Graduate School ETD Form 9

(Revised 12/07)

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance

This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared

By DEEPAK THIRUMURTHY

Entitled DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF NOISE SUPPRESSION EXHAUST NOZZLE SYSTEMS

For the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

Is approved by the final examining committee:

Dr. ANASTASIOS S. LYRINTZIS

W
Chair
Dr. GREGORY A. BLAISDELL

Dr. JOHN P. SULLIVAN

IE
EV

To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Research Integrity and
Copyright Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 20), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of
Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material.
PR

Dr. ANASTASIOS S. LYRINTZIS

Approved by Major Professor(s): ____________________________________
____________________________________

Approved by: Dr. ANASTASIOS S. LYRINTZIS JANUARY 14TH, 2010

Head of the Graduate Program Date
Graduate School Form 20
(Revised 6/09)

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL

Research Integrity and Copyright Disclaimer

Title of Thesis/Dissertation:
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF NOISE SUPPRESSION EXHAUST NOZZLE SYSTEMS

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

For the degree of ________________________________________________________________

W
I certify that in the preparation of this thesis, I have observed the provisions of Purdue University
Executive Memorandum No. C-22, September 6, 1991, Policy on Integrity in Research.*
IE
Further, I certify that this work is free of plagiarism and all materials appearing in this
thesis/dissertation have been properly quoted and attributed.

I certify that all copyrighted material incorporated into this thesis/dissertation is in compliance with
EV
the United States’ copyright law and that I have received written permission from the copyright
owners for my use of their work, which is beyond the scope of the law. I agree to indemnify and save
harmless Purdue University from any and all claims that may be asserted or that may arise from any
copyright violation.
PR

DEEPAK THIRUMURTHY
______________________________________
Printed Name and Signature of Candidate

02/22/2010
______________________________________
Date (month/day/year)

*Located at http://www.purdue.edu/policies/pages/teach_res_outreach/c_22.html
 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF

NOISE SUPPRESSION EXHAUST NOZZLE SYSTEMS

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

of

W
Purdue University
IE by

Deepak Thirumurthy
EV

In Partial Fulfillment of the

PR

Requirements for the Degree

of

Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics

May 2010

Purdue University

West Lafayette, Indiana

 UMI Number: 1479646

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

W
a note will indicate the deletion.

IE
EV

UMI 1479646
PR

Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 ii

W
IE
EV
To my Parents and dear Sister, who enabled me to pursue my dreams.
PR
 iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude towards my major professors, Dr. Anasta-

sios S. Lyrintzis and Dr. Gregory A. Blaisdell for their support, encouragement and
instruction.
My sincere appreciation goes to Dr. John P. Sullivan and his design team for their
constant suggestions on the nozzle design and support in the form of experimen-
tal results. I would also like to thank Dr. Stephen D. Heister, director, Rolls-Royce

W
University Technology Center in High Mach Propulsion, Dr. Jack S. Sokhey, senior en-
gineering consultant, Rolls-Royce, Indianapolis, USA and Mr. John R. Whurr, senior
project engineer, Rolls-Royce, Derby, UK for their support.
IE
I am grateful to Dr. John Matlik, Dr. Loren Garrison and Patricia A. Ellis, Rolls-
Royce, Indianapolis, USA for being instrumental in liaisoning the Purdue University
EV
- Rolls-Royce University Technology Center activities and helping in obtaining pub-
lication approval.
The work summarized in this thesis was part of Task 8, nozzle acoustics analysis,
PR

of the supersonic business jet program, sponsored by Rolls-Royce and the Gulfstream
Aerospace Corporation.
 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

W
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Supersonic Civil Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Challenges Associated with Supersonic Transport . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Noise Suppression Propulsion System . . . . . . .
IE . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Noise Suppression and Design Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1 Jet Noise - A Classical Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
EV
2.2 Noise Suppression Exhaust Nozzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1 Ejector Nozzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.2 Chevrons - Passive Mixers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Computational Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
PR

2.3.1 Numerical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.3.2 Turbulence Modeling for Jet Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4 Design Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3 Chevron Nozzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3 Three-Stream Separate-Flow Axisymmetric Plug Nozzle (3BB) . . . 29
3.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3.2 Geometry and Mesh Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3.3 Boundary Conditions and CFD Methodology . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4 Three-Stream Separate-Flow Chevron Nozzle (3A12B) . . . . . . . 42
3.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.4.2 Geometry and Mesh Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.4.3 Boundary Conditions and CFD Methodology . . . . . . . . . 45
3.4.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
 v

Page
3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4 Ejector Nozzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.3 2-D Ejector Nozzle Test Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.3.2 Geometry and Mesh Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.3.3 Boundary Conditions and Numerical Computation . . . . . 62
4.3.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.4 3-D Ejector Nozzle with Clamshell Doors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.4.2 Experimental Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.4.3 Nozzle Design and CAD Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.4.4 Grid Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

W
4.4.5 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.4.6 Numerical Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.4.7 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IE . . . . . 79
4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5 3-D Ejector Nozzles
with Clamshell Doors and Chevrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
EV
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.3 Ejector Flow with Chevrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.4 Nozzle Design and CAD Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.5 Computational Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
PR

5.6 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

5.7 Numerical Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.8 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.8.1 Design I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.8.2 Design II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.8.3 Discussion on the centerline statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.8.4 Effect on the ejector mass flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.10 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
 vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
2.1 Thies and Tam’s k- turbulence model constants [39]. . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1 Boundary conditions for the CFD simulation of the three-stream separate-
flow axisymmetric plug nozzle (3BB) [20]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.2 Boundary conditions for the CFD simulation of the three-stream separate-
flow chevron nozzle (3A12B) [24]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.1 2-D ejector nozzle boundary conditions [46]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

W
4.2 Calculation of the corrected inlet axial velocity magnitude for the CFD
simulations using the minimization of the RMS difference. . . . . . . . 77
5.1 Dimensions of the chevron on the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors
IE
for Design I and Design II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.2 Boundary conditions for the CFD simulation of the ejector nozzle with
clamshell doors and chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
EV

5.3 The effect of chevrons on the ejector mass flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

PR
 vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1.1 History of the commercial and military supersonic transport aircraft and
its progress. (Reproduced courtesy of P. Henne [3].) . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 The noise distribution from the individual components of the airbreathing
jet engine propulsion system [6]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 A schematic representation of the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors [7]. 5
2.1 Jet noise as a result of the shear layer mixing phenomenon. . . . . . . . 9

W
2.2 Requirements for the pressure ratio and the area ratio as Mach number
increases [16]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Operational modes of the ejector nozzle with clamshell doors (1) Subsonic
IE
take-off, (2) Supersonic cruise and (3) Subsonic approach. . . . . . . . 14
2.4 LS /∆ = Optimum attached free mixing layer. (Reproduced courtesy of J.
Der Jr. [17].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
EV

2.5 Three-stream separate-flow nozzle with chevrons on the core and fan noz-
zle [18]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6 Mixing of two streams of the chevron nozzle and streamwise vortex for-
PR

mation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.7 Methodology for the jet engine exhaust nozzle design and analysis. . . 27
3.1 The CAD geometry of the three-stream separate-flow axisymmetric plug
nozzle [20]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2 The computational mesh for the three-stream separate-flow axisymmetric
plug nozzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to PIV experi-
ments on the Z=0 plane [20]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.4 3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the standard
k- turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.5 3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the realizable
k- turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 viii

Figure Page
3.6 3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the standard
k-ω turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.7 3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the k-ω shear
stress transport turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.8 3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the Reynolds
stress turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.9 3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to PIV experi-
ments on the Z=0 plane [20]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.10 3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the standard
k- turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.11 3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the realizable
k- turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

W
3.12 3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the standard
k-ω turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
IE
3.13 3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the k-ω shear
stress transport turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.14 3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the Reynolds
EV
stress turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.15 Centerline axial velocity profiles for different turbulence models and com-
parison with the experimental result. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
PR

3.16 Centerline total temperature profiles for different turbulence models and
comparison with the experimental result. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.17 Dimensions for the design of alternating chevrons [21]. . . . . . . . . . 43
3.18 The CAD geometry of the three-stream separate-flow chevron nozzle [24]. 44
3.19 The computational mesh for the three-stream separate-flow chevron noz-
zle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.20 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to PIV exper-
iments on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . . 49
3.21 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to WIND-
CFD results on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . 49
3.22 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the k-ω
SST turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane. 49
 ix

Figure Page
3.23 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the stan-
dard k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-
plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.24 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the real-
izable k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-
plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.25 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to Thies and
Tam’s k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-
plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.26 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to PIV exper-
iments on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.27 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to WIND-

W
CFD results on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . . . . 51
3.28 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the k-ω
SST turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . . . .
IE 51
3.29 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the stan-
dard k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . 52
EV
3.30 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the realiz-
able k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . . 52
3.31 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to Thies and
Tam’s k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid plane. . 52
PR

3.32 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to PIV exper-
iments on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . . 53
3.33 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to WIND-CFD
results on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . . 53
3.34 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the k-ω SST
turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane. . . 53
3.35 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the standard
k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane. 54
3.36 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the real-
izable k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-
plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.37 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to Thies and
Tam’s k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-
plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
 x

Figure Page
3.38 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to PIV exper-
iments on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.39 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to WIND-CFD
results on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.40 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the k-ω SST
turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . . . . . . 55
3.41 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the standard
k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . . . . 56
3.42 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the realiz-
able k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . . 56
3.43 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to Thies and
Tam’s k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . 56

W
3.44 Centerline axial velocity profiles for different turbulence models and com-
parison with the experimental result. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
IE
3.45 Centerline total temperature profiles for different turbulence models and
comparison with the experimental result. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1 Experimental setup for the 2-D ejector nozzle. (Reproduced courtesy
EV
of [46].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.2 Computational mesh for the 2-D ejector nozzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.3 Mach number contour plot of the 2-D ejector nozzle corresponding to the
PR

k-ω SST turbulence model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.4 Mach number contour plot of the 2-D ejector nozzle corresponding to the
Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.5 2-D ejector nozzle axial velocity profile at X=3.0 in. . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.6 2-D ejector nozzle axial velocity profile at X=5.0 in. . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.7 2-D ejector nozzle axial velocity profile at X=7.0 in. . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.8 2-D ejector nozzle axial velocity profile at X=10.5 in. . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.9 2-D ejector nozzle total temperature profile at X=3.0 in. . . . . . . . . 67
4.10 2-D ejector nozzle total temperature profile at X=10.5 in. . . . . . . . 67
4.11 CAD model of the 3-D ejector nozzle without clamshell doors [44]. . . . 69
4.12 CAD model of the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors [44]. . . . . 69
 xi

Figure Page
4.13 Computational mesh for nozzle walls (a) 3-D ejector nozzle without clamshell
doors (Grid I), and (b) 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors (Grid II). 70
4.14 Computational mesh (Grid II) for the entire flow domain of the 3-D ejec-
tor nozzle with clamshell doors for the CFD simulation at experimental
conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.15 Computational mesh (Grid III) for the entire flow domain of the 3-D ejec-
tor nozzle with clamshell doors for the CFD simulation at take-off condi-
tions (higher NPR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.16 Extent of the computational domain for the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell
doors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.17 Schematic representation of experimental boundary conditions (Simula-
tion I) and their numerical values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

W
4.18 Schematic representation of take-off boundary conditions (Simulation II)
and their numerical values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.19 Experimental survey of the plenum chamber in the absence of the noz-
IE
zle showing the nonuniformity involved in the axial velocity magnitude
distribution [44]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
EV
4.20 RMS difference distribution in the axial velocity magnitude at X/DEQ =1.0
downstream of the nozzle throat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.21 Contour plot of the normalized axial velocity magnitude on the Z=0 plane
for the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors corresponding to the k-ω
shear stress transport turbulence model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
PR

4.22 Contour plot of the normalized axial velocity magnitude on the Z=0 plane
for the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors corresponding to the real-
izable k- turbulence model with Thies and Tam’s model constants for jet
flows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.23 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.0 from the throat [44]. 82
4.24 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.0 from the throat. . 82
4.25 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.5 from the throat [44]. 83
4.26 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.5 from the throat. . 83
4.27 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =2.0 from the throat [44]. 84
4.28 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =2.0 from the throat. . 84
4.29 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 from the throat [44]. 85
 xii

Figure Page
4.30 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 from the throat. . 85
4.31 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.0 and on the Z=0 plane. 86
4.32 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.0 and on the Y =0 plane. 86
4.33 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.5 and on the Z=0 plane. 87
4.34 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.5 and on the Y =0 plane. 87
4.35 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =2.0 and on the Z=0 plane. 88
4.36 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =2.0 and on the Y =0 plane. 88
4.37 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Z=0 plane. 89
4.38 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Y =0 plane. 89
4.39 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 downstream of the

W
nozzle throat corresponding to the realizable k- turbulence model. . . 90
4.40 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 downstream of the
nozzle throat corresponding to the standard k- turbulence model. . . . 90
IE
4.41 Comparison of centerline axial velocity profiles among experiments, the
k-ω SST, the realizable k- and the standard k- turbulence models. . . 91
EV
4.42 Comparison of axial velocity profiles at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Z=0 plane
between the k-ω SST and the realizable k- turbulence model. . . . . . 92
4.43 Comparison of axial velocity profiles at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Y =0 plane
between the k-ω SST and the realizable k- turbulence model. . . . . . 92
PR

4.44 Contour plot of the normalized axial velocity magnitude of the 3-D ejector
nozzle with clamshell doors on the Z=0 plane with streamlines showing
the flow separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.45 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =0.42 from the throat [44]. 95
4.46 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =0.42 from the throat. . 95
4.47 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.0 from the throat [44]. 96
4.48 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.0 from the throat. . 96
4.49 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.5 from the throat [44]. 97
4.50 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.5 from the throat. . 97
4.51 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =2.0 from the throat [44]. 98
4.52 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =2.0 from the throat. . 98
 xiii

Figure Page
4.53 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 from the throat [44]. 99
4.54 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 from the throat. . 99
4.55 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =0.42 and on the Z=0 plane. 100
4.56 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =0.42 and on the Y =0 plane. 100
4.57 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.0 and on the Z=0 plane. 101
4.58 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.0 and on the Y =0 plane. 101
4.59 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.5 and on the Z=0 plane. 102
4.60 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.5 and on the Y =0 plane. 102
4.61 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =2.0 and on the Z=0 plane. 103
4.62 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =2.0 and on the Y =0 plane. 103

W
4.63 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Z=0 plane. 104
4.64 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Y =0 plane.
IE 104
4.65 Mach number contour plot on the Z=0 symmetry plane of the 3-D ejector
nozzle with clamshell doors at take-off conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
EV
4.66 Mach number contour plot at X/DEQ =0.5 plane downstream of the 3-D
ejector nozzle throat at take-off conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.1 The phenomenon of the ejector flow with chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.2 CAD geometry of the ejector nozzle with clamshells and chevrons, Design
PR

I - X-section at the throat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

5.3 CAD geometry of the ejector nozzle with clamshells and chevrons, Design
II - X-section at the throat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.4 CAD geometry of the ejector nozzle with clamshells and chevrons, Design
I - Isometric view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.5 CAD geometry of the ejector nozzle with clamshells and chevrons, Design
II - Isometric view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.6 Computational mesh for ejector nozzle walls and chevrons - Design I. . 114
5.7 Computational mesh for ejector nozzle walls and chevrons - Design II. . 115
5.8 Contours of Mach number and turbulent kinetic energy corresponding to
the CFD simulation of the baseline nozzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.9 Contours of Mach number and turbulent kinetic energy corresponding to
the CFD simulation of the chevron nozzle (Design II). . . . . . . . . . 122
 xiv

Figure Page
5.10 Mach number contour plot Z=0 symmetry plane for the ejector nozzle
without chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.11 Mach number contours on Y Z-plane at X/DEQ = 0.5 for the ejector nozzle
without chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.12 Mach number contours on the plane in between two chevrons for the ejector
nozzle with chevrons - Design I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.13 Mach number contours on Z=0 symmetry plane for the ejector nozzle with
chevrons - Design I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.14 Mach number contours on Y Z-plane at X/DEQ = 0.5 for the ejector nozzle
with chevrons - Design I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.15 Mach number contours on Z=0 symmetry plane for the ejector nozzle with
chevrons - Design II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

W
5.16 Mach number contours on the plane in between two chevrons for the ejector
nozzle with chevrons - Design II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
IE
5.17 Mach number contours on Y Z-plane at X/DEQ = 0.5 for the ejector nozzle
with chevrons - Design II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.18 Centerline axial velocity profiles corresponding to the ejector nozzle with
EV
and without chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5.19 Centerline total temperature profiles corresponding to the ejector nozzle
with and without chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
PR
 xv

ABBREVIATIONS

AMG Algebraic multigrid

AST Advanced subsonic transport program
BBSAN Broadband shock-associated noise
BC Boundary conditions
BPR Bypass ratio of the jet engine
CAA Computational aeroacoustics

W
CAD Computer-aided-design
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
CFL
CRAFT
IE
Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy number
Combustion Research and Flow Technology
DARPA Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency
EV
EPS Encapsulated post script file format
FA Fundamental aeronautics program
GRC Glenn Research Center
PR

HSR High speed research program

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
JAXA Japanese aeronautical research agency
LES Large eddy simulation
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NPR Nozzle pressure ratio
PIV Particle image velocimetry
QST Quiet supersonic transport program
QSJ Quiet supersonic jet
RANS Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
RMS Root mean square
 xvi

RSM Reynolds stress turbulence model

SA Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model
SCAR Supersonic cruise aircraft research program (1972-1985)
SSBJ Supersonic business jet program
SST Supersonic transport program (1963-1971)
SST Shear stress transport turbulence model
STEP Standard for the exchange of product model data file format
TKE Turbulent kinetic energy
URANS Unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes

W
IE
EV
PR
 xvii

NOMENCLATURE

A Area m2
A∗ Nozzle throat area m2
Ae Nozzle exit area m2
D Diameter m
DC Control diameter of the nozzle m
DEQ Equivalent diameter of the nozzle throat m

W
Df an Diameter of the fan nozzle m
H Semi-height of the 2-D ejector nozzle m
I
LS
Turbulent intensity
IE
Length of the mixing duct in ejectors m
M Mach number
EV
Me Exit Mach number
Mthroat Throat Mach number
P◦ Total pressure P a or atm
PR

Ps Static pressure P a or atm

ReD Reynolds number based on the nozzle diameter
T◦ Total temperature K or R
Ts Static temperature K or R
U Axial velocity m/s or f t/sec
UP L Axial velocity inside the plenum chamber m/s or f t/sec
V Velocity magnitude m/s or f t/sec
k Turbulent kinetic energy m2 /s2
ṁej Secondary mass flow entrained through the ejector slot kg/m3
ṁin Primary nozzle mass flow kg/m3
y Wall normal distance m
 xviii

y+ Normalized wall distance

Greek Alphabets
γ Ratio of specific heats
∆ Dimension of the secondary nozzle m
β Turbulent viscosity ratio
 Dissipation rate of the turbulent kinetic energy m2 /s3
µ Dynamic viscosity kg/m/s
µt Turbulent eddy viscosity kg/m/s
ν Kinematic viscosity m2 /s
νt Spalart-Allmaras variable m2 /s
Density kg/m3

W
ρ
ω Specific dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy 1/s
IE
EV
PR
 xix

ABSTRACT

Thirumurthy, Deepak M.S.A.A., Purdue University, May 2010. Design and Analysis
of Noise Suppression Exhaust Nozzle Systems. Major Professors: Anastasios S.
Lyrintzis and Gregory A. Blaisdell.

The exhaust nozzle is an integral part of a jet engine and critical to its overall
system performance. Challenges associated with the design and manufacturing of
an exhaust nozzle become greater as the cruise speed of the aircraft increases. The

W
exhaust nozzle of a supersonic cruise aircraft requires additional capabilities such
as variable throat and exit area, noise suppression, and reverse thrust. The present
work is an effort to study the design and analysis of jet engine exhaust nozzle systems
IE
such as the axisymmetric plug nozzle, the chevron nozzle and the ejector nozzle with
clamshells.
EV
High-bypass-ratio jet engines with two or more flow streams have superior noise
suppressing and thrust characteristics. Much research has been done in the past to
study and understand the flow physics of these engines. In the present work a com-
PR

putational fluid dynamics-based approach was used to study the jet engine exhaust
nozzle systems. First, a computer-aided-design model of a three-stream separate-flow
axisymmetric plug nozzle was created and axisymmetric flow simulations were per-
formed to study the flow field. The mean flow and turbulent kinetic energy fields
were compared with the particle image velocimetry results available in the literature.
Next, computational fluid dynamics was used to study the performance of passive
chevron mixers in enhancing the turbulent mixing. Three-dimensional calculations
were carried out to study the effect of enhanced mixing on the mean velocity and
turbulent kinetic energy flow fields. Different turbulence models were used to study
their performance in predicting chevron-based jet flows.
 xx

Gas turbine engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce, and business class aircraft man-
ufacturer Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, are collaborating on the development
of technologies for a supersonic jet. As part of this collaborative research and de-
velopment program, an ejector nozzle with clamshell doors, similar to that on an
Olympus-593 engine, which powered the Concorde aircraft, was designed and tested.
The ejector nozzle offers additional advantages such as thrust augmentation and noise
suppression.
Numerical simulations of this ejector nozzle with clamshell doors at 11.5◦ clamshell
angle and without clamshell doors were performed as part of the validation task. Mean
flow fields were predicted for low subsonic experimental conditions and compared with
the experimental data. Flow separation and recirculation zones were encountered near

W
the inner surface of clamshell doors. Simulations at higher nozzle pressure ratios were
also performed to simulate actual flight conditions. Flow separation prevailed at this
IE
condition as well.
The existing new supersonic noise suppression exhaust nozzle design was improved
EV
by the addition of chevrons and its flow field was analyzed using computational fluid
dynamics. The jet engine exhaust nozzle consisted of three-dimensional ejectors in
the form of clamshell doors and chevrons as passive mixers. Chevrons were placed
PR

in the ejector slot to introduce streamwise vorticity and enhance mixing. It was
observed that the flow separation zone was almost removed and an improvement in
the ejector performance was obtained. Computational simulations corresponded to
take-off conditions with a nozzle pressure ratio of 1.7 and freestream Mach number
of 0.3.
 1

1. Introduction

Mankind has witnessed a remarkable change in the speed of transporting goods and
people. During the 19th century the transportation method changed from horse-
powered carts traveling at 10 kmph to high speed trains transporting passengers and
cargo at 100 kmph. Speed has no limits as evidenced by the advent of subsonic
airplanes of the 20th century capable of flying at 1000 kmph [1]. Mankind was
skeptical of flying at a speed greater than the speed of sound until October 1947,

W
when United States Air Force Capt. Charles Yeager crossed the sound barrier and
reached Mach 1.02 in his XS-1 experimental aircraft [2].
IE
This fascinating and challenging supersonic flight motivated many aerospace or-
ganizations to start programs related to the design of supersonic cruise aircraft and
develop related technologies. On November 29, 1962, the Concorde project, an Anglo-
EV
French partnership, was launched and remains one of two supersonic cruise passenger
aircraft that traveled at speeds exceeding 2000 kmph, more than twice the speed of
sound. As airport regulations became more stringent, the Concorde failed to meet
PR

requirements for performance, operating economics, development cost and environ-

mental acceptance. British Airways and Air France ended their Concorde service in
2003.
The Tupolev Tu-144 supersonic transport aircraft was a Soviet Union (now Russia)
effort to make supersonic civil transport a viable option. The project started two
years later than the Concorde. Although the Tu-144 was technically comparable
to the Concorde with a cruise Mach number of 2.5, the Tu-144 lacked a passenger
market within the Soviet Union and service was halted after only about 100 scheduled
flights. Initial plane crashes and high maintenance cost led the Soviet Union to cease
the program in 1983.