Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Reduction of Hydrodynamic Noise of 3D Hydrofoil
with Spanwise Microgrooved Surfaces Inspired
by Sharkskin
Zhigao Dang 1,2, * , Zhaoyong Mao 1,2 and Wenlong Tian 1,2
1 School of Marine Science and Technology, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China;
[email protected] (Z.M.); [email protected] (W.T.)
2 Key Laboratory for Unmanned Underwater Vehicle, Northwestern Polytechnical University,
Xi’an 710072, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-1870-675-8264




Received: 4 April 2019; Accepted: 7 May 2019; Published: 10 May 2019


Abstract: Loud hydrodynamic noise is not only potentially harmful to the health of organisms in
the ocean, but it is also a threat to the survival of underwater vehicles. Different from the general
noise reduction technologies at present, a new idea for a flow-induced noise reduction design with
spanwise microgrooved surfaces inspired by sharkskin is introduced in this paper. Large eddy
simulations (LES) combined with the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FW-H) equation are adopted
to simulate the hydrodynamic noise of the three-dimensional (3D) hydrofoil. The accuracy of the
numerical predictions is checked against existing experimental data, achieving good agreement.
With the increase of observing distance, the noise reduction effect at the trailing edge direction is
gradually apparent, and a maximum noise reduction of up to 7.28 dB can be observed. It is seen
from the noise spectra of the biomimetic hydrofoil that the main peaks are eliminated, and the noise
level at high frequency is also decreased. The cause of noise reduction lies in the secondary vortex
generated in the microgrooves, which hinder the process of turbulence, consume the energy of the
flow, and weaken the intensity of turbulent burst. The results of this study provide a new way to
design low-noise underwater structures with hydrofoils.

Keywords: hydrodynamic noise reduction; spanwise microgrooved surface; large eddy simulation;
hydrofoil; sound pressure; secondary vortex; biomimetic

1. Introduction
Hydrofoil or airfoil is an important structure applied in many underwater devices, ranging from
the sail hulls of submarines and the flapping wings of underwater vehicles to ocean turbines and
marine propellers. However, noise originates from various sources on these devices, such as (1) the
self-noise of airfoil generated by the interaction of boundary layers and the wake and (2) the noise
caused by cavitation of some ocean engineering applications, for example, marine propellers. As a
kind of pollution, noise is harmful to both the health of organisms in nature and the normal operation
of the marine structures. The noise problems of ocean engineering structures with airfoils is currently
a great concern [1–5].
In 1989, Brooks et al. [6] identified five mechanisms for airfoil self-noise due to specific
boundary-layer phenomena, including the noise caused by boundary-layer separation and large-scale
separation. In the following several decades, researchers have carried out a lot of studies to reduce the
noise of airfoils or blades. Inspired by the wings of low-noise flying owls, Howe [7,8] theoretically
analyzed the effects of serration structure in the trailing-edge of airfoil on aerodynamic noise. Since

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136; doi:10.3390/jmse7050136 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 2 of 22

then, the noise reduction mechanism and the key parameters influencing the noise reduction effect of
serrated trailing edge have been studied by a lot of scholars [9–13]. Some scholars have even modified
the serrated trailing edge, using non-flat plate serrations [14,15], serrations with flap angles [16],
iron-shaped serrations [17], and combed-sawtooth serrations [18]. Moreover, some researchers have
studied the noise reduction effects of wavy leading edge inspired by biomimetic designs [19–24].
In addition, some other methods have been proposed to eliminate aerodynamic noise, including
performing trailing edge perforation [25], using different blade shapes [26], introducing porous trailing
edge inserts [27], and setting distributed boundary-layer suctions [28]. The above methods are all
effective in reducing noise to a certain extent; however, most of these studies are still in the stage of
academic research and much work has to be done to narrow the gap between the academic research and
engineering application. Thus, it is necessary to introduce fresh ideas to achieve better noise reduction.
A biomimetic surface is a new technology that imitates the surface morphology of an organism to
improve the performance of equipment. Research into biomimetic surface technology started in the
1970s. At first, researchers paid more attention to the drag reduction of the flow field control in the
structural boundary layer [29,30]. Choi [31] pointed out that biomimetic surface technology is a smart
flow control method, because the microgrooves not only control momentum, but also control flow
noise due to the reduction of pressure fluctuations. The experimental results showed that the energy
level at low frequency is dramatically decreased [32]. Joslin et al. [33] compared studies concerning
flow and noise control. They concluded that microgrooves can lead to drag reduction, and the reduced
energy in turbulent boundary layer might lead to reduced interior noise. In reality, the first study on
noise reduction based on microgrooves was conducted by Gillcrist and Reidy [34]. They carried out
experiments on drag reduction and noise reduction of a marine vehicle with microgrooved surface
coatings. The results showed that an ideal noise reduction effect could be obtained. Then, Shi et al. [35]
utilized the water tunnel at Northwestern Polytechnical University to investigate the flow-induced
noise of underwater vehicles with microgrooved surfaces. When the width of the microgroove was
0.1 mm and the height of the microgrooves was 0.09 mm, there was an obvious noise reduction of up
to 5 dB. Therefore, the bionic microstructural microgrooved surface can control the flow field in the
boundary layer. At the same time, it can suppress the flow noise generated by the dipole sound source
produced by the solid boundary reaction to the fluid to a certain extent. Figure 1 collects the present
technologies to reduce the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic noise of airfoils or hydrofoils, and it also
provides the most promising technology to reduce noise by biomimetic surface design, although, in
this study, the greatest concern is drag reduction design.
As emphasized by Fu et al. [36], sharkskin is not a smooth surface but a kind of microgrooved
surface with micro-scales called dermal denticles. Currently, research on drag reduction with
microgrooved surfaces inspired by sharkskin is a hot topic [36–39]. However, with respect to airfoils or
hydrofoils, most scholars have concentrated on flow field characteristics [40–44], and to the authors’
knowledge, few studies have reported on the noise performance of airfoils with microgrooved surfaces
inspired by sharkskin, which is addressed in this paper. In fact, the microgrooves of real sharkskin
are not parallel to the flow direction totally. Some researchers have also investigated microgrooves or
riblets across the flow direction [36,39,43,44], which is the research object in this study. The layout of
this paper is as follows: Section 1 gives a brief introduction and Section 2 briefly demonstrates the
theory of numerical simulation of this paper. In Section 3, the implementation of microgrooves on
the surface of hydrofoil is carried out, and then, the computational model is illustrated in Section 4.
The accuracy of numerical model predictions for both the flow field and sound field is validated against
the experimental results in Section 5. In Section 6, results and discussions of hydrodynamic performance
and sound characteristics in near-field and in far-field are demonstrated. Finally, conclusions are
presented in the last section.
width of the microgroove was 0.1 mm and the height of the microgrooves was 0.09 mm, there was
an obvious noise reduction of up to 5 dB. Therefore, the bionic microstructural microgrooved surface
can control the flow field in the boundary layer. At the same time, it can suppress the flow noise
generated by the dipole sound source produced by the solid boundary reaction to the fluid to a certain
extent. Figure 1 collects the present technologies to reduce the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic noise
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 3 of 22
of airfoils or hydrofoils, and it also provides the most promising technology to reduce noise by
biomimetic surface design, although, in this study, the greatest concern is drag reduction design.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22

Figure 1. Present technologies and the proposed biomimetic technology with spanwise microgrooved
surfaces inspired by sharkskin for reducing aerodynamic or hydrodynamic noise of airfoils and
hydrofoils.
As emphasized by Fu et al. [36], sharkskin is not a smooth surface but a kind of microgrooved
surface with micro-scales called dermal denticles. Currently, research on drag reduction with
microgrooved surfaces inspired by sharkskin is a hot topic [36–39]. However, with respect to airfoils
or hydrofoils, most scholars have concentrated on flow field characteristics [40–44], and to the
authors’ knowledge, few studies have reported on the noise performance of airfoils with
microgrooved surfaces inspired by sharkskin, which is addressed in this paper. In fact, the
microgrooves of real sharkskin are not parallel to the flow direction totally. Some researchers have
also investigated microgrooves or riblets across the flow direction [36,39,43,44], which is the research
object in this study. The layout of this paper is as follows: Section 1 gives a brief introduction and
Section 2 briefly demonstrates the theory of numerical simulation of this paper. In Section 3, the
implementation of microgrooves on the surface of hydrofoil is carried out, and then, the
computational model is illustrated in Section 4. The accuracy of numerical model predictions for both
the flow
Figurefield and sound
1. Present field isand
technologies validated against
the proposed the experimental
biomimetic technology results in Section
with spanwise 5. In Section 6,
microgrooved
results and discussions
surfaces inspired by of hydrodynamic
sharkskin performance
for reducing and sound
aerodynamic characteristics
or hydrodynamic in near-field
noise of airfoilsand in
and hydrofoils.
far-field are demonstrated. Finally, conclusions are presented in the last section.
2. Computational Methods
2. Computational Methods
Large eddy simulations (LES) combined with the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FW-H) equation
Large eddy simulations (LES) combined with the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FW-H)
were applied to simulate the hydrodynamic noise of 3D hydrofoil. LES were performed first to calculate
equation were applied to simulate the hydrodynamic noise of 3D hydrofoil. LES were performed first
the hydrodynamic characteristics of the flow field with a transient Computational Fluid Dynamics
to calculate the hydrodynamic characteristics of the flow field with a transient Computational Fluid
(CFD) method [45]. Then, the sound pressure levels were obtained from the fluctuating surface pressure
Dynamics (CFD) method [45]. Then, the sound pressure levels were obtained from the fluctuating
on the hydrofoils based on the FW-H equation [46]. The flowchart of the numerical simulation is given
surface pressure on the hydrofoils based on the FW-H equation [46]. The flowchart of the numerical
in Figure 2.
simulation is given in Figure 2.

Acoustic Calculation

Hydrodynamic Calculation Data Reading and Fourier

Transform

LES FW-H equation

Transient CFD Simulation Sound Source Analogy

Sound Field Calculation

Flow Field Data

Acoustic Results

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Flowchart
Flowchartofofhydrodynamic
hydrodynamicnoise
noisecalculation
calculation based
based onon large
large eddy
eddy simulations
simulations (LES)
(LES) andand
the
the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FW-H) equation.
Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FW-H) equation.

2.1. Large Eddy Simulation Model

Turbulence is the three-dimensional unsteady random motion observed in fluids at moderate to
high Reynolds numbers [47]. There are three main numerical methods, including direct numerical
simulation (DNS), Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equation, and LES. The most accurate
results could be obtained with DNS. However, in most situations, it is not feasible to resolve the wide
range of scales in time and space by using DNS, as the central processing unit (CPU) requirements
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 4 of 22

2.1. Large Eddy Simulation Model

Turbulence is the three-dimensional unsteady random motion observed in fluids at moderate to
high Reynolds numbers [47]. There are three main numerical methods, including direct numerical
simulation (DNS), Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equation, and LES. The most accurate
results could be obtained with DNS. However, in most situations, it is not feasible to resolve the wide
range of scales in time and space by using DNS, as the central processing unit (CPU) requirements
would by far exceed the available computing power. For this reason, averaging procedures are
applied to the Navier–Stokes equations to obtain the flow field characteristics equivalently and rapidly.
The most well-known one is the RANS equation, through which a smooth variation of the averaged
velocity and pressure fields can be obtained. With low spatial resolution and a small workload,
it cannot reflect the fluctuation of the flow field precisely. As a result, LES is proposed to overcome the
shortcomings of the other two above methods. It not only greatly reduces the computational complexity,
but also obtains the low-frequency evolution information in the instantaneous turbulent flow field
with high numerical accuracy. Therefore, this method can simulate the detailed characteristics of the
pulsation in the flow field better, so as to calculate the acoustic field more accurately. An incompressible
simulation was used for the LES model in this paper.
In the theory of LES, there are two parts for turbulent vortices: the low-pass filtered quantity ϕ,
representing large scale vortices before the filter cut-off, and the sub-grid scale quantity ϕ0 , representing
small-scale vortices after the filter cut-off. The variable ϕ after filtering is the average in the spatial
domain, which is obtained directly by solving the governing equation of LES, while the filtered variable
ϕ(x) is solved by establishing the turbulence model.
Z
ϕ(x) = ϕ(x0 )G(x, x0 )dx0 (1)
D

where D is the flow area, x0 is the spatial coordinate of the actual flow, x is the large-scale spatial
coordinate after filtering, G(x, x0 ) is the filtering function, which can be written as:

1
x0 ∈ V
(
0
G(x, x ) = V, (2)
0, x0 < V

where V is the volume of a computational cell. The substitution of the filtering function G(x, x0 ) of
Equation (2) into Equation (1) results in:
Z
1
ϕ(x) = ϕ(x0 )dx0 , x0 ∈ V. (3)
V V

Then, the governing equations of LES can be obtained by substituting the mass conservation
equation and the transient Navier–Stokes equation into Equation (3):

∂ρ ∂
+ (ρui ) = 0 (4)
∂t ∂xi

∂ ∂ ∂p ∂ ∂u ∂τij
(ρui ) + (ρui u j ) = − + (µ i ) − (5)
∂t ∂x j ∂xi ∂x j ∂x j ∂x j
where τij is the term of sub-grid stress, also called the filtered stress tensor, represented as:
 
τij = ρ ui u j − ui u j . (6)

The sub-grid stress τij denotes the momentum transport between small-scale vortex ϕ0 and
large-scale vortex ϕ. Additionally, the effect of small-scale fluctuations on the overall flow field is
quantified. To make Equation (5) enclosed, the corresponding sub-grid model has to be constructed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 5 of 22

At present, the sub-grid model is based largely on the hypothesis proposed by Boussinesq [48], and the
sub-grid stress is determined as:
1
τij − τkk δij = −2µt Sij (7)
3
where δij is the sub-grid scale of Reynolds stress, µt is the coefficient of the sub-grid eddy viscosity,
and Sij is the deformation rate tensor corresponding to the scale of solution, which can be written as:

1 ∂ui ∂u j
!
Sij = + . (8)
2 ∂x j ∂xi

The eddy viscosity hypothesis above will transform solving the sub-grid stress into solving for
the sub-grid scale eddy viscosity coefficient. The Smagorinsky–Lilly model is developed to solve this
problem. The coefficient of the sub-grid eddy viscosity, µt , can be obtained as:

µt = ρL2s S (9)
q
S = 2Sij Sij (10)

where Ls is the mixing length of sub-grid, and it can be expressed as:

Ls = min(kd, Cs ∆) (11)

where k is Karman constant, d is the distance from the node to the nearest wall, Cs is Smagorinsky
constant, and ∆ is the filter scale.

2.2. Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings Acoustics Model

In the direct method of predicting hydrodynamically generated noise, both generation and
propagation of sound waves are directly computed by solving the appropriate fluid dynamics
equations. It is thus computationally expensive and difficult inasmuch as it requires very fine
computational meshes, highly accurate numbers all the way to receivers, and acoustically nonreflecting
boundary conditions [49], whereas for the methods based on acoustic analogy, such as the FW-H
equation, the propagation of sound from its generation is essentially decoupled, allowing one to
separate the flow solution process form the acoustic analysis. By solving the FW-H equation, the sound
pressure level spectrum and total sound pressure level at the observer points are then calculated from
the fluctuating surface pressure on the hydrofoil.
The Lighthill equation is the foundation of hydrodynamic noise, which is derived by the RANS
equation and the continuity equation, expressed as:

∂ρ ∂
+ (ρui ) = Q (12)
∂t ∂xi

∂ ∂
(ρui ) + (ρui u j + pδij − τij ) = F (13)
∂t ∂x j
where Q is the radiation of unit volume source per unit time and F is the generalized force per unit
volume. Subtracting the result of differentiating Equation (12) with respect to time t from the result of
differentiating Equation (13) with respect to xi , results in:

∂2 ρ ∂Q ∂F ∂2 Tij
− c20 ∇2 ρ = − + (14)
∂t2 ∂t ∂xi ∂xi ∂x j
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 6 of 22

where Tij is the Lighthill stress tensor, represented as:

Tij = ρui u j + τij − c20 ρδij . (15)

It can be seen from Equation (14) that, if radiation Q changes with time, generalized force F
changes with time, or Lighthill stress tensor Tij changes, hydrodynamic noise will be produced.
For solid wall turbulence, the general solution for Equation (14) can be written as:
   
Z T e r r
ij y, t − c
Z P e
1 ∂2 1 ∂ i y, t − c
ρ(e
x, t) − ρ0 = dV (e
y) − dV (e
y) (16)
4πc2 ∂xi ∂x j V r 4πc2 ∂xi V r

Pi = −l j pi j (17)

where l j is cosine in the normal direction of source plane area S and the direction is from inside to
outside for the boundary-layer flow of a flat plate, l1 = l3 = 0, l2 = 1. In this way, P1 = −σ12 , P2 = p,
and P3 = −σ32 , where σ12 and σ32 represent the shear stress p12 and p32 , separately. Substituting the
value of Pi into Equation (16) yields the following sound pressure equation:

1 ∂2 Tij 1 ∂ σ12 1 ∂ σ32

Z Z Z
ρ(e
x, t) = dV (e
y) − dS(e
y) − dS(e
y). (18)
4π ∂xi ∂x j 2V r 2π ∂x1 S r 2π ∂x3 S r

Then, a further transformation is conducted into a form suitable for engineering calculation of
hydrodynamic sound pressure:

1 xi x j ∂2 Tij ∂σ12 ∂σ32

Z Z Z
1 x 1 z
ρ(e
x, t) = dV (e
y) + dS(e
y) + dS(e
y). (19)
4πc2 r3 2V ∂t2 2πc r2 S ∂t 2πc r2 S ∂t

From Equation (18), it can be seen that the hydrodynamic noise is composed of monopole, dipole,
and quadrupole sound sources. Then, the sound pressure in the time domain is obtained. After Fourier
transformation, the noise characteristics in the frequency domain are calculated. The sound pressure
level (SPL) is defined as !
p
SPL(dB) = 20 log10 (20)
pre f
where p is the acoustic pressure and pre f is the reference acoustic pressure. For sound transmission
in water, the reference pressure is defined as 1 µPa(1 × 10−6 Pa). Correspondingly, the overall sound
pressure level (OASPL) is obtained as
 n 
X SPL(i) 
OASPL(dB) = 10 log10  10 10  (21)
i=1

where SPL(i) is the octave band sound pressure level in the broadband frequency domain and n is the
number of octave bands from the lowest frequency to the highest frequency concerned.

3. Design of Spanwise Microgrooves on the Surface of Hydrofoils

The airfoil shapes used in this paper are created from the FF-77-W airfoil shape, which is available
at [50]. As is shown in Figure 3, the relative thickness of the airfoil is 14.8% of the length of the chord.
When the fluid flows around the hydrofoil, it will produce drag in the flow direction and lift in the
vertical direction. Boundary layer separation occurs when the flow angle is larger than a certain value.
The location of the separation point and the flow pattern in the boundary layer are closely related to
the surface structure of the airfoil, and they also determine the resistance of the airfoil. The turbulent
boundary layer has stronger fluid mixing, more uniform fluid kinetic energy distribution, and smaller
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22
J. increasing
Mar. Sci. Eng.the 7, 136
2019,surface roughness of the structure is often an effective measure to improve the 7 of 22
flow
increasing the surface roughness of the structure is often an effective measure to improve the flow
field.
field.
According
shapeAccording to the results
resistancetocompared of that
with Walsh [51–53],
of[51–53],
laminarthe the optimallayer.
boundary drag Therefore,
reduction effect couldthe
increasing be obtained
surface
the results of Walsh optimal
+
drag reduction effect could be obtained
with microgrooves
roughness of the when is
structure itsoften
non-dimensional
an effective height hto
measure and non-dimensional
+ improve the flow field. spacing +s+ are both
with microgrooves when+ its non-dimensional +
height h and non-dimensional spacing s are both
15. The expression
According to theof results
h+ and , according
of +sWalsh [51–53],tothe Walsh, are defined
optimal as
drag reduction effect could be obtained
15. The expression of h and s , according to Walsh,+ are defined as
with microgrooves when its non-dimensional height h and non-dimensional spacing s+ are both 15.
The expression of h+ and s+ , according to Walsh, hu c f as
h+ + =are
hudefined
cf (22)
h = v 2 (22)
v r2
+ hu∞ c f
h = (22)
vsu 2c f
s+ + =su  c f (23)
s = vr 2 (23)
su∞ v c2f
where h is the microgroove height, s is s+ the
= microgroove spacing, v is the kinematic viscosity, (23)
where h is the microgroove height, s is the microgroove v 2 spacing, v is the kinematic viscosity,
u is the free-stream velocity, and c f is the local skin friction coefficient. In this way, the dimension
u  is the
where h isfree-stream
the microgroove
velocity, and s cisf the
height, microgroove
is the v is the kinematic
spacing,coefficient.
local skin friction viscosity,
In this way, u∞ is the
the dimension
parametersvelocity,
free-stream of the microgrooves are determined.
and c f is the local skin friction As a preliminary
coefficient. In thisdesign
way, theinspired
dimensionby [43] and [44],
parameters
parameters of the microgrooves are determined. As a preliminary design inspired by [43] and [44],
partial coverage is applied to the upper surface from 40% of the airfoil chord
of the microgrooves are determined. As a preliminary design inspired by [43] and [44], partial coverage to 80% of the airfoil
partial coverage is applied to the upper surface from 40% of the airfoil chord to 80% of the airfoil
ischord.
applied The overall
to the upper3Dsurface
hydrofoil
frompartially covered
40% of the airfoilby microgrooves
chord to 80% of theandairfoil
details of the
chord. microgrooves
The overall 3D
chord. The overall 3D hydrofoil partially covered by microgrooves and details of the microgrooves
are shown in Figure 4.
hydrofoil partially covered by microgrooves and details of the microgrooves are shown in Figure 4.
are shown in Figure 4.

Figure3.3.Geometry
Figure Geometryofofthe
theFF-77-W
FF-77-Wairfoil.
airfoil.
Figure 3. Geometry of the FF-77-W airfoil.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure4.4.Three-dimensional
Figure Three-dimensional(3D)
(3D)hydrofoil
hydrofoilpartially
partiallycovered
coveredbybymicrogrooves:
microgrooves:(a)
(a)overall
overallmodel
modeland
and
Figure 4. Three-dimensional (3D) hydrofoil partially covered by microgrooves: (a) overall model and
(b)details
(b) detailsofofmicrogrooves.
microgrooves.
(b) details of microgrooves.
4.4.Computational
ComputationalModel Model
4. Computational Model
The
Thetransient
transientsimulations
simulationswerewereperformed
performedutilizing
utilizingthe
theFLUENT
FLUENTcode codeininthe theANSYS
ANSYSv15.0 v15.0
The transient simulations
environment. were performed utilizing the FLUENT code in theblockage
ANSYS v15.0
environment.InInthe thesimulation,
simulation,thethecomputational
computationaldomaindomainwaswassized
sizedtotodecrease
decreasethe the blockageeffecteffect
environment.
and forIn thedevelopment
simulation, the computational domain was sizedwith
to decrease the blockage effect
c, stoodc ,in
andtotoallow
allow full
for full development of the upstream
of the upstreamflow. The The
flow. hydrofoil, a fixed
hydrofoil, with chord
a fixed chord the
stood
and
middleto allow for full
positionposition development
of the vertical of the upstream flow. The hydrofoil, with a fixed chord c , stood
in the middle of the direction of the computational
vertical direction domain. domain.
of the computational The upstream inlet was inlet
The upstream 5c from
was
in the
the middle position of the vertical direction of the computational domain. The upstream of theinlet was
5cleading
from theedge of theedge
leading hydrofoil,
of the and the outlet
hydrofoil, andboundary
the outlet was placed
boundary 10c placed
was downstream 10c downstream trailing of
5c from
edge of thethe leading edge
hydrofoil. of thelength
Spanwise hydrofoil,
in theand the outletwas
z-direction boundary
set to 50was
mm placed
(0.99c). 10c downstream
The computational of
the trailing edge of the hydrofoil. Spanwise length in the z -direction was set to 50 mm (0.99c). The
the trailing
domain andedge of the hydrofoil. Spanwise
the corresponding length inare z -direction
theshown was 5. set toin50Figure
mm (0.99c). The
computational domain and theboundary conditions
corresponding boundary in Figure
conditions are shown 5.
computational domain and the corresponding boundary conditions are shown in Figure 5.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 8 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

Figure 5.
Figure Schematic of
5. Schematic of the
the computational
computational domain
domain and
and boundary
boundary conditions.
conditions.
Figure 5. Schematic of the computational domain and boundary conditions.
Due to
Due to the small
small dimensions
the small dimensionsof ofmicrogrooves
microgrooves(less (lessthan
than111mm),
mm),unstructured
unstructured grids
gridswere
were applied
appliedin
Due to the dimensions of microgrooves (less than mm), unstructured grids were applied
the
in thecomputational
the computational domain.
computational domain. In order
domain. In to
In ordermake
order to the
to make calculation
make the results
the calculation more
calculation results accurate,
results more (1) mesh
more accurate,
accurate, (1)refinement
(1) mesh
mesh
in
was carried
refinement was out at
was carriedthe microgrooves,
carried outout at
at the and
the microgrooves, (2)
microgrooves, andboundary
and (2) layer
(2) boundarymesh
boundary layer was applied
layer mesh
mesh was at the
was applied surface
applied at of
at the
the
refinement
the hydrofoil
surface ofof the with more
the hydrofoil
hydrofoil with layers
with more in the
more layers boundary
layers in
in the layers
the boundary and
boundary layers fine
layers andelement
and fine size
fine element of the
element size boundary
size of
of the layers.
the boundary
boundary
surface
The details
layers. The of the
The details grids
details of near
of the the
the grids leading
grids near
near the edge region,
the leading
leading edge the trailing
edge region,
region, theedge region,
the trailing and
trailing edge the
edge region,microgrooves
region, and and the
the
layers.
are shown in Figure
microgrooves are 6. in Figure 6.
shown
microgrooves are shown in Figure 6.
A flow
A flow with
with uniform
uniform and and steady
steady velocity
velocity of of 1 m/s
m/s was
was applied
applied at at the
the inlet
inlet ofof the
the computational
computational
A flow with uniform and steady velocity of 11 m/s was applied at the inlet of the computational
domain, and
domain, and apressure
pressureoutlet
outletboundary
boundarywas wasimposed
imposedatatthe the outlet of of
thethe computational domain.
domain, and aa pressure outlet boundary was imposed outlet
at the outlet of the computational
computational domain.
domain. AA
A no-slip
no-slip boundary
boundary condition
condition was
was applied
applied atat the
the surface
surface ofof
thethe hydrofoils.
hydrofoils. To
To improve
improve the
the reliability
reliability of
of
no-slip boundary condition was applied at the surface of the hydrofoils. To improve the reliability of
the numerical
the numerical model,
model, symmetry
symmetry boundary
boundary conditions
conditions werewere usedused atat the
the four
four side
side walls
walls of of the
the domain,
domain,
the numerical model, symmetry boundary conditions were used at the four side walls of the domain,
which allowed
which allowed
allowed us us
us to to consider
to consider
consider thethe computational
the computational
computational domain domain
domain in in a larger
in aa larger domain,
larger domain,
domain, avoidingavoiding
avoiding the the effects
the effects
effects of
which of
of walls.
walls.
walls.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
Figure
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Grid
6. Grid system
Gridsystem for
systemfor computational
for computational domain:
computational domain: (a)
domain: (a) near
(a)near leading
nearleading edge
leadingedge region;
edgeregion; (b)
region; (b) near
(b) near trailing
near trailing edge
trailing edge
edge
region;
region; and
region; and (c)
and (c) near
(c) near spanwise
near spanwise microgrooved
spanwise microgrooved surface region.
microgrooved surface region.

5. Numerical
5. Numerical Method
NumericalMethod Verification
MethodVerification and Validation
Verification and
and Validation
Validation
Because
Becausethere
Because there
thereis isisno
nono available
available
available experimental
experimental
experimental datadata
data about
about the hydrofoils
about
the hydrofoils
the hydrofoils studied
studied in this
thisin
studied
in paper, airfoil
this airfoil
paper, paper,
NACA0012
airfoil NACA0012was selected
was to test
selected the
to reliability
test the and
reliability accuracy
and of
accuracy
NACA0012 was selected to test the reliability and accuracy of the present numerical model. Thethe ofpresent
the numerical
present model.
numerical The
model.
verification
The verification
verification andand
and validation
validation
validation of the
of the present
of the present
present numerical
numerical
numerical method
method
method were
wereas
were asasfollows.
follows. The
follows.The Reynolds
TheReynolds numbers
Reynoldsnumbers
numbers
of the NACA0012
NACA0012 airfoil
airfoil were
were 1.01.0
× ×
10 5 for
10 5 for grid
grid independence
independence verification
verification and and acoustical
acoustical validation
validation and
of the NACA0012 airfoil were 1.0 × 105 for grid independence verification and acoustical validation
and 2.88
2.88 2.88 6
× 10×× 10
106 for
for 6 for the
the the flow
flow flow field
fieldfield validation.
validation. The
TheThe transient
transient pressure-based
pressure-based solver solver was adopted
was adoptedadopted with
with with the
the drop
and validation. transient pressure-based solver was the
drop
of all of all
scaled scaled
residualsresiduals
below below
1.0 × 10 −5 , which was employed as the convergence criterion. The time
1e-5,
drop of all scaled residuals below 1e-5, which was employed as the convergence criterion. The time
step size was 2.0
size was 2e-5,
× 10and−5 , the maximum
andmaximum
the maximum numbernumberof iterations
iterations waswas
of iterations set set
as 5e4,
5e4,
as 5.0 × 104 ,enabled
which enabled the sound
which enabled soundthe
step was 2e-5, and the number of was set as which the
frequency range calculated
sound frequency
frequency range calculated
range calculatedto be
to be 11toHz~20 kHz with
be 1 Hz~20
Hz~20 kHz with
kHzanan interval
with of about
about
an interval
interval of 1 Hz.
Hz. The
of 1about The
1 Hz.non-iterative time-
The non-iterative
non-iterative time-
advancement
time-advancement scheme, scheme,which significantly
which speeds
significantly up
speeds transient
up simulations
transient
advancement scheme, which significantly speeds up transient simulations by performing only simulations by performing
by performing only
onlyaa
single
a singleouter
outer iteration
iteration per time
per timestep, was
step, wasapplied
appliedin the
in simulation.
the simulation.The
single outer iteration per time step, was applied in the simulation. The fractional-step method was fractional-step
The method
fractional-step was
method
adopted
was adopted
adopted in ANSYS
in ANSYS
in ANSYS FLUENT
FLUENT FLUENT as aas
as a velocity-coupling
velocity-coupling
a velocity-coupling scheme ininaaanon-iterative
schemein
scheme non-iterative time-advancement
non-iterative time-advancement
algorithm for the solution method
algorithm for the solution method in this paper. in this paper.

5.1. Verification
5.1. Verification
A grid
A grid resolution
resolution study
study was
was performed
performed toto evaluate
evaluate the
the influence
influence ofof grid
grid resolution
resolution on
on the
the drag
drag
coefficient of
coefficient of five
five different
different meshing
meshing schemes.
schemes. The
The angle
angle of
of attack
attack of
of the
the airfoil
airfoil was
was zero.
zero. The
The details
details
of the five mesh schemes, including the total number of elements, the parameters of boundary
of the five mesh schemes, including the total number of elements, the parameters of boundary layers, layers,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 9 of 22

5.1. Verification
A grid resolution study was performed to evaluate the influence of grid resolution on the drag
coefficient
J. of 2019,
Mar. Sci. Eng. five 7,
different meshing
x FOR PEER schemes.
REVIEW The angle of attack of the airfoil was zero. The details 9 of of
22
the five mesh schemes, including the total number of elements, the parameters of boundary layers,
and the element
and the elementsizesizealong
alongthethe spanwise
spanwise direction
direction areare listed
listed in Table
in Table 1. drag
1. The The drag coefficient
coefficient at theat the
angle
angle of attack
of attack of zeroofiszero is calculated
calculated by by
Fd
Cd = Fd (24)
Cd =0.5ρu2∞ cl (24)
0.5  u2 cl
where Fd is the drag force and l is the spanwise length of the hydrofoil.
where Fd is the drag force and l is the spanwise length of the hydrofoil.
Table 1. Mesh details of the selected meshing schemes for mesh independence study.
Table 1. Mesh details of the selected meshing schemes for mesh independence study.
Details of Mesh Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 Mesh 4 Mesh 5
Detailsofofelements
Total number Mesh Mesh 12,035,810
1,593,064 Mesh 2 2,793,386
Mesh 3 6,788,150
Mesh 4 8,856,372
Mesh 5
LayerTotal
number of boundary layers
number of elements 10 20 10 20
1,593,064 2,035,810 2,793,386 6,788,150 8,856,372 30
Element size of boundary layers (m) 8.0 × 10−4 8.0 × 10−4 5.0 × 10−4 5.0 × 10 −4 5.0 × 10−4
Layer number of boundary layers 10 20 10 20 30
Element size along spanwise direction 2.0 × 10−3 2.0 × 10−3 2.0 × 10−3 1.0 × 10 −3 1.0 × 10 −3
Element size of boundary layers (m) 8.0 × 10
−4 8.0 × 10
−4 5.0 × 10
−4 5.0 × 10 −4 5.0 × 10 −4

Element size along spanwise direction 2.0 × 10−3 2.0 × 10−3 2.0 × 10−3 1.0 × 10−3 1.0 × 10−3
Figure 7 presents the results with different grid resolutions. It can be seen that the drag coefficient
Figure 7 presents the results with different grid resolutions. It can be seen that the drag
approximately approached a stable value with the increase of total number of elements. This indicates
coefficient approximately approached a stable value with the increase of total number of elements.
that further increasing the grid resolution would not significantly affect the results of drag coefficient
This indicates that further increasing the grid resolution would not significantly affect the results of
in the simulation. Considering the economy of time in the simulation, the grid configuration of Mesh 4
drag coefficient in the simulation. Considering the economy of time in the simulation, the grid
was chosen for the following simulations.
configuration of Mesh 4 was chosen for the following simulations.

Figure 7. Effect of grid number on drag reduction.

Figure 7. Effect of grid number on drag reduction.
5.2. Validation
5.2. Validation
In order to validate the accuracy of the numerical method used in this paper, the flow field
In order and
characteristics to validate the performance
sound field accuracy of were
the numerical
evaluated method used in this results
with the experimental paper, simultaneously.
the flow field
characteristics and sound
First, the surface pressurefield performance
coefficients’ were evaluated
distribution with theairfoil
on the NACA0012 experimental results
with an angle of
simultaneously.
◦
attack at 0 was compared with the experiment results [54], as shown in Figure 8. In the simulation,
First, the number
the Reynolds surface pressure
was 2.88 coefficients’
× 106 , whichdistribution on the NACA0012
was in accordance airfoil with test.
with the experimental an angle of
It was
attack
shownat 0° was
that comparedresults
the numerical with the experiment
have results
fairly good [54], aswith
agreement shown
the in Figure 8. Inresults
experimental the simulation,
tested in
the Reynolds
the wind tunnel. number was 2.88 × 10 6, which was in accordance with the experimental test. It was

shown that the numerical results have fairly good agreement with the experimental results tested in
the wind tunnel.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 10 of 22

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

Figure 8. Surface pressure coefficients’ distribution on the NACA0012 airfoil with an angle of attack
at 0°.
Figure 8. Surface pressure coefficients’ distribution on the NACA0012 airfoil with an angle of attack at 0◦ .
Figure 8. Surface pressure coefficients’ distribution on the NACA0012 airfoil with an angle of attack
atThen,
0°. the predictive SPL by experimental test for the NACA0012 airfoil at the observing point
Then, the predictive SPL by experimental test for the NACA0012 airfoil at the observing point
wasused
was usedtotoverify
verifythethe accuracy
accuracyof of the
the acoustic
acousticsignals.
signals. The
The observing
observing pointpoint waswas perpendicular
perpendicular to to and
and
1.22 Then,
m fromthethepredictive
trailing SPL and
edge by experimental
the model test for In
midspan. thetheNACA0012
validation, airfoil
the at theofobserving
model smooth point
surface
1.22 m from the trailing edge and the model midspan. In the validation, the model of smooth surface
was used
airfoil to verify
where the accuracy
theboundary
boundary of the
layers wereacoustic signals.
untripped The
was observing
chosen, pointflowwas perpendicular to and
airfoil where the layers were untripped was chosen, thethe
inletinlet velocity
flow velocity was was 31.7m/s,
31.7m/s, and
1.22 m
andanglefrom
the theoftrailing
angle attack edge and the model midspan. In the validation, inthe model offrequency
smooth surface
the of attack was was 0°. Figure
0◦ . Figure 9 shows
9 shows the the comparison
comparison of SPLof SPL
in 1/3 1/3 octave
octave frequency bands
bands of
airfoil
of where the boundary
30.48-cm-chord NACA0012 layers were
airfoil in untripped
the was chosen,
experimental test [6] the
and inlet
the flow velocity
numerical was 31.7m/s,
simulation. It can
30.48-cm-chord NACA0012 airfoil in the experimental test [6] and the numerical simulation. It can be
and the angle that
be observed of attacknumerical
was 0°. Figure 9 shows the comparison of SPLthe in 1/3 octave frequency bands
observed that the the
numerical results results areclose
are in in close agreement
agreement withwith experimental
the experimental resultsresults
at lowat and
low
of 30.48-cm-chord
and medium NACA0012
frequencies, airfoil
while for in the
the experimentalrange,
high-frequency test [6]the
and the numerical
trend was simulation.
consistent. It can
Considering
medium frequencies, while for the high-frequency range, the trend was consistent. Considering that
be observed
that the most that the numerical
concern results are
was concentrated in
theclose
mainagreement with the spectrum
experimental results at low
the most concern was concentrated on theon main peaks peaks
of the of the
noise noise
spectrum at lower at frequency
lower frequency
in the
and medium
in the frequencies,
subsequent while
analysis, whichfor dominated
the high-frequency
the mainrange,
noisethe trendawas
energy, consistent.
conclusion Considering
could be drawn
subsequent analysis, which dominated the main noise energy, a conclusion could be drawn that the
that
thatthe
themost concern
numerical was concentrated
method applied in this on the main
paper peakstoofstudy
is able the noise spectrum
the noise at lower
reduction frequency
of biomimetic
numerical method applied in this paper is able to study the noise reduction of biomimetic hydrofoil.
in the subsequent
hydrofoil. analysis, which dominated the main noise energy, a conclusion could be drawn
that the numerical method applied in this paper is able to study the noise reduction of biomimetic
hydrofoil.

Figure 9. Results of the flow-induced noise validation. SPL: sound pressure level.
Figure 9. Results of the flow-induced noise validation. SPL: sound pressure level.
6. Results and Discussions
6. Results and Discussions
Figure 9. Results of the flow-induced noise validation. SPL: sound pressure level.
The numerical calculations of the hydrofoil were conducted at an angle of attack of 0◦ and
The numerical
a Reynolds number calculations
of 5.0 × 104 ,ofbased
the hydrofoil
on usingwere conductedchord
the hydrofoil at anasangle of attack of 0°length.
the characteristic and a
6. Results and Discussions
Reynolds number of 5.0 × 10 4, based on using the hydrofoil chord as the characteristic length. The
The hydrofoil was created from the FF-77-W airfoil shape, whose relative thickness was 14.8% of the
The numerical
hydrofoil waschord, calculations
created the of the hydrofoil were conducted at an angle of attack of 0° and a
length of the as from
mentioned FF-77-W
in Sectionairfoil shape,
3. The whose relative
dimensions of the thickness was 14.8%
computational domain of are
the
Reynolds
length in number
of Section
the chord,of 5.0 × 10 4, based on using the hydrofoil chord as the characteristic length. The
shown 4. A as mentioned
similar densityingrid
Section
(Mesh 3.4),
Theas dimensions of the5.1,
shown in Section computational
was adopted domain are
to calculate
hydrofoil
shown in was created
Section 4. A from the
similar FF-77-W
density grid airfoil
(Mesh shape,
4), as whoseinrelative
shown Section thickness
5.1, was was 14.8%
adopted to of the
calculate
both the flow field characteristics and sound field performance of the original hydrofoil model and the
length of flow
both the the chord, as mentionedand
field characteristics in Section
sound 3. The
field dimensionsofofthe
performance theoriginal
computational
hydrofoildomain are
model and
biomimetic hydrofoil model. To complete the numerical calculation, the relevant material properties of
shown in Section
the biomimetic 4. A similar density grid (Mesh 4), as shown in Section 5.1, was adopted to calculate
water used in thishydrofoil
paper are model.
listed inTo complete
Table 2. the numerical calculation, the relevant material
both the flow
properties field characteristics
of water used in this paperand sound field
are listed in performance
Table 2. of the original hydrofoil model and
the biomimetic hydrofoil model. To complete the numerical calculation, the relevant material
properties of water used in this paper are listed in Table 2.
J.J.Mar.
Mar. Sci.
Sci.Eng.
Eng.2019,
2019,7,7,x136
FOR PEER REVIEW 1111ofof22
22

Table 2. Material properties of water used in the simulation.

Table 2. Material properties of water used in the simulation.
Description Parameter and Value
Description Parameter and Value
Temperature T = 20 °C
= 20 ◦ C
Temperature
Density  =T 998.2 kg/m 3
Density ρ = 998.2 kg/m3
Viscosity
Viscosity µ == 0.001003
0.001003kg/(m·s)
kg/(m‧s)
Soundspeed
Sound speed v = 1483 m/s
v = 1483 m/s
Reference acoustic pressure pre fp= 1.0 × 10−6 Pa
Reference acoustic pressure ref = 1e-6 Pa

6.1. Analysis of Hydrodynamic Performance

6.1. Analysis of Hydrodynamic Performance
Figure 10 shows time histories of the hydrodynamic force coefficients of the original hydrofoil
Figure 10 shows time histories of the hydrodynamic force coefficients of the original hydrofoil
and biomimetic hydrofoil at 0.8–2.0 s, with a running average over 5 times of calculation. It can be
and biomimetic hydrofoil at 0.8–2.0 s, with a running average over 5 times of calculation. It can be
seen that the curves of the lift coefficient and drag coefficient for the original hydrofoil fluctuated
seen that the curves of the lift coefficient and drag coefficient for the original hydrofoil fluctuated
periodically. Further, it can be easily seen that there was a small pulse near the peak of each period
periodically. Further, it can be easily seen that there was a small pulse near the peak of each period
of drag coefficient, which was largely due to the instability of the flow velocity gradient, while the
of drag coefficient, which was largely due to the instability of the flow velocity gradient, while the
for biomimetic model, there was not an evident periodicity of properties for the lift coefficient curve,
for biomimetic model, there was not an evident periodicity of properties for the lift coefficient curve,
but the values of the lift coefficient were very close. The drag coefficient curve for the biomimetic
but the values of the lift coefficient were very close. The drag coefficient curve for the biomimetic
model was even much more arbitrary than the lift coefficient curve. Moreover, it is shown in Figure 10
model was even much more arbitrary than the lift coefficient curve. Moreover, it is shown in Figure
that the lift coefficient of the biomimetic model was almost unchanged, and the drag coefficient of the
10 that the lift coefficient of the biomimetic model was almost unchanged, and the drag coefficient of
biomimetic model was slightly decreased. In total, the amplitudes of fluctuations with variation of
the biomimetic model was slightly decreased. In total, the amplitudes of fluctuations with variation
time were significantly lower than that of the original hydrofoil.
of time were significantly lower than that of the original hydrofoil.
In addition, the sound pressure with variation of time of the original hydrofoil at three different
In addition, the sound pressure with variation of time of the original hydrofoil at three different
observing points was depicted in Figure 11. The three points, named Receiver 1, Receiver 2, and
observing points was depicted in Figure 11. The three points, named Receiver 1, Receiver 2, and
Receiver 3, were perpendicular to the trailing edge and 0.1 c, 0.3 c, and 5.5 c from the model midspan,
Receiver 3, were perpendicular to the trailing edge and 0.1 c, 0.3 c, and 5.5 c from the model midspan,
respectively. From Figure 11, it can be seen that the amplitudes of the sound waves gradually decreased
respectively. From Figure 11, it can be seen that the amplitudes of the sound waves gradually
with the sound transmission with distance. Further, one can observe that the period of the three curves
decreased with the sound transmission with distance. Further, one can observe that the period of the
was the same.
three curves was the same.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 10.
10. Comparison
Comparisonof of aerodynamic
aerodynamicforceforce coefficients
coefficients of
of the
the original
original hydrofoil
hydrofoil and
and biomimetic
biomimetic
hydrofoil:
hydrofoil: (a)
(a)lift
liftcoefficient;
coefficient; (b)
(b) drag
drag coefficient.
coefficient.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
Eng. 2019, 7, x136
2019, 7, FOR PEER REVIEW 12of
12 of 22

Figure 11.Sound
Figure11. Soundpressure
pressurecurve
curvewith
withvariation
variationof
oftime
timeatatthree
threedifferent
differentobserving
observingpoints.
points.
Figure 11. Sound pressure curve with variation of time at three different observing points.
6.2. Analysis of Near-Field Hydrodynamic Noise
6.2. Analysis of Near-Field Hydrodynamic Noise
6.2. Analysis of Near-Field Hydrodynamic Noise
6.2.1. Noise Characteristics along the Circumferential Direction
6.2.1. Noise Characteristics along the Circumferential Direction
6.2.1.ANoise
total Characteristics
of 16 observingalong points thewere
Circumferential
defined to evaluateDirection the acoustic performance of near-field
A
hydrofoil total
noiseof 16
alongobserving points
the circumferential were defined
direction, to evaluate
which the
arethe acoustic
presented performance
inperformance
Figure 12. Itof of
can near-field
be seen
A
hydrofoiltotal of 16
noise along observing
thewere points were
circumferential defined
direction, to evaluate
which acoustic
are presented in30.00
Figure near-field
12.AsIt iscan be seen
that the
hydrofoil observing
noise along points evenly
the circumferential distributed in a
direction,inwhichcircle with
arewitha radius
presented of
inofFigure mm.12. It can shown
beshownin
seen
that
Figure the observing
12, the origin points
of the were evenly
coordinate distributed
was at the a
midspan circle
of the a radius
leading edge, 30.00
and mm.
the As
center is of the
that the observing
in Figure 12, the originpointsofwere evenly distributed
the coordinate was in amidspan
circle with
at coordinate
the of atheradius
leadingof 30.00
edge,mm.andTheAs iscenter
shown
thepredicted of
circle
inthe was
Figure obtained
12, the by
origin translating
of the the
coordinateoriginwasof the
at the midspan along
of thethe x-axis
leading direction.
edge, and the center of
circle
SPLcircle
for each was obtainedpoint
observing by translating
of originalthe the origin as
hydrofoil of athe coordinate along theis x-axis direction. The
the
predicted was
SPL obtained
for each by translating
observing point of origin
original thefunction
ofhydrofoil
coordinate
as
of frequency
a along the
function of
shown
x-axis
frequency
in FigureThe
direction.
is shown
13.
in
It can
predictedbe seen
SPL that
for all
each of the curves
observing exhibited
point of similar
original peaks
hydrofoil and
as a dips and
function followed
of frequencythe same
is showntrend,
in
Figurefirst
which 13. increased
It can be seen in the that all offrequency
the curvesrangeexhibited similar peaks and dips and followed the same
Figure
trend, 13.
whichIt can
firstbeincreased
seen thatlower
all
in of the
the curves
lower exhibited
frequency
and similar
range
then decreased
and peaks
then andin dips
the
decreased
higher
and
in
frequency
followed
the higher therange,
same
frequency
exceptwhich
trend, for thefirst
points near the
increased in trailing
the lower edge p1 and leading
frequency range edge
and p9 .decreased
then To show the in noise
the characteristics
higher frequency
ofrange, except hydrofoil
the original for the points near the trailing
and biomimetic models,edge edge p1 and leadingobserving
four prepresentative edge p9. points
To show werethe noise
chosen,
range, except
characteristics for the points
of the poriginal near
hydrofoilthe trailing
andof biomimetic 1 and leading edge p9. To show the noise
models, four representative observing points
that is, p1 , p5 , pof
characteristics 9 , and
the 13 . Thehydrofoil
original comparisons the predicted
and biomimetic SPLfour
models, spectra generated from
representative the original
observing points
were chosen,
and biomimetic that is,
model p 1, p5, p9, and p13. The comparisons of the predicted SPL spectra generated from
were
the chosen, that
original and is, p1, for
p5, pthe
biomimetic
four observing points are illustrated in Figure 14. Additionally, the
9, and p13. The comparisons of the predicted SPL spectra generated from
model fortwothemodels
four observing points are illustrated in Figure 14.
OASPL
the of theand
original 16 observing
biomimetic pointsmodelfor the
for the four are presented
observing points in Figure
are 15.
illustrated in Figure 15. 14.
Additionally, the OASPL of the 16 observing points for the two models are presented in Figure
Additionally, the OASPL of the 16 observing points for the two models are presented in Figure 15.

Figure
Figure12. Observing points
12. Observing pointsfor
fornear-field
near-fieldSPL
SPLcomputation
computation with
with 16 16 locations
locations on on
the the x-y. x-y.
plane
plane The
Figure
The 12. Observing
distance between points
the for
origin near-field
of the SPL computation
coordinate and the with
leading 16
edgelocations
is 0.5
distance between the origin of the coordinate and the leading edge is 0.5 c. c. on the plane x-y. The
distance between the origin of the coordinate and the leading edge is 0.5 c.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 13 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22

Figure 13. Predicted SPL spectra of each observing point of original hydrofoil as a function of
Figure
Figure 13.Predicted
13.
frequency. PredictedSPL spectra
SPL of each
spectra observing
of each point of
observing original
point hydrofoilhydrofoil
of original as a function
as aoffunction
frequency.
of
frequency.
ItItcan
canbebeobserved
observedfrom fromFigure
Figure14 14that
thatthethenoise
noisespectra
spectragenerated
generatedfrom fromthe theoriginal
originalhydrofoil
hydrofoil
and biomimetic
and biomimetic hydrofoil
It can be observed
hydrofoil were
from totally
Figure
were totally different
14 different in
that the noise these four
spectra
in these observing
four generated points.
observing frompoints. The
theThe SPL
SPLgenerated
original hydrofoil
generated
from
and biomimetic
biomimeticmodel
frombiomimetic modelincreased
hydrofoil atatlow
were totally
increased frequencies,
lowdifferent
frequencies, and
andthe
in these thefrequency
four observing
frequency of the
themain
ofpoints. The
main peaks
SPLof
peaks ofthe
theSPL
generated
SPL
curve
from all
allincreased
curvebiomimetic
increased a alittle.
model AsAs
forfor
increased
little. the
at noise
thelow spectrum
frequencies,
noise spectrum atand
higherthe frequency,
at higher frequency itofcan
frequency, it obviously
the beof
mainobviously
can peaks seen
be that
the SPL
seen
the
thatbiomimetic
curve the model
allbiomimetic
increased would
amodel
little. Asgenerate
for generate
would moremore
the noise noisenoise
spectrum thanat the
than original
higher hydrofoil
frequency,
the original at observing
it can
hydrofoil obviously
at point
observing p1 .
bepoint
seen
Combined
that
p1. Combined withwith
the biomimeticthe the
results
model of Figure
would
results 15, it
generate
of Figure 15,was shown
itmore
was noise
shownthat
thanthethe
that OASPLs
the of hydrofoil
original
OASPLs the biomimetic
of the hydrofoil
at observing
biomimetic at
point
hydrofoil
observing
pat1.observingpoints
Combinedpoints p
with the
1 and p were
results
p1 and 9 larger
of Figure
p9 were than
larger15, those
it was
than thoseof the
shown original
of thethat model.
the OASPLs
original Except
model. of for observing
the biomimetic
Except points
hydrofoil
for observing p
points1
and
at p , all
p1 observing
and the other
9 p9, all points
the other observing
p1 and points
p9 werepoints
observing had
largerhad positive
thanpositive effects
those ofeffects on noise
the original
on noise attenuation.
model. Except for
attenuation. The
The maximal
observing noise
maximalpoints
noise
reduction
preduction effect
1 and p9, alleffectwas
the was found
otherfound at
observingobserving point
points had
at observing point p , with
positive
2
p2, with an overall
effects noise
on noise
an overall reduction
attenuation.
noise reduction of of 3.37
The dB.
maximal
3.37 dB. noise
reduction effect was found at observing point p2, with an overall noise reduction of 3.37 dB.

Figure14.
Figure 14.Comparison
Comparisonofofthe
thepredicted
predictedSPL
SPLspectra
spectraofofthe
the original
original hydrofoil
hydrofoiland andbiomimetic
biomimetichydrofoil
hydrofoil
atFigure
the 14.
four Comparison
observing of the
points ofpredicted
the near SPL
soundspectra
field: of
(a)the
p ;original
(b) p ; hydrofoil
(c) p
at the four observing points of the near sound field: (a) p11; (b) p55; (c) p99 ; and and
(d) pbiomimetic
13.
13 . hydrofoil
at the four observing points of the near sound field: (a) p1; (b) p5; (c) p9; and (d) p13.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 14 of 22
J.J.Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci.Eng.
Eng.2019,
2019,7,7,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 14 of
14 of 22
22

Figure 15.Comparison
Figure 15.
15. Comparisonofof
Comparison ofthethepredicted
the overall
predicted
predicted sound
overall
overall pressure
sound
sound levels levels
pressure
pressure (OASPLs) of the original
levels (OASPLs)
(OASPLs) thehydrofoil
of the
of original
original
and biomimetic
hydrofoil and hydrofoil
biomimetic at the 16
hydrofoil observing
at the 16 points of
observing the near
points sound
of the field.
near sound
hydrofoil and biomimetic hydrofoil at the 16 observing points of the near sound field. field.

6.2.2. Noise Characteristics along the Radial Direction

6.2.2. Noise
6.2.2. Noise Characteristics
Characteristics along
alongthe theRadial
Radial Direction Direction
Due to the high change rate of sound pressure in the near sound field, which can be found in
Due to
Due to the
the high
high change
change rate
rate of of sound
sound pressure pressure in in thethe near
near sound
sound field,
field, which
which can
can be
be found
found in
in
Figure 11, the noise characteristics along the radial direction were investigated. Another six observing
Figure11,
Figure 11,the
thenoise
noisecharacteristics
characteristicsalong alongthe theradialradialdirection
directionwere wereinvestigated.
investigated.Another
Anothersixsixobserving
observing
points were chosen, named p17 , p18 , p19 , p20 , p21 , and p22 , as shown in Figure 16. The interval between
points were
points were chosen,
chosen, named
named pp1717,, pp1818,, pp1919,, pp2020,, pp2121,, and
and pp2222,, as
as shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 16.
16. The
The interval
interval between
between
the neighboring observing points was 0.2 c. Correspondingly, the predicted SPL spectra and predicted
the neighboring
the neighboring observing
observing points
points was was 0.2 0.2 c.c. Correspondingly,
Correspondingly, the the predicted
predicted SPL SPL spectra
spectra and
and
OASPLs of the original hydrofoil and biomimetic hydrofoil at the six observing points are shown in
predicted OASPLs
predicted OASPLs of of the
the original
original hydrofoil
hydrofoil and and biomimetic
biomimetic hydrofoil
hydrofoil atat the
the six
six observing
observing points
points are
are
Figure 17; Figure 18, respectively.
shown in
shown in Figure
Figure 17;
17; Figure
Figure18,
18, respectively.
respectively.

Figure16.
Figure
Figure 16. Diagrammaticsketch
16.Diagrammatic
Diagrammatic sketchof
sketch ofthe
of thenear-field
the near-fieldnoise
near-field noise observing
noiseobserving points
observingpoints in
pointsin the
inthe radial
theradial direction.
radialdirection.
direction.

It can be seen from Figure 17 that the main peaks in the SPL curve gradually faded away in the
ItIt can
can be
be seen
seen from
from Figure
Figure 17
17 that
that the
the main
main peaks
peaks in
in the
the SPL
SPL curve
curve gradually
gradually faded
faded away
away in in the
the
biomimetic design
biomimetic design with
design with the
with the increase
the increase of
increase of observing
of observing distance.
observing distance. Further,
distance. Further, the
Further, the noise
the noise reduction
noise reduction effect
reduction effect in
effect in the
in the
the
biomimetic
high-frequency
high-frequency range range gradually
range became more
gradually became
became more intense. As is
intense. As
As is shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 18,
18, the overall
the overall noise
overall noise
noise
high-frequency gradually more intense. is shown in Figure 18, the
reduction
reduction for for the
for the six observing
six observing points was
observing points
points was 2.27
2.27 dB,
dB, 4.65
4.65 dB,
dB, 5.67
5.67 dB,
dB, 6.23
6.23 dB,
dB, 6.56
6.56 dB,
dB, and
and 6.78
6.78 dB,
dB,
reduction the six was 2.27 dB, 4.65 dB, 5.67 dB, 6.23 dB, 6.56 dB, and 6.78 dB,
respectively.
respectively. The The six
The six observing
six observing points
observing points had
points had increasingly
had increasingly positive
increasingly positive noise
positive noise reduction
noise reduction effects,
reduction effects, which
effects, which
which waswas
was
respectively.
different from
differentfrom that
from that of
that of observing
of observing point
observing point p 1 .
point pp11..
different
J.J.Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci. Eng.
Eng. 2019,
2019, 7,
7, 136
x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 22
15 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22

Figure 17. Comparison of the predicted SPL spectra of the original hydrofoil and biomimetic hydrofoil
Figure 17. Comparison of thethe
predicted SPL spectra of of
thethe
original hydrofoil and biomimetic hydrofoil
at Figure
the six 17. Comparison
observing pointsofin predicted
the SPL spectra
radial direction of the nearoriginal hydrofoil
sound field: (a) pand biomimetic hydrofoil
17; (b) p18; (c) p19; (d) p20;
at the
at six
the observing
six observing points in
points the
in radial
the direction
radial of
directionthe
of near
the sound
near field:
sound (a)
field:p 17
(a) ; (b)
p p 18 ; (c) p 19 ; (d) p20p; 20;
17; (b) p18; (c) p19; (d)
(e) p21; and (f) p22.
p21p; 21
(e) (e) and p22p.22.
(f)(f)
; and

Figure
Figure18.18. Comparison
Comparisonof ofthe
thepredicted
predictedOASPLs
OASPLsofofthe original
the hydrofoil
original hydrofoil and biomimetic
and hydrofoil
biomimetic at
hydrofoil
theFigure
six observing points in of
the radial direction of the of
near sound field.
at the six 18. Comparison
observing points inthe
thepredicted OASPLs
radial direction of thethe original
near sound hydrofoil
field. and biomimetic hydrofoil
at the six observing points in the radial direction of the near sound field.
6.3. Analysis of Far-Field Hydrodynamic Noise
6.3. Analysis of Far-Field Hydrodynamic Noise
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 16 of 22

6.3.J. Analysis
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of Far-Field Hydrodynamic Noise 16 of 22

To To
J.quantify
Sci. Eng.the
quantify
Mar. thenoise
2019, x FORreduction
7,noise REVIEWof the
reduction
PEER the biomimetic
biomimetichydrofoilhydrofoil in in
thethe
far far
sound sound
field,field,of 22another
another
16 16
16 observing
observingpoints points were
were chosen. As is As
chosen. shown in Figure
is shown in19, the observing
Figure 19, the points werepoints
observing evenly distributed
were evenly
To quantify the noise reduction of the biomimetic hydrofoil in the far sound field, another 16
in a circle in
distributed with a radius
a circle with of a300.00
radiusmm. of In ordermm.
300.00 to observe the comparisons
In order to observe the of the two modelsofclearly,
comparisons the two
observing points were chosen. As is shown in Figure 19, the observing points were evenly distributed
the observing
models inclearly, points at 0°, 90°, 180°, and◦ ◦
270° were◦ chosen, ◦
which was similar to the conduction of
a circle with a radius of 300.00 mm. In order to observe the comparisons of the two models clearly, to the
the observing points at 0 , 90 , 180 , and 270 were chosen, which was similar
the near
conduction sound
of thefield
the observing near insound
points Section 6.2.1.
at 0°, field
90°, in The
180°, andcomparisons
Section270°6.2.1. of comparisons
The
were chosen, the predicted
which SPL
of
was similar thespectra
to generated
predicted
the conduction from
SPLofspectra
the original
the near hydrofoil
sound field andin biomimetic
Section 6.2.1. models
The are shown
comparisons of in
the Figure 20.
predicted
generated from the original hydrofoil and biomimetic models are shown in Figure 20. And the OASPLs And
SPL the
spectraOASPLs of
generated all
from the far
sound thefield observing
original hydrofoilpoints
and are demonstrated
biomimetic models in
are
of all the far sound field observing points are demonstrated in Figure 21.Figure
shown 21.
in Figure 20. And the OASPLs of all the far
sound field observing points are demonstrated in Figure 21.

FigureFigure 19. Observing

19. Observing points
points forforthe
thefar-field
far-field SPL
SPLcomputation
computationwith 16 locations.
with 16 locations.
Figure 19. Observing points for the far-field SPL computation with 16 locations.
It is observed
It is easily easily observed
fromfrom Figure
Figure 2020 thatthe
that themain
main peaks
peaksofofthethe original
originalmodel were were
model eliminated
eliminated
after
after carrying carrying out
out observedbiomimetic
biomimetic design.
design. Combined with the result of Figure 21, it can be seen
bethat allthat
of all of
It is easily from FigureCombined
20 that thewith mainthe result
peaks of of
theFigure
original 21,model
it can were seen
eliminated
the observing points have achieved a certain degree of noise reduction effect. It is worth noting that
theafter carrying
observing out biomimetic
points design.
have achieved Combined
a certain degreewithofthe result
noise of Figureeffect.
reduction 21, it can
It isbe seen that
worth notingall of
that
the observing points at 0° and 180°, where negative effects could be found in the near sound field,
thethe observing
observing points
points at 0 ◦
have achieved
and 180 ◦ , a certain
where degree
negative of noise
effects reduction
could be effect.
found It
in is
theworth
near noting
sound that
field,
had significant noise reduction effects in the far sound field. Among all of the 16 observing points,
hadthe observing
significant
the maximal points
noise at 0° and effects
reduction
noise reduction 180°,
was 7.28where
indB,
the negative at effects
far sound
obtained field.could
observing Among
pointbep23found
.all ofinthethe 16near sound field,
observing points,
had significant noise reduction effects in the far sound
the maximal noise reduction was 7.28 dB, obtained at observing point p23 . field. Among all of the 16 observing points,
the maximal noise reduction was 7.28 dB, obtained at observing point p23.

Figure 20. Comparison of the predicted SPL spectra of the original hydrofoil and biomimetic hydrofoil
at the four observing points of the far sound field: (a) p24; (b) p28; (c) p32; and (d) p36.

Figure
Figure 20.20. Comparisonofofthe
Comparison thepredicted
predictedSPL SPLspectra
spectra of thethe original
originalhydrofoil
hydrofoiland andbiomimetic hydrofoil
biomimetic hydrofoil
at the
at the four
four observing
observing pointsofofthe
points thefar
farsound
soundfield:
field: (a)
(a) pp24
24;; (b)
(b)pp2828; (c)
; (c)p32p;32and (d)(d)
; and p36.p36 .
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 17 of 22
J.J. Mar.
Mar. Sci.
Sci. Eng.
Eng. 2019,
2019, 7,
7, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 17 of
17 of 22
22

Figure 21.
Figure 21. Comparison
Comparison of
Comparison of predicted
of predicted OASPLs
predicted OASPLs of
of the
the original
the original hydrofoil
original hydrofoil and
hydrofoil and biomimetic
biomimetic hydrofoil
hydrofoil at
at the
the
16 observing points of the far
16 observing points of the far sound
far sound field.
sound field.
field.

6.4. Noise Reduction

6.4. Noise
6.4. Reduction Mechanism
Mechanism
The hydrofoil
hydrofoil self-noise
The hydrofoil
The self-noise is
self-noise produced
produced by
is produced
is the
by the
by interaction
the interaction between
interaction between
between the the structure
structure and
the structure and the
and the turbulence
the turbulence
turbulence
produced in its
produced in its own
produced own boundary
own boundary
boundary layer layer
layer andand
and the the
the near near
near wake wake
wake [6]. [6].
[6]. To To
To give give
give aa cleara clear
clear view view
view ofof theof the
flowflow
the flow field,
field, field,
the
the
the two-dimensional
two-dimensional contours
contours of of
the the
flow flow
field field
at at
the the
mid mid
plane plane
of of
the the hydrofoil
hydrofoil
two-dimensional contours of the flow field at the mid plane of the hydrofoil at 2.0 s are given in this at at
2.0 s2.0
are s are
given given
in in
this
this section.
section.
section.
The
The comparison
The comparisonofof
comparison thethe
of pressure
the pressure
pressurecontours between
contours
contours the original
between
between hydrofoil
the original
the original and biomimetic
hydrofoil
hydrofoil hydrofoil
and biomimetic
and biomimetic
is shown in
hydrofoil
hydrofoil is Figure in
is shown
shown 22.Figure
in It can22.
Figure beIt
22. Itseen
can be
can that
be seen thethat
seen pressure
that of the biomimetic
the pressure
the pressure of the
of the biomimeticmodelmodel
biomimetic was much
model more
was much
was much
stable than
more stable
more the
stable than original
than the one,
the original especially
original one, near
one, especially the
especially near region
near the of suction
the region
region of surface.
of suction Moreover,
suction surface. the
surface. Moreover, contours
Moreover, the of
the
velocities
contours of
contours of the y direction
in velocities
velocities in theand
in the in the flow
yy direction
direction anddirection
and in the
in the flow at the
flow trailingat
direction
direction atedge of the two
the trailing
the trailing edge
edge models theinvestigated
of the
of two models
two models
in this paper
investigated inare illustrated
this paper are in Figure
illustrated 23;in Figure
Figure 24, respectively.
23; Figure 24, It
investigated in this paper are illustrated in Figure 23; Figure 24, respectively. It is noticeable that is noticeable
respectively. It that
is the
noticeable velocity
that
fluctuations
the velocity
the in both
velocity fluctuations the
fluctuations in y direction
in both
both the and in the
the yy direction
direction and flow
and in direction
in the
the flow at the
flow direction trailing
direction at edge
at the improved
the trailing
trailing edge a lot
edge improved
improvedafter
adding
a lot spanwise
after adding microgrooved
spanwise surfaces.
microgrooved The velocity
surfaces. Thegradient
velocity of
a lot after adding spanwise microgrooved surfaces. The velocity gradient of the flow in the wake the flow
gradient in
of the wake
flow of
in the
the trailing
wake of
of
edge
the was significantly
trailing edge was decreased.
significantly To give more
decreased. explanations
To give more for the mechanism
explanations
the trailing edge was significantly decreased. To give more explanations for the mechanism of the for of
the the noise
mechanism reduction
of the
demonstrated
noise reduction
noise reduction indemonstrated
this paper, thein
demonstrated streamlines
in this paper,in
this paper, the
the the groove arein
streamlines
streamlines exhibited
in the groove
the groovein Figure 25.
are exhibited
are exhibited in Figure
in Figure 25. 25.

(a)
(a)
Figure 22. Cont.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22
J. Mar.
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x
136FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of
18 of 22

(b)
(b)
(b)
Figure 22. Comparison of the contours of pressure at 2.0 s between the two models: (a) the original
Figure 22. Comparison of the contours of pressure at 2.0 s between the two models: (a) the original
hydrofoil
Figure
Figure 22. and (b) the biomimetic
22. Comparison
Comparison of the
of hydrofoil.
the contours
contours of pressure
of pressure at
at 2.0
2.0 ss between
between the
the two
two models:
models: (a)
(a) the
the original
original
hydrofoil and (b) the biomimetic hydrofoil.
hydrofoil and (b) the biomimetic hydrofoil.
hydrofoil and (b) the biomimetic hydrofoil.

(a)
(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
(b)
Figure 23. Comparison of the contours of instantaneous velocity in the y direction at 2.0 s between the
Figure23.
Figure 23.Comparison
Comparisonof ofthe
thecontours
contoursofofinstantaneous
instantaneousvelocity
velocityininthe
theyydirection
directionatat2.0
2.0ssbetween
betweenthe
the
two models:
Figure (a) the original
23. Comparison of the hydrofoil and
contours of (b) the biomimetic
instantaneous velocityhydrofoil.
in the y direction at 2.0 s between the
two models: (a) the original hydrofoil and (b) the biomimetic hydrofoil.
two models: (a) the original hydrofoil and (b) the biomimetic hydrofoil.
two models: (a) the original hydrofoil and (b) the biomimetic hydrofoil.

(a)
(a)
(a)
Figure 24. Cont.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 19 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 22
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 22

(b)
(b)
Figure24.
Figure 24.Comparison
Comparisonofofcontours
contoursofofinstantaneous
instantaneousvelocity
velocityininthe
theflow
flowdirection
directionatat2.0
2.0s sbetween
betweenthe
the
Figure 24. Comparison of contours of instantaneous velocity in the flow direction at 2.0 s between the
two models: (a) the original hydrofoil and (b) the biomimetic hydrofoil.
two models: (a) the original hydrofoil and (b) the biomimetic hydrofoil.
two models: (a) the original hydrofoil and (b) the biomimetic hydrofoil.
As
Asisisshown
shownininFigure
Figure25, 25,two
twopairs
pairsofofvortices
vorticesrotating
rotatingreversely
reverselyexisted
existedininthe
theinterior
interiorofofthethe
As is shown in Figure 25, two pairs of vortices rotating reversely existed in the interior of the
microgrooves.
microgrooves.ItItisisnoticeable
noticeablethatthatthe
therotation
rotationdirection
directionofofthethelarger
largervortex
vortexnear
nearthe
thesurface
surfaceofofthe
the
microgrooves. It is noticeable that the rotation direction of the larger vortex near the surface of the
hydrofoil
hydrofoilwas wasfavorable
favorabletotothetheflow
flowofofthe
theexternal
externalflow
flowfield.
field.The
The“micro-air
“micro-airbearing”
bearing”introduced
introducedby by
hydrofoil was favorable to the flow of the external flow field. The “micro-air bearing” introduced by
Pan
Pan[55]
[55]could
couldprovide
provideexplanations
explanationsfor forthis
thisphenomenon
phenomenonininthis thispaper.
paper.The
Theadvantages
advantagesofofsurfaces
surfaces
Pan [55] could provide explanations for this phenomenon in this paper. The advantages of surfaces
with
withspanwise
spanwise microgrooves
microgrooves forfor
retarding
retardingthethe
development
development of the turbulent
of the boundary
turbulent layerlayer
boundary include the
include
with spanwise microgrooves for retarding the development of the turbulent boundary layer include
following: (1) weakening
the following: of the streamwise
(1) weakening vorticesvortices
of the streamwise that spawn
thatthe secondary
spawn vortices and
the secondary (2) retention
vortices and (2)
the following: (1) weakening of the streamwise vortices that spawn the secondary vortices and (2)
ofretention
low-speed of fluid withinfluid
low-speed the grooves.
within the Forgrooves.
the presentFor cases, the spanwise
the present microgrooves,
cases, the which were
spanwise microgrooves,
retention of low-speed fluid within the grooves. For the present cases, the spanwise microgrooves,
introduced
which were onto the surface
introduced of the
onto thehydrofoils,
surface ofconsumed the energy
the hydrofoils, consumedof the the
flow.energy
The existence of these
of the flow. The
which were introduced onto the surface of the hydrofoils, consumed the energy of the flow. The
secondary
existence of flow vortices
these playsflow
secondary a similar roleplays
vortices to “roller bearings”.
a similar role toThese
“rollersecondary
bearings”.flow
Thesevortices are
secondary
existence of these secondary flow vortices plays a similar role to “roller bearings”. These secondary
stable in the groove
flow vortices and in
are stable will
thenot appear
groove andonwill
the not
surface, which
appear on the would leadwhich
surface, to thewould
phenomenon
lead to ofthe
flow vortices are stable in the groove and will not appear on the surface, which would lead to the
vortices scattering. In short, the basic idea of underwater noise reduction
phenomenon of vortices scattering. In short, the basic idea of underwater noise reduction of of hydrofoils with spanwise
phenomenon of vortices scattering. In short, the basic idea of underwater noise reduction of
microgrooved
hydrofoils with surface is to hinder
spanwise the process
microgrooved of turbulence,
surface is to hinderreduce the flowofenergy,
the process and weaken
turbulence, reducethethe
hydrofoils with spanwise microgrooved surface is to hinder the process of turbulence, reduce the
intensity of turbulent
flow energy, burst.the intensity of turbulent burst.
and weaken
flow energy, and weaken the intensity of turbulent burst.

Figure25.
Figure 25.Streamlines
Streamlinesininthe
thegroove.
groove. The
Theblue
bluestraight
straightarrow
arrowrepresents
representsthethedirection
directionofofthe
theflow
flow
Figure 25. Streamlines in the groove. The blue straight arrow represents the direction of the flow
aroundthe
around the hydrofoil;
hydrofoil; thethe
red red curved
curved arrowarrow represents
represents the direction
the direction of the
of the large largenear
vortex vortex near the
the external
around the hydrofoil; the red curved arrow represents the direction of the large vortex near the
external
flow field;flow field;
and the and curved
green the green curved
arrow arrow represents
represents theofdirection
the direction the smallofvortex
the small vortex
in the bottomin of
the
external flow field; and the green curved arrow represents the direction of the small vortex in the
bottom
the of the microgrooves.
microgrooves.
bottom of the microgrooves.
7.7.Conclusions
Conclusions
7. Conclusions
AAbiomimetic
biomimetichydrofoil
hydrofoilisisproposed
proposedininthis
thisstudy
studywith
withspanwise
spanwisemicrogrooved
microgroovedsurfaces
surfacesinspired
inspired
by A biomimetic hydrofoil is proposed in Firstly,
this study with spanwise microgrooved surfaces inspired
by sharkskin on the FF-77-W airfoil profile. Firstly, LES were carried out to simulatehydrodynamic
sharkskin on the FF-77-W airfoil profile. LES were carried out to simulate hydrodynamic
by sharkskin on
characteristics thehydrofoil;
FF-77-W airfoilthe profile. Firstly, LES wereobserving
carried out to simulate hydrodynamic
characteristicsofofthe
the hydrofoil;then,
then, thesound
soundpressure
pressureatatthe
the observingpoints
pointswas
wascalculated
calculatedbased
based
characteristics of the hydrofoil; then, the sound pressure at the observing points was calculated based
on the FW-H equation. After verifying and validating the numerical method, the hydrodynamic
on the FW-H equation. After verifying and validating the numerical method, the hydrodynamic
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 20 of 22

on the FW-H equation. After verifying and validating the numerical method, the hydrodynamic
performance and the sound field characteristics were compared between the biomimetic hydrofoil and
the original hydrofoil. The main conclusions of this research were as follows:

1. The change of the lift coefficient and drag coefficient had no obvious cycle. Compared with
the characteristics of original hydrofoil, the lift coefficient of the biomimetic model was almost
unchanged, and the drag coefficient of the biomimetic model was slightly decreased.
2. In near sound field, the OASPLs of the observing points in the 0◦ and 180◦ direction of the
biomimetic hydrofoil were larger than those of the original model. With the increase of observing
distance along the direction, the OASPL of the biomimetic model gradually became lower than
that of original model at the same observing positions. In particular, the maximum noise reduction
of 7.28 dB could be obtained at the observing point in the 0◦ direction of the far sound field, which
was the optimal position of all the 16 observing points along the circumferential direction.
3. Compared with the noise spectra of the biomimetic hydrofoil and the original hydrofoil, it can be
seen that the SPL of the biomimetic model is higher at low frequencies. In the near sound field,
the main peaks in the noise spectrum shifted to a higher frequency, while in the far sound field,
it was observed that the main peaks in the noise spectrum almost disappeared, which resulted in
a favorable noise reduction effect.
4. The key to noise reduction was the generation of the secondary vortex in the microgrooves.
These secondary flow vortices played a similar role to “roller bearings”, which improved the flow
field around the hydrofoil and flow in the wake field.

Because noise reduction technology with spanwise microgrooved surfaces has the advantages of
simple structure, easy manufacturing, and no major structural changes, it is a promising tool with the
potential to be applied in marine propulsors, marine turbine blades, and other structures. However,
future studies still need to be conducted on the following issues:

1. The influence of the flow velocity, angle of attack of the hydrofoil, and other parameters on the
noise reduction performance.
2. The optimal design of the spanwise microgrooves, including its dimensional parameters and
suitable positions on the hydrofoils.

Author Contributions: Z.D. and W.T. constructed the numerical models and carried out the numerical simulations.
Z.D. and Z.M. analyzed the results. Z.D. wrote the manuscript, and all authors contributed to editing the paper.
Z.M. provided guidance throughout the research.
Funding: This research was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (grant no. 51809214), the
National Science Foundation of China (grant no. 61572404), and the Natural Science Basic Research Plan in
Shaanxi Province of China (grant no. 2018JQ5042).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Lossent, J.; Lejart, M.; Folegot, T.; Clorennec, D.; Iorio, L.D.; Gervaise, C. Underwater operational noise
level emitted by a tidal current turbine and its potential impact on marine fauna. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018,
131, 323–334. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Hafla, E.; Johnson, E.; Johnson, C.N.; Preston, L.; Aldridge, D.; Roberts, J.D. Modeling underwater noise
propagation from marine hydrokinetic power devices through a time-domain, velocity-pressure solution.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2018, 143, 3242–3253. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Harris, B.A. Turn Down the Volume: Improved Federal Regulation of Shipping Noise Is Necessary to Protect
Marine Mammals. UCLA J. Environ. Law Policy 2017, 35, 206.
4. Bosschers, J. A semi-empirical prediction method for broadband hull-pressure fluctuations and underwater
radiated noise by propeller tip vortex cavitation. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 49. [CrossRef]
5. Viitanen, V.; Hynninen, A.; Sipilä, T.; Siikonen, T. DDES of wetted and cavitating marine propeller for CHA
underwater noise assessment. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 56. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 21 of 22

6. Brooks, T.F.; Pope, D.S.; Marcolini, M.A. Airfoil Self-Noise and Prediction; NASA Reference Publication 1218;
NASA Langley Research Center: Hampton, VA, USA, 1989.
7. Howe, M.S. Aerodynamic noise of a serrated trailing edge. J. Fluid Struct. 1991, 5, 33–45. [CrossRef]
8. Howe, M.S. Noise produced by a sawtooth trailing edge. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1991, 90, 482–487. [CrossRef]
9. Gruber, M.; Joseph, P.F.; Chong, T.P. On the mechanisms of serrated airfoil trailing edge noise reduction.
In Proceedings of the 17th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 5–8 June 2011; p. 2781.
10. Sandberg, R.D.; Jones, L.E. Direct numerical simulations of low Reynolds number flow over airfoils with
trailing-edge serrations. J. Sound Vib. 2011, 330, 3818–3831. [CrossRef]
11. Chong, T.P.; Joseph, P.F. An experimental study of airfoil instability tonal noise with trailing edge serrations.
J. Sound Vib. 2013, 332, 6335–6358. [CrossRef]
12. Jaron, R.; Moreau, A.; Guérin, S.; Schnell, R. Optimization of trailing-edge serrations to reduce open-rotor
tonal interaction noise. J. Fluid Eng. 2018, 140, 021201. [CrossRef]
13. Lee, H.M.; Lu, Z.; Lim, K.M.; Xie, J.; Lee, H.P. Quieter propeller with serrated trailing edge. Appl. Acoust.
2019, 146, 227–236. [CrossRef]
14. Chong, T.P.; Joseph, P.F.; Gruber, M. Airfoil self noise reduction by non-flat plate type trailing edge serrations.
Appl. Acoust. 2013, 74, 607–613. [CrossRef]
15. Chong, T.P.; Dubois, E. Optimization of the poro-serrated trailing edges for airfoil broadband noise reduction.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2016, 140, 1361–1373. [CrossRef]
16. León, C.A.; Ragni, D.; Pröbsting, S.; Scarano, F.; Madsen, J. Flow topology and acoustic emissions of trailing
edge serrations at incidence. Exp. Fluids 2016, 57, 91. [CrossRef]
17. Avallone, F.; Van der Velden, W.C.P.; Ragni, D. Benefits of curved serrations on broadband trailing-edge
noise reduction. J. Sound Vib. 2017, 400, 167–177. [CrossRef]
18. Avallone, F.; Van der Velden, W.C.P.; Ragni, D.; Casalino, D. Noise reduction mechanisms of sawtooth and
combed-sawtooth trailing-edge serrations. J. Fluid Mech. 2018, 848, 560–591. [CrossRef]
19. Clair, V.; Polacsek, C.; Garrec, T.L.; Reboul, G.; Gruber, M.; Joseph, P. Experimental and numerical investigation
of turbulence-airfoil noise reduction using wavy edges. AIAA J. 2013, 51, 2695–2713. [CrossRef]
20. Narayanan, S.; Chaitanya, P.; Haeri, S.; Joseph, P.; Kim, J.W.; Polacsek, C. Airfoil noise reductions through
leading edge serrations. Phys. Fluids 2015, 27, 025109. [CrossRef]
21. Chaitanya, P.; Joseph, P.; Narayanan, S.; Kim, J.W. Aerofoil broadband noise reductions through
double-wavelength leading-edge serrations: A new control concept. J. Fluid Mech. 2018, 855, 131–151.
[CrossRef]
22. Chen, W.; Qiao, W.; Tong, F.; Wang, L.; Wang, X. Experimental investigation of wavy leading edges on
rod-aerofoil interaction noise. J. Sound Vib. 2018, 422, 409–431. [CrossRef]
23. Shi, W.; Atlar, M.; Rosli, R.; Aktas, B.; Norman, R. Cavitation observations and noise measurements of
horizontal axis tidal turbines with biomimetic blade leading-edge designs. Ocean Eng. 2016, 121, 143–155.
[CrossRef]
24. Liu, Y.; Li, Y.; Shang, D. The Hydrodynamic Noise Suppression of a Scaled Submarine Model by Leading-Edge
Serrations. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 68. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, C. Trailing edge perforation for interaction tonal noise reduction of a contra-rotating fan. J. Vib. Acoust.
2018, 140, 021016. [CrossRef]
26. Maizi, M.; Mohamed, M.H.; Dizene, R.; Mihoubi, M.C. Noise reduction of a horizontal wind turbine using
different blade shapes. Renew. Energy 2018, 117, 242–256. [CrossRef]
27. Carpio, A.R.; Martínez, R.M.; Avallone, F.; Ragni, D.; Snellen, M.; Van der Zwaag, S. Experimental
characterization of the turbulent boundary layer over a porous trailing edge for noise abatement. J. Sound Vib.
2019, 443, 537–558. [CrossRef]
28. Arnold, B.; Lutz, T.; Krämer, E.; Rautmann, C. Wind-Turbine Trailing-Edge Noise Reduction by Means of
Boundary-Layer Suction. AIAA J. 2018, 5, 1843–1854. [CrossRef]
29. Walsh, M.; Weinstein, L. Drag and heat transfer on surfaces with small longitudinal fins. In Proceedings of
the 11th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 10–12 July 1978; p. 1161.
30. Walsh, M. Turbulent boundary layer drag reduction using riblets. In Proceedings of the 20th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA, 11–14 January 1982; p. 169.
31. Choi, K.S. Smart Flow Control with Riblets. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 745, 27–40. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 136 22 of 22

32. Choi, K.S. Near-wall structure of a turbulent boundary layer with riblets. J. Fluid Mech. 1989, 208, 417–458.
[CrossRef]
33. Joslin, R.D.; Thomas, R.H.; Choudhari, M.M. Synergism of flow and noise control technologies. Prog. Aerosp. Sci.
2005, 41, 363–417. [CrossRef]
34. Gillcrist, M.C.; Reidy, L.W. Drag and Noise Measurements on an Underwater Vehicle with a Riblet Surface Coating;
Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC): San Diego, CA, USA, 1989.
35. Shi, X.; Song, B.; Shi, Z. Experimental study on flow-noise reduction by riblets. J. Northwest. Polytech. Univ.
1997, 15, 395–398. (In Chinese)
36. Fu, Y.F.; Yuan, C.Q.; Bai, X.Q. Marine drag reduction of shark skin inspired riblet surfaces. Biosurf. Biotribol.
2017, 3, 11–24. [CrossRef]
37. Chen, D.; Liu, Y.; Chen, H.; Zhang, D. Bio-inspired drag reduction surface from sharkskin. Biosurf. Biotribol.
2018, 4, 39–45. [CrossRef]
38. Luo, Y. Recent progress in exploring drag reduction mechanism of real sharkskin surface: A review. J. Mech.
Med. Biol. 2015, 15, 1530002. [CrossRef]
39. Luo, Y.H.; Li, X.; Zhang, D.Y.; Liu, Y.F. Drag reducing surface fabrication with deformed sharkskin morphology.
Surf. Eng. 2016, 32, 157–163. [CrossRef]
40. Lee, S.J.; Jang, Y.G. Control of flow around a NACA 0012 airfoil with a micro-riblet film. J. Fluid. Struct. 2005,
20, 659–672. [CrossRef]
41. Chamorro, L.P.; Arndt, R.E.A.; Sotiropoulos, F. Drag reduction of large wind turbine blades through riblets:
Evaluation of riblet geometry and application strategies. Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 1095–1105. [CrossRef]
42. Zhang, Y.; Chen, H.; Fu, S.; Dong, W. Numerical study of an airfoil with riblets installed based on large eddy
simulation. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2018, 78, 661–670. [CrossRef]
43. Yuan, Y.; Yang, H.; Shi, Y.; Zuo, H. Study on drag reduction characteristics of airfoil for wind turbine with
microgrooves on surface. J. Eng. Therm. 2018, 39, 1258–1266. (In Chinese)
44. Kaakkunen, J.J.; Tiainen, J.; Jaatinen-Värri, A.; Grönman, A.; Lohtander, M. Nanosecond laser ablation of the
trapezoidal structures for turbomachinery applications. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 25, 435–442. [CrossRef]
45. Lam, K.; Lin, Y.F. Large eddy simulation of flow around wavy cylinders at subcritical Reynolds number.
Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2008, 29, 1071–1088. [CrossRef]
46. Ffowcs, J.E.; Hawkings, D.L. Sound generated by turbulence and surfaces in arbitrary motion. Philos. Trans.
R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Sci. 1969, 264, 321–342.
47. ANSYS. ANSYS FLUENT User’s Guide; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2011.
48. Hinze, J.O. Turbulence; McGraw-Hill Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1975.
49. ANSYS. ANSYS FLUENT Theory Guide; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2011.
50. UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database. Available online: https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/coord_database.html
(accessed on 31 March 2019).
51. Walsh, M.J. Drag characteristics of V-groove and transverse curvature riblets. In Proceedings of the
Symposium on Viscous Flow Drag Reduction, Dallas, TX, USA, 7–8 November 1979.
52. Walsh, M.J. Riblets as a viscous drag reduction technique. AIAA J. 1983, 21, 485–486. [CrossRef]
53. Walsh, M.J. Effect of detailed surface geometry on riblet drag reduction performance. J. Aircr. 1990, 27, 572–573.
[CrossRef]
54. Gregory, N.; O’reilly, C.L. Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 0012 Aerofoil Section, Including the
Effects of Upper-Surface Roughness Simulating Hoar Frost; HM Stationery Office: London, UK, 1973.
55. Pan, J. The experimental approach to drag reduction of the transverse ribbons on turbulent flow. Acta Aerodyn.
Sin. 1996, 14, 304–310. (In Chinese)

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).