NASA NTRS2019
Acoustic phased array flyover noise measurements were acquired as part of the Boeing 737 MAX-7 NASA Advanced Inlet Liner segment of the Quiet Technology Demonstrator 3 (QTD3) flight test program. This paper reports on the processes used for separating and quantifying the engine inlet, exhaust and airframe noise source components and provides sample phased array-based comparisons of the component noise source levels associated with the inlet liner treatment configurations. Full scale flyover noise testing of NASA advanced inlet liners was conducted as part of the Quiet Technology Demonstrator 3 flight test program in July and August of 2018. Details on the inlet designs and testing are provided in the companion paper of Reference 1. The present paper provides supplemental details relating to the acoustic phased array portion of the analyses provided in Ref. 1. In brief, the test article was a Boeing 737MAX-7 aircraft with a modified right hand (starboard side) engine inlet, which consisted of either a production inlet liner, a NASA designed inlet liner or a simulated hard wall configuration (accomplished by applying speed tape over the inlet acoustic treatment areas). In all three configurations, the engine forward fan case acoustic panel was replaced with a unperforated (hardwall) panel. No other modifications to any other acoustic treatment areas were made. The left hand (port side) engine was a production engine and was flown at idle thrust for all measurements in order to isolate the effects of the inlet liners to the right hand engine. As described in Ref. 1, the NASA inlet treatment consists of laterally cut slots (cut perpendicular to the flow direction) which are designed to reduce excrescence drag while maintaining or exceeding the liner acoustic noise reduction capabilities. The NASA inlet liner consists of a Multi-Degree of Freedom (MDOF) design with two breathable septum layers inserted into each honeycomb cell [1]. The aircraft noise measurements were acquired for both takeoff (flaps 1 setting, gear up) and approach (flaps 30 gear up and gear down) configurations. The inlet and flight test configurations are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Inlet Treatment and Flight Configurations Inlet Forward Fan Case Aircraft Production Hardwall Flaps 1, gear up; flaps 30 gear up; flaps 30 gear down NASA Hardwall Flaps 1, gear up; flaps 30 gear up; flaps 30 gear down Hardwall Hardwall Flaps 1, gear up; flaps 30 gear up; flaps 30 gear down III.Test Description and Hardware The flight testing was conducted at the Grant County airport in Moses Lake, WA, between 27 July and 6 August 2018. The noise measurement instrumentation included 8 flush dish microphones arranged in a noise certification configuration as well as an 840 microphone phased array. The flush dish microphones were used to quantify the levels and differences in levels between the various inlet treatments. The phased array was used to separate and quantify the narrowband (tonal) and broadband noise component levels from the engine inlet/exhaust and from the airframe. Phased array extraction of the broadband component was critical to this study because it allowed for the separation of the inlet component from the total airplane level noise even when it was significantly below the total level. Figure 1 provides an overview of the phased array microphone layout as well as a detailed image of an individual phased array microphone mounted in a plate holder (the microphone sensor is the dot in the center of the plate). The ground plane ensemble array microphones (referred to as “ensemble array” in this paper) were mounted in plates with “flower petal” edges designed to minimize edge scattering effects. Fig. 1 Flyover test microphone layout. The phased array configuration was the result of a progressive development of concepts originally implemented in Ref. 2 and refined over the following years, consisting namely of multiple multi-arm logarithmic spiral subarrays designed to cover overlapping frequency ranges and optimized for various aircraft emission angles. For the present case, the signals from all 840 microphones were acquired on a single system. The 840 microphones were parsed into 11 primary subarray sets spanning from smallest to largest aperture size and labeled accordingly as “a, b, …, k”, where “a” corresponds to the smallest fielded subarray and “k” corresponds to the largest aperture subarray. The apertures ranged from approximately 10 ft to 427 ft in size (in the flight direction) with the subarrays consisting of between 215 and 312 microphones. Figure 2 shows three such subarrays, k, h and a. As done in Ref. 2, microphones were shared between subarrays in order to reduce total channel count. Fig. 2 Sample subarray sizes (20° from overhead – refer to Figure 3a discussion). In addition to the above, each of the 11 primary subarray sets consisted of four subarrays optimized to provide near equivalent array spatial resolution in both the flight and lateral directions within 30 degrees of overhead (i.e., airplane directly above the center of the array), namely, at angles of 0, ±10, ±20 and ±30 degrees relative to overhead where angle is defined as shown in Figure 3a. This allowed for optimized aircraft noise measurements from 60 to 120 degree emission angle.6 An example of this pletharray design is shown in Figure 3b for the k subarray. When the aircraft is at overhead, the microphones indicated by the blue markers are used for beamforming. When the aircraft is at angles ±10 degrees from overhead, both the blue and red colored microphones are used, and so on for the ±20 and ±30 degree aircraft locations. See Ref. 3 for extensive details on pletharray design for aeroacoustic phased array testing. 6 In the discussions that follow, emission angle values are used. These are the angles at the time sound is emitted relative to the engine axis and are calculated based on flight path angle, body aircraft body angle with respect to the relative wind direction, and engine axis angle relative to aircraft body angle.