2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2011.03.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measurements of roughness noise

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The second surface, pictured in Figure 5b, was formed by a sheet of 20-grit sandpaper roughness extending 200 mm streamwise and 600 mm spanwise. This type of surface, tested previously by Devenport et al 13 , has a nominal grain size of 0.95 mm, a grain density of 0.23 grains/mm 2 , and an RMS roughness height of 0.206 mm. The edges of these roughness patches were taped and faired to the surrounding wall using 0.12 mm thick aluminum tape.…”
Section: Rough Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The second surface, pictured in Figure 5b, was formed by a sheet of 20-grit sandpaper roughness extending 200 mm streamwise and 600 mm spanwise. This type of surface, tested previously by Devenport et al 13 , has a nominal grain size of 0.95 mm, a grain density of 0.23 grains/mm 2 , and an RMS roughness height of 0.206 mm. The edges of these roughness patches were taped and faired to the surrounding wall using 0.12 mm thick aluminum tape.…”
Section: Rough Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The fabric acted as a canopy over the surface roughness in order to simulate the downy coating of the owl's feathers. The rough surfaces included two surfaces (hemispherical and sandpaper) whose roughness noise characteristics are well known from previous studies 12,13 .…”
Section: Experimental Apparatus and Instrumentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there were significant disagreements over suggested scaling laws, controlling parameters and the physical mechanisms behind the theories. The lack of understanding and predictive tools for roughness noise prompted a number of investigations in recent years, including the study of Liu, Dowling & Shin (2006 aimed at evaluating and modelling the contribution of roughness noise to airframe noise, and a concerted effort (Blake et al 2008) consisting of theoretical Glegg & Devenport 2009), experimental (Anderson et al 2007;Smith et al 2008;Alexander et al 2009Alexander et al , 2010, 2013Devenport et al 2010Devenport et al , 2011 and numerical (Yang & Wang 2008 investigations. Liu & Dowling (2007) evaluated Howe's semi-empirical model (Howe 1998) using a number of different smooth wall pressure-spectrum theories with enhanced friction velocities and boundary-layer thicknesses to adjust for the presence of roughness, and 284 Q.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Roughness noise from short fetches of sandpaper roughness Smith et al 2008;Devenport et al 2011) as well as discrete roughness elements (Alexander et al 2009 were measured. The sandpaper noise measurements were performed at a number of flow speeds and with various roughness sizes ranging from hydrodynamically smooth to fully rough.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sensing area of five of these microphones was reduced by fitting them with ½-mm pinhole caps. Previous measurements under a wall jet boundary layer, by Devenport et al (2011) showed a ½-mm pinhole to be sufficiently small enough to resolve pressure fluctuations up to 20-kHz. However, Gravante et al (1998) had a more conservative estimate on the pinhole size required to ensure sensor attenuation was not found at high frequencies.…”
Section: Wall Pressure Microphone Instrumentationmentioning
confidence: 96%