SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The NASA Flight Effects Program has a requirement to compare acoustic data obtained from flyover, static test stand, and wind tunnel tests. Results a laboratory study of the acoustic characteristics of the three technqiues used to measure noise during these tests are presented. Recommendations are made to allow for a comparison of data obtained with each technique.
This paper provides a comprehensive description of an acoustic flight test of the XV- 15 Tiltrotor Aircraft with Advanced Technology Blades (ATB) conducted in August and September 1991 at Crows Landing, California. The purpose of this cooperative research effort of the NASA Langley and Ames Research Centers was to obtain a preliminary, high quality database of far-field acoustics for terminal area operations of the XV-15 at a takeoff gross weight of approximately 14,000 lbs for various glide slopes, airspeeds, rotor tip speeds, and nacelle tilt angles. The test also was used to assess the suitability of the Crows Landing complex for full scale far-field acoustic testing. This was the first acoustic flight test of the XV-15 aircraft equipped with ATB involving approach and level flyover operations. The test involved coordination of numerous personnel, facilities and equipment. Considerable effort was made to minimize potential extraneous noise sources unique to the region during the test. Acoustic data from the level flyovers were analyzed, then compared with data from a previous test of the XV-15 equipped with Standard Metal Blades
The annoyance of sessions of airplane noise which contained different noise levels and numbers of flyovers was investigated. The time of occurrence of the high noise level flyovers in the sessions did not significantly affect annoyance, but annoyance increased with the number of such flyovers. Annoyance decreased with test session duration but increased with the total number of flyovers in the test sessions. It is found that the results support an average energy model better than a total energy model, the annoyance decay model, or the dB(A) peak concept.
Because of the relatively high takeoff speeds of supersonic transport aircraft, it is important to know if the flight velocity affects the noise level of suppressor nozzles. To investigate this, a modified F-106B aircraft was used to conduct a series of flyover and static tests on a 48-tube suppressor installed on an uncooled plug nozzle. Comparison of flyover and static spectra indicated that flight velocity had little effect on the noise suppression of the 48-tube suppressor configuration. However, flight velocity adversely affected noise suppression of the 48-tube suppressor with an acoustic shroud and plug installed.
Because of the relatively high takeoff speeds of supersonic transport aircraft, it is important to know whether the flight velocity effects the noise level of suppressor nozzles. To investigate this, a modified F-106B aircraft was used to conduct a series of flyover and static tests on a 12-chute suppressor installed on an uncooled plug nozzle. Comparison of flyover and static spectra indicated that flight velocity adversely affected noise suppressions of the 12-chute configurations.
At the relatively high takeoff speeds of supersonic transport aircraft, an important question concerns whether the flight speed affects the noise of suppressor nozzles. To answer this question, flyover and static tests using a modified F-106B aircraft were conducted on a 104-tube suppressor nozzle. Comparison of adjusted flyover and static spectra indicated that flight velocity had a small adverse effect on the suppression of the 104-tube suppressor. The adverse effect was larger with the acoustic shroud installed than without it.
Acoustic data from a test of a 40 percent model MBB BO-105 helicopter main rotor are scaled to equivalent full-scale flyover cases. The test was conducted in the anechoic open test section of the German-Dutch Windtunnel (DNW). The measured data are in the form of acoustic pressure time histories and spectra from two out-of-flow microphones underneath and foward of the model. These are scaled to correspond to measurements made at locations 150 m below the flight path of a full-scale rotor. For the scaled data, a detailed analysis is given for the identification in the data of the noise contributions from different rotor noise sources. Key results include a component breakdown of the noise contributions, in terms of noise criteria calculations of a weighted sound pressure level (dBA) and perceived noise level (PNL), as functions of rotor advance ratio and descent angle. It is shown for the scaled rotor that, during descent, impulsive blade-vortex interaction (BVI) noise is the dominant contributor to the noise. In level flight and mild climb, broadband blade-turbulent wake interaction (BWI) noise is dominant due to the absence of BVI activity. At high climb angles, BWI is reduced and self-noise from blade boundary-layer turbulence becomes the most prominent.
It is important to know whether the relatively high takeoff speeds of supersonic transport aircraft will change the exhaust noise levels of nozzles from those measured at static conditions. To gain some insight into this question, a modified F-106B aircraft was used to conduct flyover and static tests on a wedge nozzle. Flight velocity had an adverse effect on exhaust noise when compared with static results at the same relative jet velocity but a beneficial effect when compared with static results at the same absolute jet velocity. The wedge nozzle, which has a two-dimensional wedge surface rather than an axisymmetric plug surface, had a higher peak flyover noise level than the plug nozzle.
We report the results of a survey test conducted in advance of a series of community response tests (CRTs) to evaluate response to noise from NASA’s X-59 aircraft. The CRTs will require a substantial number of observations to generate a dose response curve for noise exposure and related annoyance levels and the timeframe is limited due to resource and scheduling constraints with an experimental aircraft. Respondents will be asked to fill out the surveys either on the web or as part of an application they are able to download onto their mobile phones. Respondents will be asked to fill out a survey each time the plane flies over the targeted area. The sample will be drawn targeting households within a specific ‘fly-over’ area. However, respondents may travel during the day, sometimes outside the targeted area. For the observations to be useful respondents need to be within a target area during flights. To collect the location data, respondents will be asked to identify where they were at the time of the flyover. The survey test followed the proposed methodology of the CRTs. We will describe how location data was collected using Google Maps API and evaluate reported rates of location at home, work or other places and whether these were inside or outside the target area. We will also compare how these rates varied across web and app respondents. We will use the results of this work to confirm or improve the design of the CRTs, ensuring the collection of data needed by NASA to evaluate the impact of this innovative technology.
To establish a realistic lower limit for the noise level of advanced supersonic transport aircraft will require knowledge concerning the amount of noise generated by the airframe itself as it moves through the air. The airframe noise level of an F-106B aircraft was determined and was compared to that predicted from an existing empirical relationship. The data were obtained from flyover and static tests conducted to determine the background noise level of the F-106B aircraft. Preliminary results indicate that the spectrum associated with airframe noise was broadband and peaked at a frequency of about 570 hertz. An existing empirical method successfully predicted the frequency where the spectrum peaked. However, the predicted OASPL value of 105 db was considerably greater than the measures value of 83 db.
Aircraft community noise is a significant concern due to continued growth in air traffic, increasingly stringent environmental goals, and operational limitations imposed by airport authorities. The assessment of human response to noise from future aircraft can only be afforded through laboratory testing using simulated flyover noise. Recent work by the authors demonstrated the ability to auralize predicted flyover noise for a state-of-the-art reference aircraft and a future hybrid wing body aircraft concept. This auralization used source noise predictions from NASA's Aircraft NOise Prediction Program (ANOPP) as input. The results from this process demonstrated that auralization based upon system noise predictions is consistent with, and complementary to, system noise predictions alone. To further develop and validate the auralization process, improvements to the interfaces between the synthesis capability and the system noise tools are required. This paper describes the key elements required for accurate noise synthesis and introduces auralization architectures for use with the next-generation ANOPP (ANOPP2). The architectures are built around a new auralization library and its associated Application Programming Interface (API) that utilize ANOPP2 APIs to access data required for auralization. The architectures are designed to make the process of auralizing flyover noise a common element of system noise prediction.
The objectives of the Propfan Test Assessment (PTA) Program were to validate in flight the structural integrity of large-scale propfan blades and to measure noise characteristics of the propfan in both near and far fields. All program objectives were met or exceeded, on schedule and under budget. A Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation GII aircraft was modified to provide a testbed for the 2.74m (9 ft) diameter Hamilton Standard SR-7 propfan which was driven by a 4475 kw (600 shp) turboshaft engine mounted on the left-hand wing of the aircraft. Flight research tests were performed for 20 combinations of speed and altitude within a flight envelope that extended to Mach numbers of 0.85 and altitudes of 12,192m (40,000 ft). Propfan blade stress, near-field noise on aircraft surfaces, and cabin noise were recorded. Primary variables were propfan power and tip speed, and the nacelle tilt angle. Extensive low altitude far-field noise tests were made to measure flyover and sideline noise and the lateral attenuation of noise. In coopertion with the FAA, tests were also made of flyover noise for the aircraft at 6100m (20,000 ft) and 10,668m (35,000 ft). A final series of tests were flown to evaluate an advanced cabin wall noise treatment that was produced under a separate program by NASA-Langley Research Center.
Acoustic phased array flyover noise measurements were acquired as part of the Boeing 737 MAX-7 NASA Advanced Inlet Liner segment of the Quiet Technology Demonstrator 3 (QTD3) flight test program. This paper reports on the processes used for separating and quantifying the engine inlet, exhaust and airframe noise source components and provides sample phased array-based comparisons of the component noise source levels associated with the inlet liner treatment configurations. Full scale flyover noise testing of NASA advanced inlet liners was conducted as part of the Quiet Technology Demonstrator 3 flight test program in July and August of 2018. Details on the inlet designs and testing are provided in the companion paper of Reference 1. The present paper provides supplemental details relating to the acoustic phased array portion of the analyses provided in Ref. 1. In brief, the test article was a Boeing 737MAX-7 aircraft with a modified right hand (starboard side) engine inlet, which consisted of either a production inlet liner, a NASA designed inlet liner or a simulated hard wall configuration (accomplished by applying speed tape over the inlet acoustic treatment areas). In all three configurations, the engine forward fan case acoustic panel was replaced with a unperforated (hardwall) panel. No other modifications to any other acoustic treatment areas were made. The left hand (port side) engine was a production engine and was flown at idle thrust for all measurements in order to isolate the effects of the inlet liners to the right hand engine. As described in Ref. 1, the NASA inlet treatment consists of laterally cut slots (cut perpendicular to the flow direction) which are designed to reduce excrescence drag while maintaining or exceeding the liner acoustic noise reduction capabilities. The NASA inlet liner consists of a Multi-Degree of Freedom (MDOF) design with two breathable septum layers inserted into each honeycomb cell [1]. The aircraft noise measurements were acquired for both takeoff (flaps 1 setting, gear up) and approach (flaps 30 gear up and gear down) configurations. The inlet and flight test configurations are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Inlet Treatment and Flight Configurations Inlet Forward Fan Case Aircraft Production Hardwall Flaps 1, gear up; flaps 30 gear up; flaps 30 gear down NASA Hardwall Flaps 1, gear up; flaps 30 gear up; flaps 30 gear down Hardwall Hardwall Flaps 1, gear up; flaps 30 gear up; flaps 30 gear down III.Test Description and Hardware The flight testing was conducted at the Grant County airport in Moses Lake, WA, between 27 July and 6 August 2018. The noise measurement instrumentation included 8 flush dish microphones arranged in a noise certification configuration as well as an 840 microphone phased array. The flush dish microphones were used to quantify the levels and differences in levels between the various inlet treatments. The phased array was used to separate and quantify the narrowband (tonal) and broadband noise component levels from the engine inlet/exhaust and from the airframe. Phased array extraction of the broadband component was critical to this study because it allowed for the separation of the inlet component from the total airplane level noise even when it was significantly below the total level. Figure 1 provides an overview of the phased array microphone layout as well as a detailed image of an individual phased array microphone mounted in a plate holder (the microphone sensor is the dot in the center of the plate). The ground plane ensemble array microphones (referred to as “ensemble array” in this paper) were mounted in plates with “flower petal” edges designed to minimize edge scattering effects. Fig. 1 Flyover test microphone layout. The phased array configuration was the result of a progressive development of concepts originally implemented in Ref. 2 and refined over the following years, consisting namely of multiple multi-arm logarithmic spiral subarrays designed to cover overlapping frequency ranges and optimized for various aircraft emission angles. For the present case, the signals from all 840 microphones were acquired on a single system. The 840 microphones were parsed into 11 primary subarray sets spanning from smallest to largest aperture size and labeled accordingly as “a, b, …, k”, where “a” corresponds to the smallest fielded subarray and “k” corresponds to the largest aperture subarray. The apertures ranged from approximately 10 ft to 427 ft in size (in the flight direction) with the subarrays consisting of between 215 and 312 microphones. Figure 2 shows three such subarrays, k, h and a. As done in Ref. 2, microphones were shared between subarrays in order to reduce total channel count. Fig. 2 Sample subarray sizes (20° from overhead – refer to Figure 3a discussion). In addition to the above, each of the 11 primary subarray sets consisted of four subarrays optimized to provide near equivalent array spatial resolution in both the flight and lateral directions within 30 degrees of overhead (i.e., airplane directly above the center of the array), namely, at angles of 0, ±10, ±20 and ±30 degrees relative to overhead where angle is defined as shown in Figure 3a. This allowed for optimized aircraft noise measurements from 60 to 120 degree emission angle.6 An example of this pletharray design is shown in Figure 3b for the k subarray. When the aircraft is at overhead, the microphones indicated by the blue markers are used for beamforming. When the aircraft is at angles ±10 degrees from overhead, both the blue and red colored microphones are used, and so on for the ±20 and ±30 degree aircraft locations. See Ref. 3 for extensive details on pletharray design for aeroacoustic phased array testing. 6 In the discussions that follow, emission angle values are used. These are the angles at the time sound is emitted relative to the engine axis and are calculated based on flight path angle, body aircraft body angle with respect to the relative wind direction, and engine axis angle relative to aircraft body angle.
Advanced Air Mobility, of which Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is a subset, presents new opportunities for more dynamic aviation transportation systems. It is essential to understand the human response to the noise of these vehicles for sustainable operations. This research aims to investigate the relationship between the noise level and number of events on individual human annoyance to UAM vehicle noise. A “noise and number” laboratory psychoacoustic study was conducted in the Exterior Effects Room at NASA Langley Research Center in January 2023. A total of 38 participants listened to 4-minute audio clips of UAM vehicle flyover noise and provided their annoyance response on an 11-point numerical scale. A test hypothesis was that annoyance to multiple flyovers can be found by adding the annoyance responses to individual flyovers. Results for the overall test subject pool suggest that annoyance grows faster than hypothesized as the number of aircraft events increases. This trend of faster annoyance growth only seems to hold when the individual flyovers are heard as distinct events. Parsing the data down to individuals provides further insight into the mechanisms contributing to the increased annoyance with number of events.
Identification, analysis, and control of fluid-mechanically-generated sound from models of aircraft and automobiles in special low-noise, semi-anechoic wind tunnels are an important research endeavor. Such studies can also be done in aerodynamic wind tunnels that have hard walls if phased microphone arrays are used to focus on the noise-source regions and reject unwanted reflections or background noise. Although it may be difficult to simulate the total flyover or drive-by noise in a closed wind tunnel, individual noise sources can be isolated and analyzed. An acoustic and aerodynamic study was made of a 7-percent-scale aircraft model in a NASA Ames 7-by-10-ft (about 2-by-3-m) wind tunnel for the purpose of identifying and attenuating airframe noise sources. Simulated landing, takeoff, and approach configurations were evaluated at Mach 0.26. Using a phased microphone array mounted in the ceiling over the inverted model, various noise sources in the high-lift system, landing gear, fins, and miscellaneous other components were located and compared for sound level and frequency at one flyover location. Numerous noise-alleviation devices and modifications of the model were evaluated. Simultaneously with acoustic measurements, aerodynamic forces were recorded to document aircraft conditions and any performance changes caused by geometric modifications. Most modern microphone-array systems function in the frequency domain in the sense that spectra of the microphone outputs are computed, then operations are performed on the matrices of microphone-signal cross-spectra. The entire acoustic field at one station in such a system is acquired quickly and interrogated during postprocessing. Beam-forming algorithms are employed to scan a plane near the model surface and locate noise sources while rejecting most background noise and spurious reflections. In the case of the system used in this study, previous studies in the wind tunnel have identified noise sources up to 19 dB below the normal background noise of the wind tunnel. Theoretical predictions of array performance are used to minimize the width and the side lobes of the beam pattern of the microphone array for a given test arrangement. To capture flyover noise of the inverted model, a 104-element microphone array in a 622-mm-diameter cluster was installed in a 19-mm-thick poly(methyl methacrylate) plate in the ceiling of the test section of the wind tunnel above the aircraft model (see Figure 1). The microphones were of the condenser type, and their diaphragms were mounted flush in the array plate, which was recessed 12.7 mm into the ceiling and covered by a porous aromatic polyamide cloth (not shown in the figure) to minimize boundary-layer noise. This design caused the level of flow noise to be much less than that of flush-mount designs. The drawback of this design was that the cloth attenuated sound somewhat and created acoustic resonances that could grow to several dB at a frequency of 10 kHz.
The results of baseline noise flight tests are presented. Data are given for a point 1.85 kilometers (1.0 nautical mile) from the runway threshold, and experimental results of level flyover noise at altitudes of 122 meters (400 feet) and 610 meters (2,000 feet) are also shown for several different power levels. The experimental data are compared with data from other sources and reasonable agreement is noted. A description of the test technique, instrumentation, and data analysis methods is included.
Noise measurements have been made with a twin-engine commercial jet aircraft making 3 deg approaches and level flyovers. The flight-test data showed that, in the standard 3 deg approach configuration with 40 deg flaps, effective perceived noise level (EPNL) had a value of 109.5 effective perceived noise decibels (EPNdB). This result was in agreement with unpublished data obtained with the same type of aircraft during noise certification tests; the 3 deg approaches made with 30 deg flaps and slightly reduced thrust reduced the EPNL value by 1 EPNdB. Extended center-line noise determined during the 3 deg approaches with 40 deg flaps showed that the maximum reference A-weighted sound pressure level (LA,max)ref varied from 100.0 A-weighted decibels 2.01 km (108 n. mi.) from the threshold to 87.4 db(A) at 6.12 km (3.30 n. mi.) from the threshold. These test values were about 3 db(A) higher than estimates used for comparison. The test data along the extended center line during approaches with 30 deg flaps were 1 db(A) lower than those for approaches with 40 deg flaps. Flight-test data correlating (LA,max)ref with thrust at altitudes of 122 m (400 ft) and 610 m (2000 ft) were in agreement with reference data used for comparison.
Noise from a J-85 turbojet with a conical, convergent nozzle was measured in simulated flight in the ONERA S1 Wind Tunnel. Data are presented for several flight speeds up to 130 m/sec and for radiation angles of 40 to 160 degrees relative to the upstream direction. The jet was operated with subsonic and sonic exhaust speeds. A moving microphone on a 2 m sideline was used to survey the radiated sound field in the acoustically treated, closed test section. The data were extrapolated to a 122 m sideline by means of a multiple-sideline source-location method, which was used to identify the acoustic source regions, directivity patterns, and near field effects. The source-location method is described along with its advantages and disadvantages. Results indicate that the effects of simulated flight on J-85 noise are significant. At the maximum forward speed of 130 m/sec, the peak overall sound levels in the aft quadrant were attentuated approximately 10 dB relative to sound levels of the engine operated statically. As expected, the simulated flight and static data tended to merge in the forward quadrant as the radiation angle approached 40 degrees. There is evidence that internal engine or shock noise was important in the forward quadrant. The data are compared with published predictions for flight effects on pure jet noise and internal engine noise. A new empirical prediction is presented that relates the variation of internally generated engine noise or broadband shock noise to forward speed. Measured near field noise extrapolated to far field agrees reasonably well with data from similar engines tested statically outdoors, in flyover, in a wind tunnel, and on the Bertin Aerotrain. Anomalies in the results for the forward quadrant and for angles above 140 degrees are discussed. The multiple-sideline method proved to be cumbersome in this application, and it did not resolve all of the uncertainties associated with measurements of jet noise close to the jet. The simulation was complicated by wind-tunnel background noise and the propagation of low frequency sound around the circuit.