2nd Workshop on Benchmark Problems for Airframe Noise Computations (BANC-II) 7-8 June 2012 Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Category 1: Trailing-Edge Noise
M. Herr, German Aerospace Center, DLR C. Bahr, NASA Langley Research CenterM. Kamruzzaman, University of Stuttgart (IAG)
www.DLR.de • Chart 1 > M. Herr > BANC-II > 07.06.2012, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
BANC-II-1: (TBL-)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
Agenda7 June 2012 – BANC-II-1: Trailing-Edge Noise
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 StatementIntroduction
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 follow-on 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 StatementIntroduction
BANC-II-1 Problem StatementSimulation 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
Case#1 56 m/s0°
Case#2 55 m/s4°
Case#3 53 m/s6°
Case#4 38 m/s0°
Case#5 60 m/s4°
Full problem statement with more specified definitions of
Profile coordinates (sharp TE!) Tripping devices (TBL-TE noise!) TBL transition locations Ambient conditions, etc. Data formatting instructions
including templates
is available at the BANC-II homepage:https://info.aiaa.org/tac/ASG/FDTC/ DGBECAN_files_/BANCII_category1
CASE#1: single core test case for those who can not afford the full matrix
BANC-II-1 Problem StatementSimulation Matrix
BANC-II-1 Test Cases Coordinate System and Parameter Definition
u
x1/ lc
x 2/l c
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3 midspan plane
= 90° orthogonalview direction fornoise prediction
x3
x1
x2
orientation of flow profiles
= 0°
Orientation of flow profilesPosition @ 100.38 % lc
WPF sensor position @ 99 % lcPSDs (measurement data normalized to Df = 1 Hz)
SS
PS
b = 1 mr = 1 min 1/3-octave bands
= 90° chord-normalview direction for noise prediction
BANC-II-1 Problem StatementSimulation Matrix
BANC-II-1 Test Cases Available comparison data sets for CASES#1-5:
Case#1 56 m/s0° cp(x1), flow/turb. profiles, Gpp(f), Lp(1/3)(fc)
Case#2 55 m/s4° cp(x1), flow/turb. profiles, Gpp(f), Lp(1/3)(fc)
Case#3 53 m/s6° cp(x1), flow/turb. profiles, Gpp(f), Lp(1/3)(fc)
Case#4 38 m/s0° Flow/turb. profiles, Gpp(f), Lp(1/3)(fc)
Case#5 60 m/s4° Lp(1/3)(fc)
Near-Wake Data CASES#1-4 IAG-LWT (Herrig et al.)
BANC-II-1 Problem StatementOverview of Comparison Data
<u3u3>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30CASE#1, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#2, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#3, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#4, x/lc = 1.0038, SS
U1/U, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.5 1 1.50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#2, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#3, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#4, x/lc = 1.0038, SS
kT/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30CASE#1, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#2, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#3, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#4, x/lc = 1.0038, SS
<u1u1>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30CASE#1, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#2, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#3, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#4, x/lc = 1.0038, SS
(model), m2/s3
x 2,m
m
101 102 103 1040
5
10
15
20
25
30CASE#1, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#2, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#3, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#4, x/lc = 1.0038, SS
<u2u2>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30CASE#1, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#2, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#3, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#4, x/lc = 1.0038, SS
f (model), mm
x 2,m
m
0 2 4 6 8 100
5
10
15
20
25
30CASE#1, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#2, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#3, x/lc = 1.0038, SSCASE#4, x/lc = 1.0038, SS IAG-LWT 2-
point correlation measurements
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)!
BANC-II-1 Problem StatementOverview of Comparison Data
fc(original), kHz
L p(1/
3)(o
rigin
al),
dB
5 10 15 2030
40
50
60
70
CASE#1, IAG LWT+SL (50m/s, 0deg)CASE#1, IAG LWT+SL (60m/s, 0deg)CASE#1, IAG LWT (60m/s, 0deg)CASE#1, DLR AWB (50.2m/s, 0deg)CASE#1, DLR AWB (60m/s, 0deg)CASE#1, UFL UFAFF (52.4m/s, 0deg, 0.3m)CASE#1, UFL UFAFF (59.4m/s, 0deg, 0.3m)
fc(scaled), kHz
L p(1/
3)(s
cale
d),d
B
5 10 15 2030
40
50
60
70
CASE#1, IAG LWT+SL (50m/s, 0deg)CASE#1, IAG LWT+SL (60m/s, 0deg)CASE#1, IAG LWT (60m/s, 0deg)CASE#1, DLR AWB (50.2m/s, 0deg)CASE#1, DLR AWB (60m/s, 0deg)CASE#1, UFL UFAFF (52.4m/s, 0deg, 0.3m)CASE#1, UFL UFAFF (59.4m/s, 0deg, 0.3m)CASE#1, BPM (NAFNOISE) prediction
fc(original), kHz
L p(1/
3)(o
rigin
al),
dB
5 10 15 2030
40
50
60
70
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)
fc(scaled), kHz
L p(1/
3)(s
cale
d),d
B
5 10 15 2030
40
50
60
70
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
+/3 dB scatter among all available data sets
Acoustical Data Sets CASES#3 and #5 (CASE#4 not shown) Scaling to problem statement conditions required!
BANC-II-1 Problem StatementOverview of Comparison Data
fc(original), kHz
L p(1/
3)(o
rigin
al),
dB
5 10 15 2030
40
50
60
70
CASE#3, IAG LWT (60m/s, 6deg)CASE#3, DLR AWB (50.2m/s, 5deg)CASE#3, DLR AWB (60m/s, 5deg)CASE#3, DLR AWB (50m/s, 7.6deg)CASE#3, DLR AWB (59.9m/s, 7.6deg)
fc(original), kHz
L p(1/
3)(o
rigin
al),
dB
5 10 15 2030
40
50
60
70
CASE#5, DLR AWB (60 m/s, 4deg, 0.3m)
fc(scaled), kHz
L p(1/
3)(s
cale
d),d
B
5 10 15 2030
40
50
60
70
CASE#3, IAG LWT (60m/s, 6deg)CASE#3, DLR AWB (50.2m/s, 5deg)CASE#3, DLR AWB (60m/s, 5deg)CASE#3, DLR AWB (50m/s, 7.6deg)CASE#3, DLR AWB (59.9m/s, 7.6deg)CASE#3, BPM (NAFNOISE) prediction
BANC-II-1 Contributions & ParticipantsOverview
Configuration/ Participant UoA IAG DLR GE-GRC EXA
Case#1 56 m/s0° - -
Case#2 55 m/s4° - -
Case#3 53 m/s6° - -
Case#4 38 m/s0° - -
Case#5 60 m/s4° Different case!
AIAA-2012-2055 -
Overview on Contributions
Fast TE noise prediction method, based on a statistical model of the turbulent velocity cross-spectrum.
Overview of MethodsContribution Albarracin et al.: UoA’s RSNM code
RSNM: RANS-based Statistical Noise Model
RANSCFD
Turbulent velocity cross-spectrum
model
+Half-Plane Green
´s function
• OpenFOAM package
• k-omegaSST model
Uk , ,
k
U
CFD Mesh
RSNM
Acoustic spectrum in the far field
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
cf. AIAA-2012-2181
Simplified theoretical airfoil trailing-edge far-field noise prediction model based on steady RANS: highly accurate and very fast
Overview of MethodsContribution Kamruzzaman et al.: IAG‘s simplified theoretical prediction code Rnoise
Rnoise: RANS Based Trailing-edge Noise Prediction Model
Governing Eqns.
Source Modeling RANS Simulation
Noise SpectraWPFBL &
Correlations
Wind Tunnel Exp. & Validation
000 ,, pu
CAAAPE
mean flow; here:DLR code TAU with RSM
,kturbulence
Sound Fieldp
p
source L
Overview of MethodsContribution 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
kSpectral analysis
CFD RANS
4D-Stochastic Sound Sources FRPM
00 uuL tt
vortex sound sources
High-fidelity incompressible LES calculation combined with Amiet’s theory for far-field noise
Overview of MethodsContribution GE GRC: LES with Amiet’s Theory (CharLES code, Cascade Technologies)
CharLES: LES-based trailing edge noise prediction
Unstructured
mesh
LES
simulation
Amiet’s
Theory
Far-field
Sound
High-fidelity grid near TE and airfoil surface
Capture boundary layer, wall-pressure spectra, and correlation data near TE
Project TE information to far-field observer locations
cf. AIAA-2012-2055
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 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 dissipation2. 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
Overview of MethodsContribution Damiano Casalino et al.: EXA’s PowerFlow / PowerAcoustics code
PowerFLOW / PowerACOUSTICS
1 2 3
cf. AIAA-2012-2235
Thank you for your attention!
Agenda7 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
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 extractprinciple 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
Overall ComparisonsIntroduction
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
Scope
Aerodynamical data
Cp-Distributions CASES#1 & #2
Overall Comparisons
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, XFOIL
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#2, IAG LWTCASE#2, XFOIL
Format: comparison data in black!
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, XFOILCASE#1, UoA
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, XFOILCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAG
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, XFOILCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAGCASE#1, DLR
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#2, IAG LWTCASE#2, XFOILCASE#2, UoA
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#2, IAG LWTCASE#2, XFOILCASE#2, UoACASE#2, IAG
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#2, IAG LWTCASE#2, XFOILCASE#2, UoACASE#2, IAGCASE#2, DLR
UoA: OpenFOAM - SSTIAG: FLOWER (DLR) - SSTDLR: TAU (DLR) - RSM
Aerodynamical data
Cp-Distributions CASES#3 & #5
Overall Comparisons
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#5, XFOIL
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#3, IAG LWTCASE#3, XFOIL
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#3, IAG LWTCASE#3, XFOILCASE#3, UoA
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#3, IAG LWTCASE#3, XFOILCASE#3, UoACASE#3, IAG
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#3, IAG LWTCASE#3, XFOILCASE#3, UoACASE#3, IAGCASE#3, DLR
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#5, XFOILCASE#5, UoA
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#5, XFOILCASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAG
x1/lc
c p
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
CASE#5, XFOILCASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAGCASE#5, DLR
Format: comparison data in black!
UoA: OpenFOAM - SSTIAG: FLOWER (DLR) - SSTDLR: TAU (DLR) - RSM
Overall ComparisonsAerodynamical data
Cf-Distributions CASES#1 & #2
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#1, XFOIL
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#1, XFOILCASE#1, UoA
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#1, XFOILCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAG
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#1, XFOILCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAGCASE#1, DLR
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#2, XFOIL
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#2, XFOILCASE#2, UoA
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#2, XFOILCASE#2, UoACASE#2, IAG
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#2, XFOILCASE#2, UoACASE#2, IAGCASE#2, DLR
UoA: OpenFOAM - SSTIAG: FLOWER (DLR) - SSTDLR: TAU (DLR) - RSM
UoA: fully turbulent, no transition!
Overall Comparisons
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#5, XFOIL
Aerodynamical data
Cf-Distributions CASES#3 & #5
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#3, XFOIL
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#3, XFOILCASE#3, UoA
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#3, XFOILCASE#3, UoACASE#3, IAG
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#3, XFOILCASE#3, UoACASE#3, IAGCASE#3, DLR
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#5, XFOILCASE#5, UoA
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#5, XFOILCASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAG
x1/lc
c f
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
CASE#5, XFOILCASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAGCASE#5, DLR
UoA: OpenFOAM - SSTIAG: FLOWER (DLR) - SSTDLR: TAU (DLR) - RSM
UoA: fully turbulent, no transition!
Aerodynamical data
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics
Overall Comparisons
u
x1/ lc
x 2/l c
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3 midspan plane
x3
x1
x2
orientation of flow profilesposition @ 100.38 % lc
= 0°
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics CASE#1 SSAerodynamical data
Overall Comparisons
U1/U, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.5 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoA
U1/U, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.5 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAG
U1/U, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.5 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAGCASE#1, DLR
U1/U, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.5 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWT
<u1u1>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWT
<u2u2>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWT
<u3u3>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWT
kT/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWT
<u1u1>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, IAG
<u2u2>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, IAG
<u3u3>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, IAG
kT/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoA
kT/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAG
kT/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAGCASE#1, DLR
<u1u1>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, IAGCASE#1, DLR
<u2u2>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, IAGCASE#1, DLR
<u3u3>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, IAGCASE#1, DLR
, m2/s3
x 2,m
m
100 101 102 103 104 1050
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWT
, m2/s3
x 2,m
m
100 101 102 103 104 1050
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoA
, m2/s3
x 2,m
m
100 101 102 103 104 1050
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAG
, m2/s3
x 2,m
m
100 101 102 103 104 1050
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAGCASE#1, DLR
f , mm
x 2,m
m
0 2 4 6 80
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWT
f , mm
x 2,m
m
0 2 4 6 80
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoA
f , mm
x 2,m
m
0 2 4 6 80
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAG
f , mm
x 2,m
m
0 2 4 6 80
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#1, IAG LWTCASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAGCASE#1, DLR
UoA
IAG
DLR
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics CASE#2 SSAerodynamical data
Overall Comparisons
U1/U, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.5 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#2, IAG LWTCASE#2, UoACASE#2, IAGCASE#2, DLR
kT/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#2, IAG LWTCASE#2, UoACASE#2, IAGCASE#2, DLR
<u1u1>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#2, IAG LWTCASE#2, IAGCASE#2, DLR
<u2u2>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#2, IAG LWTCASE#2, IAGCASE#2, DLR
<u3u3>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#2, IAG LWTCASE#2, IAGCASE#2, DLR
UoA
IAG
DLR
f , mm
x 2,m
m
0 2 4 6 80
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#2, IAG LWTCASE#2, UoACASE#2, IAGCASE#2, DLR
, m2/s3
x 2,m
m
100 101 102 103 104 1050
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#2, IAG LWTCASE#2, UoACASE#2, IAGCASE#2, DLR
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics CASE#3 SSAerodynamical data
Overall Comparisons
U1/U, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.5 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#3, IAG LWTCASE#3, UoACASE#3, IAGCASE#3, DLR
<u1u1>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#3, IAG LWTCASE#3, IAGCASE#3, DLR
<u2u2>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#3, IAG LWTCASE#3, IAGCASE#3, DLR
<u3u3>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#3, IAG LWTCASE#3, IAGCASE#3, DLR
kT/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#3, IAG LWTCASE#3, UoACASE#3, IAGCASE#3, DLR
UoA
IAG
DLR
f , mm
x 2,m
m
0 2 4 6 80
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#3, IAG LWTCASE#3, UoACASE#3, IAGCASE#3, DLR
, m2/s3
x 2,m
m
100 101 102 103 104 1050
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#3, IAG LWTCASE#3, UoACASE#3, IAGCASE#3, DLR
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics CASE#4 SSAerodynamical data
Overall Comparisons
U1/U, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.5 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#4, IAG LWTCASE#4, UoACASE#4, IAGCASE#4, DLR
<u1u1>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#4, IAG LWTCASE#4, IAGCASE#4, DLR
<u2u2>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#4, IAG LWTCASE#4, IAGCASE#4, DLR
<u3u3>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#4, IAG LWTCASE#4, IAGCASE#4, DLR
kT/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#4, IAG LWTCASE#4, UoACASE#4, IAGCASE#4, DLR
UoA
IAG
DLR
f , mm
x 2,m
m
0 2 4 6 80
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#4, IAG LWTCASE#4, UoACASE#4, IAGCASE#4, DLR
, m2/s3
x 2,m
m
100 101 102 103 104 1050
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#4, IAG LWTCASE#4, UoACASE#4, IAGCASE#4, DLR
Near-Wake Flow Characteristics CASE#5 SSAerodynamical data
Overall Comparisons
U1/U, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.5 10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAGCASE#5, UoA
UoA
IAG
DLR
kT/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAGCASE#5, UoA
<u1u1>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#5, IAGCASE#5, UoA
<u2u2>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#5, IAGCASE#5, UoA
<u3u3>/U2, -
x 2,m
m
0 0.005 0.01 0.0150
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#5, IAGCASE#5, UoA
f , mm
x 2,m
m
0 2 4 6 80
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAGCASE#5, UoA
, m2/s3
x 2,m
m
100 101 102 103 104 1050
5
10
15
20
25
30
35CASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAGCASE#5, UoA
Integral “TBL” Properties CASES#1-5Aerodynamical data
Overall Comparisons
TRANSITIONSS / PS
Ue, m/sSS / PS
d, mmSS / PS
d1, mmSS / PS
d2, mmSS / PS
CASE#1, U∞ = 56 m/s, 0°
Fully turb.6.5% / 6.5 %6.5% / 6.5%
52.2 / 52.251.5 / 51.552.1 / 52.1
15.0 / 15.010.6 / 10.6 14.3 / 14.3
2.7 / 2.72.5 / 2.52.6 / 2.6
1.7 / 1.71.4 / 1.41.5 / 1.5
CASE#2, U∞ = 55 m/s, 4°
Fully turb.6.5% / 6.5 %6.5% / 6.5%
51.6 / 50.950.7 / 50.451.4 / 50.6
19.9 / 11.913.5 / 8.4018.9 / 13.1
4.0 / 2.13.6 / 1.7 3.7 / 1.8
2.3 / 1.31.8 / 1.02.0 / 1.2
CASE#3, U∞ = 53 m/s, 6°
Fully turb.6.0% / 7.0 %6.0% / 7.0%
50.3 / 49.249.1 / 48.749.9 / 48.8
23.5 / 10.715.5 / 7.5018.2 / 14.3
5.1 / 1.94.4 / 1.44.3 / 1.5
2.8 / 1.12.1 / 0.92.2 / 1.0
CASE#4, U∞ = 38 m/s, 0°
Fully turb.6.5% / 6.5 %6.5% / 6.5%
35.3 / 35.336.9 / 36.935.2 / 35.2
16.0 / 16.011.1 / 11.1 14.3 / 14.3
3.0 / 3.02.6 / 2.62.8 / 2.8
1.8 / 1.81.4 / 1.41.6 / 1.6
CASE#5, U∞ = 60 m/s, 4°
Fully turb.12.0% / 15.0%12.0% / 15.0%
55.6 / 54.254.9 / 54.155.9 / 54.0
13.1 / 6.714.2 / 6.117.1 / 9.7
5.2 / 1.55.1 / 1.05.0 / 1.1
2.2 / 0.91.9 / 0.72.1 / 0.8
UoA
IAG DLR
d1, mmSS / PS
d2, mmSS / PS
3.0 / - 1.7 / -
4.8 / - 2.3 / -
5.7 / - 2.5 / -
3.1 / - 1.8 / -
- / - - / -
as measured (IAG):
x1/ lc
x 2/l c
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3 midspan plane
x3
x1
x2
Surface Pressure Data
Overall Comparisons
Position @ 99 % lcPSDs (measurement data normalized to Df = 1 Hz)
SS
PS
Surface Pressure Data
Unsteady Surface Pressure PSD Gpp(f) CASES#1 & #2
fm, kHz
Gpp
,dB
/Hz
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#1-PS, IAG LWTCASE#1-SS, IAG LWT
fm, kHz
Gpp
,dB
/Hz
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#1-PS, IAG LWTCASE#1-SS, IAG LWTCASE#1-PS, IAGCASE#1-SS, IAG
fm, kHz
Gpp
,dB
/Hz
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#2-PS, IAG LWTCASE#2-SS, IAG LWT
fm, kHz
Gpp
,dB
/Hz
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#2-PS, IAG LWTCASE#2-SS, IAG LWTCASE#2-PS, IAGCASE#2-SS, IAG
fm, kHz
Gpp
,dB
/Hz
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#2-PS, IAG LWTCASE#2-SS, IAG LWTCASE#2-PS, IAGCASE#2-SS, IAGCASE#2-PS, DLRCASE#2-SS, DLR
fm, kHz
Gpp
,dB
/Hz
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#1-PS, IAG LWTCASE#1-SS, IAG LWTCASE#1-PS, IAGCASE#1-SS, IAGCASE#1-PS, DLRCASE#1-SS, DLR
f, kHz f, kHz UoA: no surface pressure data provided
IAG: RnoiseDLR: PIANO-FRPM
Overall ComparisonsG
pp, d
B (D
f = 1
Hz)
Gpp
, dB
(Df =
1 H
z)
Unsteady Surface Pressure PSD Gpp(f) CASES#3 & #5
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
/Hz
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#3-PS, IAG LWTCASE#3-SS, IAG LWT
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
/Hz
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#3-PS, IAG LWTCASE#3-SS, IAG LWTCASE#3-PS, IAGCASE#3-SS, IAG
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
/Hz
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#3-PS, IAG LWTCASE#3-SS, IAG LWTCASE#3-PS, IAGCASE#3-SS, IAGCASE#3-PS, DLRCASE#3-SS, DLR
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
/Hz
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#5-PS, IAGCASE#5-SS, IAG
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
/Hz
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#5-PS, IAGCASE#5-SS, IAGCASE#5-PS, DLRCASE#5-SS, DLR
Surface Pressure Data
no measured comparison data available!
Overall ComparisonsG
pp, d
B (D
f = 1
Hz)
Gpp
, dB
(Df =
1 H
z)
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#5-PS, DLRCASE#5-SS, DLRCASE#5-PS, IAGCASE#5-SS, IAGCASE#5-PS, GE-GRCCASE#5-SS, GE-GRC
IAG: Rnoise DLR: PIANO-FRPM
Data has been scaled from different case!
GE-GRC: CHARLES
u
x1/ lc
x 2/l c
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3 midspan plane b = 1 mr = 1m
x3
x1
x2
= 0°
= 90° orthogonalview direction fornoise prediction
TBL-TE FF Noise Data
Overall Comparisons
b = 1 mr = 1 m1/3-octave band spectra
= 90° chord-normalview direction for noise prediction
Farfield Noise Data
1/3-Octave Band FF Noise Spectra Lp(1/3)(fc) CASES#1 & #2
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#2, UoAblack: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#2, UoAblack: measurement data
Overall Comparisons
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, UoAblack: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAG
black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, UoACASE#1, IAGCASE#1, DLR
black: measurement dataUoA: RSNMIAG: RnoiseDLR: PIANO-FRPM
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#2, UoACASE#2, IAG
black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#2, UoACASE#2, IAG
black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#2, UoACASE#2, IAGCASE#2, DLR
black: measurement data
1/3-Octave Band FF Noise Spectra Lp(1/3)(fc) CASES#3 & #5Farfield Noise Data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90black: measurement data
Overall Comparisons
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#3, UoAblack: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#3, UoAblack: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#3, UoACASE#3, IAG
black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#3, UoACASE#3, IAG
black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#3, UoACASE#3, IAGCASE#3, DLR
black: measurement dataUoA: RSNMIAG: RnoiseDLR: PIANO-FRPM
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#5, UoAblack: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#5, UoAblack: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAG
black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAGCASE#5, IAGCASE#5, IAG
black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAGCASE#5, DLR
black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#5, UoACASE#5, IAGCASE#5, DLRCASE#5, GE-GRC
black: measurement data
Data has been scaled from different case! GE-GRC: CHARLES
Selected 1/3-Octave Band FF Noise Directivities: CASE#1Farfield Noise Data
Overall Comparisons
IAG DLR
, deg
p2rms(), Pa2
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13
CASE#1, DLR, fc = 1 kHzCASE#1, DLR, fc = 2 kHzCASE#1, DLR, fc = 5 kHzCASE#1, DLR, fc = 8 kHzCASE#1, DLR, fc = 10 kHz
Lp(1/3)(fc) and Gpp(f) data revisited to identify common trends;
are relative effects captured by the predictions?
Pressure Data
Overall Comparisons
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100black: measurement data
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100CASE#1-SS, IAGCASE#4-SS, IAG
black: measurement data
Overall Comparisons
Effect of Flow Velocity on Lp(1/3)(fc) and Gpp(f): CASE#1 vs. #4Pressure Data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, UoACASE#4, UoA
black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, IAGCASE#4, IAG
black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, DLRCASE#4, DLR
black: measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, UoACASE#4, UoACASE#1, IAGCASE#4, IAGCASE#1, DLRCASE#4, DLR
black: measurement data
U∞ = 56 m/s
U∞ = 38 m/s
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100CASE#1-PS, DLRCASE#1-SS, DLRCASE#4-PS, DLRCASE#4-SS, DLR
black: measurement dataFormat: measured comparison data in black!
Overall Comparisons
Effect of a-o-a on Lp(1/3)(fc): CASES#1 to #3Pressure Data
a-o-a
0°
4°
6°
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#1, DLR AWB (scaled)
measurement data:measurement data:
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#1, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)
measurement data:measurement data:
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#1, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#3, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#3, DLR AWB (scaled)
measurement data:measurement data:
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#1, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#3, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#3, DLR AWB (scaled)
measurement data:measurement data:Measurement data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#3, IAG LWT (scaled)
measurement data:measurement data:
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#3, DLR AWB (scaled)
measurement data:measurement data:
DLR AWB data IAG LWT data
Overall Comparisons
Effect of a-o-a on Lp(1/3)(fc): CASES#1 to #3Pressure Data
a-o-a
0°
4°
6°
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#3, IAG LWT (scaled)
measurement data:measurement data:
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#3, DLR AWB (scaled)
measurement data:measurement data:
DLR AWB data IAG LWT data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#1, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#3, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#3, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#1, UoACASE#2, UoACASE#3, UoA
measurement data:measurement data:
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#1, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#3, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#3, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#1, IAGCASE#2, IAGCASE#3, IAG
measurement data:measurement data:
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#1, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#1, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#3, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#3, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#1, DLRCASE#2, DLRCASE#3, DLR
measurement data:measurement data:
Symbols: Measurement dataLines: Simulation results
SS
PS
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#1-SS, IAG LWTCASE#2-SS, IAG LWTCASE#3-SS, IAG LWT
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#1-PS, IAG LWTCASE#2-PS, IAG LWTCASE#3-PS, IAG LWT
Overall Comparisons
Effect of a-o-a on Gpp(f): CASES#1 to #3Pressure Data
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#1-SS, IAGCASE#2-SS, IAGCASE#3-SS, IAG
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#1-PS, IAGCASE#2-PS, IAGCASE#3-PS, IAG
IAG simulationMeasurement data
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#1-SS, DLRCASE#2-SS, DLRCASE#3-SS, DLR
DLR simulation
f, kHzG
pp,d
B(D
f=1
Hz)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#1-PS, DLRCASE#2-PS, DLRCASE#3-PS, DLR
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#2-PS, IAG LWT
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#2-SS, IAG LWT
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#5, DLR AWB
measurement data:measurement data:
Overall Comparisons
Effect of Profile on Lp(1/3)(fc) and Gpp(f): CASES#2 vs. #5Farfield Noise Data
Measurement data SS
PS
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#2-SS, IAG LWT
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#2-PS, IAG LWT
Overall Comparisons
Effect of Profile on Lp(1/3)(fc) and Gpp(f): CASES#2 vs. #5Farfield Noise Data
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#5, DLR AWBCASE#2, UoACASE#5, UoA
measurement data:measurement data:
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#5, DLR AWBCASE#2, IAGCASE#5, IAG
measurement data:measurement data:
fc, kHz
L p(1
/3),
dB
5 10 152030
40
50
60
70
80
90
CASE#2, IAG LWT (scaled)CASE#2, DLR AWB (scaled)CASE#5, DLR AWBCASE#2, DLRCASE#5, DLR
measurement data:measurement data:
Symbols: Measurement dataLines: Simulation results
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#2-SS, IAG LWTCASE#2-SS, IAGCASE#5-SS, IAG
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#2-SS, IAG LWTCASE#2-SS, DLRCASE#5-SS, DLR
SS
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#2-PS, IAG LWTCASE#2-PS, IAGCASE#5-PS, IAG
f, kHz
Gpp
,dB
(Df=
1H
z)
5 10 1550
60
70
80
90
100
CASE#2-PS, IAG LWTCASE#2-PS, DLRCASE#5-PS, DLR
PS
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!
Agenda7 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