3.1. Calaulation Results of Flow Field
The study set the entrance boundary condition as the velocity entrance. The velocity was taken as a torpedo navigation speed of 19 m/s. The torpedo wall was set as no-slip condition, and the outer field boundary was set as no-shear condition. To provide a better initial field for the transient calculation to converge and stabilize faster, the standard k–e model was first selected for steady-state calculation. In the steady-state calculation section, the broadband noise source model was turned on to perform a preliminary estimation and analysis of the entire fluid domain sound field. The results are shown in
Figure 3a.
The accuracy of noise data obtained from the broadband noise source model simulation is not high because it uses a constant Reynolds averaging model to calculate the noise. However, this model has a natural advantage in quickly determining the location of noise source. The sound power level diagram shows that the noise source is mainly concentrated in the torpedo head and wake vortex area behind the torpedo tail. A comparison with the turbulent kinetic energy shows that the noise generation region highly overlaps with the turbulence concentration region, and it can be assumed that the noise mainly originates from the turbulence region.
Based on the results of steady-state calculations, an LES with a Smagorinsky–Lilly subgrid scale model was used to carry out the transient solution process, and the calculation time step was set to
s according to the grid size and acoustic conditions. The Q criterion was used to describe the vortex structure of transient flow field, as shown in
Figure 4. It was found that the vortex structure is concentrated at the rear of the torpedo blade, which corresponds to the abovementioned sound power level distribution and turbulent kinetic energy distribution, indicating that the vortex structure is closely related to the generation of flow noise and is the cause of flow noise.
3.2. Calculation Results of Flow Noise
According to the acoustic solution theory, sound sources can be divided into three types: monopole, dipole, and quadrupole sources. In the flow field radiation noise, the noise caused by turbulent phenomena such as boundary layer and vortex development in the flow field is a quadrupole noise source, and the vehicle wall pressure pulsation caused by turbulent activity is a dipole noise source. Monopole and dipole noises are surface sources, whereas quadrupole noise is a volume source. Some studies reported that when the flow velocity is low, the surface–source noise can be mainly considered, and the volume–source noise is neglected. Therefore, most researchers do not consider the quadrupole source when solving and directly use the vehicle wall pulsation pressure as the source excitation for calculation. However, the underwater vehicle is faster. The quadrupole noise ratio may increase in this case, and the flow field results calculated in the previous section may improve. The underwater vehicle has a large wake vortex area, which is filled with large and small vortices, and its generation, development, and breaking inevitably generate noise. Therefore, it can be inferred that the noise calculation in this region cannot ignore the influence of quadrupole noise source generated by the vortex motion. A comparative analysis of the study was performed using wall pulsation pressure and Lighthill volume sound source as the excitation for acoustic calculations. For all the results reported in this paper, the reference sound pressure is taken as Pa.
3.2.1. Calculation Results for Pulsating Pressure Excition
In the case where the pulsating pressure on wall is used as the excitation, the vehicle wall pressure pulsation is extracted from the flow field data and used as a boundary condition for further calculation. The extracted wall pressure pulsation at some frequencies is shown in
Figure 5, and the unit was set to dB.
Figure 5 shows that the pulsating pressure distribution on the wall of underwater vehicle is inextricably related to the distribution of vortex region of flow field, and there is a high pulsating pressure distribution in the vortex-dense area of both the leading and trailing edges of underwater vehicle, more obvious at the trailing edge. It is easy to observe that the pulsating pressure on the vehicle wall is higher in the low-frequency part and lower in the high-frequency part. For the same frequency, the underwater vehicle has a large pulsating pressure area in the wake region, which is caused by the wake vortex area. Below 500 Hz, as the frequency increases, the large pulsating pressure region in the tail gradually decreases, and by around 500 Hz, it decreases to a very small portion and does not change much until higher frequencies are applied. Large vortices have a greater impact on the low-frequency noise situation, while small vortices affect the high-frequency noise results. A comparison of the vortex structure diagram of transient flow field can lead to the conclusion that large vortices play a major role in generating the pulsating pressure on the vehicle wall.
Figure 6a shows the calculation results of sound pressure at monitoring points 1, 2, and 3. It can be observed that the spectral characteristics of sound pressure levels at these monitoring points are very similar, although monitoring point 2 is located above the axis, while monitoring points 1 and 3 are symmetrically distributed on both sides of the axis. This indicates that the acoustic radiation distribution at the front of the underwater vehicle is approximately the same in all the directions. This can be explained by the absence of substantial vortex and turbulence properties in the front, which would not produce a large source of stream noise. In addition, the amplitude and trend of the frequency domain distribution curves of sound pressure at symmetric monitoring points (e.g., receivers 6 and 7 and receivers 8–11) are almost the same, although there is a certain directionality at the corresponding frequency values.
Several representative monitoring points were selected to compare the changes in sound pressure levels along the flow direction, as shown in
Figure 6. In the case where the pulsating pressure is the excitation, the sound pressure level substantially varies along the flow direction, with the highest value of about 135 dB in the low-frequency part and also around 90 dB in the high-frequency part at several monitoring points (receivers 1–5) at the front of underwater vehicle. By the middle of the underwater vehicle (receivers 6 and 7), the sound pressure level improved considerably, probably by about 6 dB, and in the whole tail section of underwater vehicle and the subsequent part of the area (receivers 8–14), the sound pressure level increased integrally by about 8 dB. The highest value of low-frequency part in this region is about 150 dB, whereas the high-frequency part is also about 110 dB.
The sound pressure distribution diagram of the middle section of underwater vehicle can show the sound field radiation more clearly, as shown in
Figure 7. The sound pressure level shows a general trend of gradually decreasing with increasing frequency, but a small increase in sound pressure level might have occurred at some frequencies. The highest values of sound pressure levels appear around the blades in the wake of torpedo, which is due to the complex shape of blades and the tendency to obtain stronger disturbances in the flow. The change in sound pressure along the radius direction does not always decrease, indicating the oscillatory nature of sound waves.
3.2.2. Calculation Results for Lighthill Volume Excition
The calculation results for the Lighthill volume as an acoustic excitation are shown in
Figure 8, and a comparison of the calculation results regarding Lighthill and pulsating pressure is shown in
Figure 9. Except for monitoring point 13 in the tail vortex area, the comparisons of the rest (monitoring points 1–12 and 14) are not very different, and they all show a greater sound pressure level of the calculation results from the pulsating pressure as the excitation. Therefore, only the cases of monitoring points 1 and 13 are shown in
Figure 9. When the difference in sound pressure level is 20 dB, the difference in sound pressure is at least one order of magnitude (as Equation (
8)), so it is reasonable for researchers to ignore quadrupole sources in fluid-radiated noise calculations and consider pulsating pressure alone as a dipole source, slightly affecting the calculation results.
where
L is the sound pressure level;
p is the sound pressure;
is the reference sound pressure, taken as
Pa.
In one case at monitoring point 13, the calculated sound pressure level for Lighthill volume excitation within 200 Hz is substantially higher than the calculation results for pulsating pressure excitation, verifying our assumption that the quadrupole source has non-negligibility in some regions due to very intense vortex activity at a higher velocity flow. Of course, for most applications, appropriate neglect can simplify the calculation process and provide acceptable results.
3.3. Coupling Calculation and Structural Radiation Noise Analysis
To fully characterize the radiated noise of underwater vehicle, the relevant structure-radiated noise calculations were also carried out. In structure-radiated noise calculations, the structure is considered as an elastomer, which deforms and vibrates under the pulsating pressure at the vehicle wall and acts as a radiated noise source. Therefore, the structural mesh is imported, and the pulsating pressure is applied to the solid surface for coupled calculations. When the deformation of the surface of structure is small, the changes in flow field caused by the deformation of structure are negligible. Therefore, only the action of the fluid on the solid can be considered to simplify the calculation process, while ensuring the accuracy and precision of the calculation.
In this section, the results of flow field calculations are used as input boundary conditions for subsequent related calculations, and the computational domain is still taken as a spherical region of the same size. To simulate the shell vibration of a realistic underwater vehicle, the interior of underwater vehicle shown in
Figure 1a was selectively hollowed out with a shell thickness of 20 mm. The material is set to Aluminum alloy with a Young’s modulus of
, Poisson’s ratio of 0.33, and density of
, and its intersection was set to the coupling surface.
Using the vehicle wall pressure pulsation data as a boundary condition, coupled calculations were carried out to obtain the vibration displacement of underwater vehicle, as shown in
Figure 10. The results show that under the effect of wall pulsation pressure, the vibration displacements throughout the solid domain are similar to the wall pressure pulsation distribution, both showing a trend towards larger values in the low-frequency part and smaller values in the high-frequency part. At 50 Hz, the underwater vehicle’s stern section reached a maximum vibration displacement of the order of
m, while the high-frequency section is much less than this. For example, the maximum vibration displacement of a 750 Hz torpedo is only in the order of
m. It is precise because the low-frequency part of vibration is more intense, and the large eddies can be considered to play a crucial role while generating the vibration.
The mean square vibration speed characteristics of underwater vehicle were obtained, as shown in
Figure 11. In general, the mean square speed decreases as the frequency increases, i.e., the mean square speed is generally higher in the low-frequency part than in the high-frequency band. The results of other researchers show that the location of peak frequency point is only related to the structural model itself and is not related to the strength of flow excitation vibration at different flow velocities. Therefore, it can be assumed that the larger peak vibration velocity points for this structural underwater vehicle are located roughly at the frequency points of 300 Hz, 850 Hz, 1400 Hz, and 1850 Hz.
The frequency domain distribution curve of the structure’s radiated noise shows distinctly different characteristics from the flow field radiated noise, showing a more pronounced vibration profile.
Several representative monitoring points were selected to show the frequency domain curves of sound pressure levels at their locations, as shown in
Figure 12. It can be observed that whether the monitoring point is located at the leading, middle, or trailing edge of underwater vehicle, the structure-radiated noise has several corresponding peaks, all corresponding to the same frequency and peak frequency corresponding to the mean square vibration speed characteristic of torpedo. It can be inferred that this characteristic is related to the structure of underwater vehicle, and it is an inherent characteristic. From the sound pressure level curves of each monitoring point, it can be observed that the structure-radiated noise is not very much related to distribution along the flow direction. Most of the monitoring points have the same trend and amplitude. In the low-frequency part, most of them are located around 125 dB, and the main peak points are located around 130 dB. Compared to the central part of underwater vehicle (receivers 4–7), the sound pressure levels at the leading edge of underwater vehicle (receivers 1–3) are in contrast larger than those at the trailing edge, which is an important feature that clearly differs from the fluid-radiated noise. In the high-frequency part, the sound pressure levels are also around 100 dB. In addition, monitoring point 13 has consistently higher sound pressure levels in fluid-radiated noise and lower values in structure-radiated noise, indicating that structure-radiated noise is very different from fluid-radiated noise in terms of propagation direction.
For Monitoring Points 1, 2, and 3, the sound pressure level frequency domain distribution curves are shown in
Figure 12a. Apart from the obvious peak in the curve, the sound pressure levels at monitoring point 2 are substantially different from the other two monitoring points. After the peak sound pressure level point at 1400 Hz, the sound pressure level in the high-frequency part of monitoring point 2 decreased below 90 dB, while the sound pressure level of the other two monitoring points remained at around 100 dB. After comparing the curves of monitoring points in the trailing edge section (shown in
Figure 12e), it is demonstrated that the structure radiates less noise in the direction of axis of the underwater vehicle, which is particularly noticeable at high frequencies.
To facilitate further analysis of radiation characteristics of sound field, a cloud of sound pressure levels for structure-radiated noise generated by structural vibration due to pulsating pressure at the vehicle wall is given in
Figure 13. It can be observed that the pulsating sound pressure cloud at 100 Hz is a left-right symmetrical pattern, which is due to the axisymmetrical shape of underwater vehicle, i.e., the low-frequency band has a stronger acoustic directivity at the head and tail, but the blade section radiates more widely, indicating that the tail is more directive than the head of underwater vehicle. Above 100 Hz, the sound field gradually becomes more “flap-like”, and the flap-like features become more pronounced as the frequency increases. When the frequency reaches 2000 Hz, the “flap-like” distribution is already very dense. As the frequency increases further, the “flap-like” features gradually develop to the left and right, and this flap-like feature, which characterizes the fluctuation and oscillation of sound pressure, often leads to a lower sound pressure level region in the direction of underwater vehicle axis.