2005-01-2495

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES

On Predicting Aeroacoustic Performance of

Ducts with Broadband Noise Source Models
Ashok D. Khondge, Sandeep D. Sovani and Sung-Eun Kim
Fluent Inc.

Steven C. Guzy and Ashraf A. Farag

Delphi Thermal and Interior

SAE 2005 Noise and Vibration

Conference and Exhibition
Traverse City, Michigan
May 16-19, 2005
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by qualified reviewers.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax:
724-772-4891
Tel:
724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service
Tel:
877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel:
724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax:
724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2005 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA

2005-01-2495

On Predicting Aeroacoustic Performance of Ducts

with Broadband Noise Source Models
Ashok D. Khondge, Sandeep D. Sovani* and Sung-Eun Kim
Fluent Inc.

Steven C. Guzy and Ashraf A. Farag

Delphi Thermal and Interior

Copyright 2005 SAE International

ABSTRACT
A numerical method of predicting aeroacoustic
performance of HVAC ducts is presented here. The
method comprises of two steps. First, the steady state
flow structure inside a duct is simulated using
computational fluid dynamics (CFD). A k-epsilon based
turbulence model is used. In the second step broadband
noise source models are used to estimate the sound
power generation within the duct. In particular, models
estimating dipole and quadrupole sound source
strengths are studied.
A baseline generic duct geometry was studied with 3
additional design variations. The loudness rankings of
these three designs were determined numerically.
Simultaneously, the sound generated by these three
designs was measured on a flow bench with a
microphone kept downstream of the duct outlet. The
numerically predicted loudness rankings were compared
with experimentally determined rankings and the two are
found to be in agreement, thus validating the numerical
method.

INTRODUCTION
Noise generated in automotive HVAC ducts can often be
very loud and cause discomfort and distraction to the
driver and passengers. HVAC system manufacturers
therefore take significant efforts to optimize noise
generated by ducts. To-date these efforts mostly
comprise of expensive experimental noise testing due to
the lack of practically usable numerical methods that can
predict aerodynamically generated noise in ducts. It is
highly desirable to have numerical methods of predicting
duct acoustic performance for many reasons. First,
numerical analysis is often quite inexpensive compared
to experimental testing. Moreover, numerical analysis
can be done in the early stages of the design process to

* Corresponding Author

provide design direction even before prototypes are built.

Also, numerical analysis easily provides much greater
insight into the physics involved compared to
experimental measurement.
Numerical simulation of duct noise has received attention
1, 2, 3, 4
from researchers
. Though these works provide
excellent methods of computing sound propagation, they
lack detailed calculations of sound generation.
To determine the loudness of a duct, it is essential to
accurately simulate sound sources. Automotive HVAC
duct noise is almost exclusively aerodynamic noise, i.e.
noise generated by fluid flow. It is typically caused by two
aspects, one, the rotating blades of the blower, and two,
geometric complexities in the duct. Both these cause the
flow to be unsteady and turbulent and generate noise.
There are four primary approaches of numerically
modeling aeroacoustic phenomena. In order of
decreasing computational effort, these are (a)
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
, (b) the
computational aeroacoustics (CAA)
11, 12
, (c)
coupling of CFD and a sound propagation solver
13, 14, 15
and (d)
integral sound propagation models
broadband noise source models. Details of these
11, 12
, along
approaches are presented in other articles
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15
.
with examples
Of these, the first three methods require well-resolved
transient CFD simulations, since they aim to determine
the actual time-varying sound-pressure signal at the
receiver, and from that, the sound spectrum. In several
practical engineering situations, only the locations and
relative strengths of sound sources need to be
determined rather than the sound spectra at the
receivers. If the sound is broadband (i.e. lacking any
prominent tones characterized by sharp peaks in the
spectrum), the source strengths can be evaluated with

reasonable accuracy from the time-averaged structure of

the turbulent flow in the source regions.
Turbulence is the primary cause of sound in
aeroacoustics, so in a broad sense, regions of the flow
field where turbulence is strong produce louder sources
of sound. A number of analytical models referred to as
broadband noise source models synthesize sound at
points in the flow field from local flow and turbulence
quantities and estimate local sound source strengths.
The key advantage of these models is that they require
very modest computational resources compared to the
other three methods. Broadband noise models only need
a steady state flow solution, whereas the other methods
require well-resolved transient flow solutions. However,
the drawback of the broadband noise source models is
that they are not able to predict sound spectra at receiver
locations. They can only qualitatively indicate which
sound sources are stronger than others.

The duct design is purposely kept generic so that it can

be widely used as a benchmark in the future. Three
important features prominently found in actual
automotive HVAC ducts/modules are included in this
design. They are, a sudden expansion (accompanied by
a change in cross-section shape from round to
rectangular), a bend, and a side cavity. Dimensional
details of the baseline duct are shown in Figure 2.
The baseline duct is referred to as Design1 hence
forward. Designs 2, 3, and 4 are exactly same as Design
1, except they have a baffle immediately upstream of the
cavity. In Designs 2, 3, and 4 the baffle height is 0.03 m,
0.07 m, and 0.11 m respectively. In all designs the baffle

Outlet

One important practical aspect where broadband noise

source models can be used is in determining loudness
rankings of different design variations of an object. In the
present work two broadband noise models are used to
determine loudness rankings of five different duct
designs. The computationally predicted noise rankings
are compared with experimentally measured rankings.

PROBLEM STATEMENT
The aim of the present study was to determine whether
broadband noise models have the ability to correctly
predict loudness rankings of automotive HVAC
ducts/modules. For this a generic duct design, which
contains some of the basic characteristics of HVAC
module, is considered with two additional design
variations. The baseline design is presented in Figure 1.

Inlet
Figure 1. Baseline duct geometry.

0.200

0.100

0.200

0.100

0.150
0.050

0.200
0.155

0.100

0.150

0.250

Figure 2. Dimensional details of the baseline duct (Design1). All dimensions are in meters.

Outlet
Cavity

Inlet

Sudden
Expansion

0.03

acoustic source power from the results of the CFD

simulation. Both these steps are conducted with the
16
commercial CFD code FLUENT 6.2.16 .
COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN AND MESH

Baffle

(a) Design2

0.07

The computational domain comprises of the duct and a

large plenum at its outlet that represents the open
atmosphere.
Various views of the mesh cross-section along the
baseline ducts center plane are shown in Figure 4. The
volume mesh was composed of a total of 2 million
exclusively hexahedral cells. A fine mesh resolution is
maintained in regions where high gradients are
expected, such as the region in close proximity of the
duct walls and the shear regions in the sudden
expansion and in the cavity mouth. The mesh was
created using the commercial meshing software package
17
GAMBIT2.1
SOLVER SETTINGS, TURBULENCE MODEL, AND
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
16

The commercial CFD code FLUENT6.2.16 used to

conduct the simulations is based on the finite volume
method and provides a choice of solvers and solver
settings. The settings chosen for this study are listed in
Table 1.

(b) Design3

Turbulence was modeled using RNG (Renormalization

Group Theory) k- model. In this model the turbulent
viscosity is computed using the relation,
0.11

t = C

k2

(1)

where the value of the constant C is derived to be

0.0845 from RNG theory. Non-equilibrium wall functions
are used. These functions are similar to those proposed
18
by Launder and Spalding but the log-law is sensitized
19
to pressure-gradient . Further details are seen in
16
FLUENT documentation .
(c) Design4
Figure 3. Cross-sections of the different designs.
Dimensions are in meters.
is 0.0016 m thick. See Figure 3 for cross-sections of
Designs 2 through 4.Noise rankings of these duct
designs are calculated by conducting numerical
simulations and are compared with experimentally
measured rankings to determine if the broadband noise
models studied predict noise rankings accurately.

NUMERICAL METHOD
The numerical simulation method comprises of two
steps. First, a steady state CFD simulation of flow
passing through the duct is conducted. In the second
stage, the broadband noise models are used to estimate

The boundary conditions used in the simulation are listed

in Table 2. A constant velocity boundary condition was
chosen for the inlet corresponding to a 300 cfm flow rate
of air which is typical of an automotive climate control
system. Since we assume the flow to be incompressible,
an arbitrary value of pressure can be assigned to the
pressure outlet without any effect on the flow field, so it is
kept at 0 Pa (gage). The boundaries of the duct and the
plenum were kept as no-slip walls while the duct outlet
was kept as an interior so air can pass freely from the
duct into the plenum.

BROADBAND NOISE SOURCE MODELS

Two broadband noise source models are considered in
this work, a model estimating the contribution of
quadrupole (volume) sources and the other indicating the

Table 1. Solver settings used in the simulations.

Function

Setting

Solver

Precision
Pressure discretization
Momentum discretization
Pressure-velocity coupling
Fluid

Steady state,
Segregated Implicit
Double Precision
nd
2 order
nd
2 order upwind
SIMPLEC
Air (incompressible)

Table 2. Boundary conditions

(a) Entire computational domain.

(b) Mesh in the duct.

Boundary

Boundary Condition

Duct Inlet

Constant Velocity

Interior
No slip wall
Constant Pressure
No slip wall

Duct Outlet
Duct boundaries
Plenum Outlet
Plenum boundaries

Value
7.507 m/s
(=300 cfm)

0 Pa (gage)

contribution of dipole (surface) sources. Both have their

20
foundation in Lighthills acoustic formulation. Lighthill
showed that at distances large compared with the
dimension of the flow, the density fluctuation due to
sound wave can be computed from:
(2)
where Tij is Lighthills stress tensor defined by
(3)
where ij is the viscous tensor.
Quadrupole Source Model
21

(c) Mesh in the sudden expansion.

Proudman , based on Lighthills acoustic analogy,

originally derived a formula for acoustic power generated
by isotropic turbulence without mean flow. More recently,
22
Lilly re-derived the formula by accounting for the
retarded time difference which was neglected in
Proumans original derivation. Both derivations yield
acoustic power due to unit volume of isotropic turbulence
as:

(4)

(d) Mesh in the cavity mouth.

Figure 4. View of the central cross section of the
baseline case mesh.

where u and are turbulence velocity and length scales,

respectively, and a0 is the speed of sound. The value of
the numerical constant in eqn. (4) varies depending on
the specific methods of derivation. In Proudmans
original derivation, 13. Lilly found 10.96. In terms

of k and and using u2 = 2k/3, = 1.5u3/l and Mt =

2k / a 0 , eqn. (4) can be written as:
(5)
The rescaled constant , is approximately 0.5 for the
23
Proudmans constant (
13). Sarkar and Hussaini ,
based on their DNS (Direct Numerical Simulation) for
isotropic turbulence, found that = 0.1 best fits the DNS
data. FLUENT adopts = 0.1. Eqn. 5 thus provides the
local sound power contribution per unit volume due to
isotropic turbulence (quadrupole sound source) at every
point in the computational domain.
Dipole Source Model
Far-field sound generated by turbulent boundary layer
flow over a solid body at low Mach numbers is often of
24
practical interest. The Curle's integral
based on
acoustic analogy can be used to approximate the local
contribution from the body surface to the total acoustic
power. To that end, one can start with the Curle's:
(6)
where denotes the emission time ( = t - r/a0), and S the
integration surface.
Using this, the sound intensity in the far field can then be
approximated by,

(7)

where Ac is the correlation area,

, and cos is

the angle between

and the wall-normal direction
. The total acoustic power emitted from the entire body
surface can be computed from

(8)
where

(9)
which can be interpreted as the local contribution per unit
surface area of the body surface to the total acoustic
power. The mean-square time-derivative of the surface
pressure and the correlation area are further

approximated in terms of turbulent quantities like

turbulent kinetic energy, dissipation rate, and wall-shear.
FLUENT reports the acoustic surface power defined by
2
Equation (9) both in physical (W/m ) and dB units.
SIMULATION PROCEDURE
A steady state CFD simulation was conducted for each
design. The solution was initially converged with first
order discretization schemes and finally with second
order schemes. After obtaining converged CFD
solutions, acoustic post-processing was done with the
broadband noise source models. This included two
calculations. The first was calculation of the volume
integral of PA from Eqn. (5) on the volume contained
inside the duct. Here, PA is an estimate of the local
quadrupole acoustic power contribution per unit volume.
Therefore the volume integral of PA is indicative of the
total acoustic power emitted by the entire duct due to
quadrupole sources. The second was a calculation of the
surface integral of I from Eqn. (9) on all internal wall
surfaces of the duct. Here, I is an estimate of the local
dipole acoustic power contribution per unit area.
Therefore, the surface integral of I on all inner surfaces
of the duct is indicative of the total acoustic power
emitted by the duct due to dipole sources.

RESULTS
FLOWFIELD STRUCTURE
All designs were experimentally tested as well as
simulated at a flow rate of 300 cfm corresponding to an
inlet velocity of 7.507 m/s. Flow structure for the baseline
geometry is presented in Figure 5 via contour plots of
velocity magnitude, pressure, turbulent kinetic energy
and dissipation rate. Velocity contours show that the flow
enters the duct at a constant velocity and forms a
boundary layer on the circular pipe section immediately
downstream of the inlet. Upon encountering the sudden
expansion further downstream, the flow separates from
the walls and forms a jet. The boundaries of the jet do
not reattach with the walls until the jet enters the 90
degree turn and impinges on the far wall. The bend turns
the flow vertically upward and flattens the jet into a
thinner, high velocity jet with a large separated region to
its left. The jet forms a shear layer in the cavity mouth
and creates a rotational flow inside the cavity.
Wherever the velocity gradient is large, high values of
turbulent kinetic energy are seen to occur in the contour
plot of turbulent kinetic energy. Locations of high
turbulence include the region downstream of the sudden
expansion as well as on the outer (left) boundary of the
high velocity jet in the vertical section of the duct. These
regions of high turbulence are expected to be strong
sources of noise.
The flow structure in the other 3 designs is presented in
Figure 6 using velocity contour plots. The 0.03 m baffle

at the leading edge of the cavity in Design 2 lifts the

vertical jet off from the cavity mouth. As a result the
rotation in the cavity of Design 2 is much milder than that
in the baseline case. The vertical jet also becomes
thinner and faster than in the baseline case. When the
baffle height is increased to 0.07 m in Design 3 the jet
velocity increases further and a strong separation region
is seen behind the baffle. In Design 4 where the baffle
height is increased to 0.11 m, there is only a small
opening left for the flow and the vertical jet has a even
higher velocity. The separation region behind the baffle is
further pronounced.
NOISE CHARACTERISTICS
As the vertical jet becomes progressively faster from
Design1 through 4 and the separation region behind the
baffle becomes more pronounced, it is expected that the
overall turbulence in the flow field will increase causing
an increase in the broadband noise level. Experimental
measurements confirm this trend. Figure 7 shows the
sound spectra measured at a point 1 m directly
downstream of the centroid point of the duct outlet. The
spectra extend from 20 to 20,000 Hz. Over most of this
extent the SPL for all four ducts is the same, except in
the region from about 150 to 400 Hz. Therefore, the
perceived difference in loudness of these ducts arises
from this frequency band. Here, Design 2 is seen to be
louder than Design 1 by roughly 2 to 3 dBA. Design 3 is
louder than Design 2 by about 3 to 4 dBA, and likewise
Design 4 is louder than Design 3 by 3 to 4 dBA.
Sound power estimates made using broadband noise
source models in the CFD simulations are shown in
Table 3. Both the dipole source power as well as the
quadrupole source power are seen to increase from
Design 1 through 4.
In conclusion, the two broadband noise source models
considered here correctly predict the same noise ranking
between the 4 designs studied as observed in
experiments.

Table 3. Acoustic power generated inside the duct

as estimated from the simulations.
Design

Quadrupole
Source Power in
Watts

Dipole
Source Power in
Watts

Design1

Volume Integral of
PA in Eqn. (5)
7.31e-13

Surface Integral of I in
Eqn. (9)
2.44e-09

Design2

1.63e-12

3.56e-09

Design3

9.48e-12

8.64e-09

Design4

2.94e-10

1.24e-07

CONCLUSION
Broadband noise source models are an attractive option
to quickly and inexpensively evaluate the acoustic
performance of devices. Broadband noise models
require inexpensive steady state simulations to estimate
noise where as other methods such as computational
aeroacoustics and integral sound propagation methods
require expensive transient simulation. However,
broadband noise source models cannot provide accurate
sound spectra unlike the other methods.
One possible practical use of the broadband noise
source models is studied in this paper. The broadband
noise models have been used to determine the noise
loudness rankings of a generic HVAC duct with 4 design
variations. The rankings are computed with a dipole and
a quadrupole source power model. The computed
rankings are compared to experimentally determined
rankings and the two are found to be in excellent
agreement. In conclusion, the broadband noise models
are a valuable and relatively inexpensive practical tool for
determining noise loudness rankings of HVAC duct
designs.

REFERENCES
1. Reichert R.S. and Birigen S., Time domain
simulation of acoustic propagation in lined duct,
Applied Acoustics, vol. 62, pp. 1049-1068 (2001)
2. Joseph P., Morfey C.L., and Lowis C.R., Multi-mode
sound transmission in ducts with flow, Journal of
Sound and Vibration, vol. 264, pp. 523-544 (2003)
3. Ju H. and Fung K.-Y., A time domain method for
duct acoustics, Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol.
237(4), pp. 667-681 (2000)
4. Boudoy M. and Martin V., Prediction of acoustic
fields radiated into a damped cavity by an N-port
source through ducts, Journal of Sound and
Vibration, vol. 264, pp. 499-521 (2003)
5. Ambs R., Ayar A., Capellmann, C. and Matthes M.,
Computational aeroacoustics and the development
of climate control systems, VDI-Berichte Nr. 1846,
2004
6. Hendriana, D., Sovani, S.D., and Schiemann M.K.,
On simulating passenger car side window
buffeting, Society of Automotive Engineers
International, Paper 2003-01-1316 (2003)
7. An, C.-F., Alaie, S.M., Sovani, S.D., Scislowicz M.,
Singh, K., Side window buffeting characteristics of a
SUV, Vehicle Aerodynamics, Vol. SP1874, pp. 43 53, SAE International Paper 2004-01-0230 (2004)
8. Sovani, S.D. and Hendriana, D, Predicting
passenger car side window buffeting with transient
external aerodynamics simulations, Tenth annual
conference of the CFD society of Canada, June 911, 2002, Windsor, Canada. (2002)
9. Sovani, S.D., Reducing wind fatigue and summer
headaches, Desktop Engineering, Dec. (2004)

10. Kannan, V., Sovani, S.D., Greeley, D., and Khondge,

A.D., Computational Aeroacoustics Simulation of
Whistle Noise in an Automotive Air-Intake System,
submitted to SAENVH conference(2005)
11. Seibert W., Elhen M., Sovani S.D., Simulation of
transient aerodynamics - Predicting buffeting, roaring
and whistling using CFD, Sixth Motor Industries
Research Association (MIRA) International Vehicle
Aerodynamics Conference, October 13-14, 2004,
Warwick, U.K.
12. Sovani, S.D., Leading Edge Aeroacoustics
Simulation, Fluent News, Vol. 13, no. 2, pp 30-31
(2004)
13. Kim, S.-E., Dai, Y., Koutsavdis, K., Sovani, S.D.,
Kadam, N.A., and Ravuri, K.M.R., A versatile
implementation of acoustic analogy based noise
prediction method in a general-purpose CFD code,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Paper no. 2003-3202 (2003)
14. Lokhande, B.S., Sovani, S.D., and Xu, J.,
Computational aeroacoustic analysis of a generic
side view mirror, Transactions of the SAE: Journal
of Passenger Cars - Mechanical Systems, pp. 21752184, SAE Paper 2003-01-1698 (2003)
15. Sovani, S.D. and Chen, K.-H., Aeroacoustics of an
Automotive A-Pillar Raingutter: A Numerical Study
with the Ffowcs-Williams Hawkings Method,
submitted to SAE-NVH conference (2005)
16. Fluent 6.2 Users Guide, Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH
(2005)
17. Gambit 2.1 Users Guide, Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH
(2003)

18. Launder, B.E. and Spalding, D.B., The numerical

computation of turbulent flows, Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 3, pp.
269-289 (1974)
19. Kim, S.-E. and Choudhury, D., A near-wall
treatment using wall functions sensitized to pressure
gradient, in Separated and Complex Flows, ASME
FED, Vol. 217 (1995)
20. Lighthill M.J., On sound generated aerodynamically.
I General theory, Proceedings of the Royal
Society A, vol. 211, pp. 564 (1952)
21. Proudman I., The generation of noise by isotropic
turbulence, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, vol.
214, pp. 219 (1952)
22. Lilly G.M., The radiated noise from isotropic
turbulence revisited, NASA Contract Report No. 9375, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
24681 (1993)
23. Sarkar S. and Hussaini M.Y., Computation of the
sound generated by isotropic turbulence, NASA
Contract Report No. 93-74, NASA Langley Research
Center, Hampton, VA 24681 (1993)
24. Curle N., The influence of solid boundaries on
aerodynamical sound, Proceedings of the Royal
Society A, vol. 2314, pp. 505-514 (1955)

CONTACT
Sandeep Sovani, Ph.D.,
Senior Consulting Engineer, Fluent Inc.,
220 E. Huron St. Suite 470, Ann Arbor MI 48104
sds@fluent.com
Tel: 734-213-6821 x235 FAX: 734-213-0147

FLOW FEATURES
Vertical Separation Region
Vertical Jet
Rotational Flow in Cavity
Shear Layer
Jet Impingement
Horizontal Separation Region
Horizontal Jet
Boundary Layer

(a) Velocity magnitude (m/s)

(b) Static pressure (Pa)

Figure 5. Contour plots on the central cross-section showing flow structure in the baseline design.

(c) Turbulent kinetic energy (m /s )

(d) Turbulence dissipation rate (m /s )

Figure 5. Contour plots on the central cross-section showing flow structure in the baseline design.

(a) Design 2

(b) Design 3
Figure 6. Velocity magnitude contours on the central cross section for different designs.

(c) Design 4
Figure 6. Velocity magnitude contours on the central cross section for different designs.

Figure 7. Experimentally measured sound spectra at a point 1m directly downstream of the centroid of the duct outlet.