aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 – pages 21 – 52 21

Simulation and analysis of noise

associated with muzzle flow
Jonghoon Bin1 and M. Yousuff Hussaini2
Computational Science and Engineering, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-4510

Received April 15, 2012; Revised Sept. 24, 2012; Accepted Oct. 1, 2012

ABSTRACT
A numerical study of a muzzle blast flow-field is performed and analyzed to understand the
evolution of flow structures and to examine the sound wave generation mechanisms in the near
field. The analysis of vortex dynamics based on the vorticity transport equation shows that the
dilatation term contributes more than the baroclinic term to vorticity generation and deformation.
The motion of the vortex structures is found to be similar in the cases studied here: the main
vortex formation, additional vortex generation and their interactions. The Helmholtz
decomposition and acoustic perturbation equations are used to analyze the sound generation
mechanism in the muzzle flow. The most significant sound source term is identified and the
dominant sound generation phenomenon is shown to occur near the vortex ring region and not
in the shocked jet flow.

Key words: muzzle blast; precursor blast wave; Helmholtz decomposition; acoustic perturbation
equations; shocklet; counter-rotating vortex ring (CRVR).

NOMENCLATURE
u = velocity vector in (x, r) coordinates
x = downstream distance
r = radial coordinate
p = pressure
ρ = density
T = temperature
ω = vorticity
φ = velocity potential in (x, r) coordinates

1Research Associate, email: jbin@fsu.edu

2Sir James Lighthill Professor, email: yousuff@fsu.edu
22 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

ψ = two dimensional stream function in (x, r) coordinates

uv = solenoidal vertical perturbation
ua = irrotational acoustic perturbation
s = entropy
trelease = projectile release time from a muzzle exit
Vp = projectile launch velocity
D = diameter of a muzzle
γ = specific heat ratio

1. INTRODUCTION
The gas dynamics of a gun muzzle signature are complex. The rapid gas release from a
muzzle produces strong blast waves expanding rapidly in an open flow field. A
precursor blast wave is generated by the discharge of compressed air from the inner
muzzle when a bullet is supersonically moving in a barrel and is followed by a second
blast wave resulting from the expansion of the main propellant gas flow behind the
projectile after it leaves the muzzle [1]. When a bullet discharges from a muzzle, one or
two precursor blast waves are generally generated ahead of the projectile. The number
of precursor blast waves observed depends on the gun parameters, such as the launch
velocity of the projectile and the length of the barrel. The high muzzle exit pressure
results in an under-expanded supersonic flow region at the exit of the muzzle. Two or
three distinct impulsive jet flows are observed sequentially at the muzzle during firing.
The main flow structures in a muzzle flow are characterized by blast waves, jet flows,
vortices, and the sonic boom produced by a supersonic projectile.
Early experimental investigations of muzzle blast, carried out by Schmidt and
coworkers [2–4], used a time-resolved, spark shadowgraph technique to obtain a
detailed visualization of the highly complex time-dependent muzzle-blast flow fields.
Hirsch et al. [5] developed a robust empirical blast noise prediction model to estimate
the acoustic source strength and directivity pattern of the blast based on experimental
acoustic emission data from numerous weapons and ammunitions. Hargather and
Settles [6] performed laboratory-scale experiments with explosive charges using optical
shadowgraph and high speed digital imaging to measure the explosive-driven shock
wave position accurately and efficiently. Oswatitsch [7] modeled the initial unsteady
muzzle flow as a spherical blast wave, and computed the blast flow field by the method
of characteristics. He suggested that the flow in the region between the muzzle and the
inward facing shock could be modeled by a steady jet theory. This suggestion was
implemented by Erdos and Guidice [8] to evaluate the muzzle flow properties along the
symmetry line. Further work [9] by Stoughton was devoted to model blast wave physics
in the region far from the jet flow in terms of well-established theories for spherical
blast waves. The limitation of analytical approaches to deal with the nonlinear unsteady
characteristics of blast wave dynamics and the relatively large effort and expense
involved in experimental studies provided the impetus for numerical approaches, which
can be an efficient and practical way to predict the muzzle flow and to enhance the basic
understanding of the physics of the muzzle flow. Of course, such studies need first to
be validated against experimental observations.
aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 23

Recently, several numerical studies have attempted to evaluate the fully two-
dimensional or axi-symmetric inviscid unsteady muzzle flow field [10–14]. Jiang [11]
and Jiang et al. [12] performed numerical investigations of the wave dynamics of
muzzle blast flows produced by a supersonic projectile released from the open-end of a
shock tube into ambient air for several projectile Mach numbers. They employed a
dispersion-controlled scheme implemented with moving boundary conditions. They
could compute the muzzle flow development numerically in greater detail than that
achieved in earlier analytic or experimental studies. However, these computations have
not been validated against existing experimental data. Furthermore, these works used
low-order accuracy numerical schemes and focused on the flow pattern or wave
dynamics of the muzzle blast phenomena and did not discuss the vortex dynamics or
sound generation mechanisms.
Interesting studies concerning sound generation by blast wave/vortex interaction
are due to Chen and Liang [13] and Liang and Chen [14]. The former study was
based on numerical solution of the two-dimensional compressible Euler equations
and brought out the effects of vortex Mach number and blast Mach number on sound
generation. The latter investigated the flow fields of different-intensity planar blast
waves (again in the framework of two-dimensional compressible Euler equations)
and examined the mechanism of vorticity generation induced by blast-wave
diffraction near the 90-degree sharp corner of the duct. They found that the
compressibility term mainly contributed by the rollup of the slipstream is more
dominant than the baroclinic term in the vorticity transport equation during the
second shock/vortex interaction. However, these two-dimensional studies did not
explain realistic spherical blast wave dynamics and vortex interaction in detail. In
their recent work, Bin et al. [15] customized the fourth-order accurate, dispersion-
relation preserving scheme due to Tam [20] for the simulation of the muzzle blast
flow field and validated it in the case of 7.62-mm NATO rifle G3 with a DM-41
round. They showed that the interaction between the blast waves and vortex
structures made the flow complicated and produced various pressure waves
including sound waves. They briefly studied the impulsive noise generation
phenomenon.
The objective of the present paper is twofold. The first objective is to examine
how the blast wave develops in the near field and how vorticity is produced during
the flow development, (which is analyzed by using a vorticity transport equation).
The second objective is to understand how sound waves are generated from the
complicated flow interactions in the near field. This is examined using an acoustic
perturbation equation.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the relevant governing
equations of the problem under study, including acoustic perturbation equations.
Section 3 discusses the solution technique and the inflow conditions that model the
effect of a supersonic moving body in a muzzle. Analyses in three cases having different
projectile launch speeds are performed and details of vortex dynamics and sound
generation are presented in Section 4. Finally, some conclusions are presented in
Section 5.
24 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

2. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
As the gun discharges, a shock wave immediately forms ahead of the projectile, and
behind this shock, the column of gas and the projectile itself all move at the same
velocity, i.e., the post-shock velocity. We model the gun muzzle flow as a normal shock
moving in a duct (Figure 2) disregarding the projectile itself and thereby its interaction
with the subsequent blast flow field. Using the projectile speed and the ambient air
condition, the inflow condition within a muzzle can be determined. We consider three
cases with different projectile launch speeds, Vp, shown in Table 1:

2.1. The governing equations

We assume the axi-symmetric Euler equations of a perfect ideal gas to govern the flow:
∂ρ
+ ∇ ⋅ ( ρu) = 0 (1)
∂t

∂u ∇p
+ ( u ⋅ ∇) u + =0 (2)
∂t ρ

∂p
+ (u ⋅ ∇) p + γ p∇ ⋅ u = 0 (3)
∂t

where ρ is the density, p is the pressure, and u = (u, v) are the velocity components in
the axial and the radial directions, respectively. The specific heat ratio, γ = cp /cv, is taken
as 1.4 in air. The initial and boundary conditions are given in Section 3. 2–3.

2.2. Compressible vorticity transport equation

The physics of shock-vortex interactions in simple configurations, such as a normal
shock interacting with a vortex, a vortex ring and a longitudinal vortex have been
studied [16–18]. The muzzle blast flow field is complex involving multiple blast waves
and multiple evolving vortices, and the effects of the various mechanisms are

Table 1. Geometrical and experimental data in several types of guns [1].

NATO rifle G3 M-16 rifle NATO rifle G3

(Case 1) (Case 2) (Case 3)
Projectile launch speed, Vp (m/s) 780 945 1450
Caliber, D (mm) 7.62 5.56 7.62
Barrel length, l (mm) 400 460 400
Muzzle exit pressure,
Pe (MPa) 1st precursor 0.6 1.5 4.25
2nd precursor 1.5 — —
Main flow 66 60 21
aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 25

intertwined. To better understand the sources of vorticity generation, we consider the

transport equation for vorticity, often referred to as Crocco’s equation, which is simply
obtained by taking the curl of the compressible momentum equation Eq. (2):

Dω 1
− (ω ⋅ ∇)u + ω (∇ ⋅ u) = 2 (∇ρ × ∇p) (4)
Dt ρ

where D/Dt = ∂/∂t + u⋅∇. The second term in the left hand side represents vorticity
generation through vortex stretching/compression due to the strain ∇u, which is zero in
the present axisymmetric flow, the third term represents the dilatational vorticity
generation through the dilatation ∇⋅u, and the term on the right hand side denotes
baroclinic generation through the interaction of pressure and density gradients. The
spatial contours of the dilatational and baroclinic terms at different times, and their time
evolutions give physical insight into these mechanisms.

2.3. Acoustic perturbation equation

The perturbation velocity and density are, respectively,

u ′ = u − u, ρ ′ = ρ − ρ , (5)

where the bar denotes the time-averaged mean quantities. The perturbation velocity is
Helmholtz-decomposed into a curl of vector function and gradient of a scalar function:

u ′ = ∇ × ψ + ∇φ ≡ u v + u a . (6)

Here, uv and ua are a solenoidal perturbation and irrotational acoustic perturbation

velocity, respectively. By applying flow decomposition via source filtering into the
linearized Euler equations, the complete system of acoustic propagation equations for
the perturbation variables [p′, ua]T are given in [19] as

∂p ′ 1 γ p Ds ′
+ c 2 ∇ ⋅ ( ρ u a + 2 p ′u) = − c 2 ∇ ⋅ ( ρu v ) + (7)
∂t c c p Dt

∂u a  p′  ∂u v
+ ∇( u ⋅ u a ) + ∇   = − − ∇(uu v ) − [ω × u]′ − 12 ∇(u ′)2 + [T ′ ∇s − s ′∇T ] (8)
∂t  ρ ∂t

γ
where c = γ p / ρ , D / Dt = ∂ / ∂t + u ⋅ ∇, and s(= cv ln( p / ρ )) and T represent the
entropy and the temperature, respectively.
26 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

3. NUMERICAL METHODS
3.1. Numerical solution technique
The present work numerically solves the axisymmetric unsteady compressible Euler
equations (Eqs. (1) – (3)). The spatial derivatives are discretized by a formally fourth-
order accurate dispersion-relation-preserving (DRP) scheme and an optimized four-level
time-marching scheme is used for the time integration [20]. The details of this numerical
method of solution are given in Bin, et al. [15] where the methodology was validated in
the case of the 7.62 mm NATO rifle G3 with a DM-41 round (Vp = 780 m/s). In the present
study, two additional cases of a 5.56-mm M-16 rifle (Vp = 945 m/s) and a 7.62-mm NATO
rifle G3 with a DM-18 round (Vp = 1450 m/s) are considered and the physics of the flow
fields and associated noise are investigated.
As it is difficult to simulate both the internal flow-field (inside the muzzle
comprising complicated phenomena, such as combustion, acceleration of the projectile,
friction on the wall, etc.) and the external flow-field, involving vastly disparate temporal
and spatial scales, we focus on the external flow assuming muzzle-exit conditions
compatible with experimental observation. Figure 1 shows the schematic of the
computational domain and boundary conditions applied in this study. The mesh sizes
and the number of grid points used in the muzzle blast simulation are given in Table 3.
To ensure resolution of different length scales of the flow field and to increase
computational efficiency, a multi-block mesh is designed with different mesh sizes [21].
It is assumed in this study that the muzzle thickness t = 0.3 D where D is the muzzle
diameter. The domain is divided into five sub-domains. Numerical simulations are
carried out on uniformly spaced grid in each domain. A total of 32 mesh points are used

r
Computational domain
24D
Radiation BC
Domain 5 (∆ x = ∆r = D/4)
18D
Domain 4 (∆ x = ∆r = D/8)
Radiation BC

Radiation BC

12D
Domain 3 (∆ x = ∆r = D/16)

6D
Domain 2 (∆ x = ∆r = D/32)
3D Slip wall BC
Muzzle Domain 1 (∆ x = ∆r = D/64)
...
Inflow BC D /2 x
0
...
XM = D 6D 12D 18D 30D 42D

Barrel length l

Figure 1: Computational domain in the (x, r) plane and boundary conditions.

aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 27

along the inner radius of the tube. All computations are performed using a non-
dimensional fixed time step of ∆t = ε ⋅ (∆x)min where ε has the value of 2.0 × 10−4 and
(∆x)min is the grid size in domain 1, which has the finest grid. According to Shen and
Tam [23], the time step should be smaller than 2.7 × 10−4 for a Mach 1.2 cold jet flow
simulation on the finest mesh (the minimum grid size of D/64) in domain 1, which
captures the shock and resolves the thin shear layer originating from the jet nozzle. We
find that a time-step value of 2.0 × 10−4 yields a stable numerical simulation.

3.2. Inflow boundary conditions

Flow properties and release time of the shock exiting the muzzle mainly characterize
the flow development in the muzzle flow. As in [15], experimentally measured flow
properties of Table 2 are directly used for the inflow boundary condition at the
muzzle exit in the numerical simulation of Case 1 (Vp = 780 m/s). Due to the lack of
experimental data on flow properties for both Case 2 (Vp = 945 m/s) and Case 3
(Vp = 1450 m/s), the inflow conditions are modeled as follows.
The properties of the gas at the muzzle can be obtained from the Rankine-Hugoniot
relations under the assumption that the gas velocity is equal to the projectile launch
speed. The theoretical analysis of Schmidt et al. [2–3] based on this assumption shows
that their results agreed well with experiments. Figure 2 shows a moving normal shock
in a muzzle. The Rankine-Hugoniot relations provide the physical values behind the
normal shock in a muzzle (state 2). It is convenient to use the projectile velocity instead
of the pressure ratio because we are interested in the effect of projectile speed on muzzle
blast and sound wave generation in the near field in this study. Behind the precursor
shock wave, the column of gas and the projectile itself all move at the same velocity, i.e.,
the post-shock velocity, u2 = Vp, which determines the Mach number Mp = Vp/c∞, where

Table 2. Experimental data obtained from in-bore measurement when the normal
DM41 round is fired in the 7.62-mm-caliber NATO rifle G3 (Case 1) [15].

Initial condition 1st precursor 2nd precursor Main propellant

Time (µs) _ t < 342.28 342.28 < t < 399.2 t > 399.2
Pressure (Pa) 101,325 0.6 × 106 1.5 × 106 †
Velocity (m/s) 0 548.1 905.146 905.146
Temperature (K) 300 631.626 838.8 1,700
Density (kg/m3) p/RT p/RT p/RT p/RT

†:101,325 × 659.369e−1,484.8(t–0.0004015), R = 287.04 joule/(kg·K)

Table 3. Mesh sizes and grid numbers used in the study.

Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Domain 4 Domain 5

Mesh size (∆x = ∆r) D/64 2D/64 4D/64 8D/64 16D/64
Numbers of grid (i × j) 384 × 192 384 × 192 288 × 192 240 × 144 168 × 96
28 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

State 2 State 1

u2 = Vp us u1 = 0

ρ 2, p2 and T2 ρ 1, p1 and T1
Shock front

Figure 2: Moving normal shock in a duct.

c∞ denotes the speed of sound in the ambient air. Using the projectile speed and the
ambient air condition, the inflow flow condition at the muzzle exit can be determined
from the following relations.

γ +1
ρ2 1 + γ −1
=
( ),
p2
p1
=
 γ +1
T2 p2  γ −1 +
p2
p1 
 ,
ρ1 γ +1
+
p2 T1 p1  1 + γ + 1 ( )
p2 

γ −1 p1  γ −1 p1

1/ 2
Vp Vp 1 p   γ 2+1 
≡ = M p =  2 − 1  γ −1 p  (9)
c1 c∞ γ  p1   γ +1 + p2 
 1 

In the initial stage, the precursor shock wave is assumed to have arrived at the muzzle
exit and the projectile body is assumed to be located behind the precursor shock wave
at a certain distance, which is determined by the projectile release time, trelease = l/Vp
where l is a barrel length given in Table 1.
It is assumed that the pressure behind the projectile is higher than that in front of it
(see Table 1) and that the projectile is released at time, trelease = l/Vp. It is assumed that
the projectile moves at a constant speed equal to its launch speed.
In order to avoid spurious waves due to the abrupt discontinuity of the flow variables
between the jet flow condition and the ambient condition, which can produce numerical
instability, we propose to smooth out the discontinuity with an exponential function.
These expressions are given in the Appendix.
The equations in the Appendix represent the initial distribution of each flow variable
when it emerges from the muzzle. The values in the region of x ≤ xMf or x ≤ xα are kept
constant until the next flow emerges from the muzzle. For both Case 2 and Case 3, the
main flow emerges from the muzzle after the projectile release time, trelease = l/Vp. All
the physical values in the region of x ≤ xMf or x ≤ xα are determined by Eq. (9) with the
already known projectile velocity, Mp = Vp/c∞, for Case 2 and Case 3. The velocities and
the density are kept unchanged and the pressure has the value presented in Table 1 when
the main flow discharges. This value, which is available from the literature [1], is used
in the present numerical simulation.
aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 29

3.3. Boundary conditions

Radiation boundary conditions are used at outer boundaries except at the axis of
symmetry where a symmetric boundary condition is imposed for the flow variables ρ,
p and u and antisymmetric boundary condition is imposed for v [22]. On the muzzle
wall, the slip-wall boundary condition is implemented by using the interior flow
variables.

3.4. Poisson equation solver

Divergence of Eq. (6) yields the Poisson equation for the irrotational component:

1 ∂  ∂φ  ∂2φ
∇ 2φ = r  + = f where f = ∇ ⋅ u ′, x ∈ [0, 42 D] , r ∈ [0, 24 D] (10)
r ∂r  ∂r  ∂x 2

with boundary conditions:

φ = 0 at x = 0, x = 42 D, and r = 24 D (11)
∂φ
= 0 at r = 0 (12)
∂r
– = 0 and hereafter, we omit the prime. The Neumann condition
In the present case, u
on r = 0 imposes symmetry conditions on the x-axis. With these boundary conditions
(Eq. (11) and (12)), the Poisson equation is solved on the same grid system as the flow
computation. In Eq. (10), the function f on the right-hand side, equal to ∇ ⋅ u, is already
known with values obtained from the Euler solver.
Eq. (10) is discretized with a standard second-order accurate finite difference
approximation.

φik, j + 1 − 2φik, +j 1 + φik, +j −11 φik, j + 1 −φik, +j −11 φik+ 1, j − 2φik, +j 1 + φik−+1,1j
+ + = fi , j (13)
∆r2 2ri , j ∆ r ∆x2

Gauss-Seidel iteration is used to solve this equation with the convergence criterion
∑ φ k +1 − φ k < 10−4 .
4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
To reiterate, we simulate within the framework of axisymmetric compressible Euler
equations three experiments with different projectile launch speeds Vp – Case 1:
Vp = 780 m/s, Case 2: Vp = 945 m/s, and Case 3: Vp = 1450 m/s. Other related details
are given in Table 1. To study the mesh convergence behavior, Case 1 is simulated on
three different meshes with spatial step-size ∆ x = ∆r = D/25, D/50, D/60, where D is
the muzzle diameter. Time histories of pressure normally used to identify the
location of the precursor blast waves and the shock-front of the main propellant flow
provide a relevant criterion for mesh convergence. Figure 3 shows the time histories
30 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

2
dx = D/25
dx = D/50
1.8 dx = D/60 Main
r propellant
1.6 flow
r/D = 7.5
1.4 r/D = 5.0
Pressure
Muzzle
x
1.2

1
1st precursor 2nd precursor
0.8

0.6

0.4
−16 −14 −12 −10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4
Time
(a) r/D = 5.0

0.78
dx = D/25
dx = D/50
1st precursor dx = D/60
0.76

0.74
Pressure

0.72

0.7

0.68
−12 −10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0
Time
(b) r/D = 7.5

Figure 3: Time histories of the pressure in different mesh sizes at r/D = 5.0 and
r/D = 7.5 on the muzzle exit plane (Case 1): Time and pressure are non-
dimensionalized by D/c∞ and ρ∞c∞2, respectively, where the subscript
“∞” denotes the ambient condition.
aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 31

of the pressure measured at r/D = 5.0 and r/D = 7.5 on the muzzle exit plane. (The
pressure and the time are non-dimensionalized by ρ∞c2∞ and D/c∞, respectively, and
t = 0 indicates the time when the shock-front of the main propellant flow is at the
muzzle.) It can be seen that the main flow features of both the precursor blast waves
and the main propellant flow are fairly well converged. Constrained by the available
computer resources, the following numerical results for all of the three cases are
obtained on the mesh with step-size of ∆ x = ∆r = D/64.

4.1. Evolution of muzzle blast flow field

Figure 4 depicts the shadowgraphs of the muzzle flow fields in the three cases under
study. Pressure contours in Fig. 4 are plotted with gray color for comparison with the
experimental shadowgraph. One may observe that the qualitative agreement between
the computational and experimental results is good even though we assumed the inflow
condition in the absence of exact experimental measurement data. Thus the assumed
inflow boundary condition appears to be appropriate to this experiment on the whole.
In Cases 2 and 3, the muzzle flow develops relatively later compared with the
experimental shadow graphs. This discrepancy is ascribed to the projectile release time,
trelease = l/Vp, (not available) being smaller than that assumed in this study. In Case 1,
where the experimental measurement of the exact projectile release time is available,

(a) Case 1: Vp = 780 m/s (b) Case 2: Vp = 945 m/s (c) Case 3: Vp = 1450 m/s

Figure 4: Comparison between experimental shadowgraph and numerical result

with a gray color of the flow field (upper: experimental result, lower:
numerical result).
32 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

relatively accurate time evolution of the muzzle flow is captured. The numerical
simulations are observed to very well capture the complicated flow structures, such as
the precursor wave, shocks, vortex structures and slip lines.
Figure 5 presents a schematic of the muzzle flow development gleaned from the
sequential numerical results of the precursor flow and main flow fields depicted in
Figures 6–8. In Figure 5 (a), the regions from ➀ to ➁ denote the ambient state, the
precursor flow and the main flow condition, respectively, as explained in Table 1. In
Case 1, region ➁ contains the first and second precursor blast waves.
After the precursor blast wave propagates out omni-directionally from the muzzle
exit to the ambient air, the under-expanded jet flow starts to form a Prandtl-Meyer
expansion fan, which separates the compressed muzzle flow from the highly under-
expanded supersonic jet flow region bounded by the barrel shock and Mach disk
(Figure 5 (b). As time increases, the flow develops impulsive supersonic jet flow

(a) (d)
2nd blast
wave by the
u∞ = 0, p∞ = 0 main propellant flow
3 2 1
a

(b)
Prandtl-Meyer expansion fan

3 2 us
1st precursor blast wave
(e)
1st precursor blast wave
(c)
Barrel shock a Main propellant flow
Jet boundary b
a
Mach
3
disk

Vortex ring formation Acoustic waves

Figure 5: Schematic of the muzzle flow development and the main flow structures:
(a) initial stage in a muzzle consisting of three different flow conditions,
(b) initial flow development when the precursor emerges from a muzzle,
(c) flow feature developed by the precursor flow, (d) development of the
2nd blast wave by the main propellant flow, (e) complex flow structure by
the interaction between the blast waves, jet flows, and vortex structures.
aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 33

(a) (b) (c)

Y Y Y
Background: pressure contour
z x z x z x
3rd vortex ring Sound waves by
Sound waves
Vortex ring formation by 2nd vortex 3rd vortex

Vorticity contour
Unsteady motion of
ω =∇×u
the main vortex ring

Entropy contour
s = In(p /ρ γ )
Precursor wave 2nd vortex ring

(d) (e) (f)

Y Y
Main propellant high pressure flow Y
z x
Ejection of second
z x Second z x
Continued sound
blast wave blast wave
generation by Vortex rings
unsteady vortex with opposite
Barrel shock motion signs

Under-
expanded jet
core

Mach disk

Figure 6: Sequential vorticity contours superimposed on the pressure field in gray

color of the muzzle flow-field in Case 1 (the projectile launch speed =
780 m/s): (a) t = −11.56, (b) t = −9.20, (c) t = −6.25, (d) t = −3.12, (e) t = 0,
(f) t = +3.13.

structures, such as the barrel shock, Mach disk and vortex ring at the initial stage as
depicted in Figures 5 (c), 6 (a), 7 (a) and 8 (a)). Due to the high pressure gas in the
muzzle (region ➁ in Figure 5), a jet flow immediately emerges from the muzzle and is
constrained from expansion by the interaction with the precursor blast wave previously
generated. The vortex ring is caused by the anticlockwise roll up of the vortex sheet
(large difference in tangential velocity) at the jet boundary as shown in Figure 6 (a)
(see also Figure 7 (a) and Figure 8 (a)). As it evolves, a secondary roll up in the
opposite direction occurs creating a secondary vortex ring (Figure 6 (b), Figure 7 (b)
and Figure 8 (b)). The inherent unsteadiness of the flow field and the instability of
vortex structures produce additional vortex rings as shown in Figure 6 (c)–(d) (see also
Figure 7 (c)–(d) and Figure 8 (c)–(d)). As can be seen, the unsteadiness of these flow
structures generates several sound waves behind the precursor blast wave.
The flow features of all three cases in this stage are similar to a regular supersonic
jet flow in its initial stage. However, the muzzle flow is severely affected by the presence
of the strong main propellant flow following the first precursor blast wave as shown in
Figure 5 (d). In particular, the flow field of Case 1 becomes more complicated due to
the existence of the second precursor blast wave as shown in Figure 6 (e). The second
precursor blast wave evolves in the presence of the complex flow behind the first
precursor blast wave and assumes an ellipsoidal shape (Figure 6 (e)). This second
34 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

(a) (b) (c)

Subsequent vortex formation
Additional vortex
(2nd & 3rd vortex)
ring generation
Vortex ring formation

Vorticity contour
ω =∇×u
Deformation of
the main
Entropy contour vortex ring
s = In(p /ρ γ ) 1st under-
expanded jet
Precursor wave structure

(d) (e) (f)

Destruction of flows by
Ejection of the second blast wave the second blast wave
Vortex pair

2nd under-
expanded
jet structure

Figure 7: Sequential vorticity contours superimposed on the pressure field in gray

color of the muzzle flow-field in Case 2 (the projectile launch speed =
945 m/s): (a) t = −5.03, (b) t = −3.16, (c) t = 0, (d) t = +1.02, (e) t = +1.8,
(f) t = +3.09.

precursor has a relatively short lifetime as the main propellant gas quickly overtakes it
as shown in Figure 6 (f).
As schematically depicted in Figure 5 (d), the main propellant flow expands into the
preceding precursor flow. The main propellant flow pattern is similar to the precursor
flow produced earlier, only with pressure ratio typically one to two orders-of-magnitude
higher. The flow passes through the flow structures already developed by the precursor
flow condition (➁) and interacts with them. Therefore, it develops more rapidly in the
downstream direction than in the radial direction. Consequently, the main propellant
flow shows an ellipsoidal rather than omni-directional propagation shape. Figure 6 (e),
7 (d) and 8 (d) present vorticity contours superimposed on the pressure field in gray
color related to the flow configuration after the main propellant flow discharges from
the muzzle exit.
The blast wave associated with the main propellant flow propagates faster due to its
high pressure ratio and quickly overtakes the precursor blast wave. The main propellant
flow expands into the preceding precursor flow(s) and develops more rapidly in the
downstream direction than in the radial direction. The interaction of the main propellant
flow field and the strong precursor flow is relatively short. The higher the projectile
velocity, the shorter is the period of interaction. In Cases 2 and 3 where the projectile
velocity is higher than Case 1, the propellant gas flow develops a nearly flat shock front
aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 35

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Vortex ring formation Several vortex structure
formations

Precursor Vortex structures due to 1st under-expanded jet Ejection of the second
wave the instability along the shear structure blast wave
layer (Kelvin-Helmholtz instability)

(e) (f) (g)

Vorticity
contour
ω =∇×u

Entropy
contour
s = In(p /ρ γ )

2nd under-expanded Resultant complex flow

jet structure and acoustic field

Figure 8: Sequential vorticity contours superimposed on the pressure field in

gray color of the muzzle flow-field in Case 3 (the projectile launch
speed = 1450 m/s): (a) t = −5.31, (b) t = −2.66, (c) t = −0.64, (d) t = 0.47,
(e) t = +2.03, (f) t = +4.84, (g) t = +14.22.

because of the high pressure relative to the surrounding flow field and evolves into
complex flow structures as is obvious from Figures 7 (e)–(f) and Figures 8 (e)–(g).
These complex flow features are schematically represented in Figure 5 (e) where the
regions a and b denote the main vortex ring structures generated by the precursor
flow and the main flow conditions, respectively. Obviously, the gun muzzle flow fields
differ considerably from quasi-steady free supersonic jet flows. These results illustrate
that the main noise sources generating the acoustic waves are the large-scale structures,
such as the blast waves and vortex structures and the interaction among them [13–14,
16–18]. These will be discussed later.

4.2. Physical mechanisms underlying the muzzle blast flow fields

4.2.1. Vortex rings and their development
In order to examine the evolution of the precursor flow, including the development of
the unsteady vortex structures and their interactions, we plot in Figure 9 contours of
∇p and  ∇ρ for all three cases. The gradients of pressure and density are normalized
by their maxima ( ∇ρmax = 72.50,  ∇pmax = 140.62 for Case 1,  ∇ρmax = 131.78,
 ∇pmax = 386.31 for Case 2, and  ∇ρmax = 162.60,  ∇pmax = 869.36 for Case 3).
Contours in the range [0.005, 0.02] are plotted. The choice of the density variable is
consistent with the features visible in a typical schlieren photograph. The slip lines are
36 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

8
∇ρ ∇ρ
6 6
4 4
2
2
0

Y
Y

0 ∇p
∇p −2
−2
−4
−4 −6
−6 −8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 5 10 15
X X
(a) Case 1: Vp = 780 m/s (t = −6.25) (b) Case 2: Vp = 945 m/s (t = 0.0)

12
10 ∇ρ
8
6
4
2
Y

0
−2 ∇p
−4
−6
−8
−10
−12
0 5 10 15 20 25
X
(c) Case 3: Vp = 1450 m/s (t = −0.64)

Figure 9: Contour plots of ∇p and ∇ρ (upper: ∇ρ, lower: ∇p): The
symmetry was used to depict the two measures in one graph.

easily identified by the contours, which are present in the density gradient plots and
absent in the pressure gradient contour plots. Shock contours are present in both.
Features of under-expanded jet flows from the muzzle, such as the Mach disk, barrel
shock, shock reflection from the jet boundary, and triple points are clearly visible in
Figure 9. Higher muzzle exit pressure induces wider barrel shocks and increases the
distance from the muzzle to the position of the Mach disk as is apparent in this figure.
Generally, higher projectile speeds Vp or higher muzzle exit pressure produces more
intense and complex vortex structures.
To examine the vortex motion and the flow development in detail, time sequential
velocity vector fields superimposed on the vorticity contours are plotted in Figure 10. As
the vortex structures and flow development show similar patterns in all cases, we
aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 37

(a)
6 vor
2.00
1.79
1.58
1.37
1.16
0.95
0.74
0.53
0.32
0.11
−0.21
4 −0.42
−0.63
−1.16
−1.37
−1.58
−1.79
−2.00

0
2 4 6 8 10 12
(b)
6 vor
2.00
1.79
1.58
1.37
1.16
0.95
0.74
0.53
0.32
0.11
−0.21
4 −0.42
−0.63
−1.16
−1.37
−1.58
−1.79
−2.00

0
2 4 6 8 10 12
(c)
6 vor
2.00
1.79
1.58
1.37
1.16
0.95
0.74
0.53
0.32
0.11
−0.21
4 −0.42
−0.63
−1.16
−1.37
−1.58
−1.79
−2.00

0
2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 10: (Continued)

38 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

(d)
6 vor
2.00
1.79
1.58
1.37
1.16
0.95
0.74
0.53
0.32
0.11
−0.21
4 −0.42
−0.63
−1.16
−1.37
−1.58
−1.79
−2.00

0
2 4 6 8 10 12
(e)
6 vor
2.00
1.79
1.58
1.37
1.16
0.95
0.74
0.53
0.32
0.11
−0.21
4 −0.42
−0.63
−1.16
−1.37
−1.58
−1.79
−2.00

0
2 4 6 8 10 12
(f)
6 vor
2.00
1.79
1.58
1.37
1.16
0.95
0.74
0.53
0.32
0.11
−0.21
4 −0.42
−0.63
−1.16
−1.37
−1.58
−1.79
−2.00

0
2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 10: (Continued)

aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 39

(g)
6 vor
2.00
1.79
1.58
1.37
1.16
0.95
0.74
0.53
0.32
0.11
−0.21
4 −0.42
−0.63
−1.16
−1.37
−1.58
−1.79
−2.00

0
2 4 6 8 10 12
(h)
6 vor
2.00
1.79
1.58
1.37
1.16
0.95
0.74
0.53
0.32
0.11
−0.21
4 −0.42
−0.63
−1.16
−1.37
−1.58
−1.79
−2.00

0
2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 10: Time history of vorticity and vector field for Case 1: (a) t = −12.81,
(b) t = −11.56, (c) t = −9.20, (d) t = −7.81, (e) t = −6.25, (f) t = −4.69,
(g) t = −3.12, (h) t = 0.

consider just Case 1. The main vortex ring and the jet shear layer initiate from the
muzzle exit. As the jet shear layer evolves in time, it suffers Kelvin-Helmholtz instability
that feeds vorticity into the main vortex ring as shown in Figure 10 (a). The main vortex
ring has a counterclockwise rotating core, and moves downstream. The shear layer
emanating from the intersection of the barrel shock and the mach disc wraps around the
primary vortex ring, goes unstable above it, and engenders a counter-rotating vortex ring
(clockwise rotating core) as shown in Figure 10 (b)–(c). This second vortex ring moves
upstream with respect to the main vortex ring due to its self-induced velocity (Biot-
Savart induction). As the flow further evolves, a third counter-rotating vortex ring
appears above the main vortex ring and the second vortex ring detaches and moves away
40 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

(Figure 10 (d)). These counter-rotating vortex rings interact with the main vortex ring
and weaken it (Figures 10 (e)–(h)).

4.2.2. Vorticity production

To throw light on the details of vorticity generation, we plot in Figure 11 the
dilatational and baroclinic terms in the vorticity transport equation (Eq. (4)). In each
of Figures 11 (a)–(c), the upper, middle and lower plots relate to the dilatation term,
the baroclinic term, and the sum of these two terms, respectively. The contributions
of both the dilatational and baroclinic terms are similar except in the region where
the slip lines exist. These slip lines are present in the density gradient plots and
obviously absent in the pressure gradient contours, naturally implying thereby that
the baroclinic term (∇ρ × ∇p) is nonzero. The baroclinic production is significant in
the regions of shocks and slip lines (due to misaligned pressure and density
gradients) whereas the dilatational production is mainly distributed near vortex
structures. This is clear in the bottom plots of Figure 11 where the net contribution
expressed as the sum of the two terms is plotted. On the whole, the order of the
magnitude of the two terms is nearly the same.
To gain further physical insight into vorticity production mechanisms, we consider
the time evolution of the enstrophy, Ens(t), dilatational, Dil(t), and baroclinic torque,
Bar(t), integrated over the whole computational domain Ω:

Ens(t ) = ∫ ω 2 ( x , r , t )dA (14)

Ω

Dil (t ) = − ∫ ω (∇ ⋅ u)dA (15)

Ω

∇ ρ× ∇ p
Bar (t ) = ∫ dA (16)
Ω ρ2

Figure 12 presents time evolutions of net enstrophy, as well as the dilatational and
baroclinic vorticity generation in the three cases. The results show that enstrophy
continuously increases with time, albeit slowly, with a jump occurring at time
t = trelease when the shock-front of the propellant flow exits the muzzle. In the incipient
stage, the baroclinic term is seen to be relatively dominant in vorticity generation
compared to the dilatation term because of the development of a first precursor blast
wave. On the average, these two terms have the same order of magnitude but the
dilatation term shows a large variation with several peaks as seen in the right plots of
Figure 12.
aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 41

dll
1.00E-03
9.26E-04
8.52E-04
7.78E-04
7.04E-04
4 6.30E-04
5.56E-04
4.81E-04
4.07E-04
3.33E-04
2.59E-04
1.85E-04
1.11E-04
3.70E-05
−3.70E-05
−1.11E-04
−1.85E-04
−2.59E-04
−3.33E-04
−4.07E-04
2 −4.81E-04
−5.56E-04
−6.30E-04
−7.04E-04
−7.78E-04
−8.52E-04
−9.26E-04
−1.00E-03

2 4 6 8

bar
1.00E-03
9.26E-04
8.52E-04
7.78E-04
7.04E-04
4 6.30E-04
5.56E-04
4.81E-04
4.07E-04
3.33E-04
2.59E-04
1.85E-04
1.11E-04
3.70E-05
−3.70E-05
−1.11E-04
−1.85E-04
−2.59E-04
−3.33E-04
−4.07E-04
2 −4.81E-04
−5.56E-04
−6.30E-04
−7.04E-04
−7.78E-04
−8.52E-04
−9.26E-04
−1.00E-03

2 4 6 8

1.00E-03
9.26E-04
8.52E-04
7.78E-04
7.04E-04
6.30E-04
4 5.56E-04
4.81E-04
4.07E-04
3.33E-04
2.59E-04
1.85E-04
1.11E-04
3.70E-05
−3.70E-05
−1.11E-04
−1.85E-04
−2.59E-04
−3.33E-04
−4.07E-04
−4.81E-04
2 −5.56E-04
−6.30E-04
−7.04E-04
−7.78E-04
−8.52E-04
−9.26E-04
−1.00E-03

2 4 6 8
(a) t = −11.56

Figure 11: (Continued)

42 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

dll
1.00E-03
9.26E-04
8.52E-04
7.78E-04
7.04E-04
4 6.30E-04
5.56E-04
4.81E-04
4.07E-04
3.33E-04
2.59E-04
1.85E-04
1.11E-04
3.70E-05
−3.70E-05
−1.11E-04
−1.85E-04
−2.59E-04
−3.33E-04
−4.07E-04
2 −4.81E-04
−5.56E-04
−6.30E-04
−7.04E-04
−7.78E-04
−8.52E-04
−9.26E-04
−1.00E-03

2 4 6 8

bar
1.00E-03
9.26E-04
8.52E-04
7.78E-04
7.04E-04
4 6.30E-04
5.56E-04
4.81E-04
4.07E-04
3.33E-04
2.59E-04
1.85E-04
1.11E-04
3.70E-05
−3.70E-05
−1.11E-04
−1.85E-04
−2.59E-04
−3.33E-04
−4.07E-04
2 −4.81E-04
−5.56E-04
−6.30E-04
−7.04E-04
−7.78E-04
−8.52E-04
−9.26E-04
−1.00E-03

2 4 6 8

1.00E-03
9.26E-04
8.52E-04
7.78E-04
7.04E-04
6.30E-04
4 5.56E-04
4.81E-04
4.07E-04
3.33E-04
2.59E-04
1.85E-04
1.11E-04
3.70E-05
−3.70E-05
−1.11E-04
−1.85E-04
−2.59E-04
−3.33E-04
−4.07E-04
2 −4.81E-04
−5.56E-04
−6.30E-04
−7.04E-04
−7.78E-04
−8.52E-04
−9.26E-04
−1.00E-03

2 4 6 8
(b) t = −9.20

Figure 11: (Continued)

aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 43

dll
4.00E-03
3.68E-03
3.36E-03
3.04E-03
2.72E-03
4 2.40E-03
2.00E-03
1.76E-03
1.44E-03
1.12E-03
8.00E-04
4.80E-04
1.60E-04
1.42E-04
1.15E-04
7.60E-04
−1.60E-04
−4.80E-04
−8.00E-04
−1.12E-03
2 −1.44E-03
−1.76E-03
−2.08E-03
−2.40E-03
−2.72E-03
−3.04E-03
−3.36E-03
−3.88E-03
−4.00E-03

2 4 6 8

bar
4.00E-03
3.72E-03
3.45E-03
3.17E-03
2.90E-03
4 2.62E-03
2.34E-03
2.07E-03
1.79E-03
1.52E-03
1.24E-04
9.66E-04
6.90E-04
4.14E-04
1.38E-04
−1.38E-04
−4.14E-04
−6.90E-04
−9.66E-04
−1.24E-03
2 −1.52E-03
−1.79E-03
−2.07E-03
−2.34E-03
−2.62E-03
−2.90E-03
−3.17E-03
−3.45E-03
−3.72E-03
−4.00E-03

2 4 6 8

4.00E-03
3.70E-03
3.41E-03
3.11E-03
2.81E-03
2.52E-03
4 2.22E-03
1.93E-03
1.63E-03
1.33E-03
1.04E-04
7.41E-04
4.44E-04
1.48E-04
−1.48E-04
−4.44E-04
−7.41E-04
−1.04E-04
−1.33E-04
−1.63E-03
−1.93E-03
2 −2.22E-03
−2.52E-03
−2.81E-03
−3.11E-03
−3.41E-03
−3.70E-03
−4.00E-03

2 4 6 8
(c) t = −6.25

Figure 11: Contribution of dilatational and baroclinic terms to vorticity generation

for Case 1: dilatation term (upper), baroclinic term (middle), dilatation
term + baroclinic term (lower).
44 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

4.0E+03 1.0E+01
Enstrophy Dilatation
2.0E+03 Dilatation Baroclinic
Baroclinic
0.0E+00 5.0E+00

−2.0E+03

−4.0E+03 0.0E+00

−6.0E+03

−8.0E+03 −5.0E+00

−1.0E+04

−1.2E+04 −1.0E+01
−15 −10 −5 0 5 −15 −10 −5 0
Time Time

(a) Case 1

6.0E+03 4.0E+00
Enstrophy Dilatation
Dilatation 2.0E+00 Baroclinic
Baroclinic

4.0E+03 0.0E+00

−2.0E+00

2.0E+03 −4.0E+00

−6.0E+00

0.0E+00 −8.0E+00

−1.0E+01
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 −8 −6 −4 −2 0
Time Time

(b) Case 2

2.5E+03 2.0E+01
Enstrophy Dilatation
Dilatation Baroclinic
2.0E+03 Baroclinic 1.0E+01

1.5E+03 0.0E+00

1.0E+03 −1.0E+01

5.0E+02 −2.0E+01

0.0E+00 −3.0E+01

−5.0E+02 −4.0E+01
−10 −5 0 5 −12 −10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0
Time Time

(c) Case 3

Figure 12: Time evolution of enstrophy, dilatational and baroclinic vorticity

generation.
aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 45

4.2.3. Noise generation by the interactions between complex flow structures

In Figures 6–8, various acoustic or pressure waves with a spherical shape are observed
in the simulation shadowgraphs (pressure contours in gray color). The sources of
acoustic waves are the interaction of large-scale vortical structures with one another and
with shocks.
In the interest of space, analysis of noise generation in the muzzle is confined to
Case 1. The instantaneous spatial distribution of irrotational (ua) and solenoidal (uv)
velocity components of the muzzle blast flow field for Case 1 are depicted in Figure 13

u u

1.86E-01 4.56E+00
10 1.59E-01 10 4.09E+00
1.31E-01 3.61E+00
1.03E-01 3.14E+00
7.59E-02 2.67E+00
4.83E-02 2.19E+00
2.07E-02 1.72E+00
5 −6.90E-03 5 1.24E+00
−3.45E-02 7.68E-01
−6.21E-02 2.94E-01
−1.80E-01
Y

Y
−8.97E-02
−1.17E-01 −6.55E-01
−1.45E-01 −1.13E+00
0 −1.72E-01
0 −1.60E+00
−2.00E-01 −2.08E+00

−5 −5

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
X X

v v

2.32E+00
10 1.86E-01
1.59E-01 10 1.98E+00
1.31E-01 1.63E+00
1.03E-01 1.29E+00
7.59E-02 9.45E-01
4.83E-02 6.01E-01
5 2.07E-02
5 2.58E-01
−8.59E-02
−6.90E-03
−3.45E-02 −4.30E-01
−6.21E-02 −7.73E-01
Y

−8.97E-02 −1.12E+00
−1.17E-01 −1.46E+00
0 −1.45E-01 −1.80E+00
0 −2.15E+00
−1.72E-01
−2.00E-01 −2.49E+00

−5 −5

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
X X
(a) Irrotational velocity field (b) Solenoidal velocity field

Figure 13: Spatial distribution of irrotational and solenoidal velocities from the
Helmholtz decomposition for Case 1 at t = −3.12: Solid and dashed lines
represent positive and negative values, respectively.
46 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

where the solid and dashed lines indicate positive and negative values, respectively. In
the irrotational velocity field (the left hand side of Figure 13), one can observe various
waves propagating in the outward direction. The first wave is the precursor blast wave
initially generated from the muzzle, which propagates omni-directionally to the far
field. The second wave, showing a dipolar propagation pattern, is the shock wave
generated by the supersonic motion of the main vortex ring.
Other waves apparent in the lateral direction are due to vortex-vortex and
shocklet-vortex interactions. To investigate the generation of these acoustic waves,
the acoustic perturbation equations (APEs), Eqs. (7) and (8) are used. Since these
–) is rightly
phenomena are taking place in a − quiescent atmosphere, the mean flow (u
assumed to be zero. The term, D s′/Dt, is negligible near the main vortex region
where several acoustic waves are produced. Finally, the source terms in APEs can be
simplified into two terms, ∇⋅(ρuv) and ∇⋅(ρ− ua). This is also expected in the vorticity
transport equation showing that the dilatation term is a dominant term in vorticity
generation after the development of a first precursor blast wave. To examine the
characteristics of noise generation and propagation in detail, we extracted from the
simulation results the noise source (∇⋅(ρuv)) and propagation (∇⋅(ρ− ua)) terms in Eq.
(7). Figure 14 presents color contours of the noise source ∇⋅(ρuv) and superimposed
grey contours of dilatational field ∇⋅(ρ− ua). This figure clearly brings out the
dominant source locations and the emanating sound waves. Figure 14 (a) is a

1.00
0.90
Anti-clockwise direction t = −11.56
0.80
0.70
Clockwise direction
nd
0.60
0.50
Acoustic waves by 2 VR
0.40
∇.(ρ−uα)
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
2nd vortex ring (1st CRVR)
−0.10
−0.20
−0.30
−0.40
−0.50
Acoustic wave by MVR
−0.60
−0.70
−0.80
−0.90
−1.00

Precursor blast wave

∇.(ρ uα)

Main vortex ring (MVR)

M>1: solid line M

4.00
M<1: dashed line 3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
2.80
2.60
Shocklet 2.40
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
M>1 0.60
0.40
M<1 0.20
0.00
M<1
M>1
M>1 M<1
(a) t = −11.56

Figure 14: (Continued)

aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 47

1.00
0.90 Acoustic wave by MVR
t = −9.20
0.80
0.70
0.60
First three acoustic Precursor wave
0.50
0.40 waves by 1st CRVR
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
−0.10
−0.20 1
−0.30
−0.40
−0.50
−0.60 2
−0.70
−0.80
−0.90 3
−1.00
Acoustic waves by the
unsteady motion of MVR

1′ 2 ′ 3 ′ Second three acoustic waves by 1st CRVR

M
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
2.80
Shocklets 2.60
2.40
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
2nd vortex ring 1.20
1.00
0.80
(1st CRVR) M>1 0.60
0.40
M>1 0.20
0.00
M<1
M>1
M>1 M<1
(b) t = −9.20

1.00 t = −8.75
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20 1
0.10
0.00
−0.10
−0.20 2
−0.30
−0.40
−0.50
−0.60 3
−0.70
−0.80
−0.90 Several
−1.00
acoustic
waves
Significant source region

M
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
2.80
2.60
2.40
2.20
Shocklets 2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
1st CRVR 0.80
0.60
M<1 0.40
0.20
0.00

M<1
M>1
M>1 M<1

(c) t = − 8.75

Figure 14: (Continued)

48 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

1.00 1
0.90 2
0.80
0.70 3
0.60
0.50
0.40
t = −6.25
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
−0.10 2′ 1′ 1∗
−0.20 3′ 2∗
−0.30
1 ′′
3∗
−0.40
−0.50
−0.60 2 ′′
−0.70 3 ′′
−0.80 *
−0.90
−1.00
1 ′′′

2 ′′′
3 ′′′

M
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
Vortex from MVR 3.20
3.00
2.80
2.60
2nd CRVR 2.40
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1s t CRVR M<1 M>1
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
M >1 0.20
0.00
Shock reflection
M>1 M<1

(d) t = − 6.25

Figure 14: Contours of the noise source ∇⋅(ρuv) superimposed on the dilatation field
∇⋅(ρ−ua) with a gray color and Mach number for Case 1.

snapshot at t = −11.56 where a pressure wave generated by the supersonic motion of

the main vortex ring is apparent. At this instant, a second vortex ring, i.e., the first
counter-rotating vortex ring (CRVR), on top of the main vortex ring has appeared.
Clearly visible in this snapshot is an eddy shocklet created as the main vortex ring
is thrust into the supersonic region. As the first CRVR interacts with the eddy
shocklet, it engenders acoustic waves, which we conclude by collating the
dilatational field and Mach contours. These waves denoted by ➀, ➁, and ➂ in Figure
14 (b) appear to be clockwise-oriented. Figure 14 (b) further indicates additional
shocklets and an acoustic three-wave pattern denoted by ➀′, ➁′, and ➂′. Figure 14
(c) represents the formation of several shocklets and their interaction with the first
CRVR, which induces multiple acoustic waves. These waves are denoted by ➀′′, ➁′′,
and ➂′′ and ➀′′′, ➁′′′, and ➂′′′ in Figure 14 (d), which also shows the formation of
the second CRVR and its interaction with the main vortex generating a pattern of
waves denoted by ➀∗, ➁∗, and ➂∗. Such wave patterns have been observed in
experiments [1] although shocklets were not visible in the complex shadowgraphs.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

The basic muzzle flow field comprising blast waves and vortex rings is simulated for
three cases with increasing projectile velocity. It is observed that the muzzle flow is
dependent on the time when the shock-front of the main propellant flow exits the
aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 49

muzzle. The vortex structures are found to be similar in all the cases, i.e., as the main
vortex ring (with a counterclockwise rotating core) evolves, two additional small vortex
rings appear above the main vortex ring. Their cores rotate in the clockwise direction.
Vorticity transport analysis of the results show that the dilatational contribution to
vorticity generation dominates in the region of vortex structures and the baroclinic term
dominates in the regions of shock waves and slip lines. Analysis of the equation for
pressure associated with the perturbation potential velocity (obtained from the
Helmholtz decomposition) shows that the significant source term is ∆⋅(ρuv). To the best
of our knowledge, this is the first time that eddy shocklets have been observed in muzzle
flow fields and wave patterns associated with the shocklet-vortex interaction identified.

APPENDIX
The following expressions represent the initial distribution of the emergent muzzle
flow.
(a) First precursor blast wave

u f , x < x Mf
u( x , r ) =  2 x (A.1)
u f exp[−(ln 2){( x − x Mf ) / bMf } ], Mf ≤ x ≤ x M

where x Mf = ( x M −10∆ x ) , bMf = 3∆ x

v(x, r) = 0 (A.2)

 p f , x < x Mf
p ( x, r ) =  (A.3)
2
( p f − 1 / γ ) exp[ −(ln 2 ){( x − x Mf ) / bMf } ] + 1 / γ , x Mf ≤ x ≤ x M

T f , x < x Mf
T (x, r) =  2
(A.4)
(T f − 1) exp[−(ln 2){( x − x Mf ) / bMf } ] + 1, x Mf ≤ x ≤ x M

ρ( x , r ) = γ p( x , r ) / T ( x , r ) (A.5)

where the subscripts “M” and “f” denote the muzzle exit and the first precursor blast
wave, respectively. For example, xM represents the position of the muzzle exit and
(uf , pf , Tf ) denote respectively the velocity, pressure and temperature of the first
precursor determined by Eq. (9).
(b) Blast wave engendered by the main propellant flow

uα , x < xα
u( x , r ) =  (A.6)
2
{uα − uM (r )}exp[−(ln 2){( x − xα ) / bα } ] + uM (r ) , xα ≤ x ≤ x M
50 Simulation and analysis of noise associated with muzzle flow

0 , x < xα
v( x , r ) =  2
(A.7)
− v M (r ) exp[− (ln 2){( x − xα ) / bα } ] + v M (r ) , xα ≤ x ≤ x M

 pα , x < xα
p( x , r ) =  (A.8)
2
{ pα − pM (r )}exp[−(ln 2){( x − xα ) / bα } ] + pM (r ) , xα ≤ x ≤ x M

Tα , x < xα
T (x, r) =  (A.9)
2
{Tα − TM (r )}exp[−(ln 2){( x − xα ) / bα } ] + TM (r ) , xα ≤ x ≤ x M

ρ( x , r ) = γ p( x , r ) / T ( x , r ) (A.10)

where the subscript “α” denotes the blast wave engendered by the main propellant flow.
So, xα and (uα , pα , Tα ) are respectively the location and physical quantities (velocity,
pressure, temperature) associated with the main propellant flow. In Case 1, however,
there exist two precursor waves (see Table 1). For the second precursor blast wave in
Case 1, xα = (xM − 10∆x), bα = 3∆x. For the blast wave by the main propellant flow in
Case 1, xα = (xM − 20∆x), bα = 6∆x. Here, (uM, vM, pM, TM) are physical quantities
computed numerically at the muzzle exit (xM) and they are functions of r. Equations
(A.1) through (A.10) smoothen the sharp gradients of the physical variables to preclude
numerical instability.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author (JB) gratefully acknowledges the financial assistance from the Office of the
Provost.

REFERENCES
[1] Klingenberg G, Heimerl JM. Gun Muzzle Blast and Flash. Progress in
Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol.139, AIAA: New York, 1991.
[2] Schmidt EM, Kahl GD, Shear DD. Gun blast: its propagation and determination.
AIAA Paper No. 80-1060, 1980.
[3] Schmidt EM, Shear DD. Optical measurements of muzzle blast. AIAA Journal
1975; 13(8):1086–1091.
[4] Schmidt EM, Shear DD. The formation and decay of impulsive, supersonic Jets.
AIAA Paper No. 74–531, 1974.
[5] Hirsch K-W, Trimpop M. A weapon database for the prediction of shooting noise.
Proceedings of Internoise, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 1999.
[6] Hargather M J, Settles GS. Optical measurement and scaling of blasts from gram-
range explosive charges. Shock Waves 2007; 17:215–223.
aeroacoustics volume 12 · number 1+2 · 2013 51

[7] Oswatitsch K. Flow research to improve the efficiency of muzzle brakes, Part I
through Part III. Muzzle Brake, edited by E.W. Hammer, Franklin Institute, 1949.
[8] Erdos JI, Del Guidice PD. Calculation of muzzle blast flowfields. AIAA Journal
1975; 13(8):1048–1055.
[9] Stoughton R. Measurements of small-caliber ballistic shock waves in air. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America 1997; 102(2):781–787.
[10] Taylor TD, Lin TC. Numerical model for muzzle blast flowfields. AIAA Journal
1981; 19(3):346–349.
[11] Jiang Z. Wave dynamics processes induced by a supersonic projectile discharging
from a shock tube. Physics of Fluids 2003; 15(6):1665–1675.
[12] Jiang Z, Huang Y, Kazuyoshi T. Shocked flows induced by supersonic projectiles
moving in tubes. Computers & Fluids 2004; 33(7):953–966.
[13] Chen H, Liang SM. Planar blast/vortex interaction and sound generation. AIAA
Journal 2002; 40(11):2298–2304.
[14] Liang SM, Chen H. Flow visualization of numerically simulated blast waves
discharging from open-ended duct. AIAA Journal 2003; 41(12):2420–2428.
[15] Bin J, Kim M, Lee S. A numerical study on the generation of impulsive noise by
complex flows discharging from a muzzle. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 2008; 75:964–991.
[16] Salas MD, Zang TA, Hussaini MY. Shock-fitted Euler solutions to shock-vortex
interactions. Lecture Notes in Physics, no. 170, edited by E. Krause, Springer-
Verlag, 1982.
[17] Erlebacher G, Hussaini HY, Shu C-W. Interaction of a shock with a longitudinal
vortex. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1997; 337:129–153.
[18] Ding Z, Hussaini MY, Erlebacher G, Krothapalli A. Computational study of shock
interaction with a vortex ring. Physics of Fluids 2001; 13(10)3033–3048.
[19] Ewert R, Schröder W. On the simulation of trailing edge noise with a hybrid
LES/APE method. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2004; 270:509–524.
[20] Tam CKW. Computational aeroacoustics: issues and methods. AIAA Journal
1995; 33(10):1788–1796.
[21] Tam CKW, Kurbatskii KA. Multi-size-mesh multi-time-step dispersion-relation-
preserving scheme for multiple-scale aeroacoustics problems. International
Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 2003; 17:119–132.
[22] Tam CKW, Dong Z. Radiation and outflow boundary conditions for direct
computation of acoustic and flow disturbances in a nonuniform mean flow.
Journal of Computational Acoustics 1996; 4:175–201.
[23] Shen H, Tam CKW. Numerical simulation of the generation of axisymmetric
mode jet screech tones. AIAA Journal 1998; 36(10):1801–1807.