DLR-Präsentation im 4:3 Format (Englisch)
Download
Report
Transcript DLR-Präsentation im 4:3 Format (Englisch)
www.DLR.de • Chart 1 > M. Herr > BANC-II > 07.06.2012, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
2nd Workshop on Benchmark Problems
for Airframe Noise Computations (BANC-II)
7-8 June 2012 Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
BANC-II-1:
Noise
Category 1:(TBL-)Trailing-Edge
Trailing-Edge Noise
M. Herr, German Aerospace Center, DLR
C. Bahr, NASA Langley Research Center
M. Kamruzzaman, University of Stuttgart (IAG)
Agenda
7 June 2012 – BANC-II-1: Trailing-Edge Noise
Introduction
- Problem statement
- Overview on contributions & participants
- Overview of used codes
Participant’s presentations on computational approach & on selected results
- Cristobal A. Albarracin et al., University of Adelaide, Australia (UoA)
- Mohammad Kamruzzaman, University of Stuttgart, Germany (IAG)
- Roland Ewert et al., German Aerospace Center (DLR)
- Lawrence Cheung & Giridhar Jothiprasad, GE Global Research, NY (GE-GRC)
- Damiano Casalino et al., EXA GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany (EXA)
Overall comparisons, summary, conclusions & outlook
Discussion
BANC-II-1 Problem Statement
Introduction
Conclusions from BANC-I-1
During BANC-I we faced (low number of participants)
- the need for improvements of the problem statement (definition of tripping,
wing span for far field noise data, definition of a single core case for those
who can not afford working on the full matrix, …)
- the need to offer benchmark data together with the updated problem
statement. This should allow the participants to elaborate deeper on their
data and to give their view on linking flow features with noise.
For generating a benchmark data base it was agreed that we do not focus
- on a single facility/measurement technique but take all available data from
different facilities/measurement techniques.
- Obviously, there will be a few dB deviation among different datasets which
needs to be handled as a tolerance range.
- Thus, gathering trailing edge noise data will be a big multidimensional puzzle.
- Very probably, the first set of data will consider a NACA0012 configuration.
- The updated problem statement should define input data which will be
- particularly linked to this configuration, i.e. inflow turbulence, tripping details
BANC-II-1 Problem Statement
Introduction
Preparation of BANC-II-1
Unfortunately: Definition of the final problem statement for BANC-II was late due
to the necessary collection and review of usable test data, clearance of GE
proprietary DU-96 data (many thanks to GE!), data scaling, were necessary…
BANC-II-1 is understood as ‘warm-up’ (majority of participants apply faster
prediction methods based on SNT) and will hopefully activate multiplied followon activity by anyone interested to join the community.
The finally provided comparison data is not “perfect” due to the non-existence of
a fully consistent data set covering the full measurement chain from near field
source quantities to farfield noise.
BANC-II-1 Problem Statement
Simulation Matrix
BANC-II-1 Test Cases
Provide cp(x1), cf(x1), near-wake mean flow/ turbulence profiles, Gpp(f), Lp(fc) and
FF noise directivities for CASES#1-5
Full problem statement with more
56 m/s
specified definitions of
Case#1
0°
Profile coordinates (sharp TE!)
Tripping devices (TBL-TE noise!)
55 m/s
TBL transition locations
Case#2
4°
Ambient conditions, etc.
Data formatting instructions
53 m/s
including templates
Case#3
6°
Case#4
38 m/s
0°
is available at the BANC-II homepage:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/ASG/FDTC/
DGBECAN_files_/BANCII_category1
Case#5
60 m/s
4°
CASE#1: single core test case for those
who can not afford the full matrix
BANC-II-1 Problem Statement
Simulation Matrix
BANC-II-1 Test Cases
WPF sensor position @ 99 % lc
PSDs (measurement data
Coordinate System and Parameter Definition
normalized to Df = 1 Hz)
0.3
x2/ lc
0.2
Orientation of flow profiles
Position
@ 100.38
% lc
orientation
of flow profiles
midspan plane
x2
0.1
0
SS
x1
x3
-0.1
-0.3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
x1/ lc
= 0°
PS
= 90° orthogonal
view
= 90°
chord-normal
direction
for
noisedirection
prediction for
view
noise prediction
u
-0.2
0.8
1
1.2
b=1m
r=1m
in 1/3-octave bands
BANC-II-1 Problem Statement
Simulation Matrix
BANC-II-1 Test Cases
Available comparison data sets for CASES#1-5:
Case#1
56 m/s
0°
cp(x1), flow/turb. profiles, Gpp(f), Lp(1/3)(fc)
Case#2
55 m/s
4°
cp(x1), flow/turb. profiles, Gpp(f), Lp(1/3)(fc)
Case#3
53 m/s
6°
cp(x1), flow/turb. profiles, Gpp(f), Lp(1/3)(fc)
Case#4
38 m/s
0°
Flow/turb. profiles, Gpp(f), Lp(1/3)(fc)
Case#5
60 m/s
4°
Lp(1/3)(fc)
BANC-II-1 Problem Statement
Overview of Comparison Data
Near-Wake Data CASES#1-4 IAG-LWT (Herrig et al.)
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
30
15
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
CASE#1, x/lc =
CASE#2, x/lc =
CASE#3, x/lc =
CASE#4, x/lc =
30
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
30
25
25
25
20
20
20
15
15
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
30
0.5
1
U 1/U , -
CASE#1, x/lc =
CASE#2, x/lc =
CASE#3, x/lc =
CASE#4, x/lc =
1.5
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
0
0
30
0.005
0.01
2
0.015
<u1u1>/U , CASE#1, x/lc =
CASE#2, x/lc =
CASE#3, x/lc =
CASE#4, x/lc =
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
0
0
25
20
20
20
x2, mm
25
15
10
10
5
5
5
0.005
2
0.01
kT/U , -
0.015
0 1
10
102
103
(model), m /s
2
3
104
0.015
CASE#1, x/lc =
CASE#2, x/lc =
CASE#3, x/lc =
CASE#4, x/lc =
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
0
0
2
4
6
8
f (model), mm
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
1.0038, SS
0
0
0.005
0.01
2
<u3u3>/U , -
0.015
IAG-LWT 2point correlation
measurements
15
10
0
0
0.01
2
<u2u2>/U , -
30
25
15
0.005
CASE#1, x/lc =
CASE#2, x/lc =
CASE#3, x/lc =
CASE#4, x/lc =
15
10
0
0
x2, mm
x2, mm
20
x2, mm
x2, mm
25
CASE#1, x/lc =
CASE#2, x/lc =
CASE#3, x/lc =
CASE#4, x/lc =
x2, mm
30
CASE#1, x/lc =
CASE#2, x/lc =
CASE#3, x/lc =
CASE#4, x/lc =
x2, mm
35
10
BANC-II-1 Problem Statement
Overview of Comparison Data
Acoustical Data Sets CASES#1 and #2 (IAG, DLR, UFL, BPM)
Scaling to problem statement conditions required for both Gpp(f) and Lp(1/3)(fc)!
70
60
50
40
30
CASE#1, IAG LWT+SL (50m/s, 0deg)
CASE#1, IAG LWT+SL (60m/s,
(50m/s, 0deg)
(60m/s,
0deg)
0deg)
(60m/s,
LWT+SL
CASE#1, IAG LWT
AWB(60m/s,
(50.2m/s,
0deg)
0deg)
IAG LWT
CASE#1, DLR
0deg)
0deg)
(50.2m/s,
CASE#1, DLR AWB (60m/s,
(52.4m/s,
0deg, 0.3m)
0deg)
AWB (60m/s,
DLR UFAFF
CASE#1, UFL
(52.4m/s, 0deg, 0.3m)
CASE#1, UFL UFAFF (59.4m/s,
(NAFNOISE)
prediction
0deg, 0.3m)
(59.4m/s,
UFL UFAFF
CASE#1, BPM
5
(scaled), kHz
kHz
ffcc(original),
LLp(1/3)
(scaled), dB
dB
p(1/3)(original),
(scaled), dB
LLp(1/3)
dB
p(1/3)(original),
70
10 15 20
60
50
40
30
CASE#2, IAG LWT (60m/s, 4deg)
CASE#2, DLR AWB (50.2m/s, 5deg)
CASE#2, DLR AWB (60m/s, 5deg)
CASE#2, UFL UFAFF (52.6m/s, 2.1deg, 0.3m)
CASE#2, UFL UFAFF (59.6m/s, 2.1deg, 0.3m)
CASE#2, BPM (NAFNOISE) prediction
5
(scaled), kHz
ffcc(original),
kHz
10 15 20
+/3 dB scatter among all available data sets
BANC-II-1 Problem Statement
Overview of Comparison Data
Acoustical Data Sets CASES#3 and #5 (CASE#4 not shown)
Scaling to problem statement conditions required!
70
60
50
40
30
CASE#3,
CASE#3, IAG
IAG LWT
LWT (60m/s,
(60m/s, 6deg)
6deg)
CASE#3,
CASE#3, DLR
DLR AWB
AWB (50.2m/s,
(50.2m/s, 5deg)
5deg)
CASE#3,
DLR
AWB
(60m/s,
CASE#3, DLR AWB (60m/s, 5deg)
5deg)
CASE#3,
CASE#3, DLR
DLR AWB
AWB (50m/s,
(50m/s, 7.6deg)
7.6deg)
CASE#3,
CASE#3, DLR
DLR AWB
AWB (59.9m/s,
(59.9m/s, 7.6deg)
7.6deg)
CASE#3, BPM (NAFNOISE) prediction
5
ffcc(original),
(scaled), kHz
kHz
10 15 20
Lp(1/3)(original), dB
LLp(1/3)
(scaled), dB
dB
p(1/3)(original),
70
60
50
40
CASE#5, DLR AWB (60 m/s, 4deg, 0.3m)
30
5
fc(original), kHz
10 15 20
BANC-II-1 Contributions & Participants
Overview
Overview on Contributions
Configuration/ Participant
UoA IAG DLR
GE-GRC
EXA
-
Case#1
56 m/s
0°
-
Case#2
55 m/s
4°
-
Case#3
53 m/s
6°
-
Case#4
38 m/s
0°
-
Case#5
60 m/s
4°
Different case!
AIAA-2012-2055
-
-
-
-
Overview of Methods
Contribution Albarracin et al.: UoA’s RSNM code
RSNM: RANS-based Statistical Noise Model
Fast TE noise prediction method, based on a statistical
model of the turbulent velocity cross-spectrum.
RANS
CFD
•OpenFOAM package
•k-omegaSST model
RSNM
Acoustic spectrum in the
far field
Turbulent velocity
k , , U cross-spectrum
model
U
k
CFD Mesh
+
Half-Plane
Green´s
function
cf. AIAA-2012-2181
Example results: 30.48 cm chord
NACA 0012 airfoil at AoA=0 and flow
velocities of 31.7 m/s, 39.6 m/s,
55.5 m/s and 71.3 m/s
Overview of Methods
Contribution Kamruzzaman et al.: IAG‘s simplified theoretical prediction code Rnoise
Rnoise: RANS Based Trailing-edge Noise Prediction Model
Simplified theoretical airfoil trailing-edge far-field noise prediction model based
on steady RANS: highly accurate and very fast
Source Modeling
WPF
Governing Eqns.
RANS Simulation
BL &
Noise Spectra Correlations
Wind Tunnel Exp. & Validation
Overview of Methods
Contribution Ewert et al.: DLR‘s CAA-Code PIANO with stochastic source model FRPM
PIANO: Perturbation Investigation of Aeroacoustic Noise
“Low-cost“ steady RANS-based CAA with stochastic
source models: 2-4 orders faster than LES
mean flow; here:
DLR code TAU
with
RSM
k
CFD
RANS
u0 , 0 , p0
Spectral analysis
CAA
APE
p
source L
turbulence
k,
vortex sound sources
t
t
L 0 u u 0
4D-Stochastic Sound
Sources FRPM
Sound Field
p
Overview of Methods
Contribution GE GRC: LES with Amiet’s Theory (CharLES code, Cascade Technologies)
CharLES: LES-based trailing edge noise prediction
High-fidelity incompressible LES calculation combined with Amiet’s
theory for far-field noise
Unstructured
LES
Amiet’s
Far-field
mesh
simulation
Theory
Sound
High-fidelity grid near TE
and airfoil surface
Capture boundary layer, wall-pressure
spectra, and correlation data near TE
cf. AIAA-2012-2055
Project TE information to far-field
observer locations
Overview of Methods
Contribution Damiano Casalino et al.: EXA’s PowerFlow / PowerAcoustics code
PowerFLOW / PowerACOUSTICS
1. Unsteady-flow simulations performed with Lattice Boltzmann based solver
PowerFLOW 4.3
– D3Q19 LBM
Cubical Lattices (Voxels)
Surface elements (Surfels)
– Explicit solver
– Fully transient
– Turbulence model
Modified RNG k-ε model
1
2
3
Swirl model
– Anisotropic “large” eddies resolved
– Statistically universal eddies modeled
Extended wall model
– Taking pressure gradient effect into account
– Acoustic fluctuations directly simulated with low-dispersion and low dissipation
2. Far-field noise computed using a FW-H acoustic analogy (PowerACOUSTICS 2.0)
– Solid/permeable formulation
– Forward-time formulation based on the retarded-time formulation 1A by Farassat
– Mean flow convective effects (wind-tunnel modality) taken into account
3. Spectral analyses carried out using PowerACOUSTICS 2.0
cf. AIAA-2012-2235
Thank you for your attention!
Agenda
7 June 2012 – BANC-II-1: Trailing-Edge Noise
Introduction
- Problem statement
- Overview on contributions & participants
- Overview of used codes
Participant’s presentations on computational approach & on selected results
- Cristobal A. Albarracin et al., University of Adelaide, Australia (UoA)
- Mohammad Kamruzzaman, University of Stuttgart, Germany (IAG)
- Roland Ewert et al., German Aerospace Center (DLR)
- Lawrence Cheung & Giridhar Jothiprasad, GE Global Research, NY (GE-GRC)
- Damiano Casalino et al., EXA GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany (EXA)
Overall comparisons, summary, conclusions & outlook
Discussion
Overall Comparisons
Introduction
Scope
Code-to-code comparisons for the following
parameters:
4 slides: cp, cf for CASES#1, #2, #3, #5
5 slides (1 per case): Near-wake profiles
of mean velocity and turb.
characteristics
1 survey slide on integral TBL properties
2 slides: Surf. pressure (WPF) PSD for
CASES#1, #2, #3, #5
2 slides: FF TBL-TE noise spectra for
CASES#1, #2, #3, #5
1 slide: Selected FF noise directivities
Changed representation format to extract
principle relative effects on noise and on
WPF spectra (are those well-predicted?)
- Effect of test velocity CASES#1, #4
- Effect of a-o-a CASES#1, #2, #3
- Effect of profile shape CASES #2, #5
Case#1
56 m/s
Case#2
55 m/s
Case#3
53 m/s
Case#4
38 m/s
Case#5
60 m/s
Overall Comparisons
Aerodynamical data
Cp-Distributions CASES#1 & #2
Format: comparison data in black!
0 .5
0 .5
0
0
-0 .5
-0 .5
cp
1
cp
1
-1
C AS E # 1,
C AS E # 1,
C AS E # 1,
C AS E # 1,
C AS E # 1,
-1 .5
-2
IA G L W T
X F O IL
U oA
IA G
D LR
-1
C AS E # 2,
C AS E # 2,
C AS E # 2,
C AS E # 2,
C AS E # 2,
-1 .5
-2
-2 .5
-3
-0 .2
UoA: OpenFOAM - SST
IAG: FLOWER (DLR) - SST
DLR: TAU (DLR) - RSM
IA G L W T
X F O IL
U oA
IA G
D LR
-2 .5
0
0 .2
0 .4
x 1 /lc
0 .6
0 .8
1
-3
-0 .2
0
0 .2
0 .4
x 1 /lc
0 .6
0 .8
1
Overall Comparisons
Aerodynamical data
Cp-Distributions CASES#3 & #5
Format: comparison data in black!
0 .5
0 .5
0
0
-0 .5
-0 .5
cp
1
cp
1
-1
C AS E # 3,
C AS E # 3,
C AS E # 3,
C AS E # 3,
C AS E # 3,
-1 .5
-2
IA G L W T
X F O IL
U oA
IA G
D LR
-1
C AS E #5,
C AS E #5,
C AS E #5,
C AS E #5,
-1 .5
-2
-2 .5
-3
-0 .2
UoA: OpenFOAM - SST
IAG: FLOWER (DLR) - SST
DLR: TAU (DLR) - RSM
X F O IL
U oA
IA G
D LR
-2 .5
0
0 .2
0 .4
x 1 /lc
0 .6
0 .8
1
-3
-0 .2
0
0 .2
0 .4
x 1 /lc
0 .6
0 .8
1
Overall Comparisons
Aerodynamical data
Cf-Distributions CASES#1 & #2
0 .0 3
0 .0 3
0 .0 2 5
0 .0 2 5
UoA: OpenFOAM - SST
IAG: FLOWER (DLR) - SST
DLR: TAU (DLR) - RSM
UoA: fully turbulent, no transition!
0 .0 2
0 .0 2
0 .0 1 5
X F O IL
U oA
IA G
D LR
0 .0 1 5
0 .0 1
0 .0 1
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 0 5
0
-0 .2
0
0 .2
0 .4
x 1 /lc
0 .6
0 .8
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
cf
cf
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
1
0
-0 .2
0
0 .2
0 .4
x 1 /lc
0 .6
X F O IL
U oA
IA G
D LR
0 .8
1
Overall Comparisons
Aerodynamical data
Cf-Distributions CASES#3 & #5
0 .0 3
0 .0 3
0 .0 2 5
0 .0 2 5
UoA: OpenFOAM - SST
IAG: FLOWER (DLR) - SST
DLR: TAU (DLR) - RSM
UoA: fully turbulent, no transition!
0 .0 2
0 .0 2
0 .0 1 5
X F O IL
U oA
IA G
D LR
0 .0 1 5
0 .0 1
0 .0 1
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 0 5
0
-0 .2
0
0 .2
0 .4
x 1 /lc
0 .6
0 .8
C AS E #5,
C AS E #5,
C AS E #5,
C AS E #5,
cf
cf
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
1
0
-0 .2
0
0 .2
0 .4
x 1 /lc
0 .6
X F O IL
U oA
IA G
D LR
0 .8
1
Overall Comparisons
Aerodynamical data
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics
0 .3
orie n ta tio n o f flow pro file s
po sitio n @ 1 0 0 .3 8 % lc
m id sp a n p la n e
0 .2
x2
x 2 / lc
0 .1
x1
0
x3
= 0 °
-0 .1
u
-0 .2
-0 .3
0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
x 1 / lc
0 .8
1
1 .2
Overall Comparisons
Aerodynamical data
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics CASE#1 SS
30
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
x2, m m
35
C A S E # 1 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 1 , IA G
C AS E # 1 , D LR
30
30
25
25
25
20
15
15
35
30
20
20
15
15
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
0
0
0 .5
0
1
U 1 /U , -
35
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
30
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
30
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
2
< u 1 u 1 > /U , C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
20
15
5
5
5
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
1 0 1 0 1 0 21 0 3 1 0 1 0
0
0 .0 1 5
k T /U , -
0 .0 1 5
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
, m /s
0
2
4
f , mm
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
6
0
0
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
2
0 .0 1 5
< u 3 u 3 > /U , -
15
10
0 .0 12
2
< u 2 u 2 > /U , -
30
10
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
20
15
0
0 .0 0 5
35
10
0
0
25
x2, m m
20
0
0 .0 1 5
25
x2, m m
25
35
0
x2, m m
IAG
C A S E # 1 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 1 , IA G
C AS E # 1 , D LR
20
10
UoA
DLR
C A S E # 1 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 1 , IA G
C AS E # 1 , D LR
x2, m m
25
35
x2, m m
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
x2, m m
35
8
Overall Comparisons
Aerodynamical data
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics CASE#2 SS
30
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
20
35
C A S E # 2 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 2 , IA G
C AS E # 2 , D LR
35
30
30
30
25
25
25
20
15
20
15
15
15
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
0
0
0 .5
0
1
U 1 /U , -
35
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
30
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
30
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
2
< u 1 u 1 > /U , C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
20
15
5
5
5
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
10 10 10 10 1
0 3 10
2
0
0 .0 1 5
k T /U , -
0 .0 1 5
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
, m /s
0
2
4
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
6
f , mm
0
0
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
2
0 .0 1 5
< u 3 u 3 > /U , -
15
10
0 .0 1 2
2
< u 2 u 2 > /U , -
30
10
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
20
15
0
0 .0 0 5
35
10
0
0
25
x2, m m
20
0
0 .0 1 5
25
x2, m m
25
35
0
x2, m m
IAG
C A S E # 2 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 2 , IA G
C AS E # 2 , D LR
20
10
UoA
DLR
C A S E # 2 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 2 , IA G
C AS E # 2 , D LR
x2, m m
x2, m m
25
35
x2, m m
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
x2, m m
35
8
Overall Comparisons
Aerodynamical data
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics CASE#3 SS
30
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
20
35
C A S E # 3 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 3 , IA G
C AS E # 3 , D LR
35
30
30
30
25
25
25
20
15
20
15
15
15
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
0
0
0 .5
0
1
U 1 /U , -
35
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
30
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
30
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
2
< u 1 u 1 > /U , C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
20
15
5
5
5
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
10 10 10 10 1
0 3 10
2
0
0 .0 1 5
k T /U , -
0 .0 1 5
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
, m /s
0
2
4
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
6
f , mm
0
0
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
2
0 .0 1 5
< u 3 u 3 > /U , -
15
10
0 .0 1 2
2
< u 2 u 2 > /U , -
30
10
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
20
15
0
0 .0 0 5
35
10
0
0
25
x2, m m
20
0
0 .0 1 5
25
x2, m m
25
35
0
x2, m m
IAG
C A S E # 3 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 3 , IA G
C AS E # 3 , D LR
20
10
UoA
DLR
C A S E # 3 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 3 , IA G
C AS E # 3 , D LR
x2, m m
x2, m m
25
35
x2, m m
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
x2, m m
35
8
Overall Comparisons
Aerodynamical data
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics CASE#4 SS
30
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
20
35
C A S E # 4 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 4 , IA G
C AS E # 4 , D LR
35
30
30
30
25
25
25
20
15
20
15
15
15
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
0
0
0 .5
0
1
U 1 /U , -
35
C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
30
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
30
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
2
< u 1 u 1 > /U , C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
20
15
5
5
5
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
10 10 10 10 1
0 3 10
2
0
0 .0 1 5
k T /U , -
0 .0 1 5
C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
, m /s
0
2
4
IA G L W T
U oA
IA G
D LR
6
f , mm
0
0
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
2
0 .0 1 5
< u 3 u 3 > /U , -
15
10
0 .0 1 2
2
< u 2 u 2 > /U , -
30
10
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
20
15
0
0 .0 0 5
35
10
0
0
25
x2, m m
20
0
0 .0 1 5
25
x2, m m
25
35
0
x2, m m
IAG
C A S E # 4 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 4 , IA G
C AS E # 4 , D LR
20
10
UoA
DLR
C A S E # 4 , IA G L W T
C A S E # 4 , IA G
C AS E # 4 , D LR
x2, m m
x2, m m
25
35
x2, m m
C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
C AS E #4,
x2, m m
35
8
Overall Comparisons
Aerodynamical data
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics CASE#5 SS
35
C AS E # 5 , U oA
C A S E # 5 , IA G
C AS E # 5 , U oA
C A S E # 5 , IA G
C AS E # 5 , U oA
35
C A S E # 5 , IA G
C AS E # 5 , U oA
35
25
25
25
25
20
15
20
15
20
15
15
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
UoA
IAG
0
0
0 .5
0
1
U 1 /U , -
35
C AS E # 5 , U oA
C A S E # 5 , IA G
C AS E # 5 , U oA
35
0
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
2
0
0 .0 1 5
< u 1 u 1 > /U , C AS E # 5 , U oA
C A S E # 5 , IA G
C AS E # 5 , U oA
25
25
20
15
15
10
5
5
5
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
10 10 10 10 1
0 3 10
2
0
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1 2
0 .0 1 5
k T /U , -
2
0 .0 1 5
< u 2 u 2 > /U , -
, m /s
C AS E # 5 , U oA
C A S E # 5 , IA G
C AS E # 5 , U oA
0
2
4
6
f , mm
0
0
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 1
2
0 .0 1 5
< u 3 u 3 > /U , -
15
10
0
0 .0 1
20
10
0
0 .0 0 5
x2, m m
25
x2, m m
30
x2, m m
30
20
0
35
30
C A S E # 5 , IA G
C AS E # 5 , U oA
x2, m m
30
x2, m m
30
x2, m m
30
x2, m m
30
20
DLR
35
8
Overall Comparisons
Aerodynamical data
Integral “TBL” Properties CASES#1-5
TRANSITION
SS / PS
U
m/s
d1e,, mm
SS / PS
UoA
dd,2, mm
mm
SS / PS
IAG
DLR
d1, mm
SS / PS
d2, mm
SS / PS
CASE#1, U∞ = 56 m/s, 0°
Fully turb.
6.5% / 6.5 %
6.5% / 6.5%
52.2
/ 52.2 15.0
/ 15.0
as measured
(IAG):
51.5
10.6
3.0/ /51.5
1.7/ /10.6
52.1 / 52.1 14.3 / 14.3
2.7 / 2.7
2.5 / 2.5
2.6 / 2.6
1.7 / 1.7
1.4 / 1.4
1.5 / 1.5
CASE#2, U∞ = 55 m/s, 4°
Fully turb.
6.5% / 6.5 %
6.5% / 6.5%
51.6 / 50.9
50.7
4.8/ /50.4
51.4 / 50.6
19.9 / 11.9
13.5
2.3/ /8.40
18.9 / 13.1
4.0 / 2.1
3.6 / 1.7
3.7 / 1.8
2.3 / 1.3
1.8 / 1.0
2.0 / 1.2
CASE#3, U∞ = 53 m/s, 6°
Fully turb.
6.0% / 7.0 %
6.0% / 7.0%
50.3 / 49.2
49.1
5.7/ 48.7
/49.9 / 48.8
23.5 / 10.7
15.5
2.5/ /7.50
18.2 / 14.3
5.1 / 1.9
4.4 / 1.4
4.3 / 1.5
2.8 / 1.1
2.1 / 0.9
2.2 / 1.0
CASE#4, U∞ = 38 m/s, 0°
Fully turb.
6.5% / 6.5 %
6.5% / 6.5%
35.3 / 35.3
36.9
3.1/ /36.9
35.2 / 35.2
16.0 / 16.0
11.1
1.8/ /11.1
14.3 / 14.3
3.0 / 3.0
2.6 / 2.6
2.8 / 2.8
1.8 / 1.8
1.4 / 1.4
1.6 / 1.6
CASE#5, U∞ = 60 m/s, 4°
Fully turb.
12.0% / 15.0%
12.0% / 15.0%
55.6 / 54.2
54.9- / -54.1
55.9 / 54.0
13.1 / 6.7
- / /-6.1
14.2
17.1 / 9.7
5.2 / 1.5
5.1 / 1.0
5.0 / 1.1
2.2 / 0.9
1.9 / 0.7
2.1 / 0.8
Overall Comparisons
Surface Pressure Data
0 .3
Position @ 99 % lc
PSDs (measurement data normalized to Df = 1 Hz)
m id sp a n p la n e
0 .2
x2
SS
x 2 / lc
0 .1
x1
0
x3
PS
-0 .1
-0 .2
-0 .3
0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
x 1 / lc
0 .8
1
1 .2
Overall Comparisons
Surface Pressure Data
Unsteady Surface Pressure PSD Gpp(f) CASES#1 & #2
90
90
G, pdB
, d (Df
B /H=z 1 Hz)
p
Gpp
100
G, pdB
, d (Df
B /H=z 1 Hz)
p
Gpp
100
80
70
60
C A S E # 1 -P S ,
C A S E # 1 -S S ,
C A S E # 1 -P S ,
C A S E # 1 -S S ,
C A S E # 1 -P S ,
C A S E # 1 -S S ,
IA G L W T
IA G L W T
IA G
IA G
D LR
D LR
50
5
10 15
, kH z
ff,
m kHz
UoA: no surface pressure data provided
IAG: Rnoise
DLR: PIANO-FRPM
80
70
60
C A S E # 2 -P S ,
C A S E # 2 -S S ,
C A S E # 2 -P S ,
C A S E # 2 -S S ,
C A S E # 2 -P S ,
C A S E # 2 -S S ,
IA G L W T
IA G L W T
IA G
IA G
D LR
D LR
50
5
kH z
ff,m ,kHz
10 15
Overall Comparisons
Surface Pressure Data
Unsteady Surface Pressure PSD Gpp(f) CASES#3 & #5
90
90
, (D
d (Df
B
/H=
GG
, Gd, pBdB
f=
1z 1
H zHz)
)
p
pp
100
G, pdB
, d (Df
B /H=z 1 Hz)
p
Gpp
100
80
70
60
IA G L W T
IA G L W T
IA G
IA G
D LR
D LR
50
5
f, kH z
80
70
IAGGdifferent case!
S, ,IA
-PSfrom
SSEE##55-P
CCAAscaled
Data has been
IAGG
-SSS, ,IA
CCAASSEE##55-S
pp
C A S E # 3 -P S ,
C A S E # 3 -S S ,
C A S E # 3 -P S ,
C A S E # 3 -S S ,
C A S E # 3 -P S ,
C A S E # 3 -S S ,
10 15
IAG: Rnoise
DLR: PIANO-FRPM
GE-GRC: CHARLES
60
C A S E # 5 -P S , D L R
C A S E # 5 -S S , D L R
C A S E # 5 -P S ,
C A S E # 5 -S S ,
C A S E # 5 -P S ,
C A S E # 5 -S S ,
C A S E # 5 -P S ,
C A S E # 5 -S S ,
D LR
D LR
IA G
IA G
G E -G R C
G E -G R C
50
5
10 15
f, kH z
no measured comparison data available!
Overall Comparisons
TBL-TE FF Noise Data
0 .3
b b==11 m
m
r
=
1
m
r=1m
1/3-octave band spectra
m id sp a n p la n e
0 .2
x2
x 2 / lc
0 .1
x1
0
x3
= 0 °
-0 .1
u
-0 .2
-0 .3
0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
x 1 / lc
= 90° chord-normal
view direction for noise prediction
= 9 0 ° orth og on a l
vie w d ire ction fo r
0 .8
1
1 .2
no ise pre d iction
Overall Comparisons
Farfield Noise Data
1/3-Octave Band FF Noise Spectra Lp(1/3)(fc) CASES#1 & #2
90
90
b la ck: m e a su re m e n t d a ta
C AS E # 1 , U oA
C A S E # 1 , IA G
C AS E # 1 , D LR
70
80
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
UoA: RSNM
IAG: Rnoise
8 0 DLR: PIANO-FRPM
60
70
60
50
50
40
40
30
5
f c , kH z
10 1520
b la ck: m e a su re m e n t d a ta
C AS E # 2 , U oA
C A S E # 2 , IA G
C AS E # 2 , D LR
30
5
f c , kH z
10 1520
Overall Comparisons
Farfield Noise Data
1/3-Octave Band FF Noise Spectra Lp(1/3)(fc) CASES#3 & #5
90
90
b la ck: m e a su re m e n t d a ta
C AS E # 3 , U oA
C A S E # 3 , IA G
C AS E # 3 , D LR
70
80
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
UoA: RSNM
IAG: Rnoise
8 0 DLR: PIANO-FRPM
60
70
60
50
50
40
40
30
5
10 1520
b la ck: m e a su re m e n t d a ta
, U oA
# 5S,EU#o5A
EA
C A SC
# 5G, IA G
# 5S,EIA
EA
C A SC
IALGR
,D
# 5S,ED#L5R
EA
C A SC
, IARGC
A5S,EG#E5 -G
E#
C ASC
30
f c , kH z
5
10 1520
f c , kH z
GE-GRC: CHARLES
Data has been scaled from different case!
Overall Comparisons
Farfield Noise Data
Selected 1/3-Octave Band FF Noise Directivities: CASE#1
IAG
DLR
270
240
300
210
330
, deg
180
10
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
150 C A S E # 1 ,
D LR ,
D LR ,
D LR ,
D LR ,
D LR ,
fc
fc
fc
fc
fc
=
=
=
=
=
-1 6
10
-1 5
10
-1 4
1 kH z
2 kH z
5 kH z
8 kH z
1 0 kH z
120
0
-1 3
2
p rm s ( ), P a
30
60
90
10
2
Overall Comparisons
Pressure Data
Lp(1/3)(fc) and Gpp(f) data revisited to identify common trends;
are relative effects captured by the predictions?
Overall Comparisons
Pressure Data
Effect of Flow Velocity on Lp(1/3)(fc) and Gpp(f): CASE#1 vs. #4
90
90
G p p , d B (D f = 1 H z )
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
80
Format: measured comparison1 0 0data in black!
b la ck: m e a su re m e n t d a ta
R
A
LG
o
DIA
CCAASSEE##11, ,U
R
A
LG
o
DIA
CCAASSEE##44, ,U
C A S E # 1 , IA G
C A S E # 4 , IA G
C AS E # 1 , D LR
C AS E # 4 , D LR
70
b la ck: m e a su re m e n t d a ta
CCAASSEE##11-P
-SSS, ,DIA
LG
R
CCAASSEE##14-S
-SSS, ,DIA
LG
R
C A S E # 4 -P S , D L R
C A S E # 4 -S S , D L R
80
70
60
60
50
5
f, kH z
50
40
U∞ = 56 m/s
30
5
f c , kH z
10 1520
U∞ = 38 m/s
10 15
Overall Comparisons
Pressure Data
Effect of a-o-a on Lp(1/3)(fc): CASES#1 to #3
90
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
IA G L W T (sca le d )
D L R A W B (sca le d )
IA G L W T (sca le d )
D L R A W B (sca le d )
IA G L W T (sca le d )
D L R A W B (sca le d )
a-o-a
4°
70
6°
60
90
90
50
m e a su re m e n t d a ta :
80
30
5
f c , kH z
10 1520
m e a su re m e n t d a ta :
DLR AWB data
C A S E # 1 , D L R A W B (sca le d )
C A S E # 2 , D L R A W B (sca le d )
C A S E # 3 , D L R A W B (sca le d )
70
80
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
40
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
80
0°
m e a su re m e n t d a ta : data
Measurement
60
60
50
40
40
5
f c , kH z
C A S E # 1 , IA G L W T (sca le d )
C A S E # 2 , IA G L W T (sca le d )
C A S E # 3 , IA G L W T (sca le d )
70
50
30
IAG LWT data
30
10 1520
5
f c , kH z
10 1520
Overall Comparisons
Pressure Data
Effect of a-o-a on Lp(1/3)(fc): CASES#1 to #3
90
70
C AS E #1,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #3,
C AS E #1,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #3,
0°
IA G L W T (sca le d )
D L R A W B (sca le d )
IA G L W T (sca le d )
D L R A W B (sca le d )
IA G L W T (sca le d )
D L R A W B (sca le d )
A
oGR
UL
IA
D
A
oGR
UL
IA
D
A
oGR
UL
IA
D
a-o-a
4°
6°
60
90
90
50
m e a su re m e n t d a ta :
80
30
5
f c , kH z
10 1520
m e a su re m e n t d a ta :
DLR AWB data
C A S E # 1 , D L R A W B (sca le d )
C A S E # 2 , D L R A W B (sca le d )
C A S E # 3 , D L R A W B (sca le d )
70
80
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
40
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
80
Symbols: Measurement data
m e n t d a ta :
m e a su re
Lines:
Simulation
results
60
60
50
40
40
5
f c , kH z
C A S E # 1 , IA G L W T (sca le d )
C A S E # 2 , IA G L W T (sca le d )
C A S E # 3 , IA G L W T (sca le d )
70
50
30
IAG LWT data
30
10 1520
5
f c , kH z
10 1520
Overall Comparisons
Pressure Data
Effect of a-o-a on Gpp(f): CASES#1 to #3
Measurement data
80
70
60
C A S E # 1 -S S , IA G L W T
C A S E # 2 -S S , IA G L W T
C A S E # 3 -S S , IA G L W T
50
90
G p p , d B (D f = 1 H z )
5
IAG simulation
70
60
C A S E # 1 -S S , IA G
C A S E # 2 -S S , IA G
C A S E # 3 -S S , IA G
50
10 15
DLR simulation
90
80
f, kH z
5
80
70
60
100
90
90
90
G p p , d B (D f = 1 H z )
100
80
70
60
C A S E # 1 -P S , IA G L W T
C A S E # 2 -P S , IA G L W T
C A S E # 3 -P S , IA G L W T
50
5
f, kH z
10 15
80
70
60
C A S E # 1 -P S , IA G
C A S E # 2 -P S , IA G
C A S E # 3 -P S , IA G
50
5
f, kH z
10 15
C A S E # 1 -S S , D L R
C A S E # 2 -S S , D L R
C A S E # 3 -S S , D L R
50
10 15
f, kH z
100
G p p , d B (D f = 1 H z )
PS
100
G p p , d B (D f = 1 H z )
SS
G p p , d B (D f = 1 H z )
90
100
G p p , d B (D f = 1 H z )
100
5
10 15
5
10 15
f, kH z
80
70
60
C A S E # 1 -P S , D L R
C A S E # 2 -P S , D L R
C A S E # 3 -P S , D L R
50
f, kH z
Overall Comparisons
Farfield Noise Data
Effect of Profile on Lp(1/3)(fc) and Gpp(f): CASES#2 vs. #5
m e a su re m e n t d a ta : data
Measurement
SS
90
C A S E # 2 , IA G L W T (sca le d )
C A S E # 2 , D L R A W B (sca le d )
C AS E # 5 , D LR AW B
70
60
80
70
C A S E # 2 -S S , IA G L W T
60
50
100
50
5
40
30
5
f c , kH z
10 1520
10 15
f, kH z
PS
90
G p p , d B (D f = 1 H z )
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
80
100
G p p , d B (D f = 1 H z )
90
80
70
C A S E # 2 -P S , IA G L W T
60
50
5
f, kH z
10 15
Overall Comparisons
Farfield Noise Data
Effect of Profile on Lp(1/3)(fc) and Gpp(f): CASES#2 vs. #5
C AS E #2,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #5,
C AS E #2,
C AS E #5,
100
SS
90
IA G L W T (sca le d )
D L R A W B (sca le d )
D LR AW B
A
oGR
UL
IA
D
A
oGR
UL
IA
D
70
60
80
70
60
C A S E # 2 -S S , IA G L W T
C A S E # 2 -S S , D
IALGR
C A S E # 5 -S S , D
IALGR
50
100
50
5
40
30
5
f c , kH z
10 1520
10 15
f, kH z
PS
90
G p p , d B (D f = 1 H z )
L p (1 /3 ) , d B
80
Symbols: Measurement data
m e n t d a ta :
m e a su re
Lines:
Simulation
results
G p p , d B (D f = 1 H z )
90
80
70
60
C A S E # 2 -P S , IA G L W T
C A S E # 2 -P S , D
IALGR
C A S E # 5 -P S , D
IALGR
50
5
f, kH z
10 15
Summary
Still comparatively low number of participants (however, increased w.r.t BANC-I!)
Mainly results of faster approaches using SNT have been shown (UoA, IAG,
DLR); two “last minute” LES contributors joined us; however, overall comparisons
were limited (GE-GRC: existent results for a different test case have been roughly
scaled to correspond to CASE#5 in the statement; EXA: data provided for single
core test CASE#1?).
We have seen very interesting results (with some room for improvement) with
many similarities but also significant differences within the delivered data:
- In most of the cases TBL-TE FF noise predictions were within the provided
data scatter band (reproducing systematic error between test facilities)
- General trends (shape effect, velocity scaling) are mostly covered
- But: spectral shapes/ main spectral characteristics are not always perfectly
predicted (here: expected measurement data scatter is much smaller; IAG and
DLR data collapse within +/- 1.5 dB!)
Outlook 1/2
Extension of the existing data base by additional DU-96 data sets by Virginia
Tech (cp-distributions and acoustical data):
- Data measured under NREL funding (described in the report Devenport
W., Burdisso R.A., Camargo H., Crede E., Remillieux M., Rasnick M., van
Seeters P., Aeroacoustic Testing of Wind Turbine Airfoils, Subcontract
Report NREL/SR-500-43471, 2010 ).
63-microphone phased array data with conventional beamforming
processing (test performed in 2007).
- New DU-96 data (currently being processed) at 4 speeds and 5 a-o-a; 0°,
4°, 8°, 12°, 16°
128 microphone phased array with advanced beamformer.
Others?
- Data owners of additional suitable data sets are highly encouraged to
contribute to the BANC-II, III… data base; please contact
[email protected]
Outlook 2/2
BANC-III (if desired) will keep the existing CASES#1-5, the by now established
BANC-II data base is open for use to anyone interested and will be maintained
according to your feed-back
Need for additional test cases, add-ons (wind tunnel environment, additional
mechanisms, etc.)?
BANC-II documentation (presentations, reports, workshop minutes) will be
uploaded at the BANC-II website after the workshop:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/ASG/FDTC/DGBECAN_files_/BANCII_category1
Thank you for your attention!
Agenda
7 June 2012 – BANC-II-1: Trailing-Edge Noise
Introduction
- Problem statement
- Overview on contributions & participants
- Overview of used codes
Participant’s presentations on computational approach & on selected results
- Cristobal A. Albarracin et al., University of Adelaide, Australia (UoA)
- Mohammad Kamruzzaman, University of Stuttgart, Germany (IAG)
- Roland Ewert et al., German Aerospace Center (DLR)
- Lawrence Cheung & Giridhar Jothiprasad, GE Global Research, NY (GE-GRC)
- Damiano Casalino et al., EXA GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany (EXA)
Overall comparisons, summary, conclusions & outlook
Discussion