National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
TECHNICAL NOTE 3516
SUMMARY EVALUATION O F T OOTHED-NOZZLE ATT A CHMENTS
AS A JET -NOISE -SUPPRESSION DEVICE
By Warren J. Nort h
Lewis Flight P ropulsion Laborator y C level and, Ohio
Washington July 1955 NATIONAL ADVI SORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
TECHNICAL NOTE 3516 •
SUMMARY EVALUATION OF TOOTHED- NOZZLE ATTACHMENTS AS A
JET - NOISE ~ SUPPRESSI ON DEVICE
By Warren J . North
SUMMARY
Toothed attachments to a full- scale turbojet nozzle were investi gated for possible jet- nOise reduction and thrust penalty. The attach ments caus ed slight reductions in total sound power that are insignifi cant when evaluated in terms of engine thrust losses and aircraft payload penalty. At the reduced thrust levels obtained with the toothed nozzles) corresponding sound power reductions could be realized by throt tling the standard turbojet engine . rl I A Sound pressure levels were reduced behind the engine but were in o creased elsewhere. A typical resident in the airport neighborhood would hear increased loudness in the middle frequencies; however) the result ing over- all auditory effect is considered to be negligible.
INTRODUCTI ON
The generation of jet noise has been) in part) attributed to turbu lent mixing in the intense velocity gradient at the jet boundary. It was suggested that thickening of the mixing zone between the jet and the surrounding atmosphere would reduce shear and possibly reduce noise. One proposal for the thickening of the mixing zone involved the use of serrations or teeth attached to the lip of the jet nozzle.
Tests with small air jets incorporating nozzle teeth were conducted in England and are reported in reference 1. These tests indicated that the teeth caused a moderate reduction in maximum sound pressure level at subsonic pressure ratios and larger reductions at choked pressure ratios . Some preliminary full- scale research is reported in references 2 and 3. During the tests of reference 2) the engine was mounted under the wing and adjacent to the tail boom of a cargo airplane.
For the tests reported herein) the engine was removed from the air plane and installed in a free- field thrust stand with no sound reflecting 2 NACA TN 3516
surface near the jet. Reference 2 presents only sound pressure levels; this paper also presents spectrum) total sound power) and thrust data. The present report summarizes the performance of the toothed inserts as a jet- noise- suppression device .
APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE
The engine used in these tests was an axial- flow turbojet engine with a sea- level rated thrust of 5000 pounds . The nozzle pressure ratio was such that the nozzle was nearly choked under static conditions at standard inlet temperature . The tests simulate the noise generated dur ing take-off and climbing flight speeds . From the standpoint of a ground observer) these are the flight conditions of acoustic concern. The tests were made with two nozzle modifications : a 6- and a 12 - toothed attach ment . Figure 1 shows the thrust-stand installation with the 12-toothed nozzle attached to the tail pipe . Toothed- nozzle design details are given in reference 2 .
In order to maintain rated turbine-outlet temperature at rated en gine speed) it was necessary to increase tail- pipe area when the teeth attachments were installed.
Engine instrumentation was routed to a control room located 100 0 feet from the thrust stand at an azimuth angle of 240 • Figure 2 shows the orientation of the engine) control room) and sound survey stations . Engine thrust) fuel flow) mass flow) and turbine- outlet temperature were recorded in order to correlate engine performance with noise production.
Measurements of sound pressure levels were made at 150 intervals in a 2700 sector around the engine . No sound pressure measurements were taken in the quadrant where the control room was located. For purposes of total- sound- power calculation) the sound pressures in the two forward 900 quadrants were assumed to be symmetrical. The sound pressure levels we re observed on a General Radio Company Type 1551-A Sound- Level Meter located 200 feet from the jet nozzle . The frequency distribution of sound pressure was measured at stations 30°) 90°) and 180° from the jet axis at a distance of 200 feet from the nozzle . The frequency data were taken with a Bruel and Kjaer Audio Frequency Re corder Type 2311 . The frequency range for this instrument is from 35 to 18,000 cps and is divided into 27 one-third octave bands . The spec trum recorder was transported in an acoustically insulated panel truck. Prior to each run the General Radio Company and the Bruel and Kjaer meter-microphone circuits were calibrated with a General Radio Company Type 1552-A Sound- Level Calibrator and Type 1307- A Transistor Oscillator.
The decibel unit is used herein to represent sound pressure level) spectrum level) and total power level. Complete definitions and formulas -I
NACA TN 3516
for these acoustic terms are presented in reference 4. Sound pressure level} based on a reference of 0 . 0002 dyne per square centimeter} is indicated by the sound-level meter which responds simultaneously to all frequencies from 20 to 10}000 cps. Spectrum level is the sound pres sure level in a finite band width ( one- third octave) corrected to a unit frequency . Total power level involves a hemispherical integration of sound pressure and represents all the sound power issuing from a sound source , Power level is based on a reference of 10-13 watt. The follow ing specific example will indicate the relative magnitudes of these deci bel terms . A turbojet engine with SOOO -pound thrust, which produced a maximum sound pressure of 122 decibels at 200 feet from the nozzle, created a maximum s ingle -frequency- spectrum level of lOO decibels at 200 feet and a corresponding total power level of 168.3 decibels. A power level of 168. 3 decibels is equivalent to 6.76 kilowatts.
RESUDTS AND DISCUSSION
Sound Pressure Measurements
The sound pressure level at rated engine speed for the standard nozzle and the 6- and l2-toothed nozzle inserts is presented in figure 3 . All the sound pressure data reported herein were obtained at a dis tance of 200 feet from the nozzle . The 6-toothed configuration caused a 6- decibel reduction in maximum sound pressure level} whereas the 12- toothed configuration caused a 3- decibel reduction. However} the 6- toothed nozzle produced greater sound pressures forward and abeam of the engine; the 12-toothed nozzle produced slightly higher sound levels abeam of the engine .
No direct jet-velocity or thrust measurements were taken during the tests reported in reference 2 . However} it was necessary to use an oversize exit area, and consequently the engine pressure ratio and jet velocity were lower than the normal rated values.
Because the jet velocity was low} the sound pressure levels obtained for the standard engine in reference 2 were somewhat lower than those presented herein. When the engine was transferred to the thrust stand, more uniform fuel distribution} an improved inlet cowling, and a tail pipe were provided; the combination caused increases in jet velocity and sound pressure levels .
Frequency Spectrum
The spectrum analyzer was used to obtain sound pressures in one third octave band widths at three azimuth locations. The ~orresponding 4 NACA TN 3516
0 0 sound spectrum levels are shown in figure 4 for the 30 ) 90 ) and 1800 stations . At an azimuth angle of 300 the toothed nozzles) in general) produced lower spectrum levels than the standard engine. At the higher spectrum levels) which corr espond to frequencies from 40 to 200 cps, the 6 - toothed nozzle shows the greater attenuation. In order to determine the significant noise frequencies at the 200-foot radius) cumulative sound intensity is shown in figure 5. The cumulative sound intensity at a given frequency is defined as the sum of all the spectrum levels below the given frequency . The ordinate in figure 5 is the dimensionless ratio of cumulative intensity to total intensity. At the 300 azimuth (fig. 5 (a))) 75 percent of the sound intensity occurs at frequencies below 200 cps for the 6- toothed device and below 135 cps for the 12- toothed nozzle. The remai ning 25 percent represents only 1 decibel . Figure 4 (a)) with the significant frequencies considered to be below 200 and 135 cps) respectively) indicates that the 6- toothed nozzle pro duces spectrum levels approximately 5 decibels below those of the stand ard nozzle while the reduction with the 12-toothed nozzle is somewhat less .
At the 900 azimuth) figure 5 (b) shows that all spectrum levels cor responding to frequencies below 1000 cps for the 6- toothed nozzle and 2000 cps for the 12- toothed nozzle must be considered. The correspond ing spectrum- level plot (fig . 4(b)) shows that at frequencies less than 2000 cps the toothed nozzl es ) in general) produced higher spectrum levels than the standard nozzle.
At the 1800 azimuth (fig. 5 (c) )) the significant spectrum levels occur at frequencies below 1000 cps for the 6-toothed nozzle and 400 cps for the 12- toothed nozzle . The corresponding spectrum levels (fig. 4(c)) indicate that the standard and 12-toothed nozzle average out at about equal levels ) but the 6- toothed nozzle shows higher spectrum levels over nearly the entire range of critical frequencies.
An inspection of the sound spectrum levels shows that the sound levels at an azimuth angle of 300 are reduced by the addition of teeth inserts) but that the sound i s) in general) increased abeam and ahead of the engine . This result agrees with the over-all sound-pressure level variation in figure 3 .
Total Sound Power and Engine Thrust
The following table lists the measured total- sound-power levels and thrust variation for the toothed-nozzle configurations. NACA TN 3516 5
Nozzle Total sound Thrust loss) coni'iguration power) db percent
Standard 168 . 3 0 6-Toothed 166.7 2 . 5 12-Toothed 166 . 0 6 . 0
At rated engine speed and rated turbine- outlet temperature) the 6- and 12- toothed nozzles caused thrust losses of approximately 2~ and 6 per- l cent) respectively. These losses represent 22- and 6-percent increases in specific fuel consumption. I f a jet transport cruising at 500 miles per hour on a 3000-mile flight is considered, increases in fuel load of 2~ or 6 percent could reduce payload by 8 or 18 percent} respectively.
Figure 6 presents total sound power levels for the toothed nozzles as well as several familiar engine and afterburner sound power levels which are shown for comparison purposes . All the sound power data for the various tail-pipe coni'igurations were obtained with the same engine . Sound power is presented in terms of both watts and decibels . The ab sci ssa of figure 6 is the Lighthill parameter
where
Po ambient-air density
A nozzle-exit area
V jet velocity ao ambient acoustic velocity The theoretical work of reference 5 indicates that for subsonic pressure ratios the total sound power should be proportional to this parameter. With the exception of the afterburner) effective jet velocity for use in the calculation of the Lighthill parameter was determined from engine thrust and mass-flow measurements . The toothed-nozzle and afterburner data wer e obt ained at rated engine speed and exhaust temperature . After burner sound power level was determined from the data in reference 6.
j 6 NACA TN 3516
Transition from rated engine operation to maximum- thrust after burner operation resulted in a 9- decibel increase from approximately 168 to 1 77 decibels . Throttli ng from rated engine speed to 80 percent of rated speed resulted i n an Il- decibel decrease . In contrast with these significant sound power variations) the toothed nozzles caused less than 2 . 5- decibels sound power attenuatlon.
The curve ) which has a slope of 9 decibels per decade) was drawn through the standard- engine and afterburner data. Because the toothed nozzle data fall within 1 deci bel of the curve) it is apparent that equivalent thrust and sound-power reductions would be realized simply by throttli ng the engine . However ) at the same thrust and noise levels the throttled engi ne would exhi bit lower fuel consumption than the toothed configuration.
Auditory Effects
Only the 6- toothed nozzle is considered in the following discus sion) since it exhibits higher thrust than the 12 - toothed nozzle . The auditory effect of the toothed- nozzle installation will depend on the relative posi tion of the engine and observer. Clearly) if the observer were stationed 200 feet from the engine on the 300 azimuth) the toothed nozzle would be 8 decibels qUieter than the standard nozzle . Conversely) an observer stationed ahead or abeam of the engine would hear higher noise levels . Since the total sound power level was reduced only l~ decibels when the 6- toothed nozzle was installed) one might expect the integrated net acoustic effect to be insignificant . As shown in refer ence 2) a theoreti cal analysi s indicates that an aircraft passing over the observer at 200 feet would create the same maximum sound pressure level with either the toothed- nozzle or standard configuration.
If a typical r esident i n an ai rport neighborhood who is located 3/ 4-mile slant distance from the take- off flight path is considered) the resultant spectrum levels will be those shown in figure 7 . The spectrum levels were computed from the data obtained at 200 feet by as suming an inverse square relati on between sound ievel and distance . The distance to t he f i xed observer is) of course) increased to l~ miles when the observer is subjected to noise from the 300 jet azimuth.
Contours of equal loudness level (ref. 7) are also shown in fig ure 7 . At a loudness level of 100 phons) the frequency response of the ear is nearly flat; however) at the lower levels the ear is more sensi tive to the midfrequencies . The figure shows that the toothed nozzle) which increases the noise at the midfrequencies, produces maximum loud ness levels at an azimuth angle of 900 that are as high as those of the 0 standard nozzle at 30 • l NACA TN 3516 7
At a distance of 3/ 4 mile there may be greater atmospheric attenu ation of the high- frequency nOise; however, the high loudness levels occur at frequencies below 1600 cps where atmospheric attenuation is negligible.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The toothed attachments caused slight reductions in total sound ~ power which became insignificant when evaluated in terms of engine ~ ~ thrust losses and aircraft payload penalty. Equivalent sound power re- ductions and corresponding thrusts could be obtained by throttling the standard turbojet engine . The throttled turbojet would demonstrate lower specific fuel consumption than the toothed configuration.
The nozzle attachments reduced the maximum sound pressure level, which occurred in the rear sector, but increased the levels in other sectors .
The low- frequency components of jet noise are the most bothersome to aircraft ground crews; however, residents in the airport neighborhood are also annoyed by the middle frequencies. Since the toothed nozzle increases the noise at the middle frequencies, installation of this device would not be expected to reduce public objection to jet noise .
Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Cleveland, Ohio, June 6, 1955
REFERENCES
1. Westley, Ro, and Lilley, G. M.: An Investigation of the Noise Field from a Small Jet and Methods for Its Reduction. Rep . No. 53, The College of Aero. (Cranfield), Jan. 1952 .
2. Callaghan, Edmund E. , Howes, Walton, and North) Warren: Tooth-Type Noise- Suppression Devices on a Full- Scale Axial-Flow Turbojet En gine . NACA RM E54BOl, 1954 .
3 . Greatrex, F . B.: Engine Noise . Joint Symposium on Aero. Acoustics (London), May 21, 1953 . 8 NACA TN 3516
4 . Bolt) R . H.) Lukasik) S. J .) Nolle) A. W' ) and Frost) A. D.) eds . : Handbook of Acoustic Noise Control . Vol . I . Physical Ac oustics . WADC Tech. Rep . 52 - 204 ) Aero. Medical Lab . ) Wri ght-Patterson Air Force Base) Dec. 1952 . (Contract No. AF 33(038) - 20572) RDO No . 695- 63 .)
5 . Lighthill) M. J .: On Sound Generated Aerodynamically. I . General Theory. Proc . Roy . Soc . (London)) ser. A. vol . 211) no . 1107) Mar . 20) 1952) pp. 564- 587 .
6 . North} Warren J .} Callaghan} Edmund E.) Lanzo} Chester D. : Investi gation of Noise Field and Velocity Profiles of an Afterburning Engi ne . NACA RM E54G0 7) 1954.
7. Rosenblith} Walter A. ) et al.: Handbook of Acoustic Noise Control. Vo l . II . Noise and Man . WADG Tech. Rep . 52- 204) Aero . Medical Lab . ) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) June 1953. (Contract No . AF 33(038) - 205 72) RDO No. 695- 63.) CD-2 3645
~ &;
~ ~ CJ1 t-' (j)
Figure 1 . - Thrust stand with 12-toothed -nozzl e installation . to 10 NACA TN 3516
180
Cont rol room
9 0 ~------~ ~------~------~~ O
ICD-4430!
o
Figure 2. - Location of survey stations and control room in jet sound f ield. NACA TN 3516 11
C\J I I=l u I
Figure 3. - Polar diagram of Bound field. Distance from nozzle, 200 feet. t-' 100 .....p... (\) y- ~ / j- ~I'-.. / ~\ ,...... -ro-- I'-.. i-{ 90 V ~ \\~ ~ '\ 1-< ,- p- -
---- - J 40 3 ~ .04 . 06 .08 .1 . 2 . 4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 8 10xl0 9 Frequency} cps ~ Ca) Azimuth angle} 30°. tN Ul t-' Figure 4 . - Spectrum level 200 feet from nozzle. O'l
L £179£ 3645
90 ~ (") ;J>
~
f~ Cl' / I'.... 01 80 r-- I-' ~ ..... ~ - (j) It ~ r::: - 0- :n. ~ I\- ~ ~ ~ -..... :0...... N l / ./ .~ lO...K( ., 0"'" , " ~-<~ V 70 ~, ~ -.....,, ..., 10, ~ ~~~ ... ~ Q) ::- \ 1\~\ ~ 60 Nozzl e ~ --< ~ +>() Standard ~\~ Q) ° P< 0 6-Toot hed tf.l ~ 1'\ 0 12-Tooth ed \ K 50 " " 1\ \~ 1\ \ 40 J..... p
30 . 04 . 06 . 08 . 1 .2 .4 . 6 .8 1 2 4 6 8 10X103 Frequency , cps
(b) Azimuth angl e, 90°.
Fi gure 4 . - Continue d. S m 200 t om nozz I-' pectru level fee fr le. Cl' 80 I-' "'"
.... >-- ~r, /') / f'...... {~... ""'O... ~ II:::" kJ 70 h.... U. o~ ""'( / v ~ / ~, E'\ ~ t', ~ ~ V "- "l '\ "- 0, ' ..... 60 ~ ,-", I"- J h , ~ I ~ " '0 ;g -~
.--I~ Q) \~ > If j\, [\ ~ 50 " k' Nozzle ~V< ~ ~ -TO \ ~ () 0 Standard ~ Q) "\ p., 0 6-Toothed -~ Cf) 0 12-Toothed 40 ~\ Q..,\
'\~
~ 30 1\\ N(
- -
20 ~ .04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 8 10 X103 ~ Frequency, cps f-3 !2j (c) Azimuth angle, 180°. 0l CJl I-' Figure 4. - Concluded. Spectrum level 200 feet from nozzle. (j) ~ n >- 100 t-3 1-' ..... 2l 0'1 J....< (J1 t-' v - ~ (j) ~' ~~~ -v It:: Qj ft- fer~ +' ~ In .... 0 80 /. lP--' +' \0-- tr- 'H ~- - 0 ~/~ +' 1=1 OJ () H OJ p. 60 /I >: V +' ori
(a) Azimuth angle, 300.
Figure 5. - Spectral distribution of Bound intensity.
t-' CJl
_._-- .. t-' m 100 ------.-- u ,} ? ~ r- ./ ~ .0:
.--i /0 al +' / 0 ., .ICi +' 80 Nozzle / 'H / 0 Standard IV j> 1j °0 6-Toothed St9£ ~ ~ 100 JI7 f-3 !z: ~-- ~.;.-0 ().l ~ en I-' H ~~ al ...~ 11 (j) +' 0 L""" +' v ...... ( -/ 80 ./ .... 'H ~ .. V I 0 ~/ l.I1 V ...... J. ~ IV QJ () ~ V H QJ / p., V 60 V lei j >; +' I ..-i V til Jj I' / QJ ./ / I ~ / V ..-i Nozzle (c) Azimuth angle, 1800. Figure 5. - Concluded. Spectral distribution of sound intensity. I-' -..J J-' en 100.00 180 I I I Engine speed, percent of rated-- 100 0 /' 39.81 176 ./ ./ V V ~ :g 172 V 15.85 V ..< .-4 QJ QJ > > / QJ QJ /' .-4 rl ./ H H QJ '" oo ~ 6.31 ~ 168 ~ p. p. '8 'CI 100 ~ 0 g Ul m /< vV 100 oj al +' V 0 2.51 b 164 /' 8 8 90 y V ./" V Nozzle 1.00 160 ./" ./" 0 Standard 0 Afterburner / 0 6-Toothed /080 v 12-Toothed .40 156 -- I 107 108 109 1010 Lighthil1 parameter, poAv8jag ~ 0 ~ Figure 6. - Variation of total Bound power with Lighthill parameter. 1-3 !<::! 01 CJl J-' ()) z 120 > n ~ > I Loudness ~ ~ ~ level, "".. ..- -I- ~ '< phons , V ." 100 (fJ ;;' CJl ?- / r-' ~ r--- ../ O'l <• '- -t-- V .... l- t-- t-- ) r------. 80 V 80 ---..... r----. r--... ---t--.. V "- ~ ['--.... r--t-- ~ l""- r--t-- I-r- "- k-:-" I- p-I" t- t- "- T" IV f) l- t--.------, r----r- 60 i§ 60) ~ ~ I:: "' ~ V "- ~ r--.. .-/ Q) '" l"- t:>.. 10" ___ > "'" f'-. 1-- Q) [> R< b. ~ ~ .e::::-- ,/' -~ f.- e V .- I' I~--' V >-- ~ ~ 1'-- ""~, " t 40) '" , ~ - ~- V Q) ~ !}; 40-~~ ~ ~- Threshold ~~ I~ '- of hearing :7. C"--, ~ ~ ~\ """r- --...... "- r----...... IY. ~ r----.... .j t---., t" ) I I I I t- t-- I~ ~ 20 I I I I ~ ..-/ ~ ~ ~~ Nozzle Azimuth angle, ""~ --- deg ~ /' - I'--...... r----- V o) 6-Toothed 90 / - - -- 6-Toothed 30 --- / --- Standard 30 ~ r--- ./' r------Standard 90 -2 I I .1 .1 I I I I - ---- .02 .04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6 . 8 1 2 4 6 8 10X103 Frequency, cps Figure 7. - Sound spectrum levels 3/4 mile from flight path. t-' ill