SAE Technical Paper Series 2020
DOI: 10.4271/2020-01-1514
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical Investigation of Tonal Noise at Automotive Side Mirrors due to Aeroacoustic Feedback

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the far-field noise predictions, methods such as Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings (FW-H), Acoustic Perturbation Equations (APE), Lighthill's analogies and Direct Noise Computation (DNC) are commonly used for predicting and mitigating the induced noise from side-view mirrors. [29][30][31][32][33] Lokhande et al 34 used the LES approach with the FW-H analogy and DNC method for evaluating acoustic and compared the numerical prediction against the experimental by Siegert et al 13 The hydrodynamic pressure fluctuations were resolved accurately up to 700 Hz with a maximum deviation of 5-10 dB, and also SPL reported was in reasonable agreement with experiments at high frequencies against the experimental results of Siegert et al 13 Rung et al 14 observed a similar deviation in the SPL level predicted by DES with the FW-H analogy. The authors point out that the deviations in the studies mentioned above were attributed to the low-resolution of the grid in the wake and larger time steps used.…”
Section: A the Generic Side View Mirrormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the far-field noise predictions, methods such as Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings (FW-H), Acoustic Perturbation Equations (APE), Lighthill's analogies and Direct Noise Computation (DNC) are commonly used for predicting and mitigating the induced noise from side-view mirrors. [29][30][31][32][33] Lokhande et al 34 used the LES approach with the FW-H analogy and DNC method for evaluating acoustic and compared the numerical prediction against the experimental by Siegert et al 13 The hydrodynamic pressure fluctuations were resolved accurately up to 700 Hz with a maximum deviation of 5-10 dB, and also SPL reported was in reasonable agreement with experiments at high frequencies against the experimental results of Siegert et al 13 Rung et al 14 observed a similar deviation in the SPL level predicted by DES with the FW-H analogy. The authors point out that the deviations in the studies mentioned above were attributed to the low-resolution of the grid in the wake and larger time steps used.…”
Section: A the Generic Side View Mirrormentioning
confidence: 99%