NOISE REDUCTION ANALYSIS USING CHEVRON NOZZLE

K. SathishKumar1a, B.R. Shabharish1, Sneha Vinod1, B. Sharan1, K. SathyaMoorthy1,

1
Centre for Computer Aided Engineering and Research, Department of Aeronautical
Engineering, Nehru Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
a
Corresponding Author, Email: satz_aero@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

This article presents the sound pressure levels at different axial locations of the jet comparing base co-
flow and chevron nozzle. The study was conducted numerically for Mach 0.6, to analyse the acoustic
characteristics of both the nozzles. Centreline total pressure decay profiles and total pressure contour
along the jet axis was measured to study the mixing characteristics of the jet and to get the insight of
the acoustic characteristics of the jet. The sound pressure levels at different axial locations of the jet
were investigated to study the acoustic characteristics of the jet analytically by using the numerical
results. The sound pressure levels decreases considerably after 8De in the axial direction of the jet. The
results gives an insight on the reduction jet noise coming from chevron nozzle when compared to the
base co-flow nozzle.

Keywords: chevron, mixing, pressure, sound, locations.

1 INTRODUCTION

This study intends to investigate the effects of chevron nozzle on acoustic performance - a critical
element in aeronautical and aerospace engineering. This work examines the usage of chevron nozzle
influencing the noise reduction and flow dynamics using computational technique. The results shed
light to minimize noise and improve the acoustic performance of chevron nozzle design for use in
aerospace applications.

James Bridges and Mark P. Wernet [1] studied distinct flow nozzle ideas for improving mixing
efficiency and reducing noise. Based on measurements and PIV image data from NASA Glenn
Research Center, their work demonstrated enhanced turbulence isotropy in jet mixing together with a
considerable reduction in noise. Amal Abeysinghe, et al [2] , investigated the application of fluidic
chevrons to lessen jet noise. Nevertheless, it was discovered that the injection settings affected how
efficient this approach was. The analysis acknowledged the possible rise in high-frequency noise with
injection flow addition, but it also noted the low-frequency reduction owing to fan and core stream
mixing. The report underlined how important it is to conduct more study in this field.
Mehmat B, et al, [3] examined how streamwise vortices affected the jet aeroacoustics. Their work
highlighted the distinctions between chevrons and microjets, indicating that one efficient way to lower
jet noise is to disturb large-scale coherent structures. One important feature of their findings was how
important it is to comprehend and manipulate streamwise vortices. P.S. Tide and K. Srinivasan [4],
examined chevron nozzles, namely those with sinusoidal profiles and asymmetry. The study discovered
that these nozzles performed better at reducing noise than circular nozzles. Decreased noise levels were
largely caused by the interplay between chevron shape and jet flow properties such mixing layer width
and shock structures. Contrary to their decreased acoustic efficiency, chevron nozzles were shown to
have significant advantages in terms of noise reduction.

P.S. Tide and K. Srinivasan [5] studied the experimental noise reduction characteristics of turbofan
engine chevron nozzles by varying the chevron count. The findings included an extensive assessment
of the literature on noise reduction techniques, an investigation into the effects of different chevron
designs, and the possibility of chevrons in mitigating jet exhaust noise. David Munday et al.,[6] mapped
near-field acoustics in a three-dimensional flow using 32 microphones. Chevrons effectively reduced
noise in supersonic jets, according to computational models used to study nozzle geometry. Screaming,
shock-related noise, and mixing noise were all reduced, especially in pressure changes that were less
than 7 kHz.

D. Eschricht et al [7], demonstrated how the DES/FWH technique with serrations can accurately
forecast noise reduction in nozzles. This effect was effectively reproduced by numerical simulations,
highlighting the balanced design of chevron nozzles that enhances low-frequency reduction while
mitigating an increase in high-frequency noise. Ryan A. Fontaine, et al [8] showed how turbulent jet
noise predictions are affected by the thickness of the nozzle shear layer. It was found that thicker
boundary layers were useful in lowering noise levels, especially at high frequencies. Designing efficient
noise suppression solutions required an understanding of near-nozzle flow parameters, since various
nozzle types have varied noise characteristics and turbulence statistics.

S.R. Nikam and S.D. Sharma [9], investigated the application of microjets to produce counter-rotating
vortices, which reduced OASPL by 2 dB at polar angles. The study proposed that chevron shape affects
jet cross-section and noise radiation, resulting in a 4 dB noise reduction at greater polar angles, and that
a larger microjet to main jet velocity ratio enhances noise reduction. R. Naren Shankar, et al [10] that
showed how different lip thicknesses (LT) in co-flowing jets affect jet mixing. The outcomes showed
that, in comparison to LT 0.2 Dp, LT values of 1.5 Dp and 1.0 Dp were better mixing promoters. Higher
LT values were observed to increase jet mixing in various Mach number scenarios by enhancing mixing,
changing jet features, and affecting static pressure variations.
2 NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY

CATIA software is used to model the base and chevron nozzles as per the dimensions shown in the
Table 1. The schematic of the base and chevron nozzle model is shown in the figure 1. The circular
domain of 40 times the exit diameter of the primary nozzle was made to study the jet flow physics.
Meshing of the models were done using the meshing software ICEM CFD. Tetra-hedra grid were
generated and the mesh image of the base and chevron nozzle models were shown in figure 2. The
computational solver used for the investigation is the ANSYS CFX software. The setting for the solver
are, air ideal gas is the fluid and Shear Stress Transport (SST) is the turbulent model that is employed.
The inlet condition for both the primary and secondary nozzle is the pressure inlet with 1.3 bar and a
temperature of 288 K. For the both nozzle model, the wall boundary condition with adiabatic, no-slip
condition is given. For the domain inlet, domain and outlet, the pressure outlet boundary condition with
an average static pressure of 1 atm pressure given. The convergence criteria set for the investigation is
10-4. The details of the boundary used for the study including the nozzle and the domain is shown in the
figure 3.

Table 1: Dimensions of the chevron nozzles

Dimensions in mm
Nozzle Type
Base Chevron
Inlet Diameter (Primary) 35 35

Outlet Diameter (Primary) 20 20

Inlet Diameter (Secondary) 40 40

Outlet Diameter (Secondary) 25 25

Primary Nozzle Length 50 50

Secondary Nozzle Length 40 40

Chevron Count 0 7
 Fig. 1: Schematic of the nozzle models; (a) Base nozzle, (b) Chevron nozzle

Fig. 2: Schematic of the meshed nozzle models; (a) Base nozzle, (b) Chevron nozzle

Fig. 3: Details of the model boundaries

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Centreline total pressure decay profile and contour

Figure 4 shows the centreline total pressure decay profile comparing both base and the chevron
nozzle. The measured total pressure along the axial direction of the jet is made dimensionless
using the inlet total pressure and is plotted against the dimensionless axial distance from the
exit of the nozzle upto 25 times of the exit diameter of the primary nozzle. The potential core
is the authentic measure of the jet decay. The potential core is the distance from the jet exit
upto which the total pressure remains constant. After the potential core the jet decays due to
mixing of jet with the ambient and the region is called characteristics decay. After the
characteristic decay, the self-similar region comes which is known as the fully developed
region. From figure 4, the potential core length of the chevron nozzle is less compared to the
base nozzle. The jet emanating from the chevron nozzle mixes with the ambient faster after the
potential core and the characteristic decay extends upto 20 times of the exit diameter of the
primary nozzle. After 20 times the exit diameter, the self-similar region exists. It is a well-
known fact that when the pressure reduces the noise intensity will also decrease. Hence
comparing the base nozzle with the chevron nozzle, the chevron nozzle performs well in
reducing the noise level of the jet. This is evident from the figure 5, which is the total pressure
contour comparing both the base and the chevron nozzle. The potential core is the length of the
red colour region from the nozzle exit in the axial direction of the jet. The characteristic decay
region is the yellow and green region in the axial direction and then the self-similar region is
formed.

1.2

1.1 Base Chevron

1.0
p0x / p0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
X / Dp

Fig. 4: Total pressure decay profiles in axial direction of the jet

 (a)

(b)

Fig. 5: Total pressure contours in axial direction: (a) Base nozzle, (b) Chevron nozzle.

3.2 Variation in Sound Pressure Level (SPL)

Sound Pressure is the change in local air pressure that occurs when a sound wave passes through. There
is no net movement of any media particles following the sound transmission since the air particles
"assist" in the sound wave's transmission before returning to their initial state. The sound pressure level
is the logarithm of the ratio of a particular sound pressure to the reference sound pressure, expressed in
decibels, is 20 times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio and is expressed as in equation (1).

𝑃
SPL = 20 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑓) dB. (1)

where the reference sound pressure Pref = 2 x 10-5 Pa which is constant and P is the measured value.
Figure 6 to 25 shows the sound pressure level at various axial locations of the jet ranging from 1De to
20De at an interval of 1, comparing the base and the chevron nozzle.

From figure 6 and 7 i.e, at X/De = 1 and 2, the SPL for both the base and the chevron nozzle is 93.98
dB. From figure 8, 9, 10 and 11 i.e, at X/De = 3, 4, 5 and 6, the SPL for both the base and the chevron
nozzle is 93.97 dB. From figure 12 and 13 i.e, at X/De = 7 and 8, the SPL for both the base and the
chevron nozzle is 93.96 dB. The SPL values from X/De = 1 to 8 is almost constant since these locations
lies inside the potential core region where the total pressure values will remain constant.
 94.0 94.0
93.98 93.98 93.97 93.97
93.9 93.9
SPL in (dB)

SPL in (dB)
93.8 93.8

93.7 93.7

93.6 93.6

93.5 93.5
Base Chevron Base Chevron
Configuration Configuration

Fig. 6: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 1 Fig. 9: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 4

94.0 94.0
93.98 93.98 93.97 93.97
93.9 93.9
SPL in (dB)

SPL in (dB)

93.8 93.8

93.7 93.7

93.6 93.6

93.5 93.5
Base Chevron Base Chevron
Configuration Configuration

Fig. 7: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 2 Fig. 10: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 5

94.0 94.0
93.97 93.97 93.97 93.97
93.9 93.9
SPL in (dB)
SPL in (dB)

93.8 93.8

93.7 93.7

93.6 93.6

93.5 93.5
Base Chevron Base Chevron
Configuration Configuration

Fig. 8: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 3 Fig. 11: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 6

 94.0 94.0
SPL in (dB)
93.9 93.96 93.96 93.9 93.94

SPL in (dB)
93.8 93.8

93.7 93.7
93.73
93.6 93.6

93.5 93.5
Base Chevron Base Chevron
Configuration Configuration

Fig. 12: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 7 Fig. 15: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 10

94.0 93.9

93.9 93.96 93.96 93.8

93.81
93.7
SPL in (dB)

SPL in (dB)

93.8
93.6
93.7
93.5
93.6 93.4 93.45
93.5 93.3
Base Chevron Base Chevron
Configuration Configuration

Fig. 13: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 8 Fig. 16: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 11

94.0 93.6

93.5 93.58
93.9 93.95
93.92
93.4
SPL in (dB)

SPL in (dB)

93.8
93.3
93.7
93.2
93.6 93.1 93.15
93.5 93.0
Base Chevron Base Chevron
Configuration Configuration

Fig. 14: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 9 Fig. 17: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 12
 93.3 92.6
93.28
93.2 92.5
92.51
93.1 92.4

SPL in (dB)
SPL in (dB)

93.0 92.3
92.29
92.9 92.2

92.8 92.87 92.1

92.7 92.0
Base Chevron Base Chevron
Configuration Configuration

Fig. 18: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 13 Fig. 21: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 16

93.1 92.4

93.0 92.3
92.99 92.27
92.9 92.2
SPL in (dB)

SPL in (dB)

92.8 92.1 92.16

92.7 92.0

92.6 92.64 91.9

92.5 91.8
Base Chevron Base Chevron
Configuration Configuration

Fig. 19: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 14 Fig. 22: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 17

92.8 92.4

92.7 92.3
92.72
92.6 92.2
SPL in (dB)

SPL in (dB)

92.5 92.1 92.15

92.4 92.45 92.0 92.06

92.3 91.9

92.2 91.8
Base Chevron Base Chevron
Configuration Configuration

Fig. 20: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 15 Fig. 23: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 18
 92.4 92.4

92.3 92.3

92.2 92.2

SPL in (dB)
SPL in (dB)

92.1 92.1

92.0 92.06 92.0

91.99 91.99
91.9 91.9
91.93
91.8 91.8
Base Chevron Base Chevron
Configuration Configuration

Fig. 24: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 19 Fig. 25: Sound Pressure Level at X / De = 20

Figure 14 shows the variation in sound pressure level at X/De = 9. The SPL for the base nozzle is 93.95
dB and for the chevron nozzle is 93.2 dB. This slight reduction in the SPL values indicate that the jet
mixing with the ambient has be started. From figure 15 i.e., at X/De = 10, the SPL for the base nozzle
is 93.94 dB and for the chevron nozzle is 93.73 dB. At X/De = 11 (Figure 16), the SPL values for the
base and the chevron nozzle is 93.81 dB and 93.45 dB respectively. The SPL is 93.58 dB and 93.15 dB
for the base and the chevron nozzle respectively at X/De = 12 (Figure 17). From figure 18, 19, 20 and
21 i.e., X/De = 13 to 16, the SPL for the base nozzle is 93.28 dB, 92.99 dB, 92.72 dB and 92.51 dB
respectively. Whereas for the chevron nozzle the SPL values are 92.87 dB, 92.64 dB, 92.45 dB and
92.29 dB at X/De = 13 to 16 respectively. Similarly from figure 22, 23, 24 and 25 i.e., X/De = 17 to 20,
the SPL for the base nozzle is 93.27 dB, 92.15 dB, 92.06 dB and 91.99 dB respectively. Whereas for
the chevron nozzle the SPL values are 92.16 dB, 92.06 dB, 91.99 dB and 91.93 dB at X/De = 17, 18,
19 and 20 respectively. From X/De = 9 to X/De = 20, it is observed that the SPL reduced significantly
for the chevron nozzle when compared to the base nozzle. Figure 26 represents the SPL variation from
X / De = 1 to X / De = 20. It is observed that from X/De = 1 to X/De = 8 the SPL is almost constant and
after X/De = 9, there is a considerable amount of variation and reduction in noise levels comparing both
base and chevron nozzle.
 Base Chevron
1
2094.0 2
19 93.5 3
93.0
18 92.5 4
92.0
17 91.5 5
91.0
16 90.5 6

15 7

14 8
13 9
12 10
11

Fig. 26: Sound Pressure Level Variation from X / De = 1.0 to X / De = 20

4. Conclusion

The sound pressure levels at different axial locations of the Mach 0.6 jet comparing base co-flow and
chevron nozzle was studied using the sound pressure level formula by using the pressure values which
was measured numerically. Centreline total pressure decay profiles and total pressure contour along the
jet axis was investigated to study the jet mixing characteristics giving an insight to the acoustic
characteristics of the jet. From the result data, the sound pressure levels decreases considerably after
the potential core region of the jet due to rapid mixing with the ambient. The results gives an insight on
the reduction jet noise coming from chevron nozzle when compared to the base co-flow nozzle.

References:

[1] James Bridges, AIAA Senior Member and Mark P.Wernet (2002) Turbulence Measurements of
Separate Flow Nozzles with Mixing Enhancement Features.

[2] Kevin Kinzie, Brenda Henderson, Julia Whitmire, Amal Abeysinghe(2004) Fluidic Chevrons for Jet
Noise Reduction.

[3] Mehmat B Alkisar, A. Krothapalli and G.W. Butler(2007) The Effect Of Streamwise Vortices On
The Aeroacoustics Of A Mach 0.9 Jet.

[4] P.S. Tide and K Srinivasan(2008) Novel Chevron Nozzle Concepts For Jet Noise Reduction
[5] P.S. Tide, K.Srinivasan(2009) Effect Of Chevron Count And Penetration On The Acoustic
Characteristics Of Chevron Nozzles.

[6] David Munday, Nick Heeb , Ephraim Gutmark, Junhui Liu and K. Kailasanath(2010) Supersonic
Jet Noise Reduction Using Fluidics, Mechanical Chevrons And Fluidically Enhanced Chevrons

[7] D. Eschricht, U. Michel and F. Thiele(2013) Numerical Simulation Of The Flow And Sound Field
Of A Serrated Nozzle.

[8] Ryan A. Fontaine, Gregory S. Elliott, Joanna M. Austin and Jonathan B. Freund(2015) Very Near-
nozzle Shear-layer Turbulence And Jet Noise.

[9] S.R.Nikam and S.D.Sharma(2017) Effect Of Chevron Nozzle Penetration On Aero-acoustic

Characteristics Of Jet At M=0.8.

[10] R.Naren Shankar, S. Thanigaiarasu, S. Elangovan and E. Rathakrishnan(2017) Co-flowing Jet

Control Using Lip Thickness Variation