Journal ofSound

and Vibration (1981) 79(l), 79-106

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF HEATED

TWIN JETS?

R. A. KANTOLA
Fluid Mechanics and Combustion Branch, Mechanical Systems and Technology Laboratory, General Electric Company, Corporate Research and Development, Schenectady, New York 12301, U.S.A. (Received 5 June 1978, and in revised form 1 May 1981)

A thorough experimental study of the noise characteristics of twin jets is presented in this paper. Twin round jets are investigated at typical jet engine conditions: that is, with heated high velocity flow. By varying the nozzle to nozzle spacing, it is possible to discriminate between the effects of turbulent mixing and acoustic shielding. As a result of this investigation, it was established that the turbulent mixing effects (both interaction noise generation and mixing suppression) occur for closely spaced nozzles. While acoustic shielding occurs at all nozzle spacings, it plays the dominant role at wide nozzle spacings. The levels of this acoustic shielding afforded by an adjacent jet can be sufficient to cause a nearly complete masking of the noise of the shielded jet. A significant discovery of this investigation was the importance of the layer of cooler, slower moving ambient air that exists between the twin jet plumes. This inter-jet layer causes acoustic refraction and reflection, and as the nozzle separation increases, the layer extends to shield more of the jet
noise sources.

1. INTRODUCTION Jet noise suppressors are usually constructed so that the exhaust plume of the engine is subdivided into many separate smaller jets. While there is no lack of noise data on a wide variety of complete suppressor configurations, there is a noticeable lack of data on the simpler elemental combinations. The work reported in this paper was particularly aimed at helping to correct this deficiency and at providing a thorough study of the simplest combination of multi-element suppressors, namely the twin-jet configuration. This configuration has received only a minimal amount of attention in the published literature [l, 21 and even there the information is very limited. Hence it was decided to study twin round jets at conditions of practical interest with heated high velocity flow. Particular attention has been paid to discriminating between effects of the turbulent field (noise source aspects) and the steady velocity and temperature fields (shielding aspects) on the jet noise suppression. These two quite different noise suppression mechanisms can be clearly defined in the simple twin-jet experiments. With this definition, hopefully a better understanding of the roles that mixing suppression and acoustic shielding play in the more complicated suppressors can be obtained.

2. EXPERIMENTAL

METHODS

The experiments reported in this paper were carried out at the jet noise test facility of the General Electric Corporate Research and Development Center. A detailed descript The research reported in this paper was supported by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aeronautics Administration under Contract DOT-OS-30034. 79 0022~6OX/81/210079+28 %02.00/O @ 1981 Academic Press Inc. (London) Limited

80

R. A. KANTOLA

Figure

1. Acoustic

arena.

tion of this facility is available in reference [33 and is shown on Figure 1. Briefly, in this outdoor facility a large movable boom with 12 fixed microphones is used to map the noise field in any azimuthal measurement plane. The boom has a centerless pivot on the downstream end to avoid jet impingement and noise generation. The microphones are located at 10 intervals starting from an angle of 20 to the jet axis. Three azimuthal measurement planes, 4 = 0,415 and 90 degrees, were used to measure the far field noise. Briiel and Kjaer microphones (6.35 mm size) are located on a 2.74 m measurement arc. By using 203 mm of acoustical foam to cover the ground plane, the variations from a free field condition due to reflections from the ground plane were reduced to less than k2 dB above 200 Hz and less than ~1 dB above 500 Hz. Heating of the flow is provided by in-line combustors located in the plenum approximately 1.8 m upstream of the nozzle face plate. Noise generated by the combustors is attenuated by acoustically treating the plenum walls and the far field contamination was found to be insignificant [3]. Convergent nozzles were used for testing and they are shown on Figure 2. The nozzle has an exit diameter of 38.1 mm. The temperatures reported in this paper are the plenum

Figure

2. Twin round

jet nozzles.

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF HEATED

TWIN

JETS

81

temperatures as measured by the average of four thermocouples positioned just upstream of the transition piece. Jet velocities quoted in this paper are based on the plenum pressure and temperature, with isentropic expansion to ambient pressure assumed. All of the aerodynamic data (pressures and temperatures) were continually sampled and the average of six to seven data points during a typical acoustic reading was used to determine the jet velocity and temperature. A General Radio l/3 Octave Band Analyzer (GR 1921) with a 4 s integration time was used to measure the acoustic levels. The twelve microphones were sampled sequentially through the use of a General Radio Multi-Channel Amplifier (GR 1566), with a total time to read the microphones of slightly less than a minute. No corrections for ground reflections or atmospheric attenuation were applied to the data presented in this paper.

3. EXPERIMENTAL

RESULTS

AND DISCUSSION

3.1. OVERALL ACOUSTIC POWER The principal method of clarifying the role of turbulent mixing and acoustic shielding in the twin jet experiments is the use of variable nozzle spacing. At large spacings the turbulent mixing effects will be minimal and the acoustic shielding effects will dominate. Conversely at close spacings the turbulent mixing effects will be enhanced, and as will be explained later, the acoustic shielding will be minimized. By measuring the acoustic radiation in different azimuthal planes, further clarification of the effects of these two different mechanisms is realized. In light of the requirement to measure in various azimuthal planes it is well to define terminology before proceeding further (a list of nomenclature is given in the Appendix). In the usual jet noise experiments, with only one azimuthal measurement plane, it is customary to define the overall acoustic power level, OAPWL, and the power spectrum, PWL, as being based on the area-weighted sum of the sound pressure measurements taken from microphones that are arranged on a polar arc. That same definition is used here, with the recognition that it does not represent the total power, as it is based on measurements in a strip at that azimuthal angle and not on the total sphere. To represent an integration over the total sphere equally spaced multiple azimuthal measurement planes are used and the average of those readings then determines the total power, which will be noted as, OAPWL. In the measurement plane containing the nozzle centerlines (4 = O), the acoustic shielding will be greatest, while in the plane perpendicular (+ = 90 to the plane ) containing the nozzle centerlines, little or no acoustic shielding should be evident. This is indeed the case as seen in Figures 3(a) and (b), where the quiet plane (4 = 00) overall acoustic power, OAPWL, measurements are consistently less than the sum of two independent jets (single jet + 3 dB). As the spacing, s, is increased, the measured OAPWL. in the quiet plane, for the most part, decreases until s/d exceeds 3. Above this value of spacing, the OAPWL in the quiet plane is rather insensitive to further spacing increases. The loud plane (+ = 90) OAPWL measurements are seen to vary from less than the single +3 dB result (indicating mixing suppression) to greater than the single +3 dB result (indicating additional noise generation). These large amounts of differences between quiet and loud planes were at first surprising since the work of Goethert and Borchers [2] had indicated that only very small acoustic power changes occurred at very close spacing. Their experiments were conducted with cold subsonic flow and in this study, also, very smahdifferences are also observed at that condition (see Figure 3(a)).

82
I 0 ??

R. A.

KANTOLA I 0 Single c 3dB

I
v, =555 m/s 0

(a)

---__----~-

?? \

TJ=688 K, z D -_ 2 3 150 -------

V,=463

m/s Smgle + 3 d6 0 0 \0 0 0

145

??

140 T,=293K,Vj=307m/s

-I

-7-o,-

Smgle + 3dB 165 (b) ),TJ=955 K,i$=691m/s 160

B
-_o-

I?*

TJ = 692 K, -0--?? 0

V,= 0 ??

585 m/s -/J-2Smgle + 3 d6 0

150 1

I
2

I
3 s/d

I
4

I
5 6

Figure 3. Effects of nozzle spacing on acoustic power of twin Round Jets at (a) MJ = 1 and (b) MJ > 1. 0, I) = 90; 0, IJI= 0; 0, azimuthal average.

Very late in this study an earlier investigation of a twin-jet configuration by Greatrex and Brown [l] was uncovered. Although the results were considered by the previous authors to be preliminary and of uncertain reliability, it is interesting to compare the Greatrex and Brown results and the results of this current study as shown in Figure 4. The comparison is hampered by the lack of specified conditions for the earlier work but it can be seen that a reasonable agreement exists except for the very close spacings, less than two nozzle diameters. At these close spacings, it is expected that the nozzle exit profile would play an important part. In the current work, convergent nozzles were used; however, for the earlier work it is not known what type of nozzle was used so that comparisons are probably not valid for very close spacings. Goethert and Borchers [2] in their study used unheated subsonic flow from constant diameter round tubes and found a slight reduction in

ACOUSTIC 4

PROPERTIES

OF

HEATED

TWIN

JETS

83

z ?? ; 3 a

I L

Referenced

to single

nozzle

-1

-2

??

-3
1 m

I
2

I
3
s/d

I
4

I
5 6

Figure

4. Effect

V, = 488 m/s, reference

of nozzle spacing on the peak values of 30ASPL. [l].

0, 0, TJ = 699 K, VJ =463 m/s: 0,

?? .

total acoustic power at very close spacings, in agreement with the results reported herein, as shown in Figure 3(a). After completion of this study the work of Bhat [4] was published. Bhat work on twin jets is concentrated on nozzle spacings of two jet diameters and less, s with only the azimuthal measurement plane containing both jet axes being used. Bhat found that at a jet centerline spacing of l-12 jet diameters the OAPWL was about 1 dB lower than at a jet spacing of two jet diameters. It is unfortunate that Bhat did not measure the power level in the plane perpendicular to the jet axes (II, = 90, the loud plane) as this would allow a better definition of the mechanisms at work at these small spacings. Also, Bhat did not include any comparisons of the power spectra or pressure spectra for these two different spacings which would also aid in determining what changes are taking place when the spacing is reduced below 1.33 jet diameters (the lowest spacing in the present studies). The rather slight differences seen with unheated low velocity jets are enhanced by raising the temperature and hence the velocity at a constant jet Mach number (see Figures 3(a) and (b)), causing an increase in the asymmetry of the radiation patterns. This trend agrees with the acoustic shielding arguments and later in this discussion the separate effects of velocity and temperature will be described more thoroughly. 3.2.
AZIMUTHAL DIRECTIVITY

The effect of nozzle spacing on azimuthal planes is shown on Figure an acoustic shadow. At very close the spacing is increased, the shadow

the change on OAPWL as measured in different 5. The effect can be visualized as the near jet casting spacing, the shadow is broad and not very deep but as deepens until a maximum shielding effect is reached.

84

R. A.

KANTQLA

-5

II 10

20

I 30

I 40

IIll 50 60 i degrees

70

80

II 1

100

Figure 5. Change in acoustic power with azimuthal angle, twin round jets. a, s/d = 1.33; 7, s/d = 1.67; 0, sld = 2.0; A, s/d = 2.67; ?,? = 3.67; 0, s/d = 5.0; T, = 688 K, V, = 463 m/s. Referenced to zero at I/I= 90. s/d

Increases in spacing beyond this maximum point cause a narrowing of the shadow but at (/I= 0 the reduction in acoustic energy remains at the maximum value. 3.3. POLAR DIRECTIVITY Shielding theory as described in the papers by Mani [5] and Balsa [6] predicts an increasing reduction in the sound radiation of imbedded sources as the observer approaches the jet axis. This is due to the long travel time through the jet flow at shallow angles. Likewise, it would be expected that the radiation of non-imbedded sources, such as those from an adjacent jet which traverse the near jet would suffer a similar reduction as the observer approached the jet axis. Figure 6 illustrates this effect very clearly with an increasing reduction in the quiet (9 = 0) plane as the jet axis is approached. This reduction is seen when the comparison is made to either the twin-jet measurement in the loud (4 = 90) plane or the sum of two independent jets (single + 3 dB). In Figure 6, it is also possible to identify about 1.5 dB of mixing suppression (for angles greater than 70) when comparing the twin-jet noise at (/I= 90 to the single jet +3 dB level. This identification of the mixing suppression is possible because in the $ = 90 plane, there is no shielding by an adjacent jet. The additional reduction seen in the (4 = 0) twin-jet noise at 19= 90 cannot be attributed solely to mixing suppression because of the acoustic shielding that is possible at 8 = 90 with heated flows. 3.4. SPECTRAL EFFECTS A logical question to ask at this stage is What part of a jet noise spectrum is most responsible for the asymmetries of the spectral-averaged measurements mentioned earlier?. A definite region of spectral impact for mixing suppression has not as yet been identified in the current literature, while the shielding theories of Mani and Balsa do indicate that the shielding effects do become pronounced at high frequency. These theoretical predictions include effects of the mean velocity and temperature fields on the acoustic radiation of sources imbedded in those fields. In the case studied here the sources

ACOUSTIC III

PROPERTIES III

OF HEATED

TWIN

JETS

85

II

O+-Twin * 8$=90 _

100

I IO

I
30

I
50
Angle

I
lo jet

I
70

I
axes,8

I
90

I
110

I
130

J
TJ = 688 K;

(degrees)

Figure 6. Directivity V, = 463 m/s.

comparison,

twin round

versus single. 0, $ = 90; 0, ti = 0; s/d = 2.67;

are not imbedded in the shielding flow field but rather emanate from the adjacent jet. In both cases, however, the non-uniformity of the velocity and temperature fields cause the shielding effect and as such it is worthwhile to compare the experiments to these predictions. This shielding of the far jet by the near jet can be seen in Figure 7 to be the clearly dominant effect at high frequencies, in agreement with the shielding theories. In Figure 7, low frequency mixing suppression can also be noted by comparing the single

0 0

1
Figure 7. Power spectra comparison,

I
IO 3ne-third octave band center

0, 105
(Hz)

!04
frequency

twin round

versus single. s/d = 2.67,

T, = 699 K, V, = 463 m/s.

86

R. A. KANTOLA

I-

r
0 0 0

0
0 Q

0
0 0

?
0

:/, IO2

103
IIOCc)

IO4
l/3 octave

105 band center frequency (Hz)

70 IO2 Figure

e
l/3

I 103
octave band center

I IO4
frequency (Hz)

IO5

8. SPL Comparison,

twin round

versus single. (a) @= 30; (b) 0 = 60;

(c) 0 = 90.

+3 dB data to the twin jet data at I&= 9Oa. This reduction can be attributed to mixing suppression because of the lack of shielding in the loud plane, at 4 = 90. The sound pressure spectra, SPL, at 13 30, 60 and 90 are shown on Figures 8(a)-(c). = The trends are much like what would be expected from the OASPL and PWL results, with the shallow angle high frequency data showing large amounts of shielding. This shielding

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF HEATED

TWIN

JETS

87

decreases as the observer moves away from the jet axes but is still evident at right angles to the jet. Low frequency mixing suppression also plays a part for the twin round nozzles and is evident at 8 = 30 (Figure 8(a)). This mixing suppression was first discussed with regard to the OASPL polar directivity (Figure 6). At 19= 90 (Figure 8(c)), mixing suppression now appears over the majority of the frequency range. 3.5.
VELOCITY AND TEMPERATURE EFFECTS

3.5.1. Twin round nozzles-overall power To define the separate effects of velocity and temperature on the acoustic properties, the azimuthal differences in overall power, AOAPWL&, will be considered first. Figures 9(a)-(c) illustrate the change in AOAPWL, with jet velocity, for a range of spacings, with jet temperature as a parameter. The numbers adjacent to the data points indicate the jet exit total temperature in degrees Kelvin. At the middle and largest spacings, see Figures 9(b) and (c), AOAPWL+ increases with velocity until the velocity becomes supercritical. For these supercritical flows, only at the lowest temperature (-670 K) does AOAPWL+ continue to increase with velocity, for the higher temperatures AOAPWL* decreases with velocity. This decrease of AOAPWL+ with velocity is more pronounced at the closer spacing. The effects of temperature on AOAPWL, are less clear than the effects of velocity. For the middle and largest spacings, Figures 9(b) and (c), the point of maximum AOAPWL* occurs near the sonic point. This indicates that the maximum noise reduction is obtained at the highest velocity and temperature, provided that the jet plume is shock free. The smallest spacing does not exhibit this trend and this behavior may be due to appearance of interaction noise, which is significant at the close spacings. As a result, as the spacing is reduced the variation with temperature (at velocities above 300 m/s) becomes increasingly more complicated, as seen in Figure 9(a), and does not follow the trends seen at the larger spacings. Another point of interest is that at the lowest velocity, V, = 300 m/s, a maximum AOAPWLti occurs at a temperature somewhere in the region around 670 K, depending on the spacing. A possible explanation of this maximum may be that while the heating of the jet causes a thermal discontinuity that increases shielding, apparently this is gradually overwhelmed by the increased jet diffusion and at sufficiently high temperatures a net reduction of shielding results. 3.5.2. Twin round nozzles-power spectra The power spectra of the twin round jets exhibit interaction noise generation, mixing suppression and acousticshielding, and at certain test conditions all three are seen to occur simultaneously (in different parts of the spectrum). As a starting point in the discussion of this data, one can first consider the low velocity (300 m/s) case, with jet spacing and temperature as parameters. A measure of the amount of interaction noise generation of the twin jets with respect to the sum of two isolated single round jets is found by comparing the twin jet 4 = 90 data to the single +3 dB data (solid line), as shown in Figures 10-15. If the twin (rC, 90) data is above the single +3 dB data, then there must be additional noise = being generated by the interaction of the twin round jets; if the twin data is below, then there is a noise suppression caused by the interaction of the plumes. At the closest spacing ratio, s/d = 1.33, Figure 10(a), noise generation occurs only at high frequencies for jet temperatures of 670 K and lower. For the higher temperatures this noise generation occurs throughout the spectrum. As the jet spacing is increased to s/d = 5 (see Figures 10(b) and (c)), this noise generation is reduced until it exists only over a 4 to 5 f octave band range near the peak frequency. While the interaction noise generation is significant only at

88

R.

A.

KANTOLA

(b)

5-

4-

m 0 8 zi + Q

3-

2-

1070 /
296' l-

Figure 9. Azimuthal difference power level, twin round. adjacent to data points indicates T,(K).

(a) s/d = 1.33; (b) s/d = 2.67;

(c) s/d = 5. Number

close spacing, acoustic shielding is clearly shown at most conditions. Interpretation of what constitutes shielding is complicated by the presence of the interaction noise, which is clearly identified only in the # = 90 plane. In the $ = 0 plane, the level of acoustic shielding will be defined as the difference between the single jet plus 3 dB and the twin jet

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF

HEATED

TWIN

JETS

89

I0 0 0

_.___
0 . 0 00 0 0 0 . 0 7

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0
.

0
??

??
0 0 Cl 0

0 0 0 0

0
??o
ml

o Ox z b
I.2 2

.
0

PO OE n II

0
0

OOY2 .

0
.

?? 00
.

0 OY
00 0 0 0 0

is
mpr,
II II

$E
I/

E
II

,OIs%
II 1,

O&o
k

ox ;

I.? 2
::

::

s _

0 -

R. A. KANTOLA
a)

b)

/
l/3 octave band center
frequency (Hz)

I IO3

IO4

-,

Figure 11. Twin jet power spectra, single +3 dB.

7 = 680 K. (a) s/d = 1.33 and (b) s/d = 2.67.0, ,

Cl, $ = 0 0, ;

?? = 90; ,$

(bi

VJ=455m/s

l/3

ociave

band

center

frequency

(Hz)

Figure 12. Twin jet power spectra, T, -960 K, s/d = 1.33. 0, $ = 0; 0, JI = 90; -, VJ = 942 K, 455 m/s; (b) = 942 K, 682 m/s; 932 K, 556 m/s.

single +3 dB. (a) T,,

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF HEATED

TWIN

JETS

91

IlOt

100

IO2

1
l/3
octave band

120;

y i
o *
frequency !Hrl

O ;
IO5

i
I

IO2
cmter

IO3
(1, = 0; 0, $ = 90; -,

IO4

Figure 13. Twin jet power spectra, Lower speeds and (b) higher speeds,

T, ~960-950 K, s/d = 2.67.0, similar to those in Figure 12.

single +3 dB. (a)

140

1
(a)

130t

\ .
0

HO/-

c
0

l00L___
I
102
103

I IO4
l/3 octave

105IO 2
band cenler frequency (Hz)

I
I03

I
104 11
5

Figure 14. Twin jet power spectra, Lower speeds and (b) higher speeds.

T, ==960-95

K, s/d = 5. 0,

qb = 0 0, ;

ti =90;

-,

single +3 dB. (a)

92
(a)
140 I

R. A.
I I

KANTOLA

l/3

octave

band center

frequency

(Hz)

Figure 15. Twin jet power spectra, 7 = 1050 K, s/d = 5. 0, ti = 0 0, $ = 90 -, ; ; speeds and (b) higher speeds.

single +3 dB. (a) Lower

noise in the $ = 0plane, APWLo. A particularly important point to note here is that, while the maximum value of APW& is not a strong function of spacing, the frequency of the onset of shielding is decreasing as the spacing increases. This observation on the frequency of the onset of shielding will receive considerable discussion later in this paper. It was also seen that at this low velocity of 300 m/s, as shown in Figures 10(a)-(c), there was no evidence of significant mixing suppression at any of the jet spacings. When the temperature is held constant at TJ = 670 K and the jet velocity is raised to 460 m/s, as shown in Figures 11(a) and (b), the interaction noise seen earlier at VJ = 300 m/s disappears. For this velocity condition, mixing suppression now becomes noticeable in the low to middle frequencies. The acoustic shielding meanwhile exhibits the same frequency-spacing effect as seen in Figures 10(a)-(c), with the exception of the supercritical case with the closest spacing (Figure 11(a)). For these closely spaced twin jets, supercritical flow conditions result in two effects: the first is the appearance of shock associated noise in the power spectra; secondly, the expansion of the jets immediately downstream of the nozzle exit planes will also tend to cause the jet plumes to merge prematurely and inhibit the shielding. This latter aspect will be covered more fully later in this paper. At a higher temperature (940 K), the s/d = 1.33 data exhibits (see Figures 12(a) and (b)) the most complicated behavior, with interaction noise appearing at all velocities except at the supercritical conditions. This interaction noise decreases as the jet spacing is increased, as shown on Figures 13(a), (b) and 14(a), (b). At the intermediate spacing (Figure 13(b)), some slight noise generation at middle and high frequencies is evident as well as suppression at the low frequencies. For the largest spacing, s/d = 5, Figures 14(a), (b) and

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF

HEATED

TWIN

JETS

93

15(a), (b), very little suppression is noted and the interaction noise is concentrated near the peak frequency. Also for the s/d = 5 case, further heating of the jets to T, = 1056 K (shown in Figures 15(a) and (b)) produces a slight reduction in the levels of APWL&,,at the lower velocities, when compared with the 940 K data. This was also seen in the AOAPWL& comparisons in Figure 9(c) and was discussed earlier. In general it seems that the very complicated interaction of temperature and velocity on the observed AOAPWL, at s/d = l-33 (Figure 9(a)) is due to the presence of interaction noise generation and acoustic shielding in roughly equal amounts as evidenced by the PWL results shown in Figures 10(a), 1 l(a), 12(a) and 12(b). This situation becomes resolved as the spacing is increased and at s/d = 2-67 a large reduction in noise generation is seen along with the appearance of an observable amount of noise suppression and a relatively unchanged amount of acoustic shieldrng. At the largest spacing, s/d = 5, the acoustic shielding is the only dominant affect with very little noise generation and no mixing suppression. This dominance of shielding effects provides a relatively simple variation of AOAPWL, with velocity and temperature, in qualitative agreement with the predictions of acoustic shielding theory [5,6]. 3.6. DIFFERENCE SPECTRAL DISTRIBUTIONS So far, in this paper, attention has been concentrated on the characteristics of the power spectra and the integrated sound power and pressure levels. It is the intent in this section to examine the sound pressure spectral distributions. This will be done on a difference sound pressure level basis at three Strouhal numbers. The goal here is to illustrate how the twin jet noise field differs from that of the superposition of two isolated single jets.

40

60

8 (degrees) Figure 16. Quiet plane directivity of difference pressure levels, $ = 0 .

V, =457 m/s,

7 =951 K. (a)

s/d = 1.33; (b) s/d = 2.67; (c) sfd = 5.

94

R. A.

KANTOLA

b)

60? a 4-

0 0

20

40

60

00

I(

20

40

60

00

2-

01

20

40

60

80

100

B (degrees)

Figure 17. Quiet plane directivity of difference s/d = 1.33; (b) s/d =2,67; (c) sJd = 5.

pressure

levels,

CL =O,

V, = 463 m/s,

T, =688

K. (a)

To more clearly identify the role of the experimental parameters on the basic mechanisms two difference spectra are defined here. The first is the difference between the summation of two isolated jets (single plus 3 dB) and the twin jet results, as measured in the quiet (4 = 0) plane. This measure, A dBo, would, for perfect shielding, be 3 dB. Positive values of A dBo indicate that acoustic shielding and/or attenuation are occurring and when sufficient excess noise generation is present A dBo will be negative. The second definition is the difference between the single jet plus 3 dB and the twin jet in the loud (rl, = 90 plane, A dBgo. Here shielding does not play a role and when A dBsO is positive ) only attenuation is occurring and when it is negative excess noise is appearing in the loud plane. To characterize the effects, three jet spacings at three combinations of jet velocity and temperature are used. The spectral values are given at three Strouhal numbers and the data, in Figures 16-21 are shown as polar directivity plots to illustrate the relation between frequency and emission angle. From the quiet plane results (Figures 16-18) the general trend of the data is that A dBo increases with jet to jet spacing, Strouhal number and jet velocity. These positive values of A dBo indicate that either shielding and/or attenuation are the dominant mechanisms at work in the quiet plane. As the jet axis is approached the level of shielding and attenuation generally rise. The exception to this trend occurs at the wider spacing and high jet temperatures. The angles at which shielding and attenuation become dominant are clearly related to the Strouhal number as the high frequency data show high levels of A dBo for

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF

HEATED

TWIN

JETS

95

4-

2-

%?
a
O-

-2-

-4_ 0

20

40

60

80

6-

01

20

40 60 8 (degrees)

00

100

Figure 18. Quiet plane s/d = 1.33; (b) s/d = 2.67;

directivity of difference (c) sfd = 5.

pressure

levels,

rL=O,

V, =315 m/s,

7 =976 ,

K. (a\

almost all emission angles. This trend is modified at the lowest spacing where an excess noise source is seen to emit low frequency sound at emission angles of 40 and greater. The effect of jet velocity and the relation between frequency and emission angle all point to acoustic shielding as the principal effect particularly at peak angle and above; however, shielding can at most provide a A dBo of 3 dB, so that attenuation must also be present. In the loud plane ($ = 90 results, Figures 19-21, the presence of low frequency excess ) noise is also seen at the smallest spacing, for all emission angles. As the spacing is opened up, the excess generation decreases until at the higher angles only attenuation is apparent. At these higher spacings, the excess noise still appears at shallow emission angles but the frequency of the source has now been reduced. Apparently this excess noise is due to eddy interaction and as the jets are spaced more widely, the eddy speed in the interaction zone is reduced, thereby lowering the excess noise frequencies. This excess noise does not appear in the far field as a symmetric azimuthal pattern, as the high frequency energy appears at the shallow angles in the loud plane and does not appear in the quiet plane. The low frequency excess noise at the low jet spacing, where it is strong enough to be seen in the quiet plane, is nearly axisymmetric. It appears that the high frequency sources, which occur close to the jet exits, are being shielded and attenuated by the near jet when viewed in the quiet plane. The low frequency excess noise, which originates further downstream, appears in the quiet plane because it traverses a less stratified flow field. In the loud plane these excess noise sources are free to radiate and as a result are the major cause of the deviation from the simple summation of two jets.

96

R. A. KANTOLA

E m a

O%PV

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF HEATED

TWIN

JETS

-4 0

20

40

60

60

100

8 (degrees)
Figure 20. Loud plane directivity of difference s/d = 1.33; (b) s/d = 2.61; (c) sfd = 5. pressure levels, I&= 90, V, = 463 m/s, T, = 688 K. (a)

3.7.

NOZZLE

SEPARATION

AND

SHIELDED

FREQUENCY

To further clarify the effect of nozzle separation, s, on the far field noise, the difference power spectra, APWL+, between the loud and the quiet plane of the twin round jets is shown on Figure 22. APWL, is used here as a convenience rather than APWLo (single plus 3 dB less twin jets at IJ = 0 because the main contributing angles of 40 to 60 are ) relatively free of excess noise generation. Two conclusions can be drawn from Figure 22: firstly, that the onset of shielding begins at lower frequencies for the larger spacings, and secondly that the shielding quickly reaches a maximum value that is not strongly dependent on the nozzle spacing. This behavior is believed to be due to the layer of slow moving, cooler air that exists between the two jet plumes. In the quiet plane, the acoustic waves from the far jet have to traverse this layered velocity and temperature field causing reflection of the incident waves by the velocity and temperature mismatches. As the jet nozzle spacing is increased, the downstream extent of the layer increases. This downstream extension of the intermediate layer with nozzle spacing then reduces the frequency of onset of shielding as seen in Figure 22. Another interesting aspect of this phenomenon is that the difference pressure spectrum at any fixed separation distance is strongly dependent on the observation angle. Figure 23 clearly shows that at the shallow angles to the jet axis the ASPL* is larger and the onset of the shielding effect starts at lower frequencies. To

98
4 (al 2-

R. A. KANTOLA

lb)

O-28 0.27

-6

I 20

I 40

I 60

I 80

20

40

60

80

-4

20

I 40 8 (degrees)

I 60

I 00

IO0

Figure 21. Loud plane directivity of difference pressure levels, $ = 90. V, = 315 m/s, TJ = 976 K. (a)
s/d = 1.33; (b) s/d =2*67; (c) s/d = 5.

l/3

octave

band

center

frequency

(Hz)

Figure 22. Azimuthal difference power spectra, twin roundfor variousspacings. Cl, s/d = 2; 0, s/d = 2.67; V, sfd = 5; TJ = 688 K, V, = 463 m/s.

0, s/d = 1.33; A, s/d = 1.67;

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF HEATED

TWIN

JETS

99

lC3
l/3 octave bond cw+e reqxmes

IF u
!Hz

Figure

23. Azimuthal

difference

pressure

spectra,

twin round.

s/d = 2.67,

TJ = 683 K, V, = 470 m/s.

quantify the variation of shielding with frequency and nozzle separation, the identification of the lowest frequency, fm, at which the ASPL* equals 3 dB will be used. For example, with s/d = 2.67, Figure 23 can be used to findf,,, = 2.5 kHz. This variation of the shielding frequency, f,,,, with separation distance as determined from information such as in Figure 23 is shown in Figure 24. The rather good data collapse shown in Figure 24, confirms that this effect is largely dependent on the geometry of the flow field and is seen to be only weakly effected by the jet temperature and velocity, for subsonic flows. The angle to the jet axis, &, at which ASPL*

1 1

I
2
s/d

I
4 6 8 IO

Figure 24. Frequency of onset of shielding, f,,,, versus nozzle spacing, twin round, & TJ = 294 K, V, = 306 m/s; 0, T, = 683 K, V, = 457 m/s; Cl, TJ = 944 K, V, = 555 m/s. f,,, slowest frequency at which ASPL, 3 3dB.

100

R. A.

KANTOLA

103
l/3 octave band center

IO4
frequency (Hz)

Figure 25. Shielded angles versus frequency, twin round. TJ = 683 K, V, = 457 m/s; 0, s/d = 1.33; 0, Q,sfd=3.67;0,s/d=S.LowestfrequenciesatwhichASPL,~3dBare marked by solid symbols. 19~ angle where ASPL+ 2 3 dB. =
sld=1.67;V,sld=2;a,sld=2.67;

equals 3 dB is not specified on Figure 24 but this shielding angle does increase with frequency, as can be seen on Figure 25. To a rough measure the results of Figure 25 show that the cone of shielding, defined by the half angle, &,, encompasses more of the radiation field at the higher frequencies and the effect of increased spacing extends the onset of this shielded region to lower frequencies. To quantify this effect of spacing on the shielded frequency and angle, a simplified analytical model of the situation will be described in the following section. A diagram defining the terms and flow geometry is shown in Figure 26. To simplify the analysis of this shielding effect, the necessary assumptions are described in the following discussion. First the far jet is assumed to be made up of stationary discrete single frequency radiators arranged on the jet axis such that the radiation frequency decreases with distance from the nozzle exit plane. It is possible to use a more realistic model of the jet noise

Figure 26. Twin jet shielding definition sketch. X, axial location of the source frequency, fin the far jet; X,, axial location of the intersection of the near jet centerline and an acoustic ray from source at X, in far jet; &,, observation angle to the jet axes in the far field;@,, angle to the jet axes formed by the acoustic ray from far jet source to the observer; X,,,, axial location of the effective merging of the two jet flows; T,, jet temperature (static); C,, sound speed in the jet; R, microphone radius.

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF

HEATED

TWIN

JETS

101

radiation wherein the amplitude of a given frequency is assumed to be a distributed function which is peaked at a given axial location. However, this distributed model would unduly complicate the matter and for the present purposes is not considered warranted. Secondly the near jet is assumed to be locally parallel and to be of uniform temperature and velocity profile. The jet temperature and velocity will, however, change with axial distance. With these assumptions, a prior analysis byYeh [7] of the acoustic transmission through a layered temperature and velocity field can be applied. Consider the acoustic ray which has been emitted from the far jet and is impinging on the near jet. Figure 27 illustrates this situation.

Figure

27. Acoustic

transmission

through

a moving

layer.

Yeh considered a more complicated case, but for the situation here the absolute value of the transmitted wave ITI can be reduced to 1 = [cos* IL1+ $(rr + r2)* sin* $r T] where $I= (2mfl/C,) sin O,, 6, = COS?[Cj cos &/(C,v, cos &)I, (2,3) (4)

I-* *,

(1)

rI = & = sin 2@Jsin 26,.

This result is identical to an earlier result by Rayleigh [8] with the exception of the V, term in the expression for 19, (equation (3)). Rayleigh solved the problem of acoustic transmission through a thermal discontinuity in a still medium. A more convenient form of equation (1) is
1 = [l + {a(r, + T2)* - 1) sin* tiI]- TI .

(5)

The inner bracketed term is independent of frequency and its dependence is indicated by are {@r + I - 1) = g(C,, CO, V, and /I,). The extremes of the variation of sin* (jlrwith (111 *)* between 0 and 1 with nodal points at CL1 nr. When @I= i(n + l)n, sin* $I = 1 and the = frequency is such that minimum transmission occurs and is given by

ITI llh=*/2~n+l~

m = 2/u-I

T2).

(6)

The value of I TJ at maximum transmission is unity so the frequency dependence has the effect of changing the value of (TI from 2/(r1 + I to unity every time the frequency causes ,) 41 to go from [(n + 1)/2]~ to mr. Figure 28 illustrates the nature of the change in ITI at (j/l = t(n + 1)~ with incidence angle 8,; there is practically pure transmission up to the critical angle, 0,, after which there is no transmission. The critical angle, 8,, occurs when the ray becomes parallel to the jet direction, 19,= 0. Then c, cos 0, = co - v, cos & or cos 8, = C/(C, + V,). (798)

102 I

R. A. KANTOLA

/-

-\

-\

--__--

-\

I
I I I

08

I
06 ITI 04 1 I I I I 02 I

/
Ol

90

I 80
8 (degrees)

I 70

I 60

Figure 28. Transmission properties of a heated high velocity layer at frequencies of minimum transmission, VJ = 301 m/s, CJ = 470 m/s, and C, = 344 m/s. IT] = [l +{a(fr +rz)* - l} sin $r]-I *, where I++, &(n + 1)~. =

Yeh results indicate that the transmission properties of the moving non-turbulent layer s can be approximated quite well by a step function from unity to zero at the critical angle 8,. The effect of layer thickness, Z,determines the frequency difference between the nodes and antinodes and, as it has been seen to have only a small effect, for our purposes here it can be neglected. The near jet can now be considered as a shield that allows passage only of acoustic rays with an incidence angle 8, greater than the critical angle, 6,. The critical angle depends on the local velocity V, and speed of sound C,, which are varying with axial distance. Since the transmission properties did not greatly depend on the layer thickness, the values of the centerline velocity and temperature were used to predict the variation of 8, (equation (8)) with axial distance, xf as shown on Figure 29. The velocities used here were measured by Wang [9] in a companion investigation and the centerline temperature

60

X, Id

Figure
V, =457

29. Far jet shielded

m/s, 0, sld = 1.33;

mark on data indicates

angle, 0, versus shielding distance of near jet, X,, twin round, TJ = 683 K, 0, s/d = 1.67; A, s/d = 2; A, sfd = 2.67; D, sfd = 3.67; 0, s/d = 5. Note: tick jet coalescence.

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF HEATED

TWIN JETS

103

difference from ambient was assumed to scale as the square of the centerline velocity. As an example of the utility of this analysis one can examine two features that were exhibited originally by the data on Figures 22 and 23. The first feature, shown on Figure 22, is that shielding exhibits a rather sharp cut-on phenomenon with frequency and this cut-on frequency increases as the nozzle spacing decreases. The second feature, shown on Figure 23, is that for a given nozzle spacing, the shielded zone becomes wider as frequency increases. An additional aspect seen in Figure 22 is the relative independence from frequency effects exhibited by APWLJ, after the cut-on frequency is exceeded. This particular effect is expected but the presence of interaction noise in the II,= 90 plane is apparently causing APWL* to reach values above 3 dB. The first two observations can be explained if one accepts the premise that the higher frequency sources reside closer to the nozzle exit and therefore are subject to more effective shielding by the near jet. To further bring out this latter observation, the data shown on Figure 25 can be converted from observed angle of shielding & and frequency into the far jet angle of shielding, &, and the intersection point, x,, by assuming an axial location of source frequencies, f. From the defining sketch (Figure 26), the necessary relations are tan 8, = R sin &,/(R cos &-X,), 0, = tan {s/(X, -X,}. (9,lO)

The source frequencies, f, were assumed to be distributed as f = fo(XO/X) with p = 1 for , x/d<7andp=2forx/da7. If the location of source frequencies is reasonably accurate, then it would be expected that the data should collapse on a 19,versus X, plot, provided that the two jets have not coalesced. Negative departure of the data from the aggregate can be used as an indicator of the jets coalescence. As seen on Figure 29, the data indeed does collapse rather well and is in reasonable agreement with the critical shielding angle, 0,, as predicted by equation (8). Complete agreement is not expected as in this analysis the effect of turbulence on the critical angle was not considered. The effect of turbulence is to cause a statistical variation of the incidence angle between the acoustic wave and the local turbulence eddy. Norum [lo] found that this turbulence effect caused a smoothing of the sharp drop of 17 with 1 incidence angle (as seen in Figure 28) such that (T/ does not reach unity above 8, and does not reach zero below 8,. This explains why the far field data points on Figure 29 are

25

20 X,/d I5

o0
1

2
s/d

Figure 30. Acoustically merged distance versus twin jet nozzle spacing, T, = 683 K, V, = 457 m/s.

104

R. A. KANTOLA

showing shielding effects at angles above those corresponding to the critical incidence angle. Perhaps the most important result of this analysis and comparison is the confirmation of the proposed mechanism provided by the observed fact that the points of negative departure from the collapsed data are occurring further downstream with increased separation distance. This trend is exhibited on Figure 30 and can be reasonably well matched to a linear increase with nozzle separation distance.

4. CONCLUSIONS

At the beginning of this paper, it was stated that the reasons for investigating the noise properties of twin jets was the presumed ability to define separately the effects of acoustic shielding and turbulent mixing. In this regard these experiments have been successful. It has been found by using a wide range of nozzle spacings that the turbulent mixing effects (both interaction noise generation and mixing suppression) occur for closely spaced nozzles, and acoustic shielding, while it occurs at all nozzle spacings, is more significant at the wide nozzle spacings. An important result of this investigation has been to establish the level of suppression that is possible when an adjacent jet is used as an acoustic shield. These suppression levels are sufficient to cause a nearly complete masking of the jet noise by an adjacent jet interposed between the source and the receiver. The properties of this adjacent jet shielding were also found to qualitatively follow the trends of the selfshielding theories of Mani [5] and Balsa [6]. In particular, for a given spacing, the shielding increased as the observer approached the jet axis, increased with frequency, and was dependent on jet velocity and temperature. A rather unexpected effect was the strong dependence on the nozzle spacing. Data available at the start of the program gave indications that only small variations of overall power (on the order of l-2 dB) would occur and these would be concentrated at very low nozzle spacings. While this conclusion is valid at low velocities with unheated flow, it was found as a result of the research reported herein that very significant differences occurred in different azimuthal planes and additionally at high temperatures and velocities the overall power showed very significant variations. In a quantitative sense, the measured differences in the average acoustic power, as measured in two orthogonal azimuthal planes, at high velocity and temperature, was found to be as high as 4.5 dB. These large azimuthal differences were established in this study to be due in large measure to the layer of cooler slower moving air that exists between the two jet plumes. Acoustic waves propagating in the plane of the nozzles are forced to traverse velocity and temperature profiles that cause refraction and reflection of the acoustic energy. For close nozzle spacing, this internozzle layer extends only a short distance and therefore only a small shielding effect is seen, but as the nozzle spacing is increased the internozzle layer extends downstream and the shielding effect increases. This observation is confirmed by finding at what frequency in the far field the shielding becomes significant and comparing that frequency with the nozzle spacing. The results shows a definite lowering of the frequency of the onset of shielding with increases in nozzle spacing. This is exactly what the proposed mechanism would require: that is, as the nozzle spacing increased, the internozzle shielding layer extends downstream and shields the lower frequency jet noise sources that exist in the downstream portion of the plume. Two observed aspects of this proposed acoustic shielding mechanism were confirmed with the aid of a simplified theoretical model. The first feature was that shielding, once it was achieved, was rather independent of frequency and the second was that the angle of the onset of shielding widens for the higher frequencies.

ACOUSTIC

PROPERTIES

OF HEATED

TWIN JETS

105

Increasing the jet velocity at all nozzle spacings, except the smallest, was found to increase the acoustic shielding for subsonic conditions. Increases in velocity, however, above the critical point caused a decrease in shielding, apparently because of the jet expansion downstream of the nozzle exit plane. Variation in the jet temperature did not produce as significant an acoustic effect as variations in jet velocity and what acoustic changes did occur were highly dependent on jet velocity and spacing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to thank his colleagues, Dr R. Mani and Dr T. Balsa, for their interest and their constructive criticism of this work. The author is also grateful to Mr E. C. Bigelow and Mr R. E. Warren for their valuable assistance in conducting the experiments.

REFERENCES 1. F. B. GREATREX and D. M. BROWN 1958 Presented at the First Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Madrid, September 1958. Progress in jet engine noise reduction. and I. U. BORCHERS 1974 American Institute of Aeronautics and 2. B. H. GOETHERT Astronautics Paper 74-75. Noise and thrust characteristics of shrouded multi-nozzles of circular cross section. 1976 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Progress Series in 3. R. A. KANTOLA Astronautics and Aeronautics 46, 223-245. Outdoor jet noise facility, a unique approach. 4. W. V. BHAT 1977 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper 77-1290. Acoustic

characteristics of two parallel flow jet. 5. R. MANI 1972 Journalof Sound and Vibration 25,337-347.
6. 7. 8. 9.

10.

A moving source problem relevant to jet noise. T. F. BALSA 1975 Journal of Fluid Mechanics 70, 17-36. Fluid shielding of low frequency convected sources. C. YEH 1968 JournaloftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica 43,1454-1455. A further noteon the reflection and transmission of sound waves by a moving fluid layer. LORD RAYLEIGH 1945 Theory of Sound, Volume 2. New York: Dover Publications, See pp. 86-88. J. C. F. WANG 1976 Proceedings of ZSLIAGARD Workshop on Laser Anemometry, St. Louis, France, May 1976, 325-374. Velocity measurement of high-temperature and high speed subsonic jet flows using a laser velocimeter. T. D. NORUM 1974 NASA TND-7230. Measured and calculated transmission losses of sound waves through a helium layer.

APPENDIX: SPL OASPL PWL OAPWL OAPWL ASPL, APWL, A OASPL, AOAPWL, APWL, ASPLo

NOMENCLATURE

sound pressure level in l/3 octave bands (re 0.0002 microbar) integration of the SPL spectrum sound power level in l/3 octave bands at a given azimuthal angle (re lo-l3 integration of the PWL spectrum azimuthal average of OAPWL difference in SPL between measurements of twin jets in the (L = 0 plane (I = 90 plane difference in PWL between measurements of twin jets in the 4 = 0 plane $ = 90 plane difference in OASPL between measurements of twin jets in the 4 = 0 plane 4 = 90 plane difference in OAPWL between measurements of twin jets in the ~5= 0 plane $ = 90 plane difference in PWL between single +3 dB and twin in the ti = 0 plane difference in the SPL between single +3 dB and twin in the I&= 0 plane

W)

and the and the and the and the

106

R. A. KANTOLA

AOAPWLO 50 0

difference in OAPWL between single +3 dB and twin in the J, = 0 plane azimuthal angle taken around the jet centerline angle to the jet axis frequency (Hz) lowest frequency at which ASPL, L 3 dB shielded angle where ASPL+ z 3 dB center to center spacing between nozzles absolute value of the transmission coefficient jet velocity (ft/s) plenum temperature (K) jet Mach number ambient speed of sound ambient temperature (K) V,l Cl diameter of round nozzle Strouhal number, fd/ V,