Scalability of Mach Number Effects on Noise Emitted by Side-by-Side Propellers
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper presents a numerical investigation of noise radiated by two side-by-side propellers, suitable for Distributed-Electric-Propulsion concepts. The focus is on the assessment of the variation of the effects of blade tip Mach number on the radiated noise for variations of the direction of rotation, hub relative position, and the relative phase angle between the propeller blades. The aerodynamic analysis is performed through a potential-flow-based boundary integral formulation, which is able to model severe body–wake interactions.The noise field is evaluated through a boundary-integral formulation for the solution of the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings equation. The numerical investigation shows that: the blade tip Mach number strongly affects the magnitude and directivity of the radiated noise; the increase of the tip-clearance increases the spatial frequency of the noise directivity at the two analyzed tip Mach numbers for both co-rotating and counter-rotating configurations; for counter-rotating propellers, the relative phase angle between the propeller blades provides a decrease of the averaged emitted noise, regardless the tip Mach number. One of the main results achieved is the scalability with the blade tip Mach number of the influence on the emitted noise of the considered design parameters.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Aerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows · Acoustic Wave Phenomena Research · Vehicle Noise and Vibration Control
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Engineering, Università Roma Tre, 00146 Rome, Italy
Funding
European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under project VENUS (inVestigation of distributEd propulsion Noise and its mitigation through wind tUnnel experiments and numerical Simulations)
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. EC (2011). Flightpath 2050, Europe’s Vision for Aviation, European Commission. Technical Report.
2. Kim, H.D., Perry, A.T., and Ansell, P.J. (2018, January 12–14). A review of distributed electric propulsion concepts for air vehicle technology. Proceedings of the 2018 AIAA/IEEE Electric Aircraft Technologies Symposium (EATS), Cincinnati, OH, USA.10.2514/6.2018-4998 ↗
3. Aref, P., Ghoreyshi, M., Jirasek, A., Satchell, M.J., and Bergeron, K. (2018). Computational study of propeller–wing aerodynamic interaction. Aerospace, 5.10.3390/aerospace5030079 ↗
4. Poggi, C., Bernardini, G., and Gennaretti, M. (2021, January 2–6). Aeroacoustic analysis of wing-mounted propeller arrays. Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation 2021 Forum, Virtual.10.2514/6.2021-2236 ↗
5. Borer, N.K., Patterson, M.D., Viken, J.K., Moore, M.D., Bevirt, J., Stoll, A.M., and Gibson, A.R. (2016, January 13–17). Design and performance of the NASA SCEPTOR distributed electric propulsion flight demonstrator. Proceedings of the 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Washington, DC, USA.10.2514/6.2016-3920 ↗
6. Hermetz, J., Ridel, M., and Doll, C. (2016, January 25–30). Distributed electric propulsion for small business aircraft a concept-plane for key-technologies investigations. Proceedings of the ICAS 2016, Daejeon, Korea.
7. Deere, K.A., Viken, J.K., Viken, S., Carter, M.B., Wiese, M., and Farr, N. (2017, January 5–9). Computational analysis of a wing designed for the X-57 distributed electric propulsion aircraft. Proceedings of the September of the 35th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Denver, CO, USA.10.2514/6.2017-3923 ↗
8. Takeoff and Performance Trade-Offs of Retrofit Distributed Electric Propulsion for Urban Transport10.2514/1.C035321 ↗
9. Rizzi, S.A., Palumbo, D.L., Rathsam, J., Christian, A.W., and Rafaelof, M. (2017, January 5–9). Annoyance to noise produced by a distributed electric propulsion high-lift system. Proceedings of the 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Denver, CO, USA.10.2514/6.2017-4050 ↗
10. Synodinos, A., Self, R., and Torija Martinez, A. (2017, January 23–27). Noise assessment of aircraft with distributed electric propulsion using a new noise estimation framework. Proceedings of the 24th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, ICSV 2017, London, UK.
11. Bernardini, G., Centracchio, F., Gennaretti, M., Iemma, U., Pasquali, C., Poggi, C., Rossetti, M., and Serafini, J. (2020). Numerical Characterisation of the Aeroacoustic Signature of Propeller Arrays for Distributed Electric Propulsion. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10082643 ↗
12. Computational simulation and analysis of bell boeing quad tiltrotor aero interaction10.4050/JAHS.54.042002 ↗
13. Rotor interactional effects on aerodynamic and noise characteristics of a small multirotor unmanned aerial vehicle10.1063/5.0003992 ↗
14. Alvarez, E., Schenk, A., Critchfield, T., and Ning, A. (J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 2020). Rotor-on-Rotor Aeroacoustic Interactions of Multirotor in Hover, J. Am. Helicopter Soc., in review.10.4050/F-0076-2020-16489 ↗
15. Multirotor drone noise at static thrust10.2514/1.J056827 ↗
16. Thai, A.D., De Paola, E., Di Marco, A., Stoica, L.G., Camussi, R., Tron, R., and Grace, S.M. (2021). Experimental and Computational Aeroacoustic Investigation of Small Rotor Interactions in Hover. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app112110016 ↗
17. Tonal noise characteristics of two small-scale propellers
18. Surrogate models for predicting noise emission and aerodynamic performance of propellers10.1016/j.ast.2021.107016 ↗
19. Propeller installation effects on turboprop aircraft acoustics10.1016/j.jsv.2018.03.003 ↗
20. Marcus, E.A., de Vries, R., Raju Kulkarni, A., and Veldhuis, L.L. (2018, January 8–12). Aerodynamic investigation of an over-the-wing propeller for distributed propulsion. Proceedings of the 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, FL, USA.10.2514/6.2018-2053 ↗
21. Wingtip-mounted propellers: Aerodynamic analysis of interaction effects and comparison with conventional layout10.2514/1.C034978 ↗
22. Techniques for adaptive metamodelling of propeller arrays far-field noise10.3397/IN-2021-2203 ↗
23. GARTEUR activities on acoustical methods and experiments for studying on acoustic scattering10.1007/s13272-018-0333-0 ↗
24. Pressure-field permeable-surface integral formulations for sound scattered by moving bodies10.1016/j.jsv.2019.114860 ↗
25. Novel boundary integral formulation for blade-vortex interaction aerodynamics of helicopter rotors10.2514/1.18383 ↗
26. Testa, C. (2008). Acoustic Formulations for Aeronautical and Naval Rotorcraft Noise Prediction Based on the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings Equation. [Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology].
27. Rotorcraft comprehensive code assessment for blade–vortex interaction conditions10.1016/j.ast.2018.07.013 ↗
28. Prediction of tiltrotor vibratory loads with inclusion of wing-proprotor aerodynamic interaction10.2514/1.41825 ↗
29. A unified boundary integral methodology for aerodynamics and aeroacoustics of rotors10.1006/jsvi.1996.0713 ↗
30. Singularities in BIEs for the Laplace equation; Joukowski trailing-edge conjecture revisited10.1016/S0955-7997(01)00063-7 ↗
31. Analysis of a structural-aerodynamic fully-coupled formulation for aeroelastic response of rotorcraft10.1016/j.ast.2013.03.002 ↗
32. Morino, L., and Gennaretti, M. (1992, January 11–14). Toward an Integration of Aerodynamics and Aeroacoustics of Rotors. Proceedings of the DGLR/AIAA Paper 92-02-003, DGLR/AIAA 14th Aeroacoustics Conference, Aachen, Germany.
33. Farassat, F. (2007). Derivation of Formulations 1 and 1A of Farassat, NASA.