Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2010: Power for Land, Sea and Air

GT2010
June 14-18, 2010, Glasgow, UK
Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2010: Power for Land, Sea and Air
GT2010
June 14-18, 2010, Glasgow, UK

GT2010-
GT2010-22696
MODELING OF AERODYNAMIC NOISE USING HYBRID SAS AND DES METHODS
Sebastian Rulik, Slawomir Dykas, Wlodzimierz Wroblewski
Institute of Power Engineering and Turbomachinery
Silesian University of Technology
Gliwice, Poland
ABSTRACT

produce a broadband noise. On the other hand the Large Eddy

Simulation, which can capture majority of the turbulent scales,
is usually too computational costly e.g. for turbomachinery
applications. In these cases, the hybrid uRANS/LES methods
could constitute the compromise. This paper compares uRANS
method with Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) and Scale
Adaptive Simulation (SAS) methods in the CAA applications.
Generally, both the SAS and DES should give very similar
results, but there are important differences between these two
models. SAS is based on an improved uRANS formulation, that
allows resolving the turbulent spectrum in unstable flow
conditions. On the other hand, DES is the combination of
RANS and LES methods. The switch between these both is
achieved by the comparison of the modelled turbulent length
scale and the grid spacing. Both the SAS and DES methods are
available in the commercial software ANSYS CFX.
The presented in this paper computational results base on the
experiment performed by Jacob et. al. [3]. The aim of this
experiment was to provide both aerodynamic and far field data
for a flow with both tonal and broadband noise sources. The
presented test case consists of an airfoil located in the wake of
circular cylinder. The cylinder in this case is a source of
periodic fluctuations, which form a von Krmn vortex street. A
simplified geometry imitates important features encountered in
turbomachinery broadband noise. The experimental data are
useful in an evaluation of the capabilities of the unsteady CFD
codes to predict the broadband sources. This experiment was
widely used by many researchers to validate their own CAA
codes [4, 5].

The purpose of the presented studies is to compare

simple and fast CFD methods based on the unsteady ReynoldsAveraged Navier-Stokes equations (uRANS) with the so called
hybrid uRANS/LES methods like Detached Eddy Simulation
(DES) and Scale Adaptive Simulation (SAS) implemented in
the commercial code ANSYS CFX. The goal of this
comparison is to find an efficient and relatively fast method for
both the flow dynamic and aerodynamic noise prediction in the
near and far field, which would be suitable for engineering
applications.
The CFD calculations were carried out using the
commercial code ANSYS CFX 11. The non-reflective
boundary conditions and grid stretching were used to avoid the
reflections of the acoustic waves from the outer boundaries.
The different boundary conditions and turbulence models were
used in the calculations. For the acoustic calculations the Fast
Fourier Transformation (FFT) was applied to obtain the sound
spectrum. The CFD results were compared with the
experimental data obtained in references.
INTRODUCTION
Modeling of the aerodynamic noise generation and
propagation on the basis of unsteady flow field information is a
main task of the Computational Aero Acoustics (CAA). The
fast development of a computer technology and CFD methods
has created new possibilities of the aerodynamic noise
modeling in engineering applications. The aerodynamic noise
prediction is now important not only in the automotive or
aviation industries but also in the turbomachinery business. A
decrease of the aerodynamic noise is closely connected with the
improvement of the energy conversion efficiency.
Fluid mechanics for the engineering applications
usually bases on the solution of the Reynolds-Averaged NavierStokes equations (RANS). The uRANS methods are well
known and widely described. For the aerodynamic noise
calculations mainly the time dependent solution should be used,
but in many cases the proper choice of a turbulence model and
calculation method is difficult. The majority of the uRANS
methods cannot capture the small Eddies, which usually

CONFIGURATION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL AND

NUMERICAL STUDIES
The experiment was performed in the anechoic wind
tunnel of the cole Centrale de Lyon [3]. The dimensions of the
anechoic room are 10x8x8m. The NACA0012 airfoil with the
circular cylinder was used as a test case. The XYZ coordinate
system is originated at the airfoil leading edge. The airfoil
chord is l=100mm and cylinder diameter is equal to
d=l/10=10mm. The cylinder is located behind the airfoil in
distance of one chord diameter. Both the airfoil and the cylinder
have z=3l=300mm in the spanwise direction (Fig. 1). All

1Copyright 20xx by ASME

Copyright 2010 by ASME

measurements are located in the mid-span plane. The various

configurations were tested, but for the CFD studies only one
case has been applied. In this case, the ambient velocity of the
air is set to v0=70m/s and the angle of attack of the airfoil is 0 0.

High quality structural mesh was used in the

calculations. It consists of 34 blocks. The dimensionless wall
distance y+ was about 1 in all considered cases and the
corresponding distance of the first element to the wall was
equal to x=1.5e-3mm. Fig. 3 shows the scheme of blocks
applied in the numerical grid.

Fig.3 Blocks configuration near the cylinder and airfoil

Fig 1 Configuration of the experimental set-up [6]

Two similar meshes were used, one for smaller and the second
for bigger computational domain. In the first case, the nonreflective boundary conditions were applied and the mesh
elements in the outer blocks of the domain were smaller. In the
second case the outer elements are stretched and their size was
about 5 times larger than in the first case. However, the
difference in nodes number between these two cases is only
about 10%.
The pure 2D simulation is not available in ANSYSCFX, therefore for uRANS simulation the domain including 4
control volumes in spanwise direction corresponding to the
thickness of 0.2D=2mm was used. Hybrid turbulence models
allow capturing a 3D turbulence structure when the proper
spanwise size and nodes number are used. In this case the
cylinder is the main source of large turbulence structures and
the spanwise distance equals to 2D=20mm seemed to be
enough to resolve most of the turbulence structures. For this
case also different number of elements in spanwise direction
was investigated. All examine cases are gathered in Table 1.

The configuration of a cylinder and airfoil for the

numerical studies is identical to the experimental set up except
the spanwise length and domain dimensions. This is due to the
computational cost.
Two different domains were used in the calculations.
For the larger one, the position of the upstream, bottom and top
outer boundaries was amounted to 20 diameters of the cylinder,
20D=2000mm, and a downstream boundary was located in the
distance of 34D=3400mm (Fig.2). To prevent the reflection of
the acoustic waves from the outer boundaries the grid stretching
was applied. The second computational domain was twice
smaller than the first one, and the grid stretching was replaced
by the non-reflective boundary conditions available as a beta
features in ANSYS CFX.

Table 1: Numerical grids used in the CFD calculations

Number
of
nodes
spanwise direction
Spanwise distance
Spanwise grid resolution
Domain size

in

uRANS

SAS, DES

SAS, DES

25

40

2mm
0.4mm
0.413 M

20mm
0.8mm
2M

20mm
0.5mm
3.4 M

The numerical grid applied for the presented numerical studies

is presented in Figs. 4 and 5. The O-grid mesh type was used
for meshing the region near the cylinder, and C-grid has been
chosen for meshing the airfoil. Also the C-grid was used to
mesh the whole domain.

Fig. 2 Block scheme of computational domain

In the presented calculations a different spanwise
length was applied. For uRANS based turbulence model only
2D case was considered, and for hybrid SAS and DES models
the 3D domains with two different lengths in spanwise
direction were used.

2Copyright 20xx by ASME

Copyright 2010 by ASME

of symmetry boundary condition these turbulence structures

may reflect.
In case of the direct noise calculations also the
boundary conditions on upper and lower sides are very
important. The symmetry boundary conditions cause that the
acoustic waves reflect even if the calculation domain is large
and the grid stretching is applied. It is especially important in
case of more sensitive turbulence models like SAS and DES,
because it may destabilize the solution.
The calculations were performed with high resolution
and the second order backward Euler transient scheme. The
time step of 1e-5s corresponding to the Courant number of about
1 was set up. The number of coefficient loops for each time step
was from 3 to 5. This quantity is enough to obtain a proper
convergence, however to speed up the calculations usually 3
loops were chosen except of 2D domain for uRANS where 5
coefficient loops were applied. Even if the 5 coefficient loops
are set up usually 3 loops are enough to obtain RMS residuals
equal to 10e-5. It is worth to mention that the number of
coefficient loops is a function of time step. In our case the
Courant number of about 1 causes that the number of
coefficient loops can be relatively small.
Comparisons of the results with experimental data
were performed along three lines located near the cylinder and
airfoil in the middle of spanwise length. The location of the
lines is shown in Fig. 6. Both the mean velocity and root mean
square of velocity fluctuations were calculated and the results
were compared with the experimental data [3, 6]. Beside the
velocity, the pressure history was also captured in four different
locations marked in Fig.7. However, in this paper only results
from one monitor point are presented.
Usually, about 2000 time steps were necessary to
obtain the periodic fluctuations and afterward 2000 time steps
were performed for the statistics. In this case, due to the hard
disk limitations only every second time step was captured and
stored except of pressure history from monitor points which
was captured every time step.

Fig. 4 Numerical grid of the whole calculation domain (every

second line sketched)

Fig. 5 Numerical grid near the cylinder and airfoil

The mesh region, which covers the monitor points and
lines near the cylinder and airfoil was built to assure about 20
mesh points per wave length. The acoustic wave length in
considered case was about =0.23m. It means that the largest
cell size in the near field region was not bigger than t 0.01m.
The proper choice of the boundary conditions applied
for aeroacoustic calculations is very important, especially when
the direct noise calculations are performed. In all cases a
reference pressure pref=1atm was applied. The relative inlet
total pressure was set to ptin=2930Pa which corresponds to
velocity v0=70m/s. At the outlet an averaged relative static
pressure amounted to 0Pa was employed. The periodic
boundary conditions or symmetry were used on both sides of
the domain in spanwise direction. At the upper and lower sides
of the domain an averaged static pressure or symmetry
boundary conditions were applied.
Only the results with periodic boundary conditions and
averaged static pressure applied for the upper and lower sides
are presented. The periodic boundary conditions allowed
decreasing the domain size in spanwise direction and the
turbulence structures may move through the boundary. In case

Line 1
Line 2
-0.87l
0.25l
l - chord length = 100mm

Line 3
2l

Fig. 6. Monitor line location

3Copyright 20xx by ASME

Copyright 2010 by ASME

the velocity behind the cylinder in comparison with the

experiment by about 20%. For the remaining monitor lines the
agreement with the experiment is good.
The results of the mean velocity in the wake (see Fig. 10) are
not symmetrical in all cases. However, the averaging process of
the mean components was performed in the same way in all
examined cases. The most asymmetric profile was obtained for
DES method. Also the SAS with 25 layers seems to be slightly
asymmetric. Nevertheless, SAS with 40 layers and URANS are
symmetric. This asymmetry may be caused by the switching
between the URANS and LES region in DES method. The
switching may fail if the spanwise grid resolution is
insufficient.
Beside the mean velocity also the normalized RMS
velocity fluctuations were compared (Figs. 11, 12, 13). The
RMS value was calculated by projection of the fluctuations
onto the local mean velocity direction. In this case the local
mean velocity is computed first and next the fluctuating
velocity is projected onto that direction and the RMS value may
be computed. This was done due to the experimental data
which were obtained in the same way.
The comparison of the RMS values gives the similar
conclusions as for normalized mean velocity comparison. The
most stable and very close to the experimental results are the
SAS results. Also for RMS velocity fluctuations the SAS
calculations for 25 and 40 layers gave similar results. DES
model does not predict proper RMS fluctuations for 25 layers.
Only the use of 40 layers made the solution close to the
experimental data. 25 layers in that case are not enough to
activate LES in detached regions. It happens only when at least
40 layers were applied. It is worthy to mention that SAS model
is very stable and the number of nodes in spanwise direction
does not affect the results so significantly like for DES method.
One can also notice in Figs. 11 and 12 that the SST model
cannot properly trace the smaller velocity fluctuations. Fig. 13
shows that only the biggest fluctuations are calculated properly
using SST model.
The most important issue for acoustic noise calculations is the
proper prediction of velocity and pressure fluctuations being
responsible for broadband noise production. Due to this fact
RMS velocity fluctuations were also calculated. In this case the
best results were obtained for SAS model including grid with
25 and 40 layers in spanwise direction.
It has to be mentioned that the NACA wake based on
the experimental data is slightly asymmetric because profile is
not exactly symmetric and the rod is 2mm off in the y direction.
This is probably enough to distort slightly the profile in the y
direction and give an spurious angle of attack comprised
between 1 and 2 [6]. During the numerical simulation these
factors were omitted.
.

Fig. 7. Monitor points location in near field

NUMERICAL RESULTS
CFD calculations
The CFD calculations were performed by means of the
commercial code ANSYS CFX 11. For the presented results the
grid stretching and the averaged static pressure boundary
conditions were applied to avoid a reflection of the acoustic
waves from the outer boundaries. The non-reflective boundary
conditions, which are available as a beta features in ANSYS
CFX, were also used and tested in the calculations. In many
cases the non-reflective boundary conditions made the solution
much less stable and did not provide the lack of the reflections.
It was observed in the shape of the acoustic waves, which was
similar to the shape of the domain outer boundary. It was the
main reason why the grid stretching instead of the nonreflective boundary conditions was mainly applied.
Figs. 8, 9, 10 present normalized mean velocity distributions on
three different monitor lines (see Fig. 6). The normalized mean
velocity is calculated as a ratio of mean velocity to inlet
velocity v0. The calculations are performed for three different
turbulence models. Additionally, for the SAS and DES methods
a two different nodes number in the spanwise direction were
applied. One can observe the significant differences between
the used methods. For SAS and DES methods, the number of
the grid points in spanwise direction is crucial. The differences
between the 25 and 40 layers pointed out the big sensitivity of
these methods to the grid resolution. Especially the DES
method is very sensitive to the grid number in spanwise
direction. For SAS method, the differences between 25 and 40
layers are not so significant. For SAS method, even 25 layers
were enough to get satisfactory results concerning the
experiment. Using the SST uRANS method only a two
dimensional flow structure can be modelled for this case.
The distributions of a normalized mean velocity are very
similar for all five considered models. The difference between
the experiment and CFD simulations is the biggest for monitor
line 1. In this case all considered turbulence models decrease

4Copyright 20xx by ASME

Copyright 2010 by ASME

1.2

0.45

1.1

0.4

0.35

0.9

0.3

vmean/v0

0.8

vmean/v0

Experiment
SAS 25 layers
SAS 40 layers
DES 25 layers
DES 40 layers
SST 2D

0.7

0.25
0.2

0.6
0.15

experiment
SAS 25 layers
SAS 40 layers
DES 25 layers
DES 40 layers
SST 2D

0.5
0.4
0.3

0.1
0.05
0
-0.5

0.2
-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

Fig. 8 Normalized mean velocity distribution - line 1

0.5

0.225

Experiment
SAS 25 layers
SAS 40 layers
DES 25layers
DES 40 layers
SST 2D

0.2
1
0.175
0.8

0.15

vmean/v0

vmean/v0

0.4

Fig. 11 Normalized RMS velocity fluctuations line 1

1.2

0.6

0.4

0.125
0.1
0.075

experiment
SAS 25 layers
SAS 40 layers
DES 25 layers
DES 40 layers
SST 2D

0.2

0.05
0.025

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.1

0.2

0.3

y/c

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

y/c

Fig. 9 Normalized mean velocity distribution - line 2

Fig. 12 Normalized RMS velocity fluctuations line 2

1.1

0.16

1.05

Experiment
SAS 25 layers
SAS 40 layers
DES 25 layers
DES 40 layers
SST 2D

0.14

1
0.12
0.95
0.1

vmean/v0

0.9

vmean/v0

0.3

y/c

y/c

0.85
0.8

0.08
0.06

experiment
SAS 25 layers
SAS 40 layers
DES 25 layers
DES 40 layers
SST 2D

0.75
0.7
0.65

0.04
0.02

0.6
-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0
-0.6

y/c

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

y/c

Fig. 10 Normalized mean velocity distribution - line 3

Fig. 13 Normalized RMS velocity fluctuations line 3

5Copyright 20xx by ASME

Copyright 2010 by ASME

Fig. 14 Velocity distribution and

acoustic pressure distribution - uRANS SST 5 layers

Fig. 15 Velocity distribution

and acoustic pressure distribution - SAS 40 layers

Fig. 16 Velocity distribution

and acoustic pressure distribution - DES 40 layers

6Copyright 20xx by ASME

Copyright 2010 by ASME

Figs. 14, 15, 16 present the snapshots of the

instantaneous velocity distributions and acoustic pressure
distributions around cylinder and airfoil. Acoustic pressure is
calculated as a difference between instantaneous pressure and
mean pressure value. One can notice the similarity in the flow
structure for used hybrid methods. In spite of the same grid
resolution in XY directions the hybrid methods predict the von
Krmn vortex street more accurately than applied uRANS SST
method. The SST calculations predict much higher values of
acoustic pressure than presented hybrid methods, that can be
noticed in Figs.14-16.

nodes, that constitutes the fundamental issue in engineering

applications.
Connection of the SAS CFD method, that is relatively fast and
accurate, with some acoustic postprocessor, that would allow
modeling acoustic waves propagation in near as well as in far
field seems to constitute the best choice. It would limit the CFD
calculations to the small computational domain speeding up the
CAA calculations and making it applicable to the complicated
geometries like turbomachinery channels.
Euler acoustic postprocessor (EAP)
In spite of the fact that the calculations with SAS
turbulence model are the most promising with respect to the
computational time and stability, using it for prediction of the
acoustic parameters for a complicated 3D geometry still
requires a very fine mesh and a lot of computational time.
Therefore, it seems advisable to use a simplest method, that
would allow obtaining the acoustic data both in near and far
field by means of relatively simple and fast method. For this
reason, one can use the Euler acoustic postprocessor (EAP) [1,
2] solving the full Euler equations for fluctuating variables on a
3D structured multi-block numerical mesh with third order
accuracy in space and time. The time dependent pressure
distribution on solid bodies, on the cylinder and profile in the
presented case, can be used as the boundary conditions in that
method. However, this approach is acceptable only for the low
Mach numbers, when the contributions of the noise generated
by the turbulence in the wake is negligible.
The numerical mesh was created to preserve at least 10
mesh points per acoustic wave length, that is satisfactory for the
used method and has been proved in [2].
Fig.18 shows the acoustic pressure distributions for the SAS
calculations and for the calculations by means of EAP for the
pressure distributions on the solid bodies taken from SAS
results for 40 layers in spanwise direction. It can be observed
that for the SAS results the acoustic waves vanish due to the
coarse grid in the far field region. The shape of the acoustic
waves, that is similar to the shape of the outer boundary, shows
that ANSYS CFX suffer from an accuracy in modeling of the
non-reflective boundary conditions. The relatively coarse grid
for EAP allows modeling an acoustic wave propagation in both
near and far field in reasonable time period.
Fig. 19 presents the whole calculation domain for EAP
simulations with marked points for near and far field analysis.
The size of the used uniform numerical mesh is about 100.000
nodes. One can observe in this figure the satisfactory accuracy
of the modelled acoustic waves and proper behaviour of the
used non-reflective boundary conditions. In the description of
the experiment it has been mentioned that far field SPL at 90
degrees was about 110.7 dB ( 0.5 dB) [6].

Fig. 17. SPL in function of frequency Point 1

Fig. 17 shows the sound pressure spectrum for uRANS
SST and hybrid methods with different node numbers in
spanwise direction. The 2048 samples were used in the FFT
analysis and t between the samples was equal to 1e-5s which
corresponds to 100000Hz.
All results for hybrid methods are similar except the
result for DES with 25 layers. In this case, 5 main frequencies
appeared, like in uRANS SST method. Thus, the LES was not
activated in detached regions. It means that DES should be used
carefully and the grid size and number of nodes in spanwise
direction have a great influence on the results. DES method,
being a compromise to LES methods, still requires very fine
numerical grid and makes the calculations process very timeconsuming.
All considered CFD methods predict properly the
mean velocity distribution. However, it is worth to mention that
in spite of the same grid nodes number in XY directions, the
grid size for SST may be even 8 times smaller due to 5
elements in spanwise direction. The SST turbulence model is
not able to predict the smallest fluctuations. In this case the
hybrid models should be used. If the proper number of nodes is
applied in spanwise direction both the SAS and DES models
predict properly velocity fluctuations. The SAS model is more
stable and is less demanding especially as regards number of

7Copyright 20xx by ASME

Copyright 2010 by ASME

ANSYS CFX results with SAS turbulence model

Euler acoustic postprocessor results
Fig.18 Snapshot of the acoustic pressure distributions

Acoustic waves distribution

SPL distribution

Fig.19 Snapshot of the acoustic pressure distribution and SPL for EAP calculations
The near field point has been used to compare the EAP
calculations with prediction of the flow field carried out by
CFD simulation with SAS turbulence model. However, in the
far field point, the numerical results from EAP calculations
have been compared with the experimental data of SPL
spectrum [3]. The far field point position corresponds to the
coordinates x=0.04m and y=1.85m in the calculation domain
and is located very closely to the outer boundary. At the all
outer boundaries, the non-reflective boundary conditions have
been applied [1, 2]. These boundary conditions assure acoustic

waves penetration through the boundary without

disturbances (Fig.20).

any

8Copyright 20xx by ASME

Copyright 2010 by ASME

capture the main frequency and the SPL correctly, but the
agreement with experiment is not satisfactory. It can be caused
by the closeness of the far field point with outer boundary. The
EAP with SST data overestimates the SPL values and captures
only main frequencies. The FFT analysis was performed with
2048 samples and t=1e-5s=100000Hz in all considered cases.
It means that about 35 periods were calculated.

Fig.20 Acoustic wave [starting] from the airfoil mid point to the
far field point.
The comparison of the SPL spectrum in the near field point
(monitor point 1) between CFD calculations with SAS
turbulence model and EAP calculations has been presented in
Fig. 21. The calculated SPL spectrum by means of EAP method
is very close to the results obtained from SAS calculations. It
shows that EAP can be used for modeling the aerodynamic
noise in near field only on the basis of pressure data on the
cylinder and profile. It is important because the time consuming
CFD modeling can be limited to the as small calculation
domain as possible. The further CAA modeling could be
performed for bigger domain on relatively coarse grid.
However, this approach is sufficient only for relatively low
Mach number when the contribution of noise generated by
turbulence is negligible.

Fig. 22. SPL spectrum for the point in the far field.
SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK
The main goal of the presented analysis was to find an
efficient algorithm for the assessment of the aerodynamic noise
in both the near and far fields in engineering applications, e.g.
3D turbomachinery channels. To this end the commercial CFD
tool together with an in-house CAA code have been used.
The application of the DNS or even LES CFD methods for
an aerodynamic noise modeling is still very time-consuming
and requires a significant computing power. The LES
calculations for complicated geometries are very sensitive and
possible rather by means of the sophisticated in-house CFD
codes [4, 5] than commercial ones.
The presented Euler acoustic postprocessor seems to be an
efficient tool for modeling the noise propagation on the basis of
the transient CFD calculations. It provides an opportunity to get
the acoustic data from the uRANS or uRANS/LES CFD
calculations and it presents an alternative for other acoustic
analogies, such as FWH.
The future work will be focused on the search for the most
convenient CFD/CAA method for the noise assessment in
turbomachinery applications.

Fig. 21. SPL spectrum comparison in the near field in the

monitor point 1.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Polish Ministry of Science
and Higher Education for the financial support of the research
project N N513 419534.

Fig. 22 shows the comparison of the SPL spectrum for the far
field point. The EAP calculations with the pressure data
obtained from SAS and uRANS SST simulations have been
compared with experimental data [3]. The EAP with SAS data

9Copyright 20xx by ASME

Copyright 2010 by ASME

[3] Jacob, M. C., Boudet, J., Casalino, D., Michard, M., A

rod-airfoil experiment as benchmark for broadband
noise modelling, 3rd SWING Aeroacoustic Workshop,
Stuttgart, 2002.
[4] Prantle I.: Strmungsakustik auf der Basis akustischer
Analogie mit LES und URANS, PhD Thesis,
Universitt Karlsruhe, 2002
[5] Sorgven E.: A Computational Aeroacoustic Method
Using Large Eddy Simulation and Acoustic Analogy,
PhD Thesis, Universitt Karslruhe, 2004
[6] http://www.lmfa.ec-lyon.fr/perso/Marc.Jacob/
Rod_Airfoil_Benchmark.htm

REFERENCES
[1] Dykas S., Wrblewski W.: Numerical modelling of
aerodynamic noise in transonic flows, Zeszyty
Naukowe Politechniki lskiej, Monografia z. 105 ,
Gliwice 2006 (in Polish)
[2] Dykas S., Wrblewski W., Chmielniak T., Using a
CFD/CAA Technique for Aerodynamic Noise
Assessment, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2008:
Power for Land, Sea and Air GT2008, June 9-13, 2008,
Berlin, Germany GT2008-50140,

10Copyright 20xx by ASME

10

Copyright 2010 by ASME