Integral Methods in Computational

Aeroacoustics
-From the (CFD) Near-Field to the (Acoustic)
Far-Field 
Anastasios S. Lyrintzisy
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47907-2023

Abstract
A review of recent advances in the use of integral methods in Computational AeroAcoustics
(CAA) for the extension of near-eld CFD results to the acoustic far-eld is given. These
integral formulations (i.e. Kirchho's method, permeable (porous) surface Ffowcs-Williams
Hawkings (FW-H) equation allow the radiating sound to be evaluated based on quantities on
an arbitrary control surface if the wave equation is assumed outside. Thus only surface integrals
are needed for the calculation of the far-eld sound, instead of the volume integrals required
by the traditional acoustic analogy method (i.e. Lighthill, rigid body FW-H equation). A
numerical CFD method is used for the evaluation of the ow-eld solution in the near eld and
presented at the CEAS Workshop "From CFD to CAA" Athens Greece, Nov. 2002.
yProfessor, e-mail: lyrintzi@ecn.purdue.edu.

1
thus on the control surface. Diusion and dispersion errors associated with wave propagation
in the far-eld are avoided. The surface integrals and the rst derivatives needed can be easily
evaluated from the near-eld CFD data. Both methods can be extended in order to include
refraction eects outside the control surface. The methods have been applied to helicopter
noise, jet noise, propeller noise, ducted fan noise, etc. A simple set of portable Kirchho/FW-
H subroutines can be developed to calculate the far-eld noise from inputs supplied by any
aerodynamic near/mid-eld CFD code.

1 Background
For an airplane or a helicopter, aerodynamic noise generated from uids is usually very impor-
tant. There are many kinds of aerodynamic noise including turbine jet noise, impulsive noise
due to unsteady ow around wings and rotors, broadband noise due to in ow turbulence and
boundary layer separated ow, etc. (e.g. Lighthill ). Accurate prediction of noise mechanisms
1

is essential in order to be able to control or modify them to comply with noise regulations, i.e.
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part 36, and achieve noise reductions. Both theoretical and
experimental studies are being conducted to understand the basic noise mechanisms. Flight-
test or wind-tunnel test programs can be used, but in either case diculties are encounted
such as high expense, safety risks, and atmospheric variability, as well as re ection problems
for wind tunnel tests. As the available computational power increases numerical techniques
are becoming more and more appealing. Although complete noise models have not yet been
developed, numerical simulations with a proper model are increasingly being employed for the
prediction of aerodynamic noise because they are low cost and ecient. This research has led
to the emergence of a new eld: Computational AeroAcoustics (CAA).
CAA is concerned with the prediction of the aerodynamic sound source and the transmission
of the generated sound starting from the time-dependent governing equations. The full, time-
dependent, compressible Navier-Stokes equations describe these phenomena. Although recent
advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and in computer technology have made
rst-principles CAA plausible, direct extension of current CFD technology to CAA requires
2
addressing several technical diculties in the prediction of both the sound generation and its
transmission. , A review of aerospace application of CAA methods was given by Long et al.
2 3 4

Aerodynamically generated sound is governed by a nonlinear process. One class of problems

is turbulence generated noise (e.g. jet noise). An accurate turbulence model is usually needed
in this case. A second class of problems involves impulsive noise due to moving surfaces (e.g.
helicopter rotor noise, propeller noise, fan noise etc.). In these cases an Euler/Navier Stokes
model or even a full potential model is adequate, because turbulence is not important.
Once the sound source is predicted, several approaches can be used to describe its prop-
agation. The obvious strategy is to extend the computational domain for the full, nonlinear
Navier-Stokes equations far enough to encompass the location where the sound is to be calcu-
lated. However, if the objective is to calculate the far-eld sound, this direct approach requires
prohibitive computer storage and leads to unrealistic turnaround time. The impracticality of
straight CFD calculations for supersonic jet aeroacoustics was pointed out by Mankbadi et al. 5

Furthermore, because the acoustic uctuations are usually quite small (about three orders of
magnitude less than the ow uctuations), the use of nonlinear equations (whether Navier-
Stokes or Euler) could result in errors, as pointed out by Stoker and Smith. One usually has
6

no choice but to separate the computation into two domains, one describing the nonlinear gen-
eration of sound, the other describing the propagation of sound. There are several alternatives
to describing the sound propagation once the source has been identied.

Traditional Acoustic Analogy The rst of these approaches is the acoustic analogy. In 7

the acoustic analogy, the governing Navier-Stokes equations are rearranged to be in wave-type
form. There is some question as to which terms should be identied as part of the sound
source and retained in the right-hand side of the equation and which terms should be in the
left-hand side as part of the operator (e.g., Lilley ). The far-eld sound pressure is then given in
8

terms of a volume integral over the domain containing the sound source. Several modications
to Lighthill's original theory have been proposed to account for the sound- ow interaction
or other eects. The major diculty with the acoustic analogy, however, is that the sound
3
source is not compact in supersonic ows. Errors could be encountered in calculating the
sound eld, unless the computational domain could be extended in the downstream direction
beyond the location where the sound source has completely decayed. Furthermore, an accurate
account of the retarded time-eect requires keeping a long record of the time-history of the
converged solution of the sound source, which again represents a storage problem. The Ffowcs
Williams and Hawkings (FW-H) equation was introduced to extend acoustic analogy in the
9

case of solid surfaces. However, when acoustic sources (i.e., quadrupoles) are present in the
oweld a volume integration is needed. This volume integration of the quadrupole source
term is dicult to compute and is usually neglected in most acoustic analogy codes (e.g.
WOPWOP ). Recently, there have been some successful attempts in evaluating this term
10

(e.g. WOPWOP+ ; ).11 12

Linearized Euler Equations (LEE) The second alternative is to use LEE in order to
extend the CFD solutions to the far-eld (e.g. Lim et al. , Viswanathan and Sankar , Shih et
13 14

al. ). The LEE equations employ a division of the ow eld into a time-averaged ow and a
15

time-dependent disturbance which is assumed to be small. The hybrid (zonal) approach consists
of the near-eld evaluation using an accurate CFD code (e.g. for jet noise the code is usually
based on Large Eddy Simulations: LES) and the extension of the solution to the mid-eld
using LEE. Considerable CPU savings can be realized, since the LEE calculations are much
cheaper than the CFD calculations. This approach is very promising, because it accounts for a
variable sound velocity outside the near-eld where usually an LES model is applied. However,
dissipation and dispersion errors still exist and an accurate description of propagating far-eld
waves is compromised because of this. On the other hand, this method may be appropriate
for the an intermediate region in some problems, outside from the reactive near-eld where the
speed of sound is still not constant, before moving to another integral method for the far-eld.

Kirchho Method Another alternative is the Kirchho method which assumes that the
sound transmission is governed by the simple wave equation. Kirchho's method consists of
4
the calculation of the nonlinear near- and mid-eld, usually numerically, with the far-eld
solutions found from a linear Kirchho formulation evaluated on a control surface surrounding
the nonlinear-eld. The control surface is assumed to enclose all the nonlinear ow eects and
noise sources. The sound pressure can be obtained in terms of a surface integral of the surface
pressure and its normal and time derivatives. This approach has the potential to overcome
some of the diculties associated with the traditional acoustic analogy approach. The method
is simple and accurate and accounts for the nonlinear quadrupole noise in the far-eld. Full
diraction and focusing eects are included while eliminating the propagation of the reactive
near-eld.
This idea of matching between a nonlinear aerodynamic near-eld and a linear acoustic
far-eld was rst proposed by Hawkings . The use of Kirchho's method has increased sub-
16

stantially the last 10 years, because of the development of reliable CFD methods that can be
used for the evaluation of the near-eld. The separation of the problem into linear and nonlin-
ear regions allows the use of the most appropriate numerical methodology for each. We have
been referring to this technique as the \Kirchho method." It has been used to study various
aeroacoustic problems, such as propeller noise, high-speed compressibility noise, blade-vortex
interactions, jet noise, ducted fan noise, etc. An earlier review on the use of Kirchho's method
was given by Lyrintzis.17

Porous FW-H equation A nal alternative is the use of permeable (porous) surface FW-H
equation. The usual practice is to assume that the FW-H integration surface corresponds to
a solid body and is impenetrable. However, if the surface is assumed to be porous, a general
equation can be derived (as shown in the original reference 9 and in reference 18). The porous
surface can be used as a control surface in a similar fashion as the Kirchho method explained
above. Thus the pressure signal in the far-eld can be found based on quantities on the control
surface provided by a CFD code.
Farassat in a recent review article reviewed all the available FW-H and Kirchho equa-
19

tions for application to noise evaluation from rotating blades. The current article focuses only
5
on control surface methods (i.e. Kirchho, porous FW-H) and discusses issues with their ap-
plication in various types of aerocoustic problems including rotor noise, jet noise, ducted fan
noise, airfoil noise etc.). At rst the main formulations will be reviewed, advantages and dis-
advantages of each method will be discussed. Then we will present several algorithmic issues
and various application examples.

2 Kirchho's Method Formulations

Kirchho's method is an innovative approach to noise problems which takes advantage of
the mathematical similarities between the aeroacoustic and electrodynamic equations. The
considerable body of theoretical knowledge regarding electrodynamic eld solutions can be
utilized to arrive at the solution of dicult noise problems. Kirchho's formula was rst
published in 1882 . It is an integral representation (i.e. surface integral around a control
20

surface) of the solution to the wave equation. Kirchho's formula, although primarily used
in the theory of diraction of light and in other electromagnetic problems, it has also many
applications in studies of acoustic wave propagation.
The classical Kirchho formulation is limited to a stationary surface. Morgans derived a
21

formula for a moving control surface using Green's functions. Generalized functions can also be
used for the derivation of an extended Kirchho formulation. A eld function is dened to be
identical to the real ow quantity outside a control surface S and zero inside. The discontinuities
of the eld function across the control surface S are taken as acoustic sources, represented
by generalized functions. Ffowcs- Williams and Hawkings derived an extended Kirchho
9

formulation for sound generation from a vibrating surface in arbitrary motion. However, in
their formulation the partial derivatives were taken with respect to the observation coordinates
and time and that is dicult to use in numerical computations. Farassat and Myers derived 22

a Kirchho formulation for a moving, deformable, piecewise smooth surface. The same partial
derivatives were taken with respect to the source coordinates and time. Thus their formulation
is easier to use in numerical computations and their relatively simple derivation shows the
6
power of generalized function analysis.
It should be noted that Morino and his co-workers , have developed several formulations
23 27

for boundary element methods using the Green's function approach, which are equivalent to
Kirchho formulations. Morino's formulations were derived with aerodynamic applications
in mind, so the observer is in the moving coordinate system. However, they can be used
for aeroacoustics, for example when both the control surface and the observer move with a
constant speed (e.g., wind tunnel experiments), as mentioned in reference 17. Their latest
formulation appears to provide an integrated boundary element framework for Aerodynamics
27

and Aeroacoustics.

2.1 Farassat's Formulation

Farassat's Kirchho formulation gives the far-eld signal, due to sources contained within the
Kirchho surface. Assume the linear, homogeneous wave equation,
2 = 1 @ , @  =0
2 2
2
a2 @t2 @xi@xi
(1)
is valid for some acoustic variable , and sound speed a, in the entire region outside of a closed
and bounded smooth surface, S .
The signal, in the stationary coordinate system, is evaluated with a surface integral over
the control surface, S , of the dependent variable, its normal derivative, and its time derivative
(gure 1). S is allowed to move in an arbitrary fashion. The dependent variable  is normally
taken to be the disturbance pressure, but can be any quantity which satises the linear wave
equation.
Z " E
# Z " #
E
4(~x; t) = r (1 , M ) dS + r (1 , M ) dS
1
2
(2)
2

S r ret S r ret
where
h i
= (Mn , 1) @ Mn _ _
@n + Mn Mt
r  , a  + a ,Mr 2 Mr (cos  , Mn ) 
E1 2 ~ 2
1
(1 )
  
+ a ,Mr n_ r , M_ n , n_ M  + (cos  , Mn ) _ + (cos  , Mn ) 
(1
1
)
(3)
,M 2 )
= ,Mr )2 (cos  , Mn ) (4)
(1
E2 (1

7
Here (~x; t) are the observer coordinates and time, and (~y;  ) are the source (surface) coordinates
and time. Mi is the Mach number vector of the surface, r is the distance from source to observer,
 is the source emission angle, and n ^ is the control surface normal vector (cos  = rb
nb ). M~ t
is the Mach number vector tangent to the surface, and r is the surface gradient operator. A
2

dot indicates a source time derivative, with the position on the surface kept xed. Also,
M_r = M_ irbi n_ r = n_ i rbi M_n = M_ i nb i n_ M = n_ iMi (5)
The form of equation (2) and E , E were given by Farassat and Myers . E was presented in
1 2
22
2

the simplied form shown here by Myers and Hausmann. The surface integrals are over the
28

control surface S , subscript ret indicates evaluation of the integrands at the emission (retarded)
time, which is the root of
g = ,t+
j~x , ~yj = 0 (6)
a 
If the frame velocity is subsonic at the surface, then equation (6) has a unique solution. However,
equation (2) is still valid for supersonically moving surfaces. As we can see from equations 2
through 5, the (1 , Mr ) term can produce a singularity in the case where the Mach number
in the radiation direction reaches the sonic point. This is a major limitation of the retarded
time formulation. Farassat and co-workers ; have recently presented a formulation that is
29 30

appropriate for supersonically moving surfaces (i.e. formulation 4) and veried by application
to benchmark problems. Since, the supersonic formulation has not yet been applied to practical
problems it will not be presented here in the interest of brevity.
The above formulation is valid when the observer is stationary and the surface is moving at
an arbitrary speed. However, for the case of an advancing blade the observer is usually moving
with the free ow speed (e.g. rotor in a wind tunnel with a free stream not equal to zero). The
formulation can be adjusted for this case by allowing x(t) to move with the free stream instead
of being stationary in equation (6) for the retarded time.
It is possible to write equation (2) in a simple form valid for stationary surfaces. The
Kirchho formula is then
Z 1"1 # Z []
4(~x; t) = _
 cos  ,
@
dS + ret dS (7)
S r a @n ret S r2

8
The retarded time for this case is t , r=c. With the use of a Fourier transformation, equation
(7) can be expressed in the frequency domain (i.e. starting from Helmholtz equation) as
Z "   b #
4(~x; !) = e
b i!r=a 
1 i!
, cos   ,
b @ b
+  cos 
dS (8)
S r a @n r2

where b is the Fourier transform of , and ! is the cyclic frequency. An equivalent to equa-
tion (8), valid for surfaces and observers in rectilinear motion was presented by Lyrintzis and
Mankbadi and Pilon:
31 32

Two-dimensional formulations can also be developed (Pilon , Scott et al. ). Atassi et

33 34

al. developed a two-dimensional frequency domain formulation that uses a modied Green's
34

function in order to avoid the evaluation of normal derivatives. Mankbadi et al. developed a
35

modied Green's function for a cylinder control surface that was applied in jet noise predictions.
Hariharan et al. developed a framework for Kirchho's formulations without the use of normal
36

derivatives.
Finally, for completeness we should mention that for the case where the Kirchho control
surface S coincides with the body surface, there are some nonuniqueness diculties in the
prediction of the radiated acoustic sound in the exterior region whenever the frequency coincides
with one of the Dirichlet eigenfrequencies. These problems where analyzed for the stationary
Kirchho surface by Wu and Pierce and for moving Kirchho surfaces by Wu . Finally,
37 38

Dowling and Ffowcs Williams included the eects of innite plane walls in the stationary
39

Kirchho formulation. However, in this paper we are reviewing the use of Kirchho's equation
for extenting near-eld results in the far-eld, so the issues mentioned in this paragraph are
not relevant.

2.2 The Extended Kirchho Method

Equation (2) works well for aeroacoustic predictions when the control surface is placed in a
region of the ow eld where the linear wave equation is valid. However, this might not be
possible for some cases. Therefore, additional nonlinearities can be added outside the control
surface. , The modications to the traditional Kirchho method consist of an additional
40 44

9
volume integral. Thus equation(2) now becomes: (pressure is used here as the dependent
43

variable)

Z " E1
# Z " E2
# Z" 1 @ 2Tij
#
4p0(~x; t) = S r (1 , Mr ) dS + S r2 (1 , Mr ) dS + r(1 , Mr ) @yi@yj dV (9)
ret ret V ret

where

 
Tij = uiuj , ij + (p , po ) , a0 2
ij (10)
where ui is the uid velocity,  is the density, 0 the density perturbation, and ij is the viscous
stress tensor. It is easy to show that this equation reduces to the traditional Kirchho integral
if the control surface is placed in a fully linear region, as Tij becomes zero. Through the use of
Fourier transforms, equation (9) can also be expressed in the frequency domain.
Isom et al. developed a nonlinear Kirchho formulation (Isom's formulation) for some
45

special cases (i.e., stationary surface at the sonic cylinder of a rotor, high frequency approx-
imation and observer on the rotation plane). They have included in their formulation some
nonlinear eects using the transonic small disturbance equation. The nonlinear eects are gen-
erally accounted for with a volume integral, as shown above. However, they showed that for
the above special cases the nonlinear eects can be reduced to a surface integral.

2.3 The Porous Ffowcs Williams { Hawkings equation

A modied integral formulation for the porous surface FW-H equation is needed because 18

the usual practice is to assume that the FW-H integration surface corresponds to the body
and is impenetrable. A convenient way to formulate this is as an extension of Farassat's
formulation 1 which was originally developed for the rigid surface FW-H equation. Following
46

Francescantonio we dene new variables Ui and Li as

42

!
 ui
Ui = 1,  i +
o
(11)
o

10
and
Li = Pij n^ j + ui(un , n ) (12)
where subscript o implies ambient conditions, superscript 0 implies disturbances (e.g.  =
0 + o ),  is the density, u is the velocity, and Pij is the compressive stress tensor with the

constant po ij subtracted. Now by taking the time derivative of the continuity equation and
subtracting the divergence of momentum equation, followed with some rearranging, the integral
form of FW-H equation can be written as (Formulation I)

p0 (~
x; t) = p0T (~x; t) + p0L (~x; t) + p0Q(~x; t) (13)

where
@
Z " o Un
#
0
4pT (~x; t) = dS (14)
@t S r j1 , Mr j ret
Z " # Z " #
4p0L(~x; t) = 1 @ Lr
dS + Lr
dS (15)
a @t S r j1 , Mr j ret S r2 j1 , Mr j ret
and p0Q(~x; t) can be determined by any method currently available (e.g., references 10, 11).
In equations (14) and (15) a dot product of the vector with the unit vector in the radiation
direction r^ or the unit vector in the surface normal direction n^ i, respectively.
It should be noted that the three pressure terms have a physical meaning for rigid surfaces:
p0T (~
x; t) is known as thickness noise, p0L (~
x; t) is called loading noise and p0Q (~
x; t) is called

quadrupole noise. For a porous surface the terms lose their physical meaning, but the last term
p0Q (~
x; t) still denotes the quadrupoles outside the control (porous) surface S .

An alternative way is to move the time derivative inside the integral: (Formulation II)
42

Z "  (U_ + U ) # Z "  u (rM_ + c(M , M )) # 2

0
4pT (~x; t) = o n n
dS +
_ o n r r
dS (16)
S r(1 , Mr ) ret 2
S r (1 , Mr ) ret
2 3

R h i R h i
4p0L (~x; t) = 1
c S
L_ r
r(1,Mr )2 ret dS + Lr ,LM
S r2 (1,Mr )2 ret ds
R h Lr (rM_ r +c(Mr ,M 2 )) i
+1
c S r2 (1,Mr )3 ret
dS (17)

This is now an extension of Farassat's formulation 1A. ehere the dot over a variable implies
47

source-time dierentiation of that variable, LM = LiMi , and a subscript r or n indicates It

11
appears that Formulation I (equations 14, 15) has less memory requirements, because it does
not require storage of the time derivatives, and requires less operations per integral evaluation.
However, in general, integrals have to be evaluated twice in order to nd the time derivative. In
the special case of a stationary control surface, or a xed microphone location, i.e. " yover," the
integral can be reused at the next time step. Since memory appears to be more important for
these type of calculations, Formulation I is a good choice. Formulation I was used by Strawn et
al. for rotorcraft noise predictions using a nonrotating control surface with very good results.
48

On the other hand taking the time derivative inside could prevent some instabilities. Thus
for a Formulation II (equations 16, 17) might be more robust for a moving control surface.
Formulation II was used for rotorcraft noise prediction by Brentner and Farassat with a 44

rotating control surface with very good results. However, a more detailed comparison of the
two formulations would be very helpful.
For a stationary surface Formulation I reduces to:
@
Z  U 
0
4pT (~x; t) = o n
dS (18)
@t S r ret

Z   Z  
4p0L (~x; t) = a1 @ Lr
dS + Lr
dS (19)
 @t S r ret S r2 ret

and Formulation II becomes:

Z "  U_ #
4p0T (~x; t) = S
o n
r
dS (20)
ret
" #
L_ r
Z Z  
4p0L (~x; t) = 1 dS + Lr
dS (21)
a S r ret S r2 ret

With the use of a Fourier transformation both formulations (for a stationary surface) can
be written in the frequency domain as 49

Z bn
o U
4pb0T (~x; !) = ,i! ei!r=a
r
dS (22)
S

4pb0L (~x; !) = ,i! Z

ei!r=a
Lr
dS
b
+
Z br
L
dS (23)
a S r S r2

12
 where pb0, Ubn, and Lb r are the Fourier transforms of p0, Un , and Lr , respectively and ! is the
cyclic frequency. It should be noted that both time formulations reduce to the same frequency
formulation for a stationary control surface.
Time and frequency formulations for a uniform rectilinear motion can be found in reference
50. Two-dimensional formulations for a solid surface FW-H equation have already been devel-
oped in the past (see, for example, references 51, 52) and can be readily extended to a porous
surface. Finally, a supersonic formulation can also be found in reference 30.

2.4 Comparison of Kirchho FW-H Methods

Both the above formulations provide a Kirchho-like formulation if the quadrupoles outside the
control surface (p0Q(~x; t) term) are ignored. The equivalence of the porous FW-H equation and
Kirchho formulation was proven Pilon & Lyrintzis and Brentner & Farassat. They showed
43 44

that, for a surface placed in a linear region, the porous surface FW{H formulation is equivalent
to the linear Kirchho formulation, plus a volume integral of quadrupoles (uiuj ). (Pilon and
Lyrintzis also claim that the control surface need not be placed in an entirely linear region.
43

The nonlinearities can be accounted for with the use of  = a0 as the dependent variable,
2

and the volume integral of quadrupoles, Tij .)

The major dierence between Kirchho's and FW-H formulation is that Kirchho's method
needs p0; @n ; @t as input whereas the porous FW-H needs p0 ; ; ui . Also, the porous FW-H
@p @p

method allows for nonlinearities on the control surface, whereas the Kirchho method assumes
a solution of the linear wave equation on the surface. Thus if the solution does not satisfy
the linear wave equation on the control surface the results from the Kirchho method change
dramatically. This leads to a higher sensitivity for the choice of the control surface for the
Kirchho method. This was shown in reference 44 for a rotorcraft noise problem (see section
5.2). Another way to look at this dierence is to state that the Kirchho method puts more
stringent requirements to the CFD method to reach to the linear acoustic eld before dissipation
and dispersion errors due to coarsening in the far-eld take over.
13
 The volume integral of quadrupole sources that arises in the non-linear region outside of the
control surface presents a challenge. A major motivation for the use of Kirchho/porous FW-H
methods is the lack of volume integrations, which reduces necessary calculations by an order of
magnitude. However, the recently developed code WOPWOP+ ; provides an ecient means
11 12

of accounting for the quadrupoles in FW-H calculations that can be used for both methods,
because the quadrupole term is the same.

2.5 Mean Flow Refraction Corrections for Jet Noise

The Kirchho and the FW-H formulas presented above can eciently and accurately predict
aerodynamically generated noise, as long as the control surface surrounds the entire source
region. In jet noise predictions, however, it is usually impossible, with current numerical
methods, to determine the entire source region. This is due to time and memory limitations
imposed by the computer architecture, as well as dispersion and dissipation constraints. Thus,
a signicant nonlinear source region, as well as a steady mean ow, will exist outside of the
control surface. Even if the unsteady sound sources outside of the control surface can be ignored,
there is still a substantial steady mean ow in the region near the jet axis, downstream of the
control surface. Thus, some means of approximating the eects of this steady shear ow are
required if an acoustic prediction is desired for observer points lying near the jet axis.
A suitable approximation to the downstream shear ow is necessary, in order to determine
the refraction eects. In the past, several researchers have used an axisymmetric parallel shear
ow model to determine sound produced by point acoustic sources within circular jets (e.g.,
Amiet ). This approach was adopted by Lyrintzis and co-workers ; and in order to account
53 49 54

for refraction eects in the Kirchho and the porous FW-H method. A real jet has non{zero
radial velocity, but the refracting eect of this component is minimal, and can safely be ignored.
Also, the lack of azimuthal variation in the parallel shear ow approximation has a very small
eect. The value of the axial velocity to be used in the shear ow approximation can be taken
directly from the CFD numerical simulation, at the downstream end of the control surface, as
an average of the time dependent axial velocity at each radial grid point.
14
 The refraction problem now consists of a collection of point acoustic sources (the integrands
of equations (8) and (22) acting at radial location R, and the parallel shear ow with U
determined at each R). If the acoustic wavelength,  = 2a=!, is assumed to be small
compared to the shear layer thickness , then geometric acoustics principles hold.
If the steady velocity at the downstream end of the Kirchho surface is denoted Us, the
sound emission angle with respect to the jet axis #s, and the propagation angle in the stagnant,
ambient air is denoted #, then the axial acoustic phase speeds are preserved by the stratied
ow
a a
cos # = Us +
cos # (24)
 s
It is assumed that the speed of sound at the source is equivalent to that in the ambient air.
This equation can be rearranged to show that there is a critical angle, #c dened by

#c = cos,1
1  (25)
1 + Ms
If the the observer angle # is greater than #c then no sound emitted at the source on the
Kirchho surface can reach the observer. This criterion is easily added to a stationary surface
Kirchho program. (Note that Ms is the Mach number of the mean shear ow, and not the
Kirchho surface, which is assumed stationary.)
An additional correction is necessary to accurately account for the mean ow refraction.
Imposing the local \zone of silence" condition described above can allow a surface source at a
relatively large radial location to radiate sound into and through the shear ow. This is because
the local \zone of silence" decreases in size with the radial location of the source, due to the
decrease in source Mach number. The simple correction is to set the source strength to zero
if the observation point is located closer to the jet axis than the source point on the Kirchho
surface.
Finally, the geometric acoustics approximation is only valid for = > 1. It is assumed here
that the downstream end of the cylindrical Kirchho surface is located far enough downstream
of the jet potential core that the shear layer thickness is large compared with the acoustic
wavelength.
15
 In reference 54 the mean ow refraction corrections were applied to the frequency domain
version of the Kirchho method (equation 8). In reference 49 an amplitude correction as
recommended by Amiet (but not included in reference 54) was added and the methodology
53

was applied to both Kirchho and FW-H methods (equations 8 and 22).

2.6 Open Control Surface

Freund et al. developed a way to improve the accuracy of Kirchho evaluations of sound elds
55

for an open Kirchho control surface. Asymptotic analysis was used to provide correction terms
which partially account for the missing portion of the integral surface. It was shown that the
major contribution comes from a point on the surface that intersects the line between observer
and source. A correction term was estimated to account for the missing parts of the Kirchho
surface. The study is restricted to the case where the mean ow is parallel to the available
surface, as happens for example, for jet noise problems when the downstream surface vertical
to the jet axis is missing. The corrections are limited to observers away from the jet axis. More
details can be found in the original reference.

3 Algorithmic Issues
Some algorithmic issues are discussed below. Additional information for numerical algorithms
for acoustic integrals, in general, is given by Brentner.
56

3.1 Choice of control surface

The Kirchho scheme requires stored data for pressure and pressure derivatives on a surface.
Since Kirchho's method assumes that the linear wave equation is valid outside the closed
control surface S , S must be chosen large enough to include the region of all nonlinear be-
havior. However, the accuracy of the numerical solution is limited to the region immediately
surrounding the moving blade because of the increase of mesh spacing in CFD codes. Thus a
16
judicious choice of S is required for the eectiveness of the Kirchho method. For example, in
the case of airfoil/rotor noise the control surface is typically located a couple of chordlengths
away from the airfoil/rotor surface.
For a porous FW-H formulation no normal derivatives are required and (because nonlin-
earities are allowed on the control surface) the results are less sensitive to the choice of the
control surface, as will be shown in section 5.2. Thus the CFD requirements for the FW-H
44

are less strigent, making the method more attractive. Singer et al. used a FW-H method for
57

the analysis of slat trailing-edge ow. The interesting thing about this application is that part
of the control surface is solid and another part is porous.

3.2 Quadrature
For sucient accuracy in the far-eld calculations, high order quadrature should be used to solve
the surface integrals in equation (2). The predicted surface quantities (p0, @p=@n, @p=@t) should
also be very accurate. This can be achieved through the use of a very ne mesh in the CFD
calculations. However, memory and time constraints often make this impractical. Meadows
and Atkins have shown that it is possible to obtain highly accurate Kirchho predictions from
58

relatively coarse{grid CFD solutions. Through an interpolation process, more spatial points are
added to the Kirchho quadrature calculations without additional eort in the CFD process.
This has the eect of rening the CFD mesh with almost no additional cost. They refer to this
process as \enrichment". High order quadrature, temporal interpolation, and enrichment are
important for accurate far-eld noise predictions with the Kirchho method, especially if the
CFD grid resolution is somewhat coarse.

3.3 Retarded or Forward Time

The retarded time equation (5) has a unique solution when the surface moves subsonically. A
Newton-Raphson (or divide and conquer) method can be used to solve this nonlinear equation.
This method has been the basis of several Kirchho codes (e.g. Lyrintzis & Mankbadi , Strawn
31

17
et al. , Lyrintzis et al. Polacsec & Prier ). The algorithm can be easily parallelized (e.g.
59 60 61

Wissink et al. , Strawn et al. ) by partitioning the control surface and distributing to dierent
62 63

processors. Since the only communication is the nal global summation the parallel eciency of
the code is very high. Lockard discussed parallelization of FW-H codes. Long and Brentner
50 64

proposed a master-slave approach for load balancing.

However, it is dicult to write a versatile code for various mesh topologies used by current
CFD codes, including unstructured grids, based on this approach. In addition, when these codes
are extended to supersonically moving surfaces, the retarded time equation will have multiple
roots that will be dicult to evaluate. Also, the codes sometimes require signicant memory.
Finally , the variation of the source strength over a surface element in the retarded time can be
58

very high at certain observer locations (^r
n^ ! 0) and near sonic velocities (Mr ! 1) requiring
a large number of points per wavelength.
In order to overcome the limitations stated above, another approach is developed which
accumulates signals time matched from each surface element to an observer, thus it avoids the
retarded time calculation. Computer memory requirements are reduced dramatically and the
algorithm is inherently parallel. In this approach, the nal overall observer acoustic signal is
found from the summation of the acoustic signal radiated from each source element of control
surface during the same source time. The observer time is a straight forward calculation using
equation (6). For each surface element time is moved forward from the source (emission) to
the observer time. Since a dierent surface element will result in a dierent observer time,
interpolation techniques are required when the integration is performed to obtain the overall
acoustic signal at the observer position (e.g. Ozyoruk and Long , , Lyrintzis and Xue , and
65 67 68

Rahier and Prier , Algermissen and Wagner ). Finally, a marching-cubes algorithm can
69 70 71

be used to provide an ecient algorithm that is easy to parallelize for the evaluation of the
propagation from an emission surface.

18
3.4 Rotating or Nonrotating Control Surface
For rotor applications both a rotating and a nonrotating formulation can be used. A nonrotating
formulation uses a nonrotating control surface that encloses the entire rotor (e.g. Forsyth and
Korkan , Strawn and Biswas , Baeder et al. ). A rotating Kirchho formulation allows the
72 73 74

control surface to rotate with the blade aligning with the CFD lines and rotate with the blade.
(e.g. Xue and Lyrintzis , Lyrintzis et al. , Polacsec and Prier ). No transformation of data is
75 60 61

needed since the CFD input is also rotating. A comparison of the rotating and the nonrotating
Kirchho methods showed that both methods are very accurate and ecient (Strawn et al. ). 59

For the porous FWH method there are fewer applications. A rotating method was used in
references 42, 44 and 76 and a nonrotating method in reference 48.
It should be noted that the nonrotating formulation requires reliable data out to a non-
rotating cylinder (i.e. the control surface) surface that is usually farther out than a rotating
surface. Therefore, more accuracy of the CFD results is needed. Thus the nonrotating method
has been used in conjunction with Euler/Navier Stokes codes (e.g., TURNS code ; , OVER-
77 78

FLOW code ) whereas the rotating Kirchho method has been used with full potential codes
79

(e.g. FPR code ; ), as well.

80 81

However, a drawback of the rotating method is that the rotating speed of the tip of the
rotating surface needs to remain subsonic, because Farassat's formulation is currently limited
to subsonically moving surfaces. An extension to supersonically moving surfaces is needed.
This imposes limits to the position of the tip of the rotating control surface in very high Mach
number cases (e.g. M=0.92-0.95 for hover). However, the supersonic formulation formulation
of Farassat et el. ; can be employed in the future for the rotating case for high-Mach number
29 30

cases.

19
4 Validation Results
Both Kirchho and FWH formulations have been validated using model problems. The rst
thing to do is, of course, check that the signal becomes zero inside the control surface. The num-
ber of points per period and the number of points per wave length should also be studied. ; 31 49

A stationary or translating point source have been used by Lyrintzis et al., ; Myers &
31 49

Hausmann, and Lockard and a rotating point source by Lyrintzis et al. and Berezin et
28 50 60

al. . Exponential source distributions have been used by Pilon and Lyrintzis. ; ; ; Hu
82 32 40 41 43

et al. used a line monopole source and a Gaussian pressure and vorticity pulse (category 3
83

benchmark problem ) to verify their two-dimensional FW-H formulation. Farassat and Farris
84 30

used dipole distributions on a at surface and a sphere to validate the supersonic formulation
(i.e. formulation 4). Singer et al. used a line vortex around an edge. Meadows and Atkins
85 58

used an oscillating sphere and studied the eects of quadrature (see section 3). Ozyoruk and
Long have used the scattering problem of sound by a sphere (gure 2). The spherical sound
65

waves are generated by a partially distributed Gaussian mass source. The results from an exact
solution and a direct Euler solver are also shown. Note that near 180 the Kirchho results are
better than the direct calculation, because of numerical dissipation as the waves travel longer
distances to arrive at the observer locations.

5 Aeroacoustic Applications
Kirchho's formula has been extensively used in light diraction and other electromagnetic
problems, aerodynamic problems, i.e. boundary-elements (e.g. Morino et al. ), as well as in
25

problems of wave propagation in acoustics (e.g. Pierce ). Kirchho's integral formulation has
86

been used extensively for the prediction of acoustic radiation in terms of quantities on boundary
surfaces (the Kirchho control surface coincides with the body). Kirchho's method has also
been used for the computation of acoustic scattering from rigid bodies using a boundary element
technique with the Galerkin method.
20
 The solid surface FW-H equation with its various forms has been used in several problems
19

including propeller and helicopter noise. Here we will concentrate in the use of \Kirchho",
and \porous" FW-H equation methods, i.e. using a nonlinear CFD solver for the evaluation
of acoustic sources in the near-eld and a Kirchho/porous FW-H formulation for the acous-
tic propagation. We will review some \real-life" aeroacoustic applications of both methods
concentrating in recent advances.

5.1 Propeller Noise

Hawkings used a stationary-surface Kirchho's formula to predict the noise from high- speed
16

propellers and helicopter rotors. Forsyth and Korkan calculated high-speed propeller noise
72

using the Kirchho formulation of Hawkings . Jaeger and Korkan used a special case of
16 87

the Farassat and Myers formulation for a uniformly moving surface to extend the calculation
22

to advancing propellers. In the above applications, the control surface S was chosen to be a
cylinder enclosing the rotor.

5.2 Helicopter Impulsive Noise

Kirchho's method has been widely applied in the prediction of helicopter impulsive noise. 88

The Kirchho method for a uniformly moving surface was initially used in two-dimensional
transonic Blade-Vortex Interactions (BVI) to extend the numerically calculated nonlinear aero-
dynamic BVI results to the linear acoustic far-eld. , Actually, the rst application of
89 92

Hawkings \Kirchho Method" was given by George and Lyrintzis. The Kirchho method
16 77

was used to test ideas for BVI noise reduction (Xue and Lyrintzis. The method was also
93

extended to study noise due to other unsteady transonic ow phenomena (i.e. oscillating
aps, thickening-thinning airfoil) by Lyrintzis et al. Later, the method was used for the two-
94

dimensional BVI problem by Lin and co-workers. ; 95 96

Kirchho's method has also been applied to three-dimensional High-Speed Impulsive (HSI)
noise. Baeder et al. and Strawn & Biswas used a nonrotating control Kirchho surface that
74 73

21
encloses the entire rotor. The Transonic Unsteady Rotor Navier Stokes (TURNS) code ; was
77 78

used for the near-eld CFD calculations. An unstructured grid was used by Strawn et al. and
97

an overset grid code (OVERFLOW) by Ahmad et al. Kirchho's method predicted the HSI
79 98

hover noise very well using a fraction of CPU time of the straight CFD calculation.
Another Kirchho method used in helicopter noise is the rotating Kirchho method (i.e. the
surface rotates with the blade). The method was used for three-dimensional transonic BVI's for
a hovering rotor by Xue and Lyrintzis. The near-eld was calculated using the Full Potential
75

Rotor (FPR) code. ; The rotating Kirchho formulation allows the Kirchho control surface
80 81

to rotate with the blade; thus a smaller cylinder surface around the blade can be used. No
transformation of data is needed because the CFD input is also rotating. Since more detailed
information is utilized for the accurate prediction of the far-eld noise this method is more
ecient. Finally, the method was extended for an advancing rotor and was applied to HSI
noise and BVI noise. ; Berezin et al. showed that sometimes special care is needed for
99 100 101 82

choosing the CFD grids, because the highly stretched grids used for aerodynamic applications
may not provide accurate information on the control Kirchho surface.
A comparison of the rotating and the nonrotating Kirchho methods showed that both
59

methods are very accurate and ecient. Figure 3 shows a comparison for an advancing HSI noise
case (1/7 scale AH-1 helicopter, hover tip Mach number MH = 0:665, advance ratio  = 0:258,
which corresponds to an advancing tip Mach number of Mat = 0:837). TURNS ; is used for
77 78

the CFD calculations. We see that both methods compare very well with the experiments. 102

Kirchho's method has become a standard tool for rotorcraft acoustic predictions. The method
is currently implemented in the TRAC (TiltRotor Aeroacoustic Codes) system developed by
NASA Langley (RKIR code, Lyrintzis et al. , Berezin et al. ) and is employed at NASA Ames
60 82

AFDD (Strawn et al. ). In Europe, additional versions of rotating and nonrotating Kirchho
59

codes have also been developed. ; ; ; ;

61 69 70 103 104

Kirchho's method results have also been compared with acoustic analogy (solid surface
FW-H equation). A comparison with the acoustic analogy code WOPWOP (WOPWOP uses
10

the solid surface FW-H equation without accounting for quadrupoles) has shown that Kirchho

22
method is superior when quadrupole sources are present (Lyrintzis et al. ) for advancing HSI
105

cases. Baeder et al. also compared the results with a linear (i.e. monopole plus dipole sources
74

on the rotating blade) solid surface FW-H equation method for hover HSI. The FW-H results
were inaccurate for tip Mach numbers higher than 0.7, because of the omission of quadrupole
sources. However, a further comparison of the rotating Kirchho method to WOPWOP+ ; 11 12

(WOPWOP+ is a solid surface FW-H equation method accounting also for quadrupoles with
a volume integral) has shown that the two methods give about the same results (Brentner et
al. ), but Kirchho method uses only surface integrals and avoids the quadrupole volume
106

integration. It should be noted that robustness of Kirchho method improves with the use of
a less stretched grid (Berezin et al. ) or an Euler code, e.g. TURNS (Baeder et al. ).
82 74

Isom et al. , and Purcell ; used a modied Kirchho method which also included some
45 107 108

nonlinear eects for a stationary surface, to calculate hover HSI noise. Results (not shown
here) show good agreement with experimental data.
A porous FW-H method based on Kirchho subroutines was also developed by Brentner
& Farassat (FWH/RKIR code), Morgans et al. and Strawn et al. . These codes do not
44 76 48

include quadrupoles outside the control surface, because it was found to be of minor importance
unless the Mach number is really high. Thus the porous FW-H equation is also based on
109

surface integrals. The porous FW-H formalism is more robust than the traditional Kirchho
method with regards to the choice of the control surface, as shown in gures 4 and 5 for a hover
HSI noise case (1/4 model UH-1H model helicopter, hovering at MH = 0:88, experiments from
Purcell ). FPR ; was used for the CFD calculations.
107 80 81

5.3 Airfoils
Atassi and his co-workers ; , have used Kirchho's method for the evaluation of acoustic
34 110 112

radiation from airfoils in nonuniform subsonic ows. They employed rapid distortion theory to
calculate the near-eld CFD. A sample comparison for the far-eld directivity of the acoustic
pressure using the Kirchho method and the direct calculation method (i.e. rapid distortion
23
theory , is given in gure 6 (from references 34 and 101) for a 3% thick Joukowski airfoil in
113 115

a transverse gust at k = (!c=2V1 ) = 1 and M=0.1. The semi-analytical results for a at plate
1

encountering the same gust are also shown in gure 4 and are very close to the results from
Kirchho's method. The gure indicates that the direct calculation method is not accurate in
the far-eld, as the direct simulation results are very dierent from the semi-analytical and the
Kirchho results. This is due to discretization errors. However, this CFD code is accurate in
the near-eld and the Kirchho method should be used instead in the far-eld, as indicated in
gure 6.
Singer et al. ; used a FW-H method for the evaluation of acoustic scattering from a trailing
85 57

edge and slat trailing edge. The interesting thing about the slat trailing edge application is
that part of the control surface is solid and another part is porous.

5.4 Fan Noise

Kirchho's method can also be applied to ducted fan noise. Very good results were shown
by Ozyoruk and Long , for a control surface in rectilinear motion. A forward time parallel
64 66

algorithm was used. A porous FWH method was used by Zhang with very good results.
116

5.5 Jet Noise

There are some diculties with using the Kirchho and and the porous FW-H methods for
some aeroacoustic problems. For an accurate prediction, the control surface must completely
enclose the aerodynamic source region. This may be dicult or impossible to accomplish if
the source region is large. The validity of this method is also dependent on the control surface
being placed in a region where the linear wave equation is valid. Additionally, the existence of
a shear ow outside the control surface will cause refraction of the propagating sound. Failure
to account for this refraction will also lead to errors when the observer location is near the jet
axis.
Kirchho's method has also been applied in the estimation of jet noise. Soh and Mitchel
117

24
et al. used the stationary Kirchho method (equation 7) and Lyrintzis & Mankbadi Chy-
118 31

czewski & Long , Morris et al. , Gamet and Estivalezes , Choi et al. and Kandula and
119 120 121 122

Caimi used the uniformly moving formula. It should be noted that most of the above refer-
123

ences use an LES code for the CFD data. However, a RANS code can also be used, as shown
in reference 123, where OVERFLOW was used. Lyrintzis & Mankbadi also compared time
79 31

and frequency domain formulations. Mankbadi et al. applied a modied Green's function to
35

avoid the evaluation of normal derivatives. Balakumar and Yen used parabolized stability
124 125

equations for the jet simulation and a cylindrical (i.e. two-dimensional) Kirchho formulation
for the noise evaluation Shih et al. compared several Kirchho formulations with the acoustic
126

analogy, extending the LES calculations and using a zonal LES + LEE method. The results
showed that the Kirchho method is much more accurate than the acoustic analogy (for the
compact source approximation used) and much cheaper than extending the LES or performing
a zonal LES + LEE. Finally, Morris et al. ; used the porous FW-H method and Hu et al. ,
127 128 83

used a two-dimensional formulation of the porous FW-H equation to evaluate noise radiation
from a plane jet.
The above approaches have used an open control surface (i.e. without the downstream end)
in order to avoid placing the surface in a nonlinear region. Freund et al. showed a means
55

of correcting the results to account for an open control surface, for cases that the observer is
close to the jet axis. Pilon and Lyrintzis ; ; developed a method to account for quadrupole
40 41 43

sources outside the control surface. This approximation is based on the assumption that all
wave modes approximately decay in an exponential fashion. The volume integral is reduced to
a surface integral for a far-eld low frequency approximation and a Taylor series expansion for
axisymmetric jets. However, a simpler method (recommended in reference 49) is to just use an
existing empirical code (e.g. MGB ) to evaluate the noise using as in ow the CFD solution
129

on the right side of the control surface. Thus MGB can provide an estimate of the error of
ignoring any sources outside the control surface of the Kirchho/porous FW-H method.
An approximate way to account for refraction eects was developed by Lyrintzis and co-
workers ; , as explained above in section 2.4. A typical result shown here (gure 7) shows
49 54

25
the eects of refraction corrections for a supersonic Mach number case (excited, Mach 2:1,
unheated (T = 294K ), round jet of Reynolds Number Re = 70000; the jet exit variables were
perturbed at a single axisymmetric mode at a Strouhal number of St = 0:20, the amplitude of
the perturbation was 2% of the mean). Further development of refraction corrections (based,
for example in reference 130) is possible.
Finally, it should be noted that for some complicated noise problems (as, for example, in jet
noise) several computational domains might be needed: a complicated near-eld (e. g. using
Large Eddy Simulations-LES), a simplied mid-eld with some nonlinear eects, and a linear
Kirchho's method for the far-eld. Kirchho's formulation can be the simplest region of a
general zonal methodology. This idea has been proposed by Lyrintzis, but it has not yet been
17

implemented.

6 Concluding Remarks
Kirchho's and porous FW-H methods consist of the calculation of the nonlinear near- and mid-
eld numerically with the far-eld solutions found from a Kirchho/porous FW-H formulation
evaluated on a control surface S surrounding the nonlinear-eld. The surface S is assumed to
include all the nonlinear ow eects and noise sources. The separation of the problem into linear
and nonlinear regions allows the use of the most appropriate numerical methodology for each.
The advantage of these methods is that the surface integrals and the rst derivatives needed
can be evaluated more easily than the volume integrals and the second derivatives needed for
the evaluation of the quadrupole terms when the traditional acoustic analogy is used.
The porous FW-H equation is equivalent to Kirchho's method and is very appealing be-
cause it is more robust with the choice of control surface and does not require normal deriva-
tives. Since the method also requires a surface integral, it is very easy to modify existing
Kirchho/solid surface FW-H codes.
The use of both methods has increased substantially the last 10 years, because of the
development of reliable CFD methods that can be used for the evaluation of the near-eld.
26
The methods can be used to study various acoustic problems, such as propeller noise, high-
speed compressibility noise, blade-vortex interactions, jet noise, ducted fan noise, etc. Some
results indicative of the uses of both methods are shown here, but the reader is referred to the
original references for further details. We believe that, a simple set of portable Kirchho/FW-
H subroutines can be developed to calculate the far-eld noise from inputs supplied by any
aerodynamic near/mid-eld code.

Acknowledgements
The author was supported by the Indiana 21st Century Research and Technology Fund, and
the Aeroacoustics Consortium (AARC).

References
[1] Lighthill, M. J., "A General Introduction to Aeroacoustics and Atmospheric Sound,"
ICASE Report 92-52, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 1992.

[2] Hardin, J., and Hussaini M. Y., Computational Aeroacoustics, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1993.

[3] Tam, C. K. W., \Computational Aeroacoustics: Issues and Methods," AIAA Journal, Vol.
33, No. 10, Oct. 1995, pp. 1788{1796.

[4] Long, L. N., Morris, P. J., Ahuja, V., Hall, Chris, and Liu, J., \Several Aerospace Ap-
plications of Computational Aeroacoustics," Proceedings of the ASME Noise Control and
Acoustics Division, NCA-Vol. 25, the 1998 ASME International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, Nov. 1998, Anaheim, CA, pp. 13{20.

[5] Mankbadi, R. R., Hayder, M. E., Povinelli, L. A., \The Structure of Supersonic Jet Flow
and Its Radiated Sound," AIAA Journal, 32, 1994, pp. 897{906.
27
 [6] Stoker, R. W., and Smith, M. J., \An Evaluation of Finite Volume Direct Simulation and
Perturbation Methods in CAA Applications," AIAA 93-0152, Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
Reno, NV, Jan. 1993.
[7] Lighthill, M. J., \On the Sound Generated Aerodynamically, Part I, General Theory,"
Proc. R. Soc. London A 211, pp. 567{587.
[8] Lilley, G. M., \On the Noise from Jets: Noise Mechanisms," AGARD-CP-131, March 1974,
13.1{13.12.
[9] Ffowcs Williams, J. E., and Hawkings, D. L., \Sound Generation by Turbulence and
Surfaces in Arbitrary Motion," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
Vol. 264A, May 1969, pp. 321{342.
[10] Brentner, K. S., \Prediction of Helicopter Rotor Discrete Frequency Noise," NASA Tech-
nical Memorandum 87721, Oct. 1986.
[11] Brentner, K. S., and Holland, P. C., \An Ecient and Robust Method for Computing
Quadrupole Noise," Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 42, No. 2. Apr. 1997,
pp. 172{181.
[12] Brentner, K. S., \An Ecient and Robust Method for Predicting Rotor High-Speed Im-
pulsive Noise," Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 203 (1), 1997, pp. 87{100.
[13] Lim, T. B., Sankar, L. N., Hariharan, N., and Reddy, N. N., "A Technique for the Pre-
diction of Propeller Induced Acoustic Loads on Aircraft Structures," AIAA-93-4340, 15th
AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference, Long Beach CA.
[14] Viswanathan, K., and Sankar, L. N., \Toward the Direct Calculation of Noise:
Fluid/Acoustic Coupled Simulation," AIAA Journal, Vol. 33, No. 12, pp. 2271{2279.
[15] Shih, S. H., Hixon, D. R., and Mankbadi, R. R., \A Zonal Approach for the Prediction
of Jet Noise," CEAS/AIAA paper 95-144 presented at the rst joint CEAS/AIAA Aeroa-
coustics Conference (16th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Munich Germany, June 1995.
28
[16] Hawkings, D. L., \Noise Generation by Transonic Open Rotors," Westland Research Paper
599, 1979.

[17] Lyrintzis, A. S., \Review: The Use of Kirchho Method in Aeroacoustics," ASME Journal
of Fluids Engineering Vol. 116, No. 4, Dec. 1994, pp. 665{676.

[18] Crighton, D. G., Dowling, A. P., Ffowcs Williams, J. E., Heckl, M., and Leppington, F. G.,
Modern Methods in Analytical Acoustics: Lecture Notes, Springer{Verlag, London, 1992.

[19] Farassat, F. "Acoustic Radiation From Rotating Blades - The Kirchho Method in Aeroa-
coustics, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 239, no. 4, January, 2001, pp. 785{800.

[20] Kirchho, G. R. \Zur Theorie der Lichtstrahlen," Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Vol. 18,
1883, pp. 663{695.

[21] Morgans, R. P., "The Kirchho Formula Extended to a Moving Surface," Philosophical
Magazine, 9, s.7, No. 55, 1930, pp. 141{161.

[22] Farassat, F., and Myers, M. K., \Extension of Kirchho's Formula to Radiation from
Moving Surfaces," Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 123, No. 3, 1988, pp. 451{461.

[23] Morino, L., \A General Theory of Unsteady Compressible Potential Aerodynamics," NASA
Contractor Report CR-2464, December 1974.

[24] Morino, L., Freedman, M. I., Deutsch, D. J., and Sipcic, S. R., \An Integral Equation
Method for Compressible Potential Flows in an Arbitrary Frame of Reference, in Com-
putational Methods in Potential Aerodynamics, Ed. L. Morino, Computational Mechanics
Publications, Southampton, UK, 1985.

[25] Morino, L., Bharadvaj, B. K., Freedman, M. I., and Tseng, K., \BEM For Wave Equation
With Boundary in Arbitrary Motion And Applications to Compressible Potential Aero-
dynamics of Aeroplanes and Helicopters" in Computational Mechanics, Vol. 4, 1989, pp.
231{243.
29
[26] Gennerati, M., Luceri, L., and Morino L., \A Unied Boundary Integral Methodology for
Aerodynamics and Aeroacoustics of Rotors," Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 200,
1997, pp. 467{489.
[27] Morino, L., Bernardini, G., and Gennerati, M., \A Velocity-Potential-Besed Boundary-
Element Method for the Aeroacoustics Analysis of Rotors and Propellers in Arbitrary
motion," AIAA paper 2002-2539, presented at the 8th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Con-
ference, Breckenridge CO, June 2002.
[28] Myers, M. K., and Hausmann, J. S., \On the Application of the Kirchho Formula for
Moving Surfaces," Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 139, 1990, pp. 174{178.
[29] Farassat, F. Brentner, K. S., and Dunn, M. H., \A Study of Supersonic Surface Sources
- The Ffowcs Williams Hawkings Equation and the Kirchho Formula," AIAA paper 98-
2375, Proceedings of the 4th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Toulouse, France,
June 1998.
[30] Farassat F. and Farris M., \Verication and Analysis of Formulation 4 of Langley for
the Study of Noise From High Speed Surfaces," AIIA paper 99-1881 5th AIAA/CEAS
Aeroacoustics Conference, Bellevue, WA, May, 1999.
[31] Lyrintzis, A. S., and Mankbadi, R. R., \On the Prediction of the Far-Field Jet Noise Using
the Kirchho Method," AIAA Paper 95-0508, presented at the 33rd AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Conference, Reno, NV, Jan. 1995; also AIAA Journal, Vol. 34, Feb. 1996, pp.
413{416.
[32] Pilon, A.R., Development of Improved Surface Integral Methods for Jet Aeroacoustic Pre-
dictions, PhD Thesis, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Min-
nesota, Minneapolis, MN, January 1997.
[33] Scott, J. N., Pilon, A. R., Lyrintzis, A. S., and Rozmajzl, T., \A Numerical Investigation of
Noise from a Rectangular Jet," AIAA paper No. 97-0485, presented at the 35th Aerospace
Science Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 1997.
30
[34] Atassi, H. M., Subramaniam, S., and Scott, J. R., \Acoustic Radiation from Lifting Airfoils
in Compressible Subsonic Flow," NASA Technical Memorandum 103650; also AIAA paper
90-3911, Oct. 1990.
[35] Mankbadi, R. R., Shih, S. H., Hixon, R., Stuart, J. T., and Povinelli, L. A., \Extension
of Near Field to Far Field Noise Prediction," AIAA paper 96-2651, 32 Joint Propulsion
Conference Lake Bueva Vista, FL, July 1996.
[36] Hariharan, S. I., Stenger, E. J., and Scott, J. R., \Potential Theoretic Methods for Far-
Field Sound Radiation Calculations," NASA Technical Memorandum 107118, ICOMP-95-
25, Dec. 1995.
[37] Wu, S. F., and Pierce, A. D., \Nonuniqueness of Solutions to Variationally Formulated
Acoustic Radiation Problems," ASME Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, Vol. 112, 1990,
pp. 263{267.
[38] Wu, S. F., \Nonuniqueness of Solutions to Extended Kirchho Integral Formulations,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 93, No. 2, February, 1993, pp. 683{695.
[39] Dowling, A. P., and Ffowcs Williams, Sound and Sources of Sound, Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1982
[40] Pilon, A., and Lyrintzis, A. S., \On the Development of a Modied Kirchho Method
for Supersonic Jet Aeroacoustics," AIAA paper No. 96-1709, presented at the 2nd
AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Meeting, (17th AIAA Aeroacoustics Meeting) State College,
PA, May 1996.
[41] Pilon, A. R., and Lyrintzis, A. S., \Integral Methods for Computational Aeroacoustics,"
AIAA paper No. 97-0020, presented at the 35th Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, NV,
Jan. 1997.
[42] Di Francescantonio, P., \A New Boundary Integral Formulation for the Prediction of Sound
Radiation," Journal of Sound and Vibration Vol. 202, No. 4, 1997, pp. 491{509.
31
[43] Pilon, A. R., and Lyrintzis, A. S., \Development of an Improved Kirchho Method for Jet
Aeroacoustics," AIAA Journal, Vol. 36, No. 5, May 1998, pp. 783{790.
[44] Brentner, K. S., and Farassat, F., \An Analytical Comparison of the Acoustic Analogy
and Kirchho Formulations for Moving Surfaces," AIAA Journal , Vol. 36, No. 8, Aug.
1998, pp. 1379{1386.
[45] Isom, M. P., Purcell, T. W., and Strawn, R. C., \Geometrical Acoustics and Transonic
Sound," AIAA paper 87-2748, AIAA 11th Aeroacoustics Conference, Sunnyvale, CA. 1987.
[46] Farassat F., \Linear Acoustic Formulas for Calculation of Rotating Blade Noise," AIAA
Journal, Vol. 19, No. 9, Sept. 1981, pp. 1122{1130.

[47] Farassat, F., and Succi, G. P., \The Prediction of Helicopter Rotor Discrete Frequency
Noise," Vertica, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1983, pp. 309{320.
[48] Strawn, R. C., Ahmad, J., and Duque, E. P. N., \Rotorcraft Aeroacoustics Calculations
with Overset-Grid CFD Methods," Journal of American Helicopter Society, Vol. 44, No.
2, April 1999, pp. 132{140.
[49] Lyrintzis, A. S. and Uzun, A., \Integral Techniques for Jet Aeroacoustics Calculations,"
AIAA paper 2001-2253 presented at the 7th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Maas-
tricht, Netherlands, May 2001.
[50] Lockard, D., \A Comparison of Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings Solvers For Airframe Noise
Applications, AIAA paper No. 2002-2580 presented at the 8th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
Conference, Breckenridge, CO, July 2002.
[51] Guo, Y., \Application of the Ffowcs-Williams/Hawkings Equation to Two-Dimensional
Problems," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 403, Jan. 2000, pp. 201{221.
[52] Lockard, D. \An Ecient, Two-Dimensional Implementation Of the Two-Dimensional
Ffowcs Williams Hawkings Equation," Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 229, No. 4,
2000, pp. 897{911.
32
[53] Amiet, R. K., \Refraction of Sound by a Shear Layer," Journal of Sound and Vibration,
Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 467{482.
[54] Pilon, A. R., and Lyrintzis, A. S., \Refraction Corrections for the Modied Kirchho
Method," AIAA paper No. 97-1654 presented at the 3rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Meet-
ing, Atlanta, GA, May 1997; also AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 35, No. 4, Jul.-Aug. 1998
pp. 661{664.
[55] Freund, J. B., Lele S. K., and Moin P., \Calculation of the the Radiated Sound Field Using
an Open Kirchho Surface," AIAA Journal, Vol. 34, No. 5, May 1996, pp. 909{916.
[56] Brentner, K. S., \Numerical Algorithms for Acoustic Integrals with Examples for Rotor
Noise Prediction," AIAA Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, April 1997, pp. 625{630.
[57] Singer, B., Lockard, D., and Brentner K. S. \Computational Aeroacoustics Analysis of
Slat Trailing Edge Flow," AIIA paper 99-1802 5th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference,
Bellevue, WA, May, 1999.
[58] Meadows, K. R. and Atkins, H. R., \Towards a Highly Accurate Implementation of the
Kirchho Approach for Computational Aeroacoustics," IMACS Journal of Computational
Acoustics, Vol. 4, No. 2, (1996), pp. 225{241.
[59] Strawn, R. C., Biswas, R., and Lyrintzis, A. S., \Helicopter Noise Predictions Using Kirch-
ho Methods", Proceedings of the 51st AHS Annual Forum, Fort Worth TX, May 1995,
Vol. I, pp 495-508; also IMACS Journal of Computational Acoustics, Vol. 4, No. 3, Sept.
1996, pp. 321{339.
[60] Lyrintzis, A. S., Koutsavdis, E. K., Berezin C., Visintainer J. and Pollack, M., \An Evalu-
ation of a Rotational Kirchho Methodology," Journal of the American Helicopter Society,
Vol. 43, No. 1, Jan. 1998, pp. 48{57.
[61] Polacsek, C., Prieur, J., \High-Speed Impulsive Noise Calculations in Hover and Forward
Flight Using a Kirchho Formulation," CEAS/AIAA paper 95-138 Proceedings of the 1st
33
 Joint CEAS/AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference (16th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Mu-
nich Germany, June 1995, Vol. II, pp. 973{978.

[62] Wissink, A. M., Lyrintzis, A. S., Strawn, R. C., Oliker, L., and Biswas, R., \Ecient He-
licopter Aerodynamic and Aeroacoustic Predictions on Parallel Computers," AIAA paper
No. 96-0153, presented at the AIAA 34th Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan.
1996.

[63] Strawn, R.C., Oliker, L., and Biswas, R., "New Computational Methods for the Prediction
and Analysis of Helicopter Noise," AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 665{672.

[64] Long, L. N., and Brentner K. S., \Self-Scheduling Parallel Methods for Multiple Serial
Codes with Applications to Wopwop, AIAA paper 2000-0346, presented at the 38th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 1996.

[65] Ozyoruk, Y., and Long, L. N., \Computation of Sound Radiating from Engine Inlets,"
CEAS/AIAA paper 95-063 Proceedings of the 1st Joint CEAS/AIAA Aeroacoustics Con-
ference (16th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Munich Germany, June 1995; also AIAA
Journal Vol. 34, No. 5, May 1996, pp. 894{901.

[66] Ozyoruk, Y., and Long, L. N., \Multigrid Acceleration of a High Resolution Computational
Aeroacoustics Scheme," AIAA Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, March 1997, 428{433.

[67] Ozyoruk, Y., and Long, L. N., \A New Ecient Algorithm for Computational Aeroa-
coustics on Parallel Computers," Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 125, 1996, pp.
135{149.

[68] Lyrintzis, A. S., and Xue, Y., \Towards a Versatile Kirchho's Method Code," AIAA
Journal, vol. 35, No. 1, Jan. 1997, pp. 198{200.

[69] Rahier, G., and Prier, J., \An Ecient Kirchho Integration Method for Rotor Noise
Prediction Starting Indierently from Subsonically or Supersonically Rotating Meshes,"
34
 Proceedings of the 53rd AHS Annual Forum, Vol. 1, Virginia Beach, VA, Apr. 1997, pp.
697{707.

[70] Algermissen G., and Wagner S., \Computation of Helicopter High-Speed Impulsive Noise
by an Enhanced Kirchho Method," Proceedings of the AHS Technical Specialists' Meeting
for Rotorcraft Acoustics and Aerodynamics, Williamsburg, VA, Oct. 1997.

[71] Brentner, K. S.\A New Algorithm for Computing Acoustic Integrals," 14th IMACS World
Congress, Atlanta, GA, July 1994.

[72] Forsyth, D. W., and Korkan, K. D., \Computational Aeroacoustics of Propeller Noise in
the Near- and the Far-eld," AIAA paper 87-0254, AIAA 25th Aerospace Science Meeting,
Reno, NV Jan. 1987.

[73] Strawn, R. C., and Biswas, R., \Computation of Helicopter Rotor Noise in Forward Flight,"
Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 40, No. 3, July 1995, pp. 66{72.

[74] Baeder, J. D., Gallman, J. M., and Yung, Y., \A Computational study of the Aeroacoustics
of Rotor in Hover," Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan. 1997,
pp. 39{53.

[75] Xue, Y., and Lyrintzis, A. S., \Rotating Kirchho Method for Three-Dimensional Tran-
sonic Blade-Vortex Interaction Hover Noise," AIAA Journal, Vol. 32, No. 7, Jul. 1994,
pp. 1350{1359.

[76] Morgans, A., Dowling A., \The Aeroacoustics of Transonic Helicopter Blades," AIAA pa-
per 2002-2545 presented at the 8th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Breckenridge,
CO, July 2002.

[77] Srinivasan, G. R., Baeder, J. D., Obayashi, S., and McCroskey, W. J., \Floweld of a
Lifting Rotor in Hover - A Navier-Stokes Simulation," AIAA Journal, Vol. 30, No. 10,
Oct. 1992, pp. 2371{2378.
35
[78] Srinivasan, G. R., and Baeder, J. D., \TURNS: A Free-Wake Euler/Navier-Stokes Nu-
merical Method for Helicopter Rotors," AIAA Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5, May 1993, pp.
959{962.
[79] Buning, P. G., Jesperson, D. C., Pulliam, T. H., Chan, W. M., Stotnick, J. P., Krist, S. E.,
and Renze, K., J., \OVERFLOW User's manual Version 1.8g," NASA Langley Research
Center, March 1999.
[80] Strawn, R. C., and Caradonna, F. X., \Conservative Full Potential Model for Unsteady
Transonic Rotor Flows," AIAA Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, Feb. 1987, pp. 193{198.
[81] Caradonna, F. X., Strawn, R. C., and Bridgeman, J. O., \An Experimental and Compu-
tational Study of Blade-Vortex Interactions" Vertica, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1988, pp. 315{327.
[82] Berezin, C., Pollack, M., Visintainer, J., Lyrintzis, A., and Koutsavdis, E., \Development
and Practical Application of the Rotating Kirchho Method for the Prediction of HSI and
BVI Noise," Proceedings of the AHS Technical Specialists' Meeting for Rotorcraft Acoustics
and Aerodynamics, Williamsburg, VA, Oct. 1997.

[83] Hu, Z. W., Morfey, C. L., and Sandham, N. D., \Sound Radiation from a Subsonic Tur-
bulent Plane Jet," AIAA paper No. 2002-2421 presented at the 8th AIAA/CEAS Aeroa-
coustics Conference, Breckenridge, CO, July 2002.
[84] Hardin, J.C., Ristorcelli, J. R. and Tam, C.K.W. editors. \ICASE/LARC Workshop on
Benchmark Problems in Computational Aeroacoustics," NASA Conference Publication
3300, NASA Langley, May 1995
[85] Singer, B., Lockard, D., Brentner K. S., and Lilley, G. M., \Simulation of Acoustic Scat-
tering from a Trailing Edge," Journal of sound and Vibration, Vol. 230, No. 3, 2000, pp.
541{560.
[86] Pierce, A., Acoustics { An Introduction to Its Physical Principles and Applications, Acous-
tical Society of America, 1989.
36
[87] Jaeger, S., and Korkan, K. D., \On the Prediction of Far-Field Computational Aeroacous-
tics of Advanced Propellers," AIAA paper 90-3996, AIAA 13th Aeroacoustics Conference,
Oct. 1990.
[88] Lyrintzis, A. S., \The Use of Kirchho's Method in Rotorcraft Aeroacoustics," Paper
No. 34, presented at the 75th AGARD Fluid Dynamics Panel Meeting and Symposium
on Aerodynamics and Aeroacoustics of Rotorcraft, Berlin, Germany, Oct. 1994; AGARD
Conference Proceedings, No. 552, Aug. 1995, pp. 34-1 { 34-16.
[89] George, A. R., and Lyrintzis, A. S., \Mid-Field and Far-Field Calculations of Transonic
Blade-Vortex Interactions," AIAA paper 86-1854, AIAA 10th Aeroacoustics Conference,
Seattle, WA, July 9-11, 1986.
[90] George, A. R., and Lyrintzis, A. S., \Acoustics of Transonic Blade-Vortex Interactions,"
AIAA Journal, Vol. 26, No. 7, Jul. 1988, pp. 769{776.

[91] Lyrintzis, A. S., and George, A. R., \Far-Field Noise of Transonic Blade-Vortex Interac-
tions," American Helicopter Society Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, July 1989, pp. 30{39.
[92] Lyrintzis, A. S., and Xue, Y., \A Study of the Noise Mechanisms of Transonic Blade-Vortex
Interactions," AIAA Journal, Vol. 29, No. 10, Oct. 1991, pp. 1562{1572.
[93] Xue, Y., and Lyrintzis, A. S., \Transonic Blade-Vortex Interactions: Noise Reduction
Techniques," AIAA Journal of Aircraft Vol. 30, No. 3, May-June, 1993, pp. 408{411.
[94] Lyrintzis, A. S., Lee, J., and Xue, Y., \Mechanisms and Directivity of Unsteady Tran-
sonic Flow Noise" presented at the International Symposium on Flow Induced Vibration
and Noise III, Vol. 3: Flow-Structure and Flow-Sound Interactions, eds. Farabee, T. M.,
Paidoussis, M. P., pp. 85{113, ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA Nov. 1992;
also ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering Vol. 116, No. 3, Sept. 1994, pp. 649{652.
[95] Lin S-Y and Chin Y-S, \Numerical Study on Reduction of Transonic Blade-Vortex In-
teraction Noise," CEAS/AIAA paper 95-049 Proceedings of the 1st Joint CEAS/AIAA
37
 Aeroacoustics Conference (16th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Munich Germany, June
1995.
[96] Lin S-Y and Chen Y-F, \Numerical Study of Head On Blade-Vortex Interaction Noise,"
AIAA paper No. 97-0287 presented at the 35th Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, NV Jan.
1997.
[97] Strawn, R. C., Garceau M., and Biswas R., \Unstructured Adaptive Mesh Computations
of Rotorcraft High-Speed Impulsive Noise," AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 32, No. 4,
July-Aug. 1995, pp. 754{760.
[98] Ahmad, J., U., Duque, E. P. N., and Strawn R. C., \Computations of Rotorcraft Aeroa-
coustics with a Navier Stokes/Kirchho Method," paper 51, 22nd European Rotorcraft
Forum, Brighton, UK, Sept. 1996.
[99] Lyrintzis, A. S., Xue, Y., and Kilaras, M. S., \The Use of a Rotating Kirchho Formula-
tion for High-Speed Impulsive Noise," AIAA Paper 94-0463, presented at the 32nd AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Conference, Reno, NV, Jan. 1994.
[100] Lyrintzis, A. S., Kilaras, M. S., and Xue, Y., \Transonic 3-D BVI Noise Using a Rotating
Kirchho Formulation for Advancing Rotors," Proceedings of the 50th AHS Annual Forum,
Washington, DC, May 1994, Vol. I, pp. 115{127.
[101] Lyrintzis, A. S., and Koutsavdis, E. K., \Rotorcraft Impulsive Noise Prediction Using
a Rotating Kirchho Formulation," AIAA Journal of Aircraft Vol. 33, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.
1996, pp. 1054{1061.
[102] Schmitz, F. H., Boxwell, D. A., Splettstoesser, W. R., and Schultz, K. J., \Model-Rotor
High-Speed Impulsive Noise: Full-Scale Comparisons and Parametric Variations," Vertica,
Vol 8, No. 4, 1984, pp. 395-422.
[103] Kuntz, M., Lohmann D., Pahlke, K., \Comparisons of Rotor Noise Predictions at DLR
Obtained by a Lifting Surface Method and Euler Solutions Using Kirchho Equation,"
38
 CEAS/AIAA paper 95-136 Proceedings of the 1st Joint CEAS/AIAA Aeroacoustics Con-
ference (16th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Munich Germany, June 1995, Vol. II, pp.
949{962.
[104] Kuntz, M., \Rotor Noise Predictions in Hover and Forward Flight Using Dierent Aeroa-
coustic Methods," AIAA paper No. 96-1695, presented at the 2nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroa-
coustics Meeting, (17th AIAA Aeroacoustics Meeting) State College, PA, May 1996.
[105] Lyrintzis, A. S., Koutsavdis, E. K., and Strawn R. C., \A Comparison of Computational
Aeroacoustic Prediction Methods," American Helicopter Society Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1,
Jan. 1997 pp. 54{57.
[106] Brentner, K. S., Lyrintzis, A. S., and Koutsavdis, E K., \A Comparison of Computational
Aeroacoustic Prediction Methods for Transonic Rotor Noise," AIAA Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 34, No. 4, Jul.-Aug. 1997, pp. 531{538.
[107] Purcell, T. W., \CFD and Transonic Helicopter Sound," Paper No. 2, 14th European
Rotorcraft Forum ,Sept. 1988.
[108] Purcell, T. W., \A Prediction of High-Speed Rotor Noise," AIAA 89-1130, AIAA 12th
Aeroacoustics Conference, San Antonio, TX, 1989.
[109] Lyrintzis, A. S. Koutsavdis, E. K., and Pilon, A. R., \An Extended Kirchho Method
for Rotorcraft Impulsive Noise," Proceedings of the AHS Technical Specialists' Meeting for
Rotorcraft Acoustics and Aerodynamics, Williamsburg, VA, Oct. 1997.

[110] Davis, C. M., and Atassi, H. M., \The Far-Field Acoustic Pressure of an Airfoil in Nonuni-
form Subsonic Flows," presented at the Symposium of Flow Noise Modeling, Measurement
and Control, NCA-Vol. 11/ FED-Vol. 130, pp. 107-117, ASME Winter Annual Meeting,
Atlanta, GA, Dec. 1991.
[111] Atassi, H. M., Dusey, M., and Davis, C. M., \Acoustic Radiation from a Thin Airfoil in
Nonuniform Subsonic Flows," AIAA Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, Jan. 1993, pp. 12{19.
39
[112] Patrick, S. M., Davis, C. M., and Atassi H., \Acoustic Radiation from a Lifting Airfoil
in Nonuniform Subsonic Flows" in Computational Aero- and Hydro-Acoustics, FED Vol.
147, eds: Mankbadi, R., R., Lyrintzis, A. S., Baysal, O., Povinelli, L. A., and Hussaini,
M. Y., pp. 41-46, ASME Fluids Engineering Conference, Washington, DC, June 1993.

[113] Scott, J. R., and Atassi, H. M., \Numerical Solution of the Linearized Euler Equations
for Unsteady Vortical Flows Around Lifting Airfoils," AIAA paper No 90-0064, AIAA 28th
Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, NV.

[114] Scott, J. R., and Atassi, H. M., \A Finite-Dierence Frequency Domain, Numeri-
cal Scheme for the Solution of the Gust Response Problem," Journal of Computational
Physics, Vol. 119, pp. 75{93.

[115] Fang J., and Atassi, H., M., \Direct Calculation of Sound Radiated from a Loaded
Cascade in a Gust," in Computational Aero- and Hydro-Acoustics, FED Vol. 147, eds:
Mankbadi, R., R., Lyrintzis, A. S., Baysal, O., Povinelli, L. A., and Hussaini, M. Y., pp.
111-116, ASME Fluids Engineering Conference, Washington, DC, June 1993.

[116] Zhang X., Chen, X. X., Morfey, C. L., Nelson, P. A., \Computation of Sound Radiation
of an Exhaust Duct," presented at the CEAS Workshop "From CFD to CAA" Nov. 2002,
Athens Greece.

[117] Soh, W. Y., 1994, \Unsteady Jet Flow Computation-Towards Noise Prediction," AIAA
paper 94-0138, AIAA 32nd Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, NV Jan. 1994.

[118] Mitchell, B. E., Lele, S. K., and Moin, P., \Direct Computation of the Sound Generated by
Vortex Pairing in an Axisymmetric Jet," presented at the 33nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Conference, Reno, NV, Jan. 1995.

[119] Chyczewski, T. S. and Long, L. N., \Numerical Prediction of the Noise Produced by a Per-
fectly Expanded Rectangular Jet," AIAA Paper 96-1730, 2nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
Conference, State College, PA, May 1996.
40
[120] Morris, P. J., Long, L. N., Scheidegger, T., Wang, Q., and Pilon, A. R., \High Speed Jet
Noise Simulations," AIAA Paper No. 98-2290 presented at the 4th AIAA/CEAS Aeroa-
coustics Conference, Toulouse, France, June, 1998.

[121] Gamet l. and Estivalezes J. L. \Application of Large-Eddy Simulations and Kirchho

Method to Jet Noise Prediction," AIAA Journal, Vol. 36, No. 12, Dec. 1998, pp. 2170{
2178.

[122] Choi, D., Barber, T. J., Chiappetta, L. M., and Nishimura, M \Large Eddy Simulations
of high-Reynolds number jet ows," AIAA Paper No. 99-0230 presented at the AIAA, 37th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, Jan. 1999.

[123] Kandula, M., and Caimi, R., \Simulation of Jet Noise with Over ow CFD Code and
Kirchho Surface Integral," AIAA paper No. 2002-2602, presented at the 8th AIAA/CEAS
Aeroacoustics Conference, Breckenridge, CO, July 2002.

[124] Balakumar, P., \Prediction of Supersonic Jet Noise," AIAA paper No. 98-1057, presented
at the 35th Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 1998.

[125] Yen, C-C; Messersmith, N. L. \The Use of Compressible Parabolized Stability Equa-
tions for Prediction of Jet Instabilities and Noise," AIAA Paper 99-1859 5th AIAA/CEAS
Aeroacoustics Conference, Bellevue, WA, May, 1999.

[126] Shih, S. H., Hixon, D. R., Mankbadi, R. R., Pilon, A. R., and Lyrintzis, A. S., \Evaluation
of Far-Field Jet Noise Prediction Methods," AIAA paper No. 97-0282, presented at the
35th Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 1997.

[127] Morris, P. J., Scheidegger, T., and Long L. N., \Jet Noise Simulations for Circular Noz-
zles," AIAA paper No. 2000-2080, presented at the 6th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Con-
ference, Lahaina, HA, June 2000.
41
[128] Boluriaan, S., Morris, P. J., Long L. N., and Scheidegger, T., \High Speed Jet Noise Simu-
lations for Noncircular Jets," presented at the 7th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference,
Maastricht, Netherlands, May 2001.
[129] Mani R., et al. \High Velocity Jet Noise Source Location and Reduction," Task 2, FAA-
RD-76-79-II, May 1978.
[130] Tam, C., and Auriault, L., \Computation of Mean Flow Refraction Eects on Jet Noise,"
AIAA paper No. 97-1599, Proceedings of the 3rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference,
Atlanta, GA, May 1997 pp. 112{126.

42
Figure 1: Kirchho's surface S and notation.

43
Figure 2: Sound Scattering by sphere. Comparison with exact solution (from reference 65).

44
Figure 3: Comparison of acoustic pressures with experimental data at four dierent micro-
102

phone locations for an AH-1 blade with Mat = 0:837. All microphones are in the plane of the
rotor (from reference 59).

45
Figure 4: Comparison of Kirchho acoustic pressures with experimental data for an observer
108

in the plane of the rotor at 3; 4R from a UH-1H model rotor hovering at MH = 0:88 (from
reference 44).

46
Figure 5: Comparison of porous FW-H acoustic pressures with experimental data for an
108

observer in the plane of the rotor at 3; 4R from a UH-1H model rotor hovering at MH = 0:88
(from reference 44).

47
Figure 6: Comparison between far-eld directivity of acoustic pressure values using the Kirch-
ho method (- -) and the direct calculation method (--) for a 3% thick Joukowski airfoil
in a transverse gust at k = 1:0; M = 0:1. The semi analytical results ({) for a at plate
1

encountering the same gust are also shown (from reference 36).

48
 50
No Corrections
40

30

20

10
R/Rj

-10

-20

-30

-40
Refraction Corrections
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
x/Rj

Figure 7: Instantaneous contours of a0=p . R > 0: No refraction corrections.

2
R < 0:
Refraction corrections imposed (from reference 54).

49