The 21st International Congress on Sound and Vibration

13-17 July, 2014, Beijing/China

TWO-DIMENSIONAL CIRCULAR CYLINDER

ANDNACA0012 BENCHMARK PROBLEMS
OF AERO-ACOUSTICS COMPUTATION
Ling Li, Peiqing Liu
School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, Beijing University of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Beijing, China 100191
e-mail: tyytrl@163.com
With the development of air-transport industry, the noise generated from the civil aircrafts
during the process of taking off and landing has been a major concern to people. With the development of the noise reduction methods of engine, airframe noise has become a major part
of large civil aircrafts. The airfoil noise as an important part of airframe noise has been of
great interest to the engineering. How to simulate the flow field and acoustic field accurately
and how to compute the sound generated by the airfoil are the primary problems. The object
of this paper is to calculate the far field sound generated from low Mach number flow around
a two-dimensional circular cylinder and NACA0012 using the Lighthill acoustic analogy as
the benchmark methods for acoustics computations. In this paper, the flow field and the far
field noise are computed respectively. The steady flow field is first simulated by using a variety of Reynold-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models. When the steady flow field is obtained, the time-dependent incompressible unsteady flow is predicted using Detached-eddy
simulation (DES) model. The obtained numerical results, such as pressure coefficient and
wall friction coefficient, are compared with experimental and computational results from the
references. Finally, the far field noise is simulated by using the FW-H solver. The computed
unsteady pressure fluctuations on the wall are used as a sound source for the acoustic solver.
Different fluent models and different acoustic representative span lengths would make an influence on the computed results. The final is to select the model and acoustic representative
span length. The one which could agree well with the previous experiments and computations
is what we want.

1. Introduction
In the mid-century of 19th, English scientist Rayleigh published the important bookThe
Theory of Sound. After that, the study of acoustic reached the peak in the end of 19th. In 1952,
Lighthill, an English scientist, announced the famous Lighthill equation and the theory of aeroacoustics analogy.1The achievements awakened the study of sound and built the foundation of modern acoustics. Following the works of Curle et al, Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings et al, in this paper we investigate the flow field and its induced sound generated by a two-dimensional unsteady
flow around a circular cylinder and NACA0012, using the Lighthill acoustic analogy and FW-H
equation as the benchmark methods for acoustics computations.

ICSV21, Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014

21st International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV21), Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014
At present, the methods of the acoustic study have been divided into four methodologies, according to Farassat, a famous scientist in the acoustic field.2They are the fully analytic method,
CFD combined with the acoustic analogy, the semi-empirical method and fully numerical method.
The method based on CFD and the Ffowcs William-Hawkings (FW-H) equation with penetrable
data surface (FW-H) has advanced considerably and plenty of experience has been gained in its use.
The method of CFD combined with the acoustic analogy also has of different ways to simulate the
flow field and the flow- generated sound.
In this paper, the flow field and the far field noise are computed respectively based the method of CFD combined with the acoustic analogy. The steady flow field is first simulated by using a
variety of Reynold-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models in the Fluent solver. When the steady
flow field is obtained, the time-dependent incompressible unsteady flow is predicted using Detached-eddy simulation (DES) model. The obtained numerical results are compared with the experimental and computational results. Finally, the far field noise is simulated by using the FW-H equation. The computed unsteady pressure fluctuations on the wall are used as a sound source for the
acoustic solver. Different fluent models and different acoustic representative span lengths would
make an influence on the computed results. The final work is to compare the different results obtained from different synthetic routes with the previously existing results.

2. Method
In the last several decades, acoustics has been developed and the tools of predicting the sound
generated by the flow field have been improved in terms of type, accuracy, efficiency, etc. In the
next subsections we will present a survey of acoustics prediction methodologies.
2.1 The Fully Analytical Method
The fully analytical method is aiming at studying relatively simple models at the level of
basic research. The real phenomenon always obtains very complex physics, so we must begin with
a model as simple as possible but the model has to at least obtain the essential physics of the phenomenon. Following the works in this category of Ffowcs Williams and Hall, Crighton, Howe and
Amiet, this method becomes very valuable to engineers and designers, because the fully analytical
method is not only the fundament of other methods, but also the measure to verify the reliability
veracity of the other methods.
However, the model which has been simplified from the real phenomenon will not reflect the
physics of the phenomenon exactly. On the other hand, because the acoustic problems are multidisciplinary, requiring deep knowledge of fluid dynamics, acoustics, and advanced mathematics, the
acoustic problems are very difficult to solve analytically. Today, the fully analytical method is limited in its applications of engineering and cannot hold a candle to the numerical methods.
2.2 Semi-Empirical Method
Semi-empirical methods have developed for a long time, and they are the compromise between the numerical and analytical studying. Aircraft Noise Prediction Program (ANOPP) of
NASA Langley, the semi-empirical method proposed for Brooks and Burley, and the Brooks and
Humphrey semi-empirical method based on Howes theory, are all the method based on a large database of real noise experiments and theoretical analysis. In general, the semi-empirical method has
advantage of intuitive, reliability and efficiency, and it is one of the most important approaches to
the acoustic study. But the semi-empirical method appears to be lack of a great satisfying and complete database including all the effects of the geometry and conditions. These shortcomings will not
allow this method to be used for explaining the physics of the generation and propagation of sound
and predicting the noise generated from every sound source and every condition, especially for a
new body. Therefore, this methodology will be replaced eventually by superior ones.
ICSV21, Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014

21st International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV21), Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014
2.3 Fully Numerical Method
The fully numerical method is applied to both turbulence simulation and acoustic propagation.
The proper transfer of source information from near to far field calculation is an active area of research. In the propagation part of the computation, one should reduce the numerical dispersion and
dissipation to obtain meaningful results. Aiming at the problem, Tam, Hu et al and Bogey and Baily
have done a lot works. Additionally, one must use absorbing and non-reflective boundary conditions (NRBC) at the outer boundaries of computational domain to reduce contamination of the
computedacousticdata.3There are, however, some serious problems in this method, such as the ability of the modern computers for great intensive grid and large domain. So in the near future, the
fully numerical method cannot be widely used in the engineering.
2.4 CFD Combined With the Acoustic Analogy
The method of CFD combined with the acoustic analogy, also named the hybrid method or
technique, is always made good use of in the acoustic noise prediction. This method is first to find
the source strengths in the near field using the unsteady RANS, LES/DES, and then to compute the
acoustic analogy for propagation of sound to the far field with LEE (Linearized Euler Equation),
FW-H or Kirchhoff etc.4-5This method could not only eliminate the restriction of the geometry and
condition in the fully analytical and the semi-empirical method, but also overcome the disadvantage
of the fully numerical method in terms of the efficiency. Allowing for the reasons above, the hybrid
method is by far the most popular methodology of acoustic noise prediction today.
Nowadays, a great deal of software can help us to compute the sound and obtain the data of
noise such as ACTRAN, Virtual Lab, Sysnoise, Vone and so on. In the next sections, we adopt the
Fluent solver, common computational fluid software. At first, we will use different turbulence models to simulate the flow field. Through the unsteady flow field, we can get the information of the
sound source. Then with the FW-H in the Fluent, the sound field generating from surface will be
simulated and computed. So the acoustic parameters like decibels and frequency in the sound field
would be obtained.

3. Cylinder
Two-dimensional circular cylinder is the benchmark problem of the acoustics. As a simple
case example, we will present the results and the study of the hybrid method in the next subsections.
3.1 Geometry and Grid
The cylinder diameter (D) is 0.019m and the free stream Mach number employed is M=0.2
corresponding to the Re=90,000, which all refer to the article by Revell et al.6We employ a structure form mesh with 37,164 cells. The quality of the mesh is all above 0.95. The computational domain top and bottom boundaries are both located at 10.5D from the cylinder axis. The inlet and outlet exit are placed, respectively at 8.5D and 20.5D from the cylinder axis whose values are based on
the articles by Kim.7-8Fig. 1 shows the computational mesh used in the two-dimensional simulations.

Figure1. Computational structured mesh used for the 2D circular cylinder.

ICSV21, Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014

21st International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV21), Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014
3.2 Results and Analysis
The near field unsteady flow result is important to obtain the sound source and be used as the
input data to the wave equations in order to obtain the acoustic far-field. Thus the noise prediction
depends directly on the accuracy of the flow result. In this case, the turbulence models of twodimensional circular cylinder flow field respectively are Large Eddy Simulation (Les), SpalartAllmaras (S-A), k-standard model and SST k- model to obtain the time-history of the near field
flow over a circular cylinder at Re=90,000.
The noise of the cylinder flow field is resulting from the unsteady pressure fluctuation and alternative and periodical vortex shedding. For bluff bodies, the shedding frequency St (St=f*D/U0) is
a mean flow quantity to be used as a benchmark parameter or evaluating the quality of the CFD
result in comparison with its corresponding available experimental data. In comparison with the
shedding frequency of the experimental data by Norberg (St=0.180-0.191), 9 the shedding frequency, which is about 0.23 obtained from the CFD simulations, is a slightly higher. It is said that maybe because the simulation is two-dimensional, not three-dimensional.
The accuracy of the numerical simulations is generally evaluated by comparing it with available experimental and computational results. The experiment performed by Revell et al has located
microphone at 128D away from the cylinder axis and at angle of 90 degree from the cylinder stagnation point.6In addition, in the article by Fluent tutorial, the OASPL of the points at 35D and 128D
has been compared with the experimental results.10
Table 1 presents the results of the OASPL using the Les, S-A, k- standard and SST k-
turbulence models which are compared to the corresponding experimental data. The relative error is
also showed in the Table 1 to observe the accuracy and reliability of different Fluent models. Based
on the relative error in the Table 1, we can discover the model of Les may obtain the relatively exact noise data of the receiver-1 located at 35D.However, for the OASPL data of the receiver-2 located at 128D, the result of the k- standard model is closest to the experimental result. In terms of
the two reference points, the SA model may be the best choice to simulate the sound field. Thus the
Fluent models will have an effect on the acoustic computation. The selection of the Fluent and turbulence models is one of the first issues.
Table1.Experimental data and obtained numerical results of the OASPL.

Receiver-1(35D)
Receiver-2(128D)
Les
117.4353
0.372%
106.0615
6.0615%
SA
117.6005
0.513%
106.2316
6.2316%
116.0691
0.796%
104.4699
4.4699%
k- standard
SST
118.7237
1.473%
107.3754
7.2754%
Experimental Results
117
100
In this case, the flow is assumed perfectly correlated over all the cylinder span length and the
vortex shedding is inherently three-dimensional, but we compute the source noise data from the two
dimensional simulations. Acoustic representative span length is required when sound is to be computed using a 2D flow result. When it is assumed that weakly correlated flow (over the cylinder
span) does not contribute significantly to the overall sound, it is possible to use an acoustic representative span length. Based on the strategy employed by Cox and Brentner, the acoustic representative span length can be varied in order to evaluate its effect on the overall sound noise level
(OASPL) under the identical flow field.11
Table 2 shows the OASPL computed for three different acoustic representative span lengths,
namely 2.5D, 5D, 10D. According to Table 2, the acoustic representative span length which is best
suitable for the experimental results of OASPL is approximately 5D in terms of the two reference
points at 35D and 128D.

ICSV21, Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014

21st International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV21), Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014
Table2.Effect of acoustic representative span length on the OASPL results

Receiver-1(35D)
110.0212
115.855
121.839
117

2.5D
5D
10D
Experimental Results
330

30

300

60

270

90

240

120

210

150
180

5.9648%
0.9786%
4.1363%
2.5D
5D
10D

0
122
120
118
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
102
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
122

Receiver-2(128D)
98.7443
104.581
110.6910
100

1.2557%
4.5813%
10.6910%

0
112
110
108
106
104
102
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112

330

30

300

60

270

90

240

120

210

150
180

Figure2.The OASPL directivity of the cylinder located at 35D and 128D.

Fig.2 shows the OASPL directivity of the cylinder located at 35D and 128D respectively. According to the Fig.2, the directivity of cylinder presents approximately the acoustic characteristics
of the dipole. As the acoustic representative span length increases from 2.5D to10D, the OASPL of
the two reference points located at 35D and 128D both increases. Thus the influence of the acoustic
representative span length cannot be overlooked in the case of computing the acoustic data using
the Fluent 2D models.

4. NACA0012
The two dimensional circular cylinder is only a simple example to compute the acoustics. The
real object is to apply the method and experience to simulate the airfoil section. NACA0012 has
been regarded as 2D airfoil section which served as test case in the Second Workshop on Benchmark Problems for Airframe Noise Computations (BANC-II). Thus we will present the results of
the NACA0012 airfoil in the next subsections.
4.1 Geometry and grid
The span length of NACA0012 is 0.4m, the attack angle is 0 degree, and the free stream Mach
number employed is M=0.1664 corresponding to the Re=1.5E+6, which all refer to the article by
M.Herr.12 We also employ a structure form mesh with 237,566cells. The quality of the mesh is all
above 0.95. The computational domain is a circular located at the leading edge of the wing. The
radius of the circular is 15 times the span length of the NACA0012 airfoil. Fig.3 shows the computational mesh used in the two-dimensional simulations.

Figure3.Computational structured mesh used for the 2D NACA0012.

ICSV21, Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014

21st International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV21), Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014
4.2 Results and Analysis
In order to obtain the sound source data exactly, we will first compare the flow field with the
experimental results based on the article by M.Herrin the 19th AIAA/CEAS Acoustics Conference.11In this case of NACA0012, the turbulence model of flow field is SST kmodel and the unsteady flow field is simulated by DES. Fig. 4 shows the distributions of pressure coefficient and
wall friction coefficient which are compared to the corresponding experimental data.
According to Fig. 4, the distribution of pressure coefficient basically agrees well with the reference data delivered by the BANC-II. Difference between the predicted wall friction coefficient
and its reference data in Fig.4 can be mainly explained by the variant transition locations. Generally
speaking, in this case the transition location is predicted fairly accurately.
0.012

EXP
CFD

1.0

EXP
CFD

0.009

Cf

Cp

0.5
0.006

0.0
0.003

-0.5
-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.000
-0.2

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

x1/lc

0.6

0.8

1.0

x1/lc

Figure4. Distributions of pressure coefficient and wall friction coefficient

We have set equidistance ten monitoring points on the upper surface and lower surface of the
airfoil, respectively. Fig. 5 shows the rms of the fluctuation pressure coefficient from the monitoring points. Since the geometry of NACA0012 airfoil and the flow are both symmetrical, the rms of
the fluctuation pressure coefficient of the upper surface and lower surface monitoring points is nearly identical. As the edge of the airfoil is the main noise source, the monitoring point of edge is the
location whose rms of the fluctuation pressure coefficient is the largest.
0.007

up
down

0.3

11

0.006
0.2
0.005

10

0.004

11

'

0.0

cp rms

x2/c

0.1

-0.1

10

0.003

1
0.002

-0.2

0.001
-0.3

0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

x1/c

1.0

0.0

3
3

0.000
0.0

0.2

0.4

7
7

0.6

9
0.8

10
10
1.0

x/c

Figure5. The rms of the fluctuation pressure coefficient from the monitoring points

Fig.6 shows the OASPL directivity of the NACA0012 located at 30 times the airfoil span
length. The angle degree is clockwise and the 0 degree is located at the positive direction of the x
axis. According to the Fig.6, the directivity of NACA0012 airfoil presents approximately the acoustic characteristics of the dipole. The noise in the direction vertical to the free stream direction is
bigger than the noise in the free stream direction. If the computing time is longer and the points are
gathered more, the acoustic characteristics will be simulated more accurately and reliably.

ICSV21, Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014

21st International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV21), Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014
90
45

120

60

40
30

150
35

30

180

35
330

210
40

45

240

300
270

Figure 6.The OASPL directivity of the NACA0012 located at 30 times the span length

5. Conclusion
The method of CFD combined with the acoustic analogy, namely the hybrid method, is used
to compute the sound generated from a circular cylinder and NACA0012 airfoil. In this approach,
the flow field and the sources are simulated with Fluent solver, and the noise obtained is computed
based on the theory of the acoustic analogy and the equation of Ffowcs Williams & Hawkings. In
terms of the results in the case of the circular cylinder, the most accurate turbulence model may be
the k-standard model. In addition, the two dimensional simulation is not suitable for the sound
computation for lacking the flow information over the cylinder span. Thus through the study of the
acoustic representative span length, it is discovered that the acoustic representative span length
which best matches the overall acoustic level is five times characteristic dimension.
With the expansion of the air transportation, the computation and reduction of noise generated
by aircraft, especially by the airfoil, become a major problem. The case of NACA0012 airfoil is the
benchmark problem to apply the acoustic computation in the engineering of aircraft. In this case,
the accuracy and reliability of the unsteady flow field and the acoustic field are both essential.
For future studies, computational cost limitations are one of the most important problems because of the three-dimensional calculations, the large object to be computed and the consideration
of the quadrupole noise sources on the generated sound. Thus new methods will be carried out, for
example, the approach to reduce computational domain.13The purpose of the all works is to compute the noise accurately, study the physics of the acoustics, and finally discover the approaches to
reduce noise.

REFERENCES
1

Lighthill M. On Sound Generated Aerodynamically .I. General Theory. Proceedings of the

Royal Society of London .Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 211(1107), 564587,
(1952).
2
F. Farassat, Jay H. Casper. Towards an Airframe Noise Prediction Methodology: Survey of
Current Approaches. Presented at AIAA 44th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit.AIAA2006-0210, (2006).
3
C. K. W. Tam and Z. Dong. Wall boundary condition for high-order finite-difference
schemes in computational aeroacoustics. Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics.6(6),
303-322, (1994).
4
I. E.Garrick, and Charles E. Watkins. A Theoretical Study of the Effect of Forward Speed
on the Free-Space Sound-Pressure Field around Propeller. NACA Report 1198, (1954).

ICSV21, Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014

21st International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV21), Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014
5

David P. Lockard: A. Comparison of Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings .Solvers for airframe

noise applications. 8th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference & Exhibit, Breckenridge, Colorado,
June 17-19, AIAA-2002-2580, (2002).
6
Revell, J. D., Prydz, R. A. and Hays, A.P. Experimental Study of Airframe Noise vs. Drag
Relationship for Circular Cylinders. Lockheed Report 28074, Final Report NASA Contract
NAS1-14403, (1977).
7
Kim. S. E. and Mohan, L. S. Prediction of Unsteady Loading on a Circular Cylinder in High
Reynolds Number Flow using Large Eddy Simulation. Proceedings of 24th Int. Conf. Offshore
Mech. and Artic Eng, OMAE 2005, Halkidiki, Greece, June12-17, (2005).
8
Kim, S. E. Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Flow past a Circular Cylinder in Subcritical
Regime. 44th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, 9-12 Jan, AIAA 20061418, (2006).
9
Norberg, C., Fluctuating Lift on a Circular Cylinder: Review and New Measurements, J.
Fluids and Structures, 17 (1), 57-96, (2002).
10
Tutorial: Modeling Flow-Induced (Aeroacoustic) Noise, Fluent Inc. May 11, (2005).
11
Cox, J. S, Brentner, K.S. and Rumsey, L. Computation of Vortex Shedding and Radiated
Sound for a Circular Cylinder: Subcritical to Transcritical Reynolds Numbers. Theoretical and
Computational Fluid Dynamics, 12(4), 233-25, (1998).
12
M. Herr, M. Kamruzzamany. Benchmarking of Trailing-Edge Noise Computations Outcome
of the BANC-II Workshop, 19th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. Berlin, Germany, May
27-29, (2013).
13
Robin B. Langtry, Elisabeth A. Gren, Jon V. Larssen, and Philippe R. Spalart. Evaluation of
Structured and Unstructured Grids for Detached Eddy Simulation of Flap Edge Noise, 15th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (30th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Miami, Florida,
AIAA 2009-3102, 11 - 13 May (2009).

ICSV21, Beijing, China, 13-17 July 2014