applied

sciences
Article
Experimental Investigation of Airfoil Instability Tonal Noise
Reduction Using Structured Porous Trailing Edges
Yong Wang 1,2 , Kongcheng Zuo 2, *, Peng Guo 2,3 , Kun Zhao 2 and Victor Feliksovich Kopiev 4

1 State Key Laboratory of Aerodynamics, China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center,
Mianyang 621000, China; [email protected]
2 Key Laboratory of Aerodynamic Noise Control, China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center,
Mianyang 621000, China; [email protected] (P.G.); [email protected] (K.Z.)
3 Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Health Maintenance for Mechanical Equipment, Hunan University of
Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China
4 Department of Aeroacoustics, Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI), 105005 Moscow, Russia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Reducing the tonal noise from airfoil instabilities has attracted significant interest from
the aeronautical community in the past few years. The aim of this paper is to investigate the effect
of structured porous trailing edges on the tonal noise reduction performance of a symmetrical
NACA 0012 airfoil. Detailed parametric testing was performed in an open-jet wind tunnel between
the baseline solid trailing edge and seventeen structured porous trailing edges with different sub-
millimeter-scale pores. The experimental results demonstrate that structured porous trailing edges
can reduce the noticeable tonal noise of the symmetrical NACA 0012 airfoil. Moreover, the design
parameters for the structured porous edges have slightly different impacts on the tonal noise reduction
performance between a zero angle of attack (α = 0◦ ) and a non-zero angle of attack (α = 10◦ ): better
airfoil tonal noise reduction is due to the porous parameters of small pore coverage, small-to-
moderate chordwise spacing, and moderate spanwise spacing at α = 0◦ . On the other hand, the
optimal combination of the structured porous edge at α = 10◦ is the configuration with larger pore
coverage, smaller chordwise spacing, and spanwise spacing.

Citation: Wang, Y.; Zuo, K.; Guo, P.;

Keywords: tonal noise; noise reduction; structured pore; trailing edge; laminar boundary layer
Zhao, K.; Kopiev, V.F. Experimental
Investigation of Airfoil Instability
Tonal Noise Reduction Using
Structured Porous Trailing Edges.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992. https://
1. Introduction
doi.org/10.3390/app14072992 The reduction in an airfoil’s self-noise level is one of the practical advantages of
reducing the community noise impact of airports that are close to densely populated
Academic Editor: John S. Allen
residential areas. Tonal noise from instabilities is an important airfoil self-noise mechanism
Received: 20 January 2024 at the trailing edge [1–3], especially on airfoils operating at low-to-moderate Reynolds
Revised: 6 March 2024 numbers and angles of attack, e.g., small, unmanned air vehicles. To reduce the tonal noise
Accepted: 7 March 2024 from instabilities, a number of bio-inspired aerodynamic noise control techniques have
Published: 2 April 2024 been investigated in the past few decades [4], which can be classified into trailing edge
serrations, brush-type extensions, and porous edges.
Chong et al. [5–7] investigated the capability of trailing edge serrations in reducing
noise from airfoil instabilities. They found that trailing edge serrations could alter the length
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
of the laminar separation bubble and inhibit the formation of a separated boundary layer
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
at the pressure surface of the airfoil’s trailing edge, which in turn reduces the amplitude
This article is an open access article
of the tonal noise from the instability. Time-resolved PIV (Particle Image Velocimetry)
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
measurements of instantaneous flow evolution by Serpieri et al. [8] confirmed another noise
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
reduction mechanism of serrated trailing edges, as the authors observed that they could
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
strongly reduce the coherence of the shed Tollmien–Schlichting waves as they advected
4.0/). past the airfoil trailing edge. Herr and Dobrzynski [9,10] demonstrated that brush-type

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14072992 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 2 of 18

extensions could reduce both the broadband noise from a turbulent boundary layer and
quasi-tonal vortex shedding noise if the edge modifications exceeded the minimum fiber
length and had small fiber spacing. More recently, Wang et al. [11,12] conducted detailed
aeroacoustic measurements on a set of porous edges, which were made of open-cell metallic
foams with a piecewise gradient-distributed property in terms of pores per inch (ppi). They
showed that the gradient-distributed porous edges could noticeably reduce the tonal noise
from airfoil instabilities, and the performance was enhanced when the porous edges could
gradually sparsely transition from the solid main body to that of the downstream air
flow. Jiang et al. [13] numerically captured the noise reduction and increase caused by a
micro-tube porous trailing edge and its effect on the wavenumber–frequency spectrum.
An in-depth analysis of the dynamic structures of the trailing edge flow and surface
pressure fields linked the noise reduction to ‘cross-jet-like’ flow permeation through the
micro-tube structures.
With the development of 3D printing technology (in terms of further meeting airwor-
thiness requirements, such as maintainability, strength, and costs) and for the convenience
of measuring the internal flow field of the pores, there is a tendency to replace traditional
metal foam or polyurethane porous materials, which typically possess a randomized inter-
nal structure, with customized structured porous designs. Arcondoulis et al. [14] validated
that a 3D-printed porous coated cylinder can be used as a passive noise control method to
reduce the cylinder vortex’s shedding tone. Carpio et al. [15] demonstrated that an asymp-
totic value of up to 9.3 dB of broadband noise attenuation from the turbulent boundary
layer was obtained by using 3D-printed perforated trailing edge inserts for increasing the
flow permeability. They also reported that an extremely loud shedding-related tonal noise
is generated from the blunt solid–permeable junction section, so it is recommended to opti-
mize the physical parameters of the structured porous inserts to achieve better broadband
noise abatement. Zhang and Chong found that the most optimized 3D-printed porous
trailing edge could obtain a maximum turbulent broadband noise reduction of 7 dB at an
α = 0◦ angle of attack [16], and the reduction in the broadband noise was more significant
when α ≤ 0◦ [17]. They also observed an unwanted bluntness-related tonal shedding noise
at a high Reynolds number.
However, fewer studies have been reported on reducing the tonal noise from airfoil
instabilities using structured porous edges. Zhang and Chong [17] were some of the
first to perform such experimental investigations on an asymmetric, highly cambered
NACA 65(12)-10 airfoil at an α = 0◦ angle of attack. They showed that 3D-printed porous
trailing edges could suppress the tonal noise from laminar instabilities, especially in the
case of a pore diameter d = 1 mm and porosity σ = 30% at a low free-stream velocity of
V∞ = 20 m/s. On the other hand, at high velocities of V∞ ≥ 40 m/s, additional bluntness-
related tonal peaks appeared to jeopardize the overall noise reduction performance. Since
then, as far as the authors know, no detailed parametric study on reducing the tonal noise
from airfoil instabilities by using structured porous trailing edges has been presented in
the literature, and this study therefore aims to answer the following questions: (1) Can
structured porous trailing edges reduce the tonal noise of a symmetrical airfoil, such as a
NACA 0012 airfoil? (2) How do the pore diameter, pore coverage, pore position, and pore
arrangement order affect tonal noise reduction? (3) How do the chordwise spacing and
spanwise spacing between adjacent pores affect tonal noise reduction? (4) Can structured
porous trailing edges still suppress tonal noise at a non-zero angle of attack, and is there
any difference from a zero angle of attack? These motivate the present paper, which aims
to fill this knowledge gap. Detailed experimental measurements in an open-jet wind
tunnel were performed on a set of NACA 0012 airfoils with different sub-millimeter-scale
porous settings. Experimental results revealed that a noticeable tonal noise reduction can
be obtained for the symmetrical NACA 0012 airfoil. Moreover, design parameters for
structured porous edges, such as pore position and pore coverage, affect noise reduction
performance, and the influence is different between a zero angle of attack and a non-zero
angle of attack. These experimental results will be used to guide parameter designs in
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 3 of 18

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 3 of 18

angle of attack. These experimental results will be used to guide parameter designs in
numerical methods (e.g., using a large eddy simulation and the Ffowcs Williams–Hawk-
numerical
ings methods
acoustic (e.g.,
analogy) to using
revealathe
large eddy simulation
underlying and the Ffowcs
noise reduction Williams–Hawkings
mechanisms, which is part
acoustic
of analogy)
our future workto reveal
and will the underlying
be presented innoise
otherreduction
papers. mechanisms, which is part of
our future work and of
The remainder will
thebepaper
presented in other papers.
is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the experi-
mental setup and data processing in detail. InasSection
The remainder of the paper is organized follows:3,Section 2 reviews
the noise the experimental
measurement results of
setup and data processing in detail. In Section 3, the noise measurement
the different experiments are presented and discussed. Finally, Section 4 concludes results of the
the
different experiments are presented and
findings of the present experimental study. discussed. Finally, Section 4 concludes the findings
of the present experimental study.
2. Experimental Setup and Data Processing
2. Experimental Setup and Data Processing
2.1.
2.1. Experimental
Experimental Setup
Setup
Noise
Noise measurements
measurements were were conducted
conducted in in an
an aeroacoustic
aeroacoustic open-jet
open-jet wind
wind tunnel
tunnel (see
(see
Figure
Figure 1), which is situated in a 5.5 m × 3.7 m × 4.0 m anechoic chamber. The nozzle exit
1), which is situated in a 5.5 m × 3.7 m × 4.0 m anechoic chamber. The nozzle exit
of
of this
this wind
wind tunnel
tunnel isis rectangular, with dimensions
rectangular, with dimensionsof of0.55
0.55mm(width)
(width)×× 0.4
0.4 m
m (height).
(height). This
This
tunnel has aa turbulence
tunnel has turbulence intensity
intensityofofless
lessthan
than0.2%
0.2%andanda amaximum
maximum free-stream
free-stream velocity
velocity of
of 100 m/s for the open test section.
100 m/s for the open test section.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 1.
1. The
The 0.55
0.55 m
m ××0.4
0.4m
m open-jet
open-jet wind
wind tunnel
tunnel (a)
(a) without
without the
the tested
tested model
model and
and (b)
(b) with
with the
the
tested model.
tested model.

The
The investigated
investigated airfoil
airfoil model
model is is aa symmetrical
symmetrical 2D 2D NACA
NACA 0012 0012 airfoil,
airfoil, with
with aa nominal
nominal
spanwise
spanwise length
lengthLL==398 398mmmmand andaanominal
nominalchordwise
chordwiselength length c =c 200
= 200mm. mm. The rear
The end
rear of
end
the airfoil
of the hashas
airfoil a thickness
a thickness of 0.5 mm,mm,
of 0.5 to avoid significant
to avoid significantvortex shedding
vortex shedding tonaltonal
noisenoise
of a
blunt airfoil
of a blunt trailing
airfoil edge.edge.
trailing The NACA
The NACA 0012 airfoil is heldisby
0012 airfoil heldtwoby parallel side plates,
two parallel side which
plates,
are used
which aretoused
avoidto the effect
avoid theof tip vortex
effect shedding
of tip vortex noise and
shedding noise toand
adjust the geometric
to adjust angle
the geometric
of attack
angle of the of
of attack model. For this
the model. Forinvestigation,
this investigation, experiments
experiments were wereperformed at three
performed geo-
at three
metric
geometricangles of attack
angles of α of
of attack = 0°, ◦
α =α0= ,5°,α =and ◦
5 , αand
= 10°,
α =and ◦
10 ,seven
and sevenfree-stream velocities
free-stream from
velocities
V ∞ = 10
from V∞m/s= 10to m/s
V∞ = to70 Vm/s
∞ =(interval of 10 m/s),
70 m/s (interval of corresponding
10 m/s), corresponding to chord-based Reynolds
to chord-based
ReynoldsRe numbers Rebetween × 10 5 and 9.3 × 105 .
numbers c ranging c ranging1.3 between
× 105 and 1.39.3 × 10 5.

As depicted in Figure 2, the model contains an interchangeable trailing edge section

the aluminum
on the aluminummain mainbody.body.The The nominal
nominal chordwise
chordwise lengthlength of this
of this interchangeable
interchangeable sec-
section is 30 mm. In order to cover structured pores, it is further
tion is 30 mm. In order to cover structured pores, it is further divided into three subregions divided into three
subregions
(denoted as (denoted
L, M, and as N, L, M, upstream
from and N, from upstream to respectively)
to downstream, downstream,with respectively)
an equal nom-with
an equal
inal nominal
chordwise chordwise
length of 10 mm. length of 10 mm.
As reported by As
Zhangreported
and Chongby Zhang [16]and Chong
in their [16]
experi-
in theirinvestigation
mental experimentalofinvestigation of turbulent
turbulent broadband noisebroadband
reductionnoise by usingreduction by using
3D-printed porous3D-
printed edges,
trailing porouspore trailing edges,ispore
diameter the diameter
first-orderisparameter
the first-order parameterresponses,
for acoustical for acoustical
and
responses,aand
typically, poretypically,
diametera larger
pore diameter
than 1 mm larger
willthan 1 mm more
generate will generate
unwanted more unwanted
shedding-re-
shedding-related tones, which may jeopardize the noise reduction
lated tones, which may jeopardize the noise reduction performance. Therefore, sub-milli- performance. Therefore,
sub-millimeter-scale pores are investigated in the present study.
meter-scale pores are investigated in the present study. As the pore diameter is very small, As the pore diameter is
very small, to ensure the effectiveness of the structured pores,
to ensure the effectiveness of the structured pores, we first used 3D printing technology we first used 3D printing
technology and multi-axis CNC (Computer Numerical Control) forming technology to
produce several small test pieces, respectively. As shown in Figure 3a, 3D-printed pores are
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 4 of 18

not perfectly round (similar phenomena were observed by Carpio et al. [15]) and may even
be blocked, especially when the pore depth is large and the pore size is small (due to the
limitations of 3D printing and the impact of its cooling process). On the other hand, pores
with a diameter of 0.6 mm manufactured via CNC in Figure 3b are satisfactory. Moreover,
CNC-manufactured porous surfaces can provide sufficient structural strength for future
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 technical applications in a full-scale wing. Therefore, one solid baseline trailing edge 4 ofand18
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 seventeen structured porous trailing edges (see Table 1) are finally manufactured by using 4 of 18
mechanical processing technology.
Several studies [11,12,15–17] have shown that the pore diameter, pore coverage, pore
and multi-axis CNC (Computer Numerical Control) forming technology to produce sev-
position,
and and pore
CNCarrangement order haveControl)
a significant impact on airfoil self-noise re-
eral multi-axis
small test pieces,(Computer Numerical
respectively. As shown in Figure forming technology
3a, 3D-printed to produce
pores are not sev-
per-
duction.
eral small Thus, the pore
test(similar design
pieces, phenomena of this
respectively.were experimental
As shown in Figureprocess is depicted
3a, 3D-printed in Figure 4, and
fectly round observed by Carpio et al. [15])pores
and may are not
even per-
be
it is controlled
fectly round by pore
(similar phenomena dh , chordwise
diameter were observed spacing
by ch , et
Carpio and al.spanwise
[15]) and spacing
may evensh be-
be
blocked, especially when the pore depth is large and the pore size is small (due to the
tween adjacent
blocked, pores.
especially whenUnless otherwise
the pore depthspecified,
is its
large the investigated
and the pore On sizeporous
is small trailing
(due toedges
the
limitations of 3D printing and the impact of cooling process). the other hand, pores
are configured with dh = 0.6 mm, ch = 2.0 mm, and sh = 10.0 mm. The three subregions
limitations of 3Dof
with a diameter printing
0.6 mmand the impact via
manufactured of its
CNCcooling process).
in Figure 3b areOnsatisfactory.
the other hand, pores
Moreover,
of the interchangeable porous trailing edge were covered with the same/different pore
with a diameter of 0.6porous
CNC-manufactured mm manufactured
surfaces can via CNC in
provide Figure 3b
sufficient are satisfactory.
structural strengthMoreover,
for future
diameter, and L**M**N** was used to label each configuration. For example, L04M06N08 in
CNC-manufactured porous surfaces can provide sufficient structural strength
technical applications in a full-scale wing. Therefore, one solid baseline trailing edge for future
and
Table 1 corresponds to the configuration whose three subregions are configured by 0.4 mm,
technical applications in a full-scale wing. Therefore, one solid baseline trailing
seventeen structured porous trailing edges (see Table 1) are finally manufactured by using edge and
0.6 mm, and 0.8 mm pores, from the upstream to the downstream. L00M06N00 represents
seventeen
mechanical structured
processing porous trailing edges (see Table 1) are finally manufactured by using
technology.
a structured porous edge whose middle subregion is covered with 0.6 mm pores, while the
mechanical processing technology.
remaining two subregions do not have pores.

Figure 2.
Figure Schematic of
2. Schematic of the
the tested
tested model
model (not
(not to
to scale).
scale).
Figure 2. Schematic of the tested model (not to scale).

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 3.
3. Test
Test pieces
pieces of
of the
the structured
structured pores:
pores: (a)
(a) 3D-printed
3D-printed and
and (b) CNC-processed.
(b) CNC-processed.
Figure 3. Test pieces of the structured pores: (a) 3D-printed and (b) CNC-processed.
Table 1. Structured porous trailing edges with different pore parameters.
Table 1. Structured porous trailing edges with different pore parameters.
Configuration dh (mm) ch (mm) sh (mm) Subregions
Configuration
L04M04N04 dh (mm)
0.4 ch (mm)
2.0 sh 10.0
(mm) Subregions
L/M/N
L04M04N04
L06M06N06 0.4
0.6 2.0
2.0 10.0
10.0 L/M/N
L/M/N
L06M06N06
L08M08N08 0.6
0.8 2.0
2.0 10.0
10.0 L/M/N
L/M/N
L08M08N08
L00M06N06 0.8
0.6 2.0
2.0 10.0
10.0 L/M/N
M/N
L00M06N06
L00M00N06 0.6
0.6 2.0
2.0 10.0
10.0 M/N
N
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 5 of 18

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 L04M06N08 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 2.0 10.0 L, M, N 5 of 18
L08M06N04 0.8, 0.6, 0.4 2.0 10.0 L, M, N
L04M08N12 0.4, 0.8, 1.2 2.0 10.0 L, M, N
L12M08N04
Table 1.2, trailing
1. Structured porous 0.8, 0.4edges with different
2.0 10.0
pore parameters. L, M, N
L06M06N06-ch4 0.6 4.0 10.0 L/M/N
Configuration
L06M06N06-ch1 d
0.6 h (mm) c
1.0h (mm) sh (mm)
10.0 Subregions
L/M/N
L04M04N04
L06M06N06-s h20 0.6 0.4 2.0 2.0 20.010.0 L/M/N
L/M/N
L06M06N06
L06M06N06-s h5 0.6 0.6 2.0 2.0 5.010.0 L/M/N
L/M/N
L08M08N08 0.8 2.0 10.0 L/M/N
L00M06N06 0.6 2.0 10.0 M/N
Several studies [11,12,15–17]
L00M00N06 0.6 have shown that 2.0 the pore diameter,
10.0 pore coverage,
N pore
position, and pore arrangement
L00M06N00 0.6 order have a significant
2.0 impact 10.0
on airfoil self-noise
M reduc-
tion. Thus, the pore design of0.6
L06M00N00 this experimental2.0process is depicted
10.0 in Figure 4,Land it is
L04M05N06
controlled by pore diameter 0.4, 0.5, 0.6
dh, chordwise 2.0 ch, and spanwise
spacing 10.0 spacingL,shM, N
between
L06M05N04 0.6, 0.5, 0.4 2.0 10.0
adjacent pores. Unless otherwise specified, the investigated porous trailing edges are L, M, N con-
L04M06N08 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 2.0 10.0 L, M, N
figured with dh = 0.6 mm, c0.8,
L08M06N04
h = 2.0 mm, and sh = 10.0 mm. The three subregions of the inter-
0.6, 0.4 2.0 10.0 L, M, N
changeable porous
L04M08N12 trailing edge
0.4, 0.8, were
1.2 covered with
2.0 the same/different
10.0 pore diameter,
L, M, N and
L**M**N** was
L12M08N04 used to label each configuration.
1.2, 0.8, 0.4 For
2.0 example, L04M06N08
10.0 in Table
L, M, N1 cor-
responds to the configuration
L06M06N06-c h 4 whose
0.6 three subregions
4.0 are configured
10.0 by 0.4 mm, 0.6 mm,
L/M/N
L06M06N06-c
and 0.8 mm pores, 1 0.6 1.0 10.0
h from the upstream to the downstream. L00M06N00 represents a struc- L/M/N
L06M06N06-s
tured h 20 whose middle
porous edge 0.6 subregion is 2.0covered with 0.6 20.0 L/M/N
mm pores, while the re-
L06M06N06-sh 5 0.6 2.0 5.0 L/M/N
maining two subregions do not have pores.

Patternof
Figure4.4.Pattern
Figure ofthe
thepore
poredesign.
design.

2.2. Data Acquisition and Processing

2.2. Data Acquisition and Processing
Detailed acoustic tests are presented in Figures 1b and 5, where nine free-field micro-
Detailed acoustic tests are presented in Figures 1b and 5, where nine free-field micro-
phones of type G.R.A.S 46 AE (GRAS Sound and Vibration, Holte, Denmark) were used
phones of type G.R.A.S 46 AE (GRAS Sound and Vibration, Holte, Denmark) were used
to collect acoustic data, while only the measured signals perpendicular to the airflow (see
to collect acoustic data, while only the measured signals perpendicular to the airflow (see
Figure 5) are shown in this paper for easier processing. This microphone was positioned
Figure 5) are shown in this paper for easier processing. This microphone was positioned◦
out of the airflow, and its head was 1.0 m apart from the rear end of the airfoil at α = 0
out of the
in the airflow,
midspan and its
plane. Thehead was 1.0
acquired m apart
data from the rear
were recorded end of
at a 51.2 thesampling
kHz airfoil at rate
α = 0° in
over
the midspan plane. The acquired data were recorded at a 51.2 kHz sampling rate
30 s of sampling time. The sound pressure level (SPL) was subsequently calculated using over 30
san
of8192-point
sampling time. The sound
Hanning window pressure level
function and(SPL)
50% was
datasubsequently
overlap. Then,calculated using
the overall an
sound
8192-point Hanning window function and 50% data overlap. Then, the overall
pressure level (OASPL) could be computed by integrating the SPL between 100 Hz and sound pres-
sure
25.6 level
kHz, (OASPL)
where thecould
lowerbefrequency
computedisby integrating
limited by thethe SPL frequency
cutoff between 100 Hz and
of the 25.6
anechoic
chamber and the upper frequency corresponds to the Nyquist frequency of the measured
signal. A free-field correction of different angles of incidence is not performed in this work
 ΔSPL = SPLp − SPLb, (1)
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 where SPLp and SPLb are the SPL measured for the porous and baseline edge, respectively. 6 of 18

Similarly, the difference in overall sound pressure level (ΔOASPL) between a struc-
tured porous edge and the baseline solid edge is defined in Equation (2):
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992
kHz, where the lower frequency is limited by the cutoff frequency of the anechoic chamber 6 of(2)
18
ΔOASPL = OASPLp − OASPLb.
and the upper frequency corresponds to the Nyquist frequency of the measured signal. A
Both ΔSPL
free-field and ΔOASPL
correction canangles
of different be used
ofto evaluateisthe
incidence notacoustic performance
performed of the
in this work dif-
because
ferent structured
the effect porous
is the same foredges, where a trailing
both baseline negativeedges
valueand
represents
porous noise reduction
trailing while
edges, and our
abecause
positivethe
analysis effect
value
is based is
onthe
thesame
indicates noisefor both baseline
increase.
measured noise trailing edges and porous trailing edges,
level differences.
and our analysis is based on the measured noise level differences.
The difference in sound pressure level (ΔSPL) between a structured porous edge and
the baseline nonporous edge is defined in Equation (1):
ΔSPL = SPLp − SPLb, (1)
where SPLp and SPLb are the SPL measured for the porous and baseline edge, respectively.
Similarly, the difference in overall sound pressure level (ΔOASPL) between a struc-
tured porous edge and the baseline solid edge is defined in Equation (2):
ΔOASPL = OASPLp − OASPLb. (2)
Both ΔSPL and ΔOASPL can be used to evaluate the acoustic performance of the dif-
ferent structured porous edges, where a negative value represents noise reduction while
a positive value indicates noise increase.

Figure 5. Sketch of the experimental setup (not to scale).

Figure 5. Sketch of the experimental setup (not to scale).
The difference in sound pressure level (∆SPL) between a structured porous edge and
3. Discussion of the Noise Results
the baseline nonporous edge is defined in Equation (1):
3.1. Experimental Validation of the Baseline Airfoil
The measured acoustic spectra ∆SPL = SPL
of the p − SPL
baseline NACA
b, (1)
0012 airfoil with a nonporous
solid trailing edge under different free-stream velocities are presented in Figure 6 for ge-
where SPLp and SPLb are the SPL measured for the porous and baseline edge, respectively.
ometric angles of attack of α = 0°, α = 5°, and α = 10°.
Similarly, the difference in overall sound pressure level (∆OASPL) between a struc-
tured porous edge and the baseline solid edge is defined in Equation (2):

∆OASPL = OASPLp − OASPLb . (2)

Both ∆SPL and ∆OASPL can be used to evaluate the acoustic performance of the
Figure 5. Sketch of the experimental setup (not to scale).
different structured porous edges, where a negative value represents noise reduction while
a positive value indicates noise increase.
3. Discussion of the Noise Results
3.3.1. Experimental
Discussion Validation
of the of the Baseline Airfoil
Noise Results
3.1. Experimental Validation
The measured of the
acoustic Baseline
spectra Airfoil
of the baseline NACA 0012 airfoil with a nonporous
solid trailing
The edge acoustic
measured under different
spectra free-stream velocities
of the baseline NACAare presented
0012 in Figure
airfoil with 6 for ge-
a nonporous
(a) ometric
solid angles
trailing of attack
edge underofdifferent
α =
(b) 0°, α = 5°, and
free-streamα = 10°.
velocities are presented
(c) in Figure 6 for
geometric angles of attack of α = 0◦ , α = 5◦ , and α = 10◦ .
Figure 6. Acoustic spectra of the baseline NACA 0012 airfoil under different free-stream velocities.
(a) α = 0°, (b) α = 5°, and (c) α = 10°.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure6.6.Acoustic
Figure Acousticspectra
spectraofofthe
thebaseline
baselineNACA
NACA0012
0012airfoil
airfoilunder
underdifferent
differentfree-stream
free-streamvelocities.
velocities.
(a) α = ◦0°, (b) α = 5°,
◦ and (c) α = 10°.
◦
(a) α = 0 , (b) α = 5 , and (c) α = 10 .

Using the criterion of Chong et al. [18] that an airfoil tonal noise is detected as the
SPL value exceeds the broadband hump by 10 dB or greater, it can be easily observed
that the experimental results have several characteristic features similar to data from the
 Using the criterion of Chong et al. [18] that an airfoil tonal noise is detected as the
SPL value exceeds the broadband hump by 10 dB or greater, it can be easily observed that
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 the experimental results have several characteristic features similar to data from7 the of 18
literature: Tonal noise is sensitive to changes in the free-stream velocity and the geometric
angle of attack. For the NACA 0012 airfoil with a sharp, nonporous trailing edge inclined
atliterature:
α = 0°, tonal Tonal noise
noise is is
only detected
sensitive at low free-stream
to changes velocities
in the free-stream from and
velocity 10 m/s
the to 40 m/s
geometric
(see Figure 6a), while tonal noise disappears, and the acoustic
angle of attack. For the NACA 0012 airfoil with a sharp, nonporous trailing edge inclined at spectrum is basically
α = 0◦ , tonal
broadband at noise
high free-stream
is only detectedvelocities.
at lowAs the geometric
free-stream velocitiesanglefromof attack
10 m/s increases
to 40 m/s to α =
(see
5°, tonal6a),
Figure noise
whileistonaldetected
noise from the baseline
disappears, and theNACAacoustic0012 spectrumairfoilis for all free-stream
basically broadband
velocities. As shown velocities.
at high free-stream in Figure 6b, Asthe
thepeak SPL ofangle
geometric the tonal noiseincreases
of attack first increases
to α =and 5◦ , then
tonal
decreases with the from
noise is detected free-stream velocity
the baseline at this0012
NACA angle of attack.
airfoil for allThrough
free-stream observing Figure
velocities. As
6c for α = 10°, it is seen that the free-stream velocity at which tonal
shown in Figure 6b, the peak SPL of the tonal noise first increases and then decreases with noise begins to appear
increases to 40 m/s.
the free-stream It is agreed
velocity at thisthat
anglea laminar
of attack.separation
Througharea on either
observing the pressure
Figure 6c for α =side 10◦ ,
or
it the suction
is seen thatsidethe of the airfoilvelocity
free-stream trailing edge is a necessary
at which tonal noise condition
begins to forappear
the generation
increasesofto
40 m/s.
strong It isnoise
tonal agreed that a laminar
resulting separation
from instability area on either
[19,20,21]. Moreover,the pressure side that
it is found or the thesuction
state
ofside
theofboundary
the airfoillayer trailing flowedge is a necessary
(laminar condition
or turbulent) close fortothethegeneration of strong
airfoil trailing edge tonal
is
noise resulting
significantly from instability
dependent on both [19–21].
modelMoreover,
parameters it is (such
foundas that the state
chord of the
length andboundary
airfoil
layer flow
camber) and (laminar
flow or turbulent) (free-stream
parameters close to the airfoil trailing
velocity andedge angleis significantly dependent
of attack) [22,23,24].
on both model
Therefore, parameters (such
the aforementioned as chordoflength
sensitivity and tonal
the airfoil airfoilnoisecamber)
stems and flow
from theparameters
complex
(free-stream
nature of thevelocity
laminarand angle ofinattack)
separation [22–24].
the trailing Therefore,
edge boundary thelayer.
aforementioned sensitivity
Figure 7 summarizes
of tonal
the the airfoil
noisetonalregimes noise stems
of the fromNACA
baseline the complex nature
0012 airfoil in of
thisthe laminar separation
experiment, compared in the
with
trailing
the edgetonal
predicted boundary
envelope layer. Figure 7etsummarizes
of Lowson al. [25] basedtheontonal noise regimes
their theoretical of theItbaseline
methods. can be
NACA
seen that 0012
the tonal airfoil in this
regimes areexperiment, compared
all in the envelope curve,with
which the predicted
indirectly tonal envelope
confirms the validityof
Lowson et al. [25] based on their theoretical methods. It can
of this experiment and thus supports the subsequent parametric study in the following be seen that the tonal regimes
are all in
subsections. the envelope curve, which indirectly confirms the validity of this experiment and
thus supports the subsequent parametric study in the following subsections.

Figure
Figure7.7.Tonal
Tonalnoise
noiseregimes
regimesof
ofthe
thebaseline
baselineNACA
NACA0012
0012airfoil.
airfoil.

3.2.Effect
3.2. Effectofofthe
thePore
PoreDiameter
Diameter
Figure presents ∆SPL
Figure 88 presents ΔSPLasasa afunction
functionof of
free-stream velocity
free-stream and and
velocity frequency for struc-
frequency for
tured porous trailing edges whose three subregions are covered by
structured porous trailing edges whose three subregions are covered by pores of the same pores of the same
diameter.ItItcan
diameter. canbebeseen
seenthat
thatthe
thestructured
structuredporous
porousedges
edgescan
cansignificantly
significantlysuppress
suppressairfoil
airfoil
self-noise, especially in the regimes corresponding to tonal noise.
self-noise, especially in the regimes corresponding to tonal noise. A maximum noise A maximum noise re-
duction of ◦ 10◦ ,
reduction of28.09
28.09dBdBand
and 36.62
36.62 dB
dB are
are obtained
obtained for angles of
for angles of attack
attack of
of αα ==0°
0 and
andαα==10°,
respectively.However,
respectively. However,noisenoise increases
increases of of
upup to 22.58
to 22.58 dB dB
andand21.5821.58 dB observed
dB are are observed
at α =at
α = 0 ◦ and α = 10◦ , respectively. These increases can be divided into two types: Firstly,
0° and α = 10°, respectively. These increases can be divided into two types: Firstly, the
the increase
increase aroundaround the peak
the peak frequency
frequency of the
of the tonal
tonal noise
noise is isgenerally
generallyattributed
attributedtotothethe
frequency shift of the tonal noise. Figure 9 plots typical noise spectra between the struc-
frequency shift of the tonal noise. Figure 9 plots typical noise spectra between the
tured porous trailing edges and the baseline trailing edge. As seen in these plots, the peak
structured porous trailing edges and the baseline trailing edge. As seen in these plots, the
frequency of the tonal noise (see the black circle in Figure 9) at V = 30 m/s and α = 0◦ shifts
peak frequency of the tonal noise (see the black circle in Figure∞9) at V∞ = 30 m/s and α =
from 1256.25 Hz for the baseline trailing edge to 1350 Hz, 1343.75 Hz, and 1356.25 Hz for
0° shifts from 1256.25 Hz for the baseline trailing edge to 1350 Hz, 1343.75 Hz, and 1356.25
L04M04N04, L06M06N06, and L08M08N08, respectively. For V∞ = 60 m/s and α = 10◦ , the
peak frequency shifts from 3312.5 Hz to 3325 Hz, 2812.5 Hz, and 2206.25 Hz, respectively.
Secondly, an increase in noise at frequencies larger than 6 kHz is consistent with published
results, owing to the increase in the surface roughness noise [12,26,27]. This is supported by
 peak frequency shifts from 3312.5 Hz to 3325 Hz, 2812.5 Hz, and 2206.25 Hz, respectively.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 8 of 18
Secondly, an increase in noise at frequencies larger than 6 kHz is consistent with published
results, owing to the increase in the surface roughness noise [12,26,27]. This is supported
by the fact that porous edges with bigger pores generally exhibit a higher surface rough-
peak frequency shifts from 3312.5 Hz to 3325 Hz, 2812.5 Hz, and 2206.25 Hz, respectively.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 ness as well as more high-frequency noise emission. 8 of 18
Secondly, an increase in noise at frequencies larger than 6 kHz is consistent with published
results, owing to the increase in the surface roughness noise [12,26,27]. This is supported
by the fact that porous edges with bigger pores generally exhibit a higher surface rough-
the fact
ness as that
wellporous
as moreedges with biggernoise
high-frequency poresemission.
generally exhibit a higher surface roughness
as well as more high-frequency noise emission.

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(d) (e) (f)
Figure 8. ΔSPL as a function of free-stream velocity and frequency for structured porous trailing
Figure8.8.∆SPL
ΔSPL as a function of free-stream velocity
and and frequency for structured porous trailing
Figure
edges with the as a function
same pore of free-stream
diameter: (a)velocity
L04M04N04 frequency
with αfor= structured porous
0°, (b) L06M06N06 trailing edges
with α = 0°, (c)
edges with the same pore diameter: (a) L04M04N04 ◦with α = 0°, (b) L06M06N06◦ with α = 0°, (c)
with the
L08M08N08 same pore
with diameter:
α = 0°, (a)
(d) L04M04N04
L04M04N04 with = 0 , (b) L06M06N06 with = 0 , (c) L08M08N08
with α = 10°, (e) L06M06N06 with α = 10°, and (f) and (f)
with α = 10°, (e) L06M06N06 with α = 10°,
α α
L08M08N08 with α = 0°, (d) L04M04N04
with α = 0◦ , with
L08M08N08 (d) L04M04N04
α = 10°. with α = 10◦ , (e) L06M06N06 with α = 10◦ , and (f) L08M08N08 with
L08M08N08 with α = 10°.
α = 10◦ .

(a) (b)
(a) Figure 9. Typical noise spectra between the structured porous trailing edges
(b) and the baseline trailing
edge. (a) V∞ = 30 m/s, α = 0°; (b) V∞ = 60 m/s, α = 10°. Different colored circles in the zoomed inset
Figure 9.9.illustrate
figures
Figure Typical noise spectra
the peak
Typical noise between
SPLbetween
spectra of thethe
the differentstructured porous
configurations.
structured porous trailing
trailing edgesedges
and theand the baseline
baseline trailing trailing
edge.
edge.(a)
(a) V V∞∞==30
30 m/s,
m/s, α
α= ◦ ; (b)
= 00°; (b)VV∞∞ ==60
60m/s,
m/s,αα= =1010°. Different
◦ . Different colored
colored circles
circles in the in the zoomed
zoomed inset inset
figures
figures illustrate thepeak
illustrate the peakSPL
SPLof of
thethe different
different configurations.
configurations.

Another trend discernible from Figure 8 is that greater noise reduction was obtained
by a structured porous edge with a larger pore diameter. This is further confirmed by
Figure 10, where ∆OASPL levels for the different configurations are plotted. It is shown
 Another trend discernible from Figure 8 is that greater noise reduction was obtained
by a structured porous edge with a larger pore diameter. This is further confirmed by
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 9 of 18
Figure 10, where ΔOASPL levels for the different configurations are plotted. It is shown
that a maximum OASPL reduction of 2.86 dB (see Table 2) and 4.66 dB (see Table 3) can
be obtained by L08M08N08 at angles of attack of α = 0° and α = 10°, respectively. The
that a maximum OASPL reduction of 2.86 dB (see Table 2) and 4.66 dB (see Table 3)
reason for this trend is that porous edges with a larger pore diameter have larger porosity
can be obtained by L08M08N08 at angles of attack of α = 0◦ and α = 10◦ , respectively.
(defined as the
The reason ratiotrend
for this of the
is cumulative volume
that porous edges withof athe pores
larger to diameter
pore that of the total
have volume of
larger
the interchangeable trailing edge section [28]), and several experimental
porosity (defined as the ratio of the cumulative volume of the pores to that of the totalresults from the
references
volume of have demonstrated
the interchangeable that noise
trailing reduction
edge section [28]),isand
more significant
several whenresults
experimental the porosity
increases [29,30].
from the references have demonstrated that noise reduction is more significant when the
porosity increases [29,30].

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure10.
10. ΔOASPL
∆OASPL for
for structured poroustrailing
structured porous trailing edges
edges with
with thethe same
same pore
pore diameter:
diameter: = 0α◦ ,= 0°, (b)
(a) α(a)
α(b)
= 10°. ◦
α = 10 .

Table
Table2.
2. Summary ofthe
Summary of theOASPL
OASPLforfor
thethe different
different at α =at0◦α. = 0°.
configurations
configurations

Configuration
Configuration V∞= 10= m/s
V∞ 10 m/sV∞V∞ 20 m/sV∞V=∞ 30=m/s
= 20=m/s 30 V∞V=∞40 =m/s
m/s V∞ =V50
40 m/s V∞ = V
= 50 m/s
∞ m/s = 60 Vm/s
60∞ m/s V m/s= 70 m/s
∞ = 70 ∞

Baseline
Baseline 71.81
71.81 78.14
78.14 73.76
73.76 76.79
76.79 82.1082.10 88.32 88.32 92.10 92.10
L04M04N04
L04M04N04 71.88
71.88 77.87
77.87 73.04
73.04 76.81
76.81 82.1182.11 88.31 88.31 92.10 92.10
L06M06N06 71.45 75.98 72.23 76.53 82.00 88.32 92.16
L06M06N06
L08M08N08 71.45
71.02 75.98
75.51 72.23
70.90 76.53
76.44 82.0082.00 88.21 88.32 92.13 92.16
L08M08N08
L00M06N06 71.02
71.82 75.51
75.75 70.90
69.66 76.44
76.55 82.0882.00 88.20 88.21 92.20 92.13
L00M00N06
L00M06N06 71.85
71.82 74.85
75.75 69.65
69.66 76.60
76.55 81.8482.08 88.33 88.20 92.16 92.20
L00M06N00 72.46 78.07 73.34 76.57 82.12 88.41 92.21
L00M00N06
L06M00N00 71.85
72.38 74.85
78.13 69.65
72.45 76.60
76.82 82.2081.84 88.30 88.33 92.18 92.16
L00M06N00
L04M05N06 72.46
72.05 78.07
75.72 73.34
69.53 76.57
76.46 81.9782.12 88.27 88.41 92.29 92.21
L06M05N04 72.23 75.81 69.83 76.48 81.82 88.25 92.20
L06M00N00 72.38 78.13 72.45 76.82 82.20 88.30 92.18
L04M06N08 71.93 76.99 72.24 76.69 82.08 88.39 92.29
L04M05N06
L08M06N04 72.05
72.71 75.72
77.84 69.53
73.54 76.46
77.43 82.1281.97 88.53 88.27 92.33 92.29
L04M08N12
L06M05N04 70.50
72.23 74.96
75.81 71.50
69.83 76.56
76.48 82.1581.82 88.46 88.25 92.32 92.20
L12M08N04 71.24 77.35 74.15 77.62 82.00 88.43 92.32
L04M06N08
L06M06N06-ch 4
71.93
72.61
76.99
78.10
72.24
73.42
76.69
76.74 82.07
82.08 88.58
88.39 92.39
92.29
L08M06N04
L06M06N06-ch 1 72.71
71.01 77.84
77.28 73.54
72.15 77.43
76.67 81.9682.12 88.36 88.53 92.13 92.33
L06M06N06-s
L04M08N12 h 20 72.15
70.50 77.39
74.96 72.61
71.50 76.88
76.56 82.0982.15 88.57 88.46 92.27 92.32
L06M06N06-sh 5 71.54 76.71 72.33 77.17 82.05 88.60 92.31
L12M08N04 71.24 77.35 74.15 77.62 82.00 88.43 92.32
L06M06N06-ch4 72.61 78.10 73.42 76.74 82.07 88.58 92.39
L06M06N06-ch1 71.01 77.28 72.15 76.67 81.96 88.36 92.13
L06M06N06-sh20 72.15 77.39 72.61 76.88 82.09 88.57 92.27
L06M06N06-sh5 71.54 76.71 72.33 77.17 82.05 88.60 92.31

Table 3. Summary of the OASPL for the different configurations at α = 10°.

Configuration V∞ = 10 m/s V∞ = 20 m/s V∞ = 30 m/s V∞ = 40 m/s V∞ = 50 m/s V∞ = 60 m/s V∞ = 70 m/s

Baseline 43.39 57.30 69.98 80.87 89.02 96.36 98.73
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 10 of 18

Table 3. Summary of the OASPL for the different configurations at α = 10◦ .

Configuration V∞ = 10 m/s V∞ = 20 m/s V∞ = 30 m/s V∞ = 40 m/s V∞ = 50 m/s V∞ = 60 m/s V∞ =70 m/s

Baseline 43.39 57.30 69.98 80.87 89.02 96.36 98.73
L04M04N04 42.77 57.53 70.01 79.12 86.94 93.74 96.74
L06M06N06 42.80 57.47 70.00 79.39 86.36 91.89 95.80
L08M08N08 42.55 57.36 69.85 79.09 85.99 91.70 95.67
L00M06N06 42.87 57.52 70.14 79.21 86.39 92.30 96.53
L00M00N06 42.37 57.89 70.34 79.35 86.57 94.34 98.69
L00M06N00 42.33 57.73 70.17 79.36 87.71 92.65 96.66
L06M00N00 42.16 57.79 70.21 79.58 86.51 92.61 96.39
L04M05N06 42.69 57.80 70.09 79.13 86.03 92.95 96.51
L06M05N04 40.72 57.81 70.23 79.24 86.30 92.07 95.81
L04M06N08 42.69 57.66 70.05 79.19 86.62 92.31 96.05
L08M06N04 42.32 57.81 70.26 79.68 86.28 91.69 95.44
L04M08N12 42.34 57.71 70.11 79.18 85.92 92.00 95.69
L12M08N04 42.73 57.59 70.20 79.35 86.02 91.90 95.72
L06M06N06-ch 4 42.98 57.47 69.93 79.16 87.03 92.34 95.91
L06M06N06-ch 1 43.77 57.35 69.95 79.19 85.94 91.75 95.59
L06M06N06-sh 20 42.08 57.64 70.10 79.23 86.18 93.41 97.72
L06M06N06-sh 5 43.98 57.29 69.84 78.91 85.70 91.56 95.64

3.3. Effect of the Pore Coverage

Figure 11 shows the ∆SPL for structured porous trailing edges in which all three
subregions, the two downstream subregions and the last downstream subregion are covered
by pores of 0.6 mm from left to right, respectively. No consistent trend in noise reduction
can be observed from these subfigures, partly due to the complex nature of airfoil tonal
noise, as demonstrated in Section 3.1. Figure 12 plots the ∆OASPL for structured porous
trailing edges with different pore coverages. It is shown that the performance of OASPL
reduction is slightly different for α = 0◦ and α = 10◦ . Generally, larger OASPL reduction
is observed for the configuration with smaller pore coverage at α = 0◦ , while better noise
reduction is obtained for the porous edge with larger pore coverage at α = 10◦ . One of
the mechanisms responsible for the noise reduction caused by porous edges [4,28,29] is
that porous treatment allows for flow communication between the pressure and suction
sides close to the airfoil trailing edge, and this subsequently influences the flow separation
in the boundary layer. At an angle of attack of α = 10◦ , all of the three subregions have
sufficient pressure differences to drive airflow passing through both sides of the airfoil.
Therefore, porous edges with larger pore coverage provide greater noise reduction. On
the other hand, due to the symmetry profile of the NACA 0012 airfoil and the resulting
flow symmetry at α = 0◦ , a sufficient pressure difference will only occur in the area close to
the trailing edge, especially at low free-stream velocities. Furthermore, in this situation,
additional pores at the middle subregion and the upstream subregion will increase the risk
of generating unwanted bluntness-induced noise [15–17]. The combined effect of these
two factors results in more noise reduction for the porous edge with smaller pore coverage.
 fore, porous edges with larger pore coverage provide greater noise reduction. On the other
hand, due to the symmetry profile of the NACA 0012 airfoil and the resulting flow sym-
metry at α = 0°, a sufficient pressure difference will only occur in the area close to the
trailing edge, especially at low free-stream velocities. Furthermore, in this situation, addi-
tional pores at the middle subregion and the upstream subregion will increase the risk of
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 11 of 18
generating unwanted bluntness-induced noise [15–17]. The combined effect of these two
factors results in more noise reduction for the porous edge with smaller pore coverage.

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 11 of 18

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 11 of 18

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(d) (e) (f)
Figure 11. ΔSPL as a function of free-stream velocity and frequency for structured porous trailing
Figure11.
Figure 11.∆SPL
ΔSPLasasaafunction
functionofoffree-stream
free-streamvelocity
velocityand
andfrequency
frequencyfor forstructured
structuredporous
poroustrailing
trailing
edges with
edges withdifferent
different pore
pore coverages: (a)L06M06N06
coverages: (a) L06M06N06 with
with α =α0°,= ◦(b)
0°, L00M06N06
(b) L00M06N06
with αwith
= 0°,α(c)
= 0°, (c)
edges with different
L00M00N06 with α =pore
0°, coverages:
(d) (a) L06M06N06
L06M06N06 with α with
= 10°, = 0 L00M06N06
α (e) , (b) L00M06N06withwith
α = = 0◦ ,and (f)
α10°,
L00M00N06 with α = 0°, ◦(d) L06M06N06 with α = 10°, ◦(e) L00M06N06 with α = 10°, ◦and (f)
(c) L00M00N06
L00M00N06 with α = 0 , (d) L06M06N06 with α = 10 , (e) L00M06N06 with α = 10 , and
L00M00N06withwithαα==10°.
10°.
(f) L00M00N06 with α = 10◦ .

(a) (b)
(a) Figure 12. ΔOASPL for structured porous trailing edges with different
(b)pore coverages: (a) α = 0°, (b)
α = 10°.
Figure
Figure12.
12.ΔOASPL
∆OASPLforfor structured poroustrailing
structured porous trailingedges
edges with
with different
different pore
pore coverages:
coverages: (a) α(a)
= 0α◦=
, 0°, (b)
α (b)
=3.4.
10°.
α= ◦
10 . of the Pore Position
Effect
Figure 13 shows ΔSPL as a function of free-stream velocity and frequency for struc-
3.4.Effect
Effectofofthe
the Pore
Pore Position
3.4. Position
tured porous trailing edges when the last downstream subregion, the middle subregion,
Figure 13 shows ∆SPL as a function of free-stream velocity and frequency for struc-
andFigure
tured the
porous
13 shows
upstream
trailing
ΔSPL as
subregion areacovered
edges when
function
the lastby
of0.6free-stream
mm pores,
downstream
velocity
from
subregion, lefttheand
to frequency
right,
middle
for struc-
respectively.
subregion,
tured
and
porous
Figure
the 14 plots
upstream
trailing edges are
thesubregion when
corresponding the last
ΔOASPL.
covered
downstream
Similar
by 0.6 mm to
subregion,right,
the observation
pores, from left to in
the middle
Section subregion,
3.3, noise
respectively.
and the 14
Figure upstream
reduction plots thesubregion
is slightly different
corresponding are ∆OASPL.
for covered by
a zero angle 0.6 mm
of
Similar attack
to thepores,
of α = from left
0°
observationand a to right,
non-zero
in Section 3.3,respectively.
angle
noise of
attack14
Figure
reductionofplots
αis=slightly
10°.
theGenerally,
differentlarger
corresponding for a OASPL
ΔOASPL.
zero reduction
angle Similar
of is to
attack observed
ofthe for L00M00N06
α =observation
0◦ and at α =3.3,
in Section
a non-zero angle 0°, noise
of
while
reduction greater noise
◦
attack of αis=slightly reduction
different
10 . Generally, is
larger obtained
forOASPL for L06M00N00
a zero reduction
angle of attack at
is observed α = 10°.
of α for
= 0° Both Ali et al.
and a non-zero
L00M00N06 [31] and◦,
at α = 0angle of
Rossignol et al. [32] have shown that vortex shedding-related noise
attack of α = 10°. Generally, larger OASPL reduction is observed for L00M00N06 at α = 0°, will radiate at the
solid-to-porous junction section, since a blunt edge occurs in this area due to the pores.
while greater noise reduction is obtained for L06M00N00 at α = 10°. Both Ali et al. [31] and
Zhang and Chong [17] further demonstrated that the level of this unwanted noise in-
Rossignol et al. [32] have shown that vortex shedding-related noise will radiate at the
creases with the thickness of the blunt edge at α = 0°. Since both L06M00N00 and
solid-to-porous
L00M06N00 have junction
a largersection,
thickness since a blunt
of the bluntedge
edge occurs
inducedinbythis thearea due
pores, to the pores.
additional
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 12 of 18

while greater noise reduction is obtained for L06M00N00 at α = 10◦ . Both Ali et al. [31]
and Rossignol et al. [32] have shown that vortex shedding-related noise will radiate at the
solid-to-porous junction section, since a blunt edge occurs in this area due to the pores.
Zhang and Chong [17] further demonstrated that the level of this unwanted noise increases
with the thickness of the blunt edge at α = 0◦ . Since both L06M00N00 and L00M06N00
have a larger thickness of the blunt edge induced by the pores, additional bluntness-related
noise will jeopardize the overall performance, and thus their ∆OASPL levels are less than
L00M00N06 at α = 0◦ . Moreover, Liu and Chen [33] have illustrated that a porous perme-
able structure located in the middle of the model will generate a cavity tonal component
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992
under symmetrical flow conditions, which can also explain the better noise reduction in
12 of 18
L00M00N06 at a zero angle of attack. On the other hand, Yakhina et al. [24] have revealed
that the laminar separation bubble starts earlier on the suction side and moves downstream
on the pressure side with an increasing angle of attack. Therefore, the airflow passing
airflow passing
through through
pores that pores that
are distributed inare
thedistributed in the upstream
upstream subregion subregion
will have will
an earlier haveon
impact an
earlier impact on the boundary layer regime and then suppress laminar instability
the boundary layer regime and then suppress laminar instability tonal noise, which can tonal
noise, which
explain can explain
the better the better
performance performance
of L06M00N00 at αof=L06M00N00
10◦ . at α = 10°.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure13.
Figure 13. ΔSPL
∆SPL as
as aa function
function of
offree-stream
free-streamvelocity
velocityand
andfrequency
frequencyforforstructured porous
structured trailing
porous trail-
ing edges with different pore positions: (a) L00M00N06 with α = 0 , (b) L00M06N00 with α0°,
edges with different pore positions: (a) L00M00N06 with α = 0°, (b)
◦ L00M06N00 with α = = 0(c)
◦,
L06M00N00 with α = 0°, (d) ◦ L00M00N06 with α = 10°, (e) ◦ L00M06N00 with α = 10°, and ◦ (f)
(c) L06M00N00 with α = 0 , (d) L00M00N06 with α = 10 , (e) L00M06N00 with α = 10 , and
L06M00N00 with α = 10°.
(f) L06M00N00 with α = 10◦ .

L00M00N06
L00M06N00
L06M00N00

V (m/s)
(a) (b)
Figure 14. ΔOASPL for structured porous trailing edges with different pore positions: (a) α = 0°, (b)
 (d) (e) (f)
Figure 13. ΔSPL as a function of free-stream velocity and frequency for structured porous trailing
edges with different pore positions: (a) L00M00N06 with α = 0°, (b) L00M06N00 with α = 0°, (c)
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 L06M00N00 with α = 0°, (d) L00M00N06 with α = 10°, (e) L00M06N00 with α = 10°, and (f)13 of 18
L06M00N00 with α = 10°.

L00M00N06
L00M06N00
L06M00N00

V (m/s)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure14. ∆OASPL
14.ΔOASPL forfor
structured porous
structured trailing
porous edgesedges
trailing with different pore positions:
with different (b)α = 0◦ ,
(a) α = 0°,(a)
pore positions:
α(b)
= 10°. ◦
α = 10 .

3.5.Effect
3.5. Effectofofthe
thePore
Pore Arrangement
Arrangement Order
Order
Figure
Figure1515 plots
plots ∆OASPL
ΔOASPL for structured
for structured porous trailing
porous edges with
trailing edgesdifferent pore ar- pore
with different
rangement orders at α = 0° in ◦
the first row and at α = 10° in ◦
the second row.
arrangement orders at α = 0 in the first row and at α = 10 in the second row. The configu- The configu-
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 rations
rationswith
withsmaller
smaller pores
poresononthethe
upstream
upstream subregion,
subregion,suchsuch
as L04M05N06,
as L04M05N06, L04M06N08,
L04M06N08,
13 of 18
and L04M08N12, are marked with red lines. On the other hand,
and L04M08N12, are marked with red lines. On the other hand, the configurations the configurations with with
larger pores on the upstream subregion are marked with green lines.
larger pores on the upstream subregion are marked with green lines. From these subfigures, From these
subfigures,
it can be seen itthat
can configurations
be seen that configurations with gradually
with gradually increasing
increasing pore diameter
pore diameter (i.e.,(i.e.,
the red
thegenerally
lines) red lines) have
generally have ∆OASPL
a higher a higher ΔOASPL
reduction.reduction. This phenomenon
This phenomenon is consistent
is consistent with the
with the observations
observations of Wang etofal. Wang
[12],etwho
al. [12],
havewho have illustrated
illustrated that metallic
that metallic foams foams
withwith a
a gradual
gradual sparse transition from the solid body to that of the free flow provided
sparse transition from the solid body to that of the free flow provided more noise reduc- more noise
tion.reduction.
However, However, at a high free-stream velocity and α = 10°,
at a high free-stream velocity and α = 10◦ , higher higher ΔOASPL reductions
∆OASPL reductions are
are observed in L06M05N04 and L08M06N04. This may be attributed to the larger pores
observed in L06M05N04 and L08M06N04. This may be attributed to the larger pores in the
in the upstream subregion, giving an earlier impact on the boundary layer regime and
upstream subregion, giving an earlier impact on the boundary layer regime and thus more
thus more noise reduction at this angle of attack, as discussed in Section 3.4.
noise reduction at this angle of attack, as discussed in Section 3.4.

L04M05N06
L06M05N04

V (m/s)

(a) (b) (c)

L04M05N06
L06M05N04

V (m/s)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 15. ΔOASPL for structured porous trailing edges with different pore orders: (a) L04M05N06
Figure 15. ∆OASPL for structured porous trailing edges with different pore orders: (a) L04M05N06 vs.
vs. L06M05N04, α = 0°; (b) L04M06N08 vs. L08M06N04, α = 0°; (c) L04M08N12 vs. L12M08N04, α =
L06M05N04, α = 0◦ ; (b)
0°; (d) L04M05N06 vs.L04M06N08 vs.= 10°;
L06M05N04, α L08M06N04, ◦ ; (c) L04M08N12 vs. L12M08N04, α = 0◦ ;
α = 0vs.
(e) L04M06N08 L08M06N04, α = 10°; (f) L04M08N12
(d) L04M05N06
vs. L12M08N04,vs. α
L06M05N04,
= 10°. α = 10 ; (e) L04M06N08 vs. L08M06N04, α = 10◦ ; (f) L04M08N12 vs.
◦

L12M08N04, α = 10◦ .
3.6. Effect of the Chordwise Spacing
Figure 16 presents the ΔSPL for structured porous trailing edges with different
chordwise spacings, while Figures 17 and 18 plot the corresponding typical noise spectra
and ΔOASPL, respectively. It can be seen that the noise reduction performance is slightly
different for a zero angle of attack of α = 0° and a non-zero angle of attack of α = 10°. At α
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 14 of 18

3.6. Effect of the Chordwise Spacing

Figure 16 presents the ∆SPL for structured porous trailing edges with different chord-
wise spacings, while Figures 17 and 18 plot the corresponding typical noise spectra and
∆OASPL, respectively. It can be seen that the noise reduction performance is slightly
different for a zero angle of attack of α = 0◦ and a non-zero angle of attack of α = 10◦ . At
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992
α = 0◦ , small-to-medium size chordwise spacing of ch = 1.0 mm and ch = 2.0 mm alternately
14 of 18
14 of 18
provide the best noise reduction. On the other hand, the smallest chordwise spacing of
ch = 1.0 generally outperforms ch = 2.0 mm and ch = 4.0 mm at α = 10◦ .

(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)

(d)
(d) (e)
(e) (f)
(f)
Figure16.
Figure 16.ΔSPL
ΔSPLasasaafunction
functionofoffree-stream
free-streamvelocity
velocityandandfrequency
frequency forstructured
structuredporous
poroustrailing
trailing
Figure
edges 16.
with∆SPL as a function
different chordwise ofspacings:
free-stream (a) velocity
c and frequencyfor for structured porous trail-
h = 4.0 mm, α = 0°; (b) ch = 2.0 mm, α = 0°; (c) ch = 1.0
edges with different chordwise spacings: (a) ch = 4.0 mm, α = 0°; (b) ch ◦= 2.0 mm, α = 0°; (c) ch = 1.0
ing
mm,edges with(d)cdifferent chordwise spacings: (a) chα== 4.0 mm, α =ch 0= 1.0
; (b) ch = 2.0 mm, α = 0◦ ;
mm, αα==0°;
0°;
(d) ch = 4.0mm,
h = 4.0
mm, αα==10°;
10°;(e)
(e)chch==2.0
2.0mm,
mm, 10°;and
α = 10°; and(f)
(f) mm,
ch ◦= 1.0 mm, αα==10°.
10°.
(c) ch = 1.0 mm, α = 0 ; (d) ch = 4.0 mm, α = 10 ; (e) ch = 2.0 mm, α = 10 ; and (f) ch = 1.0 mm, α = 10◦ .
◦ ◦

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure
Figure 17.Typical
17.
17. Typical
Typical noise
noise
noise spectra
spectra
spectra between
between
between the the
the structured
structured
structured porous
porous
porous trailing
trailing edges
trailing edges
andand
edges and thebaseline
the the baseline
baseline trailing
trailing
trailing
edge with edge
edge with
different different
with different
chordwise chordwise
chordwise spacings.
spacings.spacings.
(a) V∞ = 30 (a) V
(a) m/s,∞ = 30 m/s,
V∞ = 30α =m/s, α
0◦ ; (b) = 0°;
α =V0°; (b)
(b)
= 60VV ∞
=
m/s,= 60
60 m/s,
m/s,
= 10α◦α
.==10°.
10°.
Different
∞ ∞ α
Different
Different colored
colored circles
circles in the
in the zoomed
zoomed inset
inset figures
figuresthe illustrate
illustrate the
theof peak
peak SPL of the different config-
colored circles in the zoomed inset figures illustrate peak SPL the SPL of theconfigurations.
different different config-
urations.
urations.
 Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 15 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 15 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 15 of 18

ch =4.0 mm
cch =4.0
=2.0mm
mm
h
cch =2.0
=1.0mm
mm
h
ch =1.0 mm

V (m/s)
V (m/s)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 18. ΔOASPL for structured porous trailing edges with different chordwise spacings: (a) α =
Figure α = ∆OASPL
0°, (b) 18. ΔOASPL
10°. forstructured
for structuredporous
poroustrailing
trailingedges
edges with
with different
different chordwise
chordwise spacings:
spacings: α =α0◦=,
(a) (a)
0°, (b)
(b) α = α10=◦10°.
.
3.7. Effect of the Spanwise Spacing
3.7. Effect of
3.7. Effect of the
the Spanwise
Spanwise Spacing
Spacing
Figure 19 presents ΔSPL as a function of free-stream velocity and frequency for struc-
Figure
Figure 19 presents ΔSPL
19 trailing
presents ∆SPL as as aa function
function of
of free-stream
free-stream velocity
velocity andand frequency
frequency for for struc-
tured porous edges with a spanwise spacing of sh = 20.0 mm, sh = 10.0 mm, struc-
and sh
tured
tured porous
porous trailing
trailing edges with a spanwise spacing of s = 20.0 mm, s = 10.0 mm, and
= 5.0 mm (from left toedges
right),with a spanwise
respectively. spacing
Figures of sh21
20 and h= plot
20.0 the
mm,corresponding
sh =h 10.0 mm, typical
and sh
s=h5.0
= 5.0
mm mm (from
(from left left
to to right),
right), respectively.
respectively. Figures
Figures 20 20
and and
21 21
plotplot
the the corresponding
corresponding typi-
typical
noise spectra and ΔOASPL, respectively. It is shown in these figures that a medium-size
cal
noisenoise spectra
spectra andand ∆OASPL, respectively.It Itisisshown
ΔOASPL, shownininthese
thesefigures
figuresthat
that aa medium-size
medium-size
spanwise spacing of sh = 10.0respectively.
mm generally provides better noise reduction at a zero angle
spanwise
spanwise spacing
spacing of s
ofwhile= 10.0
sh = 10.0 mm generally provides better noise reduction at aa zero
at zero angle
angle
of attack of α = 0°, h
◦ , while themm generally
smallest provides
spanwise better
spacing of noise reduction
sh = 5.0 mm typically provides
of
of attack of α = 0 the smallest spanwise spacing of s = 5.0 mm typically provides
theattack of α =reduction
best noise 0°, while at theα smallest
= 10°.
◦
spanwise spacing of sh = 5.0 mm typically provides
h
the
the best
best noise
noise reduction
reduction at at αα == 10
10°..

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(d) (e) (f)
Figure19.
Figure 19. ΔSPL
∆SPL as as aa function
function of
offree-stream
free-streamvelocity
velocityand andfrequency
frequencyfor forstructured
structuredporous
porous trailing
trail-
Figure 19. ΔSPL as a spanwise
function ofspacings:
free-stream velocity and α frequency for
h ◦= structured porous trailing
ing edges with different spanwise spacings: (a) sh = 20.0 mm, α = 0 ; (b) sh = 10.0 mm, αsh== 05.0
edges with different (a) sh = 20.0 mm, = 0°; (b) s 10.0 mm, α = 0°; (c) ◦;
edges
mm, αwith = 0°;different spanwise
(d) sh = 20.0◦ mm, αspacings:
= 10°; (e) s(a) h = 20.0
h = s10.0 mm,mm,
◦ α=α = 0°;
10°; and(b)(f)shsh==10.0 mm, α
5.0◦mm, α == 10°.
0°; (c) sh = 5.0
(c)
mm, sh α= =5.0
0°;mm,
(d) sαh ==20.0 (d) shα== 20.0
0 ; mm, mm,
10°; (e) = 10mm,
sh =α 10.0 ; (e)αs=h 10°;
= 10.0andmm,(f) sαh ==5.0
10 mm,
; and
α (f) sh = 5.0 mm,
= 10°.
α = 10◦ .
 Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 16 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 16 of 18
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 16 of 18

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 20. Typical noise spectra between the structured porous trailing edges and the baseline
trailing20.
Figure edge with different
Typical noise spanwise
spectra spacings.
between (a) V∞ = 30 m/s, αtrailing
= 0°; (b) V∞ = and
60 m/s,
the αbaseline
= 10°. Dif-
Figure 20. Typical noise spectra between thethe structured
structured porous
porous trailing edgesedges
and the baseline trailing
ferent colored
trailing edge circles
with in the zoomed
different spanwise inset figures
spacings. illustrate
(a) V the
∞ = 30 m/s,
◦ peak
α = SPL
0°; (b)ofV∞the
= different
60 m/s, α◦ =configura-
10°. Dif-
edge with different spanwise spacings. (a) V∞ = 30 m/s, α = 0 ; (b) V∞ = 60 m/s, α = 10 . Different
tions. colored circles in the zoomed inset figures illustrate the peak SPL of the different configura-
ferent
colored circles in the zoomed inset figures illustrate the peak SPL of the different configurations.
tions.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 21. ΔOASPL for structured porous trailing edges with different spanwise spacings: (a) α
◦ =
Figure 21. ∆OASPL for structured porous trailing edges with different spanwise spacings: (a) α = 0 ,
0°,α (b)
= 10α21.
Figure
(b) ◦=. 10°.
ΔOASPL for structured porous trailing edges with different spanwise spacings: (a) α =
0°, (b) α = 10°.
4.4.Conclusions
Conclusions
4. Conclusions
InInthis
thispaper,
paper,ananexperimental
experimentalaeroacoustic
aeroacousticstudy
studyononreducing
reducingthe
thetonal
tonalnoise
noisefrom
from
laminar
laminarIn instability
this paper,by
instability byusing
an usingstructured
experimentalstructured porous
poroustrailing
aeroacoustic study edges
trailing onedges waswas
reducing presented.
presented.
the Detailed
tonal noise Detailed
from
acoustic
acousticmeasurements
laminar instability by have
measurements havebeen
using been conducted
conducted
structured porouson
onaatrailing
symmetrical
edgesNACA
symmetrical NACA 0012 airfoil
was presented. with a
Detailed
a acoustic
solid trailing
solid edge and seventeen
measurements seventeen
have been structured
structured porous
conducted porous
on trailing
trailingedges,
a symmetrical edges,
NACA under
0012varying
under varying free-
airfoil withfree-a
stream
solid velocities
streamtrailing
velocities and
edge and angles
andangles ofofattack.
seventeen attack. The
Thekey
structured keyfindings
findings
porous ofofthis
thisstudy
trailing studyare
edges, arelisted
underlistedasasfollows:
varying follows:
free-
(1)stream velocities
(1) Structured
Structured and angles
porous
porous trailing
trailingof edges
attack.
edgescanThe key
canreduce
reduce findings
the of this study
thenoticeable
noticeable tonal
tonalare listed
noise
noise ofofas
the follows:
the sym-
sym-
metrical
metrical NACA
NACA 0012
0012 airfoil.
airfoil. Under
Under the
the same
same pore
pore coverage,
coverage,
(1) Structured porous trailing edges can reduce the noticeable tonal noise of the sym- larger
larger noise
noise reduction
reduction
was
wasgenerally
generally
metrical NACA obtained
obtained by
0012 airfoil.bystructured
structured
Under the porous
same edges
porous with
withaalarger
edgescoverage,
pore larger
largerdiameter
diameter ofofsub-
noise reduction sub-
millimeter-scale
millimeter-scale
was pores
generally obtained and
pores and gradually sparsely
gradually sparsely
by structured arranged
porous edges pores
arranged transiting
with pores
a larger from
transiting the
diameterfrom solid
of the
sub-
body
solidtobody
that to
millimeter-scale of that
thepores
free
of theflow.
freegradually
and flow. sparsely arranged pores transiting from the
(2)(2) Due
Duetoto
solid the
thesensitivity
body to that of of
sensitivity ofairfoil
the airfoil
free tonal
tonalnoise
flow. noisetotochanges
changesininthe thefree-stream
free-streamvelocity
velocityand and
the
(2) Due geometric
the geometric angle of
angle ofof
to the sensitivity attack,
attack, as shown
airfoilastonal
shown in Section
in Section
noise 3.1,
to changes the
3.1, the design
design
in the parameters
parameters
free-stream for tonal
for tonal
velocity and
noise
noise
the reduction
reduction
geometric are
areslightly
angle slightly
of attack, different
different
as shown atatain
azero
zero angle
Section angle ofofattack
3.1, theattack (α(α
design == 0◦0°)
) and
anda anon-zero
parameters non-zero
for tonal
angle ◦ ).
angleofreduction
noise ofattack
attack(α(αare
==10 10°).
slightly different at a zero angle of attack (α = 0°) and a non-zero
(3)(3) At ◦
Atαα==0of
angle , attack
0°, the
thepressure
pressure
(α = 10°).difference
differencebetween
betweenthe thepressure
pressureand andsuction
suctionsidessidesclose
closetotothe the
trailing
(3) At trailing edge
α = 0°,edge is relatively
is relatively
the pressure small, especially
small, especially
difference between the at low free-stream
at pressure
low free-stream velocities.
and suction velocities. Moreover,
Moreover,
sides close to the
bluntness-related
bluntness-related
trailing vortex
vortexshedding
edge is relatively shedding tonal
tonalnoise
small, especially noiseatandlowcavity
and cavity tonal
tonalcomponents
free-stream components are
aremore
velocities. Moreover, more
likely to occur at this angle of attack. Therefore, larger airfoil tonal noise reduction is
bluntness-related vortex shedding tonal noise and cavity tonal components are more
prone to the porous parameters of small pore coverage, small-to-moderate chordwise
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 17 of 18

spacing, and moderate spanwise spacing. Meanwhile, structured pores are preferably
distributed on the downstream of the airfoil.
(4) At α = 10◦ , a sufficient pressure difference between the pressure and suction surfaces
can easily drive airflow passing through both sides of the airfoil. Consequently, the
optimal combination of the structured porous edge is a configuration with larger pore
coverage, smaller chordwise spacing, and spanwise spacing.
Due to the significant difference between the studied Reynolds number of 105 and the
actual Reynolds number of 1012 for full-scale wings (e.g., Boeing 747 [4]), further research is
needed on noise reduction using structured porous trailing edges at comparatively higher
Reynolds numbers in the future. Another direction for future research is to reveal the
underlying noise reduction mechanisms of structured porous trailing edges via numerical
simulations or PIV flow field measurements.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.W. and K.Z. (Kongcheng Zuo); methodology, Y.W.;
validation, P.G. and K.Z. (Kun Zhao); formal analysis, P.G.; investigation, Y.W.; resources, K.Z.
(Kongcheng Zuo); data curation, V.F.K.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.W.; writing—review
and editing, Y.W. and K.Z. (Kongcheng Zuo); visualization and experimental tests, P.G. and K.Z. (Kun
Zhao); supervision, K.Z. (Kongcheng Zuo); modification and English edit, V.F.K. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, under
grant numbers 12261131502 and 12102451. Victor Kopiev was supported by the Russian Science
Foundation, grant no. RSF 23-41-00023.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous referees for their
helpful comments and suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Brooks, T.F.; Pope, D.S.; Marcolini, M.A. Airfoil Self-Noise and Prediction; Technical Report NASA Technical Memorandum, No.
NASA RP-1218; NASA Langley Research Center: Hampton, VA, USA, 1989.
2. Jaiswal, P.; Pasco, Y.; Yakhina, G.; Moreau, S. Experimental investigation of aerofoil tonal noise at low Mach number. J. Fluid Mech.
2022, 932, A37.1–A37.31. [CrossRef]
3. Yang, Y.N.; Pröbsting, S.; Li, P.Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y. A secondary modulation mechanism for aerofoil tonal self-noise generation. J.
Fluid Mech. 2022, 943, A13.1–A13.37. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, Y.; Zhao, K.; Lu, X.Y.; Song, Y.B.; Bennett, G.J. Bio-inspired aerodynamic noise control: A bibliographic review. Appl. Sci.
2019, 9, 2224. [CrossRef]
5. Chong, T.P.; Joseph, P.; Gruber, M. An Experimental Study of Airfoil Instability Noise with Trailing Edge Serrations. In Proceedings
of the 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustic Conference (31th AIAA Aeroacoustic Conference), Stockholm, Sweden, 7–9 June 2010.
AIAA Paper 2010-3723.
6. Chong, T.P.; Vathylakis, A.; Joseph, P.F.; Gruber, M. Self-Noise produced by an airfoil with nonflat plate trailing-edge serrations.
AIAA J. 2013, 51, 2665–2677. [CrossRef]
7. Chong, T.P.; Joseph, P. An experimental study of airfoil instability tonal noise with trailing edge serrations. J. Sound Vib. 2013, 332,
6335–6358. [CrossRef]
8. Serpieri, J.; Gupta, M.; Pröbsting, S.; Scarano, F. Effect of Serrated Trailing Edge on Boundary Layer Instability Noise. In
Proceedings of the 21st AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Dallas, TX, USA, 22–26 June 2015. AIAA Paper 2015-2363.
9. Herr, M.; Dobrzynski, W. Experimental investigations in low-noise trailing-edge design. AIAA J. 2005, 43, 1167–1175. [CrossRef]
10. Herr, M. Design Criteria for Low-Noise Trailing-Edges. In Proceedings of the 13th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (28th
AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Rome, Italy, 21–23 May 2007. AIAA Paper 2007-3470.
11. Wang, Y.; Lai, Q.R.; Liang, Y.; Song, Y.B.; Zheng, X. Experimental Study on Instability Tonal Noise Reduction using Trailing Edge
Gradient Porous Materials. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Congress on Noise Control Engineering, Seoul, Republic of
Korea, 23–26 August 2020.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2992 18 of 18

12. Wang, Y.; Hao, N.S.; Lu, X.Y.; Tong, F.; Song, Y.B. Airfoil self-noise reduction by gradient distributed porous trailing edges. J.
Aerosp. Eng. 2021, 34, 04021075. [CrossRef]
13. Jiang, C.Y.; Moreau, D.; de Silva, C.; Doolan, C. Noise generation mechanisms of a micro-tube porous trailing edge. J. Sound Vib.
2024, 571, 118085. [CrossRef]
14. Arcondoulis, E.; Liu, Y.; Li, Z.Y.; Yang, Y.N.; Wang, Y. Structured porous material design for passive flow and noise control of
cylinders in uniform flow. Materials 2019, 12, 2905. [CrossRef]
15. Carpio, A.R.; Avallone, F.; Ragni, D.; Snellen, M.; van der Zwaag, S. Quantitative criteria to design optimal permeable trailing
edges for noise abatement. J. Sound Vib. 2020, 485, 115596. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, M.H.; Chong, T.P. Experimental investigation of the impact of porous parameters on trailing-edge noise. J. Sound Vib.
2020, 489, 115694. [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, M.H.; Chong, T.P. Effects of porous trailing edge on aerodynamic noise characteristics. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 2020, 19, 254–271.
[CrossRef]
18. Chong, T.P.; Vathylakis, A.; Joseph, P.F.; Gruber, M. On the Noise and Wake Flow of an Airfoil with Broken and Serrated Trailing
Edges. In Proceedings of the 17th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (32nd AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Portland, OG,
USA, 5–8 June 2011. AIAA Paper 2011-2860.
19. Nash, E.C.; Lowson, M.V.; McAlpine, A. Boundary-layer instability noise on aerofoils. J. Fluid Mech. 1999, 382, 27–61. [CrossRef]
20. McAlpine, A.; Nash, E.C.; Lowson, M.V. On the generation of discrete frequency tones by the flow around an airfoil. J. Sound Vib.
1999, 222, 753–779. [CrossRef]
21. Pröbsting, S.; Scarano, F.; Morris, S.C. Regimes of tonal noise on an airfoil at moderate Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. 2015, 780,
407–438. [CrossRef]
22. Arcondoulis, E.; Doolan, C.J.; Brooks, L.A.; Zander, A.C. On the Generation of Airfoil Tonal Noise at Zero Angle of Attack and Low
to Moderate Reynolds Number. In Proceedings of the 18th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (33rd AIAA Aeroacoustics
Conference), Colorado Springs, CO, USA, 4–6 June 2012. AIAA Paper 2012-2060.
23. Plogmann, B.; Herrig, A.; Würz, W. Experimental investigations of a trailing edge noise feedback mechanism on a NACA 0012
airfoil. Exp. Fluids. 2013, 54, 1480. [CrossRef]
24. Yakhina, G.R.; Roger, M.; Kholodov, P.V.; Nguyen, L.; Golubev, V.V. An Integrated Study of Laminar Separation Effect on Tonal
Noise Generation in Transitional Bubble. In Proceedings of the 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Lyon, France, 30
May–1 June 2016. AIAA Paper 2016-3022.
25. Lowson, M.V.; Fiddes, S.P.; Nash, E.C. Laminar Boundary Layer Aeroacoustic Instabilities. In Proceedings of the 32nd Aerospace
Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 10–13 January 1994. AIAA Paper 1994-0358.
26. Geyer, T.; Sarradj, E.; Fritzsche, C. Measurement of the noise generation at the trailing edge of porous airfoils. Exp. Fluids. 2010,
48, 291–308. [CrossRef]
27. Geyer, T.; Sarradj, E.; Fritzsche, C. Porous airfoils: Noise reduction and boundary layer effects. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 2010, 9, 787–820.
[CrossRef]
28. Sarradj, E.; Geyer, T. Noise Generation by Porous Airfoils. In Proceedings of the 13th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference
(28th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Rome, Italy, 21–23 May 2007. AIAA Paper 2007-3719.
29. Herr, M.; Rossignol, K.S.; Delfs, J.; Mößner, M.; Lippitz, N. Specification of Porous Materials for Low-Noise Trailing-Edge
Applications. In Proceedings of the 20th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 16–20 June 2014. AIAA
Paper 2014-3041.
30. Sumesh, C.K.; Jothi, T.J.S. Aerodynamic noise characteristics of a thin airfoil with line distribution of holes adjacent to the trailing
edge. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 2019, 18, 496–516. [CrossRef]
31. Ali, S.A.S.; Azarpeyvand, M.; da Silva, C.R.I. Trailing-edge flow and noise control using porous treatments. J. Fluid Mech. 2018,
850, 83–119.
32. Rossignol, K.S.; Suryadi, A.; Herr, M.; Schmidt, J.; Tychsen, J. Experimental investigation of porous materials for trailing-edge
noise reduction. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 2020, 19, 365–384. [CrossRef]
33. Liu, H.R.; Chen, N.S. Test on effects of porous permeable section on trailing edge noise. Acta Aeronaut. Et Astronaut. Sin. 2017,
38, 120746.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.