Computational Aeroacoustics (CAA) part1


This is the first in a series of posts about the computational aeroacoustics that is abbreviated as CAA. Aeroacoustics is mainly concerned with the generation of sound or noise through a fluid flow. Familiar examples are

They can be studied by both experimental and computational methods. In an experimental approach, the aerodynamically generated sound is measured in the anechoic chamber that is designed to prevent reflections of sound on the wall, making the room echo-free. The following video created by Microsoft will help us to understand the structure of it.

The computational techniques for simulating flow-generated noise can be classified into two broad categories:

Direct Approaches

The governing equations of the compressible fluid flow is the compressible Navier-Stokes equations and they also describe the generation and propagation of acoustic noise, so we can solve the computational aeroacoustics problems by solving the transient compressible Navier-Stokes equations both in the source region where the flow disturbances generate noise and propagation region where the generated acoustic waves propagate. Acoustic waves have to be resolved in both regions so that the noise can be accurately simulated at observation locations. However, the solution of the Navier–Stokes equations with fine mesh over large domains to determine farfield noise is computationally very expensive.

As is the case in the experimental approaches, it is essential to prevent the reflection of the acoustic waves on the artificially truncated boundary (i.e. it does not stretch to infinity) of the computational domain in order to obtain an accurate result. A variety of numerical techniques have been developed for this purpose:

  1. Navier-Stokes Characteristic Boundary Conditions (NSCBC)
  2. Artificial dissipation and damping in an absorbing zone
  3. Grid stretching and numerical filtering in a “sponge layer” or “exit zone”
  4. Perfectly matched layer (PML)

In OpenFOAM, acousticDampingSource is categorized into Ⅱ and the waveTransmissive boundary condition is an approximation of NSCBC.

Hybrid Approaches (Acoustic Analogy)

David P. Lockard and Jay H. Casper [1] states that:

The physics-based, airframe noise prediction methodology under investigation is a hybrid of aeroacoustic theory and
computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The near-field aerodynamics associated with an airframe component are simulated to obtain the source input to an acoustic analogy that propagates sound to the far field. The acoustic analogy employed within this current framework is that of Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings, who extended the analogies of Lighthill and Curle to the formulation of aerodynamic sound generated by a surface in arbitrary motion.

  • Lighthill’s analogy

Lighthill derived the following wave equation \eqref{eq:Lighthill} from the compressible Navier-Stokes equations:
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial^2 \rho}{\partial t^2} – c_0^2 \nabla^2 \rho = \frac{\partial^2 T_{ij}}{\partial x_i \partial x_j}, \tag{1} \label{eq:Lighthill}
\end{align}
where the so-called Lighthill (turbulence) stress tensor is expressed as

\begin{align}
T_{ij} = \rho u_i u_j + \left( p-c_0^2 \rho \right)\delta_{ij} -\mu \left(\frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} + \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i} – \frac{2}{3}\delta_{ij}\frac{u_k}{x_k} \right), \tag{2} \label{eq:Tij}
\end{align}
\(\delta_{ij}\) is the Kronecker delta and \(c_0\) is the speed of sound in the medium in its equilibrium state.

  • Curle’s analogy

The existence of the objects (solid walls) is not considered in the Lighthill’s theory and Curle developed the theory so that it can be dealt with. The density variation at the observer location \(\boldsymbol{x}\) is calculated from the following equation \eqref{eq:Curle}
\begin{align}
\acute{\rho}(\boldsymbol{x}, t) &= \rho(\boldsymbol{x}, t)\;- \rho_0 \\
&=\frac{1}{4 \pi c_0^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_i \partial x_j} \int_{V}\frac{[T_{ij}]}{r}dV – \frac{1}{4 \pi c_0^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\int_{S}\frac{[P_i]}{r}dS, \tag{3} \label{eq:Curle}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
P_i = -n_j \{ \delta_{ij}p -\mu \left(\frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} + \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i} – \frac{2}{3}\delta_{ij}\frac{u_k}{x_k} \right) \}, \tag{4} \label{eq:Pi}
\end{align}
\(r\) is the distance between the receiver \(\boldsymbol{x}\) and the source position \(\boldsymbol{y}\) in \(V\) (or on \(S\)) and the operator [] denotes evaluation at the retarded time \(t-r/c_0\).

  • Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings (FW-H) analogy

In the following video, we can watch the lecture by James Lighthill and John Ffowcs Williams !

References (English)
References (Japanese)

fvOptions meanVelocityForce

An Example Usage of meanVelocityForce

  • fields: [Required] Name of the velocity field
  • Ubar: [Required] Desired mean velocity
  • relaxation: [Optional] Relaxation factor (default = 1.0)
  • selectionMode: [Required] Domain the source is applied (all/cellSet/cellZone/points)

The parameter name fields has been changed from fieldNames in the latest version as described in this page.

The meanVelocityForce fvOptions calculates a momentum source so that the volume averaged velocity \eqref{eq:magUbarAve} in the whole computational domain (all) or a part of domain specified using cellSet or cellZone reaches the desired mean velocity Ubar.

\begin{align}
\frac{\sum_{i}^{} \left(\frac{\bar{\boldsymbol{u}}}{|\bar{\boldsymbol{u}}|} \cdot \boldsymbol{u}_i \right)V_i}{\sum_{i}^{} V_i}, \tag{1} \label{eq:magUbarAve}
\end{align}
where the summation is over the cells that belong to the user-specified domain, \(\bar{\boldsymbol{u}}\) is Ubar, \(\boldsymbol{u}_i\) is the velocity in the i-th cell and \(V_i\) is the volume of the i-th cell.

patchMeanVelocityForce

The patchMeanVelocityForce fvOptions is also available to specify the desired mean velocity on a patch instead of the volumetric average \eqref{eq:magUbarAve}.

Tutorial
Source Code

In the case of pimpleFoam, we can find three lines related to the fvOptions as shown in the following code (UEqn.H):

In what follows, we will take a closer look at each of three highlighted lines when the meanVelocityForce fvOptions is used. The source files of this class are in src/fvOptions/sources/derived/meanVelocityForce.

  • l. 11

The addSup function is called from l.11 in UEqn.H when discretizing the momentum equation and source term Su is added to the equation.

  • l. 17

The constrain function is called from l.17 in UEqn.H. The if loop is true in the first iteration and else loop is executed for the other iterations to initialize and update the volScalarField defined as the reciprocal of the diagonal coefficients.

  • l. 23

As the average velocity magUbarAve \eqref{eq:magUbarAve} reaches a user-specified value Ubar, the pressure gradient increment dGradP_ needed to adjust the average velocity converges to 0.

Introduction of Open CAE Community in Japan

I heard that Japan’s contribution to the open source CAE communities in the world is limited. I’m afraid that it is the case but many lively activities are actually performed in Japanese communities. In this blog post, I will try to introduce some interesting topics so that the users around the world know what has been going on in Japan.

In Japan, the Open CAE Society of Japan was set up on 9 November, 2009. This general incorporated association has held the Open CAE symposium annually and hands-on training courses several times each year about OpenFOAM, Salome-Meca, and ParaView among other things in many parts of the nation. The number of participants in the annual symposium exceeds 100 in each year.

You can get the latest news on this year’s symposium from the twitter account(@OpenCae2016).

The association additionally gives support to the local study meetings (Open CAE “Benkyou Kai” in Japanese) where many willing industrial and student users get together about once a month to talk to each other about the progress of their simulations of interest and promote friendship between the users. These meetings are actively held in many places in Japan as illustrated in the following figure.

localGroupJapan

Their styles of meetings are different depending on the area, particularly between Kansai and Kanto as described in the post Japan’s bitterest feud: Kansai vs. Kanto (CNN DISCOVER JAPAN):

In Japan, a rivalry that can be just as fierce lies between the eastern Kanto region and western Kansai region, both on the main island of Honshu.
Kanto is home to the country’s modern capital of Tokyo and surrounding cities, including Yokohama, Chiba and Saitama.
Kansai is home to its historic capital of Osaka, as well as Kyoto, Kobe, Nara.
The cultural contention between the two is so longstanding, and entertaining, that it’s regularly discussed on Japanese TV shows.

You can watch the following movie to find out one of the most interesting and unique examples of their activities. In Kansai group, they build experimental equipments and carry out experiments to improve their understanding of the simulation results.

You can also find the presentation materials they have created in the following links. Almost all the participants are Japanese, so their materials are written in Japanese.

The last topic in this post is about a new book. The first Japanese OpenFOAM book about the numerical analysis of heat transfer and fluid flow using OpenFOAM will be published in this month. It is written by the most famous Japanese blogger about OpenFOAM.

OpenFOAM_book

I will continue to report the latest news on the community in Japan.

Please wait till the next update! 🙂

P.S. Please tell me your opinions on how to make use of these Japanese materials in the world community!