14 views

Uploaded by nascosannascosan

A 3D linearized method for turbo machinery tone noise analysis with 3D non-reflecting boundary conditions

- Nonlinear Structural Mechanics_ Theoryc Dynamical Phenomena-pages-128-158
- CSD Project Report
- CADES Aerospace
- Angeli Sontag Circadian TAC CAS 2008
- Flutter Symposium 2011
- ch3
- Inverse Laplace Transform Lecture-3
- Ode 45 Example
- 01-1MCbasics
- Prokaj Zhao Medioni Wasa 2012
- Problem 1 021
- A Swirl Generator Case Study for OpenFOAM
- 45739729-STPM-Further-Mathematics-T-Past-Year-Questions
- 6) Mathematics
- Notes
- Girardi M., Matzeu M. - Solutions of a class of superlinear indefinite elliptic equations(19).pdf
- Chain Code and Holistic Features Based OCR System for Printed Devanagari Script Using ANN and SVM
- Voltage Stability Assessment in DC Railways with Minimum Headway Consideration
- IterMethBook_2ndEd
- 221 2Midterm2 Review

You are on page 1of 10

CONDITIONS

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)).

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 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)).

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.

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

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]

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Nonlinear Structural Mechanics_ Theoryc Dynamical Phenomena-pages-128-158Uploaded byJeff JB
- CSD Project ReportUploaded byAkash
- CADES AerospaceUploaded byamrithansoge
- Angeli Sontag Circadian TAC CAS 2008Uploaded bysysbio10
- Flutter Symposium 2011Uploaded bygandalf500
- ch3Uploaded bykusty_85
- Inverse Laplace Transform Lecture-3Uploaded bySingappuli
- Ode 45 ExampleUploaded byShanmukha Sundaram
- 01-1MCbasicsUploaded byIvan Ion
- Prokaj Zhao Medioni Wasa 2012Uploaded bySeif Charaf
- Problem 1 021Uploaded byعبدالوهاب بركات
- A Swirl Generator Case Study for OpenFOAMUploaded byputhenkulam
- 45739729-STPM-Further-Mathematics-T-Past-Year-QuestionsUploaded byMei Chan
- 6) MathematicsUploaded byrajanikanth
- NotesUploaded byjaikobi
- Girardi M., Matzeu M. - Solutions of a class of superlinear indefinite elliptic equations(19).pdfUploaded byoscura
- Chain Code and Holistic Features Based OCR System for Printed Devanagari Script Using ANN and SVMUploaded byAdam Hansen
- Voltage Stability Assessment in DC Railways with Minimum Headway ConsiderationUploaded bythesij
- IterMethBook_2ndEdUploaded byFidkekd Lei
- 221 2Midterm2 ReviewUploaded byVictor Seo
- Reynolds Transport TheoremUploaded byAnonymous GGtvR65MR
- VI Sem. B.sc. Mathematics - Core Course - Number Theory and Linear AlgebraUploaded byMohan Rao
- Appendix a Matrix Algebra 2013 the Finite Element Method Its Basis and Fundamentals Seventh EditionUploaded byLeo Salazar Esquivel
- 02.AGRIUploaded byStephen.K
- eigen valuesUploaded bySrinivas Sai
- Group Invariance in Statistical Inference (Narayan)Uploaded byLucas Pimentel Vilela
- Fluent-Overview.pptUploaded byMarceloValeria
- Vaps ResumUploaded byGonzalo Junior Crespo Padron
- A Novel Approach for Classify Different Classes in Large Dimensional problems based on Feature Extraction and SelectionUploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- ParkingUploaded byManea George-Cristian

- Product Guide o e w34dfUploaded byИгорь Курганов
- Stec Redgate Wartsila Power PlantUploaded bynascosannascosan
- Wartsila 46 Technology ReviewUploaded bynascosannascosan
- Wartsila W46Uploaded bynascosannascosan
- ppscatalog_lowres_030616_56mt.pdfUploaded byVictor Macedo Achancaray
- Product Guide o e w46dfUploaded byИгорь Курганов
- Product Guide o e w46fUploaded bynascosannascosan
- gas-and-multi-fuel-power-plants-2014-(1).pdfUploaded byManoj Gupta
- WartsilaUploaded bynascosannascosan
- Wartsila W46Uploaded byKristina Bereišienė
- Wartsila Power Plants Solutions 2014 BrochureUploaded bytareq.sefat
- combustion-engine-power-plants-2011-lr.pdfUploaded byVictor Macedo Achancaray
- Product Guide o e w46dfUploaded bynascosannascosan
- wartsila-o-e-w-46fUploaded byLuis Albanes
- Ppscatalog Lowres 030616 56mtUploaded bynascosannascosan
- Power Cubes 2015Uploaded bynascosannascosan
- LNG plants - mini scale liquefaction technology.pdfUploaded bynascosannascosan
- LNG plants - mini scale liquefaction technology.pdfUploaded bynascosannascosan
- ppscatalog_lowres_030616_56mt.pdfUploaded byVictor Macedo Achancaray
- Brochure o Ogi Lng Biogas LiquefactionUploaded bynascosannascosan
- gas-and-multi-fuel-power-plants-2014-(1).pdfUploaded byManoj Gupta
- WartsilaUploaded bynascosannascosan
- WartsilaUploaded bynascosannascosan
- 34SG_ET_082011 Wartsila EngineUploaded byShaheen Rahman
- LNG SolutionsUploaded bynascosannascosan
- LNG SolutionsUploaded bynascosannascosan
- Brochure o Ogi Lng LiquefactionUploaded byreign226
- Wartsila EngineUploaded bynascosannascosan
- combustion-engine-power-plants-2011-lr.pdfUploaded byVictor Macedo Achancaray
- combustion-engine-power-plants-2011-lr.pdfUploaded byVictor Macedo Achancaray

- Em SpectrumUploaded byTatjana Zafiroska
- AerodynamicUploaded byKing Everest
- Power Swing EquationUploaded byFatima Mir
- VSAEROUploaded byJoao Oliveira
- HW_Ch14Uploaded byLadyminchin Dela Cruz
- CBSE Class 11 Physics Newton’s Laws Of Motion.pdfUploaded byAbhay mane
- Maneuvring Model 1Uploaded byMohsan Bilal
- y+ cfd.pdfUploaded bySarath Babu S
- projectile on an inclineUploaded bySaurabh Mishra
- VIBRATION ISOLATION-BARRY CONTROL.pdfUploaded bypyarkiya
- eBook LowspeedUploaded byLuiz Fernando T. Vargas
- 05Jan-M1Uploaded byAhmed Nurul
- Pedlosky_12.800_Ch7'06_9349Uploaded byKedar Pai
- Chapter 15Uploaded byAngelo Arden Sison Brual
- ULTRASONIC tr1.pdfUploaded byjudicejr
- Prcatice # 10Uploaded byAfifaFarooq
- Angelsky Et Al Biaxial Crystal-based Optical TweezersUploaded bycorrbas
- Assignment 2225456Uploaded byAnonymous fmV9u5F8E7
- How Centrifugal Fans WorkUploaded byJameel Khan
- ass. in physics.docxUploaded byVhinaP.Hipolito
- fm.docxUploaded bySaurabh Tiwari
- IMU_Wk8Uploaded byCao Quang Hưng
- Simple Harmonic Motion by Tom MarshUploaded byMohd.MehdiAzmet
- Drag DiskUploaded byLuis Zambrano
- Notes - Mathematical ModellingUploaded bytalktofile
- Phys3.MovingAboutUploaded byPaleo-primate
- USAF Stability and control DatcomUploaded byYi Cheng Chan
- Model StatementUploaded byArdi Ardiansyah
- Report Magnus UrquhartUploaded byAnonymous RcmKrtnl
- download quadcopter.pdfUploaded byOla Fonda