Graduate School ETD Form 9
(Revised 12/07)
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance
This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared
By DEEPAK THIRUMURTHY
Entitled DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF NOISE SUPPRESSION EXHAUST NOZZLE SYSTEMS
For the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS
Is approved by the final examining committee:
W
Dr. ANASTASIOS S. LYRINTZIS
Chair
PR
EV
Dr. JOHN P. SULLIVAN
IE
Dr. GREGORY A. BLAISDELL
To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Research Integrity and
Copyright Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 20), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of
Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material.
Dr. ANASTASIOS S. LYRINTZIS
Approved by Major Professor(s): ____________________________________
____________________________________
Approved by:
Dr. ANASTASIOS S. LYRINTZIS
Head of the Graduate Program
JANUARY 14TH, 2010
Date
Graduate School Form 20
(Revised 6/09)
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Research Integrity and Copyright Disclaimer
Title of Thesis/Dissertation:
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF NOISE SUPPRESSION EXHAUST NOZZLE SYSTEMS
W
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS
For the degree of ________________________________________________________________
IE
I certify that in the preparation of this thesis, I have observed the provisions of Purdue University
Executive Memorandum No. C-22, September 6, 1991, Policy on Integrity in Research.*
Further, I certify that this work is free of plagiarism and all materials appearing in this
thesis/dissertation have been properly quoted and attributed.
PR
EV
I certify that all copyrighted material incorporated into this thesis/dissertation is in compliance with
the United States’ copyright law and that I have received written permission from the copyright
owners for my use of their work, which is beyond the scope of the law. I agree to indemnify and save
harmless Purdue University from any and all claims that may be asserted or that may arise from any
copyright violation.
DEEPAK THIRUMURTHY
______________________________________
Printed Name and Signature of Candidate
02/22/2010
______________________________________
Date (month/day/year)
*Located at http://www.purdue.edu/policies/pages/teach_res_outreach/c_22.html
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF
NOISE SUPPRESSION EXHAUST NOZZLE SYSTEMS
A Thesis
of
W
Submitted to the Faculty
IE
Purdue University
by
PR
EV
Deepak Thirumurthy
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of
Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics
May 2010
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
UMI Number: 1479646
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
PR
EV
IE
W
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 1479646
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
PR
EV
IE
W
ii
To my Parents and dear Sister, who enabled me to pursue my dreams.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude towards my major professors, Dr. Anastasios S. Lyrintzis and Dr. Gregory A. Blaisdell for their support, encouragement and
instruction.
My sincere appreciation goes to Dr. John P. Sullivan and his design team for their
constant suggestions on the nozzle design and support in the form of experimen-
W
tal results. I would also like to thank Dr. Stephen D. Heister, director, Rolls-Royce
University Technology Center in High Mach Propulsion, Dr. Jack S. Sokhey, senior engineering consultant, Rolls-Royce, Indianapolis, USA and Mr. John R. Whurr, senior
IE
project engineer, Rolls-Royce, Derby, UK for their support.
I am grateful to Dr. John Matlik, Dr. Loren Garrison and Patricia A. Ellis, Rolls-
PR
EV
Royce, Indianapolis, USA for being instrumental in liaisoning the Purdue University
- Rolls-Royce University Technology Center activities and helping in obtaining publication approval.
The work summarized in this thesis was part of Task 8, nozzle acoustics analysis,
of the supersonic business jet program, sponsored by Rolls-Royce and the Gulfstream
Aerospace Corporation.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
vi
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vii
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xv
NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xvii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xix
W
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
4
5
6
2 Noise Suppression and Design Methodology . .
2.1 Jet Noise - A Classical Problem . . . . . .
2.2 Noise Suppression Exhaust Nozzles . . . .
2.2.1 Ejector Nozzle . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2 Chevrons - Passive Mixers . . . . .
2.3 Computational Techniques . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1 Numerical Methods . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2 Turbulence Modeling for Jet Flows
2.4 Design Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
8
10
12
15
18
19
20
26
3 Chevron Nozzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Three-Stream Separate-Flow Axisymmetric Plug Nozzle (3BB)
3.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2 Geometry and Mesh Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.3 Boundary Conditions and CFD Methodology . . . . . .
3.3.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Three-Stream Separate-Flow Chevron Nozzle (3A12B) . . . .
3.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.2 Geometry and Mesh Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.3 Boundary Conditions and CFD Methodology . . . . . .
3.4.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
28
29
29
29
30
31
33
42
42
42
45
46
PR
EV
IE
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Supersonic Civil Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Challenges Associated with Supersonic Transport
1.3 Noise Suppression Propulsion System . . . . . . .
1.4 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
v
3.5
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
58
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59
59
59
60
60
60
62
64
68
68
68
69
71
74
76
79
106
5 3-D Ejector Nozzles
with Clamshell Doors and Chevrons . . . . . . . .
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Ejector Flow with Chevrons . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Nozzle Design and CAD Geometry . . . . .
5.5 Computational Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7 Numerical Computation . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8.1 Design I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8.2 Design II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8.3 Discussion on the centerline statistics
5.8.4 Effect on the ejector mass flow . . . .
5.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.10 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
108
108
109
109
110
114
116
117
118
118
119
120
120
128
128
6 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
129
LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
132
PR
EV
IE
W
4 Ejector Nozzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 2-D Ejector Nozzle Test Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 Geometry and Mesh Generation . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.3 Boundary Conditions and Numerical Computation
4.3.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 3-D Ejector Nozzle with Clamshell Doors . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.2 Experimental Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.3 Nozzle Design and CAD Geometry . . . . . . . . .
4.4.4 Grid Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.5 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.6 Numerical Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.7 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
Thies and Tam’s k- turbulence model constants [39]. . . . . . . . . . .
24
3.1
Boundary conditions for the CFD simulation of the three-stream separateflow axisymmetric plug nozzle (3BB) [20]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
Boundary conditions for the CFD simulation of the three-stream separateflow chevron nozzle (3A12B) [24]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
4.1
2-D ejector nozzle boundary conditions [46]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
4.2
Calculation of the corrected inlet axial velocity magnitude for the CFD
simulations using the minimization of the RMS difference. . . . . . . .
77
Dimensions of the chevron on the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors
for Design I and Design II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111
Boundary conditions for the CFD simulation of the ejector nozzle with
clamshell doors and chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
116
The effect of chevrons on the ejector mass flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
121
5.2
5.3
IE
5.1
PR
EV
3.2
W
2.1
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.1
1.2
Page
History of the commercial and military supersonic transport aircraft and
its progress. (Reproduced courtesy of P. Henne [3].) . . . . . . . . . . .
2
The noise distribution from the individual components of the airbreathing
jet engine propulsion system [6]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
A schematic representation of the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors [7].
2.1
Jet noise as a result of the shear layer mixing phenomenon. . . . . . . .
2.2
Requirements for the pressure ratio and the area ratio as Mach number
increases [16]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Operational modes of the ejector nozzle with clamshell doors (1) Subsonic
take-off, (2) Supersonic cruise and (3) Subsonic approach. . . . . . . .
14
LS /∆ = Optimum attached free mixing layer. (Reproduced courtesy of J.
Der Jr. [17].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Three-stream separate-flow nozzle with chevrons on the core and fan nozzle [18]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Mixing of two streams of the chevron nozzle and streamwise vortex formation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
2.7
Methodology for the jet engine exhaust nozzle design and analysis. . .
27
3.1
The CAD geometry of the three-stream separate-flow axisymmetric plug
nozzle [20]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
The computational mesh for the three-stream separate-flow axisymmetric
plug nozzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to PIV experiments on the Z=0 plane [20]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the standard
k- turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the realizable
k- turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
2.5
2.6
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
IE
2.4
PR
EV
2.3
W
1.3
5
9
viii
Figure
3.6
Page
3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the standard
k-ω turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the k-ω shear
stress transport turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . .
38
3BB axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the Reynolds
stress turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to PIV experiments on the Z=0 plane [20]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
3.10 3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the standard
k- turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
3.11 3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the realizable
k- turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
3.12 3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the standard
k-ω turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
3.7
3.8
IE
W
3.9
40
3.14 3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the Reynolds
stress turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
3.15 Centerline axial velocity profiles for different turbulence models and comparison with the experimental result. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
3.16 Centerline total temperature profiles for different turbulence models and
comparison with the experimental result. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
3.17 Dimensions for the design of alternating chevrons [21]. . . . . . . . . .
43
3.18 The CAD geometry of the three-stream separate-flow chevron nozzle [24].
44
3.19 The computational mesh for the three-stream separate-flow chevron nozzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
3.20 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to PIV experiments on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . .
49
3.21 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to WINDCFD results on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . .
49
3.22 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the k-ω
SST turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane.
49
PR
EV
3.13 3BB turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the k-ω shear
stress transport turbulence model on the Z=0 plane. . . . . . . . . . .
ix
Figure
Page
50
3.24 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the realizable k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron midplane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
3.25 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to Thies and
Tam’s k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron midplane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
3.26 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to PIV experiments on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . . . . . . .
51
3.27 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to WINDCFD results on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . . . .
51
3.28 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the k-ω
SST turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . . . .
51
3.29 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the standard k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. .
52
PR
EV
IE
W
3.23 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the standard k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron midplane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.30 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to the realizable k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . .
52
3.31 3A12B axial velocity magnitude contour plot corresponding to Thies and
Tam’s k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid plane. .
52
3.32 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to PIV experiments on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . .
53
3.33 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to WIND-CFD
results on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . .
53
3.34 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the k-ω SST
turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane. . .
53
3.35 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the standard
k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron mid-plane.
54
3.36 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the realizable k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron midplane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
3.37 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to Thies and
Tam’s k- turbulence model on the Z=0 and inward-facing chevron midplane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
x
Figure
Page
55
3.39 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to WIND-CFD
results on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . . . . . . .
55
3.40 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the k-ω SST
turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . . . . . .
55
3.41 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the standard
k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . . . .
56
3.42 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to the realizable k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. . .
56
3.43 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to Thies and
Tam’s k- turbulence model on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane. .
56
3.44 Centerline axial velocity profiles for different turbulence models and comparison with the experimental result. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
IE
W
3.38 3A12B turbulent kinetic energy contour plot corresponding to PIV experiments on the outward-facing chevron mid-plane [24]. . . . . . . . . . .
3.45 Centerline total temperature profiles for different turbulence models and
comparison with the experimental result. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Experimental setup for the 2-D ejector nozzle. (Reproduced courtesy
of [46].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
4.2
Computational mesh for the 2-D ejector nozzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
4.3
Mach number contour plot of the 2-D ejector nozzle corresponding to the
k-ω SST turbulence model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
Mach number contour plot of the 2-D ejector nozzle corresponding to the
Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
4.5
2-D ejector nozzle axial velocity profile at X=3.0 in. . . . . . . . . . .
65
4.6
2-D ejector nozzle axial velocity profile at X=5.0 in. . . . . . . . . . .
65
4.7
2-D ejector nozzle axial velocity profile at X=7.0 in. . . . . . . . . . .
66
4.8
2-D ejector nozzle axial velocity profile at X=10.5 in. . . . . . . . . . .
66
4.9
2-D ejector nozzle total temperature profile at X=3.0 in. . . . . . . . .
67
4.10 2-D ejector nozzle total temperature profile at X=10.5 in. . . . . . . .
67
4.11 CAD model of the 3-D ejector nozzle without clamshell doors [44]. . . .
69
4.12 CAD model of the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors [44]. . . . .
69
4.4
PR
EV
4.1
57
xi
Figure
Page
4.13 Computational mesh for nozzle walls (a) 3-D ejector nozzle without clamshell
doors (Grid I), and (b) 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors (Grid II).
70
4.14 Computational mesh (Grid II) for the entire flow domain of the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors for the CFD simulation at experimental
conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
4.15 Computational mesh (Grid III) for the entire flow domain of the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors for the CFD simulation at take-off conditions (higher NPR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
4.16 Extent of the computational domain for the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell
doors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
74
4.18 Schematic representation of take-off boundary conditions (Simulation II)
and their numerical values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
4.19 Experimental survey of the plenum chamber in the absence of the nozzle showing the nonuniformity involved in the axial velocity magnitude
distribution [44]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
PR
EV
IE
W
4.17 Schematic representation of experimental boundary conditions (Simulation I) and their numerical values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.20 RMS difference distribution in the axial velocity magnitude at X/DEQ =1.0
downstream of the nozzle throat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
4.21 Contour plot of the normalized axial velocity magnitude on the Z=0 plane
for the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors corresponding to the k-ω
shear stress transport turbulence model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
4.22 Contour plot of the normalized axial velocity magnitude on the Z=0 plane
for the 3-D ejector nozzle with clamshell doors corresponding to the realizable k- turbulence model with Thies and Tam’s model constants for jet
flows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
4.23 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.0 from the throat [44].
82
4.24 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.0 from the throat.
.
82
4.25 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.5 from the throat [44].
83
4.26 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.5 from the throat.
.
83
4.27 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =2.0 from the throat [44].
84
4.28 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =2.0 from the throat.
.
84
4.29 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 from the throat [44].
85
xii
Figure
Page
.
85
4.31 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.0 and on the Z=0 plane.
86
4.32 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.0 and on the Y =0 plane.
86
4.33 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.5 and on the Z=0 plane.
87
4.34 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.5 and on the Y =0 plane.
87
4.35 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =2.0 and on the Z=0 plane.
88
4.36 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =2.0 and on the Y =0 plane.
88
4.37 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Z=0 plane.
89
4.38 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Y =0 plane.
89
4.39 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 downstream of the
nozzle throat corresponding to the realizable k- turbulence model. . .
90
4.40 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 downstream of the
nozzle throat corresponding to the standard k- turbulence model. . . .
90
4.41 Comparison of centerline axial velocity profiles among experiments, the
k-ω SST, the realizable k- and the standard k- turbulence models. . .
91
PR
EV
IE
W
4.30 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 from the throat.
4.42 Comparison of axial velocity profiles at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Z=0 plane
between the k-ω SST and the realizable k- turbulence model. . . . . .
92
4.43 Comparison of axial velocity profiles at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Y =0 plane
between the k-ω SST and the realizable k- turbulence model. . . . . .
92
4.44 Contour plot of the normalized axial velocity magnitude of the 3-D ejector
nozzle with clamshell doors on the Z=0 plane with streamlines showing
the flow separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
93
4.45 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =0.42 from the throat [44].
95
4.46 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =0.42 from the throat. .
95
4.47 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.0 from the throat [44].
96
4.48 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.0 from the throat.
.
96
4.49 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.5 from the throat [44].
97
4.50 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =1.5 from the throat.
.
97
4.51 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =2.0 from the throat [44].
98
4.52 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =2.0 from the throat.
98
.
xiii
Figure
Page
4.53 Experimental U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 from the throat [44].
99
4.54 Computational U/UP L contour plot at X/DEQ =3.0 from the throat.
99
.
100
4.56 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =0.42 and on the Y =0 plane.
100
4.57 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.0 and on the Z=0 plane.
101
4.58 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.0 and on the Y =0 plane.
101
4.59 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.5 and on the Z=0 plane.
102
4.60 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =1.5 and on the Y =0 plane.
102
4.61 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =2.0 and on the Z=0 plane.
103
4.62 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =2.0 and on the Y =0 plane.
103
4.63 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Z=0 plane.
104
4.64 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =3.0 and on the Y =0 plane.
104
4.65 Mach number contour plot on the Z=0 symmetry plane of the 3-D ejector
nozzle with clamshell doors at take-off conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . .
105
PR
EV
IE
W
4.55 Normalized axial velocity profile at X/DEQ =0.42 and on the Z=0 plane.
4.66 Mach number contour plot at X/DEQ =0.5 plane downstream of the 3-D
ejector nozzle throat at take-off conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
106
5.1
The phenomenon of the ejector flow with chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . .
109
5.2
CAD geometry of the ejector nozzle with clamshells and chevrons, Design
I - X-section at the throat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
112
CAD geometry of the ejector nozzle with clamshells and chevrons, Design
II - X-section at the throat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
112
CAD geometry of the ejector nozzle with clamshells and chevrons, Design
I - Isometric view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
113
CAD geometry of the ejector nozzle with clamshells and chevrons, Design
II - Isometric view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
113
5.6
Computational mesh for ejector nozzle walls and chevrons - Design I. .
114
5.7
Computational mesh for ejector nozzle walls and chevrons - Design II. .
115
5.8
Contours of Mach number and turbulent kinetic energy corresponding to
the CFD simulation of the baseline nozzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
122
Contours of Mach number and turbulent kinetic energy corresponding to
the CFD simulation of the chevron nozzle (Design II). . . . . . . . . .
122
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.9
xiv
Figure
Page
123
5.11 Mach number contours on Y Z-plane at X/DEQ = 0.5 for the ejector nozzle
without chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123
5.12 Mach number contours on the plane in between two chevrons for the ejector
nozzle with chevrons - Design I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
124
5.13 Mach number contours on Z=0 symmetry plane for the ejector nozzle with
chevrons - Design I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
124
5.14 Mach number contours on Y Z-plane at X/DEQ = 0.5 for the ejector nozzle
with chevrons - Design I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
125
5.15 Mach number contours on Z=0 symmetry plane for the ejector nozzle with
chevrons - Design II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
125
5.16 Mach number contours on the plane in between two chevrons for the ejector
nozzle with chevrons - Design II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
126
IE
W
5.10 Mach number contour plot Z=0 symmetry plane for the ejector nozzle
without chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
126
5.18 Centerline axial velocity profiles corresponding to the ejector nozzle with
and without chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
127
5.19 Centerline total temperature profiles corresponding to the ejector nozzle
with and without chevrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
127
PR
EV
5.17 Mach number contours on Y Z-plane at X/DEQ = 0.5 for the ejector nozzle
with chevrons - Design II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xv
ABBREVIATIONS
Algebraic multigrid
AST
Advanced subsonic transport program
BBSAN
Broadband shock-associated noise
BC
Boundary conditions
BPR
Bypass ratio of the jet engine
CAA
Computational aeroacoustics
CAD
Computer-aided-design
CFD
Computational fluid dynamics
CFL
Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy number
CRAFT
Combustion Research and Flow Technology
DARPA
Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency
EPS
Encapsulated post script file format
FA
Fundamental aeronautics program
PR
EV
IE
W
AMG
GRC
Glenn Research Center
HSR
High speed research program
ICAO
International Civil Aviation Organization
JAXA
Japanese aeronautical research agency
LES
Large eddy simulation
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NPR
Nozzle pressure ratio
PIV
Particle image velocimetry
QST
Quiet supersonic transport program
QSJ
Quiet supersonic jet
RANS
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
RMS
Root mean square
xvi
Reynolds stress turbulence model
SA
Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model
SCAR
Supersonic cruise aircraft research program (1972-1985)
SSBJ
Supersonic business jet program
SST
Supersonic transport program (1963-1971)
SST
Shear stress transport turbulence model
STEP
Standard for the exchange of product model data file format
TKE
Turbulent kinetic energy
URANS
Unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
PR
EV
IE
W
RSM
xvii
NOMENCLATURE
Area m2
A∗
Nozzle throat area m2
Ae
Nozzle exit area m2
D
Diameter m
DC
Control diameter of the nozzle m
DEQ
Equivalent diameter of the nozzle throat m
Df an
Diameter of the fan nozzle m
H
Semi-height of the 2-D ejector nozzle m
I
Turbulent intensity
LS
Length of the mixing duct in ejectors m
M
Mach number
IE
PR
EV
Me
Exit Mach number
Mthroat
Throat Mach number
P◦
Total pressure P a or atm
Ps
W
A
Static pressure P a or atm
ReD
Reynolds number based on the nozzle diameter
T◦
Total temperature K or R
Ts
Static temperature K or R
U
Axial velocity m/s or f t/sec
UP L
Axial velocity inside the plenum chamber m/s or f t/sec
V
Velocity magnitude m/s or f t/sec
k
Turbulent kinetic energy m2 /s2
ṁej
Secondary mass flow entrained through the ejector slot kg/m3
ṁin
Primary nozzle mass flow kg/m3
y
Wall normal distance m
xviii
y+
Normalized wall distance
Greek Alphabets
Ratio of specific heats
∆
Dimension of the secondary nozzle m
β
Turbulent viscosity ratio
Dissipation rate of the turbulent kinetic energy m2 /s3
µ
Dynamic viscosity kg/m/s
µt
Turbulent eddy viscosity kg/m/s
ν
Kinematic viscosity m2 /s
νt
Spalart-Allmaras variable m2 /s
ρ
Density kg/m3
ω
Specific dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy 1/s
PR
EV
IE
W
γ
xix
ABSTRACT
Thirumurthy, Deepak M.S.A.A., Purdue University, May 2010. Design and Analysis
of Noise Suppression Exhaust Nozzle Systems.
Major Professors: Anastasios S.
Lyrintzis and Gregory A. Blaisdell.
The exhaust nozzle is an integral part of a jet engine and critical to its overall
system performance. Challenges associated with the design and manufacturing of
W
an exhaust nozzle become greater as the cruise speed of the aircraft increases. The
exhaust nozzle of a supersonic cruise aircraft requires additional capabilities such
as variable throat and exit area, noise suppression, and reverse thrust. The present
IE
work is an effort to study the design and analysis of jet engine exhaust nozzle systems
such as the axisymmetric plug nozzle, the chevron nozzle and the ejector nozzle with
PR
EV
clamshells.
High-bypass-ratio jet engines with two or more flow streams have superior noise
suppressing and thrust characteristics. Much research has been done in the past to
study and understand the flow physics of these engines. In the present work a computational fluid dynamics-based approach was used to study the jet engine exhaust
nozzle systems. First, a computer-aided-design model of a three-stream separate-flow
axisymmetric plug nozzle was created and axisymmetric flow simulations were performed to study the flow field. The mean flow and turbulent kinetic energy fields
were compared with the particle image velocimetry results available in the literature.
Next, computational fluid dynamics was used to study the performance of passive
chevron mixers in enhancing the turbulent mixing. Three-dimensional calculations
were carried out to study the effect of enhanced mixing on the mean velocity and
turbulent kinetic energy flow fields. Different turbulence models were used to study
their performance in predicting chevron-based jet flows.
xx
Gas turbine engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce, and business class aircraft manufacturer Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, are collaborating on the development
of technologies for a supersonic jet. As part of this collaborative research and development program, an ejector nozzle with clamshell doors, similar to that on an
Olympus-593 engine, which powered the Concorde aircraft, was designed and tested.
The ejector nozzle offers additional advantages such as thrust augmentation and noise
suppression.
Numerical simulations of this ejector nozzle with clamshell doors at 11.5◦ clamshell
angle and without clamshell doors were performed as part of the validation task. Mean
flow fields were predicted for low subsonic experimental conditions and compared with
W
the experimental data. Flow separation and recirculation zones were encountered near
the inner surface of clamshell doors. Simulations at higher nozzle pressure ratios were
condition as well.
IE
also performed to simulate actual flight conditions. Flow separation prevailed at this
PR
EV
The existing new supersonic noise suppression exhaust nozzle design was improved
by the addition of chevrons and its flow field was analyzed using computational fluid
dynamics. The jet engine exhaust nozzle consisted of three-dimensional ejectors in
the form of clamshell doors and chevrons as passive mixers. Chevrons were placed
in the ejector slot to introduce streamwise vorticity and enhance mixing. It was
observed that the flow separation zone was almost removed and an improvement in
the ejector performance was obtained. Computational simulations corresponded to
take-off conditions with a nozzle pressure ratio of 1.7 and freestream Mach number
of 0.3.
1
1. Introduction
Mankind has witnessed a remarkable change in the speed of transporting goods and
people. During the 19th century the transportation method changed from horsepowered carts traveling at 10 kmph to high speed trains transporting passengers and
cargo at 100 kmph. Speed has no limits as evidenced by the advent of subsonic
airplanes of the 20th century capable of flying at 1000 kmph [1]. Mankind was
W
skeptical of flying at a speed greater than the speed of sound until October 1947,
when United States Air Force Capt. Charles Yeager crossed the sound barrier and
IE
reached Mach 1.02 in his XS-1 experimental aircraft [2].
This fascinating and challenging supersonic flight motivated many aerospace organizations to start programs related to the design of supersonic cruise aircraft and
PR
EV
develop related technologies. On November 29, 1962, the Concorde project, an AngloFrench partnership, was launched and remains one of two supersonic cruise passenger
aircraft that traveled at speeds exceeding 2000 kmph, more than twice the speed of
sound. As airport regulations became more stringent, the Concorde failed to meet
requirements for performance, operating economics, development cost and environmental acceptance. British Airways and Air France ended their Concorde service in
2003.
The Tupolev Tu-144 supersonic transport aircraft was a Soviet Union (now Russia)
effort to make supersonic civil transport a viable option. The project started two
years later than the Concorde. Although the Tu-144 was technically comparable
to the Concorde with a cruise Mach number of 2.5, the Tu-144 lacked a passenger
market within the Soviet Union and service was halted after only about 100 scheduled
flights. Initial plane crashes and high maintenance cost led the Soviet Union to cease
the program in 1983.