8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
1/248
Large Eddy Simulation of Sound Generation by Turbulent Reacting andNonreacting Shear Flows
Alireza Najafi-Yazdi
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Mechanical Engineering
McGill University
Montreal,Quebec
December 2011
A dissertation submitted to McGill University in partial fullfilment of therequirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Copyright c
2011 by Alireza Najafi-Yazdi
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
2/248
To my mother, Sharhzad
ii
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
3/248
ABSTRACT
The objective of the present study was to investigate the mechanisms of sound
generation by subsonic jets. Large eddy simulations were performed along with
bandpass filtering of the flow and sound in order to gain further insight into the role
of coherent structures in subsonic jet noise generation.
A sixth-order compact scheme was used for spatial discretization of the fully
compressible Navier-Stokes equations. Time integration was performed through
the use of the standard fourth-order, explicit Runge-Kutta scheme. An implicit
low dispersion, low dissipation Runge-Kutta (ILDDRK) method was developed and
implemented for simulations involving sources of stiffness such as flows near solid
boundaries, or combustion. A surface integral acoustic analogy formulation, called
Formulation 1C, was developed for farfield sound pressure calculations. Formulation
1C was derived based on the convective wave equation in order to take into account
the presence of a mean flow. The formulation was derived to be easy to implement
as a numerical post-processing tool for CFD codes.
Sound radiation from an unheated, Mach 0.9 jet at ReD = 400, 000 was consid-
ered. The effect of mesh size on the accuracy of the nearfield flow and farfield sound
results was studied. It was observed that insufficient grid resolution in the shear layer
results in unphysical laminar vortex pairing, and increased sound pressure levels inthe farfield. Careful examination of the bandpass filtered pressure field suggested
iii
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
4/248
iv
that there are two mechanisms of sound radiation in unheated subsonic jets that
can occur in all scales of turbulence. The first mechanism is the stretching and the
distortion of coherent vortical structures, especially close to the termination of the
potential core. As eddies are bent or stretched, a portion of their kinetic energy is
radiated. This mechanism is quadrupolar in nature, and is responsible for strong
sound radiation at aft angles. The second sound generation mechanism appears to
be associated with the transverse vibration of the shear-layer interface within the
ambient quiescent flow, and has dipolar characteristics. This mechanism is believed
to be responsible for sound radiation along the sideline directions.
Jet noise suppression through the use of microjets was studied. The microjet
injection induced secondary instabilities in the shear layer which triggered the tran-
sition to turbulence, and suppressed laminar vortex pairing. This in turn resulted
in a reduction of OASPL at almost all observer locations. In all cases, the bandpass
filtering of the nearfield flow and the associated sound provides revealing details of
the sound radiation process. The results suggest that circumferential modes are sig-
nificant and need to be included in future wavepacket models for jet noise prediction.
Numerical simulations of sound radiation from nonpremixed flames were also
performed. The simulations featured the solution of the fully compressible Navier-
Stokes equations. Therefore, sound generation and radiation were directly captured
in the simulations. A thickened flamelet model was proposed for nonpremixed flames.
The model yields artificially thickened flames which can be better resolved on the
computational grid, while retaining the physically currect values of the total heat
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
5/248
v
released into the flow. Combustion noise has monopolar characteristics for low fre-
quencies. For high frequencies, the sound field is no longer omni-directional. Major
sources of sound appear to be located in the jet shear layer within one potential core
length from the jet nozzle.
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
6/248
Résumé
L’objectif de cette étude est d’obtenir la meilleure compréhension des mécanismes
de géneration de bruit par des jet subsoniques. Cette étude est basée sur simulations
aux grandes échelles de jets réactifs et sans réactifs.
Des calculs numériques employant des schéme compacts de sixiéme ordre. L’integration
temporelle fut éxéciteé à l’aide de schéme Runge-Kutta de de quatrième ordre. Des
schéme à faible dispersion et dissipation numérique. Un formulation intégrale basée
sur les analogies acoustiques fut développées pour la prédiction du champ acous-
tique lointain pour les sources et observateure en mouvement dans un fluide avec
vitesse uniforme. La formulation fut implémentée à l’aide d’algorithmes facilitant
l’implémentation pour le traitement de données d’écoulement en haute performance
utilisant des outils de simiulation á grande échelle.
Les champs sonore produit par un jet turbulent non-réactif avec nombre de Mach
de 0.9, et un nombre de Reynolds ReD = 400, 000 fut étudié. L’effect de la taille
du maillage sur la précision de l’écoulement en champs proche et e champs sonore
loin de source fut analysé. La sous-résolution de la couche decisaillement à la sortie
du jet méne à l’apparition de structures cohérentes et forte radiation qui no sort pas
physiquement réalistes. Deux mécanismes principaux de génération sonore par jets
subsoniques furent identifiés.
vi
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
7/248
vii
Le premier mécanisme est l’étirement et la distorsion de structures tourbillon-
naires cohérentes, en particulier prés de la fin du coere potentiel. Ce mécanisme
est quadripolaire, et émet principalement vers l’arriére du jet dans la direction de
l’écoulement. Le seconde mécanisme semble être constitué de vibration transversale
de la couche de cisaillement en réponse á la présemce de structures cohérentes dans
la jet. Semblable à la radiation d’une plaque à bonds finis, la contribution de ce
méchanisme est dipolaire et domine la champs sonore dans la direction transversale,
perpendiculaire au jet.
L’utilisation de plusieurs microjet fut investiguée pour la réduction du bruit.
L’injection à l’aide de microjets précipite la transition à la turbulence, favorisent le
mélange et la destrcutction de structures cohérentes de grande échelle.
Un filtrage en bandes de étroites fut effectué. Ce traitement des données numérique
permet de visualiser les relations complexes entre l’écoulement et les onds sonores
émises. Les résultats démontrent l’importance de modes circumférenciele, ce qui a
des conśequenecs pour les modiles dits de paquets d’onde pour la preédiction du
bruit du jet.
Des simulation numériques d’écoulement et champs sonore d’une flame sans pré-
mélange furent aussi éxécutées. Les simulations incluent encore une fois l’écoulement
et le champ sonore associé, obtenus directement des équations de Navier Stokes com-
pressibles. Un modèle flammelette épaissie fut proposé que donne flammes épaissies
artificiellement qui peuvent être mieux résolus sur le maillage. Le bruit de combus-
tion a des caractéristiques monopolaires aux basses fréquences. Principales sources
de bruit semblent être situé dans la couche de cisaillement.
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
8/248
Acknowledgements
The undertaking of the work presented in this thesis would have not been pos-
sible without the support, guidance, and encouragement of my advisor, Prof. Luc
Mongeau. His patience, diligence, willingness, and enthusiasm to explore new ideas
made my doctoral studies a wonderful experience. His being a mentor passes way
beyond daily research matters.
I am also thankful to Prof. Stephane Moreau and Dr. Marlene Sanjose for not
only our academic discussions, but also for their friendship. Sincere thanks also go
to Prof. Jeffrey Berghtorson. A great teacher and a true mentor, he has always been
generous with his time for me. I am also thankful to Prof. Siva Nadarajah who
kindly served on my thesis advisory committee.
Special thanks go to Prof. Thierry Poinsot, and Dr. Benedicte Cuenot who
made my visit to CERFACS possible. They were very generous with their time for
my various questions on turbulent combustion modeling. Their expertises and kind-ness to share their knowledge helped me to develop a better understanding in the
field of turbulent combustion.
I am also grateful to Dr. Ali Uzun, Dr. Christophe Bogey, and Prof. Christophe
Bailly for sharing their jet results and for their useful comments.
I would like to thank my friends and colleagues, Dr. Phoi-Tack (Charlie) Lew,
Kaveh Habibi, Hani Bakhshaei, and others who provided a fun and stimulating envi-
ronment during the course of my studies at McGill. I am also grateful to my family
for their unconditional love and support.
viii
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
9/248
Financial support from McGill University, through the McGill Engineering Doc-
toral Award (MEDA) and Lorne Trottier Fellowship, is gratefully acknowledged.
My stay at CERFACS was made possible through the financial support of the EC-
COMET program and the Marie Curie Fellowship. Financial support from the Exa
Corporation, Green Aviation Research & Development Network (GARDN), Pratt
& Whitney Canada, and the National Science and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC) of Canada is also gratefully acknowledged.
The computational resources were provided by Compute/Calcul Canada through
the CLUMEQ and the RQCHP High Performance Computing Consortia.
ix
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
10/248
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 Background on Unheated Jet Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.3 Background on Reacting Jet Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141.5 Organization of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.6 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
I Nonreacting Flows 20
2 Governing Equations and Numerical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1 Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222.2 Approximate Deconvolution Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.3 Spatial Discretization Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.4 Spatial Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282.5 Temporal Integration Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302.6 Nonreflective Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312.7 Sponge Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322.8 Inflow Forcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322.9 LES Code Parallelization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3 Convective Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings Equation: Formulation 1C . . . . 36
3.1 Originial Ffowcs Williams - Hawkings Acoustic Analogy . . . . . . 363.2 Convective FW-H Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3 Formulation 1C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453.3.1 Thickness Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453.3.2 Loading Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
x
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
11/248
3.3.3 The Special Case of “Wind-tunnel” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513.4 Numerical Implementation and Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.4.1 Stationary monopole in a moving medium . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.4.2 Stationary dipole in a moving medium . . . . . . . . . . . . 543.4.3 Rotating monopole in a moving medium . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4 Large Eddy Simulations of an Isothermal High Speed Subsonic Jet . . . . 60
4.1 Computational Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614.2 Computational Grid Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.2.1 Grid-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624.2.2 Grid-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624.2.3 Grid-380 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634.2.4 Grid Resolution and Subgrid Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.3 Nearfield Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664.4 Farfield Sound Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5 Sound Generation by Subsonic Jets: A Band-Pass Filtering Study . . . . 82
5.1 Band-Pass Filtering Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825.2 Band-Pass Filtering of Pressure Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835.3 Sound Generation Mechanism in Subsonic Jets . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6 Large Eddy Simulation of Jet Noise Suppression by Impinging Microjets 94
6.1 Computational Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.2 Nearfield Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966.3 Farfield Acoustics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986.4 Bandpass Filter Visualization of Acoustic Nearfield . . . . . . . . 100
II Reacting Flows 114
7 Reacting Flow Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.1 Governing Equations for Reacting Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1167.2 Simplifying assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7.2.1 Diffusion Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7.2.2 Unit Lewis Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197.2.3 Buoyancy effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.3 Mixture Fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
xi
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
12/248
7.4 Flamelet Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207.5 Flamelet/Progress Variable Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1227.6 The flamelet code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.7 Flamelet Modeling for Compressible Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1237.8 Thickened Flamelet Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247.9 Thickened Flamelet vs. PDF modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1267.10 Sound Generation by Nonpremixed Flames . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1287.11 Sound Generation by a Reacting Mixing Layer . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.11.1 Computational Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1307.11.2 Numerical results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.12 Sound Generation by a Nonpremixed Jet Flame . . . . . . . . . . 1357.12.1 Computational setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1357.12.2 Nearfield results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1377.12.3 Farfield Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
8 Conclusions & Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
8.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1548.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
8.2.1 Source location identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1578.2.2 Heated jets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1588.2.3 Effect of chevrons and lobed mixers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1588.2.4 Wavepacket models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1588.2.5 Thickened flamelet model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1588.2.6 Combustion noise models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
8.2.7 Extension of Formulation 1C for diffraction effects . . . . . 1 5 9
III Appendices 160
A A Low-Dispersion and Low-Dissipation Implicit Runge-Kutta Scheme . . 161
A.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161A.2 Dispersion and dissipation of RK schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162A.3 ILDDRK scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165A.4 Numerical Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
A.4.1 Linear Wave Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169A.4.2 Nonlinear Euler equations: One-Dimensional Case . . . . . 1 7 1
A.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
xii
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
13/248
B Systematic definition of progress variables and Intrinsically Low-Dimensional,Flamelet Generated Manifolds for chemistry tabulation . . . . . . . . 177
B.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177B.2 Principal Component Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
B.2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179B.2.2 Principal direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180B.2.3 Singular Value Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
B.3 IL-FGM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183B.4 Numerical Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
B.4.1 Flamelets with a single-progress variable . . . . . . . . . . 186B.4.2 Flamelets with multi-progress variables . . . . . . . . . . . 187
B.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
xiii
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
14/248
LIST OF TABLES
4–1 Reported LES of sound radiation from SP07 jet. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4–2 Normalized cut-off wavenumbers for the grid spacing in the jet shear
layer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4–3 Simulation time steps and runtime. The term AFTT denotes acoustic
flow-through time and is equal to 32 D j/U j. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5–1 Parameters used in the design of the bandpass filters. The frequencies
are cast in nondimensional form as the Strouhal numbers, f D j/U j. . 84
A–1 Optimal coefficients for the fourth-order, low-dispersion, low-dissipation,
implicit Rung-Kutta scheme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
A–2 The L2 norm of the error between the numerical results and the exact
solution at t = 300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
A–3 Error between the numerical results and the exact solution at t = 300
for different CFL numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
xiv
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
15/248
LIST OF TABLES xv
B–1 The weight coefficients of each species, as obtained from PCA, to define
the progress variable for a premixed C H 4-air flame at φ = 0.85. The
results are shown to the fourth decimal. The entries for species with
significant weight are in bold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
B–2 The weight coefficients of each species, as obtained from PCA, to define
the progress variable for a premixed CH 4-air flame at φ = 1.9. The
results are shown to the fourth decimal. The entries for species with
significant weight are in bold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
B–3 The weight coefficients of each species, as obtained from PCA, to
define the first progress variable, c1, for a premixed CH 4-air flame
at φ ∈ [0.6, 1.5]. The results are shown to the fourth decimal. Theentries for species with significant weight are in bold. . . . . . . . . 198
B–4 The weight coefficients of each species, as obtained from PCA, to
define the second progress variable, c2, for a premixed CH 4-air flame
at φ ∈ [0.6, 1.5]. The results are shown to the fourth decimal.Theentries for species with significant weight are in bold. . . . . . . . . 199
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
16/248
LIST OF FIGURES
1–1 Schematic of jet flow field. The jet plume is illustrated with contours of
vorticity (hot color scheme) superimposed on the acoustic pressure
(gray-scale color scheme). Microphone locations are commonly
specified by their distance, R, from the jet nozzle, and polar angle,
Θ, with respect to the jet centerline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1–2 Wavepacket concept for jet flows. This figure shows how the existence
of coherent structures results in a wavepacket pressure distribution
in the shear layer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1–3 A one-dimensional wavepacket illustration in (a) the physical and (b)
the frequency domain. The gray area corresponds to the range of
radiating wavenumbers. The wavenumber corresponding to sonic
propagation is denoted by ka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1–4 Similarity spectra suggested by Tam et al. (1996) for turbulent
mixing noise: solid line: large-scale similarity spectrum ; dashed
line: fine-scale similarity spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1–5 Sound pressure spectra measured by Bogey et al. (2007) at R = 100D
of a subsonic jet (M j = 0.9); solid line: measurements at Θ = 30◦;
dashed line: measurements at Θ = 90
◦
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192–1 The seven-point overlap at the interface between two adjacent blocks. 35
xvi
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
17/248
LIST OF FIGURES xvii
2–2 The computation time needed to simulate 30 time steps in a jet flow
simulation vs. increasing number of processors. . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3–1 Flow over a rigid body whose motion is defined by f (x, t). . . . . . . 57
3–2 Farfield directivity pattern of a point monopole, measured at r = 340l,
radiating in (a) a flow at M 0 = 0.5 , and (b) a flow at M 0 = 0.85
measured at r = 340l; solid line: exact solution; symbols: FW-H
code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3–3 Nearfield directivity pattern of a monopole, measured at r = 5l,
radiating in (a) a flow at M 0 = 0.5 , and (b) a flow at M 0 = 0.85
(test case 1); solid line: exact solution; symbols: FW-H code. . . . 58
3–4 The directivity pattern of a point dipole, measured at r = 30l,
radiating in (a) a medium at rest, and (b) a flow at M 0 = 0.5
moving in the positive x1-direction (θ = 0 [deg]); solid line: exact
solution; symbols: FW-H code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3–5 The schematic of a rotating monopole in a moving medium. . . . . . 59
3–6 Time history of the sound pressure generated by a rotating monopole
in a moving medium (test case); (a) at (2l, 0, 0) where solid line
corresponds to the exact solution and symbols represnt the results
obtained from the FW-H code; (b) comparison between the results
at (2l, 0, 0), θ = 0[deg], and (−2l, 0, 0), θ = 180[deg]. . . . . . . . . 594–1 Grid stretching for Grid-30; left: axial direction; right: transverse
direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4–2 Grid-30 shown in x-y plane; every 4th node is shown. . . . . . . . . . 72
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
18/248
LIST OF FIGURES xviii
4–3 Grid stretching for Grid-380; left: axial direction; right: transverse
direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4–4 Grid-380 shown in x-y plane; every 6th node is shown. . . . . . . . . 73
4–5 Variation of the attenuation due to molecular viscosity and LES filter
with wavenumber, k. In (a), solid line: numerical filter; dashed
line: molecular viscosity (Grid-30); dashed-dotted line: molecular
viscosity (Grid-88); dotted line: molecular viscosity (Grid-380); the
symbol ∆ corresponds to the lateral grid spacing at r = D j/2. In
(b), solid line: molecular viscosity; dashed line: LES filter (Grid-
30); dashed-dotted line: LES filter (Grid-88); dotted line: LES
filter (Grid-380). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4–6 Snapshots of vorticity field superimposed on acoustic pressure; (a):
Grid-30; (b): Grid-88; (c): Grid-380. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4–7 Contours of normalized mean axial velocity, < U > /U j, in the x-y
plane; (a): Grid-30; (b): Grid-88; (c): Grid-380. . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4–8 Contours of normalized mean axial Reynolds stress, < σxx >=< uu >
/U 2 j , in the x-y plane; (a): Grid-30; (b): Grid-88; (c): Grid-380. . . 77
4–9 Variations of (a) centerline mean axial velocity, and (b) axial tur-
bulence intensity. Solid line: LES (Grid-380); dashed line: LES
(Grid-88); dashed-dotted line (Grid-30); : LES of Bogey et al.
(2011); : Arakeri et al. (2003); : Lau et al. (1979). . . . . . . . . 78
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
19/248
LIST OF FIGURES xix
4–10 Inverse of mean streamwise velocity along the centerline normalized
by the inflow jet velocity. Legend: solid line, eq. (4.7); , Arakeri
et al. (2003); , LES (Grid-380). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4–11 The Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings surface setup for farfield sound pre-
diction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4–12 Sound pressure spectra obtained at 52D j from the jet nozzle: (a) at
Θ = 30◦ ; (b) at Θ = 90◦; solid line: LES (Grid-380); dashed-line:
LES (Grid-30); :Bogey et al. (2007); :Tanna (1977). . . . . . . . 80
4–13 Directivity of overall sound pressure level (OASPL) in [dB] at 52D j
from the jet nozzle; (a): LES (Grid-30); (b): LES (Grid-380).
Legend: •, LES with Grid-30; , LES (unfiltered) with Grid-380; , LES (filtered) with Grid-380; ,Bogey et al. (2007); ,
Mollo-Christensen et al. (1964); , Lush (1971). . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5–1 The magnitude response, in dB, of the one-third-octave bandpass
filter with center frequency equivalent to Stc = f cD j/U j = 0.4.
This frequency band corresponds to S t = f D j/U j ∈ [0.36, 0.45]. . . 885–2 The magnitude response, in dB, of the one-third-octave bandpass
filter with center frequency equivalent to Stc = f cD j/U j = 4. This
frequency band corresponds to S t = f D j/U j ∈ [3.56, 4.48]. . . . . 885–3 Snapshots of the vorticity field superimposed on the acoustic pressure;
(a): Unfitered field; (b): bandpass filtered around Stc = 0.4; (c):
bandpass filtered around Stc = 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
20/248
LIST OF FIGURES xx
5–4 Snapshots of the vorticity field superimposed on the bandpass filtered
acoustic pressure; The band-center frequency was S tc = f D j/U j =
0.4; snapshots are shown in sequence with a time difference of
∆t = 0.84D j/U j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5–5 Wavepackets and radiated sound obtained from the low-frequency
bandpass filtering; (a): pressure and vorticity field shown together;
(b): pressure field only. The potential core length, L, and dominant
radiation directions are also shown with arrows for reference. . . . . 91
5–6 Wavepackets obtained from the bandpass filtering of vorticity and
pressure fields; the color scheme corrosponds to bandpass filtered
vorticity field while the gray scale color scheme corrosponds to the
bandpass-filtered pressure contours; (a): low-frequency passband;
(b): high-frequency passband. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5–7 Directivity of passband overall sound pressure level (OASPL) in
[dB] at R = 52D j ; Legend: , low-frequency radiated sound; ,
high-frequency radiated sound. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6–1 Contours of instantaneous vorticity superimposed on the pressure field
(gray-scale colors); (a) Base round jet; (b) with Microjet setup.
The nozzle is shown only schematically here for comparison, and
was not included in the computational domain. . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6–2 Centerline distribution of (a) mean axial velocity and (b) axial
turbulence intensity for the base round jet; solid line: present LES;
: Zaman (1986), : Lau et al. (1979). : Arakeri et al. (2003). . 102
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
21/248
LIST OF FIGURES xxi
6–3 Inverse of mean streamwise velocity along the centerline normalized
by the inflow jet velocity; solid line: LES of the base round jet;
dashed dotted line: linear regression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6–4 Centerline distribution of mean axial velocity; solid line: base round
jet; dashed dotted line: with microjets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6–5 Contours of normalized mean axial velocity; (a) Base round jet; (b)
with microjets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6–6 The three-dimensional spatial evolution of the mean flow velocity
with streamwise distance in the presence of microjets. . . . . . . . 105
6–7 The effect of microjets on the mean streamwise velocity at 1D from
the nozzle exit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6–8 Contours of normalized axial Reynolds stress, σxx = ux u
x
U 2j; (a) base
round jet, (b) with microjets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6–9 The streamwise distribution of peak (a) axial turbulence intensity
and (b) radial turbulence intensity; solid line: base round jet ;
dashed-dotted line: with microjets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6–10 Measured and predicted far-field noise directivity; 1: base round jet
(present LES); 2: with microjets (present LES); 3: base round jet
(Bogey et al., 2007); 4: base round jet (Alkislar et al., 2007); 5:
with microjets (Alkislar et al., 2007). The data are scaled for a
common distance of R = 100D j. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
22/248
LIST OF FIGURES xxii
6–11 The Power Spectral Density (PSD) of the farfield acoustic sound
pressure; (a) radiation angle Θ = 30◦; (b) Θ = 90◦. The data are
reported for a common distance of R = 100D j. . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6–12 The band-pass filtered acoustic nearfield of the base setup; the
frequency band corresponds to St = 0.225 to St = 0.375; (a)
tU jDj
= 438; (b) tU jDj
= 443; (c) tU jDj
= 448; (d) tU jDj
= 453. The arrows
correspond to dominant radiation directions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6–13 The band-pass filtered acoustic nearfield of the base setup; the
frequency band corresponds to St = 0.925 to St = 1.075; (a)
tU jDj
= 438; (b) tU jDj
= 443; (c) tU jDj
= 448; (d) tU jDj
= 453. . . . . . . . . 111
6–14 The band-pass filtered acoustic nearfield of the microjet setup; the
frequency band corresponds to St = 0.225 to St = 0.375 (a)
tU jDj
= 272; (b) tU jDj
= 302; (c) tU jDj
= 332; (d) tU jDj
= 362. . . . . . . . . 112
6–15 The band-pass filtered acoustic nearfield of the microjet setup; the
frequency band corresponds to St = 0.925 to St = 1.075 (a)
tU jDj
= 272; (b) tU jDj
= 302; (c) tU jDj
= 332; (d) tU jDj
= 362. . . . . . . . . 113
7–1 Solution of the steady flamelet equations for partially premixed
CH 4/air combustion; the flame condition corresponds to the ex-
periment of Cabra et al. (2005). (a): S-shaped curve showing
the variation of the temperature at stoichiometry as a function of
stoichiometric scalar dissipation rate, χst; (b): the flamelet solution
in Z space at χst = 100s−1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
23/248
LIST OF FIGURES xxiii
7–2 A schematic of the effect of flamelet thickening; left: the original
flamelet; right: the thickened flamelet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7–3 The heat-release source term, ω̇T obtained from solving the flamelet
equations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
7–4 The heat-release source term, ω̇T at χst = 0.6; solid line: original
flamelet solution as shown in Fig. 7–3; dashed line: thickened flamelet. 142
7–5 Vorticity contours of a nonreactive, naturally developing mixing layer
at Reδω,0 = 1200. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7–6 Vorticity contours of the reacting mixing layer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7–7 Mixture fraction contours for the reacting mixing layer.Pure fuel
corresponds to Z = 1, while pure oxidizer corresponds to Z = 0. . . 144
7–8 Mixture fraction contours for the reacting mixing layer.Pure fuel
corresponds to Z = 1, while pure oxidizer corresponds to Z = 0. . . 144
7–9 Temperature contours and dilatation field for the reacting mixing layer.145
7–10 Locations of the virtual probes for acoustic pressure measurements. . 146
7–11 The Fourier transform of the pressure fluctuation, pac = p/p∞ − 1,measured at R = 70δ ω,0, from x = 92δ ω,0, and y = 0; solid line:
Θ = 10 [deg]; dashed line: Θ = −10 [deg]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1477–12 The Fourier transform of the pressure fluctuation, pac = p/p∞ − 1,
measured at R = 70δ ω,0, from x = 92δ ω,0, and y = 0; solid line:
Θ = 50 [deg]; dashed line: Θ = −50 [deg]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
24/248
LIST OF FIGURES xxiv
7–13 The Fourier transform of the pressure fluctuation, pac = p/p∞ − 1,measured at R = 70δ ω,0, from x = 92δ ω,0, and y = 0; solid line:
Θ = 90 [deg]; dashed line: Θ = −90 [deg]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1487–14 The Fourier transform of the pressure fluctuation, pac = p/p∞ − 1,
measured at R = 70δ ω,0, from x = 92δ ω,0, and y = 0; solid line:
Θ = 140 [deg]; dashed line: Θ = −140 [deg]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1487–15 The directivity of radiated sound pressure level measured at R =
70δ ω,0, from x = 92δ ω,0, and y = 0; (a): at frequency f 0; (b): at
frequency 4f 0. The ambient pressure was assumed to be atmospheric.149
7–16 Instantaneous snapshots of jet flame flow field; (a): contours of
temperature (hot color scheme) superimposed on the acoustic
pressure (gray-scale color scheme); (b): mixture fraction. . . . . . . 150
7–17 Mean and rms statistics of (a) axial velocity, (b) mixture fraction,
and (c) temperature along the jet flame centerline. . . . . . . . . . 151
7–18 Sound pressure level spectra at a distance of R = 100D j from the jet
flame nozzle; : radiation angle Θ = 30◦; : radiation angle Θ = 90◦.152
7–19 Directivity of overall sound pressure level (OASPL) in [dB] at 100D j
from the jet nozzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7–20 Temperature field superimposed on the bandpass-filtered pressure field
of the jet flame; (a): center frequency corresponds to StD = 0.4;
(b): center frequency corresponds to StD = 1; (c): center frequency
corresponds to StD = 4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
25/248
LIST OF FIGURES xxv
A–1 Amplification factor (a) and difference in phase of the Runge-Kutta
schemes: •: the new ILDDRK scheme, , standard explicit RK4;
, SDIRK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
A–2 (a) Dissipation and (b) dispersion error of the Runge-Kutta schemes
in logarithmic scales: •: the new ILDDRK scheme, , standardexplicit RK4; , SDIRK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
A–3 Numerical solution of eq. (A.29) at t = 300; (a) CFL=0.5; (b)
CFL=1.0; (c) CFL=1.5; (d) CFL=2.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
A–4 Optional caption for list of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
B–1 A schematic profile of the mass fraction of a species in a one-
dimensional freely propagating flame. The flame is sampled at n
locations in the physical domain to construct the data set. . . . . . 1 9 1
B–2 The structure of a freely propagating flame in a CH 4-air mixture for
φ = 0.85, T 0 = 473 [K], and P = 1 [atm] in the physical space; solid
line: physical space solution; symbols: solution retrieved from the
previously generated flamelet table. (a): temperature; (b): CO2
mass fraction; (c): CO mass fraction; (d): OH mass fraction. . . . 194
B–3 The solution of the flame, shown in Fig. B–2 versus the progress
variable; solid line: physical space solution; symbols: flamelet
table. (a): temperature; (b): CO2 mass fracion; (c): CO mass
fracion; (d): OH mass fraction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
26/248
LIST OF FIGURES xxvi
B–4 The structure of a freely propagating flame in a CH 4-air mixture for
φ = 1.9, T 0 = 473 [K], and P = 1 [atm] in the physical space;
solid line: physical space solution; circles: solution retrieved from
the previously generated flamelet table using the new definition of
progress variable; triangles: solution retrieved from the previously
generated flamelet table using c = Y CO2 + Y CO + Y H 2O + Y H 2. (a):
temperature; (b): CO2 mass fraction; (c): CO mass fraction; (d):
OH mass fraction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
B–5 The temperature distribution in the progress variable space; solid
lines: physical space solution for various equivalence ratios ; sym-
bols: interpolated values for equivalence ratio φ = 1.15. . . . . . . . 197
B–6 The structure of a freely propagating flame in a CH 4-air mixture for
φ = 1.15, T 0 = 473 [K], and P = 1 [atm] in the physical space; solid
line: physical space solution; symbols: solution retrieved from the
previously generated flamelet table. (a): temperature; (b): CO2
mass fraction; (c): CO mass fraction; (d): OH mass fraction. . . . 200
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
27/248
NOMENCLATURE
Roman Symbols
B Jet decay rate parameter; see eq. (4.7) on page 68
D j Jet diameter
Dk Diffusivity of species k
DT Thermal diffusivity
Dµ Microjet diamater
Da Damköhler number
F, G, H Inviscid flux vectors in the Navier-Stokes equations
Fv, Gv, Hv Viscous flux vectors in the Navier-Stokes equations
F r Froud number
G(x, y; ∆) LES filter function; see eq. (2.1) on page 21
g Body force vector
H (f ) Heaviside function
I a Acoustic intensity
J Jacobian of coordinate transformation
k Waveknumber
Le Lewis number
M Mach number
xxvii
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
28/248
NOMENCLATURE xxviii
P r Prandtl number
Q Vector of flow conserved variables
q Heat flux vector
R Distance from the jet nozzle exit; see Fig. 1–1 on page 17
R Universal gas constant
R Ideal Gas constant
Re Reynolds number
S Entropy
S ij Strain rate tensor
St Strouhal number
T Temperature
T ij Lighthill’s stress tensor
t Time
U j Jet velocity
u = [u v w]T , Velocity vector
(u,v,w) Velocity components physical coordinates
V k,j j-component of diffusion velocity of species k ; see eq. (7.2) on page 117
x = [x y z ]T , spatial coordinate vector
Y Species mass fraction
Z Mixture fractionZ 2 Residual scalar variance of mixture fraction
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
29/248
NOMENCLATURE xxix
Greek Symbols
αf Filtering parameter; see eq. (2.36) on page 29
∆ Grid spacing
∆0 Minimum grid spacing
δ ij Kronecker delta
δ θ Shear layer momentum thickness
δ ω Shear layer vorticity thickness
εn Random parameter in forcing procedure; see eq. (2.48) on page 33
γ Specific heat ratio
Π Phillips’ Acoustic parameter; see eq. (1.6) on page 6
µ Molecular viscosity
ω Angular frequency
ω̇k Chemical source term per unit mass; see eq. (7.2) on page 117
ω̇T Chemical heat release term per unit mass; see eq. (7.2) on page 117
ρ Density
σij Shear stress tensor
σ Sponge zone damping parameter
τ e Emission time; see eq. (3.44) on page 48
Θ Emission angle; see Fig. 1–1 on page 17
χ Scalar dissipation rate; see eq. (7.15) on page 121
(ξ , η , ζ ) Generalized curvilinear coordinates
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
30/248
NOMENCLATURE xxx
(ξ x, ξ y, ξ z) Partial derivatives of ξ along physical coordinates
(ηx, ηy, ηz) Partial derivatives of η along physical coordinates
(ζ x, ζ y, ζ z) Partial derivatives of ζ along physical coordinates
Superscripts, Subscripts, and Accents
(·)0 Ambient condition
(·)∞ Freestream condition
(·) j Jet
(·)r Reference condition(·)rms Root mean square
(·)sgs Subgrid scale
(·)st Stoichiometric condition
(·) LES filtered variable, see eq. (2.1) on page (2.1)
(·) Favre-averaged quantity, see eq. (2.3) on page (2.3)(·)µ Microjet properties
< · > Reynolds averaged property
Abbreviations
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
dB Decibel
DNS Direct Numerical Simulation
FW-H Ffowcs-Williams & Hawkings
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
31/248
NOMENCLATURE 1
LES Large Eddy Simulation
LHS Left hand side
MCAAP McGill Computational Acoustic Analogy Package
NSCBC Navier-Stokes Characteristic Boundary Conditions
OASPL Overall sound pressure level
RHS Right hand side
RMS Root mean squared
SPL Sound pressure level
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
32/248
“The sensation of sound is a thing sui generis , not comparable with any of our
sensations.”
– Lord Rayleigh in The Theory of Sound
2
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
33/248
CHAPTER 1Introduction
1.1 Motivation
More than a century after the first powered flight by the Wright brothers, avia-
tion is a dominant industry and a major job creator, specially in the North American
economy. With increases in air traffic, aircraft noise has increased and become a nui-
sance for communities living close to active airports. This has led governments to
create increasingly stringent regulations for the maximum sound levels allowable dur-
ing aircraft landing and takeoff. Despite significant improvements over the past few
decades, aircraft noise remains a significant challenge. Governments and aerospace
industries have laid out plans to reduce the current aircraft noise level by 20 EPNdB1
by the year 2020 (Weasoky, 1998).
One of the most significant contributor to aircraft sound emission is the engine.The sound radiated from the propulsion system consists of fan noise, combustion/core
noise, and jet exhaust noise. The jet exhaust noise and combustion core noise are
especially significant during takeoff phase. After more than half a century, sound
generation by high speed turbulent jet flows remains one of the most recalcitrant and
challenging problems in aeroacoustics. It is widely accepted that coherent structures
1 Effective Perceived Noise level dB
3
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
34/248
1.2. BACKGROUND ON UNHEATED JET NOISE 4
play a significant role in sound generation by turbulent jets. Despite numerous
experimental and numerical studies, the details of sound generation mechanisms by
turbulent jet flows are still not well understood, and the nature of the sound sources,
especially for subsonic jets, is still the subject of debates among researchers. In the
present study, the role of coherent structures in sound radiation from jet exhaust
flows is studied. It is expected that the findings of this study be useful to describe
mechanisms of sound generation by subsonic jets, and develop new phenomenological
models.
With the introduction of high-by-pass ratio engines to reduce jet exhaust noise,
other sources such as combustion and core noise have become more prominent. Sound
radiation from nonpremixed flames is also studied in the present work.
1.2 Background and Literature Review: Nonreacting Jet Noise
The first attempt to develop a theory for jet noise was made by Sir James
Lighthill (Lighthill, 1952, 1954) who introduced the concept of acoustic analogy .
Lighthill’s idea was to recast the exact equations of motion, i.e., the conservation
of mass and momentum, as an inhomogeneous wave equation where the nonlinear
terms are moved to the right hand side (RHS) and are treated as sources of sound.
The problem of calculating the turbulence-generated sound is then equivalent to
solving the radiation of a distribution of sources into an ideal fluid at rest. Lighthill’s
inhomogeneous wave equation is
1
c
2
0
∂ 2
∂t2
− ∇2
p =
∂ 2T ij
∂xi ∂x j
, (1.1)
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
35/248
1.2. BACKGROUND ON UNHEATED JET NOISE 5
where T ij is called the Lighthill’s stress tensor and is given by
T ij = ρ ui u j + ( p − p0) − c20(ρ − ρ0) δ ij − σij . (1.2)In eq. (1.2), σij is the shear stress tensor, ui and u j are the flow velocity components,
and p0, ρ0, and c0 are the ambient pressure, density, and speed of sound, respectively.
The first term in Lighthill’s stress tensor, eq. (1.2), is commonly referred to as the
Reynolds stress, and is a significant source of sound in turbulent flows. The second
term is due to wave amplitude nonlinearity and entropy variations in the source
region. The third term represents the attenuation of sound waves due to viscous
stresses, and is usually neglected. Due to the appearance of the double divergence
operator ∂ 2
∂xi∂xj, the source of eq. (1.1) is referred to as a quadrupole with strength
T ij (Howe, 2003).
Lighthill’s analogy, eq. (1.1) implies that the problem of turbulence-generated
sound is equivalent to the radiation of a distribution of quadrupole sources with
strength T ij into a stationary, ideal fluid (Howe, 2003). Using his acoustic analogy,
Lighthill (1954) showed that the acoustic intensity, I a, of the sound radiated from a
low Mach number jet is given by
I a = K ρ2 jD
2 j U
8 j
ρ0c50R2
, (1.3)
where K is a constant of the order of 10−5.
The effect of source convection was also discussed by Lighthill (1952), and then
investigated in more details by Ffowcs Williams (1960, 1963). They showed that
the Doppler shift due to the convection of quadrupole sources results in stronger
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
36/248
1.2. BACKGROUND ON UNHEATED JET NOISE 6
radiation in the aft direction, such that the acoustic intensity is equal to
I a = K ρ2 jD
2 j U
8 j
ρ0c50 (1 − M c cos Θ)2 + lrτ rc025/2 R2, (1.4)
where M c = U c/c0 is the convective Mach number, lr is the turbulence characteristic
length scale, and τ r is the turbulence characteristic time scale. The parameters R
and Θ specify the location of the microphone, as shown in Fig. 1–1. The term
(1 − M c cos Θ) captures the effects of the Doppler shift, whereas the term lr/τ rc0takes into account the spatial extent of eddies. The latter term is of significance in
directions normal to the Mach waves, where M c cos Θ = 1.
In Lighthill’s analogy, the convection and refraction of the emitted sound waves
are neglected, and are lumped into the source term which can lead to inaccurate
predictions for high speed jet noise. Therefore, Lighthill’s analogy was subsequently
modified (Phillips, 1960; Goldstein & Howe, 1973; Lilley, 1974; Goldstein, 2003) to
take propagation effects into account by including the corresponding terms in the
wave operator.
Phillips (1960) derived a convected wave equation,
D2
D t2Π − ∂
∂xi
c2
∂ Π
∂xi
=
∂ui∂x j
∂u j∂xi
+ D
Dt
1
c p
dS
dT
− ∂
∂x j
1
ρ
∂σij∂x j
, (1.5)
where the parameter Π is given by
Π = 1
γ ln
p
p0. (1.6)
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
37/248
1.2. BACKGROUND ON UNHEATED JET NOISE 7
The first term on the RHS of eq. (1.5), ∂ui∂xj
∂uj∂xi
, represents the aerodynamic sources
due to velocity fluctuations, while the second and third terms correspond to the
effects of entropy sources and viscosity fluctuations, respectively.
In comparison to Lighthill’s analogy, eq. (1.1), a convective term has been moved
to the left-hand side of eq. (1.5). This leads to the appearance of a second-order total
time derivative in the wave operator. The spatial dependence of the speed of sound
has also been included in the wave operator to account for refraction effects.
Lilley (1974) argued that the first term on the RHS of Phillips’ equation contains
propagation effects for shear flows that should be included in the convective wave
operator on the LHS. He then derived a third-order wave equation2 ,
D
Dt
D2Π
Dt − ∂
∂xi
c2
∂ Π
∂xi
+ 2
∂u j∂xi
∂
∂x j
c2
∂ Π
∂xi
= −∂u j
∂xi
∂uk∂x j
∂ui∂xk
+ Ψ , (1.7)
where Ψ represents the effects of entropy generation and viscosity fluctuations which
are generally neglected. Some industrial jet noise prediction tools, such as General
Electric’s MGB approach (Balsa et al., 1978), are based on Lilley’s analogy.
More recently, Goldstein (2003) has proposed a generalized acoustic analogy in
which the Navier-Stokes equations are recast as a set of linearized inhomogeneous
2 Lilley’s equation, as published in the original paper (Lilley, 1974), reads slightlydifferent from eq. (1.7). In the original paper, it was assumed that the mean flow isparallel to x1 axis.
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
38/248
1.2. BACKGROUND ON UNHEATED JET NOISE 8
Euler equations with source terms representing shear-stress and energy-flux pertur-
bations. This approach requires the proper choice of a base flow around which the
Navier-Stokes equations are linearized.
Acoustic analogies have some intrinsic drawbacks. The linearization of the gov-
erning equations and the dissociation of the propagation effects (i.e. refraction of
sound waves) from the source terms are usually somewhat arbitrary without any a
priori knowledge of the sound field. This means that the source terms in acoustic
analogy theories are not necessarily true sources of sound. Moreover, the source
terms are assumed to be known, making acoustic analogies dependent on separate
experimental measurements or theoretical or numerical calculations. With the ex-
ception of Lighthill’s equation, almost all acoustic analogies involve nonlinear dif-
ferential operators which generally cannot be integrated analytically. This implies
that a quantitative prediction of the farfield sound requires the numerical solution
of the acoustic analogy partial differential equations, which can be computationally
intensive.
As an alternative to acoustic analogy theories, some researchers have investi-
gated phenomenological models based on the observation of coherent structures in
turbulent jets. Mollo-Christensen (1967) suggested a wavepacket concept to model
sound generation by coherent structures. Figure 1–2 illustrates how the existence of
coherent structures in the shear layer results in a pressure distribution that can be
modeled as a wave packet.
In supersonic jets, such coherent structures generate sound through Mach wave
radiation to the farfield, a process analogous to the sound radiation by a supersonic
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
39/248
1.2. BACKGROUND ON UNHEATED JET NOISE 9
wavy wall (Tam, 1995). The introduction of the wavepacket concept led researchers
to explore the flow stability theory as a theoretical framework to analyze the nearfield
dynamics and its relation to farfield sound radiation (Michalke, 1970, 1972; Mankbadi
& Liu, 1984). Models based on linear convecting instability waves were developed
by Tam & Morris (1980) and Tam & Burton (1984a,b). More recently, Wu (2005)
investigated the sound radiation from nonlinearly evolving instabilities.
The relevance of models based on instability wave radiation for subsonic jet noise
is debatable. This is because the energy in wave-numbers with supersonic phase
speeds appears only with the growth and decay of subsonically convected instability
waves. In other words, it can be argued that instability waves do not propagate
supersonically to radiate Mach waves. The appearance of supersonic phase speeds
may be explained as an artifact of the Fourier transform (cf. Fig. 1–3). Despite this
fact, several authors have investigated the sound emissions from wave packet pressure
fields (Crighton & Huerre, 1990; Avital & Sandham, 1997; Le Dizès & Millet, 2007;
Obrist, 2009, 2011; Cavalieri et al., 2011).
Following an exhaustive review of supersonic jet noise data, Tam et al. (1996)
showed that far-field sound pressure spectral densities can be fit using two similarity
spectra. The spectrum shape that dominated the aft angles was associated with
Mach wave radiation by large scale structures. Hence, this spectrum is commonly
referred to as the Large Scale Similarity (LSS) spectrum (Morris, 2009). The second
spectrum was used to fit the sound pressure spectra radiated toward sidelines. Tam
et al. (1996) argued that the sound radiated toward sidelines is generated by small-
scale structures. Hence, the second spectrum is commonly designated as the Fine
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
40/248
1.2. BACKGROUND ON UNHEATED JET NOISE 10
Scale Similarity (FSS) spectrum. At intermediate angles, a combination of the two
spectra is needed to match the experimental data.
The two similarity spectra were used by Viswanathan (2002) and Tam et al.
(2008) to fit further experimental results, including the data for subsonic jets. Tam
et al. (2008) argued that these results reinforce the idea that the two similarity spectra
correspond to two separate noise generation mechanisms in jets for all operating
conditions. This model is similar to the one initially proposed by Schlinker (1975),
and Laufer et al. (1975) for turbulence mixing noise in supersonic jets.
The large-scale/small-scale description of jet noise radiation is primarily based
on the fact that a combination of the two similarity spectra can be used to fit a given
farfield sound pressure spectrum provided that the peak frequencies and spectral
magnitudes are correctly chosen. However, the decomposition of a given spectrum
into two or more spectra does not necessarily yield a unique solution. In other words,
one can choose another set of, say, three ad-hoc similarity spectra and combine them
such that their sum reproduce a given spectrum. Another important observation
which seems to be inconsistent with Tam & Morris (1980)’s hypothesis is that the
peak of the supposedly fine scale radiated sound spectrum, measured for example at
90◦ from the jet axis, is observed at relatively low Strouhal numbers (St ≈ 0.3). Thisvalue of Strouhal number is close to that of the spectrum measured at 30◦ which is
supposed to be the large scale radiated sound spectrum (c.f. Fig. 1–5). But, one
would expect that the peak frequency of small-scale radiated sound be at least an
order of magnitude larger than that of large-scale radiated sound.
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
41/248
1.3. BACKGROUND ON REACTING JET NOISE 11
A more rigorous approach to identify the sound generation mechanism by jets is
to look for direct relationships between the nearfield flow properties and the radiated
sound field. For example, Panda & Seasholtz (2002) and Panda et al. (2005) used
a Rayleigh-scattering technique to measure correlations between the radiated sound
pressure and nearfield quantities, such as density and velocity fluctuations, for jets at
Mach numbers 0.8, 0.95, 1.4 and 1.8. They reported significant correlations between
nearfield density fluctuations and farfield pressure at aft angles where the convective
velocity was supersonic, while such correlations were negligible for subsonic jets. Bo-
gey & Bailly (2007) used a similar causality method to investigate sound generation
from isothermal jets at Mach numbers 0.6 and 0.9. The nearfield results were ob-
tained from the large eddy simulations of the jets. The simulations were performed
at two Reynolds numbers, ReD = 1.7 × 103 and ReD = 4 × 105, with the aim of studying the effects of both Mach and Reynolds number on the correlations between
the radiated sound pressure and nearfield flow quantities. They reported significant
levels of correlation between the centerline turbulence and sound radiated to Θ = 40 ◦
for all four jets. Maximum correlations were observed at the end of the potential
core. Based on the analysis, Bogey & Bailly (2007) suggested the presence of a noise
generation mechanism near the end of the potential core.
1.3 Background and Literature Review: Reacting Jet Noise
Combustion can be a significant contributor to the aero-engine core noise (Smith,
2004). The interaction of acoustic sound waves with the flame can also lead to
combustion instability in gas turbine engines and industrial furnaces. Depending
on the generation mechanism, combustion noise can be characterized as direct or
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
42/248
1.3. BACKGROUND ON REACTING JET NOISE 12
indirect (Strahle, 1971, 1978). Direct noise is caused by volumetric expansion due to
heat release, and constitutes a monopole source. Indirect sound is generated by the
differential acceleration of entropy non-uniformities and their interaction with solid
boundaries. This mechanism constitutes a dipole source (Howe, 1998).
A review of literature shows that the majority of the combustion noise studies
are either theoretical or experimental. Numerical simulations of sound radiation by
open flames can help improve our understanding of broadband combustion noise. In
the absence of a retro-active feedback leading to instability, the flame can be excited
in a controlled manner to measure the flame transfer function, a quantity useful
for combustion instability studies. This approach is called system identification in
numerical studies of combustion instability (Poinsot & Veynante, 2005).
Zhao & Frankel (2001) preformed the DNS of sound radiation from an axisym-
metric premixed reacting jet. They used a 6th-order compact scheme (Lele, 1992) for
spatial discretization, and a 4th-order Runge-Kutta algorithm for temporal integra-
tion. A generic one-step global reaction was considered to model the chemistry. Their
computational domain included both the nearfield and the farfield. They observed
that combustion heat release had a significant effect on the vortical structure of the
jet, as well as the radiated sound pressure level and directivity. Lighthill’s acoustic
analogy was used to identify apparent sound source locations. It was concluded that
heat release stabilized the jet, enhanced sound radiation levels, and altered the fre-
quency of the most unstable modes to lower values, which led to a broader sound
spectrum.
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
43/248
1.3. BACKGROUND ON REACTING JET NOISE 13
Flemming et al. (2007) performed an LES of the H3 flame (Tacke et al., 1998).
The simulation was based on the low-Mach-number assumption in which the pres-
sure work is neglected in the energy equation (Poinsot & Veynante, 2005). This
assumption reduces the computational cost by relaxing the CFL restriction. But,
the results can no longer be used to directly predict the generation and propagation
of sound. A linear wave equation with a monopole source term was used to estimate
the radiated sound pressure level.
Bui et al. (2007) used a hybrid LES/CAA approach, in which a low-Mach num-
ber LES was combined with an acoustic perturbation equation modified for reacting
flows. Mühlbauer et al. (2008) used a RANS/statistical model to simulate broad-
band combustion noise of the open non-premixed DLR-A jet flame. Ihme et al.
(2009) also used the low-Mach-number assumption to perform an LES of an N 2-
diluted C H 4 − H 2/air flame. They developed a modified form of Lighthill’s acousticanalogy to predict combustion generated sound. Their acoustic analogy utilized the
flamelet/progress-variable model to formulate the excess density.
So far numerical studies of nonpremixed flames have used the low-Mach-number
assumption to simulate the hydrodynamic field. The radiated sound has been cal-
culated based on simplified models. It is interesting to directly simulate the sound
production and radiation by diffusion flames. Such studies can enhance our cur-
rent understanding of turbulence/acoustic/flame interactions, and can be used as
benchmarks to further validate combustion noise models or develop new ones.
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
44/248
1.4. OBJECTIVES 14
1.4 Objectives
The literature review presented in Sec. 1.2 suggests that further studies on the
nature of jet noise sources and their dynamics are required. While acoustic analogies
seem to be incapable of providing more insight into the physics of sound sources,
phenomenological models, such as wavepacket theory, seem promising as models
of generation by shear flows. Developing such models, and calibrating them for
practical noise predictions require a better understanding, both qualitatively and
quantitatively, of sound radiation by coherent structures at different scales.
Although two-point space-time correlations provide some information about the
relation between the nearfield flow and the sound perceived in the farfield, they
do not provide a comprehensive picture of sound radiation patterns by turbulent
structures at different scales. The objective of the present study was to investigate
a new approach, bandpass filtering of the flow field, to provide further insight into
the dynamics of sound radiation by coherent structures of subsonic jet flows. This
approach shows how different scales contribute to farfield sound radiation. In the
present study, Large-Eddy Simulations (LES) of high-speed subsonic jet flows were
performed to obtain both the nearfield sources and the farfield radiated sound. Band-
pass filtering was then used as a post-processing tool to visualize and characterize
the radiated acoustic field in different frequency bands. The result of this study were
used to identify source mechanisms in subsonic jets. The results suggest that Tam
et al. (2008) description of jet noise generation may be oversimplified.
Similar analysis was also used to perform a preliminary study of the sound
radiation by a nonpremixed reacting mixing layer, and a diffusion jet flame. The
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
45/248
1.5. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS 15
results provide a better understanding of combustion/core noise problem, which has
not received as much attention as the jet noise problem.
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
The thesis is divided into two parts. The problem of sound radiation from
nonreacting, high speed, subsonic jets is studied in Part I, while combustion noise is
the subject of Part II. Chapter 2 presents the governing equations, and the numerical
schemes used in the LES of nearfield flow. The farfield sound prediction method is
presented in Chapter 3. The LES results for a Mach 0.9 jet at ReD = 4 × 105 arepresented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 describes the bandpass filtering procedure, and the
major findings obtained from this approach. Using the LES and bandpass filtering,
the use of mircojets for jet noise suppression is studied in Chapter 6. Numerical
simulations of sound radiation from a reacting mixing layer, and a jet diffusion flame
are presented in Chapter 7. Some concluding remarks, and suggestions for future
work are presented and in Chapter 8.
1.6 Contributions
The following list summarizes the major contributions of the present work:
• High-fidelity, direct computations of sound radiation from reacting and nonre-acting jet flows.
• Investigation of grid resolution effects on the accuracy of jet noise simulations.• A band-pass filter visualization and analysis of the source region and the acous-
tic field of subsonic jets.
• Development of an Implicit, Low-Dispersion, Low-Dissipation Runge-Kutta(ILDDRK) scheme of fourth order accuracy.
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
46/248
1.6. CONTRIBUTIONS 16
• Development of a new surface-integral acoustic analogy formulation, Formula-tion 1C , to predict the sound radiated by moving sources in uniformly moving
media.
• Large Eddy Simulation of jet noise suppression by impinging microjets.• Development of a thickened flamelet model for simulations of turbulent non-
premixed flames.
• Development of a systematic method to define progress variables and the Intrin-sically Low-Dimensional, Flamelet Generated Manifold (IL-FGM) modeling for
chemistry tabulation in LES of turbulent flames
• Direct noise computation of a reacting mixing layer, and a jet diffusion flame.
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
47/248
FIGURES OF CHAPTER 1 17
x
Θ
R
Figure 1–1: Schematic of jet flow field. The jet plume is illustrated with contours of vorticity (hot color scheme) superimposed on the acoustic pressure (gray-scale colorscheme). Microphone locations are commonly specified by their distance, R, fromthe jet nozzle, and polar angle, Θ, with respect to the jet centerline.
p(x)
x
Figure 1–2: Wavepacket concept for jet flows. This figure shows how the existence of coherent structures results in a wavepacket pressure distribution in the shear layer.
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
48/248
FIGURES OF CHAPTER 1 18
x
|q (x)|q 0
2l(a)
k
k0
ka−ka
downstream upstream
q̂ (k)
(b)
Figure 1–3: A one-dimensional wavepacket illustration in (a) the physical and (b) thefrequency domain. The gray area corresponds to the range of radiating wavenumbers.The wavenumber corresponding to sonic propagation is denoted by ka.
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
49/248
FIGURES OF CHAPTER 1 19
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
0.1 1 10
S P L
[ d B ]
f / f p
Figure 1–4: Similarity spectra suggested by Tam et al. (1996) for turbulent mixingnoise: solid line: large-scale similarity spectrum ; dashed line: fine-scale similarityspectrum.
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
0.01 0.1 1
S P L [ d B ] / S t
St D = f D / U j
Figure 1–5: Sound pressure spectra measured by Bogey et al. (2007) at R = 100Dof a subsonic jet (M j = 0.9); solid line: measurements at Θ = 30
◦; dashed line:measurements at Θ = 90◦.
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
50/248
Part I
Nonreacting Flows
20
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
51/248
CHAPTER 2Governing Equations and Numerical Methods
In the present study, the Navier-Stokes equations are numerically solved in the
context of Large-Eddy Simulation (LES).The basic idea behind LES is to decompose
the flow properties into a large-scale or resolved component, ψ , and a small-scale or
subgrid component, ψsg. This decomposition is achieved by applying a spatial-filter
(Pope, 2000),
ψ(t, x) =
ψ(t, y)G(x, y;∆)dy , (2.1)
where ∆ is the filter size, and G is the filter function satisfying the normalization
condition G(x, y; ∆) = 1 . (2.2)
For compressible and reacting flows where the density changes significantly, Favre
filtering is employed. A Favre-filtered quantity, ψ is defined asψ = ρψ
ρ =
1
ρ
ρ(t, y)ψ(t, y)G(x, y;∆)dy . (2.3)
It is customary to filter the Navier-Stokes equations first, and then solve the
resulting equations for the filtered quantities. This procedure, also known as implicit
filtering , always results in the so-called closure problem, i.e. some terms remain
unclosed and need modeling. These terms correspond to the effects of subgrid-scale
dynamics. Commonly used subgrid scale models include the classic Smagorinsky
21
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
52/248
2.1. GOVERNING EQUATIONS 22
model (Smagorinsky, 1963), and the dynamic Smagorinsky model (Germano et al.,
1991; Moin et al., 1991).
In the implicit filtering, the filter function is not necessarily known as it is defined
by the numerical grid (Kravchenko & Moin, 1997; Meyers & Sagaut, 2007; Lund,
2003). Hence, the filter effect on energy dissipation cannot be quantified. This can
be alleviated by explicitly filtering the flow properties at each step as an integral part
of the numerical simulation (Lund, 2003; Bose et al., 2010). In the present study, the
explicit filtering technique is adopted in order to quantify the energy dissipation by
the LES filter and assess the effects of filtering on the quality of the LES results. The
filtering procedure adopted in this work is based on the approximate deconvolution
model (ADM) (Stolz & Adams, 1999; Mathew et al., 2003; Bogey & Bailly, 2006) of
subgrid scales.
In this chapter, the governing equations, the LES subgrid modeling through
ADM, and some details on the numerical schemes and boundary conditions are pre-
sented.
2.1 Governing Equations
The unsteady, non-dimensional, compressible form of the Navier-Stokes equa-
tions were solved on curvilinear grids. The governing equations, in the generalized
coordinates, (ξ , η , ζ ), are given by
1
J
∂ Q
∂t +
∂
∂ξ
F − Fv
J
+
∂
∂η
G − Gv
J
+
∂
∂ζ
H − Hv
J
=
S
J , (2.4)
where, Q is the the vector of conserved variables,
Q = 1
J [ρ ρu ρv ρw E ]T , (2.5)
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
53/248
2.1. GOVERNING EQUATIONS 23
and total energy is defined as
E = p
γ − 1 +
1
2
ρuiui . (2.6)
The inviscid flux vectors are
F =
ρU
ρuU + ξ x p
ρvU + ξ y p
ρwU + ξ z p
(E + p)U
, G =
ρV
ρuV + ηx p
ρvV + ηy p
ρwV + ηz p
(E + p)V
, (2.7)
and
H =
ρW
ρuW + ζ x p
ρvW + ζ y p
ρwW + ζ z p
(E + p)W
, (2.8)
where the variables U , V , and W are the transformed velocity vectors in the com-
putational space given by
U = uξ x + vξ y + wξ z , (2.9)
V = uηx + vηy + wηz , (2.10)
and
W = uζ x + vζ y + wζ z . (2.11)
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
54/248
2.1. GOVERNING EQUATIONS 24
The viscous flux vectors are defined as follows:
Fv =
F v1
F v2
F v3
F v4
F v5
=
ξ xΨxx + ξ yΨxy + ξ zΨxz
ξ xΨyx + ξ yΨyy + ξ zΨyz
ξ xΨzx + ξ yΨzy + ξ zΨzz
uF v2 + vF v3 + wF v4 − ξ xq x − ξ yq y − ξ zq z
, (2.12)
Gv =
Gv1
Gv2
Gv3
Gv4
Gv5
=
ηxΨxx + ηyΨxy + ηzΨxz
ηxΨyx + ηyΨyy + ηzΨyz
ηxΨzx + ηyΨzy + ηzΨzz
uGv2 + vGv3 + wGv4 − ηxq x − ηyq y − ηzq z
, (2.13)
and
Hv =
H v1
H v2
H v3
H v4
H v5
=
ζ xΨxx + ζ yΨxy + ζ zΨxz
ζ xΨyx + ζ yΨyy + ζ zΨyz
ζ xΨzx + ζ yΨzy + ζ zΨzz
uH v2 + vH v3 + wH v4 − ζ xq x − ζ yq y − ζ zq z
. (2.14)
The shear stress tensor, Ψij is given by
Ψij = 2µ
Re
S ij − 1
3S kkδ ij
, (2.15)
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
55/248
2.2. APPROXIMATE DECONVOLUTION MODEL 25
where S ij is the strain rate tensor defines as
S ij = 1
2 ∂ui
∂x j+
∂ u j
∂xi . (2.16)The heat flux vector, q i, is defined as
q i =
µ
(γ − 1)M 2r RePr
∂ T
∂xi, (2.17)
where M r is the reference Mach number,
M r = U r√
γRT r. (2.18)
The Jacobian of coordinate transformation, J , and transformation metrics are
calculated in a conservative form as outlined by Visbal & Gaitonde (2002). If present,
the source terms are represented by the vector S on the right hand side of eq. (2.4).
2.2 Explicit Filtering and Approximate Deconvolution Model
Consider a one-dimensional transport equation of the form
∂u
∂t +
∂ f (u)
∂x = 0 , (2.19)
where f (u) is a nonlinear flux function. Applying a low pass filter, G, to eq. (2.19)
yields
∂u
∂t + G ∗ ∂ f (u)
∂x = 0 , (2.20)
where G ∗ (.) denotes low pass filtering by convolution as outlined in eq. (2.1).Eq. (2.20) can be recast as
∂u
∂t +
∂ f (u)
∂x = Rsgs (2.21)
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
56/248
2.2. APPROXIMATE DECONVOLUTION MODEL 26
where the subgrid scale residual,
Rsgs =
∂f (u)
∂x −G
∗ ∂ f (u)
∂x
, (2.22)
needs to be modeled. The subgrid model should describe the subgrid scale resid-
ual, Rsgs as a function of the filtered solution u. The approximation deconvolutionmethod models Rsgs with the following relation
Rsgs = ∂f (u)∂x
− G ∗ ∂ f (u∗)
∂x , (2.23)
where u∗(x, t) is an approximation of u(x, t) obtained through a deconvolution (Mathew
et al., 2003),
u u∗ = Q ∗ u . (2.24)
The deconvolution function, Q, is supposed to be the exact inverse of G; however, it
is usually an approximation to the exact inverse of G such that QG is unity for low
wavenumbers.
Substitution of eq. (2.24) into eq. (2.20) yields
∂u
∂t + G ∗ ∂ f (u
∗)
∂x = 0 , (2.25)
which can be recast to give
G ∗
∂u∗
∂t +
∂ f (u∗)
∂x
= G ∗ ∂ u
∗
∂t − ∂ u
∂t . (2.26)
Since G ∗ u∗ ≈ G ∗ u, the RHS of eq. (2.26) may be set equal to zero, i.e.
G ∗∂u∗
∂t +
∂ f (u∗)
∂x
= 0. (2.27)
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
57/248
2.3. SPATIAL DISCRETIZATION SCHEME 27
which implies to
∂u∗
∂t +
∂ f (u∗)
∂x = 0 . (2.28)
Thus eq. (2.28) is solved instead of eq.’s (2.20) or (2.21). The numerical imple-
mentation is as follows.
Consider the filtered solution at time step n denoted by u(n). The unfiltered
solution is obtained from
u∗ (n) = Q ∗ u(n) , (2.29)
which is used to numerically integrate eq. (2.28) and obtain u∗ (n+1). The filtered
solution is then obtained from
u(n+1) = G ∗ u∗ (n+1) . (2.30)
When executed sequentially, the filtering step, eq. (2.30), and the deconvolution
step, eq. (2.29), can be combined to form a single filtering step, Q ∗ G ∗ u∗ (n+1).Since Q is not the exact inverse of G, the operator Q ∗ G removes high wavenumber
components of the solution. In effect, the filter H = Q ∗ G is a low pass filtersimilar to G, but with a higher cut-off frequency. In summary, the approximate
deconvolution model is implemented through explicitly applying a low-pass filter
during time integration.
2.3 Spatial Discretization Scheme
A sixth-order, non-dissipative, central difference compact scheme (Lele, 1992),
α∂f ∂ξ i−1 + ∂f ∂ξ i + α∂f ∂ξ i−1 = a f i+1 − f i−12∆ξ + b f i+2 − f i−24∆ξ , (2.31)
8/18/2019 Dissertation Alireza
58/248
2.4. SPATIAL FILTERING 28
was used for spatial discretization where α = 1/3, a = 14/9, and b = 1/9. For
the boundary points i = 1 and i = N , the following third-order one-sided compact
scheme equations were used, respectively:∂f
∂ξ
1
+ 2
∂f
∂ξ
2
= 1
2∆ξ (−5f 1 + 4f 2 + f 3) , (2.32)
and ∂f
∂ξ
N
+ 2
∂f
∂ξ
N −1
= 1
2∆ξ (5f N − 4f N −1 − f N −2) . (2.33)
For points i = 2 and i = N −1, the following forth-order, central difference, compact
scheme equations were used, respectively:
1
4
∂f
∂ξ
1
+
∂f
∂ξ
2
+ 1
4
∂f
∂ξ
3
= 3
4∆ξ (f 3 − f 1) , (2.34)
and
1
4
∂f
∂ξ
N −2
+
∂f
∂ξ
N −1
+ 1
4
∂f
∂ξ
N
= 3
4∆ξ (f N − f N −2) . (2.35)
The above equations form a tri-diagonal system of linear equations which can
be efficiently solved using the Tridiagonal Matrix Algorithm (TDMA) (Conte &Boor, 1980). The combination of the sixth-order scheme for interior points and the
third-order, one-sided scheme for boundary points results in a fourth-order global
accuracy.
2.4 Spatial Filtering
Since the central difference compact scheme, eq. (2.31), is non-dissipative, spatial
filtering of the solution is required at each time step to remove high wavenumber
components and keep the solution stable. The filtering also serves as the ADM
subgrid modeling for LES as described in Sec. 2.2.
8/1