2009
DOI: 10.1504/pcfd.2009.027764
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improved noise predictions from subsonic jets at Mach 0.75 using URANS calculations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Usually, skewness measure values below 0.8 are acceptable. A similar domain and grid was used by Tide and Babu (2009a, 2009b) for their calculations of flow characteristics of jets emanating from chevron nozzles.…”
Section: Problem Description and Solution Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Usually, skewness measure values below 0.8 are acceptable. A similar domain and grid was used by Tide and Babu (2009a, 2009b) for their calculations of flow characteristics of jets emanating from chevron nozzles.…”
Section: Problem Description and Solution Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They concluded that URANS calculations can predict the sound pressure level within ±4 dB of that of experimental value. The approach followed by Tide and Babu (2009a) and Tide and Babu (2009b) for evaluating the jet from chevron nozzle was used in this paper to find the flow characteristics of jet emanating from corrugated lobed nozzle.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The prediction of jet noise requires vast information on the mean flow and turbulent characteristics of jets emanating from nozzles. Tide and Babu (2009) accurately predicted mean and fluctuating quantities for round jets with RANS calculations with moderately less computational resources. Balabel et al (2011) have carried out a 2D numerical simulation of experiments conducted by Hunter (1998) and reported that the shear stress transport k-v model showed the best agreement with the experimental data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%