Upload
smjoshi07
View
228
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
1/20
Comparison of numerical schemes for arealistic computational aeroacoustics
benchmark problem
R. HixonMechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering Department, University of Toledo, Toledo,
OH 43606, [email protected]
M. NallasamyQSS Group, Inc., NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH 44135,
S. SawyerMechanical Engineering Department, The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325,
R. DysonAcoustics Branch, NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH 44135,
ABSTRACT
In this work, a nonlinear block-structured CAA solver, the NASAGlenn Research Center BASS
code, is tested on a realistic CAA benchmark problem in order to ascertain what effect the high-
accuracy solution methods used in CAA have on a realistic test problem. In this test, the non linear
2-D compressible Euler equations are solved on a fully curvilinear grid from a commercial grid
generator. The solutions are obtained using several finite-difference methods on an identical grid
to determine the relative performance of these spatial differencing schemes on this benchmark
problem.
1. INTRODUCTIONThe field of Computational Aeroacoustics (CAA) is concerned with the time-accurate
calculation of unsteady flow fields. In order to accurately propagate the unsteady
acoustic, vortical, and entropy waves that are present in these flows, high-accuracy
numerical differencing schemes have been developed which require very few grid
points per disturbance wavelength to calculate an accurate value of the spatial derivative
aeroacoustics volume 3 number 4 2005 pages 379 397 379
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 379
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
2/20
(see Refs. 1 and 2 for an overview of CAA developments). These schemes have been
extended for use in nonlinear flow calculations, and have produced very good results
(e.g., Refs. 3-5).
However, for realistic flow calculations using curvilinear grids, it is not clear if these
high-accuracy schemes retain the advantages that they show for model problems.
Previous work has indicated that the grid generator has an effect on the attainable
accuracy of a numerical scheme6, even with a very smooth grid from a commercial grid
generator.7
In this work, the NASA BASS code is applied to the CAABenchmark problem of avortical gust impinging on a loaded 2D cascade.8 The BASS code has four spatial
differencing options available to the user: explicit 2nd order, explicit 6th order, optimized
DRP9, and prefactored compact 6th order.10 While it is expected that the three high-
accuracy schemes will perform adequately, the question is whether they will perform
better than the low-order scheme on a realistic problem.
It must be noted at this point that this test problem may well be weighted in favor of
the 2nd order explicit scheme because the wavelength of the vortical gust is very long
and the computational boundaries are very close. Thus, if the high-accuracy schemes
provide a measurably better answer, this will be a strong indication that high-accuracy
schemes are useful for traditional unsteady CFD problems as well as for CAA
applications.
2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS AND NUMERICAL METHODIn this work, the Euler equations are solved. The 2D nonlinear Euler equations may be
written in Cartesian form as:
(1)
The NASA Glenn Research Center BASS code was used to solve this equation.4-6,11-12
The BASS code uses optimized explicit time marching combined with high-accuracy
finite-differences to accurately compute the unsteady flow. The code is parallel, and
uses a block-structured curvilinear grid to represent the physical flow domain.
A constant-coefficient artificial dissipation model13 is used to remove unresolved high-
frequency modes from the computed solution.
The BASS code solves the Euler equations using the nonconservative chain-rule
formulation; previous experience has indicated that the formal lack of conservation is
offset by the increased numerical accuracy of the transformed equations.3-5
The chain-rule form of the Euler equations is:
(2)
For time marching, the optimized low-storage RK56 scheme of Stanescu and
Habashi14 was used for all spatial differencing schemes.
Q Q Q + E + E F + F =t t t x x y y+ + + 0
Q + E + Ft x y = 0
380 Comparison of numerical schemes for a realistic computational aeroacoustics
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 380
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
3/20
aeroacoustics volume 3 number 4 2005 381
In this work, four spatial differencing schemes were used: an explicit 2nd order
central differencing scheme, an explicit 6th order central differencing scheme, the 7-point
optimized DRP scheme of Tam and Webb9, and the prefactored sixth-order compact
differencing scheme of Hixon10. These four schemes are all user options in the BASS
code; each was coded for maximum performance.
3. THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPATIAL DIFFERENCINGSCHEMESIn an unsteady flow solver, there are two types of errors that are encountered: dispersion
error and dissipation error. The dispersion error is an error in the propagation speed of an
unsteady disturbance, while the dissipation error is an error in the amplitude of the
unsteady disturbance.
To quantify these errors, it is customary to compare the unsteady performance of
spatial differencing schemes by analyzing the wave propagation performance of these
methods. To accomplish this, we consider the 1-D linear advection equation:
(3)
For this analysis, the solution is simple harmonic:
(4)
In this analysis, the errors from the time marching scheme are neglected. Instead,
only the spatial derivative ofu is considered. Analytically,
(5)
The procedure is illustrated using the 2nd order central differencing method, defined as:
(6)
Substituting in the analytic solution at the neighboring grid points, we obtain the
numerical derivative:
(7)
By comparing equations (5) and (7), we define the numerical wavenumberfor the
2nd order central differencing scheme as:
(8)k x = k x ( ) ( )* sin
u =i
xk x ux j j|
sin ( )( )
uu u
xx j
j+ j| =
1 1
2
u = iku = ix
k x ux j j j|
( )
u x, t = Aei kx t
( )( )
u +cu =t x 0
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 381
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
4/20
It should be noted that the numerical wavenumber of a finite-differencing scheme
can have both real and imaginary parts. In general, the numerical wavenumber of a central
difference scheme will have only a real component, while the numerical wavenumber of
a biased stencil will have both real and imaginary components.
In a similar way to the previous analysis, the numerical wavenumbers can be determined
for all four schemes. Figure 1 compares the real part of the numerical wavenumbers. Again,
because all four schemes have central differencing stencils, the numerical wavenumbers
of these schemes have only real components.
The real part of the numerical wavenumber affects the wave propagation performanceof the numerical solver by changing the propagation speed of the waves. The numerical
propagation speed is:
(9)
Figure 2 shows the error in the propagation speed for each scheme as a function of
grid points per wavelength.
Note that, for the three maximum-order schemes, the numerical propagation speed
is always lower than the actual propagation speed, while for the optimized DRP scheme,
c
c=
k x
k x
*
( )*
382 Comparison of numerical schemes for a realistic computational aeroacoustics
Exact
Explicit 2nd order
Explicit DRPExplicit 6th order
Compact 6th order
3
2
1
(kdx)*
00 1 2 3
kdx
Figure 1. Comparison of numerical wavenumbers for spatial differencing schemes.
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 382
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
5/20
the numerical propagation speed is higher than the actual propagation speed for a
portion of the wavenumber spectrum.
This analysis shows only the best-case performance of the schemes in that only the
performance of the interior stencil is represented. The schemes all require special
stencils for use at and near the boundaries, and the performance of these stencils will
have an impact on the solution stability and accuracy at the inflow, outflow, and wall
boundaries. Due to the presence of the grid boundary and the size of the interior
differencing stencil (ranging from 3 points for the explicit 2nd order scheme to 7 points
for the explicit 6th order and DRP schemes), a series of special stencils is required asthe grid boundary is approached.
Because the interior stencils would require data outside the computational grid, these
special boundary stencils are biased to use points in the interior of the computational
domain. Because of this bias towards the interior, the boundary stencils have a different
dispersion error than that of the interior stencil; in addition, these biased stencils also
introduce dissipation errors.
Due to the changes in stencil performance and its adverse effects on numerical
stability, it is desirable to minimize the number of boundary stencils used. However, it
is also desirable to retain accuracy and numerical conservation if possible. Three of the
aeroacoustics volume 3 number 4 2005 383
Exact
Explicit 2nd order
Explicit DRP
Explicit 6th order
Compact 6th order
1
0.510
Points per wavelength
c/c
Figure 2. Comparison of numerical propagation speeds for spatial differencing
schemes.
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 383
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
6/20
four schemes (the DRP, compact 6th order, and explicit 2nd order) use boundary stencils
that retain the formal accuracy of the scheme but do not provide full conservation near
the boundaries. The explicit 6th order scheme, however, retains full conservation to the
boundary at the cost of using more boundary stencils with lower accuracy. At the
boundary, the explicit 6th order scheme uses a 4th order one-sided difference, theoretically
returning 5th order global accuracy.
In addition to the propagation speed error from the spatial differencing scheme, the
artificial dissipation adds a dissipation error to the solution. In this work, two constant-
coefficient artificial dissipation schemes were employed: an explicit 4th order dampingfor the 2nd order differencing scheme, and an explicit 10th order damping for the other
schemes. Since both artificial dissipation schemes employ centered stencils, the
addition of artificial dissipation does not affect the propagation speed errors except near
the boundaries of the domain.
Figure 3 shows the damping effect of each method as a function of grid points per
wavelength of the disturbance, compared to the wavespeed error of the spatial
differencing schemes. Note that, since the explicit 2nd order scheme has much higher
wavespeed errors compared to the high-accuracy schemes, a higher dissipation rate is
required to remove the erroneous waves from the computed solution. It should be noted
that all spatial differencing schemes used were central differencing; because of this,
384 Comparison of numerical schemes for a realistic computational aeroacoustics
Explicit 2nd order1
0.1
0.01
0.001
WavespeedError
0.0001
le-05
le-061 10 100
DissipationRate
Points per Wavelength
Explicit DRP
Explicit 6th order
Compact 6th order
Explicit 4th dissipation
Explicit 10th dissipation
Figure 3. Dissipation rate compared to the wavespeed errors of the spatial
differencing methods.
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 384
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
7/20
the schemes have no inherent dissipation. Also, the artificial dissipation schemes used
are designed to have no inherent dispersion errors.
Again, this analysis is presented for the relatively simple case of a linear 1-D wave
propagation problem solved on a uniform grid; thus, the results can be viewed as the
best-caseperformance for each scheme. The focus of this work is to solve an unsteady
benchmark problem with realistic flow and geometry to determine if the theoretical
performance advantages of high-accuracy schemes are realized in real-world CAA
calculations.
4.TEST CASEIn this work, the 4th CAA Workshop benchmark cascade problem given in Ref. 8 is
computed using the NASA GRC BASS code. This benchmark consists of a loaded 2-D
cascade which has vortical wakes from an upstream rotor impinging upon it, creating
unsteady flow and noise. These vortical wakes are at the blade passing frequency (BPF),
and its first two harmonics (2xBPF and 3xBPF).
The grid used is a complex structured multiblock curvilinear grid; Figure 4 shows
one passage of the grid. For this problem, there are 11 rotor blades and 27 stator blades;
only the flow about the stator blades is directly calculated.
The BASS code was validated on this problem for the 4th CAA Workshop15, using
this grid with the 6th order prefactored compact differencing scheme. During that work,
a grid density study was conducted to ensure a grid-converged solution.
The gust wavelengths in this problem are very long, with approximately 35 points
per wavelength for the highest frequency gust at the inflow boundary. Such a large
aeroacoustics volume 3 number 4 2005 385
1
0.5
0
0.51 0 1
Y
X
Figure 4. Curvilinear grid about one blade of the 2D cascade.
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 385
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
8/20
number of points per wavelength is excessive for the high-accuracy schemes; however,
this grid was used for the original validation of the high-accuracy schemes.
For all four differencing schemes, the same grid, same boundary conditions, same
time stepping scheme, and same time step were used. The only differences in the
calculations were the spatial differencing method and the artificial dissipation used.
5. NUMERICAL RESULTSTo compare the results from the four schemes, several metrics are used. First, the
calculated mean flows from each method are compared. Figure 5 shows the meanpressure on the cascade blade surface. All four solvers are obtaining good results on
the blade surface. The mean flow at the inflow and outflow were also compared, with
the three high-accuracy schemes getting very similar results. The explicit 2nd order
method obtained slightly different results for the mean flow; however, the mean flow
results were still within 0.1% of the desired values.
386 Comparison of numerical schemes for a realistic computational aeroacoustics
0.95
0.9 E-6
C-6, DRP
E-2
Mean Surface Pressure
0.85
0.8
0.5 0.25 0
X
E
0.25
Figure 5. Mean pressure on the blade surface.
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 386
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
9/20
Figures 6-9 show the pressure mode amplitudes at the inflow and outflow boundaries
for the four schemes. In these figures, (a) is the compact 6th order scheme, (b) is the
DRP scheme, (c) is the explicit 6th order scheme, and (d) is the explicit 2nd order
scheme.
For the 2xBPF frequency, the allowable modes are given by:
(10)
The allowable modes for the 3xBPF frequency are:
(11)M = n
n =
33 27
0, 1, 2, 3, ...
+
M = n
n =
22 27
0, 1, 2, 3, ...
+
aeroacoustics volume 3 number 4 2005 387
86 59 32 5 22
Spatial mode order (m)
PressureAmplitude
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
049 76 86 59 32 5 22
Spatial mode order (m)
P
ressureAmplitude
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
049 76
86 59 32 5 22
Spatial mode order (m)
PressureAmplitude
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
049 76 86 59 32 5 22
Spatial mode order (m)
PressureAmplitude
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
049 76
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 6. 2xBPF mode amplitudes at inflow boundary (x/c = 1.5).
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 387
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
10/20
In Figures 6-9, the allowable modes are labeled. All other modes are spurious.
In Figures 6 and 7, the compact 6th order and explicit DRP schemes are getting very
comparable solutions for the 2xBPF frequency. The explicit 6th order scheme also
obtains a similar solution, with the addition of a spurious m = 0 mode. This spurious
mode was unexpected, particularly since the compact 6th order and explicit DRP
schemes did not exhibit this behavior. The obvious difference in the three schemes is at
the grid boundaries; the explicit 6th order scheme has much less accurate boundary
stencils than the compact 6th and explicit DRP schemes.
The explicit 2nd order obtains a very different solution from the three high-accuracy
schemes, predicting the input gust mode (m = 22) to be dominant at the inflow
boundary. Analysis showed that the incoming vortical gust was generating a spurious
incoming acoustic wave for this scheme.
Figures 7 and 8 compare the results for the 3xBPF frequency. The performance of
the schemes is similar for this frequency, with the explicit 2nd order scheme again
388 Comparison of numerical schemes for a realistic computational aeroacoustics
86 59 32 5 22
Spatial mode order (m)
P
ressureAmplitude
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
049 76
(a)86 59 32 5 22
Spatial mode order (m)
P
ressureAmplitude
0.00025
0.0003
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
049 76
(b)
86 59 32 5 22
Spatial mode order (m)
PressureAmplitude
0.00025
0.0003
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
049 76
(c)86 59 32 5 22
Spatial mode order (m)
PressureAmplitude
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
049 76
(d)
Figure 7. 2xBPF mode amplitudes at the outflow boundary (x/c = 1.5).
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 388
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
11/20
predicting the incoming gust mode (m = 33) to be dominant. At the outflow boundary,
both the explicit 6th order scheme and the explicit 2nd order scheme are predicting a
number of spurious modes.
The low performance of the explicit 2nd order scheme on this problem was
unexpected; particularly the low mode amplitudes predicted. The wavelengths
associated with these waves, particularly at 2xBPF, should be resolved by the 2nd order
scheme. Two mechanisms existed for the low mode amplitude: either the wavespeed for
the explicit 2nd order scheme was so incorrect that the modes were not forming, or the
damping from the 4th order dissipation was removing the waves from the solution.
The effect of the 4th order dissipation on the performance of the 2nd order explicit
scheme is shown in Figure 10. In Figure 10, the spatial amplitudes of the v velocity gust
components for the DRP and the explicit 2nd order scheme are compared. The rapid
damping of the incoming gust is shown, with the 3xBPF gust showing the highest
damping rate.
aeroacoustics volume 3 number 4 2005 389
Spatial mode order (m)
PressureAmplitude
750
1E-05
2E-05
3E-05
5E-05
4E-05
6E-05
7E-05
8E-05
9E-05
0.0001
48 21 6 33 60 87
(a) Spatial mode order (m)
PressureAmplitude
750
1E-05
2E-05
3E-05
5E-05
4E-05
6E-05
7E-05
8E-05
9E-05
0.0001
48 21 6 33 60 87
(b)
Spatial mode order (m)
PressureAmplitude
750
1E-05
2E-05
3E-05
5E-05
4E-05
6E-05
7E-05
8E-05
9E-05
0.0001
48 21 6 33 60 87
(c) Spatial mode order (m)
PressureAmplitude
750
1E-05
2E-05
3E-05
5E-05
4E-05
6E-05
7E-05
8E-05
9E-05
0.0001
48 21 6 33 60 87
(d)
Figure 8. 3xBPF mode amplitudes at the inflow boundary (x/c = 1.5).
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 389
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
12/20
390 Comparison of numerical schemes for a realistic computational aeroacoustics
3.5E-05
3E-05
2E-05
1E-05
2.5E-05
1.5E-05
5E-06
075 48 21 6
Spatial mode order (m)
P
ressureAmplitude
33 60 87
(a)
3.5E-05
3E-05
2E-05
1E-05
2.5E-05
1.5E-05
5E-06
075 48 21 6
Spatial mode order (m)
P
ressureAmplitude
33 60 87
(b)
3.5E-05
3E-05
2E-05
1E-05
2.5E-05
1.5E-05
5E-06
075 48 21 6
Spatial mode order (m)
PressureAmplitude
33 60 87
(c)
3.5E-05
3E-05
2E-05
1E-05
2.5E-05
1.5E-05
5E-06
075 48 21 6
Spatial mode order (m)
PressureAmplitude
33 60 87
(d)
Figure 9. 3xBPF mode amplitudes at the outflow boundary (x/c = 1.5).
0.01
0.001v
0.0001
1.4 1.2 1 0.8x/c
BPF (DRP)
BPF (E2/E4)
2xBPF (DRP)
2xBPF (E2/E4)
3xBPF (DRP)
3xBPF (E2/E4)
Figure 10. Axial distribution of disturbance velocity upstream of the cascade.
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 390
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
13/20
To test the effect of reducing the damping, the explicit 2nd order scheme was run
from the converged solution using the 10th order damping. It must be emphasized that
the 2nd order scheme required the 4th order damping to avoid code instability during the
initial transient calculation. The 10th order dissipation could only be used after a converged
solution was obtained with the 4th order dissipation.
Figures 11-14 compare the results for these four schemes: (a) is the compact 6th order
scheme, (b) is the explicit 6th order scheme, (c) is the explicit 2nd order scheme with
4th order dissipation, and (d) is the explicit 2nd order scheme with 10th order dissipation.
These results show that the explicit 4th order dissipation is magnifying the spuriousacoustic wave formation from the incoming vortical gusts. With the reduced dissipation,
however, the explicit 2nd order scheme is producing many spurious modes, particularly
at the 3xBPF frequency. While the amplitudes of the physical modes are close to that
predicted by the high-accuracy schemes, the presence of many spurious modes renders
the solution unacceptable.
aeroacoustics volume 3 number 4 2005 391
Spatial mode order (m)86 59 32 5 22 49 76
0
5E-05
0.0001
0.00015
PressureAmplitude
0.0002
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
(a) Spatial mode order (m)86 59 32 5 22 49 76
0
5E-05
0.0001
0.00015
PressureAmplitude
0.0002
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
(b)
0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
086 59 32 5 22 49 76
PressureAmplitude
Spatial mode order (m)(c) Spatial mode order (m)86 59 32 5 22 49 76
0
5E-05
0.0001
0.00015
PressureAmplitude
0.0002
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
(d)
Figure 11. 2xBPF mode amplitudes at inflow boundary (x/c = 1.5).
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 391
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
14/20
Figures 15-17 show the amplitude of the perturbation pressure on the surface of
the stator blades. Generally, the three high-accuracy schemes get similar solutions
for all three frequencies. The explicit 2nd order scheme obtains either a greatly reduced
amplitude (with the 4th order damping), or a highly oscillatory solution (with the
10th order damping). From these results, it is apparent that the 10th order damping is
not adequate for the 2nd order explicit scheme when applied to a nonlinear
problem.
Figure 18 compares the CPU time required per time step for the four schemes. The
figure shows that the explicit 2nd order scheme ran only 25% faster than the compact
6th order scheme per time step. In fairness, the higher stability bounds for the explicit
2nd order scheme would also allow a time step that is twice as large as that of the
compact 6th order scheme. If the minimum cell size does not change appreciably (i.e.,
the CFL condition remains constant for the smallest grid cell), the 2nd order scheme
392 Comparison of numerical schemes for a realistic computational aeroacoustics
0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
086 59 32 5 22 49 76
PressureAmplitude
Spatial mode order (m)(a)
0.0003
0.00025
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
086 59 32 5 22 49 76
Pre
ssureAmplitude
Spatial mode order (m)(b)
0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
086 59 32 5 22 49 76
PressureAmplitude
Spatial mode order (m)(c)
0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
0.0002
0.00015
0.0001
5E-05
086 59 32 5 22 49 76
PressureAmplitude
Spatial mode order (m)(d)Figure 12. 2xBPF mode amplitudes at the outflow boundary (x/c = 1.5).
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 392
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
15/20
could theoretically run about 2.6 times as many grid points in the same CPU time as the
compact 6th scheme. This would result in roughly a 62% grid refinement in each
coordinate direction. Based on the computed results, it is felt that such a small
amount of refinement would not appreciably improve the solution from the 2nd order
scheme.
6.CONCLUSIONSIn this work, a realistic unsteady nonlinear flow problem was solved using a high-
accuracy time marching method coupled with various spatial differencing schemes. The
results show the advantage of using high-accuracy spatial differencing for unsteady
flow calculations. While this is only one test case on one cascade geometry, it indicates
that the theoretical accuracy of the high-order schemes translates into improved
solutions for realistic unsteady flows about complex geometries.
aeroacoustics volume 3 number 4 2005 393
0.0001
9E-05
8E-05
7E-05
6E-05
PressureAmplitude
5E-05
4E-05
3E-05
2E-05
1E-05
075 48 21 6
Spatial mode order (m)33 60 87
(a)
PressureAmplitude
Spatial mode order (m)
0.0001
9E-05
8E-05
7E-05
6E-05
5E-05
4E-05
3E-05
2E-05
1E-05
075 48 21 6 33 60 87
(b)
0.0001
9E-05
8E-05
7E-05
6E-05
PressureAmplitude
5E-05
4E-05
3E-05
2E-05
1E-05
0
Spatial mode order (m)75 48 21 6 33 60 87
(c)
0.0001
9E-05
8E-05
7E-05
6E-05
PressureAmplitude
5E-05
4E-05
3E-05
2E-05
1E-05
0
Spatial mode order (m)75 48 21 6 33 60 87
(d)
Figure 13. 3xBPF mode amplitudes at the inflow boundary (x/c = 1.5).
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 393
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
16/20
394 Comparison of numerical schemes for a realistic computational aeroacoustics
3.5E-05
3E-05
2.5E-05
PressureAmplitude
2E-05
1.5E-05
1E-05
5E-06
075 48 21 6 33 60 87
Spatial mode order (m)(a)
3.5E-05
3E-05
2.5E-05
PressureAmplitude
2E-05
1.5E-05
1E-05
5E-06
075 48 21 6 33 60 87
Spatial mode order (m)(b)
3.5E-05
3E-05
2.5E-05
PressureAmplitude
2E-05
1.5E-05
1E-05
5E-06
075 48 21 6 33 60 87
Spatial mode order (m)(c)
3.5E-05
3E-05
2.5E-05
PressureAmplitude
2E-05
1.5E-05
1E-05
5E-06
075 48 21 6 33 60 87
Spatial mode order (m)(d)
Figure 14. 3xBPF mode amplitudes at the outflow boundary (x/c = 1.5).
0.50
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
BPF Harmonic Loading
C-6DRP
E-2 with E-10 Diss.
E-2
0.005
0.25 0 0.25 0.5
Pressure
X
Figure 15. RMS pressure distribution on the blade surface for BPF disturbance.
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:41 pm Page 394
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
17/20
aeroacoustics volume 3 number 4 2005 395
0.002
0.00175
0.0015
0.00125
Pressure
0.001
0.00075
0.0005
0.00025
00.5 0.25 0
X
0.25 0.5
E-2 with E-10 Diss.
2BPF Harmonic Loading
E-6DRP
C-6
E-2
Figure 16. RMS pressure distribution on the blade surface for 2xBPF disturbance.
0.0004
0.0003
3BPF Harmonic Loading
E-2 with E-10 Diss.
DRP
C-6
E-2
E-6
0.0002
0.0001
00
X
Pressure
0.250.5 0.25
Figure 17. RMS pressure distribution on the blade surface for 3xBPF disturbance.
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:42 pm Page 395
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
18/20
REFERENCES1) Tam, C. K. W., Computational Aeroacoustics: An Overview of Computational
Challenges and Applications, International Journal of Computational Fluid
Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 6, 2004, pp. 547-567.
2) Lele, S. K., Computational Aeroacoustics: A Review, AIAA Paper 97-0018,
January 1997.
3) Hixon, R., Mankbadi, R. R., and Scott, J. R., Validation of a High-Order
Prefactored Compact Code on Nonlinear Flows with Complex Geometries,
AIAA Paper 2001-1103, Jan. 2001.
4) Nallasamy, M., Hixon, R., Sawyer, S., Dyson, R., and Koch, L., ATime Domain
Analysis of Gust-Cascade Interaction Noise, AIAAPaper 2003-3134, May 2003.
5) Sawyer, S., Nallasamy, M., Hixon, R., Dyson, R., and Koch, D., Computational
Aeroacoustic Prediction of Discrete-Frequency Noise Generated by a Rotor-
Stator Interaction, AIAA Paper 2003-3268, May 2003.
6) Hixon, R., Nallasamy, M., and Sawyer, S., Effect of Grid Singularities on the
Solution Accuracy of a CAA Code, AIAA Paper 2003-0879, Jan. 2003.
396 Comparison of numerical schemes for a realistic computational aeroacoustics
0.6
0.7
0.5
ComputingTime,Sec./timestep
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0E-2 DRP E-6 C-6
Comparision of computing times
Figure 18. Comparison of CPU time per time step.
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:42 pm Page 396
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
19/20
7) GridPro/az3000, Program Development Corporation, White Plains, NY.
8) Proceedings of the Fourth Computational Aeroacoustics Workshop on Benchmark
Problems, NASA, CP-2004-. See also website www.math.fsu.edu/caa4
9) Tam, C. K. W., and Webb, J. C., Dispersion-Relation-Preserving Finite-
Difference Schemes for Computational Acoustics, Journal of Computational
Physics, Vol. 107, 1993, pp. 262-281.
10) Hixon, R., Prefactored Small-Stencil Compact Schemes, Journal of
Computational Physics, Vol. 165, 2000, pp. 522-541.11) Hixon, R., Nallasamy, M., and Sawyer, S., Parallelization Strategy for an Explicit
Computational Aeroacoustics Code, AIAA Paper 2002-2583, July 2002.
12) Hixon, R., Nallasamy, M., Sawyer, S., and Dyson, R., Mean Flow Boundary
Conditions for Computational Aeroacoustics, AIAAPaper 2003-3299, May 2003.
13) Kennedy, C. A., and Carpenter, M. H., Several New Numerical Methods for
Compressible Shear-Layer Simulations,Applied Numerical Mathematics, Vol. 14,
1994, pp. 397-433.
14) Stanescu, D., and Habashi, W. G., 2N-Storage Low Dissipation and Dispersion
Runge- Kutta Schemes for Computational Acoustics,Journal of Computational
Physics, Vol. 143, No. 2, 1998, pp. 674-681.
15) Nallasamy, M., Hixon, R., Sawyer, S. D., and Dyson, R. W., Category 3: Sound
Generation by Interacting with a Gust, Problem 2 Cascade-Gust Interaction,
Proceedings of the Fourth Computa tional Aeroacoust ics Workshop for
Benchmark Problems, 2004.
aeroacoustics volume 3 number 4 2005 397
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:42 pm Page 397
7/29/2019 Comparison Schemes Benchmark Problem
20/20
Paper 3(4)-01-Hixon.Qxd 24-2-05 4:42 pm Page 398