Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Sonic Boom”

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.

At least 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1992

The effect of turbulence on the loudness of minimized sonic boom signatures

An important issue for shaped minimized sonic booms is whether turbulence-induced distortions will adversely affect the benefits gained by shaping. This question was considerably simplified by two recent results. The first is the finding that the loudness of sonic booms is well quantified by loudness. The second is that loudness of a shaped boom is dominated by the shock waves. The issue is now the effect of turbulence on weak (1 psf or less) sonic booms. Since it is clear that molecular relaxation effects have a significant effect on shock structure and loudness, turbulence effects must be examined in conjunction with relaxation-thickened shocks. This analysis must be directed toward loudness calculations and include all pertinent mechanisms.

Plotkin, Kenneth J.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Two HSCT Mach 1.7 low sonic boom designs

The objective of this study was to provide low sonic boom concepts, geometry, and analysis to support wind tunnel model designs. Within guidelines provided by NASA, two High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) configurations were defined with reduced sonic boom that have low drag, high payload, and good performance. To provide information for assessing the feasibility of reduced sonic boom operation, the two designs were analyzed in terms of their sonic boom characteristics, as well as aerodynamics, weight and balance, and performance characteristics. Low drag and high payload were achieved, but both of the blended arrow-wing configurations have deficiencies in high lift capability, fuel volume, wing loading, balance, and takeoff gross weight. Further refinement of the designs is needed to better determine the commercial viability of low boom operation. To help in assessing low boom design technology, the two configurations were defined as wind tunnel models with altered aft-bodies for the wind tunnel sting mounting system.

Haglund, George T.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Experimental and Computational Sonic Boom Assessment of Boeing N+2 Low Boom Models

Near-field pressure signatures were measured and computational predictions made for several sonic boom models representing Boeing's Quiet Experimental Validation Concept (QEVC) supersonic transport, as well as three axisymmetric calibration models. Boeing developed the QEVC under a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) contract for Experimental Systems Validations for N+2 Supersonic Commercial Transport Aircraft, which was led by the NASA High Speed Project under the Fundamental Aeronautics Program. The concept was designed to address environmental and performance goals given in the NRA, specifically for low sonic boom loudness levels and high cruise efficiency, for an aircraft anticipated to enter service in the 2020 timeframe. Wind tunnel tests were conducted on the aircraft and calibration models during Phases I and II of the NRA contract from 2011 to 2013 in the NASA Ames 9- by 7-Foot and NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnels. Sonic boom pressure signatures were acquired primarily at Mach 1.6 and 1.8, and force and moment data were acquired from Mach 0.8 to 1.8. The sonic boom test data were obtained using a 2-in. flat-top pressure rail and a 14-in. round-top tapered "reflection factor 1" (RF1) pressure rail. Both rails capture an entire pressure signature in one data point, and successive signatures at varying positions along or above the rail were used to improve data quality through spatial averaging. The sonic boom data obtained by the rails were validated with high-fidelity numerical simulations of off-body pressures using the CFD codes USM3D, Cart3D, and OVERFLOW. The test results from the RF1 rail showed good agreement between the computational and experimental data when a variety of testing techniques including spatial averaging of a series of pressure signatures were employed, however, reflections off the 2-in. flat-top rail caused distortions in the signatures that did not agree with the CFD predictions. The 9 x 7 and 8 x 6 wind tunnels generally produced comparable data.

pressure signature↗
NASA NTRS2014

A Flight Research Overview of WSPR, a Pilot Project for Sonic Boom Community Response

In support of NASAs ongoing effort to bring supersonic commercial travel to the public, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and NASA Langley Research Center, in cooperation with other industry organizations, conducted a flight research experiment to identify the methods, tools, and best practices for a large-scale quiet (or low) sonic boom community human response test. The name of the effort was Waveforms and Sonic boom Perception and Response. Such tests will go towards building a dataset that governing agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration and International Civil Aviation Organization will use to establish regulations for acceptable sound levels of overland sonic booms. Until WSPR, there had never been an effort that studied the response of people in their own homes and performing daily activities to non-traditional, low sonic booms.WSPR was a NASA collaborative effort with several industry partners, in response to a NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Research Opportunities in Aeronautics. The primary contractor was Wyle. Other partners included Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Pennsylvania State University, Tetra Tech, and Fidell Associates, Inc.A major objective of the effort included exposing a community with the sonic boom magnitudes and occurrences expected in high-air traffic regions with a network of supersonic commercial aircraft in place. Low-level sonic booms designed to simulate those produced by the next generation of commercial supersonic aircraft were generated over a small residential community. The sonic boom footprint was recorded with an autonomous wireless microphone array that spanned the entire community. Human response data was collected using multiple survey methods. The research focused on essential elements of community response testing including subject recruitment, survey methods, instrumentation systems, flight planning and operations, and data analysis methods.This paper focuses on NASAs role in the efforts logistics and operations including human response subject recruitment, the operational processes involved in implementing the surveys throughout the community, instrumentation systems, logistics, flight planning, and flight operations. Findings discussed in this paper include critical lessons learned in all of those areas. The paper also discusses flight operations results. Analysis of the accuracy and repeatability of planning and executing the unique aircraft maneuver used to generate low sonic booms concluded that the sonic booms had overpressures within 0.15 pounds-per-square-feet of the planned values for 76 of t he attempts. Similarly, 90 of the attempts to generate low sonic booms within the community were successful.

sonic booms↗
NASA NTRS2008

Realism Assessment of Sonic Boom Simulators

Developments in small supersonic aircraft design are predicted to result in low-intensity sonic booms. Booms generated by current aircraft are similar to those that led to the ban on commercial supersonic fli ght over the US, so are unsuitable for parametric studies of psychoac oustic response to low-intensity booms. Therefore, simulators have be en used to study the impact of predicted low-intensity sonic booms. H owever, simulators have been criticized because, when simulating conv entional-level booms, the sounds were observed to be unrealistic by p eople experienced in listening to sonic booms. Thus, two studies were conducted to measure the perceived realism of three sonic boom simul ators. Experienced listeners rated the realism of conventional sonic boom signatures when played in these simulators. The effects on percei ved realism of factors such as duration of post-boom noise, exclusion of very low frequency components, inclusion of ground reflections, a nd type of simulator were examined. Duration of post-boom noise was f ound to have a strong effect on perceived realism, while type of simu lator had a weak effect. It was determined that post-boom noise had t o be at least 1.5 seconds long for the sound to be rated very realist ic. Loudness level did not affect realism for the range of sounds pla yed in the tests (80-93 dB ASEL).

Sullivan, Brenda M.↗
NASA NTRS1991

HSCT designs for reduced sonic boom

The versatility of High Speed Civil Transports (HSCT) will be operationally limited by regulations that prohibit overland supersonic flight. This limitation gives impetus to the study of aerodynamic designs for reduced sonic boom. An HSCT design with an 'acceptable' sonic boom can allow routine overland supersonic cruise that would provide increased productivity and economic viability. During this four-year NASA-sponsored study, several configurations were designed for reduced sonic boom. An iterative technique was used in which the standard linear supersonic and Whitham sonic boom methods are extended. For the most severe sonic boom constraint of 72 dBA sonic boom loudness and 0.75 lb/sq ft shock strength at the ground, an economic benefit for operating at Mach 1.7 overland was not realized because of a decrease in the ratio of payload to takeoff gross weight. Additional design work is required to develop the best compromise between the low-boom requirements and optimum cruise performance.

Haglund, George T.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Display Provides Pilots with Real-Time Sonic-Boom Information

Supersonic aircraft generate shock waves that move outward and extend to the ground. As a cone of pressurized air spreads across the landscape along the flight path, it creates a continuous sonic boom along the flight track. Several factors can influence sonic booms: weight, size, and shape of the aircraft; its altitude and flight path; and weather and atmospheric conditions. This technology allows pilots to control the impact of sonic booms. A software system displays the location and intensity of shock waves caused by supersonic aircraft. This technology can be integrated into cockpits or flight control rooms to help pilots minimize sonic boom impact in populated areas. The system processes vehicle and flight parameters as well as data regarding current atmospheric conditions. The display provides real-time information regarding sonic boom location and intensity, enabling pilots to make the necessary flight adjustments to control the timing and location of sonic booms. This technology can be used on current-generation supersonic aircraft, which generate loud sonic booms, as well as future- generation, low-boom aircraft, anticipated to be quiet enough for populated areas.

Haering, Ed↗
NASA NTRS1968

Second conference on sonic boom research

Conference on sonic boom reduction in supersonic transport flight - shock wave propagation and refraction, prediction methods for acoustic attenuation, and aerodynamic engineering aspects.

Ira R. Schwartz↗
NASA NTRS1972

A Wind Tunnel Flight Correlation of Apollo 15 Sonic Boom

A correlation of sonic boom pressure signatures recorded during reentry of the Apollo 15 command module with wind-tunnel signatures extrapolated to flight distances has been made for Mach numbers of 1.16 and 4.57. The flight pressure signatures were recorded by pressure sensors located onboard ships positioned near the ground track while the wind-tunnel signatures were measured during tests of a 0.016-scale model of the command module. The agreement between estimates based on wind-tunnel data and flight measurements was better at Mach 4.57 than at Mach 1.16.

Hicks, R. M.↗
NASA NTRS1973

A wind tunnel flight correlation of Apollo 16 sonic boom

A correlation of sonic boom pressure signatures recorded during reentry of the Apollo 16 command module with wind-tunnel signatures extrapolated to flight distances was made for Mach numbers of 1.83 and 9.71. The flight pressure signatures were recorded by microphones located onboard ships positioned near the ground track, whereas the wind tunnel signatures were measured during a test of a 0.016-scale model of the command module. The agreement between estimates based on wind tunnel data and flight measurements was good at the tested Mach numbers.

Garcia, F., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1979

Status of knowledge of sonic booms

The status of sonic boom technology with emphasis on the recent research results is summarized. Included are definitions of the boom carpets, both primary and secondary, a discussion of existing experience with primary booms including the status of overpressure predictions and boom minimization methodology through airplane design, an indication of the boom waveforms and audibility, and a discussion of focus booms resulting from aircraft maneuvers as well as the effect of abnormal atmospheric conditions on these maneuver booms.

Maglieri, D. J.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Statistical and numerical study of the relation between weather and sonic boom characteristics

NASA measured sonic boom characteristics near Edwards Air Force Base from 11/66 to 1/67. Thirty four flights by an F-104 were recorded at an altitude of about 31,000 feet and flying speed of Mach 1.3. Forty two microphones were placed on the ground directly under the fight track. Each microphone recorded boom shape, rise time, peak overpressure, total boom duration, positive duration, and positive impulse.

Yao, Lixin↗
NASA NTRS1996

Theoretical Basis for Finite Difference Extrapolation of Sonic Boom Signatures

Calculation of sonic boom signatures for aircraft has traditionally followed the methods of Whitham' and Walkden. The wave disturbance generated by the vehicle is obtained by area rule linearized supersonic flow methods, which yield a locally axisymmetric asymptotic solution. This solution is acoustic in nature, i.e., first order in disturbance quantities, and corresponds to ray acoustics. Cumulative nonlinear distortion of the signature is incorporated by using this solution to adjust propagation speed to first order, thus yielding a solution second order in disturbance quantities. The effects of atmospheric gradients are treated by Blokhintzov's method of geometrical acoustics. Both nonlinear signature evolution and ray tracing are applied as if the pressure field very close to the vehicle were actually that given by the source term (the 'F-function') of the asymptotic linearized flow solution. The viewpoint is thus that the flow solution exists at a small radius near the vehicle, and may be treated as an input to an extrapolation procedure consisting of ray tracing and nonlinear aging. The F-function is often regarded as a representation of a near-field pressure signature, and it is common for computational implementations to treat it interchangeably with the pressure signature. There is a 'matching radius' between the source function and the subsequent propagation extrapolation. This viewpoint has been supported by wind tunnel tests of simple models, and very typically yields correct results for actual flight vehicles. The assumption that the F-function and near-field signature are interchangeable is generally not correct. The flowfield of a vehicle which is not axisymmetric contains crossflow components which are very significant at small radii and less so at larger distances. From an acoustical viewpoint, the crossflow is equivalent to source diffraction portions of the wave field. Use of the F-function as a near field signature effectively assumes that the diminution of the crossflow/diffraction component may be applied all at once at the matching radius noted above. This approximation, though not rigorously validated, is responsible for the usual correct far-field results. On the other hand, if an actual near-field signature (either from wind tunnel or CFD data) is used at a starting point rather than one based on th effective source distribution, the predicted far-field signature is generally wrong.

Plotkin, Kenneth J.↗