4.5 Article

Investigation of vortical and near-acoustic fields in three-stream jets

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 150, 期 5, 页码 3329-3342

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/10.0006791

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Phase II SBIR [80NSSC19C0089]
  2. Balsells Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigates the connections between the vortical and near-acoustic fields of three-stream, high-speed jets to develop linear surface-based models for noise source. Two triple-stream jets are used in the study, one coaxial and the other with eccentric tertiary flow to suppress noise in preferred directions.
The connections between the vortical and near-acoustic fields of three-stream, high-speed jets are investigated for the ultimate purpose of developing linear surface-based models for the noise source. Those models would be informed by low-cost, Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) computations of the flow field. The study uses two triple-stream jets, one is coaxial and the other has eccentric tertiary flow that yields noise suppression in preferred directions. Large eddy simulations (LES) validate the RANS-based models for the convective velocity U-c of the noise-generating turbulent eddies. In addition, the LES results help define a radiator surface on which the jet noise source model would be prescribed. The radiator surface is located near the boundary between the rotational and irrotational fields and defined as the surface on which the U-c distribution, obtained from the space-time correlations of the pressure, matches that inferred from the RANS model. The edge of the mean vorticity field is nearly coincident with the radiator surface, which suggests a RANS-based criterion for locating this surface. The two-dimensional space-time correlations show how the asymmetry of the tertiary stream and the resulting thicker low-speed flow weakens the generation of acoustic disturbances from the vortical field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据