pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.19370 · v4 · submitted 2025-11-24 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Realistic sheared flow profile effects on acoustic impedance eduction in small 3D-ducts

Lucas A. Bonomo , Julio A. Cordioli , Edward J. Brambley , Angelo Paduano , Francesco Avallone This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 04:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn
keywords acoustic impedance eductionsheared grazing flowlined ductsPridmore-Brown equationrealistic flow profilesuniform flow approximation3D duct acoustics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Realistic sheared flow profiles in small ducts can be approximated by uniform or 1D profiles using the bulk Mach number for acoustic impedance eduction.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates the effects of realistic sheared grazing flows on acoustic wave propagation inside three-dimensional rectangular ducts typical of experimental setups. It demonstrates that unlike studies relying on simplistic flow profiles, realistic profiles allow acoustic behavior to be closely matched by simpler uniform or one-dimensional flow models as long as the overall average speed is used. This finding matters for impedance eduction experiments because it indicates that standard analysis techniques do not require complex flow details to produce reliable results. The study compares three different realistic profiles against uniform and 1D simplifications through numerical simulations. If viscous effects remain small and the impedance model holds, the simplifications introduce little error in predictions of sound absorption by the duct walls.

Core claim

Conclusions in the literature about sheared grazing flow effects on acoustic propagation depend on the specific flow profiles employed in the studies. When realistic flow profiles such as the law of the wall or those from RANS simulations are used in small ducts, they can be well approximated for acoustic wave propagation by uniform or 1D flow profiles provided the bulk Mach number is correctly accounted for. If viscous effects are negligible and acoustic impedance is a good representation of a lined wall with grazing flow, then the simplification to a uniform flow is a reasonable approximation and traditional eduction methods are sufficiently accurate.

What carries the argument

Numerical solution of the 3D Pridmore-Brown equation using realistic flow profiles including the tensorised hyperbolic tangent, the law of the wall, and RANS simulation results, applied to in silico impedance eduction experiments in small 3D ducts.

If this is right

  • Traditional eduction methods based on uniform flow assumptions are sufficiently accurate for realistic sheared flows in small ducts when the bulk Mach number is matched.
  • 1D flow profiles provide a good approximation for acoustic propagation even in three-dimensional ducts with spanwise variations.
  • Previous findings on shear effects that used overly simplistic flow profiles may have overstated the differences from uniform flow cases.
  • Acoustic impedance eduction remains reliable without needing full three-dimensional flow profile details under the stated conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This suggests that experimental setups for impedance eduction can rely on simpler flow models without significant loss of accuracy for small ducts.
  • The result may help explain discrepancies between different studies by highlighting the role of flow profile choice.
  • Extensions could include testing the approximation in ducts with higher Mach numbers or different lining materials to confirm robustness.

Load-bearing premise

Viscous effects are negligible and acoustic impedance remains a good representation of a lined wall with grazing flow.

What would settle it

A direct comparison in an experiment or high-fidelity simulation showing that the educed impedance or propagation constants differ substantially between a realistic sheared profile and a uniform profile at the same bulk Mach number.

read the original abstract

We investigate the influence of realistic sheared grazing flow on acoustic propagation in three-dimensional rectangular ducts. We show that conclusions reached in the literature about the effects of sheared grazing flow on acoustic propagation in lined ducts are dependent on the flow profiles used in those studies, and that significantly different conclusions are reached once a realistic flow profile is used. We particularly focus on small ducts typical of most experimental impedance eduction facilities, for which velocity gradients are relevant in a significant fraction of the duct cross-section. We assess the effect of simplifying the velocity distribution in the cross-section to either a one-dimensional (2D spanwise-infinite duct) or uniform flow profile. Three flow profiles are considered, namely (i) the tensorised hyperbolic tangent, (ii) the law of the wall, and (iii) one obtained from a RANS simulation. These flow profiles are used as input in numerical simulations, based on the solution of the 3D Pridmore-Brown equation, to perform in silico impedance eduction experiments. Results show that realistic flow profiles can be well approximated for acoustic wave propagation in ducts by uniform or 1D flow profiles, provided the bulk Mach number is correctly accounted for, which contrasts with previous findings based on more simplistic flow profiles. The key conclusion of this work is that, if viscous effects are negligible and acoustic impedance is a good representation of a lined wall with grazing flow, then the simplification to a uniform flow is a reasonable approximation and traditional eduction methods are sufficiently accurate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the influence of realistic sheared grazing flow profiles on acoustic propagation and impedance eduction in small 3D rectangular ducts typical of experimental facilities. Numerical solutions of the 3D Pridmore-Brown equation are performed using three distinct flow profiles (tensorised hyperbolic tangent, law of the wall, and RANS-derived) as inputs for in silico eduction experiments. The central result is that, when the bulk Mach number is correctly matched, uniform or 1D (spanwise-infinite) flow approximations reproduce wave propagation and eduction outcomes to good accuracy, in contrast to prior findings obtained with more idealized profiles. The conclusion is explicitly conditional on negligible viscous effects and the validity of the acoustic impedance representation for lined walls under grazing flow.

Significance. If the results hold, the work clarifies an important practical question in aeroacoustics by showing that flow-profile simplifications remain reasonable for small-duct impedance eduction when bulk Mach number is preserved. The direct comparison across three independently generated realistic profiles, obtained via 3D Pridmore-Brown simulations, supplies concrete evidence that earlier discrepancies in the literature likely stem from the choice of overly simplistic profiles. This supports continued use of established uniform-flow eduction methods in experimental settings while highlighting the conditional scope of the claim.

major comments (1)
  1. The key conclusion (abstract and final section) is conditional on the premises that 'viscous effects are negligible' and that 'acoustic impedance is a good representation of a lined wall with grazing flow'. These assumptions are load-bearing for the claim that uniform-flow simplifications are sufficiently accurate, yet the manuscript provides no additional sensitivity tests or discussion of the parameter range (e.g., duct height, frequency, or liner resistance) over which the premises remain valid in small ducts where shear layers occupy a large fraction of the cross-section.
minor comments (2)
  1. The RANS-derived profile is presented as one of the 'realistic' cases, but the manuscript does not report the turbulence model, mesh resolution, or any validation against experimental velocity data; a brief statement on these points would strengthen the claim that this profile is representative.
  2. Boundary-condition implementation at the lined walls (especially the impedance boundary condition under grazing flow) is referenced but not given in explicit mathematical form; adding the precise statement of the boundary operator used in the 3D Pridmore-Brown solver would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and recommendation for minor revision. We respond to the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The key conclusion (abstract and final section) is conditional on the premises that 'viscous effects are negligible' and that 'acoustic impedance is a good representation of a lined wall with grazing flow'. These assumptions are load-bearing for the claim that uniform-flow simplifications are sufficiently accurate, yet the manuscript provides no additional sensitivity tests or discussion of the parameter range (e.g., duct height, frequency, or liner resistance) over which the premises remain valid in small ducts where shear layers occupy a large fraction of the cross-section.

    Authors: We agree that the conclusions are conditional on these premises, which are standard for the inviscid Pridmore-Brown model employed here and for the locally reacting impedance boundary condition. The study deliberately focuses on flow-profile effects rather than parametric variations in duct height, frequency, or liner resistance; therefore no new sensitivity tests are performed. However, we will add a concise discussion paragraph in the final section that places the results in the context of typical experimental small-duct facilities (heights 10–50 mm, audible frequencies, Mach numbers < 0.3) and cites supporting literature on the range where the impedance representation remains valid when shear layers are thick. This constitutes a partial revision. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results from independent numerical simulations

full rationale

The paper derives its conclusions from direct numerical solutions of the 3D Pridmore-Brown equation applied to independently generated input flow profiles (tensorised hyperbolic tangent, law of the wall, and RANS simulation). These profiles are specified externally and used to compute acoustic propagation and impedance eduction outcomes; the comparison showing that uniform or 1D profiles suffice when bulk Mach number is matched follows from the simulation results rather than any self-referential definition, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. The central claim remains conditional on stated assumptions about negligible viscous effects but does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on numerical solutions of the Pridmore-Brown equation together with the domain assumptions that viscous effects can be neglected and that the impedance boundary condition adequately represents the lined wall under grazing flow.

free parameters (1)
  • bulk Mach number
    Used to match average velocity when simplifying realistic profiles to uniform or 1D approximations.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Viscous effects are negligible for acoustic propagation in this setting
    Explicitly required in the key conclusion for the uniform-flow simplification to be valid.
  • domain assumption Acoustic impedance is a good representation of a lined wall with grazing flow
    Stated as a necessary condition for traditional eduction methods to remain sufficiently accurate.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5597 in / 1568 out tokens · 48438 ms · 2026-05-17T04:44:49.136504+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Ontheimpactoftheturbulentgrazingflowdevelopment on the acoustic response of an acoustic liner,

    Paduano,A.,Scarano,F.,Cordioli,J.,Casalino,D.,andAvallone,F.,“Ontheimpactoftheturbulentgrazingflowdevelopment on the acoustic response of an acoustic liner,” , Jul. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.22714, Preprint available at arXiv:2507.22714 [physics]

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.22714 2025

  2. [2]

    CalculationofPerforatedPlateLinerParametersfromSpecifiedAcousticResistanceandReactance,

    Guess,A.W.,“CalculationofPerforatedPlateLinerParametersfromSpecifiedAcousticResistanceandReactance,”J. Sound Vib., Vol. 40, No. 1, 1975, pp. 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-460X(75)80234-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-460x(75)80234-3 1975

  3. [3]

    EffectsofLinerGeometryonAcousticImpedance,

    Jones,M.,Tracy,M.,Watson,W.,andParrott,T.,“EffectsofLinerGeometryonAcousticImpedance,”AIAApaper2002-2446, 8th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Breckenridge, Colorado, 2002. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2002-2446

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2002-2446 2002

  4. [4]

    DevelopmentofaSingleDegreeofFreedomPerforateImpedanceModelunderGrazingFlowand High SPL,

    Murray,P.,andAstley,R.J.,“DevelopmentofaSingleDegreeofFreedomPerforateImpedanceModelunderGrazingFlowand High SPL,” AIAA paper 2012-2294, 18th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (33rd AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Colorado Springs, Colorado, Jun. 2012. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2012-2294

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2012-2294 2012

  5. [5]

    An Experimental Study of the Acoustic Impedance of Helmholtz Resonator Arrays under a Turbulent Boundary Layer,

    Kooi, J., and Sarin, S., “An Experimental Study of the Acoustic Impedance of Helmholtz Resonator Arrays under a Turbulent Boundary Layer,” AIAA paper 81-1998, 7th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference, Palo Alto, CA, Oct. 1981. https://doi.org/10. 2514/6.1981-1998

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    ValidationofanImpedanceEductionMethodinFlow,

    Watson,W.,Jones,M.,andParrott,T.,“ValidationofanImpedanceEductionMethodinFlow,”AIAA J.,Vol.37,No.7,1999, pp. 818–824. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.7529

    work page doi:10.2514/2.7529 1999

  7. [7]

    AStraightforwardMethodforWallImpedanceEductioninaFlowDuct,

    Jing,X.,Peng,S.,andSun,X.,“AStraightforwardMethodforWallImpedanceEductioninaFlowDuct,”J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 124, No. 1, 2008, pp. 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2932256. 12

    work page doi:10.1121/1.2932256 2008

  8. [8]

    Validation of an Inverse Semi-Analytical Technique to Educe Liner Impedance,

    Elnady, T., Bodén, H., and Elhadidi, B., “Validation of an Inverse Semi-Analytical Technique to Educe Liner Impedance,” AIAA J., Vol. 47, No. 12, 2009, pp. 2836–2844. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.41647

    work page doi:10.2514/1.41647 2009

  9. [9]

    Back-to-BackComparisonofImpedanceMeasurementTechniques Applied to the Characterization of Aero-Engine Nacelle Acoustic Liners,

    Ferrante,P.,DeRoeck,W.,Desmet,W.,andMagnino,N.,“Back-to-BackComparisonofImpedanceMeasurementTechniques Applied to the Characterization of Aero-Engine Nacelle Acoustic Liners,”Appl. Acoust., Vol. 105, 2016, pp. 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2015.12.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2015.12.004 2016

  10. [10]

    AComparisonofinSituandImpedance EductionExperimentalTechniquesforAcousticLinerswithGrazingFlowandHighSoundPressureLevel,

    Bonomo,L.A.,Quintino,N.T.,Spillere,A.M.N.,Murray,P.B.,andCordioli,J.A.,“AComparisonofinSituandImpedance EductionExperimentalTechniquesforAcousticLinerswithGrazingFlowandHighSoundPressureLevel,”Int. J. Aeroacoust., Vol. 23(1-2), 2024, pp. 60–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475472X231225629

    work page doi:10.1177/1475472x231225629 2024

  11. [11]

    Influence of Fluid Motion Past a Plane Boundary on Sound Reflection, Absorption, and Transmission,

    Ingard, U., “Influence of Fluid Motion Past a Plane Boundary on Sound Reflection, Absorption, and Transmission,”J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 31, No. 7, 1959, pp. 1035–1036. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907805

    work page doi:10.1121/1.1907805 1959

  12. [12]

    On the Acoustic Boundary Condition in the Presence of Flow,

    Myers, M. K., “On the Acoustic Boundary Condition in the Presence of Flow,”J. Sound Vib., Vol. 71, 1980, pp. 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-460X(80)90424-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-460x(80)90424-1 1980

  13. [13]

    Failure of the Ingard–Myers Boundary Condition for a Lined Duct: An Experimental Investiga- tion,

    Renou, Y., and Aurégan, Y., “Failure of the Ingard–Myers Boundary Condition for a Lined Duct: An Experimental Investiga- tion,”J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 130, No. 1, 2011, p. 52. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3586789

    work page doi:10.1121/1.3586789 2011

  14. [14]

    On the Effect of Flow Direction on Impedance Eduction Results,

    Bodén, H., Zhou, L., Cordioli, J. A., Medeiros, A. A., and Spillere, A. M., “On the Effect of Flow Direction on Impedance Eduction Results,” AIAA paper 2016-2727, 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Lyon, France, Jun. 2016. https: //doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-2727

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2016-2727 2016

  15. [15]

    Influence of Source Propagation Direction and Shear Flow Profile in Impedance Eduction of Acoustic Liners,

    Roncen, R., Piot, E., Mery, F., Simon, F., Jones, M. G., and Nark, D. M., “Influence of Source Propagation Direction and Shear Flow Profile in Impedance Eduction of Acoustic Liners,” AIAA paper 2019-2469, 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Delft, The Netherlands, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-2469

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2019-2469 2019

  16. [16]

    Comparison of the Effect of Flow Direction on Liner Impedance Using Different Measurement Methods,

    Bodén, H., Cordioli, J. A., Spillere, A. M., and Serrano, P. G., “Comparison of the Effect of Flow Direction on Liner Impedance Using Different Measurement Methods,” AIAA paper 2017-3184, 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Denver, Colorado, Jun. 2017. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-3184

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2017-3184 2017

  17. [17]

    Flow and Viscous Effects on Impedance Eduction,

    Weng, C., Schulz, A., Ronneberger, D., Enghardt, L., and Bake, F., “Flow and Viscous Effects on Impedance Eduction,” AIAA J., Vol. 56, No. 3, 2018, pp. 1118–1132. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J055838

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j055838 2018

  18. [18]

    Assessment of Axial Wave Number and Mean Flow Uncertainty on Acoustic Liner Impedance Eduction,

    Nark, D. M., Jones, M. G., and Piot, E., “Assessment of Axial Wave Number and Mean Flow Uncertainty on Acoustic Liner Impedance Eduction,” AIAA paper 2018-3444, 2018 AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Reston, Virginia, Jun. 2018. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-3444

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2018-3444 2018

  19. [19]

    Wavenumber-Based Impedance Eduction with a Shear Grazing Flow,

    Roncen, R., Piot, E., Méry, F., Simon, F., Jones, M. G., and Nark, D. M., “Wavenumber-Based Impedance Eduction with a Shear Grazing Flow,”AIAA J., Vol. 58, No. 7, 2020, pp. 3040–3050. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J059100

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j059100 2020

  20. [20]

    Experimentally Testing Impedance Boundary Conditions for Acoustic Liners with Flow: Beyond Upstream and Downstream,

    Spillere, A. M. N., Bonomo, L. A., Cordioli, J. A., and Brambley, E. J., “Experimentally Testing Impedance Boundary Conditions for Acoustic Liners with Flow: Beyond Upstream and Downstream,”Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 489, 2020, p. 115676. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSV.2020.115676

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115676 2020

  21. [21]

    Effects of the sheared flow velocity profile on impedance eduction in a 2D duct,

    Bonomo, L. A., Brambley, E. J., and Cordioli, J. A., “Effects of the sheared flow velocity profile on impedance eduction in a 2D duct,” arXiv:2506.10129, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.10129, (submitted to J. Sound Vib.)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.10129 2025

  22. [22]

    Effect of Mean-Velocity Profile Shapes on Sound Transmission through Two-DimensionalDucts,

    Nayfeh, A. H., Kaiser, J. E., and Shaker, B. S., “Effect of Mean-Velocity Profile Shapes on Sound Transmission through Two-DimensionalDucts,”J. Sound Vib.,Vol.34,No.3,1974,pp.413–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-460X(74)80320-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-460x(74)80320-2 1974

  23. [23]

    SoundPropagationinaFluidFlowingthroughanAttenuatingDuct,

    Pridmore-Brown, D.C., “SoundPropagationinaFluidFlowingthroughanAttenuatingDuct,”J. Fluid Mech., Vol.4, No.04, 1958, pp. 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112058000537

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112058000537 1958

  24. [24]

    TheoreticalInvestigationofHydrodynamicSurfaceModeinaLinedDuctwithSheared Flow and Comparison with Experiment,

    Boyer,G.,Piot,E.,andBrazier,J.-P.,“TheoreticalInvestigationofHydrodynamicSurfaceModeinaLinedDuctwithSheared Flow and Comparison with Experiment,”J. Sound Vib., Vol. 330, No. 8, 2011, pp. 1793–1809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv. 2010.10.035

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv 2011

  25. [25]

    isbn: 978-0486411835

    Boyd, J.,Chebyshev and Fourier Spectral Methods, 2nd ed., Dover, 2001. isbn: 978-0486411835

    work page 2001

  26. [26]

    Calculation of Fully Developed Turbulent Flows in Ducts of Arbitrary Cross-Section,

    Nakayama, A., Chow, W. L., and Sharma, D., “Calculation of Fully Developed Turbulent Flows in Ducts of Arbitrary Cross-Section,” Vol. 128, 1983, pp. 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112083000440. 13

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112083000440 1983

  27. [27]

    Spatial instability of boundary layer along impedance wall,

    Rienstra, S., and Vilenski, G., “Spatial instability of boundary layer along impedance wall,” AIAA paper 2008-2932, 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 2008. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-2932

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2008-2932 2008

  28. [28]

    On turbulent flow near a wall,

    Van Driest, E. R., “On turbulent flow near a wall,”J. Aeronaut. Sci., Vol. 23, No. 11, 1956, pp. 1007–1011. https://doi.org/10. 2514/8.3713

    work page 1956

  29. [29]

    Investigation of Straightforward Impedance Eduction in the Presence of Shear Flow,

    Jing, X., Peng, S., Wang, L., and Sun, X., “Investigation of Straightforward Impedance Eduction in the Presence of Shear Flow,”J. Sound Vib., Vol. 335, 2015, pp. 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2014.08.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2014.08.031 2015

  30. [30]

    Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model,

    Menter, F. R., Kuntz, M., and Langtry, R., “Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model,”Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 4, 2003, pp. 625–632. URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228742295_Ten_years_ of_industrial_experience_with_the_SST_turbulence_model, in Proc. 4th International Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and M...

    work page arXiv 2003

  31. [31]

    ValidationofGoodrichPerforateLinerImpedanceModelUsingNASALangleyTestData,

    Yu,J.,Ruiz,M.,andKwan,H.W.,“ValidationofGoodrichPerforateLinerImpedanceModelUsingNASALangleyTestData,” AIAA paper 2008-2930, 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (29th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, May 2008. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-2930

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2008-2930 2008

  32. [32]

    AComparison of Impedance Eduction Test Rigs with Different Flow Profiles,

    Bonomo,L.A.,Quintino,N.T.,Cordioli,J.A.,Avallone,F.,Jones,M.G.,Howerton,B.M.,andNark,D.M.,“AComparison of Impedance Eduction Test Rigs with Different Flow Profiles,” AIAA paper 2023-3346, AIAA AVIATION, San Diego, CA, USA, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-3346

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2023-3346 2023

  33. [33]

    Validation of High-Fidelity Numerical Simulations of Acoustic Liners Under Grazing Flow,

    Pereira, L., Bonomo, L., Quintino, N., da Silva, A., Cordioli, J., and Avallone, F., “Validation of High-Fidelity Numerical Simulations of Acoustic Liners Under Grazing Flow,” AIAA paper 2023-3503, AIAA AVIATION, San Diego, USA, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-3503

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2023-3503 2023

  34. [34]

    B.,Theory of vibrating systems and sound, Van Nostrand, 1926

    Crandall, I. B.,Theory of vibrating systems and sound, Van Nostrand, 1926

    work page 1926

  35. [35]

    Acoustic and aerodynamic performance of a 6-foot-diameter fan for turbofan engines. 3 - Performance with noise suppressors,

    Rice, E. J., Feiler, C. E., and Acker, L. W., “Acoustic and aerodynamic performance of a 6-foot-diameter fan for turbofan engines. 3 - Performance with noise suppressors,” NASA Technical Report NASA-TN–D-6178, NASA, 1971. URL https: //ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19710007779

    work page arXiv 1971

  36. [36]

    Experimental Evaluation of a Spinning-Mode Acoustic-Treatment Design Con- cept for Aircraft Inlets,

    Heidelberg, L., Rice, E., and Homyak, L., “Experimental Evaluation of a Spinning-Mode Acoustic-Treatment Design Con- cept for Aircraft Inlets,” NASA Technical Report NASA-TP-1613, NASA, Apr. 1980. URL https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/ 19800012838. 14

    work page 1980