Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: The predictions of cavity flow and flow-induced advancing computational aeroacoustic (CAA)
noise are two important and complex issues in fluid-acoustic methods.
coupling field. Numerical studies for these issues are performed
in the paper by large eddy simulation (LES) and FW-H
acoustic analogy. Firstly, the wall pressure fluctuations of plate, It was shown that a greater understanding of the flow
foil, shutter hole are computed and compared with field and acoustic field generated by grazing flow past
experimental results. The robustness of large eddy simulation a cavity has been gained over the past ten years. In
in unsteady flow calculation is analyzed. Secondly, the addition, CFD is becoming a more reliable prediction
calculation of a 2-D cavity flow are accomplished. The power tool for this flow field. Many CFD analyses rely on
spectrum of pressure fluctuations is compared with measured
data and the vorticity distribution is analyzed. Finally, the flow
DES or LES to correctly simulate the shear layer in
induced noises of two 3D cavities are predicted. The computed turbulent flow conditions and predict the flow induced
results are compared with experimental data of Large noise accurately[1-5]. As more confidence is gained in
Circulation Channel in CSSRC. It shows that the numerical the use of CFD as a methodology for the prediction of
prediction method in the paper is credible. such complicated flow-acoustic coupling phenomenon,
more researchers are using this method to study the
KEY WORDS: cavity flow; flow induced noise; wall pressure
effect of control devices and cavity/body interactions.
fluctuations; Large eddy simulation; FW-H equation
2.1 Large eddy simulation (LES) The far field solution of FW-H equation can be
written as the following:
The basic assumptions of LES are that: (1) transport is G ⎡ ρ (U + U n ) ⎤
largely governed by large-scale unsteady flow and 4π p 'T ( x , t ) = ∫ ⎢ 0 n 2 ⎥
dS
⎣ r (1 − M r ) ⎦ ret
f =0
3.1.2 Shutter-hole
Fig.10 Comparison of measured and computed WPF spectrum In the frequency scope of 100Hz to 10kHz, the
(V=32m/s) predicted accuracy is 1.6dB to 6.0dB. The predicted
WPF spectrum is fairly good compared with
The predicted overall shape and the magnitude of the experiment data. The flow around shutter hole is very
WPF spectrum is fairly good compared with complex, so the capability of LES is validated.
experiment data. In the frequency scope of 100Hz to
10KHz, the predicted accuracy is 1.5dB to 5.5dB at 3.2 Flow induced noise
32m/s, 1.2dB to 8.4dB at 18m/s, 1.1dB to 13.3dB at
12m/s. It shows that the computed results agree better 3.2.1 2-D cavity
with measured data in high velocity than that in low
velocity. And the computed results agree better with Unsteady flow past a cavity may create both
measured data in low frequency than that in high broadband and tonal noise. The formation and
frequency. The characteristics of the unsteady flow behavior of a shear layer and its subsequent
with obvious pressure gradient are better captured by interaction with the fluid in the cavity drives the noise
LES approach. production. Lafon [6] studied cavity flow noise of a 2D
cavity. Fig. 13 shows the geometry of the model.
246 9th International Conference on Hydrodynamics
October 11-15, 2010 Shanghai, China
Experiments were carried out in a wind tunnel at the triggers the next vortex shedding. The rapid changes
Institut AeroTechnique, Saint-Cyr-l’Ecole. Flow in the flow past the cavity and its adjacent walls are
velocity is 62.8m/s. M=0.183. the primary sources to generate sound.
REFERENCES
[1] Ching Y L. Computation of Low Speed Cavity Noise[C].
42nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Nevada, U.S.A., 2004.
(AIAA–2004–0680)
The computational domain is discretized using 3.75 [6] Lafon P, Caillaud S, Devos J P, et al. Aeroacoustical
million hexahedral cells for model A and 3.41 million coupling in a ducted shallow cavity and fluid/structure
hexahedral cells for model B. The computed vorticity effects on a steam line. Journal of Fluids and structures,
2003, 18: 695-713.
distributions are shown in figure 20. The comparison