Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:26:13.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scaling properties of the Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings equation for complex acoustic source close to a free surface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2021

M. Cianferra Open the ORCID record for M. Cianferra [Opens in a new window]  and
V. Armenio
M. Cianferra*
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
V. Armenio
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
*
†Email address for correspondence: marta.cianferra@dia.units.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We perform a scaling analysis of the terms composing the Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings (FWH) equation, which rules the propagation of noise generated by a rigid body in motion. Our analysis extends the seminal work of Lighthill (Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, vol. 211, 1952, pp. 564–587) and the dimensional analysis of classical sources (monopole, dipole and quadrupole) considering all the FWH integral terms. Scaling properties are analysed in light of perfect/imperfect similarity when laboratory-scale data are used for full-scale predictions. As a test case we consider a hydrodynamic example, namely a laboratory-scale ship propeller. The data, obtained numerically in a previous study, were post-processed according to the scaling analysis presented herein. We properly scale the speed of sound to obtain perfect similarity and quantify the error with respect to the imperfect scaling. Imperfect similarity introduces errors in the acoustic response related both to the linear terms and to the nonlinear terms, the latter of great importance when the wake is characterized by robust and organized vorticity. Successively, we analyse the effect of a free surface, often present in hydrodynamic applications. We apply the method of images to the FWH equation. The free surface may generate a frequency-dependent constructive/destructive interference. The analysis of an archetypal acoustic field (monopole) provides robust explanation of these interference effects. Finally, we find that imperfect similarity and the absence of a free surface may introduce errors when model-scale data are used to obtain the full-scale acoustic pressure. The error is small for microphones placed in the near field and becomes relevant in the far field because of the nonlinear terms.

JFM classification

Acoustics: Hydrodynamic noise
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 927 , 25 November 2021 , A2
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, W.N., Devenport, W.J. & Glegg, S.A.L. 2017 Noise from a rotor ingesting a thick boundary layer and relation to measurements of ingested turbulence. J. Sound Vib. 409, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanassoulis, G., Belibassakis, K., Gerostathis, Th. & Prospathopoulos, A. 2018 A software tool for estimating shipping noise footprint with application to South Adriatic-Ionian Sea. In Euronoise 2018 – Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
Athanassoulis, G., Belibassakis, K., Mitsoudis, D.A., Kampanis, A. & Dougalis, V.A. 2008 Coupled mode and finite element approximations of underwater sound propagation problems in general stratified environments. J. Comput. Acoust. 16, 83–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensow, R.E. & Liefvendahl, M. 2016 An acoustic analogy and scale-resolving flow simulation methodology for the prediction of propeller radiated noise. In 31st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, pp. 11–16.Google Scholar
Brentner, K.S. & Farassat, F. 1998 Analytical comparison of the acoustic analogy and Kirchhoff formulation for moving surfaces. AIAA J. 36 (8), 1379–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentner, K.S. & Farassat, F. 2003 Modeling aerodynamically generated sound of helicopter rotors. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 39, 83–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broglia, R., Cianferra, M., Posa, A., Felli, M. & Armenio, V. 2020 Hydroacoustic analysis of a marine propeller in open water conditions through LES and acoustic analogy. In 33rd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics Osaka, Japan.Google Scholar
Cianferra, M., Armenio, V. & Ianniello, S. 2018 Hydroacoustic noise from different geometries. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 70, 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cianferra, M., Ianniello, S. & Armenio, V. 2019 a Assessment of methodologies for the solution of the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings equation using large-eddy simulations of incompressible single-phase flow around a finite-size square cylinder. J. Sound Vib. 453, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cianferra, M., Petronio, A. & Armenio, V. 2019 b Non linear noise from a ship propeller in open sea condition. Ocean Engng 191, 106474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Francescantonio, P. 1997 A new boundary integral formulation for the prediction of sound radiation. J. Sound Vib. 202 (4), 491–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DNV 2010 Rules for classification of ships, part 6 chapter 24. Silent Class Notation. [online]. Available at: www.dnv.com.Google Scholar
Felli, M., Falchi, M. & Dubbioso, G. 2015 Experimental approaches for the diagnostics of hydroacoustic problems in naval propulsion. Ocean Engng 106, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ffowcs-Williams, J.E. & Hawkings, D.L. 1969 Sound generation by turbulence and surfaces in arbitrary motion. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 264 (1151), 321–342.Google Scholar
Ianniello, S. 2016 The Ffowcs Williams–Hawkings equation for hydroacoustic analysis of rotating blades. Part 1. The rotpole. J. Fluid Mech. 797, 345–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ianniello, S., Muscari, R. & Di Mascio, A. 2013 Ship underwater noise assessment by the acoustic analogy. Part I: nonlinear analysis of a marine propeller in a uniform flow. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 18 (4), 547–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ianniello, S., Muscari, R. & Di Mascio, A. 2014 Ship underwater noise assessment by the acoustic analogy. Part III: measurements versus numerical predictions on a full-scale ship. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 19, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, J., Kumar, P. & Mahesh, K. 2018 Examination of propeller sound production using large eddy simulation. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3 (6), 064601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, P. & Mahesh, K. 2017 Large eddy simulation of propeller wake instabilities. J. Fluid Mech. 814, 361–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lighthill, M.J. 1952 On sound generated aerodynamically I. General theory. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 211, 564–587.Google Scholar
Lighthill, M.J. 1954 On sound generated aerodynamically II. Turbulence as a source of sound. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 222, 1–32.Google Scholar
Najafi-Yazdi, A., Bres, G.A. & Mongeau, L. 2011 An acoustic analogy formulation for moving sources in uniformly moving media. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 467, 144–165.Google Scholar
Nitzkorski, Z. & Mahesh, K. 2014 A dynamic technique for sound computation using the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings equations. Phys. Fluids 26 (11), 115101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piomelli, U. & Balaras, E. 2002 Wall layer models for large eddy simulations. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34, 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posa, A., Broglia, R., Felli, M., Falchi, M. & Balaras, E. 2019 Characterization of the wake of a submarine propeller via large-eddy simulation. Comput. Fluids 184, 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radhakrishnan, S. & Piomelli, U. 2008 Large-eddy simulation of oscillating boundary layers: model comparison and validation. J. Geophys. Res. 113, C02022.Google Scholar
Rienstra, S.W. & Hirschberg, A. 2004 An Introduction to Acoustics. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Wang, K. & Wang, M. 2021 Computational prediction and analysis of rotor noise generation in a turbulent wake. J. Fluid Mech. 908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M. 1999 LES with wall models for trailing-edge aeroacoustics. In Center for Turbulence Research, Annual Research Briefs, pp. 355–364.Google Scholar
Wang, M., Freund, J.B. & Lele, S.K. 2006 Computational prediction of flow-generated sound. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 38, 483–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M. & Moin, P. 2002 Dynamic wall modeling for LES of complex turbulent flows. Phys. Fluids 14 (7), 2043–2051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y.Q. & Wang, M. 2013 Boundary-layer noise induced by arrays of roughness elements. J. Fluid Mech. 727, 282–317.Google Scholar
Watson, D.G.M. 1998 Practical Ship Design. Elsevier Ocean Engineering Book Series.Google Scholar