Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Acoustics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust

Effect of chevron count and penetration on the acoustic characteristics

of chevron nozzles
P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Experimental investigations have been carried out on chevron nozzles to assess the importance of chev-
Received 20 February 2008 ron parameters such as the number of chevrons (chevron count) and chevron penetration. Acoustic mea-
Received in revised form 27 April 2009 surements such as overall sound pressure level, spectra, directivity, acoustic power, and broadband shock
Accepted 27 August 2009
noise have been made over a range of nozzle pressure ratio from sub-critical to underexpansion levels.
Available online 1 October 2009
Shadowgraph images of the shock-cell structure of jets from various chevron nozzles have also been cap-
tured for different nozzle pressure ratios. The results indicate that a higher chevron count with a lower
Keywords:
level of penetration yields the maximum noise suppression for low and medium nozzle pressure ratios.
Chevron nozzles
Jet aeroacoustics
Of all the geometries studied, chevron nozzle with eight lobes and 0° penetration angle gives the maxi-
Experimental investigation mum noise reduction. Chevron nozzles are found to be free from screech unlike regular nozzles. Acoustic
Noise reduction power index has been calculated to quantitatively evaluate the performance of the various chevron noz-
zles. Chevron count is the pertinent parameter for noise reduction at low nozzle pressure ratios, whereas
at high nozzle pressure ratios, chevron penetration is crucial. The results illustrate that by careful selec-
tion of chevron parameters substantial noise reduction can be achieved.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Noise standards around the world for aircraft have become
more stringent. Jet noise is a major source of aircraft noise, partic-
ularly during takeoff and landing. As an aircraft climbs to cruise
altitude, exhaust conditions may become underexpanded. Though
higher bypass ratio turbofan engines are considerably quieter than
turbojets, further reduction in noise is still desirable and will be-
come mandatory in the future. While designing noise reduction
strategies, the associated penalty such as increased weight, thrust
and performance losses of the engine have to be kept in mind.
Although, a substantial effort has been dedicated to the develop-
ment of passive jet noise reduction techniques, only a few signifi-
cant advances been practically made, since the advent of high
bypass turbofan engines. The techniques that have been the sub-
ject of research are chevron nozzles, pylon installations, tabbed
nozzles, multi-lobed mixers, deflector plates, castellated nozzles,
water injection, micro-jets, contoured plug-nozzle etc. Thrust pen-
alties associated with these nozzles must be minimized before
they can be used in commercial aircraft engines. In this context,
using a chevron nozzle is rather attractive from the standpoint of
simplicity in construction. Studies reveal that addition of chevrons
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 44 2257 4703; fax: +91 44 2257 4652.
E-mail addresses: tideps@gmail.com (P.S. Tide), ksri@iitm.ac.in (K. Srinivasan).
to the nozzle reduces the sound pressure level (SPL) dramatically
with acceptable reduction in performance.
Chevron nozzles have drawn a lot of attention recently as they
are currently one of the most popular passive jet noise reduction
devices. With serrated trailing edge geometry, chevron nozzles en-
hance the mixing between adjacent streams, reducing the velocity
gradient across the jet plume. The level of penetration of the indi-
vidual chevron lobes is lesser than that for the tabbed nozzles, and
hence the induced vorticity is weaker. Chevrons work by strength-
ening streamwise vortices that increase mixing within the plume
to enhance jet potential core decay. Although, enhanced mixing in-
creases the smaller scales of motion (slightly adds to the high fre-
quency noise), the breakdown of the larger scale turbulence into
small scale reduces the low frequency noise leading to the reduc-
tion in overall sound pressure level. The significance of the various
geometric chevron parameters such as chevron count, penetration,
asymmetry, profile for different nozzle pressure ratios remains un-
clear. When compared with other noise reduction technologies,
chevron nozzles are capable of effectively reducing engine exhaust
noise with minimal penalty on engine performance. Although
chevron nozzle seems to be an attractive solution to the problem
of jet noise, not much research, especially experimental work has
been done with chevron nozzles. Current focus seems to be in com-
putational aeroacoustics, due to the availability of very powerful
computers and vastly improved numerical methods. These tools
can be used to quickly evaluate preliminary designs from the noise

0003-682X/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2009.08.010
202 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220
reduction and performance points of view. Therefore, the present
study is aimed to augment the existing efforts to understand the
noise reduction behavior of chevron nozzles, experimentally. The
present results, for instance, can be used to validate computational
results and noise estimation codes. A review of the available liter-
ature on noise from jets issuing from regular and chevron nozzles
are presented in the next sub-sections.
1.1. Acoustic studies on chevron nozzles
Callender et al. [1] reported chevron nozzles as one of the
most feasible methods of reducing jet exhaust noise in medium
to high bypass turbofan engines. A baseline inner nozzle and
three chevron nozzles were experimentally investigated over a
wide range of operating conditions, including dual and single
flows. Chevrons with varying numbers of lobes and levels of
penetration were studied to understand the impact of these geo-
metric parameters on far-field acoustics. Spectral and directivity
Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental setup.
Fig. 2. Experimental setup in anechoic chamber, showing the jet facility and angular traversing system.
results from heated, coaxial jets showed that the chevron nozzles
were most effective at lower frequencies and at aft directivity
angles. Reductions in overall sound pressure level ranging from
3 to 6 dB were reported. Specifically, the chevron penetration
was determined to be a primary factor in controlling the tradeoff
between low-frequency reduction and high-frequency SPL
augmentation.
Bridges and Brown [2] studied a parametric family of chevron
nozzles, to unravel the relationships between chevron geometric
parameters, flow characteristics, and far-field noise. Tests were
conducted on both cold and hot jets at a subsonic Mach number
of 0.9. Four comparative studies were made by varying chevron
count, penetration, chevron length, and chevron symmetry. Chev-
ron penetration increased high frequency noise and reduced low
frequency noise, especially for low chevron counts. A high chevron
count resulted in good low frequency reductions without consider-
able high frequency penalty. It was shown that although the hot
jets differed systematically from the cold ones, the overall trends
with chevron parameters were the same.
Rask et al. [3] conducted experiments to determine the effect of
chevrons on the acoustic emissions from nozzles operating at
underexpanded conditions. Baseline and chevron nozzles were
tested on the primary stream in a coaxial nozzle configuration that
simulated a high bypass ratio engine exhaust and the secondary
stream was varied from quiescent condition to Mach 0.85. The
chevron nozzle was shown to result in lower shock noise levels
by 2.1 dB for Mach 0.85 condition. It was also found that the chev-
ron nozzle reduced the shock cell spacing, which led to a higher
frequency shock noise.
Brown and Bridges [4] examined the link between azimuthal
modes in jet turbulence and in the acoustic field in cold round jets.
Chevron nozzles imparted an azimuthal structure on the jet with a
shape dependent on the number, length and penetration angle of
the chevrons. It was found that, although the chevrons have a large
impact on the azimuthal shape of the mean axial velocity, the im-
pact of chevrons on the azimuthal structure of the fluctuating axial
velocity was small at the cold jet condition and still smaller at the
hot jet condition.
Callender et al. [5] conducted detailed investigations into the ef-
fect of chevron nozzles on the near-field acoustics of a separate
flow exhaust system. Chevron count and levels of penetration were
 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220 203

varied to provide insight into the effects of these parameters on the at pressure ratios of 2.4 and 3.3 (fully expanded Mach numbers of
acoustic near-field. The chevrons were found to be most effective 1.19 and 1.42). Spark schlieren visualization at different phases of
at lower frequencies where the peak noise region was reduced the screech cycle clearly brought out the convection of the orga-
by 5–7 dB. The nozzle penetration was observed to be most signif- nized turbulent structures over a train of shock waves. The poten-
icant than the number of chevron lobes for noise reduction in the tial pressure field associated with the organized structures was
near field. found to be fairly intense, extending outside the shear layer. A par-
Khritov et al. [6] presented experimental and computational re- tial interference between the upstream-propagating sound waves
sults devoted to turbulence jet noise for baseline nozzles, chevron and the downstream-propagating hydrodynamic waves was found
nozzles and coaxial nozzles with chevrons on both fan and core to be present along the jet boundary. The coherent fluctuations and
nozzles. It was found that the longitudinal vortices produced by the convective velocity of the organized vortices were found to be
the chevrons change the structure of large-scale turbulence inside modulated periodically.
the jet and reduces the noise level by 2.7 dB. Measurements of Raman [8] interrogated mechanisms for the cessation of screech
velocity and pressure fluctuations on the jet axis inside the poten- in a supersonic rectangular jet and provided an explanation. Exper-
tial jet core showed specific peaks in the spectrum for the baseline imental data were presented for fully expanded Mach numbers,
nozzle. Chevrons strongly suppressed the peaks in velocity and ranging from 1.1 to 1.9. Screech became unsteady beyond a Mach
pressure spectra and smoothened other parts of the spectra. Exper- number of 1.65 and ceased to exist beyond 1.75. Cessation occurs
iments also showed a weak influence of external flow on the jet because feedback to the jet lip is diminished due to excessive
noise level in a coaxial nozzle jet. expansion of the jet boundary. The reactivation of screech occured
when the nozzle lip thickness is made larger than the expanded jet
boundary. Information on screech helps prevent damages like so-
1.2. Screech studies nic fatigue problem in aircraft structures.
Tam et al. [9] studied the dependence of the instability wave
Panda [7] experimentally investigated the screech noise gener- spectrum on the azimuthal mode number, the jet to ambient gas
ation process from underexpanded jets issuing from a sonic nozzle temperature ratio and the jet Mach number. Their study provides
an explanation for the observed screech tone mode switch
Table 1
phenomenon (change from axisymmetric to helical mode with
Geometric details of the chevron nozzles.
increase in Mach number).
Nozzle ID Chevron Penetration Chevron Penetration Exit Norum [10] experimentally investigated the screech from
count angle (deg) length depth diameter
underexpanded supersonic jets and found multiple screech modes
(mm) (mm) (mm)
at most jet operating conditions. A large reduction of screech
Baseline 0 0 0 0 16.0
amplitude was obtained from modifications to the jet exit geome-
Chev ron4  0 4 0 10.88 0 16.0
Chev ron4  5 4 5 10.88 0.97 14.06 try, although the extent of this suppression is mode dependent.
Chev ron4  10 4 10 10.88 1.97 12.06 Tam [11] suggested that the weakest link of the screech feed-
Chev ron6  0 6 0 7.25 0 16.0 back loop is at the nozzle lip where feedback acoustic waves excite
Chev ron6  5 6 5 7.25 0.65 14.70 the instability waves. Unless the acoustic waves are sufficiently
Chev ron6  10 6 10 7.25 1.31 13.38
strong, the excitation process will not be able to generate an insta-
Chev ron8  0 8 0 5.44 0 16.0
Chev ron8  5 8 5 5.44 0.48 15.04
bility wave of sufficient amplitude to maintain the feedback loop.
Chev ron8  10 8 10 5.44 0.98 14.04 Murugappan and Gutmark [12] used schlieren flow visualiza-
tion technique to study the growth rate and mixing characteristics

Fig. 3. Photographs of the chevron nozzles investigated (Chevron count = 4, 6 and 8 and penetration = 0°, 5° and 10°).
204 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220

of a self-excited underexpanded jet. The underexpanded jet was ratios up to 7.4 and over a range of stagnation temperature ratios
excited at three characteristic frequencies that correspond to the from unity to 3.3, thus providing exit velocity ratios in the range
initial instability, a preferred mode, and a sub-preferred mode. of 0.35–2.8. The effects of temperature on mixing noise source
The spreading rate and turbulent flow characteristics resulting strengths were established by examining the data at 90° to the
from the three excitation frequencies were compared with the un-
forced baseline case. They observed that the growth rate and tur-
bulence level in the jet near field could be controlled
independently by exciting the jet at its different characteristic Z Rotating Arrangement
modes. on Traverse
Seiner and Yu [13] investigated the shock noise associated with
Microphone
unheated supersonic jets using a near field microphone array and a on fixture
single sensor wedge shaped hot film probe for both over and
underexpanded jets. The near field microphone correlations sug-
gest the existence of Doppler effect in the near field of the sources.
Also the broadband shock noise is found to propagate at small an- Nozzle Holder
gles to the jet axis. Y

1.3. Noise from supersonic jets

Measurement Plane
Tanna and Dean [14] experimentally investigated the influence Locus of X
of temperature on the acoustic field of supersonic, shock free jets Microphone
positions Jet flow direction
by measuring the turbulent mixing noise in the far field from four,
2-in. diameter nozzles. The nozzles were operated at pressure Fig. 5. Schematic of directivity measurement system.

Baseline Chevron4-0

<-10.88 ->

32 16

33

Chevron6-0 Chevron8-0

<-7.25-> <-5.44>

Fig. 4. Dimensions of the fabricated nozzles in millimetre (section plane passes through the chevron tip).
 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220 205

jet axis which minimizes the additional problem of convective 2.0 were reported by Tam et al. [15]. The agreements were found
amplification and refraction. to be good over inlet angle from 50° to 110°, where the fine-scale
Extensive comparisons between computed noise spectra and turbulence noise is dominant. The density gradient present in hot
measurements for hot jets over the Mach number range of 0.5– jets promotes the growth of Kelvin–Helmholtz instability in the

(a) 140 Baseline

(b) 140 Baseline
Chevron4-0 Chevron4-0
Chevron6-0 Chevron4-5
Chevron8-0 Chevron4-10
120 120
OASPL

OASPL
100 100

80 80
0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.8 0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.8
Mach number Mach number

(c) 140 Baseline

(d) 140 Baseline
Chevron6-0 Chevron8-0
Chevron6-5 Chevron8-5
Chevron6-10 Chevron8-10
120 120
OASPL

OASPL
100 100

80 80
0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.8 0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.8
Mach number Mach number

Fig. 6. Variation of overall sound pressure level with Mach number during blow-down.

NPR-1.5
(a) (b)
Baseline Chev4−0 Chev6−0 Chev8−0 Baseline Chev4−0 Chev4−5 Chev4−10
NPR − 1.5 NPR − 1.5

o o
150 30

120 60 120 120 60 120

SPL (dB) SPL (dB)

(c) (d)
Baseline Chev6−0 Chev6−5 Chev6−10 Baseline Chev8−0 Chev8−5 Chev8−10
NPR − 1.5 NPR − 1.5

120 60 120 120 60 120

SPL (dB) SPL (dB)

Fig. 7. Directivity of sound pressure for NPR = 1.5.

206 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220
jet mixing layer, which causes a higher level of turbulent mixing
and stronger turbulence fluctuations.
The near and far pressure fields generated by round, isothermal
and cold jets of diameter D = 38 mm were investigated experimen-
tally by Barre et al. [16]. Mach numbers of the study were in the
range 0:6 < Mj < 1:6. Characteristics of near-field jet noise, at 7.5
diameters from the jet centerline, were also documented. They
have also observed the classical dependence of jet noise features
with the emission angle.
Norum and Seiner [17] investigated broadband shock noise
from supersonic jets through acoustic measurements in both near
and far fields. The directivity of the broadband shock noise was
found to be pointed in the upstream direction, with omnidirection-
ality being approached only at high pressure ratios. The effect of
shock noise with respect to jet mixing noise was found to be more
for the pressure ratio at which a Mach disk begins to form in the
jet.
Panda and Seasholtz [18] measured the density field of under-
expanded supersonic free jets issuing from a choked circular noz-
zle using Rayleigh scattering based technique. The fully expanded
Mach number range of the jet was in between 0.99 and 1.8. A com-
parative study of schlieren photographs and time averaged density
data provided insight into the shock cell structures. The develop-
ment of jet shear layer and the decay of shock cells were obtained
from the radial profiles.
1.4. Studies on turbulence and noise
Tam et al. [19] developed a theory for the prediction of the radi-
ated noise from fine scale turbulence of jets and their theoretical
predictions agree well with the experimental measurements not
(a)
Baseline Chev4−0 Chev6−0 Chev8−0
NPR − 3
o o
150
140 80
SPL (dB)
(c)
Baseline Chev6−0 Chev6−5 Chev6−10
NPR − 3
140 80
SPL (dB)
Fig. 8. Directivity of sound pressure for NPR = 3.0.
only for the radiated noise but also for the noise distribution within
the jet.
A concept of beveled nozzle was proposed by Viswanathan [20],
and detailed aeroacoustic measurements were performed on two
nozzles of different bevel angles. The performances of the beveled
nozzles were assessed against a reference round nozzle. It was ob-
served that significant noise reduction was achieved in the azi-
muthal directions below the longer lip of the beveled nozzle,
principally in the polar angular range of 110–140°. Also, this reduc-
tion was observed at all frequencies, with a negligible performance
penalty.
Castelain et al. [21] experimentally studied the effect of micro-
jet injection (active jet noise technique) on noise reduction by
varying the number of micro-jets ðnÞ between 3 and 36 for a Mach
0.9 round jet. The SPL reduction increased approximately linearly
with the number of micro-jets between n ¼ 3 and 18 and maxi-
mum reduction was observed for n ¼ 18. Preliminary velocity
cross-field measurements, indicated that the mean velocity field
was regularly corrugated for n ¼ 18 with the corresponding spatial
frequency of impingement, which was not the case for n > 18. The
excessively close micro-jets interacted, leading to limited impact
on large-scale structures near the end of the potential core and al-
tered the scale of generated structures affecting both low-fre-
quency noise attenuation and high-frequency regeneration.
Doty et al. [22] conducted experiments with six bypass ratio
separate flow nozzle configurations using two independently con-
trolled air streams. Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) measure-
ments were made by adding seed particles in the flow field of
interest. The six configurations including a baseline configuration
with round core and fan nozzles were repeated by including pylon.
The presence of the pylon showed an increase in the upper shear
NPR-3.0
(b)
Baseline Chev4−0 Chev4−5 Chev4−10
NPR − 3
30
140 140 80 140
SPL (dB)
(d)
Baseline Chev8−0 Chev8−5 Chev8−10
NPR − 3
140 140 80 140
SPL (dB)
 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220
layer turbulence levels while simultaneously decreasing the turbu-
lence levels in the lower shear layer.
Lau et al. [23] presented velocity measurements in a 51 mm
diameter turbulent jet. Measurements made with laser velocime-
ter and hot wire anemometer were compared. A survey of the jet
flow field at Mach 0.28, 0.90 and 1.37 under ambient temperature
conditions were also made to obtain the radial and centerline dis-
tributions of the axial, radial, mean and fluctuating velocities.
Simonich et al. [24] reported a comprehensive far-field acous-
tics database for high subsonic, turbulent jets along with mean to-
tal pressure and temperature surveys in the flow field. The effect of
core jet temperature and of external co-flow on the far-field noise
and mean flow field characteristics were also investigated.
1.5. Objectives of the present work
Based on the review of the literature, it may be observed that
most of the studies have been on the flow features, mixing
enhancement and entrainment rate of round compressible turbu-
lent jets, and noise studies related to chevrons are very limited.
Further, to the knowledge of the authors, the noise characteristics
of jets emanating from nozzles with chevrons for sonic and super-
sonic flows are scarce in the literature. Hence, the lacuna of infor-
mation in the literature has motivated this study. Therefore, the
present study focuses on effect of different chevron parameters like
chevron count and chevron penetration on the noise from both
subsonic and underexpanded flows. The chevron count determines
the azimuthal spacing between the axial vortices, while chevron
penetration controls the strength of the axial vortices [2]. Acoustic
characteristics such as overall SPL, directivity, spectra, acoustic
power, broadband shock associated noise (BSAN) and screech fre-
quency are compared for the various chevron nozzles. Experiments
NPR-4.5
(a)
Baseline Chev4−0 Chev6−0 Chev8−0
NPR − 4.5
o o
150 30
150 90 150
SPL (dB)
(c)
Baseline Chev6−0 Chev6−5 Chev6−10
NPR − 4.5
150 90 150
SPL (dB)
Fig. 9. Directivity of sound pressure for NPR = 4.5.
207
are conducted for underexpanded sonic conditions with nozzle
pressure ratio (NPR) ranging from 1.5 to 5, in steps of 0.5. These
nozzle pressure ratios correspond to fully expanded jet Mach num-
bers in between 0.75 and 1.70.
2. Experimental setup and procedure
2.1. Test facility
The free-jet test facility is supplied with compressed air from
two tanks, each of capacity 10 m3 , pressurized using a 150 hp
two-stage reciprocating air-compressor. Air is brought to the set-
tling chamber through 4 in. plumbing. A needle valve is used for
controlling the stagnation pressure. The interior of the settling
chamber is arranged with flow conditioning meshes of progressive
fineness, for decreasing the initial turbulence level. Further, in
order to reduce the structure-borne acoustic disturbances, the in-
ner wall of the settling chamber is lined with acoustic foam. The
settling chamber is smoothly converged to 45.3 mm diameter
where the nozzles are mounted using a nozzle holder. This
whole setup is enclosed in an anechoic chamber of dimensions
2:5m  2m  2m (wedge tip-to-tip) to create a free field environ-
ment. The anechoic chamber uses polyurethane foam wedges as
anechoic surfaces and the lower cut-off frequency is 630 Hz. To
minimize internal reflections due to the traversing system and
other elements, acoustic foam is pasted on all reflective surfaces
present inside the anechoic chamber. The schematic and photo-
graph of the experimental setup are shown in Figs. 1 and 2,
respectively.
The reflections from the microphone mounting system, settling
chamber and angular traverse could produce standing waves and
introduce oscillations or wiggles in the spectra. As the reflections
(b)
Baseline Chev4−0 Chev4−5 Chev4−10
NPR − 4.5
150 90 150
SPL (dB)
(d)
Baseline Chev8−0 Chev8−5 Chev8−10
NPR − 4.5
150 90 150
SPL (dB)
208 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220
are geometry dependent, the prediction or calculation of the af-
fected frequencies are not possible. Hence, it is recognized that
the complete elimination of any reflection from the mounting sys-
tems are impossible. It is also known that jet noise spectra are
smooth and hence easy to identify the wiggles caused by reflec-
tions [25]. Sound propagating from a source in anechoic space
diminishes with distance because of wave spread and air absorp-
tion. With reflections, direct and reflected waves will add construc-
tively and destructively depending on the relative phase. This
resulting interference causes the sound decay to deviate from that
expected in anechoic space. However, broadband jet noise reflec-
tions interfere constructively with the direct sound on an energy
basis and hence all the walls are considered important [26]. The
reflections from the walls add energy (pressure squared) to the di-
rect sound rather than pressure amplitude as with tonal interfer-
ence. In addition, multiple reflections are considered negligible
because of wall absorption and distance decay. Since energy is al-
ways conserved the remaining energy that is not absorbed must be
either dissipated (e.g. in the form of heat) or transmitted into the
second medium. A microphone placed in the acoustic field will
Fig. 10. Shadowgraph images at nozzle pressure ratio of 3.5 and 5.0 for 0° chevron penetration.
generate interference and diffraction of the sound waves, which
causes a higher pressure at the diaphragm. The pressure increase
is particularly pronounced for sound waves that arrive perpendic-
ular to the diaphragm and have wavelengths less than the micro-
phone diameter. To compensate for this free field effect, the free
field microphones are constructed with internal damping of the
diaphragm that approximately cancels the pressure amplification.
The microphone is placed in the geometric and acoustic far field
of the sources depending on the dynamic range of the system.
2.2. Chevron nozzles
Chevron count and chevron penetration are varied to study
their effect on the overall sound pressure levels and frequency
spectra. Chevron penetration is the difference between the tip
and base radii of the chevron, and expressed as either the penetra-
tion depth or taper angle. The removable nozzles are attached on a
contoured contraction of upstream inner diameter of 40 mm and
downstream diameter of 20 mm. The various chevron nozzles
studied have triangular chevron lobes: Nozzles with four, six and
 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220
eight chevron lobes are cut at the trailing edge for studying the ef-
fect of chevron count. Effect of penetration is achieved by provid-
ing taper angles of 0°, 5° and 10° to the chevrons. Taper 0°
indicates that there is no penetration into the flow. The chevron
nozzles are compared with a baseline nozzle configuration without
chevrons, resulting in a collection of 10 nozzles altogether, and the
geometric details are presented in Table 1. In this table, nozzles are
referred using numeric codes; for instance, Chev ron4  5, denotes
four lobed chevron nozzle with 5° taper. The chevron nozzles are
fabricated by machining blank nozzles with the required taper
for the calculated length of the lobes, depending on the chevron
count. Notches are cut using wire electro-discharge machining
(EDM) with a 30° chamfer at the edges. These nozzles are finally
mounted on a contraction which is connected to the settling cham-
ber. Fig. 3 shows the photographs of different chevron geometries
considered in the present work. The dimensions of the baseline and
the chevron nozzles with 0° penetration are given in Fig. 4.
2.3. Data acquisition
Acoustic measurements are carried out using a quarter inch
pre-polarized condenser microphone (PCB model no. 377A01) with
Fig. 11. Shadowgraph images for nozzle pressure ratios of 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5 and 5 (from left to right).
209
a sensitivity of 4 mV/Pa at 250 Hz. The microphone signal is low-
pass filtered at 70 kHz using an analog filter (Krohn–Hite model
no. 3364) for anti-aliasing. The data is acquired at a sampling rate
of 150 kHz for one second using an eight-channel simultaneous
sampling card (National Instruments NI-PCI-6143). The directivity
measurements are carried out using a custom designed, automated
angular traversing system synchronized with the data acquisition
system. The microphone is fixed to the rotating boom of the angu-
lar traverse such that the microphone always points towards the
center of the jet exit while moving in a circular arc. The distance
between the center of the nozzle exit and the microphone is con-
stant. The angular traversing system is capable of moving with a
pre-set angular range and step size. The stepper motor of the tra-
verse is controlled by a stepper drive (National Instruments NI-
MID-7604) and the motion is automated using LabView 7.1
software.
Blow-down test is performed to obtain the variation of screech
frequency with Mach number for all the geometries. For these
tests, the microphone is placed at 25Dj (diameter of the jet) at an
angle of 90° to the jet axis. Throughout the blow-down, the stagna-
tion pressure data is obtained continuously using a piezo-resistive
pressure transducer (Endevco model no. 8510C-100) mounted
210 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220

inside the settling chamber. In addition to these tests, directivity microphone is moved in the range 30 6 h 6 150 , halting at regu-
studies are performed with the aid of an angular traversing ma- lar intervals of 2° to acquire data. All angular measurements are ta-
chine for 60 receiver locations. For obtaining the directivity, the ken in the counterclockwise direction from the jet axis. The

(a) 2 (b) 2

Dimensionless shock length

Dimensionless shock length

1.5 1.5

1 1

Baseline Baseline
0.5 Chevron4−0 0.5 Chevron4−0
Chevron6−0 Chevron4−5
Chevron8−0 Chevron4−10
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Nozzle Pressure Ratio Nozzle Pressure Ratio

(c) 2 (d) 2
Dimensionless shock length

Dimensionless shock length

1.5 1.5

1 1

Baseline Baseline
0.5 Chevron6−0 0.5 Chevron8−0
Chevron6−5 Chevron8−5
Chevron6−10 Chevron8−10
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Nozzle Pressure Ratio Nozzle Pressure Ratio

Fig. 12. Variation of dimensionless shock length with NPR.

Fig. 13. Slice power calculation procedure.

 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220 211

measurement planes for far field directivity studies are shown in tra. This corresponds to about 2.3 acoustic wavelengths when mea-
Fig. 5, where the microphones are placed at a distance of 25 jet surements are taken at 25Dj from the nozzle exit. Although, far-
diameter from the centre of the nozzle exit. It is observed that field would demand about 10 wavelengths, this limitation is
the dominant energies are contained beyond 2 kHz from the spec- brought about by the measurement environment in the laboratory.

NPR-1.5
(a) 2.5 (b) 2.5
Baseline Baseline
Chevron4-0 Chevron4-0
2.0 2.0
Slice Power (mW)

Slice Power (mW)

Chevron6-0 Chevron4-5
Chevron8-0 Chevron4-10
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Emission angle Emission angle

(c) 2.5 (d) 2.5

Baseline Baseline
Chevron6-0 Chevron8-0
2.0 2.0
Slice Power (mW)

Slice Power (mW)

Chevron6-5 Chevron8-5
Chevron6-10 Chevron8-10
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Emission angle Emission angle

Fig. 14. Variation of slice power with emission angle for NPR = 1.5.

NPR-4.5
(a) 2.5
Baseline
(b) 2.5
Baseline
Chevron4-0 Chevron4-0
2.0 Chevron6-0 2.0 Chevron4-5
Slice Power (W)

Slice Power (W)

Chevron8-0 Chevron4-10
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Emission angle Emission angle

(c) 2.5
Baseline (d) 2.5 Baseline
Chevron6-0 Chevron8-0
2.0 Chevron6-5 2.0 Chevron8-5
Slice Power (W)

Slice Power (W)

Chevron6-10 Chevron8-10
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 00
0 40 80 120 160 40 80 120 160
Emission angle Emission angle

Fig. 15. Variation of slice power with emission angle for NPR = 4.5.
212 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220

2.4. Uncertainty estimates
The diameters of the nozzles used for the present study are
within the range of D  0:05 mm for all the configurations fabri-
cated. The stagnation pressure in the settling chamber is main-
tained with an accuracy of ±2% of full scale. The repeatability
tests showed that the frequencies and noise levels are repeatable
within ±73 Hz and ±1 dB, respectively. These values are arrived at
by conducting experiments for various conditions inside the anec-
hoic chamber, settling chamber and traversing system covered
with and without foam, etc. The error in the microphone position-
ing is ±0.5 mm. The piezo-resistive pressure transducer used in
blow-down test to obtain the stagnation pressure data has an
uncertainty of ±0.2% of full scale. The anechoic room temperature

(a) 2.0 (b) 2.5

Chevron4-0

Acoustic Power Index

Chevron4-0
Acoustic Power Index

Chevron6-0 No noise Chevron4-5

Chevron8-0 benefit 2.0 Chevron4-10
1.5 No noise
benefit
1.5
1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mach number Mach number

(c) 2.0 (d) 2.0

Chevron6-0 Chevron8-0
Acoustic Power Index

Acoustic Power Index

Chevron6-5 No noise Chevron8-5 No noise

Chevron6-10 benefit Chevron8-10 benefit
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mach number Mach number

Fig. 16. Acoustic power index variation with Mach number.

(a) 0.2 (b) 0.25

Baseline Baseline
Acoustic efficiency (%)

Acoustic efficiency (%)

Chevron4-0 Chevron4-0
0.2
0.15 Chevron6-0 Chevron4-5
Chevron8-0 Chevron4-10
0.15
0.1
0.1

0.05
0.05

0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mach number Mach number

(c) 0.2 (d) 0.2

Baseline Baseline
Acoustic efficiency (%)

Acoustic efficiency (%)

Chevron6-0 Chevron8-0
0.15 Chevron6-5 0.15 Chevron8-5
Chevron6-10 Chevron8-10

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mach number Mach number

Fig. 17. Variation of acoustic efficiency with Mach number.

P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220 213

Fig. 18. Frequency spectra of various jets at NPR = 1.5.

Fig. 19. Frequency spectra of various jets at NPR = 3.

214 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220
is almost constant with a maximum temperature variation of
±0.5 °C for each experiment. The anechoic chamber is calibrated
and has a lower cut-off frequency of 630 Hz.
3. Results and discussion
The acoustic data is acquired from the microphones at a sam-
pling rate of 150 kHz using an eight-channel simultaneous sam-
pling card. The spectra is obtained by processing the time series
data using MATLAB 7.0 script. The mean of the data is subtracted
from the signals. A FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) bin size of 2048
is considered for obtaining the spectra, yielding a frequency reso-
lution of 73 Hz. Hanning window is used for each data block. The
amplitude is expressed in terms of power spectral density (PSD)
in Pa2 =Hz. The results are organized as follows: The variation of
overall sound pressure level with Mach number during blow-down
for various nozzles are discussed first. It is followed by directivity
studies, flow visualization and acoustic power studies of chevron
nozzles. In the end, frequency spectra and broadband shock associ-
ated noise obtained for all the nozzle configurations are discussed.
3.1. Sound pressure level variation with Mach number
Sound pressure levels for the chevron nozzles are compared
with that of the baseline nozzle for various Mach numbers ob-
tained at a receiver location of 90° to the jet axis. It is clearly seen
from Fig. 6a that there is a considerable reduction in SPL (approx-
imately 4 dB) for the chevron nozzle with eight lobes and 0° pen-
etration. Chevron nozzles with four lobes have only a marginal
reduction in overall SPL of approximately 1 dB at this emission an-
gle ðh ¼ 90 Þ. For Mach numbers in between 0.9 and 1.2, the four
lobed chevron nozzles are even noisier than the baseline nozzle
Fig. 20. Frequency spectra of various jets at NPR = 4.5.
by approximately 1 dB (Fig. 6b). The baseline round nozzle is nois-
ier when it screeches in the range of Mach number from 1.25 to
1.5. Chevron nozzles with six lobes show a reduction of approxi-
mately 2 dB for all Mach numbers except in the transonic range
(Fig.6c). It is found that noise generation in the flow emanating
from the baseline nozzle in the transonic range (NPR < 2) is less
when compared to four and six lobed chevron nozzles. The reason
for such behaviour is that the jet flow is almost correctly expanded
at this nozzle pressure ratio with very mild shocks. Here, the dom-
inant noise component is the turbulence mixing noise generated
between the jet flow and ambient fluid. At a higher pressure ratio
of approximately 3, screech is dominant in the baseline nozzle
while it is absent in all the other nozzles. This causes the baseline
nozzle to be noisier when compared with other nozzle configura-
tions. With further increase in NPR, screech ceases to operate in
the baseline nozzle. Then, the major contributors for the jet noise
are broadband shock associated noise and Mach wave radiations.
Even under these conditions, the baseline nozzle is noisier than
the chevron nozzle configurations.
Four lobed chevron nozzles with 5° and 10° penetration give
only marginal noise reduction at most of the Mach numbers. All
the six lobed chevron nozzles exhibit a better noise reduction in
the entire range of Mach number except, in the transonic region.
Although a marginal difference in the noise level is observed
among the six lobed chevron nozzles, 5° taper chevron nozzle
ðChev ron6  5Þ exhibits a better noise reduction benefit. Of all
the chevron configurations considered, eight lobed chevron nozzle
with 0° penetration shows the maximum noise reduction (Fig. 6d).
This is primarily due to the enhanced mixing action induced by the
streamwise vortices in the chevron nozzles with a higher chevron
count. The jet emanating from the eight lobed chevron nozzle in-
duces eight pairs of counter-rotating streamwise vortices which
enhance mixing, when compared to four and six pairs of vortices
 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220
generated from the four and six lobed chevron nozzles. This is con-
sistent with the observation of Bridges and Brown [2] that the
chevron count has a significant impact on the noise reduction.
Eight lobed chevron nozzles with 5° and 10° penetration are nois-
ier when compared with 0° taper nozzle, but less noisier than the
baseline nozzle. It is clear that the chevron changes the flow con-
siderably due to the enhanced mixing due to the sharp trailing cor-
ners which induce vortices into the flow. The strength of these
vortices is highly dependent on the penetration of the lobes into
the flow. With a higher penetration, more aggressive mixing takes
place, which results in a higher level of turbulence immediately
downstream of the nozzle [3]. This significantly increases the high
frequency noise and sometimes makes it noisier than a lower pen-
etration nozzle.
3.2. Directivity of sound pressure
The overall sound pressure level measured at different emis-
sion angles ranging from 30° to 150° are compared with the
chevron nozzle configurations in Figs. 7–9. The microphone is al-
lowed to move in a circular arc at a constant radius of 25Dj and
record the acoustic pressure fluctuations at 60 receiver locations,
as described in the data acquisition section. The results in these
figures correspond to nozzle pressure ratios of 1.5, 3.0 and 4.5,
with fully expanded jet Mach numbers of 0.75, 1.35 and 1.65,
respectively.
Figs. 7a, 8a and 9a show the directivity of the baseline nozzle for
nozzle pressure ratios of 1.5, 3.0 and 4.5 respectively. As expected,
Fig. 21. Colour maps of SPL variation with frequency and stagnation pressure (gauge).
215
the baseline nozzle is most directive at a classical value of 30° to
the jet axis. It is observed that at NPR = 3, the sound pressure level
obtained for the baseline nozzle is very high at the aft receivers
ðh > 90 Þ and even comparable with the forward receivers
ðh 6 90 Þ. This is due to screech in the baseline nozzle at this nozzle
pressure ratio. In the downstream direction of the jet, turbulent
mixing noise is more dominant, whereas in the upstream direction,
the broadband shock associated noise is more intense. It is evident
from Fig. 7b–d that the chevron nozzles show a directivity at 50°,
as opposed to 30° for the baseline nozzle. As the acoustic wave-
front propagates, it gets tilted due to the mean flow refraction ef-
fect [27]. Hence, lesser sound is radiated in the direction of flow
creating a relatively quiet region around the jet axis. The increase
in directivity angle for the chevron nozzles demonstrate that the
flow pattern and the noise generating sources, their locations,
and the mechanisms are completely altered by the addition of
chevrons.
It is observed that the forward (downstream) receivers record
higher sound pressure levels compared to aft (upstream) receivers
for all the chevron nozzle configurations, irrespective of the nozzle
pressure ratio. At higher nozzle pressure ratios, the fully expanded
jet Mach number is supersonic and the quadrupoles are convected
downstream by the mean flow at a relatively high speed. These
moving sources tend to radiate more noise in the direction of mo-
tion (source convection effect) and the effect is more pronounced
at higher jet speeds [27]. Thus, the noise levels are higher in the
downstream receivers. Baseline nozzle also shows the same trend
except in the screeching zone. Screech is observed only in the
216 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220
baseline nozzle for a NPR in between 2.35 and 3.30. Since screech
is due to a feedback loop involving the flow disturbances and
acoustic waves, these agents are effective only in an azimuthally
homogenous topology. Since the chevron configuration discretely
cuts out the azimuthal homogeneity at the nozzle lip, the feedback
loops are not sustained in such configurations. Hence, screech is
not observed in any of the chevron nozzle configurations.
The overall sound pressure levels for the chevron nozzles with
four lobes are seen to be marginally higher than that of the base-
line nozzle for the forward receivers, except at 30° (Figs. 8b and
9b). Chevron nozzle with six lobes shows a noise reduction of
3 dB for the forward receivers and 2 dB for the aft receivers (Figs.
8c and 9c). The same trend is also observed in chevron nozzles
with eight lobes, except for the fact that the forward receivers give
the maximum acoustic benefit of 4 dB. In all the tests conducted, it
is found that eight lobed chevron nozzles are quieter than all the
other nozzle configurations including the baseline nozzle, for all
the emission angles measured (Figs. 8d and 9d). At low nozzle
pressure ratios, chevron nozzles with four lobes with a penetration
of 5° and 10° produce more noise when compared with the
Chev ron4  0 nozzle. For a lower chevron count, individual chev-
ron lobe length is larger (since all the chevron lobes are equilateral)
and therefore, the intrusion into the flow is higher with the in-
creased penetration. This causes an aggressive mixing in the down-
stream direction of the flow increasing noise. Also, the turbulent
mixing noise is more dominant and hence four lobed chevron noz-
zles (induce only four pairs of counter-rotating vortices) provide
Fig. 22. Colour maps of SPL variation with frequency and emission angle at NPR = 4.5.
less acoustic benefit when compared to the other chevron nozzles.
On the other hand, chevron nozzles with six lobes and eight lobes
with taper angles 5° and 10° yield a noise reduction of approxi-
mately 2 dB and 4 dB respectively. With relatively high chevron
count, more pairs of counter-rotating vortices are generated and
the level of mixing between the jet and the free stream is signifi-
cantly increased. This leads to low frequency noise reduction at
lower penetration angles and nozzle pressure ratios.
At higher NPR, the chevron nozzles with higher penetration
provide a better noise reduction benefit at all emission angles,
especially for the forward receivers. It has been observed that the
shock cell length decreases with increase in chevron penetration
and is discussed in a later section. Although the mixing is aggres-
sive for higher penetration angles, the shock associated noise is
more dominant than the turbulent mixing noise and hence the
higher penetration chevron nozzles show better acoustic benefit
at higher nozzle pressure ratios.
The present study has a limited parametric variation as the fab-
rication errors seem to dominate with increase in chevron count
beyond eight lobes. The experimental study of Callender et al. [1]
on chevron nozzles showed better noise reduction benefit for eight
lobed chevron nozzle when compared with 12 lobed chevron noz-
zle. Although the number of counter rotating streamwise vortices
are higher in 12 lobed chevron nozzle, the azimuthal spacing of
these vortices are less. Near the chevron end, the vortex pairs pro-
duced by the chevrons on either side start to interact. The magni-
tudes of the vortices generated are the same, however, the
 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220 217

Fig. 23. Waterfall spectra showing spectral variations during blow-down for baseline and chevron nozzles with 0° penetration.

8 180
Baseline
Chevron4-0
Chevron6-0
6 140
Emission angle

Chevron8-0
Screech Amplitude

4 100

2 60

Fundamental frequency
First harmonic
0 20
20 60 100 140 180 0 10 20 30 40
Emission angle Frequency (kHz)

Fig. 24. Variation of screech amplitude with emission angle for baseline nozzle. Fig. 25. Variation of broadband frequency with emission angle for baseline and
chevron nozzles with 0° penetration at NPR = 3.0.

circulations are of opposite nature. This leads to the annihilation of
some of these vortices at a certain distance from the chevron end
as they are closely spaced. This might be the reason for eight lobed
chevron nozzles to give better noise reduction benefit when com-
pared to 12 lobed chevron nozzle configurations. It emerges from
the various investigations on chevron nozzles that there is no con-
sensus on how chevrons actually work and on how they can be
optimized. It has been observed that the chevron count varies
the azimuthal spacing of the axial vortices achieving low frequency
reductions without a high frequency penalty [2].
3.3. Flow visualization
Shadowgraph imaging arrangement is used to capture the
shock structure in the jets emanating from the different nozzle
configurations. The objective of this exercise is to qualitatively
evaluate the shock structure in the jets and relate them to the noise
generation in each case. A projector lamp is used to illuminate the
flow and the pin-hole is covered with a layer of translucent paper
to make the light diffuse. The light passes through a lens placed at
twice its focal length from the pin-hole. The shadowgraph images
218 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220
are captured sequentially using a high speed digital camera
(Mikrotron Model no. 1302 CMOS Type) for the different nozzle
pressure ratios. Fig. 10 compares the shock structures in jets ema-
nating from baseline, four, six and eight lobed chevron nozzles for
NPR’s of 3.5 and 5. The shock cell structure of an underexpanded
jet is formed by an alternating sequence of expansion fans and ob-
lique shocks. The expansion fans are initiated at the nozzle lip be-
cause of the mismatch of the static pressures inside and outside of
the jet. The expansion fan or shock propagates across the jet until it
impinges on the mixing layer on the other side, where it gets re-
flected back into the jet as compression waves, and vice-versa. This
process repeats many times downstream, until it gets dissipated by
turbulence. These repeated reflections of the shock/expansion fan
by the mixing layer of the jet give rise to quasi-periodic shock cells.
Tam [11] considered the shock cell structure as disturbances
trapped inside the jet bounded by the mixing layer, and the jet flow
behaving like a waveguide for the disturbances.
It is seen that barrel shocks [18] are formed in the baseline noz-
zle with a strong Mach disk at the centre of the jet in the first shock
cell. The first shock cell of the baseline nozzle at NPR = 5.0 is 1:75Dj
and the length decreases with decrease in NPR. It is also observed
that the shock cell length reduces with increase in the penetration
angle and chevron count. The expansion region is denoted by ‘E’,
and compression region by ‘C’ in Fig. 10 for the baseline nozzle.
Chevron nozzles with four lobes do not seem to produce a Mach
disk, but the first pair of oblique shocks are stronger with a larger
shock angle. The length of the first shock cell ð1:56Dj Þ is shorter
when compared with the baseline configuration. For six and eight
lobed chevron nozzles, the oblique shocks are weaker when com-
pared to baseline nozzle and have smaller shock angle with
increasing chevron count. The strength of the oblique shock is min-
imum for eight lobed chevron nozzles and this may be the primary
reason for the reduction in overall sound pressure level. The shad-
owgraph images of all the nozzles tested, for various nozzle pres-
sure ratios (NPR = 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0) are shown in Fig. 11.
The increase in the shock cell length with an increase in nozzle
pressure ratio for all the nozzles is clearly seen in this figure. In
addition, the shock cell length decreases with an increase in the
penetration angle. This can be due to the stronger vortices gener-
ated from high penetrating chevron nozzles reducing the shock
strength. The dimensionless shock length ‘Ls =D’ for the first shock
cell for the different chevron nozzles is given in Fig. 12, where Ls
is the first shock cell length and D is the diameter of the nozzle.
It is observed that four lobed chevron nozzles have larger shock
cells when compared to six and eight lobed chevron nozzles. The
difference in the shock cell lengths for eight lobed chevron nozzles
with different penetration is marginal whereas considerable differ-
ence is observed among four lobed chevron nozzles. It can be in-
ferred that the higher chevron count reduces the effect of
penetration in the structure of shock cells for the chevron nozzles.
From the shadowgraph images, it is clear that at NPR = 5, a
strong Mach disk is formed only in the case of baseline nozzle. It
is known from the literature that shock noise radiation reaches
maximum level when a strong Mach disk is present [11] and thus,
all chevron nozzles exhibit shock-noise reduction, since Mach
disks are either weak or absent (for the range of NPR studied).
Additionally, it is a generally accepted fact that shock cells are
not stationary [3]. Their interaction with turbulence causes them
to oscillate back and forth slightly in the streamwise direction. This
jitter increases in the downstream direction and acts to increase
the spectral width of the shock noise. Additional reasons for shock
oscillation are ðiÞ the periodic pressure perturbation from passing
sound waves, ðiiÞ the pressure fluctuation associated with the pas-
sage of the large organized structure along the jet shear layer and
ðiiiÞ the distortion of supersonic–subsonic interface in the jet shear
layer [28]. It is also seen that the shock cell pattern behind a chev-
ron nozzle dissipates faster than that is behind a baseline nozzle
and is consistent with the observations of Rask et al. [29]. In addi-
tion, shock cell spacing for chevron configuration is less than that
for the baseline configuration.
3.4. Slice power directivity
The acoustic power in a given slice area termed as slice power,
is the product of the intensity and the corresponding slice area. The
slice power calculation procedure, indicating the emission angle
and the slice area on the measurement surface is shown in
Fig. 13. The intensity signifies the rate at which energy is crossing
unit surface area at a point. Such angular representation of the
acoustic power is important in evaluating practical noise reduction
strategies. The slice power variation with emission angles for the
different chevron nozzles are presented in Figs. 14 and 15. The to-
tal acoustic power is obtained by summing up the slice power over
the entire spherical measurement surface. The peak value of slice
power is observed at an emission angle of 50° for all chevron noz-
zle configurations, irrespective of the nozzle pressure ratio. How-
ever, in the case of baseline nozzle, the peak value of slice power
is observed at an emission angle of 30° for a NPR of 1.5 and 4.5.
In addition, a second peak is also observed at an emission angle
of 50° at NPR = 4.5 which can be due to the effect of nonlinearity
in the noise sources. At a nozzle pressure ratio of 3.0, although
the slice power peaks at 30° for the forward receivers, the maxi-
mum occurs at an aft angle of 140° due to the predominance of
screech in the upstream direction. The slice power increases by
50% during screech which in turn increases the noise level consid-
erably for the baseline configuration.
Of all the nozzle configurations studied, the chevron nozzle
with eight lobes and 0° penetration has the least slice power at
all emission angles, irrespective of the nozzle pressure ratio. The
slice power seems to be independent of the chevron penetration
for a higher chevron count, as more pairs of counter-rotating vor-
tices are created which enhance the mixing and reduce noise.
Among the six lobed chevron nozzles, Chev ron6  0 shows the
least slice power at a lower pressure ratio and Chev ron6  10, at
a higher pressure ratio. The four lobed chevron nozzles show a
similar trend for the slice power. It may be inferred that penetra-
tion into the flow decreases the slice power at a higher nozzle pres-
sure ratio for lower chevron count. The reason for the above
variation in slice power is due to the enhanced mixing caused by
the vortices of higher strength, reducing shock strength and there-
by noise. Also, the slice power increases with an increase in the
nozzle pressure ratio due to the higher kinetic energy of the jet
enhancing the acoustic power.
3.5. Acoustic power index
Acoustic power index (API) is defined as the ratio of the total
acoustic power from a given chevron nozzle to the total acoustic
power of the baseline nozzle for the same emission angle and noz-
zle pressure ratio. Fig. 16a–d shows the variation of API with Mach
number for various chevron nozzles at NPR = 3. Lower the API, bet-
ter is the acoustic benefit offered by the nozzle. For 0° taper chev-
rons, API is highest for the four lobed chevron nozzle and least for
the eight lobed chevron nozzle. Also, it is seen that the minimum
value of API occurs at a Mach number close to 1.5, which falls in
the screeching zone, where the total acoustic power developed
by the baseline nozzle is a maximum. Further, the power index
peaks somewhere in the transonic range where the baseline nozzle
seems to generate minimum noise and thereby minimum total
power. All the four lobed chevron configurations have API values
higher than unity in most of the regions, and hence offer the least
acoustic benefit. Six lobed chevron nozzles are beneficial at all
 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220
Mach numbers except in the transonic region, where the baseline
nozzle is quiet. The API values for all the eight lobed chevron noz-
zles are in the acoustic benefit region and show the maximum
effectiveness in noise reduction.
3.6. Acoustic efficiency
Acoustic efficiency is defined as the ratio of the total acoustic
output power to the input power represented by the kinetic energy
of the jet. The kinetic energy of the jet can be obtained as
0:5  m_  U 2j , where m
_ is the choked mass flow rate and U j is the exit
velocity of jet from the nozzle. Since the kinetic energy of jet con-
verted into acoustic energy is significantly small, the magnitude of
acoustic efficiency is usually less than 1%. It is found from Fig. 17a–
d that the baseline nozzle and four lobed chevron nozzles have the
maximum acoustic efficiency of approximately 0.2%. The maxi-
mum efficiency for the chevron nozzles with six lobes and eight
lobes are 0.15% and 0.12% respectively. The nozzle with least
acoustic efficiency gives the maximum noise reduction benefit as
the conversion of kinetic energy into acoustic energy is minimum.
It is also seen that the efficiency peaks at a Mach number of 1.5 for
the baseline nozzle due to the existence of screech. Of all the eight
lobed chevron nozzles, a least acoustic efficiency of 0.09% is
achieved with the Chev ron8  0 which offers significant noise
reduction.
3.7. Acoustic spectra
Figs. 18–20 show the power spectral density (PSD) with re-
spect to frequency for all the nozzle configurations at h ¼ 40
for nozzle pressure ratios of 1.5, 3.0 and 4.5 respectively. The
low frequency region shows a higher value of PSD of the order
of 102 Pa2 =Hz and the high frequency region shows a decreasing
trend at a nozzle pressure ratio of 1.5 (Fig. 18a–d). At this nozzle
pressure ratio, the turbulent mixing noise seems to be more dom-
inant. From these spectra it can be clearly seen that the chevron
nozzle with eight lobes and zero taper angle gives the lowest PSD
when compared with all the other nozzle configurations. As the
nozzle pressure ratio is increased to 3.0 as observed in
Fig. 19a–d, the baseline nozzle starts to screech to give a maxi-
mum PSD amplitude of the order of 106 Pa2 =Hz and with the
chevron nozzles it is of the order of 104 Pa2 =Hz. This results in
noise reduction benefits in this range of nozzle pressure ratio
for all the chevron nozzle configurations. The baseline nozzle
emits screech tones at this nozzle pressure ratio, as seen in the
spectra. The turbulent mixing noise contributes to the broadband
peak to the left of the screech frequency. A distinct spectral hump
to the right of the screech tone is the broadband shock associated
noise, which is a dominant component in the upstream direction
[11]. For a nozzle pressure ratio of 4.5 as shown in Fig. 20a–d, the
broadband shock associated noise becomes predominant than the
turbulent mixing noise.
The colour maps of SPL variation with frequency and stagnation
pressure are shown in Fig. 21. The fundamental frequency and the
first three harmonics are clearly visible for the baseline nozzle. The
harmonics are produced by nonlinear effects such as source non-
linearity and propagation nonlinearity. Since the chevron nozzles
are free from screech, they are not visible, except for the broad-
band peaks. The broadband peaks are broader for the chevron noz-
zles with a lower chevron count. Fig. 22 shows the variation in
BSAN frequency at various emission angles for different nozzle
pressure ratios. It can be seen that the variation of frequency is
hyperbolic and more pronounced in all the configurations except
for the four lobed chevron configuration. BSAN peak frequency de-
creases with an increase in the emission angle. In the colour maps,
the red region corresponds to high amplitudes of PSD, and the blue
219
regions represent low amplitudes. As seen from the figure, the aft
receivers contribute for the low frequency noise where as the for-
ward receivers contribute for the high frequency noise. In addition,
the turbulent mixing noise is predominant at lower emission
angles.
Waterfall plots for the baseline and chevron nozzles are shown
in Fig. 23. The waterfall spectra clearly brings out the variation of
sound pressure level with stagnation pressure. In the case of base-
line nozzle, the sharp lines due to screech, occurs at a fundamental
frequency of approximately 10 kHz and two of its harmonics at
approximately 20 kHz and 30 kHz. In addition to screech, one more
non-harmonic mode with a lower amplitude is seen in the plot.
The fundamental screech mode shows an intense amplitude and
is observed only for a NPR in between 2.35 and 3.30, while the
non-harmonic mode with a much lower amplitude is found at all
nozzle pressure ratios above 2.45. BSAN is seen in the frequency
range of 10–40 kHz. Tam [11] has observed that the dominant
screech mode changes with the jet Mach number. The broadband
peaks exhibit a higher amplitude for chevron nozzles with eight
lobes and the least for chevron nozzles with four lobes.
3.8. Broadband shock associated noise
Chevron nozzles are found to generate broadband shock asso-
ciated noise for nozzle pressure ratios greater than two and hence
it is important to study the effect of BSAN with emission angle.
Harper-Bourne and Fisher [30] have treated screech tones as a
special case of BSAN, formed by the weakest link of feedback
loop, to obtain the theoretical estimates of the peak BSAN fre-
quency. BSAN is recognized by a hump in the acoustic spectrum
and the corresponding frequency is identified as the BSAN center
frequency. The broadband shock associated noise is generated by
the weak interaction between the downstream propagating large
turbulence structures of the jet flow and the quasi-periodic shock
cell structure [11]. Fig. 24 shows the comparison of screech
amplitude of the baseline nozzle with respect to the emission an-
gle for both fundamental frequency and first harmonic. The
screech amplitude for the fundamental frequency is the lowest
at an emission angle of 70°. At that emission angle the screech
amplitude of the first harmonic is the maximum. It is reported
that the fundamental screech tone radiates primarily in the up-
stream direction, whereas the principal direction of radiation of
the first harmonic is at 90° to the jet flow direction [10]. The dis-
tortion of the waveform (nonlinear propagation effects) creates
higher harmonics at the expense of the fundamental in the up-
stream direction. The first harmonic shows another strong radia-
tion at approximately 90° to the jet flow direction. The
conventional notion is that the first harmonic in this direction
is produced by the nonlinearity of the noise source. Also the
thickness of the nozzle lip has an influence on the tonal SPL but
not on the tonal frequency.
Fig. 25 shows the variation of BSAN peak frequency with the
emission angle for the baseline and chevron nozzle configurations.
It can be seen that BSAN frequency of the round jet issuing from
the baseline nozzle is lower than that of the chevron nozzles. This
is due to the fact that the BSAN frequency is inversely related to
shock cell length, which, in turn, is directly related to the geometric
dimensions of the nozzle. In a chevron nozzle jet, the characteristic
length scales are shorter than that of a round baseline nozzle jet.
Therefore, the shock cell lengths are also lesser, as seen in the
shadowgraph pictures discussed earlier. The major region for
broadband shock noise production occurs in the vicinity of the
end of the jet plume’s initial mixing region [15]. Also the broad-
band shock associated noise is radiated at large angles to the jet
axis.
220 P.S. Tide, K. Srinivasan / Applied Acoustics 71 (2010) 201–220
4. Conclusions
Extensive experiments have been conducted on chevron noz-
zles over a range of nozzle pressure ratio, with chevron count
and penetration as parameters. Acoustic characteristics such as
overall SPL, spectra, directivity, power, and broadband noise have
been studied. The results indicate that a higher chevron count with
a lower level of penetration yields the maximum noise reduction
for low and medium nozzle pressure ratios. While the four lobed
chevron nozzle reduces noise by 1 dB, the six and eight lobed chev-
ron nozzles achieve 2 dB and 4 dB reduction, respectively. Of all the
geometries tested, chevron nozzle with eight lobes and 0° taper
gives the maximum noise reduction. Chevrons with four lobes
and taper angles 5° and 10° produce more noise when compared
to the baseline nozzle at low values of NPR. Higher values of pen-
etration sometimes render the chevron nozzle to be noisier than
the baseline nozzle as the mixing becomes aggressive with in-
crease in penetration angle. However, at higher values of NPR,
the chevron nozzles with higher penetration show better noise
reduction for all emission angles. It may be inferred that chevron
count is the more relevant parameter for noise reduction at low
nozzle pressure ratios and at high nozzle pressure ratios chevron
penetration plays a crucial role.
The noise benefits achievable in chevron nozzles are more
conspicuous in the range of nozzle pressure ratio, where the
baseline circular nozzle screeches. All chevron nozzles studied
in this work are free from screech. This is due to the disruption
of the feedback loop by the altered trailing edge of chevron noz-
zle. Shadowgraph pictures of chevron nozzles give an insight into
the shock structure for various nozzle configurations. These
images indicate that shocks in the shock-cells of chevron nozzles
are weaker even at high nozzle pressure ratios sufficient to gen-
erate strong Mach disks in the baseline nozzle. The shock cell
length is seen to decrease with increase in the chevron count
as well as penetration.
Directivity studies show that chevron nozzles are directive at
50° emission angle in contrast to the classical value of 30° for the
baseline nozzle. It is also observed that the forward angles are
noisier compared to aft angles for all chevron configurations, irre-
spective of nozzle pressure ratio. This is due to the dominance of
turbulent mixing noise and source convection effect. It is seen that
BSAN frequency of jet from baseline nozzle is lower than that of
chevron nozzle as it is inversely related to the shock cell length.
Acoustic efficiencies for all the chevron nozzles are found to be
less than 1%. The least value of acoustic efficiency is achieved by
eight lobed chevron nozzle with 0° taper. This nozzle also gener-
ates the least slice power at all emission angles for all the nozzle
configurations tested. Acoustic power index (API) has been calcu-
lated to quantitatively evaluate the performance of chevron noz-
zles. API is the highest for four lobed chevron nozzle and the
least for eight lobed chevron nozzle.
In summary, it is clear that the chevron nozzle is a promising
passive method for noise reduction, and by careful selection of
these parameters such as chevron count and penetration, consider-
able noise reduction benefit can be attained.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable
comments and suggestions.
References
[1] Callender B, Gutmark E, Martens S. Far-field acoustic investigation into
chevron nozzle mechanisms and trends. AIAA J 2005;43:87–95.
[2] Bridges J, Brown CA. Parametric testing of chevrons on single flow hot jets.
AIAA-2004-2824.
[3] Rask OH, Gutmark EJ, Martens S. Broadband shock associated noise
suppression by chevrons. AIAA-2006-9.
[4] Brown CA, Bridges J. Acoustic efficiency of azimuthal modes in jet using
chevron nozzles. AIAA-2006-2654.
[5] Callender B, Gutmark E, Martens S. Near-field investigation of chevron nozzle
mechanisms. AIAA J 2008;46(1):36–45.
[6] Khritov KM, Kozlov VY, Krasheninnikov SY, Lebedev AB, Lyubimov DA, Maslov
VP, et al. On the prediction of turbulent jet noise using traditional aeroacoustic
methods. Int J Aeroacoust 2005;4:289–324.
[7] Panda J. An experimental investigation of screech noise generation. J Fluid
Mech 1999;378:71–96.
[8] Raman G. Cessation of screech in underexpanded jets. J Fluid Mech
1997;336:69–90.
[9] Tam CKW, Ahuja KK, Jones RR. Screech tones from free and ducted supersonic
jets. AIAA J 1994;32(5):917–22.
[10] Norum TD. Screech suppression in supersonic jets. AIAA J 1983;21(2):235–40.
[11] Tam CKW. Supersonic jet noise. Annual Rev Fluid Mech 1995;27:17–43.
[12] Murugappan S, Gutmark E. Flowfield and mixing control of an underexpanded
jet. AIAA J 2004;42(8):1612–21.
[13] Seiner JM, Yu CJ. Acoustic near-field properties associated with broadband
shock noise. AIAA J 1984;22(9):1207–15.
[14] Tanna HK, Dean PD. The influence of temperature on shock-free supersonic jet
noise. J Sound Vib 1975;39(4):429–60.
[15] Tam CKW, Pastouchenko NN, Schlinker RH. Noise source distribution in
supersonic jets. J Sound Vib 2006;291:192–201.
[16] Barre S, Fleury V, Bogey C, Bailly C, Juve D. Experimental study of the
properties of near-field and far-field jet noise. AIAA 2006-2649.
[17] Norum TD, Seiner JM. Broadband shock noise from supersonic jets. AIAA J
1982;20(1):68–73.
[18] Panda J, Seasholtz RG. Measurement of shock structure and shock-vortex
interaction in underexpanded jets using rayleigh scattering. Phy Fluids
1999;11(12):3761–77.
[19] Tam CKW, Pastouchenko NN, Viswanathan K. Fine-scale turbulence noise from
hot jets. AIAA J 2005;43(8):1675–83.
[20] Viswanathan K. Nozzle shaping for reduction of jet noise from single jets. AIAA
J 2005;43(5):1008–22.
[21] Castelain T, Sunyach M, Juve D, Bera JC. Jet-noise reduction by impinging
microjets: an acoustic investigation testing microjet parameters. AIAA J
2008;46(5):1081–7.
[22] Doty MJ, Henderson BS, Kinzie KW. Turbulent flow field measurement of
separate flow round and chevron nozzles with pylon interaction using particle
image velocimetry. AIAA-2004-2826.
[23] Lau JC, Morris PJ, Fisher MJ. Measurements in subsonic and supersonic free jets
using a laser velocimeter. J Fluid Mech 1979;93:1–27.
[24] Simonich JC, Narayanan S, Barber TJ, Nishimura M. Acoustic characterization,
noise reduction and dimensional scaling effects of high subsonic jets. AIAA J
2001;39(11):2062–9.
[25] Viswanathan K. Instrumentation considerations for accurate jet noise
measurements. AIAA J 2006;44(6):1137–49.
[26] Mueller TJ. Aeroacoustic measurements. Berlin (Germany): Springer-Verlag;
2002.
[27] Tam CKW. Jet noise: Since 1952. Theor Comp Fluid Dyn 1998;10:393–405.
[28] Panda J. Shock oscillation in underexpanded screeching jets. J Fluid Mech
1998;363:173–98.
[29] Rask OH, Gutmark EJ, Martens S. Shock cell modification due to chevrons.
AIAA-2007-831.
[30] Harper-Bourne M, Fisher MJ. The noise from shock waves in supersonic jets.
Noise mechanisms, AGARD-CP-131;1974. p. 11.1–3.