4.7 Article

Large eddy simulations of acoustic-flow interaction at an orifice plate

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOUND AND VIBRATION
卷 345, 期 -, 页码 162-177

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2015.02.012

关键词

-

资金

  1. KTH Competence Center for Gas Exchange (CCGEx)
  2. Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing via PDC [SNIC 001-11-104]
  3. Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing via High Performance Computing Center North (HPC2N) [SNIC 001-11-59]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The scattering of plane waves by an orifice plate with a strong bias flow, placed in a circular or square duct, is studied through large eddy simulations and dynamic mode decomposition. The acoustic flow interaction is illustrated, showing that incoming sound waves at a Strouhal number of 0.43 trigger a strong axisymmetric flow structure in the orifice in the square duct, and interact with a sell sustained axisymmetric oscillation in the circular duct orifice. These structures then generate a strong sound, increasing the acoustic energy at the frequency of the incoming wave. The structure triggered in the square duct is weaker than that present in the circular duct, but stronger than structures triggered by waves at other frequencies. Comparing the scattering matrix with measurements, there is a good agreement. However, the results are found to be sensitive to the inflow, where the self sustained oscillation in the circular duct simulation is an artefact of an axisymmetric, undisturbed inflow. This illustrates a problem with using an undisturbed inflow for studying vortex sound effects, and can be of interest when considering musical instruments, where the aim is to get maximum amplification of specific tones. Further, it illustrates that at the frequency where an amplification of acoustic energy is found for the orifice plate, the flow has a natural instability, which is suppressed by non-axisymmetry and incoming disturbances. (C) 2015 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