Supersonic Jet Noise Reduction Using Steady and Flapping Injection

AIAA 2013-2144
Aeroacoustics Conferences
May 27-29, 2013, Berlin, Germany
19th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference
Supersonic Jet Noise Reduction Using Steady Injection and

Flapping Injection
Downloaded by NANYANG TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY on October 29, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-2144
Haukur E. Hafsteinsson, Lars-Erik Eriksson, Niklas Andersson

Daniel R. Cuppoletti, Ephraim Gutmark
Erik Prisellk
Aircraft are in general noisy and there is a high demand for reducing their noise levels. The jet exhaust
is in most cases the main noise source of the aircraft, especially for low bypass ratio jet engines. Therefore
it is the most effective noise source to tackle for reduced overall noise of the aircraft. High noise levels may
cause acoustic fatigue in the aircraft structure and affect the pilots health as well as the airfield personnel.
Typical noise levels of supersonic jets on military jet aircraft may be in the range of 150 dB and todays noise
reduction techniques achieve about 2-5 dB reduction. Fluidic injection is a promising noise reduction technique
as it can be turned of while not needed and the effect on the engine performance will be minimized. In the
presented work, LES simulations are used to compare steady-state mass flow injection with steady-state mass
flow flapping jet injection. The work is a direct continuation of a previous LES study on pulsed injection which
showed that the pulsed injection induced pressure pulses in the jet which caused increased tonal noise in the
downstream directions. Flapping jet injection is believed to minimize the creation of these pressure pulses since
it provides steady-state mass flow. The injection system considered in the presented work consists of eight and
six evenly distributed injectors around the nozzle exit with a 90 injection angle relative to the flow direction.
The LES simulations are be compared with PIV and experimental acoustic data. The experiments and the
LES results show that both steady-state and flapping jet injection can suppress the radiated noise equally by
approximately 2-3 dB.
I. Introduction
Fluidic injection is a widely used method for flow control in different applications. One of those applications is
noise reduction of free stream jets and it has been studied quite extensively in the last decades [1]. Fluidic injection
devices fall into the category of mixing devices. Their purpose is to increase the mixing in the shear layer between
the jet plume and its surroundings. Increased mixing will result in lower velocity gradients and hence reduce the
radiated noise. Other mixing devices that may be applied for noise reduction are for example tabs, lobes and chevrons.
The drawback of those devices, although they may be robust for noise suppression, is the fixed installation which
increases the losses of the jet engine and hence results in losses during the whole flight time. On the other hand, fluidic
injection can be turned of while not needed for example during cruise and only turned on during critical noise limiting
operations such as at take-off and landing.
In the presented paper the effect of two fluidic injection techniques on the radiated noise from a supersonic jet
generated by a converging diverging sharp throat nozzle will be analyzed using LES and experimental data. The two
considered approaches are a steady-state fluidic injection and a flapping jet fluidic injection using air as the fluidic
medium. The steady-state static injection has a constant mass flow and constant injection angle. The flapping jet
injection has a constant net mass flow with a sinusoidally alternating injection angle azimuthal to the principal jet-flow
axis.
This work is a continuation of previous experimental and numerical studies on fluidic injection to supersonic jets
done by Perrino et al. [2], Munday et al. [3], Cuppoletti et al. [4] and Hafsteinsson et al. [5]. In Hafsteinsson et al.
Ph.D.
Student, Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Asst. Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Ph.D. Graduate Student, Aerospace Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Ohio
Distinguished Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Ohio
k Strategic Specialist; Aero Propulsion and Power, Swedish Defence Material Administration, Sweden
1 of 24
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2013 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
[5] the effect of pulsed mass flow injection on the radiated noise from the current supersonic converging diverging
sharp throat nozzle was tested using LES simulations. Various forcing frequencies and two types of forcing signals,
i.e. sinusoidal pulsation or half sinusoidal pulsation was tested. The investigation showed that pulsed injection can
achieve same noise reduction as a steady-state injection with equal maximum mass flow, hence the net mass flow of
the pulsed injection is lower. This is beneficial for the performance of the jet engine since the injected air is provided
by the compressor. Lower mass flow means that less air is needed to bleed of the compressor and hence the impact
on the engine efficiency will be reduced. However, it was observed that the pulsed mass flow caused induced pressure
pulses which are convected downstream by the jet stream and result in increased tonal noise at the injection frequency
and its higher harmonics. Elevated tonal noise contributes to a increased overall sound pressure levels and needs
therefore to be minimized. Furthermore, the study showed that the tonal noise levels were dependent on the injection
characteristics. Of the two types of injection characteristics that where tested, i.e. the half and the full sinusoidal
injection, the full sinusoidal injection resulted in lower tonal noise radiation compared to the half sinusoidal injection
due to a smoother mass flow variation.
Flapping jet injection has the intended purpose to avoid the tonal noise increase observed with pulsed mass flow
injection. This is believed to be achieved since a steady-state mass flow rate is specified and hence the creation of
pressure pulses should be minimized. It is also believed that flapping jet injection enhances mixing compared to a
constant angle injection with equal total mass flow. Increased mixing may result in further noise reduction.
II.
Overview of the present study
In the present work an injection system consisting of either eight or six injectors is investigated. The injectors
are evenly distributed around the nozzle exit. Two injection types are simulated, i.e. a steady-state injection and a
flapping jet injection. The injection angle is 90 relative to the jet axis. The flapping injection is a sinusoidal azimuthal
variation of the injector normal with an angle amplitude of flap and all injectors flap coherently. The mass flow rate
of both the steady injection and the flapping injection is time-independent. The cases that are investigated are listed in
Tab. 1.
Table 1. Overview of the investigated simulations. The nozzle has an area ratio Ae /At = 1.23. It is operated at design condition of p0j = 4.0,
Mach number of Mj = 1.56 and temperature of Tj /Ta = 1.25. The injector fluid is air at Ti /Ta = 1.0. The flapping injection frequency is
fflap = 1.0 kHz.
Injection Type
flap
Ai [m2 ]
# Injectors
None
0.0
0.0
0.0
Steady
0.0
25.0
1.1
Flapping
60
25.0
1.1
Steady
0.0
5.0
1.1
Flapping
60
5.0
1.1
Steady
0.0
5.0
1.1
Steady
0.0
5.0
3.1
Flapping
60
5.0
3.1
Flapping
30
5.0
3.1
m i / m j [%]
III. Computational Method

A.
Governing Equations
The acoustics and the flow field is obtained by solving the spatially Favre-filtered continuity, momentum and energy
equations, e.g.
Q F j
=0
(1)
+
t
x j
2 of 24
where

Q =
u
i
e0
and
(2)
u j
ui u j + p
i j i j i j
F j =

t
T
e0 u j + p
u j C p Pr + Prt x j u i (
i j + i j )
where i j stands for the Favre-filtered viscous stress tensor and is given by
!
2
i j = 2S i j S mm i j
3
(3)
(4)
The subgrid-scale model used for the LES method is the Smagorinsky part of the model proposed by Erlebacher et
al.[6] for compressible flows. The subgrid-scale viscous stress tensor in Eqn. (3) is defined here as
!
2
2
i j = t 2S i j S mm i j kS GS i j
(5)
3
3
where kS GS is the subgrid kinetic energy
kS GS = C I 2 S mn S mn
(6)
q
S mn S mn
(7)
(8)
t is the subgrid-scale dynamic viscosity

t = CR 2
and S i j is the Favre-filtered strain rate tensor given by,
1 u i u j
+
S i j =
2 x j xi
The filter width used in Eqns. (6) and (7) is the minima of the local grid cell, i.e. = min(1 , 2 , 3 ). The Smagorinsky model constants CR and C I , where the latter is a compressibility correction constant, are here given by
CR = 0.012
C I = 0.0066
(9)
The system of governing equations are closed by two assumptions of the thermodynamics of gas. First, the gas is
considered thermally perfect meaning that it obeys the gas law. Second that the gas is calorically perfect, implying
that internal energy and enthalpy are linear functions of temperature.
B.
Computational Set-up
The primary nozzle used is a converging-diverging nozzle with inner flow contours simulating practical nozzle geometry as shown in Fig. 1-(a)-(b). The computational domain, shown in Fig. 2, is discretized using a block-structured
boundary-fitted mesh with 249 mesh blocks and approximately 19 M nodes. The domain is divided into two main
parts: a high resolution region around the nozzle and a medium dense LES region. The mesh is constructed using a
combination of Cartesian and polar mesh blocks to ensure mesh homogeneity in radial direction throughout the domain as shown in Fig. 3. Along the centerline, a Cartesian mesh block of square cross-section is used in order to avoid
centerline singularity. At the nozzle inlet as well as for the co-flow around the nozzle, the total pressure and the total
enthalpy are specified. At the micro-jet inlets the mass-flow, total enthalpy and frequency of the flapping is specified.
Entrainment velocities at the outer-radial bound of the computational domain are obtained by using a 2D extension of
the domain representing the flow outside the LES domain. In order to minimize the reflections at the domain outlet on
the predicted flow, a damping zone is added at the domain outlet. The correct wall friction is obtained through the use
of standard wall functions. The domain extension is 70 Dj in order to allow the jet to fully develop prior to the end of
the domain.
3 of 24
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. The baseline nozzle outer geometry shown from (a) side and (b) front.
2D Entrainment region
2D/3D Interface
Buffer region
Medium-resolution LES domain
High-resolution LES domain

Figure 2. The computational domain is split up in 4 regions; a high- and medium- resolution LES domain, a buffer region and a 2D
entrainment boundary.
(a)
(b)
Figure 3. Cross sectional view of the computational grid. (a) Axial plane zooming in on the nozzle exit. (b) Radial plane at the nozzle exit.
Note that every other node is drawn. The darker lines show block connections.
C.
Numerical Scheme
The Favre-filtered compressible Navier-Stokes equations are solved using a finite volume method with a low-dissipation
third-order upwind-biased scheme for the convective fluxes and a second-order centered difference approach for the
diffusive fluxes. The time marching is done using a second-order three-stage Runge-Kutta technique. The solver is
based on the G3D family of codes developed by Eriksson[7]. The combination of the centered and upwind-biased
components for the convective fluxes has been used with good results for LES for both subsonic jets[8] and supersonic
jets[9].
4 of 24
1. Implementation of mass flow boundary condition

At the boundary the mass flow per unit area m
and the total enthalpy h0 are specified. The total enthalpy at the boundary
can be expressed in terms of boundary pressure, density and velocity as
p 1 2
u
1 2
h0 =
(10)
where
u
Then by inserting Eqn. 11 into Eqn. 10, the velocity magnitude normal to the inlet can be obtained.
s
!2
p
p +
+ 2h0
u=
()
1m
1m
(11)
(12)
Where the + sign is chosen since the sign will give negative velocity magnitude and is hence not considered as a
physical solution. The pressure at the boundary face is specified as the pressure at the first neighbouring cell center.
D.
Sound Propagation
For sound evaluation at far-field observers, Kirchhoff surface integral formulation[10] was used. For a point outside
a surface enclosing all noise generating structures, this is a method for predicting the value of a property, which is
governed by the wave equation. The integral relation is given by
#
Z "
1
r 1
1 r
(y, t) =
+
dS (x)
(13)
4 S r2 n r n c r n t r
where y is the observer location in the far-field and x is a location on the surface. The retarded time r is related to the
observer evaluation of time t, the distance from observer and surface location, r = |y x|, and the speed of sound in
the far-field c as
r
(14)
r = t
c
and the expression within the brackets in Eqn. 13 is therefor evaluated at retarded time, i.e. emission time. In the work
reported in this paper, the sound is evaluated for observers located in a radial distance of r = 3.63 m from the nozzle
exit center as shown in Fig. 4 and is considered as the far-field acoustic region.
b
b
b
b
b
Figure 4. Far-field observer locations, r = 3.63 m = 63.1 D used in the Kirchhoff surface integration. Note that the distance of the
observers is scaled down by factor 4 compared to the nozzle size.
5 of 24
IV. Experimental Method
The experiments were conducted at the Aeroacoustic Test Facility (ATF) in the Gas Dynamics and Propulsion
Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati. The facility features a coaxial jet rig that can simulate 1/8 th scale nozzles
at realistic operating conditions in terms of NPR, velocity and temperature ratios up to 1.3. The jet rig is instrumented
to measure facility parameters such as mass flow, pressure, and temperature in both streams and the fluidic injection
pressure. The jet is located in an anechoic test facility that measures 24 25 11 in which the surfaces are acoustically
treated for a lower cutoff frequency of 350 Hz. A far-field microphone arc for acoustic measurements is located 65 jet
diameters from the nozzle exit. The far-field arc contains 13 microphones at angles ranging from 35 150 measured
from the upstream jet centerline. For more detail on the facility see to Callender et al[11].
The flapping jet injectors used in the experiment consist of eight injectors evenly distributed around the nozzle exit.
There are no mechanical moving parts inside the injectors and the flapping angle is based on feedback mechanism
inside each injector box. The experimental setup with the injectors is shown in Fig. 5
(a)
(b)
Figure 5. Experimental setup for the flapping jet injection. The eight injectors are evenly distributed around the nozzle exit. (a) Front
view. (b) Side view.
A.
Far-Field Acoustics
Acoustic measurements are made with 1/4 inch Bruel & Kjaer model 4954 free-field condenser microphones with
frequency sensitivity up to 100 kHz. The thirteen microphones are sampled at 204.8kHz for 5 second continuous
intervals and repeated 3 times to provide 15 seconds of data for averaging. The facility data acquisition system
uses a National Instruments PXI-6225 card for low speed acquisition and a PXI-4498 DSA with 24-bit accuracy for
simultaneous microphone sampling. The data was acquired using LabVIEW to simultaneously measure the acoustics
and facility parameters. Narrowband frequency spectra were calculated using an FFT with blocks of 4096 samples.
This results in a frequency spectra averaged over 750 occurrences and a narrowband frequency resolution of 50 Hz.
B.
Flowfield Measurements
Flow field measurements are made using a LaVision PIV system including a double-pulsed Nd:YAG laser (New wave
Research Solo-PIV), two Imager Intense CCD cameras with a resolution of 1367 1040 pixels, and a dedicated
computer for data acquisition and post-processing. PIV provides mean and rms velocity measurements of the jet flow
field with high spatial resolution. The system provides no temporal information of the jet velocity with a constant
sampling rate of 5 Hz. The primary and secondary flows were seeded with atomized olive oil particles on the order
of 1 m. To provide reliable mean and rms velocities, 500 image pairs were taken at near nozzle locations and 1000
image pairs at downstream locations. Post-processing of the velocity vectors is done in LaVision Davis 7.2, which
is also used for acquisition. A final window size of 16 16 pixels was used for the correlations. Smaller windows
provided better resolution of shocks in the mean velocity field but increased the error in the turbulence statistics. The
processed vector fields are then exported to Matlab to calculate mean velocity and turbulence statistics. The spatial
resolution of PIV depends strongly on the zoom of the camera lens, distance of the camera from the measurement
plane, and the camera resolution. In order to adequately resolve the jet shock structure, slightly more than half of the
jet was measured to increase the spatial resolution of the measurement. In the axial plane, 2D PIV measurements were
taken to resolve two velocity components and capture the jet shock structure and shear layer spread.
6 of 24
V. Acoustic Results
In the following sections the effect of various injection configurations will be presented and analyzed. First, the
acoustic effect of a reflective wall at the nozzle exit for the baseline nozzle without injection will be investigated.
Second, the effect of injector area with fixed mass-flow will be presented. Third, the number of steady-state injectors
will be altered from 8 to 6. Fourth, the transition from a low steady-state mass flow of m
i /m
j = 1.1 % to higher mass
flow of m
i /m
j = 3.1 % will be presented. Finally, the steady-state cases will be compared with flapping jet injection
and the effect of flapping amplitude will be discussed.
Reflective wall at nozzle exit
Installation of the flapping jet actuators onto the baseline nozzle introduced increased screech tones in the experiment
when the injectors are closed. This effect is not surprising since it is known in literature that increased nozzle lip
thickness amplifies screech. It was tested numerically with LES if the same effect would appear in the acoustics with a
reflective wall at the nozzle exit. Two sizes of reflective wall were tested; one with an area of 0.5 Ar and a second with
an area of 1.0 Ar . Where Ar is the total area of the eight flapping jet actuators along the flow-axis. The trends show
amplified screech with increased reflective wall thickness as expected, Fig. 6.
____
o
130o
110o
250
OS PL [dB]
145
300
90
S PL [dB]
200
135
132
129
126
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
70o
60o
150
40o
30o
100
50
f [kHz]
OS PL [dB]
A.
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
40
60
80
40
60
80
[ ]
[ ]
100
120
140
100
120
140
Figure 6. Results from LES for baseline nozzle without and with two different sizes of reflective wall at nozzle exit. Black: no reflective
wall, Red: reflective wall area 0.5 Ar , Blue: reflective wall area 1.0 Ar .
B.
Injector Area
To investigate the effect of the micro-jet penetration the injector area was modified. Two different areas with a steadystate injection mass flow of m
i /m
j = 1.1 % was tested using LES as shown in Fig. 7. Decreased injector area with
constant mass flow gives higher injection velocity which results in deeper penetration into the main jet and hence
increased streamwise vorticity. Increased streamwise vorticity lowers the radiated noise for the downstream observers
but increases the noise for the other observers due to increased high frequency noise.
7 of 24

____
o
130o
110o
250
OS PL [dB]
145
300
200
60
80
150
40o
30o
100
f [kHz]
100
120
140
100
120
140
60o
50
40
70o
OS PL [dB]
S PL [dB]
90o
135
132
129
126
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
40
60
80
[ ]
Figure 7. Black: no injection, Red: Injector area 5 Ai , Blue: Injector area Ai .
C.
Number of injectors
The number of injectors was altered from 8 to 6 while keeping the mass flow constant at m
i /m
j = 1.1 %. Since the
injection mass flow is constant and the number of injectors are fewer the mass flow through each injector increases and
hence the penetration increases. The trends are therefore the same as decreasing the area of each injector while keeping
the mass flow constant; i.e. the radiated noise for the downstream observers is decreased with increased mixing but
the radiated noise for the other observers is increased due to increased high frequency noise, see Fig. 8.
D.
Injection mass flow
It was showed in the previous section that fixed injection mass flow and reduced injector area or reduced number of
injectors increased micro-jet penetration into the main jet. This raised the question what would happen if the mass flow
would be increased while keeping the number of injectors and injector area constant? This was done and the results
are shown in Fig. 9. Here the mass flow was increased from m
i /m
j = 1.1 % to m
i /m
j = 3.1 %. Similar trends are
noticed, i.e. increased mass flow increases the noise reduction for the downstream observers and increases the noise
radiation for the other observers. In this case the radiated noise is higher than without injection for all the observers
except for the first two downstream observers. The trends are confirmed in the experiments as shown in Fig. 10.
8 of 24

____
o
130o
110o
250
OS PL [dB]
145
300
S PL [dB]
90o
200
135
132
129
126
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
60
80
150
30o
100
50
f [kHz]
OS PL [dB]
40
100
120
140
100
120
140
100
120
140
100
120
140
60o
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
40
60
80
[ ]
Figure 8. Black: no injection, Red: 8 injectors, Blue: 6 injectors.
____
o
130o
110o
250
OS PL [dB]
145
300
90o
200
135
132
129
126
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
40
60
80
70
60o
150
o
40
30o
100
50
f [kHz]
OS PL [dB]
S PL [dB]
40
70
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
40
60
80
[ ]
Figure 9. Black: no injection, 6 injectors Red: m

i /m
j = 1.1 % Blue: m
i /m
j = 3.1 %
9 of 24
300
300
____
____
145
250
145
250
130
130
110
110
200
90
70o
150
90
70o
150
50
50
100
f [kHz]
30
50
10
135
130
130
125
125
OS PL [dB]
135
120
115
110
100
30
50
OS PL [dB]
S PL [dB]
S PL [dB]
200
f [kHz]
10
120
115
40
60
80
[ ]
100
120
110
140
40
60
(a)
80
[ ]
100
(b)
Figure 10. 6 injectors, (a) m

i/m
j = 1.1 %, (b) m
j /m
j = 3.1 %. Black: LES, Red: Experiments
10 of 24
120
140
E.
Flapping jet injection
In this section the effect of micro-jet flapping on the acoustics will be presented and compared to corresponding steady
injection cases without flapping. Four flapping injection cases were simulated;
First a flapping injector case with the larger injector area (5.0 Ai) was simulated and the results are shown in Fig. 11.
The flapping does not result in any significant difference in the acoustics as compared with steady injection without
flapping. However, a slight difference is noticed in the mixing noise for the observer furthest downstream, where the
noise reduction is less for the flapping injection case.
Second, the smaller injector area (1.0 Ai) was simulated with an equal injection mass flow (m
i /m
j = 1.1 %). The
results are shown in Fig. 12. The smaller injection area matches the injection area of the flapping injectors used in
the experiment. Since the injection area is decreased the injection velocity is increased which increases the micro-jet
penetration. Hence, the difference between the flapping off and flapping on is increased, where the latter results in
improved noise reduction for all observers except for the furthest downstream observer ( = 30 ) where the noise
reduction is equal. A comparison between LES and experiments shown in Fig. 13. The screech tone is stronger in the
experiment and is noticed at all observer locations and its second harmonic appears for the = 90 and = 110
observers, while it only noticable for the first two upstream observers in the LES results. With the flapping on the
screech tone is suppressed as well as the broadband shock associated noise. This was observed both in the experiment
and the LES results. However, the LES overpredicts the high frequency acoustic levels.
The third case has six injectors with the smaller injector area (1.0 Ai ) and the higher injection mass flow case
(m
i /m
j = 3.1 %). The flapping amplitude is specified as flap = 60 which is equal to the previous two cases. This case
has a profound impact on the jet acoustics as shown in Fig. 14. The injectors are flapped at a frequency of f = 1000 Hz.
A tone near the twofold flapping frequency is excited ( f = 1800 Hz) and a second harmonic ( f = 3600 Hz) is
introduced to the far-field acoustic spectra for all the observers. Further, the third and fourth harmonic are clearly
visible for the downstream observers at = 30 and = 40 . The reason for the observed tone amplification is due
to high micro-jet penetration and large flapping amplitude ( = 60 ) which causes the micro-jet to divert out of the
shear layer. Therefore ,a question was raised of what effect a decreased flapping amplitude would have on the radiated
noise?
The fourth and the last flapping case that was investigated had the flapping amplitude decreased down to
flap = 30 . The result is shown in Fig. 15. The elevated harmonics of the jet excitation are strongly suppressed with
the lower flapping amplitude. However, a slight tone noise excitation at f = 1800 Hz is noticed at the three observers
furthest downstream, i.e. = 30 , 40 , 60. Even though the harmonics are lower, the net noise reduction is less
(OS PL 1.0 dB) compared to the corresponding steady injection case.
11 of 24

____
o
130
110o
250
OS PL [dB]
145
300
S PL [dB]
90o
200
135
132
129
126
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
60
80
150
30
100
50
f [kHz]
OS PL [dB]
40
100
120
140
100
120
140
60
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
40
60
80
[ ]
Figure 11. Black: no injection, 8 injectors, injector area 5.0 Ai , m

i /m
j = 1.1 % Red: flapping on, flapping amplitude flap = 60 , Blue:
flapping off.
____
o
130
250
110
90
200
OS PL [dB]
145
300
S PL [dB]
135
132
129
126
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
40
60
80
60
150
40
30
100
50
f [kHz]
100
120
140
100
120
140
70
OS PL [dB]
40
70
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
40
60
80
[ ]

i /m
flapping off.
12 of 24
300
300
____
____
145
250
145
250
130
130
110
110
200
90
70o
150
90
70o
150
50
100
50
100
30o
50
135
135
130
130
125
125
120
115
110
30o
50
10
f [kHz]
OS PL [dB]
OS PL [dB]
S PL [dB]
S PL [dB]
200
f [kHz]
10
120
115
40
60
80
[ ]
100
120
110
140
40
60
(a)
80
[ ]
(b)
Figure 13. Black: LES, Red: Experiments. (a) Injection off (b) Flapping on.
13 of 24
100
120
140

____
o
130
250
110
OS PL [dB]
145
300
S PL [dB]
90
200
135
132
129
126
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
60
80
150
30
100
50
f [kHz]
OS PL [dB]
40
100
120
140
100
120
140
60
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
40
60
80
[ ]

i /m
flapping off.
____
o
130
250
110
90
200
OS PL [dB]
145
300
S PL [dB]
135
132
129
126
123
120
117
114
111
108
105
40
60
80
60
150
40
30
100
50
f [kHz]
100
120
140
100
120
140
70
OS PL [dB]
40
70
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
40
60
80
[ ]

i /m
flapping off.
14 of 24
VI.
Flow Results
Axial velocity and velocity vectors at the nozzle exit is shown at three time instances in Fig. 16 to illustrate the
flapping jet functionality. This case has eight flapping injectors with total mass flow of m
i /m
j = 1.1 % and injection
area of 5.0 Ai . The three time instances correspond to normal injection (flap = 0 ), maximum (flap = +60 ), and
minimum (flap = 60 ) injection angle respectively. Fig. 17 shows the same flow quantities from a perspective
view of a circumferential plane near the nozzle exit region at time instance when the flapping angle is at maximum
(flap = +60 ). The injectors diverts the main jet flow away from the injectors and it accelerates in between the
injectors. A separation bubble downstream of each injector is formed as shown in Fig. 17.
b)
a)
589
553
525
518
508
491
473
450
433
413
376
339
302
266
229
192
163
141
104
67
41
30
13
3
-14
-51
c)
Figure 16. Axial velocity and velocity vectors in the xplane at the nozzle exit at three time instances; a) flap = 0 , b) flap = +60 and c)
flap = 60 . The black box in frame a) marks the zoom area on a single injector as shown in b) and c).
Figure 17. Axial velocity and velocity vectors in a circumferential surface near the nozzle exit.
15 of 24
U j ) along the jet axis. Top: No injection, Middle: 6 steady-state injectors, no flapping,
Figure 18. Contour plot of axial velocity (U/
m i / m j = 1.1%, Bottom: 6 steady-state injectors, no flapping, m i / m j = 3.1%. Within each frame; Above: PIV, below: LES
16 of 24
U j 2 ) along the jet axis. Top: No injection, Middle: 6 steady-state injectors, no

Figure 19. Contour plot turbulence kinetic energy ( k/
flapping, m i / m j = 1.1%, Bottom: 6 steady-state injectors, no flapping, m i / m j = 3.1%. Within each frame; Above: PIV, below: LES
17 of 24
Figs. 18-19 show PIV and LES results of mean axial velocity and mean turbulence kinetic energy respectively.
Three cases are presented; the baseline nozzle without injection, the baseline nozzle with six steady injectors where
the total mass flow is m i /m j = 1.1% and m i /m j = 3.1%. The contours are located along the flow axis in plane with
the injectors. The main jet structure, shock location and jet spreading of the LES results is in good agreement with
the experiments. The injection decreases the jet plume thickness and shortens the potential core. The m i /m j = 1.1%
injection effectively brakes down the strength of the double shock cell structure of the baseline jet while the m i /m j =
3.1% injection eliminates the double shock cell structure and a single stronger shock cell structure appears.
In the following sections axial profiles at two radial locations, r = 0.25D & r = 0.50D where D is the nozzle exit
diameter, will be used to present pressure, axial-velocity and turbulence kinetic energy. This is done as an attempt
to explain the acoustic results shown in the previous section. The axial profiles are presented both in plane with the
injectors and in between the injectors.
Injection mass flow
Figs. 20-21 show the baseline nozzle with injection off and the baseline nozzle with a low and a high mass flow injection using six injectors without flapping. Fig. 20 shows that the lower mass flow injection case effectively suppresses
the shock strength while the higher mass flow injection case amplifies the pressure increase across the first shock and
the first two shocks downstream. The turbulence kinetic energy is amplified across the first couple of shocks cells
wich results in rapid initial mixing where energy is extracted from the main jet flow and results in reduced turbulence
kinetic energy levels downstream. The reduced downstream turbulence kinetic energy may also be noticed in the shear
layer as shown in Fig. 21. The higher mass flow injection amplifies shock strength and increases turbulence kinetic
energy levels near the nozzle exit which can be related to increased far-field noise levels. Furthermore, effective noise
suppression for the observer furthest downstream ( = 30 ) may be related to low turbulence kinetic energy levels
downstream of x 10D.
p /p
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
U j
U/
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.02
0.015
U 2
k/
j
A.
0.01
0.005
0
0
x/D
Figure 20. Profile along jet axis at r = 0.25 D. Black: no injection, 6 injectors Red: m
i /m
j = 1.1 % Blue: m
i /m
j = 3.1 %. Continous line:
In plane with injectors, dotted line: Out of plane with injectors.
18 of 24
p /p
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
U j
U/
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.05
0.04
U 2
k/
j
0
0
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
x/D
Figure 21. Profile along jet axis at r = 0.50 D. Black: no injection, 6 injectors Red: m
i /m
j = 1.1 % Blue: m
i /m
j = 3.1 %. Continous line:
In plane with injectors, dotted line: Out of plane with injectors.
B.
Flapping jet injection
This section presents the flow profiles of four flapping injection cases. Each case is compared with the baseline
nozzle with and without steady injection without flapping. Figs. 22-23 shows the effect of eight injectors each with an
injection area of 5.0 Ai . The difference between flapping on and steady injection without flapping is insignificant.
However, by decreasing the injection area from 5.0 Ai to 1.0 Ai and keeping the mass flow constant the effect
of flapping becomes larger, as shown in Figs. 24-25. This is because the injection velocity is larger and hence the
penetration of the injector into the main jet is more profound. The mean axial-velocity shows that the time averaged
penetration of the flapping injectors is less compared to the steady injection without flapping. In addition, the turbulence kinetic energy levels inside the jet plume are lower for the flapping injection case which can be related to lower
observed noise levels in the far-field.
By decreasing the number of injectors from eight to six and increasing the mass flow from m
i /m
j = 1.1 % to
m
i /m
j = 3.1 % the turbulence kinetic energy levels inside the jet plume are elevated. The flap = 60 flapping
injection decreases the difference between the mean-axial velocity profiles in between the injectors and in plane with
the injectors as shown in Fig. 26. The flapping increases the turbulence kinetic energy levels in the shear layer as shown
in Fig. 27. Similar trends are observed when the flapping angle amplitude is decreased to flap = 30 , although the
turbulence kinetic energy levels are sligthly lower as shown in Figs. 28-29.
19 of 24
p /p
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
U j
U/
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.02
U 2
k/
j
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
x/D
Figure 22. Profile along jet axis at r = 0.25 D. Black: no injection, 8 injectors with the larger injection area 5.0 Ai and mass flow of
m
i /m
j = 1.1 % Red: flap = 60 Flapping on Blue: Steady injection, flapping off. Continous line: In plane with injectors, dotted line:
Out of plane with injectors.
p /p
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
U j
U/
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.04
U 2
k/
j
0
0
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
x/D
Figure 23. Profile along jet axis at r = 0.50 D. Black: no injection, 8 injectors with the larger injection area 5.0 Ai and mass flow of
m
i /m
20 of 24
p /p
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
U j
U/
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.02
U 2
k/
j
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
x/D
Figure 24. Profile along jet axis at r = 0.25 D. Black: no injection, 8 injectors with the smaller injection area 1.0 Ai and mass flow of
m
i /m
p /p
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
U j
U/
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.04
U 2
k/
j
0
0
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
x/D
m
i /m
21 of 24
p /p
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
U j
U/
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.02
U 2
k/
j
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
x/D
m
i /m
j = 3.1 % Red: flap = 60 Flapping on Blue: Steady injection. Continous line: In plane with injectors, dotted line: Out of plane
with injectors.
p /p
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
U j
U/
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.04
U 2
k/
j
0
0
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
x/D
m
i /m
with injectors.
22 of 24
p /p
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
x/D
12
14
16
18
20
U j
U/
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.02
U 2
k/
j
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
m
i /m
with injectors.
p /p
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
x/D
12
14
16
18
20
U j
U/
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.04
U 2
k/
j
0
0
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
m
i /m
with injectors.
23 of 24
VII. Concluding Remarks
In the presented work fluidic injection into a supersonic free stream jet was conducted using both LES and experiments. The effect of injector area, number of injectors and injection mass flow on the far-field acoustics was tested.
The acoustic effect of steady-state mass flow flapping injection was compared with corresponding steady injection
without flapping. Good agreement is achieved between LES and experiments for the far-field acoustics and the flow
field for the steady injection and the flapping injection. The LES simulations and the experiments show that substantial
noise reduction may be achieved with a injection mass flow of m
i /m
j = 1.1% for all investigated far-field observers.
Increased injection mass flow to m
i /m
j = 3.1% reduced the mixing noise for the observer furthest downstream. However, the noise levels are increased for the other observers due to increased shock strength and turbulence levels near
the nozzle exit. The numerical investigation of the flapping injectors indicates that slight noise reduction may be
achieved with flapping jet injectors compared to a steady-state injection without flapping.
VIII. Acknowledgments
This work is funded by the Swedish Defense Material Administration (FMV) and the simulations are performed at
SNICa resources at the National Supercomputer Centre in Sweden (NSC). Technical guidance from GKN Aerospace
is also gratefully acknowledged. Dr. Surya Raghu, presedent at Advanced Fluidics is acknowledged for providing the
experimental flapping jets as well as Dr. Jeff Kastner at the University of Cincinnati for experimental support.
References
1 Henderson, B., Fifty years of fluidic injection for jet noise reduction, International Journal of Aeroacoustics, Vol. 9, No. 1 and 2, 2010,
pp. 91122.
2 Perrino, M., Munday, D., Gutmark, E., Burak, M., and Eriksson, L. E., Micro-Jet Flow Control for Noise Reduction of a Supersonic Jet
from a Practical C-D Nozzle, 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 2010.
3
Munday, D., Heeb, N., Perrino, M., Gutmark, E., M.O.Burak, Eriksson, L.-E., and Prisell, E., Comparison of Flow Control Methods
Applied to Conical C-D Nozzles, The 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, No. AIAA-2010-3874, Stockholm, Sweden, 2010.
4
Cuppoletti, D., Perrino, M., and Gutmark, E., Fluidic Injection Effects on Acoustics of a Supersonic Jet at Various Mach Numbers, The
17th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustic Conference, Portland, Oregon, 2011.
5
Hafsteinsson, H., Eriksson, L., Cuppoletti, D., Gutmark, E., and Prisell, E., Active Suppression of Supersonic Jet Noise Using Pulsating Micro-Jets, 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, No. AIAA-2012-246,
Nashville, Tennessee, 2012.
6
Erlebacher, G., Hussaini, M. Y., Speziale, C. G., and Zang, T. A., Toward the Large-Eddy Simulation of Compressible Turbulent Flows,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 238, 1992, pp. 155185.
7
Eriksson, L.-E., Development and Validation of Highly Modular Flow Solver Versions in G2DFLOW and G3DFLOW, Internal report
9970-1162, Volvo Aero Corporation, Sweden, 1995.
8
Andersson, N., A Study of Subsonic Turbulent Jets and Their Radiated Sound Using Large-Eddy Simulation, Ph.D. thesis, Division of Fluid
Dynamics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, 2005, ISBN 91-7291-679-6.
9 Burak, M., Large Eddy Simulation for the Analysis of Supersonic Jet Noise Suppression Devices, Ph.D. thesis, Division of Fluid Dynamics,
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, 2010, ISBN 978-91-7385-459-7.
10 Kirchhoff, G. R., Zur Theorie der Lichtstrahlen, Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Vol. 18, 1883, pp. 663695.
11 Callender, B., Gutmark, E., and Dimicco, R., The Design and Validation of a Coaxial Nozzle Acoustic Test Facility, The 40th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, No. AIAA-2002-0369, Reno, Nevada, 2002.
a Swedish
National Infrastructure for Computing
24 of 24
This article has been cited by:
1. Balemir Uragun, Ibrahim N. TanselThe noise reduction techniques for unmanned air vehicles 800-807. [CrossRef]

Supersonic Jet Noise Reduction Using Steady and Flapping Injection

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Supersonic Jet Noise Reduction Using Steady and Flapping Injection

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

AIAA 2013-2144

Supersonic Jet Noise Reduction Using Steady Injection and

Haukur E. Hafsteinsson, Lars-Erik Eriksson, Niklas Andersson

Student, Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

Overview of the present study

III. Computational Method

t is the subgrid-scale dynamic viscosity

Medium-resolution LES domain

High-resolution LES domain

1. Implementation of mass flow boundary condition

IV. Experimental Method

Figure 7. Black: no injection, Red: Injector area 5 Ai , Blue: Injector area Ai .

Injection mass flow

Figure 8. Black: no injection, Red: 8 injectors, Blue: 6 injectors.

Figure 9. Black: no injection, 6 injectors Red: m

Figure 10. 6 injectors, (a) m

Flapping jet injection

Figure 11. Black: no injection, 8 injectors, injector area 5.0 Ai , m

Figure 12. Black: no injection, 8 injectors, injector area 1.0 Ai , m

Figure 14. Black: no injection, 6 injectors, injector area 1.0 Ai , m

Figure 15. Black: no injection, 6 injectors, injector area 5.0 Ai , m

U j 2 ) along the jet axis. Top: No injection, Middle: 6 steady-state injectors, no

Flapping jet injection

VII. Concluding Remarks

National Infrastructure for Computing

This article has been cited by:

Anda mungkin juga menyukai