This study investigates the aerodynamic and acoustic response of a multi-orifice acoustic liner grazed by a planar acoustic wave and turbulent flow, at centerline Mach number equal to 0.32. High-fidelity flow simulations are carried out using a Lattice-Boltzmann Very-LargeEddy-Simulation solver and the in-situ technique is used to calculate impedance. The triple decomposition technique is adopted to separate the mean-flow effects from those due to grazing tonal acoustic waves with different frequencies and amplitudes. This study highlights the sensitivity of in-situ measurements on the position of the face-sheet probe used to sample the unsteady pressure fluctuations. It is found that the resistance changes up to a factor of three along each cavity. The acoustic-induced velocity field reveals the intricate interaction between the acoustic waves and the turbulent flow. It is shown that the wake shed by the upstream cavity impacts the downstream one, affecting the spatial distribution and the amplitude of the acoustic-induced velocity within the orifice. Furthermore, a vortex within the hole is observed; it is found that its impact on resistance depends on the acoustic wave propagation with respect to the mean flow.

@en

Eduction methods are adopted to characterize acoustic liners. In this paper, several impedance eduction techniques are compared using a numerical database obtained with scale resolved lattice-Boltzmann simulations of a reference acoustic liner in the presence or not of a grazing turbulent flow. Three impedance eduction techniques are compared: an inverse approach based on the Mode-Matching (MM) method, the straightforward method based on the Prony-like Kumaresan-Tufts (KT) algorithm, and one approach based on a minimization problem between reference measurements and the solution of the Pierce’s equation. Furthermore, the educed impedance is compared with the one obtained using local impedance measurements with the Dean’s method with virtual probes located on the entire face-sheet. Results show that impedance values obtained with the Deans’ method are highly dependent on the sampling location and that they vary largely over each cavity. Results from the eduction methods are similar amongst them with few discrepancies found for the method based on the Pierce’s equation. In particular, the highest value of resistance obtained using the Deans’ method is similar to the one obtained using the KT and MM eduction methods.@en

Correction Notice The authors would like to provide the following corrections and clarifications to the article titled “Aeroacoustic Benchmarking of Trailing-edge Noise from a NACA 633–018 Airfoil with Trailing-edge Serrations” which has been published in the AIAA Journal Vol. 61, No. 1, and can be accessed online via https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J061630. The first correction provides clarity in the abstract. Although the main text and Appendices A and B of the original paper provide a thorough analysis of the varying signal-to-noise levels and clearly state that some data points with inherently high noise levels should be excluded in further analysis, the statement in the abstract could lead to misunderstanding that all data points will directly be included in the benchmark activities. It indeed is up to a broader benchmarking team, after considering results among different institutions, to decide which parts of the present dataset will eventually be included. Therefore, for clarity, the text “ ::: The present data are to be included in the framework of the Benchmark Problems for Airframe Noise Computation ::: ” should be replaced by “ ::: The present data are to be considered among participating institutions and may partially be included in the framework of the Benchmark Problems for Airframe Noise Computation ::: ”. The second correction pertains to the manufacturer of the so-called High-Reynolds Model (HRM) airfoil and a reference mentioned in the second paragraph of Sec. II.A. The text “ ::: manufactured by Deharde ::: [23]” should be “ ::: manufactured by RIVAL ::: [23]”. The part of the model considered in this paper was manufactured by RIVAL and Deharde later produced the spanwise extensions for this model to fit in other larger wind tunnels. The authors apologize for this miscommunication. Besides, Ref. [23] in the original paper should be replaced by Ref. [1] of this correction. During the publication process of our paper, this new reference was published and the original Ref. [23] was updated. Therefore, Ref. [1] of this correction provides up-to-date information about the model and is therefore worth referring to. (Figures Presented) The final correction pertains to the plots in Figs. 13 and 15 in the original article. The legends went missing during the production process. Figures 13 and 15 in the original article should appear as Figs. 1 and 2 in this correction, respectively, with the legends on the right side. The authors apologize for this error.

@en

Scaled-resolved numerical simulations using the lattice-Boltzmann Very Large Eddy Simulation method are performed to compute the acoustic impedance of a realistic multi-cavity single degree of freedom liner grazed by a turbulent boundary layer. Numerical results are assessed against experimental impedance measurements carried out in grazing flow impedance test facility at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), with three different approaches: the in-situ technique, the mode matching method and a Prony-like algorithm. Both experiments and numerical simulations are carried out with and without turbulent grazing flow at Mach number equal to 0.3 and with grazing acoustic tonal plane wave. Acoustic waves with amplitude equal to 130 dB and 145 dB are analyzed. For each amplitude, six frequencies are investigated in the range between 800 Hz and 2300 Hz. For each case, the acoustic wave propagates both in the same direction and opposite to the grazing turbulent flow. Numerical results show very good agreement with experimental data for the no-flow case. In the presence of grazing flow, preliminary numerical results show an overestimation of the resistance with respect to the experimental data. It has been found that using a less dissipative solver for the acoustic simulations and increasing the resolution lead to better agreement. Nevertheless, the numerical database predicts well the different trends between the impedance measurement methods. The presented database, after being recomputed with the less dissipative solver, will be used to understand the physical reasons behind the different impedance measurement results obtained with different eduction methods and clarify the physics of the flow-acoustic interaction.@en