Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-vdhp9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T01:43:41.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Aeroacoustics of a forward-flight propeller ingesting small- and large-scale turbulent wakes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2026

Leone Trascinelli*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering, University of Bristol, BS8 1TR, Bristol, UK
Gianluca Romani
Affiliation:
Dassault Systèmes Deutschland GmbH, Meitnerstraße 8, Stuttgart 70563, Germany
Damiano Casalino
Affiliation:
Dassault Systèmes Deutschland GmbH, Meitnerstraße 8, Stuttgart 70563, Germany
B. Zang
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering, University of Bristol, BS8 1TR, Bristol, UK
Beckett Zhou
Affiliation:
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 270 Ferst Dr, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
Mahdi Azarpeyvand
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering, University of Bristol, BS8 1TR, Bristol, UK
*
Corresponding author: Leone Trascinelli, lt17359@bristol.ac.uk

Abstract

Content of image described in text.

This work presents high-fidelity simulations of the aerodynamic noise characteristics of a forward-flight propeller ingesting turbulent wakes of cylinders. Two cylinders with different diameters are employed to generate turbulent wakes with distinct turbulence intensity and length scales, namely small-scale turbulence (SST) and large-scale turbulence (LST). The lattice Boltzmann–very large-eddy simulation solver, PowerFLOW, coupled to an impermeable surface Ffowcs Williams–Hawkings formulation, is used for the forward-flight propeller configuration, matching that of an earlier experimental study. The aerodynamic results show that SST ingestion preserves a coherent tip–vortex path and confines elevated fluctuations to a limited portion of the blades. In contrast, LST ingestion disrupts the tip–vortex trajectory over a wide azimuth and spreads axial-velocity root-mean-square across the disk. Correspondingly, ingesting SST produces a series of discrete tonal sidebands at $m\mathrm{BPF}\pm nf_0$ (where $m, n \in \mathbb{N} = \{1,\, 2,\,3,\, \ldots \}$, $\textrm{BPF}$ is blade passing frequency and $f_0$ is the cylinder shedding frequency), while the LST case primarily yields notable noise increases in broadband components with clear haystacking around the blade passing frequency harmonics. Blade-level correlation and modulation intensity analyses confirm that the SST case gives rise to compact amplitude modulation, whereas the larger turbulence length scales in LST lead to redistribution of the turbulent energy via haystacking and broadband humps, linking inflow scale and coherence to the observed noise characteristics and generation mechanism. Hemispherical change in overall sound pressure level maps confirm axis-aligned rises in noise levels with turbulence ingestion. These results establish how the scale and coherence of ingested turbulence are crucial to both the near-wake dynamics and the radiated sound of propellers.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Schematic of the numerical set-up: (a) side view of the turbulence ingestion cases with far-field microphone array θ$\theta$, and (b) front view of the turbulence ingestion case with azimuthal propeller rotation angle ψ$\psi$ and direction of rotation. Diagram not to scale.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Variable resolution regions for the ingestion case showing (a) boundary layer regions and (b–d) wake regions.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Variable resolution 15 (blue) showing the near-field resolution along the propeller blade.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Normalised streamwise velocity u/U∞$u/U_\infty$ taken in the wake of the cylinder at four stations (x/d=0.5,1.5,3,5$x/d=0.5, \,1.5, \,3, \,5$) with comparison with experimental results from Maryami et al. (2020).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Figure 5 long description.Normalised power spectral density of the velocity fluctuations of the (a) streamwise, ϕuu$\phi _{uu}$, (b) crosswise, ϕvv$\phi _{vv}$, and (c) spanwise, ϕww$\phi _{ww}$, components for the isolated cylinders taken at x/d=5$x/d=5$.

Figure 5

Table 1. Comparison of thrust and power coefficients with experimental results and numerical mesh refinement campaign for the LST case.Table 1 long description.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Figure 6 long description.Comparison of numerical and experimental results extracted from the far-field microphone located at θ=60∘$\theta =60^\circ$ for (a,b) isolated propeller, (c,d) SST ingestion and (e,f) LST ingestion with zoomed-in view around the first BPF.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Flow field visualisation of the (a–c) normalised mean root-mean-square (r.m.s.) of axial velocity component, u¯rms/U∞$\bar {u}_{\mathit{rms}}/U_\infty$, and (d–f) normalised mean spanwise vorticity, ω¯zR/U∞$\bar {\omega }_zR/U_\infty$, for the isolated, SST ingestion and LST ingestion cases.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Figure 8 long description.Instantaneous radial vorticity, ωrR/U∞$\omega _rR/U_{\infty }$, on two cylindrical surfaces: (a,c,e) r/R=0.7$r/R=0.7$, (b,d,f) r/R=0.99$r/R=0.99$) for (a,b) the isolated propeller, (c,d) SST ingestion and (e,f) LST ingestion cases. Upstream cylinders are omitted for clarity.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Profiles of (a,b) normalised mean axial velocity u/U∞$u/U_{\infty }$; (c,d) normalised mean upwash velocity v/U∞$v/U_{\infty }$; (e,f) r.m.s. of axial velocity u′/U∞$u'/U_{\infty }$; (g,h) r.m.s. of upwash velocity v′/U∞$v'/U_{\infty }$ in the cylinder wake at (a,c,e,g) 0.5R$0.5R$ and (b,d,f,g) 0.1R$0.1R$ upstream of the propeller.

Figure 10

Figure 10. Figure 10 long description.Normalised phase averaged turbulent kinetic energy, TKE/U∞2$\mathrm{TKE}/U_{\infty }^2$, along the streamwise coordinate x/R$x/R$ for the isolated (a,b), SST (c,d) and LST (e,f) ingestion cases along the top shear layer of the cylinder, y/R=0.5+(dSST,dLST)$y/R = 0.5+(d_{\mathit{SST}}, d_{\mathit{LST}})$, and along the centre line of the cylinder, x/R=0.5$x/R=0.5$. Dashed lines mark the periodic shedding.

Figure 11

Figure 11. Surface contours of ϕuu(f,x)$\phi _{uu}(f,\,x)$, ϕvv(f,x)$\phi _{vv}(f,\,x)$ and ϕww(f,x)$\phi _{ww}(f,x)$ versus x/R$x/R$ for the (ac) SST and (df) LST ingestion cases along y/R=0.5$y/R = 0.5$.

Figure 12

Figure 12. Figure 12 long description.Comparison of normalised length scales Lu,x(x)$L_{u,\,x}(x)$, Lv,x(x)$L_{v,\,x}(x)$ and Lw,x(x)$L_{w,\,x}(x)$ between the isolated cylinder cases and (ac) the SST ingestion and (df) the LST ingestion cases extracted at three spanwise locations, z/R=0,0.5,1$z/R=0,\, 0.5,\, 1$.

Figure 13

Figure 13. Phase-dependent thrust coefficient CT(ψ)$C_T(\psi )$ of a singular blade for (a) isolated, (b) SST ingestion and (c) LST ingestion cases. The shaded area signifies the turbulence interaction region.

Figure 14

Figure 14. Comparison of power spectral density of thrust, ϕTT(f)$\phi _{TT}(f)$, between isolated, SST ingestion and LST ingestion cases with BPF−nf0$\text{BPF}- nf_{0}$ (none), and BPF+nf0$\text{BPF}+ nf_{0}$ (none) marked for n=1to3$n=1\,\mathrm{to}\,3$.

Figure 15

Figure 15. Phase-averaged r.m.s. of pressure fluctuation prms∗=prms/(ρUtip2)$p_{\mathit{rms}}^*=p_{\mathit{rms}}/(\rho U_{\mathit{tip}}^2)$ for (a) the isolated, (b) SST ingestion and (c) LST ingestion cases. The shaded area represents the cylinder with respect to the propeller disk.

Figure 16

Figure 16. Comparison of SPL spectra between isolated, SST ingestion and LST ingestion cases for the polar microphones corresponding to (a) θ=90∘$\theta =90^\circ$ and (b) θ=180∘$\theta =180^\circ$.

Figure 17

Figure 17. Spectral density contour plots as a function of far-field microphone position θ$\theta$ at all angles examined in this study.

Figure 18

Figure 18. Figure 18 long description.Directivities of propeller noise in terms of (a) OASPL (160Hz${160}\,\mathrm{Hz}$-10kHz${10}\,\mathrm{kHz}$), (b) first BPF (SPLm=1$\text{SPL}_{m=1}$) and (c) second BPF (SPLm=2$\text{SPL}_{m=2}$) for isolated, SST ingestion and LST ingestion cases.

Figure 19

Figure 19. Dilatation field, ∂p/∂t$\partial p/\partial t$, for the (a) isolated, (b) SST ingestion and (c) LST ingestion cases.

Figure 20

Figure 20. Lower hemisphere of the spherical far-field microphone array used for the noise-impact assessment and patchwise sound power level (PWL) calculation. The reference microphone used for the coherent output power (COP) analysis is marked by ×$\boldsymbol{\times }$ (propeller not to scale).

Figure 21

Figure 21. Figure 21 long description.Two- and three-dimensional views of the change in OASPL (Δ$\Delta$OASPL) over the noise hemisphere placed underneath the propeller–cylinder assembly for the (a,b) SST ingestion and (c,d) LST ingestion cases.

Figure 22

Figure 22. Sound pressure level of surface-pressure fluctuations for three frequencies of interest: (a) the BPF, (b) broadband, (c) high-frequency band showing the surface partitioning for contribution analysis.

Figure 23

Figure 23. Figure 23 long description.The PWL calculated using the microphone sphere for (a) all the propeller surfaces, and (bf) blade, LE, tip, TE and root, respectively) contributions from each surface as outlined in (g).

Figure 24

Figure 24. The COP contribution per unit of area (dB) at the upstream microphone for the pressure side at the first (a–c) and second (d–f) BPF and three broadband frequencies (go) for the isolated propeller (a,d,g,j,m), SST ingestion (b,e,h,k,n), LST ingestion (c,f,i,l,o).

Figure 25

Figure 25. The COP contribution per unit of area (dB) at the upstream microphone for the pressure side for BPF±f0, LST$\text{BPF}\pm f_{0,\textit{ LST}}$.

Figure 26

Figure 26. Time history of cylinder lift coefficient for the (a) SST ingestion, and (b) LST ingestion cases showing the modulation envelope. Shedding amplitude is noted.

Figure 27

Figure 27. Figure 27 long description.Space–time correlation coefficient, C12(ΔtBPF,r/R)$C_{12}(\Delta t \mathrm{BPF},\, r/R)$, of blade-to-blade sectional thrust coefficient for the (a) isolated, (b) SST ingestion and (c) LST ingestion cases.

Figure 28

Figure 28. Normalised MID integrated over carrier frequencies for the isolated, SST ingestion and LST ingestion cases.

Figure 29

Figure 29. Experimental contamination comparison of SPL at the observer located at θ=60∘$\theta =60^\circ$ between the background wind tunnel, unloaded motor and isolated propeller noise for the facility used for experimental validation.

Figure 30

Figure 30. Pressure coefficient (Cp$C_p$) taken on the surface of the cylinder for the isolated cylinder case and at five spanwise stations between z/R=−1.4$z/R=-1.4$ and z/R=1.4$z/R=1.4$ for the installed case, with comparison with experimental data from Fage & Falkner (1931) and Norberg (2003).

Figure 31

Figure 31. Figure 31 long description.Comparison of SPL spectra between isolated, SST ingestion, MST ingestion and LST ingestion cases for the polar microphones corresponding to (a) θ=90∘$\theta = 90^{\circ }$ and (b) θ=180∘$\theta = 180^{\circ }$.