Analytical comparison of the acoustic analogy and Kirchhoff formulation for moving surfaces

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

414 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Lighthill acoustic analogy, as embodied in the Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings (FW-H) equation, is compared with the Kirchhoff formulation for moving surfaces. A comparison of the two governing equations reveals that the primary advantage of the Kirchhoff formulation (namely, that nonlinear flow effects are included in the surface integration) is also available to the FW-H method if the integration surface used in the FW-H equation is not assumed to be impenetrable. The FW-H equation is analytically superior for aeroacoustics because it is based on the conservation laws of fluid mechanics rather than on the wave equation. Thus, the FW-H equation is valid even if the integration surface is in the nonlinear region. This advantage is demonstrated numerically. With the Kirchhoff approach, substantial errors can result if the integration surface is not positioned in the linear region, and these errors may be hard to identify. Finally, new metrics, based on the Sobolev norm, are introduced that may be used to compare input data for both quadrupole noise calculations and Kirchhoff noise predictions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1379-1386
Number of pages8
JournalAIAA journal
Volume36
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1998

Fingerprint

Acoustics
Aeroacoustics
Fluid mechanics
Wave equations
Conservation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Aerospace Engineering

Cite this

@article{d1f27db5e33b4eb2b3e4ecba20f44c8e,
title = "Analytical comparison of the acoustic analogy and Kirchhoff formulation for moving surfaces",
abstract = "The Lighthill acoustic analogy, as embodied in the Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings (FW-H) equation, is compared with the Kirchhoff formulation for moving surfaces. A comparison of the two governing equations reveals that the primary advantage of the Kirchhoff formulation (namely, that nonlinear flow effects are included in the surface integration) is also available to the FW-H method if the integration surface used in the FW-H equation is not assumed to be impenetrable. The FW-H equation is analytically superior for aeroacoustics because it is based on the conservation laws of fluid mechanics rather than on the wave equation. Thus, the FW-H equation is valid even if the integration surface is in the nonlinear region. This advantage is demonstrated numerically. With the Kirchhoff approach, substantial errors can result if the integration surface is not positioned in the linear region, and these errors may be hard to identify. Finally, new metrics, based on the Sobolev norm, are introduced that may be used to compare input data for both quadrupole noise calculations and Kirchhoff noise predictions.",
author = "Brentner, {Kenneth Steven} and F. Farassat",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2514/2.558",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "1379--1386",
journal = "AIAA Journal",
issn = "0001-1452",
publisher = "American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc. (AIAA)",
number = "8",

}

Analytical comparison of the acoustic analogy and Kirchhoff formulation for moving surfaces. / Brentner, Kenneth Steven; Farassat, F.

In: AIAA journal, Vol. 36, No. 8, 01.01.1998, p. 1379-1386.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analytical comparison of the acoustic analogy and Kirchhoff formulation for moving surfaces

AU - Brentner, Kenneth Steven

AU - Farassat, F.

PY - 1998/1/1

Y1 - 1998/1/1

N2 - The Lighthill acoustic analogy, as embodied in the Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings (FW-H) equation, is compared with the Kirchhoff formulation for moving surfaces. A comparison of the two governing equations reveals that the primary advantage of the Kirchhoff formulation (namely, that nonlinear flow effects are included in the surface integration) is also available to the FW-H method if the integration surface used in the FW-H equation is not assumed to be impenetrable. The FW-H equation is analytically superior for aeroacoustics because it is based on the conservation laws of fluid mechanics rather than on the wave equation. Thus, the FW-H equation is valid even if the integration surface is in the nonlinear region. This advantage is demonstrated numerically. With the Kirchhoff approach, substantial errors can result if the integration surface is not positioned in the linear region, and these errors may be hard to identify. Finally, new metrics, based on the Sobolev norm, are introduced that may be used to compare input data for both quadrupole noise calculations and Kirchhoff noise predictions.

AB - The Lighthill acoustic analogy, as embodied in the Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings (FW-H) equation, is compared with the Kirchhoff formulation for moving surfaces. A comparison of the two governing equations reveals that the primary advantage of the Kirchhoff formulation (namely, that nonlinear flow effects are included in the surface integration) is also available to the FW-H method if the integration surface used in the FW-H equation is not assumed to be impenetrable. The FW-H equation is analytically superior for aeroacoustics because it is based on the conservation laws of fluid mechanics rather than on the wave equation. Thus, the FW-H equation is valid even if the integration surface is in the nonlinear region. This advantage is demonstrated numerically. With the Kirchhoff approach, substantial errors can result if the integration surface is not positioned in the linear region, and these errors may be hard to identify. Finally, new metrics, based on the Sobolev norm, are introduced that may be used to compare input data for both quadrupole noise calculations and Kirchhoff noise predictions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0000950129&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0000950129&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2514/2.558

DO - 10.2514/2.558

M3 - Review article

VL - 36

SP - 1379

EP - 1386

JO - AIAA Journal

JF - AIAA Journal

SN - 0001-1452

IS - 8

ER -