Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Hybrid aeroacoustic prediction methods have gained increasing popularity to overcome the large differences between the fluid mechanics and acoustics length scales when noise generated by subsonic flows is investigated. The overall solution of those predictions essentially depends on the accurate representation of the acoustic sources leading to noise emissions. The sources are not generally known, since they are coupled to the turbulent dynamics of the fluid. A common approach is to determine the sources using computational fluid dynamics on a small domain of interest and to compute by an acoustic model the sound field on a larger domain. This coupling is susceptible since usually an interpolation in time is conducted to reduce the amount of data required for a proper source representation. The question of the impact of the interpolation on the acoustic solution arises or in other words, what interpolation formulation is necessary to not impact the acoustic result. Therefore, in this study, the quality of several time-interpolation methods is assessed to determine an appropriate acoustic source reconstruction. First, a general framework to design interpolating filters is presented that allows to obtain interpolation results of arbitrary order and differentiability and offers a configurable passband optimization. Several interpolators are evaluated in detail with special care for proper acoustic source reconstruction. The application to a subsonic turbulent plane jet at Reynolds number Re = 2000 reveals a better source representation by constrained broadband optimized interpolation. Least-squares optimized C⁰-interpolators with additional Taylor constraints according to the order of the time integration method showed the best result. A broadband error reduction turned out to be more important for the source reconstruction when compared to a strict order of convergence. The Taylor order of the interpolator, however, should be at least the Taylor order of the temporal integrator to achieve the desired convergence of the overall solution scheme. Hermitian interpolation was found to be too error-prone to inaccuracies in the numerical approximation of the required temporal derivatives, even though having the theoretical benefit of C¹-differentiability of the interpolation result.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ewert

and Schröder

, “Acoustic Perturbation Equations Based on Flow Decomposition via Source Filtering,” J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 188, 2003, pp. 365–398.

Tam

C. K. W.

and Kurbatskii

K. A.

, “A Wavenumber Based Extrapolation and Interpolation Method for Use in Conjunction with High-Order Finite Difference Schemes,” J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 157, No. 2, 2000, pp. 588–617.

Tam

C. K. W.

and Hu

F. Q.

, “An optimized multi-dimensional interpolation scheme for computational aeroacoustics applications using overset grids,” 10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 2004, AIAA-2004-2812.

Desvigne

Marsden

Bogey

, and Bailly

, “Development of noncentered wavenumber-based optimized interpolation schemes with amplification control for overlapping grids,” SIAM J. Sci. Comput., Vol. 32, No. 4, 2010, pp. 2074–2098.

Cunha

and Redonnet

, “On the signal degradation induced by the interpolation and the sampling rate reduction in aeroacoustics hybrid methods,” Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fl., Vol. 71, No. 7, 2013, pp. 910–929.

Oppenheim

A. V.

Schafer

R. W.

, and Buck

J. R.

, Discrete-time signal processing (2nd ed.), Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1999.

Schafer

and Rabiner

, “A digital signal processing approach to interpolation,” P. IEEE, Vol. 61, No. 6, 1973, pp. 692–702.

Linden

D. A.

and Abramson

N. M.

, “A generalization of the sampling theorem,” Inform. Control, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1960, pp. 26–31.

Parks

T. W.

and Burrus

C. S.

, Digital Filter Design, John Wiley & Sons, 1987, pp. 54–83.

10.

Stanescu

and Habashi

, “2N-Storage Low Dissipation and Dispersion Runge-Kutta Schemes for Computational Acoustics,” J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 143, No. 2, 1998, pp. 674–681.

11.

Tam

C. K. W.

and Webb

J. C.

, “Dispersion-relation-preserving finite difference schemes for computational acoustics,” J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 107, 1993, pp. 262–281.

12.

Johansson

, “High Order Finite Difference Operators with the Summation by Parts Property Based on DRP Schemes,” Tech. Rep. 2004–036, Department of Information Technology, Uppsala University, 2004.

13.

Catmull

and Rom

, “A class of local interpolating splines,” Comput. Aided Geom. D., Vol. 74, 1974, pp. 317–326.

14.

Marinc

and Foysi

, “Investigation of a continuous adjoint-based optimization procedure for aeroacoustic control of plane jets,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Fl., Vol. 38, 2012, pp. 200–212.

15.

Hussaini

, and Manthey

, “Low-Dissipation and Low-Dispersion Runge-Kutta Schemes for Computational Acoustics,” J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 124, 1996, pp. 177–197.

16.

Vasilyev

O. V.

Lund

T. S.

, and Moin

, “A General Class of Commutative Filters for LES in Complex Geometries,” J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 146, No. 1, 1998, pp. 82–104.

17.

Lodato

Domingo

, and Vervisch

, “Three-dimensional boundary conditions for direct and large-eddy simulation of compressible viscous flows,” J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 227, No. 10, 2008, pp. 5105–5143.

18.

Freund

, “A Proposed Inflow/Outflow Boundary Condition for Direct Computation of Aerodynamic Sound,” AIAA J., Vol. 35, No. 4, 1997, pp. 740–742.

19.

Bodony

D. J.

, “Analysis of sponge zones for computational fluid mechanics,” J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 212, No. 2, 2006, pp. 681–702.

20.

Bogey

and Bailly

, “Three-dimensional non-reflective boundary conditions for acoustic simulations: Far field formulation and validation test cases,” Acta Acust. United Ac., Vol. 88, No. 4, 2002, pp. 463–471.

Comparison of Source Reconstruction Methods for Hybrid Aeroacoustic Predictions

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References