Correction Notice The authors would like to provide the following corrections and clarifications to the article titled “Aeroacoustic Benchmarking of Trailing-edge Noise from a NACA 633–018 Airfoil with Trailing-edge Serrations” which has been published in the AIAA Journal Vol. 61
...
Correction Notice The authors would like to provide the following corrections and clarifications to the article titled “Aeroacoustic Benchmarking of Trailing-edge Noise from a NACA 633–018 Airfoil with Trailing-edge Serrations” which has been published in the AIAA Journal Vol. 61, No. 1, and can be accessed online via https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J061630. The first correction provides clarity in the abstract. Although the main text and Appendices A and B of the original paper provide a thorough analysis of the varying signal-to-noise levels and clearly state that some data points with inherently high noise levels should be excluded in further analysis, the statement in the abstract could lead to misunderstanding that all data points will directly be included in the benchmark activities. It indeed is up to a broader benchmarking team, after considering results among different institutions, to decide which parts of the present dataset will eventually be included. Therefore, for clarity, the text “ ::: The present data are to be included in the framework of the Benchmark Problems for Airframe Noise Computation ::: ” should be replaced by “ ::: The present data are to be considered among participating institutions and may partially be included in the framework of the Benchmark Problems for Airframe Noise Computation ::: ”. The second correction pertains to the manufacturer of the so-called High-Reynolds Model (HRM) airfoil and a reference mentioned in the second paragraph of Sec. II.A. The text “ ::: manufactured by Deharde ::: [23]” should be “ ::: manufactured by RIVAL ::: [23]”. The part of the model considered in this paper was manufactured by RIVAL and Deharde later produced the spanwise extensions for this model to fit in other larger wind tunnels. The authors apologize for this miscommunication. Besides, Ref. [23] in the original paper should be replaced by Ref. [1] of this correction. During the publication process of our paper, this new reference was published and the original Ref. [23] was updated. Therefore, Ref. [1] of this correction provides up-to-date information about the model and is therefore worth referring to. (Figures Presented) The final correction pertains to the plots in Figs. 13 and 15 in the original article. The legends went missing during the production process. Figures 13 and 15 in the original article should appear as Figs. 1 and 2 in this correction, respectively, with the legends on the right side. The authors apologize for this error.@en
