## 4 Analysis of the Calculated Sound Pressure Intensity Distribution Cloud Map
### Analysis of Simulation Results of Sound Pressure Intensity on Building Surfaces
(**a**) 25 m/s numerical simulation; (**b**) 25 m/s wind tunnel experiment; (**c**) 30 m/s numerical simulation; (**d**) 30 m/s wind tunnel experiment; (**e**) 35 m/s numerical simulation; (**f**) 35 m/s wind tunnel experiment; (**g**) 40 m/s numerical simulation; (**h**) 40 m/s wind tunnel experiment. As can be seen from Figure 11, the numerically simulated sound source localization at low wind speed at the wind angle of 270\({}^{\circ}\) was in good agreement with the acoustic wind tunnel experimental results. The deviation of the upper localized sound source location under the working conditions of 35 m/s and 40 m/s was caused by the complex modeling of the apron in the upper part of the building, which was simplified in the numerical simulation by reducing the apron to a regular solid figure, but 3D printing technology was adopted in the wind tunnel experimental model to reproduce the external contour of the complex structure at the top. The total height of the two models was the same, whose appearances were identical except for the detailed structure as well as the top layer structure (as shown in Figure 12). In addition, the sound pressure level amplitude of the sound source was in good agreement. Figure 5:0 Comparison of experimental and simulated sound source localization at the wind angle of 180\({}^{\circ}\). (**a**) 25 m/s numerical simulation; (**b**) 25 m/s wind tunnel experiment; (**c**) 30 m/s numerical simulation; (**d**) 30 m/s wind tunnel experiment; (**e**) 35 m/s numerical simulation; (**f**) 35 m/s wind tunnel experiment; (**g**) 40 m/s numerical simulation; (**h**) 40 m/s wind tunnel experiment. Figure 5:1 _Cont._  
Summing up the results, the numerical simulation and acoustic wind tunnel experimental results under the working conditions of 0\({}^{\circ}\), 45\({}^{\circ}\) and 270\({}^{\circ}\) were in good agreement in terms of locating the sound source. The height was also in good agreement between the numerical simulation and the acoustic wind tunnel experiment for locating the sound source under the working conditions of 90\({}^{\circ}\) and 180\({}^{\circ}\), but there was a slight difference between the front and rear positions. This is because for stationary sound sources, although the microphone array [20; 21; 22; 23] can discriminate incoherent sources based on the traditional beamforming algorithm of delay superposition, the spatial resolution is relatively low, and the building model in this paper is relatively complex compared to the research model in the field of aerospace and vehicle engineering. Furthermore, there is a gap in the middle of the buildings that is not easily monitored by the microphone array, and the main airflow disturbance is generated in the gap. In addition, there were various unavoidable installation deviations when the microphone array was installed, and such installation deviations resulted in the sound source localization errors [24; 25]. The numerical simulation results on the top layer of the experimental model had no effect on the spatial distribution of noise intensity and no significant effect on the localization of noise sources, except for a slight difference in the localization cloud map at a higher wind speed of 270\({}^{\circ}\). The simplification of the simulation model relative to the experimental model can be considered to be within a reasonable range. The numerical simulation and the acoustic wind tunnel in locating the  
Figure 5:2 Comparison of experimental and simulated sound source localization at the wind angle of 270\({}^{\circ}\). Figure 5:3 Numerical simulation and wind tunnel experimental model. (**a**) Wind tunnel experiment model; (**b**) Numerical simulation model. sound pressure level of the sound source under all working conditions was also consistent, so was the sound pressure level amplitude of the sound source.