With the advent of low noise high bypass ratio turbofan engines airframe noise gained significant importance with respect to the overall aircraft noise impact around airports. Already around 1970 airframe noise, originating from flow around the landing gears and high-lift devices, was recognized as a potential “lower aircraft noise barrier” at approach and landing. Since then, the outcome of extensive acoustic flight tests and aeroacoustic wind tunnel experiments enabled a detailed description and ranking of the major airframe noise sources and the development of noise reduction means. In the last decade advances in numerical and experimental tools led to a better understanding of complex noise source mechanisms. Efficient noise reduction technologies were developed for landing gears while the benefits of high-lift noise reduction means were often compensated by a simultaneous degradation in aerodynamic performance. The focus of this paper is not on the historical sequence of airframe noise research but rather aims to provide a concise survey of the achievements in airframe noise source description and reduction over the last 40 years worldwide. Due to the vast amount of work focused on a variety of airframe noise problems, this review can only provide examples but does not claim to be complete.

Almost 40 Years of Airframe Noise Research: What Did We Achieve?

Localized arc filament plasma actuators are used to control an axisymmetric Mach 1.3 ideally expanded jet of 2.54 cm exit diameter and a Reynolds number based on the nozzle exit diameter of about 1.1×106. Measurements of growth and decay of perturbations seeded in the flow by the actuators, laser-based planar flow visualizations, and particle imaging velocimetry measurements are used to evaluate the effects of control. Eight actuators distributed azimuthally inside the nozzle, approximately 1 mm upstream of the nozzle exit, are used to force various azimuthal modes over a large frequency range (StDF of 0.13 to 1.3). The jet responded to the forcing over the entire range of frequencies, but the response was optimum (in terms of the development of large coherent structures and mixing enhancement) around the jet preferred Strouhal number of 0.33 (f = 5 kHz), in good agreement with the results in the literature for low-speed and low-Reynolds-number jets. The jet (with a thin boundary layer, D/θ ∼ 250) also responded to forcing with various azimuthal modes (m = 0 to 3 and m = ±1, ±2, ±4), again in agreement with instability analysis and experimental results in the literature for low-speed and low-Reynolds-number jets. Forcing the jet with the azimuthal mode m = ±1 at the jet preferred-mode frequency provided the maximum mixing enhancement, with a significant reduction in the jet potential core length and a significant increase in the jet centreline velocity decay rate beyond the end of the potential core.

Active control of high-speed and high-Reynolds-number jets using plasma actuators

http://absimage.aps.org/image/DFD05/MWS_DFD05-2005-000785.pdf

Active Control of High Speed and High Reynolds Number Jets via Plasma Actuators$^{\ast }$

longer time before decaying gradually. The saturation and decay of the seeded perturbations moved farther upstream as their Strouhal number was increased. Seeded perturbations with higher azimuthal modes exhibited faster decay. Particle image velocimetry results showed that when exciting the jet’s preferred-mode instability at lower azimuthal modes, the jet potential core was shortened and the turbulent kinetic energy was increased significantly. At higher Strouhal numbers and higher azimuthal modes, forcing had less of an impact on the mean velocity and turbulent kinetic energy. Far-field acoustic results showed a significant noise increase (2 to 4 dB) when thejetisexcitedaroundthejet’spreferred-modeinstabilityStrouhalnumber(StDF 0:2–0:5),inagreementwiththe results in the literature. Noise reduction of 0.5 to over 1.0 dB is observed over a large excitation Strouhal number range; this reduction seems to peak around StDF 1:5 to 2.0 at a 30-deg angle, but around StDF 3:0 to 3.5 at a 90deg angle. Although forcing the jet with higher azimuthal modes is advantageous for noise mitigation at a 30-deg angleandlowerStrouhalnumbers,theeffectisnotasclearathigherforcingStrouhalnumbersandata90-degangle.

Active Control of a Mach 0.9 Jet for Noise Mitigation Using Plasma Actuators

Aircraft noise reduction technologies: A bibliographic review

The impact of alternating fluidic core chevrons on the production of jet noise is investigated. Core nozzles for a representative 1/9th scale, bypass ratio 5 model system were manufactured with slots cut near the trailing edges to allow for air injection into the core and fan streams. The injectors followed an alternating pattern around the nozzle perimeter so that the injection alternated between injection into the core stream and injection into the fan stream. For the takeoff condition and a forward flight Mach number of 0.10, the overall sound pressure levels at the peak jet noise angle decrease with increasing injection pressure. Sound pressure levels increase for observation angles less than 110o at higher injection pressures due to increases in high frequency noise. Greater increases in high frequency noise are observed when the number of injectors increases from 8 to 12. When the forward flight Mach number is increased to 0.28, jet noise reduction (relative to the baseline) is observed at aft angles for increasing injection pressure while significant increases in jet noise are observed at forward observation angles due to substantial acoustic radiation at high frequencies. A comparison between inflow and alternating injectors shows that, for equal mass injection rates, the inflow nozzle produces greater low frequency noise reduction (relative to the baseline) than the alternating injectors at 90o and aft observation angles and a forward flight Mach number of 0.28. Preliminary computational fluid dynamic simulations indicate that the spatial decay rate of the hot potential core flow is less for the inflow nozzle than for the alternating nozzles which indicates that gentle mixing may be preferred over sever mixing when fluidic chevrons are used for jet noise reduction.

/pdf/impact-of-fluidic-chevrons-on-jet-noise-475525zv6m.pdf

Impact of Fluidic Chevrons on Jet Noise

Fluidic chevrons use injected air near the trailing edge of a nozzle to emulate mixing and jet noise reduction characteristics of mechanical chevrons. While previous investigations of "first generation" fluidic chevron nozzles showed only marginal improvements in effective perceived noise levels when compared to nozzles without injection, significant improvements in noise reduction characteristics were achieved through redesigned "second generation" nozzles on a bypass ratio 5 model system. The second-generation core nozzles had improved injection passage contours, external nozzle contour lines, and nozzle trailing edges. The new fluidic chevrons resulted in reduced overall sound pressure levels over that of the baseline nozzle for all observation angles. Injection ports with steep injection angles produced lower overall sound pressure levels than those produced by shallow injection angles. The reductions in overall sound pressure levels were the result of noise reductions at low frequencies. In contrast to the first-generation nozzles, only marginal increases in high frequency noise over that of the baseline nozzle were observed for the second-generation nozzles. The effective perceived noise levels of the new fluidic chevrons are shown to approach those of the core mechanical chevrons.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060018369/downloads/20060018369.pdf

Aeroacoustic Improvements to Fluidic Chevron Nozzles

The advances in aircraft engine noise reduction and the increasing demand for quieter aircraft has led noise research to focus more attention on airframe noise. Landing gears and high lift systems have been known to significantly contribute to the total aircraft noise at approach idle conditions, especially in cases where high by-pass ratio engines are used, when noise from the engines is low enough that it could be considered comparable or lower than the noise from the airframe. Landing gears in service on today’s aircraft were not designed with noise impact in mind and contain a myriad of possible noise generating features. Today’s landing gear designer is challenged to consider noise among many other factors when designing efficient aircraft landing gear systems. It is a challenge further complicated if noise reduction solutions are required for retro-fit applications. Much of the experimental noise research conducted on landing system noise has centered around the understanding of noise generating mechanisms and evaluation of noise reduction concepts in model-scale environments such as wind tunnel tests. These experiments have provided valuable insight into landing gear noise sources. However, little effort has been made to integrate noise reduction research with full-scale landing gear design and evaluate noise reduction potential in a full-scale flight environment. The work conducted under the Quiet Technology Demonstrator 2 (QTD2) program marks a first step in the successful integration of noise research with landing gear design with the focus being to design, implement and evaluate noise reduction solutions in a full-scale flight environment. This paper discusses the design and analysis of a ‘toboggan’ shaped main landing gear noise reduction fairing for full-scale flight evaluation on a B777-300ER aircraft in the QTD 2 program. The fairing was selected for flight evaluation after a series of model-scale wind tunnel acoustic experiments were conducted in conjunction with full-scale feasibility studies. The fairing design addressed issues such as gear kinematics and stowing, brake cooling, ground operations and noise reduction potential. The design was supported by static stress analysis and flutter analysis to ensure that the fairing was flight worthy.

Amal Abeysinghe

Papers

Impact of Fluidic Chevrons on Jet Noise

Aeroacoustic Improvements to Fluidic Chevron Nozzles

QTD 2 (Quiet Technology Demonstrator 2) Main Landing Gear Noise Reduction Fairing Design and Analysis