to a possibility to minimise aerodynamic noise
radiation by developing strategies, which would utilise mutual cancellation of both terms in far
field. In addition, knowledge of the velocity field near the radiating surface becomes significant
for effective noise control.
Acoustics 2002 - Innovation in Acoustics and Vibration
ISBN 0-909882-19-3 2002 AAS 370
5 CONCLUSIONS
In the present paper an equation has been derived, which determines the amplitude of the sound
wave generated by a moving rigid object in a fluid flow. The argument used in the derivation is
analogous to the argument used in the derivation of the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FWH)
equation. It is shown that if the velocity and pressure fields in the fluid are represented as a sum
of potential and solenoidal parts, the obtained equation includes only the potential parts of the
fields.

The difference between the obtained equation and the FWH equation is demonstrated by the
example of sound radiation by a thin plate vibrating in its own plane in a viscous fluid. It is
shown that the FWH equation leads to the prediction of dipole radiation with the dipole moment
parallel to the plate, while the obtained equation predicts the absence of such radiation, which can
be also proven by direct solution of the boundary value problem.

Implications of the obtained equation for active noise control are discussed. It is shown that the
equation allows new strategies of noise control, based on mutual cancellation of dipole and
monopole terms in the far field.
REFERENCES
1. M.J.Lighthill, 1952, On sound generated aerodynamically, Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 211, 564
586.
2. N.Curle, 1955, The influence of solid boundaries upon aerodynamic sound, Proc. Roy. Soc. A
231, 505 514.
3. J.E.Ffowcs Williams and D.L. Hawkings, 1969, Sound generation by turbulence and surfaces
in arbitrary motion, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (London) Ser. A, 264, 321 342.
4. P.J.F. Clark and H.S.Ribner, 1969, Direct Correlation of Fluctuating Lift with Radiated
Sound for an Airfoil in Turbulent Flow, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 46, 802 805.
5. H.H.Heller and S.E.Widnall, 1970, Sound Radiation from Rigid Flow Spoilers Correlated
with Fluctuating Forces, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 47, 924 936.
6. D.A.Bies, J.M.Pickles and D.J.J.Leclercq, 1997, Aerodynamic noise generation by a
stationary body in a turbulent air stream, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 204, 631 643.
7. D.J.J.Leclercq and M.K.Symes, 2002, Dense compact rigid object in a turbulent flow:
Application of Curle's theory, 8th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 17-19 June 2002,
Breckenridge CO, USA.
8. A.Zinoviev and D.A.Bies, On acoustic radiation by a rigid object in a fluid flow, submitted to
Journal of Sound and Vibrations.
9. L.D.Landau and E.M.Lifshitz, 1959, Fluid Mechanics. Volume 6 of Course of Theoretical
Physics, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
10. M.S.Howe, 1998, Acoustics of fluid-structure interactions, Cambridge University Press.
11. A.D.Pierce, 1989, Acoustics: An Introduction to Its Physical Principles and Applications,
New York: Acoustical Society of America.
Acoustics 2002 - Innovation in Acoustics and Vibration
ISBN 0-909882-19-3 2002 AAS 371