A review of acoustic imaging methods using phased microphone arrays
 576 Downloads
Abstract
Phased microphone arrays have become a wellestablished tool for performing aeroacoustic measurements in wind tunnels (both openjet and closedsection), flying aircraft, and engine test beds. This paper provides a review of the most wellknown and stateoftheart acoustic imaging methods and recommendations on when to use them. Several exemplary results showing the performance of most methods in aeroacoustic applications are included. This manuscript provides a general introduction to aeroacoustic measurements for nonexperienced microphonearray users as well as a broad overview for general aeroacoustic experts.
Keywords
Phased microphone arrays Beamforming Acoustic imaging Deconvolution Aeroacoustic measurementsList of symbols
Latin symbols
 A
Source autopower (\(\text {Pa}^{2}\))
 \(\varvec{A}\)
Acoustic source map (\(\text {Pa}^{2}\))
 \(\tilde{\varvec{A}}\)
\(J \times J\) Propagation matrix whose columns contain the PSF of each grid point
 B
Array beamwidth of 3 dB down from beam peak maximum (\(\text {m}\))
 \(\varvec{B}\)
\(J \times J\) Global source crossspectral matrix for IBIA
 c
Speed of sound (m/s)
 \({\tilde{c}}\)
Propagation velocity (m/s)
 \(\varvec{c}\)
\(1 \times J\) propagation vector used in linear programming (\(\text {m}^{1}\))
 \(\varvec{C}\)
\(N \times N\) crossspectral matrix (CSM) (\(\text {Pa}^{2}\))
 \({\tilde{d}}\)
\(\root \of {{\tilde{D}}}\) (\(\text {Pa}^{\frac{1}{2}}\))
 D
Diameter of the microphone array (m)
 \({\tilde{D}}\)
Individual source amplitude in SODIX method (Pa)
 f
Sound frequency (Hz)
 F
Cost function in optimization problems
 \(\varvec{g}\)
\(N \times 1\) steering vector
 \(\varvec{G}\)
\(N \times K\) (unknown) matrix containing the steering vectors \(\varvec{g}\) to the unknown K source locations (\(\text {m}^{1}\))
 \(\tilde{\varvec{G}}\)
\(N \times J\) (known) matrix containing the steering vectors \(\varvec{g}\) to all J grid points (\(\text {m}^{1}\))
 \(\varvec{h}\)
Source component vector for CLEANSC [\(\text {m}^{1}\))
 \(i^{2}\)
Imaginary unit, \(1\)
 \(\varvec{I}\)
\(N \times N\) identity matrix
 J
Number of grid points
 k
Number of eigenvalues considered for Orthogonal Beamforming
 \(k_0\)
Acoustic wavenumber (\(\text {rad}\,\text {m}^{1}\))
 \(k_x, k_y\)
Wavenumbers in the x and y direction, respectively (\(\text {m}^{1}\))
 \(\varvec{k}\)
Wavevector \((k_x, k_y)\) (\(\text {m}^{1}\))
 K
Number of (incoherent) sound sources
 \(L_{p}\)
Sound pressure level (SPL) (dB)
 M
Mach number
 N
Number of microphones
 \(N_{\mathrm{speakers}}\)
Number of speakers for acoustic GPS
 p
Fourier transform of the recorded pressure at each microphone (Pa)
 \(\varvec{p}\)
\(N \times 1\) vector containing the Fourier transform recorded pressures at each microphone (Pa)
 \({\tilde{q}}\)
Sparsity parameter for IBIA
 r
Distance between the sound source and the observer (m)
 s
Sound source amplitude (Pa)
 \(\varvec{S}\)
Sound sourceamplitude vector (Pa)
 St
Strouhal number
 t
Time (s)
 \(\varvec{u}\)
Eigenvector of the crossspectral matrix
 \(\tilde{\varvec{u}}\)
Left singular vector of \(\varvec{G}\)
 \(\varvec{U}\)
Unitary matrix whose columns are eigenvectors of the crossspectral matrix
 \(\mathbf{v }\)
Parameter vector for the global optimization method
 \(\varvec{w}\)
Weighted steering vector
 \(\varvec{W}\)
\(J \times J\) diagonal matrix whose components are \(\left s_{j} \right\) for single microphone (Pa)
 \(\varvec{x}\)
Microphone position vector (x, y, z) (m)
 \({\tilde{x}}\)
Source autopower (\(\text {Pa}^{2}\)/Hz)
 \(\tilde{\varvec{x}}\)
\(J \times 1\) vector containing the unknown source autopowers (\(\text {Pa}^{2}\)/Hz)
 \(\varvec{y}\)
\(J \times 1\) vector containing the source autopowers obtained with CFDBF (\(\text {Pa}^{2}\)/Hz)
Greek symbols
 \(\delta\)
Noise parameter for compressivesensing beamforming (Pa)
 \(\varDelta t\)
Time delay (s)
 \(\varDelta x\)
Widthwise spacing of grid points (m)
 \(\epsilon\)
Artificial diagonal loading factor for RAB and GIBF
 \(\eta ^{2}\)
Regularization parameter used for IBIA
 \(\theta\)
Source emission angle (deg)
 \(\lambda\)
Acoustic wavelength (m)
 \(\mu _{0}\)
Artificial diagonal loading parameter for RAB
 \(\nu\)
Functional beamforming exponent
 \(\varvec{\xi }\)
Grid point position vector (m)
 \(\sigma\)
Eigenvalue of the crossspectral matrix (Pa)
 \({\tilde{\sigma }}\)
Singular value of \(\varvec{G}\)
 \(\varvec{\varSigma }\)
Diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are eigenvalues of the crossspectral matrix
 \(\varvec{\varPsi }\)
\(J \times N\) regularized inverse of \(\varvec{G}\) (m)
Subscripts
 j
jth grid point
 k
kth sound source
 l
lth sound source
 m
mth microphone
 n
nth microphone
 \(\hbox {ref}\)
Reference microphone
 S
Referring to the signal subspace
Superscripts
 \(*\)
Complex conjugate transpose
 \(\dagger \eta\)
Pseudoinverse using Tikhonov regularization with regularization parameter \(\eta\)
 i
ith iteration
1 Introduction
Aircraft noise is an important social issue. To reduce the noise levels generated by flying aircraft, it is essential to accurately determine and analyze all the possible noise sources on board. Individual microphones only provide total noise levels, but do not give information about the locations and strengths of individual sound sources, such as engines, landing gears ,and highlift devices. The introduction of the phased microphone array solved this issue. A brief historical background and the main applications of phased microphone arrays for aeroacoustic measurements are summarized in the following subsections.
1.1 Historical background
The use of phased arrays dates back to World War II as radar antennas later developed for applications such as the sonar, radioastronomy, seismology, mobile communication, or ultrasound medical imaging [1]. The theory of electromagnetic antenna arrays was already applied in the field of acoustics for determining the direction of arrival of sound sources by Davids et al. [2]. The phased microphone array (also known as microphone antenna, acoustic telescope, and acoustic array or acoustic camera) was introduced by Billingsley [3, 4]. Using several synchronized microphones and a source localization algorithm [5, 6], the possibility to estimate the location and strength of sound sources was enabled. Since then, significant improvements have been made, for a large part by more powerful acquisition and computing systems [1], allowing higher sampling frequencies, longer acquisition times, larger numbers of microphones, and even realtime sound source localization. In the remaining of this paper, the term source localization is only related to the use of microphone arrays.
Acoustic imaging algorithms [6] are the essential link between the sound field measured at a number of microphone positions and the assessment of useful characteristics of noise sources, such as their locations and absolute levels. The main idea is to combine the data gathered by the microphone array with a sound propagation model to infer on the source parameters [7]. The conventional beamforming [5, 6] (see Sect. 3.1) is, perhaps, the most basic postprocessing approach for the signals recorded by the microphones, but it normally fails to provide the satisfactory results for practical applications. The localization and quantification of sound sources are limited by the geometry of the array. Most acoustic imaging methods are exhaustive search techniques where a selected grid containing the location of potential sound sources is scanned.

Deconvolution techniques such as DAMAS [8, 9, 10] (developed in 2004, see Sect. 3.5) or CLEANSC [11] (developed in 2007, see Sect. 3.4) can be seen as postprocessing methods of the results obtained using the conventional beamforming, assuming hypotheses such as source coherence or positive source powers.

Several inverse methods have been proposed, which, in contrast to beamforming algorithms, aim at solving an inverse problem accounting for the presence of all sound sources at once. This way, interferences between potentially coherent sources can be taken into account [7]. This inverse problem is typically underdetermined and inverse methods are often sensitive to measurement noise. Hence, regularization procedures are required. Different regularization techniques are available, depending on the source sparsity constraint set by the user [7, 12]. Acoustic imaging methods such as generalized inverse beamforming [13] (developed in 2011, see Sect. 3.12) or the Iterative Bayesian inverse approach [14, 15] (developed in 2012, see Sect. 3.13) are included in this group.
In general, measurements with phased microphone arrays provide certain advantages with respect to measurements with individual microphones when performing acoustic measurements. For experiments in wind tunnels with open and closedtest sections, as well as in engine test cells, the background noise suppression capability of the source localization algorithms is very useful [1, 16, 17, 18], as well as the removal of reflections from the walls [19, 20]. Beamforming can also be applied to moving objects, such as flying aircraft or rotating blades, provided that the motion of the source is tracked accurately [1]. Moreover, microphone arrays are useful tools for studying the variability of the noise levels generated by different aircraft components, within the same aircraft type [21, 22, 23, 24] to improve the noise prediction models in the vicinity of airports. Nowadays, the microphone array has become the standard tool for analyzing noise sources on flying aircraft [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30], trains [31, 32, 33], cars [34, 35, 36], snowmobiles [37], and other machineries, such as wind turbines [38, 39].
1.2 Windtunnel measurements
As in the field of aerodynamics, windtunnel measurements offer a controlled environment to perform acoustic measurements on scaled models of aircraft or aircraft components. It is, however, difficult to replicate the exact conditions present at an aircraft in flight. As shown by Stoker et al. [40], differences occur when results from a standard windtunnel measurement with a closedtest section are compared to the results obtained from flight tests. The differences can be explained by lack of model fidelity, installation effects, a discrepancy in the Reynolds number (see Sect. 1.2.4), and the applicability of the assumptions made in phasedarray processing. Depending on the size of the model, scale effects need to be taken into account for the soundgeneration mechanisms [41]. Windtunnel acoustic measurements feature convection of sound waves, which can be corrected for [41, 42]. A major issue is the high background noise level, but mitigation techniques are available [43, 44, 45, 46].
Windtunnel measurements can be performed in open jets or in closedtest sections, each of these options having different challenges:
1.2.1 Closedtest sections
Closedtest sections offer wellcontrolled aerodynamic properties. Acoustic measurements can be performed nonintrusively by mounting microphones flush in the floor, ceiling, or walls of the wind tunnel. However, the amplitudes of the nearfield pressure fluctuations inside the turbulentboundary layer (TBL) are generally much larger than the acoustic signal from the model. Suppression of these nearfield pressure fluctuations can be realized by mounting the microphones in cavities covered by a perforated plate or wire mesh at some distance from the TBL [47, 48, 49]. This solution takes advantage of the fact that TBL pressure fluctuations feature short wavelengths, which decay exponentially with distance. Microphones recessed in a cavity are offered commercially too [50]. A more radical solution for the TBL issues is to replace the windtunnel walls by Kevlar sheets, as in the stability tunnel of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [51]. In addition, acoustic measurements are hampered by reflections by the test section walls [19, 20]. In general, acoustic measurements in closedtest sections are dominated by high noise levels, either due to the TBL pressure fluctuations or due to the noise from the windtunnel circuit. The noise influence can be reduced substantially by subtracting the noise influence on the crossspectral matrix (CSM) before the finalsource location analysis [45, 52] (see Sect. 3.1).
1.2.2 Open jets
The test chamber surrounding the jet is usually acoustically treated, so that most reflections are suppressed. Moreover, the background noise levels are lower than in a closedtest section and the microphones can be placed outside the flow, not being subject to turbulence. However, the aerodynamic conditions are less well controlled and corrections are needed to account for refraction through the shear layer, which produces some disturbances (distortion in phase) that need to be taken into account [42, 53, 54, 55]. Furthermore, the turbulence in the shear layer causes spectral broadening [56] and decorrelation [57], see Sect. 2.4.
1.2.3 Comparability of windtunnel measurements
Therefore, openjet wind tunnels are recommended for measuring models emitting lowfrequency noise with a lowsource strength, whereas closedsection wind tunnels are preferred for measuring highfrequency noise sources [60]. For middle frequencies, both test sections provide comparable acoustic performance. In practice, farfield noise measurements can almost only be performed in openjet wind tunnels, since it is typically possible to place the microphone array further away from the source than in closedsection wind tunnels.
1.2.4 Reynolds number dependence
In standard windtunnel measurements, a sole discrepancy in Reynolds number at otherwise similar conditions can lead to a difference in results. The effect of a varying Reynolds number on the noise generated was investigated by Ahlefeldt [62]. Here, acoustic measurements were performed on a smallscale aircraft model in highlift configuration at both a realflight Reynolds number and a lower Reynolds number corresponding to the standard windtunnel conditions. Measurements were performed in the European Transonic Wind tunnel (ETW) which, due to its pressurized and cryogenic environment, enabled a variation of Reynolds number up to realflight Reynolds numbers. Other parameters were kept unchanged. Thus, Reynolds number effects on aeroacoustic behavior were separated from the effects of model fidelity and Mach number M.
Several sources with significant Reynolds number dependence were found and exemplary differences at selected Strouhal numbers are shown in Fig. 2. Several dominant sources can be found at the realflight Reynolds number, but are not present at standard conditions. Contrary to that, sources are present in the standard measurement but not at the realflight Reynolds number, as can be seen for example in the slat region. Locally integrated sources from the slat and the flap are shown in Fig. 3. The strong tonal components in the spectrum in the slat region measured at the standard windtunnel conditions (lower Reynolds number) disappeared at realflight Reynolds numbers.
1.3 Aircraft flyover measurements
Measurements on flying aircraft provide the most reliable results of engine and airframe noise emissions of a certain aircraft type [1], especially if the measurements are taken under operational conditions [64]. However, lesscontrolled experimental conditions, like propagation effects [65], moving sources [25, 66], and localization of noise emitter, need to be considered. Therefore, the microphone signals have to be deDopplerized by resampling the original time series by linear interpolation [25]. Interpolation errors were shown to be small if the maximum frequency of analysis is restricted to one tenth of the sampling frequency and for flight Mach numbers up to 0.81 and flyover altitudes as low as 30 m [26]. Upsampling can be performed numerically before interpolation to alleviate this requirement [67]. Additional considerations need to be taken when applying deconvolution algorithms to moving sources [68].
1.4 Engine noise tests
Sound source localization techniques can also be applied to open air engine test beds and indoor engine test cells [1, 69, 70, 71, 72] and to ducted rotating machinery [73, 74, 75].
1.5 Outline of the manuscript
A brief explanation of the hardware requirements and considerations can be found in Sect. 2, as well as some guidelines for distributing microphones in an array. A selection of several widely used acoustic imaging methods are presented in Sect. 3, including some highresolution techniques and inversion and deconvolution methods. A list discussing the performance of each method considered for the most common aeroacoustic applications (flyover and windtunnel measurements) is also included. Some results selected from the previous publications are shown in Sect. 4. Finally, Sect. 5 contains the conclusions.
2 Experimental and hardware considerations

Limited spatial resolution, especially at low frequencies, i.e., the capability to separate two different sound sources placed at a small distance from each other. This is related to the beamwidth of the main lobe in the source map.

The presence of sidelobes or “spurious sources”, due to the array response function, which can be misidentified as real sources. This phenomenon, as well as the spatial resolution, is characterized by the array point spread function (PSF), which is the array response (beam pattern) to a unitarystrength point source.

Background noise suppression. This is especially interesting for noisy environments, such as wind tunnels.

Reliability of both the estimated location and amplitude of the sound sources.
2.1 Hardware requirements
Processing multiple microphone signals increases the signaltonoise ratio (SNR) and the spatial resolution compared to a measurement with only one microphone [41]. The choice of the microphones highly depends on the particular experiment to be performed [76]. Characteristics such as the dynamic range, the frequency range, and the sensitivity have to be selected with care. In general, smaller microphones can measure up to higher frequencies and larger microphones have higher sensitivities. The directivity of the microphones has to be taken into account, as well, especially for higher frequencies. Most of these specifications are provided by the manufacturer.
All microphone signals have to be simultaneously sampled by the data acquisition system. The sampling frequency should be at least twice the maximum frequency of interest, according to the sampling theorem. As mentioned in Sect. 1.3, it is recommended to have a sampling frequency ten times the maximum frequency of interest in the case of flyover measurements or to perform upsampling [67].
Monitoring the data acquisition during the experiment is recommended, to check that the frequency spectra obtained are valid.
Moreover, for microphone arrays installed in small plates, the sound waves scatter at the edges of the plate. Reflections from walls in wind tunnels and from the ground in flyover measurements should also be taken into account. These phenomena produce phase and amplitude errors on the measured signal [77, 78]. Thus, it is recommended to either use hard plates (for complete reflection) or on an acoustically transparent structure, using sound absorbing materials, for example. The setup choice depends on the experiment to be performed and, of course, on the budget available.
2.2 Microphonearray calibration
2.2.1 Amplitude and phase calibration of individual microphones
All the microphones in a phased array should be individually calibrated in both amplitude and phase. Normally, the microphone manufacturer provides some initial calibration data sheets per frequency. Additional calibrations can be performed employing a calibration pistonphone which generates a sinusoidal signal of known amplitude at a certain frequency, typically 250 Hz or 1 kHz.
2.2.2 Metrological determination of the microphone positions
A precise calibration of the microphone positions is crucial for accurate aeroacoustic measurements [41]. Small sound sources with omnidirectional radiation patterns and with known sound pressure levels are recommended for the calibration of the microphone array in both source location and quantification. Broadband white noise signals are preferred, instead of tonal sound at single frequencies to avoid coherence problems [79].
2.3 Microphone distribution guidelines
A detailed study of the optimization of array microphone distribution is out of the scope of this manuscript, but arrays consisting of spirals or of several circles with an odd number of regularly spaced microphones seem to perform best [1, 41]. Interesting studies using the optimization methods [84] and thorough parametric approaches leading to parettooptimal arrangements [85] can be found in the literature.
The microphone positions in the first large test campaign of aircraft flyovers [86] were optimized with a genetic algorithm. To study moving sources, such as aircraft flyovers, the array shape can be elongated in the flight direction [87] to compensate for the loss of resolution due to emission angles other than 90\(^\circ\). The Boeing Company also used an elliptical array shape for their flyover tests in the QTD2 program [88] consisting of 614 microphones in five subarrays with an overall size of approximately 91 m by 76 m, likely the largest array ever used in flyover tests.
2.4 Microphone weighting and coherence loss
Different weighting or “shading” functions can be applied to the signals of each microphone to obtain better acoustic imaging results [61, 89, 90]. Moreover, the beamwidth can be kept roughly constant by selecting smaller subarrays for higher frequencies [35] to minimize coherence loss. This requires clustering the microphones in the center of the array. Shading can be applied per onethirdoctave band to reduce the coherence loss, to compensate for the nonuniform microphone density, and to reduce the sidelobe levels.
3 Acoustic imaging methods
A vast list of acoustic imaging algorithms exists in the literature [7]. Some of them are based on the deconvolution of the sound sources, i.e., the removal of the effect of the PSF [41] of the sound sources, such as CLEANSC, DAMAS, etc. These methods aim at enhancing the results of the conventional beamforming [6], but their computational time is considerably larger. Most of the listed methods require a scan grid, where all the grid points are considered as potential sound sources. This section aims to summarize widely used acoustic imaging methods for aeroacoustic experiments.
3.1 Conventional beamforming (CFDBF)
The conventional beamforming [5, 6] is a very popular method, since it is robust, fast, and intuitive. However, it suffers from the Sparrow resolution limit^{1} [96] and presents a high sidelobe level, especially at high frequencies.
It can be applied both in the time domain [44, 97, 98, 99] or in the frequency domain [61]. The former is normally applied to moving sources [66] and the latter is more commonly used for stationary sources due to the lower computational time required.
The main diagonal of \(\varvec{C}\) can be removed to neglect the contribution of noise which is incoherent for all the array microphones. This can be especially useful for cases with wind noise or TBL noise, such as in closedsection wind tunnels [41, 61]. However, precaution has to be taken when removing the main diagonal of \(\varvec{C}\), because, then, \(\varvec{C}\) is no longer positivedefinite and the PSF can get negative values (which are not physical) and the negative sidelobes of strong sources can eliminate weaker sources in some cases. This fact is explained by the appearance of negative eigenvalues in \(\varvec{C}\) when the main diagonal is removed, since the sum of the eigenvalues of a matrix is always equal to the sum of its diagonal elements (zero, in this case). Hence, all the methods based on the CFDBF algorithm will suffer from this issue with the diagonal removal process.
When directly applied to distributed sound sources, CFDBF (and other methods assuming the presence of point sources) can lead to erroneous source levels. Therefore, integration methods, such as the source power integration (SPI) [29, 61, 94] technique, have been proposed to deal with this issue and limit the influence of the array PSF. This method can be extended to consider line sources [101] when distributed sound sources, such as trailingedge noise [102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107], are expected. This integration technique has showed the most accurate results in a simulated benchmark case [101, 108] representing a trailingedge noise measurement in a closedsection wind tunnel, with respect to the other wellknown acoustic imaging methods.
3.2 Functional beamforming
For single sound sources, the PSF, which has a value of one at the correct source locations and alias points and a value less than one elsewhere, is powered to the exponent \(\nu\). Therefore, powering the PSF at a sidelobe will lower its level, leaving the true source value virtually identical [109] if an adequate grid is used [30]. For ideal conditions, the dynamic range of functional beamforming should increase linearly with the exponent value, \(\nu\). Thus, for an appropriate exponent value, the dynamic range is significantly increased.
The computational time for the functional beamforming is basically identical to the CFDBF one, since the only relevant operation added is the eigenvalue decomposition of \(\varvec{C}\).
The application of the diagonal removal method aforementioned to functional beamforming is even more prone to errors, since this algorithm is based on the eigenvalue decomposition of the CSM. Mitigation of the diagonal removal issue is possible with CSM diagonal reconstruction methods [112, 113].
In the previous work, functional beamforming has been applied to numerical simulations [30, 109, 110], controlled experiments with components in a laboratory [109, 110], and to fullscale aircraft flyover measurements under operational conditions [30, 114, 115].
A similar integration method as the SPI technique was used for quantifying noise sources in flyover measurements [107]. A somewhat similar timedomain technique based on the generalized mean of the generalized cross correlation has been developed recently [116, 117].
3.3 Orthogonal beamforming
Let the \(N \times K\) matrix \(\varvec{G}\) contain the transfer functions (i.e., the steering vectors) between the K sources and N microphones \(\left[ \varvec{g}_{1} \ \ldots \ \varvec{g}_{K} \right]\) (see Eq. 3). As shown in [120], the matrix \(\varvec{\varSigma }_S\) is mathematically similar to \((\varvec{G}^*\varvec{G}) \varvec{C}_{S}\) and, therefore, has the same eigenvalues. Here, \(\varvec{C}_{S}\) is the CSM of the source signals. The main idea behind orthogonal beamforming is that each eigenvalue of \(\varvec{\sigma }_S\) can be used to estimate the absolute source level of one source, from the strongest sound source within the map to the weakest, assuming orthogonality between steering vectors.
In a second step, these sources are mapped to specific locations. This is done by assigning the eigenvalues to the location of the highest peak in a special beamforming sound map, which is purposely constructed from a rankone CSM that is synthesized only from the corresponding eigenvector. Hence, the map is the output of the spatial beamforming filter for only one single source and the highest peak in this map is an estimate of the source location. The main diagonal of the reduced CSM for each eigenvalue may be removed to reduce uncorrelated noise. The beamforming map can be constructed on the basis of vector–vector products and is, therefore, computationally very fast.
An important parameter in the eigenvalue decomposition, which has to be adjusted by the user, is the number of eigenvalues k that span the signal subspace \(\varvec{U}_S\). In a practical measurement, a reliable approach is to estimate the number of sources K and choose a value \(k> K\). If the last eigenvalues represent sources that only marginally contribute to the overall sound level, the most important sound sources will be correctly estimated using a value of k considerably smaller than N. The influence of the choice of k is illustrated in Fig. 16 for a trailingedge noise experiment in an openjet wind tunnel.
Since the eigenvalue decomposition of the CSM results in a reduced number of point sources in the map, which is always less than or equal to the number of microphones, the sum of all source strengths within the map is never greater than the sum of the microphone autospectral densities. Hence, the sum of the acoustic source strengths is never overestimated.
3.4 CLEANSC

The CSM is calculated from a large number of time blocks, so that the ensemble averages of the crossproducts \(\varvec{p}_{k}\varvec{p}^{*}_{l}, k\ne l\), can be neglected.

There is no decorrelation of signals from the same source between different microphones (e.g., due to sound propagation through turbulence).

All sound sources present are incoherent.

There is no additional incoherent noise.
This method works well for the case of a welllocated sound source and it is especially suitable for closedsection windtunnel measurements.
Another algorithm called TIDY [123] is similar to CLEANSC but works in the time domain, using the crosscorrelation matrix instead of the CSM. TIDY has been used for imaging jet noise [70, 123] and motor vehicle passby tests [36].
Recently, a higher resolution version of CLEANSC (HRCLEANSC) has been developed and applied successfully to simulated data [124] and to experimental data using two speakers in an anechoic chamber [125, 126].
3.5 DAMAS
DAMAS considers incoherent sound source distributions and attempts to determine each source power by solving the inverse problem of Eq. (15), subject to the constraint that source powers are nonnegative. The problem is commonly solved using a Gauss–Seidel iterative method, which typically requires thousands of iterations to provide a “clean” source map. Moreover, for practical grids, the large size of \(\tilde{\varvec{A}}\) can become an issue. The computation time of DAMAS employed this way is proportional to the third power of the number of grid points, \(J^{3}\). In most applications, \(\tilde{\varvec{A}}\) is singular and not diagonal dominant [127] and the convergence towards the exact solution is not guaranteed. DAMAS has no mechanism to let the iteration converge towards a welldefined result and the solution may depend on how the grid points and the initial values are ordered [127].
The inverse problem in Eq. (15) can also be evaluated using efficient nonnegative leastsquares (NNLS) solvers [127, 128, 129]. In case sparsity of the vector \(\tilde{\varvec{x}}\) is considered, the inverse problem can also be solved with greedy algorithms such as the Orthogonal Matching Pursuit (OMP), which approximates the solution in a considerably lower computation time, proportional to \(J^{2}\) instead of \(J^{3}\). The different steps of OMP are summarized in [130]. The Least Angle Regression Lasso algorithm (LarsLasso) also benefits of the sparsity of \(\tilde{\varvec{x}}\), but requires the choice of a regularization factor by the user, which can be quite complicated for nonexperienced users [129]. Herold et al. [129] compared the NNLS, OMP, and LarsLasso approaches on an aeroacoustic experiment, and found that only NNLS and LarsLasso (using an appropriate regularization factor) surpass the classic DAMAS algorithm in terms of overall performance.
DAMAS was later extended to allow for source coherence (DAMASC) [131]. Whereas the computational challenges in the use of DAMASC have limited its widespread application, the conventional DAMAS has shown its potential with coherent source distributions in jetnoise analyses [132]. This jetnoise study also demonstrated the use of in situ pointsource measurements for the calibration of array results. A similar method to DAMASC called noise source localization and optimization of phasedarray results (LORE) was proposed by Ravetta et al. [133, 134]. LORE first solves an equivalent linear problem as DAMAS using an NNLS solver, but considering the complex point spread function [133, 134], which contains information about the relative source phase. The output obtained is optimized solving a nonlinear problem. Satisfactory results were obtained in the simulated and experimental cases in a laboratory featuring incoherent and coherent sound sources [133, 134]. Whereas this method is faster than DAMASC, it does not provide accurate results when using diagonal removal and when calibration errors are present in the microphone array [133, 134].
3.5.1 DAMAS2
Further versions of DAMAS have been proposed in the literature [135, 136, 137], especially for reducing the high computational cost that it implies. For example, DAMAS2 assumes that the array’s PSF is shift invariant. The term shift invariant describes the property that the characteristics of the PSF do not vary relative to the source position even if the absolute position of that source in the steering grid is changed. Thus, if a source is translated by a certain offset, the entire PSF will also translate with it. The error involved in this assumption is small in astronomy applications [122] where the distance between the source and the observer is huge compared to the size of the array or of the source itself, but, in aeroacoustic measurements, the PSF can vary significantly within the source region [127]. The distortion of the PSF away from the center of the scanning domain can be alleviated by including spatialdifferentiation terms [138]. When applied, the size of the PSF has to be chosen large enough to prohibit wrapping, which has been implemented in DAMAS2.1 [139]. In addition, a fast implementation of DAMASC based on similar techniques to reduce computational costs as DAMAS2 has been introduced [140], exploiting the benefits of convolution using Fourier transforms. Embedded versions of DAMAS2 and a Fourierbased nonnegative leastsquares (NNLS) approach of DAMAS were proposed by Ehrenfried and Koop [127] which do account for the shift variation of the PSF and are potential faster alternatives compared to the original DAMAS algorithm.
3.6 Wavenumber beamforming
Exemplary plots of the wavenumber domain for \(f=1480\,\text {Hz}\) are shown in Fig. 7. Due to the relation \({\tilde{c}} = 2\pi f/\left\ \varvec{k}\right\\) with \({\tilde{c}}\) being the propagation velocity, and \(\varvec{k}=(k_x, k_y)\) the wavevector of a source, each position in the map represents a different propagation velocity. Sources with a propagation speed equal to or higher than the speed of sound are located in the ellipticshaped acoustic domain shown in both plots in Fig. 7 with a solid black line. In the closedsection windtunnel test of Fig. 7 (left), acoustic sources are present, while the flight test data of Fig. 7 (right) appear to be free of dominant acoustic content at the frequency shown. The elongated spot on the righthand side outside the acoustic domain is a representation of the pressure fluctuations caused by the subsonic TBL flow. In the windtunnel data, this elongated spot is seen to be parallel to the \(k_y\)axis, indicating a flow component only in the xdirection. In the flight test plot, the elongated shape is rotated slightly about the origin, which indicates a flow direction that is not aligned with the array’s x and yaxes. The wavenumber domain can be used to easily separate between different propagation mechanisms.
3.7 Linear programming deconvolution (LPD)
Linear programming deconvolution (LPD) [145] is basically a faster alternative than DAMAS to solve the inverse problem introduced in Eq. (15). It considers an additional constraint that no correct model of the beamform map \(\tilde{\varvec{A}}\tilde{\varvec{x}}\) would exceed the beamform source map obtained by CFDBF \(\varvec{y}\) anywhere. This difference (\(\varvec{y}\tilde{\varvec{A}}\tilde{\varvec{x}}\)) represents the effect of uncorrelated sound sources that were present in the measurement but not in the model, such as background noise, microphone self noise, and longrange reflections [145].
However, a disadvantage of LPD is that it does not work well with diagonal removal [145]. An alternative approach is to add an extra element to \(\tilde{\varvec{x}}\) which represents the incoherent noise level. The matrix \(\tilde{\varvec{A}}\) would now be \(J \times (J+1)\) and the extra column is filled with ones.
This method has been applied to a distribution of aeroacoustic point sources in a laboratory [145] and was shown to provide a better resolution than the Sparrow resolution limit.
A combination of LPD and functional beamforming has been reported by Dougherty [110] showing better results due to the higher dynamic range offered by functional beamforming.
The application of LPD, however, breaks up continuous source distributions into spots. This method is thus appropriate for discrete sources and for situations where spatial resolution is more important than dynamic range.
3.8 Robust adaptive beamforming (RAB)
A different approach to calculate \(\epsilon\), based on the white noise gain constraint idea from Cox et al. [146], can be found in [150]. In this approach, however, a different value of \(\epsilon\) is calculated for each grid point, consequently, increasing the computational cost considerably.
An application of this method for aircraft flyover measurements [30] can be found in Figs. 20 and 21.
Capon beamforming can be extended to treat potentially coherent sources [151].
3.9 Spectral estimation method (SEM)
The spectral estimation method (SEM) [152] is intended for the location of distributed sound sources. It is based on the idea of describing sound sources by the mathematical models that depend on several unknown parameters. It is assumed that the power spectral density (PSD) of the sources can then be expressed in terms of these parameters. This method is also known in the literature as covariance matrix fitting (CMF) [153, 154, 155].
The choice of the source model is based on the fact that an extended sound source may only be viewed as an equivalence class between source functions radiating the same pressure field on a phased microphone array. In many applications, a majority of sound sources have smooth directivity patterns. This means that if the aperture angle of a microphone array seen from the overall source region is not too large, the directivity pattern of each region may be considered as isotropic within this aperture, neglecting its directivity.
SEM has shown its efficiency in noiseless environments, on numerical simulations [152] and on data measured during experiments performed with an aircraft model in the openjet anechoic wind tunnel CEPRA 19 (see Fig. 13) [16, 17, 152].
One big advantage of SEM over deconvolution methods using beamforming is that the main diagonal of the CSM can be excluded from the optimization without violating any assumptions. SEM can even be used to reconstruct the diagonal without the influence of the spurious contributions. The resulting source distribution is relatively independent on the array pattern and the assumed source positions can be restricted to the known regions on an aircraft.
To take into account the inevitable background noise in practical applications, an extension of SEM has been proposed: the spectral estimation method with additive noise (SEMWAN) [18]. This method is based on a prior knowledge of the noise signal and it has the advantage of being able to reduce the smearing effect due to the array response and, at the same time, the inaccuracy of the results caused by noise sources, which can be coherent as well as incoherent, with high or low levels. This technique is well suited for applications in wind tunnels, since, for example, a noise reference or record of the environmental noise can be obtained prior to the installation of the model in the test section [18, 45]. Figures 10 and 11 present the results of SEM and SEMWAN applied in a closedsection windtunnel experiment.
Another important issue arises when the acoustic measurements are performed in a nonanechoic closedsection wind tunnel. In this situation, the pressures collected by the microphones are not only due to the direct paths of the acoustic sources, but are also due to their unwanted reflections on the unlined walls, thereby losing accuracy when calculating the power spectra. To remove this drawback, a multimicrophone cepstrum method, aiming at removing spurious echoes in the power spectra, has been developed and tested successfully with the numerical and experimental data [46].
3.10 SODIX
SODIX (Source Directivity Modeling in the CrossSpectral Matrix) is an extension of SEM that can model sound sources with arbitrary directivities. The method was initially developed for noise tests with engines in open static test beds to separate the various broadband sound sources of turbofan engines, which are known to have sizable directivities. However, the method can be applied to any problem where the directivities of the sound sources are of interest.
To reduce the number of possible solutions and to support physical results, smoothing terms can be added to the cost function [69, 71, 156]. The smoothing terms prevent spurious peaks in the source amplitudes and can, therefore, also improve the dynamic range of the results.
 1.
The amplitudes \({\tilde{d}}^2_{j,m}\) of each point source may have different values for every microphone.
 2.
The phase of a sound wave radiated by a point source spreads spherically, i.e., according to the complex argument in the steering vector \(g_{j,m}\).
The analysis of broadband noise during static engine tests with large linear microphone arrays demonstrated that SODIX can calculate reliable results over a wide range of angles around the engine [71, 72]. Phase jumps between different radiation lobes become a problem mainly for tonal noise. They violate the second assumption in the source model and, therefore, lead to source distributions and directivities that are not representative. However, the outstanding capability of SODIX is the free modeling of the directivities of the sound sources: SODIX can not only account for the multipole characteristics of the sound sources, but also for directivities due to source interference within coherent sources, such as jet mixing noise.
As in the case of SEM (see Sect. 3.9), the main diagonal of the CSM can be removed from the calculations without violating any assumptions. This makes SODIX, like SEMWAN (see Sect. 3.9), suitable for closedsection windtunnel applications.
The spatial resolution of SODIX was compared to that of CFDBF and various deconvolution methods in [78]. The results showed that SODIX overcomes the Sparrow resolution limit and, therefore, provides superresolution. However, the computational effort for SODIX is rather high, because the number of unknowns to be determined, i.e., \(J \times N\), can be very large.
SODIX was also successfully applied to engine indoor tests [72], ground tests with an Airbus A320 aircraft [157, 158, 159], measurements of a counter rotating open rotor (CROR) model in an openjet wind tunnel [160, 161], and measurements of modelscale turbofannozzles in an openjet wind tunnel [162].
3.11 Compressivesensing beamforming
This method has been adopted in the identification of spinning modes for turbofan noise using microphonearray measurements. The required number of sensors can be much less than the number required by the sampling theorem as long as the incident fan noise is sparse in spinning modes [167, 168, 169].
It should be noted that compressive sensing, unlike the beamforming methods discussed, is an inverse method that aims to determine the phase and amplitude of the source distribution. The linear algebra problems at the core of inverse methods are often severely underdetermined. Selecting a particular solution to display requires that the undetermined components of the solution be established somehow. The conventional approach of minimizing the \(L_2\) norm of the solution can give solutions that look incorrect, because they have many small nonzero elements. Compressive sensing can be considered as a cosmetic improvement that tends to cluster the nonzero sources. If there is reason to believe that the true sources have this kind of distribution, then the compressivesensing result may be more accurate than the conventional inverse solution. Several of the techniques discussed below are also inverse methods that handle the illconditioned problem in slightly different ways.
3.12 Generalized inverse beamforming (GIBF)
Benefits of this algorithm are not only the treatment of the source coherence, but also to include any types of prescribed sources in \(\tilde{\varvec{G}}\). Hence, in principle, multipoles in an arbitrary orientation can be detected and different types of sources can be collocated at the same grid point. An application to duct acoustics, in which overdetermined problems are typically solved, was also studied in [173]. Several regularization methods for GIBF have been recently applied to airfoilnoise measurements in openjet wind tunnels [12, 174].
3.13 Iterative Bayesian inverse approach (IBIA)
The parameter \({\tilde{q}}\), defining the shape of the a priori probability density function of sources, determines the power of the solution norm used in the regularization process. A value of \({\tilde{q}}=2\) keeps the initial value \(\varvec{\varPsi }^0\) (Eq. (28)), which means no sparsity. Thus, the amount of sparsity increases as \({\tilde{q}}\) decreases, down to 0 for which a strong sparsity is requested.
This method has been tested with the experimental data from a halfaircraft model in a closedsection wind tunnel, as shown in Fig. 12.
3.14 Global optimization methods
In Ref. [175] a method is presented where the search for the locations and amplitudes of sound sources is treated as a global optimization problem. The search can be easily extended to more unknowns, such as additional geometrical parameters, and more complex situations with, for example, multiple sound sources or reflections being present. The method is essentially gridfree and can overcome the Sparrow resolution limit when sources are positioned close together.
The presence of sidelobes will, however, hamper the optimization as they act as local optima against which the global optimum needs to be found. In the literature, a number of mathematical methods are presented which allow for optimization problems with many unknowns and with the capability to escape from local optima, in contrast to local search techniques, e.g., gradient methods. These methods are generally denoted as global optimization methods. Wellknown examples are genetic algorithms [176], simulated annealing [177], and ant colony optimization [178].
In [175], a variation of the genetic algorithm, called differential evolution [179], is proposed as a global optimization method. This type of optimization method mimics natural evolution. They use populations of solutions, where promising solutions are given a high probability to reproduce and worse solutions have a lower probability to reproduce.
This work can be seen as an alternative approach to DAMAS and SEM. Whereas DAMAS assesses the performance of a solution based on the agreement between modeled and measured beamformed outputs, SEM is based on the comparison between the modeled and measured pressure fields. In contrast, in this technique, the locations of the sources are sought using a global optimization method, instead of considering a predefined grid of potential source locations. This way, estimates for source positions and source strengths are obtained as a solution of the optimization and do not need to be obtained from a source plot.
Some first experimental results of this technique with the simulated data and a single speaker in an anechoic room are presented in reference [175].
3.15 Applications

Conventional beamforming (CFDBF): [5, 6] should be a standard procedure in all cases, since it provides a fast overview of the sound sources characteristics. However, its spatial resolution and dynamic range are usually not suitable for several applications. Integration methods can be applied for distributed sources [101].

Functional beamforming: [109, 110] greatly increases the dynamic range compared with CFDBF in a comparable computational time. It works well in windtunnel (both in openjet and closedsection) and in aircraft flyover measurements [30, 115, 180, 181]. However, diagonal removal produces considerable errors and diagonal denoising methods are recommended [112].

Orthogonal beamforming: [118, 119, 120, 121] is based on the eigenvalue decomposition of the CSM, has a low computational cost, and never overestimates the strength of the acoustic sources. This method has been applied in trailingedge noise measurements in an openjet windtunnel [155, 182, 183, 184].

CLEANSC: [11] is a widely used deconvolution technique that cleans the source map obtained with CFDBF iteratively, removing the parts of it that are coherent with the real sources. Thus, the dynamic range is greatly improved. The spatial resolution can be increased beyond the Rayleigh resolution limit using the new highresolution version HRCLEANSC [125]. This technique has been applied to windtunnel [11] and aircraft flyover experiments [30].

DAMAS: [8, 9, 10] is a deconvolution method that solves an inverse problem iteratively to remove the influence of the array geometry from the obtained results. Enhancements in dynamic range and spatial resolution are obtained, but it has a high computational cost. The extension DAMASC [131] is suitable for analyzing source coherence, but it requires even higher computational resources. Further and similar versions of DAMAS have been proposed [127, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140] to reduce the computational time. This technique is normally used in jetnoise analyses [132] and in windtunnel tests [8, 9, 10].

Wavenumber beamforming: [52, 141, 142, 143, 144] is a useful technique when mechanisms resulting in different propagation speeds and directions are present, provided that farfield conditions apply. This method has been used in windtunnel experiments [52, 141, 142, 143] and to characterize an aircraft boundarylayer flow [144].

Linear programming deconvolution: [145] is a faster alternative to DAMAS. It has been applied to aeroacoustic point sources in a laboratory [145], showing a better resolution than the Sparrow resolution limit. It can be combined with the functional beamforming providing even better results [110].

Robust adaptive beamforming: [149] attempts to maximize the SNR. It works well for clean data, but it is quite sensitive to noise and errors in the data. It has been used for aeroacoustic sources and flyover measurements [30]. This method can be extended to treat potentially coherent sources [151].

Spectral estimation method (SEM): [152] is intended for the location of distributed sound sources. It offers a better dynamic range and spatial resolution than CFDBF. Removing the main diagonal of the CSM does not violate any assumption for this method. The effect of background noise and reflections can also be taken into account using SEMWAN [18] or cepstrum [46], respectively. This method has been applied in openjet and closedsection windtunnel experiments [16, 17, 152].

SODIX: [69, 71, 156] is an extension of SEM for experiments where the directivities of the sound sources are of interest. It provides a better resolution than the Sparrow resolution limit. SODIX has been mostly applied to static engine tests on freefield and indoor test beds, [69, 71, 72] and measurements in openjet wind tunnels [160, 161, 162].

Compressivesensing beamforming: [163, 164, 165] assumes spatially sparse distributions of sound sources and requires a lower number of microphones. This inverse technique has been used to identify spinning modes of turbofan engines [167, 168].

Generalized inverse beamforming: [13] considers partially coherent sound sources using inversion techniques. Multipoles in an arbitrary direction can be considered as well. An application to duct acoustics was studied in [173] and to airfoil noise in [12, 174].

Iterative Bayesian inverse approach (IBIA): [7, 14, 15] is based on a userdefined level of sparsity of the sound sources. The results are somewhat between those of CFDBF (no sparsity) and CLEANSC (strong sparsity). It has been applied to measurements in closedsection wind tunnels [185].

Global optimization methods: [175] can be used for searching the locations and amplitudes of sound sources without using a scan grid. Other parameters, such as the sound speed, can be added to the optimization problem to obtain more information about the sound field. Differential evolution was applied to a experiment with a speaker in an anechoic room [175].
Summary of the main characteristics of the acoustic imaging methods introduced
Method  Parameters to be set  Typical use  Other characteristics 

Conventional beamforming  None  General purpose  Integration techniques for extended sources Timedomain version 
Functional beamforming  Power parameter v  Aircraft flyover measurements  Sensitive to diagonal removal 
Orthogonal beamforming  Number of eigenvalues k  Limited use, see text  The sum of the acoustic source strengths is not overestimated 
CLEANSC  Damping parameter Number of iterations  Airframe noise measurements  Allows diagonal removal Superresolution version 
DAMAS  Number of iterations  Airframe noise measurements  Superresolution Allows diagonal removal Faster versions 
Wavenumber beamforming  None  Measurements featuring different wave propagation speeds  Farfield formulation 
Linear programming deconvolution  Same as DAMAS  Same as DAMAS  Superresolution Does not work with diagonal removal Can be combined with functional beamforming 
RAB  Diagonal loading parameter \(\mu _{0}\)  Limited use, see text  Very sensitive to the uncorrelation assumption 
SEM  Number of iterations or the maximum error in solutions  Airframe noise measurements  High resolution with positivity constrained Allows diagonal removal Distributed sound sources 
SODIX  Optional regularization function (smoothness constraint of directivity) with 2 parameters  Engine noise measurements (directional sources)  Superresolution Robust also for illposed problems Allows diagonal removal 
Compressivesensing beamforming  Regularization parameter \(\delta\)  Duct acoustics  Imposed sparsity degree (\(L_{1}\)norm) 
GIBF  Requires SNR to set up regularization  Windtunnel experiments and duct acoustics  Imposed sparsity degree (\(L_{1}\)norm) 
IBIA  Degree of sparsity \({{\tilde{q}}}\)  General purpose  Fully automatic regularization Possibility to tune the degree of sparsity (\(L_{q}\)norm) 
Global optimization methods  Number of unknowns to search Settings for the optimization algorithm  General purpose  This method does not require a predefined scan grid 
The beamforming methods that determine only the incoherent source strengths are conventional, functional, orthogonal, wavenumber, and robust adaptive beamforming, as well as CLEANSC, DAMAS, linear programming deconvolution, and SEM. SODIX adds source directivity to the results, and DAMASC adds source coherence as an output (CLEANSC considers it implicitly). The remaining methods attempt to find the amplitude, phase, and, in some cases, the partial coherence of sources using different regularization schemes. A summary of all these characteristics is presented in Table 1.
In general, more complex methods require considerably more computational time than CFDBF. Hence, depending on the experiment requirements, this can pose some constraints when selecting the most suitable method.
Other benchmark cases analyzing the performance of some of these methods for specific acoustic applications can be found in the literature [30, 154, 186, 187]. Moreover, a broad effort in the aeroacoustics community was started by NASA Langley researchers to establish a common set of benchmark problems for the purpose of testing and validation of new analysis techniques [188, 189]. This ongoing working group has met at several forums, shared the initial results for the chosen test cases, and has recently presented the results from the first release of benchmark problems [108, 185, 190, 191].
4 Results
This section aims to illustrate some representative acoustic imaging results for each of the main aeroacoustic applications introduced in Sect. 1, according to the acoustic imaging methods discussed in Sect. 3.15. The purpose of these results is to represent the typical examples that are normally found in practical aeroacoustic experiments, but not to provide an exhaustive list of all the possible applications of each single method.
4.1 Windtunnel measurements
4.1.1 Closed wind tunnels
Airfoil noise can also be studied at closedsection wind tunnels [107, 193].
4.1.2 Openjet wind tunnels
Additional studies about the noisegeneration mechanisms for trailingedge noise, flaps, slats, and landing gears involving microphone arrays were performed at the Quiet Flow Facility in NASA Langley [94, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199].
4.2 Aircraft flyover measurements
Figures 20 and 21 present the results of different acoustic imaging methods applied to two aircraft flyovers which belong to a measurement campaign in Amsterdam Airport Schiphol by Delft University of Technology, where 115 landing aircraft were recorded with a considerable smaller array [23, 24, 30, 114, 115], featuring 32 microphones and a diameter of 1.7 m (i.e., about seven times fewer microphones and seven times smaller than for the array used in Fig. 17). The average aircraft height overhead was approximately 67 m. These flyovers were selected, because they presented a strong tonal component at the presented frequencies: 1630 and 7140 Hz, respectively [30].
Figure 20 shows an Airbus A321 emitting sound at 1630 Hz, where the main noise source seems to be the noselanding gear, probably due to a cavity [115]. Similar results were observed by Michel and Qiao [86]. Functional beamforming (with \(\nu =100\)) and CLEANSC present the highest dynamic ranges.
Figure 21 shows a Fokker 70 emitting sound at 7140 Hz, where the main noise sources appear to be located at the main landing gear wheels. Once again, functional beamforming (with \(\nu =100\)) and CLEANSC present the highest dynamic ranges, but CLEANSC only shows one of the two sources (left). Functional beamforming does not seem to have this problem.
Figures 20 and 21 show that, even with a relatively cheap and small experimental setup, satisfactory results can be obtained. Additional measurements on aircraft flyovers can be found in the literature [26, 27, 29, 61, 86, 201, 203, 204]. Researchers from NASA Langley have developed fielddeployable microphone phased arrays for flight tests [205], including acoustic measurements of small Unmanned Aerial System (sUAS) vehicles [83]. Investigations of the use of array processing techniques to crossvalidate the computational and experimental results of airframe noise analysis have also been performed [206, 207].
4.3 Static engine noise tests
Exemplary SODIX results from static tests with a longcowl turbofan engine at low engine speed using a linear array with 248 microphones [72] are shown in Fig. 22. The microphones were aligned parallel to the engine axis on the testbed floor at a distance of approximately 11.2 m to the engine axis. A linear grid of point sources with a spacing of \(\varDelta x\approx 0.25 \lambda\) between grid points is placed on the engine axis, where \(\lambda\) represents the acoustic wavelength.
The source map on the left of Fig. 22 shows the source directivities as a function of the source emission angle \(\theta _{jm}\) that is defined between the engine axis and the connection from a source j to a microphone m with \(\theta _{jm} = 0^\circ\) in flight direction. SODIX models strong sources at the axial positions of the intake and the nozzle. Jet sources appear close to the nozzle exit, which is reasonable for a Strouhal number of \(St = 4.6\). All sources present strong directivities with peak radiation angles in the forward arc for the intake and in the rear arc for the nozzle and the jet. The dynamic range of these results is greater than 20 dB.
To evaluate the contributions of the single sources in the far field, the source amplitudes were extrapolated to the positions of microphones at a distance of 150 ft = 45.72 m which are commonly used for noise certification purposes: with the assumption of an axisymmetric sound radiation of the engine, the source amplitudes, \({\tilde{d}}^2\), at emission angles corresponding to the farfield microphones [gray lines in Fig. 22 (left)], are scaled according to the 1/r distance law, where r is the distance between the source and the observer.
Dotted white lines around the positions of the intake and the nozzle indicate the parts of the source grid that are used for the calculation of the farfield contributions from the intake (\(x=5.4\) m) and the nozzle (\(x=0\) m) in Fig. 22 (left). The farfield contribution of the jet is calculated from all source downstream of the nozzle region.
The farfield results are shown in the right plot in Fig. 22. The intake dominates in the forward arc up to \(\theta \approx 75^\circ\). The sound field radiated from the nozzle shows a maximum at \(\theta \approx 115^\circ\) and the jetnoise peaks at \(\theta \approx 125^\circ\). The sum of all sources (SODIX total) agrees very well with the measured data of the farfield microphones.
The capability to model the directive sound sources of a turbofan engine makes SODIX a useful tool for the development and the validation of new engine technologies. Other methods, which often use monopole sources, would average the sound field over the aperture of the array and, therefore, lead to the inaccurate results.
5 Conclusions
Phased microphone arrays are useful tools for estimating the location and strength of sound sources. Aeroacoustic experiments present important challenges, such as noisy environments like wind tunnels or moving sources like flying aircraft. A wide variety of 14 acoustic imaging methods is presented in this paper and the performance of each method for aeroacoustic applications is assessed. This selection spans from the simple conventional beamforming algorithm to deconvolution and inversion methods, which normally imply higher computational cost. Although there is no such thing as a perfect method, recommendations are given for nonexperienced users to obtain the best results, depending on the desired application.
Footnotes
 1.
Many authors normally refer to the Rayleigh resolution limit [95], i.e., the first zero of the firstorder Bessel function (similar to the Airy disk in optics), whereas the Sparrow resolution limit is defined as the angular distance where the sum of the PSF of the two sources produces a flat profile. The Rayleigh resolution limit, on the other hand, shows a distinct dip between both sources. The Rayleigh resolution limit is defined as \(1.22\lambda /D\) and the Sparrow resolution limit as \(0.95\lambda /D\), where \(\lambda\) is the acoustic wavelength and D is the array diameter. Thus, the Sparrow resolution limit is about 22% lower than the Rayleigh resolution limit. However, both criteria are based on the assumption of a continuous disk as a receiver, rather than an array with a finite number sensors. Hence, both criteria represent an approximation.
Notes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to kindly thank Dr. Takao Suzuki from the Boeing Company for his suggestions about generalized inverse beamforming.
References
 1.Michel, U.: History of acoustic beamforming. In: Proceedings on CD of the 1st Berlin Beamforming Conference, 22–23 November, 2006, GFaI, e.V., Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
 2.Davids, N., Thurston, E.G., Mueser, R.E.: The design of optimum directional acoustic arrays. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 24(1), 50–56 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 3.Billingsley, J., Kinns, R.: The acoustic telescope. J. Sound Vib. 48, 485–510 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 4.Billingsley, J.: A comparison of the source location techniques of the acoustic telescope and polar correlation. J. Sound Vib. 61(3), 419–425 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 5.van Veen, B.D., Buckley, K.M.: Beamforming: a versatile approach to spatial filtering. IEEE ASSP Mag. 5(2), 4–24 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 6.Johnson, D.H., Dudgeon, D.E.: Array Signal Processing, Concepts and Techniques. P T R Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1993). (ISBN: 9780130485137) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 7.Leclère, Q., Pereira, A., Bailly, C., Antoni, J., Picard, C.: A unified formalism for acoustic imaging based on microphone array measurements. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 16(4–5), 431–456 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 8.Brooks, T.F., Humphreys, W.M.: A deconvolution approach for the mapping of acoustic sources (DAMAS) determined from phased microphone arrays. 10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 10–12, 2004, Manchester, UK, 2004, AIAA Paper 20042954 (2004)Google Scholar
 9.Brooks, T.F., Humphreys, W.M.: Threedimensional application of DAMAS methodology for aeroacoustic noise source definition. 11th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 23–25, 2005, Monterey, California, USA, 2005, AIAA Paper 20052960 (2005)Google Scholar
 10.Brooks, T.F., Humphreys, W.M.: A deconvolution approach for the mapping of acoustic sources (DAMAS) determined from phased microphone arrays. J. Sound Vib. 294(4–5), 856–879 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 11.Sijtsma, P.: CLEAN based on spatial source coherence. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 6(4), 357–374 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 12.Zamponi, R., van de Wyer, N., Schram, C.: An improved regularization of the generalized inverse beamforming applied to a benchmark database. 7th Berlin Beamforming Conference, March 5–6 2018, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin, 2018, BeBeC2018D09 (2018)Google Scholar
 13.Suzuki, T.: \(L_1\) generalized inverse beamforming algorithm resolving coherent/incoherent, distributed and multipole sources. J. Sound Vib. 330(24), 5835–5851 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 14.Antoni, J.: A Bayesian approach to sound source reconstruction: optimal basis, regularization, and focusing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131, 2873–2890 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 15.Pereira, A., Antoni, J., Leclère, Q.: Empirical Bayesian regularization of the inverse acoustic problem. Appl. Acoust. 97, 11–29 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 16.Blacodon, D.: Analysis of the airframe noise of an A320/A321 with a parametric method. J. Aircr. 44, 26–34 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 17.Blacodon, D.: Combustionnoise characterization of a turbofan engine with a spectral estimation method. J. Propuls. Power 25(2), 374–379 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 18.Blacodon, D.: Spectral estimation noisy data using a reference noise. In: Proceedings on CD of the 3rd Berlin Beamforming Conference, 24–25 February, 2010, Berlin, Germany (2010)Google Scholar
 19.Guidati, S., Brauer, C., Wagner, S.: The reflection canceller—phased array measurements in a reverberating environment. 8th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, June 17–19, 2002, Breckenridge, Colorado, USA, 2002, AIAA Paper 20022462 (2002)Google Scholar
 20.Sijtsma, P., Holthusen, H.: Corrections for mirror sources in phased array processing techniques. 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 12–14, 2003, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA, 2003, AIAA Paper 20033196 (2003)Google Scholar
 21.Simons, D.G., Snellen, M., Midden, B., Arntzen, M., Bergmans, D.H.T.: Assessment of noise level variations of aircraft flyovers using acoustic arrays. J. Aircr. 52(5), 1625–1633 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 22.Snellen, M., MerinoMartinez, R., Simons, D.G.: Assessment of aircraft noise sources variability using an acoustic camera. 5th CEAS Air and Space Conference. Challenges in European Aerospace, September 7–11 2015, Delft, The Netherlands (2015)Google Scholar
 23.MerinoMartinez, R., Snellen, M., Simons, D.G.: Determination of aircraft noise variability using an acoustic camera. 23rd International Congress on Sound and Vibration, July 10–14 2016, Athens, Greece (2016)Google Scholar
 24.Snellen, M., MerinoMartinez, R., Simons, D.G.: Assessment of noise level variability on landing aircraft using a phased microphone array. J. Aircr. 54(6), 2173–2183 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 25.Howell, G.P., Bradley, M.A., McCormick, M.A., Brown, J.D.: DeDopplerization and acoustic imaging of aircraft flyover noise measurements. J. Sound Vib. 105(1), 151–167 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 26.Michel, U., Barsikow, B., Haverich, B., Schüttpelz, M.: Investigation of airframe and jet noise in highspeed flight with a microphone array. 3rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 12–14, 1997, Atlanta, GA, USA, 1997, AIAA Paper 19971596 (1997)Google Scholar
 27.Michel, U., Barsikow, B., Helbig, J., Hellmig, M., Schüttpelz, M.: Flyover noise measurements on landing aircraft with a microphone array. 4th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 2–4 1998, Toulouse, France, 1998, AIAA Paper 19982336 (1998)Google Scholar
 28.Piet, J.F., Élias, G., Lebigot, P.: Localization of acoustic source from a landing aircraft with a microphone array. 5th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Bellevue, WA, USA, 1999, AIAA Paper 19991811 (1999)Google Scholar
 29.Sijtsma, P., Stoker, R.: Determination of absolute contributions of aircraft noise components using flyover array measurements. 10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 10–12 2004, Manchester, United Kingdom, 2004, AIAA Paper 20042958 (2004)Google Scholar
 30.MerinoMartinez, R., Snellen, M., Simons, D.G.: Functional beamforming applied to imaging of flyover noise on landing aircraft. J. Aircr. 53(6), 1830–1843 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 31.Barsikow, B., King III, W.F., Pfizenmaier, E.: Wheel/rail noise generated by a highspeed train investigated with a line array of microphones. J. Sound Vib. 118, 99–122 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 32.Barsikow, B., King III, W.F.: On removing the Doppler frequency shift from array measurements of railway noise. J. Sound Vib. 120(1), 190–196 (1988). (Letter to the editor) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 33.Barsikow, B.: Experiences with various configurations of microphone arrays used to locate sound sources on railway trains operated by the DB AG. J. Sound Vib. 193, 283–293 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 34.Michel, U., Barsikow, B.: Localisation of sound sources on moving vehicles with microphone arrays. In: Proceedings of EuroNoise 2003, May 19–21 2003, Naples, Italy, No. paper ID 537 (2003)Google Scholar
 35.Michel, U., Barsikow, B., Böhning, P., Hellmig, M.: Localisation of moving sound sources with phased microphone arrays. InterNoise 2004, 22–25 August 2004, Prague, Czech Republic (2004)Google Scholar
 36.Gerges, S.N.Y., Fonseca, W.D., Dougherty, R.P.: State of the art beamforming software and hardware for application. 16th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, July 5–9 2009, Kraków, Poland (2009)Google Scholar
 37.Padois, T., Berry, A.: Application of acoustic imaging techniques on snowmobile passby noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141(2), EL134–EL139 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 38.Oerlemans, S., Méndez López, B.: Acoustic array measurements on a full scale wind turbine. 11th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 23–25, 2005, Monterey, California, USA, 2005, AIAA Paper 20052963 (2005)Google Scholar
 39.Oerlemans, S., Sijtsma, P., Méndez López, B.: Location and quantification of noise sources on a wind turbine. J. Sound Vib. 299, 869–883 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 40.Stoker, R., Guo, Y., Streett, C., Burnside, N.: Airframe noise source locations of a 777 aircraft in flight and comparisons with past model–scale tests. 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 12–14 2003, Hilton Head, South California, USA, AIAA Paper 20033232 (2003)Google Scholar
 41.Mueller, T.: Aeroacoustic Measurements. Springer, Berlin (2002). (ISBN: 9783642075148) Google Scholar
 42.Padois, T., Prax, C., Valeau, V.: Numerical validation of shear flow corrections for beamforming acoustic source localisation in open windtunnels. Appl. Acoust. 74, 591–601 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 43.Bahr, C.J., Horne, W.C.: Subspacebased background noise subtraction applied to aeroacoustic wind tunnel testing. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 16(4–5), 299–325 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 44.Dougherty, R.P.: Advanced timedomain beamforming techniques. 10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 10–12 2004, Manchester, United Kingdom, 2004, AIAA Paper 20042955 (2004)Google Scholar
 45.Blacodon, D.: Array processing for noisy data: application for open and closed wind tunnels. AIAA J. 49(1), 55–66 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 46.Blacodon, D., Bulté, J.: Reverberation cancellation in a closed test section of a wind tunnel using a multimicrophone cepstral method. J. Sound Vib.ation 333, 26–34 (2014)Google Scholar
 47.Sijtsma, P., Holthusen, H.: Source location by phased array measurements in closed wind tunnel test sections. 5th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Bellevue, WA, USA, 1999, AIAA Paper 19991814 (1999)Google Scholar
 48.Jaeger, S.M., Horne, W., Allen, C.: Effect of surface treatment on array microphone selfnoise. 6th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 12–14 2016, Lahaina, HI, USA, 2000, AIAA Paper 20001937 (2000)Google Scholar
 49.Fleury, V., Coste, L., Davy, R., Mignosi, A.: Optimization of microphone array wallmountings in closedsection wind tunnels. 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 2010, AIAA Paper 20103738 (2010)Google Scholar
 50.G.R.A.S. Sound and Vibration. http://www.gras.dk/products/specialmicrophone/turbulencescreenmicrophones.html (2017). Accessed Mar 2017
 51.Smith, B.S., Camargo, H.E., Burdisso, R.A., Devenport, W.J.: Development of a novel acoustic wind tunnel concept. 11th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 23–25 2005, Monterey, California, USA, 2005, AIAA Paper 20053053 (2005)Google Scholar
 52.Koop, L., Ehrenfried, K.: Microphonearray processing for windtunnel measurements with strong background noise. 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (29th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), May 5–7, 2008, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2008, AIAA Paper 20082907 (2008)Google Scholar
 53.Amiet, R.K.: Correction of open jet wind tunnel measurements for shear layer refraction. 2nd AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference, March 24–26, Hampton, VA, USA, 1975, AIAA Paper 1975532 (1975)Google Scholar
 54.Amiet, R.K.: Refraction of sound by a shear layer. J. Sound Vib. 58(4), 467–482 (1978)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 55.Sarradj, E.: A fast ray casting method for sound refraction at shear layers. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 16, 65–77 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 56.Sijtsma, P., Oerlemans, S., Tibbe, T., Berkefeld, T., Spehr, C.: Spectral broadening by shear layers of open jet wind tunnels. 20th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 16–20 2014, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014, AIAA Paper 20143178 (2014)Google Scholar
 57.Dougherty, R.P.: Turbulent decorrelation of aeroacoustic phased arrays: lessons from atmospheric science and astronomy. 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 12–14 2003, Hilton Head, South California, USA, 2003, AIAA Paper 20033200 (2003)Google Scholar
 58.Spehr, C., Ahlefeldt, T.: Aircraft noise generation and assessment: comparison of microphone array measurements in the closed test section of LSWT and ETW. CEAS Aeronaut. J. (2018) (Under review process) Google Scholar
 59.Oerlemans, S., Broersma, L., Sijtsma, P.: Quantification of airframe noise using microphone arrays in open and closed wind tunnels. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 6(4), 309–333 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 60.Kröber, S.: Comparability of microphone array measurements in open and closed wind tunnels. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
 61.Sijtsma, P.: Phased array beamforming applied to wind tunnel and flyover tests. Tech. Rep. NLRTP2010549, National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR), Anthony Fokkerweg 2, 1059 CM Amsterdam, P.O. Box 90502, 1006 BM Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2010)Google Scholar
 62.Ahlefeldt, T.: Microphone array measurement in european transonic wind tunnel at flight Reynolds numbers. AIAA J. 55(1), 36–48 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 63.Braslow, A.L., Hicks, R.M., Harris Jr., R.V.: Use of grittype boundarylayer transition trips on windtunnel models. Tech. Rep. NASATND3579, NASA Technical Note (D–3579), September (1966)Google Scholar
 64.Camier, C., Padois, T., Provencher, J., Gauthier, P.A., Berry, A., Blais, J.F., PatenaudeDufour, M., Lapointe, R.: Flyover source localization on civil aircraft. 19th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 27–29 2013, Berlin, Germany, 2013, AIAA Paper 20132261 (2013)Google Scholar
 65.Ruijgrok, G.: Elements of Aviation Acoustics, VSSD, Second ed. (2007) (ISBN 109065621555) Google Scholar
 66.Sijtsma, P.: Beamforming on moving sources. Tech. Rep. NLRTP2006733, National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR), Anthony Fokkerweg 2, 1059 CM Amsterdam, P.O. Box 90502, 1006 BM Amsterdam, The Netherlands, December (2006)Google Scholar
 67.Antoni, J., Eltabach, M.: A KIS solution for high fidelity interpolation and resampling of signals. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 35(1–2), 85–93 (2013)Google Scholar
 68.Böhning, P., Siller, H.: Study of a deconvolution method foraircraft flyover measurements. 8th AIAA/CEAS AeroacousticsConference, 17–19 June 2007, Breckenridge, Co, USA, 2007, AIAA Paper 20073474 (2007)Google Scholar
 69.Michel, U., Funke, S.: Noise source analysis of an aeroengine with a new inverse method SODIX. 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 5–7, 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2008, AIAA Paper 20082860 (2008)Google Scholar
 70.Dougherty, R.P.: Jet noise beamforming with several techniques. 3th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 24–25 2010, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
 71.Funke, S., Skorpel, A., Michel, U.: An extended formulation of the SODIX method with application to aeroengine broadband noise. 18th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 4–6 June 2012, Colorado Springs, USA, 2012, AIAA Paper 20122276 (2012)Google Scholar
 72.Funke, S., Siller, H.A., Hage, W., Lemke, O.: Microphonearray measurements of a Rolls–Royce BR700 series aeroengine in an indoor testbed and comparison with freefield data. 20th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 16–20 Jun 2014, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2014, AIAA Paper 20143070 (2014)Google Scholar
 73.Herold, G., Sarradj, E.: Microphone array method for the characterization of rotating sound sources in axial fans. Noise Control Eng. J. 63(6), 546–551 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 74.Dougherty, R.P.: Mutual incoherence of broadband duct acoustic modes. 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. May 30–June 1 2015, Lyon, France, 2016, AIAA Paper 20163032 (2016)Google Scholar
 75.Caldas, L.C., Greco, P.C., Pagani, C. C.J., Baccalá, L.A.: Comparison of different techniques for rotating beamforming at the university of São Paulo fan rig test facility. 6th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 29–March 1 2016, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin, 2016, BeBeC2016D14 (2016)Google Scholar
 76.MerinoMartinez, R., Sanders, M. P. J., Caldas, L. C., Avallone, F., Ragni, D., de Santana, L. D., Snellen, M., Simons, D. G.: Comparison between analog and digital microphone phased arrays for aeroacoustic measurements. In: 24th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 25–29 June 2018, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, AIAA paper 20182809 (2018)Google Scholar
 77.PottPollenske, M., Dobrzynski, W., Buchholz, H., Guérin, S., Saueressig, G., Finke, U.: Airframe noise characteristics from flyover measurements and predictions. 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 8–10 2006, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2006, AIAA Paper 20062567 (2006)Google Scholar
 78.Funke, S., Dougherty, R.P., Michel, U.: SODIX in comparison with various deconvolution methods. 5th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 19–20 2014, Berlin, Germany, 2014, BeBeC201411 (2014)Google Scholar
 79.Schröder, R., Jaeckel, O.: Evaluation of beamforming systems. 4th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 22–23 2012, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
 80.Zhu, C., Byrd, R.H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J.: Algorithm 778: LBFGSB: fortran subroutines for largescale boundconstrained optimization. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 23(4), 550–560 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 81.Lauterbach, A., Ehrenfried, K., Koop, L., Loose, S.: Procedure for the accurate phase calibration of a microphone array. 15th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 11–13 2009, Miami, Florida, USA, 2009, AIAA Paper 20093122 (2009)Google Scholar
 82.Ernst, D., Ahlefeldt, T., Haxter, S., Spehr, C.: Microphone localization with self calibrating acoustic GPS. 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 5–9 2017, Denver, CO, USA, 2017, AIAA Paper 20173842 (2017)Google Scholar
 83.Humphreys, W.M., Lockard, D.P., Khorrami, M.R., Culliton, W.G., McSwain, R.G., Ravetta, P.A., Johns, Z.: Development and calibration of a fielddeployable microphone phased array for propulsion and airframe noise flyover measurements. 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 30–June 1 2016, Lyon, France, 2016, AIAA Paper 20162898 (2016)Google Scholar
 84.Malgoezar, A.M.N., Snellen, M., Sijtsma, P., Simons, D.G.: Improving beamforming by optimization of acoustic array microphone positions. 6th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 29–March 1 2016, Berlin, Germany (2016)Google Scholar
 85.Sarradj, E.: A generic approach to synthesize optimal array microphone arrangements. 6th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 29–March 1 2016, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin, 2016, BeBeC2016S4 (2016)Google Scholar
 86.Michel, U., Qiao, W.: Directivity of landinggear noise based on flyover measurements. 5th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 10–12 1999, Bellevue, Greater Seattle, WA, USA, 1998, AIAA Paper 19991956 (1998)Google Scholar
 87.Dedoussi, I., Hynes, T., Siller, H.: Investigating landing gear noise using flyover data: the case of a Boeing 747400. 19th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 27–29, 2013, Berlin, Germany, 2013, AIAA Paper 20132115 (2013)Google Scholar
 88.Reed, D., Herkes, W., Shivashankara, B.: The Boeing quiet technology demonstrator program. 25th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS) (2006)Google Scholar
 89.Brooks, T.F., Marcolini, M.A., Pope, D.S.: A directional array approach for the measurement of rotor noise source distributions with controlled spatial resolution. J. Sound Vib. 112(1), 192–197 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 90.Marcolini, M.A., Brooks, T.F.: Rotor noise measurements using a directional microphone array. 11th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Palo Alto, CA, USA, May 1987, AIAA Paper 19872746 (1987)Google Scholar
 91.Pires, L., Dougherty, R., Gerges, S., Catalano, F.: Predicting turbulent decorrelation in acoustic phased arrays. 18th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, January 9–12 2012, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, 2012, AIAA Paper 20120387 (2012)Google Scholar
 92.Ernst, D., Spehr, C., Berkefeld, T.: Decorrelation of acoustic wave propagation through the shear layer in open jet wind tunnel. 21st AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 22–26 2015, Dallas, TX, USA, 2015, AIAA Paper 20152976 (2015)Google Scholar
 93.Grosche, F., Stiewitt, H., Binder, B.: On aeroacoustic measurements in wind tunnels by means of a highly directional microphone system. 3rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, July 20–23 1976, Palo Alto, California, USA, 1976, AIAA Paper 1976535 (1976)Google Scholar
 94.Brooks, T.F., Humphreys, W.M.: Effect of directional array size on the measurement of airframe noise components. 5th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Bellevue, WA, USA, 1999, AIAA Paper 19991958 (1999)Google Scholar
 95.Lord Rayleigh, F.R.S.: XXXI. Investigations in optics with special reference to the spectroscope. Lond. Edinburgh Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 8(49), 261–274 (1879)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 96.Sparrow, C.: On spectroscopic resolving power. Astrophys. J. 44, 76–87 (1916)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 97.Padois, T., Sgard, F., Doutres, O., Berry, A.: Acoustic source localization using a polyhedral microphone array and an improved generalized crosscorrelation technique. J. Sound Vib. 386, 82–99 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 98.Padois, T., Doutres, O., Sgard, F., Berry, A.: Time domain localization technique with sparsity constraint for imaging acoustic sources. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 94, 85–93 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 99.Quagebeur, N., Padois, T., Gauthier, P.A., Masson, P.: Enhancement of timedomain acoustic imaging based on generalized crosscorrelation and spatial weighting. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 75, 515–524 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 100.Sarradj, E.: Threedimensional acoustic source mapping with different beamforming steering vector formulations. Adv. Acoust. Vib. 2012(292695), 1–12 (2012)Google Scholar
 101.MerinoMartinez, R., Sijtsma, P., Snellen, M.: Inverse integration method for distributed sound sources. 7th Berlin Beamforming Conference, March 5–6 2018, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin, 2018, BeBeC2018S07 (2018)Google Scholar
 102.Arce León, C., MerinoMartinez, R., Ragni, D., Avallone, F., Snellen, M.: Boundary layer characterization and acoustic measurements of flowaligned trailing edge serrations. Exp. Fluids 57(182), 1–22 (2016)Google Scholar
 103.Arce León, C., MerinoMartinez, R., Ragni, D., Avallone, F., Scarano, F., Pröbsting, S., Snellen, M., Simons, D.G., Madsen, J.: Effect of trailing edge serrationflow misalignment on airfoil noise emission. J. Sound Vib. 405, 19–33 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 104.Arce León, C., MerinoMartinez, R., Pröbsting, S., Ragni, D., Avallone, F.: Acoustic emissions of semipermeable trailing edge serrations. Acoust. Austral. 1, 7 (2017)Google Scholar
 105.Arce León, C., MerinoMartinez, R., Ragni, D., Pröbsting, S., Avallone, F., Singh, A., Madsen, J.: Trailing edge serrations—effect of their flap angle on flow and acoustics. 7th International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, May 2–5 2017, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (2017)Google Scholar
 106.Rubio Carpio, A., MerinoMartinez, R., Avallone, F., Ragni, D., Snellen, M., van der Zwaag, S.: Broadband trailing edge noise reduction using permeable metal foams. 46th International Congress and Exposition of Noise Control Engineering, 27–30 August, 2017, Hong Kong (2017)Google Scholar
 107.MerinoMartinez, R., van der Velden, W.C.P., Avallone, F., Ragni, D.: Acoustic measurements of a DU96W180 airfoil with flowmisaligned serrations at a high Reynolds number in a closedsection wind tunnel. 7th International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, May 2–5 2017, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (2017)Google Scholar
 108.Sarradj, E., Herold, G., Sijtsma, P., MerinoMartinez, R., Malgoezar, A. M.N., Snellen, M., Geyer, T.F., Bahr, C.J., Porteous, R., Moreau, D.J., Doolan, C.J.: A microphone array method benchmarking exercise using synthesized input data. 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. June 5–9 2017, Denver, CO, USA, 2017, AIAA Paper 20173719 (2017)Google Scholar
 109.Dougherty, R.P.: Functional beamforming. 5th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 19–20 2014, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
 110.Dougherty, R.P.: Functional beamforming for aeroacoustic source distributions. 20th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 16–20 2014, Atlanta GA, USA, 2014, AIAA Paper 20143066 (2014)Google Scholar
 111.Pisarenko, V.F.: On the estimation of spectra by means of nonlinear functions of the covariance matrix. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 28(5), 511–531 (1972)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 112.Dougherty, R.P.: Cross spectral matrix diagonal optimization. 6th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 29–March 1, 2016, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
 113.Hald, J.: Removal of incoherent noise from an averaged crossspectral matrix. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 142(2), 846–854 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 114.MerinoMartinez, R., Snellen, M., Simons, D.G.: Functional beamforming applied to full scale landing aircraft. 6th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 29–March 1 2016, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin, 2016, BeBeC2016D12 (2016)Google Scholar
 115.MerinoMartinez, R., Bertsch, L., Snellen, M., Simons, D.G.: Analysis of landing gear noise during approach. 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 30–June 1 2016, Lyon, France, 2016, AIAA Paper 20162769 (2016)Google Scholar
 116.Padois, T., Doutres, O., Sgard, F., Berry, A.: On the use of geometric and harmonic means with the generalized crosscorrelation in the time domain to improve noise source maps. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 140, EL56–EL61 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 117.Padois, T., Doutres, O., Sgard, F., Berry, A.: Time domain source localization technique based on generalized cross correlation and generalized mean. Acoustic week in Canada, Vancouver, vol. 44 (2016)Google Scholar
 118.Sarradj, E., Schulze, C., Zeibig, A.: Identification of noise source mechanisms using orthogonal beamforming. Noise Vib Emerg Methods (2005)Google Scholar
 119.Sarradj, E., Schulze, C.: “Practical Application of Orthogonal Beamforming,” Proceedings Euronoise 2006, 30 May – 1 June, 2006, Tampere, Finland, (2006)Google Scholar
 120.Sarradj, E.: A fast signal subspace approach for the determination of absolute levels from phased microphone array measurements. J. Sound Vib. 329(9), 1553–1569 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 121.Pillai, S.U.: Array Signal Processing. Springer, Berlin (1989). (ISBN: 9783540969518) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 122.Högbom, J.A.: Aperture synthesis with a nonregular distribution of interferometer baselines. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 15, 417–426 (1974)Google Scholar
 123.Dougherty, R.P., Podboy, G.: Improved phased array imaging of a model jet. 15th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 11–13 2009, Miami, Florida, USA, 2009, AIAA Paper 20042955 (2009)Google Scholar
 124.Sijtsma, P., Snellen, M.: Highresolution CLEANSC. 6th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 29–March 1 2016, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin, 2016, BeBeC2016S1 (2016)Google Scholar
 125.Sijtsma, P., MerinoMartinez, R., Malgoezar, A.M.N., Snellen, M.: Highresolution CLEANSC: theory and experimental validation. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 16(4–5), 274–298 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 126.Sijtsma, P., MerinoMartinez, R., Malgoezar, A.M.N., Snellen, M.: Highresolution CLEAN–SC: theory and experimental validation. 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 5–9 2017, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2017, AIAA Paper 20173841 (2017)Google Scholar
 127.Ehrenfried, K., Koop, L.: A comparison of iterative deconvolution algorithms for the mapping of acoustic sources. 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 8–10 2006, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2006, AIAA Paper 20062711 (2006)Google Scholar
 128.Lawson, C.L., Hanson, R.J.: Solving Least Squares Problems. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1974). (ISBN: 0898713560) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 129.Herold, G., Geyer, T.F., Sarradj, E.: Comparison of inverse deconvolution algorithms for highresolution aeroacoustic source characterization. 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 5–9 2017, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2017, AIAA Paper 20174177 (2017)Google Scholar
 130.Padois, T., Berry, A.: Orthogonal matching pursuit applied to the deconvolution approach for the mapping of acoustic sources inverse problem. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138(6), 3678–3685 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 131.Brooks, T.F., Humphreys, W.M.: Extension of DAMAS phased array processing for spatial coherence determination (DAMAS–C). 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 810 2006, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2006, AIAA Paper 20062654 (2006)Google Scholar
 132.Brooks, T.F., Humphreys, W.M., Plassman, G.E.: DAMAS processing for a phased array study in the NASA Langley Jet Noise Laboratory. 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 2010, AIAA Paper 20103780 (2010)Google Scholar
 133.Ravetta, P.A., Burdisso, R.A., Ng, W.F.: Noise source localization and optimization of phased array results (LORE). 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 8–10 2006, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2006, AIAA Paper 20062713 (2006)Google Scholar
 134.Ravetta, P.A., Burdisso, R.A., Ng, W.F.: Noise source localization and optimization of phasedarray results. AIAA J. 47(11), 2520–2533 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 135.Dougherty, R.P.: Extensions of DAMAS and benefits and limitations of deconvolution in beamforming. 11th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 23–25 2005, Monterey, California, USA, 2005, AIAA Paper 20052961 (2005)Google Scholar
 136.Padois, T., Gauthier, P.A., Berry, A.: Inverse problem with beamforming regularization matrix applied to sound source localization in closed windtunnel using microphone array. J. Sound Vib. 333, 6858–6868 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 137.Ma, W., Liu, X.: Compression computational grid based on functional beamforming for acoustic source localization. Appl. Acoust. 134, 75–87 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 138.Suzuki, T.: DAMAS2 using a pointspread function weakly varying in space. AIAA J. 48(9), 2165–2169 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 139.Haxter, S.: Extended version: improving the DAMAS 2 results for wavenumberspace beamforming. 6th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 29–March 1 2016, Berlin, Germany (2016)Google Scholar
 140.Bahr, C.J., Cattafesta, L.N.: Wavenumberfrequency deconvolution of aeroacoustic microphone phased array data of arbitrary coherence. J. Sound Vib. 382, 13–42 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 141.Ehrenfried, K., Koop, L.: Experimental study of pressure fluctuations beneath a compressible turbulent boundary layer. 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (29th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), May 57, 2008, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2008, AIAA Paper 20082800 (2008)Google Scholar
 142.Haxter, S., Brouwer, J., Sesterhenn, J., Spehr, C.: Obtaining phase velocity of turbulent boundary layer pressure fluctuations at high subsonic mach number from wind tunnel data affected by strong background noise. J. Sound Vib. 402, 85–103 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 143.Robin, O., Moreau, S., Padois, T., Berry, A., Measurement of the wavenumber–frequency spectrum of wall pressure fluctuations: spiralshaped rotative arrays with pinholemounted quarter inch microphones. 19th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 27–29, Berlin, Germany, AIAA Paper 20132058 (2013)Google Scholar
 144.Haxter, S., Spehr, C.: Infinite beamforming: wavenumber decomposition of surface pressure fluctuations. 5th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 19–20 2014, Berlin, Germany (2014)Google Scholar
 145.Dougherty, R.P., Ramachandran, R.C., Raman, G.: Deconvolution of sources in aeroacoustic images from phased microphone arrays using linear programming. 19th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 27–29 2013, Berlin, Germany, 2013, AIAA Paper 20132210 (2013)Google Scholar
 146.Cox, H., Zeskind, R., Owen, M.: Robust adaptive beamforming. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process 35(10), 1365–1367 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 147.Frost, O.L.: An algorithm for linearly constrained adaptive array processing. Proc. IEEE 60(8), 926–935 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 148.Gramann, R.A., Mocio, J.W.: Aeroacoustic measurements in wind tunnels using adaptive beamforming methods. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97(6), 3694–3701 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 149.Huang, X., Bai, L., Vinogradov, I., Peers, E.: Adaptive beamforming for array signal processing in aeroacoustic measurements. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(3), 2152–2161 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 150.Sijtsma, P.: Experimental techniques for identification and characterisation of noise sources. Tech. Rep. NLRTP2004165, National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR), Anthony Fokkerweg 2, 1059 CM Amsterdam, P.O. Box 90502, 1006 BM Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2004)Google Scholar
 151.Jiang, Y., Stoica, P., Wang, Z., Li, J.: Capon beamforming in the presence of steering vector errors and coherent signals. 15th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 11–13 2009, Miami, Florida, USA (2003)Google Scholar
 152.Blacodon, D., Élias, G.: Level estimation of extended acoustic sources using a parametric method. J. Airc. 41, 1360–1369 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 153.Yardibi, T., Li, J., Stoica, P., Zawodny, N.S., Cattafesta III, L.N.: A covariance fitting approach for correlated acoustic source mapping. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(5), 2920–2931 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 154.Yardibi, T., Zawodny, N.S., Bahr, C.J., Liu, F., Cattafesta III, L.N., Li, J.: Comparison of microphone array processing techniques for aeroacoustic measurements. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 9(6), 733–762 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 155.Herold, G., Sarradj, E., Geyer, T.: Covariance matrix fitting for aeroacoustic application. Fortschritte der Akustik AIADAGA Merano, pp. 325–326 (2013)Google Scholar
 156.Michel, U., Funke, S.: Inverse method for the acoustic source analysis of an aeroengine. In: Proceedings on CD of the 2nd Berlin Beamforming Conference, 19–20 February, 2008, GFaI, e.V., Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
 157.Siller, H., Bassetti, A., Davies, S., Funke, S.: Investigation of the noise emission of the V2500 engine of an A320 aircraft during ground tests with a line array and SODIX. 5th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 19–20 2014, Berlin, Germany, 2014, BeBeC201418 (2014)Google Scholar
 158.Siller, H., Bassetti, A., Funke, S.: Investigation of turbo machinery and jet noise of the V2500 engine during ground tests with an A320 aircraft. 11th European Turbomachinery Conference, 23–27 Mar 2015, Madrid, Spain, 2015, ETC2015216 (2015)Google Scholar
 159.Siller, H., Bassetti, A., Funke, S.: SAMURAI—jet noise source analysis of a V2500 engine. AIAA SciTech 2016, 4–8 January 2016, San Diego, California, USA, 2016, AIAA PaperGoogle Scholar
 160.Funke, S., Kim, L., Siller, H.: Microphonearray measurements of a model scale contrarotating open rotor in a reverberant open windtunnel. 17th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (32nd AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), 5–8 June 2011, Portland, Oregon, USA, 2011, AIAA Paper 20112766 (2011)Google Scholar
 161.Funke, S., Kim, L., Siller, H.: Acoustic measurements of a contrarotating open rotor in an open jet windtunnel. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 11(2), 197–212 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 162.Siller, H., König, J., Funke, S., Oertwig, S., Hritsevskyy, L.: Acoustic source localization on a model engine jet with different nozzle configurations and wing installation. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 16(4–5), 403–417 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 163.Candes, E.J., Wakin, M.B.: An introduction to compressive sampling. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 25(2), 21–30 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 164.Romberg, J.: Imaging via compressive sampling. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 25(2), 14–20 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 165.Huang, X.: Compressive sensing and reconstruction in measurements with an aerospace application. AIAA J. 51(4), 1011–1016 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 166.Zhong, S.Y., Wei, Q.K., Huang, X.: Compressive sensing beamforming based on covariance for acoustic imaging with noisy measurements. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134(5), EL445–EL451 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 167.Yu, W.J., Huang, X.: Compressive sensing based spinning mode detections by induct microphone arrays. Meas. Sci. Technol. 27(2), 1–11 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 168.Behn, M., Kisler, R., Tapken, U.: Efficient Azimuthal mode analysis using compressed sensing. 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 30–June 1 2016, Lyon, France, 2016, AIAA Paper 20163038 (2016)Google Scholar
 169.Yu, W.J., Huang, X.: Reconstruction of aircraft engine noise source using beamforming and compressive sensing. IEEE Access 6, 11716–11726 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 170.Fleury, V., Bulté, J., Davy, R.: Determination of acoustic directivity from microphone array measurements using correlated monopoles. 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, October 5–7 2008, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2008, AIAA Paper 20082855 (2008)Google Scholar
 171.Zavala, P.A.G., De Roeck, W., Jassens, K., Arruda, J.R.F., Sas, A., Desmet, W.: An algorithm for linearly constrained adaptive array processing. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 25(3), 928–939 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 172.Dougherty, R.P.: Improved generalized inverse beamforming for jet noise. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 11, 259–290 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 173.Suzuki, T., Day, B.: Comparative study on modeidentification algorithms using a phasedarray system in a rectangular duct. J. Sound Vib. 347, 27–45 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 174.Jekosch, S., Sarradj, E., Herold, G., Geyer, T.F.: Comparison of different solvers for general inverse beamforming algorithms for high resolution aeroacoustic source characterization. 7th Berlin Beamforming Conference, March 5 6 2018, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin, 2018, BeBeC2018D08 (2018)Google Scholar
 175.Malgoezar, A.M.N., Snellen, M., MerinoMartinez, R., Simons, D.G., Sijtsma, P.: On the use of global optimization methods for acoustic source mapping. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141(1), 453–465 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 176.Simons, D.G., Snellen, M.: Multifrequency matched field inversion of benchmark data using a genetic algorithm. J. Comput. Acoust. 6(1&2), 135–150 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 177.Lindsay, C.E., Chapman, N.R.: Matchedfield inversion for geoacoustic model parameters using simulated annealing. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 18, 224–231 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 178.Dorigo, M., Di Caro, G., Gambardella, L.M.: Ant algorithms for discrete optimization. Artif. Life 5(2), 137–172 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 179.Snellen, M., Simons, D.G.: An assessment of the performance of global optimisation methods for geoacoustic inversion. J. Comput. Acoust. 16(2), 199–223 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 180.MerinoMartinez, R., Neri, E., Snellen, M., Kennedy, J., Simons, D., Bennett, G.: Comparing flyover noise measurements to fullscale nose landing gear windtunnel experiments for regional aircraft. 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 5–9 2017, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2017, AIAA Paper 20173006 (2017)Google Scholar
 181.MerinoMartinez, R., Neri, E., Snellen, M., Kennedy, J., Simons, D.G., Bennett, G.J.: Analysis of nose landing gear noise comparing numerical computations, prediction models and flyover and windtunnel measurements. In: 24th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 25–29 June 2018, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, AIAA paper 20183299 (2018)Google Scholar
 182.Geyer, T., Sarradj, E., Fritzsche, C.: Measurement of the noise generation at the trailing edge of porous airfoils. Exp. Fluids 48(2), 291–308 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 183.Geyer, T., Sarradj, E., Fritzsche, C.: Porous airfoils: noise reduction and boundary layer effects. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 9(6), 787–820 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 184.Herold, G., Sarradj, E.: Performance analysis of microphone array methods. J. Sound Vib. 401, 152–168 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 185.Bahr, C.J., Humphreys, W. M., Ernst, D., Ahlefeldt, T., Spehr, C., Pereira, A., Leclère, Q., Picard, C., Porteus, R., Moreau, D.J., Fischer, J., Doolan, C.J.: A comparison of microphone phased array methods applied to the study of airframe noise in wind tunnel testing. 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 5–9 2017, Denver, CO, USA, 2017, AIAA Paper 20173718 (2017)Google Scholar
 186.Herold, G., Sarradj, E.: An approach to estimate the reliability of microphone array methods. 21st AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 22–26 2015, Dallas, TX, USA, 2015, AIAA Paper 20152977 (2015)Google Scholar
 187.Takaishi, T., Ura, H., Nagai, K., Yokokawa, Y., Muruyama, M., Ito, Y., Sakai, R., Shoji, H., Yamamoto, K.: Airframe noise measurements on JAXA Jet Flying Test Bed “Hisho” using a phased microphone array. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 16(4–5), 255–273 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 188.Bahr, C.J., Brooks, T.F., Brusniak, L., Dougherty, R.P., Humphreys, W.M., Schröder, R., Underbrink, J.R.: Array analysis methods benchmarking–initial planning meeting. 20th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 16–20 2014, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014, Array Analysis Methods Meeting (2014)Google Scholar
 189.Bahr, C.J.: Phased array methods panel session: introduction, moving forward, and discussion. 21st AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, June 22–26 2015, Dallas, TX, USA, 2015, Array Analysis Methods Meeting (2015)Google Scholar
 190.Bahr, C.J.: Phased array methods panel session: introduction, year 2 progress, and discussion. 6th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 29–March 1 2016, Berlin, Germany (2016)Google Scholar
 191.Bahr, C.J.: Phased array methods panel session: introduction, year 2 summary, and discussion. 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, May 30–June 1 2016, Lyon, France, 2016, Array Methods Panel Session (2016)Google Scholar
 192.Ahlefeldt, T.: Aeroacoustic measurements of a scaled halfmodel at high Reynolds numbers. AIAA J. 51(12), 2783–2791 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 193.Choudhari, M.M., Lockard, D.P., Macaraeg, M.G., Singer, B.A., Streett, C.L., Neubert, G.R., Stoker, R.W., Underbrink, J.R., Berkman, M.E., Khorrami, M.R., Sadowski, S.S.: Aeroacoustic experiments in the langley lowturbulence pressure tunnel. Tech. Rep. NASA TM2002211432 (2002)Google Scholar
 194.Rubio Carpio, A., MerinoMartínez, R., Avallone, F., Ragni, D., Snellen, M., van der Zwaag, S.: Experimental characterization of the turbulent boundary layer over a porous trailing edge for noise abatement. J. Sound Vib. 443, 537–558 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 195.Humphreys, W.M., Brooks, T.F.: Design and use of microphone directional arrays for aeroacoustic measurements. 36th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 1998, AIAA Paper 19980471 (1998)Google Scholar
 196.Hutcheson, F., Brooks, T.F.: Measurement of trailing edge noise using directional array and coherent output power methods. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 1(4), 329–353 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 197.Brooks, T.F., Humphreys, W.M.: Flap edge aeroacoustic measurements and predictions. 6th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Lahaina, HI, USA, 2000, AIAA Paper 20001975 (2000)Google Scholar
 198.Mendoza, J.M., Brooks, T.F., Humphreys, W.M.: An aerodynamic study of a leading edge slat configuration. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 1(3), 241–274 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 199.Humphreys, W.M., Brooks, T.F.: Noise spectra and directivity for a scalemodel landing gear. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 8(5), 409–443 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 200.Piet, J., Michel, U., Böhning, P.: Localization of the acoustic sources of the A340 with a large phased microphone array during flight tests. 8rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Breckenridge, Colorado, USA, 2002, AIAA Paper 20022506 (2002)Google Scholar
 201.Guérin, S., Siller, H.: A hybrid timefrequency approach for the noise localization analysis of aircraft flyovers. 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (29th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), May 5–7, 2008, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2008, AIAA paper 20082955 (2008)Google Scholar
 202.MerinoMartínez, R., Heblij, S.J., Bergmans, D.H.T., Snellen, M., Simons, D.G.: Improving aircraft noise predictions considering fan rotational speed. J. Aircr. 56(1), 284–294 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 203.Siller, H.: Localisation of sound sources on aircraft in flight. 4th Berlin Beamforming Conference, February 22–23 2012, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
 204.Siller, H., Hage, W., Schumacher, T.: Source localisation on aircraft in flight—new measurements with the DLR research aircraft airbus 320 ATRA. 7th Berlin Beamforming Conference, March 5–6 2018, Berlin, Germany, GFaI, e.V., Berlin, 2018, BeBeC2018D01 (2018)Google Scholar
 205.Khorrami, M.R., Lockard, D.P., Humphreys, W.M., Choudhari, M.M., Van de Ven, T.: Preliminary analysis of acoustic measurements from the NASA—Gulfstream airframe noise flight test. 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Vancouver, Canada, 2008, AIAA Paper 20082814 (2008)Google Scholar
 206.Lockard, D.P., Humphreys, W.M., Khorrami, M.R., Fares, E., Casalino, D., Ravetta, P.A.: Comparison of computational and experimental microphone array results for an 18\(\%\)scale aircraft model. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 16(4–5), 358–381 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 207.Choudhari, M.M., Bahr, C.J., Khorrami, M.R., Lockard, D.P., Lopes, L.V., Zawodny, N.S., Herr, M., PottPollenske, M., Kamruzzaman, M., Van de Ven, T., Manoha, E., Redonnet, S., Yamamoto, K., Ikeda, T., Imamura, T.: Simulations and measurements of airframe noise: a BANC workshops perspective. Tech. Rep. progress and challenges in validation testing for computational fluid dynamics, AVT246, NATO Applied Vehicle Technology Specialists Meeting, Avila, Spain (2016)Google Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.