Rotor Interaction Noise in Counter-Rotating Propfan Propulsion Systems

Due to their inherent noise challenge and potential for significant reductions in fuel burn, counter-rotating propfans (CRPs) are currently being investigated as potential alternatives to high-bypass turbofan engines. This paper introduces an integrated noise and performance assessment methodology for advanced propfan powered aircraft configurations. The approach is based on first principles and combines a coupled aircraft and propulsion system mission and performance analysis tool with 3D unsteady, full-wheel CRP computational fluid dynamics computations and aeroacoustic simulations. Special emphasis is put on computing CRP noise due to interaction tones. The method is capable of dealing with parametric studies and exploring noise reduction technologies. An aircraft performance, weight and balance, and mission analysis was first conducted on a candidate CRP powered aircraft configuration. Guided by data available in the literature, a detailed aerodynamic design of a pusher CRP was carried out. Full-wheel unsteady 3D Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations were then used to determine the time varying blade surface pressures and unsteady flow features necessary to define the acoustic source terms. A frequency domain approach based on Goldstein’s formulation of the acoustic analogy for moving media and Hanson’s single rotor noise method was extended to counter-rotating configurations. The far field noise predictions were compared to measured data of a similar CRP configuration and demonstrated good agreement between the computed and measured interaction tones. The underlying noise mechanisms have previously been described in literature but, to the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time that the individual contributions of front-rotor wake interaction, aft-rotor upstream influence, hub-endwall secondary flows, and front-rotor tip-vortices to interaction tone noise are dissected and quantified. Based on this investigation, the CRP was redesigned for reduced noise incorporating a clipped rear-rotor and increased rotor-rotor spacing to reduce upstream influence, tip-vortex, and wake interaction effects. Maintaining the thrust and propulsive efficiency at takeoff conditions, the noise was calculated for both designs. At the interaction tone frequencies, the redesigned CRP demonstrated an average reduction of 7.25 dB in mean sound pressure level computed over the forward and aft polar angle arcs. On the engine/aircraft system level, the redesigned CRP demonstrated a reduction of 9.2 dB in effective perceived noise (EPNdB) and 8.6 EPNdB at the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 36 flyover and sideline observer locations, respectively. The results suggest that advanced open rotor designs can possibly meet Stage 4 noise requirements.

[1]  Richard P. Woodward,et al.  Noise of a simulated installed model counterrotation propeller at angle-of-attack and takeoff/approach conditions , 1990 .

[2]  M. Goldstein,et al.  Unified approach to aerodynamic sound generation in the presence of solid boundaries , 1974 .

[3]  John F. Groeneweg,et al.  NASA Advanced Propeller Research , 1988 .

[4]  R. K. Majjigi,et al.  An investigation of counterrotating tip vortex interaction , 1989 .

[5]  Richard P. Woodward,et al.  Noise of a model counterrotation propeller with reduced aft rotor diameter at simulated takeoff/approach conditions (F7/A3) , 1988 .

[6]  G. Knip,et al.  Technology and benefits of aircraft counter rotation propellers , 1981 .

[7]  L. A. Mccullers Aircraft configuration optimization including optimized flight profiles , 1984 .

[8]  Donald B. Hanson,et al.  Theory for noise of propellers in angular inflow with parametric studies and experimental verification , 1993 .

[9]  J. Katz,et al.  Low-Speed Aerodynamics , 1991 .

[10]  F. Bruce Metzger A review of propeller noise prediction methodology: 1919-1994 , 1995 .

[11]  D. C. Chapman,et al.  Testing of the 578-DX propfan propulsion system , 1988 .

[12]  Jianping Yin,et al.  Low- Speed Aerodynamics and Aeroacoustics of CROR Propulsion Systems , 2009 .

[13]  D. B. Hanson,et al.  The importance of quadrupole sources in prediction of transonic tip speed propeller noise , 1978 .

[14]  Donald B. Hanson Noise of counter-rotation propellers , 1985 .

[15]  Todd Hannigan,et al.  Wind tunnel results of counter rotation prop-fans designed with lifting line and Euler code methods , 1991 .

[16]  P. Gliebe,et al.  Acoustic power level comparisons of model-scale counterrotating unducted fans , 1991 .

[17]  P. Spalart A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows , 1992 .

[18]  Roy D. Hager,et al.  Advanced Turboprop Project , 1988 .

[19]  R. K. Amiet,et al.  Propeller and propfan noise , 1991 .

[20]  Cesare A. Hall,et al.  Application of a Navier–Stokes Solver to the Study of Open Rotor Aerodynamics , 2011 .

[21]  Andrew March,et al.  Influence of low-speed aerodynamic performance on airport community noise , 2008 .

[22]  Donald B. Hanson,et al.  Compressible Helicoidal Surface Theory for Propeller Aerodynamics and Noise , 1983 .

[23]  Raphaël Barrier,et al.  Numerical Simulation of Counter-Rotating Fan Aeroacoustics , 2007 .

[24]  Ian A. Waitz,et al.  Trailing-Edge Blowing for Reduction of Turbomachinery Fan Noise , 2000 .