“…In such situations, it is unclear how well the analytic and numerical solutions should be expected to match, since the analytic solution is only approximate. Similarly, validating numerical simulations against experimental results, as performed by Richter [19] using the NASA Grazing Incidence Tube experimental results [25], has the disadvantage that the mode excited, the definition of the liner impedance and the measured results are all subject to experimental error, and that moreover the results appear sensitive to other factors such as the tube's downstream exit impedance, 3D effects, and viscous and boundary layer effects [26][27][28]. Simple test cases therefore allow an exact comparison between the numerical simulation and an analytic solution, one of the simplest of which is that of an oblique plane wave reflecting from an impedance surface [29]; a number of common validations for 2D and 3D time-dependent numerical acoustics simulations with flow are described by Richter [19, chapter 7.1], and similar validations are also used in 2D and 3D frequency-domain simulations [e.g.…”