Low frequency wind noise contributions in measurement microphones

Raspet, Richard; Yu, Jiao; Webster, Jeremy

doi:10.1121/1.2832329

Cited by 28 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Raspet et al 1 developed theories relating the wind noise measured by screened and unscreened microphones to meteorological measurements at the height of the microphone. Reference 1 also established fitting and analysis procedures for the turbulence spectra.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wind noise measured at the ground surface

Raspet

Webster

et al. 2011

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurements of the wind noise measured at the ground surface outdoors are analyzed using the mirror flow model of anisotropic turbulence by Kraichnan [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 28(3), 378-390 (1956)]. Predictions of the resulting behavior of the turbulence spectrum with height are developed, as well as predictions of the turbulence-shear interaction pressure at the surface for different wind velocity profiles and microphone mounting geometries are developed. The theoretical results of the behavior of the velocity spectra with height are compared to measurements to demonstrate the applicability of the mirror flow model to outdoor turbulence. The use of a logarithmic wind velocity profile for analysis is tested using meteorological models for wind velocity profiles under different stability conditions. Next, calculations of the turbulence-shear interaction pressure are compared to flush microphone measurements at the surface and microphone measurements with a foam covering flush with the surface. The measurements underneath the thin layers of foam agree closely with the predictions, indicating that the turbulence-shear interaction pressure is the dominant source of wind noise at the surface. The flush microphones measurements are intermittently larger than the predictions which may indicate other contributions not accounted for by the turbulence-shear interaction pressure.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wind noise measured at the ground surface

Raspet

Webster

et al. 2011

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even with the reduction due to anisotropy, the cross flow term is larger than the intrinsic turbulence-turbulence interaction and the mean shearturbulence interaction discussed in Ref. 8. The cross flow terms should be the dominant contribution for our measurement in the surface layer for wave number k Ͼ 0.01 m −1 .…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In a previous paper, Raspet et al 8 showed that the stagnation pressure calculated from measurements of the average wind speed and measured turbulence spectra provides a good estimate of the wind noise measured by a gridded bare microphone in a turbulent outdoor flow near the ground. The stagnation pressure is given by…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of wind noise levels in streamlined probes

Webster

Raspet

et al. 2010

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the wind noise pressure spectra measured by aerodynamically designed devices in turbulent flow. Such measurement probes are often used in acoustic measurements in wind tunnels to reduce the pressure fluctuations generated by the interaction of the devices with the incident flow. When placed in an outdoor turbulent environment however, their performance declines noticeably. It is hypothesized that these devices are measuring the stagnation pressures generated by the cross flow components of the turbulence. Predictions for the cross flow contribution to the stagnation pressure spectra based on measured velocity spectra are developed, and are then compared to the measured pressure spectra in four different probe type devices in windy conditions outdoors. The predictions agree well with the measurements and show that the cross flow contamination coefficient is on the order of 0.5 in outdoor turbulent flows in contrast to the published value of 0.15 for measurements in a turbulent jet indoors.

show abstract

“…2 of Fee and Garcés (2007). The red spectrum of wind noise is discussed by Raspet et al (2008) who note the strong roll-off towards higher frequencies.…”

Section: Spectral Analysis and Vent Velocitymentioning

confidence: 96%