NASA 1970 Prop Noise Review PDF
NASA 1970 Prop Noise Review PDF
NASA 1970 Prop Noise Review PDF
N A T I O N A L A E R O N A U T I C S A N D SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
J E T PROPULSION LABORATORY
C A L I F O R N I A INSTITUTE OF T E C H N O L O G Y
PASADENA, C A L I F O R N I A
January 1, 1970
4
d
N A T I O N A L A E R O N A U T I C S A N D SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
J E T PROPULSION LABORATORY i
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
January 1, 1970
d
Prepared Under Contract No. NAS 7- 100
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
d
Preface
The preparation of this report was carried out by the Environmental Sciences
Division of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the United States Department of
Transportation.
3. Vortex noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Turbulence-induced noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
.
C Attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Geometric attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Atmospheric attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
.
IV Rotor Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Characteristics of Rotor Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Ordered (rotational) noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
2. Broad-band (vortex) noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
3. Modulation (blade slap) noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
C. Rotor Noise Alleviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '13
.
V lift Fan Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
C. Scaling Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
.
Appendix A Explanation of Some Fundamental Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
.
Appendix 8 Generalized Propeller-Noise Estimating Procedure . . . . . . . . . 21
.
Appendix C Generalized Rotor-Noise Estimating Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix D. Generalized Lift-Fan-Noise Estimating Procedure . . . . . . . . . 35
d
Contents (contd)
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figures
.
1 Elementary sources of sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Theoretical noise patterns for rotors. propellers and fans . . . . . . . . . 2
.
4 Molecular attenuation coefficient for air-to-ground propagation at
7OoF and 8 g/m3 absolute humidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Noise level as a function of disc loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acoustic contribution of loading harmonics 10 deg below rotor disc
(adapted from Ref. 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Comparison of theories with experimental data at the side of a helicopter . . . . 8
8. Comparison of theory and experiment (adapted from Ref. 14) . . . . . . . . 9
.
9 Noise spectrum; comparison of theory (adapted from Ref 12) .
and experiment for a two-blade rotor (UH-1A and UH-1B) . . . . . . . . . 10
.
10 Octave band vortex noise spectrum below stall (a),
and above stall (b). (adapted from Ref. 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Comparison of computed SPLs vs harmonic number for various KL and KD,
with measured SPLs for a UH-1A helicopter in hover, (adapted from Ref. 19) . . . 11
.
12 Typical blade-vortex intersections for a single rotor system (a),
and a tandem rotor system (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
.
17 Noise generated by STOL aircraft, 50, 000 to 95,000 Ib gross weight
(adapted from Deckert, Ref. 23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.l . Near-field axis system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2 . Reference level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.3 . Correction for speed and radial distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B.4 . Variation of over.all, free-space propeller noise levels with
. . . . . . . . . . . . 23
axial position X/D fore and aft of propeller plane
Figures (contd)
d
Abstract
Hand-calculation procedures for predicting aerodynamic noise from propellers,
rotors and lift fans useful as first engineering approximations have been assembled
from the literature. Considerable introductory material and a glossary of terms
has been included to make the prediction procedures more meaningful. Current
literature has been reviewed and a comprehensive bibliography on V/STOL air-
craft noise is presented.
d
A Review of Aerodynamic Noise from Propellers,
Rotors, and Lift Fans
d
II. Elements of Aerodynamic Acoustics Dipole strength is a vector term with direction as well as
magnitude. Vortex noise is an example of dipole noise,
A. Acoustic Radiator Models as are noise due to torque (induced drag) and noise due
In earlier work on acoustic theory, such as Ref. 1, many to thickness (form drag).
of the features of aerodynamic noise are discussed in terms
of simple sources (monopoles), dipoles, and quadrupoles. In the appropriate acoustic equation, momentum trans-
These are the so-called elementary solutions of the equa- port appears in two parts: one represents direct convection
tions of motion from classical acoustic theory of small of the momentum component by the velocity component;
disturbances to a gas at rest. The theory was developed the other part, which equally transfers momentum, is the
by Lord Rayleigh before the end of the nineteenth cen- stress between adjacent elements of fluid. This second
tury in his Theory of Sound. Such solutions describe the part can be represented by a quadrupole since an element
radiation generated at a point, while real sound is always of fluid under stress bears equal and opposite forces on
generated over some area and can be described only by a opposite sides, each force being equivalent to a dipole
continuous distribution of point singularities. Physical and each pair to a quadrupole. Models for quadrupoles
models, taken from Ref. 2, are shown in Fig. 1. are shown in Fig. IC.A turbulent jet is a noise source of
this type, as also is thrust noise, because the wake from
The simplest of these is the pulsating sphere, which is which the noise emanates is merely a low-speed turbu-
lent jet.
used to represent the simple point source where the sound
is generated by the variation of mass outaow from the
source. A simple example of this type of noise is the burst- Cancellation effects in the dipole and quadrupole cause
ing balloon; none of the noise sources of rotors, fans, and progressively decreasing efficiencies of radiation at the
propellers are of this type. lower frequencies. In an example from Ref. 3, which as-
sumes a sphere deforming at a frequency having a wave-
length of twice the circumference of the sphere, the
The next simplest elementary solution is the dipole,
efficiencies of a dipole and a quadrupole relative to a
where sound is generated by the injection of momentum
simple source are 1/13 and lJ000, respectively. This
rather than mass. An acoustic dipole is equivalent to a
suggests one means of reducing aerodynamic noise: that
force concentrated at a point and varied in magnitude
and/or direction. Alternate models are shown in Fig. lb.
AERODYNAMIC
NOISE
ROTATIONAL
a
PERIODIC
INTERACTI O N
AND
~
TURBULENCE
BROAD BAND
VORTEX
NOISE DISTORTION INDUCED NOISE
EFFECTS
-
C. Attenuation
1. Geometric attenuation. As a sound wave travels
through still homogeneous air, it loses energy in three
ways. The first and usually most important process is that
due to the geometric distance between the source and the
observer. If one considers spherical wave spreading from
a point source of uniform intensity, the sound pressure
level registered at the observer varies inversely as the
square of the distance from the source. This relationship
is valid (to a first order approximation) for non-point
sources if the observer is in the far field (i.e., if the dis-
150 600 2400 10,000
tance from source to observer is great relative to the FREQUENCY BAND, Hz
dimension of the source). Expressed in terms of the loga-
rithmic decibel scale, the sound pressure level falls by Fig. 4. Molecular attenuation coefficient for air-to-ground
6 dB for every doubling of distance from the source. propagation at 7OoF and 8 g/m3 absolute humidity
D. Vortex Noise
Pm =
SA
TCOS0
1
JmB(X) (1)
An equation developed by Hubbard, which was based
on Yudin's original work, additional work by Stowell and
where: Deming (Ref. 9), and others, is frequently used to calculate
vortex noise in terms of SPL.
p = rms sound pressure level (SPL)lin dynes/cm2
m = order of the harmonic SPL = lOlog kAb (v0'7)G
(dB at 300 ft)
S = distance from propeller hub to observer, ft
R = propeller radius, f t where
<5, 80
v
N
0
x 2
m
U
2 60 * .. .-.
2
A
w
L*
2
v)
Q I
1 -1 VV
w
L
0-
*
n
5 4c
2
2c I I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12
HARMONIC NUMBER, rn
where T is distance.) Clearly, sufficiently far away from the experimentally generated data is very questionable at the
source, only the last (acoustic far-field) term is signscant. present time.
For calculations near the source (say, a wavelength or so),
the first (acoustic near-field) term must be retained. The Lowson and Ollerhead have undertaken to avoid the
Schlegel approach does assume a second geometricfar- impasse by deriving empirical harmonic decay laws. A
field approximation,whose terms of order ( R / T ) where
~, R study of the available full-scale blade loading data re-
is rotor radius, can be neglected, thus simplifying the inte- vealed that the amplitudes of the airload harmonics de-
gration. All far-field approximations will be valid suffici- cayed approximately as some inverse power of harmonic
ently far from the rotor. Schlegel uses a rectangular number, at least in the range which covered the first 10
distribution approximation to the chordwise loading pat- harmonics. For steady flight out of ground effect, the
tern, while Loewy and Sutton use an analytic ap- optimum value for the exponent was found to be -2.0
proximation. Schlegel shows detailed comparison with so that the amplitude of the xth loading harmonic was
experimental results for only the first four harmonics. proportional to h-2.0.This law was then extrapolated in-
Fair agreement is found for the first two, but it is clear definitely to higher frequencies in order to provide some
that underestimation of the fourth, and presumably higher, estimate of the higher harmonic airload levels. However,
harmonics occurs. However, it should be noted that this before this could be used as a basis for noise calculations,
is a substantial improvement over the use of Gutins for- account had to be taken for phase variations around the
mula. This report shows clearly that the higher harmonics rotor azimuth and along the rotor span. It was assumed
of the loading have important contributions to the higher that the phases could be randomized, in the case of the
harmonics of the noise. Loewy and Sutton came to the span wise loading variations, this was accomplished by
same general conclusions. The usefulness of these theo- the introduction of a correlation length concept such
ries, then, depend on the availability of higher harmonics as commonly used in turbulence theory. By assuming that
loading data. Rotor aerodynamics is an exceedingly com- the correlation length was inversely proportional to fre-
plex three-dimensional problem; at the present time even quency, this resulted in an approximate net effect of add-
the accurate prediction of low-frequency fluctuations, for ing a further -0.5 to the exponent of the loading power
the purposes of calculating blade vibration response, is a law. Also, an effective rotational Mach number concept is
formidable task. Higher harmonic loading prediction is introduced which enables the effects of forward speed to
even more difficult, and the validity of theoretically or be calculated directly from results for the hover case.
r
Using these approximations,the rotational noise spectrum
for the Bell UH-1 helicopter was calculated for compari- THEORY, M = 0.5, ELEVATION = 5 deg
son with available measurements. The comparison is 0 ELEVATION - 10 deg, r = 100 ft, GROUND RUNNING
-
shown in Fig. 9. Because of uncertainties regarding the Z
0
overall levels, they were normalized on the basis of power
in the third and higher harmonics. Although for this rea-
son, nothing can be said about overall levels; the agree-
ment, insofar as spectral shape is concerned, is good up
to the thirtieth harmonic. The calculated levels are shown
for the hover case in Fig. 7a. They are only slightly better
than Schlegel's theory at the fourth harmonic. Lowson
made some simplifying assumptions to his closed-form
analytic solution, which enabled him to develop a set of
useful design charts. These charts allow the user to deter-
mine rotational noise levels for a rotor under any condi-
tions of steady flight with a few simple hand calculations.
The charts, with detailed instructions for their use and an
example calculation, are shown in Appendix C. With care-
ful use, the procedure can yield any reasonable number
HARMONIC NUMBER
of noise harmonics at any point in the far field of the rotor
to within 2 dB of the value obtained by computer tech- Fig. 9. Noise spectrum; comparison of theory (adapted
niques. Comparisons with experimental results indicate from Ref. 12) and experiment for a two-blade rotor
that, although the design charts may be in error for the IUH-1A and UH-1Bl
overall levels, they should give the parameter trends quite
accurately. The charts should be useful tools for design
opinion that, above 100 Hz vortex noise became dominant
tradeoff studies.
by saying that the commonly used 1/3 octave analysis of
experimental data does not distinguish the higher indi-
2. Broad-band (uortex) noise. The fundamental genera- vidual harmonics and that experimenters were prejudiced,
tion mechanism of broad-band and, more particularly since previous theoretical results predicted that rotational
vortex noise from rotors is not yet fully understood. In noise decayed more rapidly than, in fact, occurs. At any
Yudin's early work with rotating rods, vortex noise was rate, broad-band noise is generated and can be dominant
considered to be a viscous wake-excited phenomenon and under some rotor operations, e.g., at very low rotational
indeed it must be in that case. However, in the case of a velocities with two or three bladed rotors where even
lifting airfoil such as a rotor, the experimental evidence higher harmonics of the blade passage frequency may be
could support equally well the contention that it is caused inaudible. Hubbard and Regier (Ref. 18) extended the
by a random movement of the lifting vortex in the tip work of Yudin and postulated that, for propellers with air-
region. Stuckey and Goddard (Ref. 16) used a radial array foil sections, as for rotating circular rods, the vortex noise
of microphones in their rotor measurements, but were not energy was proportional to the ,first power of blade area
able to locate the true center of dipole activity from their and to the sixth power of the section velocity (see Sec-
data. In view of the work by Spencer et al. (Ref. 17), tion 111).Hubbard's formula is based on a C , = 0.4.Ad-
Schlegel, et al., and others in reducing broad-band noise justment is made for other values of C , by using an
through modifications to rotor tips, it seems certain that effective blade area. Schlegel reports that intensive anal-
the tip vortex does have a significant effect. Quite likely, ysis of experimental rotor test data indicated that greater
both the tip vortex and the vortex sheet shed from the accuracy could be attained by using actual blade area
upper surface of the airfoil contribute in varying degrees and coefficient of lift. He also suggests that the constant
depending on the configuration and operating conditions. k, in Hubbard's equation (Section 111, Part D) for rotor
There is evidence, however, that a portion of what was use, should be 6.1 X However, the value is not firmly
originally identified as broad-band, vortex noise may, in established; experimental measurements, where they are
fact, be higher harmonic rotational noise. Lowson and available and reliable, should be used to evaluate the
Ollerhead report that the rotational noise of rotors may constant for a particular set of conditions. A systematic
dominate the noise spectrum up to 400 Hz and higher. experimental program on vortex noise might reveal
They explain this divergence from a generally held earlier the effect of secondary variables which are at present
O (a) SP~CTRUMBELOW;TALL
-1
v)
-1
-10
5 -2,
Y0
.,
m
V
-20
-1
Y
E
2
t -10
I I
L
u7 KL AND KD ARE VORTEX STREET LIFT AND DRAG CONSTANTS
20
0 5 10 15 20
-20 HARMONIC NUMBER
.
-
Fig. 13. Tip vortex locus as a function of several operational modes
tion, to a first approximation, will be dependent only on the most obvious method of reducing disc loading is
the vortex size and blade parameters. Spencer et al. ex- increasing the rotor diameter. Tip speed has been shown
perimented with various rotor tip designs to modify the to be an important parameter in two ways: through the
induced velocity structure of the tip vortex. Results indi- direct effects of Mach number (compressibility and drag
cated that the maximum velocities induced within the diverqence) and through blade-wake spacing. For a given
vortex core could be reduced to about 12%of those for a rotor producing a given amount of thrust, the downward
standard tip. However, drag data indicated that most con- velocity of the blade wake is essentially constant, so that
figurations adversely affected performance. Unfortunately, the vertical distance between a blade and the vortex trail-
no acoustic measurements that would determine the guan- ing from the tip of the previous blade is increased by
titative effect on blade slap intensity were made. reducing the tip speed. To do this, collective pitch must
be increased. Lowson (Ref. 12) shows that radiated sound
rises substantially at both high and low values of collec-
Leverton has developed a blade-slap theory that has tive pitch and suggests that an optimum collective pitch
proved to be quite limited due to simplifying assumptions setting for minimum noise exists. The basic mechanism of
and lack of adequate vortex profile data. He assumes that increasing collective pitch is to increase the displacement
the blade span and chord width effects of the vortex are of the shed vortex wake further beneath the oncoming
small and that the blade does not deflect while intersect- blade so that harmonic airloads are substantially reduced.
ing a vortex filament. His results are compared with The use of high-lift airfoil sections on the rotor blades is
subjective assessments and are found to be indicative, at another way of increasing wake displacement. Davidson
best, for only small chord rotor systems with less than and Hargest (Ref. 24) suggest another method of reduc-
three blades. A more detailed description of the strength ing boundary layer separation and turbulent wake inter-
and geometry of specific blade-vortex interactions is action: A blade with direct circulation control would not
necessary before satisfactory prediction methods will be depend on pitch for lift generation, and the higher its
available. lift coefficient, the more stable its wake and boundary
layer becomes, because the control of circulation naturally
C. Rotor Noise Alleviation
implies some control of the boundary layer. The jet flap
rotor appears favorable in these respects although a trade-
Rotor noise technology and experience indicate several off of the jet noise itself must be made.
obvious and a few more subtle methods for reducing the
noise generated by lifting rotor systems. Theory indicates Another possible method of noise reduction is to de-
that noise output is proportional to the product of thrust crease the activity factor by increasing the number of
and disc loading. Eliminating thrust as a design variable, blades or distributing the load over a larger blade chord.
zw
-.I
8
TIPSPEED: '1114ft/s
PRESSURE RATIO: 1.4
I
g 4
level of the flow throughout the duct will be increased. z
This will cause an increase in the overall sound level. -
0
N
0
m O
Sharland, in Ref. 25, has shown that the sensitivity of noise -0
COMPRESSOR 1
COMPRESSOR 2
0 CJ805-23 FAN
A VTOL LIFT FAN
L VTOL PITCH FAN
0 CF700 FAN
t
D VTOL IGV-ROTOR FAN
V R. CO. 12 COMPRESSOR
4- RA 26 COMPRESSOR
VTOL ROTOR-STATOR FAN
0 WINDOW TYPE FAN
0 DEVELOPMENT VEHICLE
a SINGLE-STAGE SCALE MODEL COMPRESSOR
A LABORATORY COMPRESSOR
I-
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
d
(7) Number of blades. tage which the lift fan has over other lift devices.
Figure 17, taken from Deckerts paper in Ref. 23, shows
(8) Blade chord.
the attenuation of noise levels for several STOL designs.
(9) Rotor-stator spacing. The figure shows that the propeller-rotor-driven aircraft
generate less perceived noise up to about 2,000 ft, but
(10) Number of stages.
beyond that point the lift fan aircraft becomes appreciably
(11) Mass flow. more quiet. This occurs because a greater portion of the
acoustic energy of the lift fan aircraft is generated at the
(12) Deviation from optimum incidence.
higher frequencies where atmospheric attenuation is
(13) Power. greater.
(14) Rotational velocity.
The effects of atmospheric attenuation are worthy of Fig. 17. Noise generated by STOL aircraft, 50,000 to
discussion, since they may represent a significant advan- 95,000 Ib gross weight (adapted from Deckert, Ref. 23)
'
terms used in acoustics is intended, these explanations of
some of the more important terms used here and else- I=-(W/ m2) (A-3)
where in the literature may be useful to the reader who is PC
unfamiliar with the field.
where p2 is the mean-square sound pressure (microbar);
p is the density of air (kg/m3), and c the speed of sound
Sound Power in air (m/s).
One of the principal characteristics of a sound source
is its ability to radiate power in the form of acoustic waves. Sound Power level
If energy losses to the air are neglected, then all of the
sound power W must pass through any surface completely Because of the very wide range of radiated acoustic
enclosing the source, and therefore W is independent of power from common sources (ranging, for instance, from
distance from the source. a radiated sound power of lo7W for a large rocket engine
to W for a soft whisper) a logarithmic scale which
describes the ratio of a particular power relative to a
Sound Intensity reference power has been employed for convenience. The
The intensity I of a sound is the average rate at which unit implying a given ratio between two powers is called
power is radiated through a unit area normal to the direc- the decibel (dB) and may be defined as
tion of wave propagation (W/m2)
W
Sound-power level =PWL = 10 log -dB re Wref
w,,f
I=- W (A-1) (A-4)
S
The term, level, added to any acoustically related quantity
where S is total surface area. This term is difficult to is used to indicate a logarithmic rather than linear scale.
measure directly. The reference power level is usually defined as having a
value of 10-13W. Sound power level is conveniently used
to determine overall noise magnitude regardless of the
Effective Sound Pressure
location of the noise, because it is not a function of dis-
Because the voltage outputs of the microphones com- tance from the noise source.
monly used in acoustic measurements are proportional to
pressure, sound pressure is the most readily measurable
Sound Intensity level
variable in a sound field. Effective sound pressure is de-
fined as the square root of the mean-square (rms) of the A decibel scale for sound intensity level can be defined
instantaneous sound pressure at a point over a time inter- by using a ratio of quantities proportional to sound power
val according to the equation (Eq. A-4) just as was the sound power scale
I
p = [~L T p r 2(t)dt]" Intensity level IL = 10 log -
Iref
re Iref (A-5)
d
P2 Octave Band Spectrum
Sound pressure level S P L = 10log -
p;e f Recognizing that noise must be described by both
P amplitude and frequency, a common measurement sys-
=201og - re Pref
Pref tem used to describe the full range of frequencies is sound
pressure level by octave band. In this case, the spectrum
is analyzed through filters, each of whose center frequency
is twice that of the preceding one. This describes the
where Pref is commonly taken as 0.0002 dynes/cm2 or
noise in terms of eight or nine sound pressure levels, each
equivalent. This value was chosen because it approxi-
associated with its own center frequency. Although these
mately represents the hearing threshold at 1000 Hz for a
measurements do describe both the amplitude and the
young man with normal hearing. The reference value for
frequency characteristics of a given sound, they are not
sound intensity was set at IrPf= 10-l2W/m2 in order that
convenient to use when one thinks of criteria or evalua-
the intensity level and sound pressure level would be
tion numbers, because they do not provide a single index
nearly equal numerically for plane or spherical waves in
that represents any specific characteristic of the particu-
air at room temperature and sea level pressure. Likewise,
lar sound.
the reference sound power, W r e f= W was chosen
so that the sound power level and sound pressure level
would be approximately but simply related to each other loudness level
when the area of the surface being considered is in square In an effort to return to a single number rating which
feet. The relationship is might be more indicative of the effect that a complete
spectrum would have on an individual, the concept of
S P L & P W L - 10log S dB re 0.0002 dynes/cm2 loudness level was developed (Ref. 29) in which the sound
pressure level in each octave band was given a weighting
(A-7)
which was a function of hearing sensitivity in that octave
where S is the surface area through which the sound band. This provides more emphasis on the middle fre-
power is radiated, ftz. quency range in which hearing is most acute and de-
emphasizes the extreme ends of the spectrum. The stan-
dard sound has been chosen to be a 1000-Hz tone. The
Spectrum level loudness level of any other sound is defined as the sound
The spectrum level at a specified frequency is the sound pressure level of a 1000-Hz tone that sounds as loud as
pressure level within a band 1-Hz wide centered at the the sound in question. The unit of the loudness level is
frequency. The unit is the decibel. the phon. For example, if a 1000-Hz tone with a sound
pressure level of 70 dB re 0.0002 microbar sounds as loud
as a certain square wave, the square wave is said to have
Overall Sound Pressure level a loudness level of 70 phons.
This unit, which is a logarithmic measure expressed in
decibels, is the simplest form of acoustical measurement. Perceived Noise level
It merely expresses the maximum pressure experienced
Recognizing that loudness level might not necessarily
without regard to frequency or any other effect.
describe a more subjective reaction such as annoyance,
Kryter (Ref. 30) introduced the concept of perceived noise
Weighted Sound Pressure level level (PNdB). This method, which was originally used for
jet aircraft noise ratings, is similar in application to loud-
Since human hearing does not have a flat frequency ness level, but the weighting scale developed was based
response, sound level meters incorporating weighting net- on annoyance criteria rather than simply on equal loud-
works (which essentially provide the instrument with a ness.
hearing response more typical of the human ear) were
designed. Sound level measurements made with such
Effective Perceived Noise level
meters are usually referred to in terms such as dBA or
dBB where A and B describe particular frequency weight- Recent research, still in progress, has further refined
ing networks. The notation dBC is essentially that of a the perceived noise level concept by inclusion of factors
flat response and therefore is the same as overall sound to express the added annoyance due to time duration to
pressure level. which a subject is exposed to the noise, and the presence
d
of pure tones, which prove more irritating than broad- A more detailed discussion of the subjective corrections
band noises of the same sound pressure level. The unit of and associated terms together with methods of compu-
effective perceived noise level is the decibel EPNdB. tation is contained in a recent report by Sperry (Ref. 31).
d
Appendix B
Generalized Propeller-Noise Estimating Procedure2
In order to fulfill the increasing need for a simple gen- (a) GENERAL CASE
t
propeller diameter of the propeller tip), and (2) estimate
of far-field propeller noise (defined as noise at locations
greater than one propeller diameter from the propeller
tip). In each case, a sample estimate follows the descrip-
tion of the estimating procedure.
l4-4
The accuracy of near-field estimates was determined
from a comparison of estimated levels with measured
levels of various propellers of several diameters during (b) EXAMPLE
d
distance from the point of interest to the propeller
disc.
Propeller diameter D 9 ft
0
0
PLANE OF PROPELLER 0-dB dORRECTION FOR VALUES
ROTATION OF X/D SUCH THAT M, = M, FOR STATIC CONDITIONS
-0.25 >X/D M.25
2; 1
Sf
pe
-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Fig. 8-7.Chart for combining noise levels
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO LEVELS BEING ADDED, dB
MrL=
(V; + Vfyh - (74@+ 2102)U = 0.69 The steps in determining far-field propeller noise levels
C 1125 during static and dynamic conditions are:
Fundamental 79 -2 134.0 3When more than two levels are to be added, add in pairs using
Fig. B-7, i.e.,
2 158 -9 127.0
1 2 3 4
3 237 - 13 123.0
Difference Sum of value in
4 316 - 16 120.0 Levels to be between Value from column 3 and
Fig. B-7 for
combined, pairs in higher level
5 395 - 18 118.0 dB column 1,
difference of
from pair of
6 474 - 19 117.0 dB 2 dB column 1, dB
7 553 - 20 116.0
1
117.0 1 2.6 120.6
8 632 -20 116.0
0 3.0 119.0
9 711 - 20 116.0 116.0
d
2Olog 4/B, where B is the number of blades; and (9) Correct for attenuation due to molecular absorp-
add 40 log 15.5/D, where D is the propeller diam- tion of sound in air using the values in Fig. B-9.
eter in ft. Mid-frequency corrections for ground absorption,
when the source and receiver are located near the
(3) Obtain the correction factor from Fig. B-3. This ground, have not been included in this estimating
accounts for the rotational speed of the propeller method.
( M ,= tip Mach number) as well as the distance
from a radial reference point to the propeller disc. D. Sample Calculation of Far-Field Noise
Always use 2 = 1 ft.
A sample calculation of far-field noise (see Fig. B-lo),
(4) Obtain the correction factor from Fig. B-8. This using the method described in the preceding paragraphs,
accounts for the directional characteristics of sound is presented here.
propagation from a propeller.
Propeller diameter D 9f t
(5) Correct for attenuation due to the normal spherical Power to propeller 300 hp
spreading of sound.
Subtract 20 log (T - l), where r is the distance, in Propeller speed n 1584 rpm
ft, from the center of the propeller.
Number of blades B 3
(6) Sum the data of steps (1) through (5). This gives Speed of sound c 1125 ft/s
the overall sound pressure level at the point of
interest. Distance to far-field 1000 f t
point of interest T
(7) The harmonic distribution of the noise estimated in
Azimuth angle 0 90 deg
steps 1through 6 is found in Fig. B-6.
Drstance to reference point 2 1ft
(8) The harmonic levels of step 7 are combined using
the chart in Fig. B-7 to derive octave band levels. Partial
noise
level, dB
Step 1. From Fig. B-2, L, 121
-24 I I I I
20 60 100 140 180
ANGLE ( e ) WITH THE HEADING OF THE PROPELLER, deg 90 180 355 710 1400 2800 5600 11,200
OCTAVE PASSBANDS, Hz
Fig. 5-8. Polar distribution of overall noise
levels for propellers Fig. 5-9. Molecular absorption of sound in air
1 2 3 4
Harmonics
of blade Octave
Preferred
passage Harmonic levels, dB band
octave pass-
frequency (step 7, column 4) level,
bands, Hz
(step7, dB4
-
column 2)
45-90 79 70.8 70.8
(b) EXAMPLE 90-180 158 63.8 63.8
180-355 237,316 59.8,56.8 61.5
355-710 395,474, 54.8,53.8,52.8,52.8 59.8
553,632
710-1400 711,790 52.8,52.8 55.8
1400-2800 - - -
2800-5600 - - -
5600-11,200 - - -
Overall 72.3
4When more than two levels are to be added, add in pairs (see
Fig. B-10. Far-field axis system step 8 of the sample calculation of near-field noise).
1 2 3
Octave band levels,
Preferred Octave band dB, corrected for
octave pass- level, dB molecular
bands, Hz (step 8, column 4) absorption of sound
(from Fig. B-9)
Most current rotor-noise prediction analyses are cum- spectral shape over the first few harmonies may be simply
bersome and require tedious computer operations. Largely generated. For the case of steady uniform inflow, com-
limited by the accuracy of air load input data and tran- parison with experiment indicates that the accuracy is
sient conditions, these arduous processes result in far-field within +2 dB and appears to demonstrate valid para-
rotational noise predictions no better than =!=8dB of ac- metric trends.
tual measurements in most cases. SimpMed hand calcu-
lations, which reduce the accuracy by only a few percent A. Estimate of Rotor Rotational Noise5
then, become valuable tools for cursory analyses and
The following parameters are required in the rotational-
studies of parametric trends. Step-by-step procedures are
noise calculations using the design charts (see Fig. C-1):
presented for the calculation of both rotational and vortex
noise emanating from rotors. No simple analysis has been x, y, x Field point coordinates relative to helicopter
developed for prediction of blade slap noise. measured in ft, with x measured positive in the
direction of motion (parallel to ground in
hover), y measured at 90 deg to x in the plane
Lowson (Ref. 12) has made simplifying assumptions to
of the disc, x measured downward from heli-
his closed-form analytic solution which enabled him to copter. (Results for +y equal results for -g.)
develop a set of charts useful for predicting parametric
trends associated with the rotational noise generated by A Disc area, ftz (or T / A = disc loading in lb/ft2)
a rotor in steady flight. With careful use, the procedure n Rotor angular velocity, rad/s ( n= rpm X 2n/60)
can yield any reasonable number of noise harmonies, at
any point in the far field, to within 2 dB of the value V Flight velocity, ft/s
obtained by computer techniques. c Speed of sound in free air, ft/s
id Disc incidence (angle between disc and x-axis),
When treated separately, overall vortex noise has tra-
ditionally been predicted by simple hand calculations. deg
Schlegel (Ref. 13) has refined the method somewhat and The procedure was extracted as a unit from Ref. 12 and is presented
developed (by empirical means) a procedure by which here for convenience.
L
OBSERVER
Fig. C-1 . Rotor rotational noise axis system
Calculate the rotational Mach number M ; M = (5) M E = 0.429/(1 - 0.179 X 0.938) = 0.516
0.8nR/c (6) 8 = 20 -5 = 15deg
Calculate the flight Mach number MF = V/C (7) From charts:
Calculate the angle e between the flight direction
N 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 1 6 2 0 3 0 4 0 60
and the line joining the rotor and the field point
I, 84.5 82.5 81.5 76.5 71 66 62 57 54 48 44.5 38.5
e = COS-^ ( x / r )
Calculate the effective rotational Mach number
ME = M /(1 - M , COS 0)
(8) Correction = 10log -7) (2::; + 11= + O S dB
Calculate the angle 0 between the rotor plane and N 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 16 20 30 4060
the line r . If the disc incidence is id, this is given by SPL, 85 83 82 77 71.5 66.5 62.5 57.5 54.5 48.5 45 39
e=tan-i[( Z
x2 + yh
]-id[( X
xz + y y
3 (9 and 10) The results of steps 9 and 10 can be seen
in Fig. C-3.
(11) The fundamental frequency in this case is
Using the values of M E and 8, see appropriate sheet
of Fig. C-2 to obtain values of the harmonic sound nB - (28) (3)
pressure level I, for N = 2,3,4,6,8,10,12,16,20, 271. (1- M , cos e ) - 27 [ l - (0.179) (0.966)]
30,40, and 60. = 16.1Hz
Correct the values obtained for thrust, disc loading,
and distances according to
B. Estimate of Rotor Vortex Noise
SPL, =
[IN
3
+ 11+ lOlog -I):(
dB re 0.0002, dyne/cm2
1. Procedure for calculations. The procedure for calcu-
lating the sound pressure level of vortex noise6 from a
rotor under conditions of uniform inflow is presented
below. Schlegels equation for overall vortex noise at
Plot the sound pressure level spectrum SPL, against 300 f t is
N and fit a smooth curve. 6.1 x A~(v,.,)~
SPL,,, = lOlog
10-27
10-16 +
20 log -
CL
0.4
The sound pressure levels from the above curve for
N = B, 2B, 3B, . . give the required harmonic
I
level at the point X, y, Z. Here, Ab is the blade area in ft2 and CLis the effective
lift coefficient based on the velocity of the 0.7 radius
(11) The fundamental frequency is station.
d
(b) N = 3
100
90
Fig. C-2. Rotor noise harmonic sound pressure levels I, as functions of harmonic
number, rotational Mach number, and angle from disc plane
r
(e) N = 8
90
120 I 7 5 (h) N = 16
90
d
Fig. C-2 (confd)
d
In the usual Reynolds number range for a heli-
copter rotor, the Strouhal number ( S t ) may be taken
to be 0.28.
h = bcosa + asina
where b is the blade thickness, a the chord length,
and 01 the angle of attack.
1c
N = mB (6) With f and the overall SPL determined, plot a vor-
Fig. C-3. Sound pressure levels corresponding tex noise octave band spectrum with the help of
to harmonic numbers Figs. loa or lob.
More conveniently, this equation may be written for 2. Sample calculation of rotor vortex noise. Calculate
sea level 70F conditions as and sketch the vortex noise spectrum 1000 f t from a three-
blade rotor in the following steps, for the following pa-
rameters: T = 10,000 Ib, R = 21.3 ft, n = 270 rpm,
a = 1.0 ft, and b = 0.16 ft
TOcalculate the overall SPL of vortex noise from this
equation, use the following steps: nnD 270
(1) v0.7 = 0.7---= 0.7 e---(3.14) (42.6) = 421 ft/s
60 60
(1)Calculate the linear velocity of the 0.7 radius sec-
tion of the rotor
(2) T = 10,000lb
(3) Ab=B.R.a=3(21.3)(1.0) =64ft2
(2) Determine the thrust, if not given, in a hover con- (4) SPL300 = 10 (2 IOg v0.7 + 2 log T - log Ab - 3.57)
421 (0.28)
f = VO.?St/h = = 556Hz
0.212
Results are shown in Fig. C-4. Fig. C-4. Results of vortex noise sample calculation
Since the curve of Fig. 16 is based on sound power, weight flow rate W divided by the rotor annulus
the fundamental acoustic parameter, it allows the designs area
of various vehicles to be compared directly. This type of
analogy is useful from both a research viewpoint and a
design viewpoint. For research, the normalized curve
eliminates many of the irregularities presently found in fan
and compressor noise measurements. For the designer, (a) GENERAL CASE
I \ I \ I / I /
(3) Obtain the discharge total enthalpy H , from gas
tables, knowing TT.
(4)Calculate the energy flux per unit area as the prod-
uct of the discharge total enthalpy and the known b-, 30 'in .-4
'The procedure was extracted as a unit from Ref. 12 and is presented
here for convenience. Fig. D-1. l i f t fan axis system
which is the normalized overall sound power. B. Sample Calculation of Fan Noise
(6) Solve the expression obtained in step 5 for overall As an illustration of the procedure discussed, assume
sound power by substituting given or computed the following fan design parameters:
values for rotor annulus area, A,, rotor speed n,
hub-tip diameter ratio (DH/DT), and rotor blade Outer diameter DT = 40in.
number B. Inner diameter DH = 30in.
Weight flow W = 150lbis
(7) The harmonic distribution of the sound power esti- Stage temperature rise AT = 15OR
mated in steps 1 through 6 is found in Fig. D-2 Rotational velocity la = 8,000rpm
(8) Obtain sound pressure levels from sound power (1)Compute the rotor annulus area
levels, knowing the directivity index DI and the
distance from the source r by the following equa-
tion :
K
A, = - X (DT)' 1 -
4 [ (Dg~)2]
- = $ X (g)'[ 1- 0.5621
SPL = PWL + DI - 20logr - 10.5 A, = a X 11.2 X 0.438 = 3.85ft2
H, X W -
- 128 X 150 = 4.99 x 103-Btu
E=
A, 3.85 s-ft2
Btu
HARMONIC NUMBER
At E = 4.99 X lo3-
s-fP
Fig. 0-2. Normalized power spectrum of
compressor and fan noise
The material contained in this bibliography was col- Cox, R. C., and Lynn, R. R., A Study of the Origin and
lected during a review of noise technology as related to Means of Reducing Helicopter Noise, Rept. 299-099-180,
V/STOL aircraft and is, therefore, considerably broader TCREC-TR-62-73, N63-11749, Nov. 1962. Ft. Eustis, Va.
in scope than the main body of this paper. Placement of
references within the various divisions used for the sake
Curle, N., The Influence of Solid Boundaries Upon Aero-
of convenience are necessarily quite arbitrary in some
cases, but an attempt was made to place each reference dynamic Sound, Proc. of Royal SOC.,Ser. A, Vol. 231,
in its category of major emphasis. A very brief description London, 1955.
of the scope of the division is included at the beginning
of each section. Davidson, I M., and Hargest, T. J., Helicopter Noise,
J. Roy. Aeromut. Soc., Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 325-336, May
1965.
1. Rotors, Propellers, a n d lift Fans
Included are references covering all types of noise pro-
duced by these devices, together with closely related Davis, D. 0. and Coplin, J. F., Some VTOL Powerplant
aerodynamic studies. Design and Development Experience, J. Roy. Aeronaut.
Soc., Vol. 70 p. 671, Nov. 1966.
Aerodynamic Problems Associated with V/STOL Air-
craft, CAL/USAVLABS Symposium Proceeding, Dodd, K. N., and Roper, G. M., A Deuce Program For
Vol. 1, Propeller and Rotor Aerodynamics, Buffalo, Propeller Noise Calculations, RAE TN No. M.S. 45,
N. Y., June 1966. Famsbourgh, Hants, England, Jan. 1958.
Amoldi, R. A., Propeller Noise Caused by Blade Thick- Fage, A., and Johansen, F. C., On The Flow of Air Be-
ness, United Aircraft Report R-0896-1, E. Hartford, hind an Inclined Flat Plate of Infinite Span, Royal SOC.
Conn., Jan. 1956. Proc., Ser. A, Vol. 116, p. 7, May 1927.
Cheesman, I. G., and Seed, A. R., The Application of Fricke, F. R. and Stevenson, D. C., Pressure Fluctuations
Circulation Control by Blowing to Helicopter Rotors, in a Separated Flow Region, J . Acoust. SOC. of Am.,
J. Roy. Aeronaut. Soc., Vol. 71, pp. 451-467, July 1967. Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 1189-1200, 1968.
Conference on STOL Transport Aircraft Noise Certifi- Garrick, I. E., and Watkins, C. E., A Theoretical Study of
cation, Spcmsored by the Federal Aeronautics Admin- %heEffect of Forward Speed on. the Free-Space Sound-
istration of the Dept. of Transportation, Report No. Pressure Field Around Propellers, NACA Report 1198,
FAA-NO-69-1, TR 550-003-03H, Washington, D. C., Washington, D. C., 1953.
Jan. 30,1969.
Gutin, L., On the Sound Field of a Rotating Propeller,
Cox, C. R., Full-Scale Helicopter Rotor Noise Measure- NACA TM No. 1195, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1948.
ments in Ames 40 X 80 Foot Wind Tunnel, Bell Heli-
copter Report No. 576-099-052, U. S. Army Aeronautical
Research Laboratory, Ames Research Center, Moffett Hafner, R., Domain of the Convertible Rotor, J. Aircraft,
Field, Calif., Sept. 27, 1967. Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 350-359, Nov-Dec., 1964.
Cox, C. R., Helicopter Noise and Passive Defense, Bell Hafner, R., Symposium on the Noise and Loading Actions
Helicopter Co, Am. Helicopter Soc. 19th Annual Na- on Helicopter, V/STOL Aircraft, and Ground Effect
tional Forum, A63-18693, pp. 156-163, New York, 1963. Machines,]. Sound Vib.,Vol. 3, pp.336-339, May 1966.
Hargest, T. J., V/TOL Aircraft Noise, Fluid Dynam- Loewy, R. G., and Sutton, L. R., A Theory for Predicting
ics of Rotor and Fan Supported Aircraft at Subsonic the Rotational Noise of Lifting Rotors in Forward
Speeds, AGARD CP 22, Paris, France, Sept. 1967. Flight Including a Comparison with Experiment, J.
S o u n d Vib., Vol. 4, No. 3, Nov. 1966.
Healy, Gerold J., Propeller/Rotor Rotational Noise Anal-
ysis Including Time-Varying Blade Forces, Paper FF5, Lowson, M. V., Basic Mechanisms of Noise Generation
76th Meeting of Acoustical Society of America, Cleve- by Helicopters, V / S T O L Aircraft and Ground Effect
land, O., Nov. 18-22, 1968. Machines, Wyle Lab., Report WR 65-9, Huntsville,
Ala., May 1965; Also J. Sound Vib., Vol. 3, No. 5,
Helicopter and V / S T O L Noise Generation and Suppres- pp. 454466, May 1966.
sion, Nov. 1968 Report of the Results of a Joint U. s.
Army, National Academy of Sciences, National Acad- Lowson, M. V., and Ollerhead, J. B., Studies of Helicopter
emy of Engineering Conference, Washington, D. C., Noise, USAVLABS TR 68-60, Ft. Eustis, Va., Jan. 1969.
July 30-31, 1968.
Metzger, F. B., Magliozzi, B., Towle, G. B., and Gray, L.,
Hicks, C. W., and Hubbard, H. H., Comparison of Sound A Study of Propeller Noise Research, Hamilton Stan-
Emission From Two-Blade, Four-Blade, and Seven- dard, SP 67148, Rev. A, Winsor Locks, Conn., 1961.
Blade Propellers, NACA TN 1354, Washington, D. C.,
July 1947. Ollerhead, J. B., and Lowson, M. V., Problems of Heli-
copter Noise Estimation and Reduction, Paper 69-195,
Hubbard, H. H., Propeller Noise Charts for Transport AIAA/AHS VTOL Research, Design, and Operations
Airplanes, NACA TN 2968, Washington, D. C., June Meeting, Atlanta, Ga., Feb. 17-19, 1969.
1953.
Ollerhead, J. B., and Taylor, R. B., Description of a Heli-
Hubbard, H. H., and Maglieri, D. J., Noise Character- copter Rotor Noise Computer Program, USAVLABS
istics of Helicopter Rotors at Tip Speeds Up to 900 Feet TR 68-61, Ft. Eustis, Va., Jan. 1969.
Per Second, J. Acoust. SOC. Am., Vol. 32, No. 9, Sept.
1960. Potter, R. C., A n Experiment to Examine the Effect of
Porous Trailing Edges on the Sound Generated by
Blades in an Airflow, Wyle Laboratories, Report WR
Hubbard, H. H., and Regier, A. A., Free Space Oscillating
68-6, Huntsville, Ala., Mar. 1968.
Pressures Near the Tips of Rotating Propellers, NACA
Report 996, Washington, D. C., 1950.
Powell, A., Theory of Vortex Sound, 1. Acoust. SOC. of
America, Vol. 36, p. 1, Jan. 1964.
Hubbard, H. H., and Regier, A. A., Propeller-Loudness
Charts for Light Airplanes, NACA T N 1358, Washing-
Richards, E. J., and Sharland, I. J., Hovercraft Noise and
ton, D. C., July 1947.
Its Suppression, J. Roy. Aeronaut. Soc., Vol. 69, No. 6,
pp. 387-398, June 1965.
Kramer, M., The Aerodynamic Profile as Acoustic Noise
Generator, J. Aero Sei., Vol. 20, pp. 280-282, Apr. 1953. Rosen, George, Advanced Propeller Developments for
V / S T O L Aircraft, SAE National Aeronautic Meeting,
Krzywoblocki, M. R., Investigation of the Wing-Wake Washington, D. C., Apr. 1965.
Frequency with Application of the Strouhal Number,
J. Aero Sci., Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 51-62, Jan. 1945. Sadler, S. G., and Loewy, R. G., A Theory for Predicting
the Rotational and Vortex Noise of Lifting Rotors in
Leverton, J. W., Helicopter Noise-Blade Slap, Part I- Hover and Forward Flight, Rochester Applied Science
Review and Theoretical Study, NASA CR-1221, Wash- Associates Report 68-11, Rochester, N. Y., 1968 (to be
ington, D. C., Oct. 1968. published as NASA contract report).
Sharland, I. J., Sources of Noises in Axial Flow Fans, Zandbergen, P. J., On the Calculation of the Propeller
J . Sound Vib., Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 302-322, 1964. Noise Field Around Aircraft, National Aero. and Astro-
nautical Research Institute, NLR-TM G. 23, p. 46, Am-
Simons, I. A., et al; The Movement, Structure and Break- sterdam, Netherlands, June 1962.
down of Trailing Vortices from a Rotor Blade, CAL/
USAVLABS Symposium Proceedings: Aerodynamic
Problems Associated with V / S T O L Aircraft, Vol. I , II. Engines
Propeller and Rotm Aerodynamics, Buffalo, N. Y., June This material covers all forms of turbine engines noise
1966. including that from compressor rotors, stators and guide
vanes, from inlets; from fans; and from exhaust jets.
Sowers, H . D., Inoestigation of Methods for the Predic-
tion and Alleviation of Lift Fan Noise, TRECOM TR Aircraft Engine Noise, NASA Literature Search Number
65-4, Ft. Eustis, Va., Apr. 1965. 7268, Part I, Washington, D. C., Oct. 14, 1968.
Spencer, Sternfe1d7 H*?and McComick, B w7 Tip Aircraft Engine Noise, NASA Literature Search Number
Vortex Thkkening for Appzication to 7268, Part 11 (Limited Distribution References), Wash-
Rotor Noise Reduction, USAVLABS TR 66-1, Ft. Eustis, ington, D, c., Oct. 14, 1968.
Va., Sept. 1966.
Bradshaw, P., Ferriss, D. H., and Johnson, R. F., Tur-
Sternfeld, H., Influence of the Tip Vortex on Helicopter
Rotor Noise, AGARD CP No. 22, Paris, France, Sept. bulence in the Noise Producing Region of a Circular
1967. Jet, Fluid Mech., Vol. 19, No. 8, pp. 591-624, Aug.
1964.
Sternfeld, H., New Techniques in Helicopter Noise Re-
duction, Noise Control, Vol. 7, pp. 4 1 0 , May 1961. Bradshaw, p., and Flintoff, J. L., Unexplained Scale
Effects in Ejector Shroud Howling, 1. Sound Vib.,
Vol. 3, NO. 1, pp. 183-190, Mar. 1968.
Stowell, E. Z., and Deming, A. F., Vortex Noise from
Rotating Cylindrical Rods, NACA TN No. 619, Wash-
ington, D. C., Feb. 1935. Bragg, S. L., and Bridge, R., Noise From Turbojet Com-
pressors, I. Roy. Aeronaut. SOC., Vol. 68, Jan. 1964.
Stuckey, T. J., and Goddard, J. O., Investigation and
Prediction of Helicopter Rotor Noise, 1. Sound Vib., Cawthorn, J. M., Hayes, C., and Morns, 6. J., Meamre-
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 50-80, Jan. 1967. m n t of Performance, Inlet Flow Characteristics, a d
Radiated Noise for a Turbojet Engine Having Choked
Theodorsen, Theodore, and Regier, A. A,, The Problem Inlet Flow, NASA TN D-3929, Washington, D. C., Mar.
of Noise Reduction with Reference to Light Airplanes, 1967.
NACA TN 1145, Washington, D. C., Aug. 1946.
Clark, L. T., N&e Generation by Turbomachines, D6-
Trillo, R. L., An Empirical Study of Hovercraft Noise, 20393, Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash., Apr. 1968.
J. Sound Vib., Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 476509, May 1966.
Davies, D. O., and Coplin, J. F., Some VTOL Power-
Tyler, E., Vortex Formation Behind Obstacles of Various plant Design and Development Experience, J. Roy.
Sections, Phil. Mag. S. 7, Vol. 11, No. 72, Apr. 1931. Aeronaut. Soc., Vol. 70, pp. 977-986, Nov. 1966.
Fundamental Study of Jet Noise Generation and Suppres- Lowson, M. V., Theoretical Studies of Compressor Noise,
sion, Vol. I . Experimental and Theoretical Imestiga- NASA CR 1287, Washington, D. C., Aug. 1968.
tions of Model Jet Exhaust Stream Noise and The De-
velopment of Normalizing Parameters for Size and Lowson, M. V., and Ollerhead, J. B., Visualization of
Temperature, Report, for Apr. 1962 to Mar. 1963, IR- Noise from Cold Supersonic Jets, J. Acoust. SOC. of Am.,
6067, Illinois Institute of Technology, Armour Research Vol. 44, No. 2 pp. 624-630, Feb. 1968.
Foundation, Chicago, Ill., Mar. 1963.
Marsh, A. H., Elias, I., Hoehne, J. C., and Frasca, R. L.,
Fundamental Study of Jet Noise Generation and Suppres- A Study of Turbofan-Engine Compressor-Noise-
sion, Vol. 11, Bibliography, Report for Apr. 1961 to Suppression Techniques, NASA CR-1056, Washington,
Dec. 1962, IR-6066, AD-407793, Illinois Institute of D. C., June 1968.
Technology, Armour Research Foundation, Chicago,
Ill., Mar. 1963. McKaig, M. B., et al, Procedures for Jet Noise Prediction,
Revision A, Document D6-2357 TN, Boeing- Co., Seat-
Gordon, C. G., Turbofan Engine Noise-Mechanisms and tlez Feb. 1965*
Control, Acoustic Society of America Meeting, Phila-
delphia, Pa., Apr. 1969. Moore, H. B., and Clinck, J. M., Measurement of Jet
Noise Suppression Using A Small Turbojet Engine,
Grande, E., Possibilities and Devices for the Suppression Paper 670157 SAE, Automotive Engineering Congress,
of Jet Noise, D6-20609, Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash.,
Detroit, Jan. 9-13, 1967.
1968.
Morgan, W. V., Sutherland, L. C., and Young, K. J., The
Use of Acoustic Scale Models for Investigating Near
Hulse, B*, Pearson, c*,Abbona, M*,and Anderson, Field Noise of Jet and Rocket Engines, Boeing Co.,
Some Effects Of lade On compressor Scientific Research Labs., Seattle, Wash., Apr. 1961.
Noise Level, FAA-ADS-82, Washington, D. C., Oct.
1966.
Morley, C. L., How to Reduce the Noise of Jet Engines,
Engineering, Vol. 198, pp. 782-783, Dec. 1964.
Jet Engine Noise Deflection or Supvessim, A DDC Re-
port Bibliography, Report No. ARB 10541, Cameron Noise Generation and Suppression in Aircraft, Proceed-
Station, Alexandria, Va. ings of a Short Course at the University of Tennessee
Space Institute, Tullahoma, Tenn., Jan.-Feb. 1968.
Kester, J. D., and Slaiby, T. G., Designing the JTOD
Engine To Meet Low Noise Requirements for Future Pendley, R. E., and Marsh, A. H., Turbo-Fan-Engine
Transports, Paper 670331 S. A. E. National Aeronautics Noise Suppression, Paper 67-389, AIAA Commercial
Meeting, New York, Apr. 2427, 1967. Aircraft Design and Operation Meeting, Los Angeles,
June 12-14, 1967.
Kobrynski, M., General Method for Calculating the Sound
Pressure Field Emitted by Stationary or Moving Jets, Progress of NASA Research Relating to Noise Allevia-
Symposium on Aerodynamic Noise, ONERA, TP No. tion of Large Subsonic Jet Aircraft, NASA SP-189,
578, Toronto, Canada, May 20-21, 1968. Washington, D. C., Oct. 1968.
Sperry, W., Peter, A., and Hams, R., Fundamental Study Cole, J. N., and England, R. T., Evaluation of Noise
of Jet Noise Generation and Suppression, Vol. I-Ex- Problems Anticipated with Future V T O L Aiwraft,
perimental and Theoretical Investigations of Model AMRL-TR 66-245, May 1967.
Jet Exhaust Stream Noise and the Deoelopment of
Normalizing Parameters for Size and Temperature, Conference on STOL Transport Aircraft Noise Certifica-
ASD-TDR-63-326, Wright-Patterson AFB Propulsion tion Sponsored by the F A A of the DOT, Report No.
Lab., Dayton, O., Mar. 1963.
FAA-No-69-1, TR 550-003-03H, Washington, D. C.,
Jan. 30, 1969.
Wilde, G. L., and Taylor, P. A., Factors Governing the
Design of Tip Jet Engines, AGARD Helicopter Deoel-
opment, pp. 387400, Paris, France, 1966. Cox, C. R., Helicopter Noise and Passive Defense,
pp. 156-163, American Helicopter Society 19th Annual
Williams, J. E. F., Some Open Questions on the Jet Noise National Forum, New York, 1963.
Problem, N68-33764, DI-82-0730, Boeing Flight Sci-
ences Lab., Seattle, Wash., June 1968. Cox, R. C., and Lynn, R. R., A Study of the Origin and
Means of Reducing Helicopter Noise, TCREC-TR-
62-73, Ft. Eustis, Va., Nov. 1962.
111. Aircraft
This section includes those references concerned with Dygert, K. D., Allocating the Costs of Alleeuiating Sub-
the total overall noise and the noise components produced sonic Jet Aircraft Noise, Inst. of Trans and Traffic Engr.,
by a particular aircraft type or by a general class of University of California, Berkeley, Cal., Feb. 1967.
aircraft.
Effects of Noise on Commercial V / S T O L Aircraft Design
Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom, Bibliographic List No. and Operation, A68-44938, Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash.,
13, FAA, Washington, D. C., Oct. 1966. 1968.
d
Franken, P. A., and Kerwin, E. M., Jr., Methods of Flight August 27-31, 1962, Proceedings A65-15539 06-34, pp.
Vehicle Noise Prediction, ASTIA Document No. AD 569-618. Spartan Books, Inc., Washington, D. C.; The
205 776, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, O., 1958; Macmillan Co. Ltd., London, England, 1964.
Greatrex, The Economics of Aircraft Noise Suppression, Rosen, G., Advanced Propeller Developments for V / S T O L
Aerospace Proceedings, ICAS 66-5, 1965. Aircraft, S.A.E. National Aeronautic Meeting, Washing-
ton, D. C., Apr. 12-15, 1965.
Hafner, R., Domain of the Convertible Rotor, J. Air-
craft, Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 350-359, Nov. 1964.
Spencer, R. H., The Effect of Noise Regulations on VTOL
Helicopter and V / S T O L Noise Generation and Suppres- Aircraft of the Future, Vertifiite, Vol. 14, No. 10,
sion, Report of the Results of a Joint U. s. Army, Na- pp. 2 8 , Oct. 1968.
tional Academy of Sciences, National Academy of
Engineering Conference held July 30-31, 1968, Wash- Sternfeld, H., New Techniques in Helicopter Noise Re-
ington, D. C., Nov. 1968. duction, Noise Control, Vol. 7, pp. 4 1 0 , May 1961.
Maglieri, D. J., Shielding Flap Type Jet Engine Noise Sternfeld, H., and Hinterkeuser, E., Effects of Noise on
Suppressor, J. Acoust. SOC. Am., Vol. 4, Apr. 1959.
Commercial V / S T O L Aircraft Design and Operation,
Paper 68-1137, AIAA 5th Annual Meeting, Philadelphia,
Maglieri, D. J., Hilton, D. A., and Hubbard, H. H., Noise Pa., Oct. 21-24, 1968.
Considerations in the Design and Operation of V / S T O L
Aircraft, NASA TN D-736, Washington, D. C., Apr.
1961. Tanner, Carole S., and McLeod, Norman J., Preliminary
Measurements of Take-Off and Landing Noise from
Maglieri, D. J., and Hubbard, H. H., Preliminary Mea- a New Instrumented Range, NASA Conference on
surements of the Noise Characteristics of Some Jet- Aircraft Operating Problems, Langley, Va., NASA
Augmented-Flap Configurations, NASA TM 12-4-58L, SP-83, pp. 83-90, May 10-12, 1965.
Washington, D. C., Jan. 1959.
Watter, M., Progress Report on the Reduction of External
Miller, R. H., Notes on Cost of Noise Reduction in Rotor/ Helicopter Noise with Proceedings of the ARPA
Prop Aircraft, Conference on V / S T O L Noise Genera- Workshop, IDA Research Paper, Washington, D. C.,
tion and Suppression, MIT Memo Report FTL-M68-9, May 2425, 1968.
Cambridge, Mass., Aug. 1968.
Richards, R. E., Problems of Airplane Noise in the 1970$, Bishop, D. E., Analysis of Community and Airport Rela-
3rd International Congress of the International Council tionships/Noise Abatement, FAA-RD-65-130,Washing-
of the Aeronautical Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, ton, D. C., Dec. 1965.
Bolt, Beranck and Newman, Inc., Noise Environment of Pietrasanta, A. c . , Factors Influewing the Noise ExPosure
Urban and Suburban Areas, Results of Field Studies, Under the Landing Path for Jet Aircraft, FAA-ADS-39,
HUD, Washington, D. C., Jan. 1967. Washington, D. C., Mar. 1965.
Cohen, A., Location-Design Control of Transportation Shapiro, N., and Healy, G. J., A Realistic Assessment of
Noise, Urban Planning and Development Division, the Vertiport/Community Noise Problem, J. Aircraft,
Proc. of the Am. SOC. of Civil Engrs., pp. 63-86, Vol. 5, NO. 4, p. 407, July-AUg. 1958.
Dec. 1967.
Technique for Developing Noise Exposure Forecasts,
Galloway, et al., Study of the Efect of Departure FAA-DS-67-14, SAE Research Project Committee R 2.5,
Procedures on the Noise Produced by Jet Aircraft, Washington, D. C., Aug. 1964.
FAA-ADS-41, Washington, D. C., Mar. 1965.
V. Subjective
Hoover, I. H., A System Solution to the Aircraft Noise This material is related to the response of humans to
Problem, Paper 67-761, AIAA/RAES/CASI 10th noise from aircraft.
Anglo-American Aero. Conference, Los Angeles, Calif .,
Oct. 18-20, 1967. Definitions and Procedures for Computing the Perceived
Noise Level of Aircraft Noise, SAE, ARP 865, New York,
Hubbard, H. H., Maglieri, D. J., and Copeland, W. I., N. Y., Oct. 1964.
Research Approaches to Alleviation of Airport Com-
munity Noise, 1.Sound Vib.,Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 377490, Hecker, M. H. L., and Kryter, K. D., Comparisons Be-
Feb. 1967. tween Subjective Ratings of Aircraft Noise and Various
Objective Measures, FAA 68-33, Washington, D. C.,
Land Use Planning with Respect to Aircraft Noise, Air Apr. 1968.
Force Manual 86-5, Washington, D. C., Oct. 1964.
Hinterkeuser, E. G., and Sternfield, H., Jr., Subjective Re-
Noise Exposure Forecasts for J. F . Kennedy International sponse to Synthesized Flight Noise Signatures of Several
Airport, FAA-DS-67-15, S. A. E. Research Proj. Comm., Types of V / S T O L Aircraft, Document D8-0907A, Boe-
R 2.5, Documentation of Noise Exposure Around Air- ing, Vertol Div., Philadelphia, Pa., Jan. 1968.
ports, Washington, D. C., Aug. 1967.
Hubbard, H. H., and Maglieri, D. J., An Investigation of
Noise Exposure Forecasts for Los Angebs International Some Phenomena Relating to Aerial Detection of Air-
Airport, FAA-DS-17, S . A. E. Research Project Com- planes, NACA TN 4337, Washington, D. C., Sept. 1958.
Peterson, A. P. N., and Gross, E. E. Jr., Handbook of The Aircraft/Airport Problem and Federal Government
Noise Measurement, General Radio Co., W. Hartford, Policy, FAA Office of Noise Abatement, Systems Anal-
Conn., 1960. ysis Staff, Washington, D. C., Dec. 1967.
Report of ASEB AD HOC Committee on Noise, National von Gierke, H. E., Handbook of Noise Control, Chapt. 33,
Academy of Engineering, Washington, D. C., Dec. pp. 33-34. Harris, 6. M., Editor. McGraw-Hill Book
1968. Co., New York, 1957.
18. Hubbard, H. H., and Regier, A. A., Propeller Loudness Charts for Light Air-
plunes, NACA T N 1358, Washington, D. C., July 1947.
19. Sadler, S. G., and Loewy, A., A Theory for Predicting the Rotational and
Vortex Noise of Lifting Rotors in Hover and Forward Flight, Rochester Ap-
plied Science Associates Rept. 68-11, Rochester, N. Y., 1968 (to be published
as a NASA contract report).
20. Cox, R. C., and Lynn, R. R., A Study of the Origin and Means of Reducing
Helicopter Noise, TCREC-TR 62-73, Ft. Eustis, Va., Nov. 1962.
21. Leverton, J. W., and Taylor, F. W., Helicopter Blade Slap, J . Sound Vib.,
Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 345-357, 1966.
22. Leverton, J. W., Helicopter Noise-Blade Slap, Part I-Review and Theo-
retical Study, NASA CR 1221, Washington, D. C., Oct. 1968.
23. Conference on STOL Transport Aircraft Noise Certification Sponsored by
Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation, FAA
69-1, TR 550-003-03H, Washington, D. C., Jan. 30, 1969.
24. Davidson, I. M., and Hargest, T. J., Helicopter Noise,]. Roy. Aeronaut. Soc.,
Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 325-336, May 1965.
25. Sharland, I. J., Sources of Noise in Axial Flow Fans, J. Sound Vib., Vol. 1,
pp. 302-322, 1964.
26. Sowers, H. D., Investigation of Methods for the Prediction and Alleviation
of Lift Fan Noise, TRECOM TR 65-4, Ft. Eustis, Va., 1965.
27. Hargest, T. J., V/STOL Aircraft Noise, Fluid Dynamics of Rotor and Fan
Supported Aircraft at Subsonic Speeds, AGARD CP 22, Paris, France, Sept.
1967.
28. Pickerell, D. J., and Cresswell, R. A., Power Plant Aspects of High-speed
Inter-City VTOL Aircraft, J . Aircraft, Vol. 5, No. 5, Sept. 1968.
29. Stevens, S. S., The Measurement of Loudness, J. Acoust. SOC. Am., Vol. 27,
No. 5, 1955.
30. Kyter, K. D., Scaling Human Reactions to the Sound From Aircraft, J .
Acoust. SOC. Am., Vol. 31, No. 11, 1959.
31. Sperry, W. C., Aircraft Noise Evaluation, FAA 68-34, TR 550-003-03H,
Washington, D. C., Sept. 1968.