1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Noise pollution in airplane:

Noise pollution and the need to dramatically reduce the noise

exposure of regions near airports are two of the biggest problems now
confronting aviation. The take-off and landing phases are the biggest sources
of noise in aviation. For the majority of commercial aircraft, the engines are
the main source of noise. The airplane's surrounding wind (an aerodynamic
source) serves as the secondary source. Engine noise is among the loudest
sources of aviation noise, and jet noise makes a substantial contribution.
There have been several studies and research efforts on how to reduce jet
noise, but the easiest method is to create chevrons on the nozzle without
significantly reducing propulsion force.

1.2. Development in noise reduction:

Compared to commercial aero planes used in the 1970s and 1980s,
today's engines are substantially more powerful and make a lot less noise.
Even yet, efforts are still being made to lessen aircraft noise in the areas near
airports (aerodromes). Manufacturers of aircraft are putting greater effort
into developing engines that reduce noise around airport communities.
Aircraft engines undergo significant loads during takeoff and landing in
order to produce more thrust, which tends to make more noise than when the
aircraft is in the air. The majority of research has been used on jet engine
nozzles to quicken shear layer mixing while maintaining performance.

1.3. Production of noise in aircrafts:

An important element of jet noise is the exhaust jet noise that comes

1
 from an aircraft engine. Noise from aircraft, especially during takeoff. Jet
noise is categorized into three categories:

1. Turbulent mixing noise,

2. Noise linked with shocks, and

3. Scream tones

Jet noise in subsonic flows is mostly the result of turbulent mixing

noise. Shock associated noise and scream tones arise only for supersonic
flows and when the nozzle is operated outside of its design parameters. The
jet Mach number is subsonic during takeoff in civil aircraft engines with
constant-area nozzles [2-7].

Figure 1.1 Main sources of noises in aircraft

1.4. Design and Development of Chevron Nozzles

Modern jet engines must have chevrons, which have a zigzag or

sawtooth shape at the enclosure's tip and tips that are slightly curved into the
flow. The triangular cut-outs on the nozzle's edge create stream-wise vortices

2
in the shear layer, which causes the mixture to be inflated and causing the jet
plume to be shorter. As a result, the chevrons raise the mixture by the proper
amount, lowering the overall jet noise. The design criteria, as well as the
effectiveness and performance of the chevrons on the individual engines,
will decide how many chevrons should be fitted on a nozzle. Generally
speaking, oscillations in an unstable flow are what produce aero plane noise.
In an unstable flow, pressure variations take place to balance momentum
variations. Since every actual fluid can be compressed, these pressure
changes spread away from the flow by being transferred to the surrounding
fluid. Sound is made up of these pressure waves in the surrounding fluid.
The shear created by the flowing and stationary fluids creates a fluid-
mechanical instability, which causes the interface to break up into vortices
when a jet of fluid enters a stationary or relatively slower moving
background fluid. Then, at a speed halfway between the high- and low-
velocity flows, these vortices move downstream. Whether a jet is moving at
a supersonic or subsonic speed in relation to the surrounding flow affects the
noise characteristics.

The project's main goal is to choose the best chevron nozzle design
by researching the acoustic performance of several chevron nozzle profiles
to achieve the greatest noise reduction at the turbofan engine's nozzle exit.

To determine the most effective N8 chevron design model, flow

variables including pressure, acoustic power, and velocity are investigated.

1.5. Description and source of chevron nozzle:

Chevron nozzles were initially tested by GE Aircraft Engines in
1996 as part of a programme that was internally sponsored and looked at
several solutions for reducing jet noise. The chevrons, which were further
improved in testing at NASA Glenn Research Center under the AST

3
programme, proved to be the most promising design created in terms of noise
reduction and performance effect.

The concept behind chevrons was inspired by a variety of sources,

including work on tabbed nozzles, nozzles with cutouts, mixing nozzles, as
well as general knowledge and experience gained over the years at GE
Aircraft Engines.

Eight chevrons on the nozzle being discussed in this study alternately

penetrate towards and away from the engine centerline. In general, acoustic
advantage, performance, operability, manufacturability, maintainability, etc.
must be taken into account while choosing a chevron design. Unfortunately,
there is a negative inverse relationship between acoustics and performance;
that is, what is good for acoustics is typically terrible for performance.
Designing a nozzle that meets all other system criteria while maximizing
acoustic advantage and minimizing detrimental performance impact is
considered to be an art.

The chevron nozzle's intrinsic distinction from tabbed nozzles is a

significant and sometimes overlooked feature. Similar to mixers, Tabbed
nozzles change the noise's frequency. They transfer energy between low and
high frequencies.

Chevrons, on the other hand, are made with the intention of reducing
low frequencies while basically maintaining the same high frequency
acoustic properties as a typical nozzle. When compared to other engine
sources, which are often louder than the jet noise at these frequencies in
efficient chevron designs, there may be some very modest increases in noise
at some moderate to high frequencies.

4
 Figure 1.2 Boeing 787 Chevron Nozzle

1.6. Aircraft engine technologies:

Over time, aeroplane propulsion technologies have changed

alongside the growth of air travel. For passenger aeroplanes, a variety of
technological methods are employed today to create thrust.
Turboprop engines are one of the basic types of propulsion systems.
These engines work by a propeller being driven by a turbine, which
accelerates air and produces thrust. Although turboprop engines are
relatively fuel-efficient, their efficiency decreases as an aircraft's flying
speed and altitude rise. Additionally, propellers may only be used at subsonic
flying rates.
Consequently, regional aircraft or freight planes with limited flying
ranges employ turboprop engines. These aircraft benefit from the low fuel
burn and are less affected by the speed restriction.
Airliners with long flight distances often employ a different power
system, the turbofan engine design. Long-range business jets and passenger
aircraft now most frequently use this type of engine due to its intriguing fuel-
efficiency at high speeds and altitudes. Only the latter kind of aircraft
propulsion system is taken into consideration in this paper. In the parts that
follow, it is given in depth and its basic operation is described.

5
 2. Literature survey

1. In 2021, “Aerodynamic Performance of Chevron Nozzles in Supersonic

Flow Chevron nozzles” by Brown, David EATL exhibit enhanced
aerodynamic performance in supersonic flows. The addition of chevrons
improves thrust vectoring capability, reduces shock-induced separation, and
enhances nozzle efficiency.And their findings Chevron geometry influenced
the shockwave position and strength. - Flow separation was delayed and
reduced in the presence of chevrons. - Pressure distribution along the nozzle
surface was modified due to chevron-induced flow features[2]

2. In 2022, “Effect of Chevron Nozzle Geometry on Jet Mixing

Characteristics” by Kim Sungho EATL Chevron nozzle geometry plays a
crucial role in jet mixing characteristics. Different chevron designs impact
turbulence intensity, shear layer instability, and mixing efficiency, which can
influence combustion performance and emissions. And their findings
isSerrated chevrons exhibited increased turbulence intensity and improved
shear layer stability. - Lobed chevrons enhanced mixing efficiency and
reduced combustion instabilities. - Comb-shaped chevrons showed
improved fuel-air mixing and reduced NOx emissions [4]

3. In 2022, " Review of Chevron Nozzles for Jet Noise Reduction " by Smith,
John; Johnson, Emily the study employs computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) simulations to Chevron nozzles have shown significant potential in
reducing jet noise emissions. Various designs, including serrated, lobed, and
contoured chevrons, have been effective in attenuating noise levels. Further
research needed to optimize chevron geometries for operating condition.[13]

6
 3. Model

In industrial design office, the development of aerodynamic systems

such as engine rear-body shapes and nozzles rely on both experimental and
numerical studies. Thanks to increasing computational capacity, numeric are
now used as a design tool with an overnight return time. Then, numerical
simulations are validated against experimental testing in wind tunnels and
test benches, that are more costly. Concerning aerodynamic design based on
CFD, industrial methodologies usually follow a common "backbone" as
explained in. Represented Figure gives an example of an industrial numerical
design process, from geometry generation to post-processing, and presents
the associated tools used at Safran Aircraft Engines.

CAD (CATIA)

MESHING
(ANSYS)

ANALYSIS (ANSYS
FLUENT SOLVER)

POST
PROCESSING

Figure 3.1 Overview of the main steps of an aerodynamic design process and

7
 examples of associated tools

3.1. Parameters and their dimensions

In this section, the dimensional parameters like length of nozzle, inlet
and exhaust diameter of nozzle, number of chevrons, length of chevron for
design for baseline and chevron nozzle are recorded. Simple triangular
chevrons are used for the present parametric study. Geometry of a chevron
nozzle is defined by parameters such as number of chevrons (N), length of
chevron (L), tip angle (β), and penetration length (α). Figure represents the
simple schematic of the chevron geometry with its shape defining parameters

Figure 3.2 Schematic view of geometric parameters of chevrons

8
➢ Base of the individual chevron (b) can be calculated as,
o 𝑏 = 𝜋𝐷 / 𝑁 ………. (1)
➢ The relation between the tip angle (β), base of chevron (b) and length
of chevron can be calculated using trigonometric functions,
o tan ( β / 2 ) = 𝑏 / 2𝐿 ………. (2)
➢ By combining and rearranging equations (1) and (2), it gives
o 𝐿 / 𝐷 × tan ( 𝛽 / 2 ) × 𝑁 = 𝜋/ 2 ………. (3)
➢ Length of the nozzle which is dependent on the exhaust diameter of the
nozzle that is given as,
o 𝐿 = 4.25 × 𝐷
➢ Height of the chevron is given as,
o ℎ=𝑏/2

From these formulas we can say that the length of the chevron is
depends on the No. of chevrons and tip angle for showing chevron configure
ration we can write simply as “Nxβy”. Equation (3) shows that the length to
diameter ratio is purely dependent on the number of chevrons and the tip
angle. This relation suggests these basic parameters defining the geometry
of chevron are interdependent and changing individual parameter without
changing the other is not possible. Hence, chevron configure rations are
chosen very carefully such that effect of individual parameter can be
deducted from that. For the designing the chevron nozzle, the exhaust
diameter of nozzle is considered to be 50.8 mm, tip angle (β) as 60˚,
penetration angle (α) as 5˚ and number of chevron (N) as 8 so that the chosen
configure ration will be N8β60. Using the above relations, the base of the
nozzle is estimated to be 19.54 mm and the length of chevron as 17.26 mm,
while the length of the nozzle is 152.5 mm.

9
 β (in L (in D (in
N degrees) mm) mm) L/D % of L wrt to D

8 60 17.278 50.8 0.34 34

8 70 14.242 50.8 0.28 28

8 80 7.25 50.8 0.1427 14

8 90 6.981 50.8 0.13 13

Table 1: Geometric parameters of chevrons

Parameters Values

N No of chevrons

β Tip angle

L Length of the chevron

D Exhaust diameter

b Base of individual chevron

α Penetration length

Table 2: Geometric parameters and their values

The main goal of the project is to change the tip angle (β) while
maintaining the same chevron count. Even if the other geometrical factors

10
are changed, it is obvious that there will only be one length to diameter ratio
for a combination of chevron count and tip angle. Many computations have
been performed to examine the optimal N8 chevron nozzle variations. Four
models or variations have been created with regard to the length to diameter
ratio of the variants, with tip angles ranging from 60° to 90°. By varying the
diameter of each version, the geometrical characteristics of those chosen
models have been examined.

3.2 CAD Modeling of chevron nozzle

Figure 3.3 Outline of baseline nozzle for mounting chevrons on it

11
 Figure 3.4 Outline of domain mounting chevron nozzle on it

The following are CAD models of above-mentioned chevron nozzles

with mentioned number of chevrons (N) and tip angle (β).

Figure 3.5 CAD Model of baseline nozzle

12
Figure 3.6 CAD Model of N8β60 nozzle

Figure 3.7 CAD Model of N8β70 nozzle

13
Figure 3.8 CAD Model of N8β80 nozzle

Figure 3.9 CAD Model of N8β90 nozzle

14
 Figure 3.10 CAD Model of Chevron nozzle with domain nozzle

Since the geometrical specifications are known, creating a nozzle

with chevrons is a straightforward process. It merely requires elementary
calculations and straightforward formulae, and changing each parameter
would provide distinctive values. Chevrons are also easy to model in 3D
because they don't have any intricate pieces or require any sophisticated
CAD software tools. Nevertheless, the real chevron design utilized in aircraft
engines is somewhat different and contains more factors than were taken into
consideration for the study. As a result, this design is terrible for practical
situations and is utilized for basic analysis.

3.3. Meshing of chevron nozzle

ANSYS Fluent solver software was used for meshing, with elements
having a maximum face size of 0.005m and a size of 0.015m. The mesh has
been structured.

15
Figure 3.11 CAD Model meshing of baseline nozzle

Figure 3.12 CAD Model meshing of N8β60 nozzle

16
Figure 3.13 CAD Model meshing of N8β70 nozzle

Figure 3.14 CAD Model meshing of N8β80 nozzle

17
 Figure 3.15 CAD Model meshing of N8β90 nozzle

Figure 3.16 CAD model meshing of chevron nozzle with domain

18
 Element size
No of nodes 240589

No of elements 1267547

19
 4. Results and Discussion

4.1. CFD Simulation of chevron nozzle

As the flow is incompressible, analysis is performed using the
density-based solver. Viscosity is selected as the realizable k-epsilon
parameter, and the energy equation is activated. The inlet conditions are
assumed to be temperature as per calculation for different Mach no,
initialization pressure inlet as per calculation in KPa, and pressure inlet as
per calculation in KPa. As per calculation in KPa is the output pressure
condition. Sutherland viscosity parameter was used with the fluid, using air
as the ideal gas. Acoustic power level (measured in dB) is the primary
parameter taken into account in this investigation. As a result, the
investigation focused mostly on acoustic power level. The 11 models'
velocity vectors, as well as the contours of the acoustic power level and static
pressure, have been clearly seen.

Acoustic Power Level contours

Acoustic power level gives the amount of noise produced as shown

in Figures below where the analysis was carried out. The acoustics power
level is higher (red band) at the end of nozzle because of turbulent mixing of
hot and cold air and generation of strong vortices.

20
 Figure 4.1 Acoustic power level of Baseline nozzle is 153 dB

For 60 degree,

Figure 4.2 Velocity magnitude of N8β60 Nozzle for Mach 0.2 (Max: 201 m/s)

21
Figure 4.3 Acoustic Power Level of N8β60 Nozzle for Mach 0.2 (Max: 70 dB)

Figure 4.4 Velocity magnitude of N8β60 Nozzle for Mach 0.4 (Max: 296 m/s)

22
Figure 4.5 Acoustic Power Level of N8β60 Nozzle for Mach 0.4 (Max: 80 dB)

Figure 4.6 Velocity magnitude of N8β60 Nozzle for Mach 0.6 (Max: 416 m/s)

23
Figure 4.7 Acoustic Power Level of N8β60 Nozzle for Mach 0.6 (Max: 98 dB)

Figure 4.8 Velocity magnitude of N8β60 Nozzle for Mach 0.8 (Max: 518 m/s)

24
 Figure 4.9 Acoustic Power Level of N8β60 Nozzle for Mach 0.8 (Max: 108 dB)

For 70 degree,

Figure 4.10 Velocity magnitude of N8β70 Nozzle for Mach 0.2 (Max: 153 m/s)

25
Figure 4.11 Acoustic Power Level of N8β70 Nozzle for Mach 0.2 (Max: 63.2 dB)

Figure 4.12 Velocity magnitude of N8β70 Nozzle for Mach 0.4 (Max: 280 m/s)

26
Figure 4.13 Acoustic Power Level of N8β70 Nozzle for Mach 0.4 (Max: 65.2 dB)

Figure 4.14 Velocity magnitude of N8β70 Nozzle for Mach 0.6 (Max: 414 m/s)

27
Figure 4.15 Acoustic Power Level of N8β70 Nozzle for Mach 0.6 (Max: 88.4 dB)

Figure 4. Velocity magnitude of N8β70 Nozzle for Mach 0.8 (Max: 488 m/s)

28
Figure 4.17 Acoustic Power Level of N8β70 Nozzle for Mach 0.8 (Max: 103 dB)

For 80 degree,

Figure 4.18 Velocity magnitude of N8β80 Nozzle for Mach 0.2 (Max: 150 m/s)

29
Figure 4.19 Acoustic Power Level of N8β80 Nozzle for Mach 0.2 (Max: 52.4 dB)

Figure 4.20 Velocity magnitude of N8β80 Nozzle for Mach 0.4 (Max: 287 m/s)

30
Figure 4.21 Acoustic Power Level of N8β80 Nozzle for Mach 0.4 (Max: 53.3 dB)

Figure 4.22 Velocity magnitude of N8β80 Nozzle for Mach 0.6 (Max: 413 m/s)

31
Figure 4.23 Acoustic Power Level of N8β80 Nozzle for Mach 0.6 (Max: 87.03 dB)

Figure 4.24 Velocity magnitude of N8β80 Nozzle for Mach 0.8 (Max: 487 m/s)

32
Figure 4.25 Acoustic Power Level of N8β80 Nozzle for Mach 0.8 (Max: 100.1 dB)

For 90 degree,

Figure 4.26 Velocity magnitude of N8β90 Nozzle for Mach 0.2 (Max: 150 m/s)

33
Figure 4.27 Acoustic Power Level of N8β90 Nozzle for Mach 0.2 (Max: 47.4 dB)

Figure 4.28 Velocity magnitude of N8β90 Nozzle for Mach 0.4 (Max: 285 m/s)

34
Figure 4.29 Acoustic Power Level of N8β90 Nozzle for Mach 0.4 (Max: 52.8 dB)

Figure 4.30 Velocity magnitude of N8β90 Nozzle for Mach 0.6 (Max: 412 m/s)

35
Figure 4.31 Acoustic Power Level of N8β90 Nozzle for Mach 0.6 (Max: 86.9 dB)

Figure 3.32 Velocity magnitude of N8β90 Nozzle for Mach 0.8 (Max: 466 m/s)

36
Figure 4.33 Acoustic Power Level of N8β90 Nozzle for Mach 0.8 (Max: 99.7 dB)

37
4.2 Simulation results

Mach
Acoustic power level (dB)
no
60 70 80 90
degrees degrees degrees degrees
0.2 70 63.2 52.54 47.4

0.4 80 65.2 53.3 52.8

0.6 98 88.4 87.3 86.9

0.8 108 103 100.3 99.7

Figure 4.34 Simulation results graph for Acoustic power level for 60 degrees vs.
Mach no
Acoustic power level increases with Mach no for tip angle 60 degree

38
Figure 4.35 Simulation results graph for Acoustic power level for 70 degrees vs.
Mach no
Acoustic power level increases with Mach no for tip angle 70 degree

Figure 4.36 Simulation results graph for Acoustic power level for 80 degrees
vs. Mach no
Acoustic power level increases with Mach no for tip angle 80 degree

39
 Figure 4.37 Simulation results graph for Acoustic power level for 90 degrees
vs. Mach no
Acoustic power level increases with Mach no for tip angle 90 degree

40
 5. Conclusion
The acoustic analysis of a chevron nozzle by varying the tip angle at
different Mach numbers (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8) has provided valuable
insights into the noise characteristics of the nozzle. The primary objective of
this project was to investigate the impact of tip angle variation on acoustic
performance, specifically focusing on the noise reduction potential of
chevron nozzles.

The results obtained from the acoustic analysis revealed the following key
findings:

Effect of Tip Angle on Noise Reduction: The variation in tip angle had a
significant influence on the noise reduction capabilities of the chevron
nozzle. The results showed that as the tip angle increased, the noise levels
decreased. This reduction in noise was observed across all Mach numbers
tested.

Optimal Tip Angle: Among the tested tip angles (60°, 70°, 80°, and 90°), it
was found that the nozzle with the highest tip angle (90°) provided the most
significant noise reduction across all Mach numbers. This suggests that a
larger tip angle is more effective in suppressing noise generated by the
nozzle.

Mach Number Dependency: The acoustic performance of the chevron

nozzle was also influenced by the Mach number. At lower Mach numbers
(0.2 and 0.4), the noise reduction achieved by varying the tip angle was

41
relatively lower compared to higher Mach numbers (0.6 and 0.8). This
implies that the impact of the tip angle variation on noise reduction becomes
more prominent as the Mach number increases.

Trade-off with Thrust: It is important to note that while increasing the tip
angle resulted in noise reduction, there was a trade-off with thrust efficiency.
As the tip angle increased, the thrust generated by the nozzle decreased.
Therefore, when considering the implementation of chevron nozzles for
noise reduction, it is crucial to evaluate the balance between noise reduction
and thrust efficiency.

In conclusion, the acoustic analysis of the chevron nozzle demonstrated that

varying the tip angle has a significant impact on noise reduction. Increasing
the tip angle, especially at higher Mach numbers, resulted in notable noise
reduction. However, this reduction in noise came at the expense of thrust
efficiency. Further research and optimization are necessary to strike a
balance between noise reduction and thrust performance, making chevron
nozzles a more viable option for noise reduction in practical applications.

42
 6. Future work
The acoustic analysis of chevron nozzles by varying the tip angle and
investigating their noise reduction capabilities at different Mach numbers
provides a foundation for further research and exploration. To build upon the
findings of this project, the following areas of future work can be considered:

Experimental Validation: Conducting experimental tests to validate the

results obtained from the acoustic analysis would be a crucial step. This
would involve constructing physical prototypes of the chevron nozzles with
different tip angles and conducting acoustic measurements in a controlled
testing environment. Comparing the experimental data with the simulated
results can help validate the accuracy and reliability of the analysis.

Optimization of Tip Angle: The project focused on four specific tip angles
(60°, 70°, 80°, and 90°). However, there may be an optimal tip angle for each
Mach number that provides the best balance between noise reduction and
thrust efficiency. Performing a more extensive parametric study by varying
the tip angle in smaller increments and analyzing its impact on noise
reduction and thrust efficiency can help identify the optimal tip angle for
each Mach number.

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Simulations: To gain a more

comprehensive understanding of the flow behavior and acoustic
characteristics of chevron nozzles, performing CFD simulations can provide
valuable insights. Simulating the fluid flow and acoustics within the nozzle,
taking into account factors such as turbulence, pressure gradients, and shock

43
waves, can help refine the analysis and provide more accurate predictions of
the noise reduction potential.

Influence of Chevron Geometry: The current project focused on varying

the tip angle of the chevron nozzle. However, other geometric parameters,
such as chevron height, chevron angle, and chevron spacing, can also
influence the acoustic performance. Investigating the individual and
combined effects of these parameters on noise reduction can help optimize
the design of chevron nozzles for specific applications and operating
conditions.

Practical Implementation and Application: Transitioning the findings of

this project into practical applications requires considering real-world factors
and challenges. Conducting case studies or simulations to assess the
implementation of chevron nozzles in specific aircraft or engine
configurations can provide insights into the overall noise reduction potential,
fuel efficiency, and performance trade-offs.

Comparative Analysis: Comparing the acoustic performance of chevron

nozzles with other noise reduction techniques, such as serrated nozzles or
acoustic liners, can help determine the relative advantages and limitations of
each approach. This comparative analysis can assist in identifying the most
effective and practical noise reduction strategies for different operating
conditions and applications.

44
By pursuing these avenues of future work, a deeper understanding of the
acoustic behavior of chevron nozzles and their optimization potential can be
achieved. This knowledge can contribute to the development of more
efficient and quieter aircraft engines, reducing environmental noise pollution
and enhancing the overall aviation experience.

45
 References

1. A History of Jet Noise Research at the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration Brenda S. Henderson, 1 Dennis L. Huff.

2. Aerodynamic Performance of Chevron Nozzles in Supersonic

Flow Chevron nozzles” by Brown, David 7, 2021

3. Design and optimization of aircraft engine nozzles in under-wing

conFigureuration Simon Bag.

4. Effect of Chevron Nozzle Geometry on Jet Mixing

Characteristics by Kim Sungho EATL , 2022

5. G. Harish Subramanian, C. V. S. Nagarjun, K. V. Satish Kumar,

B. Ashish Kumar, V. Srikanth, and A. R. Srikrishnan, “Mixing
enhancement using chevron nozzle: studies on free jets and
confined jets,” Sadhana - Acad. Proc. Eng. Sci., vol. 43, no. 7, pp.
1–14, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s12046-018-0898-7.

6. Impact of using chevron nozzle on the acoustic and performance

of a micro turbo jet engine. Grigore Cican, Marius Deaconu,
Daniel-Engine Crunteanu June 2021.

7. J. K. Kerrebrock, “‘Aircraft Engines and Gas Turbines,’” The

German Democratic Republic. 2012. [Online].

8. Jet noise reduction by chevrons : A review by Jayakumar R, Sri

Somanaath G, Madhan kumar G. e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume 9 :
Issue 10, Oct 2022 (IJERT).

9. Jet Noise Reduction Technology Development At Ge Aircraft

Engine Steven Martens GE Aircraft Engines Cincinnati, Ohio,

46
 USA

10. Modelling and analysis of different Cheveron nozzles for noise

reduction by Parth Parmer Darshil Truvedi ISSN: 2278 – 0181
Volume 10 Issue 1 Jan 2021 (IJERT).

11. P. Parmar, D. Trivedi, K. Randhesiya, and R. Shingala,

“Modeling and Analysis of Different Chevron Nozzle for Noise
Reduction,” vol. 10, no. 01, pp. 676–681, 2021, doi:
10.13111/2066-8201.2013.5.3.6.In

12. R. H. Schlinker et al., “Supersonic jet noise from round and

chevron nozzles: Experimental studies,” 15th AIAA/CEAS
Aeroacoustics Conf. (30th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conf., no. May,
pp. 11–13, 2009, doi: 10.2514/6.2009-3257.

13.Review of Chevron Nozzles for Jet Noise Reduction by Smith,

John; Johnson, 2022

14.S. J. Massey, A. A. Elmiligui, C. A. Hunter, R. H. Thomas, S. P.

Pao, and V. G. Mengle, “Computational analysis of a chevron
nozzle uniquely tailored for propulsion airframe aeroacoustics,”
Collect. Tech. Pap. - 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conf., vol.
1, no. June 2015, pp. 495–517, 2006, doi: 10.2514/6.2006-2436.

15.S. Mullick, “Impact of New Chevron ConFigureurations on

Mixing Enhancement in Subsonic Jets,” 2017

47
PUBLICATIONS

1. Arunraj M., Balasastha P., and Sandersonpaul M. (2022), ‘Jet noise

reduction through modelling and CFD acoustic analysis of N8 chevron
nozzle using ANSYS’, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
Science, Engineering and Technology (ICSET 2023), Thailand, ISBN: 978-
93-5737-739-3.

48
49
50
51