In this study the aeroacoustics performance of owl airfoil compared to hawk and National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 0012 airfoils by two chord numbers of C = 150 mm and C = 250 mm, were investigated experimentally by the help of CPV (Coherent Particle Velocity) method. The effects of different parameters such as free-stream velocity, Reynolds number, angle of attack and hotwire position on the six different airfoils were examined in wind tunnel experiments. The CPV method results show that for frequencies below 2 kHz under attached flow conditions, the owl airfoil exhibited the lowest Sound Pressure Levels (SPL), aligning with self-noise cancelation hypothesis. At Re = 74 × 103, the SPL reached a minimum, likely due to the elimination of laminar separation bubbles during boundary layer transition. Also, for the hawk airfoil, a distinct behavior was observed below 50 Hz, where SPL increased linearly to a peak at 50 Hz, likely due to vortex shedding, with minimal Reynolds number influence. In addition, SPL variations above 1 kHz were less sensitive to Reynolds number changes, aligning with noise from shear layer instabilities. The owl airfoil exhibited the same behavior, including the elimination of Laminar Separation Bubbles (LSB) at identical Reynolds numbers for both chord lengths. In contrast, the hawk and NACA0012 airfoils showed significant variations in vortex shedding and shear layer instabilities at the same Re.
BrooksT. F.PopeD. S.MarcoliniM. A. (1989). Airfoil self-noise andprediction (No. L-16528).
2.
BrooksTFSchlinkerRH. Progress in rotor broadband noise research. Vertica1983; 7(4): 287–307.
3.
RussellDATitlowJPBemmenY-J. Acoustic monopoles, dipoles, and quadrupoles: an experiment revisited. Am J Phys1999; 67(8): 660–664.
4.
AmietRK. Noise due to turbulent flow past a trailing edge. J Sound Vib1976; 47(3): 387–393.
5.
BlakeWK. Mechanics of flow-induced sound and vibration V1: general concepts and elementary sources. Elsevier, 2012.
6.
BlakeWK. Mechanics of flow-induced sound and vibration, volume 2: complex flow-structure interactions. Academic Press, 2017.
7.
DoolanCMoreauD. Airfoil noise mechanisms and control. In: Flow Noise: Theory. Springer, 2022, pp. 139–171.
8.
BrooksTFMarcoliniMA. Scaling of airfoil self-noise using measured flow parameters. AIAA J1985; 23(2): 207–213.
9.
OlsenWWagnerJ. Effect of thickness on airfoil surface noise. AIAA J1982; 20(3): 437–439.
10.
LeeS. The effect of airfoil shape on trailing edge noise. J Theor Comput Acoust2019; 27(02): 1850020.
11.
GillJZhangXJosephP. Symmetric airfoil geometry effects on leading edge noise. J Acoust Soc Am2013; 134(4): 2669–2680.
12.
PröbstingSScaranoFMorrisS. Regimes of tonal noise on an airfoil at moderate reynolds number. J Fluid Mech2015; 780: 407–438.
13.
LockardDPMorrisPJ. Radiated noise from airfoils in realistic mean flows. AIAA J1998; 36(6): 907–914.
14.
MaoYQiDGuY. Prediction of airfoil noise induced by low-mach-number flow. Proc Inst Mech Eng G J Aerosp Eng2012; 226(5): 561–573.
15.
JiangMLiXLinD. Numerical simulation on the airfoil self-noise at low mach number flows. In: 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Nashville, Tennessee, 09 January 2012 - 12 January 2012, p. 834.
16.
LacagninaGChaitanyaPBerkT, et al.Mechanisms of airfoil noise near stall conditions. Phys Rev Fluids2019; 4(12): 123902.
17.
PröbstingSYarusevychS. Laminar separation bubble development on an airfoil emitting tonal noise. J Fluid Mech2015; 780: 167–191.
18.
NelsonPASound so and urces. Handbook of noise and vibration control. John Wiley & Sons, 2007, pp. 43–52.
19.
HershASSodermanPTHaydenRE. Investigation of acoustic effects of leading-edge serrations on airfoils. J Aircraft1974; 11(4): 197–202.
20.
AvalloneFPröbstingSRagniD. Three-dimensional flow field over a trailing-edge serration and implications on broadband noise. Phys Fluids2016; 28(11): 117101.
21.
LyuBAytonLJChaitanyaP. On the acoustic optimality of leading-edge serration profiles. J Sound Vib2019; 462: 114923.
22.
MoreauDDoolanC. The generation of tonal noise from sawtooth trailing-edge serrations at low reynolds numbers. Aeronaut J2016; 120(1228): 971–983.
23.
NarayananSChaitanyaPHaeriS, et al.Airfoil noise reductions through leading edge serrations. Phys Fluids2015; 27(2): 025109.
GeyerTSarradjEFritzscheC. Measurement of the noise generation at the trailing edge of porous airfoils. Exp Fluid2010; 48: 291–308.
26.
Rubio CarpioAMerino MartínezRAvalloneF, et al.Experimental characterization of the turbulent boundary layer over a porous trailing edge for noise abatement. J Sound Vib2019; 443: 537–558.
27.
TerunaCManegarFAvalloneF, et al.Noise reduction mechanisms of an open-cell metal-foam trailing edge. J Fluid Mech2020; 898: A18.
28.
FinezAJacobMJondeauE, et al.Broadband noise reduction with trailing edge brushes. In: 16th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 7-9 June 2010, p. 3980.
29.
HerrM. Design criteria for low-noise trailing-edges. In: 13th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference (28th AIAA aeroacoustics conference), Southampton, UK, 14-17 June 2022, p. 3470.
ClarkIA. Bio-inspired control of roughness and trailing edge noise. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2017.
32.
WangYZhaoKLuX-Y, et al.Bio-inspired aerodynamic noise control: a bibliographic review. Appl Sci2019; 9(11): 2224.
33.
ClarkIAAlexanderWNDevenportW, et al.Bioinspired trailing-edge noise control. AIAA J2017; 55(3): 740–754.
34.
BodlingASharmaA. Noise reduction mechanisms due to bio-inspired airfoil designs. In: 17th International Symposium on Transport Phenomena and Dynamics of Rotating Machinery (ISROMAC2017), Maui, Hawaii, 16th - 21st December 2017.
35.
InasawaANinomiyaCAsaiM. Suppression of tonal trailing-edge noise from an airfoil using a plasma actuator. AIAA J2013; 51(7): 1695–1702.
36.
YangCArcondoulisEJGYangY, et al.Active control of airfoil turbulent boundary layer noise with trailing-edge blowing. J Acoust Soc Am2023; 153(4): 2115.
ClarkCJLePianeKLiuL. “Evolution and ecology of silent flight in owls and other flying vertebrates”. Integrative Organismal Biology2020; 2(1): obaa001.
39.
JaworskiJWPeakeN. “Aeroacoustics of silent owl flight”. Annu Rev Fluid Mech2020; 52(1): 395–420.
40.
WürzWGuidatiSHerrigA, et al.“Measurement of trailing edge noise by a coherent particle velocimetry method”. In: 12th International conference on methods of aerophysical research ICMAR. Novosibirsk, Russia, June 28 to July 4, 2004.
41.
HerrigAWürzWKrämerE, et al.“New CPV-results of NACA 0012 trailing-edge noise”. In: Int. Conference on Methods of Aerophysical Research ICMAR, Novosibirsk, Russia, August 8–14, 2022, vol 30.
42.
HerrigAWürzWKramerE, et al.“Trailing-edge noise measurements on NACA 0012 airfoils using the coherent particle velocity method”. 한국소음진동공학회 국제학술발표논문집2008; 93: 454–461.
43.
HerrigAWürzWLutzT, et al.“Trailing-edge noise measurements of wind turbine airfoils in open and closed test section wind tunnels”. In: Proceedings of the First International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives for Control. NAC, 2005.
44.
HerrigAWürzWLutzT, et al.“Trailing-edge noise measurements using a hot-wire based coherent particle velocity method”. In: 24th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, San Francisco, California, 05 June 2006 - 08 June 2006, p. 3876.
45.
KreithF. Fluid mechanics. CRC Press, 1999.
46.
LiuTKuykendollKRhewR, et al.Avian wings. In: 24th AIAA aerodynamic measurement technology and ground testing conference, Portland, Oregon, 28 June 2004 - 01 July 2004, p. 2186.
47.
KlänSBurgmannSBachmannT, et al.“Surface structure and dimensional effects on the aerodynamics of an owl-based wing model”. Eur J Mech B Fluid2012; 33: 58–73.
PlogmannBWürzW. Aeroacoustic measurements on a NACA 0012 applying the Coherent particle velocity method. Exp Fluid2013; 54: 1–14.
50.
HerrigA. Validation and application of a hot-wire based method for trailing-edge noise measurements on airfoils. Verlag Dr. Hut. 2012.
51.
ThomareisNPapadakisG. “Effect of trailing edge shape on the separated flow characteristics around an airfoil at low Reynolds number: a numerical study”. Phys Fluids2017; 29(1): 014101.
52.
YarusevychSKawallJSullivanPE, “Airfoil performance at low Reynolds numbers in the presence of periodic disturbances”. J. Fluids Eng2006; 128(3): 587–595.
53.
YarusevychSSullivanPEKawallJG. “On vortex shedding from an airfoil in low-Reynolds-number flows”. J Fluid Mech2009; 632: 245–271.
54.
RudminDBenaissaAPoirelD. “Detection of laminar flow separation and transition on a NACA-0012 airfoil using surface hot-films”. J Fluid Eng2013; 135(10): 101104.
55.
SmithS. “Flap side-edge vortex bursting and airframe noise”. In: 6th Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Lahaina, HI, USA, June 12–14, 2000, p. 1999.
56.
GostelowJ. P.BlundenA. R.WalkerG. J.. “Effects of free-stream turbulence and adverse pressure gradients on boundary layer transition.” Journal of turbomachinery116.3 (1994): 392-404.
57.
CorcosG. M.HansW. L.On the contribution of turbulent boundary layers to the noise inside a fuselage. No. NACA-TM-1420. 1956.
KazemiMManiM. “Owl airfoil aerodynamic noise sources and performance compared to hawk and NACA0012 airfoils for low Reynolds applications”. Sci Rep2025; 15(1): 23261.
61.
KazemiMManiMRezaeiH, et al. “Flow Physics of Bio-inspired Airfoils Using Experimental and DES Methods at Reynolds Numbers Below 44 × 103”. Arab J Sci Eng. 2025. doi:10.1007/s13369-025-10739-0.
