MDSRIC - 2018 Proceedings, 29-30 August, 2018 Wah/Pakistan

Comparison of Lattice-Boltzmann (Direct Noise Computation) Method and Hybrid

Computational Aeroacoustic Approaches in Aircraft Noise Prediction

Ihtisham Khalid1, Dr. Shuaib Salamat2

Department of Aerospace Engineering

Air University, PAC Campus, Kamra
1
ihtisham@aerospace.pk, 2ssalamat@aerospace.pk

ABSTRACT
Advances in Computational Aeroacoustics (CAA) has enabled aerospace industries
to predict and mitigate the noise levels associated with aircraft. Mainly these approaches
involve aeroacoustic hybrid methods usually comprised of multiple weekly coupled stages
to model, near, mid, and far-field acoustic propagation. On the other hand, Direct Noise
Computation (DNC) approach is computationally much more challenging in Computational
Aeroacoustics (CAA). Although both approaches are based on the acoustic field model that
is not, strictly speaking, the actual representation of physics associated with flow induced
acoustics, but rather on the hypothesis that pressure fields in turbulent flow motion can
be normalized using the thermodynamic speed of sound to generate acoustic source/near
field. Most recently, the application of lattice-Boltzmann method (LBM) in Computational
Aeroacoustics (CAA) has efficiently enabled Direct Noise Computation (DNC) by leveraging
its inherent capability to model compressible turbulent flows. More precisely, this paper
presents a review of the potential of the lattice-Boltzmann method (LBM) in
Computational Aeroacoustics (CAA) to simulate realistic aeroacoustics in aerospace,
industrial cases. Key simulation parameters of aeroacoustic hybrid methods and lattice-
Boltzmann method (LBM) are compared by considering the LAGOON landing gear case
which is part of Benchmark for Airframe Noise Computations – III workshop.

Keywords: Computational aeroacoustics, Direct noise computation, Aeroacoustic Hybrid

Methods, Lattice-Boltzmann method, Aircraft Noise, Bulk Viscosity, LODI.

1. INTRODUCTION development of aircraft systems to

A few decades ago, aerospace industry
was expecting unsustainable air traffic
growth because of health concerns
associated with annoyance caused by the
aircraft noise. Today, all aircrafts
certified by International Civil Aviation
fulfills radiated noise level requirements
outlined in Annexure 16 of the
convention of International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) [1]. Therefore, a
considerable amount of resources has
been invested in the design and
reduce their acoustic signature. Aircraft
noise signature involves two main
contributions from propulsion and
airframe systems. During take-off, both
propulsion and airframe systems account
for the higher noise levels associated
with aircraft acoustic signature.
However, during the landing phase, the
contribution by the airframe and its
appendages (i.e., wing flaps and slats,
control surfaces, landing gears, airframe
cavities, etc.) are significant [2]. In both

1
 MDSRIC - 2018 Proceedings, 29-30 August, 2018 Wah/Pakistan
cases, most of the noise annoyance
caused by aircraft attributes to its
aerodynamics, which may originate
because of fluid structure interactions
(e.g., airframe noise) or due to the
ingestion of airflow by aero-engines
(e.g., propulsive noise).
The prime goal of the aeroacoustic
analysis is to accurately predict the noise
radiated to an observer located in the far
field. For instance, the present case
under consideration can be understood by
assuming a situation where an aircraft is
approaching a runway in its landing
configuration. In this situation, noise
contribution from the airframe and its
appendages is the dominant part of an
acoustic signature associated with the
aircraft. If the observer is standing near
the landing strip, the distance between
the observer and aircraft will keep on
decreasing. Therefore, a distance of a
couple of hundreds of meters is a
reasonable consideration for the observer
distance or far field.
2. THE CONTEXT OF
COMPUTATIONAL AEROACOUSTICS
(CAA)
In computational aeroacoustics,
aerodynamic pressure field gives rise to
the acoustic field, and both are governed
by Navier-Strokes equations for turbulent
flow. Initially, the concept of
Computational Aeroacoustics (CAA)
emerges with an aim to predict far-field
noise by modeling an observer in the
computational domain of CFD. However,
acoustic disturbances are usually small
compared to aerodynamic flow
fluctuations and to avoid their
dissipation; higher order discretization
schemes are required with extremely fine
grid size extending all the way up to the
observer. However, for practical
purposes, in classical Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD), these two fields cannot
2
be predicted efficiently at the same time
via a single calculation or by Direct Noise
Computation (DNC) method, as the
concurrent resolution of pressure and
acoustic fields necessitate far too high
computational resources. As of today,
Computational Aeroacoustics (CAA) is
more generally assumed as a numerical
approach in predicting noise.
In order to make numerical approach
tractable, the overall aeroacoustic
problem is discretized into a set of
coupled sub-problems. Each sub-problem
deals with the specific region in the
whole spatial domain and is dominant by
particular physics at each stage. Thus,
methods which involve coupling of
multiple techniques are named as hybrid
computational aeroacoustic approaches
for noise prediction, Redonnet [3].
Recently, the limitation of classical CFD
in handling Direct Noise Computation
(DNC) is somewhat overcome by applying
Lagrangian based lattice-Boltzmann
method (LBM). More generally, DNC is not
a classic choice for low subsonic flows,
i.e., those encountered in automotive
industry. However, LBM is extremely
efficient to deal with unsteady, subsonic
compressible and turbulent flows. This
Lagrangian method works at mesoscopic
scale based on probability distribution
functions to resolve the Boltzmann
transport equation which, using the
Chapman-Enskog expansion, reproduces
the hydrodynamic limit and hence the
compressible Navier-Stokes equations,
Brionnaud [4]. Although both approaches
(hybrid CAA methods and DNC) are based
on the acoustic field model that is not,
strictly speaking, the actual
representation of physics associated with
flow induced acoustics. They are
grounded in the hypothesis that pressure
fields in turbulent flow motion can be
normalized using the thermodynamic
 MDSRIC - 2018 Proceedings, 29-30 August, 2018 Wah/Pakistan
speed of sound to generate acoustic
source/near field.
3.1 Aeroacoustic hybrid Approach
Hybrid methods comprise of two to three
weekly coupled stages to model near,
mid, and far-field acoustic propagations
and they are devoted to:
1. Stage # 1: Near-Field is defined in
the spatial regions of unsteady
aerodynamic flow (e.g.,
turbulent) and it acts as an
acoustic source field.
2. Stage # 2: Mid-Field comprises
the spatial areas where the
aerodynamic flow is steady but
may contain medium
heterogeneities.
3. Stage # 3: Far-Field encompasses
the spatial regions of virtually
homogeneous medium with steady
aerodynamic flow.
Figure 1: Overview of Aeroacoustic hybrid
Approaches in CAA.
3.1.1 Stage # 1 Near-Field (Noise
Generation)
Unsteady compressible CFD approaches
simulate stage # 1 Near-Field noise
generation and its early propagation.
These approaches may involve Direct
Numerical Simulation (DNS), Large Eddy
3
Simulation (LES), Reynolds Averaged
Navier-Stokes equations (RANS), etc. As
the foundation of acoustic field model
grounds on the aerodynamic pressure
field, therefore, the simulation results
dramatically depending upon the type of
turbulent models (e.g., WMLES, LES,
RANS, mixed DLES, etc.) used in CFD
simulation. The level of accuracy is
directly proportional to the
computational resources and costs
entailed by these models.
3.1.2 Stage # 2 Mid-Field (Noise
Propagation)
Stage # 2 Mid Field regions do not
account for turbulent and viscous effects
of aerodynamic flow. Mid Field accounts
for the propagation of sound wave over a
considerable distance across the
heterogeneous medium while accounting
for acoustic reflection/diffraction
phenomena (e.g., acoustic
reflection/diffraction from the solid
obstacle, and refraction effects by
acoustic medium). As an example (refer
figure 1), just under the wing, the
landing gear is located in such an
acoustic region where acoustic wave may
undergo reflection from the bottom
surface of the wing and refraction may
not be negligible under mean flow
gradients. Typically, the spatial domain
of Stage # 2 region is modeled via high
fidelity acoustic propagation approaches
such as Euler or Linearized Euler
equations (LEE) [5, 6]. These methods
simultaneously account for
reflection/diffraction phenomena in the
acoustic spatial domain along with
medium heterogeneities. These models
generally rely on high order schemes on
multiblock structured grids [7, 8] or
based on unstructured grids, i.e.,
Discontinuous Galerkin Method (DGM) [9].
On the contrary, Boundary Element
Method (BEM), though account for the
 MDSRIC - 2018 Proceedings, 29-30 August, 2018 Wah/Pakistan

former phenomenon, but their CFD-CAA weak coupling is an ongoing

applicability is restricted to homogeneous research area, and a step-by-step
acoustic mediums only. In contrast, this coupling setup was presented by G.
Cunha [13], for improving aeroacoustic
step can be neglected in particular cases,
hybrid calculations during the acoustic
for instance, when the near filed radiates extrapolation stage. Later, same was
in an unbounded medium at rest. employed to practical aircraft noise
problems by Redonnet [14]. At this stage,
3.1.3 Stage # 3 Far-Field (Noise it is pertinent to mention that Direct
Radiation) Noise Computation (DNC) approach
inherently deals with the flow of
Stage # 3 Far Field acoustic radiation in information throughout the acoustic
the virtually homogeneous medium can domain and thus it does not suffer from
be predicted with relatively cheap the information degradation across
Integral Methods (IM) or Kirchhoff [12], successive stages. An excellent technical
integration techniques. These integral review on Aeroacoustic Hybrid Methods is
available, for instance, by Redonnet [3].
methods rely on acoustic analogies, i.e.,
Lighthill [10], Ffowcs-Williams & 3.1.5 Limitations of Hybrid CAA
Hawkings (FWH) [11]. Over the passage of Approaches
time, these methods are characterized as
high-fidelity methods for noise prediction Generally, the application of hybrid
in the far fields, and they also offer a LES/RANS approaches are good CFD
significant advantage in-term of the considerations to provide unsteady
computational cost (e.g., computational information required in computational
resources). However, these methods do aeroacoustics (CAA). Strictly speaking,
not account for the acoustic the inherent limitations of CFD in
phenomenon, i.e., reflection/diffraction accurately predicting unsteady turbulent
and medium refraction. flows Kok [15], directly descends to the
hybrid computational aeroacoustic
3.1.4 Coupling among the Aeroacoustic approaches and necessitate the
Stages application of higher order schemes.
Recently, substantial efforts have been
Coupling processes of these stages is a
rendered in overcoming the grey area
critical aspect in developing
computational aeroacoustics (CAA) hybrid problems. Noise prediction via hybrid
methodologies because of the CAA approaches may also suffer reduced
information exchange among sub- accuracy when linearized Euler equations
problems of the whole acoustic problem. (LEE) with source terms are used to
The nature of the coupling, i.e., strong, account for medium heterogeneities and
or weak, depends upon the the acoustic reflection/diffraction
interdependencies among stages and the
phenomenon. Also, the coupling process
direction of information flow. In
problems (e.g., screech tones, in jet between CFD and CAA solver remains a
aeroacoustics), involving acoustic crucial aspect of the application of
feedback, these problems possess strong hybrid methods. Furthermore, there is a
bidirectional coupling between their need to develop low-dispersion and low-
successive stages with the accurate dissipation higher order schemes for
information flow. However, in other accurate and efficient modeling of hybrid
cases, generally speaking, the flow of
information is primarily unidirectional CAA methods. In addition, the use of
among successive stages, and they are stability schemes, i.e., artificial viscosity
coupled in a weak sense. Optimization of in steady state acoustic analysis, greatly

4
 MDSRIC - 2018 Proceedings, 29-30 August, 2018 Wah/Pakistan
dampens the acoustic modeling in high-
frequency ranges.
4.1 Direct Noise Computation (DNC)
In Comprehensive Computational
Aeroacoustics (CAA), Direct Noise
Computations (DNC) in the overall
problem domain (i.e., both the near and
far field regions) may be the most
realistic solution to date. The Direct
Noise Computation (DNC) approach is
extremely challenging in CAA since the
computation of the pressure fluctuations
involves the resolution of unsteady
compressible flows. In classical CFD, it is
still not a feasible option for all practical
purposes because of the huge
requirement in computational resources.
At present, the most viable solution (Fig)
is to simultaneously account for the
pressure and acoustic fields in the near-
mid fields (Stage # 1 and Stage # 2), and
the far field may be modeled via
Boundary Element Method (BEM) or
integral methods (IM).
Figure 2: Comparison of DNC and CAA
Hybrid Approaches.
4.1.2 Lattice-Boltzmann Method
In contrast to classical CFD, lattice-
Boltzmann method is very suitable for
the aeroacoustic applications. This
Lagrangian based approach is low
5
dissipative stream and collide scheme
which inherently accounts for unsteady
and compressibility effects. In laminar
and turbulent flows, the Wall-Adapting
Local Eddy-viscosity (WALE) model has
useful properties in both near and far
regions of the wall. This model recovers
the asymptotic behavior of the turbulent
boundary layer when this layer can be
directly solved. Thus, enabling direct
resolution acoustic field from the
pressure field and allows Direct Noise
Computation (DNC). In addition, LBM
scheme is inherently efficient and stable
in modeling compressible turbulent flows
and does not require any artificial
stabilization schemes, i.e., shear
viscosity. LBM is effectively utilized by
the software vendor (Next Limit
Dynamics) in their CFD application named
XFlow. From the DNC point of view, this
paper focuses on LBM architecture used
by XFlow to conduct Direct Noise
Computations (DNC).
4.1.3 Acoustic Properties of LBM
In LBM DNC simulation, pressure waves
are allowed to travel with the numerical
speed of sound .
The factor 1/√ arrives in the above
expression because of lattice isotropy
conditions. It depends upon the lattice
scheme and collusion operator employed
Fraser [16], in LBM method. To
accurately model the acoustic behaviour,
the numerical speed of sound ( )
must be equal to the thermodynamic
speed of sound ( ) in the acoustic
medium, and it can be computed by using
ideal gas law.
 MDSRIC - 2018 Proceedings, 29-30 August, 2018 Wah/Pakistan

Computations (BANC) which was initiated

√ is important to note that summary of the
Hence, by using Equation (i) & (ii), there
exists a unique time step for given lattice
resolution to propagate pressure waves at
the numerical speed of sound naturally,
and is given as: -
by the Langley Research Centre, NASA. It
LAGOON Solutions from the Benchmark
problems for Airframe Noise
Computations (BANC-III) Workshop is
discussed in detail by Manoha [21]. Seven
groups who submitted their solutions in
the LAGOON category includes a software
vendor (Exa Corporation), government
research organizations (ONERA, CERFACS,
and NASA), an aircraft supplier (Airbus-
France), and one university (University of
Southampton).

Due to the high dissipative nature of

acoustic waves, LBM methods also use
bulk viscosity to capture acoustic physics
at higher frequencies. Owing to the
sensitive nature of acoustic waves, they
are highly prone to reflection from 3 (a)
pressure waves occurring at inlet and
outlet boundary conditions
incompressible unsteady CFD. To
overcome this issue, XFlow uses non-
reflecting boundary conditions which are
derived from Local One-Dimensional
Inviscid (LODI) equations [17, 18]. For
instance, a case study of aircraft (nose
landing gear) noise prediction Brionnaud
[4], is discussed to appreciate the
application of LBM in Direct Noise 3 (b) 3 (c)
Computation (DNC).
Figure 3 : (a) The LAGOON elementary
4.1.4 Nose Landing Gear: The LAGOON Nose Landing Gear, (b) Virtual Wind
Case Tunnel Dimensions, and (c) Acoustic
Field of LAGOON.
An extended aircraft landing gear is a
bluff body and source of noise which may 4.1.5 Validation Data
cause annoyance to the passengers during
the take-off and landing flight phases. The experimental data provided for
Airbus involving Onera, DLR, and LAGGON was divided into different
Southampton University [19, 20] in the categories. Brionnaud [4], study focuses
year 2006 funded the LAGOON landing on the measurements of the unsteady
gear CFD/CAA validation database. The wall pressure at 27 Kulite sensors, 64
main objective of the project is to static pressure taps near the wheel and
acquire experimental database with basic leg of the landing gear, and the 2D Laser
landing gear configuration to validate Doppler velocimetry (LDV) data providing
computational methods in landing gear the averaged (avg) and root mean square
noise prediction. Also, it is part of (RMS) velocity profiles along several lines
Benchmark for Airframe Noise

6
 MDSRIC - 2018 Proceedings, 29-30 August, 2018 Wah/Pakistan

in the wake and near-wheel region. The
pressure power spectral density is
measured at the Kulite sensors and
provided in the frequency space up to 20
kHz. The pressure taps measured the
mean pressure coefficient, and the 2D
LDV provides the (U,W) components of
velocity as both mean and RMS values.
Brionnaud [4], considered near field
results of the F2 wind tunnel tests for
CFD/CAA validation, and aims to perform
the far-field acoustics simulation by
employing computationally cheap
integral methods.
4.1.6 Simulation Parameters
Computational aeroacoustic simulation of
the LAGOON test case (Figure 3) was
done in virtual wind tunnel environment
(Figure 3) of the XFlow. Simulation
Parameters for the LAGOON test case are
outlined below: -
superior than the traditional Navier-
Strokes solvers for such unsteady
computational aeroacoustic analysis. It is
important to note that most of the
Navier-Strokes computations during
Benchmark for Airframe Noise
Computations – III workshop were done
with either Zonal DES (Detached Eddy
Simulation) or Delayed DES, and their
CPU time would have increased
considerably if the Large Eddy Simulation
(LES) turbulence model was adopted. In
the lattice-Boltzmann method (LBM), the
pre-processing time is almost negligible
since no meshing process is required, and
the overall simulation setup is time is less
than an hour. On the other hand, the
Navier-Stokes solvers have to include a
non-negligible meshing time for the
preparation of the case which comes on
top of the CPU time. Comparison of
computational solutions Manoha [21],
with the XFlow simulation Brionnaud [4],
is highlighted in the following table: -

1. Fluid: Air, Speed of sound = 340 Parameters Navier- LBM by

m/s Strokes Codes XFlow
2. Boundary Conditions: Inlet Turbulence DES / ZDES LES
velocity = 78.99 m/s, Gauge approach
pressure outlet = 0 Pa, Periodicity Turbulence/subgrid S-A / k- WALE
on top/bottom and sides model
3. Numerical Settings: Minimum No of elements 35 Mil 59 Mil
lettice size = 0.5 mm, Number of Processor cores 370 240
elements = 59 Million, Physical Total clock time 715 hrs 120 hrs
time = 0.34 sec, Minimum time Total CPU time 205000 hrs 32000 hrs
step = 8.484e-7 sec, Sampling
frequency = 1180 kHz Table 1: Key Parameters of LAGOON
Computational Solutions, Manoha [21]
4.1.6 Performance Comparison and Brionnaud [4].
The total CPU time required in running
0.34 seconds of LAGOON simulation is 4.1.7 CAA Simulation Results
32,000 hours, and was executed in clock
time of 120 hours (approximately 05 Application of the lattice-Boltzmann
days) on 240 cores Brionnaud [4]. In method (LBM) in computational
contrast, during the Benchmark for aeroacoustics (CAA) has shown an
Airframe Noise Computations – III excellent overall match with the F2
workshop, all the Navier-Strokes solvers experimental measurements, and all the
required CPU time between 200,000 and pressure distribution trends are captured
350,000 hours to simulate the same order correctly. The circular pressure
of computational elements Manoha [21]. distribution at point 1,2, and 3 are shown
This comparison shows that time-to- in Figure 4.
solution efficiency of the lattice-
Boltzmann method (LBM) is far more

7
MDSRIC - 2018 Proceedings, 29-30 August, 2018 Wah/Pakistan

4 (d)

Figure 4: Pressure Distribution Trends

of LAGOON Brionnaud [4], (a) Location
Map, (b), (c), and (d) shows pressure
4 (a) distribution at point 1,2, and 3,
Brionnaud [4].

An excellent agreement was observed

between experimental results and
velocity profiles measured from the
averaged and RMS data from t=0.15 sec.
Only, averaged velocity profiles are
shown here in Figure 5.

4 (b)

5 (a)

4 (c)

8
 MDSRIC - 2018 Proceedings, 29-30 August, 2018 Wah/Pakistan
5 (b)
5 (c)
Figure 5: Average Velocity Profiles of
LAGOON Brionnaud [4], (a) Location
Map, (b), and (c) shows average velocity
profiles at Line 7, Brionnaud [4].
Pressure spectral density monitored at
different points was found in good
agreement with the LAGOON F2
experimental data. The impact of the
bulk viscosity is evident on the solution
(Figure 6). However, due to limited
output data, Brionnaud [4], could not
draw conclusive effect of the bulk
viscosity on the overall improvement of
results.
9
6 (a)
6 (b)
Figure 6: Influence of the bulk viscosity
on the power spectral density. (a), and
(b) shows spectra of pressure located at
K13 and K24, Brionnaud [4].
5. CONCLUSION
Research and development in
aeroacoustics require computationally
intensive numerical simulations and
detailed experimentation for the result
verifications. It also requires continuous
development and appropriate application
of modeling and solving techniques for
simulating realistic situations for noise
generation and propagation phenomena.
Lattice-Boltzmann Method is extremely
efficient low dissipative, and higher
order scheme for Direct Noise
Computation. Lattice-Boltzmann method
(LBM), by using its inherent unsteady
compressible formulation has great
 MDSRIC - 2018 Proceedings, 29-30 August, 2018 Wah/Pakistan

potential for both CFD and CAA. The use Ph.D. Thesis, University of
of Integral Methods (IM) for acoustic Bordeaux I, Talence, France.
analysis in far-field are expected to [7] D.P. Lockard, K.S. Brentner,
simulate superior results in the presence H.L. Atkins. 1995. High Accuracy
of accurate predictions of acoustic Algorithms for Computational
sources. Aeroacoustics. AIAA Journal,
33(2), pp 246-251.
[8] C.K.W. Tam. 1995.
Computational Aeroacoustics;
6. REFERENCES
Issues and Methods. AIAA Journal,
[1] International Civil Aviation 33(10), pp. 1788-1796.
Organization. 2005. The [9] H. L. Atkins. 1997. Continued
Convention on International Civil
Development of the Discontinuous
Aviation, Aircraft Noise, ICAO,
Annex 16, Volume 1, 4th edition. Galerkin Method for
Computational Aeroacoustic
[2] NASA Facts. 1999. Making Future
Applications, 3rd Joint CEAS/AIAA
Commercial Aircraft Quieter, FS-
Aeroacoustics Conference, NASA
1999-07-003-GRC.
Langley Research Center,
[3] S. Redonnet. 2014. Aircraft Noise
Hampton, VA, USA, May 12-14,
Prediction via Aeroacoustic Hybrid
AIAA 1997-1581.
Methods, Journel AerospaceLab,
[10] M.J. Lighthill. 1954. On Sound
7(7), pp 1-16.
Generated Aerodynamically, I.
[4] Ruddy Brionnaud, Miguel Chávez
General theory, II. Turbulence as
Modena, Giuseppe Trapani, and
a source of sound, Proceedings of
David M. Holman. 2016. Direct
the Royal Society of London,
Noise Computation with a Lattice-
Series A, Mathematical and
Boltzmann Method and
Physical Sciences, 211(1148), pp
Application to Industrial Test
1-32
Cases, 22nd AIAA/CEAS
[11] J. E. Ffowcs-Williams, and D. L.
Aeroacoustics Conference, Lyon,
Hawkings. 1968. Sound
France, May 30 - June 1, AIAA
Generation by Turbulence and
2016-2969.
Surfaces in Arbitrary Motion,
[5] Stephane Redonner, Eric
Philosophical Transactions of the
Manoha, and Pierre Sagaut.
Royal Society of London, Series A,
2001. Numerical simulation of
Mathematical and Physical
propagation of small
Sciences, 342(1), pp 264–321.
perturbations interacting with
[12] G. R. Kirchhoff. 1883. Zur
flows and solid bodies, 7th
Theorie der Lichtstrahlen,
AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
Annalen der Physik und Chemie,
Conference, Maastricht,
254(4), pp 663-695.
Netherlands, May 28-30, AIAA
[13] G. Cunha And S. Redonnet.
2001-2223.
2012. Towards a Robust and
[6] S. Redonnet. 2001. Simulation of
Accurate CFD-CAA Coupling
acoustic propagation in the
Procedure for Hybrid Methods in
presence of arbitrary flows and
Aeroacoustics - Part 1: On the
solid structures by numerical
Optimization of CFD/CAA Coupled
resolution of Euler's equations,
Calculations, 18th AIAA/CEAS

10
 MDSRIC - 2018 Proceedings, 29-30 August, 2018 Wah/Pakistan

Aeroacoustics Conference, of Science and Technology,

Colorado Springs, CO, USA, June Trondheim, Norway.
4-6, AIAA 2012-2063. [19] E. Manoha, J. Bulté, and B.
[14] S. Redonnet, and G. Cunha. Caruelle. 2008. LAGOON: An
2012. Towards a Robust and Experimental Database for the
Accurate CFD-CAA Coupling Validation of CFD/CAA Methods
Procedure for Hybrid Methods in for Landing Gear Noise
th
Aeroacoustics - Part 2: On the Prediction, 14 AIAA/CEAS
Application of the CFD-CAA Aeroacoustics Conference,
Surface Weak Coupling Vancouver, Canada, May 5-7, AIAA
Methodology to Realistic Aircraft 2008-2816.
Noise Problems, 18th AIAA/CEAS [20] Manoha, E., Bulte, J., Ciobaca,
Aeroacoustics Conference, V., and Caruelle, B. 2009.
Colorado Springs, CO, USA, June LAGOON: Further analysis of
4-6, AIAA 2012-2191. aerodynamic experiments and
[15] J.C. Kok And H. Van Der Ven. early aeroacoustics results, 17th
2012. Capturing free shear layers AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
in hybrid RANS-LES simulations of Conference, Portland, Oregon,
separated flow, 2nd Symposium, USA, June 5-8, AIAA-2009-3277.
Simulation of Wing and Nacelle [21] Manoha E., and Caruelle B.
Stall, Braunschweig, Germany, 2015. Summary of the LAGOON
June 21-22, NLR-TP-2012-333. Solutions from the Benchmark
[16] N. Fraser and R. Hall. 2006. problems for Airframe Noise
Simulating acoustic propagation Computations-III Workshop, 21st
using a lattice Boltzmann model AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
of incompressible fluid flow, Conference, AIAA AVIATION
Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS Forum, Dallas, TX, USA, June 22-
International Conference on 26, AIAA 2015-2846.
Acoustics & Music: Theory &
Applications, World Scientific and
Engineering Academy and Society
(WSEAS), Stevens Point,
Wisconsin, USA, June 13 - 15, pp.
42-47.
[17] Heubes, D., Bartel, A., and
Ehrhardt, M. 2014. Characteristic
boundary conditions in the lattice
Boltzmann method for fluid and
gas dynamics, Journal of
Computational and Applied
Mathematics, 262(1), pp 51-61.
[18] Stoll, S. J. B. 2014. Lattice
Boltzmann Simulation of Acoustic
Fields, with Special Attention to
Non-Reflecting Boundary
Conditions, Norwegian University

11