AIRFRAME NOISE MODELING APPROPRIATE FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN AND
OPTIMIZATION
42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and ExhibitReno, NV, January 7, 2004
AIAA-2004-0689
Serhat Hosder, Joseph A. Schetz, Bernard Grossman and William H. Mason
Virginia TechWork sponsored by NASA Langley Research
Center, Grant NAG 1-02024
2
Introduction
Aircraft noise: an important performance criterion and constraint in aircraft design
Noise regulations limit growth of air transportation
Reduction in noise needed
To achieve noise reduction – Design revolutionary aircraft with innovative configurations
– Improve conventional aircraft noise performance
– Optimize flight performance parameters for minimum noise
All these efforts require addressing noise in the aircraft conceptual design phase
3
Aircraft Noise Components
Airframe
Aircraft Noise
Engine
Engine/airframe interference
Include aircraft noise as an objective function or constraint in MDO– Requires modeling of each noise source
Airframe noise – Now comparable to engine noise at approach
– Our current focus
4
Trailing Edge Noise: noise mechanism of a clean wing – scattering of acoustic waves generated due to the passage of turbulent boundary layer over the trailing edge of a
wing or flap
In our study, we have developed a new Trailing Edge Noise metric appropriate for MDO
5
Why Do We Model Trailing Edge Noise?
Trailing Edge Noise: a lower bound value of airframe noise at approach (a measure of merit)
Trailing Edge Noise can be significant contributor to the airframe noise for a non-conventional configuration– traditional high-lift devices not used on approach– A Blended-Wing-Body (BWB) Aircraft
• Large Wing Area and span– A conventional aircraft or BWB with distributed propulsion
• Jet-wing concept for high lift – An airplane with a morphing wing
A Trailing Edge Noise Formulation based on proper physics may be used to model the noise from flap trailing edges or flap-side edges at high lift conditions
First step towards a general MDO model
6
Outline of the Current Work
Objective: To develop a trailing edge noise metric– construct response surfaces for aerodynamic noise minimization
Noise metric– Should be a reliable indicator of noise– Not necessarily the magnitude of the absolute noise– Should be relatively inexpensive to compute
• Computational Aeroacoustics too expensive to use• Still perform 3-D, RANS simulations with the CFD code GASP
Parametric Noise Metric Studies– 2-D and 3-D cases– The effect of different wing design variables on the noise metric
7
The Trailing Edge Noise Metric
dyyyDyH
yCosylyu
aI
b
NM )(),()(
)()()(
2 02
30
50
23
ref
NM
I
IdBNM log10)(
)log(10120)( NMIdBNM
wing TE
z y
V
receiver
noise source
H
x
u0 characteristic velocity for turbulence
l0 characteristic length scale for turbulence
free-stream density
a free-stream speed of soundH distance to the receiver trailing edge sweep anglepolar directivity angle azimuthal directivity angle
SinSinD
22],[ 2
Following classical aeroacoustics theories from Goldstein and Lilley, we derive a noise intensity indicator (INM)
Noise Metric:
(directivity term)
, with Iref=10-12 (W/m2)
8
Modeling of u0 and l0
)()(0 zTKEMaxyu
)()(0
zTKEMaxyl
Characteristic turbulence velocity scale at the trailing edge
New characteristic turbulence length scale at the trailing edge
is the turbulence frequency observed at the maximum TKE location for each spanwise location. TKE and obtained from the solutions of TKE- (k-) turbulence model equations used in RANS calculations Previous semi-empirical trailing edge noise prediction methods use orfor the length scale
– Related to mean flow– Do not capture the turbulence structure
9
Unique Features of the Noise Metric
Expected to be an accurate relative noise measure suitable for MDO studies
Written for any wing configuration
Spanwise variation of the characteristic turbulence velocity and length scale taken into account
Sensitive to changes in design variables (lift coefficient, speed, wing geometry etc.)
The choice of turbulence length scale (l0) more soundly based than previous ones used in semi-empirical noise predictions
10
Noise Metric Validation
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
OASPLsi
NMsi
1.122
2.0
1.4971.1640.8310.4990.6651.497Recx10-6
1.50.01.52.00.00.0deg
1.122
2.0
1.4971.1640.8310.4990.6651.497Recx10-6
1.50.01.52.00.00.0deg
NM and OASPL results are scaled with the values obtained for case 1
Experimental NACA 0012 cases from NASA RP 1218 (Brooks et al.)
All cases subsonic Predicted Noise Metric
(NM) compared with the experimental OASPL
The agreement between the predictions and the experiment is very good
Experimental
11
Parametric Noise Metric Studies
Two-Dimensional Cases– Subsonic Airfoils
• NACA 0012 and NACA 0009– Supercritical Airfoils
• SC(2)-0710 (t/c=10%) SC(2)-0714 (t/c=14%)
– C-grid topology (38864 cells) Three-Dimensional Cases
– Energy Efficient Transport (EET) Wing• Sref=511 m2, MAC=9.54 m• AR=8.16, =30 at c/4• t/c=14% at the root t/c=12% at the break t/c=10% at the tip
– C-O topology, 4 blocks (884,736 cells) Steady RANS simulations with GASP
– Menter’s SST k- turbulence model
-0.08
-0.04
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
SC(2)-0710
SC(2)-0714
z/c
x/c
X
Y
Z
12
Parametric Noise Metric Studies with NACA 0012 and NACA 0009
58.00
59.00
60.00
61.00
62.00
63.00
64.00
65.00
0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
1
2
3
2.453 dB
1.164 dB
NACA 0012, c=0.3048 m, Cl=1.046, lift=1010 N
NACA 0012, c=0.3741 m, Cl=0.853, lift=1011 N
NACA 0009, c=0.3741 m,
Cl=0.860, lift=1018 N
NM
(dB
)
Cl
V=71.3 m/s, Mach=0.2, Rec=1.497106 & 1.837106
Investigated noise reduction by decreasing Cl and t/c
– Increased chord length to keep lift and speed constant – Total noise reduction=3.617 dB
Simplified representation of increasing the wing area and reducing the overall lift coefficient at constant lift and speed– Additional benefit: eliminating or minimizing the use of high lift devices
13
Parametric Noise Metric Studies with SC(2)-0710 and SC(2)-0714
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Cl
SC(2)-0710
SC(2)-0714
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Cl
Cd
SC(2)-0710
SC(2)-0714
Realistic approach conditions
– Rec=44106
– V= 68 m/s, Mach=0.2
Corresponds to typical transport aircraft– With MAC=9.54 m
– Flying at H=120 m
– Approximately the point for the noise certification at the approach before landing
Directivity terms– =90 and =90
Investigate the effect of the thickness ratio and the lift coefficient
14
Noise Metric Values for the Supercritical Airfoils at different Cl values
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
NM
(dB
)
Cl
SC(2)-0710
SC(2)-0714
At relatively lower lift coefficients (Cl < 1.3) – Noise metric almost constant
– The thicker airfoil has a larger noise metric
At higher lift coefficients (Cl >1.3) – Sharp increase in the noise metric
– The thinner airfoil has a larger noise metric
15
3-D Parametric Noise Metric Studies with the EET Wing
0.00
0.15
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.75
0.90
1.05
1.20
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.00
4386
128 171
214 257
300 343
CL
W/S
(kg
/m2 )
0.00
0.15
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.75
0.90
1.05
1.20
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
CL
CD
Realistic approach conditions– Rec=44106, V= 68 m/s, M=0.2– Flying at H=120 m
Stall observed at the highest CL
– CLmax= 1.106
W/Smax=315.7 kg/m2 (64.8 lb/ft2)
– Less than realistic CL and W/S (~430 kg/m2) values
Investigate the effect of the lift coefficient on the noise metric with a realistic geometry
Investigate spanwise variation of u0 and l0
16
Section Cl and Spanload distributions for the EET Wing
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Inboard Outboard
2y/b
Cl
0.836
0.534
0.375
0.970
CL= 0.219
0.689
1.0841.106
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Inboard Outboard
0.836
0.534
0.375
0.970
CL= 0.219
0.689
1.0841.106
Cl c
/ca
Loss of lift on the outboard sections at the highest lift coefficient
Large region of separated flow Shows the need to increase the
wing area of a clean wing– To obtain the required lift on
approach with lower CL
• Lower noise
17
Skin Friction Contours at the Upper Surface of the EET Wing for different CL values
y/b0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cf
0.00940.00860.00780.00700.00620.00540.00460.00380.00300.00230.00150.0007
-0.0001-0.0009-0.0017
y/b0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
y/b0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
y/b0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0 0
0 0
2 2
2 2
CL=0.375, =2
CL=0.689, =6
CL=0.970, =10
CL=1.106, =14
18
0.0E+00
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
3.0E-02
4.0E-02
5.0E-02
6.0E-02
7.0E-02
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Inboard Outboard
CL=0.836CL=0.534
CL=1.084
CL=1.106
CL=0.970
2y/b
TKE and l0 Distributions at the Trailing Edge of the EET Wing for different CL values
0.0
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
125.0
150.0
175.0
200.0
225.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0CL=0.836CL=0.534
CL=1.084
CL=1.106
CL=0.970
2y/b
Inboard Outboard
TK
Em
ax
(J/k
g)
l 0 (m
)
Maximum TKE and l0 get larger starting from CL=0.836, especially at the outboard section
Dramatic increase for the separated flow case
Maximum TKE and l0 not constant along the span at high CL
19
Noise Metric Values for the EET Wing at different CL values
15.0
25.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
65.0
75.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
NM
(dB
)
CL
NMtotal
NMupper NMlower
At lower lift coefficients – Noise metric almost constant
– Contribution to the total noise from the lower surface significant At higher lift coefficients
– Noise metric gets larger
• Dramatic increase for the separated flow case
– Upper surface is the dominant contributor to the total noise
20
Conclusions
A new trailing edge noise metric has been developed
– For response surfaces in MDO– For any wing geometry– Introduced a length scale directly related to the turbulence structure – Spanwise variation of characteristic velocity and length scales considered
Noise metric an accurate relative noise measure as shown by validation studies
Parametric noise metric studies performed– Studied the effect of the lift coefficient and the thickness ratio – Noise reduction possible with decreasing the lift coefficient and the
thickness ratio while increasing the wing area – Noise constant at lower lift coefficients and gets larger at higher lift
coefficients. Sharp increase when there is large separation– Characteristic velocity and length scales not constant along the span at
high lift coefficients due to 3-D effects
21
Future Work