Tupolev 154M noise asesment (Анализ шумовых характеристик самолёта Ту-154М)
The perceived noisiness of an aircraft flyover depends on the
frequency content, relative to the ear’s response, and on the duration. The
perceived noisiness is measured in NOYs (unit of perceived noisiness) and
is plotted as a function of sound pressure level and frequency for random
noise in Fig. 4.1.
[pic]
Figure 4.1 Perceived noisiness as a function of frequency and sound
pressure level
Pure tones (frequencies with pressure levels much higher than that of the
neighboring random noise in the sound spectrum) are judged to be more
annoying than an equal sound pressure in random noise, so a “tone
correction” is added to their perceived noise level. A “duration
correction” represents the idea that the total noise impact depends on the
integral of sound intensity over time for a given event.
The 24 one-third octave bands of sound pressure level (SPL) are
converted to perceived noisiness by means of a noy table.
[pic]
Figure 4.2 Perceived noise level as a function of NOYs
Conceptually, the calculation of EPNL involves the following steps.
1. Determine the NOY level for each band and sum them by the relation
[pic],
where k denotes an interval in time, i denotes the several frequency
bande, and n(k) is the NOY level of the noisiest band. This reflects
the “masking” of lesser bands by the noisiest.
2. The total PNL is then PNL(k) = 40 + 33.3 log10N(k).
3. Apply a tone correction c(k) by identifying the pure tones and adding
to PNL an amount ranging from 0 to 6.6 dB, depending on the frequency
of the tone and its amplitude relative to neighboring bands.
4. Apply a duration correction according to EPNL = PNLTM + D, where PNLTM
is the maximum PNL for any of the time intervals. Here
[pic],
where (t = 0.5 sec, T = 10 sec, and d is the time over which PNLT
exceeds PNLTM – 10 dB. This amounts to integrating the sound pressure
level over the time during which it exceeds its peak value minus 10
dB, then converting the result to decibels.
All turbofan-powered transport aircraft must comply at certification with
EPNL limits for measuring points which are spoken about in the next
chapter.
5 Noise Certification
The increasing volume of air traffic resulted in unacceptable noise
exposures near major urban airfields in the late 1960s, leading to a great
public pressure for noise control. This pressure, and advancing technology,
led to ICAO Annex 16, AP-36, Joint Aviation Regulation Part 36 (JAR-36) and
Federal Aviation Rule Part 36 (FAR-36), which set maximum take-off, landing
and “sideline” noise levels for certification of new turbofan-powered
aircraft. It is through the need to satisfy this rule that the noise issue
influences the design and operation of aircraft engines. A little more
general background of the noise problem may be helpful in establishing the
context of engine noise control.
The FAA issued FAR-36 (which establishes the limits on take-off,
approach, and sideline noise for individual aircraft), followed by ICAO
issuing its Annex 16 Part 2, and JAA issuing JAR-36. These rules have since
been revised several times, reflecting both improvements in technology and
continuing pressure to reduce noise. As of this writing, the rules are
enunciated as three progressive stages of noise certification. The noise
limits are stated in terms of measurements at three measuring stations, as
shown in Fig. 5.1: under the approach path 2000 m before touchdown, under
the take-off path 6500 m from the start of the take-off roll, and at the
point of maximum noise along the sides of the runway at a distance of 450
m.
[pic]
Figure 5.1 Schematic of airport runway showing approach, take-off, and
sideline noise measurement stations.
The noise of any given aircraft at the approach and take-off stations
depends both on the engines and on the aircraft’s performance, operational
procedures, and loading, since the power settings and the altitude of the
aircraft may vary.
The sideline station is more representative of the intrinsic take-off
noise characteristics of the engine, since the engine is at full throttle
and the station is nearly at a fixed distance from the aircraft. The actual
distance depends on the altitude the aircraft has attained when it produced
maximum noise along the designated measuring line. Since FAR-36 and
international rules set by the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO annex 16, Part 2) which are generally consistent with it have been in
force, airport noise has been a major design criterion for civil aircraft.
Stricter noise pollution standards for commercial aircraft,
established by the International Civil Aviation Organization, came into
effect worldwide on 1 April. Most industrialized countries, including all
EU states, enforced the new rules and the vast majority of airliners flying
in those states already meet the more stringent requirements. But some
Eastern European countries are facing a problem, especially Russia. Eighty
percent of its civilian aircraft fall short of the standards, meaning it
will not be able to apply the new rules for domestic flights. Even more
worrisome for Moscow is the fact that Russia could find many of its planes
banned from foreign skies. Enforcement of the new rules could force Russia
to cancel 11,000 flights in 2002, representing some 12 percent of the
country's passenger traffic.
The new rules have been applied only to subsonic transports, because
no new supersonic commercial aircraft have been developed since its
promulgation.
5.1 Noise Limits
As mentioned above, all turbofan-powered transport aircraft must
comply at certification with EPNL limits for the three measuring stations
as shown in Fig. 5.1. The limits depend on the gross weight of the aircraft
at take-off and number of engines, as shown in Fig. 5.2. The rule is the
same for all engine numbers on approach and on the sideline because the
distance from the aircraft to the measuring point is fixed on approach by
the angle of the approach path (normally 3 deg) and on the sideline by the
distance of the measuring station from the runway centerline.
[pic]
Figure 5.2 Noise limits imposed by ICAO Annex 16 for certification of
aircraft.
On take-off, however, aircraft with fewer engines climb out faster, so they
are higher above the measuring point. Here the “reasonable and economically
practicable” principle comes into dictate that three-engine and two-engine
aircraft have lower noise levels at the take-off noise station than four-
engine aircraft.
There is some flexibility in the rule, in that the noise levels can
be exceeded by up to 2 EPNdB at any station provided the sum of the
exceedances is not over 3 ENPdB and that the exceedances are completely
offset by reductions at other measuring stations.
6 Noise Level Calculations
17 Tupolev 154M Description
For most airlines in the CIS, the Tupolev Tu-154 is nowadays the
workhorse on domestic and international routes.
[pic]
Figure 6.1 Tupolev 154M main look
It was produced in two main vesions: The earlier production models
have been designated Tupolev -154, Tupolev -154A, Tupolev -154B, Tupolev
-154B-1 and Tupolev -154B-2, while the later version has been called
Tupolev -154M. Overall, close to 1'000 Tupolev -154s were built up to day,
of which a large portion is still operated.
Table 6.1 Tupolev 154M main characteristics
|Role | |Medium range passenger aircraft |
|Status | |Produced until circa 1996, in wide |
| | |spread service |
|NATO Codename | |Careless |
|First Flight | |October 3, 1968 |
|First Service | |1984 |
|Engines | |3 Soloviev D-30KU (104 kN each) |
|Length | |47.9 m |
|Wingspan | |37.5 m |
|Range | |3'900 km |
|Cruising Speed | |900 km/h |
|Payload Capacity | |156-180 passengers (5450 kg) |
|Maximum Take-off | |100'000 kg |
|Weight | | |
The Tu-154 was developed to replace the turbojet powered Tupolev Tu-
104, plus the Antonov - 10 and Ilyushin - 18 turboprops. Design criteria in
replacing these three relatively diverse aircraft included the ability to
operate from gravel or packed earth airfields, the need to fly at high
altitudes 'above most Soviet Union air traffic, and good field performance.
In meeting these aims the initial Tupolev -154 design featured three
Kuznetsov (now KKBM) NK-8 turbofans, triple bogey main undercarriage units
which retract into wing pods and a rear engine T-tail configuration.
The Tupolev -154's first flight occurred on October 4 1968. Regular
commercial service began in February 1972. Three Kuznetsov powered variants
of the Tupolev -154 were built, the initial Tupolev -154, the improved
Tupolev -154A with more powerful engines and a higher max take-off weight
and the Tupolev -154B with a further increased max take-off weight. Tupolev
-154S is a freighter version of the Tupolev -154B.
Current production is of the Tupolev -154M, which first flew in 1982.
The major change introduced on the M was the far more economical, quieter
and reliable Solovyev (now Aviadvigatel) turbofans. The Tupolev - 154M2 is
a proposed twin variant powered by two Perm PS90A turbofans.
6.2 Noise Calculaions
Noise level at control points is calculated using the Noise-Power-
Distance (NPD) relationship. In practice NPD-relationship is used in the
parabolic shape:
[pic],
where coefficients А, В, С are different for different aircraft types and
engine modes. For Tupolev-154M the coefficients А, В, С are shown in the
table 6.2 in respect to Tupolev-154.
Table 6.2 Noise-Power-Distance coefficients of similar aircraft.
| |Tupolev-154 |Tupolev-154M |
|Weight, kg |80000 |76000 |72000 |68000 |68000 |
|Vapp, m/s |74,8 |72,91 |70,964 |68,965 |66,91 |
|Thrust, kg |8445,63 |8024,67 |7601,88 |7179,66 |6758,58 |
|LA, dBA |96,74 |96,05 |95,35 |94,66 |93,97 |
|EPNL, EPNdB |112,17 |111,32 |110,48 |109,64 |108,79 |
|?LA, dBA |0 |0,69 |0,7 |0,69 |0,69 |
|?EPNL, EPNdB |0 |0,85 |0,84 |0,84 |0,85 |
|SQRT (Wing |21,082 |20,548 |20 |19,437 |18,856 |
|Load) | | | | | |
|Thrust To |0,10557 |0,105588 |0,105582 |0,105583 |0,105603 |
|Weight rt. | | | | | |
Tupolev 154M has the same aerodynamics as Tupolev 154, thus the
necessary thrust for both of them during approach is almost the same.
Tupolev 154M has more powerful engines and it can carry more payload. Its
maximum landing weight is 2 tons greater than that one of 154. Noise
parameters are different for these aircraft (table 6.2), and the calculated
noise levels slightly differ as well.
7 Noise Suppression
7.1 Suppression of Jet Noise
Methods for suppressing jet noise have exploited the characteristics
of the jet itself and those of the human observer. For a given total noise
power, the human impact is less if the frequency is very high, as the ear
is less sensitive at high frequencies. A shift to high frequency can be
achieved by replacing one large nozzle with many small ones. This was one
basis for the early turbojet engine suppressors. Reduction of the jet
velocity can have a powerful effect since P is proportional to the jet
velocity raised to a power varying from 8 to 3, depending on the magnitude
of uc. The multiple small nozzles reduced the mean jet velocity somewhat by
promoting entrainment of the surrounding air into the jet. Some attempts
have been made to augment this effect by enclosing the multinozzle in a
shroud, so that the ambient air is drawn into the shroud.
Certainly the most effective of jet noise suppressors has been the
turbofan engine, which in effect distributes the power of the exhaust jet
over a larger airflow, thus reducing the mean jet velocity.
In judging the overall usefulness of any jet noise reduction system,
several factors must be considered in addition to the amount of noise
reduction. Among these factors are loss of thrust, addition of weight, and
increased fuel consumption.
A number of noise-suppression schemes have been studied, mainly for
turbofan engines of one sort or another. These include inverted-temperature-
profile nozzles, in which a hot outer flow surrounds a cooler core flow,
and mixer-ejector nozzles. In the first of these, the effect is to reduce
the overall noise level from that which would be generated if the hot outer
jets are subsonic with respect to the outer hot gas. This idea can be
implemented either with a duct burner on a conventional turbofan or with a
nozzle that interchanges the core and duct flows, carrying the latter to
the inside and the former to the outside. In the mixer-ejector nozzle, the
idea is to reduce the mean jet velocity by ingesting additional airflow
through a combination of the ejector nozzles and the chute-type mixer.
Fairly high mass flow ratios can be attained with such arrangements, at the
expense of considerable weight.
The most promising solution, however, is some form of “variable cycle”
engine that operates with a higher bypass ratio on take-off and in subsonic
flight than at the supersonic cruise condition. This can be achieved to
some degree with multi-spool engines by varying the speed of some of the
spools to change their mass flow, and at the same time manipulating
throttle areas. Another approach is to use a tandem-parallel compressor
arrangement, where two compressors operate in parallel at take-off and
subsonically, and in series at a supersonic conditions.
7.1.1 Duct Linings
It is self evident that the most desirable way to reduce engine noise
would be to eliminate noise generation by changing the engine design. The
current state of the art, however, will not provide levels low enough to
satisfy expected requirements; thus, it is necessary to attenuate the noise
that is generated.
Fan noise radiated from the engine inlet and fan discharge (Fig. 7.1)
of current fan jet airplanes during landing makes the largest contribution
to perceived noise.
[pic]
Figure 7.1 Schematic illustration of noise sources from turbofan
engines
Figure 7.2. shows a typical farfield SPL noise spectrum generated by a
turbofan engine at a landing-approach power setting. Below 800 Hz, the
spectrum is controlled by noise from the primary jet exhaust. The spectrum
between 800 and 10000 Hz contains several discrete frequency components in
particular that need to be attenuated by the linings in the inlet and the
fan duct before they are radiated to the farfield.
[pic]
Figure 7.2 Engine-noise spectrum
The objective in applying acoustic treatment is to reduce the SPL at
the characteristic discrete frequencies associated with the fan blade
passage frequency and its associated harmonics. Noise reductions at these
frequencies would alleviate the undesirable fan whine and would reduce the
perceived noise levels.
A promising approach to the problem has been the development of a
tuned-absorber noise-suppression system that can be incorporated into the
inlet and exhaust ducts of turbofan engines. An acoustical system of this
type requires that the internal aerodynamic surfaces of the ducts be
replaced by sheets of porous materials, which are backed by acoustical
cavities. Simply, these systems function as a series of dead-end
labyrinths, which are designed to trap sound waves of a specific
wavelength. The frequencies for which these absorbers are tuned is a
function of the porosity of flow resistance of the porous facing sheets and
of the depth or volume of the acoustical cavities. The cavity is divided
into compartments by means of an open cellular structure, such as honeycomb
cells, to provide an essentially locally reacting impedance (Fig. 7.3).
This is done to provide an acoustic impedance almost independent of the
angle of incidence of the sound waves impinging on the lining.
The perforated-plate-and-honeycomb combination is similar to an array
of Helmholtz resonators; the pressure in the cavity acts as a spring upon
which the flow through the orifice oscillates in response to pressure
fluctuations outside the orifice.
[pic]
Figure 7.2 Schematic of acoustic damping cavities in an angine duct. The
size of the resonators
is exaggerated relative to the duct diameter.
The attenuation spectrum of this lining is that of a sharply tuned
resonator effective over a narrow frequency range when used in an
environment with low airflow velocity or low SPL. This concept, however,
can also provide a broader bandwidth of attenuation in a very high noise-
level environment where the particle velocity through the perforations is
high, or by the addition of a fine wire screen that provides the acoustic
resistance needed to dissipate acoustic energy in low particle-velocity or
sound-pressure environments. The addition of the wire screen does, however,
complicate manufacture and adds weight to such an extent that other
concepts are usually more attractive.
[pic]
Figure 7.3 Acoustical lining structure.
Although the resistive-resonator lining is a frequency-tuned device
absorbing sound in a selected frequency range, a suitable combination of
material characteristics and lining geometry will yield substantial
attenuation over a frequency range wide enough to encompass the discrete
components and the major harmonics of most fan noise.
7.1.2 Duct Lining Calculation
First we have to determine the blade passage frequency:
[pic],
where z is number of blades, n is RPM.
Blade passage frequencies for different engine modes are given in table 7.1
Next we determine the second fan blade passage harmonic frequency, which is
two times greater than the first one: [pic].
Table 7.1 Fan blade passage frequencies for different engine modes.
|Take-off |Nominal |88%Nom |70%Nom |60%Nom |53%Nom |Idle | |RPM |10425
|10055 |9878 |9513 |9315 |8837 |4000 | |1st harmonic freq., Hz |5386,25
|5195,083
|5103,633
|4915,05
|4812,75
|4565,783
|2066,667
| |2nd harmonic freq., Hz |10772,5
|10390,17
|10207,27
|9830,1
|9625,5
|9131,567
|4133,333
| |
Using experimental data, we determine lining and cell geometry:
For the first harmonic, parameters will be:
. Distance between linings 28.5 cm;
. Lining length 45 cm;
. Lining depth 2.5 cm;
. Cell length 2 cm..
For the second harmonic, parameters will be the following:
. Distance between linings 4.5 cm;
. Lining length 5 cm;
. Lining depth 2.5 cm;
. Cell length 0.4 cm.
Figure 7.4 shows the placement of the lining in engine nacelle.
[pic]
Figure 7.4 Lining placement in the nacelle.
Страницы: 1, 2
|