1

CHAPTER 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Aircraft noise is one of the major contributors of noise pollution to the
environment. The growth of air transportation has been leaps and bounds and thus the
focus on aircraft noise has been heightened. Aircraft noise is mainly due to three
components:
Aerodynamic Noise
Engine and other mechanical noise
Noise from aircraft systems
There are two main sources of noise in todays commercial aircraft engines:
fan/compressor noise and jet noise. Jet noise comprises turbulent mixing noise and, in the
case of imperfectly expanded jets, shock noise. Turbulent mixing noise is very difficult to
control, and so its suppression remains a challenge. It is generally agreed that turbulent
shear flow mixing causes two types of noise: sound produced by the large-scale eddies and
sound generated by the fine scale turbulence. The former is very intense and directional
and propagates at an angle close to the jet axis. The latter is mostly uniform and affects the
lateral and upstream directions. The increase in bypass ratio over the last three decades has
resulted in a dramatic suppression in the jet noise of turbofan engines. Modern engines are
so quiet that further reduction in noise becomes extremely challenging. The success of the
high-bypass engine is offset, to some degree, by the increasing volume of aircraft
operations. This creates more environmental and political pressures for quieter aircraft.
Today the most successful technique for reducing jet noise from high-bypass engines
involves the installation of chevron mixers on the exhaust nozzles.
1.1 Noise Control (Suppression)
Jet engine noise suppression has become one of the most important fields of
research due to airport regulations and aircraft noise certification requirements. These
govern the maximum noise level aircraft are allowed to produce. Although airframe
generated noise is a factor in an aircraft's overall noise signature, the principal source of
the noise is in the engine.

1.2 Chevrons:
Chevrons reduce the jet noise component of the engine noise. Since jet noise is
important during take-off, the benefit of chevrons is best realized during that portion of a
commercial flight.
Chevrons are zigzag or saw-tooth shapes at the end of the nacelle, with tips that are
bent very slightly into the flow. This creates vortices that form at each chevron, enhancing
the mixing rate of the adjacent flow streams. As previously mentioned, the jet noise is due
to turbulent mixing between jets and the noise generation mechanism is very complex.
When the chevrons enhance mixing by the right amount, the total jet noise reduces. If the
mixing is too much, the chevrons make the noise go up. If the mixing is too little, no noise
reduction benefits are realized.
The chevron design was successful, with a reduction of up to 4 decibels of noise at
the peak frequency and noisiest location was achieved.

How mixing is obtained?

Mixing noise is by far the most difficult to control. For greater exhaust speed, largescale mixing noise manifests itself primarily as Mach wave radiation, caused by the sonic
convection of turbulent eddies with respect to the ambient. In the vicinity of the potential
core, Mach waves are strong, nonlinear pressure waves that decay into weak acoustic
waves far from the jet. In high-speed hot jets, Mach wave emission is the dominant source
of sound and radiates in the aft quadrant.
The simplest way to explain Mach wave radiation is to consider the turbulent
interface between the jet and the ambient as a wavy wall propagating at a convective speed
Uc. When Uc is supersonic, Mach waves are radiated from the wall. The notion of sound
radiation from large scale flow instabilities was first confirmed in the supersonic jet
experiments of McLaughlin et al[3] and the subsequent experiments of Troutt and
McLaughlin[4]. In those experiments, the orientation, wavelength, and frequency of the
measured acoustic radiation were found to be consistent with the Mach wave concept just
outlined.
The linear stability analysis of Tam and Burton further solidified this idea by
showing that the sound emitted by a supersonic instability wave matched very well the

aforementioned experimental data. Since then, a large volume of experimental and

theoretical works have addressed multiple aspects of this problem.
1.3 Co-flow:
The effectiveness of the co-flow in reducing Mach waves depends primarily on the
following factors:
1). The convective Mach number of the jet eddies relative to the co-flow, which
should be subsonic; the lower its value, the faster the attenuation of the pressure fluctuation
within the co-flow layer.
2). The co-flow thickness; the larger it is, the more room a disturbance has to decay
sub sonically before it is transmitted to the ambient fluid.
3). The coverage of the Mach wave emitting region of the jet by the co-flow; if the
co-flow mixes fully with the jet before the end of this region, Mach waves will still be
generated.
The underlying principle is to enhance the axial decay of the velocity in the jet
plume, hence reducing the length of the Mach wave emitting region; at the same time, all
of the other sources of noise that depend on jet velocity would also be reduced.

1.4 Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart

Here are some interesting numbers, collected from a variety of sources, which help
one to understand the volume levels of various sources and how they can affect our
hearing.

Environmental Noise
Weakest sound heard

0dB

Whisper Quiet Library at 6'

30dB

Normal conversation at 3'

60-65dB

Telephone dial tone

80dB

City Traffic (inside car)

85dB

Train whistle at 500', Truck Traffic

90dB

Jackhammer at 50'

95dB

Subway train at 200'

95dB

Level at which sustained exposure may

result in hearing loss

90 - 95dB

Hand Drill

98dB

Power mower at 3'

107dB

Snowmobile, Motorcycle

100dB

Power saw at 3'

110dB

Sandblasting, Loud Rock Concert

115dB

Pain begins

125dB

Pneumatic riveter at 4'

125dB

Even short term exposure can cause

permanent damage - Loudest
recommended exposure with hearing

140dB

protection
Jet engine at 100'

140dB

12 Gauge Shotgun Blast

165dB

Death of hearing tissue

180dB

Loudest sound possible

194dB

Table 1.1 various decibels (Loudness) Comparison

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Experimental Aero acoustics
The science of aero acoustics has seen a great deal of development over the past
fifty years through a range of analysis strategies such as experimental diagnostics,
numerical simulation and computational modeling. Numerical simulation techniques have
seen recent progress in their ability to solve the flow equations in reasonable computational
time. However, their application is limited due to the finite number of mesh points that can
be selected around the extremely thin boundary of the initial shear layers and at capturing
the small-scale structures as the jet develops. As a result, the range of Reynolds numbers
that can be simulated is limited, as well as the accuracy to which the turbulent motion of a
heat-conducting, viscous, compressible flow can be resolved. This, coupled with the short
run times, make it problematic to obtain full-scale converged solutions. In the light of this,
the experimental approach has the advantage of the flow equations being perfectly solved
by the physical flow itself. Given that current techniques have progressively become more
sophisticated due to the improvements in measurement technology, as well as increasingly
innovative data extraction and analysis techniques, scientists have come closer to
understanding the noise source mechanisms of turbulent jets. Experimental research in its
earliest stages focused on measuring the fluctuation in a flow field with the use of hotwires, hot-films and pitot- tubes. Seiner and Reethof (1974) used a hot-wire anemometer
to investigate the velocity fluctuations of a Mach 0.32 jet in an attempt to highlight the
contributions from shear noise; the interaction of the turbulent structures with the mean
flow of the jet. It was found that this noise source is the dominant mechanism, with the
transition region of the jet producing most of the noise.
However, experimental uncertainty was a serious concern when using such techniques due
to the possibility of the in-flow probes producing greater sound than the actual source that
they were designed to measure. This led to developments that aimed to minimize these
additional noise sources through the use of non-intrusive measurements. Laser Doppler
Velocimetry (LDV) was used by Schaffer (1979) to study the unbounded Mach 0.97 jet.
The observations led to the conclusion that the majority of noise measured at the
downstream angles between 20 to 30 to the jet axis is generated by the shear noise source
mechanism in the transition region, 5 to 10 diameters downstream of the nozzle exit.
Microphones have provided an effective means of exploring the dynamics of experimental

jet aero acoustics. Arrays configured in both the axial and radially positioned azimuthal
directions provide advantages in examining the large-scale coherent structures in the jets
near and far-field. Small-scale turbulent structures however, dissipate more rapidly and can
be naturally filtered out before reaching the far-field microphones. Hence, it is complicated
to correctly interpret the measured data, as it is not evident how much information is being
filtered. The microphones pick up contributions from both the hydrodynamic and acoustic
pressure fields from the turbulent flow and if these are not distinguished, the results may
be misleading.
2.2 Jet flow Structure
Figure 2.1 illustrates the regions that constitute a model for the structure of a free
jet. The precise length of these regions is a function of the Reynolds number as well as the
nozzle exit conditions. The transition from subsonic to supersonic flow also affects the
length of these regions due to formation of complex shock cells near the nozzle exit. The
existence of a shock cell structure is a common feature of imperfectly expanded jet flows.
The region between the jets core and ambient flow experiences the steepest velocity
gradients within the jet structure and is defined as the shear layer. The shear layer is
dominated by small-scale structures, which are highly dissipative in nature and responsible
for producing aerodynamic sound due to their high frequency, small-amplitude
oscillations. The highly unstable shear layer is also characterized by significantly higher
levels of vorticity as compared to its core. Within the mixing region lies the potential core
of the jet which is defined as a region of almost uniform mean centerline velocity from the
nozzle exit (Lilley, 1958). The gradual decay of the potential core is due to the interaction
between the jet and the surrounding stagnant or lower velocity atmosphere. A significant
development occurred in the understanding of turbulence through the studies carried out by
Crow and Champagne (1971). Large-scale turbulent structures were found to be a more
dominant factor in the overall mixing process of jets as compared to the small-scale
turbulent structures. The frequencies at which these peak noise radiating structures
propagate are known as the preferred modes of the jet .When a jet is disturbed at its
preferred mode it enhances the formation of these large-scale turbulent structures,
particularly at the end of the potential core (Panda et al., 2002).

Witze (1974) used an extensive compilation of experimental data on supersonic

jets to derive a generalised equation for the centreline velocity decay of a jet. This can be
re-arranged to give an expression for the length of the potential core: Xcore=0.7/k ()

0.5

where the axial length, Xcore, is non-dimensionalised by the radius of the jet and the exit
ambient density, a, normalized by the density of the jet. The proportionality constant, k, is
a function of the jet Mach number and for supersonic flows is denoted by;
k=0.063(MJ2-1)-0.15
The acoustic near field of the jet is a dominated by turbulent fluid motion which involves
the conversion of the energy from rotational hydrodynamic modes to irrational propagative
modes, a process about which little is known (Jordon, 2005). Hydrodynamic modes and
structures are characterized by non-linear and non-spherical propagation, in the near-field
region, up to 30 nozzle diameters from the jet exit (Petitjean, 2003).

These noise

generating structures are believed to be non-localized, hence making it difficult to interpret

the acoustic near-field. The region beyond this 30D boundary is referred to as the acoustic
far-field, where the propagation of sound waves is spherical and the noise intensity is
proportional to the inverse square of the radial distance from the jet (Petitjean, 2003).The
initial region of a dual-stream jet consists of two shear layers: the primary shear layer
between the primary and secondary streams and the secondary shear layer between the
secondary and ambient streams (Fig. 2.2). The primary shear layer encloses the primary
potential core. The region between the primary and secondary shear layers defines the
secondary core, which contains an initial potential region followed by a non-potential
region. This broad definition of the secondary core is essential for understanding the
acoustic benefits of certain dual-stream configurations. In many practical cases, for
instance, in coaxial jets of turbofan engines, the secondary core ends upstream of the end
of the primary core. The flow past the end of the secondary coren consists of a single shear
layer between the jet centerline and the ambient stream, thus having the characteristics of a
single-stream jet. It is useful, therefore, to divide the jet flow into two regions: the
compound region, that is, the region before the end of the secondary core, and the simple
region, which is the region past the end of the secondary core. The extent of the compound
region, relative to the length of the primary potential core, is critical for noise reduction.

2.3 Source of jet noise

Many attempts have been made to derive a jet noise prediction theory since the
birth of aero acoustics in the 1950s. A literature survey will reveal many models and
semi-empirical theories that aim to quantify jet noise. However its understanding is
directly linked to the understanding of turbulence, which even to this day remains
incomplete.
2.3.1Turbulent Mixing Noise
The three accepted sources of noise produced from supersonic jets are turbulent
mixing noise, Mach wave radiation and shock associated noise, which can either be
broadband or a discreet screech tone (Crighton, 1977). Mixing noise is a product of the
interaction between the flow structures in the shear layer region of the jet with the
surrounding ambient air. Research on jet noise at NASA has highlighted that turbulent
mixing noise of high-speed jets consists of two distinct components (Tam et al., 1996).
This claim was supported by the fact that over 1900 measured frequency spectra from
supersonic jets closely fitted the distinct spectral shape of the two principal noise sources
as shown in Figure 2.3, regardless of the jet velocity, temperature, and direction of
radiation. The first of these two distinct sources radiates principally in the downstream
direction and is consistent with Mach wave radiation, due to the large-scale turbulence
structures or instability waves of the jet flow. The second component is dominant in the
sideline and upstream directions suggesting it is noise from the fine-scale turbulence of the
jet flow. It has more recently been shown that even the noise spectra of non- axisymmetric
jets including jets from rectangular, elliptic, plug, and suppressor nozzles fits the same two
experimentally determined spectra, indicating that the noise sources of these jets are
similar to those of the circular jet (Tam 1998). Experimental work on both round and
bevelled nozzles by Viswanathan (2008) confirmed this pattern by demonstrating the
sharp contrast in the nature of these dominant sources. The acoustic spectrum characteristic
of the random incoherent sources radiating at 90, was found to be somewhat flat,
indicating low intensity noise from the rapidly dissipating fine-scale turbulence structures.
Highly coherent, large-scale turbulent structures on the other hand were shown to be
responsible for the peak noise events, which for a Mach 1.3 jet are known to radiate
towards a downstream angle of 30 to the jet axis (Hileman et al., 2002). The intensity and
directivity of the turbulent mixing noise of supersonic jets depends on the Mach number

and the ratio of jet temperature to the ambient temperature (Tam 1995). Higher frequency
turbulent mixing noise originates from the instabilities in the shear layer close to the nozzle
exit, whereas noise related to lower frequencies originates from further downstream
(Bishop et al., 1971). The locations of large noise events have been identified using a
microphone array. It was estimated that 98% originated from between 1-12 diameters
downstream from the nozzle exit. Flow visualization techniques have been used to
illustrate that high amplitude noise events are characterized by large flow scales and that
quiet periods coincided with smaller flow scales. Lower frequency noise an event from
large-scale turbulent eddies is found to correspond to Strouhal numbers of approximately
0.15-0.25 (Tanna, 1977; Tam, 1995; Panda et al., 2002), which equates to the KelvinHelmholtz roll-up frequency, also known as the preferred mode of a jet. Kelvin-Helmholtz
instability waves, which occur between two parallel streams of varying velocity and
density such as those that exist in the shear layer of a jet, can lead to Mach wave radiation
when convected at supersonic speeds (Panda et al., 2002). The noise generated from both
large and fine-scale turbulent structures is highly directional in nature due to the effects of
convection and refraction (Ribner, 1969; Tanna, 1975). Acoustic wave refraction occurs
within the mixing region of the jet between the shear layer and the potential core of the jet.
The higher flow velocity towards the core of the jet deflects the propagating sound waves,
of wavelengths equal to or smaller than the jet diameter, away from the flow direction.
This effect is more dominant in heated jets due to greater changes in temperature and
hence density. This mean shear flow refraction reduces the amount of sound radiated in the
direction of the jet flow and hence a results in relatively quieter area surrounding the jet
axis which is called the =cone of silence(Tam 1998).

Emphasis on evaluating the

contribution of large-scale structures on the sound field of supersonic jets is justified as the
acoustic loads are a principal source of structural vibration (Petitjean et al., 2003) which
may contribute to structural airframe fatigue and effect the operation of guidance and
control systems and their supporting structure.
2.3.2 Screech Noise
Shock cell structures are usually formed in imperfectly expanded supersonic jets,
due to a mismatch of static pressures between the jet and surrounding atmosphere (Tam et
al., 1995). The development of oblique shocks or expansion waves in the jet plume serves
the purpose of balancing this difference of pressure for over expanded or under expanded

10

flows respectively (Tam et al., 1995). Shock associated noise is considered to be a product
of the interaction between the turbulent structures induced at the nozzle and the diamond
shaped shock cell structure shown in Figure 2.1 (Henderson et al., 2008). In the presence
of the shock cells, the jet emits two additional components of noise in addition to mixing
noise, which are referred to as screech and broadband shock associated noise. Screech
noise is generally observed in acoustic spectra acquired at upstream and sideline
observation angles of cold laboratory jets (Henderson et al., 2008) and is a characteristic
found in most imperfectly expanded jets. The screech tone component is discrete in nature,
high in amplitude and is associated with various harmonics that are generated by an
acoustic feedback of the disturbances at the nozzle lip. The associated harmonics move
through the shock cell and are fed back to the nozzle lip though an external route outside
the shock cells. As a result another disturbance is created which propagates downstream,
hence giving a self-sustaining and repeating cycle (Neemah et al., 1999). The pioneering
work of Powell (1953) highlighted that there are two components of screech noise: its
fundamental and secondary harmonic tones. He derived relationships that describe the
directivity pattern of these tones by considering the shock cells as being adjacent stationary
sources of equal strength and hence determining the phase between them. He found that
the fundamental component peaked closer towards an upstream direction to the jet flow, as
shown in Figure 2.3, whereas the harmonic component peaked closer to the sideline angle
of 90. Powell also presented an equation for quantifying the, frequency of the
fundamental component, fF, of screech noise, shown in equation (2.10), where UC is the
convective speed of the hydrodynamic structures, s is the shock cell spacing and MC the
convective Mach number. The accuracy of this formula depends heavily on the shock cell
spacing, s, which can be predicted numerically using the Prandtl-Pack formula shown in
equation (6) (Singh & Chatterjee, 2007).
The frequency for the first harmonic component of screech noise, fH, can be estimated as
being twice that of the fundamental (Raman, 1999): Earlier research in relation to shock
associated noise was concentrated on screech tone abatement, due to its potential to cause
structural damage if amplified to above a certain level. Several methods have been
investigated for the purpose of screech tone abatement which include: porous plugs, coannular jets, tabs and nozzle asymmetry. Even today, 60 years from the discovery of
screech noise, it plays a vital role in the design of aircraft propulsion systems due to the
ability of its harmonic component, which can reach as high as 170dB, to cause sonic

11

fatigue failure as occurred on the British Aircraft Corporation VC-10 and on the F-15 and
B1-B of the United States Air Force (Raman, 1999). The jet Mach number, temperature,
nozzle lip thickness, and the existence of noise reflecting surfaces around the immediate
vicinity of the jet have been all shown to have an effect on screech noise intensity. An
increase in the nozzle lip thickness can increase screech intensity by up to 10dB (Norum,
1983), simply by acting as a sound-reflecting surface and hence amplifying the effects of
the acoustic feedback loop from the shock cells. Acoustic measurements by Kaji et al.,
(1996) have provided evidence to suggest that shock noise is most intense somewhere
between the third and fourth shock cell structures from the nozzle exit. However due to the
non-linearity of the feedback loop, an empirical equation to describe the screech intensity
is not yet available (Kandula, 2008).

2.3.3 Broadband Shock Noise

The characteristics of broadband shock associated noise have been explored for
over 30 years since the pioneering work of Harper-Bourne and Fisher (1973) who
developed the first empirical model for such noise. Converging-diverging nozzles,
operating at design Mach number with fully and perfectly expanded supersonic jets,
exhibit noise related to turbulent mixing only. For imperfectly expanded regimes however,
there exist shock cell structures in the flow for the purpose of correcting the flow pressure
as described earlier. The interaction of these shock cells with other structures in the mixing
region of the jet, such as instability waves (Mach wave radiation) and small-scale turbulent
eddies, leads to the amplification and generation of intense acoustic waves of which a
component is broadband shock noise (Kandula, 2008). The resultant acoustic spectrum,
like the one shown in Figure 2.4, highlights this interaction noise as sharp peaks at the
sideline and upstream angles of a jets acoustic field.
Broadband shock noise is evidently the dominant characteristic of the upstream
spectra of a jets acoustic field. Tam (1995) highlighted other distinct features of
broadband shock noise based on experimental evidence from a converging-diverging Mach
1.67 jet by Norum and Seiner (1982). Firstly, the frequency that corresponds to the
broadband shock peak, increases with the observer angle from the jet axis and is highest at
the upstream angles. Secondly, the broadband peak consists of several sub-scaled mini

12

peaks, which are most distinct at the sideline angle of 90. Thirdly, the broadband shock
noise spectral bandwidth increases with observer angle and is once again highest at the
upstream angles beyond the sideline position. Finally, the sound pressure level of the
broadband shock peak is independent of the jet temperature; however the corresponding
frequency increases with an increase in jet temperature.

Recent experimental and

theoretical work has shown that another type of broadband shock-noise, which radiates
primarily in the downstream direction, is also present in dual stream (co-annular)
supersonic jets. This form of the broadband shock cell noise has low intensity at the
sideline (90) observer angle and is believed to be generated by the interaction of large
turbulence structures and the shock cells in the inner shear layer of the jet (Tam et al.,
2008).
2.4 Passive Methods for Jet Noise Reduction
2.4.1 Swirling Jets
Before the 1980s the primary application of swirling jets was in combustion chambers for
the purpose of enhancing mixing efficiency (Lilley, 1977). However, experimental studies
on full-scale turbojet engines by Schwartz (1975) proposed the use of swirl as a potential
application for jet noise reduction in an era coinciding with the Concorde noise reduction
programme. Swirl was generated through stationary vanes circumferentially placed around
an annular cross-section just upstream of the nozzle exit. Changes in overall sound
pressure levels (OASPL) of -4dB and +1dB were recorded at angles of 30 and 90 to the
downstream jet axis respectively, with 40% of the overall mass flow ratio of the jet passing
through the swirl generating vanes. However, the mean centreline velocity of the
supersonic jet (~650m/s) was reduced by the introduction of a tangential velocity
component, equating to a loss of thrust by almost 2%. The interaction of centrifugal forces
with free turbulent shear flows was found to increase proportionally with the strength of
the swirl. The strength of swirl was controlled by changing blade angle of the swirl
generating vanes from 40 to 60 to the flow axis, but no quantitative measure of its
strength was presented.

Carpenter & Johannesen (1975) used the classical one-

dimensional theory for choked, convergentdivergent nozzles and validated previous

experiments in relation to swirl having a negative impact on engine performance. They
also pointed out that the key to analysing swirling propulsive jets is the choice of which
parameters to keep constant between swirling and non-swirling cases (Carpenter &

13

Johannesen, 1975). It was convincingly argued that the nozzle pressure ratio be maintained
such that the thrust parameter be fairly observed when the jet is subjected to swirl. This
will therefore be taken as the justification for maintaining constant plenum pressure in this
study. The Swirl number, S, is the parameter used to indicate the contribution of the
tangential swirling component in an axial flow and can be defined as the ratio of the
rotational to axial momentum as shown in equation (Beer & Chigier, 1972). Relatively low
levels of swirl, corresponding to S<0.1 have shown to increase the entrainment and
spreading rate of the jet, resulting in a reduction in the potential core length (Carpenter &
Johannesen, 1975). For intermediate levels of swirl, 0.1< S<0.2, the growth rate of the jet
is seen to increase linearly with swirl number as pressure gradients along the axis are
altered. Adding a substantial tangential component to the primary jet, S> 0.4 also results in
a reduction of axial velocity and thus there is a thrust penalty to any system that attempts to
control noise using bulk swirl of the primary jet. The production of a tangential velocity
component in a round jet has been shown to radically affect the characteristics of the shear
layer and the production of noise (Carpenter & Johannesen, 1975).

Knowles and

Carpenter (1988) developed and used a small perturbation theory to investigate the effects
of swirl on a subsonic Mach 0.72 jet. A uniform swirl profile producing Swirl numbers of
0.1-0.15 was found to reduce thrust levels by nearly 3%. Frank and Taghavi (1995) used
small vanes, in plane and notched rectangular nozzles, for the purpose of introducing swirl
specifically to the shear layer of a supersonic jet. At a downstream location of 9 nozzle
diameters, the mass flow ratio of a circular jet with respect to the nozzle exit was found to
be about 2, due to the surrounding air being entrained into the jet flow. For a rectangular
jet, the mass flow ratio was found to be 30% higher, measuring 2.6. The introduction of
swirl was demonstrated to enhance the mixing, entrainment and spreading rates of the jet
by a further 15%, to a mass flow ratio of 3, to a level beyond that achieved by notches.
Neemah et al., (1999) used Schlieren photography for observing the impact of adding a
rotational component of velocity to a supersonic Mach 1.3 circular jet, through an
upstream vortex chamber for swirl generation. Results indicated that an increase in swirl
yields a decrease in the length of the shock cell as well as a decrease in the number of
cells. The result was attributed to increased levels of mixing with the surrounding
atmosphere. In terms of acoustic findings, low swirl Mach numbers, M, of about 0.3 were
found to yield equally high reductions in spectral noise levels as compared to higher swirl
Mach numbers of 0.5. The peak spectral noise reduction of up to 12 dB included the total

14

elimination of screech noise.

DNS studies have shown that the dynamics of large-scale

structures are strongly affected by the degree of swirl (Kollmann et al., 2001). This
supports the concept of introducing swirl, as the resultant changes to shear layer dynamics
should affect noise production. RANS and LES simulations have shown swirl to affect
noise levels by increasing turbulent kinetic energy within the flow profile, as well as
reducing the potential core length of the jet (Tucker et al., 2003). Gilchrist & Naughton
(2005) investigated the effect of swirl on the near-field flow of an incompressible swirling
jet of Reynolds numbers ~1.010. For low levels of swirl, characterised by Swirl numbers
<0.1, no significant effect on the growth rate of the jet was recorded. Moderate degrees of
swirl, 0.1< S <0.3 were found to enhance the jets growth rate and mixing, as compared to
the non-swirling case. Gilchrist presented evidence for the enhanced growth rates to persist
up to 20 nozzle diameters downstream of the jet exit, even though the swirl had decayed to
a point at which it was barely detectable. Such changes in the flow characteristics in the
near field would suggest that some turbulence structures of the swirling jet must persist far
downstream. Low Reynolds number flows (Re~1000) have been investigated by Liang and
Maxworthy (2005) with swirl being induced by an axisymmetric rotating pipe just
upstream of the nozzle exit. Vortex roll-up in the shear layer of a jet was shown to occur at
approximately two nozzle diameters downstream from the jet exit. These KelvinHelmholtz instabilities are known to be produced in the axial shear layer of the jet.
Introducing a degree of tangential velocity or swirl into the axial jet can increase the
dominance of the helical instability modes over the preferred modes of the jet. Vortex
break-down was shown to occur for strongly swirling jets, characterised by Swirl numbers
in excess of 0.6. For supersonic jets, the application of a swirling component of velocity
has been proven to successfully reduce screech noise, whereas for subsonic flow regimes,
low levels of swirl have been found to be more efficient in reducing mixing noise and
turbulence levels. However, most studies have focused on passive methods with fixed
geometries such as guide vanes and vortex chambers for producing swirl. Consequently,
there is a lack of numerical, experimental and computational results on active methods,
such as tangential air injection for swirl generation in supersonic jets.
2.4.2 Mechanical Chevrons
Established methods of passive jet noise control such as lobed or chevroned
nozzles are known to generate pairs of counter rotating, stream-wise vortices from each

15

lobe and have been found to reduce low frequency noise at the expense of increased high
frequency noise in the near-field (Callender et al., 2007). Mechanical chevrons were
initially developed by Boeing, General Electric and NASA specifically for reducing jet
noise from the aft angles towards the rear of the engine as shown in Figure 2.5. These
devices suppress the overall noise by promoting rapid mixing of the propulsive jet with the
surrounding flow (Knowles et al., 2005). However, alterations to the nozzle geometry such
as these may incur a weight penalty, as well as increased drag and turbulence during cruise
due to the induced mixing by the serrated shape of the nozzle. Hence, the design of
compact, lightweight and actively controllable noise reduction methods is the focus of
considerable recent research.
An interesting three point criterion was suggested by Alkislar & Krothapalli (2007) to
maximize the effectiveness of the stream-wise vortices on the aero acoustics of the jet in
terms of their location, strength and persistence.

The strength of the vortices should be enough to disrupt only the large-scale
coherent structures.

Any additional turbulent kinetic energy produced by the vortices should be aimed
mostly at the low-speed, outer edge of the shear layer.

There are optimum values for the initial strength and separation of the stream wise
vortices.

2.5 Effect of chevron count and penetration on the acoustic characteristics of chevron
nozzles
Experimental investigations have been carried out on chevron nozzles to assess the
importance of chevron parameters such as the number of chevrons (chevron count) and
chevron penetration. The results indicate that a higher chevron count with a lower level of
penetration yields the maximum noise suppression for low and medium nozzle pressure
ratios. Of all the geometries studied, chevron nozzle with eight lobes and 0 penetration
angle gives the maximum noise reduction. Chevron nozzles are found to be free from
screech unlike regular nozzles. Acoustic power index has been calculated to quantitatively
evaluate the performance of the various chevron nozzles. Chevron count is the pertinent
parameter for noise reduction at low nozzle pressure ratios (P.S.Tide, K.Srinivasan, 2009).

16

2.6 Turbulence and heat excited noise sources in single and coaxial jets
The generation of noise in subsonic high Reynolds number single and coaxial
turbulent jets is analyzed by a hybrid method. The computational approach is based on
large-eddy simulations (LES) and solutions of the acoustic perturbation equations (APE).
The method is used to investigate the acoustic fields of one isothermal single stream jet at
a Mach number 0.9 and a Reynolds number 400, 000 based on the nozzle diameter and two
coaxial jets whose Mach number and Reynolds number based on the secondary jet match
the values of the single jet. One coaxial jet configuration possesses a cold primary flow,
whereas the other configuration has a hot primary jet (Matthias Meinke, 2009).
2.7 Navier-Stokes analysis methods for turbulent jet flows with application to aircraft
exhaust nozzle.
This article presents the current status of computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
methods as applied to the simulation of turbulent jet flow fields issuing from aircraft
engine nozzles. For many years, Reynolds-averaged Navier-strokes (RANS) methods have
been used routinely to calculate such flows, including very complex nozzle configurations.
RANS method replaces all turbulent fluid dynamic effects with a turbulence model. Such
turbulent models have limitations jets with significance three- dimensionality,
compressibility and high temperature streams. In contrast to the RANS approach, direct
numerical simulation (DNS) methods calculate the entire turbulent energy spectrum by
resolving all turbulent motion down to the Kolmogorov scale. Although this avoids the
limitations

associated

with

turbulence

modeling.

DNS

methods

will

remain

computationally impractical in the foreseeable future for all but the simplest
configurations. Large-Eddy simulation (LES) methods, which directly calculate the largescale turbulent structures and reserve modeling only for the smallest scales, have been
pursued in recent years and may offer the best prospects for improving the fidelity of
turbulent jet flow simulations. A related approach is the group of hybrid RANS/LES
methods, where RANS is used to model the small-scale turbulence in wall boundary layers
and LES is utilized in regions dominated by the large-scale jet mixing. The advantages,
limitations, and applicability of each approach are discussed and recommendations for
further research are presented (Nicholas J.Georgiadis, James R. DeBonis 2007).

17

2.8 Numerical predictions of noise in nozzle with and without chevrons

Numerical simulation of round, compressible, turbulent jets using the shear stress
transport (SS k-x) model have been carried out. The three-dimensional calculations have
been done on a tetrahedral mesh with 0.9 million cells. Two jets, one cold and hot, have
been simulated. The Mach number for both the case is 0.75. Overall sound pressure levels
(SPL) at far-field observer locations have been calculated using Ffowcs WilliamsHawkings equation. The numerical predictions have been compared with experimental
results available in the literature. Axial and radial variation of the mean axial velocity and
overall SPL levels are compared. The potential core length is predicted well, but the
predicted centerline velocity decay is faster than the measured value. The URANS
calculations are not able to predict the absolute values for the overall SPL, but predict the
trends reasonably well. The calculations predict the trends and absolute values of the
variations of the spectral amplitude well for the aft receivers, but not for the forward
receivers. Effect of chevrons on the noise from the jet is also investigated for clod and hot
jets.
2.9 Summary
A literature review of past and present understanding of jet noise and the
techniques used to reduce it, reveals the lack of experimental data in relation to tangential
air injection for the purpose of active jet noise control, and hence makes an ideal starting
point for the present study. Jet noise is characterized by two principal noise sources,
turbulent mixing noise shock associated noise. It is accepted that turbulent mixing noise
consists of two distinct noise components. The first is a product of rapidly dissipating finescale turbulent structures in the immediate shear layer of the jet that are highly radioactive
in the sideline and upstream directions. The second is a result of the growth of fine-scale
disturbances into large-scale turbulent eddies that exist towards the end of the potential
core and propagate towards the downstream aft angles, dominating the mixing process and
far- field acoustic spectra. Mach wave radiation occurs in the mixing region of a jet as a
result of the supersonic convection of large-scale eddies, which for cold laboratory jets
travel at approximately 70% of the jet exit velocity. Screech noise is a high amplitude
discrete tone commonly found in imperfectly expanded jets and is a product of the
feedback loop induced by the turbulence-shockwave interaction around the third to fourth
shock cell in the potential core. It has fundamental and harmonic components both of

18

which radiate in opposing directions and have been known to cause sonic fatigue failure.
Broadband shock noise, thought to be sourced from the same turbulence-shockwave
mechanism as screech noise, has a larger bandwidth and occurs at higher frequencies in
both near and far-field upstream acoustic spectra. Promoting enhanced levels of mixing
within the shear layer disrupts the foundations of all noise source mechanisms and is
shown to reduce jet noise. In supersonic jets the application of swirling component of
velocity has been proven to successfully reduce screech noise, whereas for subsonic flow
regimes, low levels of swirl have been found to be more efficient in reducing mixing noise
and turbulence levels. However, most studies have focused on passive methods with fixed
geometries such as guiding vanes and vortex chambers for producing swirl.

19

3. COMPUTATIONAL WORKS
3.1 Modeling
Two-dimensional and three-dimensional chevron nozzles are designed by using
ANSYS-CFX software which is flexible one and user friendly. Co-flow analysis of
chevron nozzle is carried out with the help of FLUENT and CFX Post software. From the
figure 3.1 consist of baseline geometry with zero penetration and chevron count.

Fig 3.1 Isometric view of co-flow nozzle Geometry

Fig 3.2 Outer nozzle with base plate

20

Fig 3.3 Base plate

Fig 3.4 Inner nozzle

Fig 3.5 Inner nozzle with chevron

Fig 3.6 Position of tab in the nozzle

21

3.1.1 Nozzle Specifications

Specifications

Dimensions in mm

Inlet diameter of inner core

30.4

Outer diameter of inner core

11.6

Inlet diameter of outer cone

54.5

Outlet diameter of outer cone

17.85

Nozzle Length

35.5

Chevron length for eight count chevron

4.5

Chevron Penetration

Tab size

Width - 1.5mm,
height - 1mm

Table3.1 Nozzle Specifications

3.2 Preprocessing
ICEM CFD is the meshing tool used to mesh the model in order to get the accurate result.
3.2.1 Three dimensional meshing
Initially open the ICEM CFD software. Then import the model in ICEM CFD using
import options. The import file should be in the form of iges file and step file. After
importing the model is clean up with the help of cleanup option to avoid the unwanted
edges. According to our requirements we can decompose the domain and mesh, for the
three-dimensional case we can go for tetra mixed yields good result. Then give the
boundary conditions, save and export the model.

22

Fig 3.7 Mesh image.

3.3 Solver
ANSYS CFX is analyzing software used to simulate the model for this application.
3.3.1 Steps to solve
Initially have to open the CFX-Pre software. Then have to import our meshed
model into the CFX-Pre by read mesh file. After reading the case file have to check the
grid and zones. After checking grid and zone we have change the units as mm or cm or m
as what we want. Then select define, models, solver keep the defaults as it is. Then select
turbulence model as SST.
After finishing all above steps click iterate in solve and give value for
number of iterations and start the iteration. After the solution is converged and iteration
will stop and we see the results. Go to the CFX-POST for post processing works.
3.4. Formula used to find the total pressure
P0/P = {1+ ((-1)/2) M2} /-1
P = 101325 Pa
For Mach no 0.6,
P0/P = {1+ ((1.4-1)/2) 0.62}1.4/ (1.4)-1
P0 = 129240.420 pa

23

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSION

In this chapter we discuss about the final results obtained from the CFX PRE solver
and CFX post which are compared with the existing journals to make sure that we are on
the right path. The results are taken for co-flow jets with nozzle, chevron nozzle and
chevron nozzle with tab in two different locations of 31mm and 32mm.The base line
geometry for the nozzle are taken from the reference [1] Pinnam Lovaraju, E.
Rathakrishnan paper and has been tested under various Mach number.
Co-flow analysis of chevron nozzle with eight counts is done with the help of CFX
PRE software and CFX post, and the acoustic characteristics of co - flow nozzle and coflow nozzle with chevron and tab are measured.
Both results in comparison shows instead of co-flow nozzle, co-flow nozzle with
chevron and tabs yields minimum noise level, and it reduces 10db of noise level in average
at various Mach number 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0. Co-flow analysis of chevron nozzle with tab
yields the good results too. Using of Shear Stress Transport (SST) model in CFX we can
obtain the turbulence result which is compare with the existing results.
4.1 Centreline Velocity Decay:
The centerline velocity decay is an authentic measure of jet propagation, that is,
faster the decay, the faster is the jet mixing with the entrained fluid mass and so on. The
centerline velocity decay shows the extent of jet core clearly. In other words, it can be
stated that the core of a jet, either subsonic or supersonic, is the distance from nozzle exit
at which the characteristic decay begins.
4.2 Effect of tab on jet decay:
Two pairs of stream wise vortices were generated when tabs were introduced at the exit of
the nozzle. These vortices are small and have a long life span. Therefore they act as
effective mixing promoters and enhance mixing. This faster mixing result in rapid jet
decay of tabbed jets compared to a jet from a plain nozzle. According to past research
smaller the size of vortex, the better is the mixing because small size vortices travel longer
distance and are stable. The present investigation centered on tabs had explored the merits
of small vortex and effectiveness of the tab on mixing promotion. The perforations in the
tab seem to induce vortices of smaller size that travel right through the jet centerline. The

24

vortices from the tab combined with the vortices from the circular perforations had
severely affected the potential core of the jet thereby increasing the entrainment of the
ambient into the jet core. The low pressure region behind the tab has facilitated greater
mixing of the jet with the ambient.
4.3 Mach number profiles along jet direction
Center line Mach number decay was measured for corresponding Mach numbers
0.6, 0.8 and 1.0. Faster the decay of Mach number, faster the jet mixing with the
surrounding fluid flow Lovaraju.P and Rathakrishnan.E. [7]. The local Mach number (M)
is normalized with the jet Mach number (Me) and axial distance (X) is non-dimensional
with the inner nozzle exit diameter (D). Below figure gives the potential core for Mach
number 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0.
When there is no chevron or tabbed chevron potential core is extended up to
X/D=5.22 for Mach number 0.6. In the presence chevron and tabbed chevron X/D reduced
to 3.66 and 3.13. This results gives reduction in potential core implies faster the jet mixing
with nearby fluid. For 0.8 and 1.0 Mach number only baseline nozzle gives the potential
core of X/D 5.75 and 7.31 respectively. But in chevron and tabbed chevron for 0.8 Mach
potential core reduced to X/D= 4.18 and 3.9. For Mach number 1.0, baseline, chevron and
tabbed chevron nozzle potential core length X/D are 7.31, 5.22, and 2.94. These stream
wise vortices produced by the Chevron and Tabbed chevron causing reduction in jet
potential core and enhance mixing.

25

FIG.4.1 BASELINE(M=0.6)

FIG.4.2 BASELINE(M=0.8)

FIG.4.3 BASELINE(M=1.0)

FIG.4.4 CHEVRON(M=0.6)

FIG.4.5 CHEVRON(M=0.8)

FIG.4.6 CHEVRON(M=1.0)

FIG.4.7 TABBED CHEVRON(M=0.6)

FIG.4.8 TABBED CHEVRON(M=0.8)

FIG.4.9 TABBED CHEVRON(M=1.0)

26

FIG.4.10 BASELINE(NPR=3)

FIG.4.11 BASELINE(NPR=5)

FIG.4.12 BASELINE(NPR=7)

FIG.4.13 CHEVRON(NPR=3)

FIG.4.14 CHEVRON(NPR=5)

FIG.4.15 CHEVRON(NPR=7)

FIG.4.16 TABBED CHEVRON(NPR=3)

FIG.4.17 TABBED CHEVRON(NPR=5)

FIG.4.18 TABBED CHEVRON(NPR=7)

27

GRAPH-4.1 SUPERIMPOSED GRAPH (M=0.6)

GRAPH-4.2 SUPERIMPOSED GRAPH (M=0.8)

28

GRAPH-4.3 SUPERIMPOSED GRAPH (M=1.0)

GRAPH-4.4 SUPERIMPOSED GRAPH (NPR=3)

29

GRAPH-4.5 SUPERIMPOSED GRAPH (NPR=5)

GRAPH-4.6 SUPERIMPOSED GRAPH (NPR=7)

30

0.6 MACH BASELINE RADIAL DIRECTION

1.20
1.00

M/Me

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Y/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

X/D=18

GRAPH-4.7 BASELINE RADIAL DIRECTION (M=0.6)

0.8 MACH BASELINE RADIAL DIRECTION

1.2
1

M/Me

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Y/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

GRAPH-4.8 BASELINE RADIAL DIRECTION (M=0.8)

X/D=18

31

1.0 MACH BASELINE RADIAL DIRECTION

1.20
1.00

M/Me

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Y/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

X/D=18

GRAPH-4.9 BASELINE RADIAL DIRECTION (M=1.0)

0.6 MACH CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION

1.2
1

M/Me

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Y/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

GRAPH-4.10 CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION (M=0.6)

X/D=18

32

0.8 MACH CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION

1.20
1.00

M/Me

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Y/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

X/D=18

GRAPH-4.11 CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION (M=0.8)

1.0 MACH CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION

1.20
1.00

M/Me

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Y/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

GRAPH-4.12 CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION (M=1.0)

X/D=18

33

0.6 MACH TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL IN Y/D

1.20
1.00

M/Me

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Y/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

X/D=18

GRAPH-4.12 TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION (M=0.6)

0.6 MACH TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL IN Z/D

1.20
1.00

M/Me

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Z/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

X/D=18

GRAPH-4.13 TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION (M=0.6)

34

0.8 MACH TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL IN Y/D

1.20
1.00

M/Me

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Y/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

X/D=18

GRAPH-4.14 TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION (M=0.8)

0.8 MACH TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL IN Z/D

1.20
1.00

M/Me

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Z/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

GRAPH-4.15 TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION (M=0.8)

X/D=18

35

1.0 MACH TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL IN Y/D

1.20
1.00

M/Me

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Y/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

X/D=18

GRAPH-4.16 TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION (M=1.0)

1.0 MACH TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL IN Z/D

1.20
1.00

M/Me

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Z/D
X/D=0

X/D=2

X/D=5.5

X/D=8

X/D=12

X/D=15

GRAPH-4.17 TABBED CHEVRON RADIAL DIRECTION (M=1.0)

X/D=18

36

4.4 Radial Mach number profiles

Below figure presents the radial Mach number variation of Mach 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0
jet at axial distances of X/D =0, 2.0, 5.5, 8.0, 12.0, 15.0 and 18.0, with baseline, chevron
and tabbed chevron. These plots clearly show the effect of chevron and tabbed chevron of
co-flow on central jet in the radial direction. . According to past research smaller the size
of vortex, the better is the mixing because small size vortices travel longer distance and are
stable. The present investigation centered on tabs had explored the merits of small vortex
and effectiveness of the tab on mixing promotion. Graphs show the radial distribution of
Mach number for baseline, chevron and tabbed chevron. The effect of co-flow is clearly
shown in below graph for 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 Mach number. In this project tabs placed
perpendicular to the earths surface, for this reason only flow spreader perpendicular to
earths surface. The stream wise vortices introduced by chevron and tabbed chevron at the
primary core of the nozzle exit may be due the presence of pressure gradient upstream and
downstream of the chevron and tabbed chevron. Stream wise vortices strength is the strong
function of pressure gradient. While introduction of tabs off centered peak will attain at the
potential core. Here, off centered peak is achieved at Z/D= 0.7. This shows peak get shifted
away from the centerline. And this once again shows that the vortices move away from the
nozzle exit as they travel downstream.
4.5 Nozzle pressure ratio
To understand the concept of under expanded cases, nozzle pressure ratio
calculations were done and super imposed graphs were plotted. These profiles clearly show
the effect of co-flow on the central jet characteristics at all axial locations. These effects of
co-flow shock interaction were studied in [2] Experimental Studies on Co-flowing
Subsonic and Sonic Pinnam Lovaraju, E. Rathakrishnan. While introduction of chevron
and tabbed chevron shock cell strength reduces when compared to baseline nozzle.
Following graphs shows comparison of nozzle pressure ratio at NPR=3, 5 and 7. Tab
weakens the shock cell structure drastically in the jet core. For NPR=3 is observed, weak
shock waves are clearly seen in baseline nozzle. While raising the nozzle pressure ratio to
5 and 7 in baseline nozzle strong shocks are captured. It is easy to see barrel shocks are
formed at NPR= 5and 7 in baseline nozzle. While introduction of chevron, shock cell gets
weak and it distracts one shock cell structure. In this paper new methodology tabbed
chevron reduces further one more shock cell. These will clearly shows introduction of
chevron and tabbed chevron promotes mixing.

37

4.6 Sound pressure level

In order to find sound pressure level (dB), sound pressure level formulae is used for
baseline, chevron and tabbed chevron below table indicates the value of sound pressure
level at the nozzle exit.
SL
AT EXIT
NUMBER

0.6
MACH
(dB)
169.84

NOZZLE

2
3

CHEVRON 164.71
TABBED
163.84
CHEVRON

0.8
MACH
(dB)
175.92

1.0
MACH
(dB)
181.86

169.12
167.17

173.40
166.00

TABLE-4.1 SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AT NOZZLE EXIT

38

CONCLUSIONS
Vortex generators in the form of chevron and tabbed chevron have been found to
be quite effective in co-flow jet mixing. Tabbed chevron found effective in all the nozzle
pressure ratios (NPR).Chevron and tabbed chevron diffuse shocks. . At high NPR chevron
and tabbed chevron reduces shock strength and shock cell formation. Comparing all the
result in NPR Tabbed chevron is effective to diffuse shocks, resulting in weaker shock in
core region. Chevron and tabbed chevron is found to modify the characteristics of co-flow
central jet development Jet mixing is augmented by the chevron and tabbed chevron by the
formation of vortices. The length of the potential core of the subsonic and correctly
expanded sonic jets decreases in the presence of chevron and tabbed chevron results in
good mixing with the atmospheric flow in radial direction. Finally for 0.6 Mach number
introduction of chevron and tabbed chevron reduces 29.90% and 40.03% of potential core.
For 0.8 Mach number introduction of chevron and tabbed chevron reduces 27.30% and
32.17% of potential core. For 1.0 Mach number introduction of chevron and tabbed
chevron reduces 28.50% and 59.78% of potential core. It shows faster the centerline decay
faster the mixing with surrounding flow in the co-flowing jets. This chevron and tabbed
chevron is effective to modify mixing characteristics in co-flowing jets.

39

6. REFERENCES
1. Pinnam Lovaraju E. Rathakrishnan Experimental Studies on Co-flowing
Subsonic and Sonic Jets. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion. An International
Journal published in association with ERCOFTAC.
2. E. Rathakrishnan Corrugated Tabs for Supersonic Jet Control (Keynote Paper)
3. McLaughlin, D. K., Morrison, G. D., and Troutt, T. R., Experiments on the
Instability Waves in a Supersonic Jet and Their Acoustic Radiation, Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 69, Pt. 1, 1975, pp. 7395.
4. Troutt, T. R., and McLaughlin, D. K., Experiments on the Flow and Acoustic
Properties of a Moderate Reynolds Number Supersonic Jet, Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 116, March 1982, pp. 123156.
5. K.B.M.Q. Zaman, J.E. Bridges and D.L. Huff Evolution from 'Tabs' to 'Chevron
Technology NASA Glenn Research Center - Cleveland, OH, USA.
6. Malcolm Gibson The Chevron Nozzle: A Novel Approach to Reducing Jet Noise.
NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC

7. Effect of tabs on mixing characteristics of subsonic and supersonic jets. Author:

S.Thanigaiarasu, S.Elangovan, and E.Rathakrishnan.

8. Lovaraju.P, Agarwal.V. and Rathakrishnan.E (2005),Mixing Enhancements of

Subsonic and Transonic Jets with Cross wire, 8th ASV paper 18
9. Chiranjeevi Phanindra.Band Rathakrishnan.E (2010), Corrugated tabs for
supersonic jet control, AIAA Journal, Vol.48, No.2
10. Clement.S and Rathakrishnan.E (2006), Characteristics of sonic jets with tabs,
Springer Link-Shock waves.

40

11. Alkislar, M.B., Krothapalli, A., and Lourenco. L. M., Structure of a screeching
rectangular jet: a stereoscopic particle image velocimetry study,Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 489, 2003
12. Avital, E. J., Alonso, M., and Supontisky, V., Computational aeroacoustics: The
low speed jet,The Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 112, No.1133, July 2008
13. Bishop, K. A., Fowcs-Williams, J. E. and Smith, W., On the noise sources of the
unsuppressed high-speed jet, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1971
14. Callender, B., Gutmark, E., and Martens, S., A comprehensive study of fluidic
injection technology for jet noise reduction, AIAA 2007
15. Carpenter, P. W. and Johannesen, N. H., An extension of one-dimensional theory
to inviscid swirling flow through choked nozzles, Aeronautics Quarterly, Vol. 26,
1975
16. Tide, P.S., Srinivasan., Effect of chevron count and penetration on the acoustic
characteristics of chevron nozzles, Journal of applied acoustic 2009
17. Nicholas, J., Georgiadis., James R.DeBonis., Navier-stokes analysis method for
turbulent jet flows with application to aircraft exhaust nozzles, Journal of
ScienceDirect 2006
18. Lardeau, S., Collin, E., Analysis of jet-mixing layer interaction, Journal of
ScienceDirect 2003
19. Seong Ryong Kho, Wolfgang Schroder., Turbulence and heat excited noise
source in single and coaxial jets, Journal of Sound and Vibration 2008
20. Groschel, E., Schroder, W., Renze, P., Noise prediction for a turbulent jet using
different hybrid methods, Journal of Science Direct 2007
21. T.Ph. Bui, W. Schroder, M. Meinke., Numerical analysis of the acoustic field of
reacting flows via acoustic perturbation equations, Science Direct 2007.

41

TEXT BOOK REFERENCES

1. Grinstein F.F,Glauser.M&George.W.K (1995), Vorticity in jets, Chapter 3 of
FLUID VORTICES, Ed.S.Green, pp.65-94, Kluwer Academic Publishing.
2. Rathakrishnan.E (2010), Applied Gas Dynamics, Wiley Publications ISBN 9780-470-82576.

WEBSITE REFERENCES
http://www.fluent.com
http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/fluent/
http://combust.hit.edu.cn:8080/fluent/Gambit13_help/gambit.http