T.C.

KIRIKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ

FEN BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ

KIRIKKA
LE-2021
 Abstract

When the gun is fired, supersonic propellant gas is expelled from the gun barrel. Because of the
supersonic speed, an unsteady flow field with high temperature, pressure, and speed forms
around the muzzle. The flow field and noise created by the blast waves were investigated
because this unsteady turbulence flow is the source of impulsive noise, which has a variety of
negative effects.

The primary goal of this research is to investigate the effect of suppressors on muzzle blast
overpressure reduction and its effect on a sound volume using a Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) model. The Navier-Stokes equations are used in the calculations, which are based on 3D
axisymmetric, unsteady, large eddy simulation (LES), with the Wall Adaptive Local Eddy-
viscosity (WALE) model accounting for subgrid-scale. The implicit-time formulation for
acoustic simulation was used to solve the Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkins (FW-H) equations.
The second-order upwind scheme was used for spatial discretization. The validity analysis was
carried out by comparing the findings to those of other studies.

The wave dynamics and pressure variation of the blast flow field were analysed and discussed
using numerical simulations. The simulation is performed without the projectile effect for field-
flow analysis. The effect of key parameters such as suppressor length, diameter, number of
baffles, and baffle geometry was also considered. Finally, the results were compared between
suppressors and without suppressor conditions.

Keywords: Overpressure reduction, Proppellant flow, Flow noise, Suppressor, Large-eddy

simulation and Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings acoustic theory.

Introduction
What is the science of sound?

Waves are created when energy is transferred through a medium like water or air. There are two
types of waves, transverse and longitudinal (pressure) waves. A sound wave is a longitudinal
wave where the disturbance moves in the same direction as the wave. [1] Sound is pressure,
density and temperature variations that progress through a medium-like air or water. The speed
of sound is largely dependent on the sound medium where the waves propagate and on
surrounding conditions. Temperature, pressure and other outside factors influence the
interactions between sound waves and particles.

When a weapon is fired, it produces three types of sound. These come from the projectile, the
working parts, and the propellant gas expansion into the atmosphere. All of these areas must be
considered if a weapon is to be suppressed.

When a bullet travels at supersonic speeds, it creates a 'crack' as it breaks the sound barrier.
When the projectile collides with the target, an additional sound is produced on the majority of
occasions. The second one is when the trigger is pulled, many parts of the weapon move in order
for the bullet to be fired. The third type is produced by the rapid expansion of superheated, high-
pressure propellant gas as it is ejected into the much cooler atmosphere. When a shot is fired, the
gas produced by the burning propellant causes a buildup of pressure within the barrel, which
forces the bullet out. The gas is then released from the barrel into the atmosphere, causing a
shockwave to form behind the projectile. The sound is produced as a result of a pressure
fluctuation caused by the release of the projectile. This noise can be reduced by attaching a
suppressor to the weapon, which allows exhaust to expand before being released into the
atmosphere. Attunating this noise by using a suppressor is the main focus of this study.

When a gun is fired, it produces a lot of noise, which propagates in the form of a blast wave. The
intensity and magnitude of the noise will vary greatly depending on the type and size of the
weapon. The intensity of the impulsive wave increases as the muzzle energy increases. [18] [21]
The noise produced by a gun causes significant structural damage as well as effects on human
bodies and the environment. Noise can cause auditory hearing loss and non-auditory health
effects (e.g., hypertension, nervous disorders, etc.), interfere with speech, disturb sleep, affect
children's school performance, cause changes in wildlife behavior, decrease real estate values,
and affect historical and archaeological sites through induced structural vibrations.
Why use a suppressor?

By providing a large volume for gas expansion, a suppressor can reduce both the pressure and
the speed of the gas at the barrel exit. The suppressor also allows the gas to be released slowly
into the atmosphere. This slower, more controlled release at a lower pressure results in lower
sound pressure. The only way to eliminate the sound is to reduce the gas pressure from the firing
pressure to atmospheric conditions, which are nearly impossible to achieve.

Background of a suppressor

Overpressure suppression devices for firearms have been known and used for some time, dating
back to the turn of the century. Around 1902, Hiram Percy Maxim, an American inventor,
invented and sold the first commercially successful silencer. On March 30, 1909, he received his
patent. [2]

Pressing the trigger of a weapon initiates a chain reaction of events that causes one or more
bullets to be fired. The trigger causes a firing pin to be released, which strikes a cartridge
containing a primer, powder, and bullet. The primer ignites and combusts the powder, causing
the bullet to exit the barrel. High temperatures and pressure are produced as a result of ignition.
The muzzle blast is produced by the propellant gas that follows the bullet as it exits the barrel.
When the pressure wave reaches the barrel, it makes a loud noise when it comes into contact
with the external environment. [3] Suppressors are used to reduce the noise produced by the
muzzle blast flow. To achieve maximum pressure reduction, suppressors must be specially
designed to allow gun gases to expand into chamber volumes.

As it leaves the muzzle, the projectile is followed by what appears to be a violent eruption of
propellant gases. 'This eruption is called muzzle blast. The blast is a gas activity that adheres to a
definite sequence of events. It is a jet of short duration formed by hot, high-pressure gases that
follows a well-defined series of stages as it grows and decays. Descriptively, a muzzle blast is a
system of normal and oblique shock waves that form the boundaries of the region in which the
principal expanding and cooling of gases occur. Surrounding the shock boundary is a turbulent
shell and outside this shell is a turbulent "smoke ring" that moves radially and advances.

Four operations determine the effectiveness of a noise suppressor

 1. It should cool the muzzle gases to the temperature that would quench the burning gases
and later prevent reignition.
2. It should mix muzzle gases with air gradually to prevent atmospheric oxygen from
supporting combustion.
3. It should decelerate the muzzle gases to prevent shock-front formation.
4. It should retain the gases until they become relatively cool through expansion thus
preventing shock-front temperature increases;

Operations 1, 2, and 4 prevent secondary flash and thus the noise associated with it. Operation 3
has inherent noise producing capabilities. To be successful, any one or a combination of the four
operations must be incorporated in a suppressor. Cooling will occur if the gas flow is checked
long enough at a heat sink for heat to transfer by convection and conduction, or by adiabatic
expansion in a changing area flow passage. Gradual mixing can be arranged by progressive
venting downstream. Deceleration and retention 2re to be had by changing the cross-sectional
area of the directed flow passage.

No specific procedures or data now exist for designing a sound suppressor for any given gun but
work is currently being done in this area. The above data indicate that the divergent convergent
passage does suppress sound but is still not as effective as the baffle or absorbent material type
silencers.

Suppressors are currently used on both large and small caliber guns for a variety of purposes.
The primary goal of overpressure suppression in large caliber guns is to reduce the effects of
blast on structures and supporting vehicles; however, in small caliber guns, the main objective of
the overpressure attenuation is to reduce the magnitude of the explosion to minimize hearing
effect. And the development of the silencer for large caliber weapon systems has been based on
experimental work and the development of empirical databases. [2] [5]

According to (Maccarthy et al., 2011) , the use of moderators has several advantages, including
the prevention of hearing loss and tinnitus, increased accuracy (in many, but not all cases),
limiting the ability of the barrel to whip on firing and influencing the release of gas in the wake
of an exiting projectile, reduced perceived recoil (by up to 40%), and reduced stock disturbance,
particularly in hunting animals. The disadvantages are also stated in this paper, such as the
possibility of falling into the hands of a criminal and others related to the cost, weight, and shift
in balance-point or center of gravity further away from the firearm user, which manifests as an
unwanted moment of force. [6]

The majority of sound moderators use the same basic design, which was pioneered by Hiram
Maxim in 1910. An expansion chamber is used first, followed by a series of baffles. The
projectile first passes through the expansion chamber, where the majority of the initial high-
pressure gas is trapped in fixed volume space. This gas, now moving at a slower rate, continues
to trail the projectile, filling the space between each baffle. By the time the gasses leave the
moderator, they have been slowed and trapped to the point where they no longer emit a loud
sound report. [7]

When a gun is fired, the gas produced by the burning propellant causes a buildup of pressure
within the barrel, which forces the bullet out. Following that, the gas is released from the barrel
into the atmosphere, creating a shock wave behind the projectile. [8]

The sound produced by firearms has several distinct features and properties, including high-
frequency, short-duration impulsive noise,[4][7] strong directivity, and long-range propagation.
[5] Because of these unique characteristics, it can easily reach out to surrounding areas and
communities.

When a projectile accelerated by high-temperature, high-pressure propellant gas shoots out, a

muzzle blast wave of high-intensity sound pressure is created. The level of impulsive noise
increases as the weapon system's muzzle energy increases. The investigation of noise levels at
various distances from the test site revealed that impulsive sound can be heard from ten miles
away. When compared to other sounds, the impulsive sound has several distinct characteristics
and properties, including high energy, impulsiveness, low frequency, strong directivity, and
long-range propagation. [15]

Because of its association with the strong unsteadiness at the barrel's exit, the muzzle flow field
induced by a supersonic projectile is very complicated. [9] The gases that emerge from the
muzzle of a gun after the projectile has been fired are usually accompanied by an intense flash of
light known as muzzle flash. As a result, the primary flash is nothing more than an extension of
the hot, highly compressed gas inside the barrel. Because the muzzle gas pressure to ambient
pressure ratio is very high, the emerging gases expand adiabatically and cool down, causing the
luminosity to disappear and a dark zone to form. The gases are overexpanded at this point and
then decompressed by passing through a shock front. This recompression again raises the gas
temperature. [10]

As a result, a thorough examination of the muzzle brake's influence is required to control the
shock wave and secondary combustion of the muzzle flow. [12] After the projectile base exits
the muzzle, a high-temperature, high-pressure propellant gas is released into the surrounding air,
resulting in an unsteady flow containing a variety of undesirable phenomena such as blast waves,
acoustic waves, pressure waves, electromagnetic radiation, muzzle flash, and smoke.
Furthermore, the expulsion of a column of air out of the barrel ahead of the projectile creates a
precursor flow field, which complicates the muzzle flow due to the precursor gas blast shock.
[13]

A muzzle blast wave is produced by the powder gas pressure. The muzzle blast, particularly near
the firing chamber, has two main characteristics that set it apart from other types of noise: it has
a high amplitude and a short duration. The positive impulse duration for large caliber guns is a
few milliseconds; for small caliber weapon systems, the positive pulse duration may be less than
0.5 milliseconds. . [16] [4] [17] In general, the impulse noise of small caliber weapons is
concentrated in the 500-1000 Hz frequency range, whereas the impulse noise of large
caliber weapons is concentrated in the low-frequency range of less than 200 Hz. Numerous
studies on the design of suppressors are aimed at reducing the frequency of gunshot noise. [16]
[18]

The flow field around the muzzle of a gun barrel is complicated by flow phenomena such as
expansion waves, compression waves, shocks, shear layers, and blast waves. [16] [19] The firing
sound is a combination of several acoustic waves produced by four main components: the
gunpowder gas flow muzzle wave, the shock wave produced by supersonic projectile movement,
the air column ejected from the gun barrel in front of the projectile, and the acoustic wave
produced by the collision of gun parts during the firing process. . [19] As muzzle energy
increases, so does the level of impulse noise. [16]

The specific phenomena that occur during gunfire are caused by high powder gas energy.
Those specific phenomena are high-intensity overpressure, high temperature, and high gas flow
velocity. These phenomena could produce manifestations,
even at distances greater than 100 calibers from the muzzle. [20] The firing sound is a
combination of several acoustic waves produced by four major components: the gunpowder gas
flow muzzle wave, the shock wave produced by supersonic projectile movement, the air column
ejected from the gun barrel in front of the projectile, and the acoustic wave produced by gun
parts colliding during the firing process. [21]

The attachment with the parallel suppressor can be classified into two types. The most common
type is the external or muzzle suppressor, which can be easily attached and removed from the
barrel via threads or a coupling device The Integral suppressor is an alternative suppressor
which attaches around the barrel. In most cases, holes are drilled into the barrel to allow gas to
enter the suppressor's body. The problem of integral suppressors is the fouling within the
suppressor by un-burnt propellant.

There are a lot of things that affect the performance of the silencer, either positively or
negatively.

1. Changing silencer port position down the barrel

2. Changing silencer volume
3. Changing the size of the ports through the barrel wall

Principles behind a suppressor

A suppressor is built on three principles that can be combined to create the most effective model
for the situation.

1. Energy Absorption
2. Energy Dissipation
3. Energy Containment
1. Energy Absorption

Heat is transferred from the hot propellant gas to the cool metal of the sound suppressor and its
contents using energy-absorbing devices such as wire mesh. As in the baffle design, the wire
mesh disrupts the column of gas while also acting as a heat sink to cool the hot gas. This heat
transfer reduces the ability of the gas to do work by reducing its energy, and thus reduces the
sound emitted. Maximizing surface area and using a heat sink help to achieve maximum heat
transfer. The gas is allowed to escape from the barrel into the chamber, where it is absorbed by
the wire mesh. Lowering the temperature of the gas lowers its pressure and, as a result, the sound
levels.

2. Energy Dissipation

Deceptive devices make the gas do work, lowering its overall energy before it is released into the
atmosphere. The work can be done in a variety of ways, including viscous shear on channel walls
or by moving a device like a rotor. This method has drawbacks such as difficulty in design and
manufacturing, as well as creating a turning  moment for the weapon.

3. Energy Containment

Containment devices are made up of chambers that allow the gas to expand. The gas expands,
reducing the energy concentration and allowing the gas to escape at a lower pressure and
velocity, reducing the sound heard.  Initially, it was thought that many baffles with narrow
spacing were required to achieve maximum performance when designing silencers; however,
designs have changed and now small baffles with wider spacing are possible due to complex
asymmetric designs.

Silencers have been used extensively to reduce noise in a variety of applications, including
intake/exhaust systems of engines; heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems;
and compressors. Acoustic evaluation of the silencer performance is, therefore, crucial to its
design, particularly in the presence of flow.

Literature review

(Keith Hudson et al., 1996) To analyze gun muzzle devices, a finite volume-based computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) code was developed. The gun blast problem's governing equations were
the full Navier–Stokes equations for a multi-species chemically reacting flow. Experiments and
simulations for various baffles show varying reductions in overpressure levels. [2]

(Rehman, Chung, et al., 2011) used CFD (ANSYS fluent) to analyze a large tank suppressor
with three straight Baffles. The computational domain was axisymmetric, the turbulence model
was Spalart Allmaras, and the time integration scheme was first-order implicit. When compared
to the tank gun without a silencer, the use of the three baffle silencers at the muzzle end of the
gun barrel resulted in significant pressure and sound level reductions. Furthermore, the sound
pressure level at various points in the ambient region exhibits the same attenuation in results. [3]

Sound suppressors for a 5.56 mm caliber using curved deflectors, cone deflectors, and a reactive
spiral type were numerically and experimentally analyzed by (Huerta-Torres et al., 2021).
Expansion chambers, baffles, and a cooling system with different geometries were installed on
each one. For the simulation, the FLUID 220 element  ANSYS® Fluent 2020 R1 software was
used. The temperature output values were reduced by 23% compared to the initial value, and the
final section's proper operation was also confirmed. According to this study the reactive spiral
model offers the greatest reduction in shooting sound, up to 25% more than the conical and
curved models. [4]

(Lee et al., 2018) A muffler for a 40 mm medium caliber gun is designed and manufactured in
this study. A muffler is made up of holes, blades, and various spaces in the tube. Before the
firing test, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) were performed, and the results were validated
by comparing them to the test results. Finally, CFD was successfully applied to the design of a
muffler. [11]

(Guo et al., 2013b)The overpressure produced by the muzzle blast flow-field was numerically
simulated using 2D axial symmetry and standard k-turbulence model-based Navier-Stokes
equations. The pressure variation of the blast flow-field was investigated, and the results show
that the maximum overpressure occurs at the center and gradually decreases as the angle
increases.. [15]

In (S. W. Lo et al., 2011), axially symmetric, unsteady, Large Eddy Simulation (LES), and
Ffowcs Williams and Hawkins (FWH) equations were solved by the implicitly-time
formulation.The second-order upwind scheme was used for spatial discretization. This study
included five cases, one with an unsuppressed rifle and four with a suppressed rifle, which were
simulated using the finite volume method for axial-symmetric, compressible, unsteady, viscous
flow. The results obtained in the muzzle flow field and noise recordings were compared to those
obtained from experimental data; the two batches of results agreed. [18]

(Zhao et al., 2019) did a research for a 5.8 mm automatic rifle. Computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) and computational aeroacoustics (CAA) were used to calculate the muzzle flow field and
jet noise for cases with and without a muzzle brake, and the data sets were then compared to
experimental results. The compressible Navier–Stokes method based on large eddy simulation
(LES) and acoustic Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FW-H) were used to calculate the muzzle
flow field. The second-order upwind scheme was used for spatial discretization. Furthermore, a
dynamic mesh model was used to simulate how the ballistic domain changed over time. The
deviation between simulated and experimental results was 7.6 percent, indicating that the
proposed simulation method is feasible. [22]

For small caliber analysis, (Hristov, Kari, Jerković, et al., 2018b) used standard κ-ε turbulence
model based Unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations (URANS) for overpressure
reduction and  the FW-H (Fowcs-Williams and Hawking) acoustic model for sound wave
analysis. The study shows a 74% reduction in overpressure when compared to the model without
a muzzle brake. [23]

In the study, (Arslan et al., 2020) the acoustic performance of multi-chamber reactive silencers
was investigated theoretically, numerically using the Finite element method (FEM), and
experimentally . According to the findings of this study, the baffle geometry, number, and
position of the baffles all have an effect on the performance of silencers. At the conclusion of
their research, they also proposed that the structural and acoustic analyses be solved
concurrently, with the material and structural properties of the silencer taken into account in the
calculations. [24]

The purpose of the study by (Cler et al., 2003) was to investigate the application of CFD to small
caliber gun muzzles by using 2-D unsteady grid adoption mesh to investigate the blast. After
the study the CFD precursor flow results closely matched with the shadowgraph results, but the
main propellant flow did not match in this study. In this using axisymmetric and 3-D grids
recommended when possible. [25]

(S.-W. Lo et al., n.d.) This paper looked into the noise produced by blast waves. The implicit-
time formulation was used to solve the axial symmetry, unsteady, Large Eddy Simulation (LES),
and Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkins (FW-H) equations, and second-order upwind scheme spatial
discretization aslo used. In addition, a dynamic mesh model was used to simulate how the
ballistic domain changed over time as a result of the bullet's motion. The recorded muzzle flow
field and noise results were compared to those obtained from experimental data; the two batches
of results agreed. The study was conducted in the 2D domain, but they recommended that it be
expanded to three-dimensional and complex geometries. [26]

(Kang et al., 2008) To assess the effect of the silencer, the pressure variation of the blast flow
field was examined. A live firing test is also carried out to assess four different silencers. The
governing equations for the 3D, unsteady, compressible, and turbulent flow of the gun blast were
written in a curvilinear coordinate system as Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations. To
analyze the supersonic blast flow-field and design gun silencers, a finite-difference code based
on computational fluid dynamics was developed. As a spatial derivative, this numerical solver
employs Roe's upwind scheme, and for viscous terms, it employs a second-order central scheme.
The LU-SGS implicit time integration scheme and the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model were
used. The 42 dB attenuation of sound pressure level was investigated by predicting the
performance of the three-baffle silencer.[27]

(Tushar Chindha & Sanjay Bhaskar, 2015) A vehicle exhaust system emits exhaust gas generated
from a vehicle engine. It also reduces noise generated by the combustion of fuel in the engine.
The purpose of the analysis was to verify the vibrations experienced in each design were a result
of fluid flow inside the silencer. Hence it was concluded that the vibrations were essentially the
result of fluid-structure interaction controlling the fluid particle will help to reduce vibration.
This will help to attenuate sound and increase the lifetime of the material. [28]

(Aimée Lister, 2006) The research was carried out in order to optimize the reactive Sound
Suppressor. Several suppressor configurations were introduced and investigated to achieve this
goal. The use of baffles, increasing the number of baffles, and increasing the size of the holes in
the barrel were found to have a direct influence on improving the effectiveness of a silencer in
this study. [29]

(Seçgin et al., 2021) The purpose of this research is to improve the acoustic performance of a
silencer with baffles that have extension tubes. It optimizes the position, number, and extension
geometry of the baffles as design variables and the sound transmission loss as the response
variable. According to the study, increasing the baffling number and setting the lengths of the
extension tubes to high values results in lower sound transmission loss values.[30]

Noise reduction, insertion loss and transmission loss

(Kim, 2012) Noise reduction, insertion loss, and transmission loss are all well-known techniques
for assessing silencing performance. The difference in acoustic power before and after the
silencer is simply represented by noise reduction. Insertion loss compares the sound pressure
level at a distance from the silencer with and without a silencer. While noise reduction and
insertion loss are relatively easy to measure, they may not be appropriate for evaluating silencing
performance because they are influenced by source and radiation impedances. Transmission loss
is widely used in silencer evaluation because it represents the acoustic performance of the
silencer alone based on incident and transmitted waves. [32]

(Smith et al., 2017)To illustrate issues to consider when using CFD to solve industrial problems,
the paper compares Large Eddy Simulations (LES) to Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
based CFD applied to several combustion applications. The paper examines the fundamentals,
strengths, and limitations of these two approaches and makes recommendations on when each is
most appropriate. An LES-based CFD tool simulates turbulent reaction chemistry in conjunction
with radiative transport in buoyancy-driven flames (i.e., gas flares) as well as the impact of large
flames on surrounding objects (i.e., wind fence, process equipment, etc.). In general, RANS
solves the governing equations using time-averaged solutions, whereas LES solves the time-
dependent Navier-Stokes equations using direct simulation of large scale motion. As a result,
LES simulations produce time-dependent results that are not possible with standard RANS-based
models. To summarize, RANS is commonly used to analyze internal combustion systems (i.e.,
process heaters) because steady operation is more likely when the system operates in a controlled
environment. LES, on the other hand, has been demonstrated to be most applicable to external
combustion systems (i.e., gas flares) because the combustion process can be significantly
influenced by ambient conditions such as crosswinds. [31]

Fluid compressibility is critical at high-subsonic to supersonic/hypersonic speeds. When a

compressible fluid is in turbulent motion, thermodynamic fluid properties such as density and
specific entropy, as well as thermal physical fluid properties such as viscosity coefficient and
specific heat, fluctuate.[33] Experimental studies can provide valuable insight into the structure
of turbulent flows, but they rely heavily on measurement techniques and are expensive. As a
result, numerically simulating and predicting the structure and characteristics of turbulent flows
is critical. Because turbulence is a random process, perfect representation of turbulence effects in
CFD simulation is not possible; instead, Turbulence Models are used. As there is no "one size
fits all"  “one size fit” to all problems, it is necessary to select the most appropriate turbulence
model for simulation. The options for modeling turbulence range from low to high fidelity
are RANS (Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes), LES (Large-Eddy Simulation), and DNS (Direct
Numerical Simulation). These three methods are briefly described in the sections that follow.

While LES is less expensive than DNS and performs well in separated flow regions, it is
extremely expensive near the wall. RANS is the least expensive and has good near-wall
prediction capabilities, but it performs poorly in regions of separated flow. Hybrid RANS/LES
modeling is an appealing alternative approach for combining the benefits of both RANS and LES
models in an optimized manner, in which a RANS modeling approach is used in the near-wall
region and an LES modeling approach is used in separated flow regions. [35]

Computational Aeroacoustics (CAA) is the numerical simulation of noise generation and

propagation problems . The two main simulation approaches are direct (solving fluid and
acoustic fields simultaneously) and hybrid (acoustic field is solved separately from the fluid
field). Several methods exist within these two frameworks, including acoustic analogies, semi-
empirical methods, and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Simulations based on CFD
provide high-fidelity numerical simulations that accurately and flexibly predict both the
flowfield and noise field, allow for in-depth analysis, and provide an opportunity to directly
study the connection between flow structures and acoustics in a way that experimental
investigations cannot. [39]

Turbulence flow

The first attempt was the scientific study of turbulence (turbolenza) was done Leonardo da
Vinci (Lived 1452–1519).The Reynolds number is the criteria used to determine whether the
flow is laminar or turbulent

ρ. U . L
ℜL =
μ

 The Reynolds number is based on the length scale of the flow:

L= X , d , d hyd … etc
  Transition to turbulence varies depending on the type of flow: around on obstacle:
ℜL >20,000 and Internal flow: ℜL >20,000

RANS

The Navier-Stokes equations are ensemble-averaged in the RANS modeling approach, and all
turbulent scales are modeled, and only the mean velocity is resolved. [41] Since all turbulent
scales are modeled, it is the simpler approaches and do not correctly account for all turbulent
scales or may require input from experimental data or additional calibration to be generally
applicable.

The most commonly used RANS turbulence models are K−ε , K−ω ,and K−SST . And they
differ in terms of flow calculation accuracy as well as the ability to calculate complex physical
characteristics. The difference between K−ε and K−ω is that K−ε calculates the flow on open
space with high accuracy, whereas K−ω calculates the flow near the walls with high accuracy.
The combination of these two models yields a new model known as K−SST . [42]

RANS simulations, do not generate turbulent fluctuations, but rather model the effects of
turbulent fluctuations. RANS models alone cannot predict noise, particularly jet noise, because
noise is fundamentally unsteady and is caused by turbulent fluctuations. [37] [38] [39] RANS
turbulence models have an advantage in applications with high Reynolds number flows, which
are beyond the current capabilities of the LES and DNS LES and DNS. Under these conditions,
the wide range of spatial and temporal scales that comprise turbulent flow can be modelled in a
steady simulation with RANS at a low computational cost.

DNS

To obtain velocity fields in terms of space and time, direct numerical simulation solves the
Navier-Stokes equations without any turbulence modeling. The DNS method provides accurate
predictions because all spatial and spectral scales of turbulence must be resolved. DNS is the
ultimate high-fidelity turbulence model, but jet noise calculations are prohibitively expensive for
even low-to-moderate Reynolds numbers due to the need for long simulation run times, large
domains, and fine meshes. DNS is and will be impractical for compressible and high Reynolds
number turbulence flow due to the wide range of temporal and spatial scales present at those
Reynolds numbers. As a result, DNS research has concentrated on lower Reynolds numbers. [39]
[43] [41] [37][34]

LES

Large eddy simulation (LES) is a mathematical model for turbulence used in computational fluid
dynamics. [26] [44] It was first proposed by Joseph Smagorinsky in 1963 to simulate
atmospheric air currents,[1][45] and It was later extended for general flow modelling in 1970 by
Deardorff. [2] [46]LES is currently applied in a wide variety of engineering applications,
including combustion,[3][47] acoustics,[4][48] and simulations of the atmospheric boundary
layer.[5][49]

Large-Eddy Simulations solve a filtered version of the Navier-Stokes equations, accounting for
unresolved turbulence by a sub-grid scale model. It is designed to improve RANS by capturing
some of the flow scales. In LES, the low-pass filtering (averaging the small length scale)
operation is applied to the Navier-Stokes equations to remove the high-frequency wave number
from the solution. Since the large scales of the flow (most responsible for momentum and energy
transfer) are resolved, LES enables better fidelity than RANS. The small and the most
computational expensive scales, which play important role in dissipation, are moduled rather
than resolved. Hence the LES is more computational affordable than DNS it makes the
simulation of practical engineering problems affordable. . [33] [37] [39]

In LES, large, energy-carrying eddies are directly computed exactly (resolved), and the
remaining smaller eddies are modelled. Large eddies are responsible for the transport of
momentum, energy, and other scalars. Large eddies are anisotropic, subjected to historical
effects, and are strongly dependent on boundary conditions, which makes their modelling
difficult. Small eddies tend to be more isotropic and less flow-dependent (universal), which
makes their modelling easier. (Gerasimov & Cfd, 2006) The effects of the smallest scales of
turbulence are removed by spatial filtering and are modelled as subgrid-scale (SGS) stress and
heat flux terms. Since the small scales are more homogeneous and universal, and less affected by
the geometry and boundary conditions than the large scales, they are more likely to be
universally modelled requiring less adjustment when applied to different flows than models for
the RANS equations.
Instantaneously, the energy can be transferred either way from large eddies to small ones or from
small eddies to large ones. The reverse transfer is termed "backscatter" [40] However, on
average, energy is usually assumed to be transferred from large scales to the subgrid scales
which corresponds to the classical concept of an energy cascade. Based on this concept, the
subgrid scales essentially act as a sink of energy .

LES filtering equations can be implicit or explicit. Implicit filtering assumes the smallest scale
(turbulent eddy size) dissipates as many other numerical schemes do so the grid size becomes the
low-pass filter. Although this approach determining the shape of the LES filter associated with
some numerical issues is difficult plus truncation error can also be an issue. According to this
implicit zonal description, the eddy viscosity near the wall region adopts a value consistent with
a RANS modeling approach, i.e., characteristic of the Reynolds stress, whereas in separated flow
regions the eddy viscosity adopts a value characteristic of an LES's subgrid stress (SGS) model.
[36] [41] [51]Explicit filters apply a pre-defined filter shape to the discretized Navier–Stokes
equations which reduce truncation error. Explicit filters require finer resolution than implicit
filters so computational costs are higher. [68]

Sub-grid stress (SGS) models are used to model the effects of the smallest turbulent scales but do
not generate pressure or velocity fluctuations that would normally be present in these smaller
scales. In other words, LES simulations lack turbulent fluctuations at scales smaller than the
discrete computational grid and numerical scheme can resolve. Without the presence of
fluctuations, no acoustic content can be generated for those unresolved, smaller scales which
typically correspond to the higher frequency range in the spectrum. Therefore the higher-
frequency content is missing from the broadband noise spectrum when even well-resolved LES
simulations are performed. A second shortcoming is the lack of an agreed-upon standard
methodology, leading to a lack of standardization and an abundance of numerical methods. [40]
[41] [43] The main shortcoming of LES lies in the high-resolution requirements for wall
boundary layers. Near the wall, even the ‘large’ eddies become relatively small and require a
Reynolds number dependent resolution. This limits LES for wall-bounded flows to very low
Reynolds numbers (R_t~10^4-10^5) and limited computational domains.

LES solutions can be used to perform SPL calculations to identify high SPL regions and
compare alternative duct designs. [42]
A CFD-CAA hybrid method was used to calculate the muzzle flow field by the large eddy
simulation (LES) method, and the noise attenuation was determined by using Ffowcs Williams
and Hawkings (FW-H). [14]

[42] The Ffawcs Williams-Hawkings method is limited since no reflection, deflection or

transmission is considered. It does provide upper and lower bounds which could be employed for
engineering design purposes.

(Crighton, 1976)Aeracuestics is concrened with sound generated by aerodynamic forces or

motions orginated in flow rather than by extermrly applied forces or motion of classical
acuestics.

Flow analysis

The flow field in a suppressor is analysed for velocity and pressure distribution along with the
flow system. The compression of pressure drop from different methods and the characteristics of
these methods are discussed.

A supressor is designed to attenuate noise but it is naturally a part of the flow system and it can
impose adverse effects on the other components in the system. Statically, a suppressor and other
components of the flow system affect flow distribution and pressure drop on each other.
Dynamically, the installation of the suppressor can affect the stability of the flow system or the
stable operation of other systems.

Gun suppressors discussed here have a large flow rate, high velocity, high pressure and high
temperature.

When a gun is fired, the burning propellant and the subsequent gas activity are the sole
influences on gun structure and projectile. While in the bore, the projectile offers the inertial and
frictional resistance commensurate with the thermodynamics of the propellant. After it leaves the
muzzle, the projectile loses further influence. On the other hand, the gas exerts pressure on the
gun tube while the projectile is being propelled and after until this pressure becomes ambient.

Immediately as the projectile clears the muzzle, the propellant gases follow, no longer restrained
by tube wall or projectile, but still having an appreciable pressure and a velocity equal to or
slightly exceeding that of the projectile. If left alone, the gases expand into the air and reduce
atmospheric pressure. However, if the gun has a muzzle brake, a different sequence of events
ensues. The projectile while passing through the brake continues to restrain, to some extent, gas
flow in the axial direction. But the side ports in the brake offer little resistance to the expanding
gas which can now flow between the baffles. The general direction of flow is therefore changed.
The resultant direction of this gas flow is no longer diagonally forward but is radial or rearward.
By diverting the flow in these directions, the gas must impinge on the baffles and induce a
forward thrust. This thrust generates an impulse that is opposite in direction to the recoil
momentum, thereby reducing that momentum by the amount of the muzzle brake impulse.
Unfortunately, the muzzle brake does not perform while the projectile is still in the bore. The
recoiling parts almost reach their full momentum during this, time, thus consigning the function
of the brake to the analogous role of a corrective rather than a preventive performer.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

• Investigation of the acoustic behaviour of reactive silencers.

• Investigation of the effect of backpressure on the engine due to the perforated pipe and baffles
in the silencer.

• To find out transmission loss.

• To reduce noise and vibration of the reactive silencer.

OBJECTIVES

Determine using FRA (Frequency Response Analysis) the behaviour of the existing design.

• Identify the potential levels (modes) that can cause resonance

• Suggest modifications for harmonious alignment with the FRA results.

• Implement change and perform experimentation.

• Compare results with FEA for finalizing the proposal.

METHODOLOGY

A .Mathematical/ Numerical approach

B. Computational/Analytical approach
C. Experimental set up (Physical Testing)

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The conceptualisation of the sound suppressor is done with two different length and adiametr to
consider the effect of volume and length on the supperssor performance. And also 4 different
baffle geometries with 3, 5 and 7 number of affles to conider the effect of shape and number of
baffels. Total of 24 geometries are anaysed.

The First Large-eddy simulation done on commercial software-Fluent is to get instantaneous

fluid data. The second step is constructing the source of combustion noise from the LES data
and solving the acoustic perturbation equation to simulate the far-field sound pressure level wave
propagate equation.

The following method was applied in this research

1. Necessary informations were coolected by reviewing different related literatures

2. According to the results obtained from the literature approprate geometry designs were
done by using Solidworks 2021R1
3. After drawing the geometry fluid bodies are introduced in the geometry for the proppant
flow, suppressor flow and far-field flow in Ansys 2022R1 via Ansys spaceclim.
4. Mesh
 Use hex meshes for the best accuracy
 Take advantage of hybrid meshing capability and local mesh
 Refinement
5. LES-Specific Solution Strategies for propellant gas flow analysis via Ansys 2022R1

Large-eddy simulation involves running a transient solution from some initial condition,

The following are suggestions to follow when running a large eddy simulation:

1. Transient density-based Ansys was chosen since the propellant gas is a very compressible
gas flow.
2. Enable unstudy second ordr solver by using the following command
/define models unsteady-2nd-order? Then yes
3. Then for turbulent solver enable LES ANSYS FLUENT will automatically turn on the
unsteady
When using the LES model, enable the Werner-Wengle near-wall treatment through the
following text command:
define/models/viscous/near-wall-treatment/werner-wengle-wall-fn?
4. Chose material air as ideal gas
5. Use approprat initional and inlet bounday conditions
P=38mpa
T=533k
Obtained from expermatl results done by another rescher[53]
Choose atmospherc tempratue and atmosphere pressure for far field outlet boundary
condition
6. Choose the second-order implicit formulation in methods.

The bounded central differencing spatial discretization scheme will be automatically enabled for
momentum equations. Both the bounded central-differencing and pure central-differencing.

The choose hybrid initionalization and in calculation activities save in cdat format for CFD post
processing

Set the appropriate time step size (2*10-7second)and all the needed solution parameters.

7. Run LES until the flow becomes statistically steady. The best way to see if the flow

Is fully developed and statistically steady is to monitor forces and solution variables

(e.g., velocity components or pressure) at selected locations in the flow.

4. Zero out the initial statistics using the solve/initialize/init-flow-statistics

Text command. Before you restart the solution, enable Data Sampling for Time

5. Continue until you get statistically stable data. The duration of the simulation Can be
determined beforehand by estimating the mean flow residence time in the Solution domain (L/U,
where L is the characteristic length of the solution domain And U is a characteristic mean flow
velocity). The simulation should be run for at least a few mean flow residence times.
Instructions for setting the solution parameters for LES are provided below.

Using the Ffowcs Williams and hawkings acoustics model

The general procedure for carrying out an FW-H acoustics calculation in Ansys fluent is as
follows:

1. Calculate a converged flow solution. For a transient case, run the transient solution until you
obtain a “statistically steady-state” solution as described below.
2. Enable the FW-H acoustics model and set the associated model parameters.

 setup → models → acoustics→ edit...

3. Specify the source surface(s) and choose the options associated with the acquisition and
saving of the source data.
4. Specify the receiver location(s).
5. Continue the transient solution for a sufficiently long time and save the source data (transient
cases only).

 solution → run calculation

6. Compute and save the sound pressure signals.

 solution →  run calculation → acoustic signals...

7. Postprocess the sound pressure signals.

 Results → plots → fft → edit...

Design

The structural modeling of the suppressor were designed in SOLIDWORK 2020R1 in a

computer environment. Pressure measurements were high at the point where the bullet entered
the first silencer and it was seen that the pressure decreased towards the exit. In the structural
analysis simulation study carried out in the computer environment, calculations were made
regarding 38 Mpa pressure at the silencer inlets. The simulation results were examined by
decreasing the pressure towards the exit of the silencer.

1. Material

A silencer is typically a hollow metal tube made from steel, aluminium, or titanium and contains

expansion chambers

Boundary condition

The boundary condition needed near the muzzle flow like temperature, pressure and velocity
histories are obtained by interior ballistic code or experimental measurement. In this study, the
B.C is obtained from experimental measurement. This alleviates the need to recompute the
interior blastic phases for each computation, which reduces the computational time.

CHAPTER 2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS 

Turbulence modelling

In this chapter, the non-dimensional compressible Navier-Stokes (NS) equations used for the
current work are described in detail with the derivation of the filtered set of equations specific to
LES.

Turbulent flows are characterized by eddies with a wide range of length and time scales. The
largest eddies are typically comparable in size to the characteristic length of the mean flow (for
example, shear layer thickness). The smallest scales are responsible for the dissipation of
turbulence kinetic energy.
In les, large eddies are resolved directly, while small eddies are modelled. Large-eddy simulation
(les) therefore falls between DNS and RANS in terms of the fraction of the resolved scales. The
rationale behind les can be summarized as follows:

 Momentum, mass, energy, and other passive scalars are transported mostly by
large eddies.

 Large eddies are more problem-dependent. They are dictated by the geometries
and boundary conditions of the flow involved.

 Small eddies are less dependent on the geometry, tend to be more isotropic, and
are consequently more universal.

 The chance of finding a universal turbulence model is much higher for small
eddies.

The following sections give details of the governing equations for les, the subgrid-scale
turbulence models, and the boundary conditions.

Navier-stokes equations

The Navier and continuity equations are:

∂ ρ (∂ ρ U j)
+ =0
∂t ∂ xj

( ∂ ρU i ) ∂ −( ∂ P ) ∂
∂t
+
∂ xj
( ρ U i U j )= + (τ )
∂ x j ∂ x j ij

Viscous stress

τ Ij Is the viscous stress tensor

Large-eddy simulation theory

The rationale behind the large-eddy simulation technique is a separation between large and small
scales. The governing equations for les are obtained by filtering the time-dependent Navier-
stokes equations in the physical space. The filtering process effectively filters out the eddies
whose scales are smaller than the filter width or mesh spacing used in the computations. The
resulting equations thus govern the dynamics of the large eddies.

The Kolmogorov length scale is the size of the smallest eddies in the fluid. Eddies smaller than
the Kolmogorov scale rapidly dissipate their kinetic energy by viscous heating and disappear.
Sub-grid stress
The dissipation increases by adding additional stress term τ Sgs.
∂ ρ (∂ ρ U j)
+ =0
∂t ∂ xj

( ∂ ρU i ) ∂ −( ∂ P ) ∂
∂t
+
∂ xj
( ρ U i U j )= + ( τ +τ )
∂ x j ∂ x j ij sgs

Viscous stress

This term can be driven mathematically by filtering the Navier stoke equations. The eddies are
smaller than the mesh size as a resistive force. This resistive force dissipates energy and breaks
down the eddies larger than the cell size. The subgrid stress is calculated with an eddy viscosity
model.

¿ 2
τ sgs =2 ρ v sgs Sij − ρ K sgs δ ij
3
¿
Derivation of Sij

Shear flow

Consider a simple shear flow in 2D

The fluid element is sheard by the mean flow and by the eddy
The shear stress from the mean flow(viscuss shear ) is:

∂U
τ =μ … … … … … .3
∂y

The shear stress from the eddies/ turbulence is given by the reynolds stress

' '
τ =−ρ u v … … … … … … .4

We model them by somehow by relating them to the mean flow variables(U, V. W)

since Momentum is transported in the direction of velocity graditiy, it is possible to assume that
∂U
Reynolds stress is proportional to
∂y

' ' ∂U
−ρ u v =μt
∂y

The constant of proportionality is called the eddy/turbulent viscosity μt , which is artificial and
controls the strength of diffusion (strength of collsion). Further modeling is needed to calculate
μt

This assumption was first introduced by Boussinesq in 1877. Hence sometimes called
Boussinesq approximation, Boussinesq hypothesis and sometimes called eddy viscosity model.

How can we extend this model to 3D

From the anlysis of the simple shear flow

' ' ∂U
−ρ u v =μt … … … … … .. 7
∂y

The same equation for a shear profile in the y direction

∂V
−ρ v ' u' =μt … … … … … … .8
∂x

But the order of multiplication does not matter −ρ u' v ' =−ρ v ' u'
 ' '
Therefore −ρ u v =μt ( ∂U ∂V
+
∂ y ∂x)…………………9

−ρ u v =μt
' '
( ∂U
∂y ∂x )
+
∂V
… … … … … … …10

Considering the normal components (u' u' ), let v' =u'

−ρ u v =μt
' '
( ∂U
∂x ∂ x )
+
∂U
… … … … … … … 11

' ' ∂U
−ρ u v =2 μ t … … … … … … … 12
∂x

There is a small problem here

The defination of turbulent kinetic energy

1
k = ( u' u ' + v ' v ' + w' w' ) … … … … … 13
2

Hene, the sum of the normal turbulance stress should give

−( ρ u u + ρ v v + ρ w w )=−ρ ( u u + v v + w w ) … … … … .14
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

¿−2 ρk … … … … … … .15

But the summition of the three normal stresses together

−( ρ u u + ρ v v + ρ w w )=2 μ t
' ' ' ' ' '
( ∂∂Ux + ∂U
∂y ∂z )
+
∂W
… … … … … … .16

−( ρ u u + ρ v v + ρ w w )=2 μ t
' ' ' ' ' '
( ∂∂Ux + ∂U
∂y ∂z )
+
∂W
….17

If the flow is in compressable then the contunity equation tells that

∂U ∂ U ∂ W
+ + =0 … … 18
∂x ∂y ∂z
Hence

−( ρ u u + ρ v v + ρ w w )=0 … … .19
' ' ' ' ' '

This is creally incorrect

−( ρ u' u' + ρ v ' v' + ρ w ' w ' ) ≠ 2 μ t ( ∂∂Ux + ∂∂Uy + ∂W

∂z )

To correct the normal stress subtract 1/3 rd of the error from each of the normal component

−ρ u' u ' =2 μ t
( − (
∂ U 1 ∂ U ∂ U ∂W
+ +
∂x 3 ∂x ∂ y ∂z
1
))
− ( 2 ρk ) … … … 21
3

−ρ v ' v ' =2 μt
( − +(
∂ V 1 ∂U ∂U ∂ W
+
∂ y 3 ∂x ∂ y ∂z
1
− ( 2 ρk ) … … … 22
3 ))
−ρ w ' w ' =2 μ t
( − +(
∂ W 1 ∂ U ∂U ∂W
+
∂z 3 ∂x ∂ y ∂z
1
− ( 2 ρk ) … … … 23
3 ))

Introducing tensor(i.j) Notation

Introducing tensor(i.j) Notation, shear stress can be written as

−ρ ui' u j' =μt

( ∂U i ∂U j
+
∂ x j ∂ xi )
And the normal stress

−ρ ui' u j' =μt

( ∂U i ∂U j 1 ∂U k 2
+ −
∂ x j ∂ xi 3 ∂ xk
− ρk … … …
3 )
Where (k , k ) indicates the summition/contraction
Combine the shar stress and normal stress in to one formaula by introducing Kronecker delta
symbol δ ij

δ ij ={1 i= j
0i ≠ j

−ρ ui' u j' =μt

( ∂U i ∂U j 1 ∂U k
+ −
∂ x j ∂ xi 3 ∂ xk
2
)
δ ij − ρk δ ij
3

It is a long form, it can be writtrn compactally

By using mean rate of strain tensor Sij

1 ∂ Ui ∂ U j
Sij = ( + )
2 ∂ x j ∂ xi

Or even more compcat

¿
Sij = (
1 ∂ U i ∂U j 1 ∂U k
+ − δ
2 ∂ x j ∂ x i 3 ∂ x k ij )

' '
−ρ ui u j =2 μ t S ij− ( 1 ∂ Uk
3 ∂ xk ) 2
δ ij − ρk δij
3

' ' ¿ 2
−ρ ui u j =2 μ t S ij − ρk δ ij
3

S¿ij is the strain rate of the resolved eddies (on the CFD mesh). Remember that the velocity
gradient increases as the eddies get smaller. Hence, the stress is more and will dissipate larger
than the cell size.V Sgs Controls the strength of stress τ Sgs. To calculate V Sgs , assume that the
eddies smaller than the mesh size are isotropic. Hence, by only consider the eddy size, not the
eddy shape. As the eddies are isotropic, V Sgs Will be a scaler value (single number). V Sgs
Accounts for the size of the eddies and large eddies give higher V Sgs .

Different sub-grid models use different methods to calculates V Sgs (WALL, smagorinsky,
dynamic smagorinsky, WNLES etc)

Another advantage of the wale model is that it returns a zero turbulent viscosity for laminar shear
flows. This allows the correct treatment of laminar zones in the domain. In contrast, the
smagorinsky-Lilly model produces nonzero turbulent viscosity. The wale model is therefore
preferable compared to the smagorinsky-Lilly model.

The sub-grid viscosity needs to dissipate eddies just larger than the mesh size. Larger cells have
larger eddies and require higher subgrid viscosity

So the subgrid viscosity is a function of the mesh size V Sgs =f ( ∆)

Smagorinky model

The sub gred scale are all small, so they assume that they are isotropic. Hence anly eddy size is
considered not the eddy shape.

Smagorinky approch is based on the observation of kinematic viscosity. Subgrid kinemeic

m2
viscosity (V Sgs ) has a unit of [ ] . this is equivalent to
s

[m 2 ] [m]
= ×[m]
[s ] [s ]

[ kinematic viscosity ] =[ velocity ] ×[Length ]

V sgs U 0∗l 0

As the eddies are isotropic only the length is enough to catogrize their shape

Mesh sensitivity
The subgrid viscosity is a function of the mesh size. Hence, different equations are solved on
each mesh for LES mish independent studies are not necessary. This is why we use the criteria of
resolving 80% of the turbulent kinetic energy for good LES.

Eddies

The turbulent flow contains eddies with a range of sizes and energies. In LES, it is necessary to
resolve some of these eddies with a mesh.

The turbulent flow consists of eddies (structures) with a wide range of length and time scales. In
LES, large, energy-carrying eddies are directly computed (resolved), and the remaining smaller
eddies are modelled

A minimum of 4 cells is needed to resolve an eddy. The arrows show velocity vectors at the cell
centre. The mesh can resolve eddies with different sizes. The mesh cannot resolve smaller eddies
than the width of two cells because only the velocity at the cell centroids is known. A sub-grid
scale model is used for these models. The mesh, therefore, sets the minimum eddy size that can
be resolved (implicit LES)
The appropriate mish size must be estimated before performing LES. A fine mesh takes longer to
solve. The wave count is required to estimate mesh size. The wavenumber (k) is the spatial
frequency of the eddy. Smaller eddies have a higher wavenumber

2π
K= , K=wavenumber
d

Turbulent energy cascade(Kolmogorov)

Experimental data shows how turbulent kinetic energy is distributed amongst the eddies. The
area under the curve(integral) gives the turbulent kinetic energy. This is the turbulent kinetic
energy used in RANS.

Our mesh does not resolve all the eddies. So it will only resolve some of the turbulent kinetic
energy. Good LES will resolve at least 80% of the turbulent kinetic energy. The remaining
kinetic energy is modelled in the subgrid model. The finer the mesh the more turbulent energy is
resolved.

The eddy size and energy and turbulence energy spectrum vary throughout the domain. The
integral length scale is representative of all the eddies at a location. It is easier to look at a single
value rather than the spectrum. The integral length scale (lo) is the length of an eddy at the
average kinetic energy of all the eddies.
Because Eddies change across the domain, so does the integral scale (lo). So the integral length
scale (lo) can be used to set up the mesh. Lo can be calculated from pressure RANS calculation
(before LES carry out)

1 1
2 2
K K
l 0= ∨l 0=
ϵ Cμ ω

Either k-w or k-e can be used

Setting up the LES Mesh

Where lo is small, we need smaller cells, as the eddies are smaller. As a good estimate: 5 cells
across the integral length scale is likely to resolve 80% of the turbulent kinetic energy.

l0
∆=
5

By reducing the cell size, more of the turbulent kinetic energy is resolved. Five cells are likely to
resolve 80% of the turbulent kinetic energy

Define a new field

 3
1
l0 k2
f= = ∆=Cell Volume 3
∆ ϵ∗∆

Plot f in a post-processor,

If f < 5, the mesh is too coarse and should be refined

Calculating the mean velocity

The CFD code computes the instantaneous velocity (U),

Time average to calculate the mean velocity (U ).

U Is useful for understanding the flow field and computing velocity profiles. We need to do a bit
more work to calculate the turbulent kinetic energy

Fluctuating velocity

Subtract the mean (U ) from the instantaneous (U) to isolate the fluctuation

'
U =U −U

We will use U ' To calculate the turbulent kinetic energy

We want to calculate the kinetic energy in the fluctuation. This is the turbulent kinetic energy
1 2 1
resolved by the mesh. Recall that kinetic energy per unit mass ¿ U = U∗U , so we will need
2 2
to multiply fluctuating velocity components together.

The fluctuating velocity has 3 components

'
U =U −U

V ' =V −V
'
W =W −W

There are 9 different possible combinations:

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
UU UV UW VU VVV WW U WVW W
These are instantaneous Reynolds stresses that are resolved by the mesh. Only the normal
components(U ' U ' V ' V ' W ' W ') are used to calculate the resolved turbulent kinetic energy. After
multiplying the velocity of the components together, take a time average.

U' U ' U' V ' U' W ' V ' U ' V ' V ' V ' U' W' U' W' V ' W' W '

The average of the fluctuating velocity is zero

U =0

This is why the average is taken after multiplying

There are 9 components of the resolved Reynolds stress tensor (per unit density):

[ ]
' ' ' ' ' '
U U U V UW
RI, j
= V ' U ' V ' V ' V ' U'
Ρ
W ' U' W' V ' W' W'

But the order of multiplication does not matter ( A X B = B X A)

Hence, there are only 6 independent quantities (symmetric tensor)

Ρ [
RI , j U ' U' U' V ' U' W ' ' '
= ' '
V V ¿ ¿
WW¿ ]
Resolved turbulent kinetic energy

Use the diagonals components to calculate the resolved turbulent kinetic energy

1 ' ' ' ' ' '

K Res= (U U +V V +W W )
2

Some sources write U 2 Instead of U ' U '

1 2 2
K Res= ( ( U ' ) + ( V ' ) +(W ' )2 )
2

√
ANSYS Fluent calculates ( U ' )2 (velocity RMSE, Units: m/s )

√
U RMSE = ( U )
' 2
 1
K= (U 2RMSE +V 2 RMSE +W 2RMSE )
2

You need to create this as a new field in your post-processor

Kres= 0.5*(URMSE*URMSE + VMRSE*VMRSE + WMRSE*WMRSE)

Total turbulent kinetic energy

The turbulent kinetic energy resolved by the mesh ( K Res)

It is not the total turbulent kinetic energy (K)

We need to add the subgrid-scale turbulent kinetic energy( K Sgs )

Sub-grid scale turbulent kinetic energy

K Sgs Is the turbulent kinetic energy of the eddies smaller than the mesh size

ANSYS users need to calculate K Sgs In the post-processor

The method used to determine K Sgs Depending upon the sub-grid scale (SGS) model

If you are using a kinetic energy transport model, then the CFD codes solve a transport equation
for K Sgs

3
2
∂(ρ K sgs ) ρK sgs 2
+∇ . ( ρU K sgs )=∇ . ( ρ Dk ∇ K sgs )−C ϵ + ρ Gsgs − ρ K sgs ∇ . U
∂t ∆ 3

K Sgs Can then be read directly in the post-processor

For other SGS models (samgorinsky, WALE) you need to calculate K Sgs

You can calculate K Sgs From the sub-grid length scale LSgs
 2
Μ Sgs
K Sgs =( )
Ρl Sgs

What is the sub-grid scale?

Sub-grid length scale

LSgs Is the size of an eddy that has the same turbulent kinetic energy as the average of all the
eddies smaller than the mesh size

This is the same idea as the integral length scale ( LO)

LSgs Must be smaller than the mesh size

1
3
LSgs =C S∗(Cell volume )

C S=0.1 is the Smagorinsky coefficient

C S <1 so the length scale will be smaller than the cell size

Near walls eddies are damped

For thin high aspect ratio cells, LSgs Is limited by the distance to the wall y

Hence, the modified formula for LSgs

1
3
LSgs =min ⁡(ky , C S ∆ ) k=0.41

Turbulent kinetic energy

Now we have both the resolved ( K Res) and sub-grid scale kinetic energy ( K Sgs )

K Res
Calculate the ratio In your post-processor
K Res + K Sgs
You want >0.8 in the entire domain

Mesh refinement

Refining the mish will increase K Res And reduce K Sgs

Turbulent eddies are unstable. They break down into smaller eddies. The smaller eddies are
dissipated into heat through molecular viscosity. In implicit LES, eddies that are smaller than the
cell size cannot be resolved We only calculate one velocity value for each cell (usually at the cell
centroid), so we can’t resolve eddies within a cell.

Large-eddy simulation

The eddies are unstable and want to break down. The mesh can’t resolve the eddies that the
smallest eddy wants to break down into. Therefore, eddies that are just larger than the mesh size
cannot break down into smaller eddies. Molecular viscosity is not strong enough to break the
smallest resolved eddies down. The eddies will persist and will not break down. The kinetic
energy of the flow is too high. The eddies that are just larger than the grid size will not break
down. We need to remove them from the mesh by increasing the turbulence dissipation rate

Turbulence dissipation rate ϵ

Turbulence dissipation rate ϵ is the rate that turbulence is converted to thermal energy. It has
united of turbulent kinetic energy per unit mass

2 2
[m ] [1] [m ]
∈= 2 3
= 3
[s ] [s ] [s ]

Increasing ϵ increase the rate at which turbulent eddies are dissipated. Eddies of a given size are
dissipated faster

In real turbulence/ DNS:

∂ U I ∂U I
ϵ=v
∂ xJ ∂ xJ

ϵ=molecular viscosity × volecity gradient × velocity gradient

In RANS, we solve a transport equation for ϵ , but we are looking at LES. The molecular velocity
v is small. As the eddies get smaller, the velocity gradient increases, until molecular viscosity is
large enough to dissipate them

The velocity gradient of the resolved eddies is too small. This is why molecular viscosity is not
strong enough to dissipate them. Increasing the viscosity from v to v+V Sgs

Hence, the dissipation rate is increased to

∂ UI ∂ U I
∈=(v +V Sgs )
∂ x J ∂ xJ

If we specify V Sgs Carefully, we can dissipate(target) the eddies just larger than the cell size

Increasing the viscosity

The increased dissipation causes the eddies just larger than the mesh to dissipate. This artificial
dissipation mimics the breakdown process. But we don’t solve an equation for ∈ in

FW-H Acoustic Analogy Method.

The main challenge in numerically predicting the sound waves is sounds have much lower
energy than fluid flows. Another challenge is the difficulty of predicting the various flow
phenomena.

In this study, an attempt was made to predict both the flow field and emitted sound of a gunshot
in the far-field by the supersonic flow field equations were solved based on compressibility. The
present simulation was attempted to capture this flow field by LES turbulence model. The sound
propagation was calculated by the Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings analogy. Although expanding
more computing sources, the LES turbulence model was applied to predict pressure fluctuations.
The mechanism of the aerodynamic noise radiation is revealed. The noise is mainly radiated
from the muzzle

The FFOWCS WILLIAMS AND HAWKINGS (FW-H) equation is essentially an

inhomogeneous wave equation that can be derived by manipulating the continuity equation and
the Navier-stokes equations. The FW-H   quation can be written as:

2 ' 2
1 ∂ P ∂
2 2
2 '
−∇ P =
∂ x ∂ x
[ T ij H ( f ) ]− ∂∂x { [ P ij nij + ρ U i ( U n−V n ) ] δ ( f ) }+ ∂∂t {¿
Co ∂ t i j i

H (f )=
{1 ,∧elsewhwre
0 ,∧f =0
,

d
δ ( f )= [ H ( f )]
df

Where

 P′ is the fluid pressure used in the acoustic field,

 C0 is the sound velocity,
 Tij is the Lighthill stress tensor,
 Pij is the compressible fluid stress tensor,
 Un is the fluid velocity component normal to the surface f0,
 Vn is the surface velocity component normal to the surface,
 H(f) is the Heaviside function, and δ(f) is the Dirac delta function.

'
p  is the sound pressure at the far-field ( p = p−p 0 ).  f =0   denotes a mathematical surface
'

introduced to "embed" the exterior flow problem ( f >0 ) in an unbounded space, which
facilitates the use of generalized function theory and the free-space green function to obtain
the solution. The surface ( f =0   ) corresponds to the source (emission) surface and can be
made coincident with a body (impermeable) surface or a permeable surface of the body
 surface. ni  is the unit normal vector pointing toward the exterior region ( f =0  ), a 0  is the far-
field sound speed, and T ij  is the Lighthill stress tensor, defined as

2
T ij =ρU i U j+ P ij −a0 ( ρ−ρ0 )δ ij

 Pij  is the compressive stress tensor. For a stokesian fluid, this is given by
∂U i ∂ U j 2 ∂ U k
Pij =P δij −μ [ + − δ ]
∂ X j ∂ X i 3 ∂ X k ij

Evaluation Parameters of Noise

Sound pressure level (SPL) is the important measurement for the pressure fluctuations of a sound
wave as it propagates through the air [4]:

'
P
SPL=20 lg
P ref

Where p′ is the perturbation pressure calculated by subtracting the mean pressure and pref is the
reference sound pressure, which is usually equal to the minimum human auditory threshold, pfre,
2 × 10− 5 Pa.

SPL for the weapon muzzle noise is determined by peak sound pressure level (spl peak) and overall
sound pressure level (OASPL) [4]. Spl peak is the SPL corresponding to the peak value of the
pressure-time curve, while OASPL is the accumulated result of all frequencies:

P peak
SPLpeak =20 lg
Pref

OASPL=10 lg ⁡( ∑ 10 SPL / 10) i

Where spli is the sound wave pressure level from the ith harmonic wave.

In this study, an attempt was made to predict both the flow field and emitted sound of a gunshot
in the far-field by the supersonic flow field equations were solved based on compressibility. The
present simulation was attempted to capture this flow field by LES turbulence model with
moving mesh system. The sound propagation was calculated by the Ffowcs-Williams and
Hawkings analogy. Although expanding more computing sources, the LES turbulence model
was applied to predict pressure fluctuations. The mechanism of the aerodynamic noise radiation
is revealed. The noise is mainly radiated from the muzzle and bullet, generating strong vortices
and shock. The Ffowcs Williams and Hawking's equation adopted Lighthill’s acoustic analogy to
predict the sound generated by the acoustic sources from muzzle blast.

validation

[53]

Figure 4. Developed one-piece silencer prototype

The results of Air weapon silencer prototype shooting tests and noise measurements were carried
out in Kırkale University [53] used for validtion. Air gun silencer prototypes are mounted on the
CO2 air tube-powered type of CZ75P-07

Silahın özellikleri, kalibre çapı 4,5 mm (0,177)BB, ürettiği atış hızı 104 m/s (341 fps) ve güç
kaynağı tipi 12 gr CO2 hava tüplü şeklindedir. Namlu uzunluğu 83,5 mm ve silah ağırlığı 820
g’dır. CZ75P-07 havalı silahla susturuculu ve susturucusuz atışlar yapılarak gürültü ölçümleri
alınmıştır. CZ75P-07 test silahına ait görüntü Şekil 6’da verilmiştir.

Atış ortamı ve deney düzeneği Şekil 7’de görülmektedir. 3B yazıcıda iki farklı modelde
hazırlanan susturucularla yapılan test atışları ve ortalama değerleri elde edilmiştir. Birinci
prototip modeli 20x72 mm, ikinci prototip modeli ise 34x94 mm ölçülerinde imal edilmiştir.

Atışlar sırasında ses ölçüm aleti ve silahın konumu aynı olacak düzenek oluşturulmuştur. Silah
atış masasına sabitlenerek hareket etmesi engellenmiştir. Ses seviyesi ölçüm aleti sürekli aynı
konumda bulundurularak, ölçümlerin birbiriyle olan doğruluğu sağlanmıştır.
Havalı silah için susturucusuz normal atış ortalama ses şiddeti değeri 83,5dB olarak ölçülmüştür.
20x72mm boyutlarında tasarlanmış susturucu modeli prototip takıldıktan sonra yapılan
atışlarda ortalamada 73,8 dB’e düşmüştür. 34x94mm boyutlarındaki susturucu 2 prototipi ise
ortalamada 69,5 dB’e kadar düştüğü görülmüştür.

Dozen reason for silencer

 High suppression
 Low weight
 Short net length due to over barrel design
Less effect on firearms balance and handling characteristics
 Surface coating
Meets the highest requirements on hardness and corrosion resistance
  Minor muzzle flash
The muzzle flash is almost completely redirected into the silencer’s interior, thus
substantially reducing the glare affecting the shooter.
 Reduced recoil
The great number of baffles considerably reduces the recoil.
 Magnum compliance
High-grade aluminium alloys and a solid wall thickness allow the use of Magnum
calibres.
 Step geometry – diminished wear of seals
 Minimized first round pop
The silencer’s custom-built baffle component reduces the first round pop to a minimum.
 Exchangeable thread bushing
An exchangeable threaded bushing facilitates the ERA ®silencers use on various rifles of
the same calibre with different muzzle threads.
 Quick-release
 Situated for shooting gallery

Suppressor designers are constantly trying to optimise the balance between size, weight and
noise reduction, which is why there is a wide variety of designs available.
The attenuation generally increases with its internal volume and number of baffles but only up to
a certain value and then decreases thereafter. The attenuation also depends on the length of the
inlet chamber, the placement of the silencer, and projectile whole size. [3][4]

Despite this, the understanding of why the pressure oscillations exist or how the suppression
methods work have not been investigated as thoroughly. Advances in CFD permits modelling of
the cavity environment to be performed and to reveal details about the flow which is difficult to
obtain from experiments.

[11] In this study, they designed and studied a muffler with ventilation holes focusing on the
effect of sound emission. In the first part, the principle of impact noise generated by the shooting
test is examined. In the middle part, the validation of CFD on the muffler is described. In the
latter part of the study, the comparison of the noise reduction by the muffler and the difference of
 the muzzle velocity is described. Lastly, the design method and usability for the muffler
development are examined.

Experiments do not reveal changes in the flow field caused by the muzzle brake, nor do they
fully reflect the development and propagation of the muzzle noise field.

Advancements in computational performance and CAA have made numerical simulation

methods better suited to jet noise research.

In the design process, computational simulations are used to investigate how different geometries
and operational parameters affect optimizing the performance of systems.

Currently developing the numerical methods to model acoustic waves generation due to turbulent
flow fluctuations is being carried out around the world. As a rule, the goal of such investigations
is tuning of applying numerical methods to describe the influence of geometry features on the
generated broadband noise level.

Silencers have to be designed specially so that they allow gun gases to expand into chamber
volumes properly to get the maximum pressure reduction. The attenuation of the silencer
generally increases with its internal volume. Attenuation increases with the number of baffles but
only up to a certain value and then decreases thereafter. Length of the inlet chamber, the
placement of the silencer, and the whole size of the projectile.

A silencer can only affect the noise generated by the muzzle blast.

Referance

Aimée Lister. (2006). Investigations into the Optimisation of Sound Suppressor Geometry. PhD Thesis.
Alam, M. F. (2013a). A dynamic hybrid RANS/LES modeling methodology for turbulent/transitional flow field
prediction.
Alam, M. F. (2013b). A dynamic hybrid RANS/LES modeling methodology for turbulent/transitional flow field
prediction.
Araya, G. (2019). Turbulence model assessment in compressible flows around complex geometries with
unstructured grids. Fluids, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids4020081
Arslan, H., Ranjbar, M., Secgin, E., & Celik, V. (2020). Theoretical and experimental investigation of acoustic
performance of multi-chamber reactive silencers. Applied Acoustics, 157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.07.035
Blake, J. D. (2020). A coupled large eddy simulation-synthetic turbulence method for predicting jet noise.
Bozdemi̇ r, M., Üniversitesi, K., Savunma Teknolojileri Bölümü, F., & Tarihi, G. (2019). Havalı Silah
Sistemleri İçin Tek Parçalı Susturucu Tasarımı * Single Particle Suppressor Design For Airgun Systems
Antalya, Türkiye’de sempozyumda sunulmuştur. 18.
Cler, D. L., Chevaugeon, N., Shephard, M. S., Flaherty, J. E., & Remacle, J.-F. (2003). CFD Application to
Gun Muzzle Blast-A Validation Case Study Two CFD codes, Fluent 6.1.11 (a pre-release version of
Fluent) and.
Crighton, D. G. (1977). Aeroacoustics. By MARVIN E. GOLDSTEIN. McGraw-Hill, 1976. 293 pp. £16.45.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 83(2), 396–400. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112077211256
Deardorff, J. W. (1970). A numerical study of three-dimensional turbulent channel flow at large Reynolds
numbers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 41(2), 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112070000691
E. Garnier, N. A. , P. S. (2009). Large Eddy Simulation for Compressible Flows. www.springer.com/series/718
Foltz, A. L. (2019). EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF SMALL CALIBER GUN BARRELS
UNDER INTERNAL PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING.
Gerasimov, A., & Cfd, S. (2006). Turbulence Modelling: LES & DES.
Gong, Y. (2012). LARGE EDDY SIMULATION OF DISPERSED MULTIPHASE FLOW.
Guo, Z., Pan, Y., Li, K., & Zhang, H. (2013a). Numerical simulation of overpressure about muzzle blast
flowfield. Advanced Materials Research, 605–607, 2506–2509.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.605-607.2506
Guo, Z., Pan, Y., Li, K., & Zhang, H. (2013b). Numerical simulation of overpressure about muzzle blast
flowfield. Advanced Materials Research, 605–607, 2506–2509.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.605-607.2506
Hanafi, A., & Khlifi, H. (2016). Evaluation study of pressure-strain correlation models in compressible flow.
Journal of Applied Fluid Mechanics, 9(6), 2685–2693. https://doi.org/10.29252/jafm.09.06.25601
Henderson Jason Eng, B. (2001). Investigation of Cavity Flow Aerodynamics Using Computational Fluid
Dynamics.
Hodor, V., Birle, D., Nascutiu, L., & Deac, I. (2017). Aeroacoustics -Noise Prediction by Using “lES” for
Signal Processing. Energy Procedia, 112, 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1104
Hristov, N., Kari, A., Jerkovi, D., Savić, S., & Sirovatka, R. (2015). Simulation and Measurements of Small
Arms Blast Wave Overpressure in the Process of Designing a Silencer. Measurement Science Review,
15(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/msr-2015-0005
Hristov, N., Kari, A., Jerković, D., & Savić, S. (2018a). Application of a CFD model in determination of the
muzzle blast overpressure in small arms and its validation by measurement. Tehnicki Vjesnik, 25(5),
1399–1407. https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20180321135212
Hristov, N., Kari, A., Jerković, D., & Savić, S. (2018b). Application of a CFD model in determination of the
muzzle blast overpressure in small arms and its validation by measurement. Tehnicki Vjesnik, 25(5),
1399–1407. https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20180321135212
Hristov, N., Kari, A., Kari, A., & Savić, S. (2018). Application of a CFD model in determination of the muzzle
blast overpressure in small arms and its validation by measurement. Tehnicki Vjesnik, 25(5), 1399–1407.
https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20180321135212
Huerta-Torres, J. K., Silva-Rivera, U. S., Verduzco-Cedeño, V. F., Flores-Herrera, L. A., & Sandoval-Pineda,
J. M. (2021). Numerical and experimental analysis of sound suppressor for a 5.56 mm calibre. Defence
Science Journal, 71(1), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.14429/DSJ.71.14957
JAMES E., & CASKEY, JR. (1963). GENERAL CIRCULATION EXPERIMENTS WITH THE PRIMITIVE
EQUATIONS. Monthly Weather Review Volume 91 Issue 3. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0493(1963)091<0099:GCEWTP>2.3.CO;2
Kang, K. J., Ko, S. H., & Lee, D. S. (2008). A study on impulsive sound attenuation for a high-pressure blast
flowfield. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 22(1), 190–200.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-007-1023-8
Keith Hudson, M., Luchinh, C., Keith Clutter, J., & Shyys, W. (1996). CFD approach to firearms sound
suppressor design. 32nd Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1996-
3020
Kim, H. (2012). TRANSMISSION LOSS OF SILENCERS WITH FLOW FROM A FLOW-IMPEDANCE TUBE.
Klingenberg, G., & Mach, H. (1976). Investigation of Combustion Phenomena Associated with the Flow of
Hot Propellant Gases I: Spectroscopic Temperature Measurements Inside the Muzzle Flash of a Rifle. In
COMBUSTION AND FLAME (Vol. 27).
le Roy, T. W. (2011). Muffler characterization with implementation of the finite element method and
experimental techniques. https://doi.org/10.37099/mtu.dc.etds/381
Lee, H. S., Kang, T. Y., & Hong, J. H. (2018). Development of a Muffler for 40 mm Medium Caliber Gun:
Numerical Analysis and Validation. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,
19(2), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-018-0028-9
Li, P. fei, & Zhang, X. bing. (2021). Numerical research on adverse effect of muzzle flow formed by muzzle
brake considering secondary combustion. Defence Technology, 17(4), 1178–1189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2020.06.019
Lilly, D. K. (1992). A proposed modification of the Germano subgrid-scale closure method. Physics of Fluids
A, 4(3), 633–635. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.858280
Lo, S. W., Tai, C. H., & Teng, J. T. (2011). Axial-symmetry numerical approaches for noise predicting and
attenuating of rifle shooting with suppressors. Journal of Applied Mathematics, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/961457
Lo, S.-W., Tai, C., -Hsien, Teng, J., -Tong, Lin, & -Jhou, Y. (n.d.). Numerical Study of the Noise Generation
by a Rifle Shooting with Suppressor.
M. Germano, U. Piomelli, P. Moin, & W. H. Cabot. (1991). “A Dynamic Subgrid-Scale Eddy Viscosity
Model,” Physics of Fluids A 3, Vol. 3, No. 7, pp. 1760-1765.doi10.1063/1.857955. Scientific Research
Publishing. https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/referencespapers.aspx?
referenceid=614441
Maccarthy, M., O’neill, M., & Cripps, H. (2011). An Investigation Into The Use Of Sound Moderators On
Firearms An Investigation Into The Use Of Sound Moderators On Firearms For Game And Feral
Management In New South Wales For Game And Feral Management In New South Wales.
https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks2011/858
Murphy, W. J., Flamme, G. A., Campbell, A. R., Zechmann, E. L., Tasko, S. M., Lankford, J. E., Meinke, D.
K., Finan, D. S., & Stewart, M. (2018). The reduction of gunshot noise and auditory risk through the use
of firearm suppressors and low-velocity ammunition. International Journal of Audiology, 57, S28–S41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017.1407459
Nicoud, F., & Ducros, F. (1999). Subgrid-Scale Stress Modelling Based on the Square of the Velocity Gradient
Tensor. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 1999 62:3, 62(3), 183–200.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009995426001
Per Rasmussen, Michael Stewart, Greg Flamme, Deanna Meinke, & James Lankford. (n.d.). Measuring
Recreational Firearm Noise. www.SandV.com
Pitsch, H., Pitsch, & Heinz. (2006). Large-Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Combustion. AnRFM, 38(1), 453–
482. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV.FLUID.38.050304.092133
Rehman, H., Chung, H., Joung, T., Suwono, A., & Jeong, H. (2011). CFD analysis of sound pressure in tank
gun muzzle silencer. J. Cent. South Univ. Technol, 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771−011−0936−7
Rehman, H., Hwang, S. H., Fajar, B., Chung, H., & Jeong, H. (2011). Analysis and attenuation of impulsive
sound pressure in large caliber weapon during muzzle blast. Journal of Mechanical Science and
Technology, 25(10), 2601–2606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-011-0731-2
Seçgin, E., Arslan, H., & Birgören, B. (2021). A statistical design optimization study of a multi-chamber
reactive type silencer using simplex centroid mixture design. Journal of Low Frequency Noise Vibration
and Active Control, 40(1), 623–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461348419901227
Selech, J., Kilikevičius, A., Kilikevičiene, K., Borodinas, S., Matijošius, J., Vainorius, D., Marcinkiewicz, J., &
Staszak, Z. (2020). Force and sound pressure sensors used for modeling the impact of the firearm with a
suppressor. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 10(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10030961
Smagorinsky, J. (1963). General Circulation Experiments with the Primitive Equations. Monthly Weather
Review, 91, 99-164. - References - Scientific Research Publishing.
https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/referencespapers.aspx?
referenceid=1748811
Smith, J. D., Adams, B. R., Jackson, R., Smith, Z., Suo-Antilla, A., Smith, S., & Allen, D. (2017). RANS vs
LES CFD for Gas-Fired Combustion Equipment Analysis.
Sullivan, P. P., McWilliams, J. C., & Moeng, C. H. (1994). A subgrid-scale model for large-eddy simulation of
planetary boundary-layer flows. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 1994 71:3, 71(3), 247–276.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00713741
Sun, G., & Domaradzki, J. A. (2018). Implicit LES using adaptive filtering. Journal of Computational Physics,
359, 380–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCP.2018.01.009
Tushar Chindha, J., & Sanjay Bhaskar, Z. (2015). Performance evaluation of reactive Silencer. International
Engineering Research Journal, 2, 5696–5699. www.ierjournal.org
Wagner, C., Hüttl, T., & Sagaut, P. (2007). Large-Eddy Simulation for Acoustics. Large-Eddy Simulation for
Acoustics, 9780521871440, 1–441. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546143
Xu, X., Battaglia, F., Chaudhuri, S., Colver, G. M., Rajagopalan, G. R., & Tannehill, J. C. (2003). Large eddy
simulation of compressible turbulent pipe flow with heat transfer.
Yucetepe, M., Molki, M., Darabi, J., & Yan, T. (2015). Liquid-Gas Recirculation and Entrainment in a Wall-
Driven Cavity.
Zhang, H., Chen, Z., Jiang, X., & Li, H. (2013). Investigations on the exterior flow field and the efficiency of
the muzzle brake. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 27(1), 95–101.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-012-1223-8
Zhao, X. Y., Zhou, K. D., He, L., Lu, Y., Wang, J., & Zheng, Q. (2019a). Numerical Simulation and
Experiment on Impulse Noise in a Small Caliber Rifle with Muzzle Brake. Shock and Vibration, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5938034
Zhao, X. Y., Zhou, K. D., He, L., Lu, Y., Wang, J., & Zheng, Q. (2019b). Numerical Simulation and
Experiment on Impulse Noise in a Small Caliber Rifle with Muzzle Brake. Shock and Vibration, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5938034
Zhipeng Lou. (2017). Improved flamelet modeling of supersonic combustion.
 

. Setting up an LES Simulation

4.1.12.4.1. Geometry for LES

Even though there might be symmetries in the geometry and flow, the geometrical model should
include the full region because, while the time averaged flows may be symmetric, the
instantaneous flows are not, and restricting the domain could constrain the turbulence. Two-
dimensional approximations are particularly poor.
 

4.1.12.4.2. Meshing

The mesh and timesteps are an inherent part of the model. LES models make use of the grid
scale for filtering out the turbulence. If the mesh is anisotropic to resolve a jet, for example, the
longer length scale in the flow direction may also have an undue effect on the cross-stream
turbulence. For this reason, consider the use of isotropic grids, perhaps using tetrahedral rather
than hexahedral elements.

4.1.12.4.3. Boundary Layers

If the boundary layer structure is important, you should resolve it with at least 15 points across
the boundary layer and with the first grid point at a position of approximately y + = 1. Note
however, that large aspect rations in the mesh are not suitable for LES. This often results in
excessive resolution requirements for boundary layer flows.

 
2.5. Large Eddy Simulation Theory

This section outlines the theoretical details of the LES model in Ansys CFX. Additional
information on setting up an LES simulation is available, as well as modeling advice. For details,
see The Large Eddy Simulation Model (LES) in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide.

The rationale behind the large-eddy simulation technique is a separation between large and small

scales. The governing equations for LES are obtained by filtering the time-dependent Navier-
Stokes equations in the physical space. The filtering process effectively filters out the eddies
whose scales are smaller than the filter width or mesh spacing used in the computations. The
resulting equations thus govern the dynamics of the large eddies.\

Filtered Navier-Stokes Equations

The governing equations employed for LES are obtained by filtering the time-dependent Navier-
Stokes equations in either Fourier (wave-number) space or configuration (physical) space. The
filtering process effectively filters out the eddies whose scales are smaller than the filter width or
grid spacing used in the computations. The resulting equations therefore govern the dynamics of
large eddies.

A filtered variable (denoted by an overbar) is defined by Equation 4–5:

A filtered variable is denoted in the following by an overbar and is defined by

where D is the fluid domain, and G is the filter function that determines the scale of the resolved
eddies.

The unresolved part of a quantity Φ  is defined by

It should be noted that the filtered fluctuations are not zero:

The discretization of the spatial domain into finite control volumes implicitly provides the filtering
operation:

where where V is the control volume. The filter functionG( X ; X ')  implied here is then

Filtering the Navier-Stokes equations leads to additional unknown quantities. The filtered momentum
equation can be written in the following way:

Filtering the continuity and momentum equations, one obtains

where τ ij  denotes the subgrid-scale stress. It includes the effect of the small scales and is defined by

The large scale turbulent flow is solved directly and the influence of the small scales is taken into account
by appropriate subgrid-scale (SGS) models. In Ansys CFX an eddy viscosity approach is used that relates
the subgrid-scale stresses  τ ij to the large-scale strain rate tensor  Sij  in the following way:

  μsgs   the subgrid-scale viscosity only represents the small scales.

It should be noted that the isotropic part of τ kk  is not modeled, but added to the filtered static
pressure.

Three models are available to provide the subgrid-scale (SGS) viscosity   μsgs  .

 Smagorinsky model (Smagorinsky, 1963)

 wall-adapted local eddy-viscosity (WALE) model (Nicoud & Ducros, 1999)

  Dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly model(M. Germano et al., 1991)(Lilly, 1992)

Subgrid-Scale Models

The subgrid-scale (SGS) stresses resulting from the filtering operation are unknown, and require
modeling. The subgrid-scale turbulence models in Ansys Fluent employ the Boussinesq
hypothesis  [232] as in the RANS models, computing subgrid-scale turbulent stresses from
where   μt is the subgrid-scale turbulent viscosity. The isotropic part of the subgrid-scale stresses τ kk is not
modeled, but added to the filtered static pressure term.  Sij  is the rate-of-strain tensor for the resolved scale
defined by

For compressible flows, it is convenient to introduce the density-weighted (or Favre) filtering operator:

The Favre Filtered Navier-Stokes equation takes the same form as Equation 4–9. The compressible form
of the subgrid stress tensor is defined as:

This term is split into its isotropic and deviatoric parts

The deviatoric part of the subgrid-scale stress tensor is modeled using the compressible form of the
Smagorinsky model:
Smagorinsky-Lilly Model
Dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly Model
 Wall-Adapting Local Eddy-Viscosity (WALE) Model
In the WALE model  [455], the eddy viscosity is modeled by

where  Ls  and  Sij  in the WALE model are defined, respectively, as
d

where  K=0.41 is the von Kármán constant. The published value for the WALE constant, C w, is
0.5; however, intensive validation during a European Union research project involving the
original model developers has shown consistently superior results in Ansys Fluent
with C w =0.325 , and so it is this value that is used as the default setting. The rest of the notation
is the same as for the Smagorinsky-Lilly model. With this spatial operator, the WALE model is
designed to return the correct wall asymptotic ( y 3) behavior for wall bounded flows.

Another advantage of the WALE model is that it returns a zero turbulent viscosity for laminar
shear flows. This allows the correct treatment of laminar zones in the domain. In contrast, the
Smagorinsky-Lilly model produces nonzero turbulent viscosity. The WALE model is therefore
preferable compared to the Smagorinsky-Lilly model.

Algebraic Wall-Modeled LES Model (WMLES)

. Dynamic Kinetic Energy Subgrid-Scale Model