Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T09:11:27.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Performance and mechanism of sinusoidal leading edge serrations for the reduction of turbulence–aerofoil interaction noise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2017

P. Chaitanya*
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
P. Joseph
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
S. Narayanan
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
C. Vanderwel
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
J. Turner
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
J. W. Kim
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
B. Ganapathisubramani
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
*
†Email address for correspondence: mail2pcc@gmail.com

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a detailed experimental investigation into the effectiveness of sinusoidal leading edge serrations on aerofoils for the reduction of the noise generated by the interaction with turbulent flow. A detailed parametric study is performed to investigate the sensitivity of the noise reductions to the serration amplitude and wavelength. The study is primarily performed on flat plates in an idealized turbulent flow, which we demonstrate captures the same behaviour as when identical serrations are introduced onto three-dimensional aerofoils. The influence on the noise reduction of the turbulence integral length scale is also studied. An optimum serration wavelength is identified whereby maximum noise reductions are obtained, corresponding to when the transverse integral length scale is approximately one-fourth the serration wavelength. This paper proves that, at the optimum serration wavelength, adjacent valley sources are excited incoherently. One of the most important findings of this paper is that, at the optimum serration wavelength, the sound power radiation from the serrated aerofoil varies inversely proportional to the Strouhal number $St_{h}=fh/U$ , where $f$ , $h$ and $U$ are frequency, serration amplitude and flow speed, respectively. A simple model is proposed to explain this behaviour. Noise reductions are observed to generally increase with increasing frequency until the frequency at which aerofoil self-noise dominates the interaction noise. Leading edge serrations are also shown to reduce aerofoil self-noise. The mechanism for this phenomenon is explored through particle image velocimetry measurements. Finally, the lift and drag of the serrated aerofoil are obtained through direct measurement and compared against the straight edge baseline aerofoil. It is shown that aerodynamic performance is not substantially degraded by the introduction of the leading edge serrations on the aerofoil.

Information

Type
Papers
Copyright
© 2017 Cambridge University Press 
Figure 0

Figure 1. Leading edge geometry with serrated wavelength, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}$; serrated amplitude, $h$; flow speed, $U$; transverse integral length scale of incoming turbulence, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}_{t}$; mean chord length, $c_{0}$.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Experimental set-up.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Comparison between the measured axial velocity spectra and theoretical von Kármán spectra.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Overall sound power reduction level ($\unicode[STIX]{x0394}\text{OAPWL}$) variation with $\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}_{t}$.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Influence of integral length scale ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}/c_{0}$) on noise reductions.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Sound power reductions for various serration amplitudes at three different fixed serration wavelength $\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}_{t}$ of 1.33, 4 and 10 for jet velocity,$U=60$ m s$^{-1}$.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Variation in total sound power versus $\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}_{t}$.

Figure 7

Figure 8. Comparison of simple analytical model against experiments at optimum serration angle.

Figure 8

Figure 9. Balance between number of valleys and source strength.

Figure 9

Figure 10. Power level spectra comparison between baseline NACA65 aerofoils with serrated aerofoil of amplitude ($h/c_{0}$) 0.167 and wavelength ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}_{t}$) 2.67 along with their self-noise.

Figure 10

Figure 11. Sound power reduction level ($\unicode[STIX]{x0394}\text{PWL}$) for various serrated amplitude ($h$) at jet velocity $60~\text{m}~\text{s}^{-1}$ and angle of attack $(AoA)=0^{\circ }$ for a serrated wavelength ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}_{t}$) of 2.67.

Figure 11

Figure 12. Overall sound power reduction level ($\unicode[STIX]{x0394}\text{PWL}$) for serrated amplitude ($h/c_{0}$) of 0.1 and serrated wavelength ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}_{t}$) of 2.67 at various velocities at $AoA=0^{\circ }$.

Figure 12

Figure 13. Sound power reduction level ($\unicode[STIX]{x0394}\text{PWL}$) on NACA65 aerofoil for various inclination angle $\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}_{t}$ at jet velocity $U=60$ m s$^{-1}$ and $AoA=0^{\circ }$ for serrated amplitude ($h/c_{0}$) of 0.167.

Figure 13

Figure 14. Aerodynamic evaluation of serrated aerofoils ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}_{t}=2.67$) at the jet velocity $U=60$ m s$^{-1}$.

Figure 14

Figure 15. Mean velocity maps for serrated and baseline aerofoil for effective angle of attack of $0^{\circ }$ and $2.8^{\circ }$. The aerofoil cross-sections are illustrated to scale and regions where the experimental geometry obscured the measurements are left blank.

Figure 15

Figure 16. Maps of the vertical component of the mean velocity at the leading edge of the serrated and baseline aerofoils at an angle of attack of $2.8^{\circ }$.

Figure 16

Figure 17. Development of the boundary layer over the suction side of the aerofoil at locations of distance of (a) $-$0.8$c_{0}$, (b) $-$0.6$c_{0}$, (c) $-$0.4$c_{0}$, (d) $-$0.2$c_{0}$ and (e) 0 from the trailing edge of the aerofoil.

Figure 17

Figure 18. Profiles of the r.m.s. streamwise velocity fluctuations along the suction side of the aerofoil at locations of distance of (a) $-$0.8$c_{0}$, (b) $-$0.6$c_{0}$, (c) $-$0.4$c_{0}$, (d) $-$0.2$c_{0}$ and (e) 0 from the trailing edge of the aerofoil.

Figure 18

Figure 19. Streamwise velocity profiles of the wake measured 70 mm downstream of the trailing edge for effective angles of attack of (a) $0^{\circ }$ and (b) $2.8^{\circ }$ where the geometric angles of attacks are $0^{\circ }$ and $10^{\circ }$ respectively.