Large turbofan noise
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Large turbofan noise
With apologies in advance if this has been raised before........
As a frequent pax/TAP/sad git (choose your label) living under the LHR outbound flightpath for 09R (and the occasional 09L) I can't help but notice the significant difference in t/o noise between BA's "old" 777s with GE90s and the newer, Trent-powered version. To put it succinctly, the former ones "whistle" whilst the latter ones "growl". The question is, why such a difference in tone from engines of similar size and power? Is it the Trent's extra shaft, perhaps, or that it has a snubberless fan, that makes its sound so much lower in frequency (and, I hate to say, somewhat noisier)? Can any engine techies out there enlighten please?
As a frequent pax/TAP/sad git (choose your label) living under the LHR outbound flightpath for 09R (and the occasional 09L) I can't help but notice the significant difference in t/o noise between BA's "old" 777s with GE90s and the newer, Trent-powered version. To put it succinctly, the former ones "whistle" whilst the latter ones "growl". The question is, why such a difference in tone from engines of similar size and power? Is it the Trent's extra shaft, perhaps, or that it has a snubberless fan, that makes its sound so much lower in frequency (and, I hate to say, somewhat noisier)? Can any engine techies out there enlighten please?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, Intruder, that that is the most likely explanation, but the noise difference is so marked that the fan speed/shape must also be significantly different between the two. I wonder therefore if one characteristic of the Trent's three-shaft design is to produce a much slower rotating fan and therefore a lower pitched-noise? Hopefully an engineer will read this thread and comment. Incidentally I have yet to be close to an A340-600 at take-off but I would expect there to be a similarly marked difference between it and a CFM-56 powered -200 or -300.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt if the fan speed makes much difference to the noise print.
100% N1 RB211-524D4=3,900rpm, fan diameter=95.00"
JT9D-70A =3,600rpm -:- =95.56"
CF6-50 =3,433rpm
The fan bypass ratio of 5:1 on the RB211 is the highest of all three engines but there is really not much difference in the basics between them except the RB211 of course, which is a three spool engine.
100% N1 RB211-524D4=3,900rpm, fan diameter=95.00"
JT9D-70A =3,600rpm -:- =95.56"
CF6-50 =3,433rpm
The fan bypass ratio of 5:1 on the RB211 is the highest of all three engines but there is really not much difference in the basics between them except the RB211 of course, which is a three spool engine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hotdog,
Unless I missunderstood what you said..........Fan Speed makes all the difference when it comes to engine noise. In fact, lowering RPM by 10 will change the noise output of an aircraft by a few tenths of a dB. Not that the noise source has changed, the increase in noise is mostly due to being lower over the mic.
Example: Adding the N1 monitor to CF650 engines lowered climb out RPM by about 9 RPM this was a 0.2 EPNdB change.
I could spend a few hours taking those that care through Noise 101, but I don't think anybody would really care.
As an FYI - the GE powered 777s are certified quieter than the Trents. The growl you hear is what is called "Buzzsaw" noise and will be fixed by a new inlet that will be available come July this year. I don't understand the whistle noise you are claiming to hear. It could be turbo machinery noise that is louder than the engines, but if that is true the noise certification of those aircraft is bogus.
Unless I missunderstood what you said..........Fan Speed makes all the difference when it comes to engine noise. In fact, lowering RPM by 10 will change the noise output of an aircraft by a few tenths of a dB. Not that the noise source has changed, the increase in noise is mostly due to being lower over the mic.
Example: Adding the N1 monitor to CF650 engines lowered climb out RPM by about 9 RPM this was a 0.2 EPNdB change.
I could spend a few hours taking those that care through Noise 101, but I don't think anybody would really care.
As an FYI - the GE powered 777s are certified quieter than the Trents. The growl you hear is what is called "Buzzsaw" noise and will be fixed by a new inlet that will be available come July this year. I don't understand the whistle noise you are claiming to hear. It could be turbo machinery noise that is louder than the engines, but if that is true the noise certification of those aircraft is bogus.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The primary/loudest noise from the front engine will almost always be from the fan. Not only the fan speed, but the number of blades will determine the basic noise frequency. Since noise is propagated in air, the movement of more air (i.e., higher thrust settings) will also directly affect the volume/level of the noise.
The character of the perceived noise will be affected by local airflow through the inlets, the frequency and level of noise that emits from the compressor section, exhaust noise that can be heard from in front of the engine, vibrations in the nacelle and airframe caused by the main engine noise, and interactions between all those noise sources, vibrations, and structures.
Noise that we perceive as whines, growls, hoots, and shrieks are the products of those interactions.
The 2-spool vs 3-spool configuration undoubtedly makes SOME difference in perceived noise, but it would be in the secondary interactions more than in the primary fan noise.
The character of the perceived noise will be affected by local airflow through the inlets, the frequency and level of noise that emits from the compressor section, exhaust noise that can be heard from in front of the engine, vibrations in the nacelle and airframe caused by the main engine noise, and interactions between all those noise sources, vibrations, and structures.
Noise that we perceive as whines, growls, hoots, and shrieks are the products of those interactions.
The 2-spool vs 3-spool configuration undoubtedly makes SOME difference in perceived noise, but it would be in the secondary interactions more than in the primary fan noise.
Title? What title?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm interesting thread this one.
95" diameter at 3900rpm. Unless I have done my sums wrong, that equates to a blade tip speed of somewhere over 1100mph, which to me as the guy sitting back in the cabin with his G&T is quite staggering (even without the G&T). I know at normal T&P's, that would be way over the speed of sound, however of course, a jet engine is far from a place of normal T&P. Assuming my calculation is correct (and I am no way suggesting the sonic shock wave contributes to the sound heard outside), how is the transition to supersonic blade speed which presumably takes only a few seconds handled within the engine ? It must put unbelievable stresses on the components.
If I am talking cr*p or asking cr*p questions, please dont shoot me down in too many flames. Just take it as an example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
95" diameter at 3900rpm. Unless I have done my sums wrong, that equates to a blade tip speed of somewhere over 1100mph, which to me as the guy sitting back in the cabin with his G&T is quite staggering (even without the G&T). I know at normal T&P's, that would be way over the speed of sound, however of course, a jet engine is far from a place of normal T&P. Assuming my calculation is correct (and I am no way suggesting the sonic shock wave contributes to the sound heard outside), how is the transition to supersonic blade speed which presumably takes only a few seconds handled within the engine ? It must put unbelievable stresses on the components.
If I am talking cr*p or asking cr*p questions, please dont shoot me down in too many flames. Just take it as an example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes fan tip speed is supersonic. Same as on prop aircraft. When You see a prop aircraft in the sky that is not the engine you are hearing. That is the tip of the blade smacking the air as it dips in and out of sonic.
If you have the chance to get near where the pilots are pushing the TOGA button you will hear a "WUMP" as the blades go sonic.
The amount of pressure on the engine is quite large. It can be -60 out and the blades will be amazingly hot and that is why they are hollow.
If you have the chance to get near where the pilots are pushing the TOGA button you will hear a "WUMP" as the blades go sonic.
The amount of pressure on the engine is quite large. It can be -60 out and the blades will be amazingly hot and that is why they are hollow.
Title? What title?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I supose its obvious that it would be supersonic I guess - I think the tip of the PA28 that I normally fly is a meager 330 mph at 2500. Ho hum rather a lot less energy
I guess this opens a number of other questions - at least to me
Is there presumably a max rpm for blades after which they stop being able to 'grip' the air
Are there any variable pitch blades ?
what does -60 out mean ??
What are the fan speeds on the -400 747 ?
I could go on all night - this is facinating
I guess this opens a number of other questions - at least to me
Is there presumably a max rpm for blades after which they stop being able to 'grip' the air
Are there any variable pitch blades ?
what does -60 out mean ??
What are the fan speeds on the -400 747 ?
I could go on all night - this is facinating
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fan blade angle is fixed, -60 is OAT in degrees C, -400 blade speed depends on engine fit but similar to previous figures quoted.
747 Focal, what I meant was that the comparison of noise between the P&W, GE and RR engines would not be generated by the difference in fan speeds alone as the speeds do not differ that much. I take your point though.
747 Focal, what I meant was that the comparison of noise between the P&W, GE and RR engines would not be generated by the difference in fan speeds alone as the speeds do not differ that much. I take your point though.
Title? What title?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the answers to my questions guys.
It just makes me realise just how clever mankind has got to be able to contain and work with these extreems (and to make them spin in those conditions) I could go on asking questions on the subject for ever, but I think people would get bored with me.
Is there any laymans guide to this technology kicking around - a sort of 'Engine design for dummys' (as per the series more common in my IT world) ?
It just makes me realise just how clever mankind has got to be able to contain and work with these extreems (and to make them spin in those conditions) I could go on asking questions on the subject for ever, but I think people would get bored with me.
Is there any laymans guide to this technology kicking around - a sort of 'Engine design for dummys' (as per the series more common in my IT world) ?
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rolls Royce published an excellent book titled The Jet Engine. You might still be able to get hold of a copy , write to Rolls-Royce Ltd. Derby Engine Division, Derby England, or Rolls- Royce Aero Engine Inc. 551 Fifth Ave New York, NY10017 USA. I don't know where you are situated. Cheers, HD.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: S Warwickshire
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps more relevant is another R-R book - "Aircraft Noise" by the late Mike Smith.
As this used to be my specialized subject, I'll offer a few more comments.
Even the very high bypass engines of late are still dominated by jet noise (i.e. exhaust mixing noise) at take off settings, but the fan noise isn't too far behind. The fan tips are typically at about 1.4 relative Mach number, so the shock waves from the tips propagate non-linearly to produce what is often called "buzz-saw" noise. Small differences in the fan, length of duct and acoustic lining of the duct can significantly alter the character of this noise. It is characterised as a set of tones at harmonics of the LP shaft frequency peaking in level at about 1 to 1.5 times the blade passing frequency (i.e. 1 - 2 KHz). Subsonically you only see harmonics of the blade passing frequency.
The jet noise is mainly characterised by the velocity of the hot exhaust and the diameter of the hot nozzle. Lots of techniques are used to encourage mixing with the surrounding bypass flow, especially with long cowl engines with buried hot nozzles.
I don't have much specific knowledge of the engines that you mention, but I hope this better explains it to you. Its a very big and expensive subject for the manufacturers.
As this used to be my specialized subject, I'll offer a few more comments.
Even the very high bypass engines of late are still dominated by jet noise (i.e. exhaust mixing noise) at take off settings, but the fan noise isn't too far behind. The fan tips are typically at about 1.4 relative Mach number, so the shock waves from the tips propagate non-linearly to produce what is often called "buzz-saw" noise. Small differences in the fan, length of duct and acoustic lining of the duct can significantly alter the character of this noise. It is characterised as a set of tones at harmonics of the LP shaft frequency peaking in level at about 1 to 1.5 times the blade passing frequency (i.e. 1 - 2 KHz). Subsonically you only see harmonics of the blade passing frequency.
The jet noise is mainly characterised by the velocity of the hot exhaust and the diameter of the hot nozzle. Lots of techniques are used to encourage mixing with the surrounding bypass flow, especially with long cowl engines with buried hot nozzles.
I don't have much specific knowledge of the engines that you mention, but I hope this better explains it to you. Its a very big and expensive subject for the manufacturers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hotdog,
I got you now. A lot of people confuse "engine" noise with "aircraft" noise. Different airplanes with the exact same engines will most likely not have the same certified noise values.
When I see magazines that say things like "this engine is "Stage 3" or "Chapter 3" I laugh. No engine is noise certified, it is the entire aircraft configuration that gets noise certification. Different aircraft perform differently as to thrust required at cutback, speed at the sideline point and thrust required on approach.
Engines with a larger bypass ratio will undoubtably be spinning a lot slower to produce the same or greater thrust as a lower bypass engine. This is the killer on approach. Cutback is mostly jet noise with very little fan component in the spectrum.
Things like exhaust mixers, acoustic liners and the newest tweek of the week.....performance robbing "chevrons" help in reducing the jet noise, well the liners in the exhaust only work for about a month and then they fill up with so much crap that they basically do nothing. Repairs to the liners also reduce their ability to reduce the source noise.
The best way to reduce noise on an already operational aircraft is to improve the performance of the aircraft(ie. improve L/D) Anything that can be done to reduce required thrust for any aircraft will have a large effect on the noise numbers. For the most part we in the noise world have hit a huge wall as far as technology that we can throw on aircraft to reduce noise. We used to get huge reductions and now we scrape for even tenths of a dB.
FYI - The A380 design increased fuel burn in cruise by 1% by tweaking the wing design towards lower thrust required on approach so as to make their intended QC catagory at Heathrow. Nice of the Bus to design a plane that is cheaper for the operator to operate but costs the rest of us in cash(increased ticket price) and environmentally.
I got you now. A lot of people confuse "engine" noise with "aircraft" noise. Different airplanes with the exact same engines will most likely not have the same certified noise values.
When I see magazines that say things like "this engine is "Stage 3" or "Chapter 3" I laugh. No engine is noise certified, it is the entire aircraft configuration that gets noise certification. Different aircraft perform differently as to thrust required at cutback, speed at the sideline point and thrust required on approach.
Engines with a larger bypass ratio will undoubtably be spinning a lot slower to produce the same or greater thrust as a lower bypass engine. This is the killer on approach. Cutback is mostly jet noise with very little fan component in the spectrum.
Things like exhaust mixers, acoustic liners and the newest tweek of the week.....performance robbing "chevrons" help in reducing the jet noise, well the liners in the exhaust only work for about a month and then they fill up with so much crap that they basically do nothing. Repairs to the liners also reduce their ability to reduce the source noise.
The best way to reduce noise on an already operational aircraft is to improve the performance of the aircraft(ie. improve L/D) Anything that can be done to reduce required thrust for any aircraft will have a large effect on the noise numbers. For the most part we in the noise world have hit a huge wall as far as technology that we can throw on aircraft to reduce noise. We used to get huge reductions and now we scrape for even tenths of a dB.
FYI - The A380 design increased fuel burn in cruise by 1% by tweaking the wing design towards lower thrust required on approach so as to make their intended QC catagory at Heathrow. Nice of the Bus to design a plane that is cheaper for the operator to operate but costs the rest of us in cash(increased ticket price) and environmentally.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Mark1 and Focal. I attended an Aviation Club luncheon in Sydney last week. The speaker was an Airbus rep. who gave a presentation on the A380. Extremely impressive and he touched on the noise characteristics as well, which concurs with your comments Focal.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thanks to all of you out there who have provided such erudite responses to my original posting. Whilst I still don't understand quite why there should be such a difference in noise between a GE90 and a Trent, I have certainly learnt a whole lot about the variables and complexities of large turbofan design.
I should point out incidentally that the observations which prompted my original post were based on experiencing 777s coming towards me in a RH turn soon after t/o from LHR 09R. Once the aircraft have passed (almost overhead) there is much less difference in noise between the two, since the exhause roar has taken over from frontal fan noise as the dominant element.
I must say that I am intrigued by the expression "buzz-saw" noise, since it certainly accurately describes that of the Trent (and its RB211 predecessors) but not so much the GE90. It is interesting that a new nacelle intake design is being considered to reduce this effect - I'm intrigued to know how this will work.
If I interpret the various detailed postings aright, this noise difference is unlikely to be due simply to 2 v. 3 spools, or fan speed per se, but rather a number of factors that combine to make a different noise profile. There was a suggestion that the number of fan blades could be relevant, but I have not been able to check on how many blades the Trent has versus the GE90 (actually I did try counting last night as I passed the BA engineering base at LHR last night but it was too dark - sad!!); anyone have any more information in this regard?
I should point out incidentally that the observations which prompted my original post were based on experiencing 777s coming towards me in a RH turn soon after t/o from LHR 09R. Once the aircraft have passed (almost overhead) there is much less difference in noise between the two, since the exhause roar has taken over from frontal fan noise as the dominant element.
I must say that I am intrigued by the expression "buzz-saw" noise, since it certainly accurately describes that of the Trent (and its RB211 predecessors) but not so much the GE90. It is interesting that a new nacelle intake design is being considered to reduce this effect - I'm intrigued to know how this will work.
If I interpret the various detailed postings aright, this noise difference is unlikely to be due simply to 2 v. 3 spools, or fan speed per se, but rather a number of factors that combine to make a different noise profile. There was a suggestion that the number of fan blades could be relevant, but I have not been able to check on how many blades the Trent has versus the GE90 (actually I did try counting last night as I passed the BA engineering base at LHR last night but it was too dark - sad!!); anyone have any more information in this regard?
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seloco
To save you getting eye strain
GE90
Fan Diameter 123.0 inches
22 wide chord blades (carbon fibre with titanium leading and trailing edges)
100% N1 2,261 rpm
100% N2 9,332 rpm
Thrust 76k to 85k (90k for some operators)
New bigger fan and intake takes it to 115k (swept chord blades)
RR Trent
Fan Diameter 110.3 inches
26 wide chord blades (vacuum formed hollow titanium)
100% N1 3,300 rpm
100% N2 7,000 rpm
100% N3 10.611 rpm
Thrust 95k
BTW one can get the GE90 fan to growl quite nicely
I never understood why Boeing found it necessary with the Trent to flatten off the lower part of the nose cowl similar to the cfm 56 on the 737 whereas the '90 which is a bigger diameter has a 'round' nose cowl
To save you getting eye strain
GE90
Fan Diameter 123.0 inches
22 wide chord blades (carbon fibre with titanium leading and trailing edges)
100% N1 2,261 rpm
100% N2 9,332 rpm
Thrust 76k to 85k (90k for some operators)
New bigger fan and intake takes it to 115k (swept chord blades)
RR Trent
Fan Diameter 110.3 inches
26 wide chord blades (vacuum formed hollow titanium)
100% N1 3,300 rpm
100% N2 7,000 rpm
100% N3 10.611 rpm
Thrust 95k
BTW one can get the GE90 fan to growl quite nicely
I never understood why Boeing found it necessary with the Trent to flatten off the lower part of the nose cowl similar to the cfm 56 on the 737 whereas the '90 which is a bigger diameter has a 'round' nose cowl