Aeroacoustic Simulations of a Simplified High-Lift Device Accounting for Some Installation Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aeroacoustic noise of a simplified wing-flap configuration placed in an open-jet anechoic wind tunnel is investigated by compressible wall-resolved large-eddy simulations possibly coupled with the Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings acoustic analogy. The numerical domain includes the nozzle and the anechoic chamber, which allows the direct taking of the installation effects into account. The simulated span (25% of the flap chord) is the largest one simulated so far for this configuration and, more generally, at this high Reynolds number. The results of the simulation are validated with the extensive experimental database for the chosen configuration. A good overall agreement with experimental data is achieved for all mean and fluctuating velocities, as well as wall pressures on the wing and the flap, especially the power spectral densities, the convection velocities, and even the streamwise and spanwise coherences on both elements. Similar good predictions of the far-field acoustic pressure using a hybrid approach are achieved, although the acoustic analogy does not allow taking into account the jet noise given that the Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings surfaces are placed within the jet core. The acoustic results obtained with the acoustic analogy are also compared with the numerical microphones placed in the far field, showing a good agreement up to the mesh cut-ff frequency. The dilatation field and the sound directivity stress that the flap and wing trailing edges are the dominant noise sources of the wing-flap configuration, with significant diffraction effects on the flap side. Evidence of slight boundary-layer instabilities is also shown close to the flap trailing edge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".