Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Design and performance of an aeroacoustic wind tunnel facility at the

University of Bristol q
}ke, Syamir Alihan Showkat Ali, Mahdi Azarpeyvand ⇑
Yannick D. Mayer, Hasan Kamliya Jawahar, Máté Szo
Faculty of Engineering, University of Bristol, United Kingdom

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

Article history: This paper provides an overview of the design and performance of the new aeroacoustic wind tunnel
Received 19 February 2019 facility at the University of Bristol. The purpose of the facility is to enable near- and far-field acoustic
Received in revised form 10 May 2019 and aerodynamic studies on a variety of different aerodynamic components and to examine diverse noise
Accepted 3 June 2019
control techniques. The facility comprises a large acoustic chamber, anechoic down to 160 Hz, and a tem-
perature controlled closed-circuit wind tunnel with an open test section. The wind tunnel features two
interchangeable rectangular nozzles with a partially shared contraction. Both nozzles are shown to pos-
Keywords:
sess a high flow quality with high flow uniformity and low turbulence intensity of 0.09% and 0.12% for the
Aeroacoustics
Wind tunnel design
smaller and larger nozzle, respectively. The maximum attainable flow speeds are 40 m/s for the larger
Trailing edge noise nozzle and 120 m/s for the smaller nozzle corresponding to Reynolds numbers of 2.7 million and 8.1 mil-
Nozzle design lion per meter, respectively. In this paper, we will present various aerodynamic and acoustic results to
characterize the performance of the facility. The background noise levels are found to be sufficiently
low and the far-field noise measurements from a flat plate, a round cylinder and a NACA 0012 airfoil com-
pare favorably to existing experimental observations.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction active flow/noise control methods, such as serrations [4–7], porous

treatments [8,9], morphing surfaces [10,11], flow suction and
The sound radiated from bodies immersed in a flow field is of blowing [12,13], etc. In the past, the majority of the aeroacoustic
major concern for the aerospace, automotive, civil engineering wind tunnels have been operated by automotive and aerospace
and wind energy sector, amongst many others. More stringent corporations, as well as national institutions, such as NASA, JAXA,
noise emission regulations all over the globe have made sound NLR and DLR [14–18]. However, over the course of the past
reductions a key design driver in many engineering applications 20 years, several universities have been commissioning aeroacous-
nowadays [2]. Several numerical, analytical and experimental tic wind tunnels of varying sizes and capabilities [19–28]. More
studies have been carried out in the past decades to improve our recently, Kevlar-walled anechoic wind tunnel test sections have
understanding of aerodynamic noise sources. been designed and implemented [8,28,29], which improves the
Notwithstanding the improvements in the computational aerodynamic performance of the wind tunnel, while keeping the
methods utilized for aeroacoustic predictions in recent years, it is flow acoustically accessible.
still not feasible to predict the noise emitted by complex flows in Open-jet wind tunnels are widely used to conduct aeroacoustic
various applications. This calls for the inevitable need for well- measurements. In order to enable high-quality research, an open-
equipped aeroacoustic facilities to conduct experimental studies. jet aeroacoustic facility has to fulfill several requirements. It has
This can help both the fundamental understanding of noise gener- to deliver a flow with low turbulence intensity and high flow uni-
ation mechanisms from different aerodynamic components, such formity across the nozzle exit plane, a very low background noise
as wings, blades, landing gear systems, cavities, etc. [3], and more level, as well as near anechoic conditions for high accuracy noise
importantly the development of novel and tailored passive or measurements [20]. The background noise of open-jet type ane-
choic wind tunnels consists of the jet noise, fan noise and noise
q
A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 2018 AIAA/CEAS
generated by the flow passing through the individual components
Aeroacoustics Conference in Atlanta, United States [1]. of the wind tunnel as well, as vibration caused structure-borne
⇑ Corresponding author at: Queen’s Building, University Walk, BS8 1TR Bristol, noise. With careful design, the fan noise and the self-noise of the
United Kingdom. wind tunnel components can be significantly attenuated, leaving
E-mail address: m.azarpeyvand@bristol.ac.uk (M. Azarpeyvand).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.06.005
0003-682X/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370 359

the noise of the free jet as a limiting factor for background noise through the contraction nozzle (part F). The free jet is caught by
[19,20]. a collector (part H) which channels the flow through two silencers
This paper discusses the design and performance of the aeroa- (parts I & J) and a heat exchanger (part K) in the return-leg back to
coustic wind tunnel facility at the University of Bristol. The pur- the centrifugal fan. All corners are equipped with turning vanes
pose of this facility is to perform near- and far-field acoustic with a chord of 192 mm manufactured out of 1.5 mm rolled mild
characterizations on a variety of different bodies and aerodynamic steel with chamfers at the leading and trailing edge. Additionally,
components. The facility will be used for absolute noise measure- the ductwork is designed to be fully airtight in order to avoid the
ments or relative noise tests to evaluate the effects of noise reduc- emergence of any noise due to flow leakage.
tion techniques. A detailed overview of the facility and its A closed-loop feedback control allows both the temperature
individual components is presented in Section 2. Subsequently, and velocity to be set and maintained, permitting continuous oper-
Section 3 will outline the acoustic and aerodynamic characteristics ation of the wind tunnel facility under a wide range of ambient
of the wind tunnel and far-field noise benchmark cases of a flat conditions ensuring repeatability of any measurements conducted.
plate, a cylinder and a NACA 0012 airfoil. These test cases are cho- The design currently features two nozzles of the following sizes,
sen to demonstrate the capabilities and performance of the facility 600 mm
200 mm (Nozzle 1) and 500 mm
775 mm (Nozzle 2),
for a wide range of fundamental and engineering applications. which will be discussed in Section 2.4. The following sections will
describe the design and features of the different wind tunnel com-
ponents in greater detail.
2. Wind tunnel design overview

The Aeroacoustic facility at the University of Bristol is a closed- 2.1. Centrifugal fan and heat exchanger
circuit, open-jet anechoic wind tunnel, designed for aerodynamic
and aeroacoustic studies. Fig. 1 displays an isometric view of the The centrifugal fan (part A) drives air through the wind tunnel
wind tunnel without any surrounding building structures and and was sized according to the chosen design operating conditions
without the anechoic chamber. A top view of the facility, including (Q_ ; DP) for each nozzle, an overview of which can be seen in Table 1.
the surrounding structures and anechoic chamber, is provided in The larger nozzle (Nozzle 2), requiring a volumetric flow rate of
Fig. 2 and a cut-section side view through the forward-leg of the 15.3 m3/s and static pressure rise in excess of 3000 Pa, drives the
wind tunnel can be seen in Fig. 3. The entire facility was designed fan specifications more than the smaller nozzle (Nozzle 1). As a
to fit within an available space of 16:6 m in length, 6:8 m in width result of this, the maximum velocity attainable with Nozzle 1 will
and 4:6 m in height in the existing wind tunnel laboratory of the be in excess of the design velocity of U 1 ¼ 60 m=s at the contrac-
University of Bristol. A directly driven centrifugal fan (part A in tion nozzle exit. The selected centrifugal fan is a direct drive Ferrari
Figs. 1–3) expels air into the forward-leg of the wind tunnel which FQ1121/N4A fan with a single inlet and outlet which absorbs up to
houses two silencers (parts B & C) and a section with acoustic wall 55 kW power. The fan is placed at a distance of about 6 m from the
treatment (part D). Consequently, the flow is turned and passed anechoic chamber inside an acoustically isolated room. In order to
through the settling chamber (part E) before it is accelerated dampen out structural vibration being transmitted through the

Fig. 1. Isolated isometric view of the aeroacoustic wind tunnel and its components. Blue arrows are indicative of the local flow direction. (A) Centrifugal fan, (B) Silencer 1, (C)
Silencer 2, (D) Lined duct, (E) Settling chamber, (F) Nozzle, (I) Silencer 3, (J) Silencer 4, (K) Heat exchanger.
360 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370

Fig. 2. Top view of the aeroacoustic facility including external control room. (A) Centrifugal fan, (B) Silencer 1, (C) Silencer 2, (D) Lined duct, (E) Settling chamber, (F) Nozzle,
(G) Anechoic chamber, (H) Collector, (I) Silencer 3, (J) Silencer 4, (K) Heat exchanger, (L) Control room.

Fig. 3. Section side view through the forward-leg of the aeroacoustic wind tunnel. (A) Centrifugal fan, (B) Silencer 1, (C) Silencer 2, (D) Lined duct, (E) Settling chamber, (F)
Nozzle, (H) Collector, (K) Heat exchanger.

Table 1
Overview of the fan design conditions.

Contraction exit Design velocity Static pressure Volumetric flow

dimensions at nozzle exit [m/s] rise, DP [Pa] rate, Q_ [m3/s]
Nozzle 1 600 mm
200 mm 60 (120 achievable) 2970 7.2
Nozzle 2 500 mm
775 mm 40 3104 15.3

floor into the anechoic chamber anti-vibration mounts are used to inlet and outlet is summarized in Table 2 for both design condi-
isolate the centrifugal fan from the floor. The fan room is separated tions, as provided by the manufacturer for the specified operating
from the anechoic chamber by means of two thick walls with high conditions.
transmission loss, the details of which can be found in Section 2.3. The air entering the fan passes through a heat exchanger (part K),
The fan allows continuous and stable operation from a minimum as seen in Fig. 3 to control the temperature of the air flow, utilizing
volumetric flow rate of 1.5 m3/s up to the respective design condi- chilled water as a coolant. The employed finned tube heat exchanger
tions for each nozzle. The velocity at the nozzle exit can be set from directs the air flow through an array of fins and copper tubes which
two control panels, one inside the anechoic chamber and one in the allows heat to be removed up to a rate of 50 kW. In a similar fashion
dedicated control room. The control of the centrifugal fan is then to the velocity control, the flow temperature, within a temperature
achieved through a closed-loop feedback control system utilizing range of 10 °C to 30 °C, can also be set from the control panels, which
the pressure drop across the contraction nozzle as input. Lastly, in turn controls the heat exchanger through a closed-loop feedback
the rate at which noise is emitted into the ductwork from the fan control system to achieve the set temperature.

Table 2
Octave band centrifugal fan inlet and outlet sound power for both nozzle design conditions, as provided by the manufacturer.

f [Hz] 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

Nozzle 1, Inlet [dB] 87 89 90 91 88 86 86 83
60 m/s Outlet [dB] 90 92 93 94 91 89 89 86
Nozzle 2, Inlet [dB] 97 99 100 101 98 96 96 93
40 m/s Outlet [dB] 100 102 103 104 101 99 99 96
 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370 361

2.2. Silencers ber. The collector inlet has internal dimensions of 2.3 m in width
and 1.9 m in height and was sized and placed to ensure that the
The duct silencers play an important role in the overall perfor- expanding free jet, as well as downward deflected flows, can be
mance of any aeroacoustic wind tunnel facility. The silencers must captured, and thereby limiting the interference noise between
be designed to provide maximum noise reduction, while producing the free jet and the collector. The collector is lined with a thick
little self-noise, due to the flow interactions with the silencers, and layer of acoustic foam to minimize flow interaction noise. Conse-
also causing minimum pressure loss across the duct network. This quently, the flow passes through the two silencers in the return-
facility has a total of four large air silencers, with two placed in the leg (parts I and J), before it reaches the centrifugal fan after the heat
forward-leg (parts B and C) and the other two in the return-leg exchanger, see Fig. 1. The silencers in the return duct are oriented
(parts I and J), as illustrated in Fig. 1. Each silencer has been opti- vertically and the airways between the splitters have a constant
mized to achieve the required acoustic dynamic insertion loss, i.e. width of 300 mm. All leading edges are circularly shaped and the
the achieved noise reduction including the regenerated flow self- splitters are made in the same way as the forward-leg silencers.
noise, and at the same time maintaining a well-behaved flow. The leading and trailing edge are solid and the voids between
The splitters of each silencer have an aerodynamically shaped solid 1.5 mm thick perforated steel sheets are again filled with
leading and trailing edge made from 1.5 mm thick galvanized per- compressed acoustic grade mineral wool slab. The first silencer
forated steel sheets. In between the leading and trailing edge, the (part I) is 3500 mm long, 1800 mm wide and 1350 mm high, and
splitters are manufactured from perforated galvanized steel filled it consists of two 150 mm thick side modules and two 300 mm
with compressed acoustic grade mineral wool slab. The airway sec- thick central modules. The flow will then pass through a second
tions of each silencer are equal in size and do not vary along the splitter silencer (part J) in the return-leg, consisting of two
flow direction until the trailing edge area is reached. The dynamic 150 mm thick side modules and one 300 mm wide central splitter.
insertion loss predictions in this section are based on experimental The silencer has a total length of 2900 mm, as well as a width and
data obtained from the manufacturer for the respective face flow height of 1200 mm. The predicted total dynamic insertion loss of
velocity as well as flow direction of each silencer and takes both these two silencers, i.e. from the fan to the anechoic chamber, is
the acoustic absorption as well as the regenerated self-noise into given in Table 4 for both nozzle design conditions.
account.
2.3. Anechoic chamber
2.2.1. Forward-leg silencers
The forward-leg of the wind tunnel duct system, i.e. from the The airtight anechoic chamber has external dimensions of 7.9 m
fan outlet, contains two large silencers (parts B and C), as shown in length, 5.0 m in width and 4.6 m in height, including the sur-
in Figs. 1–3. Both silencers have a length of 2800 mm, a width of rounding acoustic walls, as outlined in Fig. 2. In order to provide
920 mm and a height of 1710 mm, and consist of two 120 mm personnel access to the chamber an open mesh raised plastic-
thick modules at the top and bottom of the section and two fiberglass flooring is employed. All walls, as well as the ceiling
300 mm thick central splitters, resulting in the three horizontal air- and the floor, are covered in wedges with base dimensions of
ways with a constant height of 290 mm. The splitters, as well as 300 mm
300 mm to completely absorb any sound reflections.
the top and bottom modules, are made out of 1.5 mm galvanized The wedges on the ceiling have a length of 800 mm whereas all
perforated steel sheets, with 3 mm diameter holes equispaced at other wedges have a length of 340 mm and the internal wedge
a pitch of 5 mm. The space behind the perforated sheets is filled tip-to-tip dimensions are 6.7 m length, 4.0 m width and 3.3 m
with acoustic grade mineral wool slabs for noise attenuation. The height. Additionally, the exposed surfaces of the ductwork (parts
leading edge of the bottom splitter of the second silencer (part E and F) are acoustically lined to ensure that no reflective surfaces
C2) follows the shape of a symmetric airfoil, whilst the remaining exist within the anechoic chamber. The anechoic chamber has
three leading edges of the splitters of both silencers (parts B1, B2, been certified using the ISO 26101 free-field qualification proce-
C2) are derived for optimum flow conditions, see Fig. 3. Subsequent dure and was found to enable anechoic measurements down to
to the second silencer, the flow passes through a plain weave mesh 160 Hz according to the ISO 3745 standard testing procedures for
screen to smoothen the airflow such that the leading-edge noise of both pure tone and broadband testing for characteristic source
subsequent guide vanes (GV2) is reduced. The top of the next duct dimensions of 0.65 m or less. Additionally, it was determined that
section (part D) has also been lined in the same way, i.e. perforated the anechoic chamber provides background noise levels equivalent
sheets and acoustic grade mineral wool slabs, to provide further to a noise rating of NR8.
noise attenuation, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The predicted total The chamber’s four-inch-thick acoustic walls have a high trans-
dynamic insertion loss in the flow direction from the fan to the mission loss (TL) to avoid any external noise sources, such as the
anechoic chamber is given in Table 3 for both nozzle design fan noise or noise from other wind tunnels, to contaminate the
conditions. measurements conducted inside the chamber. Table 5 provides
the measured and predicted transmission loss of the acoustic wall
2.2.2. Return-leg silencers and it is evident that the measured transmission loss exceeds the
After the flow has passed through the anechoic chamber, it is predicted transmission loss. The predicted transmission loss was
caught by a bell-mouth collector (part H) and channeled back into provided by the manufacturer while the measured transmission
the ductwork toward the fan inlet. The collector is mounted on the loss testing was conducted in accordance with ISO 140-4 testing
acoustic wall and its inlet is placed just inside the anechoic cham- procedures. All wind tunnel components inside the anechoic

Table 3
Predicted octave band dynamic insertion loss in flow direction from fan to anechoic chamber at the design conditions for both nozzles, based on experimental data from the
manufacturer.

f [Hz] 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

Nozzle 1 [dB] 33 39 58 61 54 48 41 41
Nozzle 2 [dB] 29 38 54 58 54 46 43 41
362 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370

Table 4
Predicted octave band dynamic insertion loss against the flow direction from fan to anechoic chamber at the design conditions for both nozzles, based on experimental data from
the manufacturer.

f [Hz] 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

Nozzle 1 [dB] 24 41 51 52 43 36 46 45
Nozzle 2 [dB] 23 42 56 56 50 43 47 45

Table 5
Measured and predicted octave band acoustic wall transmission loss.

f [Hz] 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000

Predicted TL [dB] 29 34 36 40 45 49 51
Measured TL [dB] 29 42 52 53 54 57 64

chamber (settling chamber, nozzle, collector) are made such that 2.4. Contraction nozzles and settling chamber
they can be removed and the chamber can then be utilized as a
fully anechoic chamber. The contraction nozzle and the settling chamber are key to
When the anechoic chamber is used in its usual aeroacoustic obtain a well-behaved flow at the nozzle exit, with low turbulence
configuration, far-field noise measurements can be conducted intensity and low flow angularity whilst achieving a spatially uni-
using an array of microphones mounted on an arc. The arc itself form steady stream of air. The wind tunnel currently has two noz-
is mounted to the ceiling via a unistrut mounting channel and zles with the exit cross-sectional areas of 600 mm
200 mm and
aligned with the center point of the nozzle and the free stream 500 mm
775 mm. The larger nozzle maintains low blockage fac-
direction. The microphone array consists of 1/4” GRAS 40PL type tors when used for high-lift devices, airfoils at high angles of
microphones, with a high dynamic range of 32 - 150 dB(A) and a attack, as well as for bluff bodies. The smaller nozzle can achieve
flat frequency sensitivity response between 10 Hz and 20 kHz. higher velocities and can be used for airfoils at low angles of attack,
The diaphragms of the microphones are mounted along an arc with flat plates and boundary layer noise studies. Both nozzles also fea-
a radius of 1.75 m. The microphone arc spans over 125° in total, ture angles welded to the outside at the nozzle exit, enabling the
with the microphones placed at regular intervals of 2.5° allowing mounting of wind tunnel models and other set-ups. All external
up to 51 microphones to be used simultaneously. This allows far- surfaces of the contraction nozzle and settling chamber are lined
field noise measurements to be conducted at polar angles ranging with 10 cm thick acoustically absorbing foam sheets. As mentioned
from 25° to 150°. The focal point of the arc can be positioned along previously, it is also possible to fully remove the contraction nozzle
the axial nozzle direction, in order to accommodate measurements and settling chamber to convert the anechoic chamber into a fully
of bodies with varying sizes. Care was taken such that the expand- anechoic chamber.
ing jet from the wind tunnel nozzle does not impinge onto the
microphones. A photo of the anechoic chamber with an experi- 2.4.1. Settling chamber
mental test setup in place including the far-field microphone arc After the flow has passed the final turning vanes, it expands and
is displayed in Fig. 4. enters the settling chamber, see part E in Fig. 1. Two inspection

Fig. 4. Photograph of the anechoic chamber with a test setup including: (F) Nozzle, (H) Collector, (I) Silencer 3 and (M) far-field microphone arc.
 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370 363

hatches are provided before the settling chamber to provide access BðXÞ  B2 ðX=LÞn1 X
¼ 1  n 1 ; 06 6 v; ð3Þ
to the ductwork and also allow for PIV seeding to be introduced B1  B2 v1 L
into the flow. Within the settling chamber of 1.8 m
1.8 m square
cross-section the air flow first passes through a turbulence screen, BðXÞ  B1 ð1  X=LÞn2 X
followed by a honeycomb section and lastly two turbulence ¼1 ; v 6 6 1; ð4Þ
B2  B1 ð1  vÞn2 1 L
screens. The turbulence screens smoothen the flow and reduce
the turbulence intensity, whilst the honeycomb section straightens where H1 and B1 are half the inlet height and width, respectively, H2
the flow. The first turbulence screen is a plain weave mesh with a and B2 are half the outlet height and width, respectively, and n1 and
mesh opening of 1 mm and 0.5 mm stainless steel wires, whereas n2 are the contour powers of the first and second polynomial,
the second and third turbulence screen also use a plain weave respectively. Whilst Su focused on having a common contour power
mesh but with a mesh opening of 1.95 mm and 0.58 mm. The factor (n1 ¼ n2 ), it is shown that having a higher contour power fac-
cross-section of the 80 mm thick steel honeycomb section consists tor in the aft part of the nozzle is highly favorable to improve exit
of hexagons with a side length of 5.5 mm. Additionally, all four flow uniformity [33]. However, having differing contour power fac-
sides of the settling chamber are lined with the same perforated tors between the first and second polynomial results in a discontin-
steel sheet as the silencers, with the voids behind the sheets filled uous gradient at the match point. In order to avoid this
in the same manner with compressed acoustic grade mineral wool discontinuity in the first derivative, a third order spline is fitted
slab in order to attenuate any noise generated between the last between the two polynomials, reducing the length of the second
silencer and the settling chamber. polynomial curve. The extent of this spline is determined such that
the gradient at the beginning of the spline is equal to the gradient at
2.4.2. Contraction nozzles the end of the spline. This design procedure allows polynomials of
The careful design of the contraction nozzle is crucial to ensure different orders to be utilized.
a high-quality flow at the nozzle exit. Unsteady flow and flow sep- The aeroacoustic facility currently has two nozzles with the exit
aration must be avoided at both the nozzle inlet and outlet, whilst dimensions of 500 mm
775 mm and 600 mm
200 mm. The
achieving a low turbulence intensity, low flow angularity and high nozzle inlet has a size of 1.8 m
1.8 m, resulting in contraction
flow uniformity across the nozzle exit plane is desired [30]. As the ratios of 8.4: 1 and 27.0: 1, respectively. Due to spatial constraints,
high static pressure at the nozzle inlet is converted into dynamic the contraction nozzles were required to have a common 1 m long
pressure, the turbulent eddies are elongated and the velocity fluc- first section and an overall length of 2.0 m. In order to achieve a
tuations are reduced [31]. This is especially important for any noz- common first section, the first polynomials of the width and height
zle used in an aeroacoustic wind tunnel because an excessively profiles of both nozzles were averaged and the splines connecting
high turbulence intensity can potentially change the nature of the first polynomials to the second polynomials adjusted accord-
the noise generation mechanism, particularly in the case of airfoils. ingly. The final width and height profiles of both nozzles can be
The nozzle design procedure is based on Morel’s [32] method of seen in Figs. 5(a) and (b) and the corresponding design parameters
utilizing two polynomials which are connected at a so-called are given in Table 6.
match point for both the width and height profiles of the nozzle. In order to assess the aerodynamic performance of the nozzles
Su [33] extended this method to nozzles with rectangular cross- and also to visualize the flow behavior within the different sections
sections and investigated the influence of several geometric of the contraction nozzles, three-dimensional steady-state k  x
parameters on the exit flow quality. For a given nozzle length L SST simulations were performed using the open source solver
and a relative match point location of v, Su defined the centerline OpenFOAM. The simulations were carried out using a grid of
distance of the height (HðXÞ) and width (BðXÞ) profiles as a function
approximately 4:7  106 structured cells, with wall functions and
of the axial distance from the inlet (X), as follows
an average yþ of 30 at the nozzle walls for all cases. The
HðXÞ  H2 ðX=LÞn1 X simulations were carried out for a jet nozzle exit velocity of
¼ 1  n 1 ; 06 6 v; ð1Þ
H1  H 2 v1 L U 1 = 40 m/s and 60 m/s for the 500 mm
775 mm nozzle and
600 mm
200 mm nozzle, respectively. The inlet turbulence
HðXÞ  H1 ð1  X=LÞn2 X intensity was set to 5% to investigate the ability of the contraction
¼1 ; v 6 6 1; ð2Þ nozzles to reduce velocity fluctuations sufficiently, achieve a uni-
H2  H 1 ð1  vÞn2 1 L
form exit flow field and avoid any flow separation. The geometry

Fig. 5. Height (a) and width (b) profiles for both nozzles.
364 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370

Table 6
Geometric parameters of the two contraction nozzles.

H1 [m] H2 [m] B1 [m] B2 [m] L [m] n1 n2

Nozzle 1 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.3 2 3 5
Nozzle 2 0.9 0.3875 0.9 0.25 2 3 5

and coordinate system for the 600 mm
200 mm and for the Fig. 7 shows the velocity profiles close to the nozzle walls along
500 mm
775 mm nozzles used in the computations are shown the Y- and Z- directions for both nozzles at the three streamwise
in Fig. 6. The coordinate system origin is placed at the center of locations of X=L = 0.2, 0.1 and 0.0, respectively. The distance
the nozzle exit plane, as illustrated in Fig. 6. from the wall is normalized by the corresponding height and

Fig. 6. Isometric view of Nozzle 1 (a) and Nozzle 2 (b) with dimensions and coordinate system.

Fig. 7. Normalised velocity profiles at three streamwise locations within the nozzle contraction: (a) Nozzle 1, Y-direction, (b) Nozzle 1, Z-direction, (c) Nozzle 2, Y-direction,
(d) Nozzle 2, Z-direction. HðXÞ and BðXÞ are the nozzle profile functions, given in Eqs. (1)–(4).
 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370 365

Fig. 8. Vertical and horizontal cross-section plane velocity contours: (a) Nozzle 1 at U 1 = 60 m/s, (b) Nozzle 2 at U 1 = 40 m/s.

width, namely HðXÞ and BðXÞ, and hence ranges from 1 to 1. It can TI ¼ U 0rms =U mean ; ð5Þ
be seen that at the exit plane for the smaller nozzle, the velocity is
where U 0rms
is the root-mean-square of the velocity fluctuations and
predicted to be uniform over at least 93% and 97% of the nozzle
extent in the Y- and Z-direction, respectively. The larger nozzle is U mean is the average velocity. The velocity fluctuations have been
predicted to produce a uniform flow at the exit plane for 97% high-pass filtered at f ¼ U 1 =ð2LTS Þ, where LTS is the largest test sec-
and 96% of the nozzle extent in the Y- and Z-direction, respectively. tion dimension, in order to remove the effect of large-scale facility
Lastly, the velocity contours in the X  Z and X  Y planes within unsteadiness from the turbulence intensity measurement [34].
the contraction regions are illustrated in Fig. 8 and it is clearly
shown that there is no flow separation present in the nozzles for 3.1.1. Nozzle 1
the simulated flow conditions. Fig. 9 shows the mean velocity profiles of Nozzle 1 in the hori-
zontal (Z) and vertical (Y) directions at five streamwise distances
from the nozzle exit plane for a set velocity of U 1 = 30 m/s. The
3. Aerodynamic and acoustic performance characteristics horizontal and vertical distances have been normalized by the cor-
responding nozzle exit parameters (B2 ; H2 ) to a range of 1 to 1.
3.1. Aerodynamic characteristics Results are presented in terms of the normalized streamwise dis-
tance (X=Dh ), where Dh = 300 mm is the hydraulic diameter of
This section presents the measurements regarding the flow the nozzle. The velocity results exhibit a top-hat distribution near
quality of both contraction nozzles. The flow turbulence intensity the nozzle exit, but gradually take a Gaussian shape at further
and uniformity measurements have been conducted using a Dan- downstream locations, revealing the development of the jet shear
tec 55P16 type hot-wire probe featuring a 5 lm platinum plated layer. The mean velocity does not vary across the horizontal and
tungsten wire. The hot-wire probe is powered via a Dantec Stream- vertical extent for any of the streamwise distances measured, indi-
line Pro frame using a CTA91C10 module. The hot-wire probe has cating the presence of a good flow uniformity for the distances
been calibrated using a Dantec 54H10 calibrator and the data were considered here. At a distance of X=Dh ¼ 2:8, the extent of the free
captured for 8 seconds at a sampling frequency of 216 Hz using a jet with a constant velocity covers 75% and 40% of its original
National Instruments PXIe-4499 card. The hot-wire is moved by extent in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively.
means of a traverse system consisting of two ThorLabs LTS300M Hence, it can be concluded that the jet potential core has a length
stages with 300 mm travel each, whose positioning accuracy is in excess of three hydraulic diameters. It is key for any contraction
5 lm. The turbulence intensity (TI) is calculated at each measure- nozzle to possess a low turbulence intensity at the outlet, in order
ment point as to facilitate accurate aerodynamic and aeroacoustic measurements

Fig. 9. Jet flow velocity profiles in the horizontal (a) and vertical (b) directions at different axial locations for Nozzle 1 at U 1 = 30 m/s.
366 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370

and a realistic boundary layer transition behavior. Fig. 10 displays within this volume. Lastly, Fig. 12 displays the turbulence intensity
the flow turbulence intensity profiles in the horizontal (Z) and ver- profiles in the horizontal (Z) and vertical (Y) directions for
tical (Y) directions for U 1 = 30 m/s, which is shown to be as low as U 1 = 30 m/s, which is found to be as low as 0.12% and almost con-
0.09%. It is visible that the turbulence intensity present in the flow stant for 90% of the horizontal extent for X=Dh ¼ 0:1. It is visible
increases for larger nozzle distances as the jet develops. It is worth that the turbulence intensity increases as the jet develops down-
mentioning that most aeroacoustic tests are carried out with the stream of the nozzle exit. As seen in this section, Nozzle 2 also pro-
test rig, i.e. airfoil, bluff body, etc. placed within the potential core duces a good quality air flow, with a high flow uniformity and low
of the jet. As evident in this section, Nozzle 1 produces a good qual- turbulence intensity.
ity air flow, with a high flow uniformity and low turbulence
intensity. 3.2. Jet flow noise

3.1.2. Nozzle 2 This section will present the jet flow background noise mea-
Fig. 11 provides the mean velocity profiles of Nozzle 2 in the surements and associated analysis. It is important for any aeroa-
horizontal (Z) and vertical (Y) directions at five distances from coustic facility to have a sufficiently low jet flow background
the nozzle exit plane for a set velocity of U 1 = 30 m/s. The horizon- noise, i.e. jet flow noise, in order to facilitate good near- and
tal and vertical distances have been normalized by the correspond- far-field acoustic investigations. For all presented results in this
ing nozzle exit parameters (B2 ; H2 ) to a range of 1 to 1. Results are section, microphone signals were acquired for a duration of 16
presented as a function of X=Dh , where Dh = 608 mm is the hydrau- seconds using three synchronized PXIe-4499 data acquisition cards
lic diameter of the nozzle. In a comparable way to the smaller noz- mounted in a National Instruments PXIe-1062Q chassis. The power
zle, it can be seen that near the exit plane, the velocity profiles have spectral density of all presented narrowband noise spectra were
a top-hat distribution, while with increasing distance, the velocity calculated using Welch’s method and have a frequency bin size
reduces at the sides of the developing jet. The mean velocity is of 8 Hz unless indicated otherwise. All spectra are referenced to
almost constant across the horizontal and vertical extent for any the reference sound pressure of 20  106 Pa. The jet flow back-
of the axial distances measured, revealing a good flow uniformity ground noise analysis focuses on Nozzle 1 which is mainly used
over this region. At a distance of X=Dh ¼ 1:4, the velocity remains for smaller streamlined bodies, but nevertheless background noise
constant over 77.5% and 80% of the horizontal and vertical extent levels for Nozzle 2 are also provided in Section 3.3 alongside with
of the nozzle, respectively. Hence, it can be concluded that the noise measurements from some aerodynamic bodies.
potential core has a length well in excess of one and a half hydrau- Fig. 13 depicts the narrowband background noise spectrum for
lic diameters and noise tests can be carried out by placing objects Nozzle 1 for the polar angles of h = 90° and 45°, respectively. A

Fig. 10. Jet flow turbulence intensity profiles in the horizontal (a) and vertical (b) directions at different axial locations for Nozzle 1 at U 1 = 30 m/s.

Fig. 11. Jet flow velocity profiles in the horizontal (a) and vertical (b) directions at different axial locations for Nozzle 2 at U 1 = 30 m/s.
 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370 367

Fig. 12. Jet flow turbulent intensity profiles in the horizontal (a) and vertical (b) directions at different axial locations for Nozzle 2 at U 1 = 30 m/s.

Fig. 13. Background noise measurements for the 600 mm
200 mm nozzle for varying wind speeds from U 1 = 10 m/s to U 1 = 70 m/s at 5 m/s wind speed intervals: (a)
h = 90°, (b) h = 45°. The dashed line (- - -) shows the noise floor of the anechoic chamber.

polar angle of h = 0° corresponds to a downstream location, aligned

with the free stream flow vector, and a polar angle of h = 90° is
defined as above the jet flow. As expected, the noise increases for
increasing velocities for all frequencies. At velocities of up to
U 1 = 25 m/s the background noise reaches the noise floor of the
anechoic chamber at approximately 9 dB for high frequencies.
In order to ensure that the jet flow noise inside the anechoic cham-
ber is not contaminated by the fan and motor noise, a series of sig-
nal coherence studies have been performed. The coherence study
was conducted using the signal collected by a microphone placed
near the fan/motor and one inside the anechoic chamber above
the nozzle. For all velocities investigated (U 1 = 10 m/s - 70 m/s)
and the complete frequency range from 160 Hz to 20 kHz, the
coherence is below 0.05, indicating almost no acoustic contamina-
Fig. 14. Background noise velocity dependence for two polar angles (h = 45° and
tion due to external noise sources.
90°) for Nozzle 1.
Fig. 14 presents the scaling factor of the jet flow background
noise, as calculated by
    Lastly, the A-weighted overall sound pressure level (OASPLA ) of
Spp;U1 ðf Þ U1
Nðf Þ ¼ log10 =log10 ; ð6Þ the jet flow is compared to the noise data from other aeroacoustic
Spp;U2 ðf Þ U2
wind tunnels, by means of scaling the OASPLA according to the fol-
where Spp;U is the power spectral density at the velocity U; U 1 and U 2 lowing equation,
are the two velocities for which N is calculated. The curves pre-  
A
sented in Fig. 14 show the mean value of N, when calculating Eq. OASPLsc;A ¼ OASPLA  10 log10 ; ð7Þ
r2
6 for U 2 = 70 m/s and U 1 varying from 30 m/s to 65 m/s. The results
follow a similar trend to the ones presented by Chong et al. [19], and where r is the measurement distance from the microphone dia-
it can been seen that for both polar angles considered here the back- phragm to the center of the nozzle exit plane and A is the nozzle exit
ground noise scaling is in excess of 7, clearly showing the contribu- cross-sectional area of the respective facility [14,19,20]. The A-
tion of the quadrupole sources of the jet flow to the background weighted OASPL is calculated by integrating the narrowband spectra
noise, which are expected to scale at factor of 8. from the cut-off frequency of 160 Hz to 20 kHz, as well as applying
368 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370

the A-weighting corrections [35]. Fig. 15 shows the OASPLsc;A com- here, the flat plate trailing edge noise is above the jet background
parison, with the data for the other wind tunnels taken from noise. The difference at low frequencies is found to be approxi-
[19,20]. It is clear that except for U 1 = 10 m/s the Bristol Facility’s mately 10 dB, while at higher frequencies this difference reduces.
OASPLsc;A matches or is slightly below the OASPLsc;A of other wind It is also shown that the scaling factor of the flat plate noise calcu-
tunnels for both h = 45 and 90 . Starting with U 1 = 30 m/s, the lated using Eq. 6 is approximately 6 for the entire frequency range,
OASPLsc;A can be related linearly to the logarithmic velocity. For which confirms that turbulent boundary trailing edge noise is the
velocities below U 1 = 30 m/s, the narrow spectra show that at high dominant noise source for this test case. These results, therefore,
frequencies the jet flow background noise reaches the noise floor of indicate that the background noise levels are sufficiently low
the anechoic chamber, which is a possible explanation for this non- enough to facilitate experiments researching flat plate turbulent
linear behavior. boundary layer trailing edge noise.

3.3. Benchmark noise validation cases 3.3.2. Round cylinder

The aeroacoustics of bluff bodies is of great academic and indus-
In the previous sections, we explained the wind tunnel design trial interest. Far-field noise measurements using the
and provided some information on the aerodynamic performance 600 mm
200 mm nozzle have been carried out for a cylinder
of the facility. The jet flow background noise was also discussed with a diameter of d = 10 mm and a span of 600 mm, resulting in
in Section 3.2. The main purpose of an aeroacoustic facility is to a span to diameter ratio of 60. Fig. 17 shows the sound pressure
enable far-field noise measurements. In order to demonstrate the level obtained from the far-field microphones located at h = 45°
capabilities of the University of Bristol’s aeroacoustic facility, we and 90°, at a distance of r ¼ 1:75 m from the cylinder at the flow
have carried out far-field noise measurements for a range of cases, velocities of 10 m=s 6 U 1 6 60 m=s. The noise radiated from the
namely a flat plate, a bluff body and a standard NACA 0012 airfoil. cylinder was found to be well above the jet flow background noise
In what follows, we will explain each setup and provide the far- over the whole frequency range presented in Fig. 17. The vortex
field noise data to show the performance of the new facility. Fur- shedding peak can be seen at the Strouhal number of St d  0:2
ther experimental results for airfoils, high-lift devices and bluff (St d = fd=U 1 ). As demonstrated in other works, the fundamental
bodies can be found elsewhere [36–40]. tonal peak at St d  0:2 is believed to be due to the fluctuating lift
force acting on the cylinder [8], while the St d  0:4 peak can be
3.3.1. Flat plate attributed to the fluctuating drag force [41]. The drag force induced
Flat plate studies are of great interest to the aeroacoustic com- tonal noise at St d  0:4 can also clearly be seen in the far-field
munity, allowing a range of fundamental studies to be conducted, noise data. Based on the results provided in Fig. 17, it can be con-
such as trailing edge noise, boundary layer noise, hydrodynamic cluded that the facility can be used for both fundamental bluff
wavenumber-frequency analysis, etc. The flat plate test case repre- body research, as well as more complex geometries, such as land-
sents one of the most difficult test cases for evaluating the acoustic ing gear systems, car side mirrors, etc.
performance of the facility, as it is generally very quiet. The
far-field noise spectra of a flat plate mounted at the lip-line on
Nozzle 1 (600 mm
200 mm), as well as background noise spectra 3.3.3. Tripped NACA 0012 Airfoil
at a measurement distance of r ¼ 1:75 m, are provided in Fig. 16 The symmetric NACA 0012 airfoil is one of the most often stud-
for the free stream flow velocities of U 1 = 20 m/s, 30 m/s and ied airfoils and has therefore been selected as one of the bench-
40 m/s. Additionally, the scaling factor of the flat plate noise calcu- mark test cases for this new facility. The one-third-octave band
lated using Eq. 6 for U 1 = 30 m/s and U 2 = 40 m/s is displayed in far-field noise spectra of a NACA 0012 airfoil at an angle of attack
Fig. 16 (b). The 50 cm chord flat plate was tripped using a zig-zag of a ¼ 1:5 ° is compared to the BPM turbulent boundary layer trail-
ing edge noise model [42]. The jet flow background noise is also
tape with a height of 0:5 mm and tip-to-tip distance of 10 mm.
The far-field noise results have shown that for all cases considered provided for comparison for wind speeds of U 1 = 30 m/s and
40 m/s, at h = 90° and at a measurement distance of r=c = 11.7,
see Fig. 18. Additionally, Fig. 18 displays experimental data from
Brooks et al. [42] for a tripped NACA 0012 airfoil with a chord of
15.24 cm, at an angle of attack of a ¼ 0 ° and wind speeds of
U 1 = 32 m/s and 40 m/s. The data has been corrected to match
the present experimental conditions regarding the airfoil span
and measurement distance. The airfoil with a chord length of
15 cm and a span of 60 cm was mounted between two side-
plates in Nozzle 1 (600 mm
200 mm), at a distance of 30 cm
(i.e. two chord-lengths) from the nozzle exit in the streamwise
direction. The airfoil was tripped by means of a 6 mm wide and
0.5 mm thick zig-zag turbulator trip tape with a turbulator angle
of 70° from Glasfaser-Flugzeug-Service GmbH at 10% of the chord
[43]. The required boundary layer thickness for the BPM model
was calculated using XFoil [44]. For all velocities, the noise emitted
from the airfoil was found to exceed the background noise by more
than 10 dB and matches well with the experimental data by
Brooks’ et al., as illustrated in Fig. 18. It can also be observed that
the airfoil far-field noise spectra match the BPM predictions well
at mid and high frequencies. The mismatch at low frequencies
has also been reported by others using different facilities and is
believed to be due to low frequency noise amplification of the jet
Fig. 15. Scaled OASPLA of various wind tunnels and Nozzle 1. Data taken from noise when the airfoil is placed inside the flow [19–21,45]. These
[19,20]. results for a small chord NACA 0012 airfoil indicate that the facility
 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370 369

Fig. 16. (a) Far-field spectra at h= 90° of flat plate noise (solid lines with round markers) and background noise (dashed lines) for U 1 = 20 m/s, 30 m/s and 40 m/s. (b) Flat
plate noise scaling factor.

Fig. 17. Far-field noise spectra for cylinder with a diameter of d = 10 mm (solid lines) and background noise (dotted lines) for U 1 = 20 m/s, 40 m/s and 60 m/s at two polar
angles: (a) h= 90°, (b) h= 45°.

Fig. 18. Far-field spectra in 1/3 octave bands at h = 90° for a NACA 0012 airfoil (solid line with round markers), BPM model (dashed line), Brooks’ et al. data [42] (triangular
markers) and background noise (dashed line with round markers): (a) U 1 = 30 m/s and (b) U 1 = 40 m/s.

can be used to investigate the trailing edge noise emitted from cers, fan and settling chamber and nozzles. The anechoic
airfoils. chamber has been certified to be anechoic down to 160 Hz. This
characteristic together with low background noise and the two
contraction nozzles with a high flow quality, make this facility ver-
4. Conclusions satile for a variety of aeroacoustic measurements, such as airfoil
noise, noise from bluff bodies and instability noise studies. The
An overview of the design and the aerodynamic and acoustic far-field noise results from a flat plate, a round cylinder and a NACA
performance of the University of Bristol Aeroacoustic Facility has 0012 airfoil have been presented and discussed to demonstrate the
been presented in this paper. The various acoustic and aerody- capabilities of the facility. The facility is expected to be used for a
namic features of facility have been described, such as the silen- wide range of fundamental as well as industrial studies.
370 Y.D. Mayer et al. / Applied Acoustics 155 (2019) 358–370

Declaration of competing interest [20] Sarradj E, Fritzsche C, Geyer T, Giesler J. Acoustic and aerodynamic design and
characterization of a small-scale aeroacoustic wind tunnel. J Appl Acoust
2009;70(8):1073–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2009.02.009.
None. [21] Vathylakis A, Kim JH, Chong TP. Design of a low-noise aeroacoustic wind
tunnel facility at Brunel University. 20th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference,
AIAA 2014–3288, Atlanta, Georgia, United States. https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.2014-3288.
Acknowledgement
[22] Leclercq D, Doolan C, Reichl J. Development and validation of a small-scale
anechoic wind tunnel. In: ICSV14: Proceedings of the 14th International
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the signifi- Congress on Sound and Vibration Cairns, Australia.
[23] Pascioni K, Reger R, Edstrand A, Cattafesta L. Characterization of an
cant investment in this aeroacoustic wind tunnel facility from
aeroacoustic wind tunnel facility. In: 43rd International Congress on Noise
the University of Bristol through the Capital Investment Pro- Control Engineering November, Melbourne, Australia.
gramme Board (CIPB). [24] Winkler J, Carolus T. Concept, design and characterization of a small
aeroacoustic wind tunnel facility with application to airfoil measurements.
Noise Control Eng J 2009;57(4):370–83. https://doi.org/10.3397/1.3151911.
[25] Doolan C, Moreau D, Awasthi M, Jiang C. The UNSW anechoic wind tunnel.
References Acoustics 2018, Adelaide, Australia.
[26] Mueller T, Scharpf D, Batill S, Sullivan C, Subramanian S. The design of a
[1] Mayer YD, Kamliya Jawahar H, Szo }ke M, Azarpeyvand M. Design of an subsonic low-noise, low-turbulence wind tunnel for acoustic measurements.
aeroacoustic wind tunnel facility at the University of Bristol. 2018 AIAA/CEAS In: AIAA 17th Aerospace Ground Testing Conference, AIAA 92–3883, Nashville,
Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA 2018-3138, Atlanta, Georgia, United States. Tennessee, USA. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1992-3883.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-3138. [27] Moreau SS, Roger M. Effect of airfoil aerodynamic loading on trailing edge
[2] Koppen E, Fowler K. International legislation for wind turbine noise. Euronoise noise sources. AIAA J 2005;43(1):41–52. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.5578.
2015, Maastricht, Netherlands. p. 321–6. [28] Devenport WJ, Burdisso RA, Borgoltz A, Ravetta PA, Barone MF, Brown KA,
[3] Smith MJT. Aircraft noise, cambridge aerospace series. Cambridge, United Morton MA. The Kevlar-walled anechoic wind tunnel. J Sound Vib 2013;332
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1989. https://doi.org/10.1017/ (17):3971–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2013.02.043.
CBO9780511584527. [29] Murayama M, Yokokawa Y, Ura H, Nakakita K, Yamamoto K, Ito Y, Takaishi Y,
[4] Avallone F, van der Velden WCP, Ragni D. Benefits of curved serrations on Sakai R, Shimoda K, Kato T, Homma T. Experimental study of slat noise from
broadband trailing-edge noise reduction. J Sound Vib 2017;400:167–77. 30P30N three-element high-lift airfoil in JAXA Kevlar-Wall low-speed wind
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2017.04.007. tunnel. 2018 AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA 2018-3460, Atlanta,
[5] Azarpeyvand M, Gruber M, Joseph PF, Kingdom U. An analytical investigation Georgia, United States. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-3460.
of trailing edge noise reduction using novel serrations. In: 19th AIAA/CEAS [30] Mikhail MN. Optimum design of wind tunnel contractions. AIAA J 1979;17
Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA 2013-2009, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/ (5):471–7. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.61157.
10.2514/6.2013-2009. [31] Pope SB. Turbulent flows. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United
[6] Moreau DJ, Doolan CJ. Noise-reduction mechanism of a flat-plate serrated States: Cambridge University Press; 2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/
trailing edge. AIAA J 2013;51(10). https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J052436. CBO9780511840531.
[7] Liu X, Jawahar HK, Azarpeyvand M, Theunissen R. Aerodynamic performance [32] Morel T. Comprehensive design of axisymmetric wind tunnel contractions. J
and wake development of airfoils with serrated trailing-edges. AIAA J 2017;55 Fluids Eng 1975;97(2):225–33. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3447255.
(11):3669–80. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J055817. [33] Su Y. Flow analysis and design of three-dimensional wind tunnel contractions.
[8] Geyer TF, Sarradj E. Circular cylinders with soft porous cover for flow noise AIAA J 1991;29(11):1912–20. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.10818.
reduction. Exp Fluids 2016;57(30). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-016-2119-7. [34] Cattafesta L, Bahr C, Mathew J. Fundamentals of wind-tunnel
[9] Ali SAS, Azarpeyvand M, Da Silva CRI. Trailing-edge flow and noise control design. Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering; 2010. https://doi.org/
using porous treatments. J Fluid Mech 2018;850:83–119. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9780470686652.eae532.
10.1017/jfm.2018.430. [35] Rossing TD. Handbook of acoustics. 2nd ed. Springer Science & Business
[10] Wolff T, Ernst B, Seume JR. Aerodynamic behavior of an airfoil with morphing Media; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0755-7.
trailing edge for wind turbine applications. The Science of Making Torque from [36] Mayer YD, Zang B, Azarpeyvand M. Aeroacoustic characteristics of a NACA
Wind 2014 (Torque 2014), Copenhagen, Denmark. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0012 airfoil for attached and stalled flow conditions. In: 25th AIAA/CEAS
1742-6596/524/1/012018. Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA 2019-2530, Delft, The Netherlands. https://
[11] Ai Q, Azarpeyvand M, Lachenal X, Weaver PM. Aerodynamic and aeroacoustic doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-2530.
performance of airfoils with morphing structures. Wind Energy 2016;19 [37] Zang B, Mayer YD, Azarpeyvand M. An experimental investigation on the
(7):1325–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/we. mechanism of Tollmien-Schlichting waves for a NACA 0012 aerofoil. In: 25th
[12] Szo} ke M, Fiscaletti D, Azerpeyvand M. Effect of inclined transverse jets on AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA 2019-2609, Delft, The Netherlands.
trailing- edge noise generation. Phys Fluids 2018;30. https://doi.org/10.1063/ https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-2609.
1.5044380. [38] Jawahar HK, Ali SAS, Azarpeyvand M, Silva C. Aeroacoustic performance of
[13] Arnold B, Lutz T, Krämer E, Rautmann C. Wind-turbine trailing-edge noise high-lift airfoil with slat cove fillers. In: 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
reduction by means of boundary-layer suction. AIAA J 2018;56(5):1843–54. Conference, Delft, The Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J056633. [39] Celik A, Zang B, Mayer YD, Liu X, Azarpeyvand M. Hydrodynamic analysis of
[14] Duell E, Walter J, Arnette S, Yen J. Recent advances in large scale-aeroacoustic trailing edge serrations with blunt and rounded edges. In: 8th International
wind tunnels. In: 8th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference & Exhibit, AIAA Conference on Wind Turbine Noise, Lisbon, Portugal.
2002–2503, Breckenridge, Colorado, United States. https://doi.org/10.2514/ [40] Mayer YD, Zang B, Azarpeyvand M. Design of a Kevlar-walled test section with
6.2002-2503. dynamic turntable and aeroacoustic investigation of an oscillating airfoil. In:
[15] Dassen T, Parchen R, Bruggeman J. Wind tunnel measurements of the 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA 2019-2464. Delft, The
aerodynamic noise of blade sections. In: Proceedings of the European Wind Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-2464.
Energy Conference and Exhibition, Thessaloniki, Greece. [41] Wolf WR. Airfoil aeroacoustics: LES and acoustic analogy predictions. Stanford
[16] Hubbard HH, Manning JC. Aeroacoustic research facilities at NASA langley University; 2011. Ph.D. thesis.
research center: description and operational characteristics Tech. [42] Brooks TF, Pope DS, Marcolini MA. Airfoil self-noise and prediction Tech.
Rep. Hampton, Virginia, United States: NASA Langley Research Center; 1983. Rep. Hampton, Virginia, United States: NASA Langley Research Center; 1989.
[17] Mery F. Low speed anechoic closed test section at ONERA S1MA Wind tunnel. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2012.01504.x.
In: 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA 2016–2895, Lyon, France. [43] H. Streifeneder, Glasfaser-Flugzeug-Service GmbH, http://www.streifly.de/
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-2895. shop baender-d.htm, 2018.
[18] Pott-Pollenske M, Delfs J. Enhanced capabilities of the aeroacoustic wind [44] Drela M. XFOIL: an analysis and design system for low reynolds number
tunnel braunschweig. In: 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (29th airfoils. In: Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics Proceedings of the
AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), AIAA 2008–2910, Vancouver, British Conference Notre Dame, Notre Dame, United States.
Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-2910. [45] Leung RCN, Chaitanya P, Joseph PF. Effect of aerofoil thickness on trailing edge
[19] Chong T, Joseph P, Davies P. Design and performance of an open jet wind noise. In: 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA 2016-2814, Lyon,
tunnel for aero-acoustic measurement. J Appl Acoust 2009;70(4):605–14. France. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-2814.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2008.06.011.