from deconvolved beamforming maps - arxiv

PREPRINT Automatic source localization andspectra generation from sparse beamforming maps

A Goudarzi1 a C Spehr1 b and S Herbold2 c

1Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology German Aerospace Center (DLR) Germany2Institute of Computer Science University of Gottingen Germany

This paper is part of a special issue on Machine Learning in Acoustics

Beamforming is an imaging tool for the investigation of aeroacoustic phenomena andresults in high dimensional data that is broken down to spectra by integrating spatialRegions Of Interest This paper presents two methods that enable the automated iden-tification of aeroacoustic sources in sparse beamforming maps and the extraction of theircorresponding spectra to overcome the manual definition of Regions Of Interest Themethods are evaluated on two scaled airframe half-model wind-tunnel measurements and ona generic monopole source The first relies on the spatial normal distribution of aeroacousticbroadband sources in sparse beamforming maps The second uses hierarchical clusteringmethods Both methods are robust to statistical noise and predict the existence locationand spatial probability estimation for sources based on which Regions Of Interest areautomatically determined

copy2021 Acoustical Society of America [httpsdoiorg(DOI number)]

[XYZ] Pages 1ndash15

I INTRODUCTION

Multiple noise-generating phenomena and mech-anisms exist in aeroacoustics12 Expert domainknowledge and a detailed study of measurements arenecessary to identify these phenomena in measurementsFor the localization and investigation of aeroacousticsources microphone array beamforming is a reliablestandard method3 Beamforming measurements usuallyresult in 2D or 3D beamforming maps for each observedfrequency and are often varied over Mach numberM angle of attack of the flow α and geometricalparameters of the observed model The level of thebeamforming map entries indicates a sound sourceemission power usually described by the Power SpectralDensity (PSD(~x fM )) for each frequency f andeach focus point ~x but can also result from backgroundnoise spurious noise sources and beamforming artifactsAdditionally the localization can be disturbed by soundreflections scattering and refraction Consequentlythe resulting beamforming maps have to be analyzedto extract the desired source information For thisprocess it is useful to integrate the high dimensionalPSD(~x f) over spatial regions of the map to obtain alow-dimensional PSD(f) that can be properly displayedin 2D Ideally the process only includes the locations ofthe respective source of interest while rejecting locationsof other sound sources This is aggravated by the factthat the source location may vary over the frequency

aarmingoudarzidlrdebcarstenspehrdlrdecherboldcsuni-goettingende

and Mach number due to the flow-dependent nature ofthe sources themselves or due to the aforementionedscattering and refraction within the sound propagationfrom the source to the array microphones

A common way to handle this source identificationis the spatial integration of resulting beamforming mapsover so-called Regions Of Interest (ROI) This resultsin low-dimensional data such as spectra4 which canbe interpreted by human experts There exist threeapproaches for the manual definition of ROIs Firstthe whole beamforming map is integrated into a singlespectrum which is then analyzed for prominent featuressuch as tones or peaks Then the beamforming mapat these frequencies or frequency bands is observed todetermine the origin of these sources and ROIs aredefined to account for these Second the beamformingmaps are observed at a variety of chosen frequencyintervals and ROIs are defined based on the consistentappearance of sources at multiple frequencies intuitionand experience Third ROIs are defined based on thestudied geometry A challenge for these methods isthe distinction between beamforming artifacts and realsources the correct separation of close and overlappingsources the detection of sources with a low PSD andsmall-band sources and the detection of sources thatappear only at some of the measurement variations de-scribed above The definition of the ROI may thereforenot only depend on the wind-tunnel model but on thearray resolution as well as the signal-to-noise ratio andthe methods used to process the beamforming maps3 Awrong or insufficient ROI definition results in degradedor wrong spectra which is especially problematic since

J Acoust Soc Am 23 July 2021 Source identification in sparse beamforming maps 1

arX

iv2

012

0964

3v4

[cs

SD

] 2

2 Ju

l 202

1

most of the following aeroacoustic analysis is based onthese

For aeroacoustic measurements the important taskof defining ROIs is performed by the expert manuallyand takes typically from hours up to days from our expe-rience depending on the complexity of the beamformingmaps and the studied model For the identificationof individual sources machine learning proved to bea promising tool in acoustics and Gaussian MixtureModels (GMM) were already deployed to track speakersources in space-time5 Another framework developedby Antoni6 Zhang et al7 and Dong et al89 relied onthe use of blind source separation (BSS) They showedthat beamforming and nearfield acoustic holography canbe reformulated as a BSS problem and specifically solvedfor incoherent sources The authors provided a metricon how to determine the correct number of sourceswhich must be estimated before BSS and showed thattheir method is robust towards an incorrect estimationThe BSS problem must be solved for each frequencyand each measurement individually However as statedabove aeroacoustic sources often exist in limited fre-quency bands at specific flow configurations or canbe only detected at specific angles of attack Whilethe authors suggest using spatial correlation analysis toidentify which reconstructed source distribution belongsto which source at the corresponding frequency theBSS approach itself lacks to provide a connection ofthe reconstructed sources over frequency Thus for avariety of measurement configuration where the numberof sources changes BSS causes the same problem asbeamforming which is that the expert has to validatewhich reconstructed source distribution belongs to whichsource

Even though these advanced techniques exist andconventional beamforming is in comparison very limitedin terms of resolution and dynamic range it is still pri-marily used in wind-tunnel experiments in combinationwith deconvolution methods The reasons for this arethe low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) which is often below〈SNR〉f le minus10 dB10 that it does not require prior knowl-edge of the source configurations and distributions thatit is robust and fast Thus this paper focuses on meth-ods that can be deployed after the use of various existingstate-of-the-art imaging techniques in the frequency do-main such as conventional beamforming in combinationwith CLEAN-SC or DAMAS The scaled air-frame mod-els of a Dornier 72811 (Do728) and an Airbus A32012 arepresented to derive these methods discuss their useful-ness and specify a proof-of-concept implementation Themethods are then evaluated on a generic measurementfeaturing three monopole sources with known locationand source power

II DATASETS

The data presented in this paper consists of beam-forming measurements of two closed-section wind-tunnelmodels one is of a Do72811 and one is of an A32012 anda generic open-section wind-tunnel dataset which fea-tures a streamlined monopole (0005 m opening) speakeras the primary noise source For the Do728 dataset val-ues of αi = 1deg3deg5deg6deg7deg8deg 9deg 10deg are chosen for angleof attack α and Mi = 0125 0150 0175 0200 02250250 for Mach number M The mean Reynolds numberis 〈Re〉M = 14times 106 based on the mean aerodynamiccord length D0 = 0353 m and ambient temperature ofT = 300 K at an ambient pressure p0 = 1times 105 PaThe array consists of 144 microphones at an apertureof 1756 m times 13 m and has a sample frequency of fS =120 kHz The A320 set contains αi = 3deg7deg715deg9degMi = 0175 0200 0225 at a mean Reynolds num-ber of 〈Re〉M = 14times 106 based on D0 = 0308 mT = 300 K p0 = 1times 105 Pa The array consisted of96 microphones at an aperture of 106 mtimes 05704 m andfS = 150 kHz The generic dataset consists of threeindividual speaker positions with unique band-limitedwhite noise Mach numbers of Mi = 000 003 and 006were chosen at ambient pressure p0 = 1times 105 Pa andtemperature T = 300 K and for each flow configurationan additional noise-floor measurement was obtained byturning off the speaker The square equidistant arrayconsisted of 7 times 7 = 49 microphones with an apertureof 054 m times 054 m and was placed ∆z = 065 m awayfrom the sources The sample rate was fS = 32 768 HzThus the Do728 dataset consists of 48 measurementsthe A320 dataset consists of 12 measurements For thegeneric measurement the measurements of individualsource positions are superpositioned and thus the genericdataset consists of effectively three measurements (withthe speaker turned on) Cross-Spectral density Matrices(CSM) are calculated using Welchrsquos method with a blocksize of 1024 samples for the Do728 512 samples for theA320 and 256 samples for the generic dataset with 50 overlap The beamforming is performed using conven-tional beamforming and CLEAN-SC deconvolution witha focus point resolution of ∆x1 = ∆x2 = 5times 10minus3 m

III SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

A general problem concerning beamforming is thatat long wavelengths the localization of acoustic sourcesis difficult Furthermore imaging artifacts may occurdue to the sparse spatial distribution of the microphonearray These artifacts result from background noisethe arrayrsquos Point Spread Function and aliasing orinsufficient Welch estimations3

In this part of the paper we discuss two ideason how to identify sources from beamforming mapscontaminated with noise and obtain their spectrumThe ideas are based on the sparsity of beamformingmaps in the sense that the quantity of zero elements

2 J Acoust Soc Am 23 July 2021 Source identification in sparse beamforming maps

FIG 1 (Color online) A320 CLEAN-SC result on 2D-plane

using conventional beamforming the z-axis displays the fre-

quency The color represents the normalized PSD in decibel

at M = 02 α = 3deg

(PSD = 0 Pa2 Hzminus1) is large compared to the non-zeroelements in the maps (PSD ge 0 Pa2 Hzminus1) This canbe achieved using inverse beamforming methods orconventional beamforming3 in combination with what isknown in the aeroacoustic beamforming community asldquodeconvolutionrdquo such as CLEAN-SC13 or DAMAS14

For this paper we choose conventional beamformingwith diagonal removal3 in combination with CLEAN-SCover DAMAS because of the huge number of computedbeamforming maps and the high spatial resolution of themaps CLEAN-SC assumes point-like sources and thensubtracts coherent portions of the dirty beamformingmap13 This removes most of the Point Spread Functionbut will also result in a single PSD(~x0 f0) representationof spatially distributed or correlated sources that isonly defined in a single spatial location x0 for a givenfrequency f0 We make this an advantage as this resultsin extremely sparse representations of the source mapwhich allows us to analyze the spatial distributions ofnon-zero elements in space and frequency For termi-nology we call every non-zero element in the map asource-part s since once they are integrated over spaceand frequency they represent full sources Thus theresulting sparse beamforming maps can be reduced to alist of source-part vectors si = [~xi fi αiMiPSDi]

Figure 1 displays the source-parts of the CLEAN-SCresult on a 2D-focus grid for the A320 On the z-axisthe frequency is displayed the color represents the nor-malized PSD We can identify multiple vertical pillarsof source-parts s which spatially integrated representa source spectrum PSD(f) However we also observepillars that suddenly split with increasing frequency(eg at the flap side edge) or dense point clouds thatare spatially scattered around (eg the inner slat) Asource-part pillar that splits with increasing frequencycan either be caused by a complex aeroacoustic mecha-nism or the limitations of beamforming and CLEAN-SCIt is expected to observe this behavior for frequencies

that are around the Rayleigh Criterion fR below whichtwo separate sources cannot be spatially resolved Thisfrequency is in the range of 5 kHz ge fR le 6 kHz forthe Do728 and 8 kHz ge fR le 16 kHz based on theoval array apertures and the distance between the highfrequency pillars Since the frequencies at which thepillars separate coincide with the Rayleigh frequenciesfR we assume this behavior is caused by the latterUnfortunately beamforming and deconvolution methodsdo not provide any information on which source-parts(in space and frequency) are generated by the sameturbulence-induced aeroacoustic source-mechanism

Thus up to now large spatial ROIs were definedmanually as integration areas to obtain spectra15 such asthe whole slat and flap region This partly contradictsthe beamforming idea as we often do not know wheresources are located and whether all source-parts withinthe integration region belong to the same source In thefollowing part we introduce two methods on how to es-timate the existence and positions of individual sourcesin sparse beamforming maps and how to correctly assignthe corresponding source-parts to them

A Source Identification based on spatial Normal Distribu-

tions (SIND)

x1 [m]

x 2 [m

]

a)

x1 [m]

b)

40 30 20 10 0

norm OASPL [dB]

00 02 04 06

log10(n+1)

FIG 2 (Color online) A320 section of the CLEAN-SC map

at M = 0175 α = 3deg a) shows the normalized OASPL b)

shows a log-histogram of the n source-parts s per focus point

~x

Figure 2 a) shows the normalized Overall SoundPressure Level (OASPL) for each individual spatiallocation ~x for the A320 The OASPL is the integrationof the source-parts Sound Pressure Level (SPL) overfrequency We observe that the individual slat trackswhich we assume to be individual sources cannot beeasily distinguished based on the OASPL because thesound carries most energy at long wavelengths Dueto the array resolution beamforming is not able tolocalize sources well at these wavelengths (see Figure 1)


However ignoring the SPL and simply counting howoften a source-part s was reconstructed by CLEAN-SCat every location ~x in the entire map over frequencyprovides a better grasp on individual source distribu-tions which are shown in the logarithmic histogram inFigure 2 b) Thus the OASPL(~x) gives an estimation ofa source emission power while the histogram(~x) gives anestimation of a frequency-interval or number of frequen-cies of the emission per location in the source map Inthe log-histogram we see mostly distinguishable blobswith maxima in their center that probably representaeroacoustic sources as the blobsrsquo positions coincidewith the location of the slat tracks the slat side edgeand the flap side edge Due to the Gaussian natureof the turbulence induced source mechanisms and thescattering and refraction of sound waves in turbulentstructures16 we assume these blobs to be point-likesources that are smeared out in the beamforming mapwith maxima at locations that vary due to the mentionedphenomena

While the blobs in the log-histogram do resemblenormal distributions statistical tests such as the Shapiro-Wilk or the Anderson-Darling test do not determine thatdata as normal The reason for this is the discrete spatialsampling the overlapping of sources as well as the largepopulation of source-parts Thus to verify the normal-ity assumption we compare the histogram of individualsources to a normal distribution First we fit a normaldistribution to the log-distribution of the appearance ofsource-parts by minimizing the absolute difference be-tween the source-partrsquos position histogram and the esti-mated normal distribution using a L1-norm Then wecompare the estimated distribution with the observeddata The normal distribution in 2D is calculated witheq 117 For practical applications we recommend op-timizing for the normal distributionrsquos amplitude A thestandard deviations σxi

the distribution rotation θ andthe location xi0 by using a bounded optimization methodwith equations 2 The histogramrsquos global maximum de-termines the starting values for the first sourcersquos A ~x0the bounds A plusmn εA ~x plusmn ε~x prevent the optimizer fromwandering off to a completely different source

N(x1 x2) = A exp

(minus(a(x1 minus x10)2

+ 2b(x1 minus x10)(x2 minus x20)) + c(x2 minus x20)2))

(1)

a =cos2 θ

2σ2x1

+sin2 θ

2σ2x2

(2a)

b =minus sin 2θ

4σ2x1

+sin 2θ

4σ2x2

(2b)

c =sin2 θ

2σ2x1

+cos2 θ

2σ2x2

(2c)

x1 [m]

x 2 [m

]

a)

01

03

05

07

09

005 000 005xi

00

02

04

06

08

10

norm

PDF

b)hist(x1)hist(x2)pdf(x1)pdf(x2)

FIG 3 (Color online) Do728 flap side edge region a) shows

the isocontour lines of the by A normalized distribution (dot-

ted lines) and its fitted PDF (full lines) b) shows the nor-

malized distribution and PDF on its principal axis x1 and x2which result from the θ-rotation of the fitted distribution and

are marked with arrows of the same color in a)

Figure 3 a) shows the normalized log-distributionof the source-parts (dotted lines) for the Do728 flapside edge region The histogram shows the summationof all source-part from all beamforming maps in thedataset which contains 48 individual measurementconfigurations We can determine two overlapping blobsin this region a major one upstream and a minor onedownstream As described above a 2D normal distri-bution is fitted to minimize the major source-part blob(full lines) using eq 1 We introduce two principal axesx1 and x2 for which the normal distributions standarddeviations σxi are independent They are obtained foreach source from the fitted normal distributionrsquos angleθ Figure 3 b) shows the comparison of the normalizedhistogram and fitted distribution along these axes toverify the normality assumption For terminologywe refer to the fitted amplitude-normalized normaldistributions as the Probability Density Function (PDF)of the source-part distribution of a source While aPDF in the traditional mathematical sense is defined asa normalized distribution so that its integrated area isunity our PDF is normalized so that 0 ge PDF(~x) ge 1This means that the integrated area of our definedsource-part PDF can be any real number R ge 0 andthat the PDF can be interpreted as the probability of aspatial location ~x belonging to a source

As shown in Figure 3 an individual source can be ap-proximated with a normal distribution in the histogramTo find and fit all sources in the beamforming map (egthe second source on the right in Figure 3) we introducethe distance metric dSi

see eq 3 to measure and min-imize the L1-norm of the estimated PDF of a source Siand the histogram With the set XSi containing all fo-cus points ~xj we want to minimize dSi for all assumedsources Si isin S in the beamforming map so that the L1-


norm of the source-part histogram and the fitted normaldistributions achieves a minimum

dSi =sum

~xjisinXSi

|hist(~xj)minus PDFSi(~xj)| (3)

Using this metric we can implement a greedy algo-rithm that finds all sources by minimizing dS =

sumi dSi

by iteration First we find the maximum in the source-part histogram second we fit a normal distributionthat minimizes the histogram see eq 3 third wesubtract the fitted distribution from the histogram andforth repeat the process until the remaining histogram-maximum drops below a threshold tI This thresholdrepresents a lower significance bound and preventsendless fitting iterations since dS will decrease with anincreasing number of sources that are either irrelevantor fitting artifacts Thus the order in which the methodidentifies sources in the histogram corresponds to theirdescending magnitude ASi in the histogram Note that

this magnitude ASidoes not explicitly depend on the

source-partrsquos PSD and thus does not necessarily indi-cate a dominant source Instead a large ASi

indicateseither a broad-band source a spatially well-localizedsource or a combination of these features Howeversince CLEAN-SC works within a certain SNR rangea set of source-parts that represent a source implicitlyindicate that the source was somewhat relevant withinthe beamforming map

This makes this method similar to an iterative GMMTraditionally a degree-of-freedom weighted residual suchas the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) is used forGMM to determine the optimal number of sources18Since the result of GMM heavily relies on the chosennumber of sources the number of sources must be esti-mated before clustering However this is not the casefor this method since it does not fit the source-part dis-tributions (sources) simultaneously but works iterativelyInstead the correct number of sources can be determinedafter the fitting process is complete To do so we inte-grate the fitted normal distributions see eq1 to obtainan area ASi

ASi=

intx1

intx2

APDFSi(x1 x2)dx2dx1 (4)

for each source This area reflects the impact of the esti-mated individual sources on the L1-norm for dS If ASi

drops below a threshold tA we can reject it as a fittingartifact or negligible source ASi of artifacts is orders ofmagnitude below ASi of real sources However if thethreshold tI is set sufficiently high SINDrsquos iterationsoften stop before fitting artifacts occur

Figure 4 shows the result of the procedure for theA320 with the selected thresholds given in Table I Nosources are rejected as fitting artifacts (tA=0) Thecrosses mark the determined centers of the sourcesthe numbers correspond to the order in which they are

FIG 4 (Color online) A320 The SIND solution for tI = 20 is

shown The source numbers correspond to the order of found

sources via the maxima in the histogram which is displayed

with the underlying colormap The ellipses around the sources

represent the PDF functions at 1minus 3σ

TABLE I SIND and SIHC parameters for the A320 Do728

and generic dataset and the total number n of source-parts

present in the datasets

n SIND SIHC

tI tA tσ t tσ

Do728 106 30 0 1minus 3σ 500 1minus 3σ

A320 104 20 0 1minus 3σ 105 1minus 3σ

generic 103 20 0 1minus 3σ 100 1minus 3σ

identified (descending A) Figure 5 shows the result ofthe procedure for the Do728 Finally we calculate forall source-parts the probability P of belonging to eachsource using PDFSi and assign them to the source withthe highest probability Then we drop all source-partswith a PDF value below a threshold tσ Thus eachsource-part is either assigned to a single source orclassified as noise if P (s isin S) lt tσ In Figure 4 and


FIG 5 (Color online) Do728 The SIND solution for tI =

30 is shown The source numbers correspond to the order

of found sources via the maxima in the histogram which is

displayed with the underlying colormap The ellipses around

the sources represent the PDF functions at 1minus 3σ

Figure 5 the ellipses around the marked sources repre-sent PDFS(~x) = 1 minus 3σ and thus indicate the spatiallocations (ROI) that are assigned to the correspondingsources

Figure 6 shows the methods result in detail forthe leading flap side edge (LFSE) source location (seealso Figure 3 for the DO728 LFSE fit which showstwo source-part distributions in this region) and allsource-parts in this region The source-partsrsquo colorencodes their corresponding PDF value This can beinterpreted as the conditional probability that theybelong to the assigned source under the condition thatthey were assigned to it Gray source-parts were eitherrejected as noise or assigned to another source as itsPDF (ie probability of belonging to this source) washigher in these spatial locations Figure 6 a) showsthe source-part distribution on the 2D focus grid thez-axis displays the frequency Figure 6 b) shows allsource-parts from the region depicted in a) neglectingthe xi-information In Figure 6 b) we observe multiplehorizontal rows of points They can either have a

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)

FIG 6 (Color online) a) shows the source-parts of the A320

upstream flap side edge region (source number 2 in Figure 4)

at M = 0175 α = 9deg b) shows the same source-parts without

the xi-information The color represents the source-partsrsquo

conditional probability of belonging to the source P (s isin Sj)under the condition that they were assigned to it gray source-

parts were rejected as noise or assigned to another source

The black line represents the integrated spectrum from all

source-parts that were assigned to the source

different shape which indicates that these are thesource-parts from two different sources or a similarshape with a simple vertical decibel offset If the latter isobserved we assume that these rows at a lower PSD areartifacts from the CLEAN-SC process as CLEAN-SCfailed to remove these source-parts from the dirty mapwithout residue If the source-part rows have a differentshape and are expected to be different source PSDs theoptimal scenario would be if one of them is assigned tothe source with high confidence (bright color) and theother ones are rejected (gray color) Figure 7 shows thesame for the downstream flap side edge region Thetop row of source parts in the Figures shows from lowto high frequencies a tonal peak around f asymp 6 kHzand then three humps at f asymp 15 kHz f asymp 30 kHz andf asymp 50 kHz Most of the source-parts of the first peakand hump were assigned to the TFSE the source-partsof the two high-frequency humps were mostly assigned tothe LFSE A detailed analysis of how well this separationis performed is given in section III C After integratingall source-parts that were assigned to the source over thefrequency we obtain the source spectra indicated by theblack line in Figure 6 and Figure 7 In these examplesthe spectra are mostly smooth but around f asymp 20 kHzthere are strong artifacts from incorrectly assignedsource-parts Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the corre-sponding results for the Do728 flap side edge Figure 10shows an exemplary Do728 slat slat track sourceThis source will be analyzed in detail in section III Csince we assume it to be a complex spatial superposi-tion of a line source (slat) and a point source (slat track)

SIND assumes that the source positions do not fun-damentally change in the beamforming map over M orα (considering a focus grid that rotates and moves with


x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)

FIG 7 (Color online) The Figure shows the source-parts of

the A320 downstream flap side edge region (source number 8

in Figure 4) at M = 0175 α = 9deg according to the descrip-

tion in Figure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)

FIG 8 (Color online) a) shows the source-parts of the Do728


at M = 0250 α = 6deg according to the description in Fig-

ure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)


downstream flap side edge region (source number 13 in Fig-

ure 5) at M = 0250 α = 6deg according to the description in

Figure 6

x 1 [m

]

x2 [m]

f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)

FIG 10 (Color online) a) shows the source-parts at the

DO728 slat track (source number 5 in Figure 5) at M = 0250

α = 1deg according to the description in Figure 6

α) so that the source-parts of different measurement con-figurations can be simply stacked and fitted at once toobtain global source positions and distributions as shownin the results above However beamforming can sufferfrom the approximation of Greens Functions in complexmedium flows to calculate the sound propagation fromthe source position to the microphone array or errors inthe position of the focal plane3 The first results in a shiftor stretch of the beamforming maps the second resultsin a source that moves through the map with increas-ing angle α because of the projection error (the strakesof the Do728 in Figure 5 show this behavior) The firstproblem can be fixed by aligning the beamforming mapsprior to fitting the normal distributions To do so thesource-part histogram of each individual configuration iscalculated then a histogram is chosen as a reference Allremaining histogram positions are then linearly modifiedwith

f(xi) = aixi + bi (5)

to achieve a maximum 2D spatial correlation with the ref-erence histogram using standard optimization methodsEq 5 is then used to modify the source-partsrsquo positionsxi prior to calculating the global histogram Figure 11shows the obtained parameters ai bi for the A320 Whilethe stretch factors ai are small the shift factors bi showa clear trend The beamforming maps shift slightly withincreasing angle of attack and substantially with increas-ing Mach number downstream (more than b1 ge 2∆x1)

B Source Identification based on Hierarchical Clustering

(SIHC)

A second approach to identifying sources and assign-ing the corresponding source-parts is clustering methodswhich can automatically group source-parts in a multi-dimensional space Since we do not know the numberof expected clusters (sources) and their distribution be-forehand we choose Hierarchical Density-Based SpatialClustering of Applications with Noise1920 (HDBSCAN)Similar to SIND HDBSCAN requires a threshold t belowwhich a cluster is rejected as noise The threshold has a


09950 09975 10000a1

0996

0998

1000

1002

1004a 2

=30deg=70deg

=72deg=90deg

002 000 002b1

002

001

000

001

002

b 2

M=0175M=0200

M=0225

FIG 11 (Color online) A320 beamforming map alignment

stretch ai and shift parameters bi for the source-part positions

xi relative to the reference beamforming map at M1 = 0175

α1 = 3deg

FIG 12 (Color online) A320 Resulting clusters from HDB-

SCAN at t = 105 using an euclidean distance metric The

cluster midpoints are marked the corresponding source-parts

are displayed in the same color The color intensity displays

the probability of belonging to the cluster Gray source-parts

were rejected as noise

great effect on the resulting clusters and has to be deter-mined with the expert in the loop We cluster the source-parts based on their normalized location ~xi normalizedStrouhal number Sti and Mach scaled normalized PSDlevel (normalized to the range [0 1]) thus in 4D-spaceWhen clustering source-parts of maps at different Machnumbers at the same time we recommend using a Mach

FIG 13 (Color online) Do728 Resulting clusters from HDB-






scaled PSD

PSD = PSDminus 10 logMn (6)

with n asymp 55 and a normalized frequency like theStrouhal or Helmholtz number This scaling ensuresthat the source-parts of sources at different Mach num-bers are roughly at the same location in the frequencyand PSD-level space as aeroacoustic noise generallyscales around this Mach exponent21

Figure 12 shows the result of HDBSCAN for theA320 at t = 105 and Figure 13 for the Do728 att = 500 see Table I The crosses mark the clustermidpoints of the corresponding source-parts displayedin the same color Gray source-parts are rejected asnoise as their confidence of belonging to any source isbelow tσ = 1 minus 3σ The color intensity displays theclassification confidence Figure 14 shows the resultingintegrated spectra from the A320 flap side edge regionin comparison to the SIND method Figure 15 showsthe same for the Do728 Figure 16 shows the same slattrack source from the SIND solution in Figure 10 as wellas the upper part of the corresponding slat for the SIHCsolution


104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

SIHC FSESIND LFSESIND TFSE

FIG 14 (Color online) Comparison of the resulting source

spectra from the SIND and SIHC method at M = 0175

α = 9deg for the A320 flap side edge (FSE) respectively leading

flap side edge (LFSE) and trailing flap side edge (TFSE)

104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]




α = 7deg for the Do728 flap side edge (FSE) respectively leading


C Comparison of SIND and SIHC

To assess the quality of the ROIs both methods arecompared to each other and the authorsrsquo expectationsBoth methods yield comparable ROIs and are able toidentify the prominent source locations such as the flap

104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]

SIND slat amp trackSIHC slatSIHC slat track



α = 1deg for the Do728 slat the slat track and the combined

SIND ROI

102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

43

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

53

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225

FIG 17 (Color online) The A320 spectra of the SIND leading

flap side edge source (number 2 in Figure 4) at α = 9deg over

a) Strouhal number and b) Helmholtz number The spectra

are Mach scaled with the scaling exponent n see eq 6

102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

47

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

73

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225

FIG 18 (Color online) The A320 spectra of the SIND trailing




side edge slat tracks wingtip or strakes that are indi-cated by the blobs in the corresponding histograms inFigure 4 and Figure 5 SIND often separates individualsources in dense and overlapping source regions thatare clustered together by SIHC especially at the innerslat or the flap side edge region SIHC finds additionalsource regions that are not well localized and spreadover the map especially sources that are not located onthe wing such as what we assume to be wind-tunnelnoise reflections We observe that SIND and SIHC oftenfind comparable sub- or super-sources in the sense thatsome sources detected in SIND correspond to multiplesources detected by SIHC or vice-versa eg the flapside edge in Figure 14 and Figure 15 or the slat track in Figure 16 for the Do728 To assess the qualityand legitimacy of the ROI separation a self-similarityanalysis is performed Thus the spectra levels arepower scaled with eq 6 and displayed over Strouhaland Helmholtz number While a self-similarity acrossthe whole spectrum does not necessarily imply that thewhole spectrum is generated by the same mechanism aself-similarity over multiple frequency types in different


101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120PS

D [d

BHz

] sc

aled

by

n=3

0

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

80

b)

FIG 19 (Color online) The Do728 spectra of the SIHC slat

source (number 20 in Figure 13) at α = 1deg over a) Strouhal

number and b) Helmholtz number The spectra are Mach

scaled with the scaling exponent n see eq 6

101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

38

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

60

b)


track source (number 29 in Figure 13) at α = 1deg over a)

Strouhal number and b) Helmholtz number The spectra are

Mach scaled with the scaling exponent n see eq 6

frequency intervals doubtlessly shows this1

For the A320 flap side edge a self-similarity analysisshows that the up- and downstream separation of SINDis reasonable see Figure 17 and Figure 18 While thelow-frequency peak scales over Strouhal number thehigh-frequency humps scale over Helmholtz numberwhich suggests different aeroacoustic source mechanismsand justifies the spatial separation Dobrzynski pointsout that the complex acoustical behavior of the flap sideedge is a combination of trailing-edge noise noise of aprimary suction side vortex a secondary suction sidevortex their mixing and accelerated free turbulence inthe vortex flow22 which supports this result We ex-plicitly see in Figure 18 that the smaller high-frequencyhump is also self-similar over the Strouhal number whichindicates that it is assigned to the correct source Theanalysis of the Do728 flap side edge shows the sameself-similarities (not shown) While SIND and SIHCseparate most slat and slat tracks SIHC reconstructsmore smooth spectra than SIND by correctly identifyingthe corresponding source-parts Figure 10 shows thatthe low-frequency slat tones are not well localized

and scattered around the slat area which matchesDobrzynskirsquos hypothesis that these tones result frommodel-scale low Reynolds numbers and are generated bycoherent laminar flow separation at the slat hook andthus are line sources2223 By distribution assumptionSIND assumes point-like sources which cannot properlydetect these line-sources Even if so SIND only assignsthe source-parts based on their spatial distribution tothe sources but these sources spatially overlap SIHC onthe other hand not only separates the Strouhal numberscaling slat tones see Figure 19 from the Helmholtznumber scaling slat track source see Figure 20 it assignsthe source-parts mostly correct in terms of self-similarbehavior to the corresponding source spectra Thisis possible due to the additional frequency and SPLinformation based on which the clusters are identified

Performance-wise SIHCrsquos computation time scalesaround O(n log n) for the number n of source-parts20Since SIND does not cluster the points directly the com-putation time is independent of the number of pointswhich is a huge advantage for large datasets The totalnumber of source-parts in the Do728 dataset is aroundn = 106 which SIND processes within seconds and SIHCwithin an hour on a standard laptop Both methodsprocess the A320 dataset within seconds which containsaround n = 104 source-parts

IV METHOD ERRORS

As stated in the sections above it is not possibleto quantitatively estimate the methodsrsquo errors on thereal-world datasets due to the lack of a ground truthThus a generic test with a streamlined monopole-loudspeaker in an open wind-tunnel is used to validatethe methods give an estimation of how well the sourcespectra are reconstructed and how well the sourcepositions are estimated The loudspeaker was measuredat three different positions ~x1 = [minus0055 0105 0] ~x2 =[0105 0105 0] ~x3 = [0255 0105 0] with three dif-ferent band-limited white noise signals see Table IIAdditionally a measurement with no speaker signal wasperformed at each configuration to obtain a noise-floorCSM that can be subtracted to reduce the noise ofthe wind-tunnel and speaker housing in the flow24 Aground truth and error metric for the source-separationproblem is achieved as follows

First the CSM auto-power spectra are compared fora single speaker position (source S2) in Figure 21 with(orange line) and without (blue line) a noise signal Thedenoised signal (green line) is achieved by subtractingthe noise-floor CSM from the speaker signal CSM24 Itis observed that the flow-effects are neglectable on theradiated sound of the speaker at high frequencies How-ever at low frequencies with a negative SNR (the wind-tunnel noise is louder than the speaker) the denoised sig-nal still overestimates the PSD below f le 500 Hz Thusthe cleaned measurements of the individual sources at


TABLE II Absolute positional errors |ϕ| in degree and ab-

solute spectrum reconstruction errors |ε| in decibel of SIND

and SIHC performance and the integration of the individ-

ual CLEAN-SC source-maps (CLEAN) The first column lists

the upper and lower butterworth band-limit frequencies f in

Hertz the second column lists the corresponding filter roll-offs

r in decibel per octave for the three white noise sources

f r SIND SIHC CLEAN

S1 32k 48 |ϕ| 048plusmn 001 046plusmn 002 061plusmn 032

15k 24 |ε| 162plusmn 235 164plusmn 271 159plusmn 172


20 48 |ε| 219plusmn 300 219plusmn 300 113plusmn 116



tota

l |ϕ| 035plusmn 009 039plusmn 008 045plusmn 113

|ε| 203plusmn 366 214plusmn 399 173plusmn 216

fr 656 668 968

103 104

f [Hz]

20

0

20

40

PSD

[dB

Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

noise-floor speaker denoised ref from a)

FIG 21 (Color online) CSMii auto-spectra of source S2 at a)

M = 000 b) at M = 003 and c) at M = 006 The blue lines

represent the noise-floor with the speaker turned off the or-

ange lines represent the measurement with the speaker turned

on and the green lines represent the denoised measurement

The black lines in b) and c) show the denoised measurement

(green line) from a) as a comparison The shaded areas depict

the standard deviation over all microphones

M1 = 000 are regarded as the true immission levels forall Mach numbers Then the speakerrsquos reference emis-sion level (ie sound power) is estimated by multiplyingthe true immission levels (at M1 = 000) with the in-verse Greenrsquos Function of a monopole which equals to∆L = 10 log10(rm) where rm = |~xmminus~xs| is the distancebetween the fix source position ~xs and each microphoneposition ~xm This projected microphone m averagedemission level will be regarded as the ground truth soundpower 〈PSDtrue〉m with the Kronecker delta δ

PSDSitrue = 〈δmnCSMSin + 20 log10(|~xm minus ~xSi |)〉m (7)

Second conventional beamforming and CLEAN-SCare performed on the individual denoised source CSMs

103 104

f [Hz]

20

10

0

10

20

erro

r [dB

]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

M=000 M=003 M=006

FIG 22 (Color online) Figure shows the error ε =

PSDCLEAN-SC minus PSDtrue see eq 7 for each Mach number

for a) S1 b) S2 and c) S3 The shaded area depicts the

standard deviation of the ground truth sound power over all

microphones

This allows us to obtain an estimation of how wellthe individual source powers obtained by CLEAN-SCcorrespond to the ground truth To obtain CLEAN-SCreference spectra from the beamforming maps allsource-parts within a spatial radius r = 01 m of thetrue source positions were integrated Additionallythese source-partsrsquo positions were averaged to obtain asource position estimation of the CLEAN-SC processFigure 22 shows the error ε = PSDCLEAN-SC minus PSDtrue

for all each individual source and all Mach numbersThe standard deviation depicts the variance over themicrophone averaged ground-truth see eq 7 A cut-onfrequency can be observed below which CLEAN-SC isnot able to reconstruct the sound source correctly Forsource 1 below f lt 15 kHz the beamforming resultsmassively over- or under-predict the PSD The reasonfor this might be the insufficient cleaning of the CSM asshown in Figure 21 and the low SNR at these frequencyintervals The averaged position errors |ϕ| and absolutespectra errors |ε| of the CLEAN-SC process are given inTable II The position errors are given as angular errorswith respect to the microphone array center instead of∆xi since beamforming localization usually dependson the distance of the focal plane For comparison thefocus point resolution is ∆xi = 0005 m asymp 044deg in thecenter of the focus grid

Third a source-separation problem is created bysuperpositioning the three individual denoised sourceCSMs for each Mach number and performing conven-tional beamforming in combination with CLEAN-SCon them see Figure 23 The individual sources areapproximately ∆x1 = 015 m apart The performance ofSIND and SIHC is evaluated on their ability to correctlydetecting the dominant sources and by comparing thereconstructed spectra to the ground truth

Both methods identify the three dominant monopolesources with the parameters given in table I Figure 24top row shows the resulting absolute source powerreconstruction error |ε| for SIND and SIHC and Table IIlists the frequency and Mach averaged reconstruction


FIG 23 (Color online) CLEAN-SC result of the superposi-

tioned denoised CSMs at M3 = 006 The true positions are

marked with black lines

10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)

FIG 24 (Color online) The top row (1) shows the Mach-

averaged absolute error |ε| = |〈PSDmethod〉M minus PSDreference|for each source in a) for SIND and b) for SIHC The shaded

area depicts the corresponding standard deviation The bot-

tom row (2) shows the corresponding Signal To Noise ratios

see eq 8

errors and averaged position errors |ϕ| For the localiza-tion both methods perform similarly on all sources withan estimation error that is smaller than two focus pointsFor the reconstruction of the corresponding spectraboth methods perform identically on source 2 similar onsource 1 and different in terms of reconstructing the lowfrequencies on source 3 with SIHC performing slightlybetter

For evaluating the PSD reconstruction error in de-tail two points will be considered First in real-worldapplications we often prefer a spectrum that is correctfor high SNRs over small deviations at low SNRs In thiscontext the SNR is the difference between the true single

60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN

FIG 25 (Color online) The figure shows a cumulative his-

togram of the spectra SNR from all sources and Mach num-

bers see eq 8 that were not reconstructed SNR(PSD(f) =

NaN)

sourcersquos PSD and the summed PSD of all sources

SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)

Figure 24 bottom row shows the correspondingSNRs see eq 8 The SNR can also be interpreted as theper frequency normalized true source spectra from eq 7We can observe that at frequencies above f ge 1 kHzthe spectra reconstruction failed or resulted in largeerrors when the SNR was low (SNR le minus15 dB) Sinceat high frequencies the beamforming map and resultingsource-parts are normally well localized see Figure 23and SIND and SIHC performed somewhat similarsee Figure 24 we expect that these errors are mainlyproduced by the CLEAN-SC process itself The relativeinterval of a valid spectrum reconstruction is importantthat is for how many frequencies a solution is obtainedbut not captured in the average error |ε| The averagedrelative frequency interval 0 le fr le 1 is given in Table IIa value of fr = 1 indicates that the spectra are recon-structed at each frequency f Both methods performsimilarly and reconstruct approximately fr = 23 whilethe individual CLEAN-SC references contain nearlyfull spectra However the CLEAN-SC reference wasobtained from the individual source-maps (no CSMsuperposition) and thus the SNR was SNR = 0 dB (forhigh frequencies that were above the wind-tunnel noise-floor) Figure 25 shows the corresponding SNR of theparts of the source spectra that were not reconstructedin a cumulative histogram Thus for each given SNR onthe x-axis the cumulative relative frequency shows howmuch percent of the failed reconstructions are below thisSNR (eg 50 of the failed reconstructions are belowSNR le minus40 dB and 75 are below SNR le minus25 dB)Both methods perform nearly identically on the genericdataset The CLEAN-SC reference confirms that thefailed reconstructions are mainly due to the CLEAN-SCprocess


V DISCUSSION

We presented two methods on how to detect sourcesand extract their spectra from sparse beamformingmaps The methods were developed and evaluated onreal-world wind-tunnel datasets The reason for thischoice was that aeroacoustic experts only need supportin identifying sources in beamforming maps of complexambiguous data The drawback of this choice is thelack of a ground truth to quantify the results with arelated metric Thus the results were only discussedqualitatively by comparing them to each other their con-sistency to the expectation of the aeroacoustic expertsand to the literature Additionally results of a genericdataset were analyzed quantitatively which consistedof three superpositioned monopole point-sources withband-limited white noise with known source distributionand location and known emission power

SIND was based on the idea that the source-partsrsquopositions of compact acoustic sources at different fre-quencies appear spatially normal distributed in sparsebeamforming maps Thus it yielded good results infinding point-like sources such as slat tracks strakesflap tracks or the wingtip SIND was also able toidentify dense overlapping sources like the flap sideedge or point-like sources that were embedded indistributed sources such as the nacelle and the slattracks in the inner slat region It profited from stackingthe histograms of multiple measurements at differentMach numbers and angles of attack to increase thesample size for the histogram yet failed to recognizesparsely distributed source blobs with no clear midpointWind-tunnel noise was a prominent example of thisas this source was projected on different parts of theimage with increasing angle of attack α due to themismatched focal plane SINDsrsquo results are robustagainst variations of the introduced thresholds and thuswere consistent with the expert out of the loop Thesource positions on the two similar airframe modelsare consistent and based on the underlying source-parthistogram we assume they are mostly correct Thecorrect identification of line-like sources such as theslat is ambiguous for this approach In combinationwith CLEAN-SC line-like sourcesrsquo source-parts donot reassemble normal distributions SIND tends towrongly identify these as multiple point-like sourcesdue to its distribution assumption in combination withCLEAN-SC processing However the airframe datasetsshowed that SINDrsquos normal distribution approach wassuited for most sources For future improvements asecond distribution that is more suited towards fittingline-like sources is of interest The use of DAMAS overCLEAN-SC might provide a more suited starting pointfor this Also SIND completely ignores the source-partrsquosPSD(f)-information Since the resulting spectra areexpected to be smooth in a mathematical sense thisinformation could be potentially used additionally tothe spatial criterion

SIHC was based on the hierarchical clusteringmethod HDBSCAN and thus did not assume a pre-defined source distribution The source-parts wereclustered directly in space frequency and SPL withthe expert in the loop as the results depend stronglyon the set threshold This means the correct thresholdhas to be determined manually to give accurate resultsBecause of the additional frequency and SPL informationSIHC has the potential to separate spatially overlappingsources such as slat tracks and slats On the one handit clustered the inner slat and the flap side edge tosingle sources for which we assume the SIND solutionto be more precise On the other hand it was able toidentify sources containing source-parts that were toofar scattered around the map to be identified by SINDsuch as spurious noise sources that were not located onthe wing We consider this as an advantage as thesesources originated from the wind-tunnel and early in-situdetection during test measurements can potentially helpto find and eliminate them

Despite the similar identified source regions SINDrsquosestimation of individual source positions is more refinedcompared to the SIHC solution While both methodsidentified the individual slat tracks (except for the A320inner slat where we assume the existence of two slattracks embedded in a distributed high-frequency noisesource see Figure 1) the strakes and the wing tip onthe Do728 SIHC missed the flap track closest to thewing tip on the Do728 and A320 It also clustered theinner slat region of the Do728 to a single ROI as well asthe nacelle region of the A320 and Do728 and the outerslat tip of the A320 and Do728

The Do728 and A320 flap side edge as well as anDo728 slat source were shown in detail to evaluatethe ROI quality While the source-parts of the flapside edge form two overlapping normal distributionsSIHC identified a single source We expect the flap sideedge to be composed of multiple spatially distributedaeroacoustic source mechanisms2225 and showed thatits spectrum is driven by at least two of them Thuswe favor the SIND result over the SIHC result Theexample Do728 slat source showed that the Strouhalnumber scaling tones are a distributed line source thatis superimposed with point-like slat track sources whichscale over Helmholtz number While SIND identifiedmost of the slat sources as point-like sources between theslat tracks it was not able to assign the low-frequencysource-parts to the slat that were located at the slattrack positions Since SIHC has the additional SPL andfrequency information of each source-part and had noprior assumption of the source distribution it was ableto assign the source-parts of overlapping sources to thecorrect sources in this case Thus we favor the SIHCresult for the slat sources

Both methods proved useful with different advan-tages and disadvantages to the real-world airframe


datasets SIHC works well for small datasets (eg asingle angle of attack and few Mach variations) with lit-tle statistical noise It is advantageous for exploring thedataset because a single threshold drastically changesthe ROI outcome Generally density-based clusteringmethods tend to fail in separating clusters when toomuch noise is present that connects the clusters so-called bridge points Consequently SIHC yields betterresults when decreasing the Welch block size whichincreases the number of FFT averages and results in lessstatistical noise but also a lower frequency resolutionSIND works well for noisy datasets with high-resolutionPSDs (large Welch block sizes) and yields stable resultsthat are mostly independent of the selected thresholdsand profits from large datasets Large datatsets ensurethat each source is observed multiple times and thusthe total number of source-parts increases which allowsthe detection of sources that are not detectable in singlenoisy beamforming maps Since SINDrsquos thresholds onlylimit the processing time and drop sources after theidentification increasing or decreasing these values willnot change the outcome of the remaining sources ThusSIHC is well-suited for an iterative process with theexpert in the loop that can be fine-tuned to the desiredoutcome while SIND requires no tuning to generatestable results and can be employed autonomouslyThe overall quality of SINDrsquos results decreases withsmaller datasets (fewer measurements) as the numberof source-parts decreases while SIHCrsquos results improveas it has to handle less statistical noise and vice versaIn specific cases when two sources overlap spatially butcan be distinguished based on their SPL(f) such asslat sources the SIHC method has a clear advantageover SIND which naively assigns the source-partsbased on their spatial probability alone While densesource-distributions with bridge points are problematicfor SIHC it is able to detect sparse source-distributionswithout a clear midpoint which SIND cannot detect(it relies on a well-localized distribution center as astarting point during the iterations) Thus SINDrsquosresults heavily rely on a well-resolved beamforming mapbut can handle statistical noise due to insufficient CSMaverages SIHC on the other hand can to some degreecorrectly assign the source-parts that are far away fromtheir corresponding source due to a low beamformingresolution based on their SPL and frequency informa-tion However its results suffer from statistical noiseso it requires long measurement times or small blocksizes for sufficient CSM block averaging It is possibleto combine both methods by first employing SIND toextract the high-density clusters and then performingSIHC on the remaining source-parts

The ability to recognize true sources quantitativelyestimate their position accuracy and acoustic power canonly be evaluated on the generic dataset where thesequantities are known The generic dataset provides avery limited source separation challenge as it consistsonly of spatially separated monopole sources However

challenging aspects are the equidistant array spacingwhich results in strong grating lobes These are evenvisible in the CLEAN-SC maps at high frequencies(f ge 20 kHz) see Figure 23 between the true source po-sitions Also the low array resolution (with a Rayleighresolution limit fR asymp 1 kHz for the sources spaced around∆x1 asymp 015 m) provides a separation challenge Theselimitations resulted in CLEAN-SC failing to reconstructthe beamforming map at frequencies below f0 le 1 kHzor estimating the correct PSD at high frequencies(∆PSDS3

(f asymp 30 kHz) = minus10 dB) even when evaluatingsingle source measurements as shown in Figure 23 andFigure 22 For the assessment of the source localizationand spectra reconstruction only the combined error ofCLEAN-SC and the proposed methods can be evaluatedHowever since the CLEAN-SC maps of the individualsources are available we spatially integrated these indi-vidual maps within a radius r = 01 m (reference area)around the true source locations to obtain a CLEAN-SCreference position and spectrum of the sources Thisallows an estimation of how much of the errors can beexplained by the CLEAN-SC process which is given inTable II Both proposed methods identified the threesources in the CLEAN-SC maps with similar spatialaccuracy see Table II The accuracy is overall higherthan the average location of the source-parts within theCLEAN-SC reference area Since the estimated sourceposition is simply the average position of all assignedsource-parts the position error is smaller for sourcesthat have dominant high-frequency content than forsources that contain only low-frequency content (ieS3) Out of the total spectrum range fr both proposedmethods were able to reconstruct around fr asymp 23 of thespectrum see Table II Figure 24 and Figure 25 showedthat most of these failed reconstructions happened at S1

f le 6 kHz and S2 f ge 9 kHz where the SNR is belowSNR le minus15 dB We expect these to be mainly causednot by the proposed methods confusing or missingsource-parts but by the CLEAN-SC and conventionalbeamforming process on the superpositioned CSMswhich can be observed by the strong differences of thespectrum reconstructions in Figure 22 and Figure 24but also by the similarity of SIND and SIHC in Figure 24and Figure 25

Performance-wise SIND is superior to SIHC and canbe employed on datasets of any size Additionally bothmethods provide a confidence estimation for each source-part belonging to all sources While the manual defini-tion of ROIs simply determines if a source-part is part ofa source or not this information is valuable for an expertin estimating the reliability of the source spectra To-gether both methods cover the automatic source identi-fication and spectrum generation from single sparse low-resolution FFT beamforming maps to high-resolutionFFT beamforming maps including multiple parametervariations with speed and accuracy that are unmatchedby human experts


VI CONCLUSION

We presented the two methods ldquoSINDrdquo and ldquoSIHCrdquowhich automatically detect aeroacoustic sources in de-convolved beamforming maps They identify underlyingsource-distributions and thus allow for the automatic de-termination of Regions Of Interest To the best of ourknowledge these are the first automated approaches thatcan identify sources and generate corresponding spectrafrom sparse beamforming maps without prior informa-tion about the source locations Both methods togethercover a variety of real-world scenario used-cases fromsingle measurements with sparse source distributions tohigh-dimensional datasets with parameter variations andcan be combined Implementation details and resultswere discussed on scaled airframe half-model measure-ments and an error metric was introduced on a genericdataset featuring three known monopoles In particularthe resulting Regions Of Interest and spectra of the flapside edge and a slat track were presented and showed thatSIND is superior in separating dense overlapping sourceregions while SIHC is superior in assigning the source-parts to the correct sources which results in an improvedreconstruction of spectra at low frequencies For futurework SIND should be extended with a spectrum continu-ity criterion that ensures that the scattered low-frequencysource-parts are assigned to the correct sources

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the experts of the aeroacoustic groupGottingen especially Dr Thomas Ahlefeldt for thehelpful discussions on the analyzed beamforming resultsWe also acknowledge the DLR Institute of Aerodynam-ics and Flow Technology Department of Experimen-tal Methods (contact Carsten Spehr) for providing theSAGAS software which generated the beamforming andCLEAN-SC results for this paper We thank the review-ers for their comments and insights which substantiallyimproved this paper

1E-A Muller ed Mechanics of Sound Generation in Flows IU-TAM Symposia (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1979)

2M S Howe Hydrodynamics and Sound (Cambridge UniversityPress 2007)

3R Merino-Martınez P Sijtsma M Snellen T Ahlefeldt J An-toni C J Bahr D Blacodon D Ernst A Finez S FunkeT F Geyer S Haxter G Herold X Huang W M HumphreysQ Leclere A Malgoezar U Michel T Padois A Pereira C Pi-card E Sarradj H Siller D G Simons and C Spehr ldquoA re-view of acoustic imaging methods using phased microphone ar-raysrdquo CEAS Aeronautical Journal 10(1) 197ndash230 (2019) doi101007s13272-019-00383-4

4R Merino-Martınez P Sijtsma A Rubio Carpio R ZamponiS Luesutthiviboon A Malgoezar M Snellen C Schram andD Simons ldquoIntegration methods for distributed sound sourcesrdquoInternational Journal of Aeroacoustics 18 1475472X1985294(2019) doi 1011771475472X19852945

5M J Bianco P Gerstoft J Traer E Ozanich M A RochS Gannot and C A Deledalle ldquoMachine learning in acousticsTheory and applicationsrdquo The Journal of the Acoustical Societyof America 146(5) 3590ndash3628 (2019) doi 10112115133944

6J Antoni ldquoA bayesian approach to sound source reconstructionOptimal basis regularization and focusingrdquo The Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America 131(4) 2873ndash2890 (2012) doi 10112113685484

7E Zhang J Antoni B Dong and H Snoussi ldquoBayesian space-frequency separation of wide-band sound sources by a hierarchi-cal approachrdquo The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America132(5) 3240ndash3250 (2012) doi 10112114754530

8B Dong J Antoni and E Zhang ldquoBlind separation of soundsources from the principle of least spatial entropyrdquo Journal ofSound and Vibration 333(9) 2643ndash2668 (2014) doi httpsdoiorg101016jjsv201312011

9B Dong J Antoni A Pereira and W Kellermann ldquoBlind sep-aration of incoherent and spatially disjoint sound sourcesrdquo Jour-nal of Sound and Vibration 383 414ndash445 (2016) doi httpsdoiorg101016jjsv201607018

10D Blacodon ldquoArray processing for noisy data Applicationfor open and closed wind-tunnelsrdquo AIAA Journal 49(1) 55ndash66(2011) doi 1025141J050006

11T Ahlefeldt ldquoAeroacoustic measurements of a scaled half-modelat high reynolds numbersrdquo AIAA Journal 51(12) 2783ndash2791(2013) doi 1025141J052345

12T Ahlefeldt ldquoMicrophone array measurement in european tran-sonic wind-tunnel at flight reynolds numbersrdquo AIAA Journal55(1) 36ndash48 (2017) doi 1025141J055262

13P Sijtsma ldquoClean based on spatial source coherence interna-tional journal of aeroacousticsrdquo International Journal of Aeroa-coustics 6 (2007) doi 101260147547207783359459

14C J Bahr W M Humphreys D Ernst T Ahlefeldt C SpehrA Pereira Q Leclere C Picard R Porteous D Moreau J RFischer and C J Doolan ldquoA comparison of microphone phasedarray methods applied to the study of airframe noise in wind-tunnel testingrdquo in 23rd AIAACEAS Aeroacoustics Conference(2017) doi 10251462017-3718

15P Sijtsma ldquoExperimental techniques for identification and char-acterisation of noise sourcesrdquo NLR (2004)

16D Ernst ldquoAkustischer koharenzverlust in offenen windkanalenaufgrund der turbulenten scherschichtrdquo PhD thesis TechnischeUniversitat Berlin 2020 doi 1014279DEPOSITONCE-9712

17M Abramowitz Handbook of Mathematical Functions WithFormulas Graphs and Mathematical Tables (Dover Publica-tions Inc 1974)

18G Schwarz ldquoEstimating the dimension of a modelrdquo The Annalsof Statistics 6(2) 461ndash464 (1978)

19R J G B Campello D Moulavi and J Sander ldquoDensity-basedclustering based on hierarchical density estimatesrdquo in Advancesin Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining edited by J Pei V STseng L Cao H Motoda and G Xu Springer Berlin Heidel-berg (2013) pp 160ndash172 doi 101007978-3-642-37456-2_14

20L McInnes J Healy and S Astels ldquohdbscan Hierarchical den-sity based clusteringrdquo The Journal of Open Source Software2(11) (2017) doi 1021105joss00205

21Y P Guo and M C Joshi ldquoNoise characteristics of aircrafthigh lift systemsrdquo AIAA Journal 41(7) 1247ndash1256 (2003) doi10251422093

22W Dobrzynski ldquoAlmost 40 years of airframe noise researchWhat did we achieverdquo Journal of Aircraft 47(2) 353ndash367 (2010)doi 102514144457

23W Dobrzynski and M Pott-Pollenske ldquoSlat noise source stud-ies for farfield noise predictionrdquo in 7th AIAACEAS Aeroacous-tics Conference and Exhibit (2001) Vol 5805 doi 10251462001-2158

24C J Bahr and W C Horne Advanced Background SubtractionApplied to Aeroacoustic Wind Tunnel Testing doi 10251462015-3272

25M S Howe ldquoOn the generation of side-edge flap noiserdquo Journalof Sound and Vibration 80(4) 555 ndash 573 (1982) doi 1010160022-460X(82)90498-9


most of the following aeroacoustic analysis is based onthese

For aeroacoustic measurements the important taskof defining ROIs is performed by the expert manuallyand takes typically from hours up to days from our expe-rience depending on the complexity of the beamformingmaps and the studied model For the identificationof individual sources machine learning proved to bea promising tool in acoustics and Gaussian MixtureModels (GMM) were already deployed to track speakersources in space-time5 Another framework developedby Antoni6 Zhang et al7 and Dong et al89 relied onthe use of blind source separation (BSS) They showedthat beamforming and nearfield acoustic holography canbe reformulated as a BSS problem and specifically solvedfor incoherent sources The authors provided a metricon how to determine the correct number of sourceswhich must be estimated before BSS and showed thattheir method is robust towards an incorrect estimationThe BSS problem must be solved for each frequencyand each measurement individually However as statedabove aeroacoustic sources often exist in limited fre-quency bands at specific flow configurations or canbe only detected at specific angles of attack Whilethe authors suggest using spatial correlation analysis toidentify which reconstructed source distribution belongsto which source at the corresponding frequency theBSS approach itself lacks to provide a connection ofthe reconstructed sources over frequency Thus for avariety of measurement configuration where the numberof sources changes BSS causes the same problem asbeamforming which is that the expert has to validatewhich reconstructed source distribution belongs to whichsource

Even though these advanced techniques exist andconventional beamforming is in comparison very limitedin terms of resolution and dynamic range it is still pri-marily used in wind-tunnel experiments in combinationwith deconvolution methods The reasons for this arethe low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) which is often below〈SNR〉f le minus10 dB10 that it does not require prior knowl-edge of the source configurations and distributions thatit is robust and fast Thus this paper focuses on meth-ods that can be deployed after the use of various existingstate-of-the-art imaging techniques in the frequency do-main such as conventional beamforming in combinationwith CLEAN-SC or DAMAS The scaled air-frame mod-els of a Dornier 72811 (Do728) and an Airbus A32012 arepresented to derive these methods discuss their useful-ness and specify a proof-of-concept implementation Themethods are then evaluated on a generic measurementfeaturing three monopole sources with known locationand source power

II DATASETS

The data presented in this paper consists of beam-forming measurements of two closed-section wind-tunnelmodels one is of a Do72811 and one is of an A32012 anda generic open-section wind-tunnel dataset which fea-tures a streamlined monopole (0005 m opening) speakeras the primary noise source For the Do728 dataset val-ues of αi = 1deg3deg5deg6deg7deg8deg 9deg 10deg are chosen for angleof attack α and Mi = 0125 0150 0175 0200 02250250 for Mach number M The mean Reynolds numberis 〈Re〉M = 14times 106 based on the mean aerodynamiccord length D0 = 0353 m and ambient temperature ofT = 300 K at an ambient pressure p0 = 1times 105 PaThe array consists of 144 microphones at an apertureof 1756 m times 13 m and has a sample frequency of fS =120 kHz The A320 set contains αi = 3deg7deg715deg9degMi = 0175 0200 0225 at a mean Reynolds num-ber of 〈Re〉M = 14times 106 based on D0 = 0308 mT = 300 K p0 = 1times 105 Pa The array consisted of96 microphones at an aperture of 106 mtimes 05704 m andfS = 150 kHz The generic dataset consists of threeindividual speaker positions with unique band-limitedwhite noise Mach numbers of Mi = 000 003 and 006were chosen at ambient pressure p0 = 1times 105 Pa andtemperature T = 300 K and for each flow configurationan additional noise-floor measurement was obtained byturning off the speaker The square equidistant arrayconsisted of 7 times 7 = 49 microphones with an apertureof 054 m times 054 m and was placed ∆z = 065 m awayfrom the sources The sample rate was fS = 32 768 HzThus the Do728 dataset consists of 48 measurementsthe A320 dataset consists of 12 measurements For thegeneric measurement the measurements of individualsource positions are superpositioned and thus the genericdataset consists of effectively three measurements (withthe speaker turned on) Cross-Spectral density Matrices(CSM) are calculated using Welchrsquos method with a blocksize of 1024 samples for the Do728 512 samples for theA320 and 256 samples for the generic dataset with 50 overlap The beamforming is performed using conven-tional beamforming and CLEAN-SC deconvolution witha focus point resolution of ∆x1 = ∆x2 = 5times 10minus3 m

III SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

A general problem concerning beamforming is thatat long wavelengths the localization of acoustic sourcesis difficult Furthermore imaging artifacts may occurdue to the sparse spatial distribution of the microphonearray These artifacts result from background noisethe arrayrsquos Point Spread Function and aliasing orinsufficient Welch estimations3

In this part of the paper we discuss two ideason how to identify sources from beamforming mapscontaminated with noise and obtain their spectrumThe ideas are based on the sparsity of beamformingmaps in the sense that the quantity of zero elements





at M = 02 α = 3deg







tions (SIND)

x1 [m]

x 2 [m

]

a)

x1 [m]

b)

40 30 20 10 0

norm OASPL [dB]

00 02 04 06

log10(n+1)




~x






N(x1 x2) = A exp



(1)

a =cos2 θ

2σ2x1

+sin2 θ

2σ2x2

(2a)

b =minus sin 2θ

4σ2x1

+sin 2θ

4σ2x2

(2b)

c =sin2 θ

2σ2x1

+cos2 θ

2σ2x2

(2c)

x1 [m]

x 2 [m

]

a)

01

03

05

07

09

005 000 005xi

00

02

04

06

08

10

norm

PDF












dSi =sum

~xjisinXSi



sumi dSi






ASi=

intx1

intx2













n SIND SIHC

tI tA tσ t tσ

Do728 106 30 0 1minus 3σ 500 1minus 3σ

A320 104 20 0 1minus 3σ 105 1minus 3σ











x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)












x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




tion in Figure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




ure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




Figure 6

x 1 [m

]

x2 [m]

f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)








(SIHC)



09950 09975 10000a1

0996

0998

1000

1002

1004a 2

=30deg=70deg

=72deg=90deg

002 000 002b1

002

001

000

001

002

b 2

M=0175M=0200

M=0225




α1 = 3deg














scaled PSD





104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]






104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]








104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]





SIND ROI

102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

43

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

53

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225





102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

47

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

73

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225







101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120PS

D [d

BHz

] sc

aled

by

n=3

0

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

80

b)





101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

38

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

60

b)









IV METHOD ERRORS











f r SIND SIHC CLEAN







tota



fr 656 668 968

103 104

f [Hz]

20

0

20

40

PSD

[dB

Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)













103 104

f [Hz]

20

10

0

10

20

erro

r [dB

]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

M=000 M=003 M=006





microphones









10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)





see eq 8



60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN




NaN)


SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)



V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
































at M = 02 α = 3deg







tions (SIND)

x1 [m]

x 2 [m

]

a)

x1 [m]

b)

40 30 20 10 0

norm OASPL [dB]

00 02 04 06

log10(n+1)




~x






N(x1 x2) = A exp



(1)

a =cos2 θ

2σ2x1

+sin2 θ

2σ2x2

(2a)

b =minus sin 2θ

4σ2x1

+sin 2θ

4σ2x2

(2b)

c =sin2 θ

2σ2x1

+cos2 θ

2σ2x2

(2c)

x1 [m]

x 2 [m

]

a)

01

03

05

07

09

005 000 005xi

00

02

04

06

08

10

norm

PDF












dSi =sum

~xjisinXSi



sumi dSi






ASi=

intx1

intx2













n SIND SIHC

tI tA tσ t tσ

Do728 106 30 0 1minus 3σ 500 1minus 3σ

A320 104 20 0 1minus 3σ 105 1minus 3σ











x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)












x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




tion in Figure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




ure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




Figure 6

x 1 [m

]

x2 [m]

f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)








(SIHC)



09950 09975 10000a1

0996

0998

1000

1002

1004a 2

=30deg=70deg

=72deg=90deg

002 000 002b1

002

001

000

001

002

b 2

M=0175M=0200

M=0225




α1 = 3deg














scaled PSD





104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]






104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]








104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]





SIND ROI

102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

43

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

53

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225





102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

47

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

73

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225







101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120PS

D [d

BHz

] sc

aled

by

n=3

0

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

80

b)





101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

38

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

60

b)









IV METHOD ERRORS











f r SIND SIHC CLEAN







tota



fr 656 668 968

103 104

f [Hz]

20

0

20

40

PSD

[dB

Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)













103 104

f [Hz]

20

10

0

10

20

erro

r [dB

]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

M=000 M=003 M=006





microphones









10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)





see eq 8



60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN




NaN)


SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)



V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
































N(x1 x2) = A exp



(1)

a =cos2 θ

2σ2x1

+sin2 θ

2σ2x2

(2a)

b =minus sin 2θ

4σ2x1

+sin 2θ

4σ2x2

(2b)

c =sin2 θ

2σ2x1

+cos2 θ

2σ2x2

(2c)

x1 [m]

x 2 [m

]

a)

01

03

05

07

09

005 000 005xi

00

02

04

06

08

10

norm

PDF












dSi =sum

~xjisinXSi



sumi dSi






ASi=

intx1

intx2













n SIND SIHC

tI tA tσ t tσ

Do728 106 30 0 1minus 3σ 500 1minus 3σ

A320 104 20 0 1minus 3σ 105 1minus 3σ











x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)












x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




tion in Figure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




ure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




Figure 6

x 1 [m

]

x2 [m]

f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)








(SIHC)



09950 09975 10000a1

0996

0998

1000

1002

1004a 2

=30deg=70deg

=72deg=90deg

002 000 002b1

002

001

000

001

002

b 2

M=0175M=0200

M=0225




α1 = 3deg














scaled PSD





104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]






104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]








104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]





SIND ROI

102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

43

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

53

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225





102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

47

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

73

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225







101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120PS

D [d

BHz

] sc

aled

by

n=3

0

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

80

b)





101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

38

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

60

b)









IV METHOD ERRORS











f r SIND SIHC CLEAN







tota



fr 656 668 968

103 104

f [Hz]

20

0

20

40

PSD

[dB

Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)













103 104

f [Hz]

20

10

0

10

20

erro

r [dB

]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

M=000 M=003 M=006





microphones









10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)





see eq 8



60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN




NaN)


SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)



V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS






























dSi =sum

~xjisinXSi



sumi dSi






ASi=

intx1

intx2













n SIND SIHC

tI tA tσ t tσ

Do728 106 30 0 1minus 3σ 500 1minus 3σ

A320 104 20 0 1minus 3σ 105 1minus 3σ











x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)












x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




tion in Figure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




ure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




Figure 6

x 1 [m

]

x2 [m]

f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)








(SIHC)



09950 09975 10000a1

0996

0998

1000

1002

1004a 2

=30deg=70deg

=72deg=90deg

002 000 002b1

002

001

000

001

002

b 2

M=0175M=0200

M=0225




α1 = 3deg














scaled PSD





104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]






104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]








104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]





SIND ROI

102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

43

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

53

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225





102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

47

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

73

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225







101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120PS

D [d

BHz

] sc

aled

by

n=3

0

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

80

b)





101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

38

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

60

b)









IV METHOD ERRORS











f r SIND SIHC CLEAN







tota



fr 656 668 968

103 104

f [Hz]

20

0

20

40

PSD

[dB

Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)













103 104

f [Hz]

20

10

0

10

20

erro

r [dB

]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

M=000 M=003 M=006





microphones









10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)





see eq 8



60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN




NaN)


SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)



V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS




































x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)












x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




tion in Figure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




ure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




Figure 6

x 1 [m

]

x2 [m]

f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)








(SIHC)



09950 09975 10000a1

0996

0998

1000

1002

1004a 2

=30deg=70deg

=72deg=90deg

002 000 002b1

002

001

000

001

002

b 2

M=0175M=0200

M=0225




α1 = 3deg














scaled PSD





104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]






104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]








104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]





SIND ROI

102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

43

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

53

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225





102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

47

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

73

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225







101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120PS

D [d

BHz

] sc

aled

by

n=3

0

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

80

b)





101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

38

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

60

b)









IV METHOD ERRORS











f r SIND SIHC CLEAN







tota



fr 656 668 968

103 104

f [Hz]

20

0

20

40

PSD

[dB

Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)













103 104

f [Hz]

20

10

0

10

20

erro

r [dB

]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

M=000 M=003 M=006





microphones









10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)





see eq 8



60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN




NaN)


SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)



V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS





























x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




tion in Figure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




ure 6

x1 [m]

x2 [m

]f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)




Figure 6

x 1 [m

]

x2 [m]

f [Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

20

40

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]

b)

000 025 050 075 100

P(s Si)








(SIHC)



09950 09975 10000a1

0996

0998

1000

1002

1004a 2

=30deg=70deg

=72deg=90deg

002 000 002b1

002

001

000

001

002

b 2

M=0175M=0200

M=0225




α1 = 3deg














scaled PSD





104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]






104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]








104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]





SIND ROI

102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

43

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

53

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225





102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

47

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

73

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225







101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120PS

D [d

BHz

] sc

aled

by

n=3

0

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

80

b)





101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

38

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

60

b)









IV METHOD ERRORS











f r SIND SIHC CLEAN







tota



fr 656 668 968

103 104

f [Hz]

20

0

20

40

PSD

[dB

Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)













103 104

f [Hz]

20

10

0

10

20

erro

r [dB

]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

M=000 M=003 M=006





microphones









10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)





see eq 8



60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN




NaN)


SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)



V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS





























09950 09975 10000a1

0996

0998

1000

1002

1004a 2

=30deg=70deg

=72deg=90deg

002 000 002b1

002

001

000

001

002

b 2

M=0175M=0200

M=0225




α1 = 3deg














scaled PSD





104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]






104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]








104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]





SIND ROI

102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

43

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

53

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225





102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

47

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

73

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225







101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120PS

D [d

BHz

] sc

aled

by

n=3

0

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

80

b)





101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

38

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

60

b)









IV METHOD ERRORS











f r SIND SIHC CLEAN







tota



fr 656 668 968

103 104

f [Hz]

20

0

20

40

PSD

[dB

Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)













103 104

f [Hz]

20

10

0

10

20

erro

r [dB

]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

M=000 M=003 M=006





microphones









10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)





see eq 8



60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN




NaN)


SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)



V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS





























104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

PSD

[dB

Hz]






104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]








104

f [Hz]

20

30

40

50

60

70

PSD

[dB

Hz]





SIND ROI

102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

43

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

53

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225





102

St [ ]

40

50

60

70

80

90

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

47

a)

101

He [ ]

60

70

80

90

100

110

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

73

b)

M=0175M=0200M=0225







101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120PS

D [d

BHz

] sc

aled

by

n=3

0

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

80

b)





101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

38

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

60

b)









IV METHOD ERRORS











f r SIND SIHC CLEAN







tota



fr 656 668 968

103 104

f [Hz]

20

0

20

40

PSD

[dB

Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)













103 104

f [Hz]

20

10

0

10

20

erro

r [dB

]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

M=000 M=003 M=006





microphones









10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)





see eq 8



60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN




NaN)


SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)



V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS





























101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120PS

D [d

BHz

] sc

aled

by

n=3

0

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

80

b)





101 102

St [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

38

a)

M=0125M=0150M=0175M=0200M=0225M=0250

101

He [ ]

60

80

100

120

PSD

[dB

Hz]

scal

ed b

y n=

60

b)









IV METHOD ERRORS











f r SIND SIHC CLEAN







tota



fr 656 668 968

103 104

f [Hz]

20

0

20

40

PSD

[dB

Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)













103 104

f [Hz]

20

10

0

10

20

erro

r [dB

]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

M=000 M=003 M=006





microphones









10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)





see eq 8



60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN




NaN)


SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)



V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS




































f r SIND SIHC CLEAN







tota



fr 656 668 968

103 104

f [Hz]

20

0

20

40

PSD

[dB

Hz]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)













103 104

f [Hz]

20

10

0

10

20

erro

r [dB

]

a)

103 104

f [Hz]

b)

103 104

f [Hz]

c)

M=000 M=003 M=006





microphones









10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)





see eq 8



60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN




NaN)


SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)



V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
































10 1

100

101

|erro

r| [d

B]

a1)

S1S2S3

b1)

103 104

f [Hz]

60

40

20

0

SNR

[dB]

a2)

103 104

f [Hz]

b2)





see eq 8



60 50 40 30 20 10 0SNR [dB]

000

025

050

075

100

cum

rel

fre

quen

cy SINDSIHCCLEAN




NaN)


SNRSi(fM) = PSDSi

minussumSi

10 log10

(10

PSDSi10

) (8)



V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS





























V DISCUSSION















VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS




































VI CONCLUSION


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS





























from deconvolved beamforming maps - arxiv

Documents