0
Technical Briefs

Passive Control of Transonic Cavity Flow

[+] Author and Article Information
David G. MacManus

Department of Aerospace Sciences,  Cranfield University, Wharley End, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UKd.g.macmanus@cranfield.ac.uk

Diane S. Doran

Department of Aerospace Sciences,  Cranfield University, Wharley End, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK

J. Fluids Eng 130(6), 064501 (May 19, 2008) (4 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2917427 History: Received April 13, 2007; Revised March 26, 2008; Published May 19, 2008

Open cavities at transonic speeds can result in acoustic resonant flow behavior with fluctuating pressure levels of sufficient intensity to cause significant damage to internal stores and surrounding structures. Extensive research in this field has produced numerous cavity flow control techniques, the more effective of which may require costly feedback control systems or entail other drawbacks such as drag penalties or rapid performance degradation at off-design condition. The current study focuses on the use of simple geometric modifications of a rectangular planform cavity with the aim of attenuating the aeroacoustic signature. Experiments were performed in an intermittent suck-down transonic wind tunnel by using a typical open flow rectangular planform cavity, which was modularly designed such that the leading and trailing edge geometries could be modified by using a family of inserts. The current work focused on a variety of recessed leading edge step arrangements. Configurations were tested at transonic Mach numbers spanning the range Mach 0.7–0.9, and unsteady pressure measurements were recorded at various stations within the cavity in order to obtain acoustic spectra. The most effective configuration at Mach 0.9 was the leading edge step employing a step height to step length ratio of 0.4. This configuration achieved a tonal attenuation of up to 18.6dB and an overall sound pressure level (OASPL) reduction of approximately 7.5dB. This is a significant level of noise suppression in comparison with other passive control methods. In addition, it offers the additional benefits of being a simple geometric feature, which does not rely on placing flow effectors into the high-speed grazing flow.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of cavity streamwise cross section illustrating leading edge step cavity configuration and instrumentation positions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

SPL spectra for datum rectangular cavity (l∕d=5, w∕d=1.25) measured on the rear wall at Mach 0.9

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Comparison of sound pressure level spectra obtained for the datum rectangular cavity and the leading edge step (h∕s=0.4, h∕d=0.3) configuration at Mach

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Sound pressure level spectra for the datum rectangular cavity (a) and each of the leading edge step configurations (b)–(d) recorded at the cavity rear face for Mach 0.9

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

OASPL attenuation relative to the datum cavity at Mach 0.90 for Steps 1–3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Sound pressure level spectra obtained for the datum rectangular cavity and leading edge step (h∕s=0.4, h∕d=0.3) configurations at Mach 0.9, 0.86, and 0.7; measurements on the cavity rear face

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In