242

Numerical simulation of cavity flow induced noise by LES and FW-H acoustic analogy
Nan Zhang *, Hong-cui Shen, Hui-zhi Yao
China Ship Scientific Research Center, Wuxi, China * E-mail: zn_nan@sina.com
ABSTRACT: The predictions of cavity flow and flow-induced noise are two important and complex issues in fluid-acoustic 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, foil, shutter hole are computed and compared with experimental results. The robustness of large eddy simulation in unsteady flow calculation is analyzed. Secondly, the calculation of a 2-D cavity flow are accomplished. The power spectrum of pressure fluctuations is compared with measured data and the vorticity distribution is analyzed. Finally, the flow induced noises of two 3D cavities are predicted. The computed results are compared with experimental data of Large Circulation Channel in CSSRC. It shows that the numerical prediction method in the paper is credible. KEY WORDS: cavity flow; flow induced noise; wall pressure fluctuations; Large eddy simulation; FW-H equation

advancing methods.

computational

aeroacoustic

(CAA)

It was shown that a greater understanding of the flow field and acoustic field generated by grazing flow past a cavity has been gained over the past ten years. In addition, CFD is becoming a more reliable prediction tool for this flow field. Many CFD analyses rely on DES or LES to correctly simulate the shear layer in turbulent flow conditions and predict the flow induced noise accurately[1-5]. As more confidence is gained in the use of CFD as a methodology for the prediction of such complicated flow-acoustic coupling phenomenon, more researchers are using this method to study the effect of control devices and cavity/body interactions. Flow induced noise is a serious problem in many engineering applications. It can cause human discomfort and influence quiet operations of vehicles. In ship applications, the sound generated by marine propellers, hydrofoils, and even transitional and turbulent boundary layers can induce ambient concerns and decrease the work efficiency of sailors. There were lots of discoveries and researches about flow induced noise in aeroacoustics. However, in hydroacoustics, it is short of an intensive investigation for the problem. In the paper, the cavity flow and flow induced noise are studied by the large eddy simulation (LES) with dynamic Smagorinsky subgrid model and FW-H acoustic analogy with Kirchhoff integral. We aim at establishing a suitable numerical method to predict the flow induced noise of cavity in water.

1 INTRODUCTION The cavity flow belongs to a basic class of flows with self-sustaining oscillations. In industrial practice, the cavity-type oscillation is undesirable from the perspective of inducement of structure vibration and fatigue, generation of noise and drastic increase in drag on the body. Many computational studies focus on the computation of the cavity flow field with little attention given to the acoustic field surrounding the cavity. Exceptions do exist, including several studies aimed at computing the acoustics from low and subsonic Mach number flows past cavities. The cavity flow simulations that focus on the near field are equally important to the development of a noise prediction capability for cavity flows; for, if the near-field flow is not simulated properly, one cannot hope to predict the acoustic field accurately. In this sense, advances in computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling go hand-in-hand with

243

2 COMPUTATIONAL METHOD 2.1 Large eddy simulation (LES) The basic assumptions of LES are that: (1) transport is largely governed by large-scale unsteady flow and these structures can be computationally resolved; (2) small-scale flow features can be undertaken by using appropriate subgrid scale turbulence models. In LES, the motion is separated into small and large eddies, this separation is achieved by means of a low-pass filter. The filter function, G ( x, x' ) , implied here is then:
1 / V , x ' V G ( x, x ') = 0, x 'otherwise

normal vector that points into the fluid. The far field solution of FW-H equation can be written as the following: (U + U n ) 4 p 'T ( x , t ) = 0 n dS 2
f =0

r (1 M r ) ret

0U n ( rM r + c0 ( M r M 2 )) dS f =0 r 2 (1 M r )3 ret

(8)

4 p ' L ( x , t ) =

L LM 1 Lr dS + 2 r dS f = 0 r (1 M ) 2 c0 f =0 r(1 M r )2 ret r ret

(1)

Filtering the Navier-Stokes equations, one obtains

Lr ( rM r + c0 ( M r M 2 )) dS f =0 r 2 (1 M r )3 ret K K K 4 p 'Q ( x , t ) = 21 + 2 + 33 dV f >0 c r cr 2 r + 1 c0

(9) (10)

+ ( u i ) = 0 t xi

(2)

We can computed the far field solution on a Kirchhoff control surface to avoid the volume integral. 2.3 Numerical method The differential equations are discretized by finite volume method. Bounded central difference scheme is applied. The velocity-pressure coupling is based on PISO algorithm and algebraic multigrid method is employed to accelerate the solution convergence. The time step is 110-5s and y+1. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Wall pressure fluctuations 3.1.1 Plate & foil

ij p ij ( u i ) + ( u i u j ) = ( ) t x j x j x j xi x j
where

i j

(3) is the stress tensor due to molecular

viscosity and ij is the subgrid-scale stress. In the paper, we adopt four subgrid-scale stress models: Smagorinsky Model (SL) Dynamic Smagorinsky Model (DSL) Wall-Adapting Local Eddy-Viscosity Model (WALE) Dynamic Kinetic Energy Model (KET) 2.2 FW-H acoustic analogy Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings utilized the generalized function theory to obtain the classic equation that has become associated with their names. The FW-H equation can be written as the following inhomogeneous wave equation: 1 2 p ' ( x, t ) 2 p ' ( x, t ) 2 2 c t 2 [Li ( f )] + Tij H ( f ) = [( 0U n ) ( f )] t x i x i x j

Fig.1 Plate model and sensor position

(4) where

U i = [1 ( / 0 )]vi + ( ui / 0 ) Li = Pij n j + u i (u n v n )

(5)

2 Tij = uiu j + ( p p0 ) c0 ( 0 ) ij ij

(6) (7)

Tij is Lighthill stress tensor, ( f ) is Dirac delta

function, H is Heaviside function, u is fluid velocity, v is body surface velocity, c is velocity of sound, n is a

The wall pressure fluctuations (WPF) are important features of turbulence. Turbulent wall pressure fluctuations are actually a source of noise. Knowledge of the wall pressure field induced by a turbulence boundary layer remains a subject of fundamental importance for many practical applications, especially for underwater acoustics. In order to demonstrate the capability of LES in predicting unsteady flow, the wall pressure fluctuations are computed by LES in the paper. The WPF spectrums of plate in two velocities are numerical simulated to determine the suitable subgrid stress model. And we computed the WPF

244

spectrum of foil by the suitable model. Fig.1 shows the plate model and sensor position. The plate has an overall length L of 1.1m and breadth of 0.39m. Experimental investigations including boundary layer and wall pressure fluctuations have been made in anechoic wind tunnel of CSSRC at velocity 18m/s. The computational domain is discretized using 1.35 million hexahedral cells. Measured and predicted WPF spectrums are shown in Figures 2~5. The reference pressure in air is Prefair=210-5Pa.
Fig.5 Comparison of measured and computed WPF spectrum (KET model)

Fig.2 Comparison of measured and computed WPF spectrum (SL model)

These computations are used to investigate the performances of the four subgrid models in predicting the unsteady characteristics of turbulent flow. We can find that the differences of the computed results with different subgrid models are very clear. It shows that the computed WPF magnitude and spectrum shape with DSL model is better than that with other models. Generally, the DSL model predicts WPF more accurate than other models. So we used the DSL model to compute the WPF spectrum of a foil in three velocities (12m/s, 18m/s, 32m/s) . The geometry of foil and sensor position are shown in Fig. 6. The foil has an overall length L of 1.1m and breadth of 0.39m. Experiments have been carried out in anechoic wind tunnel of CSSRC. The computational domain is discretized using 1.56 million hexahedral cells. Fig.7-10 show the computed results including flow and WPF spectrum.

Fig.3 Comparison of measured and computed WPF spectrum (DSL model)

Fig.6 Foil model and sensor position

Fig.4 Comparison of measured and computed WPF spectrum (WALE model) Fig.7 Computed flow field

245

3.1.2 Shutter-hole We have investigated the wall pressure fluctuations of shutter hole in water to identify the source of noise in near field. Experiments including flow field and wall pressure fluctuations have been made in the Large Circulation Channel of CSSRC, which are suitable for validation of numerical results. Figure 11 give the shutter hole model and sensor position. The shutter hole is arranged on a axisymmetric body. Measurements were carried out at velocity V=5m/s. Predicted and Measured WPF spectrums are shown in Figures 12. The reference pressure in water is Prefwater=1 10-6Pa. The computational domain is discretized using 4.19 million hexahedral cells.

Fig.8 Comparison of measured and computed WPF spectrum (V=12m/s)

Fig.11 Shutter hole model and sensor position Fig.9 Comparison of measured and computed WPF spectrum (V=18m/s)

Fig.12 Comparison of measured and computed WPF spectrum Fig.10 Comparison of measured and computed WPF spectrum (V=32m/s)

The predicted overall shape and the magnitude of the WPF spectrum is fairly good compared with experiment data. In the frequency scope of 100Hz to 10KHz, the predicted accuracy is 1.5dB to 5.5dB at 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 with measured data in high velocity than that in low velocity. And the computed results agree better with measured data in low frequency than that in high frequency. The characteristics of the unsteady flow with obvious pressure gradient are better captured by LES approach.

In the frequency scope of 100Hz to 10kHz, the predicted accuracy is 1.6dB to 6.0dB. The predicted WPF spectrum is fairly good compared with experiment data. The flow around shutter hole is very complex, so the capability of LES is validated. 3.2 Flow induced noise 3.2.1 2-D cavity Unsteady flow past a cavity may create both broadband and tonal noise. The formation and behavior of a shear layer and its subsequent interaction with the fluid in the cavity drives the noise production. Lafon [6] studied cavity flow noise of a 2D cavity. Fig. 13 shows the geometry of the model.

246

Experiments were carried out in a wind tunnel at the Institut AeroTechnique, Saint-Cyr-lEcole. Flow velocity is 62.8m/s. M=0.183.

triggers the next vortex shedding. The rapid changes in the flow past the cavity and its adjacent walls are the primary sources to generate sound.

Fig.13 2-D cavity model and sensor position

Comparisons of measured and computed SPL spectrum are shown in Figure 14(a)~(b).

Fig.15 Vorticity distributions at different stages

3.2.2 3-D cavity We have studied the various flow induced noise of five 3-D cavities which were arranged in a submerged body. Experiments have been carried out in the Large Circulation Channel of CSSRC at velocity V=5m/s. Figure 16 presents the geometries of two models. Figure 17 give the computed flow fields.

Fig.14 Comparisons of measured and computed SPL spectrum

Predicted overall shape and magnitude of the SPL spectrum is well compared with experiment data. The two oscillations modes are reflected accurately. The computational accuracy of frequency and magnitude are in 7% to 10% in comparison with measurement. Computed vorticity distributions of different stages are shown in Figure 15. The cavity flow is characterized by violent ejections of vortices from the cavity with length scales comparable with the cavity dimensions rather than the thickness of the boundary layer. The ejected vortex admits the free stream fluid to enter the cavity impinging on the downstream face of the cavity and triggers another vortex at the cavity leading edge. The vortex grows in the cavity until it completely fills the cavity and again gets ejected and
Fig.16 3-D cavity models

Fig.17 Computed flow field

247

of noise measurements and calculations are presented in Figs. 18-19. The trend in computed result is consistent with that in measurement. The spectrum is decreased rapidly as the frequency increases. For sound pressure magnitude, the difference of computed results and test data is 2dB~8dB. The comparison between the prediction and the model test measurement shows fairly good agreement. It indicates that the complex flow field and flow induced noise of cavity can be well simulated, and the simulation method for flow induced noise of cavity is established.
Fig.18 Validation of predicted flow induced noise of model A

4 CONCLUSIONS
The prediction of flow-induced noise is an important and complex issue in fluid-dynamic acoustics field. The hybrid CFD/acoustic methods or CAA methods are refined for the acoustic field prediction of cavity flow. In the paper, numerical studies for this problem is performed by large eddy simulation and FW-H acoustic analogy. It shows that the numerical prediction method in the paper is credible. It is obvious that more work is needed in this area. The cavity noise prediction algorithms must resolve the shear layer behavior well. As such, the prediction of this noise becomes more feasible with continued advance in computational capabilities. The development of computational models also requires excellent experimental data. The experimental cavity flow research should be dominated by the studies of near-field flow oscillation and far-field noise. REFERENCES
[1] Ching Y L. Computation of Low Speed Cavity Noise[C]. 42nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Nevada, U.S.A., 2004. (AIAA20040680) [2] Mendonca F, Allen R, Charentenay J, et al. CFD prediction of narrowband cavity acoustics at M=0.85[G]. AIAA Paper 2003-3303. 2003. [3] Allen R, Mendonca F. DES validations of cavity acoustics over the subsonic to supersonic range[G]. AIAA Paper 2004-2862. 2004. [4] Lai H, Luo K H. Large-Eddy Simulation and Control of Cavity Aeroacoustics[C]. Conference on Turbulence and Interactions TI2006, Porquerolles, France, May 29 June 2, 2006. [5] Chen X X, Sandham N D, Zhang X. Cavity Flow Noise Predictions[R]. Report No. AFM-07/05, University of Southampton, February 2007. [6] Lafon P, Caillaud S, Devos J P, et al. Aeroacoustical coupling in a ducted shallow cavity and fluid/structure effects on a steam line. Journal of Fluids and structures, 2003, 18: 695-713.

Fig.19 Validation of predicted flow induced noise of model B

Fig.20 Vorticity distribution of body with cavity

The computational domain is discretized using 3.75 million hexahedral cells for model A and 3.41 million hexahedral cells for model B. The computed vorticity distributions are shown in figure 20. The comparison