Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T00:19:07.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Near-field pressure and wake dynamics in aerodynamic noise control of a forced rotating cylinder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2026

Chenghao Yang
Affiliation:
Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, Anhui 230009, PR China Low Speed Aerodynamics Institute, China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center, Mianyang, Sichuan 621000, PR China
Nvzi Bao
Affiliation:
Department of General Education, Anhui Xinhua University, Hefei, Anhui 230088, PR China
Reza Maryami
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
Yu Liu*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518055, PR China
Yubao Song
Affiliation:
Low Speed Aerodynamics Institute, China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center, Mianyang, Sichuan 621000, PR China
Chuanxing Bi*
Affiliation:
Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, Anhui 230009, PR China
*
Corresponding authors: Chuanxing Bi, cxbi@hfut.edu.cn; Yu Liu, liuy@sustech.edu.cn
Corresponding authors: Chuanxing Bi, cxbi@hfut.edu.cn; Yu Liu, liuy@sustech.edu.cn

Abstract

Content of image described in text.

This study investigates the aerodynamic noise control mechanisms of a forced rotating circular cylinder at a subcritical Reynolds number ($Re = 4.7 \times 10^4$) using large-eddy simulation coupled with the Ffowcs Williams–Hawkings acoustic analogy, validated by wind tunnel experiments. Five representative rotation ratios, $\alpha =0$, $0.5$, $1$, $2$ and $4$, are analysed to relate wall-pressure fluctuations and wake organisation to the radiated noise. At $\alpha =0.5$, the natural shedding tone separates into two components, $St_{01}\approx 0.18$ and $St_{02}\approx 0.23$. Their three-dimensional (3-D) structures exhibit spanwise phase dislocation and reduced coherence, explaining the decrease in tonal radiation despite locally enhanced wall-pressure fluctuations. Coherent shedding partially recovers at $\alpha =1$, whereas $\alpha =2$ gives the strongest tonal-noise reduction among the investigated cases, accompanied by weakened wake fluctuations, spanwise coherence and wall–wake correlation. At $\alpha =4$, the classical Kármán mode is suppressed and localised near-wall helical structures are associated with a broadband elevation near $St\approx 0.1$. The results show that rotation controls noise through changes in both unsteady-loading amplitude and 3-D source organisation.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. (a$ a$) Schematic of the computational domain and boundary condition settings. (b$ b$) Illustration of the mesh configuration for flow around the cylinder, including the overall grid layout and local refinement near the cylinder wall.

Figure 1

Figure 2. The aeroacoustic characteristics of the flow around the circular cylinder under different rotation ratios (α=0,0.5,1,2,4$\alpha = 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4$): (a$ a$) acoustic PSD, Φpp$\varPhi _{pp}$, as a function of St$St$ at the observation point (0,80D,0)$(0, 80D, 0)$; (b$ b$) 1/3-octave-band representation of the acoustic spectra; (c$ c$) directivity of the OASPL in the midspan plane (z/D=0$z/D = 0$). The underlying far-field acoustic signals are from the LES database previously reported by Yang et al. (2026).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Time histories of the lift coefficient Cl$C_l$, together with the CWT magnitudes of the lift coefficient, |WCl|$|W_{C_l}|$, and the corresponding far-field acoustic pressure, |Wnoise|$|W_{noise}|$, for different rotation ratios: (a) baseline, (b) α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$, (c) α=1$\alpha =1$, (d) α=2$\alpha =2$ and (e) α=4$\alpha =4$. Subpanels (i)–(iii) show Cl$C_l$, |WCl|$|W_{C_l}|$ and |Wnoise|$|W_{noise}|$, respectively.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Real parts of the CWT coefficients of the lift coefficient, ℜ(WCl)$\Re (W_{C_l})$, and the corresponding far-field acoustic pressure, ℜ(Wnoise)$\Re (W_{noise})$, for different rotation ratios: (a) baseline, (b) α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$, (c) α=1$\alpha =1$, (d) α=2$\alpha =2$ and (e) α=4$\alpha =4$.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Quantitative comparison of the non-monotonic variation of the unsteady response with rotation ratio α$\alpha$: (a) r.m.s. lift-coefficient fluctuation, Cl,rms′$C_{l,{rms}}^{\prime }$, and OASPL; (b) integrated wavelet measures of the lift coefficient, ECl$E_{C_l}$, and far-field acoustic pressure, Enoise$E_{noise}$, obtained from the squared CWT magnitude over 0.05$0.05\lt St\lt 10$.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Contours of (i) time-averaged pressure coefficient (C¯p$\overline {C}_p$) and (ii) r.m.s. pressure coefficient fluctuations (Cp,rms′$C_{p,{rms}}^{\prime }$) at different rotation ratios α$\alpha$: (a) baseline, (b) α=0.5$\alpha = 0.5$, (c) α=1$\alpha = 1$, (d) α=2$\alpha = 2$, (e) α=4$\alpha = 4$.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Time–space distribution of the surface pressure coefficient (Cp$C_p$) on the cylinder under different rotation ratios α$\alpha$: (a) baseline, (b) α=0.5$\alpha = 0.5$, (c) α=1$\alpha = 1$, (d) α=2$\alpha = 2$, (e) α=4$\alpha = 4$.

Figure 7

Figure 8. Spanwise distributions of the pressure power spectral density (Φpp,s$\varPhi _{pp,s}$) as a function of St$St$ at different rotation ratios for three typical circumferential angles, θ=90∘$\theta =90^\circ$, 180∘$180^\circ$, and 270∘$270^\circ$. Panels (a)–(e) correspond to the baseline case and rotation ratios α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$, 1$1$, 2$2$ and 4$4$, respectively. Subpanels (i) to (iii) correspond to (i) θ=90∘$\theta =90^\circ$ (upper side), (ii) θ=180∘$\theta =180^\circ$ (leeward side) and (iii) θ=270∘$\theta =270^\circ$ (lower side), respectively.

Figure 8

Figure 9. Wavenumber–frequency spectra of the surface-pressure fluctuations, Φpp(ks,ωf)$\varPhi _{pp}(k_s,\omega _f)$. The colour scale represents the spectral level, 10log10⁡[Φpp(ks,ωf)/pref2]$10\log _{10}[\varPhi _{pp}(k_s,\omega _f)/p_{{ref}}^2]$. Subpanels (i) corresponds to the upper-half of the cylinder (0∘$0^\circ$–180∘$180^\circ$), and (ii) corresponds to the lower-half (360∘$360^\circ$–180∘$180^\circ$). On both halves, the positive surface coordinate s$s$ is defined from the upstream stagnation point towards the rear stagnation region. The dashed lines indicate the dispersion relations associated with the estimated convection velocity Uc$U_c$ and the free stream velocity U∞$U_\infty$. Panels (a)–(e) correspond to the baseline case and rotation ratios α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$, 1$1$, 2$2$ and 4$4$, respectively. The horizontal axis denotes the dimensionless surface wavenumber ksD$k_sD$, and the vertical axis denotes the Strouhal number St$St$.

Figure 9

Figure 10. Contours of the r.m.s. streamwise (urms′/U∞$u'_{{rms}}/U_{\infty }$) and transverse (vrms′/U∞$v'_{{rms}}/U_{\infty }$) velocity fluctuations in the central x$x$–y$y$ plane (i and ii) and the streamwise–spanwise x$x$–z$z$ plane at y=0$y=0$ (iii and iv). The rotation ratios are (a) baseline, (b) α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$, (c) α=1$\alpha =1$, (d) α=2$\alpha =2$ and (e) α=4$\alpha =4$. The x$x$–y$y$-plane distributions were previously reported by Yang et al. (2026); the x$x$–z$z$-plane distributions are presented here to examine the spanwise organisation of the wake fluctuations.

Figure 10

Figure 11. Time-averaged spanwise-vorticity contours under different rotation ratios, non-dimensionalised by ω¯zD/U∞$\overline {\omega }_z D / U\infty$: (a$ a$) baseline, (b$ b$) α=0.5$\alpha = 0.5$, (c) α=1$\alpha = 1$, (d$ d$) α=2$\alpha = 2$, (e$ e$) α=4$\alpha = 4$.

Figure 11

Figure 12. Comparison of velocity PSD distributions along the spanwise direction at the streamwise location x/D=1$x/D = 1$ under different rotation ratios: (a$ a$) baseline, (b$ b$) α=0.5$\alpha = 0.5$, (c$ c$) α=1$\alpha = 1$, (d$ d$) α=2$\alpha = 2$, (e$ e$) α=4$\alpha = 4$. Panels (a) to (e) correspond to one rotation ratio condition: (i) shows the PSD of the streamwise velocity u$u$ (Φuu$\varPhi _{uu}$), and (ii) shows the PSD of the transverse velocity v$v$ (Φvv$\varPhi _{vv}$).

Figure 12

Figure 13. Frequency-dependent spanwise coherence length, Λvv/D$\varLambda _{vv}/D$, based on the magnitude-squared coherence of the transverse velocity fluctuations at x/D=1$x/D=1$ and y/D=0$y/D=0$ for the baseline case and rotation ratios α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$, 1$1$, 2$2$ and 4$4$.

Figure 13

Figure 14. Isosurfaces of instantaneous 3-D vortex structures identified by the Ω$\varOmega$ criterion (Ω=0.52$\varOmega =0.52$) for varying rotation ratios: (a$ a$) baseline, (b$ b$) α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$, (c$ c$) α=1$\alpha =1$, (d$ d$) α=2$\alpha =2$ and (e$ e$) α=4$\alpha =4$. Subpanels (i) and (ii) display the upper side and lower side views, respectively. The structures are coloured by the dimensionless streamwise vorticity ωxD/U∞$\omega _x D/U_{\infty }$ (red for positive, blue for negative). Note the emergence of Taylor-Görtler-like helical vortices wrapping around the cylinder surface at α=4$\alpha =4$.

Figure 14

Figure 15. Figure 15 long description.Spatiotemporal evolution of the backward-time finite-time Lyapunov exponent (FTLE) fields, σ(x,t)$\sigma (\boldsymbol{x},t)$, evaluated in the midspan x$x$–y$y$ plane. Panels (a)–(e) correspond to rotation ratios α=0$\alpha =0$, 0.5$0.5$, 1$1$, 2$2$ and 4$4$, respectively. Subpanels (i) to (iv) represent consecutive time instants t0$t_0$, t0+Δt$t_0+\Delta t$, t0+2Δt$t_0+2\Delta t$ and t0+3Δt$t_0+3\Delta t$. The magnitude of the backward integration interval is |T|=6.5D/U∞$|T|=6.5D/U_\infty$. High-value ridges indicate attracting material lines and the principal in-plane transport pathways associated with the separated shear layers. The white dashed circles track the formation and roll-up of large-scale spiral lobes.

Figure 15

Figure 16. Three-dimensional isosurfaces of the zero-time-lag cross-correlation coefficient Rpv$R_{pv}$ between the surface-pressure fluctuation p′$p'$ at a reference point and the transverse velocity fluctuation v′$v'$ in the wake. Subpanels (i) to (ii) correspond to pressure reference points on the upper (θ=90∘$\theta =90^\circ$) and lower (θ=270∘$\theta =270^\circ$) surfaces, respectively. Panels (a)–(e) correspond to the baseline case and rotation ratios α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$, 1$1$, 2$2$ and 4$4$, respectively. The visualisation levels are |Rpv|=0.60$|R_{pv}|=0.60$ for the baseline case; 0.20$0.20$ for α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$; 0.45$0.45$ and 0.15$0.15$ for the upper and lower reference points at α=1$\alpha =1$, respectively; and 0.20$0.20$ for α=2$\alpha =2$ and 4$4$. Red and blue denote positive and negative correlations, respectively. Because different visualisation thresholds are used, the isosurfaces are compared primarily in terms of their morphology and spatial orientation rather than their absolute volume.

Figure 16

Figure 17. Figure 17 long description.Distribution of eigenvalues in the complex plane under different rotation ratios: (a$ a$) baseline, (b$ b$) α=0.5$\alpha = 0.5$, (c$ c$) α=1$\alpha = 1$, (d$ d$) α=2$\alpha = 2$, (e$ e$) α=4$\alpha = 4$.

Figure 17

Figure 18. Relationship between frequency and growth/decay rate under different rotation ratios: (a$ a$) baseline, (b$ b$) α=0.5$\alpha = 0.5$, (c$ c$) α=1$\alpha = 1$, (d$ d$) α=2$\alpha = 2$, (e$ e$) α=4$\alpha = 4$.

Figure 18

Figure 19. Spectral distribution of the relative DMD modal-energy indicator, Pj$P_{\!j}$, as a function of St$St$ for the baseline case and different rotation ratios (α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$, 1, 2 and 4).

Figure 19

Figure 20. Three-dimensional spatial structures of the dominant DMD modes identified from characteristic peaks of the relative modal-energy-indicator spectra. The vortex structures are visualised using isosurfaces of the Q$Q$-criterion and coloured by the normalised spanwise vorticity ωzD/U∞$\omega _z D/U_\infty$ (red for positive and blue for negative). All modes are visualised using Q=50000$Q=50\,000$, except for the baseline harmonic mode at St=0.38$St=0.38$, for which Q=5000$Q=5000$ is used to reveal its weaker spatial structure. Panels (a)–(e) correspond to the baseline case and rotation ratios α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$, 1$1$, 2$2$ and 4$4$, respectively. The characteristic St$St$ of each mode is indicated above the corresponding panel.

Figure 20

Table 1. Comparison of the cylinder aerodynamic coefficients obtained with different grid resolutions at α=1$\alpha =1$ and Re=4.7×104$Re=4.7\times 10^4$.Table 1 long description.

Figure 21

Table 2. Comparison of the cylinder aerodynamic coefficients obtained with different grid resolutions at α=2$\alpha =2$ and Re=4.7×104$Re=4.7\times 10^4$.Table 2 long description.

Figure 22

Figure 21. Comparison of the PSDs of the near-wake velocity fluctuations obtained with different grid resolutions at α=2$\alpha =2$ and Re=4.7×104$Re=4.7\times 10^4$. Subpanels (i) and (ii) show the streamwise (u$u$) and transverse (v$v$) velocity components, respectively. Panels (a)–(c) correspond to the monitoring locations x/D=0.8$x/D=0.8$, 1.0$1.0$ and 1.5$1.5$, respectively.

Figure 23

Figure 22. Comparison of the PSDs of the midspan surface-pressure fluctuations obtained with different grid resolutions at α=4$\alpha =4$ and Re=4.7×104$Re=4.7\times 10^4$: (a) θ=90∘$\theta =90^{\circ }$ and (b) θ=270∘$\theta =270\,^{\circ }$.

Figure 24

Figure 23. Comparison of aerodynamic coefficients of the cylinder at Re=0.5×104$Re = 0.5\times 10^4$ under different rotation ratios (α$\alpha$ = 0–4). The figure compares the LES simulation results of this study with the DNS results of Aljure et al. (2015) and the SST results of Cao et al. (2025), showing the variation of the time-averaged drag coefficient C¯d$\overline {C}_d$ and time-averaged lift coefficient C¯l$\overline {C}_l$ with the rotation ratio.

Figure 25

Figure 24. Schematic of the forced-rotation cylinder experimental set-up, showing the overall arrangement and the principal components.

Figure 26

Figure 25. Comparison of the far-field one-third-octave-band SPLs, SPL1/3$\mathrm{SPL}_{1/3}$, obtained from the LES-FW–H predictions and wind-tunnel measurements: (a) the stationary baseline case, α=0$\alpha =0$; and (b) the rotating case, α=0.5$\alpha =0.5$.