Department of Aerospace Engineering

JGI Global Campus, Jakkasandra Post, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, Pin Code: 562 112

2021-2022

A Fundamentals of Innovation and Venture Development in

Entrepreneurship 2
Report on

“Helicopter Noise Management”

Submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
A E RO N AU T I C AL E NG I NE E RI NG

Submitted by

N GAGAN MUDALIAR
20BTLAN002

G N SAMEER
19BTRAN013

KUMMARA VENKAT THARUN KUMAR

19BTRAN019

AHMAD MUJIB
19BTRAN052

OMIDULLAH QASIMI
19BTRAN065

Under the guidance of

Prof. T. Paramesh
Assistant Professor
Department of Aerospace Engineering

Faculty of Engineering & Technology

JAIN (Deemed-to-be University)
 Department of Aerospace Engineering
JGI Global Campus, Jakkasandra Post, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, Pin Code: 562 112

C E R T I FI C A T E

This is to certify that the project work titled “Helicopter Noise Management” is carried out
by N GAGAN MUDALIAR(20BTLAN002), G N SAMEER(19BTRAN013), KUMMARU
VENKAT THARAN KUMAR(19BTRAN019), AHMED MUJEEB(19BTRAN052),
OMIDULLAH QASIMI(19BTRAN065), a bonafide students of Bachelor of Technology at
the Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Jain (Deemed-to-be) University, Bangalore in
partial fulfilment for the award of degree in Bachelor of Technology in Aeronautical
Engineering, during the year 2021-2022

Prof. T Paramesh Dr Antonio Davis

Assistant Professor Director/HoD
Dept. of Aerospace Dept. of Aerospace
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering & Technology, Engineering &
Jain(Deemed-to-be) Technology, Jain(Deemed-
University to-be) University
Date:

<
 DECLARATION

We, N GAGAN MUDALIAR(20BLAN002), G N SAMEER(19BTRAN013), KUMMARA

VENKAT THARUN KUMAR(19BTRAN019), AHMED MUJEEB(19BTRAN052),
OMIDULLAH QASIMI(19BTRAN065), are students of VI semester B. Tech in
Aeronautical Engineering, at Faculty of Engineering & Technology, JAIN (Deemed-to-
be University), hereby declare that the PCL titled “Helicopter Noise Management” has
been carried out by us and submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of degree in Bachelor
of Technology in Aeronautical Engineering during the academic year 2021-2022.
Further, the matter presented in the project has not been submitted previously by anybody for
the award of any degree or any diploma to any other University, to the best of our knowledge
and faith.

Signature
N Gagan Mudaliar
USN : 20BTLAN002
G N Sameer
USN : 19BTRAN013
Kummara Venkat Tharun Kumar
USN : 19BTRAN019
Ahmed Mujeeb
USN : 19BTRAN052
Omidullah Qasimi
USN : 19BTRAN065
Place : Bangalore
Date :
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is a great pleasure for us to acknowledge the assistance and support of a large

number of individuals who have been responsible for the successful completion of this pcl
work.
First, we take this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to Faculty of
Engineering & Technology, Jain Deemed to be University for providing us with a great
opportunity to pursue our Bachelor’s Degree in this institution.

It is a matter of immense pleasure to express our sincere thanks to Dr. Antonio Davis
Director/Head of the department, Aerospace Engineering, JAIN (Deemed-to-be) University,
for providing right academic guidance that made our task possible.

We would like to thank our guide Prof T. Paramesh, Assistant Professor, Dept. of
Aerospace Engineering, Jain (Deemed-to-be) University, for sparing his valuable time to
extend help in every step of our project work, which paved the way for smooth progress and
fruitful culmination of the project.
We would like to thank our PCL coordinator Dr Narayana Swamy Ramaiah,
Professor, Dept of Aerospace Engineering for his continuous support and encouragement in
completing the PCL work successfully.
We are also grateful to our family and friends who provided us with every requirement
throughout the course.
We would like to thank one and all who directly or indirectly helped us in completing
the Project work successfully.

Signature of Students
 Abstract
Helicopter noise reduction is one of the public-relation problem that causes issues while
night-flying or expanding an airport. It is also one of the significant factors in military
helicopters which can lead to a successful mission: long range propagation of helicopter with
loud noise can alert an enemy to an incoming helicopter and provide them sufficient time to
re-orient their defences (the information is gathered by recognising acoustic signatures). This
report makes an attempt to comprehend the possible sources of helicopter noise, methods of
acoustic signature recognition and understand what techniques and methods, which can be
applied to effectively reduce helicopter noise. We will look into some terminology such as
acoustic quieting: process of making machinery quitter by damping vibrations to prevent them
from reaching observer, We will understand phenomenon such as- Blade vortex
interaction(BVI): which is an unsteady phenomenon of three dimensional nature, which
occurs when a rotor blade passes within close proximity of the shed tip vortices from a
previous blade and look into designs such Blue Edge blade design: An advanced design of
rotor blade that reportedly achieves noise a reduction in noise emission, vibrations and
increases aerodynamic efficiency. We will then proceed to look into sources of noises such as
rotor noise, anti-torque noise, and engine noise. Also look into the previous attempts made
such as Euro copter EC130: adoption of anti-torque device, and other models as well to
understand the steps taken to reduce noise and effectively look into methods that can be
adapted or modified to create a better solution for our problem.
Table of Contents:
Abstract
1. Introduction.
2. Source of Helicopter Noise.
3. Methods of Noise Reduction.
4. Helicopter Noise Characteristics.
5. Helicopter Noise- Subjective Impact.
6. Public Acceptance.
7. The Issue.
8. Blue Edge Blade.
9. Assumptions and Strategy of Noise Reduction.
10. Concluding Remarks.
Reference.
1. Introduction

Helicopter noise reduction is a topic of research into designing helicopters which can
be operated more quietly, reducing the public-relations problems with night-flying or
expanding an airport. In addition, it is useful for military applications in which stealth is
required: long-range propagation of helicopter noise can alert an enemy to an incoming
helicopter in time to re-orient defenses noise has always been a major disturbance for
every living creature.

Noise pollution is, thus, a threat to environmental pollution too. The noise created by a
helicopter draws a great contribution to the noise pollution. Reducing the noise that
creates from helicopter rotor blades, tail rotors, engine etc. is a one step closer to this
crisis. Helicopter noise reduction is a topic of research into designing helicopters which
can be operated more quietly. The major source of the noise comes from the rotor blade
vortex interaction. By attaching spoiler in the helicopter main rotor blades and tail rotors
reduce the noise and silence the operation. The spoiler is made of supple, resilient, and
durable non- ferrous material, such as rubber, a rubber like material, plastic, rubber-
impregnated with thin steel mesh, canvas reinforced rubber, rubber composites, and other
durable materials that do not prematurely fatigue. The spoiler attached at the trailing edges
of blades have free edges exhibits a non-repeating pattern of feather-like projections that
collectively break up the vortex formed by blade rotation by providing clean air for each
successive blade. The blade efficiency is also increased by using spoiler. This paper
addresses the use of spoiler and comparison of noise level of rotor blades with or without
spoiler.
Helicopter sound: Keeping sound emissions at a minimum is an essential lever to
achieving sustainable air transport for future generations. At Airbus, we are . committed
to reducing our noise footprint and ensuring that helicopters are smoothly integrated into
citizens’ everyday lives.
The reduction of vibrations and noises is a major concern of air transportation vehicle
developments, indeed the interior comfort has become a major competitive component
comparable to other performance features. The classical approach is the use of passive
treatments & damping materials but this leads to significant mass increase and has a lack
of efficiency in the low frequencydomain or in the case of multiple frequencies.
Active control methods offer a potential without these drawbacks and can be
considered as a complementary approach. This work is mainly focussed on the possibility of
reducing the noise transmitted to helicopter cabins by actively controlling the side walls
vibrations in such a wayas to reduce the sound radiation/transmission.
2. Sources of Helicopter Noise.
*Rotor noise
*Engine noise
*Transmission noise

Source of sound emissions in helicopters the main source of sound emissions

from helicopters isthe rotors, which produce several types of sound. The causes vary
and can include the following: Air displacement Forces acting on the air that flows
around the blade Aerodynamic shocks and turbulent boundary layers on the blade
surface Engines – and to an even lesser extent the main gearbox – can generate
sound, too. But this is mainly noticeable only near the helipad and is less audible
from a distance.

The sources of helicopter noise for ahelicopter with a tail rotor.

3. Methods of Noise Reduction:
Almost all helicopter engines are located above the aircraft,which tends to direct much
of the engine-noise upwards. In addition, with the advent of the turbine engine, noise from the
engine plays a much smaller role than it once did. Most research is now directed towards
reducing the noise from the main and tail rotors.

A tail-rotor which is recessed into the fairing of the tail (a fenestron) reduces the noise
level directly below the aircraft, which is useful in urban areas. In addition, this type of rotor
typically has anywhere from 8 to 12 blades (as compared to 2 or 4 blades on a conventional tail
rotor), increasing the frequency of the noise and thus its attenuation by the atmosphere. In
addition, the placement of the tail rotor within a shroud can prevent the formation of tip
vortices. This type of rotor is in general much quieter than its conventional counterpart: the
price paid is a substantial increase in the weight of the aircraft, and the weight that must be
supported by the tail boom. For example, the Euro copter EC-135 has such a design.

For smaller helicopters, it may be

advantageous to use a NOTAR (from NO Tail
Rotor) system. In this yaw-control method, air is
blown out of vents along the tail boom, producing
thrust via the Coandă effect.

Some designs have been done to reduce

the rotor noise itself, for example the Comanche
military helicopter attempted many stealth mechanisms, including attempts to quiet the rotor.
One possible technique for reducing helicopter rotor noise is "modulated blade spacing".
Standard rotor blades are evenly spaced, and produce greater noise at a particular frequency
and its harmonics. Using varying degrees of spacing between the blades spreads the noise or
acoustic signature of the rotor over a greater range of frequencies.
4. Helicopter Noise Characteristics:
A generalized and weighted sound pressure level time history of a helicopter flyover to
illustrate the influence of various helicopter noise sources on overall noise level. The
principal sources are main rotor thickness/high speed impulsive (HSI) noise, main rotor
blade/blade vortex interaction (BVI) noise, main rotor wake/tail rotor interaction (TRI)
noise and tail rotor (TR) noise. HSI, TRI and TR noise are most pronounced during
flyover. BVI noise is normally the dominant sourceduring descent, although TR and TRI
noise may also be present. BVI can also occur on some helicopters during flyover/cruise
flight and is pronounced during banked turns. In the case oftandem rotor aircraft, BVI
occurs continuously, regardless of flight condition.

Helicopter operations around the world, and in particular in the United States, are
giving rise to objections over noise from the general public; in the last two or three years
there have been major objections to helicopter use in the New York and Los Angeles areas.
The development of new heliports, and changes to services at existing facilities, tend to be
controversial and are often rejected as a result of public opposition. Such negative response
to helicopter operations as a result of noise is a little difficult to understand because most
helicopters generate less noise than the noise certification standards and, in most cases,
meet established community noise rating criteria and guidelines. Also, the same rating
methods are generally considered to be successful in understanding the environmental
impact of large commercial aircraft and other forms of transportation, so there appears to
be something different about the way in which helicopters are perceived. Even so, the issue
of helicopter noise in connection with heliport operation is continually being reported in
the aviation and general press. This issue has also been addressed in a report on non-
military helicopter noise issued to the US Congress by the Federal Aviation Administration
(December 2004) and for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
5. Helicopter Noise – Subjective Impact:

The subjective impression created by the impulsive noise sources are very important
when considering public acceptance. Also, except in the case of tail rotor noise, the sources of
interest are mainly detected at levels well before the so-called “10 dB down” point – the point
on the sound pressure level time-history at which the level is 10 dB below the maximum or
peak level.
A study of the various factors involved shows the level of public acceptance can be
considered to be a function of both acoustic (direct) noise and a non-acoustic element, termed
virtual noise, as illustrated in Figure 3. The response to acoustic noise is a function of
maximum noise level as defined by objective measurements and, more importantly in the
context of public acceptance, the subjective characteristics of the noise as it first becomes
audible. The magnitude of the non- acoustic component (virtual noise) is not related directly
either to the absolute level or to
the character of the noise
generated by helicopters, but it is
triggered by the direct acoustic
signal.

The annoyance or level

of public acceptance is usually
quantified using measured noise
levels asillustrated in Figure
1. Consequently, the virtual noise element is treated, for all practical purposes, in the
same wayas the direct acoustic energy (noise) radiated by the helicopter. Virtual noise
is dependent on a wide range of inputs but is triggered initially by any distinctive
feature of the acoustic signatureand, to a far lesser extent, the absolute noise level.

It cannot be stressed highly enough that whenever adverse reaction to helicopter

operations results from virtual noise, attempts to address the problem by reducing acoustic
noise at the source will be largely ineffectual. It is not simply that the level of sound – at
long range as the helicopter approaches or flies towards the observer – is higher than on
helicopter models with little or no noticeable HSI, TR, TRI, or BVI noise. Rather it is that
the tonal and impulsive characteristics of these sources are in themselves more annoying
and draw attention to the helicopter.
 Even though the influence of the characteristics of helicopter noise below the “10
dB down” point is clear to the author, many researchers continue to argue that EPNL –
and by implication the SEL, LDN or LAeq metrics – give a realistic measure of both the
source level and public response, implying that any increase in the sound associated with
BVI, HSI, TRI and tail rotor noise is accounted for in full by metrics which take into
account the duration.

The subjective rating of helicopter noise was investigated thoroughly in the late
1970s and early 1980s. One objective at the time was to develop an impulsive correction
that could be added to more conventional metrics to account for the subjective effect of
BVI and tail rotor noise. Despite the considerable effort expended, the results of these
studies in combination were considered by many to be largely inconclusive. After an
extensive review of all the issues, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
in 1983 adopted the EPNL for helicopter certification, with the provison that
manufacturers should strive to eliminate intrusive noise sources.

NASA studies on subjective response to helicopter sounds showed that the addition
of an impulsive correction, which some had suggested, did not improve the human
response predictions. While the case presented by NASA is valid, it is apparent that both
the level and character of sound audible at distances greater than those involved in EPNL
calculations, the author would suggest play a major part in the rating or acceptance of
helicopter noise by the general public.
6. Public Acceptance:

Community noise rating procedures are considered to predict relatively well the
impact of fixed-wing aircraft noise around airports and within local communities during
over flight. This is not the case for helicopters and heliports, which appear to create a
level of adverse reaction disproportionate to the measured and predicted noise levels. A
partial explanation for the disparity between noise assessments and community reaction
to helicopter operations has been identified as deficiencies in the rating methods. For a
more complete analysis of the issues, it is necessary to examine the way in which
helicopter operations are perceived.

Fixed-wing aircraft operations at airports typically involve a large number of flights

per day and, because the noise characteristics of most of the large jets are similar to one
another, the noise climate is relatively uniform. Away from airports, aircraft fly at very
high altitude so that noiselevels on the ground are low. In addition, there is little concern
over aircraft safety. Helicopter operations are very different. In general, the paths, unlike
those used by fixed-wing aircraft, vary widely and so at any one location the noise pattern
is much less consistent. There are also very large differences in both level and, more
importantly, the character of noise created by different helicopters with some small
helicopters sounding noisier than larger ones. Over flights are generally made at
relatively low altitudes so that any concerns over safety are heightened.
 In the context of public acceptance, it should be noted that even relatively
sophisticated noise rating methods used on complex objective measurements fail to
account for the disturbance caused by helicopters and it has been (and is being)
suggested that the noise certification limits and the criteria associated with community
rating procedures should be made more stringent. Although minor adjustments to the
assessment criteria may be helpful, analysis of the issues indicate that such action will
have little or no direct effect on the level of public acceptance. For example, a
comprehensive study of helicopter operations at a military airbase in the UK in 2000
concluded that there was no meaningful correlation between helicopter noise levels
and subjective annoyance.

7. The Issue:

Helicopter operations around the world, and in particular in the United States, are
giving rise to objections over noise from the general public; in the last two or three years
there have been major objections to helicopter use in the New York and Los Angeles
areas. The development of new heliports, and changes to services at existing facilities,
tend to be controversial and are often rejected as a result of public opposition. Such
negative response to helicopter operations as a result of noise is a little difficult to
understand because most helicopters generate less noise than the noise certification
standards and, in most cases, meet established community noise rating criteria and
guidelines. Also, the same rating methods are generally considered to be successful in
understanding the environmental impact of large commercial aircraft and other forms of
transportation, so there appears to be something different about the way in which
helicopters are perceived. Even so, the issue of helicopter noise in connection with
heliport operation is continually being reported in the aviation and general press. This
issue has also been addressed in a report on non-military helicopter noise issued to the
US Congress by the Federal Aviation Administration (December 2004) and for the UK
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
8. Blue Edge blade:

Blue Edge main rotor blade provides a passive reduction in noise levels, using a
doubleswept shape that is very different from normal blades. The aim of this design is to
reduce the noise generated by so-called blade-vortex interactions (BVI), which occur when a
blade impacts a vortex, created at the tip of the blade of any helicopter. It is also help to
reduce vibration and increased aerodynamics efficiency. The structure decreases the clamor
produced by cutting edge vortex collaboration (BVI), the trademark throbbing sound made
when the tip of a rotor edge hits the vortex shed by the tip of the previous sharp edge. Blue
Edge tip shape gives more opportunity for the communication between the edge and vortex,
weakening the noise. Blue edge is an advanced design of rotor blade developed and produced
by multinational helicopter manufacturer Airbus helicopter. The Blue Edge rotor was
originally developed at ONERA and the German Aerospace Centre under the auspices of the
ERATO program. A five-blade Blue Edge main rotor has been flying since July 2007 on an
EC155 test bed, logging 75 flight hours and
demonstrating noise reductions of 3 to 4 dB, as
well as very good performance of the blade.
According to aerospace researcher Yves Delrieux,
the design of the Blue Edge rotor blade was
defined using tools developed by ONERA from
wind tunnel testing to model aerodynamic performance; these tools were claimed to have
achieved a reduction in noise emissions and vibration as well as greater aerodynamic
efficiency over conventional modes
9. Assumptions and strategy of noise reduction:

FIG:1

In this study, the major assumption is that the trim panel fixed on the roof deck
above the passenger compartment is (the final element) responsible of noise
transmission and radiation– figure 1. To improve the global comfort in the cabin, the
option here presented is to define and to integrate an active trim panel [6]
instrumented with active control loops (actuators, sensors and control laws – figure
2). Comparing to other approaches [3] – [4], one of the advantages of acting on this
panel is that all sources (e.g. structural and acoustical) can be accounted for and
therefore can be cancelled.
FIG:2 FIG:3

The main concept is the complementary use of active and passive approaches as
presented in figure 3. An active control method was applied to a panel which acoustic
characteristics have been preliminary optimized in a passive point of view. Obviously, the
action of the active control was chosen to be efficient in the low frequency domain where the
passive effect isless. Moreover in a real helicopter cabin, the low frequency band contains the
most emerging and intrusive components of tonal noise, that increases the importance of a
control in this band. The paper deals only with the active part and presents the experimental
results obtained in laboratory conditions.
10. Concluding Remarks:
The reaction to helicopters and heliports is dependent on several factors, some of
which are completely unrelated to the absolute level of the helicopter noise. These non-
acoustic phenomena described collectively as virtual noise are usually triggered by acoustic
noise. The non-acoustic component can dictate the level of public response to helicopters
under certain circumstances. The regulatory authorities, both nationally and internationally
within ICAO, often argue that decreasing the absolute level of helicopter noise by
lowering the noise certification limits or introducing operational noise limits, will
dramatically improve the public acceptance of helicopters and solve most of today’s
objections to the level of noise generated by helicopters.

The subjective character of the sound is equally or more important than the
maximum noise level. The sound quality of the noise at levels 20 dB or more below the
maximum level provides the initial audible cues that alert an individual to the presence
of a helicopter, i.e. provide the trigger for the virtual noise component. It follows that
improvements to the noise signature by reducing or eliminating the impulsive sources will
result in greater public acceptance irrespective of
the absolute noise level generated. It also implies
that many of today’s small and medium size
helicopters will need to fly at 2,000 – 4000 ft
(600 – 1200 m) or more, and that the use of noise
abatement procedures for normal operations are
essential. Also, they will need to fly much slower
than anticipated if impulsive noise is not to
create a problem. Designs to achieve a high
degree of public acceptance should not be based
only on achieving compliance with the noise certification limits. It is also essential to take
into account the sound pressure level and the subjective characteristics of noise throughout
the period over which it is detectable, i.e. well outside the “10 dB down” range used to
calculate EPNL and SEL. This is particularly important if high tip speeds are being
considered for the main and/or tail rotor.
Even so, there is certainly a need for more research into the subjective response to
helicopter noise – the main activity in this area was over 20 years ago and there has been little
examination of these aspects since then. From the industry point of view (operators and
manufacturers) it is essential to establish what really needs to be done to improve public
acceptance.
Analysis of the social survey results also reveals a strong connection between noise
and safety, and that safety or perceptions about safety, also play a significant part in public
reaction towards helicopters which, of course, has a direct bearing on the level of acceptance.
References:

[1]Hardin 1987, Malovrh 2005

[2] "Stealth Helicopter: MH-X Advanced Special Operations Helicopter".

GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 28 April 2012

[3] Edwards, Bryan (May 2002). "Psychoacoustic Testing of Modulated Blade Spacing for
Main Rotors - NASA/CR-2002-211651" (pdf 2.5 Mb). NASA.
p. 1.2. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.15.3782. Retrieved 30 January 2013

[4] J. C. Hardin and S. L. Lamkin. Concepts for reduction of blade/vortex interaction noise.
Journal of Aircraft, 24(2):120–125, 1987.

[5] B. Malovrh and F. Gandhi. Sensitivity of helicopter blade-vortex-interaction noise and

vibration to interaction parameters. Journal of Aircraft, 42(3):685–697, May–June 2005.

[6] https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/417270-blue-edge-rotor-blade-eurocopter.html

[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Edge#:~:text=Blue%20Edge%20is%20an%20advanced,
multinational%20helicopter%20manufacturer%20Airbus%20Helicopters.

[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_quieting#:~:text=Acoustic%20quieting%20is%20th
e%20process,mechanical%20stresses%20in%20solid%20matter.

[9] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-
3417/7/4/381/pdf#:~:text=Blade%2Dvortex%20interaction%20(BVI),blade%20loading%2C%
20which%20radiates%20noise.