Modeling Acoustics in FLUENT

In recent years, as engineering design of components and includes cases where the frequency range of interest is fair-
systems has become increasingly sophisticated, a signif- ly narrow, the sources and receivers are located close to
icant amount of effort has been directed toward the each other, and the sound to be captured is fairly loud. The
reduction of aerodynamically generated noise. With the sound generated by an open car window (see page 5) is one
ongoing advances in computational resources and algo- example, and the sound produced by a side view mirror is
rithms, CFD is being used more and more to study another [1, 2]. For both of these cases, the CAA results are
acoustic phenomena. Through detailed simulations of in good agreement with experimental measurements.
fluid flow, CFD has become a viable means of gaining
insight into noise sources and basic sound production CAA has also been used successfully to predict whistles
mechanisms. (loud tones) produced by
automotive air intake
FLUENT offers four systems. The whistling
approaches for simulating sound is caused by an air
aeroacoustics. In order of jet passing underneath
decreasing computational the throttle plate (Figure
effort, these are computa- 1). As it passes over a
tional aeroacoustics sump cavity, a shear
(CAA, or the direct layer is established. If
method), the coupling of resonance occurs
CFD and a wave-equa- between the flapping
tion-solver, integral shear layer and sound
acoustic models, and Figure 1: Instantaneous velocity magnitude contours in a CAA simulation waves bouncing off the
broadband noise source of whistles generated in an automotive air intake system; the shear
layer flapping in the mouth of the sump cavity causes a loud whistle
sump bottom, a loud
models. whistle develops. The
sound spectrum predict-
Computational Aeroacoustics ed by a CAA simulation (Figure 2) is in excellent agree-
Computational aeroacoustics is the most comprehensive ment with the corresponding experimental measurement
way to simulate aeroacoustics. It does not rely on any [3, 4]. The CAA simulation predicts almost the exact
model, so is analogous to direct numerical simulation same whistle frequency and sound pressure level (SPL)
(DNS) for turbulent flow. CAA is a transient simulation as measured in the experiments.
of the entire fluid region, encompassing the sources,
receivers, and entire sound transmission path in between.
By rigorously calculating time-varying flow structures,
pressure disturbances in the source regions can be fol-
lowed. Sound transmission is simulated by resolving the
pressure waves traveling through the fluid. While CAA is
the most general and accurate theoretical approach for
simulating aeroacoustics, it is unrealistic for most engi-
neering problems because of a number of practical limi-
tations, including widely varying length and time scales
characteristic of the sound generation and transmission
phenomena, and widely varying flow and acoustic pressures.

Figure 2: Computationally predicted (using CAA) and experimentally

While these constraints render CAA unsuitable for most measured sound spectrum showing a loud whistle generated by an
practical situations, there is a small class of engineering automotive air intake system [3, 4]
problems to which it can be successfully applied. This
!2
CFD-Sound Propagation Solver Coupling The FW-H approach has been used to study the sound
The computational aeroacoustics approach is prohibitive- generated by flow over a cylinder of diameter D. Using
ly expensive for most practical problems due to the large the LES model, the 2D unsteady flow solution (Figure 4)
difference in time, length, and pressure scales involved in is characterized by a predominant frequency Strouhal
sound generation and transmission. Computational number of 0.19, compared to a measured value of 0.187.
expense can be greatly reduced by splitting the problem At an observer distance of 35D, the predicted sound pres-
into two parts: (1) sound generation and (2) sound trans- sure level is 114 dB, compared to an experimental value
mission. With this approach, sound generation is mod- of 117 dB [7]. At a distance of 128D, the predicted and
eled by a comprehensive transient CFD analysis, while a experimental SPL values are 102 and 100 dB, respectively.
wave equation solver, such as SYSNOISE from LMS
International, or ACTRAN from FFT, is used for analyz-
ing sound transmission. These software products solve
the wave equation using the boundary element method
(BEM). In one recent example, FLUENT was used to
simulate the transient flow field around a generic side-
view mirror. Time-varying static pressure was recorded
on the mirror surfaces and base plate and exported to
SYSNOISE. The output includes a spatial distribution of
the sound level as a function of sound frequency (Figure 3).

Figure 4: Line contours of vorticity magnitude at one instant during the

unsteady flow past a 2D cylinder, modeled using LES
Figure 3: SYSNOISE pre-
diction of sound pressure The FW-H approach has also been applied to the generic
level for an automotive
side-view mirror, based side view mirror mentioned earlier. The LES model was
on flow-induced sources used for the 3D flow calculation in the region surround-
predicted in FLUENT
ing the mirror. An iso-surface of vorticity, colored by
velocity (Figure 5) illustrates the complex, transient
nature of the flow. Using this solution, the sound pressure
levels were computed at several microphone locations.
Figure 6 shows the spectrum at one receiver for the FW-
H calculation and the corresponding CAA calculation.
Both are in good agreement with data [1].
Integral Acoustics Methods
The approach of splitting the flow and sound fields from
each other and solving for them separately can be simpli-
fied further if the receiver has a straight, unobstructed
view of each individual point that is a source of noise.
Sound transmission from a point source to a receiver can
be computed by a simple analytical formulation. The
Lighthill acoustic analogy [5] provides the mathematical
foundation for such an integral approach. The Ffowcs-
Williams and Hawkings (FW-H) method [6] extends the
analogy to cases where solid, permeable, or rotating sur-
faces are sound sources, and is the most complete formu-
lation of the acoustic analogy to date. The FW-H method Figure 5: Contours of velocity are plotted on an iso-surface of vorticity
magnitude, while line contours of pressure are shown on the plate at left
is implemented in FLUENT.
3"
 In summary, FLUENT offers four ways for simulating
aeroacoustics. These range from highly accurate, but
expensive methods to quick and approximate approach-
es. All of these methods are included in the standard
FLUENT software; no add-on modules are necessary. !

Figure 6: The Direct (CAA) and FW-H approaches are both in good
agreement with experiment for a receiving point not far from the mirror
Data courtesy of DaimlerChrysler
Broadband Noise Source Models
The three methods described so far require well-resolved
transient CFD simulations, since they aim to determine
the actual time-varying sound-pressure signal at the
receiver, and from that, the sound spectrum. In several
practical engineering situations, only the locations and
relative strengths of sound sources, rather than the sound
spectra at the receivers, need to be determined. If the
sound is broadband (without any prominent tones charac-
terized by sharp peaks in the spectrum), the source
strengths can be evaluated with reasonable accuracy
from the time-averaged structure of the turbulent flow in
the source regions.
References:
1. R. Siegert, V. Schwarz and J. Reichenberger, AIAA
Paper No. 99-1895.
2. B.S. Lokhande, S.D. Sovani and J. Xu, SAE Paper
No. 2003-01-1698.
3. V. Kannan, J. Seifert, T. Golletti and D. Hanner,
SAE Paper No. 2004-01-0395.
4. V. Kannan, S.D. Sovani, D. Greeley and A.D. Khondge,
Submitted to SAE NVH Conference, May 2005.
5. M.J. Lighthill, Proc. Royal Society A 211, p. 564 (1952).
6. J.E. Ffowcs-Williams and D.L. Hawkings, Proc.
Royal Society of London A 264, pp. 321-342 (1969).
7. Revel, Lockheed Report 28074.
8. G.M. Lilley, The Radiated Noise from Isotropic
Turbulence Revisited, NASA Langley Research
Center ICASE Report 93-75; NASA CR-191547.

Turbulence is the primary cause of sound in aeroa-

coustics, so in a broad sense, regions of the flow field
where turbulence is strong produce louder sources of
sound. FLUENT 6.2 includes a number of analytical
Figure 7: An iso-surface of
models referred to as broadband noise source models Lilley’s acoustic source
which synthesize sound at points in the flow field from strength shows prominent
wind noise sources on a
local flow and turbulence quantities to estimate local generic sedan
sound source strengths. The key advantage of these models
is that they require very modest computational resources
compared to the methods described in the previous sections.

Broadband noise models only need a steady state flow

solution, whereas the other methods require well-
resolved transient flow solutions. One example recently
studied involves the prediction of prominent sound
sources around a simplified sedan (Figure 7), using Lilley’s
acoustic source strength broadband noise model [8].
!4
The Sound of Side Window Buffeting
Wind buffeting, the noise and pulsating forces that are
experienced when driving a car with the side windows
open, has become a significant factor in the overall pas-
senger experience in recent years. It is caused by an
unstable shear layer that is established at the upstream
edge of the window opening. Disturbances are shed from
this location and travel along the side of the vehicle.
When they reach the rear edge of the window opening, a
pressure wave is generated that propagates both inside
and outside the passenger compartment. Outside the
vehicle, this wave propagates both forward and backward
along the side of the car. When the forward traveling
wave reaches the front edge of the opening, it triggers
another disturbance that moves back to the rear edge.
This process is repeated many times every second and
causes the shear layer to develop a characteristic buffet-
ing frequency, which depends on the speed of the auto-
Figure 1: The model geometry of the car exterior and interior with
the front left window open
mobile and the geometry of the opening. Often the frequency
is below the range that can be heard by human ears but it
still can be felt by passengers as a pulsating wind force.
Wind buffeting can be detected using microphones, but
the complicated pressure waves that are its cause are very
difficult to measure. As a result, engineers in the past
have had to wait until relatively late in the design process
when prototypes become available to measure this phe-
nomenon. These measurements typically give them little
or no information about what areas of the design are
affecting wind buffeting and what could be done to
reduce it. The only option is to modify and test the proto-
types to see whether individual changes have any effect.
This process is so costly and time-consuming that it is dif-
ficult to identify changes that will improve the design.
At DaimlerChrysler, engineers have been using the com-
putational aeroacoustics (CAA) approach in FLUENT to
simulate wind buffeting. In two recent studies [1, 2], the
modeling process began by importing a surface model of
the outer shape of the vehicle and a CAD model of the
vehicle interior (Figure 1) into a CFD preprocessor. The
simulation domain was defined to include the entire pas-
senger cabin, which is connected to the external flow
domain through an open window. Dummies representing
the passengers were included in the model to correctly
represent the volume of the passenger compartment. The
vehicle surface was modeled to a significant degree of
detail to capture flow development from the vehicle front
end to the window opening. Several levels of local mesh
refinement were used. Two refinement levels were
applied outside the vehicle to capture the wake behind
the vehicle. One refinement level was applied inside the
passenger compartment to capture wave propagation
inside the cabin. The finest refinement level was applied
at the area of the opening to capture the shear layer. A
close-up view of the surface mesh near the open window
is shown in Figure 2.
The turbulent flow was captured using the RNG k-ε and
LES turbulence models, both of which have been shown
in the past to provide good results for a range of turbu-
lent conditions. Interior surfaces of the vehicle were
assumed to be solid walls instead of soft surfaces such as
carpeting or fabric. Actual car surfaces are less reflective
and more absorbent than solid walls, giving the model a
Figure 2: The surface mesh detail for the car exterior and interior
in the vicinity of the open front window
5"
 tendency to overpredict the wind and propagation of these waves
buffeting phenomena. can help engineers understand
exactly how wind buffeting occurs
A steady-state solution was first in a particular design, and can help
obtained for each case, and these them iterate quickly to an
results were used as initial condi- improved design.
tions for a subsequent series of
transient simulations that were The frequency spectra and sound
used to capture the pressure fluc- pressure level were in good agree-
tuations in the vicinity of the Figure 3: Pressure field at a speed of 60 mph ment for all locations studied
open window. Monitors were set and yaw angle of 5 degrees, showing the wakes within the vehicle (Figure 4).
behind the A-pillar and mirror
up at the driver’s and front seat Additional simulations correlated
passenger's ear locations and well with experimental measure-
static pressure was recorded at ments in predicting reductions in
these locations at every time the SPL and frequency of the
step. The initial transients died sound from an open front window
down and the pressure traces as the vehicle speed is reduced
reached a dynamically steady from 60 mph to 50 mph.
solution in roughly 300 to 500 Simulations with the left front win-
time steps. Subsequently, pressure dow wide open and the right rear
traces were recorded for time window open 1 inch were also per-
periods between 1.0 and 2.0 sec- formed. These showed that buffet-
onds - long enough to obtain a ing was substantially reduced.
sound pressure spectrum. The Simulations with a modified side
pressure signals were converted Figure 4: Spectrum of the side window buffeting mirror design reduced buffeting by
to the sound frequency spectrum sound heard by a car driver 13 dB, which also correlated well
by taking a discrete Fourier with experimental measurements.
transform using a Hanning window filter. The sound DaimlerChrysler engineers are making use of these results
pressure level (SPL) was finally converted to dB units. by simulating other vehicles, evaluating the influence of
more parameters, and evaluating different modeling tech-
The CFD predictions were validated by comparing them niques. As simulation is more fully integrated into the
to experimental measurements conducted in a wind tun- design process, this approach should make it possible to
nel. The CFD simulations accurately predicted buffeting substantially reduce wind buffeting in the future. !
frequency and sound pressure level, and matched SPL Courtesy of DaimlerChrysler
and frequency variation trends observed in the experi-
ments. Contours of pressure were examined on two hori- Reference:
zontal planes in the critical front window area (Figure 3). 1. D. Hendriana, S.D. Sovani, M.K. Scheimann, “On
The results indicated that a vertical vortex occurs behind Simulating Passenger Car Window Buffeting,” SAE
the A-pillar (the structural member between the wind- Paper No. 2003-01-1316 (2003).
screen and the front window). An animation of the tran- 2. C.-F. An, S.M. Alaie, S.D. Sovani, M.S. Scislowicz,
sient solution showed vortex movement with the local K. Singh, “Side Window Buffeting Characteristics of
flow, with impingement on the B-pillar (the structural a SUV,” SAE Paper 2004-01-0230 (2004).
member between the front and rear windows). The wave
generated at the B-pillar was shown to propagate into the
passenger compartment. Visualization of the formation

!6
Cavity Noise Generation
Cavity flows have been the subject of research since the
1950’s. Although geometrically simple, the fluid dynamics
in such flows is complicated, involving shear layer insta-
bility, flow induced resonance, and turbulence. Flow over
a cavity causes large pressure oscillations to develop, and
these can lead to structural damage. Suppression tech-
niques have been applied with varying degrees of success.
The flow generated by an open cavity with transonic flow
across the top combines several clearly identifiable flow
phenomena, such as a mixing layer with its train of large
structures, recirculation flow in the cavity, pressure waves
generated by the crossing of the structures, and strong
acoustic coupling between all these phenomena. Such flows
occur in landing gear wells and bomb bays on aircraft,
where sonic fatigue and the reduction in pressure fluctua-
tions and noise are of prime concern. The pressure vents on
the space shuttle cargo bay have also been observed to cause
high internal noise levels during ascent.
Figure 1: The complex flow
inside the cavity
In this example, a shallow rectangular cavity, 20 inches
in length and 4 inches square in cross-section, is studied.
A bulk Mach number of 0.85 outside the cavity is speci-
fied. The turbulent flow is modeled using the detached
eddy simulation (DES) approach, whereby a RANS cal-
culation (in this case, using the Spalart-Allmaras model)
is performed in the near-wall region, and an LES calcu-
lation is performed in the free stream. A hexahedral mesh
of 1.4 million cells is used. Using the non-iterative time
advancement (NITA) solver in FLUENT, a period of 0.6
seconds is simulated, and noise calculations are performed
using the computational aeroacoustics (CAA) approach.
Time averaged results from the last 0.2 seconds of the sim-
ulation are used to compute the frequency spectrum of the
noise produced for comparison to experiment.
In Figure 1, an iso-surface of vorticity, colored by velocity,
illustrates the complex, transient nature of the cavity flow
field. The vorticity is being generated principally in the free
shear layer, although the figure only shows the cavity gen-
Figure 2: PRMS along the cavity ceiling for the first mode; FLUENT
DES predictions are compared to experiment [1]
Figure 3: Sound pressure level (SPL) 7 inches downstream of the
cavity, computed using DES, URANS, and measured by experiment [1]
eration. The growth of the boundary layer along the entry
plate is visible in the form of spreading oil film lines.
Following the separation of the boundary layer from the
leading edge of the cavity, Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities
develop and pulsate during the transient flow, causing
regions of localized shocking to appear and disappear with-
in the unstable shear layer.
Rossiter first developed an empirical formula for predict-
ing cavity-flow resonant frequencies, today referred to as
Rossiter modes. For this configuration the first three
Rossiter modes (peaking at 145Hz, 350Hz and 590Hz
respectively) are of a similar strength across the ceiling
of the cavity. Each modal band is calculated by process-
ing the power spectral density, using frequencies that
bracket the peak. The RMS pressure along the cavity
ceiling, PRMS, for the first mode is in very good agreement
with experimental data [1], as shown in Figure 2.
The sound pressure level at one of ten microphone loca-
tions is compared to experimental data [1] in Figure 3.
The DES approach provides a frequency spectrum that is
in very good agreement with experiment, while an
unsteady RANS calculation does not. This result is con-
sistent at every monitor point considered in the study. !
Reference:
1. Experimental data provided by QinetiQ, funded by
UK MOD Applied Research Program.
7"
 Automotive Rain Gutter Noise
A recent survey by J.D. Power and Associates [1] indicates
that excessive wind noise is a major concern for automo-
bile passengers. Wind noise is generated by features on
the outer body of a car, such as roof-racks, door-gaps,
and side-view mirrors. One prominent feature contribut-
ing to the overall wind-noise level is the A-pillar rain gut-
ter. This rain gutter serves the purpose of collecting and
draining rain water that would otherwise be swept from
the windshield, past the A-pillar, and onto the side win-
dows, thereby reducing the visibility through them. It has
the shape of a long narrow channel spanning the length
of the A-pillar and facing the wind. From an aerodynam-
ics perspective, the rain-gutter acts as a turbulator, creat-
ing a highly turbulent flow in its wake. Pressure fluctua-
tions created by such turbulence contribute to wind noise.
Figure 1: The outline of the domain, showing the rain gutter, inlet,
and microphone
With recent advances in CFD models and algorithms and
with increases in computational power, it is now possible
to study wind noise generation and transmission using
CFD simulations. The present work focuses on the wind
noise produced by an idealized rain gutter. The results are
compared with experimental data and other CFD simula-
tions reported in the literature.
The idealized rain gutter is a backward facing elbow
mounted on a flat plate. The flat plate and gutter are
placed in a virtual wind tunnel with a rectangular cross-
section. The free stream air speed is 22.35 m/s, corre-
sponding to a Reynolds number of 40,000, based on the
height of the rain gutter. The width and height of the rain-
gutter are both 0.0127 m. The large eddy simulation
(LES) model is used for the simulation. This transient
turbulence model can be used to predict both the sources
and transmission of sound, but at a high computational
!8
cost. A more economical approach makes use of LES to
compute the time-varying pressure field (the noise
sources), and a simple acoustic analogy to compute the
sound transmission. This second approach has been
applied to the rain gutter, using the Ffowcs-Williams and
Hawkings [2] acoustics model to compute the sound trans-
mission. The goals of the simulation are to determine:
1. the transient flow structure around the rain-gutter
2. the distribution of the pressure coefficient, Cp, along
the base plate
3. the frequency spectrum of the static pressure at a point
on the base plate downstream of the rain gutter, and
4. the frequency spectrum at a point above the rain gutter.
The results from the CFD simulations are compared to
experimental and computational data reported by
Kumarasamy and Karbon [3].
A diagram of the solution domain is shown in Figure 1.
The rain gutter is located a distance a from the inlet sur-
face AEHD. The distance a is approximately 7.4b, where
b is the height of the rain gutter (0.0127 m). The length
of the rain gutter, c, is about 0.64b. Surface ABCD is a
symmetry plane.
Figure 2 illustrates the turbulent flow structures generated
by the rain gutter. Iso-surfaces of vorticity are colored by
velocity magnitude to illustrate the flow. Contours of pres-
sure are shown on the base plate and perpendicular wall.
Figure 2: Iso-surfaces of vorticity behind the rain gutter, colored by
velocity magnitude, and pressure contours on the base plate and
symmetry plane
Instantaneous velocity vectors on the symmetry plane are
shown in Figure 3. The flow separates upstream of the
rain gutter, and two very distinct flow regions develop.
The free stream flow outside the separated region is
steady, while that inside is complex and unsteady.
 Reference:
1. 2000 Vehicle Acoustic Study, J.D. Power and
Associates, Westlake Village, CA 91361.
2. J.E. Ffowcs-Williams and D.L. Hawkings,
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A264,
p. 321-342 (1969).
3. A. Kumarasamy and K. Karbon , Aeroacoustics of an
Automobile A-Pillar Rain Gutter: Computational and
Experimental Study, SAE Paper 1999-01-1128 (1999).
Figure 3: Velocity field on the symmetry plane

The distribution of the pressure coefficient, Cp, along the

flat plate at the symmetry line is shown in Figure 4. The
position of the rain gutter is shown. The experimental data
shown is from Kumarasamy and Karbon [3]. The FLUENT
results are in very good agreement with the data.

The spectrum of time-varying pressure recorded at the

intersection of the base plate and symmetry plane, 0.0254 m
downstream of the rain gutter’s vertical surface, is shown
in Figure 5. The FLUENT results are in good agreement
with the experimental measurements [3]. The sound
Figure 4: Pressure coefficient as a function of position along the base
spectrum at the far-field microphone, located 0.10795 m plate, with comparisons to experiment [3]
above the rain gutter on the symmetry plane, is shown in
Figure 6. The results are again in good agreement with
published values.

In summary, FLUENT has been used to simulate the flow

field around an idealized automotive A-pillar rain gutter
and the sound radiated from it. The LES turbulence
model was used to compute the transient flow field, and
sound radiation was calculated with the Ffowcs-Williams
and Hawkings integral method. Numerical results were
compared with corresponding experimental measure- Figure 5: Sound spectrum at a microphone located behind the rain
ments reported in the literature. The time-averaged pres- gutter on the base plate

sure coefficient values predicted by the FLUENT simula-

tions were found to match (within the bounds of experi-
mental uncertainty) the measured steady-state values.
The spectra of pressure at a point on the base plate and at
a far-field microphone were within a few dB of the cor-
responding experimental measurements over a wide fre-
quency range. Overall, the results demonstrate that the
LES turbulence model coupled with the Ffowcs-
Williams and Hawkings method are well suited to
acoustics simulations of this type. !

Figure 6: Sound spectrum at the microphone located above the rain gutter 9"
 Low Noise Landing
Landing gear noise is not the first thing that comes to
mind when thinking about noise pollution at a busy air-
port. The once dominant jet engine noise has been
reduced significantly over the past thirty years, primarily
through the introduction of high bypass turbofan engines.
As a result, airframe noise has emerged as a leading com-
ponent of aircraft noise during the final approach phase
of a landing. Environmental concerns and noise certifica-
tion regulations are therefore causing aircraft manufac-
turers to take a closer look at this phenomenon.
The main contributors to airframe noise in a landing con-
figuration are high-lift devices, such as slats and deployed
flaps, and surprisingly, the landing gear. Measurements
have shown that these components are not equally important
on all aircraft.
While the high-lift
devices are noisier
on medium size air-
craft, the landing
gear is becoming the
dominant source on
large airplanes, such
Figure 1: Vortical structures visualized
as the Boeing 777. using iso-surfaces of the second invari-
ant of the deformation tensor, colored by
velocity magnitude
Landing gear sys-
tems have complex, non-streamlined geometries, and gen-
erate highly turbulent wakes. Vortices shed from one com-
ponent impinge on other elements, generating noise with a
broad spectrum, from a few hundred Hz to several kHz. If
noise can be predicted using engineering software, modi-
fications such as fairings and streamlining can be intro-
duced during the design phase.
At Fluent, engineers have recently analyzed a 1/10th
scale landing gear model, representative of the gear used
on a Boeing 757 aircraft. The same configuration has
been studied using CFD by researchers at Penn State [1]
and NASA Langley [2, 3], and will also be tested in a
wind tunnel at the Quiet Flow Facility at the Langley
Research Center. The four-wheel landing gear assembly
contains all of the major components, including the oleo-
strut, axles, connecting blocks, diagonal struts, a door,
and additional parts that hold the configuration together.
A flat plate simulates the wing surface.
! 10
Predicting aeroacoustic noise is not a trivial matter. Only
a minute fraction of the kinetic energy present in the pri-
mary flow is converted into acoustic energy and radiated.
To correctly capture the acoustics, the turbulent flow
must be calculated with high fidelity. Since turbulence is
an inherently unsteady phenomenon, a time-consuming
transient simulation is required. The large eddy simulation
(LES) turbulence model with the Smagorinsky subgrid
scale model was used for the landing gear calculation.
Integral techniques that predict the far-field acoustic signal
using source data input from a near-field CFD simulation
have emerged as a promising and economic way to compute
sound levels. The Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings (FW-H)
approach [4], the most universal and complete integral
method available
today, was used for
the simulation.
The CAD (STEP)
model provided
by NASA Langley
was cleaned up in
GAMBIT, and a
computational
grid was built
using GAMBIT and TGrid. Boundary layer prisms were
grown in TGrid, so that the prism cap surface mesh could
be used to control the growth and continuity of the tetra-
hedral elements away from the boundary layer. Size func-
tions were used to cluster elements in the vicinity and wake
of the landing gear, resulting in a 5.3 million cell mesh, suit-
able for an LES simulation.
The landing gear case was run incompressibly (a valid
approximation for compact sound sources) for nearly
10,000 time steps, or one flow-pass through the domain,
before the turbulence statistics were sufficiently stabi-
lized and the acoustic source data sampling could be start-
ed. The acoustic source data was extracted directly on the
landing gear surface over approximately one additional
flow-pass, and then processed with the FW-H solver.
The FW-H tool is ideal for predicting far-field radiation in
the absence of external scattering surfaces. The necessary
source data can be extracted from permeable (interior) or
 Figure 2: Dipole source strength,
using contours of dp/dtRMS, shows
a high source intensity at the rear
diagonal strut and behind the
oleo-strut

solid (wall) surfaces, and the method is not very sensitive

to the actual source surface placement. The direct output
includes the far-field pressure signals at user-specified Figure 3: Overall sound pressure levels (OASPL) for five receivers locat-
ed 1 m from the landing gear
receiver locations. Postprocessing tools are available to
perform spectral analyses of these signals, including over-
all sound pressure level (OASPL) outputs. Also available
is the local dipole source strength, which can be used to
assess contributions from different source locations.

Surprisingly, but in good agreement with other studies per-

formed on the same configuration [2, 3], flow visualization
revealed that the two diagonal struts shed nearly as much
vorticity as the big wheels (Figures 1 and 2). A very short
distance downstream of the landing gear, it is difficult to dif-
ferentiate the flow structures originating from different com-
Figure 4: Sound pressure level spectra (dB) for four of the receivers
ponents. Persistent flow separation due to an asymmetric shown in Figure 3
flow was observed at the gear door leading edge. Animations
of unsteady surface pressure showed more complex patterns
References:
on the rear wheels and rear strut, as expected.
1. F.J. Souliez, L.N. Long, P.J. Morris and A. Sharma,
International Journal of Aeroacoustics 1, No. 2,
The acoustic analysis indicated that the overall sound
p. 115-135, 2002.
pressure levels at a distance of 10 wheel diameters
2. F. Li, M.R. Khorrami and M.R. Malik, AIAA Paper
upstream and downstream of the landing gear are about
2002-2411, 8th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
4dB lower than those measured in the two lateral direc-
Conference, Breckenridge, CO, June 17-19, 2002.
tions (Figure 3). Differences were also noticed in the
3. D.P. Lockard, M.R. Khorrami and F. Li, AIAA Paper
sound pressure spectra (Figure 4). The lateral directions
2004-2887, 10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
peak at around 700 Hz, and the same frequency was
Conference, Manchester, UK, May 10-13, 2004.
observed to be dominant in the crossflow force response.
4. J.E. Ffowcs-Williams and D.L. Hawkings,
The streamwise spectra peak at considerably higher fre-
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A264,
quencies. A total of 18 surface pressure probes were
p. 321-342 (1969).
strategically placed in the rear of the wheels, struts, and
along the wheel door. The recorded pressure traces con-
firmed that the rear diagonal strut is one of the dominant
noise sources. Fluent engineers are anxiously awaiting
the experimental data expected from the wind tunnel to
confirm these findings. !
11 "
Fluent Worldwide

Corporate Headquarters European Regional Offices Asian Regional Offices

Fluent Inc. Fluent Benelux Fluent Asia Pacific Co., Ltd.
10 Cavendish Court Wavre, Belgium Tokyo, Japan
Lebanon, NH 03766, USA Tel: 32 1045 2861 Tel: 81 3 5324 7301
Tel: 603 643 2600 Email: info@fluent.be Email: info@fluent.co.jp
Fax: 603 643 3967
Fluent Deutschland GmbH Osaka, Japan
Email: info@fluent.com
Darmstadt, Germany Tel: 81 6 6445 5690
Tel: 49 6151 36440
US Regional Offices Fluent China Holdings Ltd.
Email: info@fluent.de
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Shanghai, China
Tel: 734 213 6821 Fluent Europe Ltd. Tel: 86 21 5385 5180
Sheffield, England Email: info_china@fluent.com
Austin, TX 78746
Tel: 44 114 281 8888
Tel: 512 306 9299 Fluent India Pvt. Ltd.
Email: info@fluent.co.uk
Pune, India
Evanston, IL 60201
Fluent France SA Tel: 91 20 414 2500
Tel: 847 491 0200
Montigny le Bretonneux, France Email: info@fluent.co.in
Morgantown, WV 26505 Tel: 33 1 3060 9897
Tel: 304 598 3770 Email: info@fluent.fr
Santa Clara, CA 95051 Fluent Italia
Distributors
Tel: 408 522 8726 Milano, Italy For a full listing of our worldwide
Tel: 39 02 8901 3378 distributor network, log on to:
Email: info@fluent.it www.fluent.com/worldwide/dist

Fluent Sweden AB
Göteborg, Sweden
Tel: 46 31 771 8780
Email: info@fluent.se

©2005 Fluent Inc. All rights reserved. FLUENT is a registered trademark of Fluent Inc. All other products or brands are trademarks of their respective holders.