% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Cetin:858011,
      author       = {Cetin, Mehmet Onur and Koh, Seong Ryong and Meinke,
                      Matthias and Schröder, Wolfgang},
      title        = {{C}omputational analysis of exit conditions on the sound
                      field of turbulent hot jets},
      journal      = {Comptes rendus mécanique},
      volume       = {346},
      number       = {10},
      issn         = {1631-0721},
      address      = {Paris},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2018-06955},
      pages        = {932 - 947},
      year         = {2018},
      abstract     = {A hybrid computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and
                      computational aeroacoustics (CAA) method is used to compute
                      the acoustic field of turbulent hot jets at a Reynolds
                      number and a Mach number . The flow field computations are
                      performed by highly resolved large-eddy simulations (LES),
                      from which sound source terms are extracted to compute the
                      acoustic field by solving the acoustic perturbation
                      equations (APE). Two jets are considered to analyze the
                      impact of exit conditions on the resulting jet sound field.
                      First, a jet emanating from a fully resolved non-generic
                      nozzle is simulated by solving the discrete conservation
                      equations. This computation of the jet flow is denoted
                      free-exit-flow (FEF) formulation. For the second
                      computation, the nozzle geometry is not included in the
                      computational domain. Time averaged exit conditions, i.e.
                      velocity and density profiles of the first formulation, plus
                      a jet forcing in form of vortex rings are imposed at the
                      inlet of the second jet configuration. This formulation is
                      denoted imposed-exit-flow (IEF) formulation. The
                      free-exit-flow case shows up to $50\%$ higher turbulent
                      kinetic energy than the imposed-exit-flow case in the jet
                      near field, which drastically impacts noise generation. The
                      FEF and IEF configurations reveal quite a different
                      qualitative behavior of the sound spectra, especially in the
                      sideline direction where the entropy source term dominates
                      sound generation. This difference occurs since the noise
                      sources generated by density and pressure fluctuations are
                      not perfectly modeled by the vortex ring forcing method in
                      the IEF solution. However, the total overall sound pressure
                      level shows the same qualitative behavior for the FEF and
                      IEF formulations. Towards the downstream direction, the
                      sound spectra of the FEF and IEF solutions converge.},
      ddc          = {530},
      pnm          = {899 - ohne Topic (POF3-899)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-899},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.crme.2018.07.006},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/858011},
}