4.7 Article

Benefits of curved serrations on broadband trailing-edge noise reduction

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOUND AND VIBRATION
卷 400, 期 -, 页码 167-177

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2017.04.007

关键词

trailing-edge serration; turbulent boundary-layer trailing-edge; noise; aeroacoustics; noise reduction

资金

  1. Siemens Wind Power A/S, Brande, Denmark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Far-field noise and flow field over a novel curved trailing-edge serration (named as iron shaped serration) are investigated. Spectra of the far-field broadband noise, directivity plots and the flow-field over the iron-shaped serration are obtained from numerical computations performed using a compressible Lattice-Boltzmann solver. The new design is compared to a conventional trailing-edge serration with a triangular geometry. Both serration geometries were retrofitted to a NACA 0018 airfoil at zero degree angle of attack. The iron-shaped geometry is found to reduce far-field broadband noise of approximately 2 dB more than the conventional sawtooth serration for chord-based Strouhal numbers St(c) < 15. At higher frequencies, the far-field broadband noise for the two serration geometries has comparable intensity. Near-wall velocity distribution and surface pressure fluctuations show that their intensity and spectra are independent on the serration geometry, but a function of the streamwise location. It is found that the larger noise reduction achieved by the iron-shaped trailing-edge serration is due to the mitigation of the scattered noise at the root. This effect is obtained by mitigating the interaction between the two sides of the serration, by delaying toward the tip both the outward (i.e., the tendency of the flow to deviate from the centerline to the edge of the serration) and the downward (i.e., the tendency of the flow to merge between the upper and bottom side of the serration) flow motions present at the root of the sawtooth. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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