Results for “Propeller noise” — Page 15

NASA NTRS1982

Propeller tip vortex - A possible contributor to aircraft cabin noise

Wind tunnel model tests support the hypothesis that a propeller tip vortex may subject a downstream wing surface to greater excitation than would be experienced by the aircraft fuselage side wall exposed to propeller-generated noise, ultimately transmitting this structural response to incident dynamic pressure to the cabin interior. Even if structure-borne excitations are less efficient than airborne excitations in the creation of cabin noise, the higher level of the former could still govern cabin noise levels.

Miller, B. A.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Noise of a model counterrotation propeller with simulated fuselage and support pylon at takeoff/approach conditions

Two modern high-speed advanced counterrotation propellers, F7/A7 and F7/A3 were tested in the NASA Lewis Research Centers's 9- by 15-foot Anechoic Wind Tunnel at simulated takeoff/approach conditions of 0.2 Mach number. Both rotors were of similar diameter on the F7/A7 propeller, while the aft rotor diameter of the F7/A3 propeller was 85 percent of the forward propeller to reduce tip vortex-aft rotor interaction. The two propellers were designed for similar performance. The propellers were tested in both the clean configuration, and installed configuration consisting of a simulated upstream nacelle support pylon and fuselage section. Acoustic measurements were made with an axially translating microphone probe, and with a polar microphone probe which was fixed to the propeller nacelle and could make both sideline and circumferential acoustic surveys. Aerodynamic measurements were also made to establish propeller operating conditions. The propellers were run at blade setting angles (fron angle/rear angle) of 41.1/39.4 deg for the F7/A7 propeller, and 41.1/46.4 deg for the F7/A3 propeller. The forward rotors were tested over a range of tip speeds from 165 to 259 m/sec (540 to 850 ft/sec), and both propellers were tested at the maximum rotor-rotor spacing, based on pitch change axis separation, of 14.99 cm (5.90 in.). The data presented in this paper are for 0 deg propeller axis angle of attack. Results are presented for the baseline, pylon-alone, and strut + fuselage configurations. The presence of the simulated fuselage resulted in higher rotor-alone tone levels in a direction normal to the advancing propeller blade near the fuselage. A corresponding rotor-alone tone reduction was often observed 180 deg circumferentially from this region of increased noise. A significant rotor-alone increase for both rotors was observed diametrically opposite the fuselage. In some cases, interaction tone levels were likewise affected by the simulated installation.

Woodward, Richard P.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Noise of a model counterrotation propeller with simulated fuselage and support pylon at takeoff/approach conditions

Two modern high-speed advanced counterrotation propellers, F7/A7 and F7/A3 were tested in the NASA Lewis Research Centers's 9- by 15-foot Anechoic Wind Tunnel at simulated takeoff/approach conditions of 0.2 Mach number. Both rotors were of similar diameter on the F7/A7 propeller, while the aft rotor diameter of the F7/A3 propeller was 85 percent of the forward propeller to reduce tip vortex-aft rotor interaction. The two propellers were designed for similar performance. The propellers were tested in both the clean configuration, and installed configuration consisting of a simulated upstream nacelle support pylon and fuselage section. Acoustic measurements were made with an axially translating microphone probe, and with a polar microphone probe which was fixed to the propeller nacelle and could make both sideline and circumferential acoustic surveys. Aerodynamic measurements were also made to establish propeller operating conditions. The propellers were run at blade setting angles (front angle/rear angle) of 41.1/39.4 deg for the F7/A7 propeller, and 41.1/46.4 deg for the F7/A3 propeller. The forward rotors were tested over a range of tip speeds from 165 to 259 m/sec (540 to 850 ft/sec), and both propellers were tested at the maximum rotor-rotor spacing, based on pitch change axis separation, of 14.99 cm (5.90 in.). The data presented in this paper are for 0 deg propeller axis angle of attack. Results are presented for the baseline, pylon-alone, and strut + fuselage configurations. The presence of the simulated fuselage resulted in higher rotor-alone tone levels in a direction normal to the advancing propeller blade near the fuselage. A corresponding rotor-alone tone reduction was often observed 180 deg circumferentially from this region of increased noise. A significant rotor-alone increase for both rotors was observed diametrically opposite the fuselage. In some cases, interaction tone levels were likewise affected by the simulated installation.

Woodward, Richard P.↗

NASA NTRS1993

Takeoff/approach noise for a model counterrotation propeller with a forward-swept upstream rotor

A scale model of a counterrotating propeller with forward-swept blades in the forward rotor and aft-swept blades in the aft rotor (designated F39/A31) has been tested in the NASA Lewis 9- by 15-Foot Anechoic Wind Tunnel. This paper presents aeroacoustic results at a takeoff/approach condition of Mach 0.20. Laser Doppler velocimeter results taken in a plane between the two rotors are also included to quantify the interaction flow field. The intention of the forward-swept design is to reduce the magnitude of the forward rotor tip vortex and/or wakes which impinge on the aft rotor, thus lowering the interaction tone levels. A reference model propeller (designated F31/A31), having aft-swept blades in both rotors, was also tested. Aeroelastic performance of the F39/A31 propeller was disappointing. The forward rotor tip region tended to untwist toward higher effective blade angles under load. The forward rotor also exhibited steady state blade flutter at speeds and loadings well below the design condition. The noise results, based on sideline acoustic data, show that the interaction tone levels were up to 8 dB higher with the forward-swept design compared to those for the reference propeller at similar operating conditions, with these tone level differences extending down to lower propeller speeds where flutter did not occur. These acoustic results are for a poorly-performing forward-swept propeller. It is quite possible that a properly-designed forward-swept propeller would exhibit substantial interaction tone level reductions.

Woodward, Richard P.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Installation effects on propeller wake/vortex induced structure-borne noise transmission

A laboratory-based test apparatus was employed to investigate the effects of power-plant placement, engine/nacelle mass installation, and wing-to-fuselage attachment methods on propeller-induced structure-borne noise (SBN) transmission levels and their effects on noise-control measures. Data are presented showing SBN transmission is insensitive to propeller spanwise placement, however some sensitivity is seen in propeller-to-wing spacing. Installation of an engine/nacelle mass and variation in wing-to-fuselage attachments have measurable influences on SBN transmission and control measures.

Unruh, J. F.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Noise reduction of a composite cylinder subjected to random acoustic excitation

Interior and exterior noise measurements were conducted on a stiffened composite floor-equipped cylinder, with and without an interior trim installed. Noise reduction was obtained for the case of random acoustic excitation in a diffuse field; the frequency range of interest was 100-800-Hz one-third octave bands. The measured data were compared with noise reduction predictions from the Propeller Aircraft Interior Noise (PAIN) program and from a statistical energy analysis. Structural model parameters were not predicted well by the PAIN program for the given input parameters; this resulted in incorrect noise reduction predictions for the lower one-third octave bands where the power flow into the interior of the cylinder was predicted on a mode-per-mode basis.

Grosveld, Ferdinand W.↗

NASA NTRS1986

Comparison of two propeller source models for aircraft interior noise studies

The sensitivity of the predicted synchrophasing (SP) effectiveness trends to the propeller source model issued is investigated with reference to the development of advanced turboprop engines for transport aircraft. SP effectiveness is shown to be sensitive to the type of source model used. For the virtually rotating dipole source model, the SP effectiveness is sensitive to the direction of rotation at some frequencies but not at others. The SP effectiveness obtained from the virtually rotating dipole model is not very sensitive to the radial location of the source distribution within reasonable limits. Finally, the predicted SP effectiveness is shown to be more sensitive to the details of the source model used for the case of corotation than for the case of counterrotation.

Mahan, J. R.↗

NASA NTRS1988

Noise of a model counterrotation propeller with reduced aft rotor diameter at simulated takeoff/approach conditions (F7/A3)

A model high-speed advanced counterrotation propeller, F7/A3, was tested in the NASA Lewis Research Center 9 by 15 foot Anechoic Wind Tunnel at simulated takeoff/approach conditions of 0.2 Mach number. Acoustic measurements were taken with an axially translating microphone probe, and with a polar microphone probe which was fixed to the propeller nacelle and could take both sideline and circumferential acoustic surveys. Aerodynamic measurements were also made to establish propeller operating conditions. The propeller was run at two setting angles (front angle/rear angle) of 36.4/43.5 and 41.1/46.4 degrees, forward rotor tip speeds from 165 to 259 m/sec, rotor spacings from 8.48 to 14.99 cm based on pitch change axis separation, and angles of attack to 16 degrees. The aft rotor diameter was 85 percent of the forward rotor diameter to reduce tip vortex-aft rotor interaction as a major interaction noise source. Results are compared with equal diameter F7/A7 data which was previously obtained under similar operating conditions. The aft rotor-alone tone was 7 dB lower for the reduced diameter aft rotor, due to reduced tip speed at constant rpm. Interaction tone levels for the F7/A3 propeller were higher at minimum row spacing and lower at maximum spacing.

Woodward, Richard P.↗

NASA NTRS1988

Noise of a model counterrotation propeller with reduced aft rotor diameter at simulated takeoff/approach conditions (F7/A3)

A model high-speed advanced counterrotation propeller, F7/A3, was tested in the NASA Lewis Research Center 9 by 15 foot Anechoic Wind Tunnel at simulated takeoff/approach conditions of 0.2 Mach number. Acoustic measurements were taken with an axially translating microphone probe, and with a polar microphone probe which was fixed to the propeller nacelle and could take both sideline and circumferential acoustic surveys. Aerodynamic measurements were also made to establish propeller operating conditions. The propeller was run at two setting angles (front angle/rear angle) of 36.4/43.5 and 41.1/46.4 degrees, forward rotor tip speeds from 165 to 259 m/sec, rotor spacings from 8.48 to 14.99 cm based on pitch change axis separation, and angles of attack to 16 degrees. The aft rotor diameter was 85 percent of the forward rotor diameter to reduce tip vortex-aft rotor interaction as a major interaction noise source. Results are compared with equal diameter F7/A7 data which was previously obtained under similar operating conditions. The aft rotor-alone tone was 7 dB lower for the reduced diameter aft rotor, due to reduced tip speed at constant rpm. Interaction tone levels for the F7/A3 propeller were higher at minimum row spacing and lower at maximum spacing.

Woodward, Richard P.↗

NASA NTRS1987

Structureborne noise control in advanced turboprop aircraft

Structureborne noise is discussed as a contributor to propeller aircraft interior noise levels that are nonresponsive to the application of a generous amount of cabin sidewall acoustic treatment. High structureborne noise levels may jeopardize passenger acceptance of the fuel-efficient high-speed propeller transport aircraft designed for cruise at Mach 0.65 to 0.85. These single-rotation tractor and counter-rotation tractor and pusher propulsion systems will consume 15 to 30 percent less fuel than advanced turbofan systems. Structureborne noise detection methodologies and the importance of development of a structureborne noise sensor are discussed. A structureborne noise generation mechanism is described in which the periodic components or propeller swirl produce periodic torques and forces on downstream wings and airfoils that are propagated to the cabin interior as noise. Three concepts for controlling structureborne noise are presented: (1) a stator row swirl remover, (2) selection of a proper combination of blade numbers in the rotor/stator system of a single-rotation propeller, and the rotor/rotor system of a counter-rotation propeller, and (3) a tuned mechanical absorber.

Loeffler, Irvin J.↗

NASA NTRS1987

Structureborne noise control in advanced turboprop aircraft

Structureborne noise is discussed as a contributor to propeller aircraft interior noise levels that are nonresponsive to the application of a generous amount of cabin sidewall acoustic treatment. High structureborne noise levels may jeopardize passenger acceptance of the fuel-efficient high-speed propeller transport aircraft designed for cruise at Mach 0.65 to 0.85. These single-rotation tractor and counter-rotation tractor and pusher propulsion systems will consume 15 to 30 percent less fuel than advanced turbofan systems. Structureborne noise detection methodologies and the importance of development of a structureborne noise sensor are discussed. A structureborne noise generation mechanism is described in which the periodic components or propeller swirl produce periodic torques and forces on downstream wings and airfoils that are propagated to the cabin interior as noise. Three concepts for controlling structureborne noise are presented: (1) a stator row swirl remover, (2) selection of a proper combination of blade numbers in the rotor/stator system of a single-rotation propeller, and the rotor/rotor system of a counter-rotation propeller, and (3) a tuned mechanical absorber.

Loeffler, Irvin J.↗

NASA NTRS1991

Flow interaction and noise from a counter rotating propeller

The aerodynamic interaction between the forward and rear rotors in a counter rotating propeller (CRP) system, has been examined using a conditional sampling technique applied to three-dimensional thermal anemometer data. The technique effectively freezes the rotors in any desired relative position and provides the inter-rotor flow field. Axial, radial and circumferential mean flow between rotors is shown relative to the 'fixed' forward rotor for various 'fixed' aft rotor positions. Acoustic far field noise data have also been collected for the same operating conditions. The acoustic results are presented with emphasis on the blade passing frequencies and interaction tone of the CRP.

Chung, Jin-Deog↗

NASA NTRS1978

Tone noise of three supersonic helical tip speed propellers in a wind tunnel at 0.8 Mach number

Three supersonic helical tip speed propellers were tested in the NASA Lewis 8- by 6-foot wind tunnel. Noise data were obtained while these propellers were operating at a simulated cruise condition. The walls of this tunnel were not acoustically treated and therefore this was not an ideal location for taking noise data, but it was thought that the differences in noise among the three propellers would be meaningful. The straight bladed propeller which did not incorporate sweep was the noisiest with the aerodynamically swept propeller only slightly quieter. However, the acoustically swept propeller was significantly quieter than the straight propeller, thereby indicating the merit of this design technique.

Dittmar, J. H.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Acoustic Shielding for a Model Scale Counter-rotation Open Rotor

The noise shielding benefit of installing an open rotor above a simplified wing or tail is explored experimentally. The test results provide both a benchmark data set for validating shielding prediction tools and an opportunity for a system level evaluation of the noise reduction potential of propulsion noise shielding by an airframe component. A short barrier near the open rotor was found to provide up to 8.5 dB of attenuation at some directivity angles, with tonal sound particularly well shielded. Predictions from two simple shielding theories were found to overestimate the shielding benefit.

Acoustics shielding↗

NASA NTRS2014

Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Tone Noise Prediction

Reliable prediction of contra-rotating open rotor (CROR) noise is an essential element of any strategy for the development of low-noise open rotor propulsion systems that can meet both the community noise regulations and the cabin noise limits. Since CROR noise spectra typically exhibits a preponderance of tones, significant efforts have been directed towards predicting their tone spectra. To that end, there has been an ongoing effort at NASA to assess various in-house open rotor tone noise prediction tools using a benchmark CROR blade set for which significant aerodynamic and acoustic data had been acquired in wind tunnel tests. In the work presented here, the focus is on the near-field noise of the benchmark open rotor blade set at the cruise condition. Using an analytical CROR tone noise model with input from high-fidelity aerodynamic simulations, detailed tone noise spectral predictions have been generated and compared with the experimental data. Comparisons indicate that the theoretical predictions are in good agreement with the data, especially for the dominant CROR tones and their overall sound pressure level. The results also indicate that, whereas individual rotor tones are well predicted by the linear sources (i.e., thickness and loading), for the interaction tones it is essential that the quadrupole sources be included in the analysis.

Propeller Noise↗

NASA NTRS2014

Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Tone Noise Prediction

Reliable prediction of contra-rotating open rotor (CROR) noise is an essential element of any strategy for the development of low-noise open rotor propulsion systems that can meet both the community noise regulations and cabin noise limits. Since CROR noise spectra exhibit a preponderance of tones, significant efforts have been directed towards predicting their tone content. To that end, there has been an ongoing effort at NASA to assess various in-house open rotor tone noise prediction tools using a benchmark CROR blade set for which significant aerodynamic and acoustic data have been acquired in wind tunnel tests. In the work presented here, the focus is on the nearfield noise of the benchmark open rotor blade set at the cruise condition. Using an analytical CROR tone noise model with input from high-fidelity aerodynamic simulations, tone noise spectra have been predicted and compared with the experimental data. Comparisons indicate that the theoretical predictions are in good agreement with the data, especially for the dominant tones and for the overall sound pressure level of tones. The results also indicate that, whereas the individual rotor tones are well predicted by the combination of the thickness and loading sources, for the interaction tones it is essential that the quadrupole source is also included in the analysis.

Propeller Noise↗

NASA NTRS1991

Aeroacoustics of Flight Vehicles: Theory and Practice. Volume 1: Noise Sources

Methodology recommended to evaluate aeroacoustic related problems is provided, and approaches to their solutions are suggested without extensive tables, nomographs, and derivations. Orientation is toward flight vehicles and emphasis is on underlying physical concepts. Theoretical, experimental, and applied aspects are covered, including the main formulations and comparisons of theory and experiment. The topics covered include: propeller and propfan noise, rotor noise, turbomachinery noise, jet noise classical theory and experiments, noise from turbulent shear flows, jet noise generated by large-scale coherent motion, airframe noise, propulsive lift noise, combustion and core noise, and sonic booms.

Propeller noise↗

NASA NTRS1978

Investigation of interior noise in a twin-engine light aircraft

This paper describes experimental studies of interior noise in a twin-engine, propeller-driven, light aircraft. An analytical model for this type of aircraft is also discussed. Results indicate that interior noise levels in this aircraft due to propeller noise can be reduced by reducing engine rpm at constant airspeed (about 3 dB), and by synchrophasing the twin engines/propellers (perhaps up to 12 dB). Ground tests show that the exterior noise pressure imposed on the fuselage consists of a complex combination of narrow-band harmonics due to propeller and engine exhaust sources. This noise is reduced by about 20-40 dB (depending on the frequency) by transmission through the sidewall to the cabin interior. The analytical model described uses modal methods and incorporates the flat-side geometrical and skin-stringer structural features of this light aircraft.

Mixson, J. S.↗