International workshop on ‘LES for Acoustics’, DLR Göttingen, Germany, 7-8th October 2002

Towards Understanding LES and DES for Industrial Aeroacoustic

Predictions
Fred Mendonça*, Richard Allen, Julien de Charentenay, Mike Lewis,
Computational Dynamics Limited, London
*contact author, fred@cd.co.uk

ABSTRACT

Computational Aeroacoustics combines the multi-disciplines of Computational Fluid Dynamics and

Computational Acoustics. The former solves the time-dependant Navier-Stokes equations but relies on modelling
turbulence, which is central to the correct prediction of aeroacoustic sources. It must be capable of capturing
narrowband and broadband acoustics, the former manifested as tonal modes that cause discomfort, and both types
of which may be significant contributors to component fatigue failure. This paper describes an analysis process,
which has begun to show substantial value in both the preliminary design and production life cycles. It is founded
on LES-type turbulence modelling, hitherto almost exclusively the domain of research departments and
institutions, yet latterly has potential to become an industrial analysis tool through the combined advance in
processing power and efficiencies realised through Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) turbulence modelling.

Keywords: STAR-CD, Aeroacoustic sources, dipoles and quadrupoles, narrowband and broadband noise, DES

1. Introduction 2. Aeroacoustic Analysis Tool-kit

Real challenges to suppress undesirable fluid-
excited acoustics are posed by a wide variety of
engineering disciplines. Noise regulations,
passenger comfort and component stability are
motivators which are continuing to stimulate
substantial efforts towards the understanding of
aeroacoustic phenomena, and not least to quantify
the usability (practicability and value) of traditional
and advanced prediction methods. The latter is the
primary focus of this paper, particularly as applied
to the transportation industries, aerospace,
automotive, marine and rail.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a CAD
tool well integrated into the industrial development
and production life cycles. When coupled with other
predictive tools, namely Computational Acoustics
(CA) and Computational Structural Analysis,
solutions to what are essentially multi-physics
problems begin to be realised. The quantification of
equivalent sources termed dipoles and quadrupoles
is addressed, as it is an important part of the
coupling between these predictive methods. The
coupling between STAR-CD and SYSNOISE
described in section 2 provides a first step towards a
complete aeroacoustic analysis toolkit.
CFD prediction of narrowband and broadband noise
is closely related to turbulence modelling. A
hierarchy of methods is described herein, ranging
from synthesization of turbulence fluctuations in
steady-state calculations at the lower end, to LES-
type computations at the higher end. A greater
emphasis is placed here on the utilisation of LES
techniques, particularly the Detached Eddy
Simulation (DES) turbulence model. Some details
of the methodologies are presented in section 3,
their value carefully demonstrated on generic and
industrial test cases. Results from the test cases
undertaken are presented in the same section, and
some recommendations are made in section 4.
For convenience, two separate steps are identified in
the process of analysing aeroacoustic problems.
- Prediction of aeroacoustic sources
- Propagation of sources to the near and far-field
In the former, CFD steady-state synthesization
methods and transient computations may be used to
identify the location and magnitude, respectively, of
equivalent dipole and quadrupole sources [1,2,3,4].
Propagation of aeroacoustic sources using CFD
methods, especially for complex geometries, is
more problematic since spatial discretisation
schemes of fourth- or sixth-order are required.
Boundary element integrals and finite element
methods are more readily utilised [5,6], as
demonstrated in section 2.3
2.1 Approximations of quadrupole sources in
steady-state
Fluctuating velocity components are re-synthesized
[7] using information from steady-state calculations
with RANS based turbulence models. Here, the
mean flow, turbulent kinetic energy and eddy
dissipation rate are all used to derive synthetic
turbulence length and timescales, magnitude, phase
and directionality of modes in wave space. Once re-
synthesised, the fluctuating velocities may then be
used to approximate quadrupole sources, as defined
by some suitable acoustics analogy [8].
Figure 1 illustrates the approximate sources arising
from flow over a full vehicle, showing an iso-
surface of the magnitude of the Lilley-analogy
turbulent shear term. The largest shear-noise
sources originate from the side-view mirror, wiper
cavity, A-pillar, wheel-well, tyres, detailed under-
body and wake.

© Computational Dynamics Limited, 2002 1

International workshop on ‘LES for Acoustics’, DLR Göttingen, Germany, 7-8th October 2002
There are three benefits in using this methodology.
First, relative source magnitudes show which
locations are predominant, or which comparative
designs are superior. Secondly, it provides useful
information as to where to monitor quadrupoles in a
transient calculation (see section 2.2 and 2.3).
Thirdly, the method is quick, adding only a few
percent to the steady-state calculation time as a post
processing function. One significant disadvantage is
that it is not possible to extract acoustic spectra. For
this, transient calculations are necessary.
FIGURE 1: Approximate quadrupole sources on a Ford Ka
(courtesy of Ford Motor Company)
2.2 Transient calculations
Equivalent sources, namely dipoles (associated with
aerodynamic surface pressure forcing), and
quadrupoles (associated with fluctuating velocities
in the flow volume), may be directly captured
through transient CFD calculations. In this section,
only the process of extracting necessary data to
compile dipoles and quadrupoles is addressed. In
section 3, much greater emphasis is placed on the
quality of the predictions, particularly relating to
turbulence modelling.
FIGURE 2: Typical pressure-time trace
Transient calculations commence from the
representative steady-state solution, and advance to
a state of limit cycling after which the data is
© Computational Dynamics Limited, 2002
analyzed. Figure 2 shows a typical oscillatory
pressure trace at a point in the flow domain.
Surface pressure data are mapped to the nodes of
the acoustics mesh from the CFD mesh (figure 3
illustrates an idealized passenger cabin and sunroof
aperture) for a required sample time, the inverse of
which provides the frequency resolution when the
signal is processed (e.g. a 0.1sec sample will give a
10Hz resolution). This data are then used to
calculate equivalent dipole sources for a
propagation calculation.
FIGURE 3: idealised passenger cabin with open sunroof; CFD
surface mesh (top); Acoustic surface mesh (bottom)
Quadrupole sources by contrast are compiled from
temporal velocity variations in the volume. The
volume locations may be chosen from those points
at which the Lilley sources are maximized (see
figure 4, comparing open-sunroof designs with and
without a deflector) thereby potentially reducing the
need to store excessively large quantities of time-
varying field data.
FIGURE 4: Quadrupole source distribution with (bottom) and
without (top) deflector; symmetry plane of an idealised passenger
cabin with open sunroof.
2
International workshop on ‘LES for Acoustics’, DLR Göttingen, Germany, 7-8th October 2002

2.3 Propagation of Sources

Equivalent sources from the transient CFD

calculation are compiled in SYSNOISE [4,5] and
propagated into the near and far field assuming a
uniform airflow medium.

Effect of the deflector measured inside the car

130.0

120.0

110.0
SPL [dB]

100.0 Point82_clean

90.0 Point82_defl

80.0

70.0

60.0
0 30 62 94 126 158 190 222 254 286
Frequency [Hz]

FIGURE 5: SPL at driver’s ear location with and without deflector

(courtesy of LMS International)
FIGURE 7: Propagated dipoles outside (top) and inside vehicle
with deflector (courtesy of LMS International)
The presence of the deflector suppresses the
intensity of the main buffeting tone and damps the
harmonics causing an overall reduction of sound at
the driver’s ear location, as illustrated in figure 5.

Figures 6 and 7 represent the sound pressure level

(SPL) computed on a symmetrical field point mesh
(microphone positions) inside and outside the car
for both cases and show that the radiated noise from
dipole sources reduces in the case where the
deflector is fitted. A computation of the overall SPL
for the frequency range 2-298HZ for the dipole’s
radiation gives a level of 138dB inside the cabin
without, and 124 dB with the deflector, i.e. a
reduction of 14 dB. Outside the car the overall SPL
is 129 dB without, and 124 dB with the deflector.

Figure 8 show the effect of the deflector on the

quadrupole noise radiated inside and outside the car.
Whereas there is an increase in the thickness of the FIGURE 8: Propagated quadrupoles without (top) and with
deflector (courtesy of LMS International)
shear-layer above the aperture due to the presence
of the deflector, the strength of the quadrupole
source, shown here at 26Hz, is reduced compared 3. CFD Methodologies
with the no-deflector configuration. At 50dB, the
quadrupole noise is much less than the dipole noise. In this section, more details are given on the use of
turbulence modelling techniques and comparisons
thereof (RANS, LES and DES), numerical schemes
(second-order upwind and central differencing) and
wall boundary conditions.

STAR-CD uses the PISO algorithm to solve time

dependent problems.

3.1 Solver numerics

In the first instance, inadvertent contribution from a

numerical solver to diffusion needs to be quantified.
For viscous dominated flows second-order linear-
upwind schemes are recognised to be suitable,
whereas for large-eddy simulation, pure central
differencing is desirable.

In the example below, figure 9, the relative accuracy

of spatial discretisation schemes are assessed by
numerically analysing turbulence decay in a box.
FIGURE 6: Propagated dipoles outside (top) and inside vehicle Fours scenarios are compared; pure central
without deflector (courtesy of LMS International)
differencing (CD) and STAR-CD’s TVD second

© Computational Dynamics Limited, 2002 3

International workshop on ‘LES for Acoustics’, DLR Göttingen, Germany, 7-8th October 2002

order linear-upwind scheme, MARS (Monotone Allmaras and k-ω, including variants, but results are
Advection and Reconstruction Scheme), with and not shown here.
without a Smagorinsky-type sub-grid scale
viscosity. The sub-grid viscosity is used here is that
which comes from the DES model [9], with CDES set
to the recommended value of 0.65.

FIGURE 10: Hybrid wall-function – u+ versus y+ for channel flow

FIGURE 9: Turbulence decay in a box – comparison of numerical

schemes with and without sub-grid scale viscosity.

This computation was performed on a coarse mesh

containing 16x16x16 cells (and repeated for CD
plus sub-grid viscosity with improved resolution on
a 32x32x32 mesh), using 1storder Euler-implicit
temporal discretisation with a Courant number
based on convection of much less than unity. CD
without the sub-grid scale correctly reproduces the
FIGURE 11: Hybrid wall-function – k+ versus y+ for channel flow
required slope of 2, and CD with the sub-grid scale
correctly produces the –5/3 decay slope and
matches measurements [10] satisfactorily (dashed
line in figure 9). By contrast, MARS without the
sub-grid scale viscosity contains sufficient artificial
numerical diffusion to mimic a sub-grid viscosity,
whereas MARS with the sub-grid scale is too
viscous.

This simple result has important consequences for

spatial discretisation schemes when considering
flows in complex geometries with mixed shear-
layers and large-eddies. A blending function is used
[11] between the two regimes which transitions FIGURE 12: Hybrid wall-function – ε versus y+ for channel flow
between full central differencing in the bulk-flow
and the linear-upwind scheme close to surfaces. Table 1 lists the predicted skin friction coefficients
and near-wall y+ for the three meshes used,
3.2 Near-wall conditions – hybrid wall-function compared with the reference value of Cf = 2.6x10-3

Complex flows with widely varying geometric Mesh Near-wall y+ Cf

scales challenge mesh construction in the near-wall
region to satisfy y+ constraints. The constraint is
relaxed with specific wall-functions termed
‘hybrid’, which are able both to bridge or to
penetrate the viscous region [12]. The present
hybrid wall-function is used always with low-Re
turbulence model formulations to provide
appropriate viscous damping.
Figures 10, 11 and 12 show the predicted profiles of
normalised velocity, turbulent kinetic energy and
dissipation rate against normalised wall distance for
a channel flow at Re= 2.4x105, on three meshes
with near wall points ranging from within the
laminar sub-layer, in the buffer layer, and finally to
the fully turbulent part respectively. The
calculations were performed with the k-ε turbulence
model; the hybrid wall-function has been coded for
other eddy-viscosity models, namely Spalart-
Low Re 1.4 2.6x10-3
Intermediate 15 2.4x10-3
High Re 162 2.5x10-3
Table 1: Prediction of fraction coefficient Cf
3.3 DES performance on a circular cylinder
To build confidence in the application of DES,
numerous generic test cases have been undertaken,
one of which is reported here. The case LS1 [13]
was recomputed using a mesh from STAR-CD’s
trimmed-cell methodology, illustrated in figure 13.
The facets of this mesh are extruded prisms to the
surface from trimmed polyhedra in the volume, and
successive refinement approaching the geometry.
This methodology benefits from predominantly
perfect hexahedra, bring obvious advantages to the

© Computational Dynamics Limited, 2002 4

International workshop on ‘LES for Acoustics’, DLR Göttingen, Germany, 7-8th October 2002
accuracy, robustness and convergence behaviour of
the solver.
FIGURE 13: Circular cylinder, trimmed mesh, Case LS1 [12]; full
mesh (top), detail (bottom) showing surface extrusion layers
This calculation was run with the DES Spalart-
Allmaras model at Re=5x104, ∆t=0.05sec
corresponding to a mean Courant number of
approximately one, using 1st order Euler-implicit
temporal discretisation, on a grid totalling 298,000
cells. Figure 14 illustrates the lift and drag time
histories, indicating a Strouhal number of 0.22
which matches the result in [12] and is close to the
reported experimental values at similar Reynolds
numbers.
FIGURE 14: Lift (bottom) and Drag (top) coefficients time
histories
Figure 15 shows an instantaneous section contour
plot and a 3D iso-surface of the imaginary part λi of
© Computational Dynamics Limited, 2002
the eigenvalue of the velocity-gradient tensor to
illustrate vorticity.
FIGURE 15: vorticity illustrations through λi; section (top) through
span and 3D iso-surface (bottom); case LS1 [12]
3.4 Application of unsteady RANS, LES and
DES to high-speed cavity aeroacoustics
A relevant industrial test case, that of M=0.85
rectangular cavity, L/D=5, on which noise
suppression studies have been reported [14], is
computed here to demonstrate the differences
between RANS modelling, LES and DES, their
respective advantages and disadvantages.
FIGURE 16: Surface mesh and surface pressure variation – ‘with-
doors’ configuration.
Figure 16 is a 3D representation of the cavity,
showing the surface mesh and instantaneous surface
pressure variation. The ‘with-doors’ configuration
confines the flow to be pseudo-two-dimensional.
Transient RANS calculations in 2D can be
particularly accurate in predicting the overall
pressure variation along the length of the cavity
floor (figure 17). Studies in 2D demonstrate that
first-order temporal discretisation is sufficient to
produce quality solutions.
The ‘W’ shape of the Prms curve is representative of
a dominant second Rossiter mode, which is
associated with the oscillating shear layer, and
which the RANS turbulence model resolves well.
Three other modes exist; the first is associated with
transverse oscillations and it is clear from figure 18
that the 3D RANS simulation not only resolves this
mode, but indeed over-predicts it.
5
International workshop on ‘LES for Acoustics’, DLR Göttingen, Germany, 7-8th October 2002

It is not understood (at least not by the authors),
which mechanisms drive the third and fourth
Rossiter modes, neither is it clear which flow
features are the manifestation of these higher
modes. It is clear, however, that RANS fails to
predict them sufficiently when they appear as
broadband acoustic spectra, and is more clearly
observable for different cavity configuration,
namely with doors off.
contrast, LES again correctly predicts all three
modes and their frequencies.
Visualisation of the computed flow field reveals that
LES produces a more random or chaotic ‘splashing’
of the shear layer similar to observation. The
randomised flow is representative of a wide
spectrum of eddy sizes, which are inherently
broadband. Nevertheless, LES suffers from its
requirement for very fine meshes, particularly close
to solid surfaces.

FIGURE 17: Prms along cavity centre-line (RANS, doors on)

FIGURE 19: Prms along cavity centre-line (LES versus RANS,

doors off)

FIGURE 18: PSD close to the back wall (RANS, doors on).

The cavity shear layer is no longer constrained in

the transverse direction. This seems to accentuate FIGURE 20: PSD at the mid-point of the cavity floor (LES versus
RANS, doors off).
the others modes, in particular the first and third,
which become of similar magnitude to the second
and are broadband in nature. The Prms curve takes on
a different shape, shown in figure 19, related to
dominance of the first Rossiter mode. RANS is
quite unable to reproduce the curve whereas as an
LES calculation (Smagornisky with wall-functions)
performed on the same mesh (3D with
approximately 500,000 cells) does, albeit with an
over-predicted level. This over-prediction is most
probably due to the combined use of MARS scheme
and an insufficiently fine mesh; the latter
accentuates low-frequency noise. However, more
detailed analyses of the spectra at points along the
length of the cavity floor reveal encouragingly
correct trends. At the mid-point, figure 20, RANS FIGURE 21: PSD close to the back wall along the cavity floor
offers no acoustic signal. LES successfully (LES versus RANS, doors off).
simulates the peak frequency and the broadband
nature. Close to the back wall, Prms for the RANS DES, on the other hand, sidesteps this demand by
prediction recovers, but the spectra are clearly using RANS in the near-wall region, and smoothly
incorrect. Figure 21 demonstrates that RANS transitioning to LES-mode sufficiently to capture
predicts narrowband first and third modes and the important large-scale motions. DES with the
entirely fails to predict the second mode. By Spalart-Allmaras model applied to the same doors-
off cavity mesh reveals further improvements in the

© Computational Dynamics Limited, 2002 6

International workshop on ‘LES for Acoustics’, DLR Göttingen, Germany, 7-8th October 2002
computational predictions, as shown below. The
acoustic spectra are plotted against the same LES
data shown in figures 19 to 21 above.
Improvements are observed in the Prms levels and in
the low frequency content, attributable to the careful
treatment of blended spatial discretisation and to the
reduced reliance on near-wall resolution.
FIGURE 22: Prms along cavity centre-line (DES versus LES, doors
off)
FIGURE 23: PSD at the mid-point of the cavity floor (DES versus
LES, doors off).
FIGURE 24: PSD close to the back wall along the cavity floor
(DES versus LES, doors off).
Typical runtimes for RANS, LES and DES
computations on a three dimensional, 500,000 cell
mesh over 0.2 seconds elapse time with a ∆t=2e-5
second time step increment are approximately 11
days on 4x750MHz processors of an HP rp8400
machine.
© Computational Dynamics Limited, 2002
4. Recommendations and future
work programmes
To summarise, RANS models are able under some
circumstances to predict acoustics phenomena to a
high level of accuracy and also allow analyses to be
executed more efficiently in 2D. The circumstances
in which they become inaccurate are not know a
priori, therefore to be safe, LES-type methods are
recommended. The inherently three-dimensional
flow that requires fine near-wall resolution may be
relaxed by the DES approach, which for
aeroacoustic analysis and related physics is now
proving useful and valuable in industrial
applications. The incoherent nature of the predicted
flow field requires long calculation times to reduce
the spiky nature of the processed data.
The Aeroacoustics tool-kit proposed at the start of
this paper will be put through rigorous industrial
trails in the next six months. Partners in the
DESTINY-AAC project (DES for the Transport
INdustrY – AeroACoustics) will exercise the
coupled tools for wide-ranging industrial examples
including fans, side-view mirrors, ducts and external
rail applications. DES computations and
comparisons against measurements will be reported
in subsequent meetings.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all partners in the
DESTINY-AAC project consortium; Air
International, AUDI, BEHR, Bombardier
Transportation, DaimlerChrysler, Denso, and LMS
International for their support of the project, and
Hewlett-Packard Limited for their assistance in
providing computing resources. Further thanks are
due to BAE SYSTEMS for the support that has led
to improved understanding and modelling advances.
We are similarly grateful to Fred Ross, adapco, and
Ford Motor Company for the image of shear-noise
sources on the Ford Ka, and to Thomas Rung,
Bombardier Transportation for enthusiastic
contributions.
7
International workshop on ‘LES for Acoustics’, DLR Göttingen, Germany, 7-8th October 2002

REFERENCES
[1] Kaludercic B., “Aeroacoustic Sound Sources
Prediction in Shear Flows using R.A.N.S.” 3rd
MIRA International Vehicle Aerodynamics
Conference, 18-19th October 2000, Rugby, UK
[2] Debatin, K.,”Localisation aeroakusticher
quellen in Scherschich todomenanten
Strömungen”, Doktors der
Ingenieurswisseinschaften, Universität
Karlsruhe, 1999.
[12] Rung, T., “Formulierung universeller
Wandrandbedinggungen für
Transportgleichungsturbulenzmodelle”,
Hermann-Föttinger-Institut für
Strömungsmechanik Technische Univerität
Berlin, Institutsbericht Nr.02/99
[13] Travin, A., Shur, M., Strelets, M., Spalart, P.,
“Detached-Eddy Simulation Past a Circular
Cylinder”, Flow, Turbulence and Combustion,
63, pp293-313, 1999

[3] Mendonça F, Schofield M, Allen, R., Lewis,
M., Read A., “Prediction of Narrow and
broadband Aeroacoustic Sources with CFD”,
4th MIRA International Vehicle Aerodynamics
Conference, 16-17th October 2002, Warwick,
UK
[14] Stanek, M., Raman, G., Kibens, V., Ross, J.A.,
Odedra, J., Peto, J.W., “Suppression of Cavity
Resonance Through Very High Frequency
Forcing”, AIAA 2000-1905

[4] Algermissen, G., Siegert, R., Spindler, T.,

“Numerical Simulation of Aeroacoustic Sound
Generated by Fans under Installation
Conditions”, AIAA-2001-2174

[5] El Hachemi, Z., Hallez, R., Dequand, S.,

Tournour, M., Mendonça, F., Schofield M.,,
Montavon, C., Tremblay, F., “Application of
Aeroacoustic Analogy to Automotive
Industry”. JSAE 20025339, June 2002

[6] El Hachemi, Z., Hallez, R., Mendonça, F.,

Schofield M., "On the coupling of
Aeroacoustic Sources from CFD and Noise
Propagation Codes (CFD+CA=CAA)”, 4th
MIRA International Vehicle Aerodynamics
Conference, 16-17th October 2002, Warwick,
UK

[7] Kraichnan, R.H., “Diffusion by a random

velocity field”, J.Comp.Physics, 13(1), p22-31,
1970

[8] Lilley, G.M., “Generation of sound in a mining

region”, Lockheed Aircraft Company, F-
33615-71-C-1663.

[9] Nikitin, N.V., Nicoud, F., Wasistho, B.,

Squires, K.D., Spalart, P.R., ‘An approach to
wall modelling in large-eddy simulation’,
Physics of Fluids, Volume12 No.7, July 2000.

[10] Comte-Bellot, G., Corrsin, S., “Simple

Eulerian time-correlation of full- and narrow-
band velocity signals in grid-generated
‘isotropic’ turbulence”, J.Fluid Mech. 48(2),
pp273-337, (1971)

[11] Travin, A., Shur, M., Strelets, M., Spalart, P.,

“Physical and Numerical Upgrades in the
Detached-Eddy Simulation of Complex
Turbulent Flows”, published in Advances in
LES of Complex Flows, pp239-254, eds. P
Friedrich and W.Rodi, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2002

© Computational Dynamics Limited, 2002 8