Fast Prediction of Full-Scale Helicopter Rotor Noise using

Acoustic Modal Analysis

Guowei Zhang∗ and Sumeet Kumar† and Ilkay Yavrucuk‡

Insitute of Helicopter Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich 80333, Germany

A state-of-the-art, rapid global rotor noise prediction method in the acoustic modal domain
has been established and verified. Given its potential for at least one order of magnitude faster
than the traditional Ffowc Williams-Hawkings equation solver, it is applied to predict the rotor
noise of a full-scale Bo 105 helicopter rotor with elastic blades to quantify the accuracy of this
method and the potential to conduct real-time noise prediction. The exact noise solutions of
the rotating blades in the frequency domain are converted into the acoustic modal domain,
where the modal coefficients are identified based on acoustic pressure results obtained using
a separate Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings equation solver. Preliminary analyses suggest that the
predicted noise results over a hemisphere space beneath the rotor plane are fairly accurate for
the investigated flight conditions - hover, low-speed forward, and high-speed forward flight.

I. Nomenclature

𝑝 = acoustic pressure
𝐶 = acoustic modal coefficients
r = spherical coordinate of observer
𝑟 = radius of the observer
𝜃 = elevation angle of the observer
𝜙 = azimuth angle of the observer
rs = spherical coordinate of blade sgement
𝑟𝑠 = radial distance of the blade segment
𝜃𝑠 = elevation angle of the blade segment
𝜔 = frequency of the noise
𝜔𝑅 = rotor rotation speed
𝜔0 = frequency of the source mode
𝜆 = the harmonic order of the source mode
𝑞 = mass source
f = force sources
𝑄 𝜆 , 𝑓𝑟 ,𝜆 , 𝑓 𝜙,𝜆 , 𝑓 𝜃 ,𝜆 = source modal coefficients of the mass source and force source
e𝑟 , e 𝜙 , e 𝜃 = unit vector in radial direction, circumferential direction and axial direction
𝛿 = Dirac delta function
𝑗𝑛 = Spherical Bessel function of the first kind

II. Introduction
otorcraft noise is a long-standing issue for public acceptance of rotorcraft and military stealth requirements.
R As rotorcraft increasingly demonstrates its potential in urban traffic, its noise attracts more and more researchers’
attention. Noise prediction is a powerful tool in assessing the impact of rotorcraft noise on urban environments, and it
allows for the evaluation of predicted noise to establish appropriate noise reduction measures.
There is substantial noise prediction research work in both the time and frequency domains. Farassat’s formulations
1 and 1A, proposed by Farassat [1], are widely used for noise prediction in the time domain. Brentner et al. [2] presented
∗ Master’s Student, Institute of Helicopter Technology, ge47siv@mytum.de.
† Graduate Research Assistant, Institute of Helicopter Technology, sumeet.kumar@tum.de
‡ Professor, Institute of Helicopter Technology, ilkay.yavrucuk@tum.de

1
the unique aspects of the development of an entirely new manoeuvre noise prediction code called PSU-WOPWOP,
which solved the Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings (FW-H) equation by Farassat’s formulations 1 and 1A to predict noise in
the time domain. In terms of the frequency domain method, Mao et al. [3] proposed discretizing the rotating blade of
the rotor into monopole and dipole point sound sources and predicting tonal thickness noise and loading noise based on
their exact noise solutions in the frequency domain. However, these time domain and frequency domain methods cannot
be used to conduct real-time noise prediction due to the high demand for computation costs.
Xu et al. [4] extended the exact noise solutions of the monopole and dipole point sources to the acoustic modal
domain, thereby proposing a rigid global rotor noise prediction method based on acoustic modes. The study presented
the impact of the free stream on rotor noise acoustic characteristics for a single rigid drone rotor with rigid blades
at different forward flight speeds within the acoustic modal domain. It reflected the analysis capabilities in terms of
the acoustic characteristics of the rotor noise. Moreover, as this method globally predicts noise in the acoustic modal
domain and is independent of the observer, it has considerable potential to conduct real-time noise prediction while
keeping fairly good noise prediction accuracy. However, this rapid modal domain rotor noise prediction model has not
yet been applied to full-scale helicopter rotor noise prediction and did not account for the elastic deformation of the
blade. Given that elastic deformation of the blades affects aerodynamic loading and blade geometry and so affects the
noise, it appears necessary to include this effect.
The study applies this rapid acoustic modal analysis method to predict the rotor noise of a full-scale helicopter rotor
with elastic blades and account for the effect of the elastic deformation on the aerodynamic loading. This investigation
will systematically quantify the accuracy of this method for such large rotors exhibiting blade deformation. The acoustic
modal analysis framework is particularly lucrative given its potential for rapid prediction of rotor noise, which can be
at least an order of magnitude faster than the more traditional FW-H equation-based solvers. The current study also
explores its potential for application in real-time noise prediction by systematically comparing and quantifying the speed
of execution of the current framework.

III. Modeling Approach

This study uses two different rotor noise prediction models, the acoustic modal analysis model, and PSU-WOPWOP,
to predict the noise of an isolated Bo 105 rotor with elastic blades. The rotor details are given in Table 1. The model of
the rotor is shown in Fig. 1. The framework of the new acoustic modal analysis model in Ref. [4] is established and
investigated. The acoustic analysis code PSU-WOPWOP in Ref. [2], a time domain noise prediction model, is used as
the reference to assess the accuracy of the acoustic modal analysis model and its advantage in saving computational
costs.

Table 1 Details of Bo 105 rotor

Rotor type Hingeless

𝑁𝑏 4
Airfoil NACA23012
𝜎 0.07
𝑅 4.912 m
Ω 44.505 Rad/s
𝜇 [0, 0.15, 0.3]

A. Acoustic Modal Analysis Model

An acoustic mode describes the components of the rotor noise, while the source mode describes the components of
the rotor sound source. This model establishes a comprehensive relationship between these two modes and further
extends into the acoustic modal domain. Then, the acoustic modal coefficients for all acoustic modes generated by the
monopole point source and the dipole point source are obtained. The calculation of the rotor noise is based on the

2
 Z

Y
X

X
Y

(a) Full-scale rotor in the wind tunnel (b) Blade with discretised panels (c) Rotor with discretised panel loads

Fig. 1 Bo 105 rotor and discretised models used in this study.

acoustic modal expansion form Ref. [5], which is given by Eq. 1.

∞
∑︁ 𝑛
∑︁
𝑝(r, 𝑘) = ℎ 𝑛(1) (𝑘𝑟) 𝐶𝑚,𝑛 (𝑘)𝑌𝑛𝑚 (𝜃, 𝜙) (1)
𝑛=0 𝑚=−𝑛

where 𝐶𝑚,𝑛 (𝑘) is the acoustic modal coefficient of the acoustic mode (𝑚, 𝑛), which is dependent on wave number 𝑘.
𝑚, 𝑛 is the order and degree of the acoustic mode, respectively. ℎ 𝑛(1) (𝑘𝑟) is the spherical Hankel function of the first kind,
which describes the amplitude variation of acoustic mode in radius. 𝑌𝑛𝑚 (𝜃, 𝜙) are the spherical harmonics describing
the acoustic modes as a function of azimuth angle and elevation angle, shown in Fig. 2. The form of the acoustic mode
functions ℎ 𝑛(1) (𝑘𝑟) and 𝑌𝑛𝑚 (𝜃, 𝜙) is known a priori. Therefore, the noise at a given location can be obtained once the
acoustic modal coefficient 𝐶𝑚,𝑛 (𝑘) is determined.
The source modal coefficients 𝑄 𝜆 , 𝑓𝑟 ,𝜆 , 𝑓 𝜙,𝜆 , 𝑓 𝜃 ,𝜆 in Eqs. 4 and 5 are described using Eqs. 2 and 3. Due to the
periodic rotation of the rotor, the source strength is also periodic. So, the sources can be expressed by Fourier series and
the source modal coefficients for 𝜆 source mode.
∞
∑︁
𝑞 (r𝑠 (𝑡), 𝑡) = 𝑄 𝜆 𝑒 −𝑖𝜆𝜔𝑅 𝑡 (2)
𝜆=−∞

∞
∑︁
𝑓𝑟 ,𝜆 e𝑟 + 𝑓 𝜃 ,𝜆 e 𝜃 + 𝑓 𝜙,𝜆 e 𝜙 𝑒 −𝑖𝜆𝜔𝑅 𝑡


f (r𝑠 (𝑡), 𝑡) = (3)
𝜆=−∞

The acoustic modal coefficients, which make up the coefficient matrix 𝐶 (𝑘), are calculated from the point sources of
the blades. Each blade of the rotor is discretised into several small segments, where each segment contributes both a
monopole and a dipole point source of noise. The dipole and monopole point sources undergo a corresponding periodic
rotation due to the rotor blade’s periodic rotation. The exact frequency domain solution of the noise generated by the
rotating monopole is extended into the acoustic modal domain. This extension is achieved through the application of the
free space Green function. The acoustic modal coefficient generated corresponding to a rotating monopole noise source
is described in Eq. 4. The superscript "*" is the conjugate operator and 𝜙0 is the initial azimuth angle of the first blade
of the rotor.
𝑀
𝐶𝑚,𝑛 = 𝛿 (𝜔 − 𝑚𝜔 𝑅 − 𝜔0 ) 𝑖𝑘𝑄 𝜆 𝑗 𝑛 (𝑘𝑟 𝑠 ) 𝑌𝑛𝑚 (𝜃 𝑠 , 𝜙0 ) ∗ (4)
The acoustic modal coefficient describing the noise generated by a rotating dipole is given by Eq. 5, which is obtained
by applying the Gradient of Green’s function.

3
 Fig. 2 Spatial directivity of acoustic modes

𝐷
𝐶𝑚,𝑛 =𝛿 (𝜔 − 𝑚𝜔 𝑅 − 𝜔0 )
 
1 1
− 𝑘𝑚 csc (𝜃 𝑠 ) 𝑓 𝜙,𝜆 + 𝑖𝑘 (𝑛 + 1) cot (𝜃 𝑠 ) 𝑓 𝜃 ,𝜆 𝑗 𝑛 (𝑘𝑟 𝑠 ) 𝑌𝑛𝑚 (𝜃 𝑠 , 𝜙0 ) ∗
𝑟𝑠 𝑟𝑠
𝑛
− 𝑖𝑘 2 𝑓𝑟 ,𝜆 𝑗 𝑛−1 (𝑘𝑟 𝑠 ) 𝑌𝑛𝑚 (𝜃 𝑠 , 𝜙0 ) ∗
2𝑛 + 1 (5)
𝑛+1
+ 𝑖𝑘 2 𝑓𝑟 ,𝑖 𝑗 𝑛+1 (𝑘𝑟 𝑠 ) 𝑌𝑛𝑚 (𝜃 𝑠 , 𝜙0 ) ∗
2𝑛 + 1 )
√︂
1 (2𝑛 + 1) (𝑛 + 1 + 𝑚) (𝑛 + 1 − 𝑚) 𝑚 ∗
− 𝑖𝑘 csc (𝜃 𝑠 ) 𝑓 𝜃 , 𝑗 (𝑘𝑟 𝑠 ) 𝑌𝑛+1 (𝜃 𝑠 , 𝜙0 )
𝑟𝑠 2𝑛 + 3
The summation of the acoustic modal coefficients for one acoustic mode (𝑚, 𝑛) of all monopoles and dipoles, i.e. all
discretized blade segments, is the overall acoustic modal coefficient 𝐶𝑚,𝑛 (𝑘) for acoustic mode (𝑚, 𝑛) at a given wave
number 𝑘.

B. FW-H Acoustic Analysis Solver

PSU-WOPWOP was used as the solver for obtaining rotor noise using the FW-H equation. This solver was developed
at Pennsylvania State University by Prof. Kenneth Brentner, and it is used as a reference to assess the accuracy of the
modal domain acoustic analysis model.
Theoretically, the Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings(FW-H) equation (Eq. 6) solves the reformulated continuity and
Navier-Stokes equations using generalized functions for arbitrarily moving surfaces [6] to give the acoustic pressure
generated by it. This formulation allows for the sources of sound to be divided into three categories: monopole, dipole,
and quadrupole.

4
 1 𝜕2 𝑝′ 2 ′ 𝜕 𝜕 𝜕¯ 2  
2 2
− ∇ 𝑝 = [𝜌 𝑜 𝑣 𝑛 𝛿( 𝑓 )] − [𝑙 𝑖 𝛿( 𝑓 )] + 𝑇𝑖 𝑗 𝐻 ( 𝑓 ) (6)
𝑐 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝑥 𝑗
| {z } | {z } | {z }
monopole source term dipole source term quadrupole source term

Farassat’s Formulation 1A - Flexible (Eq. 7) is a solution to the FW-H equation. It is adapted from Farassat’s Formulation
1A and includes the effect of elastic deformation of the moving surface. Here, the quadrupole source term is dropped
because, for subsonic noise generation, the monopole and dipole are the most dominant, and volume integrals are
computationally expensive. Based on this formulation, for Mach numbers below 0.9, the FW-H-based PSU-WOPWOP
framework can predict the rotor noise fairly accurately [7].
∫ " #
𝜌0 𝑈¤ 𝑛 + 𝑈𝑛 𝜌0𝑈𝑛 𝑟 𝑀¤ 𝑟 + 𝑐 𝑀𝑟 − 𝑀 2



′ 𝜌 𝑈
+ 𝐽¤
0 𝑛
4𝜋 𝑝 (x, 𝑡) = 𝐽 −𝐽 𝑑𝑢 1 𝑑𝑢 2 +
Ω 𝑟 |1 − 𝑀𝑟 | 2 𝑟 2 |1 − 𝑀𝑟 | 3 𝑟 |1 − 𝑀𝑟 | 2 ret
| {z }
monopole source term (thickness noise)
(7)
𝐿¤ 𝑟 𝐿 𝑟 𝑐𝑀 2 − 𝑟 𝐿 𝑟 𝑀¤ 𝑟
∫  
1 −𝑐𝐿 𝑀 + 𝑈𝑟 𝐿 𝑟 𝐿𝑟
𝐽 +𝐽 +𝐽 + 𝐽¤ 𝑑𝑢 1 𝑑𝑢 2
𝑐 Ω 𝑟 |1 − 𝑀𝑟 | 2 𝑟 2 |1 − 𝑀𝑟 | 2 𝑟 2 |1 − 𝑀𝑟 | 3 𝑟 |1 − 𝑀𝑟 | 2 ret
| {z }
dipole source term (loading noise)

IV. Verification of acoustic modal analysis framework

In the current study, the acoustic modal analysis framework of Ref. [4] has been implemented in Python programming
language using Numba compiler to achieve fast code execution. The implemented framework was verified by using the
case detailed in Ref. [4], eHANG Ghost Drone 3.0 (eHANG proprietary). This rotor is a drone rotor with rigid blades,

Fig. 3 eHANG rotor used in the experimental study of Ref. [4].

(a) 𝑞 from current study (b) 𝑞 from Ref. [4]

Fig. 4 Mass source distribution over one rotor revolution

shown in Fig. 3, and a radius of 0.103 m. The distribution of pitch angle and chord length with radius can be found in
Ref. [8]. A number of different flight conditions were used in Ref. [4], but only the 10 m/s forward flight case, at an

5
 (a) 𝑓𝑟 (b) 𝑓 𝜙 (c) 𝑓 𝜃

Fig. 5 Force sources distribution in one rotor revolution from current study

(a) 𝑓𝑟 (b) 𝑓 𝜙 (c) 𝑓 𝜃

Fig. 6 Force sources distribution in one rotor revolution from Ref. [4]

angle of attack of the rotor disk of 10°, is used currently for verification purposes. The rotation speed of the rotor is
7000 RPM.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of mass source 𝑞 over one rotor revolution. Figures 5 and 6 show the distribution of
radial force 𝑓𝑟 , circumferential force 𝑓 𝜙 and axial force 𝑓 𝜃 over one rotor revolution. The distribution of four sound
sources from the current acoustic modal analysis framework is consistent with the distribution of sources from Ref. [4].
For the mass source, the increase of the blade thickness and inflow velocity towards the radial direction results in the
growth of the mass source towards the radial direction. Due to the freestream in the forward flight, the inflow velocity
on the advancing side blade is higher than that on the retreating side blade, so the mass source on the advancing side
is higher than the mass source on the retreating side. The distribution of the force sources is more complicated. The
growth of the aerodynamic loading on the advancing side and the decrease of it on the retreating side form the non-zero
order source modal components.
Figure 7 matches Fig. 8, which means the source modal coefficients are obtained correctly. Figure 9 shows the
comparison of acoustic modal coefficients, 𝐶, between the current framework and Ref. [4]. It is clear that the acoustic
mode components and the components’ amplitude in Fig. 9a match the results in Fig. 9b. The dominant components
are 𝐶1,1 and 𝐶0,1 . Figure 10 shows the noise prediction results calculated from the current framework are consistent
with the predicted and experimental results from Ref. [4], including directivity and the magnitude of the noise. The
small differences between the two simulation results can be attributed to different calculation methods for SPL (sound
pressure level) between this framework and Ref. [4].
Figures 4 - 6 show that the distribution of the four sound sources is correct. Figures 7 - 9 show that the source and
acoustic modal coefficients are calculated correctly. Figure 10 revealed the noise prediction results from the current
framework are consistent with those from Ref. [4]. So, based on the above, it can be concluded that the current acoustic
modal analysis framework used in this study is verified as correct.

6
 (a) 𝑞 (b) 𝑓 𝜙 (c) 𝑓 𝜃

Fig. 7 Source modal coefficients of mass source 𝑞, circumferential force 𝑓 𝜙 and axial force 𝑓 𝜃 from current study

(a) 𝑞 (b) 𝑓 𝜙 (c) 𝑓 𝜃

Fig. 8 Source modal coefficients of mass source 𝑞, circumferential force 𝑓 𝜙 and axial force 𝑓 𝜃 from Ref. [4]

V. Preliminary Results and Discussion

The acoustic modal analysis model predicts noise through two primary components: out-of-plane noise and in-plane
noise. Out-of-plane noise is primarily emitted by the out-of-plane point source denoted as 𝑓 𝜃 , while in-plane noise
originates from in-plane point sources 𝑞, 𝑓𝑟 , 𝑓 𝜙 . Similarly, the PSU-WOPWOP model also categorizes noise into two
types: loading noise and thickness noise. While the terminologies differ between the two models, there are notable
similarities in the types of noise they describe. The out-of-plane noise in the modal analysis model can be closely related
to the loading noise in the PSU-WOPWOP model. Likewise, the in-plane noise in the modal analysis model bears a
resemblance to the thickness noise in the PSU-WOPWOP model. Therefore, this study compares the out-of-plane
noise with the loading noise and the in-plane noise with the thickness noise. This comparative approach will provide
a deeper understanding of the characteristics and predictions of the acoustic modal analysis model. The operational
flight condition of the full-scale Bo 105 rotor is characterized by a forward velocity of 22.27 m/s directed along the
negative X-axis. The rotor turns counterclockwise rotational motion at Ω = 44.505 Rad/s. Figure 11 illustrates the
results predicted by the current acoustic modal analysis framework on a spherical surface 50 meters away from the hub
of the rotor. Figure 12 presents corresponding results from the PSU-WOPWOP analysis, and Fig. 13 shows the absolute
difference in noise between them. In Fig. 11a, the acoustic modal model accurately predicts the directivity of the rotor
noise, which is clearly shown in the direction of the flight, towards the X-axis negative, where the magnitude of the
noise is markedly large. Figure 12a also shows the same noise directivity towards the X-axis negative. The prediction
error of the acoustic modal analysis model is shown in Fig. 13. In Fig. 13a, the acoustic modal analysis model has only
minor differences in flight direction; the maximum is less than 2 dB, and in some parts, the noise prediction error is
close to 0 dB. This means the acoustic modal analysis model can quickly predict the noise directivity in forward flight
with remarkably high accuracy. The noise beneath the advancing side of the rotor has the same high magnitude as in
the flight direction due to the large aerodynamic loading acting on the blade on this side, in Figs. 11a, 12a and 13a,
this phenomenon is clearly shown, and the prediction results of the modal analysis model are quite accurate, with a
maximum error smaller than 2 dB. So, the acoustic modal analysis model also shows a promising capability in predicting
noise on the advancing side.

7
 (a) C-matrix from current study (b) C-matrix from Ref. [4]

Fig. 9 Acoustic modal coefficients C for the first blade passing frequency.

In Figs. 13a and 13b, there is a small region where the prediction error reaches 10 dB. Figures 11a and 11b show
that the predicted noise in this region is small. The reason behind that is that the axial force 𝑓 𝜃 becomes minor when the
blade rotates over this region, so the noise it radiates becomes small. The reason for the similar large prediction error in
Fig. 13c is the same. The in-plane sources also become small when blades rotate over that small region.
The prediction accuracy declines in the region of the retreating side of the rotor and behind the rotor, where the
prediction error ranges from 4 - 10 dB on the retreating side, and the maximum error occurs on the rotor plane behind
the rotor, which is slightly higher than 10 dB. However, the predicted noise error is around 6.5 dB in most areas behind
the rotor. The acoustic modal analysis model error goes up in the retreating region and behind the rotor, and this is
going to be a subject of further investigation.
In this forward flight of the full-scale Bo 105 rotor, the out-of-plane source, like axial force source 𝑓 𝜃 is much larger
than other sound sources, such as mass source 𝑞, radial force source 𝑓𝑟 , and circumferential force source 𝑓 𝜙 . This is
the reason why the noise in the rotor plane is lowest in Figs. 11a and 12a. The in-plane noise and thickness noise are
dominated by in-plane sources, while the out-of-plane noise and the loading noise are predominantly due to out-of-plane
sources. In the two models, the pattern of out-of-plane noise in the acoustic modal analysis and the loading noise in
PSU-WOPWOP dominate the total noise pattern. This is because the in-plane noise and thickness noise almost have no
contributions for the areas far away from the rotor plane, so the out-of-plane noise and loading noise are dominant.
Even though the in-plane noise and thickness noise are higher for the areas near the rotor plane, their magnitude is
still small compared to the out-of-plane noise and loading noise due to the large difference between the sound sources
radiating them. Figures 11c and 12c show the in-plane noise and thickness noise, where the noise directivity is obvious
in the flight direction. In the interest of conciseness, corresponding results of the noise pattern comparison from hover
and high-speed forward flight cases are not shown here but will be included in the full paper.
Figure 14 shows the acoustic pressure signals obtained using the acoustic modal analysis model and PSU-WOPWOP
in three different flight conditions - hover, low-speed forward flight, and high-speed forward flight - in the rotor plane.
The predicted noise signal matches the corresponding noise signal fairly well in all three cases. For the hover in Fig. 14a,
the amplitude of the predicted result matches the corresponding result, but the phase deviates slightly. The reason for
the deviation of the phase is that the acoustic modes deployed in hover noise prediction are few, which can be analyzed
by Eq. 1. The small number of acoustic modes deployed does not influence the amplitude of the noise signal because
the acoustic pressure is the multiplication of the acoustic modal coefficients 𝐶 with the acoustic mode, but may lead
to the phase deviation due to the phase is mainly determined by the summation of all acoustic modes. Figure 14b
shows the phase and amplitude of the predicted noise signal are accurate enough. In Fig. 14c, high-speed forward
flight, the amplitude of the predicted signal is smaller than the corresponding signal because the aerodynamic loading in
high-speed flight is much more severe, and so the elastic deformation of the blade is much stronger than in the low-speed
The acoustic modal analysis includes the impact of aerodynamic loading change caused by elastic deformation of the
blade but does not account for the elastic displacement of the blade. Efforts will be made in order to inroporate the
effect of the elastic displacement of the blade and further results will be included in the full paper.

8
 Predicted noise from the current framework
Predicted noise from
90° Ref. [4]
Experimental noise from Ref. [4]

135° 45°

90
80
70
60
50
180° 40 0°

225° 315°
SPL(dB)
270°

(a) Schematic diagram of experimental measurement (b) Verification of the noise prediction results

Fig. 10 Details of the experimental measurement and verify the predicted noise results of acoustic modal
analysis framework by comparing results with Ref. [4]

(a) Total noise pattern SPL (dB) (b) Out-of-plane noise pattern SPL (dB) (c) In-plane noise pattern SPL (dB)

Fig. 11 Predicted noise pattern over a hemisphere beneath rotor plane from the current acoustic modal analysis
framework

(a) Total noise pattern SPL (dB) (b) Loading noise pattern SPL (dB) (c) Thickness noise pattern (dB)

Fig. 12 Noise pattern over a hemisphere beneath rotor plane from the PSU-WOPWOP

9
(a) Pattern difference of total noise pat- (b) Pattern difference between out-of- (c) Pattern difference between in-plane
tern SPL (dB) plane and loading noise SPL (dB) and thickness noise SPL (dB)

Fig. 13 The noise pattern difference between the current acoustic modal analysis framework and PSU-WOPWOP

Acoustic pressure (Pa) Acoustic pressure (Pa)

0.64 0.51
Modal Analysis PSU-WOPWOP Modal Analysis PSU-WOPWOP

0.15 0.17

−0.34 −0.17

−0.83 −0.51
0.00 0.05 0.10 Time (s) 0.00 0.05 0.10 Time (s)
(a) Noise signal in hover (b) Noise signal in low-speed forward flight
Acoustic pressure (Pa)
0.29
Modal Analysis PSU-WOPWOP

0.09

−0.11

−0.31
0.00 0.05 0.10 Time (s)
(c) Noise signal in high-speed forward flight

Fig. 14 Predicted rotor noise on the rotor plane for three flight conditions (x=50m;y=0;z=0). (a) is hover, (b) is
low-speed forward flight, flight speed is 22.27 m/s, (c) is high-speed forward flight, flight speed is 66.11 m/s.

VI. Conclusions and Outlook

A novel fast global rotor acoustic modal analysis model is applied to predict the noise of a full-scale Bo 105 rotor in
three flight conditions. The objective of this study is twofold. First, to quantify the accuracy of acoustic modal analysis
to predict the noise of a full-scale helicopter rotor with elastic blades. The second objective is to quantify the potential
of this analysis framework to conduct real-time noise prediction. Based on the results obtained so far, the following
preliminary conclusions can be drawn:

10
 1. The acoustic modal analysis framework has been mathematically verified and coded in Python. This Python
framework was verified using rotor data from the authors of Ref. [4], and detailed results have been presented above.
2. Acoustic analysis data from a PSU-WOPWOP model of the full-scale Bo 105 rotor has been used as a reference
to obtain the acoustic modal coefficients. The predicted sound pressure level is compared against corresponding results
from PSU-WOPWOP, and the comparison is fair. The comparison is shown in Figs. 11 - 13. The prediction error is
lower than 2 dB in the region with dominant noise. The maximum global error is about 10 dB in some regions and
would be the subject of further investigation.
3. Acoustic pressure curves are obtained to compare with the corresponding results from PSU-WOPWOP, which are
shown in Fig. 14. The predicted acoustic pressure curves match the corresponding curves. The phase and amplitude
of the predicted curve match well in low-speed forward flight. The amplitude of the predicted curve is slightly lower
than the corresponding curve in high-speed forward flight. This is likely due to the lack of blade elastic displacement
modelling currently in the acoustic modal analysis framework. Fewer acoustic modes deployed in hover cause a slight
deviation of the phase, but the amplitude is not affected.
The scope of this study will be expanded to include the following in the full paper:
1. Currently, the sound source terms in the acoustic modal analysis are evaluated assuming that the source, i.e.
the blades, lie within a plane. In reality, rotor blades undergo complex motion due to elastic deformation and do not
necessarily lie in a plane. While accounting for the exact blade motion in evaluating the mass source terms could render
the model too complex, efforts will be made to include the first modes of blade elastic displacement to improve the
model’s overall accuracy.
2. The proposed acoustic modal analysis framework is attractive for fast noise prediction without significantly
compromising the accuracy of the prediction. The method scales very well with the number of rotors involved. Once a
set of modal coefficients for a given rotor is identified, this framework can be used to predict rotor noise for any number
of such rotors distributed in space as long as there are no rotor-rotor aerodynamic interactions. Meticulously quantifying
this anticipated speed-up for non-interacting multi-rotor set-ups would be one of the main objectives of the full paper.
3. The potential of this acoustic modal analysis model in conducting real-time noise prediction has not yet been
investigated. The proposed model is very promising for usage as an objective function, for e.g., within flight-path
guidance strategies. For this purpose, it is imperative that the speed of execution of the framework, especially when the
number of observers involved is large, is quantified. This would be the subject of further investigation in the full paper.

VII. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Professor Lu Yang and PhD candidate Xu Xice of Nanjing University of Aeronautics
and Astronautics for sharing data relevant to the eHang rotor study as well as clarifying our questions related to the
model. The second author would like to gratefully acknowledge funding received within the LuFo VI-2 program of the
German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action under grant number 20E2108A.

References
[1] Farassat, F., “Derivation of Formulations 1 and 1A of Farassat,” Tech. rep., 2007.

[2] Brentner, K. S., Bres, G. A., Perez, G., and Jones, H. E., “Maneuvering rotorcraft noise prediction: A new code for a new
problem,” Ahs aerodynamics, acoustics and test evaluation specialist meeting, 2002.

[3] Mao, Y., Xu, C., and Qi, D., “Frequency-domain model of tonal blade thickness and loading noise,” The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, Vol. 135, No. 1, 2014, pp. 93–103.

[4] Xu, X., Lu, Y., Lu, J., and Shao, M., “Modal analysis of the influence of freestream on global rotor noise,” Journal of Sound and
Vibration, Vol. 555, 2023, p. 117715.

11
[5] Xu, X., Lu, Y., Ma, J., and Shao, M., “A global rotor noise control method based on near-field acoustic holography and sound
field reproduction,” Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 124, 2022, p. 107549.

[6] Williams, J. F., and Hawkings, D. L., “Sound generation by turbulence and surfaces in arbitrary motion,” Philosophical
Transactions for the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 1969, pp. 321–342.

[7] Hubbard, H. H., “Aeroacoustics of flight vehicles: Theory and practice. volume 1. noise sources,” NASA reference publication,
Vol. 1258, 1991.

[8] Yang, Y., Liu, Y., Li, Y., Arcondoulis, E., and Wang, Y., “Aerodynamic and aeroacoustic performance of an isolated multicopter
rotor during forward flight,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 58, No. 3, 2020, pp. 1171–1181.

12