Experimental observations of an installed-on-pylon contra-rotating open rotor with equal blade number in pusher and tractor configuration

Abstract

Noise from contra-rotating open rotors is a major obstacle to the adoption of this fuel efficient technology as a viable aircraft propulsion system. A better understanding of both contra-rotating open rotor noise generation and reduction has been achieved due to ongoing extensive research. One of the most recent research activities is the WENEMOR (wind tunnel tests for the evaluation of the installation effects of Noise EMissions of an open rotor advanced regional aircraft) project, which has been developed in response to the requirements described in the Clean Sky-Integrated Technology Demonstrators under the heading of Green Regional Aircraft. The project investigates the airframe installation effects of a $1 / 7 th$ scale model of a regional aircraft equipped with two contra-rotating open rotors of the same rotor diameter, the same rotational speed and equal blade number. For this case, the blade passing frequency of rotor-alone tones and the frequency of relevant interaction tones cannot be distinguished due to the equal blade count of the two rotors. This study presents the tone directivity plots up to 4 × blade passing frequency of the isolated WENEMOR single pylon contra-rotating open rotor engine in both pusher and tractor configurations at various angles of incidence and flow velocities. A linear array of 13 microphones is deployed for the far field sound measurements. The tone directivity trends show the efficient on-axis acoustic radiation at all blade passing frequency tones with the contra-rotating open rotor tone at 2 × blade passing frequency dominating in the vast majority of the tests. The main objective is to compare the acoustic emission of pusher and tractor configurations tested under the same flow velocities and angles of incidence. The results suggest that the pusher configuration of the isolated contra-rotating open rotor tends to be slightly louder than the tractor at 2 × blade passing frequency. However, it is shown that the acoustic performance of the isolated contra-rotating open rotor is complicated and sensitive to any change in the flow velocity and the angle of incidence. The increasing flow velocity and the increasing angle of incidence show limited consistency in proportional trends in the directivity plots of sound pressure levels. It is anticipated that the findings will be different for a more realistic case of installed-on-model contra-rotating open rotor.

Keywords

Contra-rotating open rotor equal blade number single pylon tractor and pusher configuration open jet wind tunnel acoustic measurements

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Blandeau

Joseph

Kingan

. Broadband noise predictions from uninstalled contra-rotating open rotors. International Journal of Aeroacoustics 2013; 12: 245–282.

Peters

Spakovszky

. Rotor interaction noise in counter-rotating propfan propulsion systems. J Turbomach 2011; 134: 1–12.

Zachariadis

Hall

Parry

. Contrarotating open rotor operation for improved aerodynamics and noise at takeoff. J Turbomach 2013; 135: 1–10.

Schnell

Yin

Voss

. Assessment and optimization of the aerodynamic and acoustic characteristics of a counter rotating open rotor. J Turbomach 2012; 134: 1–15.

Ricouard J, Julliard E, Omaïs M, et al. Installation effects on contra-rotating open rotor noise. In: 16th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, 7–9 June 2010, Stockholm, Sweden, 2010.

Elliott DM. Initial investigation of the acoustics of a counter-rotating open rotor model with historical baseline blades in a low-speed wind tunnel. In: 32nd AIAA aeroacoustics conference, Portland, Oregon, USA, 5–8 June 2011.

Czech MJ and Thomas RH. Open rotor installed aeroacoustic testing with conventional and unconventional airframes. In: 19th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, 27–29 May 2013, Berlin, Germany, 2013.

Zante DEV. The NASA environmentally responsible aviation project/general electric open rotor test campaign. In: 51st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, 7–10 January, Grapevine, Texas, USA.

Stephens DB and Envia E.Acoustic shielding for a model scale counter-rotation open rotor.In: 17th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference (32nd AIAA aeroacoustics conference) Portland, Oregon, USA, 5–8 June 2011.

10.

Fernando R and Leroux M. Open-rotor low speed aero-acoustics: wind tunnel characterization of an advanced blade design in isolated and installed configurations. In: 20th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 16–20 June 2014.

11.

Bennett GJ, Kennedy J, Eret P, et al. WENEMOR: wind tunnel tests for the evaluation of the installation effects of noise emissions of an open rotor advanced regional aircraft. In: 19th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, Berlin, Germany, 27–29 May 2013.

12.

Parry

Vianello

S.A

. project study of open rotor noise’. International J Aeroacoust 2012; 11: 247–258.

13.

Sanders L, Mincu DC, Denis W, et al. A coupling of computational methods for CROR installation effects. In: 20th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, 16–20 June, Atlanta, GA, USA.

14.

Pininfarina – Wind Tunnel (n.d.), www.pininfarina.com/en/services/wind_tunnel (accessed 21 March 2016).

15.

Funke

Kim

Siller

. Acoustic measurements of a contra-rotating open rotor in an open jet wind-tunnel. Int J Aeroacoust 2012; 11: 197–212.

16.

Campos

LMBC

. The spectral broadening of sound by turbulent shear layers. Part 1. The transmission of sound through turbulent shear layers. J Fluid Mech 1978a; 89: 723–749.

17.

Campos

LMBC

. The spectral broadening of sound by turbulent shear layers. Part 2. The spectral broadening of sound and aircraft noise. J Fluid Mech 1978b; 89: 751–783.

18.

Guédel

. Scattering of an acoustic field by a free jet shear layer. J Sound Vib 1985; 100: 285–304.

19.

Magnifico M, Arena G and Amoroso F. Characteristic propeller curves and performance of engine simulator system. Technical report, WENEMOR Technical Deliverable: D2.5–009, 2012.

20.

Morfey

Joseph

. Shear layer refraction corrections for off-axis sources in a jet flow. J Sound Vib 2001; 239: 819–848.

21.

Amiet

. ‘Refraction of sound by a shear layer’. Journal of Sound and Vibration 1978; 58: 467–482.

22.

Dobrzynski W. Shear-layer correction after Amiet under consideration of additional temperature gradient. Working diagrams for correction of signals. Technical report, NASA TM-77741, 1984.

23.

Horváth

Envia

Podboy

. Limitations of phased array beamforming in open rotor noise source imaging. AIAA J 2014; 52: 1810–1817.

24.

Lewy S. Semi-empirical prediction of tone noise due to counter-rotating open rotors. In: Proceedings of 20th international congress on acoustics, ICA 2010, 23–27 August 2010, Sydney, Australia.

25.

Hanson

. Noise of counter-rotation propellers. J Aircraft 1985; 22: 609–617.

26.

Brouwer HH. Analytic description of the noise radiation from single- and contra-rotating propellers. Technical report, NLR-TP-2011-295, 2011.

27.

Shivashankara BN, Johnson DP and Cuthbertson RD. Installation effects on counter rotating propeller noise. In: 13th AIAA aeroacoustics conference, Tallahassee, FL, 22–24 October 1990.

28.

Magliozzi B, Brown P and Parzych D. Acoustic test and analysis of a counterrotating prop-fan model. Technical report, NASA CR 179590, 1987.