Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Chapter 5
Airframe Noise High Lift Device Noise
Xin Zhang
Aeronautics and Astronautics, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Figure 1. HLD geometry and pictures of slat showing slat tracks and flap side edge: (a) geometrical settings, (b) slat with slat track, and
(c) flap with spoiler.
mechanical flap is equivalent to an increase in camber. Landing gears and high lift devices, for example, slats and
Generally, lowering the flap leads to an increase in lift coeffi- flaps, are the major sources of airframe noise (Crighton,
cient CL by a constant amount over the linear range of angle of 1995).
attack (). This additional lift allows the aircraft to fly slower HLD noise sources include slats, flap side edges, slat
with the flaps down. Deployment of HLDs also introduces a and flap tracks, and trailing edges (Figure 3). Among them,
drag penalty. slats and flap side edges are the two main sources of noise
Deployment of a slat increases CL,max significantly and (Figure 4). Airframe noise is a significant part of approach
extends the lift curve. Slats therefore supplement the effect of noise for most of modern commercial aircraft. The introduc-
trailing edge flaps. Their aerodynamic function is to improve tion of high bypass ratio engines and improved integration
high angle of attack performance and prevent the appear- since the 1980s means airframe noise now plays a similarly
ance of leading edge separation at high and low Reynolds important role as engine noise in defining the overall air-
number, through more favorable pressure gradients induced craft noise during approach. The airframe also contributes a
by one element of a wing on another. non-negligible portion of total noise during take-off (cutback)
conditions.
The first investigations into airframe noise took place in the
1.3 Noise problem 1970s and 1980s. Flight and wind tunnel measurements have
been performed on both landing gears and HLDs, which pro-
Airframe noise is the non-propulsive components of the noise vide global insight into source mechanisms and the relative
generated by an aircraft in flight. The noise is produced by importance of specific noise sources. Based on experimental
the separated and turbulent flows interacting with airframe results and analytical studies, trends and scaling laws have
components. Various components (geometries) and time and been formulated to produce empirical/semi-empirical noise
length scales are involved in the noise generation process; the prediction tools from landing gears and HLDs. One of the
radiated noise has a rich mixture of narrow and broadband most intensively studied cases, both experimentally and ana-
noise content, spanning at least three decades in frequency. lytically, is the basic mechanism of turbulent boundary layer
Airframe Noise High Lift Device Noise 3
2 NOISE SOURCES
2.1 Slat
Figure 3. Illustration of main noise sources associated with high lift devices.
high-frequency tonal noise. The trailing edge plays an impor- this feature is often observed in model tests rather than in
tant role in defining both the high frequency (through trailing flight. Due to the unsteady flow field around the slat, the
edge vortex shedding) and low-middle frequency (with large noise generation mechanisms represent a complex aeroa-
vortical structures passing through the gap) noise content. coustic problem. Multiple sources result, contributing to the
Trailing edge noise sources and acoustic resonance between generally broadband nature of the slat noise. It also presents a
the slat and the main element generate tonal noise, although severe challenge to predict the far-field radiated noise levels
(Dobrzynski et al., 1998; Guo and Joshi, 2003). The fifth contributions of various components (slats, flaps, landing
power law of velocity in the low-to-mid frequency range is gears, etc.) are added to the cruise configuration noise levels.
in agreement with the fact that slat trailing edge noise is the No interactions are included. The assumption of weak inter-
most dominant noise generation mechanism. Different val- action can only be viewed as a first approximation. Finks
ues, however, have been reported. For slats, the value varies assumption of HLD component noise is based on trailing
from 4.5 based on Strouhal scaling (Pott-Pollenske et al., edge noise. For example, trailing edge flap noise is modeled
2006) to 8; the value is thus frequency dependent. The noise as a single lifting dipole field and slat noise is based on an
generated by all of the combined HLDs followed a scaling extension to clean wing noise. These assumptions are now
law of V05.5 (Chow, Mau and Remy, 2002). known to be incorrect.
Recent developments of phased microphone array and
physical understanding have resulted in improvements in
3.2 Directivity
terms of incorporating individual sub-components and the
possibility of including flow quantities as well as individual
For the HLD noise radiation and an observer on the ground,
geometrical parameters. According to Guo, Yamamoto and
the maximum radiation angle is in the aft quadrant; the max-
Stoker (2003) the noise spectrum is given as
imum radiation angle of the flap noise is in the forward quad-
rant (Chow, Mau and Remy, 2002; Guo and Joshi, 2003). Here b3
the aft quadrant refers to an observation angle range of 90 l
S = S0 F1 (St)D()M b1
CLb2 (sin )b4 (sin )b5 (2)
180 defined from the flight direction and forward quadrant r
0 90 . Slat noise is significant at low-to-mid frequencies.
Due to the broadband nature of the slat noise sources, the where S0 is a constant. The frequency dependency of the noise
directivity of the radiated sound is weak, exhibiting a grad- is given by the normalized spectrum F1 (St) in terms of the
ual fall-off from the peak radiation direction. From patterns Strouhal number
observed in flyover noise of an aircraft with HLDs deployed,
fl
flap noise peaks in the forward arc at high frequencies. St = (3)
From flyover measurements, the trailing edge flap noise V0
varies with the square of the sine of the flap deflection angle.
where l is the length of the component, for example, thick-
Frequency scales with Strouhal number relative to flap chord.
ness. The directivity is given by the directivity factor D(),
The directivity of the trailing edge flap noise is that of a lift
where is the directivity angle in the flyover plane, mea-
dipole normal to the flight direction.
sured from the flight path. The spectrum is assumed to be
proportional to some powers of all of the other parameters,
4 PREDICTION METHODS which include the flow Mach number M = V0 /c, with c the
constant sound speed, the angle of attack , the sectional lift
4.1 Semi-empirical or component-based methods coefficient of the component CL , the deflecting angle of the
component , and the length of the component normalized
The complex nature of airframe noise means current whole by the far-field microphone distance r. For each particular
aircraft prediction methods are generally based on predic- component, flow and geometric parameters unique to that
tion of various component noise fields. This necessitates component are to be added to the general expression. For
a good database of a wide range of model tests and full- example, the strengths of the side edge vortex and the veloc-
scale aircraft. Early work on component-based methods was ity of the spanwise crossflow are added for the flap side edge
described by Fink (1977) and was incorporated into the noise sources. Similarly for the slat noise sources, the vor-
ANOPP (Aircraft Noise Prediction Program). ANOPP is a tex strengths in the cove region, the velocity of the flow in
semi-empirical code released by NASA Langley that incor- the gap between the slat trailing edge and the main wing,
porates publicly available noise prediction schemes. The code and the width of the gap are added. The dependencies of the
is continuously enhanced with the latest developments. The noise spectra on these parameters are assumed to be of the
latest HLD development is that based on Guo, Yamamoto simple form of a power law. The indices of the power laws
and Stoker (2003). Users of ANOPP should be aware of the (b1 , b2 , b3 , ) are aircraft dependent.
technology level and constraints used in its synthesis. A component-based method also exists for a slat
Finks methods start with a definition of clean airframe (see Pott-Pollenske et al. (2006) for a complete descrip-
noise, which is assumed to be entirely associated with trail- tion). The expression for far-field pressure is approximately
ing edge noise of wings and horizontal tails. In this method, done in the 1/3-octave band log(f) scale. An equivalent sound
8 Acoustics and Noise
pressure spectrum can be expressed as Euler equations, linearized Euler equations, or acoustic per-
turbation equations. For the far-field noise radiation problem,
2
l solutions can be found by using Lighthills acoustic analogy,
S = F2 (St)D(, , )M sin
5 3
(4) which is an exact rearrangement of the N-S equations under
r
certain conditions. A widely used acoustic analogy approach
where l is the length of the wetted trailing edge and is the is an integral solution of the Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings
sweep angle. The frequency content is given by the normal- (FW-H) equation (Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings, 1969).
ized spectrum F2 (St) (equations (6) and (7) in Pott-Pollenske The source and propagation problems are often solved
et al. (2006)) and allows for database and deflecting angle cor- using a high-order computational aero-acoustics (CAA)
rections. D( , , ) is a directivity factor based on equation code. CAA is concerned with the accurate numerical pre-
(10) in Pott-Pollenske et al. (2006), which includes radiation diction of aerodynamically generated noise as well as its
angles in both polar and azimuthal directions. The Strouhal propagation and far-field characteristics. The inherently
number St is based on the chord of the slat. The above equa- unsteady nature of aero-acoustic phenomena, the disparity
tion is based on flight and model test data. in magnitude between mean and acoustic flow quantities,
The accuracy of a component-based method is constrained and the high frequencies often encountered place stringent
by the accuracy and breadth of the database employed, and demands on the numerical treatment. The trend within the
therefore by the aircraft types in the database. It could be field of CAA has been to employ high-order accurate numer-
misleading if applied to other types. Current research on ical schemes that have in some manner been optimized for
physics-based methods could lead to better and more flexible wave propagation to reduce the required number of grid
methods in the future. points per wavelength while still ensuring tolerable levels
of numerical error.
A schematic of the the CAA approach is shown in
4.2 Computational methods Figure 9. Examples of HLD CAA computation can be found
in Choudhari and Khorrami (2007) and Ma et al. (2008).
For HLD noise, the physics of interest are characterized by the
co-existence of a multitude of sound generation and propaga-
tion mechanisms and disparate spatial and temporal scales. 5 NOISE ATTENTUATION METHODS
The physics are described by the NavierStokes (N-S) equa-
tions. A full solution of the N-S equations is not feasible at 5.1 Sound absorption: acoustic liner
present for engineering applications. The current approach
is therefore to seek efficient methods to accurately predict The slat noise spectra are generally broadband in nature with
the noise sources and subsequent far-field acoustic proper- a broad hump between St = 14. High-frequency tones can
ties by solving various (reduced) forms of the governing also exist. The trailing edge of a slat is generally recognized as
equations. Generally, an HLD noise problem can be tackled an important area for both broadband and narrow band noise
on three fronts: noise generation, propagation, and far-field generation. Acoustic absorptive treatment on the surface of
radiation. Each of the three can be treated by a different the main element could suppress potential image sources at
set of suitable governing equations with different simplifi- the trailing edge, while treatment in the slat gap could atten-
cations but retaining the major physics. The noise generation uate high-frequency sound (Ma et al., 2006; Ma et al., 2008).
occurs in the immediate surrounding area of an HLD, where Unlike other noise control techniques, such as serrated tapes
aerodynamics and acoustics cannot be separated and influ- at the slat trailing edge or slat cove fillers, the acoustic liner
ence each other. For source modeling, methods include treatment would not modify the slat shape and would thus
direct numerical simulation (DNS), large eddy simulation be expected to have minimal effect on the wing pressure dis-
(LES), detached eddy simulation (DES), unsteady Reynolds tributions and the resulting lift. The most efficient treatment
averaged NavierStokes (URANS), and steady Reynolds would be to apply liners on both the slat cove and the main
averaged NavierStokes (RANS) coupled with a stochas- element. The main element treatment provides useful atten-
tic noise generation and radiation (SNGR) approach. In the uation by influencing the diffraction around the wing. Care
sound propagation area, the aerodynamic field influences the must be taken to allow for a complete concealment of the
acoustic wave propagation without feedback. Solutions of liners when the slat is retracted during cruise. For the narrow
this problem include installation effects. For sound propa- band high-frequency tones, a reduction of more than 4 dB has
gation, noise propagates in non-uniform mean flow (weak been reported. For broadband noise, a reduction of around
coupling). The problem can be treated by solution of the 2 dB seems possible.
Airframe Noise High Lift Device Noise 9
RANS +
Flow and noise URANS LES DES DNS
SNGR
source computation
Noise sources
Noise propagation
Euler, LEE or APE
5.2 Active flow control: blowing shedding and therefore eliminates a possible source of high-
frequency noise.
Active flow control, for example, steady and unsteady blow- Brushes can also be applied to the flap side edge to influ-
ing, can be used to alter the vortical structures associated ence the vortex flow as well as slat trailing edge to influence
with the slat and the flap side edge flow fields and there- discrete vortex shedding. For a flap side edge with brushes, a
fore to attenuate noise radiation. The source of noise at the source strength reduction of approximately 5 dB is possible.
flap side edge can be attributed to the oscillation of the vor-
tical structures. This leads to pressure fluctuations near the
rigid surface and thus to sound radiation. One approach is 5.4 Local geometry modification: cove filler, fence,
to displace or to destroy the vortical structures by blowing and serration
air into it (Koop and Ehrenfried 2004). Blowing reduces the
amplitude of surface pressure fluctuations and therefore the To stabilize the slat cove flow, a cove cover can be used, which
level of the radiated sound. Blowing air changes the circum- extends the cusp following the direction of the shear layer. To
ferential velocity profile of the vortex and thus the dynamic stabilize the slat cove flow as well as to eliminate one possible
interaction between the shear layer and the vortex instability. channel of acoustic feedback, a slat cove filler can be used.
It also has the effect of displacing the vortical structures away Although it is efficient in attenuating noise, it is difficult to
from the solid surface, which reduces the sound pressure level manufacture a device to allow the slat with a cove cover to
and thus the level of the radiated sound. A reduction in the retract. Use of a cove filler could have an impact on CL,max
far-field sound pressure level of 34 dB above 1.25 kHz is as it constrains the flow through the gap. It is possible that
reported. the aerodynamic effect is case dependent and optimization
work is needed to retain the aerodynamic efficiency. For a
combined porous flap side edge and slat cove filler, a noise
reduction of more than 2 dB at some angles has been reported
5.3 Edge treatment: porous material and brushes (Chow, Mau and Remy, 2002).
Flap side edge fences have been used to reduce noise.
The spanwise pressure discontinuity introduced by the flap Dobrzynski, Gehlhar and Buchholz (2001) showed that on
side edge plays an important role in defining the vortices a full-scale A320 wing airbus, a flap fence could achieve a
around the edge and the flow through the gap. A porous flap noise reduction. The rationale underlying the use of a flap
side edge alleviates the pressure discontinuity at the flap side side fence is to increase the distance between the edge vortex
edge and reduces the magnitude of vorticity in the shear layer system and the top surface of the flap. Various forms of fences
wrapped around the side edge vortex. This leads to a weaker have been used, including tip fences extending above and
side edge vortex. A porous side edge also displaces the vortex below the flap surface, with a reported peak noise reduction
further away from the solid surface by allowing a finite mass of 9 dB in the mid-range frequencies. Lower tip fences that
flux through it, thereby reducing its strength as an acoustic extend approximately one flap thickness below the flap lower
source. Porous material can also be used on the slat trailing surface have also been explored with reported overhead noise
edge. The method reduces the high-frequency local vortex reduction of 34 dB for frequencies between 4 and 10 kHz.
10 Acoustics and Noise
5.5 Geometry modification: continuous moldline introduced CFD and CAA methods to study the noise source,
technology propagation, and radiation. These efforts need to be continued
to achieve acceptable levels of noise reduction.
Continuous moldline technology (CMT) uses a flexible panel The current range of noise attenuation methods based on
that deforms to provide a continuous surface between two local treatments is effective as long as the basic designs of
moveable parts. The aim is to prevent discrete ends, for exam- slats and flaps remain the same. It is possible that a 35 dB
ple, flap and slat side edges, to become sources of intense noise reduction can be obtained. However, a 10 dB reduc-
noise. When used to remove a flap side edge, CMT connects tion requires new approaches. These new approaches could
the flap side edge to the adjacent wing surface with an elas- include major design changes to the existing devices, for
tomeric panel that deforms during flap deflection to provide a example, continuous moldline technology, eliminating gaps
continuous surface without abrupt changes in curvature. This between the slat/flap and the main element by employing
effectively eliminates the flap side edge vortex. With CMT droop edges, replacing mechanical HLDs with flow control
applied, the flap side edge source can be reduced below mea- technologies such as circulation control.
surable levels. However, there is an aerodynamic penalty to With the above in mind, a need exists to improve the cur-
be incurred, since the application of CMT reduces the overall rent noise prediction tools. Current empirical/semi-empirical
lift. This is due to the reduced loading on the main element prediction tools are database dependent and difficult to use.
near the flap side edge. Wind tunnel model tests of a 20% They give acceptable results but cannot be relied upon to pro-
scale wing model (Storms et al., 2000) show reductions of vide accurate predictions for future new aircraft types and act
515 dB above 2.5 kHz for a flap side edge and up to 10 dB as a design tool. Physics-based models need to be developed
in the peak SPL above 5 kHz for a slat. to overcome this limitation. Modern computational methods
such as CAA will play an increasingly important role in the
endeavor for quieter aircraft.
5.6 Approach procedure: continuous descent
and steep approach
Ffowcs Williams, J.E. and Hawkings, D.L. (1969) Sound generation Ma, Z.K., Smith, M.G., Richards, S.K. and Zhang, X. (2006)
by turbulence and surfaces in arbitrary motion. Philos. Trans. R. Attenuation of slat trailing edge noise using acoustic liners.
Soc. Lond., A 264(1151), 321342. Int. J. Aeroacoust., 5(4), 11721180.
Fink, M.R. (1977) Airframe noise prediction method. Federal Ma, Z.K., Zhang, X., Smith, M. and Molin, N. (2008) Broadband slat
Aviation Administration. FAA-RD-77-29. noise attenuation potential with acoustic liner treatment. AIAA
Guo, Y.P. and Joshi, M.C. (2003) Noise characteristics of aircraft Paper 2008-2964.
high lift systems. AIAA J., 41(7), 12471256. Piet, J.F., Davy, R., Elias, G. et al. (2005) Flight test investigation of
Guo, Y.P., Yamamoto, K.J. and Stoker, R.W. (2003) Component- add-on treatments to reduce aircraft airframe noise. AIAA Paper
based empirical model for high-lift system noise prediction. 2005-3007.
J. Aircraft, 40(5), 914922. Pott-Pollenske, M., Dobrzynski, W., Buchholz, H. et al. (2006)
Hardin, J.C. (1980) Noise radiation from the side edge of flaps. Airframe noise characteristics from flyover measurements and
AIAA J., 18(5), 549552. predictions. AIAA Paper 2006-2567.
Howe, M.S. (1982) On the generation of side edge flap noise. Sen, R. (1997) Vortex-oscillation model of airfoil side edge noise.
J. Sound Vib., 80(4), 555573. AIAA J., 35(3), 441449.
Khorrami, M.R. and Singer, B.A. (1999) Stability analysis for noise- Sijtsma, P. (2007) CLEAN based on spatial source coherence. Int.
source modelling of a part-span flap. AIAA J., 37(10), 12061212. J. Aeronaut., 6(4), 357374.
Koop, L., Ehrenfried, K. and Dillmann, A. (2004) Reduction of flap Storms, B.L., Hayes, J.A., Jaeger, S.M. and Soderman, P. (2000)
side edge noise: passive and active flow control. AIAA Paper Aeroacoustic study of flap-tip noise reduction using continuous
2004-2803. moldline technology. AIAA Paper 2000-1976.
Abstract:
High lift devices, together with landing gears, are the main sources of airframe noise during the approach-and-landing phase
of aircraft flight. Typical high lift devices include leading edge slats and trailing edge flaps. Other high-lift-related noise-
generating devices include spoilers if deployed during a steep approach operation. All the above aerodynamic devices are
retracted during the cruise phase of aircraft operation. A slat, when deployed, forms a cove region between the slat and the
central main element of the aircraft wing. Flow separation, flow recirculation, an unsteady shear layer, and slat settings together
generate noise of mainly broadband content. For a flap, the outboard flap side edge and vortex system associated with it are
the main sources of noise. The intensity of high lift device noise generally follows a power law of flow velocity. The main
sources of noise are identified and described in this chapter. Introduction is provided concerning main semi-empirical and
computational fluid dynamics methods. Noise attenuation methods are also described.
Keywords: acoustics, aircraft noise, airframe noise, high lift devices, slat, flap, acoustic control, flow control