Comparison between Lattice Boltzmann Simulation and Detached-Eddy Simulation on the Cavity Problem
The M219 cavity benchmark problem is used to compare the performance and the applicability of two commercial software, namely Ansys Fluent and Exa Powerflow. The computational domain is small and is concentrated around the cavity to limit the computation time and thus permit to assess the possibility of carrying out such simulations in an industrial context. Despite the small length of the domain, far-field conditions are imposed at the open boundaries which induces some unphysical pressure wave reflections. On the reference cavity case (Ma=0.85, P=62900), the second and third tones are well captured but the background noise and sound pressure level are higher than previously mentioned in the literature. Wave reflection and boundary layer features are thought to be the main causes of these discrepancies. A case at Mach number equal to 0.30 was carried out; Fluent and Powerflow present similar results in terms of acoustics characteristics. The mean flow computation shows slight differences which are certainly due to different boundary layers attacking the cavity leading edge.
KeywordsMach Number Sound Pressure Level Streamwise Velocity Lattice Boltzmann Method Power Spectrum Density
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Sinha, D., Dash, S.M., Chidambaram, N., Findlay, D.: A perspective on the simulation of cavity aeroacoustics. AIAA-98-0286Google Scholar
- 3.Perot, F.: Investigation of Statistical Properties of Pressure Loadings on Real Automotive Side Glasses. AIAA-2009-3402 (2009)Google Scholar
- 4.Moron, P.: A CFD/SEA Approach for Prediction of Vehicle Interior Noise due to Wind Noise. In: Society of Automotive Engineers 2009 Noise and Vibration Conference and Exhibition, 2009-01-2203 (2009)Google Scholar
- 6.Ashworth, R.M.: Prediction of acoustic resonance phenomena for weapon bays using detached eddy simulation. The Aeronautical Journal 109(1102), 631–638 (2005)Google Scholar
- 7.Henshaw, M.J., de, C.: Verification and Validation Data for Computational Unsteady Aerodynamics, NATO report RTO-TR-26, M219 Cavity Case, ch. 20, pp. 473-480 (2000)Google Scholar
- 8.ANSYS FLUENT Theory Guide, release 13, Solver Theory, ch. 19, pp. 577–639 (2010)Google Scholar
- 9.ANSYS FLUENT Theory Guide, release 13, Turbulence, ch. 4, pp. 49–60 (2010)Google Scholar
- 11.Kim, W.-W., Choudhury, D., Patel, B.: Computations of complex turbulent flows using the commercial code Ansys Fluent. In: ICASE/LARC/AFOSR Symposium on Modeling Complex Turbulent Flows, Hampton, Virginia (1997)Google Scholar
- 14.Chen, Y.S., Kim, S.W.: Computation of turbulent flows using an extended k-ε turbulence closure model, NASA CR-179204 (1987)Google Scholar
- 15.Mendonça, F., Allen, R., de Charentenay, J., Kirkham, D.: CFD prediction of narrowband and broadband cavity acoustics at M=0.85. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper No. AIAA-2003-3303 (2003)Google Scholar