Development and Testing of an Aeroacoustic Wind Tunnel Test Section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new aeroacoustic wind tunnel test section is developed and tested at Carleton University. The aeroacoustic test section is fitted with two anechoic chambers on the two side walls. Side walls of the test section are lined with acoustic transparency tensioned cloth screens, which act as an interface between the test section and the anechoic chambers to provide a smooth flow surface while eliminating the need for a jet catcher and reducing interference effects. The test section is tested in the medium speed closed-loop wind tunnel at Carleton University. The design layout of the wind tunnel and design treatments to improve acoustic performance are discussed. Experiments are conducted to verify the acoustic performance of the developed aeroacoustic wind tunnel test section. It is found that background noise is comparable with other existing aeroacoustic wind tunnel facilities. The trailing edge noise of a NACA0012 airfoil model is also measured as a benchmark test. Results reveal that noise radiated from the airfoil trailing edge model are adequately higher than the background noise for a wide frequency range, and also that a sawtooth serrated trailing edge is effective for reducing noise compared to a straight 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".