A subspace-based form of background subtraction is presented and applied to aeroacoustic wind tunnel data. A variant of this method has seen use in other fields such as climatology and medical imaging. The technique is based on an eigenvalue decomposition of the background noise cross-spectral matrix. Simulated results indicate similar performance to conventional background subtraction when the subtracted spectra are weaker than the true contaminating background levels. Superior performance is observed when the subtracted spectra are stronger than the true contaminating background levels, and when background data do not match between measurements. Experimental results show limited success in recovering signal behavior for data in which conventional background subtraction fails. The results also demonstrate the subspace subtraction technique’s ability to maintain a physical coherence relationship in the modified cross-spectral matrix. Deconvolution results from microphone phased array data indicate that array integration methods are largely insensitive to subtraction type, and that background subtraction with appropriate background data is an effective alternative to diagonal removal.
DoughertyRPBeamforming in acoustic testing. In: MuellerTJ (ed). Aeroacoustic measurements, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002. chap. 2, pp. 62–97.
2.
Bahr CJ, Brooks TF, Humphreys WM, et al. Acoustic data processing and transient signal analysis for the hybrid wing body 14- by 22-Foot Subsonic Wind Tunnel test. In: 20th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 16–20 June 2014, AIAA paper 2014-2345.
3.
Humphreys WM, Brooks TF, Hunter WW, et al. Design and use of microphone directional arrays for aeroacoustic measurements. In: 36th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting & exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 12–15 January 1998, AIAA paper 98-0471.
4.
Horne WC. Initial assessment of acoustic source visibility with a 24-element microphone array in the Arnold Engineering Development Center 80- by 120-Foot Wind Tunnel at NASA Ames Research Center. In: 17th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Portland, Oregon, 5–8 June 2011, AIAA paper 2011-2723.
5.
Bahr CJ, Yardibi T, Liu F, et al. An analysis of different measurement techniques for airfoil trailing edge noise. In: 14th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, 5–7 May 2008, AIAA paper 2008-2957.
6.
Spalt TB, Fuller CR, Brooks TF, et al. A background noise reduction technique using adaptive noise cancellation for microphone arrays. In: 17th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Portland, Oregon, 5–8 June 2011, AIAA paper 2011-2715.
7.
BlacodonD. Array processing for noisy data: application for open and closed wind tunnels. AIAA J2011; 49: 55–66.
Oerlemans S and Sijtsma P. Determination of absolute levels from phased array measurements using spatial source coherence. NLR-TP-2002-226, 2002.
10.
SarradjE. A fast signal subspace approach for the determination of absolute levels from phased microphone array measurements. J Sound Vib2010; 329: 1553–1569.
Bulté J. Acoustic array measurements in aerodynamic wind tunnels: a subspace approach for noise suppression. In: 13th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Rome, Italy, 21–23 May 2007, AIAA paper 2007-3446.
13.
AllenMRSmithLA. Optimal filtering in singular spectrum analysis. Phys Lett A1997; 234: 419–428.
14.
SekiharaKHildKEDalalSS. Performance of prewhitening beamforming in MEG dual experimental conditions. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2008; 55: 1112–1121.
15.
MolerCEigenvalues and singular values. In: MolerC (ed). Numerical computing with MATLAB, The MathWorks, 2013. chap. 10, pp. 1–39.
16.
HighamNJ. Computing a nearest symmetric positive semidefinite matrix. Linear Algebra Appl1998; 103: 103–118.
Heath SL, Brooks TF, Hutcheson FV, et al. NASA hybrid wing body aircraft aeroacoustic test documentation report. NASA TM-2016-219185, April 2016.
19.
Humphreys WM, Brooks TF, Bahr CJ, et al. Development of a microphone phased array capability for the Langley 14- by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel. In: 20th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 16–20 June 2014, AIAA paper 2014-2343.
20.
Horne WC and Burnside NJ. AMELIA CESTOL test: acoustic characteristics of circulation control wing and leading- and trailing-edge slot blowing. In: 51st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas, 7–10 January 2013, AIAA paper 2013-0978.
21.
Horne WC and Burnside NJ. Development of new wall-mounted and strut-mounted phased microphone arrays for acoustic measurements in closed test-section wind tunnels. In: 21st AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas, 22–26 June 2015, AIAA paper 2015-2975.
22.
Hutcheson FV, Spalt TB, Brooks TF, et al. Airframe noise from a hybrid wing body aircraft configuration. In: 22nd AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Lyon, France, 30 May–1 June 2016, AIAA paper 2016-2708.
23.
Dougherty RP. Extensions of DAMAS and benefits and limitations of deconvolution in beamforming. In: 11th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Monterey, California, 23–25 May 2005, AIAA paper 2005-2961.
24.
Dougherty RP. Turbulent decorrelation of aeroacoustic phased arrays: lessons from atmospheric science and astronomy. In: 9th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 12–14 May 2003, AIAA paper 2003-3200.
25.
BrooksTFHumphreysWM. A deconvolution approach for the mapping of acoustic sources (DAMAS) determined from phased microphone arrays. J Sound Vib2006; 294: 856–879.
26.
Bahr CJ and Horne WC. Advanced background subtraction applied to aeroacoustic wind tunnel testing. In: 21st AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas, 22–26 June 2015, AIAA paper 2015-3272.
27.
YardibiTLiJStoicaP. A covariance-fitting approach for correlated acoustic source mapping. J Acoust Soc Am2010; 127: 2920–2931.
