4.5 Article

Large-eddy simulations of chevron jet flows with noise predictions

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEAT AND FLUID FLOW
Volume 30, Issue 6, Pages 1067-1079

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2009.05.002

Keywords

Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations; Implicit large-eddy simulation; Jet noise; Chevron nozzle; Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings integral

Funding

  1. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [GR/T06629/01]
  2. Royal Society Industry Fellowship Scheme
  3. EPSRC [EP/F005954/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [GR/T06629/01, EP/F005954/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hybrid large-eddy type simulations for chevron nozzle jet flows are performed at Mach 0.9 and Re = 1.03 x 10(6). Without using any subgrid scale model (SGS), the numerical approach applied in the present study is essentially implicit large-eddy simulation (ILES). However, a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) solution is patched into the near wall region. This makes the overall solution strategy hybrid RANS-ILES. The disparate turbulence length scales, implied by these different modeling approaches, are matched using a Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The complex geometry features of the chevron nozzles are fully meshed. With numerical fidelity in mind, high quality, hexahedral multi-block meshes of 12.5 x 10(6) cells are used. Despite the modest meshes, the novel RANS-ILES approach shows encouraging performance. Computed mean and second-order fluctuating quantities of the turbulent near field compare favorably with measurements. The radiated far-field sound is predicted using the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FW-H) surface integral method. Encouraging agreement of the predicted far-field sound directivity and spectra with measurements is obtained. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available