Rotorcraft In-Plane Noise Reduction Using Active/Passive Approaches With Induced Vibration Tracking

A comprehensive study of the use of active and passive approaches for in-plane noise reduction, including the vibrations induced during noise reduction, was conducted on a hingeless rotor configuration resembling the MBB BO-105 rotor. First, a parametric study was performed to examine the effects of rotor blade stiffness on the vibration and noise reduction performance of a 20%c plain trailing edge flap and a 1.5%c sliding microflap. This was accomplished using a comprehensive code AVINOR (for Active VIbration and NOise Reduction). A two-dimensional unsteady reduced order aerodynamic model (ROM), using the Rational Function Approximation approach and CFD-based oscillatory aerodynamic load data, was used in the comprehensive code. The study identified a hingeless blade configuration with torsional frequency of 3.17/rev as an optimum configuration for studying vibration and noise reduction using on-blade control devices such as flaps or microflaps. Subsequently, a new suite of computational tools capable of predicting in-plane low frequency sound pressure level (LFSPL) rotorcraft noise and its control was developed, replacing the acoustic module WOPWOP in AVINOR with a new acoustic module HELINOIR (for HELIcopter NOIse Reduction), which overcomes certain limitations associated with WOPWOP. The new suite, consisting of the AVINOR/HELINOIR combination, was used to study active flaps, as well as microflaps operating in closed-loop mode for in-plane noise reduction. An alternative passive in-plane noise reduction approach using modification to the blade tip in the 10%R outboard region was also studied. The new suite consisting of the AVINOR/HELINOIR combination based on a compact aeroacoustic model was validated by comparing with wind tunnel test results, and subsequently verified by comparing with computational results. For active control, the in-plane noise reduction obtained with a single 20%c plain trailing edge flap during level flight at a moderate advance ratio was examined. Different configurations of far-field and near-field feedback microphone locations were examined to develop a fundamental understanding of the feedback microphone locations on the noise reduction process A near-field microphone located on the tip of a nose boom was found to produce a LFSPL reduction of up to 6dB. However, this noise reduction was accompanied by an out-of-plane noise increase of 18dB and 60% increase in vertical hub shear. For passive control, three tip geometries having sweep, dihedral, and anhedral, were considered. The tip dihedral reduced LFSPL by up to 2dB without a vibratory load penalty. However, this was accompanied by an increase in the mid frequency sound pressure levels (MFSPL). The tip sweep and tip anhedral produced an increase in in-plane LFSPL below the horizon. A comparison of the active and passive approaches indicated that active approaches implemented by a plain flap with a feedback microphone located on the nose boom is superior to the passive control approaches. However, there is a general trade-off between LFSPL reduction, MFSPL generation and vibratory hub loads induced by noise control.PhDAerospace EngineeringUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138495/1/cmianghw_1.pd