You are on page 1of 10

A 3D LINEARIZED METHOD FOR TURBOMACHINERY TONE

NOISE ANALYSIS WITH 3D NON-REFLECTING BOUNDARY


CONDITIONS

F. Poli - A. Arnone - C. Schipani


Sergio Stecco Department of Energy Engineering, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
Francesco.Poli@arnone.de.unifi.it
Andrea.Arnone@unifi.it
R&D, Avio Group, Rivalta di Torino, Italy
Claudia.Schipani@aviogroup.com

ABSTRACT
A time-linearized aeroelastic solver was developed and then modified to deal with incoming
perturbations due to unsteady interactions with upstream/downstream rows, in order to investi-
gate tone noise generation and propagation for aeroacoustic analysis. Such a three-dimensional
method is presented, with special emphasis on three-dimensional non-reflecting boundary con-
ditions, accounting for 3D radial modes on a sheared mean flow with swirl. Some test results
are presented and compared with numerical data available in the literature.

NOMENCLATURE
B,V number of rotor and stator blades Greek:
~c absolute velocity radial order
F x,y,z three-dimensional flux functions density
F x,,r cylindrical flux functions interblade phase angle (IBPA)
G angular pitch radian frequency
I identity matrix rotational speed
j imaginary unit ( j2 = 1) Subscripts and undersigns:
kx axial wave number A acoustic wave
`, m circumferential order C convected wave
MT tangential Mach number b block version of a matrix
n harmonic order matrix quantities
p pressure perturbation of quantities
Q source term column Superscripts and oversigns:
q, k circumferential scattering index bq Fourier coefficient number q
t time coordinate phasors of time-sinusoidal quantities
0
U radial mode shape instantaneous (time-domain) quantities
H conjugate transpose of a matrix
U conservative variable column

V complementary eigenvector upstream running
+ downstream running
~v relative (to the bladerow) velocity
~Vg group velocity L left eigenvector
R right eigenvector
x, , r cylindrical coordinates
x, y, z orthogonal Cartesian coordinates ~ vector quantities

INTRODUCTION
In the long way toward the optimum aircraft engine, increasing performance, efficiency and
reliability, while lowering maintenance costs, has been the main goal of the aeronautical industry for

1
a long time. In the last decades, greater attention started to be paid to aeroelastic and aeroacoustic
phenomena. A modern trend to abate polluting emissions from aeronautical engines is to reduce en-
gine weight, so that a lower fuel consumption is needed. This goal is often achieved by decreasing
the number of mechanical parts and by adopting thin and highly loaded blades. This approach signif-
icantly increases the relevance of aerodynamically induced vibration phenomena, flutter and forced
response, which can result in blade high-cycle fatigue failures. Predicting and avoiding aeroelastic
vibrations has thus become a primary objective in aero-engine design. On the other hand, the pre-
dicted increase of air traffic in the near future will cause an increase of perceived noise in populated
areas near airports; excessive noise impairs peoples health and life quality, thus mandating stricter
and stricter regulatory requirements on noise emissions from aircrafts and pushing aeronautical in-
dustries to put considerably more efforts in improving the aeroacoustic design of aircraft components.
Turbomachinery tone noise, which is of interest here, is one of several aircraft noise sources.
Traditional numerical approaches to both aeroelastic and aeroacoustic analysis were based on
classical linear methods developed in the 1970s and 1980s (Verdon (1987), Whitehead (1987)). Since
the 1990s, new time-linearized methods have been developed, capable of accounting for real blade
geometries and non uniform mean flow (Hall and Clark (1993), Hall and Lorence (1993), Chassaing
and Gerolymos (2000), Kennepohl et al. (2001), Campobasso and Giles (2003)). More recently, non
linear methods made it possible to include non linear effects into aeroelastic and aeroacoustic analysis.
However these methods are computationally expensive and dont seem to be fully ready for everyday
industrial design. A survey of aeroelastic and aeroacoustic methods may be found in Verdon (1993).
In this framework, a research project on turbomachinery Computational Aeroelasticity (CA) and
Computational AeroAcoustics (CAA) is being carried out at the Sergio Stecco Department of En-
ergy Engineering; this long-term research effort started back in 2001 and is funded by Avio Group.
In this context, an aeroelastic solver, named Lars (Poli et al. (2006)), was developed: it was designed
to work together with the Traf steady/unsteady aerodynamic solver, see Arnone (1994). Then, Lars
was modified to investigate tone noise generation and propagation for aeroacoustic analysis. Aim of
this paper is to present such a three-dimensional method, with special emphasis on three-dimensional
non-reflecting boundary conditions.
Three-dimensional boundary conditions are based on radial mode decomposition. The problem of
determining the shape of the waves, i.e. radial modes, that may be present in a cylindrical or annular
duct with a given mean flow is not a trivial one. If we assume ideal gas and inviscid behavior, the
problem may be solved analytically with the additional hypotheses of uniform and axial mean flow
(so-called Tyler-Sofrin hypotheses: Tyler and Sofrin (1962)). Unfortunately, Tyler-Sofrin hypotheses
seem to be too restrictive for typical low pressure turbine (LPT) applications, which are characterized
by very closely spaced rows and highly 3D flows. As soon as we remove these hypotheses, thus
considering a mean flow with shear and/or swirl, the problem can no longer be solved analytically in
the general case, and must be processed numerically. Several numerical methods have been proposed
for the radial mode decomposition in sheared swirling flows (Atassi (2003), Kousen (1999), Vilenski
and Rienstra (2005), Moinier and Giles (2005), Moinier et al. (2007), . . . ); the one adopted here
(Montgomery and Verdon (1997)) will be discussed and implemented. Some validation results will
be presented; applications to LPT rows are part of on-going activities.

NUMERICAL METHOD
Linearized Method
The implemented method is time-linearized: incoming perturbations from upstream or down-
stream rows are split into harmonic waves, in both time and circumferential coordinate, and into
radial modes. Each selected mode is characterized by the values of the radian frequency and the
interblade phase angle , as well as by its amplitude and phase; such mode is considered as a small

2
perturbation to be imposed at the inlet or outlet boundary.
The governing equation for the fluid motion, Euler, thin shear layer or Navier-Stokes, is:

U 0 F 0x F 0y F 0z
+ + + = Q0 (1)
t x y z
Conservative variables are written as a sum of their mean values and their small time-sinusoidal
perturbations:

U 0 = U + e[U e j t ] (2)

By substituting expression (2) in equation (1), and splitting finite terms from infinitesimal ones, two
governing equations are obtained: one for the mean conservative variables, and one for their pertur-
bations. The former equation is identical to that for the steady fluid motion: the mean solution is thus
computed by a CFD solver capable of steady calculations, such as Traf. The latter is linearized and
solved by an appropriate frequency domain solver, such as Lars.

Solver Implementation
The Traf code is a three-dimensional steady/unsteady viscous solver for the aerodynamic analysis
of turbomachinery flows developed at the Sergio Stecco Department of Energy Engineering. A
detailed description of the numerical method used by Traf may be found in Arnone et al. (1993), and
Arnone (1994).
Starting from Traf, a linearized aeroelastic solver dedicated to flutter analysis has been derived,
named Lars (time-Linearized Aeroelastic Response Solver). The Lars code (Arnone et al. (2003),
Poli (2004), Poli et al. (2006)) shares basically the same numerical scheme adopted for Traf. As ex-
plained above, Lars computes the solution perturbation U by solving fluid motion equations, Euler,
thin shear layer or Navier-Stokes, that have been time-linearized around a steady solution. This steady
solution represents the mean flow and is computed by Traf in steady mode. As far as flutter analysis
is concerned, the flow perturbation computed by Lars is due to blade vibrations, imposed through
an appropriate mesh perturbation. In order to employ Lars for aeroacoustic tone noise analysis, the
code was modified to allow the imposition of incoming waves from upstream/downstream rows at in-
let/outlet boundaries: thus, in tone noise calculations, the flow perturbation is due to incoming waves,
rather than to blade vibrations (Boncinelli et al. (2006)). The artificial dissipation model implemented
in Lars is derived from the one adopted for Traf by freezing its coefficients and linearizing it; both
scalar and matrix dissipation models were implemented, the latter being particularly important for
aeroacoustic analysis accuracy (Boncinelli et al. (2006)).

Boundary Conditions for Aeroacoustic Analysis


Two types of non-reflecting boundary conditions may be employed for aeroacoustic analysis with
Lars: two-dimensional (more precisely quasi-three-dimensional) conditions and three-dimensional
radial mode based conditions. Both are based on the characterization of boundary-crossing waves
and on the constraint that outgoing waves must be allowed to pass, while incoming ones have to be
suppressed or assigned as imposed modes.

Two-Dimensional Boundary Conditions


Two-dimensional boundary conditions are based on the exact 2D single-frequency unsteady non-
reflecting boundary conditions of Giles (Giles (1988), Giles (1990)).
These conditions are applied to each spanwise layer of the three-dimensional domain in a strip-
wise fashion, thus becoming quasi-three-dimensional boundary conditions (Saxer and Giles (1993)).

3
The modifications for aeroacoustic analysis are similar to the ones that were applied to two-dimensional
boundary conditions in the Quasi-3D variant of Lars (Boncinelli et al. (2006)).

Radial Modes for Three-Dimensional Boundary Conditions


Three-dimensional boundary conditions are based on radial mode decomposition in sheared swirling
flows. The adopted numerical method (Montgomery and Verdon (1997)) works as follows.
The Euler equation in cylindrical coordinates is:
U 0 1 (rF 0x ) 1 F 0 1 (rF 0r ) 1
+ + + = Q0 (3)
t r x r r r r
Equation (3) may be time-linearized around a steady solution, by substituting expression (2) and
splitting finite terms from infinitesimal ones. The mean flow equation is simplified into:
dp
= c2 (4)
dr r
by assuming a negligible mean radial velocity and that mean flow variables only depend on r. The
flow perturbation equation, in frequency domain, is:

1 rAU 1 U U
j U + + B +C DU = 0 (5)
r r r x
where A, B,C, D are appropriate matrices:

F r F F x 1 Q
A = B = C = D = (6)
U U U r U
Solutions of the following form are searched for:
2q +
U = U e j (kx x+` ) U = U (r) kx = kx (r) ` = qZ (7)
G
where U is the radial mode shape and the circumferential order ` is such that interblade phase angle
periodicity is satisfied.
A first category of solutions consists of purely convected ones: they propagate with the mean flow.
Their axial wave number is a well-defined function of r:
+ (`/r) v
kx = (8)
vx
and their radial shape is arbitrary, within some constraints.
A second category of solutions consists of constant axial wave number waves: they must satisfy
equation (5) with a constant value for kx , that is to say
1 (rA U ) `
jU + + j B U + j kx C U D U = 0 (9)
r r r
Equation (9) is discretized from hub to tip on a radial one-dimensional mesh:
`
(P j kx Cb ) U R = 0 P = j I L (r, A) j Bb + Db + 4 4 (10)
r
where U R is the column obtained by concatenating all discrete values of U on radial mesh points,
Bb ,Cb , Db are the block versions of the corresponding matrices (each block is the value on the original

4
matrix on a different mesh point), and L (r, A) is the finite difference operator that discretizes 1r (rArU )
on the radial mesh. Finally, 4 4 introduces a fourth-order artificial dissipation to suppress odd-even
decoupling.
For each value of q, and hence of `, equation (10), together with the hub and tip boundary condi-
tions that impose a zero radial velocity perturbation, is a complex generalized eigenvalue problem
which may be solved with linear algebra techniques (e.g.: by using LAPACK libraries, Anderson
et al. (1999)), thus determining the eigenvalues kq , = 0, 1, 2, . . . and the corresponding right eigen-
vectors U Rq . Left eigenvectors U Lq may also be determined and the following complementary left
eigenvectors can be computed:
H 1 H
V Lq = H
U Lq Cb (11)
U Lq Cb U Rq


It may be proved that complementary left eigenvectors have the following interesting property:
(
H 0 if 6=
< V Lq , U Rq > = V Lq U Rq =

(12)
1 if =

Among the various determined radial modes, some are downstream running, while the other ones are
upstream running: a wave is downstream running if m[kx ] > 0 or if m[kx ] = 0 and the axial group
velocity is positive:

< U Lq , Cb U Rq >
Vgx = = > 0 (13)
kx < U Lq , U Rq >

When Tyler-Sofrin hypotheses are satisfied, possible solutions are classified into pure entropy
waves, pure vorticity waves (both of them purely convected downstream) and pure pressure waves
(downstream or upstream running irrotational perturbations). In the more general case under con-
sideration here, things are more complicated: since we are neglecting viscous effects, purely con-
vected entropy waves still exist, first category of solutions; but the second category of solutions is
divided into the two sub-categories of vorticity-dominated nearly-convected waves (downstream run-
ning with no attenuation, having non-zero pressure fluctuations) and of pressure-dominated acoustic
waves (downstream or upstream running, with or without attenuation, having non-zero vorticity fluc-
tuations). Every possible flow perturbation is a superposition of waves belonging to the above three
classes.
The eigenvalue problem numerical solution procedure generates physically correct radial modes
up to a given radial order, but also a number of spurious modes, which satisfy the discretized prob-
lem without being discretizations of solutions of the analytical problem. These spurious modes
are unwanted and are filtered out; the main criterion adopted here is based on the number of zero-
crossings of the pressure or velocity perturbation of the mode: discarding any mode with too many
zero-crossings is an effective way to filter out all spurious modes, even though some high-order
correct modes are also dropped.

Three-Dimensional Boundary Condition Implementation


As previously stated, non-reflecting boundary conditions must allow outgoing perturbations to
pass, while suppressing or assigning incoming ones. Outgoing perturbations are therefore computed
from the solution on real cells next to the inlet or outlet boundary; imposed incoming perturbations
are possibly added; the result is the whole set of perturbations that must be present on the boundary
phantom cells, from which the solution to be assigned to phantom cells is recomputed.

5
Since the numerical determination of vorticity-dominated radial modes is difficult, the following
approximation is introduced (Verdon et al. (1999)): vorticity-dominated waves, which are nearly
convected, are lumped together with entropy waves and both are considered as exactly convected. As
a consequence, waves are split into two categories: convected ones, which are always downstream
running and unattenuated, and acoustic ones, which can be downstream or upstream running, cut-on
or cut-off.
Given the solution, in cylindrical components, on real cells next to the inlet or outlet boundary, a
Fourier coefficient is computed by integration for each value of q:
qmax
c = 1
Z +G
j` c e j`
U q U e d U = U q (14)
G q=qmin

This Fourier coefficient will be the sum of downstream and upstream running acoustic waves and of
downstream running convected waves:
max  
j kA+ q x j kA q x
c =
U q q U A+ q e
a+ R
+ a
q U A q e
R
+ U Cq e j kCq x (15)
=0

Assuming, as an approximation, that acoustic complementary left eigenvectors V LA q are orthogonal


to convected waves, we can exploit property (12) to compute each acoustic complex amplitude:
j kA q x
a
q e = < V LA q , U
c >
q (16)

Convected waves U Cq e j kCq x may be computed by subtracting all acoustic waves from U c .
q
Once all waves have been computed, outgoing ones are left unaltered, while imposed values, zero or
otherwise, are assigned to incoming ones; then, equation (15) is used to compute U c on phantom
q
cells, and the right-hand side equation (14) is used to obtain the solution to be assigned to phantom
cells.

TEST RESULTS
A number of tests were performed in order to validate Lars for aeroacoustic analysis. The ones
presented here are based on the 3rd CAA Workshop Cat. 4 benchmark problem (Dahl (2000), Namba
and Schulten (2000)). In the full annulus case of this problem, a stator row of V = 24 unstaggered
flat plates having 0.5 hub-to-tip radius ratio, with a uniform axial mean flow (Mach number = 0.5),
is subject to a vortical wave from upstream such that the circumferential velocity perturbation is:
h i 2Q r rhub
v = e vxVn e j n B (x/vx +t) = (17)
B rtip rhub

where B = 16 is the number of blades of the generating rotor row, having rotational speed , and
n = 1, Vn = 0.1; finally, Q = 0, in the cases presented below. The problem requires to compute the
complex amplitudes Am , divided by the atmospheric pressure, of the pressure acoustic radial modes
for various values of m = nB kV and , at inlet (one chord upstream of the leading edge) and at
outlet (one chord downstream of the trailing edge). The tangential Mach number MT is given by
multiplied by rtip and divided by the sound speed: in the two presented cases, MT = 0.470 and
MT = 0.783, respectively.
In order to perform the aeroacoustic computations, the acoustic radial modes for 4 circumferential
orders (m = 40, 16, 8, 32) and 6 radial orders ( = 0, 1, . . . , 5) were determined on a 96 cell radial

6
20 20
Q=0 MT=0.470 Q=0 MT=0.783

10 10

Im[kx]

Im[kx]
0 0

-10 -10
Tyler-Sofrin Tyler-Sofrin
Acoustic modes Acoustic modes
-20 -20
-2 0 2 4 6 -2 0 2 4 6
Re[kx] Re[kx]

Figure 1: Axial wave numbers of acoustic radial modes

mesh. Since Tyler-Sofrin hypotheses are satisfied in these cases, radial modes were compared against
Tyler-Sofrin modes, finding good agreement: figure 1 shows the non-dimensionalized axial wave
numbers for the two cases. As can be seen, all modes are cut-off in the first case, while two pairs of
downstream/upstream-running modes are cut-on in the second one: m = 8, = 0, 1.
The aeroacoustic computations were performed on a 240 80 40 cell mesh (axial circumfer-
ential radial) with Euler equations and matrix artificial dissipation: each computation took about
9 hours on an Intel R
XeonTM 3.60 GHz CPU. Figures 2 and 3 show the amplitudes of Am in terms
of sound pressure level (SPL) for m = 8 and m = 16 at inlet and outlet for the two presented cases:
Lars results with two- and three-dimensional boundary conditions are compared with lifting surface
theory results (Namba and Schulten (2000)). Two-dimensional boundary conditions give unsatis-
factory agreement except for some lower order modes. Much improved agreement is obtained when
using three-dimensional boundary conditions: Lars results agree well with lifting surface theory ones,
except for a few higher order modes. This is consistent with results published in Wilson (2001).

200 200
Q=0, MT=0.470: m=-8 Namba Q=0, MT=0.783: m=-8 Namba
downstream SPL (dB) upstream SPL (dB)

downstream SPL (dB) upstream SPL (dB)

Schulten Schulten
150 150

100 100

50 50

200
0 200
0
Lars (2D BCs) Lars (2D BCs)
Lars (3D BCs) Lars (3D BCs)
150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Figure 2: Inlet/outlet radial mode decomposition (m = 8)

Since in the presented cases the mean flow is uniform, cut-on acoustic waves should propagate at
constant SPL, while cut-off ones should attenuate at linearly decreasing SPL with well-defined slopes.
To check that the Lars numerical results with three-dimensional boundary conditions are consistent

7
150 150
Q=0, MT=0.470: m=16 Namba Q=0, MT=0.783: m=16 Namba

downstream SPL (dB) upstream SPL (dB)

downstream SPL (dB) upstream SPL (dB)


Schulten Schulten
100 100

50 50

0
150 0
150
Lars (2D BCs) Lars (2D BCs)
Lars (3D BCs) Lars (3D BCs)
100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Figure 3: Inlet/outlet radial mode decomposition (m = 16)

with such theoretical prediction, the radial mode decomposition was repeated at various axial stations
upstream and downstream of the blades: the resulting axial plots are shown in figures 4 and 5 for
three radial modes ( = 0, 1, 2) at m = 8 and m = 16, confirming a good agreement with theoretical
decay rates, similar to that obtained in Wilson (2001).

180 180
Lars (3D BCs) Q=0, MT=0.470: m=-8 Lars (3D BCs) Q=0, MT=0.783: m=-8
160 160
SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)

140 =0 140 =0
=1 =1
=2 =2
120 120
theory theory

100 100
-1 0 1 2 -1 0 1 2
axial coordinate / blade chord axial coordinate / blade chord

Figure 4: Axial plot of radial mode decomposition (m = 8)

CONCLUSIONS
A three-dimensional numerical method for aeroacoustic tone noise analysis was presented. The
method is time-linearized: incoming perturbations to be analyzed are imposed, one at a time, at inlet
or outlet boundaries, while fluid motion governing equations are time-linearized about a steady solu-
tion. Two types of non-reflecting boundary conditions were described: two- and three-dimensional
conditions, with special emphasis on the latter, which account for radial modes on a sheared mean
flow with swirl.
The method was applied to the 3rd CAA Workshop Cat. 4 benchmark problem (Dahl (2000))
and the results were compared with lifting surface theory ones (Namba and Schulten (2000)). The
agreement is good, when three-dimensional boundary conditions are employed, especially for domi-
nant modes. It should be noted that, since Tyler-Sofrin hypotheses are satisfied, this benchmark could
have been solved with boundary conditions based on analytical theories (Tyler and Sofrin (1962),

8
180 180
Lars (3D BCs) Q=0, MT=0.470: m=16 Lars (3D BCs) Q=0, MT=0.783: m=16
160 160

SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)
140 =0 140 =0
=1 =1
=2 =2
120 120
theory theory

100 100
-1 0 1 2 -1 0 1 2
axial coordinate / blade chord axial coordinate / blade chord

Figure 5: Axial plot of radial mode decomposition (m = 16)

Rienstra and Eversman (2001)): therefore the presented method is not yet fully validated on the gen-
eral case with shear and swirl, for which it is developed; tests on LPT rows are part of on-going
activities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Avio Group management, in the persons of
Dr. Emilio Ferrari and Dr. Ennio Spano, who conceived, trusted and patronized this research project.
Special thanks to Dr. Michele Marconcini and Dr. Lorenzo Pinelli for the useful discussions.

REFERENCES
Anderson, E., Bai, Z., Bischof, C., Blackford, S., Demmel, J., Dongarra, J., Croz, J. D., Greenbaum,
A., Hammarling, S., McKenney, A., and Sorensen, D. (1999). LAPACK Users Guide. Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, third edition.
Arnone, A. (1994). Viscous analysis of three-dimensional rotor flow using a multigrid method. Jour-
nal of turbomachinery, 116:435445.
Arnone, A., Liou, M.-S., and Povinelli, L. (1993). Multigrid calculation of three-dimensional viscous
cascade flows. Journal of propulsion and power, 9(4):605614.
Arnone, A., Poli, F., and Schipani, C. (2003). A method to assess flutter stability of complex modes.
In 10th International Symposium on Unsteady Aerodynamics, Aeroacoustics and Aeroelasticity of
Turbomachines.
Atassi, O. (2003). Inflow/outflow conditions for unsteady aerodynamics and aeroacoustics in nonuni-
form flow. Technical report, NASA Contractor Rerport 212311.
Boncinelli, P., Marconcini, M., Poli, F., Arnone, A., and Schipani, C. (2006). Time-linearized quasi-
3D tone noise computations in cascade flows. In IGTI ASME Turbo Expo.
Campobasso, M. and Giles, M. (2003). Effects of flow instabilities on the linear analysis of turboma-
chinery aeroelasticity. Journal of propulsion and power, 19(2):250259.
Chassaing, J.-C. and Gerolymos, G. (2000). Compressor flutter analysis using time-nonlinear and
time-linearized 3-D Navier-Stokes methods. In 9th International Symposium on Unsteady Aerody-
namics, Aeroacoustics and Aeroelasticity of Turbomachines.
Dahl, M. (2000). Third computational aeroacoustics (CAA) workshop on benchmark problems. Tech-
nical report, NASA CP-209790.
Giles, M. (1988). Non-reflecting boundary conditions for the Euler equations.
http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/mike.giles/psfiles/bcs.ps.gz.
Giles, M. (1990). Stator/rotor interaction in a transonic turbine. Journal of propulsion and power,

9
6(5):621627.
Hall, K. and Clark, W. (1993). Linearized Euler predictions of unsteady aerodynamic loads in cas-
cades. AIAA Journal, 31:540550.
Hall, K. and Lorence, C. (1993). Calculation of three-dimensional unsteady flows in turbomachinery
using the linearized harmonic Euler equations. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of turbomachin-
ery, 115:800809.
Kennepohl, F., Kahl, G., and Heining, K. (2001). Turbine blade/vane interaction noise: Calculation
with a 3D time-linearised Euler method. In 7th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustic Conference.
Kousen, K. (1999). Eigenmodes of ducted flows with radially-dependent axial and swirl velocity
components. Technical report, NASA Contractor Report 208881.
Moinier, P. and Giles, M. (2005). Eigenmode analysis for turbomachinery applications. Journal of
propulsion and power, 21(6):973978.
Moinier, P., Giles, M., and Coupland, J. (2007). Three-dimensional nonreflecting boundary conditions
for swirling flow in turbomachinery. Journal of propulsion and power, 23(5):981986.
Montgomery, M. and Verdon, J. (1997). A three-dimensional linearized unsteady Euler analysis for
turbomachinery blade rows. Technical report, NASA Contractor Report 4770.
Namba, M. and Schulten, J. (2000). Numerical results of lifting surface theory cat. 4 benchmark
problem 3rd CAA workshop. Technical report, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR TP-2000-
013.
Poli, F. (2004). Development of a time-linearized computational method with application to bladerow
aeroelasticity. Energy engineering PhD thesis, University of Florence, Italy.
Poli, F., Gambini, E., Arnone, A., and Schipani, C. (2006). A 3D time-linearized method for tur-
bomachinery blade flutter analysis. In 11th International Symposium on Unsteady Aerodynamics,
Aeroacoustics and Aeroelasticity of Turbomachines.
Rienstra, S. and Eversman, W. (2001). A numerical comparison between the multiple-scales and
finite-element solution for sound propagation in lined flow ducts. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
437:367384.
Saxer, A. and Giles, M. (1993). Quasi-three-dimensional nonreflecting boundary conditions for Euler
equations calculations. Journal of propulsion and power, 9(2):263271.
Tyler, J. and Sofrin, T. (1962). Axial flow compressor noise studies. Trans. Society of Automotive
Engineers, 70:309332.
Verdon, J. (1987). Linearized unsteady aerodynamic theory. In AGARD Manual on Aeroelasticity in
Axial Flow in Turbomachines, vol. 1, Unsteady Turbomachinery Aerodynamics, volume AGARD-
AG-298.
Verdon, J. (1993). Review of unsteady aerodynamic methods for turbomachinery aeroelastic and
aeroacoustic applications. AIAA Journal, 31:235250.
Verdon, J., Montgomery, M., and Chuang, H. (1999). Development of a linearized unsteady Eu-
ler analysis with application to wake/blade-row interactions. Technical report, NASA Contractor
Report 208879.
Vilenski, G. and Rienstra, S. (2005). Acoustic modes in a ducted shear flow. In 11th AIAA/CEAS
Aeroacoustics Conference.
Whitehead, D. (1987). Classical twodimensional methods. In AGARD Manual on Aeroelasticity in
Axial Flow in Turbomachines, vol. 1, Unsteady Turbomachinery Aerodynamics, volume AGARD-
AG-298.
Wilson, A. (2001). Application of CFD to wake/aerofoil interaction noise - a flat plate validation
case. In 7th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustic Conference.

10