SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The nature of the noise-exposure problem for humans and the aircraft-structural-damage problem is each discussed briefly. Some discussion is directed toward available methods of minimizing the effects of noise on ground crews, on the aircraft structure, and on the surrounding community. A bibliography of available papers relating to noise-reduction devices is also included.
It is important to control acoustic noise aboard the International Space Station (ISS) to provide a satisfactory environment for voice communications, alarm audibility, and restful sleep, and to minimize the risk for hearing loss. Acoustic monitoring is an important part of the noise control process on ISS, providing critical data for trend analysis, noise exposure analysis, validation of acoustic analyses and predictions, and to provide strong evidence for ensuring crew health and safety, thus allowing Flight Certification. And since the primary noise sources on ISS include the environmental control and life support system’s air revitalization system (fans and airflow) and active thermal control system (pumps and water flow), acoustic monitoring will indicate changes in hardware noise emissions that may indicate system degradation or performance issues. This paper provides the current acoustic levels in the ISS modules and sleep stations, and is an update to the status presented in 2018. Since this last status report, noise levels have remained consistent, but issues with stalled fan noise and unexplained low frequency spectral peaks have caused some exceedances to requirements. Noise levels in the Russian Segment have either remained consistent or have been reduced slightly, except for the new Multipurpose Laboratory Module, which has some significant noise exceedances.
In order to evaluate reaction of people to sonic booms of varying overpressures and time durations, a series of closely controlled and systematic flight test studies were conducted in the vicinity of Edwards AFB, California, from June 3 to June 23, 1966. The dynamic responses of several building structures were measured as a part of these studies, and the measurements made in a one-story residence structure (Edwards test structure No. 1) are presented. Sample acceleration and strain recordings are presented from F-104, B-58, and XB-70 sonic-boom exposures, along with tabulations of the maximum acceleration and strain values measured for each one of about 140 flight tests. These data are compared with similar measurements for engine noise exposures of the building during simulated landing approaches and takeoffs of KC-135 aircraft.
The data are reproduced from NSBEO-1-67, which contains some preliminary results of the test program, and from NASA-Langley working papers 259 and 288 which are now out of print. Included are sample acceleration and strain recordings from F-104, B-58, and XB-70 sonic boom exposures, along with tabulations of the maximum acceleration and strain values measured for each one of about 130 flight tests. These data are compared with similar measurements for engine noise exposures of the building during simulated landing approaches and takeoffs of KC-135 aircraft.
In order to evaluate reaction of people to sonic booms of varying overpressures and time durations, a series of closely controlled and systematic flight tests/studies were conducted from June 3 to June 23, 1966. The dynamic responses of several building structures were measured, with emphasis on a two-story residence structure. Sample acceleration and strain recordings from F-104, B-58, and XB-70 sonic boom exposures are included, along with tabulations of the maximum acceleration and strain values measured for each one of about 140 flight tests. These data are compared with similar measurements for engine noise exposures of the building during simulated landing approaches and takeoffs of KC-135 aircraft.
It is important to control acoustic noise aboard the International Space Station (ISS) to provide a satisfactory environment for voice communications, crew productivity, and restful sleep, and to minimize the risk for temporary and permanent hearing loss. Acoustic monitoring is an important part of the noise control process on ISS, providing critical data for trend analysis, noise exposure analysis, validation of acoustic analysis and predictions, and to provide strong evidence for ensuring crew health and safety, thus allowing Flight Certification. To this purpose, sound level meter (SLM) measurements and acoustic noise dosimetry are routinely performed. And since the primary noise sources on ISS include the environmental control and life support system (fans and airflow) and active thermal control system (pumps and water flow), acoustic monitoring will indicate changes in hardware noise emissions that may indicate system degradation or performance issues. This paper provides the current acoustic levels in the ISS modules and sleep stations, and is an update to the status presented in 20031. Many new modules, and sleep stations have been added to the ISS since that time. In addition, noise mitigation efforts have reduced noise levels in some areas. As a result, the acoustic levels on the ISS have improved.
It is important to control acoustic noise aboard the International Space Station (ISS) to provide a satisfactory environment for voice communications, crew productivity, alarm audibility, and restful sleep, and to minimize the risk for temporary and permanent hearing loss. Acoustic monitoring is an important part of the noise control process on ISS, providing critical data for trend analysis, noise exposure analysis, validation of acoustic analyses and predictions, and to provide strong evidence for ensuring crew health and safety, thus allowing Flight Certification. To this purpose, sound level meter (SLM) measurements and acoustic noise dosimetry are routinely performed. And since the primary noise sources on ISS include the environmental control and life support system (fans and airflow) and active thermal control system (pumps and water flow), acoustic monitoring will reveal changes in hardware noise emissions that may indicate system degradation or performance issues. This paper provides the current acoustic levels in the ISS modules and sleep stations and is an update to the status presented in 2011. Since this last status report, many payloads (science experiment hardware) have been added and a significant number of quiet ventilation fans have replaced noisier fans in the Russian Segment. Also, noise mitigation efforts are planned to reduce the noise levels of the T2 treadmill and levels in Node 3, in general. As a result, the acoustic levels on the ISS continue to improve.
A number of surveys were conducted to study the relationship between the level of aircraft or traffic noise exposure experienced by people living in a particular area and their annoyance with it. These surveys generally employ a clustered sample design which affects the precision of the survey estimates. Regression analysis of annoyance on noise measures and other variables is often an important component of the survey analysis. Formulae are presented for estimating the standard errors of regression coefficients and ratio of regression coefficients that are applicable with a two- or three-stage clustered sample design. Using a simple cost function, they also determine the optimum allocation of the sample across the stages of the sample design for the estimation of a regression coefficient.
This paper assesses airframe and engine technologies in terms of the preliminary environmental design goals for the HSCT. The preliminary goals are: (1) no adverse change in stratospheric ozone concentration caused by engine emissions; (2) meet FAR Stage 3 noise limits and operate within airport community noise exposure guidelines; and (3) minimize the environmental impact of overland sonic booms. The effects of design Mach number, low-emission combustors, engine fuel efficiency, and route structure are primary parameters affecting stratospheric emission effects. To minimize community noise, the engine cycle/noise suppression devices and high-lift devices must be developed, and operational procedures must be developed. To minimize the sonic boom impact, cruise weight, aircraft length, cruise altitude, and aircraft shape are the prime parameters to be considered. The detrimental effects of environmental constraints on aircraft operational costs are evaluated through tradeoff studies.
Predictions of community noise exposure from a NASA urban air mobility (UAM) concept vehicle have been conducted for representative operations using the FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) in order to demonstrate modeling tool interoperability and assess applicability, capabilities and limitations of integrated noise modeling tools. To both quantify limitations and highlight other capabilities, a comparative analysis is performed using a time-domain simulation method, in particular, using the Volpe Advanced Acoustic Model (AAM). Using the same source noise model, the 3D directivity of a UAM concept vehicle is predicted in terms of aeroacoustic pressure time histories at a sphere of observer positions near the vehicle. In addition to distilling those data to a set of noise-power-distance data for input to AEDT, the data are processed preserving spectral directivity, into one-third and one-twelfth octave bands for input to AAM. Results from AEDT and AAM modeling are provided for a variety of metrics to demonstrate the effect that source noise directivity and propagation modeling fidelity have on predicted results at receptors over a study area.
Predictions of community noise exposure from a NASA urban air mobility (UAM) concept vehicle have been conducted for representative operations using the FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) in order to demonstrate modeling tool interoperability and assess applicability, capabilities and limitations of integrated noise modeling tools. To both quantify limitations and highlight other capabilities, a comparative analysis is performed using a time-domain simulation method, in particular, using the Volpe Advanced Acoustic Model (AAM). Using the same source noise model, the 3D directivity of a UAM concept vehicle is predicted in terms of aeroacoustic pressure time histories at a sphere of observer positions near the vehicle. In addition to distilling those data to a set of noise-power-distance data for input to AEDT, the data are processed preserving spectral directivity, into one-third and one-twelfth octave bands for input to AAM. Results from AEDT and AAM modeling are provided for a variety of metrics to demonstrate the effect that source noise directivity and propagation modeling fidelity have on predicted results at receptors over a study area.
A study was conducted to define those criteria necessary for civil helicopter operations to be acoustically acceptable to the communities from which they operate and over which they fly. The study involved surveying existing domestic and foreign Federal regulations and guidelines, state and local noise ordinances, results of community noise annoyance studies, and results of individual aircraft noise annoyance studies, and results of individual aircraft noise annoyance studies in order to establish the criteria. The final criteria selection are based on the Day-Night Level, L sub DN, a measure of total noise exposure. The basic rating unit is the A weighted sound pressure level (dbA) which has accuracy comparable to other units currently used for aircraft. An L sub DN of 60 is recommended as a criterion for areas where the ambient noise is below 58 dbA. An L sub DN value 2 dbA above the local ambient is recommended for areas where the ambient is above 58 dbA.
A simplified method of analysis was used in which all flights at a 'simulated' airport were assumed to operate from one runway in a single direction. For this simulated airport, contours of noise exposure forecast were obtained and evaluated. A flight schedule of the simulated airport which is representative of the 23 major U. S. airports was used. The effect of banning night-time operations by four-engine, narrow-body aircraft in combination with other noise reduction options was studied. The reductions in noise which would occur of two- and three-engine, narrow-body aircraft equipped with a refanned engine was examined. A detailed comparison of the effects of engine cutback on takeoff versus the effects of retrofitting quiet nacelles for narrow-body aircraft was also examined. A method of presenting the effects of various noise reduction options was treated.
As part of their development of the technology for low-boom supersonic flight, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is planning to conduct a set of supersonic aircraft annoyance surveys in select communities in the United States, to measure public perception of the reduced sonic boom. The relationship between a noise exposure level of a supersonic flight event and the probability of an individual being highly annoyed by the event is quantified by a dose-response curve, which is usually based on logistic regression modeling. Unavoidable amounts of estimation error are expected in the upcoming noise measurements, which can bias the results of the logistic regression if ignored. Hence, the development of an estimation approach that accounts for such error when estimating the dose-response curve is imperative. In this paper, an evaluation study is conducted to assess the impact of measurement error on dose-response curve estimation. For this, hierarchical Bayes models using different specifications are fit to data collected by NASA in 2018, as part of a risk-reduction study of supersonic flights affecting Galveston, Texas. It is observed that the estimated dose-response curve appears sensitive to uncertainty in dose measurements, being subject to attenuation bias.
The effects of power loading on the far field noise spectra and directivity of counter-rotating propellers (CRP) were studied using a model scale SR-2 propeller in a low-speed anechoic wind tunnel. Approximately 264 far field noise measurements were obtained for each CRP configuration (pusher and tractor) and operating conditions covering from 30 to 140 deg to the flight direction and up to 340 deg circumferentially. Data indicated that the CRP tractor produced higher levels in the second and third harmonics which propagated axially; in effect, the noise exposure time increased over that of a single single-rotation propeller. The effects of pylon-to-propeller spacing, type of pylon attachment and reduced rear-blade row radius are considered and it is found that the 0.3 chord radial pylon produces less additional noise than the 0.1 chord radial pylon and that the 0.2 chord tangential pylon is the quietest pusher configuration.
The psophic index used in France for noise exposure from aircraft globally represents the annoyance with the following hypotheses: (1) the global annoyance is a function of the number of aircraft overflights of each type but does not depend on the overflight time; (2) an aircraft flying at night is considered to be just as annoying as 10 aircraft of the same type passing overhead during the day; and (3) and annoyance is only a function of the peak noise levels. Overall, the psophic index appears statistically as good a representation of the average annoyance as methods used in other countries; however, it does seem to reflect poorly the annoyance caused by light aircraft. Noise maps produced for Orly, Roissy, and the area around Paris are described. The range of applications and limitations of the psophic index are discussed.
This presentation focuses on the process for predicting urban air mobility (UAM) vehicle noise at the source and how that can be used to estimate the impact on the community. Following conceptual design, in which the vehicle is appropriately sized for its intended mission, a comprehensive analysis must be performed for a range of operating conditions spanning the flight envelope to determine the corresponding configurations of the vehicle, that is, the trimmed states. Many UAM vehicles have redundant controls, so the trimmed state for any particular operating condition may not be unique, with some states producing more noise than others. For each trimmed state, the noise produced by each source, for example, steady and unsteady rotor noise, inclusive of propulsion airframe aeroacoustic effects, may be computed and so-called source noise (hemi)spheres generated. Land use planning tools, including those using simulation and integrated modeling approaches, use these (or derived) data to generate noise exposure maps on the ground. Alternatively, these data may serve as input to auralization, turning the numerical data into an audible sound that can subsequently be used as part of a perception-influenced acoustic design process that takes into account human response.
In order to determine the effect of the number of sonic boom occurrences on annoyance, a computer-based system was developed for studying the subjective response of people to the occurrence of simulated sonic booms in their homes. The system provided a degree of control over the noise exposure not found in community surveys and a degree of situational realism not available in the laboratory. A system was deployed for eight weeks in each of 33 homes. Each day from 4 to 63 sonic booms were played as the test subject went about his or her normal activities. At the end of the day, the test subjects rated their annoyance to the sonic booms heard during the day. The sonic booms consisted of different combinations of waveforms, levels, and occurrence rates. The experiment confirmed that the increase in annoyance resulting from multiple occurrences can be modeled by the addition of the term "10 * log(number of occurrences)" to the sonic boom level. Of several noise metrics considered, perceived level was the best annoyance predictor. Comparisons of the subjective responses to the different sonic boom waveforms found no differences that were not accounted for by the noise metrics.