See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289628774

Reduction of engine exhaust noise in a jet engine test cell

Article  in  Noise Control Engineering Journal · March 2011

DOI: 10.3397/1.3544302

CITATION READS
1 1,908

3 authors, including:

Wei Hua Ho Mark Jermy

University of the Witwatersrand University of Canterbury
42 PUBLICATIONS   216 CITATIONS    157 PUBLICATIONS   1,337 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sports aerodynamics View project

Modelling of geothermal silica scaling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wei Hua Ho on 28 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Reduction of engine exhaust noise in a jet engine test cell
Wei Hua Hoa), Jordan Gilmoreb) and Mark Jermyb)
(Received: 11 July 2010; Revised: 15 December 2010; Accepted: 19 December 2010)
High amplitude noise is often generated during the running of a turbofan or
turbojet aero engine in a test cell. A large proportion of this noise originates
from the exhaust noise from the jet engine and is mostly broadband in nature.
Low frequency noise can generate structural vibration and certain unpleasant
physio-psychological effects in sensitive people whilst the higher more audible
frequencies are a nuisance and contribute to the general noise pollution. Efforts
to reduce noise emission, especially in the infrasonic range have had varying
degrees of success and target either the flow generated noise or the transmission
through the cell. This paper seeks to introduce an alternative and novel method
of noise control by reducing the exhaust jet noise. This is achieved by reducing
the shear rate between the engine exhaust jet and the cell bypass flow through
altering the position of the engine in the test cell and the augmenter tube size. A
CFD study was carried out to predict the change in cell bypass flow velocity and
Lighthill’s formulae were used to predict the change in jet noise. The
combination of these two modifications shows a 1 – 4 dB reduction with the
change in augmenter tube size being the more effective method. However a very
simple change in the position of the engine within the main engine chamber can
still yield a 1.8 dB reduction in the current model. © 2011 Institute of Noise
Control Engineering.

Primary subject classification: 73; Secondary subject classification: 21.6.1

1 INTRODUCTION worldwide trend of the tightening of noise emission

A jet engine engine test cell (JETC) is a structure
meant for the testing of jet engines after overhaul and
before re-installation on the aircraft. It creates an
environment that is as close as possible to the operating
condition on the aircraft. Another important function of
the JETC is to reduce noise emission to the surround-
ings during the tests. However a JETC can still be
rather noisy especially if operated with engines larger
than those originally envisioned when the cell was
built. As an example, Far field noise can exceed
90 dBA in military cells1–3. The main features of a typical
U-shaped JETC are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Traditionally, JETC would have been or will be
placed far away from high population density cities.
However as population grows, the distance between the
residential areas and test cells decreases thus magnify-
ing the effects of noise emissions. There is also a
standards especially in the infrasonic frequency range.
Noise in the audible frequencies contributes to noise
pollution and is a nuisance to the affected personnel.
However lower frequency infrasound can cause struc-
tural vibration and more pronounced physio-
psychological effects. Danielsson and Landstroem4 and
Landstroem5 et al. reported changes in systolic and
diastolic blood pressure with exposure to infrasound.
One of the first cell related noise reduction methods
was to water-cool the cells. The water reduced the
energy of the jet and decreased the associated jet noise.

a)
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
University of South Africa, Private Bag X6, Florida 1710,
Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA; email: howh@unisa.
ac.za.
b)
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Canterburg, Christchurch NEW ZEALAND. Fig. 1—Main features of a JETC.

194 Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (2), March-April 2011

However, water-cooled cells introduce several
problems including the fallout from the exhaust and
plume6. These were generally replaced by air-cooled
cells in the 1980s. A major source of noise from the
JETC is from the engine itself and major engine
manufacturers have put in place extensive research to
reduce it. Although turbofan engines generally produce
less noise than other jet engines, they can still exceed
permissible levels. Current engine noise reduction
techniques involves a combination of engine cycle
parameter changes and low-noise design features7.
Significant engine noise comes from several parts of
the engine including the fan, exhaust, compressor,
combustor and the turbine but the noise generated by
the exhaust jet usually dominates.
Turbomachinery noise is a strong function of rotor
tip speed and pressure ratio. Several tests were
conducted which document the benefits of lowering fan
tip speed while maintaining constant fan pressure
ratio8,9. Several studies show that forward swept fan
blades also seem to have advantages in reducing the
noise associated with shocks10,11. Swept stators have
been shown to reduce fan noise by about 3 dB (EPN)12.
For the exhaust jet, the noise produced is essentially the jet
noise and is strongly correlated with the velocity differ-
ence between the jet and the surroundings. The best way
to reduce the noise produced from a free jet would be to
lower the jet velocity. However the jet velocity is also
directly related to the thrust of the engines. Nozzle designs
are a common way in which reduction in exhaust jet noise
is achieved. One of the most effective recent designs is the
“chevron nozzles” that reduces jet noise by mixing the
core and bypass flows resulting in reduced low frequency
noise from the highly turbulent flow. Scale model tests
show a reduction of 2.5 dB (EPN) is possible with only a
0.5% loss in thrust13. Acoustic power depends on jet
velocity to the power of eight, but thrust only on the
average velocity to the power of one, so reducing the peak
velocities at the cost of raising the velocity in the slower
regions is effective in reducing noise with minimal reduc-
tion of thrust,
The JETC structure generally further reduces noise
emission but sometimes particular flow phenomena can
generate additional flow noise and are especially
troublesome when their frequencies matched the
resonant modes of the cell, or lie in the infrasonic range
where acoustic absorber materials are ineffective.
Although the engine noise is largely broadband in
nature, the noise signature of the test cell may exhibit
peaks at certain frequencies. This is due to a combina-
tion of factors including unequal attenuation, eddy
shedding and resonances. Howe14 identifies two funda-
mentally different types of resonant oscillations within
the test cell. They are the classical acoustic resonances
Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (2), March-April 2011
whose frequencies and mode shapes are unrelated to
the unsteady flow in the cell but depend on the
geometry of the cell, and sound produced by periodic
components of the flow. Both of these resonances can
arise independently of each other. Although the second
type is typically moderate in amplitude, they become
important when their frequencies match with the
acoustic resonant frequencies.
Absorber materials are usually used to reduce noise
in the higher frequencies but they are ineffective when
dealing with infrasound. Additions to the cell such as
the kopper’s harp, sponsons, wire mesh screens in the
augmenter tube and sawtooth structures on top of the
exhaust stack have been used to reduce the generation
of flow related infrasound15–17. The structures that are
installed in the augmenter tube are collectively known
as core busters and they work by breaking up coherent
turbulent structures in the jet flow within the augmenter
tube. By mixing the flow, they shift the generation of
noise from the lower frequencies to the higher ones
which are more easily attenuated. Their operating
principles are thus similar to nozzle chevrons.
Sawtooth structures are mounted on the top of some
exhaust stack to reduce noise by spawning waves with
complex phase relationships resulting in higher
probability of destructive rather than constructive inter-
ference. The Naval Air Engineering Centre in the
United States installed a sawtooth like structure
perpendicular to the flow at the top of the exhaust stack
at their T-10 test cell at NAS Lemoore as a barrier to
low frequency noise18 and showed a 7 dB reduction.
However a 1:20 scale physical model of the US Navy’s
T-10 test cell did not show the same high level of noise
reduction at Lemoore, with only ⬇1 dB reduction
predicted1.
The JETC noise reduction methods mentioned target
the secondary flow related sources described earlier.
Although their effectiveness has been documented,
these sources may not be present in all JETCs resulting
in highly variable effectiveness. In some cells, the
methods are very effective and in others not so, such as
the example quoted for the sawtooth structures. As
mentioned above, the engine is the primary source of
noise in an operating JETC and is generated from all
parts of the engine. Most of them are not affected
significantly by the JETC construction at all. The only
parameter is the exhaust jet noise where the dominant
factor is the relative jet velocity. In a ‘free’ environ-
ment, reduction in jet velocity is the only perceivable
solution. However in a constrained environment, such
as inside a JETC, a reduction in relative jet velocity can
also be achieved by increasing the flow velocity
surrounding the jet. This paper seeks to investigate
ways to increase the flow velocity surrounding the
195
exhaust jet by increasing the CBR and the efficiency of
the JETC. The shear between the jet and surrounding
air is thus reduced. It is hypothesized that changes to
the augmenter diameter as well as the distance between
the engine exhaust and augmenter entrance will have
an effect on the cell bypass ratio and hence the noise
emission of the test cell. A combination of CFD and
analytical formulae were used to carry out the study.
2 EXHAUST JET NOISE IN A JETC
In a JETC, the total airflow is greater than the
amount that passes through the engine. The excess
airflow is driven by entrainment of the exhaust jet
plume and passes between the engine and the internal
walls of the cell. This excess flow is related to the
engine airflow by the cell bypass ratio (CBR):
冉 冊
ṁcell − ṁengine
CBR = 100%
ṁengine
The CBR is distinct from the engine bypass ratio,
which is a parameter of the engine, and which refers to
the ratio of the flow rate between the fan (cold stream)
and the engine core (hot stream). CBR is also used to
indicate the efficiency of the JETC with a higher CBR
being better.
The study of jet noise was pioneered by Lighthill19.
He postulated that the acoustic radiation takes the
characteristics of quadrupoles. For a circular free jet,
the acoustic power can be estimated using the follow-
ing equation:
␳ 2D 2V 8
Pacoustic = K
␳0c50
where:
P: power
K: constant of proportionality
␳: density
D: diameter of jet
V: velocity of jet
c: speed of sound, and subscript 0 implies
properties of surrounding medium.
Since the surrounding fluid is not static, the above
relationship for jet noise can be modified to the follow-
ing equation.
␳2D2共⌬V兲8
Pacoustic = K
␳0c50
where, ⌬V = jet slip velocity (difference in velocity
between the jet and the bypass flow)
Therefore changes in the CBR, keeping other factors
constant, would affect the slip velocity ⌬V and subse-
quently the engine exhaust noise and the noise
196 Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (2), March-April 2011
Fig. 2—Model of engine.
emission of the test cell. As Pacoustic ⬀ ⌬V8, therefore a
change in ⌬V can have a large change in Pacoustic. A small
change in ⌬V of 3 m / s would result in a change in SPL
of 3 dB.
3 METHODOLOGY
The methodology used to investigate this hypothesis
utilises a combination of numerical CFD simulations
(using commercial package Fluent) to predict the cell
bypass flow changes and analytical calculations used to
calculate the acoustic power changes.
3.1 CFD Simulations
The model used for the engine and the empty cell is
shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The engine modelled is a
typical modern turbofan engine with a thrust range
between 55 000 and 60 000 lbs.
The following boundary conditions were used in
Fluent:
• Engine Inlet—Pressure Outlet of −70 kPa with
a target flow rate of 429 kg/ s
• Engine Exhaust—Mass Flow Inlet of
758.2 kg/ s (Bypass) and 99.8 kg/ s (Core)
• Cell Inlet—Pressure Inlet of 0 Pa
• Cell Outlet (End of Augmentor)—Pressure
Outlet of 0 Pa
• All other surfaces—Standard No-slip walls.
The mesh used had approximately 815 000 structured
and unstructured quad, wedge, triangular and tetrahe-
dral cells. The final mesh was determined after efforts
were carried out to ensure mesh size indepedence. Fig-
ure 4 shows an illustration of the element types and el-
ement density in the computational domain.
Each mesh convergence iteration used the same
element types in the same zones. The final mesh of
815 000 cells were selected after the change in cell
bypass ratio between this configuration and the previ-
ous iteration of 650 000 cells fell below 0.1%. The
following solver settings were used:
• Discretisation Scheme: 1st Order Discretisation
Scheme
• Turbulence Model: SST K-␻
Five engine positions (2750, 3500, 4150, 4800, 5500)
and eleven augmenter diameters (3000, 3500, 3750,
Fig. 3—Model of test cell.

4000, 4250, 4500, 4750, 5000, 5500, 6000, 6250) were

investigated, with the bold font indicating the baseline
scenarios. The baseline scenario corresponds approxi-
␳ 2D 2 冉 Q1
−
Q0,1
␳1A1 ␳0,1A0,1
冊 8

Pacoustic,1 ␳0,1c50,1

冉 冊
mately to the geometry of a currently in-used cell. = 8
Pacoustic,2 Q2 Q0,2
␳ 2D 2 −
3.2 Acoustic Calculations ␳2A2 ␳0,2A0,2
From the modified Lighthill’s relationship19 ␳0,2c50,2
␳2D2共⌬V兲8 ␳2D2共V − V0兲8 If we assume difference in the densities and hence
Pacoustic = K = K
␳0c50 ␳0c50 speed of sound are minimal then,

Let V =
Q
␳A
Pacoustic,1
D2 冉 Q1 Q0,1
−
A1 A0,1
冊 8

冉 冊
⬇ 8
Pacoustic,2 Q2 Q0,2

冉 冊 8
D2 −
Q Q0 A2 A0,2
␳ 2D 2 −
␳ A ␳ 0A 0 This will be the analytical equation used to investigate
Pacoustic =
␳0c50 the changes in acoustic power.
If we take power ratio between two scenarios (subscript
1 & 2):
4 RESULTS
The results will be presented in tables comparing
each scenario with the baseline scenario. Three sets of
results will be presented, showing the effects of engine
position, augmenter size and both respectively.

Fig. 4—Mesh of the computational domain.
5 DISCUSSION
The results provided in Tables 1–3 show that control-
ling the CBR of a test cell have the potential to be an
effective measure against test cell noise emission (both
infrasonic and audible range). Two possible modifiable
parameters were investigated namely the engine
position and diameter of augmenter. From the results, a
1 – 4 dB reduction in engine jet noise can be expected

Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (2), March-April 2011 197

Table 1—Acoustic power change comparisons for changing engine positions.
Acoustic Power Change (dB)
Augmenter Diameter Engine Exhaust→ Aug. Spacing (mm)
% cell Actual (mm) 2750 3500 4150 4800 5500
0.300 3000 −0.016 −0.017 −0.009 0.000 0.001
0.350 3500 −0.008 −0.004 −0.002 0.000 0.005
0.375 3750 −0.003 −0.001 0.000 0.000 0.006
0.400 4000 0.001 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.000
0.425 4250 0.016 0.011 0.006 0.000 −0.004
0.450 4500 0.030 0.021 0.015 0.000 0.000
0.475 4750 0.053 0.028 0.007 0.000 −0.031
0.500 5000 0.116 0.068 0.079 0.000 −0.034
0.550 5500 0.375 0.231 0.096 0.000 −0.064
0.600 6000 0.610 0.278 0.000
0.625 6250 1.409 0.843 0.482 0.000 −0.413

from the baseline scenario. However, if we consider
across the entire range of tested parameters the potential
reduction goes higher.
For current test cell operators, a change in the engine
position is easier to effect as compared to the modifi-
cation of augmenter diameter. With the augmenter
diameter kept constant (first set of results); a change in
the position of the engine has neglible effects in cells
with smaller augmenter diameter. The effects increase
in cells with larger diameter with a change of 0.6 dB
being seen in cells with an augmenter diameter of 6 m.
Another interesting observation is in the reversal of the
trends at an augmenter diameter of 4 m. Cells with
augmenter less than 4 m in diameter shows decreasing
acoustic power as the distance are reduced. However the
reduction in dB in this range is not very significant. This
trend is clearly reversed in cells with augmenter diameter
of 4.25 m and above. These results are plotted in graphs
and shown in Figs. 5–7 for easier analysis. The critical
augmenter diameter size is probably a property of the
engine exhaust size and not universal. However predic-
tions can be made for other engines sizes.
If a change in augmenter size is carried out, a larger
noise reduction of up to 5.6 dB can be expected. This
maximum noise reduction occurs when the engine
augmenter spacing is 5.5 m and the augmenter diameter
is changed from 3.00 to 6.25 m. The results plotted in
Fig. 8 shows that increasing the augmenter diameter
always reduces the jet noise at all engine augmenter
distances. An increase in the augmenter diameter reduces

Table 2—Acoustic power change comparisons for changing augmenter diameter.

Acoustic Power Change (dB)
Augmenter Diameter Engine Exhaust→ Aug. Spacing (mm)
% cell Actual (mm) 2750 3500 4150 4800 5500
0.300 3000 1.571 1.618 1.615 1.703 1.739
0.350 3500 1.355 1.406 1.398 1.479 1.518
0.375 3750 1.211 1.260 1.250 1.330 1.370
0.400 4000 1.035 1.085 1.074 1.149 1.184
0.425 4250 0.834 0.876 0.861 0.934 0.964
0.450 4500 0.588 0.626 0.610 0.674 0.708
0.475 4750 0.312 0.335 0.303 0.376 0.380
0.500 5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.550 5500 −0.750 −0.847 −0.992 −1.009 −1.038
0.600 6000 −1.749 −2.033 −2.322
0.625 6250 −2.310 −2.827 −3.200 −3.602 −3.980

198 Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (2), March-April 2011

Table 3—Acoustic power change comparisons when changing both engine positions and augmenter diam-
eter.
Acoustic Power Change (dB)
Augmenter Diameter Engine Exhaust→ Aug. Spacing (mm)
% cell Actual (mm) 2750 3500 4150 4800 5500
0.300 3000 1.688 1.686 1.694 1.703 1.705
0.350 3500 1.471 1.474 1.477 1.479 1.483
0.375 3750 1.327 1.329 1.330 1.330 1.335
0.400 4000 1.151 1.153 1.153 1.149 1.149
0.425 4250 0.950 0.945 0.940 0.934 0.929
0.450 4500 0.704 0.694 0.689 0.674 0.674
0.475 4750 0.428 0.404 0.383 0.376 −0.345
0.500 5000 −0.116 −0.068 −0.079 0.000 −0.034
0.550 5500 −0.634 −0.778 −0.913 −1.009 −1.073
0.600 6000 −1.633 −1.964 −2.243
0.625 6250 −2.193 −2.759 −3.120 −3.602 −4.015

the flow resistance of the main engine chamber—
augmenter transition thus increasing the bypass flow and
decreasing the jet noise produced.
Although costs constraints prevented experimental
validation of the results to be conducted, the trends
calculated matched trends observed during retrofits to a
facility whose identity cannot be disclosed due to
confidentiality agreements.
6 CONCLUSIONS
CFD simulations have been conducted to determine
the effect that changes in augmenter diameter and
engine mounting position within a JETC have on cell
bypass ratio. These have been utilised together with
Lighthill’s19 formula for jet noise to calculate the
changes in engine exhaust slip velocity and hence the
exhaust jet noise. It was shown that changes to engine-
augmenter spacing and augmenter diameter are effec-
tive independently as well as when they are performed
together. When the both modifications are performed
together, a 1 – 5.7 dB reduction can be expected.
Although modification to the augmenter diameter is more
effective, a simple change in the engine position still
shows a reduction of up to 1.8 dB in the current model.
Different engine and cell dimensions may yield even
higher reduction. The results also suggest that a ‘criti-

Fig. 5—Comparison of engine noise reduction augmenter diameter of 3.00– 3.75 m.

Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (2), March-April 2011 199

Fig. 6—Comparison of engine noise reduction augmenter diameter of 4.00 m.

Fig. 7—Comparison of engine noise reduction augmenter diameter of 4.25– 6.25 m.

cal’ augmenter diameter value exists where the trend of
noise level reverses with engine position. Below the
‘critical’ value, it is better to move the engine closer to
the augmenter entrance and vice versa. This value is
likely to be related to the geometries of the engine
exhaust as well as the spread of the exhaust jet. For the
current calculations, the engine exhaust diameter was
2.7 m and the ‘critical’ augmenter diameter was 4 m.
The authors suggest the use of scaled model tests to
validate the current set of results as well as BEM
methods to predict the noise reduction including any
addition noise reduction mechanism which results from
the increase in CBR.
7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express thanks to CENCO Inter-
national, SAFRAN Group for their financial support
and technical advice.

200 Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (2), March-April 2011

Fig. 8—Comparison of engine noise reduction by altering the augmenter diameter.
8 REFERENCES
1. C. A. Kodres, “Jet Engine Test Cell Noise Reduction”, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command Technical Review TR-2118-
ENV, (2000).
2. D. R. Schmidt, “Noise Levels of the NAS Cubi Point, T. P. TIO
Test Cell During J52, J52/P408, F404, TF30/P414, and TF41
Engine Runups”, Naval Ocean Systems Center Technical Note
1501, (1987).
3. C. Fadeley, “TECHEVAL of the ALF32T-10 Turbofan/Jet En-
gine Test Facility”, Naval Air Test Center Technical Report
SY50-90-042, (1991).
4. A. Danielsson and U. Landstroem, “Blood pressure changes in
man during infrasonic exposure”, Acta Med. Scand., 217(5),
531–535 (1985).
5. U. Landstroem, R. Lundstroem and M. Bystroem, “Exposure to
infrasound—perception and changes in wakefulness”, Low
Freq. Noise, Vib., Act. Control, 2, 1–11 (1983).
6. C. A. Kodres and G. L. Murphy, “Jet Engine Test Cell Aug-
menter Performance”, J. Propul. Power, 14(2), 129-134,
(1998).
7. D. L. Huff, “Noise Reduction Technologies for Turbofan En-
gines”, NASA TM 2007-214495, (2007).
8. E. B. Fite, “Fan Performance From Duct Rake Instrumentation
on a 1.294 Pressure Ratio, 725 ft/ sec Tip Speed Turbofan Simu-
lator Using Vaned Passage Casing Treatment”, NASA TM-2006-
214241, (2006).
9. D. M. Elliott and J. H. Dittmar, “Some Acoustic Results from
Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (2), March-April 2011
View publication stats
the NASA/Pratt and Whitney Advanced Ducted Propulsor
Model”, AIAA-2000-351, (2000).
10. E. B. Fite, “Overall Aerodynamic Performance Measurements
for a Forward Swept Low Noise Fan”, NASA TM-2006-214413,
(2006).
11. J. H. Dittmar, D. M. Elliott and E. B. Fite, “The Noise of a For-
ward Swept Fan”, NASA TM-2003-212208, (2003).
12. R. P. Woodward, D. M. Elliott, C. E. Hughes and J. J. Berton,
“Benefits of Swept and Leaned Stators for Fan Noise Reduc-
tion”, J. Aircr., 38, 1130–1138, (2001).
13. N. H. Saiyed, K. L. Mikkelsen and J. E. Bridges, “Acoustics and
Thrust of Quiet Separate-Flow High-Bypass-Ratio Nozzles”,
AIAA J., 41(3), 372–378 (2003).
14. M. S. Howe, “Self-Excited Oscillations in Jet Engine Test
Cells”, J. Fluids Struct., 1, 128–148 (1987).
15. H. Klein, “An aerodynamic screen for jet engines”, Institute of
the Aeronautical Sciences, Paper 676, (1962).
16. C. A. Kodres, “Jet Engine Test Cell Noise Reduction”, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command Technical Review TR-2118-
ENV, (2000).
17. R. E. Glass, “Acoustic Performance of Air-Cooled Jet Engine
Test Facilities”, Naval Ocean Systems Center Technical Report
1142, (1986).
18. D. Croce, “Feasibility Study for Utilizing Sawtooth Noise Re-
duction Device wit Type T-10 Turbofan/Jet Engine Test Cells”,
Naval Air Engineering Centre Design Data Report, (1990).
19. M. J. Lighthill, “Sound Generated Aero-dynamically”, The
Rakerian Lecture, The Royal Society, London, (1961).
201