Page 26 - Winter2021
P. 26

  Figure 8. a: Photograph of a porous dome windscreen from Noble et al. (2014). Photograph courtesy of John Noble. b: Photograph of a wind fence (Abbott et al., 2015). Photograph courtesy of John Paul Abbott, with permission of the Acoustical Society of America.
   sheet metal (Raspet et al., 2019). Cylindrical wind fences (Figure 8b) have also been investigated for a wide range of porosities, diameters from 5 to 10 meters, and heights from 3 to 6 meters (Abbott et al., 2015). These enclosures reduce intrinsic pressure sources within the sheltered inte- rior at the expense of new stagnation pressure sources on the enclosure surface. As with audio microphone wind- screens, measurements show that flow distortion around the enclosure significantly reduces near-surface correlation lengths. This leads to more efficient spatial averaging and wind noise reduction at lower frequencies than might be expected for the enclosure size (Raspet et al., 2019).
Within the topic of noise generated by wind, there are many other problems with a rich body of work that have not been discussed here, such as wind noise on mobile devices, noise inside vehicles in motion, and noise inside
tall buildings. Wind noise is ubiquitous in outdoor sound measurements, which has led to many indepen- dent approaches to mitigation, whether mechanically or digitally. However, a common theme in the success (or failure) of noise reduction methods is exploiting the physi- cal properties that wind noise inherits from atmospheric turbulence, most significantly its correlation structure in space and time. By recognizing that microphone wind noise is not sound, the physical and statistical tools by which it may be described and mitigated are realized.
We thank the editor of Acoustics Today, Arthur Popper, for greatly improving this article with keen advice and perspec- tive. We also thank Thomas Gabrielson for helpful discussion and insight regarding pipe arrays. Permission to publish was granted by the Director, Information Technology Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Abbott, J., Raspet, R., and Webster, J. (2015). Wind fence enclosures for infrasonic wind noise reduction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137(3), 651-659.
Bolin, K. (2009). Prediction method for wind-induced vegetation Noise. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 95(4), 607-619.
Clark, L. E. (1931). Accessory and special equipment. In Cowan, L. Ed., Recording Sound for Motion Pictures. McGraw-Hill Book Com- pany, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 123-144.
Curle, N. (1955). The influence of solid boundaries upon aerodynamic sound. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 231(1187), 505-514.
Doak, P. E. (1960). Acoustic radiation from a turbulent fluid contain- ing foreign bodies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 254(1276), 129-146.
Fégeant, O. (1999). Wind-induced vegetation noise. Part I: A predic- tion model. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 85(2), 228-240.
Ffowcs Williams, J. E., and Hawkings, D. L. (1969). Sound generation by turbulence and surfaces in arbitrary motion. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 264(1151) 321-342.
George, W. K., Beuther, P. D., and Arndt, R. E. (1984). Pressure spectra in turbulent free shear flows. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 148, 155-191.
Geyer, T. F. (2020). Experimental evaluation of cylinder vortex shed- ding noise reduction using porous material. Experiments in Fluids 61(7), 153-173.
Ksanfomaliti, L. V., Goroshkova, N. V., Naraeva, M. K., Surorov, A. P., Khondryev, V. K., and Yabrova, L. V. (1982). Acoustic measurements of the wind velocity at the Venera 13 and Venera 14 landing sites. Soviet Astronomy Letters 8(4), 227-229.
Launer, S., Zakis, J. A., and Moore, B. C. (2016). Hearing aid signal pro- cessing. In Popelka, G., Moore, B., Fay, R. R., and Popper A. N. (Eds.), Hearing Aids. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 93-130.
     26 Acoustics Today • Winter 2021

   24   25   26   27   28