Documents

DOI

In this paper, the performance of four acoustic imaging methods: conventional frequency domain beamforming (CFDBF), functional beamforming (FUNBF), enhanced high resolution CLEAN–SC (EHR–CLEAN–SC) and generalized inverse beamforming (GIBF), is investigated in terms of accuracy and variability. Three experimental test cases are considered: 1) a single speaker emitting synthetic broadband noise, 2) two speakers emitting incoherent synthetic broadband noise, and 3) trailing–edge noise generated by a tripped NACA 0018 airfoil. All the measurements were performed in the anechoic wind tunnel of Delft University of Technology. Overall, GIBF and EHR–CLEAN–SC offer the most accurate results when point sources (speakers) are present. They even achieve super–resolution by separating sound sources beyond the Rayleigh resolution limit. Repeating the measurements indicates a standard deviation in the results of less than 1 dB. When analyzing distributed sound sources, such as trailing–edge noise, CFDBF and FUNBF provide the best performance. This indicates that the acoustic imaging method needs to be selected based on the expected sound source configuration.

Original languageEnglish
Article number115176
JournalJournal of Sound and Vibration
Volume470
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Mar 2020

    Research areas

  • Acoustic imaging, Aeroacoustics, Microphone arrays

ID: 68826735