4.7 Article

An investigation of airfoil dual acoustic feedback mechanisms at low-to-moderate Reynolds number

Journal

JOURNAL OF SOUND AND VIBRATION
Volume 460, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2019.114887

Keywords

Aeroacoustics; Tonal noise; Airfoils; Feedbackmechanisms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An experimental investigation was performed in an anechoic wind tunnel involving acoustic measurements, hot-wire anemometry and surface flow visualisation techniques to investigate airfoil tonal noise generating mechanisms. Tests were conducted using a NACA 0012 airfoil at corrected angles of attack of 0 degrees and 1.58 degrees and Reynolds numbers of 50,000 to 150,000. A dual acoustic feedback model is presented, where feedback processes act independently on the airfoil pressure and suction surfaces between the point of boundary layer separation and the trailing edge. It is proposed that the tones generated on both airfoil surfaces, with the same or similar frequencies on each surface, interfere constructively. The primary tone possesses near exact frequencies on both surfaces, whereas the secondary tones have larger differences in frequencies between both surfaces, thus explaining their relative magnitudes based on acoustic superposition. This model provides a better comparison with the experimentally obtained tonal frequencies than the existing feedback models. Despite this agreement, the feedback model cannot perfectly predict the acoustic tones as the tones are not perfectly equispaced. An empirical feedback length is calculated by reverse engineering an acoustic feedback length scale by using the recorded primary tone as an input that also minimises the secondary tone prediction errors. This empirical length closely matches the dual acoustic feedback model presented in this paper. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available