Huff 2013 NASA Glenn's Contributions To Engine Noise Research

NASA Glenn’s Contributions to Aircraft
Engine Noise Research

Dennis L. Huff1
Abstract: This paper reviews all engine noise research conducted at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glenn Re-
search Center over the last 70 years. The review includes a historical perspective of the center and the facilities used to conduct the research.
Major NASA noise research programs are highlighted, showing their impact on the industry and on the development of aircraft noise reduction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 115.124.4.34 on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
technology. Noise reduction trends are discussed, and future aircraft concepts are presented. Results show that, since the 1960s, the average
perceived noise level has been reduced by about 20 dB. Studies show that, depending on the size of the airport, the aircraft fleet mix, and
the actual growth in air travel, another 15–17 dB is required to achieve NASA’s long-term goal of providing technologies to limit objectionable
noise to the boundaries of an average airport. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000283. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Aircraft; Engines; Noise pollution; Acoustic techniques; Research.
Author keywords: Turbofan; Turbojet; Aircraft engine noise; Acoustics; Aeroacoustics; Fans; Jets; Turbomachinery; Noise reduction.
Introduction because industry does not always give priority to noise research
and it takes many years to realize a benefit from the investment.
Aircraft noise reduction was a research topic well before the Na- This review provides a brief summary of the work done at the
tional Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) established the GRC on aircraft engine noise. More detail is given for recent years,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glenn but all of the major work has been highlighted dating back to the
Research Center (GRC). (The center’s former names are discussed beginning of the center. Many of the accomplishments have required
in the Introduction for this special journal issue.) Fundamental collaboration with the industry, other government organizations,
studies on jet flows and propellers have been carried out at the NASA and universities. This paper is focused on GRC contributions, but
Langley Aeronautical Laboratory (LaRC) in Hampton, Virginia. much credit needs to also go to partnering organizations and the
Many of the senior researchers at the GRC were transferred from the independent research that has been done throughout the world.
LaRC. A close working relationship continues between the two This review includes a historical perspective of the center and the
centers today, aimed at improving aircraft and engines. The GRC has facilities used to conduct the research, including development of
established itself as an air-breathing, and later a rocket propulsion, measurement methods, data analysis, and analytical predictions.
center working on fundamental and applied research. Accomplishments from major research programs are highlighted
Throughout the entire history of the center, a common theme for showing their impact on industry and aircraft noise reduction tech-
aeronautics research has been increasing efficiency and reducing nology development. Noise reduction trends are discussed and some
environmental impact of aircraft engines. Aircraft noise is a quality candidate future low-noise aircraft concepts are presented based on
of life issue near airports, and noise regulations have been estab- studies sponsored by NASA.
lished by and are enforced by the U.S. Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration (FAA) and the other member states of the International Civil Overview of History and Key Issues
Aviation Organization (ICAO). According to a report from the
ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection, the
purpose of noise certification “is to ensure that the latest noise Early Years (National Advisory Committee for
reduction technology is incorporated into aircraft design demon- Aeronautics)
strated by procedures which are relevant to day to day operations, The primary focus for the GRC under the NACA was on engine
to ensure that noise reduction offered by technology is reflected in performance. Aircraft engines needed to be able operate at higher
reductions around airports” (ICAO 2004). Funding for noise re- altitudes and faster speeds. During World War II, the jet engine was
search has varied depending on how important it is viewed being developed in Germany and Great Britain. The United States
compared with other requirements, such as fuel consumption and was focusing research on piston engines and was significantly be-
emissions reduction. It has been an important role for government, hind in the development of jet propulsion systems. When the war
1
ended, the research emphasis changed from propellers and re-
Deputy Chief, Aeropropulsion Division, National Aeronautics and ciprocating engines to the development of turbojets. The first time
Space Administration Glenn Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Rd., that the media and public were allowed inside the gates of the center
Cleveland, OH 44135. E-mail: dennis.l.huff@nasa.gov
was June 1945; and they were eager to learn more about jet engines.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 30, 2012; approved on
October 10, 2012; published online on October 12, 2012. Discussion An excellent history book about the GRC (Dawson 1991) states that
period open until September 1, 2013; separate discussions must be sub- the visitors “experienced the earsplitting roar of a ramjet and other
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Aerospace jet propulsion performances. . .” During this same time, the GRC
Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 2, April 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 0893-1321/ obtained a V-1 buzz bomb from Germany to study and test. “The
2013/2-218–250/$25.00. noise rattled the windows of nearby houses like that of the Guerin
218 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

family, who lived in the valley below the laboratory [GRC] on what high-speed propellers. Organizationally, acoustics research was
is now the southwest portion of the laboratory property. . .” (This split across the Acoustics Section in the Advanced Turboprop (ATP)
house would later be acquired by the GRC and used for many social program located in the Propulsion Systems Division and the Flow
events). Testing of jets startled the community surrounding the GRC Physics Branch of the Internal Fluid Mechanics Division. Addi-
and led to noise complaints that would impact tests at the center for tionally, fundamental jet noise research was carried out to in-
many years. The author had the pleasure of communicating with vestigate screech, sonic fatigue, and flow injection to control jets.
Beranek, a pioneer in acoustics, in 2006, when he was writing his There was also work done to reduce transmission gear noise for
autobiography (Beranek 2008). Beranek stated “I was in Wash- helicopters.
ington, DC, on Wednesday, January 18, 1950, testifying before Since the late 1980s, an Acoustics Branch was established that
a congressional committee about aviation noise at military bases, combined people performing aerodynamic and acoustics research
when I was handed a note from my office. I must call the Director of (aeroacoustics). The research was multidisciplinary, and there was
the NACA Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland [now an advantage to having aerodynamicists and acousticians working
GRC] as soon as possible. He was frantic. At about midnight two together to develop noise reduction technologies that could be in-
days earlier, he said, the Laboratory had put into operation a new jet corporated into aircraft engines with acceptable performance. The
engine in a supersonic wind tunnel. The noise produced was so scope of the work in the Acoustics Branch has included experi-
intense that switchboards in police and fire stations, radio stations, mental and analytical research for propellers, turbomachinery (fans,
and public offices lit up nonstop with complaints from neighbors. . .” compressors, and turbines), and jets. The branch was part of the
The test facility was the 8- 3 6-ft Supersonic Wind Tunnel, which Structures and Acoustics Division until 2005, when it was moved to
was built in 1949 and was testing a ramjet for the first time. What the Aeropropulsion Division, where it currently resides.
happened next put Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. (BBN) on the The aeronautics research programs emphasize working on noise,
map, according to Beranek. He was asked by the GRC to conduct emissions, and fuel burn together as a system. This approach has
sound measurements and determine a way to quiet the tests, and helped bring disciplines together to look at new ways to solve
therefore they would be able to continue without complaints from problems, which was recognized in the late 1940s as important by
the community. The GRC did not have any in-house expertise in one of the GRC’s most influential leaders, Abe Silverstein: “The
acoustics at that time and had to rely on external contractors. BBN use of panels to cross division and disciplinary lines was one of the
designed the world’s largest Helmholtz resonator by adding a distinguishing marks of Silverstein’s management style. By drawing
concrete enclosure around the diffuser of the wind tunnel to reduce talent from the entire laboratory [GRC], Silverstein encouraged
the low-frequency noise to the 5- to 300-Hz range. The low- greater flexibility and interaction between groups” (Dawson 1991).
frequency sound/vibration propagated through the ground for
miles and was the source of the disturbance. The muffler that
Noise Reduction Trends
Beranek developed was successful and was used in a well-known
acoustics textbook as an example of resonator muffler design (Davis Engine noise has always been the major contributor to aircraft fly-
1957). The GRC was able to resume tests within 1 year without over noise levels. For propeller driven aircraft, the primary sources
further complaints from the community (at least for this facility). are the blade thickness and loading noise and the engine exhaust.
When turbojet-powered aircraft were introduced, airports around The blade thickness noise is the volumetric displacement of the air
the world received many complaints about aircraft noise. Turbojet by the blade, and the loading noise is associated with lift forces.
noise was very different from noise emitted from propeller-driven Strategies for reducing propeller noise focus on decreasing the
aircraft; turbojets had a longer duration with a distinct low- strength of these contributions by reducing the rotational speed of
frequency rumble. The GRC started noise research in the 1950s the propeller and increasing the number of blades to reduce the
using the Altitude Wind Tunnel (AWT) and several full-scale engine aerodynamic loading per blade. Exhaust noise can be reduced using
test stands to evaluate nozzle suppressors. This was the beginning mufflers, mixers, or by reducing the exhaust jet velocity.
of acoustics research at the GRC. Turbofan engine noise sources include the fan, jet, core turbo-
machinery (compressor and turbine), combustor, and sometimes
bleed valves. Fan noise can be reduced by reducing the rotational
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
speed and fan pressure ratio. The nacelle enclosing the fan rotor and
During the 1960s, after the GRC became part of the NASA, aero- stator usually includes acoustic treatment (i.e., liners) to absorb the
nautics research was reduced in favor of supporting the space pro- fan noise. Jet noise can be reduced using mixing devices or lowering
gram. Some of the aeronautics researchers started working on the exhaust velocity. Turbomachinery noise can be reduced by
problems for rockets, such as combustor instabilities, which also careful selection of the blade and vane numbers to prevent sound
required similar knowledge of unsteady fluid mechanics. By 1966, radiation, spacing blade rows to decrease interaction noise, or by
a significant portion of the technology development for Apollo adding acoustic treatment to duct walls to absorb sound. Combus-
Spacecraft was completed, and the GRC shifted its focus back to tion noise is usually not a major contributor for modern turbofan
aeronautics research. Air traffic was growing rapidly, and research engines, but can be reduced by adding Helmholtz resonators or
was needed to address problems with airport congestion, noise, and adjusting the staging of the fuel injectors.
pollution. The GRC focused on developing quieter engines, as well In general, significant aircraft engine noise reduction has been
as engines for Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) aircraft. There achieved by changing the cycle parameters in a way that reduces the
was also work done on jet noise in support of the supersonic jet exhaust velocities and reduces the pressure rise across the fan or
transport (SST), while Europe developed the Concorde aircraft. propeller blades. It is desirable to move large amounts of air at lower
During this time there was a Vertical Short Takeoff and Landing velocities to provide the required thrust and increase propulsion
(VSTOL) and Noise Division at the GRC, where all of the noise efficiency while meeting cruise speed and range requirements.
research was conducted. Turbojets have such a high jet exhaust velocity that jet noise is the
During the 1970s, aeronautics research focused on developing dominant source. This is why early research was focused only on
technologies for fuel efficient aircraft. The acoustics research shifted improving nozzle mixer designs and suppressors. With the intro-
away from turbofans and toward reducing noise from advanced, duction of high-bypass turbofan engines, the jet exhaust velocities
JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 219
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

were reduced, and therefore the fan as well as the jet noise needed to turbomachinery noise sources and subsequent improved design
be addressed. Small reductions in the jet velocity provide significant methods, have all helped reduce engine noise.
jet noise reduction (jet noise is proportional to the eighth power of
the jet velocity). Fig. 1 shows the overall aircraft noise reduction
trends since the introduction of the turbofan engine. Several high- Regulations
performance military aircraft and the Concorde noise levels are Concerns about aircraft noise started shortly after airplanes first flew.
included to show what the noise levels would be if the jet exhaust An editorial from AERO magazine in 1911 entitled On the Fitting of
velocities were not reduced. Noise reduction for supersonic aircraft Silencers noted “that the tremendous racket that is presently asso-
presents a unique challenge, because high-exhaust velocities are ciated with the aero plane plays a considerable part in prejudicing
needed for cruise, and low-exhaust velocities are needed for low the public against these machines” (Burleson 2007). There were
noise at takeoff. hearings about noise during the 1940s, especially near military bases
One of the engine parameters used to correlate engine noise is the [see earlier discussion by Beranek (2008)]. While noise from mil-
bypass ratio. Increasing the bypass ratio of a turbofan engine, which itary jets was sometimes accepted as the sound of freedom, com-
is the ratio of the air mass flow through the bypass fan duct to the air mercial jet noise became a problem that peaked in the 1960s with an
mass flow through the core gas generator, has been shown to cor- increased number of flights and noise levels that were impacting the
relate with reduced engine noise. This is because of the reduction of quality of life near airports. Lectures at schools near airports were
jet exhaust velocities, lower fan rotational speeds, and lower blade routinely interrupted by the roar of the jets. In 1969, regulations were
loading associated with increasing the bypass ratio. Early turbofan introduced to limit the aircraft noise levels. The first noise regula-
engines had bypass ratios of about 1.5. Increasing the bypass ratio tion was called Stage 2 and was enforced by the FAA under Federal
has also had a benefit for fuel burn reduction because of higher Aviation Regulations, FAR Part 36. Specific guidelines were es-
propulsion efficiencies, but requires the optimization of engine tablished for how to measure the noise levels at three certification
weight and drag, because the diameter of the engine increases with points called lateral (takeoff rotation at high engine power, also
increasing bypass ratio. This synergistic relationship between noise called sideline), takeoff flyover (also called cutback), and approach.
and fuel burn reduction has led to ever higher bypass ratio engines Allowable noise levels vary with aircraft weight and the number of
with values exceeding 10 in today’s high-thrust engines. Noise engines. The measured noise margins relative to the allowable levels
reduction technologies, such as improved acoustic treatment and are arithmetically summed across the three certification points to
low-loss exhaust mixers, coupled with better knowledge of the determine the cumulative noise reduction relative to the rule. More
Fig. 1. Aircraft noise reduction trends
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

stringent Stage 3 regulations were introduced in 1977, which included
a schedule for phasing out noisier aircraft. In 1999, the United States
joined the ICAO to coordinate aircraft noise internationally through
the ICAO Annex 16 Noise Certification Standards. The terminology
changed from stage to chapter, although the two are often used in-
terchangeably. In 2006, Chapter 4 noise regulations were introduced
(Fig. 1). Regulations are based on what is technically feasible and
economically viable, as well as the need to reduce the impact of
aviation noise on the community. It has been NASA’s role to help
develop the technologies needed to reduce aircraft noise and provide
independent technical assessments, but not to get involved with
establishing regulations. Negotiations are currently being coordinated
by the ICAO for the next level of noise requirements, and NASA has
participated as a member of Independent Expert Panels.
Facilities and Measurement Methods
Altitude Wind Tunnel

Under the NACA, noise suppressors were evaluated for turbojet
noise reduction. The AWT, one of the first facilities at the GRC, was
built to simulate high-altitude conditions. It shared refrigerated
air capabilities with the Icing Research Tunnel and could simulate
M 5 0.50 at 12,192 m (40,000 ft). The test section had a diameter of
6.1 m (20 ft) and contained a vertical strut to mount a turbojet engine
with thrust measurement capability. Near-field measurements of
several nozzle suppressors were measured (Ciepluch et al. 1958) to
investigate jet noise reduction methods. Microphones were mounted
on the strut. The facility was not anechoic, and noise was evaluated
by near-field overall relative sound level measurements for nozzle
configurations. Fig. 2 shows a sample of the nozzle noise sup-
pressors installed in the AWT, including a round nozzle [Fig. 2(a)],
a rectangular nozzle [Fig. 2(b)], a multitube nozzle [Fig. 2(c)], and
a mixer-ejector nozzle [Fig. 2(d)].
Engine Test Stands

Jet noise directivity was important, and testing in a reverberant
tunnel was inadequate. An outdoor engine test stand was built to
obtain free-field noise measurements that complemented the AWT
results (Howes et al. 1957). The test stand was located near the
Cleveland airport away from other buildings [Fig. 3(a)]. A move-
able microphone was used to survey the near-field noise [Fig. 3(b)].
An aircraft with a turbojet engine was modified to perform near-
field static jet noise tests of various nozzles. Thrust measurements
were done using a cable with a strain gauge link. One of the more
interesting tests was a slot nozzle that had a 100:1 aspect ratio.
Results showed that the overall sound power level was only re-
duced by 3 dB compared with a standard nozzle, but the directivity
of the sound pressure level measurements varied by as much as 30
dB over the nozzle circumferential direction (Coles 1959). This
was determined by rotating the nozzle from a horizontal position
[Fig. 4(a)] to a vertical position [Fig. 4(b)]. A jet flap nozzle was the
intended application, as shown conceptually in [Fig. 4(c)].
Large-Scale Fan Rig

There was a large-scale fan rig test next to the drive motor building
for the 10- 3 10-ft Supersonic Wind Tunnel. A shaft was extended Fig. 2. Turbojet jet noise suppressors in the Altitude Wind Tunnel in
from the drive motors for the wind tunnel to a concrete pad with 1958: (a) round mixer; (b) rectangular mixer; (c) multitube nozzle; (d)
a polar array of microphones [Fig. 5(a)]. The fans from the Quiet mixer-ejector nozzle (photographs courtesy of NASA)
Engine Program (QEP) were tested at this facility to help isolate fan
noise sources. By testing the fan in isolation, there was no core or
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 3. Early engine test stand for free-field noise surveys: (a) engine
test stand; (b) near-field microphone survey (photographs courtesy of
NASA)
core jet noise that would contaminate the fan acoustic spectra.
Acoustic splitter rings mounted in the inlet were used as a way to
reduce inlet radiated fan noise [Fig. 5(b)]. This facility was useful,
but there were reflection problems from the side of the building,
which made the interpretation of the data a challenge. Absorptive
material was added on the side of the building. One of the lessons
learned from this kind of static testing was the importance of using
an inflow conditioner called an inflow control device (ICD). Early
static ground test measurements ingested vortices from the ground
that were not representative of undisturbed inlet flow in flight. The
ICD broke up inlet flow vortices and turbulence to better simulate fan Fig. 4. Aspect ratio (100:1) nozzle test: (a) horizontal nozzle test;
noise under flight conditions. Static fan noise measurements that did (b) vertical nozzle test; (c) jet flap concept (photographs courtesy of
not use an ICD produced extraneous fan tones and overestimated the NASA)
fan noise (Feiler and Groeneweg 1977). An engine test stand was
erected on the airport property next to the hangar (Fig. 6). An array of
microphones was mounted on poles surrounding the engine for microphones were used by hanging them on a cable suspended
polar directivity measurements every 10. The test stand supported between two tall poles.
the Quiet, Clean, Short-Haul, Experimental Engine (QCSEE) pro-
gram (Ciepluch 1975) and investigated high lift systems for Short
Hot Jet Rig
Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL). Wing simulations could
also be included to assess the noise from the jet impinging on the A large jet noise facility (Fig. 7) was built to test potential sup-
wing and flap system. In addition to polar microphones, overhead pressors for the SST. The facility had instrumentation for setting the
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 5. Quiet Engine Program fan tests: (a) drive motor shaft; (b) test
hardware (photographs courtesy of NASA)
nozzle temperature and pressure ratio and far-field microphones to

measure the directivity. The nozzle, shown in Fig. 7(a), was called
the divergent lobe suppressor and reduced the jet noise by 12 PNdB
(perceived noise in decibels). Many other nozzles were tested and
screened for further testing in other facilities that could simulate
forward flight and measure nozzle performance. The SST program
was cancelled before the nozzles could be refined for flight appli- Fig. 6. Outdoor full-scale QCSEE tests: (a) microphone array; (b)
cations. Blown flap tests were done where a nozzle was placed near engine test stand (photographs courtesy of NASA)
an augmentor wing [Fig. 7(b)] to assess the jet and impingement
noise for STOL aircraft applications (Dorsch et al. 1971). There was
also a combustion noise rig sharing the microphone arena around the
Hot Jet Rig. tubes with microphones attached to the combustor, and far-field
microphones were correlated using coherence methods to develop
combustion noise empirical models. This facility was useful for
Engine Tests with Inflow Control Devices engine source diagnostic experiments aimed at a better under-
Smaller engines could be tested on the Vertical Lift Fan Facility standing of the noise generation mechanisms.
(Fig. 8). The JT15D, YF-102, TF-34, and Quiet, Clean, General
Aviation Turbofan (QCGAT) engines were tested on this stand for
Anechoic Chamber for Fan Noise
noise evaluations. Engines could be fitted with an ICD and a large
muffler mounted to the exhaust to separate jet noise from the engine Inlet noise levels for 50.8-cm (20-in.) diameter model fans were
turbomachinery noise. Polar microphone arrays were standard for measured in the Engine Research Building in an anechoic chamber
engine tests and were also used for this facility. Circumferential rings [Fig. 9(a)] (Dittmar et al. 1984). Acoustic treatment was added to the
of microphones surrounding the exhaust exit plane, semi-infinite walls, floor, and ceiling to make the chamber anechoic. An exhaust
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 8. Outdoor engine facility with a JT15D test engine and inflow
control device (photographs courtesy of NASA)
and sometimes a powered core simulating the booster stage of the

compressor [Fig. 10(b)]. Propeller models investigated highly swept
blades for increasing cruise speeds beyond conventional turboprops.
It was important to measure both the aerodynamics and acoustics;
Fig. 7. Hot Jet Rig: (a) divergent lobed suppressor; (b) blown flap with therefore, a complete assessment of noise reduction concepts could
augmentor wing (photographs courtesy of NASA) be made along with performance penalties. Force balances were
used to measure axial thrust and torque. For ducted fan config-
urations, a calibrated bell mouth and a variable area nozzle were
added to measure fan operating maps [Fig. 10(c)]. Over the years,
collector drew the air out of the test cell, while an electric motor microphones have been mounted at various locations in the tunnel,
powered a model fan. An ICD was used to control the inlet flow including some fixed to the wall, on a traverse, and on a ring to
[Fig. 9(b)], and microphones were arranged on an arc in the test cell obtain circumferential directivity. Advanced flow measurement
to measure the fan noise. Aft radiated fan noise measurements were methods, such as laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV), particle image
not possible in this facility. Aerodynamic performance measure- velocimetry (PIV), and hot-wire anemometry, have been used
ments were made on the same fans in another test cell. to measure blade wakes, boundary layers, turbulence, and other
important flow features needed to understand noise generation
9 - 3 15-ft Low-Speed Wind Tunnel [Fig. 10(d and e)]. Phased microphone arrays have been used to
help locate noise sources. A capability to add a barrier wall that
The 9- 3 15-ft low-speed tunnel was added in the return leg for the
8- 3 6-ft tunnel in the late 1960s. Acoustic treatment was added to extends from the floor to the ceiling of the test section was added
the test section of the 9- 3 15-ft tunnel, and therefore the propeller to isolate the inlet and aft radiated noise when needed.
[Fig. 10(a)] and fan [Fig. 10(b)] acoustic tests could be done with Another measurement method developed in the 9- 3 15-ft tunnel
the proper simulation of flight. Acoustically treated boxes were was the rotating microphone rake system [Fig. 11(a)]. This idea was
designed with perforated metal face sheets on the wind tunnel wall originally conceived by Pratt and Whitney (P&W), but it was de-
and dissipative material inside the boxes to absorb sound. The veloped and tested for the first time at the GRC. Acoustic duct modes
airflow in the test section could reach speeds of about M 5 0:22. associated with fan noise are measured by separating the circum-
Simultaneous measurement of inlet and aft radiated noise allowed ferential and radial orders of the spinning modes and taking ad-
tone interference to be determined in the near field, which was useful vantage of a Doppler shift when the measurements are done in
for noise prediction validation. The 9- 3 15-ft tunnel has been used a relative frame of reference. Previous measurement methods used
for many years to evaluate new turbofan and turboprop designs. The a fixed probe that made it impossible to separate the modes from the
fan and nacelle models look like small engines that typically scale fan from the modes caused by the wake of the probe interacting with
between 1/3 and 1/6 depending on the application, and included the fan. The results were useful for validating fan noise prediction
multiple components, such as the fan stage, inlet, nacelle, nozzle, and propagation methods. A rotating microphone rake system was
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

The NATR (Fig. 13) was used extensively by the Advanced
Subsonic Technology (AST) and HSR programs for jet noise re-
search. It has a 134.6-cm (53-in.) diameter free jet that simulates
forward flight for takeoff and landing simulations (M 5 ∼ 0:30).
Recall that earlier facilities at the GRC did not include this im-
portant feature. Early jet noise suppressors that showed significant
noise reduction under static conditions were much less effective
under flight conditions. Thus, it was important to simulate flight to
truly assess the effectiveness of jet suppressor designs. Single,
dual- and three-stream exhaust flows can be tested at temperatures
up to 774C (1,425F). The NATR has been used mostly for acoustic
and flow diagnostic measurements. The industry had relied on ASE
FluiDyne for nozzle thrust measurements; therefore, NASA commonly
sent the nozzles to their facility once a good nozzle configuration
was identified. This added to the credibility of the results and
expedited the transfer of technology to the industry. The NATR

was where the first successful test of chevron nozzles was com-
pleted in 1997. LDV, PIV, phased microphone arrays, and a large
traverse for temperature and pressure measurements have been
used to help characterize the flow and acoustics for nozzles tested in
the NATR. In addition, pioneering research has been done using
PIV to measure turbulence (Fig. 14) and phased microphone arrays
to locate the noise sources.
A smaller jet rig called the Small Hot Jet Acoustic Rig (SHJAR)
was added to the AAPL to test smaller nozzles that would be cheaper
to test over the NATR. The SHJAR (Fig. 15) was comparable with
university facilities and provided a way to directly compare test
results and screen concepts before more expensive tests at the
NATR. It also provided an anechoic test environment for the nozzles
tested in other facilities at the GRC where fundamental physics and
flow control experiments were performed. A simple thrust mea-
surement method that was used by an earlier small jet facility from
the 1970s was implemented on the SHJAR to provide first-order
thrust measurements.
The Advanced Noise Control Fan (ANCF) was added to the AAPL
[Fig. 16(a)] initially to study active noise control [Fig. 16(b)]. This fan
was used for many test programs studying acoustic liners and fun-
damentals of fan noise generation. A rotating microphone was em-
Fig. 9. Anechoic chamber for inlet fan noise measurements: (a) mi- bedded in the nacelle for duct mode measurements. The rotor could be
crophone array; (b) inflow control device (photographs courtesy of tested in isolation or with stators, which could be easily moved or
NASA) changed within the duct. Hot-wire anemometry and microphone array
measurements complemented the far-field microphone measure-
ments. The ANCF could be moved within the AAPL using air pads,
built and tested on a Honeywell TFE731 engine at their San Tan test and therefore the far-field microphones could be shared with the
facility in Arizona [Fig. 11(b)]. NATR.
AeroAcoustic Propulsion Laboratory Flight Test Aircraft

The AeroAcoustic Propulsion Laboratory (AAPL) (also called the The GRC had several aircraft that have been used to support
dome) was built in 1991 to protect the residential community on the acoustics research. The OV-10 Bronco (Fig. 17) was used for pro-
south and west sides of the GRC from noise produced from a Power peller noise research. Researchers investigated controlling the rela-
Lift Facility and a new jet facility being built for the High Speed tive position of the two propellers to reduce the noise in the cabin
Research (HSR) program called the Nozzle Acoustic Test Rig (active noise control).
(NATR). The original concept was to use noise barrier walls, but A Lear 25 [Fig. 18(a)] aircraft powered by General Electric (GE)
engineers at the center recognized an opportunity to enclose the CJ610 turbojet engines was used as a chase plane for near-field flight
entire area using a 39.6-m (130-ft) diameter geodesic dome. The measurements of propeller noise from the Un-Ducted Fan (UDF)
enclosure helped ensure that the noise would be contained and also and the Prop-fan Test Assessment (PTA) aircraft. The UDF was
helped protect test equipment from the weather. This is the same area installed on a Boeing 727 and a MD-80 in the late 1980s to validate
of the GRC where the Hot Jet Rig was located during the 1970s, the prop-fan concept. The GRC flew the Learjet around the UDF
where many test runs were cancelled because of bad weather or with a boom microphone mounted on the wing to measure propeller
noise complaints. The interior walls of the AAPL were covered with tones. The measurements showed good agreement with earlier wind
acoustic wedges, and a large far-field microphone distance was ideal tunnel data that was acquired in the 8- 3 6-ft tunnel. In 2000, the
for jet noise research. Now, there are several test facilities located Learjet was modified with chevron nozzles to investigate jet noise
inside the AAPL (Fig. 12). reduction [Fig. 18(b)].
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 10. Model tests in a 9- 3 15-ft low-speed wind tunnel: (a) counterrotation prop-fan, acoustic configuration; (b) ducted fan, acoustic configuration;
(c) aerodynamic configuration; (d) laser Doppler velocimetry; (e) suite of flow and noise measurements (photographs courtesy of NASA)
Noise Prediction Methods system noise. There was a need to evaluate benefits from noise re-
duction research programs that could be used by the government for
independent analyses. The GRC took responsibility for the engine
Aircraft Noise Prediction Program Engine Modules modules by developing empirical and semiempirical prediction
The Aircraft Noise Prediction Program (ANOPP) was initiated at the methods. The jet, core, fan, and turbine noise models were de-
LaRC in 1973 to develop a computer program for predicting aircraft veloped in-house based on data from NASA and industry. Reports
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 12. AeroAcoustic Propulsion Laboratory (photographs courtesy

of NASA)
Fig. 11. Rotating microphone for fan inlet acoustic mode measure-
ments: (a) test in a 9- 3 15-ft low-speed wind tunnel; (b) Honeywell
engine test (photographs courtesy of NASA)
for the engine noise modules (Stone 1974; Huff et al. 1974;
Heidmann 1979; Krejsa and Valerino 1976) were designated interim,
and final reports were never written. This is perhaps appropriate,
because the modules have been continuously updated and improved
using data from newer engines. The jet noise modules have been
updated several times as the noise sources have become better un- Fig. 13. Nozzle Acoustic Test Rig (photographs courtesy of NASA)
derstood. Tests sponsored by the GRC revealed that using an inverted
velocity profile for coannular nozzles has a jet noise reduction benefit.
(An inverted velocity profile occurs when the velocity of the outer available from various engine tests (Stone et al. 2009). This module
flow stream is greater than the primary core flow stream). The jet is still used today for empirical jet noise prediction in the ANOPP
noise modules were modified based on source distribution and is referred to as the Stone Jet Noise code. The fan noise module
assumptions that helped provide insight into the physics (Stone by Heidmann is also used today after being updated for modern
1977). Further refinements were made as more data became fans (Kontos et al. 1996).
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 14. Particle image velocimetry jet turbulence measurements
Fig. 15. Small Hot Jet Acoustic Rig (photographs courtesy of NASA)
Fig. 16. Advanced Noise Control Fan Rig: (a) installation in the
AeroAcoustic Propulsion Laboratory; (b) array of actuators mounted in
stator vanes for active noise control (inlet with an inflow control device
and fan located behind the stators in picture) (photographs courtesy of
Rice Equations NASA)
When fan noise research was initiated at the GRC in the 1970s,
analytical methods were pursued in conjunction with the experi-
mental work to provide physical insight. There was an observation
that each fan duct spinning mode (previously mentioned for ro-
tating microphone development), has a unique directivity pattern in
the far field. Experimental data from the QEP was used to show that
the directivity could be reasonably predicted assuming equal en-
ergy per mode (Saule 1976). Rice (1977) observed that acoustic
modes with similar cut-off ratios also had similar directivity pat-
terns. The cut-off ratio determines whether fan duct modes within
a given frequency (i.e., tone) are propagating or evanescent (i.e.,
decaying). When all modes within a given tone (e.g., blade passing
tone) are evanescent, then the tone is considered cutoff. Rice de-
veloped an approximation for predicting the far-field directivity of
fan noise using the cut-off ratio, duct geometry, and simple flow
parameters. Theoretical calculations based on the Weiner-Hopf
method were considered the benchmark for comparisons with other
prediction methods. Fig. 19 (Groeneweg et al. 1991) shows how
well the Rice approximations compare with the theory. Rice also
recognized that the optimum impedance for acoustic treatment Fig. 17. OV–10 Bronco test aircraft (photographs courtesy of NASA)
could be correlated with the cut-off ratio (Rice 1976). A method
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Theoretical Aeroacoustics
There was one publication from the GRC that stands out for the
guidance it provided to many noise prediction methods. The pub-
lication (Goldstein 1974) initially came out as a NASA Special
Publication and was later published as a book by McGraw Hill in
several different languages. Goldstein (1974) derived fundamental
equations for aeroacoustics starting with classical acoustics and
adding the effects of mean flow, solid boundaries, compressibility,
nonuniform flow, and the direct calculation of sound. Portions of
the work were built on Lighthill’s famous acoustic analogy
(Lighthill 1952, 1954). The equations have been used throughout the
world to develop fan and jet noise prediction codes.
JeNo Jet Noise Prediction Code

Early methods to predict jet noise from first principles were only
relevant for simple jets. Acoustic analogy methods based on
Lighthill’s theory were popular, but there were also approaches
based on Lilley’s formulation of the convective wave equation that
showed promise for being more computationally efficient. The
problem was divided into first determining the mean flow and then
radiating source terms in the governing equations using an appro-
priate Green’s function. NASA further developed this approach
using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to define the mean flow
and turbulence, modifying the source terms, and developing a
Green’s function for nonaxisymmetric nozzles. The resulting code is
called jet noise prediction (JeNo) (Khavaran et al. 2005). A recent
noise prediction assessment compared the Stone Jet Module in the
ANOPP and the JeNo code (Bridges et al. 2012) to experimental data
taken at NASA’s jet noise facilities. Major conclusions were that
neither model predicted all of the test cases within the experimental
uncertainties. Component effective perceived noise level (EPNL)
Fig. 18. Learjet test aircraft: (a) flyover for acoustic measurements; predictions could be off by several decibels using the Stone Jet
(b) chevron nozzle (photographs courtesy of NASA) module. Acoustic spectra and directivity were well predicted by
JeNo for cold subsonic jets (Fig. 20), but they were less accurate for
hot, high-speed jets (Fig. 21). Sample predictions compared with
experimental data were also presented for nonaxisymmetric cases
like chevrons and offset nozzles. This showed that while there had
been great improvement in jet noise prediction methods that also
include geometry and mean flow, considerable work was still needed
for cases where the flow becomes more complex.
Rotor Stator Interaction Fan Noise Code

NASA developed a fan noise prediction code called Rotor Stator
Interaction (RSI) based on an acoustic analogy approach (Nallasamy
and Envia 2005). Several tone prediction methods were developed
through contracts with NASA. The methods included coupling
between the inlet, fan, stator, and bypass nozzle. The tone levels for
fans had been reduced to the point where emphasis was placed on
the development of fan broadband noise prediction. The RSI code
has been used for broadband noise prediction using CFD input for
Fig. 19. Fan noise directivity prediction using Rice equations mean flow and turbulence parameters, and solving for the unsteady
response on stator vanes to simulate the interaction with a turbulent
fan wake. The total duct sound power levels were computed and
compared with experimental data. A recent fan noise prediction
was developed for designing acoustic liners for fan ducts. Engine assessment compared the accuracy of this code with experimental
companies, such as P&W, used the method to predict the far-field data from the 9- 3 15-ft tunnel (Envia et al. 2012). The assessment
sound levels for their engines and to design acoustic treatment. The concluded that the RSI code could predict fan broadband noise
computational time was much less than methods that directly within 4 dB of the experimental uncertainty band (gray bar) based on
computed the sound propagation. The acoustic treatment research total sound power levels over a range of frequencies (Fig. 22). Other
was initially done at the GRC and moved to the LaRC, where it contributions to fan noise, such as rotor-alone contributions, would
resides today. need to be computed from a different code. The assessment also
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 20. JeNo predictions for cold jet with single converging nozzle, Fig. 21. JeNo predictions for hot jet with single converging nozzle,
two angles with respect to inlet two angles with respect to inlet
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 22. Fan broadband noise prediction using Rotor Stator Interaction
code for various rotational speeds; experimental error within gray
shaded region
compared predictions from the ANOPP and a code called LINFLUX,

which was developed during the 1990s as a computational ap-
proach based on linearized Euler equations. There was larger error
with the more sophisticated prediction codes compared with the
empirical methods.
Computational Aeroacoustics
Computational aeroacoustics (CAA) is a name that describes nu-
merical methods for the direct computation of sound and is distin-
guished from CFD, which is used for predicting aerodynamics.
When CAA is fully developed, it will be the ultimate prediction
method that can describe sound sources and propagate the acoustic
waves through complex flows and to the far field. NASA has been
instrumental in supporting pioneering work in CAA. It sponsored its
first CAA Workshop on Benchmark Problems in 1994 at the LaRC.
There have been three subsequent workshops, two of which were
hosted by the GRC and held at the Ohio Aerospace Institute (OAI) in
1999 (Dahl 2000, 2004). NASA researchers defined model problems
that have analytical solutions for comparisons with CAA pre-
dictions. Fig. 23 shows one of the problems posed by Envia (Dahl
2004) to compute the unsteady pressure response of a stator cascade
interacting with a blade wake simulating the third harmonic of the
blade passing frequency. The perturbation pressures are shown in
Fig. 23(a), and the perturbation velocities are shown in Fig. 23(b).
The problems were presented as blind test cases, and participants,
both from the United States and international destinations, were
invited to test their latest CAA algorithms for comparisons with
each other and with the theory. Each workshop showed im-
provements with methods and computational efficiencies. CAA
is still an active research topic, and depending on the application,
it will take many years before it is ready for practical problems.
However, it holds promise for being able to finally predict the
noise from aircraft and engines with arbitrary geometry and flow
conditions. The ANOPP, while very useful, is limited to predicting
Fig. 23. Benchmark problem for the 4th Computational Aeroacoustics
noise from aircraft and engines similar to past applications. There
Workshop: (a) contours of perturbation pressure; (b) contours of per-
are plans to develop ANOPP2, which will begin to incorporate
turbation velocity
CAA methods as they mature.
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Programs, Partnerships, and Impact Quiet, Clean, Short-Haul, Experimental Engine Program
The QCSEE program was established to apply QEP technology to
As noted by Dawson (1991), the GRC has always struggled with
short-haul configurations. GE was tasked with the development of
finding its role between fundamental research and the need to show
fans that could be added to a core engine for full-scale acoustic tests.
progress through practical applications. World War II forced the center
to work on specific projects responding to national security needs. The engines were designed with lower-pressure ratio fans for STOL
After the war, there was an attempt to return to basic research by aircraft, which could operate from smaller airports to help address
organizing branches by engine components. But programs and projects the airport congestion problem. The GRC conducted tests on air-
provided funding and focus on specific goals. They also provided an craft exhaust systems to evaluate the noise for STOL configurations.
interface with the industry through contracts and partnerships. The QCSEE program had the following three specific goals
(Ciepluch 1975):
• Develop short-haul propulsion technologies, which are environ-
Turbojet Noise Reduction
mentally and economically acceptable;
The first major noise reduction research project for the GRC in- • Provide the government with data for future rule making; and
vestigated ways to reduce the jet noise from turbojets. Noise com- • Transfer data and technologies to the industry.
plaints were increasing around airports, because the thrust from Research was carried out at the GRC using model scale and full-
turbojets was increasing as a result of improvements in gas turbine scale tests. Many of the advanced technologies that are being con-
engine technologies. Work at the NACA was focused on full-scale sidered for turbofans today were initially developed under these
tests of engines with nozzle suppressors. Besides community programs. They include high-bypass-ratio engines (10–12), variable
noise issues, there were problems with structural fatigue of surfaces pitch fans with low-pressure ratios (1.27–1.34), variable area fan
near the nozzles because of high-amplitude acoustic pressure waves nozzles, advanced acoustic liners, the high-Mach inlet concept,
(sonic fatigue). The research during this time was exploratory with digital electronic controls, clean combustors, reduction gearing,
no specific noise reduction goals in mind. Many different nozzles and composite components including fan blades, fan frames, and
were tested without much analytical guidance beyond the work of nacelles. There were two QCSEE demonstration engines built and
Lighthill (1952, 1954). Reducing the jet exhaust velocity was most tested at the GRC incorporating short-haul installations. One was
beneficial. Converting the primary jet into smaller jets was bene- called the Under The Wing engine [Fig. 24(a)], and the other was
ficial, because the peak noise level was a function of the Strouhal called the Over The Wing engine [Fig. 24(b)].
number, and a small jet would shift the peak levels to higher fre- Both engines were significantly quieter than the engines on the
quencies that had higher atmospheric attenuation and to a less an-
Boeing 707 and the Douglas DC-8. The Over The Wing technolo-
noying region of the sound spectra. Several nozzles shown in Fig. 2
gies were used for modified YF-102 engines on an experimental
use multiple tubes and chutes to shift the frequencies. There was
airplane called the Quiet Short-Haul Research Aircraft (QSRA),
significant thrust loss from these nozzles, which hampered their
implementation on aircraft. Ejectors were added to help recover
some of the performance losses, but they were heavy and required
variable geometry to operate between takeoff and cruise. A general
conclusion from the NACA investigation was that a 12-lobe nozzle
caused the smallest penalty in thrust (3.2% at a flight Mach number
of 0.50) and could provide 5–6 dB reduction in peak noise during
takeoff (Ciepluch et al. 1958).
The GRC resumed work on nozzle suppressor concepts for the
SST in the late 1960s. The mixer-ejector concept was considered the
most promising, because thrust loss was the primary problem for
suppressors and an ejector could be used to help recover a portion
of the thrust loss. Many nozzles were tested for acoustics and per-
formance. Cruise performance was found to be acceptable, but the
low-speed performance during subsonic flight fell short of the re-
quirements (Stitt 1990).
Quiet Engine Program

The turbofan engine introduced in the 1960s reduced the noise lev-
els compared with the turbojets. But a dramatic increase in the
number of flights resulted in the imposition of aircraft noise regu-
lations and consequently, the need for additional engine noise re-
duction. The QEP was initiated to reduce turbofan engine noise by
15–20 PNdB below the levels from a Boeing 707 or McDonnell-
Douglas DC-8. Noise reduction technologies were developed and
applied to an experimental engine that was designed, built, and tested
by GE under contract on a CF6 engine. Three fans, designated A, B,
and C, had distinct low-noise design features and were delivered to
the GRC for tests with acoustically treated nacelles (Kramer and
Montegani 1972). This was the first time that the GRC had become
involved with fan noise research. The program was expanded at the Fig. 24. QCSEEs: (a) under the wing; (b) over the wing
request of the FAA to include full-scale engine demonstrator tests.
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 25. Quiet Short-Haul Research Aircraft (photograph courtesy of

NASA)
which was first flown in 1978 (Fig. 25) and managed by the NASA
Ames Research Center (ARC) in California. A summary of the
QSRA program is given in Shovlin and Cochrane (1978), and a
video is taken at a 1987 air show at the ARC (Vance 1987).
Refan Program
The Refan program, started in 1972, was aimed at retrofitting ad-
vanced technologies to the JT3D and JT8D engines from P&W to
reduce noise and smoke. Funding cuts in 1973 forced the program
to focus only on the JT8D, because it would impact longer service
aircraft, such as the newer 727, 737, and DC-9. After an initial design
phase, contracts were awarded for engine design, fabrication, and
testing of full-scale and component tests (Sams and Bresnahan
1973). The fan noise reduction technologies included increased
Fig. 26. Refan tests: (a) altitude engine tests in the Propulsion System
diameter of the fan resulting from increased bypass ratio, a single-
Laboratory; (b) flight test on DC–9 (photographs courtesy of NASA)
stage fan to replace the two-stage fan, increasing the spacing be-
tween the inlet guide vanes, fan and the stator blades, and optimizing
the number of blades to reduce noise. Three different nacelles were
designed with various amounts of acoustic treatment to determine
Quiet, Clean, General Aviation Turbofan Program
which configuration would be built for full scale tests. The designs
had a long duct with a treated tailpipe to reduce the exhaust noise. The Quiet, Clean, General Aviation Turbofan (QCGAT) program
The 737 flight test was dropped, but a B727–200 and a DC9–200 was initiated in 1976 to see if the noise reduction technologies de-
aircraft were modified with the new engines and tested. Predictions veloped for larger engines could be successfully applied to smaller
indicated that aircraft noise could be reduced by 5–7 EPNdB on turbofan engines. The program goals included both noise and
approach, about 9 EPNdB on takeoff, and 14–15 EPNdB (effective emissions reduction. The noise reduction goals were dependent on
perceived noise in decibels) on sideline. This would provide a cu- the weight of the aircraft and followed closer to the slope of the
mulative margin of 28–31 EPNdB under FAR-36, Stage 2 for a 727 regulated limits for heavier aircraft. The way the regulations are
aircraft, or an average of roughly 10 dB at each certification point. written, aircraft below about 45,359 kg (100,000 lb) takeoff gross
Static engine tests were performed at industry facilities, and altitude weight have a constant value noise limit for each certification point,
tests were carried out at the GRC in the Propulsion System Labo- which means the margin is easier to meet as the aircraft becomes
ratory [Fig. 26(a)]. Flight tests were conducted by Boeing and lighter. However, the NASA noise goals were intended to see if
McDonnell-Douglas in 1975. Test results showed an average re- further noise reduction was possible without significant perfor-
duction of 6–10 EPNdB for the DC-9 [Fig. 26(b)] and 7 EPNdB mance penalties (Koenig and Sievers 1979). Once the aircraft ap-
for the 727 at each certification point (Abdalla and Yuska 1975). plication was selected, the effective noise reduction goals ended up
The older 727 and DC-9 aircraft went out of production before any being 15–20 PNdB below Stage 3 at each certification point.
aircraft were retrofitted with improved engines. However, the noise Contracts were awarded to Garrett-AiResearch Company and Avco-
reduction technologies were used for new engines that were in- Lycoming Corporation, both now part of Honeywell Aerospace,
troduced on the 737–300 and the MD-80. In Fig. 1, the noise levels Inc., to develop candidate engines that were tested at the GRC and at
from these aircraft were about 9–11 dB below Chapter 2 and met the their own static engine facilities. In addition to applying many of the
new Chapter 3 regulations with sufficient margin. noise reduction technologies from the Quiet Engine and Refan
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

programs, internal exhaust mixers and the elimination of fan inlet
guide vanes were investigated. The Avco-Lycoming engine was
tested statically, and the predicted noise levels accounting for flight
effects were shown to exceed the NASA goals at all three certification
points (Fig. 27) (German et al. 1981). The Garrett-AiResearch engine
was also tested statically and found to meet the goals on a cumulative
basis (Hildenbrand and Norgren 1980).
Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program

In the 1970s, after a few very lean years for aerospace as a whole as
a result of the conclusion of the Apollo Space program, the GRC
returned to working on aircraft engine efficiency in response to
threats to the availability of oil used to produce aircraft fuel. The
price of fuel tripled from 1973 to 1975. Congress authorized NASA
to work on ways to conserve fuel. The Aircraft Energy Efficiency

(ACEE) program brought two projects to the GRC called the Energy
Efficient Engine (EEE) and the ATP. Information on the history of
these programs is included in Bowles (2010). The ATP program
started in 1978 after the GRC spent several years studying prop-fans
under the Reducing Energy Consumption of Commercial Air
Transportation program by working with Hamilton-Standard on
advanced propellers. The EEE project awarded large contracts to GE
and P&W to develop advanced higher bypass ratio turbofan engines,
while the ATP program developed technologies to provide addi-
tional reduction in fuel consumption over turbofans.
Advanced Turboprop Program

The primary purpose of the Advanced Turboprop (ATP) program
was to find ways to reduce aircraft fuel burn. The program projected
25–30% less fuel burn over equivalent technology turbofans (Hager
and Vrabel 1988). The GRC started research in propeller acoustics
and aerodynamics, structures for very thin and highly swept com-
posite blades, and gearboxes to transmit power from the core engine
to the propeller. The distinction for prop-fans over conventional
turboprops was the ability to fly at a faster cruise Mach number than
older propeller designs. This required making the blades thinner and
adding sweep to reduce the shock losses. Unfortunately, the noise
levels increased for both the cabin of the aircraft and the community.
There were also concerns about en-route noise, because the low-
frequency tones from the prop-fans could propagate to the ground
even from cruise altitudes. There was a chance that people living in
quiet areas who were never exposed to aircraft noise would notice
the high-altitude flyovers.
There were two basic concepts investigated during the ATP
program: one involving single-rotation propellers, which was pur-
sued by Hamilton-Standard (Fig. 28), and the other involving
counterrotating blades, which was pursued by both GE (Fig. 29) and
a team involving Hamilton-Standard, Allison Engine Company, and
P&W. Tests were done in model scale on both single [Fig. 28(a)]
and counterrotation blades to verify the performance, acoustics, and
structural integrity of the blades. GE started to work with NASA in
1983 to pursue their UDF concept that used a gearless drive system
and counterrotating turbines. The Hamilton-Standard/Allison En-
gine Company/P&W concept was also counterrotating, but used
a gearbox to drive the rotors. The single-rotation prop-fan research
resulted in a flight test on a Gulfstream aircraft modified by
Lockheed called the PTA aircraft, which first flew in 1987 [Fig. 28(b)].
The UDF engine (designated the GE-36) flew on modified 727
and MD-80 test aircraft [Fig. 29(a)]. Near-field noise measurements Fig. 27. Noise levels from the Avco-Lycoming engine relative to
were taken using the GRC Learjet and confirmed that the cruise tone Quiet, Clean, General Aviation Turbofan noise goals: (a) sideline;
levels agreed well with prior wind tunnel data taken in the 8- 3 6-ft (b) takeoff; (c) approach
tunnel. Model scale acoustic data that was acquired in the 9- 3 15-ft
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 28. Single-rotation prop-fan: (a) SR–7A in a 9- 3 15-ft low-speed

wind tunnel; (b) prop-fan test assessment aircraft with wing-mounted
prop-fan (photographs courtesy of NASA)
Fig. 29. Counterrotation prop-fan: (a) un-ducted fan engine (photo-
graph courtesy of NASA); (b) near-field acoustic data
tunnel were shown to agree well with near-field flight data for both
single-rotating and counterrotating prop-fans [Fig. 29(b)]. For the economically viable anymore. Studies show that this may change
UDF, the community noise levels just met Stage 3 regulations. It was if supersonic flight over land could be made acceptable to the public
anticipated that improvements were possible by increasing the number (it is currently not allowed except for designated corridors reserved
of blades and optimizing the designs, but interest in the program for military aircraft). A major research activity in the Supersonics
diminished after the price of fuel fell dramatically from its 1970s Project is the sonic boom reduction in addition to jet noise
highs. As a result, NASA stopped all work on prop-fans in 1991. reduction.
High Speed Research Program Advanced Subsonic Technology Program

The SST program abruptly ended in 1971, but NASA resumed work Turbofan noise research was resumed at the GRC in the early 1990s
again for the HSR program in 1990. Because the noise levels for after the ATP program concluded. Two major efforts were started
subsonic commercial aviation were lower than they were during the called the Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) Noise Reduction
SST program, the target noise levels had to be set even lower. Fig. 30 program and the HSR program (as previously discussed). Noise
shows a comparison of sideline noise suppression versus gross thrust reduction was a major emphasis in both programs and kept the center
loss for suppressors developed during the SST time period and the focused on fan and jet noise. There were contracts with the industry
high-speed civil transport time period for the High Speed Research to develop engine technologies for subsonic and supersonic appli-
(HSR) program. Also shown on the plot are the model scale results cations. Most of the acoustic facilities across government, industry,
from the best mixer-ejector nozzle concepts that were tested by the and universities were busy with work from these programs.
end of the program in 1999. The noise reduction goal was 20 dB with The AST Program officially started in 1994, but there were a few
acceptable thrust loss for supersonic cruise and subsonic operations. years of planning and the transitioning of funds from the ATP
Significant progress was made with the help of CFD and lighter program to build a high-power air turbine drive rig for the wind
weight materials (mixer-ejector nozzles add weight and complexity tunnels to test turbofan models. A technical working group (TWG)
to the engine). Fig. 31 shows one of the nozzle concepts tested in was formed consisting of representatives from the industry and
model scale. There was still substantial variable geometry required NASA to provide input on noise reduction technology needs and
to make this concept work. The U.S. industry lost interest in large progress. The TWG approach worked very well to keep the industry
SSTs, but there was new interest in smaller supersonic business jets. informed on technology development and helped transition the
NASA started the Supersonics Project in 2006, which continues technologies to the industry. It provided an opportunity to inform
today with the goal of starting with a smaller aircraft and developing NASA on areas that needed the most attention for research and re-
the technologies to eventually enable a larger aircraft. The European duced the overlap of work between companies working on similar
Concorde was taken out of service in 2003, because it was not noise reduction technologies. Reference noise levels were defined
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 30. Noise reduction and thrust loss projections for a large supersonic aircraft
without sacrificing performance (Gliebe and Janardan 2003; Dalton

2003; Holcombe 2003).
Early in the program, there was no jet noise research, because the
push by NASA was to go to Ultra-High Bypass (UHB) engines that
had low enough exhaust velocities that fan noise was the dominant
source. But the industry and the FAA wanted solutions for current
products too; therefore, both NASA and the FAA agreed to fund a jet
noise research project. There were interim goals to identify tech-
nologies for reducing fan and jet noise by 3 EPNdB by 1996. The jet
noise work would then end to focus resources on fan noise and
engine validation tests. It was thought that the only promising so-
lution for jet noise after reducing the velocity was to use long duct
internal mixers with acoustic treatment to absorb the resulting high-
frequency mixing noise. Initial tests were done on mixers from the
EEE program and JT8D mixers intended for hushkits. At one of the
TWG meetings, Boeing urged NASA to also look at separate flow
nozzles with a short fan duct, because most of their aircraft did not
have long duct mixers. NASA issued a competitive request for
proposals and combined ideas from GE, P&W, and Allison Engine
Company into one test that was conducted in the AAPL in early
Fig. 31. High-speed research mixer-ejector nozzle concept (schematic 1997. Several concepts were tested including tabs and chevrons. The
courtesy of NASA) jet noise was reduced by about 3 EPNdB by adding chevrons to the
core nozzle and bypass duct nozzle [Fig. 32(a)], and the core nozzle
for short fan ducts [Fig. 32(b)]. The results came as a pleasant
using four classes of aircraft of different sizes and designated 1992 surprise to the test team. They repeated tests of the reference nozzle
Technology (Kumasaka et al. 1996). Noise reduction goals were set every day to make sure all of the temperature and humidity cor-
that required technologies to reduce aircraft noise by 10 dB relative rections were properly accounted for and the delta noise reduction
to 1992 Technology. NASA developed the Technology Readiness was real from the chevron nozzles. This was the first successful test
Level (TRL) scale to help identify and track the maturity of tech- of chevron nozzles with minimal thrust loss.
nologies. The scale ranges from 1 to 9, with TRL 1 defining Previous tests of similar mixing devices for separate flow nozzles
conceptual research and TRL 9 representing technologies fully used higher penetration angles into the flow resulting in high-
implemented into products. Each discipline needed to define what frequency noise penalties that negated the overall noise reduction.
the levels meant for their own development sequence. For engine The concept introduced by GE kept the tip of the chevron within the
noise research, TRL 1–3 develops a concept through fundamental nozzle shear layer to introduce sufficient streamwise vorticity to mix
tests and simulations in a laboratory. TRL 4 and 5 validates the the core and bypass flow downstream of the nozzle with minimum
concept initially at a component level and then at a system or high-frequency mixing noise. NASA knew that the industry would
subsystem level in a relevant environment (like a scale model wind not take notice of the test results unless thrust measurements were
tunnel test). TRL 6 was understood to mean a static engine validation also done to show acceptable performance. Funding was added by
test or a flight demonstration test. NASA’s role was to develop the AST Program Manager (Willshire) to send the nozzles to ASE
technologies from TRL 1–6, and then it was up to the industry to FluiDyne. Results showed that the performance losses were less
insert the technologies into their products raising the TRL to 9. Study than 0.25% for chevron nozzles, with noise reduction ranging from
contracts were awarded to GE, P&W, and Allison Engine Company 2.5 to 3 EPNdB. This was a major breakthrough for jet noise
to identify noise reduction technologies needed to achieve the goals research, because many of the previous noise reduction methods
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 33. Advanced Ducted Propulsor fan test in 1995 (photograph

courtesy of NASA)
Fan noise research during the AST program included model scale
tests and development of fan noise prediction methods. There was
more success using fan noise prediction methods to guide the
experiments than there was for jet noise research. Rotating micro-
phone measurements and detailed flow measurements were used to
define key input parameters needed for the prediction methods.
There were many fan tests done conducted in the 9- 3 15-ft tunnel at
the GRC starting in 1994. NASA purchased a slightly modified copy
of the Universal Propulsion Simulator (UPS) drive rig from GE and
Boeing, which became the workhorse for the fan tests. A nominal fan
diameter of 55.88 cm (22 in.) was chosen, and all of the companies
Fig. 32. Chevron nozzles: (a) first test in the AeroAcoustic Propulsion participating in the tests built fan and nacelle hardware to fit onto this
Laboratory; (b) General Electric CF–34 engine test (photographs rig. The following list summarizes major tests and results.
courtesy of NASA) • GE UPS tests: because the NASA drive rig was not yet completed
in 1994, the first fan test was done using GE’s UPS rig and several
depended on engine cycle changes to reduce the exhaust velocities. sets of fan blades intended for improvements to the GE-90
The chevron nozzles provided significant noise reduction with no engine. For NASA, this test served as a baseline.
change to the engine cycle parameters. A special workshop was held • P&W advanced ducted propulsor (ADP): several tests were
at the GRC in September 1997 to disseminate the results to all conducted with P&W from 1995 to 1997 to investigate their
members of the TWG. Several companies pursued their own ver- ADP concept for higher bypass ratio engines with lower fan tip
sions of the chevron nozzle, and GE introduced the first production speed and lower fan pressure ratios (Fig. 33). Earlier tests had
implementation of chevrons on a CF-34 engine in 2003. There have been conducted at the GRC using P&W’s 43.18-cm (17-in.) fan
been several other aircraft introduced with chevron nozzles, in- rig, and the 55.88-cm (22-in.) fan tests were aimed at further fan
cluding the Boeing 787 and 747–8. NASA has continued chevron noise reduction. Advanced acoustic liners were evaluated with
nozzle research to better understand the flow physics and apply the knowledge of the fan noise source characteristics from previous
idea to turbojets. Similar to previous approaches to jet noise re- tests to optimize the liner impedance. For lower-speed fans,
duction, analytical methods proved not sufficiently reliable to guide where broadband noise dominates, the noise correlated better
the designs, and therefore NASA focused on flow measurement with fan pressure ratio than with fan tip speed. Low-pressure ratio
methods to characterize the turbulence using PIV and provide the fans with sufficient fan/stator spacing could lower the noise and
quality of data needed to validate jet noise prediction codes. Sub- improve the fan efficiency to about 95% because of lower
sequent publications have shown good agreement between predicted aerodynamic losses (Dittmar et al. 1999; Jeracki 2006; Fite
noise reduction and experimental data (Bridges et al. 2012). The 2006). A variable pitch fan was used with casing treatment to
motivation for turbojet applications was to see if chevrons could also optimize the performance between takeoff and cruise operations,
be applied to tactical aircraft for the military. The NASA Learjet and also to provide reverse thrust on landing. (There was also
[Fig. 18(b)] was used to demonstrate up to 4-EPNdB reduction in jet a desire to use the reverse thrust from the engines to back the
noise. A summary of the chevron nozzle development providing aircraft out of the passenger loading gates, but this changed
more details has been recently published (Zaman et al. 2011). because of concerns about engine emissions getting into the
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

terminal area, and now all aircraft are towed). However, there the fan provided favorable acoustic phase cancellation from hub
were losses associated with the larger hub and tip gaps needed to to tip as the fan wakes passed the stators (Envia and Nallasamy
reverse the pitch of the blades, and the amount of reverse thrust 1998). It also effectively increased the distance for the wakes to
fell short of the goals. P&W would later go to a fixed pitch fan, decay in strength before they reached the stator. The concept
a variable area nozzle, and an alternative reverser to address these was tested in 1996 and found to reduce the fan noise by 3 dB
problems. (Woodward et al. 1998). A forward swept fan was also tested
• Allison Low Noise Fan: one of the fan noise reduction concepts [Fig. 34(a)]. This was the first known verification that swept and
identified by the Allison Engine Company (now Rolls-Royce) in leaned stators are a viable way to reduce fan noise [Fig. 34(b)].
their study contract was sweeping and leaning the fan stators to There were previous attempts in the 1960s, but the tests were
reduce the rotor-stator interaction noise. NASA conducted stud- done without an ICD and any possible noise benefits were likely
ies with fan noise prediction codes that showed that sweeping the masked by extraneous noise caused by inflow distortion.
vanes by 30 and leaning the vanes in the direction of rotation of • GE High Speed Fans: there was concern that all of the technol-
ogies being pursued by NASA were only applicable to UHB
engines and there was still a need to identify ways to reduce the
noise from moderate bypass ratio engines in the range of 5–6.
Therefore, NASA conducted tests with GE to investigate swept

and leaned stators on a higher speed fan and to investigate
forward sweep on the fan to help the aerodynamic performance
and noise. Fan tests were done using a baseline model repre-
sentative of a current CF6 engine and models using new designs
for the fan and stator. The test influenced the design of a newer
CFM-56 engine that used swept and leaned stators and success-
fully reduced fan noise (Huff and Gliebe 2003) (Fig. 35).
• Honeywell Quiet High Speed Fan: one of the challenges for fan
noise with higher rotational speeds is addressing multiple pure
tones (MPTs). This noise source has also been called buzz saw
noise because of the distinct sound it makes during takeoff or
cruise. Slight variations in blade geometry cause the bow shocks
radiating forward of the fan to be unevenly spaced, which causes
the tonal portion of the sound spectra to shift from blade passing
frequencies and higher harmonics to shaft order frequencies.
Acoustic treatment in the inlet can be used to reduce this noise,
but it is desirable to reduce it at the source through alternative
blade designs. There was work done during the QEP by BBN
(Hayden et al. 1977) to design a fan with highly swept blades to
reduce the shock strength. Honeywell started with this design
philosophy and made improvements for their baseline TFE731–
60 engine fan and stator design (Lieber et al. 1996; Repp et al.
2003). The Quiet High Speed Fan (QHSF) tested in 1998
[Fig. 36(a)] confirmed that the onset of MPT noise can be delayed
to higher rotational speeds by using forward sweep [Fig. 36(b)].
The overall reduction in fan noise was also attributed to a reduc-
tion in the level of the blade passing frequency tone, which was
Fig. 34. Allison low-noise fan: (a) forward-swept fan (counterclock-

wise rotation); (b) swept and leaned stators (photographs courtesy of Fig. 35. General Electric swept and leaned stators tested on the CFM–
NASA) 56 engine
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 37. Alternative low noise fan (photograph courtesy of NASA)
of the shorter acoustic wavelengths across the stator. In addition,

the individual fan wake strengths would be less because of the
lower aerodynamic loading per blade. A fan was tested in 1997
(Fig. 37) that had 106 blades and 7 long chord stators, with a tip
speed of about 335 m/s (1,100 ft/s). The Allison Low Noise Fan
was used for baseline comparisons. Results showed reductions in
both the tones and the fan broadband noise. There was about
a 4-EPNdB reduction in fan noise relative to the Allison low-
noise fan at takeoff conditions and about a 5-EPNdB noise
reduction at approach conditions (Dittmar et al. 2000).
• Source Diagnostics Test: a comprehensive fan test campaign was
carried out during this time period to provide a better understand-
ing of the fan noise generation process and provide an extensive
validation database that could be used for fan noise prediction
methods. A test at Boeing in 1995 using a 45.72-cm (18-in.)
diameter fan was supported by NASA to obtain initial diagnostics
data. There was a desire to obtain similar data on a modern fan
design to see if the conclusions were comparable with the Boeing
test. NASA worked with GE to use an early fan design for the GE-
90 engine called the R4 fan. One of the more challenging goals was
to test in a rotor-alone configuration, which required externally
supporting the nacelle [Fig. 38(a)] when the structural exit guide
Fig. 36. Honeywell quiet high speed fan: (a) forward-swept fan
vanes were removed. Because the drive rig pitched and yawed
(photograph courtesy of NASA); (b) delay of multiple pure tones noise
as the fan rotational speed increased in the wind tunnel, an ac-
onset
tive control system was designed, and therefore the nacelle re-
mained centered over the fan, maintaining a uniform 0.0127-cm
(0.005-in.) tip clearance [Fig. 38(b)] during testing. A compre-
prevalent in the baseline fan (Dittmar et al. 2003; Weir 2003; Weir hensive set of flow and acoustic measurements were obtained
and Podboy 2005). The technologies were used to guide the design using instrumentation shown in Fig. 10(e). Results showed that, in
of a new Honeywell engine called the HTF7000. general, the inlet radiated noise was dominated by the rotor, and
• NASA alternative low noise fan: a different approach was in- the aft radiated noise was dominated by the rotor/stator interaction
vestigated to see if increasing the number of fan blades and noise. The rotor-alone noise was up to 4 EPNdB less than the
reducing the number of stator vanes (long chord stators) could noise with the rotor and stators. This provided insight into how
reduce fan noise. Long chord stators were previously investi- important it was going to be to work on both the fan and the
gated for fan noise reduction during the QEP. By increasing the stator sources before further significant noise reduction could be
number of fan blades, the blade passing frequency tone and its achieved. Flow surveys, turbulence measurements, acoustic duct
higher harmonics could be shifted to higher frequencies and thus mode measurements, rotating microphone measurements, inlet/aft
be less annoying. The long chord stators can be made large separation, and rotor-alone data were all used to provide input to
enough to add acoustic treatment inside the vanes, and the fan noise prediction codes. A fan broadband noise challenge
unsteady surface pressure response to the rotor wake interaction problem was posed to several code developers with blind test
could be reduced as a result of more phase cancellations because cases and input on flow parameters from the data and CFD
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

ANCF rig [Fig. 16(a)] was built to study the fundamentals of fan
noise generation, its propagation in the fan duct, and its radiation to
the far field. It was also an ideal test bed for assessing the feasibility
of active control of fan noise. The acoustic frequencies of which
were set to match expected UHB engine fan frequencies. There were
many concepts investigated ranging from duct and hub mounted
actuators (sounds sources) to cancel a single duct mode to a system
including an array of actuators embedded inside the stator vanes
to cancel multiple acoustic duct modes and tones simultaneously
[Fig. 16(b)]. Actuators varied from speakers to piezoelectric devices
that could be tuned for maximum sound amplitude, but were limited
in frequency range. Global reduction of fan noise around the engine
is possible for several tones containing multiple modes. The control
systems were adequate to adjust to the changes in fan speeds.
However, the complexity of the system, number of actuators, and
expected cost made it difficult to justify in an engine application.

There was a joint solicitation between the GRC and LaRC to see if
there were any ideas for addressing some of these challenges and to
identify ways to reduce fan broadband noise. One idea pursued by
Northrop-Grumman and Hersh Acoustical Engineering was to in-
tegrate the active control system with the acoustic treatment, a hybrid
active-passive system. The active system would direct the sound
more efficiently into the liners for better absorption. The concept was
tested in the 9- 3 15-ft tunnel as an add-on to the P&W ADP fan tests
and showed promising results. Another idea was to only control the
modes that significantly contributed to the far-field perceived noise
levels. In either case, the system was still too complex to be con-
sidered for an engine application. Another problem was that the
contributions of tones to the overall fan noise levels were small for
low-pressure ratio fans. Therefore, methods to address broadband
noise were also needed. It is anticipated that these concepts will be
revisited sometime in the future as other technologies mature, such
as higher amplitude actuators and faster processors, to analyze the
synthesis acoustic signals in real time to control fan broadband
noise. But the pioneering work done during this time showed
fundamentally that active control of complex fan noise sources
is possible.
Fig. 38. Source diagnostics test: (a) external nacelle support struts;
In addition to the model tests, there were engine validation
(b) fan with no stators, view looking toward inlet from aft bypass
contracts with Honeywell and P&W to show that some of the noise
duct (photographs courtesy of NASA)
reduction technologies would work at higher TRLs. Static engine
tests were done at the company test sites. P&W tested a scarf inlet,
active/passive inlet liners, cut-on stators, and an acoustically treated
predictions. The broadband fan noise prediction system (BFaNS) turbine exhaust [Fig. 39(a)]. The scarf inlet [Fig. 39(b)] was shown to
code developed by P&W and the United Technologies Research direct the inlet radiated noise away from the community (lower) side
Center (UTRC) under a NASA contract was able to predict the of the engine by 2–4 EPNdB relative to a conventional inlet. By
overall noise levels within a couple of decibels. A special session treating the turbine exit, it was discovered that the aft radiated noise
was organized at the 2002 American Institute of Aeronautics and was more from the turbine than from the fan. The idea behind using
Astronautics Aeroacoustics Conference where papers were pre- a cut-on stator was to reduce the fan broadband noise because of the
sented about all aspects of the test (Woodward et al. 2002; Hughes lower number of stator vanes. The blade passing frequency tone
et al. 2005; Podboy et al. 2003; Heidelberg 2002; Envia 2002). noise would increase, but it could be reduced with either active noise
Active noise control of the fan noise was another major research control or a scarf inlet. The overall fan noise would be lower than
effort during the AST program. There was a concern that UHB a conventional cut-off fan design. Any effectiveness of the cut-on
engines would have less acoustic treatment and would be more stator during the test may have been obscured as a result of the
susceptible to inflow distortions in flight because of shorter inlets. unexpected turbine noise contribution. The active/passive inlet had
Active noise control had never been tried for fans, but was in- mechanical problems and was never successfully tested.
creasingly popular for headsets and ventilating system duct noise. Honeywell conducted tests on their TFE731 engine. Static en-
For plane waves in a duct, active noise control is achieved by using gine tests were done at their San Tan facility in Arizona [Fig. 40(a)],
a sound source to introduce another plane wave that is 180 out of followed by flight tests in 2001 on a Falcon 20 test aircraft to in-
phase with the target plane wave. It was known from rotating mi- vestigate chevron nozzles [Fig. 41(a)] and a variable area nozzle
crophone measurements that fan noise sources were complex, varied [Fig. 40(b)] for jet noise reduction. Flight test results showed the
with speed, and became even more complex at higher frequencies. chevron nozzles provided about 3-EPNdB jet noise reduction and
The sound sources used for active control needed to be equally were consistent with projections from model scale and static engine
complex to reduce the amplitudes of target duct acoustic modes tests (Weir 2004). The NASA Learjet was also flown during these
without exciting other duct modes that could increase the noise. The tests with a chevron nozzle. Honeywell was able to clearly
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 40. Honeywell TFE731–60 test: (a) Honeywell San Tan test
stand; (b) Calcor variable-area nozzle (photographs courtesy of
NASA)
showed about 3-EPNdB noise reduction [Fig. 41(b)] (Weir et al.

2006).
The AST program officially ended in 1999, but a few of the tests
extended into 2001. There was a new set of pillar goals announced in
1997 intended to push the technology development toward solving
the aircraft noise problem. According to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control (1974),
a 55 day night level (LDN) is the outdoor noise exposure level
Fig. 39. PW4098 engine test: (a) Pratt &Whitney C11 test stand; (b) “requisite to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate
Boeing scarf inlet (photographs courtesy of NASA) margin of safety.” The phrase health and welfare is defined as
“complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the
absence of disease and infirmity.” NASA conducted a study to
demonstrate the jet noise reduction benefits for both aircraft by using determine what this would mean for a single event noise metric, such
a video with an audio track that switched between flyovers with the as EPNL. Because the aircraft fleet mix, number of operations, and
baseline nozzle and flyovers with the chevron nozzles. The variable size of the airports vary, the study looked at 17 major U.S. airports
area nozzle showed 1–2 EPNdB jet noise reduction, but the fan noise to determine an average value that could be used for a goal (Fig. 42).
increased because of the change in loading from varying back It was decided that 20 EPNdB at each certification point (60 dB
pressure (Weir and Mendoza 2005). A scarf inlet was also tested and cumulative) would be a good overall goal to contain the objectionable
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Aeroacoustics Research Consortium
The funding for aeronautics research was significantly reduced after
the AST and HSR programs. Historically, the average life of a
NASA project has been about 5 years, and it was a challenge to
execute long-term research. The Aeroacoustics Research Consor-
tium (AARC) was started in 2001 to “establish an organizational
structure to promote world-class aeroacoustics research while
providing a stimulating environment that can attract high-quality
researchers in this area and complement the NASA Glenn [GRC]
acoustic research workforce” (Ohio Aerospace Institute 2008). The
consortium still exists today and has been managed by the OAI with
financial support from NASA, Boeing, United Technologies, Rolls-
Royce, and Honeywell. A peer review panel evaluates proposals and
funds multiyear research activities that are considered fundamental
to the understanding of propulsion system noise. Researchers visit
the supporting organizations to transfer the knowledge and promote

collaboration. Seventeen researchers have been supported over the
past 10 years. There is a year-end review for participating organ-
izations and many reports have been published documenting the
research.
Quiet Aircraft Technology Program

The Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) program began in 2001.
Studies were conducted to assess the system level impact of the
noise reduction technologies developed from the AST program. For
engine noise, changing the cycle parameters, such as reducing the
fan pressure ratio and jet exhaust velocity, provided about 75% of
the reduction leaving about 25% to noise reduction technologies,
such as chevron nozzles or advanced acoustic liners, which could be
Fig. 41. Honeywell Falcon 20 test aircraft: (a) chevron nozzles; applied to a fixed engine cycle. But incorporating these changes
(b) scarf inlet (photographs courtesy of NASA) meant increasing the diameter of the engines, which could adversely
impact fuel burn because of higher drag, weight, and aircraft in-
stallation challenges. Higher bypass ratio engines would eventually
make their way into service, and therefore NASA focused the noise
reduction research on the most important sources for UHB ratio
engines. Aft radiated fan noise was most important, and core noise
would eventually become a concern. For fan noise, there was
a second entry of the Source Diagnostics Test to obtain more flow-
field measurements, such as time-dependent PIV and unsteady
surface pressures on the stators. Several fan duct nozzles were tested,
which showed about a 2 dB reduction in fan noise and a thrust
benefit by increasing the exit area (Woodward and Hughes 2005).
CFD and noise prediction codes were used to guide the design of an
aft treated splitter. A splitter increases the treatment area and was
successful in previous programs, such as the QEP [Fig. 5(b)], but the
aerodynamic losses were too high for practical applications. With
CFD considered a mature technology for aerodynamic design, it was
hoped that the losses from a splitter could be minimized [Fig. 43(a)].
Fig. 43(b) shows the splitter installation using the P&W ADP fan and
Fig. 42. NASA study for setting noise reduction goals nacelle hardware. Results from this test were disappointing, showing
only a 1.5 dB reduction in sound pressure level (SPL) from 12.5 to
20 kHz and about a 1% loss in thrust.
Acoustically treated soft stator vanes (Fig. 44) were investigated
noise within an average airport boundary. The new noise goals were on the ANCF rig and then tested in the 9- 3 15-ft tunnel. Small
set to develop technologies for reducing the perceived noise level by Helmholtz resonators were embedded inside the stators and tuned to
two times (10 EPNdB) in 10 years, and four times (20 EPNdB) in reduce the dominant fan noise frequencies. The resonators would
25 years, relative to 1997 aircraft. The AST program would con- also reduce the unsteady aerodynamic response of the stators to
tribute 5 dB toward the 10 dB goal, and a new program called Quiet passing fan wakes. Results showed about 1.5-EPNdB reduction,
Aircraft Technology (QAT) would develop the remaining tech- with no measureable aerodynamic losses.
nologies needed to reach the 10 dB goal in 10 years. Follow-on Another fan noise reduction strategy was to mix or reduce the
research programs would be needed to work on the longer-term goal strength of the fan wakes before they impinge on the stators. Fan
of 20-EPNdB aircraft noise reduction. trailing edge blowing was suggested by the Massachusetts Institute
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 45. Fan trailing edge blowing for fan noise reduction
Fig. 43. Aft acoustic splitter for fan noise reduction: (a) Mach number
contours from computational fluid dynamics predictions; (b) test in-
stallation in the wind tunnel (photograph courtesy of NASA)
Fig. 44. Soft fan stators for fan noise reduction
of Technology (MIT) and successfully tested in the ANCF rig

(Sutliff 2005). Then, a complex test was carried out in the 9- 3 15-ft
tunnel in 2006, where air was supplied through the drive rig and into
multiple channels within each fan blade and ejected through the
trailing edge to fill and mix the wakes (Fig. 45). CFD were used for
the designs, and flow measurements were made behind the fan at
various blowing rates. Acoustic results showed about a 2-dB re-
duction in the overall sound power level using 2% of the bypass duct
mass flow. Part-span filling was tried to reduce the air requirements,
but the noise benefits diminished (Woodward et al. 2007). Passive Fig. 46. Honeywell fan and engine tests: (a) Quiet High Speed Fan in a
mixing reduction methods were also investigated by GE, NASA, and 9- 3 15-ft low-speed wind tunnel; (b) water brake for testing with-
Virginia Tech, which used chevrons on the trailing edges of the fan out a fan (photographs courtesy of NASA)
blades to mix the wakes.
In 2004, Honeywell tested a second QHSF called the QHSF II, Engine Validation of Noise and Emissions Reduction Technology.
aimed at improving the structural and acoustic performance from the A comprehensive series of tests were performed that included the
first QHSF fan tested in 1998 [Fig. 46(a)]. Modifications were made following: measuring the fan wakes on the engine; caged and in-duct
to the fan and the stators. The results were used to design a fan phased microphone arrays; cross correlation of unsteady flow mea-
for the HTF7000 engine, which would be used for further noise surements in the combustor and turbine exit; far-field separation
diagnostic tests. Honeywell was awarded a contract called the of inlet/aft radiated noise; in situ acoustic liner impedance
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

measurements; rotating microphone measurements; and testing the
engine without a fan by using a water brake to provide a load
[Fig. 46(b)] (Weir 2008). Adaptive Herschel-Quincke tubes mounted
in the fan duct were tested and showed 2-EPNdB cumulative noise
reduction. A special session was organized at the 2008 American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Aeroacoustics Conference,
where papers were presented about all aspects of the test.
Jet noise reduction concepts were focused on offset nozzles to
change the noise directivity, chevrons made from shape memory
alloys to optimize the penetration angle between takeoff and cruise,
and fluidic injection to control the breakup of the streamwise vor-
ticity from mixing devices, such as chevrons. Advanced mixers were
also tested through a cooperative program with Rolls-Royce. There
was strong emphasis on flow measurements to improve the un-
derstanding of the noise generation process. The SHJAR was built
for fundamental tests and screening nozzle concepts. Fig. 47 shows

some of the test setups used to obtain very detailed databases, which
have been used to compare and improve jet noise prediction tools
(Bridges et al. 2012). Similar tests were done in larger scale using the
NATR. Measurements included three-component PIV [Fig. 47(a)]
(Bridges and Wernet 2004), two-point space-time velocity corre-
lations (Bridges and Brown 2004), and three-dimensional phased
microphone arrays (Lee and Bridges 2005). Arrays of microphones
were used to investigate instability waves in the shear layer of the jet
and the propagation of sound to the far field [Fig. 47(b)]. There were
also investigations looking at exciting the jet with plasma actuators
to promote mixing and jet noise reduction. Fundamental experi-
ments were started at The Ohio State University and scaled up to
larger nozzle diameters for tests at NASA. Large eddy simulations
were used to model plasma actuators to excite the jet (Brown 2008).
Results from the simulations looked promising for scaling to larger
jets, but experiments have shown it is difficult. A recent review paper
(Henderson 2010) summarizes the long history of fluidic injection
methods for jet noise reduction.
Fundamental Aeronautics Program

In 2006, aeronautics was completely reorganized across NASA to
return once again to fundamental research. There was less emphasis
on specific aircraft applications and more emphasis on prediction
methods and validation experiments. It was an attempt to return to
the NACA roots known for rigorous investigations and compre-
hensive documentation of the results. Noise research was split Fig. 47. Small Hot Jet Acoustic Rig tests: (a) particle image velo-
among the Subsonic Fixed Wing (SFW), Supersonics, and Subsonic cimetry; (b) microphone array for instability wave diagnostic mea-
Rotary Wing Projects under the Fundamental Aeronautics Program surements (photographs courtesy of NASA)
(FAP). The TWG that was utilized during the AST and QAT pro-
grams has continued as a way to communicate progress across
projects and keep the industry aware of NASA’s research in
acoustics. The aeronautics budget was considerably less than it was they could meet a 20-EPNdB cumulative noise level under Chapter
during previous programs, and NASA placed more emphasis on 4 at a TRL 9 (in service) utilizing higher bypass ratio engines,
partnerships and cooperative tests. Model test hardware that was which was approximately two-thirds of the noise goal that was set
paid for by NASA was now mostly funded by the industry. NASA by the AST program in 1992. NASA studies (Guynn et al. 2011)
research announcements were used to promote competition on all showed that if even lower fan pressure ratios with noise reduction
external work done by universities and the industry. There was technologies could be justified (to satisfy other design criteria, such
strong emphasis on noise, emissions, and aircraft performance to- as emissions and fuel burn), it would be possible to achieve 25–29
gether, rather than in separate programs or projects. For subsonic EPNdB cumulative below Chapter 4, which almost satisfies the
aircraft, NASA focused on utilizing UHB engines ( just as it did at the AST and SFW N11 goals. This illustrates the idea behind the
beginning of the AST program). Goals were set based on tech- corners of the trade space shown in Table 1. The Airbus A380 was
nologies that would be ready for future generations of aircraft. introduced with noise as a major design objective. The engines
Table 1 shows the noise, emissions, and fuel burn reduction goals for were designed with larger diameter fans to meet the noise goals.
the SFW Project. The industry and their stakeholders ultimately decide which goals
The N11 goals were aimed at reducing the noise for the B737 would be pursued for a particular aircraft, but the technology
and A320 size aircraft, although the technologies would benefit development was been done to provide options. It was generally
other aircraft classes. By this time, the industry was projecting that believed that the N11 goals could be achieved with a conventional
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

tube and wing aircraft utilizing advanced technologies. But it contours at an average airport boundary. This was about 10 dB more
would be difficult to achieve further noise reduction without some aggressive than the 2025 noise reduction goal that was established by
configuration change that would help shield the engine noise from NASA in 1997.
the community. Shielding of engine noise was observed during The supersonic aircraft research has focused on airport noise and
flyover tests of the DC-9. The wings served as a barrier to reduce sonic boom reduction to enable flight over land. There were similar
the noise radiated from the engine inlet. Studies from noise pre- generational goals set starting with smaller aircraft and increasing
diction codes and experiments showed that up to 10-EPNdB cu- the size over time. Table 2 shows the long-term goals of the Su-
mulative noise reduction could be achieved for radically different personics Project. The sonic boom noise goals are specified as
commercial aircraft designs, such as a blended or hybrid wing body perceived noise levels in decibels. The engines planned for com-
(Thomas et al. 2010). Therefore, the N 1 2 noise goals were set to mercial supersonic aircraft are lower bypass ratio turbofans. The
be 42 EPNdB cumulative below Chapter 4 with the expectation that engines need to be compact to meet the performance and sonic boom
the aircraft configuration would need to change from a conven- goals, but also need to have reduced exhaust velocities during
tional tube and wing. The N 1 2 goals were intended for larger takeoff and landing to meet the airport noise goals. The chevron
aircraft replacements, such as the B777. The N 1 3 goals for noise nozzles used for subsonic aircraft would not provide enough noise
were established to meet NASA’s long-term goal of containing the reduction. Therefore, emphasis has been placed on developing
objectionable noise within an average airport boundary. There were variable cycle engines. Military engines are considering a third flow
other studies, such as the MIT/Cambridge Silent Aircraft Initiative, stream that would effectively change the bypass ratio. The third
which investigated an aircraft design with noise reduction as the stream could be closed for cruise. A third stream could also provide
primary goal. Based on these studies, it was decided that the ultimate more control over the Mach number distribution in the jet with the
goal for aircraft noise reduction was about 71 EPNdB cumulative possibility of implementing inverted velocity profile noise reduction
below Chapter 4 levels, which approximately corresponded to the concepts first explored by the GRC in the 1970s (Stone 1977).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) goal of 55 LDN noise NASA awarded contracts to Lockheed and Boeing to study the
Table 1. Research Goals for Subsonic Aircraft

N 1 2 (2020)a technology
N 1 1 (2015)a technology benefits relative to a large
benefits relative to a single twin aisle reference N 1 3 (2025)a technology
Corners of the trade space aisle reference configuration configuration benefits
Noise (cumulative below Stage 4) (dB) 232 242 271
Landing Takeoff Operations (LTO) 260 275 Better than 275
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions (below
Committee on Aviation Environmental
Protection, CAEP/6) (%)
Performance aircraft fuel burn (%) 233b 250b Better than 270
Performance field length (%) 233 250 Exploit metroplexc concepts
a
Technology Readiness Level for key technologies of 4–6.
b
Additional gains may be possible through operations improvements.
c
Concepts that enable optimal use of runways at multiple airports with the metropolitan areas.
Table 2. Research Goals for Supersonic Aircraft

N 1 1 supersonic business N 1 2 small supersonic N 1 3 efficient multi-Mach
class aircraft (2015) airliner (2020) aircraft (beyond 2030)
Environmental goals
Sonic boom 65–70 perceived noise levels 65–70 perceived noise levels 65–70 perceived noise levels
in decibels in decibels in decibels
Low-boom flight
75–80 perceived noise levels
in decibels
Overwater flight
Airport noise Meet with margin 10 EPNdB 10–20 EPNdB
(cumulative below Stage 4)
Cruise emissions Equivalent to current ,10 ,5 and particulate and water
(cruise NOx g/kg of fuel) subsonic vapor mitigation
Performance goals
Cruise speed Mach 1.6–1.8 Mach 1.6–1.8 Mach 1.3–2.0
Range (km) 6,437 6,437 6,437–8,851
Payload (passengers) 6–20 35–70 100–200
Fuel efficiency 3.5 10.6 12.4–16.0
(pass-km per kg of fuel)
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

benefits of a variable cycle engine. GE and Rolls-Royce developed two previous source diagnostics tests in the 9- 3 15-ft tunnel helped
engine concepts aimed at meeting the N 1 2 goal of 10-EPNdB quantify when the rotor alone noise would need to be addressed. A
cumulative noise reduction under Chapter 4 regulations. Model method for reducing rotor noise without relying on further reduction
scale tests have been carried out in the NATR to investigate mixer- in tip speed or fan pressure ratio was adding acoustic treatment
ejector concepts with a third flow stream and inverted velocity directly over the tip of the fan. Initial tests of this concept were done
profiles. Predictions from Rolls-Royce using a mixer-ejector in the ANCF, which looked promising, and follow-on tests were
concept have estimated that about a 8-EPNdB cumulative noise done in the 9- 3 15-ft tunnel and with a FJ44 engine (Fig. 49) from
reduction under Chapter 4 is possible. Test results have shown that Williams International (Sutliff et al. 2009). The concept looked
this could be achieved if extraneous tones could be removed by promising in the engine tests, but the wind tunnel results showed
improving the third stream nozzle hardware design (Sokhey 2012). substantial aerodynamic penalties with small reduction in the noise
Fig. 48(a) shows a reference nozzle with three flow streams, and because of stator dominated sources in the test (Elliott 2010). Over
Fig. 48(b) shows a three stream mixer-ejector nozzle from Rolls- the rotor acoustic treatment is still being investigated along with
Royce. refinements to the soft stator concept. Fundamental measurement
Subsonic research remains focused on fan noise reduction, but methods were developed for identifying fan broadband noise
core noise is expected to be a concern for future engines as the fan sources within the fan duct (Dougherty et al. 2010), which would be
and jet noise are further reduced. The engine data from Honeywell key for identifying additional fan noise reduction concepts.
(Weir 2008) has been used to develop correlation methods for
separating noise sources. A time delay method (Miles 2008) was
Integrated Systems Research Program
developed to separate combustion direct and indirect noise. The idea
behind this method is to take advantage of the time scale difference In 2010, the Integrated Systems Research Program (ISRP) was
between an entropy disturbance traveling with the mean flow from established under which the Environmentally Responsible Aviation
the combustor interacting with the turbine and the direct sound (ERA) Project was started to fund system level validation experi-
radiating from the combustor to the far field. Alternative pressure ments and concepts that could help meet NASA’s N 1 2 goals
gain combustion concepts have been investigated, such as pulse (Table 1). Several concepts showing promise for fuel burn and noise
detonation engines. Just as the testing of the V-1 buzz bomb dis- reduction were moved into the ERA Project from the SFW Project,
turbed the community around the GRC in 1945, there were com- including P&W’s Geared Turbofan (GTF) and GE’s Open Rotor.
plaints about noise from tests of a single pulse detonation engine tube Open Rotor was the name given to the follow-on development of the
in the AAPL in 2002. The acoustic investigations showed that while UDF concept from GE. Therefore, after about 10 years during the
the direct noise from the device was high, a turbine placed down- 1980s working exclusively on propellers, and then about 15 years
stream with the appropriate blade numbers and stages could provide working exclusively on turbofans, the GRC was refining both
enough blockage of the sound to make the alternative combustor propulsion systems with hope that these technologies would be used
competitive with commercial engine noise levels. For fan noise, the in engines for new aircraft.
The GTF was tested in the 9- 3 15-ft tunnel in 2007 [Fig. 50(a)]
that built on the success of the ADP fan tests done in the 1990s. The
work led to a flight test funded by P&W [Fig. 50(b)]. Several new
GTF engines will be introduced by P&W over the next few years.
The Open Rotor was tested through a jointly funded program be-
tween GE and NASA from 2009 to 2012 [Fig. 51(a)]. Model scale
data were acquired in the 9- 3 15-ft tunnel, and high-speed cruise
simulation data were taken in the 8- 3 6-ft tunnel, just as was done
during the ATP program in the 1980s. However, newer blade
Fig. 48. Three stream nozzles for jet noise reduction: (a) reference
nozzle (without mixer); (b) Rolls-Royce mixer-ejector nozzle (photo- Fig. 49. Williams International FJ44 engine test in the AeroAcoustic
graphs courtesy of NASA) Propulsion Laboratory (photographs courtesy of NASA)
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 50. P&W Geared Turbofan: (a) scale model in a 9- 3 15-ft low-
speed wind tunnel test (photograph courtesy of NASA); (b) full-scale
flight test on a Pratt and Whitney 747 test aircraft
designs have shown significantly reduced noise levels compared

with the UDF. Valuable flow diagnostic data, such as microphone
phased array and PIV, have helped identify dominant noise sources
[Fig. 51(b)]. NASA conducted a study in 2011 to compare noise and
fuel burn predictions for the GTF and Open Rotor systems based on
model data scaled to a B737 size aircraft using the ANOPP (Fig. 52).
Results show that at TRL 4–5, the Open Rotor is expected to be about Fig. 51. General Electric Open Rotor test in a 9- 3 15-ft low-speed
13 EPNdB cumulative under Chapter 4 regulation and the GTF is wind tunnel: (a) acoustic traverse microphone measurements; (b) phased
expected to be about 25 EPNdB cumulative below Chapter 4. While microphone array test showing pylon interaction with first rotor (white
the noise levels are about 12 EPNdB cumulative higher for the Open region on front blades) (photographs courtesy of NASA)
Rotor, the fuel burn was predicted to be about 9% less. It will be up to
the industry and market demands to decide on which engine will be
selected for future aircraft applications.
commercial engines that have typically been focused more on near-
term applications. The most recent example is the FAA Continuous
Collaboration and Outreach
Low Emissions, Energy and Noise program, which will help raise the
Cooperative working relationships with other NASA centers, such technology readiness for aircraft to meet the N 1 1 goals. NASA has
as Langley and the ARC, have been critical for the success of engine provided technical expertise for the AIAA Aeroacoustics Technical
noise research and the ability to influence technologies for new Committee, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) A21 Aircraft
aircraft. Work with the Department of Defense (DoD) has also been Noise Measure and Noise Aviation Emission Modeling committee,
important, because the DoD relies on NASA for environmental re- ICAO Independent Expert Review Panels, and source evaluation
search in noise and emissions. NASA has participated on many boards for government procurements. NASA employees routinely
committees over the years with the Navy and Air Force to help as- speak at schools and community meetings to raise awareness on how
sess jet noise problems and possible solutions. The working re- NASA’s technologies are being used and inspire the next generation
lationship with the FAA has led to jointly funded research for of acousticians.
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 52. NASA study for ultra-high bypass turbofans and open rotor
propulsors: fuel burn versus noise
The Future
While there has been considerable progress made on aircraft noise

reduction, additional noise reduction is needed before the objec-
tionable noise can be contained within the boundaries of an average
size airport. The N 1 3 goals for subsonic aircraft were defined to
push the technologies even further. It is anticipated that the benefits
of increasing the bypass ratio of the engines will reach a limit where
there will be no further noise reduction benefit. The nacelle lengths
need to be shortened to reduce engine weight, which reduces the
available acoustic treatment area. The primary benefit of increasing
the bypass ratio has been the reduction of jet noise. When the jet
noise levels are significantly below the fan and other noise sources,
the noise reduction will be a stronger function of the fan pressure
ratio. Once a practical limit for lowering the fan pressure ratio has
been reached and the acoustic treatment area cannot be increased, Fig. 53. Advanced aircraft concepts: (a) engines over wings; (b) MIT
additional noise reduction from the engine will be difficult. One Double Bubble with aft engines; (c) NASA turbo-electric (photographs
alternative strategy that has been considered in the past is to shield courtesy of NASA)
the engine noise using the aircraft structure. NASA initiated a study
in 2010 that challenged the aerospace community to consider ways
to further reduce the noise along with fuel burn and emissions. The and in a way that either enhances or does not adversely impact the
concepts have been documented (Bradley and Droney 2011; performance. There are similarities between noise reduction meth-
Greitzer et al. 2010; Bruner et al. 2010; D’Angelo et al. 2010; Felder ods identified in the 1950s and the concepts being explored today.
et al. 2011) and show a general trend of placing the engines either For example, the high-aspect-ratio nozzles in Fig. 4 are similar to the
above the wing [Fig. 53(a)] or above the fuselage [Fig. 53(b)] to shield distributed propulsion concept in Fig. 53(c). The quest for a low-
the engine noise from the community. The turbo-electric aircraft pressure ratio fan was explored in the STOL research of the 1970s,
concept, shown in Fig. 53(c), uses electrically powered fans with and P&W’s GTF will be the first engine to enter service with these
superconducting motors to distribute the propulsors across the trailing characteristics. The difference has been the enabling technologies,
edge of a flying wing. The boundary layer from the wing is ingested to such as high-fidelity CFD, lighter weight structures, improved
provide additional fuel burn reduction benefits. It will be many years measurement methods, and better knowledge of the noise generation
before the technologies will be matured enough to introduce these physics, which make the designs practical and effective today. There
advanced aircraft, but the noise reduction benefits are expected to have been a number of noise reduction concepts that appeared not to
come close to the ultimate goal of solving the aircraft noise problems work initially because of inadequate test procedures (extraneous
that the NACA and NASA have been working on for many years. noise sources and masking of sources), but were later found to
provide significant noise reduction benefits.
There has been tremendous progress since the aircraft noise
Conclusions problem peaked in the 1960s and regulations were introduced. The
average noise level at each certification point has been reduced by
Over the last several decades, the common thread passing through all about 20 EPNdB (Fig. 1) over 50 years (60 EPNdB cumulative).
aircraft engine noise reduction research programs has been finding Projections for turbofan-powered aircraft show noise levels are
ways to move large amounts of air more slowly through the engine expected to be at least 20 EPNdB cumulative under Chapter 4 for
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

new aircraft entering into service. The impact of aircraft noise also Dalton, W. N., III. (2003). “Ultra high bypass ratio low noise engine study.”
depends on how often the noise occurs; therefore, if the number of Rep. CR—2003-212523, NASA, Cleveland.
flights increase, the amount of noise reduction needed for each D’Angelo, M. M., et al. (2010). “N13 small commercial efficient and quiet
aircraft is greater. To achieve the ultimate goal of containing the transportation for year 2030–2035.” Rep. CR—2010-216691, NASA,
objectionable aircraft noise within the boundaries of an average Hampton, VA.
Davis, D. D. (1957). “Acoustical filters and mufflers.” Handbook of noise
airport, more work needs to be done. Studies show another 15–17
control, C. M. Harris, ed., McGraw Hill, New York, 21–40.
EPNdB at each certification point may be required depending on the Dawson, V. P. (1991). “Engines and innovation.” Rep. SP–4306, NASA,
size of the airport, aircraft fleet mix, and actual growth in air travel to Washington, DC.
achieve this ultimate goal. The GRC has made significant con- Dittmar, J. D., et al. (2003). “The noise of a forward swept fan.” Rep.
tributions toward achieving this goal. TM—2003-212208, NASA, Cleveland.
Dittmar, J. H., et al. (1999). “Some acoustic results from the Pratt & Whitney
advanced ducted propulsor—Fan 1.” Rep. TM—1999-209049, NASA,
Acknowledgments Cleveland.
Dittmar, J. H., et al. (2000). “The alternative low noise fan.” Rep. TM—
Thanks goes to the hundreds of people at NASA Glenn Research 2000-209916, NASA, Cleveland.
Center that since the early 1950s have dedicated their professional Dittmar, J. H., Woodward, R. P., and MacKinnon, M. J. (1984). “Fan noise
careers to improving the quality of life near the world’s airports reduction achieved by removing tip flow irregularities behind the rotor—
by developing technologies for reducing engine noise. What is often Forward arc test configuration.” Rep. TM–83616, NASA, Cleveland.
not obvious to the general public is the amount of time it takes to Dorsch, R. G., Krejsa, E. A., and Olsen, W. A. (1971). “Blown flap noise
conduct tests across multiple shifts over long periods of time research.” Rep. TM X–67850, NASA, Cleveland.
Dougherty, R. P., et al. (2010). “Locating and quantifying broadband
(months to years) without a break. The dedication of the test teams
sources using in-duct microphones.” Rep. TM—2010-216931, NASA,
comes with a sacrifice to their personal lives and families. The
Cleveland.
analytical work has attracted the finest theoreticians in the world to Elliott, D. M. (2010). “Acoustic performance of novel fan noise reduction
either work directly at the center or to visit the center to collaborate technologies for a high bypass model turbofan at simulated flight
on cutting edge research. Thanks also go to the academic and conditions.” Rep. TM—2010-215841, NASA, Cleveland.
industry partners who have helped NASA advance and utilize the Envia, E. (2002). “Fan noise source diagnostics test—Vane unsteady
state of the art technologies in their products. pressure results.” Rep. TM—2002-211808, NASA, Cleveland.
Envia, E., et al. (2012). “Fan noise prediction.” Chapter 5, Assessment of
NASA’s aircraft noise prediction capability, M. D. Dahl, ed., NASA,
References Cleveland, 137.
Envia, E., and Nallasamy, M. (1998). “Design selection and analysis of
Abdalla, K. L., and Yuska, J. A. (1975). “NASA REFAN program status.” a swept and leaned stator concept.” Rep. TM—1998-208662, NASA,
Rep. TM X–71705, NASA, Cleveland. Cleveland.
Beranek, L. (2008). “Bolt Beranek & Newman, the United Nations, Big Feiler, C. E., and Groeneweg, J. F. (1977). “Summary of forward velocity
Noise, and the Internet.” Chapter 5, Riding the waves, MIT Press, effects on fan noise.” Rep. TM–73722, NASA, Cleveland.
Cambridge, MA, 107–109. Felder, J. L., et al. (2011). “Turboelectic distributed propulsion in a hybrid
Bowles, M. D. (2010). “The ‘apollo’ of aeronautics, NASA’s aircraft energy wing body aircraft.” Rep. ISABE–2011–1340, American Institute of
efficiency program 1973–1987.” Rep. SP–2009–574, NASA, Wash- Aeronautics and Astronautics, Gothenburg, Sweden.
ington, DC. Fite, E. B. (2006). “Fan performance from duct rake instrumentation on
Bradley, M. K., and Droney, C. K. (2011). “Subsonic ultra green aircraft a 1.294 pressure ratio, 725 ft/sec tip speed turbofan simulator using vaned
research, Phase 1 final report.” Rep. CR–2011-216847, NASA, Hampton, passage casing treatment.” Rep. TM—2006-214241, NASA, Cleveland.
VA. German, J., et al. (1981). “Design and evaluation of an intregrated quiet clean
Bridges, J., and Brown, C. A. (2004). “Parametric testing of chevrons on
general aviation turbofan (QCGAT) engine and aircraft propulsion
single flow hot jets.” Rep. TM—2004-213107, NASA, Cleveland.
system.” Rep. CR–165185, NASA, Cleveland.
Bridges, J., and Wernet, M. (2004). “Measurements of aeroacoustic sound
Gliebe, P. R., and Janardan, B. A. (2003). “Ultra-high bypass engine aero-
source in hot jets.” Rep. TM—2004-212508, NASA, Cleveland.
acoustic study.” Rep. CR—2003-212525, NASA, Cleveland.
Bridges, J. E., et al. (2012). “Jet noise prediction.” Chapter 8, Assessment of
NASA’s aircraft noise prediction Capability, M. D. Dahl, ed., NASA, Goldstein, M. E. (1974). “Aeroacoustics.” Rep. SP–346, NASA, Cleveland.
Cleveland, 278–285. Greitzer, E. M., et al. (2010). “N13 aircraft concept designs and trade
Brown, C. A. (2008). “Scalability of localized arc filament plasma actua- studies, final report volumes 1 and 2.” Rep. CR—2010-216794, NASA,
tors.” Rep. TM—2008-215278, NASA, Cleveland. Hampton, VA.
Bruner, S., et al. (2010). “NASA N13 subsonic fixed wing silent efficient low- Groeneweg, J. F., et al. (1991). “Turbomachinery noise.” Acoustics of flight
emissions commercial transport (SELECT) vehicle study.” Rep. CR—2010- vehicles: Theory and practice, H. H. Hubbard, ed., Vol. 1, NASA,
216798, NASA, Hampton, VA. Hampton, VA, 166.
Burleson, C. E. (2007). “Aviation and the environment—Managing the Guynn, M. D., et al. (2011). “Refined exploration of turbofan design options
challenge of growth.” Fund. Aeronaut. Prog. Ann. Meet., NASA, New for an advanced single-aisle transport.” Rep. TM—2011-216883, NASA,
Orleans, 3. Hampton, VA.
Ciepluch, C. C. (1975). “A review of the QCSEE program.” Rep. TM X– Hager, R. D., and Vrabel, D. (1988). “Advanced turboprop project.” Rep.
71818, NASA, Cleveland. SP–495, NASA, Washington, DC.
Ciepluch, C. C., et al. (1958). “Acoustics, thrust, and drag characteristics of Hayden, R. E., et al. (1977). “Analysis and design of a high speed, low
several full scale noise suppressors for turbojet engines.” Rep. TN 4261, noise aircraft fan incorporating swept leading edge rotor and stator
NASA, Cleveland. blades.” Rep. CR–135092, NASA, Cleveland.
Coles, W. D. (1959). “Jet-engine exhaust noise from slot nozzles.” Rep. Heidelberg, L. J. (2002). “Fan noise source diagnostics test—Tone modal
TN–D–60, NASA, Cleveland. structure results.” Rep. TM—2002-211594, NASA, Cleveland.
Dahl, M., ed. (2000). “Third computational aeroacoustic (CAA) workshop Heidmann, M. F. (1979). “Interim prediction method for fan and compressor
on benchmark problems.” Rep. CP—2000-209790, NASA, Cleveland. source noise.” Rep. TM X–71763, NASA, Cleveland.
Dahl, M. D., ed. (2004). “Fourth computational aeroacoustics (CAA) workshop Henderson, B. (2010). “Fifty years of fluidic injection for jet noise re-
on benchmark problems.” Rep. CP—2004-212954, NASA, Cleveland. duction.” Int. J. of Aeroacoustics, 9(1–2), 91–122.
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Henderson, B. (2012). “Aeroacoustics of three-stream jets.” Rep. 2012– Rice, E. J. (1977). “Multimodal far-field acoustic radiation pattern—An
2159, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA. approximate equation.” Rep. TM–73721, NASA, Cleveland.
Hildenbrand, R., and Norgren, W. M. (1980). “AiResearch QCGAT pro- Sams, E. W., and Bresnahan, D. L. (1973). “REFAN program, Phase I—
gram final report.” Rep. CR–159758, NASA, Cleveland. Summary report.” Rep. TM X–71456, NASA, Cleveland.
Holcombe, V. (2003). “Aero-propulsion technology (APT), Task V low Saule, A. V. (1976). “Modal structure inferred from static engine far-field
noise ADP engine definition study.” Rep. CR—2003-212521, NASA, noise directivity.” Rep. TM X–71909, NASA, Cleveland.
Cleveland. Shovlin, M. D., and Cochrane, J. A. (1978). “An overview of the quiet short-
Howes, W. L., et al. (1957). “Near field noise of a jet-engine exhaust.” Rep. haul research aircraft program.” Rep. TM 78545, NASA, Moffett Field,
1338, NASA, Cleveland. CA.
Huff, D. L., and Gliebe, P. (2003). “Recent progress in engine noise re- Sokhey, J. S. (2012). “N12 low noise exhaust nozzle validation—RRLW
duction technologies.” Proc., 41st AIAA Aero. Sci. Meet., American mixer-ejector concept.” Proc., Fund. Aero. Prog. Conf., NASA,
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 63. Washington, DC, 5.
Huff, R. G., et al. (1974). “Interim prediction method for low frequency core Stitt, L. E. (1990). “Exhaust nozzles for propulsion systems with emphasis
engine noise.” Rep. TM X–71627, NASA, Cleveland. on supersonic cruise aircraft.” Rep. RP–1235, NASA, Cleveland.
Hughes, C. E., et al. (2005). “Fan noise source diagnostic test—Rotor alone Stone, J. (1974). “Interim prediction method for jet noise.” Rep. TM X–
aerodynamic performance results.” Rep. TM—2002-211681, NASA, 71618, NASA, Cleveland.
Cleveland. Stone, J. R. (1977). “An empirical model for inverted-velocity-profile jet
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). (2004). “ICAO/CAEP current noise prediction.” Rep. TM–73838, NASA, Cleveland.
activities on noise certification.” Noise Certification Workshop, Æhttp:// Stone, J. R., et al. (2009). “Jet noise modeling for supressed and unsupressed
legacy.icao.int/icao/en/atb/atbworkshops/2004/noisecertificationworkshop_ aircraft in simulated flight.” Rep. TM—2009-215524, NASA, Cleveland.
04/Presentations/BIP_5tc.pdfæ (Jul. 3, 2012). Sutliff, D. L. (2005). “Broadband noise reduction of a low-speed fan using
Jeracki, R. J. (2006). “Comprehensive report of fan performance from duct trailing edge blowing.” Rep. TM—2005-213814, NASA, Cleveland.
rake instrumentation on 1.294 pressure ratio, 806 ft/sec tip speed tur- Sutliff, D. L., et al. (2009). “Attenuation of FJ44 turbofan engine noise with
bofan simulator models.” Rep. TM—2006-213863, NASA, Cleveland. a foam-metal liner installed over the rotor.” Rep. TM—2009-215666,
Khavaran, A., et al. (2005). “Prediction of turbulence-generated noise NASA, Cleveland.
in unheated jets; part 1: JeNo technical manual (version 1.0).” Rep. Thomas, R. H., et al. (2010). “Hybrid wing body aircraft system noise
TM—2005-213827, NASA, Cleveland. assessment with propulsion airframe aeroacoustic experiments.” Rep.
Koenig, R. W., and Sievers, G. K. (1979). “Preliminary QCGAT program 2010–3913, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
test results.” Rep. TM–79013, NASA, Cleveland. Hampton, VA.
Kontos, K. B., et al. (1996). “Improved NASA–ANOPP noise prediction U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and
computer code for advanced subsonic propulsion systems.” Rep. CR– Control. (1974). “Information on levels of environmental noise requisite
195480, NASA, Cleveland. to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.”
Kramer, J. J., and Montegani, F. J. (1972). “The NASA quiet engine Rep. 550/9–74–004, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
program.” Rep. TM X–67988, NASA, Cleveland. DC.
Krejsa, E. A., and Valerino, M. F. (1976). “Interim prediction method for Vance, T. (1987). “NASA Ames Research Center—QSRA Research Air-
turbine noise.” Rep. TM X–73566, NASA, Cleveland. craft at NAS Moffett Field ’87.” Youtube, Æhttp://www.youtube.com/
Kumasaka, H. A., et al. (1996). “Definition of 1992 technology aircraft noise watch?v=_4QiW-ROJtgæ (Feb. 23, 2012).
levels and the methodology for addressing airplane noise impact of Weir, D. (2003). “Design and test of fan/nacelle models quiet high-speed fan.”
component noise reduction concepts.” Rep. CR–198298, NASA, Rep. CR–212370, NASA, Cleveland.
Hampton, VA. Weir, D. (2004). “Engine validation of noise reduction concepts—Separate
Lee, S. S., and Bridges, J. (2005). “Phased-array measurements of single flow nozzles.” Rep. 2004–0188, American Institute of Aeronautics and
flow hot jets.” Rep. TM—2005-213826, NASA, Cleveland. Astronautics, Reston, VA.
Lieber, L., et al. (1996). “Quiet high-speed fan.” Rep. CR–198518, NASA, Weir, D., ed. (2008). “Engine validation of noise and emission reduction
Cleveland. technology phase I.” Rep. CR—2008-215225, NASA, Cleveland.
Lighthill, M. J. (1952). “On sound generated aerodynamically. I. General Weir, D., Bouldin, B., and Mendoza, J. (2006). “Static and flight aero-
theory.” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci., 211(1107), 564–587. acoustic evaluations of a scarf inlet.” Rep. 2006–2462, American In-
Lighthill, M. J. (1954). “On sound generated aerodynamically. II. Turbu- stitute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA.
lence as a source of sound.” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci., 222 Weir, D., and Mendoza, J. (2005). “Static and flight aeroacoustic evaluations
(1148), 1–32. of a variable exhaust nozzle.” Rep. 2005–3049, American Institute of
Miles, J. H. (2008). “Spectral separation of the turbofan engine coherent Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA.
combustion noise component.” Rep. TM—2008-215157, NASA, Weir, D., and Podboy, G. (2005). “Flow measurements and multiple pure
Cleveland. tone noise from a forward swept fan.” Rep. 2005–1200, American In-
Nallasamy, M., and Envia, E. (2005). “Computation of rotor wake turbulence stitute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA.
noise.” J. Sound Vibrat., 282(3–5), 649–678. Woodward, R., et al. (1998). “Benefits of swept and leaned stators for fan
Ohio Aerospace Institute (OAI). (2008). “The challenge.” Aeroacoustic noise reduction.” Rep. TM—1998-208661, NASA, Cleveland.
Research Consortium, Æhttp://www.oai.org/aeroacoustics/challenge.htmlæ Woodward, R. P., et al. (2002). “Fan noise source diagnostic test—Far field
(Feb. 24, 2012). acoustic results.” Rep. TM—2002-211591, NASA, Cleveland.
Podboy, G. G., et al. (2003). “Fan noise source diagnostic test—LDV Woodward, R. P., et al. (2007). “Noise benefits of rotor trailing edge blowing
measured flow field results.” Rep. TM—2003-212330, NASA, Cleveland. for a model turbofan.” Rep. TM—2007-214666, NASA, Cleveland.
Repp, R., et al. (2003). “Design and test of a fan/nacelle models of a high- Woodward, R. P., and Hughes, C. E. (2005). “Noise benefits of increased fan
speed fan design.” Rep. CR—2003-212369, NASA, Cleveland. bypass nozzle area.” Rep. 2005–1201, American Institute of Aeronautics
Rice, E. J. (1976). “Acoustic liner optimum impedance for spinning modes and Astronautics, Reno, NV.
with mode cut-off ratio as a design criterion.” Rep. TM X–73411, NASA, Zaman, K. B. M. Q., et al. (2011). Evolution from ‘tabs’ to ‘chevron
Cleveland. technology’—A review, Vol. 10, Multi-Science, Brentwood, U.K.
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Huff 2013 NASA Glenn's Contributions To Engine Noise Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Huff 2013 NASA Glenn's Contributions To Engine Noise Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NASA Glenn’s Contributions to Aircraft

Engine Noise Research

218 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 219

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 1. Aircraft noise reduction trends

220 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Facilities and Measurement Methods

Altitude Wind Tunnel

Engine Test Stands

Large-Scale Fan Rig

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 221

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

222 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

nozzle temperature and pressure ratio and far-ﬁeld microphones to

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 223

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

and sometimes a powered core simulating the booster stage of the

224 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

expedited the transfer of technology to the industry. The NATR

AeroAcoustic Propulsion Laboratory Flight Test Aircraft

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 225

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

226 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 12. AeroAcoustic Propulsion Laboratory (photographs courtesy

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 227

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 14. Particle image velocimetry jet turbulence measurements

228 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

JeNo Jet Noise Prediction Code

Rotor Stator Interaction Fan Noise Code

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 229

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

230 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

compared predictions from the ANOPP and a code called LINFLUX,

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 231

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Quiet Engine Program

232 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 25. Quiet Short-Haul Research Aircraft (photograph courtesy of

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 233

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program

to work on ways to conserve fuel. The Aircraft Energy Efﬁciency

Advanced Turboprop Program

234 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 28. Single-rotation prop-fan: (a) SR–7A in a 9- 3 15-ft low-speed

High Speed Research Program Advanced Subsonic Technology Program

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 235

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

without sacriﬁcing performance (Gliebe and Janardan 2003; Dalton

236 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013.26:218-250.

Fig. 33. Advanced Ducted Propulsor fan test in 1995 (photograph