Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8
           
   
   
       

APPLICATION OF FFOWCS WILLIAMS AND HAWKINGS EQUATION TO SOUND RADIATION BY VIBRATING SOLID OBJECTS IN A VISCOUS FLUID: INCONSISTENCIES AND THE CORRECT SOLUTION.

Alex Zinoviev

               

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. Email:alex.zinoviev@mecheng.adelaide.edu.au.

   

1

INTRODUCTION

   

The ability to predict the amplitude of a sound wave radiated by a solid object in a fluid flow is one of the most significant goals in aeroacoustics. Lighthill 1 made an important step in achieving this goal in 1952, when he developed a theory, which determines that sound radiated by turbulent flow in a fluid without solid boundaries has quadrupole characteristics. Shortly afterwards, Curle 2 extended Lighthill’s theory to a flow where immoveable solid objects are present. According to Curle, a sound wave radiated by a flow in the presence of a solid object is the sum of the Lighthill’s quadrupole sound and an acoustic wave generated by the distribution of dipole acoustic sources over the surface of the object. Curle also showed that the strength of the dipole sources is proportional to the total force per unit area on the surface. Curle’s equation can be simplified for an acoustically small object, for which the amplitude of the radiated sound wave is proportional to the total force acting upon the flow from the object.

Many practical approaches to the sound radiation problem are based on an equation derived by Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings 3 . This equation is more general than Curle’s equation and describes flow around a solid object, which moves at an arbitrary speed. Unlike Curle’s equation, Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FWH) equation contains a monopole term, which depends on the velocity of the object with respect to a stationary observer. At the same time, the main conlusion of Curle about the dipole characteristics of the radiated sound remains unchanged in the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings theory, and for an immoveable object the FWH equation reduces to Curle’s equation.

However, despite being widely accepted, the Curle – Ffowcs Williams – Hawkings theory has never been reliably verified by experiments. Earlier attempts 4,5 showed discrepancies of a few dB between experimental data and theoretical predictions, which was attributed to imperfectness in carrying out the experiments. On the other hand, two recent experiments 6,7 demonstrated that experimental dependence of the total radiated sound power on the flow speed has a different slope compared with the dependence predicted by Curle’s equation. Differences in slopes were

           
     

observed for various sets of experimental parameters, thus making it unlikely that the discrepancy was simply a lack of experimental accuracy.

To explain the observed discrepancy, the author and his co-author carried out a detailed analysis of Curle’s equation 8 . The analysis showed that in Curle’s calculations the contribution of the discontinuity of hydrodynamic stresses on the rigid surface to the radiated sound has been erroneously omitted. By taking this discontinuity into proper consideration, an alternative equation was obtained, which differs from Curle’s equation in two important aspects. First, the strength of the dipole sources on the surface on the object depends on the acoustic component of pressure rather than on the total pressure. Second, contrary to Curle’s equation, the obtained equation contains a monopole term, for which the strength is determined by the relative motion of the object and the fluid.

To demonstrate the difference between the two equations, they were applied to two well-known problems of sound scattering and radiation by a rigid sphere. It was shown that Curle’s equation gives predictions, which are in disagreement with results known from the literature, whereas predictions given by the obtained equation coincide with the known results.

In the present work a detailed reconsideration is given to the more general FWH equation. It is shown, that the algorithm used for obtaining this equation, in fact leads to an equation, which coincides with the equation derived by in reference 8 . Difference between the obtained equations and the FWH equation is demonstrated by an example of a thin plate vibrating in its own plane in a fluid. New methodologies of active noise control, which can be based on the obtained equation, are briefly discussed.

     
               

2

DERIVATION OF AN EQUATION FOR THE RADIATED SOUND AMPLITUDE

To obtain an equation for the amplitude of a sound wave, radiated from a moving body in a fluid flow, an analytical approach is utilised here, which is

   

l

     

analogous to the approach used by Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings 3 . A fixed volume of fluid,

V

         

V, enclosed by a surface, Σ, is considered (see Figure 1). The volume V is divided into regions 1

v

   

n

   

2

1

         

and 2 by a closed surface of discontinuity, S, moving into region 2 with velocity, v. The velocity

       

S

 

of the fluid is represented by u. The outward

Σ

         

normal from V is l, and normal to S directed from region 1 to region 2 is n. The subscripts 1 and 2

Figure 1.

     

refer to the two regions, and an overbar implies that the variable is regarded as a generalised function valid throughout V.

If ρ denotes the fluid density, the mass conservation law for the volume V can be formulated as follows:

(1)

v

t

∫∫

V

ρ

dV

=−

Σ

()

ρΣρ

u

ii

+

l d

−



(

u

i

i

)

2

n dS

i

−



ρ

(

u

i

v

i

)

1

n dS ,

i

SS

     

i

= 1,2,3.

           

By means of the divergence theorem, the integral over the closed surface Σ can be represented as a volume integral over V, and equation (1) takes the following form:

V

∂

 

ρ

t

+

x

i

 

()

∫∫ ii

=−



(

u

v

)

2

n dS

i

SS

−−



ρρ

u

i

dV

ρ

(

u

v

)

ii

1

n dS .

i

(2)

It is necessary to emphasize that, for obtaining equation (2), no assumptions have been made about the composition of the momentum field ρu. Generally, however, this field can be separated

into a potential, ( respectively as

ρu

) pot

, and a solenoidal, (

ρu

) sol

, components which can each be represented

()

ρu

pot

=∇ψρuA=∇×

,

()

sol

,

where ψ and A are the scalar and vector potentials respectively.

       

(3)

Potential and solenoidal fields can be also understood using the concept of streamlines 9 . These are lines such that the tangent to a streamline in any point gives the direction of the velocity at this point. According to equations (3), curl of the potential component is zero and, therefore, its integral over a closed contour is zero as well. Consequently, the streamlines for the potential component cannot be closed and must have the beginning and the end at acoustic sources or in infinity. Conversely, for the solenoidal component the divergence is zero, the integral over a

               
                   

closed contour is not zero and, consequently, the streamlines for the solenoidal component are closed lines.

As the solenoidal component is a curl of a vector, its flux through the closed surface S is zero. Consequently, equation (2) is ambiguous with respect to the field ρu; it is valid not only for the

total field ρu, but also for the potential component of the field, ( important at the next step of derivation.

ρu

) pot

. This ambiguity becomes

The authors of reference 3 concluded that expressions under the integral in equation (2) can be made equal for every point of volume V, leading to the following equation:

(4)

ρ

t

+

x

i

()

(

 

(

−− 

uv

ii

)

2

ρ

(

uv

ii

)

 

1

)

l

i

δ

(

S

)

,

ρρ

u

i

=

where

δ

(

S

)

δ

(

r r

)

is a three-dimensional delta-function, and

r

is a radius vector of a point

           

s

       

s

belonging to the surface S. However, it can be proven that equation (4) is valid only for the

potential component, (

ρu

) pot

, and cannot include the solenoidal component, (

ρu

) sol

. On the one

hand, the solenoidal component, the second term in the left-hand part of equation (2), which is

the divergence of the vector (

ρu

) sol

, is zero at every point of the volume V. On the other hand,

the expression in the right-hand part is zero under the integral only and may differ from zero at different points of the surface S. Therefore, equation (4) should be, in fact, written as

ρ

t

+

x

i

(

)

(

 

ρρ

u

i

=

(

u

pot

i





)( pot

−−

2

v

i

ρ

u

i

v

)

 

)

(

δ

lS

ii

1

)

,

(5)

If region 1 is an absolutely rigid body, the following boundary conditions are satisfied 3 :

u lul=  =

pot

i

1

i



ii

1

sol

ρ

[]

1

= ρ

0

,

[]

p

1

= p

0 ,

,

0

(6)

(7)

                   

pot

sol

l

= vl

             

where

ρ

0

and

p

0

u

i

+u

i

 

2

i

ii

,

(8)

are the fluid density and pressure in the state of equilibrium. With the use of

equations (6), (7) and (8), equation (5) takes the following form:

             

ρ

2

t

+

x

i

 

(

ρ

u

i

)

 

2

(

=− 

ρ

u

sol

i

2

+

ρδ

0

ii

1

[

vlS

]

)

(

)

.

(9)

Let the analysis be restricted to a linear approximation, for which fluctuations of density and velocity are small. In this case the following conditions are satisfied:

(10)

ρρ

0

<< ρ

0

,

                   

u

pot

<<

c

0

,

u

sol

<<

c

0

,

           

(11)

where

c

0

 

is the sound speed in the fluid. Taking account of equations (10) and (11) and dropping

the index 2, equation (9) is reduced to the following equation:

             
                   

ρ

t

+

x

i

(

ρρδ

u

i

=

0

ul

ii

)

pot

(

S

)

,

           

(12)

                   
                         

which is a generalised equation of continuity.

                       

An equation, representing the momentum conservation law, for the case under consideration takes the following form:

 

=

S

(

 

p

ij

V

 ∂

t

(

ρ

u

i

)

+

+

ρ

u

i

()

u

j

v

j

x

j

(

ρ

u u

i

−+



p

ij

2

j

+

p

ij

)

dV

ρ

u

i

()

u

j

v

j

 

1

)

l dS ,

j

               

(13)

where a compressive stress tensor,

i, j = 1,2,3, p , is determined by 9 :

ij

                   

p

ij

=

p

δµ

ij

 

+−

and µ is the viscosity of the fluid.

u

i

u

j

∂∂

xx

ji

+

2

3

u

x

k

k

δ

ij

 

,

               

(14)

By means of an argument analogous to the argument used in the derivation of equation (12), it

can be proven that equation (13) must include only the potential component of the tensor

p

ij

, if

equation (13) is written for every point of volume V. Thus, neglecting the nonlinear terms in the right-hand part, equation (13) can be reduced to the following:

 

                       
 

t

(

ρρ

u

i

x

)

+

(

uu

i

j

)

+=

p

ij

([]

p

2

[]

p

1

)

l

j

δ

(

S

)

.

               

(15)

j

With the use of equation (7), equation (15) takes the following form:

                   
 

t

(

ρρ

u

i

x

)

+

(

uu

i

j

                         
 

+

p

ij

)

(

p

=−

p

0

)

l

i

δ

(

S

)

,

               

(16)

j

which represents a generalised momentum equation.

                     

Excluding

ρu

i

from equations (12) and (16), one can obtain the following inhomogeneous wave

equation:

                             
 

2

∂∂

t

2

c

2

0

x

2

2

i

ρ

2

T

ij

=−

∂∂

xx

ij

x

i

(

pl

i

δ

(

S

)

)

+

t

(

ρδ

0

u

pot

l

ii

(

S

)

)

,

         

(17)

where

T

ij

is Lighthill’s stress tensor, determined by

                     
         

2

                 

T

ij

= ρuu +−p

i

j

ij

c

0

ρδ

ij

,

(18)

and ρ and p are understood as perturbations of the density and the pressure from the state of equilibrium. The solution of equation (17) can be written as the following integral equation:

4π c

2

0

ρ

=

∂∂

∂∂

xx

ij

ij

dV

(

)

i

2



T

[

p

]

∫∫

VS

rr

x

rr

0

−+

i

ρ

00

rr

l dS

(

)

00

t

S

 

u

pot

i

 

rr

0

l dS

i

(

r

0

)

,

(19)

where r is the observation point, r 0 is the source point, and the quantities in square brackets are

taken at retarded times, paper.

t r r

0

c

0

. Equation (19) represents the contribution of the present

                         
                           

3

 

COMPARISON OF THE OBTAINED EQUATION WITH FFOWCS WILLIAMS

       

AND HAWKINGS EQUATION

             

Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FWH) equation in its integral form without nonlinear terms takes the following form 10 :

4π c

2

0

ρ

=

∂∂

∂∂

xx

ij

dV

(

)

i

2





T

 

 

∫∫ ij

VS

rr

x

p

ij

rr

0

rr

−+

i

ρ

00

l dS

(

)

00

t

S

[

]

v

rr

i

0

l dS

i

(

r

0

)

.

(20)

Comparison of the obtained equation (19) and the FWH equation (20) shows, that both equations include identical volume integrals, which determine Lighthill’s quadrupole sound generated by turbulence in the volume V. At the same time the second and the third terms in the right-hand parts of both equations differ. The third term, which determines sound generated by a layer of monopoles on the surface S, is discussed in detail in reference 8 . However, it may be noted briefly that equation (20) cannot describe a simple reflection of sound from an immoveable object. The incident sound wave would have a non-zero normal component on the surface S, which, due to boundary conditions on an immoveable surface, must be cancelled by the velocity in the reflected wave. On the one hand, this situation is described perfectly by equation (19), where the strength of the monopole sources is proportional to the normal velocity in the scattered wave, which is equal to the normal velocity in the incident wave with opposite sign. On the other hand, in the FWH equation (20) the third term vanishes at the immoveable surface, and there will be no monopole sources at all.

An example 8 demonstrates, that without the monopole term it is not possible to determine correctly the amplitude of the reflected sound. Consider a situation where the solid object is a sphere of radius, R , the volume containing turbulence is small, and its distance from the sphere is large in comparison with the acoustic wavelength. In these circumstances, the sound radiated by the quadrupole sources can be considered as a plane wave near the sphere, and the problem under consideration reduces to the problem of a plane wave scattering. It is well-known 9 , that a monopole component will be present in the sound field scattered by the sphere. Obviously, equation (20) cannot describe the monopole component, as the lowest multipole in this equation is the dipole. On the contrary, for the reasons mentioned above, the third term in equation (19), which describes the monopole component, is different from zero.

The second term in equations (19) and (20) determines the amplitude of sound radiated by a layer of dipoles on the surface S. However, the strength of the dipole sources differs in both equations. In the FWH equation (20) the strength is determined by the compressive stress tensor in its general form as defined in equation (14), while in the obtained equation (19) only the acoustic pressure is essential.

The difference between the dipole terms in both equations can be demonstrated by the following example. Let the surface S be the surface of a thin rigid plate, vibrating in its own plane in a viscous fluid. If all plate dimensions are much smaller than the acoustic wavelength, the surface integral in the FWH equation (20) can be simplified, so that the dipole sound amplitude will be proportional to the total force acting upon the fluid from the object. Due to the viscosity of the fluid there will be force acting upon the plate in the direction parallel to the plate. Therefore,

                           
     

according to the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings’ theory, such a plate will be a source of dipole radiation with the dipole moment parallel to the plate.

On the contrary, according to the obtained equation (19), there will be no radiation from the surface of the plate, because such motion of the plate cannot cause pressure fluctuations 9 . Solving the boundary value problem directly can prove the absence of the acoustic radiation from such a plate. Indeed, in the absence of external pressure and velocity fields the radiated sound field must satisfy the condition of zero normal velocity on the surface of the plate that, in turn, leads to the absence of sound radiation from the plate.

It is to be noted, that the volume of the fluid, surrounding the plate, will still radiate sound waves. These sound waves, however, are caused by the diffusion of vorticity to the fluid 9 and described by Lighthill’s quadrupole term rather than by the surface integrals in equations (19) and (20).

It is also important to note that the FWH equation (20) and the obtained equation (19) can give identical results in some cases. However, this coincidence can be shown to be purely accidental. For example, a known formula for the amplitude of sound radiated by a transversely oscillating sphere in a viscous fluid can be obtained on the basis of the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings equation 11 . At the same time it can be shown that the obtained equation results in the same formula. Analysis shows that the predictions of both formulas coincide only due to the spherical symmetry of the object and, therefore, the coincidence is fortuitous.

The obtained equation (19) also can be compared with the equation derived in reference 8 . Such comparison shows that both equations coincide, although they have been derived for a moving and immoveable object respectively. This can be explained by the fact that, at least in the linear approximation, only the normal component of the velocity of the radiated acoustic wave is included directly into the equations, while the velocity of the object is taken into account in the boundary conditions.

4

IMPLICATIONS OF THE OBTAINED EQUATION FOR NOISE CONTROL

The Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings equation includes two terms related to the sound generation by a surface, but control of noise generation can be based only on one of them, which is proportional to the stress tensor. Therefore, the FWH equation allows only one strategy in noise control, namely, to minimise the force acting upon the surface from the flow. This also makes a study of the flow structure near the surface unimportant for the purpose of noise control.

Conversely, the obtained equation (19) has two terms determining sound radiation by a surface even for an immoveable object. This leads to a possibility to minimise aerodynamic noise radiation by developing strategies, which would utilise mutual cancellation of both terms in far field. In addition, knowledge of the velocity field near the radiating surface becomes significant for effective noise control.

     
     
   

5

CONCLUSIONS

In the present paper an equation has been derived, which determines the amplitude of the sound wave generated by a moving rigid object in a fluid flow. The argument used in the derivation is analogous to the argument used in the derivation of the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FWH) equation. It is shown that if the velocity and pressure fields in the fluid are represented as a sum of potential and solenoidal parts, the obtained equation includes only the potential parts of the fields.

The difference between the obtained equation and the FWH equation is demonstrated by the example of sound radiation by a thin plate vibrating in its own plane in a viscous fluid. It is shown that the FWH equation leads to the prediction of dipole radiation with the dipole moment parallel to the plate, while the obtained equation predicts the absence of such radiation, which can be also proven by direct solution of the boundary value problem.

Implications of the obtained equation for active noise control are discussed. It is shown that the equation allows new strategies of noise control, based on mutual cancellation of dipole and monopole terms in the far field.

     

REFERENCES

1.

M.J.Lighthill, 1952, On sound generated aerodynamically, Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 211, 564 –

 

586.

       

2.

N.Curle, 1955, The influence of solid boundaries upon aerodynamic sound, Proc. Roy. Soc. A

3.

231, 505 – 514. J.E.Ffowcs Williams and D.L. Hawkings, 1969, Sound generation by turbulence and surfaces

4.

in arbitrary motion, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (London) Ser. A, 264, 321 – 342. P.J.F. Clark and H.S.Ribner, 1969, Direct Correlation of Fluctuating Lift with Radiated

5.

Sound for an Airfoil in Turbulent Flow, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 46, 802 – 805. H.H.Heller and S.E.Widnall, 1970, Sound Radiation from Rigid Flow Spoilers Correlated

6.

with Fluctuating Forces, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 47, 924 – 936. D.A.Bies, J.M.Pickles and D.J.J.Leclercq, 1997, Aerodynamic noise generation by a

7.

stationary body in a turbulent air stream, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 204, 631 – 643. D.J.J.Leclercq and M.K.Symes, 2002, Dense compact rigid object in a turbulent flow:

8.

Application of Curle's theory, 8th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 17-19 June 2002, Breckenridge CO, USA. A.Zinoviev and D.A.Bies, On acoustic radiation by a rigid object in a fluid flow, submitted to

9.

Journal of Sound and Vibrations. L.D.Landau and E.M.Lifshitz, 1959, Fluid Mechanics. Volume 6 of Course of Theoretical

10.

Physics, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

11.

M.S.Howe, 1998, Acoustics of fluid-structure interactions, Cambridge University Press. A.D.Pierce, 1989, Acoustics: An Introduction to Its Physical Principles and Applications, New York: Acoustical Society of America.