16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference AIAA 2010-3774

Sound from Boundary Layer Flow over Steps and Gaps

M. Ryan Catlett1 and William Devenport2

Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA 24061

Stewart A. L. Glegg3
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton FL 33431

This study is concerned with the radiated sound from boundary layer flows over small
forward and backward steps and gap configurations of similar dimension. These measurements
were performed in the Virginia Tech Anechoic Wall Jet facility for step heights that ranged from
approximately 10% to 100% of the incoming boundary layer height. The results show the influence
of step height and boundary layer velocity on the far field sound from forward and backward steps.
Very little directivity is seen for either source and the larger step heights considered in this study are
shown to not be acoustically compact. A new mixed scaling normalization is proposed for the far
field spectra from both types of step. Backward steps are shown to be much weaker producers of far
field sound than similarly sized forward steps. The implications of this behavior are discussed with
respect to the far field sound measured from various gap flows.

I. Introduction
The turbulent boundary layer developing over any vehicle will inevitably be disturbed by surface
discontinuities. These discontinuities regularly appear as steps or gaps from panel mismatches and joints.
Whether these features are intended or not, they can be a significant source of additional pressure
fluctuations which can manifest as radiated noise. Additionally they control the unsteady forcing on the
surface structure, and influence the interaction with surface roughness and trailing edges which also
generate noise and vibration.
While extensive data exists for step flows, there are relatively few previous studies concerning the
sound radiated by surface steps at low Mach number. Farabee and Zoccola (1998) studied the radiated
sound from flow over a backward step of 1.27 cm height and two forward steps of 0.76 and 1.4 cm height
at velocities of 25 and 41 m/s as seen normal to the flow surface. They were unable to distinguish any
levels above the background for their backward step; however they successfully obtained sound spectra for
both forward steps at both speeds, and suggest a scaling on velocity to the 7th power.
Jacob et al. (2001) studied the aerodynamics and the radiated acoustics from various backward
steps in a plane wall jet facility. The characteristics of the radiated sound are seen for step heights between
1 and 6 cm and for jet exit velocities between 60 to 140 m/s. They demonstrate that the most turbulent
regions downstream of the step coincide with the acoustic source locations, in addition to showing the
behavior of the far field spectra. Scaling on velocity between the 6th and 7th power is suggested depending
on observation angle, while little directivity is witnessed between the spectra for a given step.
The computational work of Ji and Wang (2008) concerns the radiated sound from both a forward
and backward step, as well as how the fluctuating wall pressure is affected by these discontinuous surface
features. Their calculations were designed to mirror the experimental work of Farabee and Casarella
(1986), which was performed at quite similar conditions to the present study. Under the assumptions of an
acoustically compact step and a streamwise aligned dipole, Ji and Wang (2008) observed approximately 10
dB higher far field sound levels for the flow over a forward step when compared to the same size backward
step, and a slow recovery of the fluctuating wall pressure field downstream of the steps. The data and
results of the relevant previous studies are largely consistent with those results to be presented here.
This study is concerned with the radiated acoustics and influence on the fluctuating wall pressure
field from surface discontinuities. Far field spectra as well as the fluctuating wall pressure field were

1
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, AIAA Student Member
2
Professor, Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, AIAA Associate Fellow
3
Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering, AIAA Associate Fellow
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2010 by Ryan Catlett, William Devenport, and Stewart Glegg. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
measured for both forward and backward facing steps. In all, six step heights were considered for each
configuration from 10% to over 100% of the approach boundary layer thickness. Sound measurements
were also made for three different gap configurations using the same set of step heights.
In this paper we present the acoustic results from this study. Details and analysis of the wall
pressure fluctuation results can be found in Catlett (2010).

4060 mm

Acoustically Treated 3150 mm

Portion of Settling 1170
Flexible Acoustically Treated Enclosure mm
Hose
Untreated Portion of
Acoustically Settling Chamber
Treated Baffles
2690 mm

Wall Jet Plate

1247
mm
1257
mm

Wall Jet Plate Trailing Edge

2161 mm 1247 mm Supports Radius

Figure 1. Schematic View of the Virginia Tech Anechoic Wall Jet Facility

97.5o 74o
o
123.5
51.5o

far field microphone

y-axis
locations
x-axis
θ

z-axis

step or gap location, xs

wall jet nozzle

Figure 2. Coordinate System Utilized in the Virginia Tech Anechoic Wall Jet

II. Apparatus and Instrumentation

A. Wind Tunnel Facility
Data for this study were collected in the Virginia Tech Anechoic Wall Jet Facility which is
detailed in Figure 1. In this facility a centrifugal fan pushes air into a settling chamber containing
acoustically treated baffles and then out onto a large flat plate through a nozzle of 12.7mm height and 1206
mm width. The entire wall jet flow is housed inside of a removable acoustic enclosure. Part of this
enclosure includes an acoustically treated baffle positioned above the jet exit that extends over the plate to
shield far field microphones from direct jet noise produced at the nozzle exit. The work of Grissom (2007),
Grissom et al (2007), Smith (2008), and Alexander et al. (2009) provides a detailed description of this
facility’s characteristics.
A visual representation of the coordinate system adopted for this study is provided by Figure 2.
The origin of the system is located in the plane of the wall jet nozzle at the mid span location and on the
leading surface of the wall jet plate. The definition of the observer angle, θ, used to define the position of
the far field microphones is defined relative to the location of the leading feature of the step or gap being
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
examined. This location of the leading feature of the steps or gaps, xs, was held constant throughout this
study at 1,372 mm downstream of the wall jet nozzle.
The stream-wise development of the two dimensional core of the wall jet conforms well to the
self-similarity relations of Narasimha et al. (1973) and Wygnanski (1992). As a result, the boundary layer
edge velocity, Um, displacement thickness, δ*, and wall jet half height, y1/2, can be calculated for
streamwise positions throughout the plate for a smooth undisturbed surface from the following relations:

Um n +1 n δ* p −2 p y1 / 2 m −2 m
= Au Re j Re x , = Aδ Re j Re x , = Ay1 / 2 Re j Re x (1)
Uj b b

Rej is a Reynolds number determined by the nozzle height, b, and wall jet nozzle exit velocity, Uj. Rex is a
Reynolds number determined by the downstream location taken from the nozzle exit, x, and the wall jet
nozzle exit velocity, Uj. The coefficients Au, Aδ, Ay1/2, n, p, and m are constants which have been
determined experimentally from previous studies to have values of 4.97, 0.0156, 0.0335, -0.512, 0.888, and
1.0451, respectively. The boundary layer thickness, δ, and momentum thickness, Θ, are quite closely
proportional to the displacement thickness and can be estimated as

δ = 15.4δ * , Θ = 0.74δ * (2)

Note that the above relations, based on new measurements made by Rasnick (2010), differ from
those given in previous publications since they account for the effect of the acoustic chamber and baffle on
the wall jet. Figure 3 shows normalized mean-velocity and turbulence profiles for twelve separate boundary
layer profiles taken at various streamwise positions and wall jet nozzle exit velocities. The local velocity,
U, and streamwise turbulence normal stress u2 are normalized on the local maximum velocity, Um, and
plotted versus distance away from the wall, y, normalized on the local mixing layer half height, y1/2. It
should be noted that the flow in this facility does not have a typical freestream and that the boundary layer
thickness is defined as the height in the y direction at which the local maximum velocity occurs.
1.2 1.2
(a) (b)
1 1

0.8 0.8
y/y1/2

y/y1/2

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
U/Um u2/U2m

Figure 3. Normalized Velocity Profiles measured in the Undisturbed Wall Jet

(a) Mean Velocity, (b) Streamwise Turbulence Normal Stress.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 As previously mentioned, the steps and gaps were placed 1372mm downstream of the nozzle exit
(location xs). Boundary layer properties at this location, for nozzle exit velocities of 60, 45, and 30 m/s are
shown in Table 1. Table 2 presents the step height to boundary layer thickness ratios for the six step
heights considered at a wall jet exit velocity of 60 m/s.

Uj [m/s] Um [m/s] δ [mm] δ * [mm] Θ [mm] Reδ

60 21.0 17.7 1.14 0.847 21,990
45 15.8 18.8 1.22 0.903 17,580
30 10.7 20.6 1.34 0.989 13,040
Table 1. Selected Wall Jet Boundary Layer Properties at x = 1372mm

Step Height, h [mm] 1.5 3.0 4.6 6.1 11.7 18.0

h/δ 0.0849 0.170 0.260 0.345 0.662 1.02
Table 2. Step Height to Boundary Layer Height Ratios at the Step Location
for a Nozzle Exit Velocity of 60 m/s

B. Acoustic Instrumentation and Measurement Techniques

The microphones used in this study were ½ inch model 4190 B&K free field microphones. These
are notable for having a high sensitivity and a flat frequency response to over 20 kHz. A B&K Nexus 2690
four channel amplifier was used with these microphones. Before digitizing the microphone signals, they
were band pass filtered between 250 Hz and 20 kHz. These signals were then read by an Agilent E1432
16-bit digitizer. The spectra presented in this study were measured by averaging 1000 records of 2048
samples collected at 51,200 Hz for each condition.
The acoustic measurements made in this study were performed with four microphones located in a
stream-wise circular arc on the plane of symmetry of the facility centered at xs. The microphones were held
by acoustically treated microphone stands which were secured to an acoustically treated support structure
located outside of the flow that arches over the wall jet plate. Nominally, two microphones were placed
downstream, and two microphones were placed upstream of the step location. In this way each microphone
had a unique observation angle, θ (Figure 2). Each microphone was located a distance R = 577.5 + 2.5 mm
away from the step location xs. The microphones were located at observer angles of θ = 51.5o, 74o, 97.5o,
123.5o; with an uncertainty of 0.5o applying to all angles.
All of the acoustic data are presented with the facility background noise levels subtracted out.
Background noise spectra were measured at matching conditions but with the step or gap removed so as to
produce an entirely smooth flow surface. For frequencies where the signal to noise ratio is greater than or
equal to 1 dB, the step or gap power spectral density is subtracted by that of the facility background. No
data is presented for instances when the signal to noise ratio is below 1 dB.
flow
Forward steps
6 step heights

flow
Figure 4. Schematic Backward steps
of the Step and Gap 6 step heights
Configurations
Gap A - Symmetric Gaps flow
4 gap configurations

Gap B - Asymmetric Narrow flow

Gaps
6 gap configurations

flow
Gap C - Asymmetric Wide Gaps
6 gap configurations

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
C. Steps and Gaps
Five distinct varieties of two-dimensional step and gap configurations were examined in this
study. Forward and backward steps with heights of 1.5, 3.0, 4.6, 6.1, 11.7 and 18.0 mm were studied.
Three types of gap configuration were considered and are labeled Gap A, B and C for short. Figure 4
provides a visual depiction of these configurations.
In general, all of the gap configurations are created by an 11.7 mm backward step followed by
different forward steps at varying locations. The Gap A configuration places the 11.7 mm forward step at
four downstream locations relative to the upstream backward step of 5.85, 11.7, 23.4, and 93.6 mm,
corresponding to 0.5, 1, 2, and 8 step heights of gap separation. The Gap A configuration is also referred to
as the set of symmetric gaps. The Gap B and C configurations place the full set of six forward step heights
at two separate locations downstream of the backward step. Gap B corresponds to a closer forward step
location of 11.7 mm downstream of the backward step (or 1 backward step height). Gap C corresponds to a
further location of 93.6 mm downstream of the backward step (or 8 backward step heights). The Gap B
configuration is also referred to as the set of asymmetric narrow gaps, while the Gap C configuration is also
referred to as the set of asymmetric wide gaps.
Two separate thicknesses of Lexan sheet were used to create the six different step heights. Thin
Lexan sheets of 1.5 mm thickness were stacked on top of each other to create the forward and backward
steps of 1.5, 3.0, 4.6, and 6.1 mm. Each of these sheets spanned the entire width of the wall jet plate and
had a running length of 609.6 mm. Silicon sealant was used between each of the sheets and the sheet to
wall jet plate connection across the entire edge that constituted the step in order to ensure the integrity of
the step and prevent any entrainment of air impinging on the face of the step. Forward and backward 11.7
mm steps were created using a Lexan sheet of the same thickness with a running length of 406.4 mm. The
18 mm forward and backward steps were created be raising this same sheet on the appropriate sized shims.
Silicon sealant was used to seal the Lexan to the wall jet plate and create a sealed step surface.

50
h = 1.5 mm
40 h = 3.0 mm
h = 4.6 mm
30 h = 6.1 mm
SPL [dB], (dB ref. 20μ Pa / Hz)

h = 11.7 mm
2

20 h = 18 mm

10

-10

-20

-30

-40
3 4
10 Freq [Hz] 10
freq [Hz] SPL for the Forward Steps
Figure 5. Sound Levels in 1Hz bandwidth
at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 123.5o
For all forward steps, the elevated step surface produced by the Lexan was continued from the step
location to the end of the wall jet plate (some 1.7 m downstream) where it was then ramped back down to
the wall jet plate. This downward ramp at the end of the plate had a height corresponding to the specific
step height being tested and a running length of approximately 100 mm. It was located at the very end of

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
the wall jet plate where the local velocity is greatly reduced by the decay of the wall jet and is located as far
from the microphone array as possible.
Backward steps were created by placing the Lexan sheets in front of the step location with a
forward ramp between the wall jet plate and the elevated surface. This ramp, fabricated from Lexan was
located with its leading edge 662 mm downstream of the wall jet nozzle for the four smallest step heights,
and 866 mm downstream of the wall jet nozzle for the two larger step heights. Again, the ramp had the
necessary height for the step being tested and had a running length of 100 mm. All gap configurations
were constructed in an identical manner as the individual steps which made them.
Surface oil-flow visualizations were performed to verify the two-dimensionality of the backward
step flows (since these were expected to be most likely influenced by end effects). Sound measurements
were made to demonstrate that no significant noise was generated by the ramps, or by the interaction of the
steps and gaps with the three-dimensional portions of the wall jet at the spanwise limits of the flow. See
Catlett (2010) for details.

50
Uj = 30 m/s
40 Uj = 45 m/s
Uj = 60 m/s
30
SPL [dB], (dB ref. 20μ Pa / Hz)
2

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40
3 4
10 Freq [Hz] 10
Figure 6. Sound Levels in 1Hz bandwidth SPL for the 11.7mm Forward Step
as a function of Flow Speed at θ = 123.5o
III. Results and Discussion
A. Sound from Forward Steps

A.1. Sound Levels as a function of Flow Speed and Step Height

The sound that emanates from forward steps immersed in turbulent flow was studied for six
different step heights, at four stream-wise observation angles, and at three different jet velocities. Spectra
for all six forward step heights, at the most upstream observation angle of 123.5o for a wall jet exit velocity
of 60m/s are presented in Figure 5. The spectra are broadband and sound levels increase with step height
over almost the entire frequency range. All step heights produce a measurable signal over the whole
frequency range, except the two smallest steps which are limited to the mid to high frequency range. For
the most part, spectral levels for different step heights maintain a constant separation with frequency;
however this behavior begins to break down at high frequency where the spectra from the two largest step
heights of 11.7 and 18 mm are seen to bend down and drop to or below the levels of the other spectra. An
approximate doubling of step height from 1.5 mm to 3.0 mm to 6.1 mm to 11.7 mm each produces an
approximate doubling of measured SPL (an increase of 3 dB). Again, this behavior is not entirely
consistent over the full frequency range, but does show the influence of step height on the far field sound.
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Spectra measured at a wall jet exit velocity of 45 and 30 m/s are very similar to those shown in
Figure 5, with the exception that the levels are reduced. Figure 6 presents sound spectra for the 11.7 mm
forward step at the most upstream observer angle of 123.5o as a function of wall jet velocity. The far field
spectra are seen to shift upward and to higher frequency with increase in velocity. Note that the small scale
spectral features which remain at fixed frequency as the velocity is increased are believed to be the result of
residual scattering around the microphone supports, and not characteristics of the flow.

-30
Uj = 30 m/s
-40 Uj = 45 m/s

-50 Uj = 60 m/s
10*log10[φ c / ρ Um h]

-60
5
2

-70
2

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120
0 1
10 10
f h / Um
Figure 7. Sound Spectra for the 11.7mm Forward Step at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 123.5o
plotted using the scaling of equation 3
At a fixed frequency, the sound levels increase approximately as the 7th power of velocity; the
same variation seen by Farabee and Zoccola (1998). The simplest scaling that accounts for the frequency
variation with velocity is one based on velocity and step height. The results of Figure 6 are re-plotted in
Figure 7 scaled as:
fh ⎛ φc 2 ⎞
vs. 10 log10 ⎜ 2 5 ⎟ (3)
Um ⎜ρ U h⎟
⎝ m ⎠
This normalization collapses the spectra to within about 5dB, except at the highest frequencies. Though
not shown, the same normalization reliably collapses the spectra measured at different velocities for each of
the other step heights. In all cases the best collapse occurs between the two fastest velocity conditions.
Though the scaling in equation 3 appears to capture the velocity dependence of the sound
spectrum it does not model step height dependence. This is illustrated in Figure 8 where the results of
Figure 5 have been re-plotted. In normalized form the sound spectra measured with different step heights
all appear to have the same level, but the spectra are shifted in frequency depending on step height. This
may indicate that the frequency is scaling on the undisturbed boundary layer thickness (which does not
vary in these cases), suggesting a mixed scaling of the form:
fδ ⎛ φc 2 ⎞
vs. 10 log10 ⎜ 2 5 ⎟ (4)
Um ⎜ρ U h⎟
⎝ m ⎠
Figure 9 shows the same 60m/s spectra re-plotted in this form. As can be seen this normalization collapses
the data to within 3-4dB except for a slight fanning out of the spectra at the highest frequencies. There
does not appear to be a specific correlation on step height for how the spectra deviate from the collapse.
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Note that spectra measured at other observer angles also collapse using the normalization of equation (4),
but to an extent limited by scalloping associated with the non-compactness of the steps, as discussed below.

-30
h = 1.5 mm
-40 h = 3.0 mm
h = 4.6 mm
-50 h = 6.1 mm
h = 11.7 mm
10*log10[φ c / ρ Um h]

-60 h = 18.0 mm
5
2

-70
2

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120
-1 0 1
10 10 10
f h / Um
Figure 8. Sound Spectra for the Forward Steps at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 123.5o
plotted using the scaling of equation 3

-30
h = 1.5 mm
-40 h = 3.0 mm
h = 4.6 mm
-50 h = 6.1 mm
h = 11.7 mm
10*log10[φ c / ρ Um h]

-60 h = 18.0 mm
5
2

-70
2

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120
-1 0 1
10 10 10
f δ / Um
Figure 9. Sound Spectra for the Forward Steps at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 123.5o
plotted using the mixed scaling of equation 4

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 50
h = 1.5 mm
40 h = 3.0 mm
h = 4.6 mm
30 h = 6.1 mm
SPL [dB], (dB ref. 20μ Pa / Hz) h = 11.7 mm
h = 18 mm
2

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40
3 4
10 Freq [Hz] 10
Figure 10. Sound Levels in 1Hz bandwidth SPL for the Forward Steps
at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 97.5o
A.2. Directivity
Sound spectra for the six different forward steps at 60m/s, measured from the observer angle of
97.5o, are shown in Figure 10. Note that background noise levels at this position are higher than at 123.5o
and so less of the step spectrum is visible. Separate from this, the comparison with Figure 5 shows
significant directivity. The most interesting features of these spectra are the dips seen in the spectra of the
two largest step heights at high frequency. The spectra are seen to roll off and scallop resulting in
significant drops in dB level at certain frequencies. While not explicitly discussed, this spectral behavior is
witnessed in the data of past studies (Farabee and Zoccola (1998), Becker et al. (2005)). We hypothesize
that it is a result of the acoustic non-compactness of the step.
The scalloping behavior produces a local drop in spectral levels of as much as 6 dB and
consistently occurs at frequencies for which the acoustic wavelength, or half wavelength, is almost equal to
the step height. For example, for the 11.7 mm forward step, Figure 10 shows a spectral minimum at 14.5
kHz, corresponding to an acoustic half-wavelength of 11.9 mm. Likewise, for the 18.0 m step, minima are
seen at 8.9 kHz and 17.0 kHz corresponding to a half-wavelength and wavelength, respectively, of 19.3 and
20.3 mm. This suggests that deconstructive interference of the sound source is occurring. Note that there
are no spectral dips seen for the smaller step heights, as deconstructive interference would occur at
frequencies higher than those resolved in this data.
The implied source locations are slightly further from the wall than the corresponding step height.
As identified by past studies, this region in the vicinity of the step is an area of maximum turbulence levels
as the flow accelerates over the step. This would suggest that these turbulent fluctuations would be the
source terms for the radiated sound in agreement with source localization data presented by Leclercq et al.
(2001).
Figure 11 presents the far field spectra for the 11.7 mm forward step at 60 m/s wall jet velocity as
a function of observer angle, directly highlighting the directivity of this sound source. These spectra
closely coincide with each other and exhibit weak directivity over the mid to high frequencies. The
spectral dips are seen clearly in this view and show that the frequency at which these dips are centered is
slightly shifted. It is believed that this is a result of the difference in observation angle, since the distance
from the source to the flow surface is slightly longer as viewed from the observation angle of 74o than
97.5o. This would result in interference occurring at a slightly longer wavelength, and therefore centered
on a slightly lower frequency, which is seen in the data. This description would account for the lack of a

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
spectral dip seen in the most upstream observation angle as interference would occur from wavelengths
reflecting off of the face of the step or top of the step surface. The spectrum for the most downstream
observer angle of 51.5o cuts out over the frequency range where the other spectra fall, because this signal
drops back to the level of the facility background.

50
o
θ = 123.5
40 o
θ = 97.5
o
30 θ = 74
SPL [dB], (dB ref. 20μ Pa / Hz)

o
θ = 51.5
2

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40
3 4
10 10
freq [Hz]
Figure 11. Sound Spectra (Plotted as 1Hz Bandwidth SPL) Showing Directivity
of the Far Field from a Forward Step of h = 11.7 mm and Uj = 60 m/s
Previous theories on step noise based on Howe (1989) use the model of a streamwise aligned
dipole for the source. This type of model implies varying sound levels with observer angle and would
result in no radiated sound normal to the flow surface. A model of this type would also predict that the
spectra at observation angles of 97.5o and 74o would be approximately 12.5 and 6 dB below the spectrum
taken at an observation angle of 123.5o respectively. This type of model is not supported by these
experimental results; except possibly at the lowest discernable frequencies. The spectral data is sparse, but
for the step height of 11.7 mm and at frequencies below 2 kHz this model could be relevant.

B. Sound from Backward Steps

Measurements were made for the same six step heights and wall jet velocities as with the forward
steps. Data from the 6.1 mm backward step has been omitted due to unusual high frequency behavior
believed to have resulted from experimental error in the setup of the configuration. Sound spectra are
presented as a function of step height, at the most upstream observation angle of 123.5o and for a wall jet
velocity of 60m/s, in Figure 12. Again the spectra are broadband, but the levels are 10dB or more below
those associated with the same set of forward steps (Figure 5). In fact, sound levels were so much lower
that they were measureable only at this angle and at 97.5o. No significant variation with receiver angle was
observed over this range. The low sound levels are consistent with the previous observations of Ji and
Wang (2008) and Farabee and Zoccola (1998). The dependence of sound levels on step height appears
much weaker than for the forward step. All of the spectra are contained within a 6 dB wide band across the
frequency range. This may be significant and indicate that the sound is produced by a different mechanism.
However, it also may be an illusion – the lower sound levels may simply be resulting in a narrower band of
sound levels that can be heard above this facility’s background.
Upon closer inspection, the far field spectra for the two largest step heights show similar behavior
of dips in the spectra as witnessed for the forward steps. For the 18 mm step height, this is seen by the
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
cutting in and out of the spectra which is where the signal drops back to the level of the background. A
similar, though less obvious dip is seen for the 11.7 mm step at higher frequency. Under the same premise
as the discussion for the forward steps, this behavior is believed to be a result of deconstructive interference
occurring for the source as sound is reflected off of the flow surface. The source localization of Leclercq et
al. (2001) provides evidence that the source from the backward step is a result of the turbulence from the
separated flow beginning at the edge of the step. With a source located in the proximity of the step edge, it
would follow that deconstructive interference would occur for this source as it did for the forward steps.

50
h = 1.5 mm
40 h = 3.0 mm
h = 4.6 mm
30 h = 11.7 mm
SPL [dB], (dB ref. 20μ Pa / Hz)

h = 18 mm
2

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40
3 4
10 10
freq [Hz]
Figure 12. Sound Levels in 1Hz bandwidth SPL for the Backward Steps
at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 123.5o

These signals and spectral dips are not as well defined as those of the forward steps. Instead of the far field
spectra dipping but always remaining above the background, as for the forward steps, these spectra fall
back to the background levels making identification of the frequency at which deconstructive interference
is centered much less certain. Because of this, estimates of the frequencies and resulting wavelengths are
not made, but are seen to be consistent with the expected values based on the two largest step heights.
The same general behavior shown in Figure 12 is seen in spectra measured for the backward steps
for wall jet velocities of 45 and 30 m/s, except for lower spectral levels and signal quality as a result of the
slower flow conditions. The effect of flow speed on the 11.7 mm backward step at the most upstream
observation angle of 123.5o is shown in Figure 13. Parts of the spectra are missing due to low signal to
noise ratio. This rise in velocity shifts the spectra upward in level as well as to higher frequency. The
velocity scaling of this data is not as clear as for the forward steps; however the far field spectral levels for
this configuration appear to grow with the 6th power of velocity at a fixed frequency. This is consistent
with work of Jacob et al. (2001) that show a power dependence on velocity to the power of 6.2 for a similar
observation angle.
As with the forward step, spectra for the same step measured at different speeds scale well when
spectral level and frequency are normalized on the local maximum velocity, Um, according to equations 3
or 4 (Figure 14). Also consistent with the forward step, the sound spectra for different step heights do not
scale well with frequency normalized on step height, the spectra ending up distributed much as in Figure 8.
They can be related, however, using the mixed scaling of equation 4. The mixed scaling normalization,
applied to the spectra of Figure 12 is presented in Figure 15 for the five backward step heights at the fastest
velocity condition and for an observation angle of 123.5o. In a similar fashion as for the forward steps, this
11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
normalization collapses what data is present over the middle frequencies while the higher frequency levels
fan out with step height with the largest steps being affected by their acoustic non-compactness.

50
Uj = 30 m/s
40 Uj = 45 m/s
Uj = 60 m/s
30
SPL [dB], (dB ref. 20μ Pa / Hz)
2

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40
3 4
10 10
freq [Hz]
Figure 13. Sound Levels in 1Hz bandwidth SPL for the 11.7mm Backward
Step as a function of Flow Speed at θ = 123.5o
-30
Uj = 30 m/s
-40 Uj = 45 m/s

-50 Uj = 60 m/s
10*log10[φ c / ρ Um h]

-60
5
2

-70
2

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120
-1 0 1
10 10 10
f h / Um
Figure 14. Sound Spectra for the 11.7mm Backward Step at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 123.5o
plotted using the scaling of equation 3

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 -30
h = 1.5 mm
-40 h = 3.0 mm
h = 4.6 mm
-50 h = 11.7 mm
h = 18.0 mm
10*log10[φ c / ρ Um h]

-60
5
2

-70
2

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120
-1 0 1
10 10 10
f δ / Um
Figure 15. Sound Spectra for the Backward Steps at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 123.5o
plotted using the mixed scaling of equation 4

C. Sound from Symmetric Gaps

The radiated far field sound that emanates from a pair of same sized 11.7 mm forward and
backward steps, forming a symmetric gap, immersed in flow was studied for four different gap widths, at
four stream-wise observation angles, and at three different jet velocities. Figure 16 presents the far field
spectra from the flow over this set of symmetric gaps for the fastest wall jet exit velocity of 60 m/s at an
observation angle of 123.5o where the signal to noise ratio was greatest. In addition to the far field spectra
from the gap flow, the spectra measured from the 11.7 mm forward and backward step at this velocity
condition have been overlain for the same observation angle.
It can be seen that these gap spectra are essentially banded above and below the corresponding
forward and backward step spectra. The gap spectra are structured such that strongest to weakest spectra
correspond to largest to smallest gap widths. This is qualitatively described by larger gaps exposing more
of the forward step to the incoming flow, which has been shown to be a stronger producer of sound than a
backward step.
The far field spectrum from the largest gap width of eight step heights is very similar in levels and
shape compared to the spectrum of only the forward step. In fact, this gap spectrum is slightly elevated
above the forward step spectrum over the frequencies where the backward step registers a signal.
However, the addition of the forward and backward step spectra does not account for all of the sound
generated by this gap. The spectrum that results from adding the forward and backward step contributions
remains 2 dB below that of this gap. The extra sound may well be due to elevated turbulence levels over
the forward step portion of the gap, due to the upstream backward step flow. If taken directly, the 2 dB
increase in sound level would imply an increase in turbulence levels of approximately 1.6 times, as a result
of the backward step. This type of rise seems reasonable given previous studies of backward step flow.
The far field spectra for the other gaps of shorter width also can not be treated simply as an
addition of the steps because the downstream forward step is located inside of the recirculation region of
the backward step and is impinged upon by the separated shear layer. As previously stated, as the gap is
widened, more of the forward step is exposed to the faster moving flow accounting for the rise in spectral
levels.
Spectral dips are seen in the symmetric gap data similar to what has been witnessed for the far
field data of step flow. All but one of the dips appears to be centered on frequencies that imply source
13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
locations in the vicinity of the 11.7 mm step heights present. The exception to this is the dip seen for the
two step height wide symmetric gap. A smaller, less severe dip is present in the spectrum which suggests
acoustic reflections from inside of the gap geometry because the wavelength implied by the frequency
corresponds approximately to the gap width.
50
0.5 h
40 11.7 mm forward step 1h
2h
SPL [dB], (dB ref. 20μ Pa / Hz)

30 8h
2

20

10

-10 11.7 mm backward step

-20

-30

-40
3 4
10 10
freq [Hz]
Figure 16. Sound Levels in 1Hz bandwidth SPL for the Symmetric Gaps as a
function of Gap Length in Step Heights at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 123.5o
60
1.5 mm FS
50 3.0 mm FS
18 mm forward step 4.6 mm FS
40 6.1 mm FS
SPL [dB], (dB ref. 20μ Pa / Hz)

11.7 mm FS
2

30 18 mm FS

20

10

-10 11.7 mm backward step

-20

-30
3 4
10 10
freq [Hz]
Figure 17. Sound Levels in 1Hz bandwidth SPL for the Narrow Asymmetric
Gaps as a function of Forward Step Height at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 123.5o

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D. Sound from Narrow Asymmetric Gaps
The radiated far field sound that emanates from a set of six narrow asymmetric gaps with an
11.7mm backward step was collected at four stream-wise observation angles and at three different jet
velocities. Figure 17 presents the far field spectra from the flow over this set of narrow asymmetric gaps
for the fastest wall jet exit velocity of 60 m/s at the most upstream observation angle (spectra at other
angles and speeds are qualitatively similar, but of lower signal to noise ratio). In addition to the far field
spectra from the gap flow, the spectra measured from the 11.7 mm backward step and the 18.0 mm forward
step at this velocity condition have been overlain for the corresponding observation angles.
The spectra clearly show that the smaller forward steps are essentially shielded by the wake of the
upstream backward step. Except at the highest frequencies, the spectra from the four gaps with smaller
forward steps than the backward step coincide with the spectra from the backward step only configuration.
This behavior is seen for a downstream forward step as large as 6.1 mm, which is approximately half of the
height of the upstream backward step. The scalloping that is seen at high frequency for these
configurations is centered on frequencies which correspond to source distances away from the flow surface
relative to the backward step height of 11.7 mm.
As the forward step height is raised to and above the backward step height, the far field sound
levels rise rapidly as more of the forward step is exposed. This behavior is seen for the two largest forward
step heights and the far field spectra begin to resemble that of the forward step. For the largest forward
step, a new behavior of scalloping is witnessed suggesting acoustic reflections from within the faces of the
gap.
50
1.5 mm FS
40 3.0 mm FS
4.6 mm FS
30 6.1 mm FS
SPL [dB], (dB ref. 20μ Pa / Hz)

11.7 mm FS
2

20 18 mm FS

10

-10 11.7 mm backward step

-20

-30

-40
3 4
10 10
freq [Hz]

Figure 18. Sound Levels in 1Hz bandwidth SPL for the Wide Asymmetric
Gaps as a function of Forward Step Height at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 123.5o
E. Sound from Wide Asymmetric Gaps
A full test matrix of noise spectra for the six wide asymmetric gaps was also measured. Figure 18
shows results for the fastest wall jet exit velocity of 60 m/s at the most upstream observation angle (spectra
at other angles and speeds are qualitatively similar, but of lower signal to noise ratio). In addition to the far
field spectra from the gap flow, the spectrum measured from the 11.7 mm backward step at this velocity
condition has been overlain for the corresponding observation angle. The far field spectra of these gap
flows are very similar to those of the forward step only configurations (seen in Figure 5). The far field
spectra remain in a cascade structure and (at more downstream observation angles) exhibit the same

15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
spectral dips based on step height. Little evidence exists of the presence of the upstream 11.7 mm
backward step in the far field data at first look.

50
11.7 mm FS - Gap C
40 11.7 mm FS
1.5 mm FS - Gap C
30 1.5 mm FS
SPL [dB], (dB ref. 20μ Pa / Hz)
2

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40
3 4
10 10
freq [Hz]
Figure 19. Comparison of Sound Levels in 1Hz bandwidth SPL for the Wide Asymmetric
Gaps and the simple Forward Step for two Step Heights at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 123.5o
50
11.7 mm FS - Gap C
40 11.7 mm FS
1.5 mm FS - Gap C
30 1.5 mm FS
SPL [dB], (dB ref. 20μ Pa / Hz)
2

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40
3 4
10 10
freq [Hz]
Figure 20. Comparison of Sound Levels in 1Hz bandwidth SPL for the Wide Asymmetric
Gaps and the simple Forward Step for two Step Heights at Uj = 60 m/s and θ = 97.5o

16
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 A direct comparison between the forward step spectra and the corresponding spectra from the
wide asymmetric gap configuration for the 1.5 and 11.7 mm step heights is given in Figures 19 and 20 for
the two most upstream observation angles. The spectra at both observation angles for the 11.7 mm forward
step and its corresponding gap configuration show significant similarity. The spectra deviate by
approximately 2dB and experience the same spectral dips at an observation angle of 97.5o. The main
difference between the spectra for the 1.5 mm forward step and corresponding gap is that the gap spectra at
both observation angles show a slight spectral dip at a frequency that would appear to come from the
backward step source. Clearly, this is not seen in the spectra for the forward step only configuration. This
comparison shows the minor differences in the spectra, but generally makes clear that the backward step
does not significantly contribute to the radiated sound, though does alter the flow field.
This behavior is attributed to the fact that the flow has reattached inside of the width of the gap,
and though the flow field is altered, the full face of the forward step is exposed to the incoming flow.
Because forward steps are significantly more effective at producing sound, their contribution dominates the
far field. This is evident in Figure 18 where the spectrum for the smallest forward step portion of the gap
of 1.5 mm is distinguishable above the spectrum of the 11.7 mm backward step only; which can be thought
of as the minimum sound level possible for this gap configuration.

IV. Conclusions
The Virginia Tech Anechoic Wall Jet Wind Tunnel was used to investigate the far field sound that
emanates from a broad range of surface discontinuities that took the form of forward steps, backward steps,
and three different types of gap formations. For each of these configurations the far field sound was
measured at multiple observation angles and for multiple velocity conditions.
The sound from forward steps is typically 10dB louder than that from backward steps of the same
size. Forward and backward step noise is seen to increase rapidly with velocity and show mostly weak
dependence on observation angle. Forward step noise is seen to be strongly dependent on step height,
while backward step noise appears to be much less dependent on step height. Deconstructive interference
in the far field is witnessed for both step configurations highlighting the acoustic non-compactness of large
steps and providing further evidence of the source location as the immediate vicinity of the exposed corner
of the step. A mixed scaling normalization is introduced which collapses data not influenced by
deconstructive interference such that frequency scales on boundary layer height, δ, and local maximum
velocity, Um; while spectral levels scale on step height, h, and Um5.
For symmetric and asymmetric gaps, shielding of the forward step portion of the gap geometry is
seen if the forward step is buried within the wake of the backward step, resulting in radiated sound from
only the backward step. As the forward step portion of the gap becomes more exposed, its contribution to
the far field sound rapidly dominates. If the forward step portion of a gap is outside of the separated region
behind the backward step, then the far field sound closely resembles a forward step only configuration.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Office of Naval Research, in particular Dr. Ron Joslin, for
their support of this study under the grant N00014-09-1-0315.

References

Alexander, N. Rasnick, M. Catlett, M., Devenport, W., and Glegg, S., 2009, “Boundary Layer Noise from
Discrete Roughness Elements”, AIAA-2009-3310, 15th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference,
Miami, Florida, May 11-13, 2009.

Becker, S., Escobar, M., Hahn, C., Ali, M., Kaltenbacher, B., Basel, M., Grunewald, M., 2005,
“Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Flow Induced Noise from a Forward Facing
Step”, AIAA-2005-3006, 11th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Monterey, California, May
23-25, 2005.

17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Catlett, M.R., 2010, “Flow Induced Noise from Turbulent Flow over Steps and Gaps”, Master’s Thesis,
AOE Department, Virginia Tech. Avail: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05172010-
192806/ .

Farabee, T. M., and Cassarella, M. J., 1986, “Measurements of Fluctuating Wall Pressure for
Separated/Reattached Boundary Layer Flows”, ASME Journal of Vibration, Acoustics, Stress, and
Reliability in Design, Vol. 108, 1986, pp. 301-307.

Farabee, T. M., and Zoccola, P. J., 1998, “Experimental Evaluation of Noise due to Flow over Surface
Steps”, 1998 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition.

Grissom, D., 2007, “A Study of Sound Generated by a Turbulent Wall Jet Flow Over Rough Surfaces”,
Ph.D. Dissertation, AOE Department, Virginia Tech. Avail:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-07192007-123339/ .

Grissom, D., Smith, B., Devenport, W., and Glegg, S., 2007, “Rough Wall Boundary Layer Noise: An
Experimental Investigation”, AIAA-2007-3418, 13th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference,
Rome, Italy, May 20-23, 2007.

Howe, M.S., 1989, “Sound Produced by Turbulent Boundary Layer Flow Over a Finite Region of Wall
Roughness, and Over a Forward Facing Step”, Journal of Fluids and Structures, 3, pp. 83-96.

Jacob, M., Louisot, A., Juve, D., Guerrand, S., 2001, “Experimental Study of Sound Generated by
Backward-Facing Steps Under Wall Jet”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 39, No. 7, pp. 1254 – 1260.

Ji, M., and Wang, M., 2008, “LES of Turbulent Flow over Steps: Wall Pressure Fluctuations and Flow-
Induced Noise”, AIAA-2008-3052, 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Vancouver, BC,
May 5-7, 2008.

Leclercq, D., Jacob, M., Louisot, A., 2001, “Forward-Backward Facing Step Pair: Aerodynamic Flow,
Wall Pressure and Acoustic Caracterisation”, AIAA-2001-2249, 7th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
Conference, Maastricht, Netherlands, May 28-30, 2001.

Narasimha, R., Yegna Narayan, K. & Parthasarathy, S., 1973, “Parametric analysis of turbulent wall jets in
still air”, Aero. J., pp. 355-359.

Rasnick, M, 2010, “The Noise of a Boundary Layer Flowing Over Discrete Roughness Elements”,
Master’s Thesis, AOE Department, Virginia Tech.

Smith, B., Alexander, N., Devenport, W.J., Glegg, S., and Grissom, D.L., 2008, “The Relationship
Between Roughness Noise and the Near Field Pressure Spectrum”, AIAA-2008-2409, 14th
AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Vancouver, BC, May 5-7, 2008.

Wygnanski, I., Katz, Y. & Horev, E. 1992, “On the Applicability of Various Scaling Laws to the Turbulent
Wall Jet”, J. Fluid Mech., vol. 234, pp. 669-690.

18
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics