Abstract
Nowadays, Phased microphone arrays have a powerful capability for acoustic source localization. The conventional beamforming constructs a dirty map of source distributions from array microphone pressure signals. Compared with conventional beamforming, deconvolution algorithms, such as DAMAS, CLEAN-SC, NNLS, FISTA and SpaRSA, can significantly improve the spatial resolution but require high computational effort. The performances of these deconvolution algorithms have been compared using simulated applications and experimental applications with simple sound source distributions. However, these comparisons are not carried out in experimental applications with complex sound source distributions. In this paper, the performances of five deconvolution algorithms (DAMAS, CLEAN-SC, NNLS, FISTA and SpaRSA) are compared in an airframe noise test, which contains very complex sound source distributions. DAMAS and CLEAN-SC achieve better spatial resolution than NNLS, FISTA and SpaRSA. DAMAS need more computational effort compared with CLEAN-SC. In addition, DAMAS can significantly reduce computational run time using compression computational grid. DAMAS with compression computational grid and CLEAN-SC are thus recommended for source localizations in experimental applications with complex sound distributions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Michel U (2006) History of acoustic beamforming. In: Proceedings of 1st Berlin beamforming conference2006
Frieden BR (1972) Restoring with maximum likelihood and maximum entropy. J Opt Soc Am 62(4):511–518
Banham MR, Katsaggelos AK (1977) Digital image restoration. IEEE Signal Process Mag 14(2):24–41
Gull SF, Daniell GJ (1978) Image reconstruction from incomplete and noisy data. Nature 272(5655):686–690
Narayan R, Nityananda R (1986) Maximum entropy image restoration in astronomy. Ann Rev Astron Astrophys 24(1):127–170
Lawson CL, Hanson RJ (1995) Solving least squares problems. Math Comput 30(135):665
Dougherty RP, Stoker RW (1998) Sidelobe suppression for phased array aeroacoustic measurements. In: 4th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference
Sijtsma P (2009) CLEAN based on spatial source coherence. Int J Aeroacoustics 6(4):357–374
Sarradj E, Herold G, Sijtsma P, Merino Martinez R, Geyer TF, Bahr CJ, Porteous R, Moreau D, Doolan CJ (2017) A microphone array method benchmarking exercise using synthesized input data. In: 23rd AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference
Brooks TF, Humphreys WM (2004) A deconvolution approach for the mapping of acoustic sources (DAMAS) determined from phased microphone arrays. In: 10th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference
Brooks TF, Humphreys WM (2006) A deconvolution approach for the mapping of acoustic sources ( DAMAS) determined from phased microphone arrays. J Sound Vib 294(4):856–879
Brooks TF, Humphreys WM (2005) Three-dimensional applications of DAMAS methodology for aeroacoustic noise source definition. In: 11th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference
Brooks TF, Humphreys WM (2006) Extension of DAMAS phased array processing for spatial coherence determination (DAMAS-C). In: 12th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conferences
Ma W, Liu X (2017) DAMAS with compression computational grid for acoustic source mapping. J Sound Vib 410:473–484
Ma W, Liu X (2017) Improving the efficiency of DAMAS for sound source localization via wavelet compression computational grid. J Sound Vib 395:341–353
Ma W, Liu X (2018) Compression computational grid based on functional beamforming for acoustic source localization. Appl Acoust 134:75–87
Ehrenfried K, Koop L (2007) Comparison of iterative deconvolution algorithms for the mapping of acoustic sources. AIAA J 45(7):1–19
Dougherty RP (2013) Extensions of DAMAS and benefits and limitations of deconvolution in beamforming. In: 11th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference
Lucy LB (1974) An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions. Astron J 79(6):745–754
Richardson WH (1972) Bayesian-based iterative method of image restoration. J Opt Soc Am 62(1):55–59
Herold G, Geyer TF, Sarradj E (2017) Comparison of inverse deconvolution algorithms for high-resolution aeroacoustic source characterization. In: 23rd AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference
Bahr CJ, Humphreys WM, Ernst D, Ahlefeldt T, Spehr C, Pereira A, Leclre Q, Picard C, Porteous R, Moreau D, Fischer JR, Doolan CJ (2017) A comparison of microphone phased array methods applied to the study of airframe noise in wind tunnel testing. In: 23rd AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference
Ahlefeldt T (2013) Aeroacoustic measurements of a scaled half-model at high reynolds numbers. AIAA J 51(12):2783–2791
Beck A, Teboulle M (2009) A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems. SIAM J Imaging Sci 2(1):183–202
Wright SJ, Nowak RD, Figueiredo MAT (2009) Sparse reconstruction by separable approximation. IEEE Trans Signal Process 57(7):2479–2493
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Thomas Geyer of BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany for providing the login information of the DLR1 benchmark test. This work was supported by China Scholarship Council and the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant NO. 51506121).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wang, J., Ma, W. (2020). Comparison of Deconvolution Algorithms of Phased Microphone Array for Sound Source Localization in an Airframe Noise Test. In: Jing, Z. (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on Aerospace System Science and Engineering 2019. ICASSE 2019. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 622. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1773-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1773-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-1772-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-1773-0
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)