NASA/TM—2009-215524

Jet Noise Modeling for Suppressed and

Unsuppressed Aircraft in Simulated Flight
James R. Stone, Eugene A. Krejsa, and Bruce J. Clark
Modern Technologies Corporation, Middleburg Heights, Ohio

Jeffrey J. Berton
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

March 2009
 NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the papers from scientific and technical
advancement of aeronautics and space science. The conferences, symposia, seminars, or other
NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.
program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain
this important role. • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,
technical, or historical information from
The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices NASA programs, projects, and missions, often
of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, concerned with subjects having substantial
organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates public interest.
NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access
to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English-
its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports language translations of foreign scientific and
Server, thus providing one of the largest collections technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.
of aeronautical and space science STI in the world.
Results are published in both non-NASA channels Specialized services also include creating custom
and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which thesauri, building customized databases, organizing
includes the following report types: and publishing research results.

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of For more information about the NASA STI
completed research or a major significant phase program, see the following:
of research that present the results of NASA
programs and include extensive data or theoretical • Access the NASA STI program home page at
analysis. Includes compilations of significant [Link]
scientific and technical data and information
deemed to be of continuing reference value. • E-mail your question via the Internet to help@
NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal [Link]
professional papers but has less stringent
limitations on manuscript length and extent of • Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk
graphic presentations. at 301–621–0134

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific • Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

and technical findings that are preliminary or 301–621–0390
of specialized interest, e.g., quick release
reports, working papers, and bibliographies that • Write to:
contain minimal annotation. Does not contain NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)
extensive analysis. 7115 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 21076–1320
• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and
technical findings by NASA-sponsored
contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected

NASA/TM—2009-215524

Jet Noise Modeling for Suppressed and

Unsuppressed Aircraft in Simulated Flight
James R. Stone, Eugene A. Krejsa, and Bruce J. Clark
Modern Technologies Corporation, Middleburg Heights, Ohio

Jeffrey J. Berton
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

March 2009
 Acknowledgments

The authors were funded by contract NAS3–00178 and Task Order Number 10.

This work was sponsored by the Fundamental Aeronautics Program

at the NASA Glenn Research Center.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management.

Available from
NASA Center for Aerospace Information National Technical Information Service
7115 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road
Hanover, MD 21076–1320 Springfield, VA 22161

Available electronically at [Link]

 Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Nomenclature .................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Predictive Model ............................................................................................................................. 7
Source Locations......................................................................................................................... 8
Mixing Noise Components ......................................................................................................... 8
Shock Noise Components ......................................................................................................... 10
Component Extraction Examples .................................................................................................. 11
Shock-Free Conical Nozzle....................................................................................................... 11
Conical Nozzle With Shock Noise............................................................................................ 13
Component Correlations................................................................................................................ 13
Large Scale Mixing Noise......................................................................................................... 14
Small Scale Mixing Noise......................................................................................................... 17
Transitional/Intermediate-Scale Mixing Noise ......................................................................... 19
Inner Stream Plug Separation Noise ......................................................................................... 20
Plug/Downstream Shock Noise................................................................................................. 22
Outer Stream Shock Noise ........................................................................................................ 23
Inner Stream (or Single Stream) Shock Noise .......................................................................... 24
Comparisons With Finalized Model.............................................................................................. 25
LaRC Free Jet Unsuppressed Cases.......................................................................................... 25
GE/GRC Free Jet Unsuppressed Cases..................................................................................... 26
LeRC Outdoor Facility.............................................................................................................. 27
Conical Nozzle in Lockheed-Georgia Anechoic Chamber ....................................................... 28
Conical Nozzle at Supersonic Conditions in GE Anechoic Chamber....................................... 28
LaRC Free Jet Suppressed Case................................................................................................ 29
GE/GRC Free Jet Suppressed Cases ......................................................................................... 29
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................................... 30
References ..................................................................................................................................... 31

NASA/TM—2009-215524 iii
 Jet Noise Modeling for Suppressed and Unsuppressed
Aircraft in Simulated Flight
James R. Stone, Eugene A. Krejsa, and Bruce J. Clark
Modern Technologies Corporation
Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130

Jeffrey J. Berton
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Summary
This document describes the development of further extensions and improvements to the jet noise
model developed by Modern Technologies Corporation (MTC) for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). The noise component extraction and correlation approach, first used
successfully by MTC in developing a noise prediction model for two-dimensional mixer ejector (2DME)
nozzles under the High Speed Research (HSR) Program, has been applied to dual-stream nozzles, then
extended and improved in earlier tasks under this contract. Under Task 6, the coannular jet noise model
was formulated and calibrated with limited scale model data, mainly at high bypass ratio, including a
limited-range prediction of the effects of mixing-enhancement nozzle-exit chevrons on jet noise. Under
Task 9 this model was extended to a wider range of conditions, particularly those appropriate for a
Supersonic Business Jet, with an improvement in simulated flight effects modeling and generalization of
the suppressor model. In the present task further comparisons are made over a still wider range of
conditions from more test facilities. The model is also further generalized to cover single-stream nozzles
of otherwise similar configuration. So the evolution of this prediction/analysis/correlation approach has
been in a sense backward, from the complex to the simple; but from this approach a very robust capability
is emerging. Also from these studies, some observations emerge relative to theoretical considerations.
The purpose of this task is to develop an analytical, semi-empirical jet noise prediction method
applicable to takeoff, sideline and approach noise of subsonic and supersonic cruise aircraft over a wide
size range. The product of this task is an even more consistent and robust model for the Footprint/Radius
(FOOTPR) code than even the Task 9 model. The model is validated for a wider range of cases and
statistically quantified for the various reference facilities. The possible role of facility effects will thus be
documented. Although the comparisons that can be accomplished within the limited resources of this task
are not comprehensive, they provide a broad enough sampling to enable NASA to make an informed
decision on how much further effort should be expended on such comparisons.
The improved finalized model is incorporated into the FOOTPR code. MTC has also supported the
adaptation of this code for incorporation in NASA’s Aircraft Noise Prediction Program (ANOPP).

NASA/TM—2009-215524 1
 Nomenclature
2DME Two-dimensional mixer ejector nozzle
A Nozzle area, m2
ANOPP Aircraft Noise Prediction Program
AR Nozzle outer-to-inner area ratio, dimensionless
AST Advanced Subsonic Technology
b Empirical term in correlation of noise components at high velocity, dimensionless
BPR Bypass ratio
C Noise component coefficient, dB
c Sonic velocity, m/s
C-D Convergent-divergent
D Characteristic diameter, m
DOD Department of Defense
F Empirical factor in shock noise relation, dB/deg
f 1/3rd-Octave-band center frequency, Hz
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FOOTPR NASA GRC’s Fortran code for noise prediction
GE General Electric
GRC NASA Glenn Research Center
HSR High Speed Research
k Convection coefficient
L Length (axial distance), m
LI Axial length from secondary nozzle exit plane to primary nozzle exit plane, m
LP Axial length from primary nozzle exit plane to plug tip, m
LaRC NASA Langley Research Center
LeRC NASA Lewis Research Center
LSF Linear scale factor, full-scale dimension divided by model-scale dimension
M Mach number
.
m Mass flow rate, kg/s
MAR Mixer area ratio (Ref. 1), dimensionless
MTC Modern Technologies Corporation
N Slope of component noise versus effective velocity
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA/TM—2009-215524 2
nc Convection velocity coefficient
OASPL Overall sound pressure level, dB re 20 μPa
P Total pressure, Pa
PRI Suppressed-to-unsuppressed wetted perimeter ratio of the inner (primary) stream of a
coannular nozzle; this is defined as the wetted exit perimeter for the primary stream with
chevrons (i.e., the sum of the center plug perimeter – if any – and the outer, chevron-
serrated, perimeter of the of the primary stream annulus), divided by the wetted exit
perimeter of the annular primary stream without chevrons (note this quantity is
dimensionless, and is always greater than unity for nozzles with chevrons; and equal to
unity for nozzles without chevrons)
PRO Suppressed-to-unsuppressed wetted perimeter ratio of the outer (bypass) stream of a
coannular nozzle; this is defined as the wetted exit perimeter for the bypass stream with
chevrons (i.e., the sum of the inner perimeter and the outer, chevron-serrated, perimeter
of the of the bypass stream annulus), divided by the wetted exit perimeter of the annular
bypass stream without chevrons (note this quantity is dimensionless, and is always
greater than unity for nozzles with chevrons; and equal to unity for nozzles without
chevrons)
R Source-to-observer distance, m, or gas constant, m2/s2-K
RMS Root-mean-square average
rpt Plug tip radius, m
S Strouhal number, dimensionless
SAR Suppressor area ratio (Ref. 1), dimensionless
SPL 1/3rd-Octave-band sound pressure level, dB re 20 μPa
T Total temperature, K
t Static temperature, K
UOL Overall sound pressure level uncorrected for refraction, dB re 20 μPa
V Characteristic velocity, m/s
Ve Effective velocity for noise generation, m/s
VI/O Higher of inner stream or outer stream velocity, m/s
XC Empirical length scaling factor, m
Xs Axial source location relative to outer stream nozzle exit, m
α Turbulence convection correlation length factor, dimensionless
β Shock strength
Δ Difference in variable
ε Root-mean-square error, dB
θ Directivity angle (Fig. 2), deg (“thet” on some figures)
θ′ Effective directivity angle, accounting for refraction, deg
θF Empirical angle scaling factor

NASA/TM—2009-215524 3
θM Mach angle, deg
ρ Fully-expanded jet density, kg/m3
ω Density exponent

Subscripts (Note that on some figures subscripts appear as regular text)

1 Inner boundary
2 Outer boundary
amb Ambient conditions
c Convection
comp Noise component
cor Corrected for source location
D Downstream of plug
d Design value
EE Experimental/extracted
eff Effective value, including perimeter ratio effect
eq Equivalent
ex Exit of nozzle
exp Experimental value
f Flight (or simulated flight)
h Hydraulic
I Inner stream
ISA International Standard Atmosphere
j Jet (single stream)
L Large-scale turbulent mixing noise generated well downstream of nozzle exit (previously
called merged mixing noise – subscript M)
M Merged mixing noise (terminology of Task 9 and earlier)
mix Isentropic mixed flow
Norm Normalized
O Outer stream (previously also used for outer shear layer mixing noise)
P Inner stream plug separation
Pred Predicted
S Small-scale turbulent mixing noise generated near nozzle exit (previously called outer
shear layer mixing noise – subscript O)
sh Shock
supr Suppressed

NASA/TM—2009-215524 4
T Transitional/intermediate-scale turbulent mixing noise generated in vicinity of end of
potential core (previously called inner stream mixing noise – subscript O; analogous to
premerged mixing noise of 2DME and internal mixer nozzles; subscript T no longer used
for total noise)
th Throat of nozzle

NASA/TM—2009-215524 5
 Introduction
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has long been involved in aircraft noise
research and technology development and has on some occasions carried these activities to the level of
engine system tests and even flight tests. The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) have traditionally looked to NASA for technology advancement in noise that may
be applicable to DOD’s needs. With the termination of the High Speed Research (HSR) and Advanced
Subsonic Technology (AST) programs, NASA has been directed to focus on relatively advanced concepts
that have high risk, but potentially high payoff. The nature of this work does not at present include
significant near-term design effort building on the development engine system and flight tests of the past.
Key experienced personnel are retiring without having the opportunity to work on design/development
projects with their younger colleagues. Much of the practical knowledge and experience acquired in the
1970s and 1980s is in danger of being lost.
The Modern Technologies Corporation (MTC) has been supporting NASA and the aircraft propulsion
industry by developing practical and easy-to-use semi-empirical predictive models for jet noise since
1995. MTC’s efforts started with the very complicated two-dimensional mixer ejector (2DME) nozzles of
the HSR program (Ref. 1), which had so many complicated features that the semi-empirical approach was
necessitated. The product of this effort is now a part of the design and data reduction software of General
Electric (GE) and is included in the Aircraft Noise Prediction Program (ANOPP) of NASA Langley
Research Center (LaRC) and the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) Footprint/Radius (FOOTPR)
code.
Of perhaps as much value as the predictive code itself are the methods and experience acquired in
analyzing and correlating noise data involving multiple sources. This methodology involves first using a
relatively crude model to predict the relative levels of the various noise components, using this model to
deduce individual components and then correlating those components; iteration results in rapidly
improving predictive models. As MTC has applied this approach to relatively simpler coannular nozzle
configurations, the value of this approach has been demonstrated with accurate predictive models
developed first for high bypass ratio (BPR) nozzles, including suppression features, for subsonic aircraft
(Refs. 2 to 4) and then generalized to cover low BPR supersonic cruise applications (Refs. 5 and 6). The
approach used in developing this model might be called “hybrid experimental/empirical,” but relevant
elements of theory are utilized to the extent considered practical. As this work has evolved, in reverse,
from complex to simple, MTC has attempted to relate the empirical relations as much as possible to
theory.
In the current task the approach is applied to the even simpler single stream nozzles, and further
comparisons of the empirical relations with theoretical relations are made. Progress in relating the
empirical/applied models to theory indicates that the development of a fundamentally-sound jet noise
reduction design guide is now feasible.
NASA uses state-of-the-art system noise prediction codes to analytically calculate the noise levels of
aircraft. FAA certification noise levels, airport-vicinity noise footprints, climbout, and en route noise
levels all may be calculated with these computer models using a variety of noise metrics. These analysis
tools (namely the LaRC Aircraft Noise Prediction Program (ANOPP) (Ref. 7) and GRC FOOTPR
(Ref. 8) codes) compute spectral, one-third octave band sound pressure levels from several aircraft noise
sources for both static and in-flight conditions. The source noise models are generally semi-empirical,
using real physical scaling laws that are calibrated with measured test data. The coded prediction structure
is flexible enough that new methods may easily be added to the system. A new source noise model that
more accurately predicts both subsonic and supersonic jet noise and that incorporates new noise
suppression features for single-stream and dual-stream nozzles is the focus of this report.
The approach MTC has employed in these tasks, summarized in Reference 6, is to use an initial
predictive model based on analogy to relatively simple semi-empirical expressions derived mainly from
the theory of Lighthill (Refs. 9 and 10) for circular jets. We assume that even for complex geometries
subsonic jet noise will correlate in a manner analogous to the classical model (also taking into account the

NASA/TM—2009-215524 6
theoretical developments of Ffowcs-Williams (Ref. 11) and Goldstein and Howes (Ref. 12)), if the proper
characteristic velocity and characteristic length can be established. For supersonic jet cases, we assume
that the subsonic mixing noise relations may be extrapolated and that the additional shock/turbulence
interaction noise can be correlated with a model similar to that of Harper-Bourne and Fisher (Ref. 13),
again assuming that characteristic velocity and characteristic length can be established.
A persistent problem in developing predictive models is in obtaining good quality experimental data.
Noise generated in the experimental facility upstream of the test nozzle: valves, elbows, obstructions, and
especially the combustor can contribute significant noise, and much of this noise is of a broadband nature,
easily confused with jet noise. Muffling of these sources is costly in terms of size as well as expense, and
it is particularly difficult in flight simulation facilities, where compactness of hardware is very important,
as discussed by Viswanathan (Ref. 14). Ahuja (Ref. 15) has recently documented the difficulties in
obtaining good quality data even for static testing. Another feature of our approach is that all the analyses
are conducted with lossless, rather than Standard Day spectra, as is often done in industry. We feel that it
is important to isolate the effects of as many physical processes as practical.
Free-jet flight simulation facilities are very useful, and can provide meaningful data so long as that
data can be analytically transformed to the flight frame of reference. The different methodologies used by
NASA and industry to perform this transformation produce very different results, especially in the rear
quadrant; this compelled us to rely largely on static data to develop our model, but we showed reasonable
agreement with simulated flight data when these transformation issues are considered (Refs. 3 to 6).
Based on recent analyses and past experience, seven potential source mechanisms must be assessed
and preliminary models are available from Task 9 (Ref. 6), as discussed in the following section.

Predictive Model
The general dual-stream nozzle geometry and the mixing noise generation regions modeled are
illustrated in Figure 1. Inner stream flow separation from the plug was also found to be a significant
source (Refs. 3 to 6). When the exhaust conditions of either or both streams are supersonic, shock noise
becomes significant, and we use an updated model structurally similar to that currently in FOOTPR
(Ref. 6). In generalizing the predictive model to include single stream cases, this terminology becomes
awkward and should be replaced by a more fundamental description as follows.
The lowest frequency component, previously called “merged mixing noise” (subscript M) for
multiple-stream nozzles and generated well downstream of the nozzle exit, is most likely due to the
mixing of the coherent large-scale turbulent structures of the jet with the ambient; so it is now called
“large scale mixing noise,” denoted by the subscript L. The relatively high frequency mixing noise
generated near the nozzle exit, previously called “outer shear layer mixing noise” (subscript O) is likely
due to the small-scale turbulent mixing in the initial shear layer(s); so it is now called simply “small scale
mixing noise,” denoted by the subscript S. The most difficult to characterize mixing noise component,
needed to completely correlate dual-stream mixing noise (Refs. 4 to 6) and also identified by Fisher, et al.
(Refs. 16 and 17), occurs primarily at middle-to-high frequency and was previously called “inner stream
mixing noise” (subscript I). Comparisons and discussion to follow support the notion that this is
analogous to what has been termed “premerged mixing noise” in many analyses of suppressor nozzles
(e.g., Ref. 1) and internal mixer nozzles (e.g., Ref. 18). We now label this component
“transitional/intermediate scale mixing noise,” denoted by the subscript T. The large scale mixing and
small scale mixing components may very well be amenable to theoretical/computational modeling in the
near future, and the empirical models herein may be replaced, but it is more likely that for system design
purposes the computationally faster empirical approach will be retained in as close to theoretically-based
formulation as possible. In contrast, the transitional/intermediate scale turbulent mixing noise is likely to
be very difficult to characterize from first principles in the near term although some progress was made
for the 2DME in relating the noise characteristics to the measured flow field characteristics (Ref. 19),
which may be predictable by Computational Fluid Mechanics. Also potentially contributing is “inner-
stream plug separation noise” (Refs. 4 to 6, 20) at high frequency, denoted by the subscript P. The shock

NASA/TM—2009-215524 7
noise relations are essentially as in Reference 6, but with some renaming: the module that was called
inner stream shock noise (subscript I,sh) is now also applied to single-stream shock noise (subscript sh);
outer-stream shock noise (subscript O,sh) and downstream merged (beyond plug tip) shock noise
(subscript D,sh) (e.g., Ref. 21) are used only for dual-stream configurations under specific circumstances.

Source Locations
Experimental jet noise measurements are typically made at a distance far enough from the nozzle to
be in the far field of any individual noise source region, but not far enough away to treat the entire
exhaust plume as a point source at the center of the nozzle exit plane, as is usually assumed in
determining the directivity angle. The prediction procedures must take this difference into account. A
simple method is used (Refs. 3 to 6) herein to approximate these source location effects for the different
sources. The geometric relations for noise sources downstream of the nozzle exit plane (the outer stream
exit plane is used for dual stream nozzles) are given in Figure 2. The relationship of the actual (corrected)
source-to-observer distance, Rcor, to its apparent value, R, for a source at distance, Xs, downstream of the
exit plane is as follows

(Rcor/R)2 = 1 + (Xs/R)2 + 2 (Xs/R) cos θ (1)

The relationship of the corrected angle, θcor, to its apparent value, θ, is then

θcor = cos-1[(R/Rcor) cos θ + Xs/Rcor] (1a)

Δθ = θcor - θ (1b)

ΔSPL = - 20 log (Rcor/R) (1c)

In reality the noise received at any point in the far field comes from multiple locations within the
source region as a function of frequency, but reasonably accurate predictions can be made with a simple
model wherein the source location variation with frequency is assumed to be less important than the
variation with angle. Essentially the model accounts for the location, for each component, from which the
peak of the noise spectrum at that angle appears to radiate. These corrections differ for each component,
because the source positions are different. The simplification of assuming no change in source location as
a function of frequency at each far field angle is generally adequate because each component contributes
only over a limited frequency range; however, it is quite feasible to introduce frequency dependence if
needed, as it might very well be to deal with airframe installation effects. Such an approach was used for
ejector internal sources in Reference 1. These source locations must be accounted for in the correction for
free jet shear layer effects (Ref. 22), as shown in References 4 to 6.

Mixing Noise Components

Any jet mixing noise source region is treated as a round jet of appropriate nozzle exit area at the
appropriate conditions. Similar reasoning is used for all the mixing noise components. For a general
mixing region the overall level, uncorrected for refraction, UOL, is given by the following

UOL = C + 10 log [(ρamb/ρISA)2 (camb/cISA)4] + 10 log (A/Rcor2) + 10 ω log (ρ/ρamb)

+ 10 log [(Ve/camb)N/{1 + b (Ve/camb)N – 3}] - 5 k log [(1 + Mc cos θcor)2 + α2 Mc2] (2)

NASA/TM—2009-215524 8
 Where C is the coefficient and N the velocity slope, both determined experimentally and then
correlated, A is the appropriate nozzle exit area, and ρ is the fully-expanded jet density for that region.
The convection coefficient k has been taken as 3 in our past work based on the theory of Goldstein and
Howes (Ref. 12); whereas according to Ffowcs Williams (Ref. 11) it should be 5; our current model uses
k = 4. In the past α = 0.2 has been assumed, but this will be investigated. Note that the Doppler term, – 10
log [1 – Mf cos θcor] has been eliminated; this results from comparisons with the data of Reference 23.
The repeatability and consistency of those data is such that it can be deduced that better agreement
between static and simulated flight data is obtained if this term is eliminated. The simulated flight
transformation includes a Doppler correction, so it appears that the relations presented herein do model
the flight situation, but this should be validated by comparison with actual flight data. Note that the
velocity term now features a limiting behavior, producing a 30 slope versus the logarithmic velocity
parameter at very high velocity, while retaining the N slope, where N is on the order of 8, at low velocity,
resulting in an 80 slope. This change of slope at high velocity is somewhat consistent with our recent
correlations using different slopes at high and low velocity, but it is further motivated by our intent to
develop relationships of very wide applicability now, and is consistent with the correlation of von Glahn
(Ref. 24), which included rocket data. Essentially the same relation, but with N = 7.5 was used in the
initial ANOPP jet noise model (Ref 25). Note that angle of attack effects are not yet included. The
effective velocity for noise generation, Ve, is in most cases calculated as follows

Ve = V [1 – Mf (camb/V)]1/2 (2a)

Where V is the characteristic velocity for this region. This expression has evolved from earlier
relations wherein jet noise was assumed to vary with relative jet velocity to a relatively high power,
typically 5th or 6th, times absolute jet velocity to a somewhat lesser power, typically 2nd or 3rd,
preserving the overall 8th power expected (Refs. 9 and 10). Most of our earlier relations (e.g., Ref. 26)
split the velocity effect as 2/3 relative and 1/3 absolute; the current even split is somewhat more
conservative, yielding a smaller in-flight reduction of jet noise than the earlier relations.
The effect of jet temperature or density on noise has also been a matter of contention, and is rather
complicated even for a single subsonic static round jet. It is generally accepted that in the case of the hot
jet the noise generated is due to two source terms quadrupole and dipole, with the dipole term
contributing more strongly as jet temperature increases (or as density decreases) and as jet velocity is
reduced. Thus for cold jets the 8th power velocity effect is observed even to low velocity, while for hot
jets at low velocity the jet velocity dependence reduces to a 5th or 6th power. Although such behavior can
be explained on a theoretical basis, in an experiment it is difficult to separate this relative increase in
noise with increasing temperature at low velocity from the contamination from upstream noise sources.
This problem has long been recognized (Ref. 27) and must still be considered (Ref. 3). The approach to
quantifying this effect, as suggested by Ahuja and Bushell (Ref. 27), has been to assume that the density
effect on noise can be correlated by a variable exponent ω as a function of velocity, i.e., OASPL ∝ 10 ω
log (ρ/ρamb), where ω is tabulated as a function of nondimensionalized jet velocity, V/camb. In our work
(e.g., Refs. 1 and 26) we have used a simple algebraic expression for this density exponent, as follows

ω = 3 (Ve/camb)3.5/[0.6 + (Ve/camb)3.5] – 1 (2b)

However, in some of our recent work (Refs. 4 to 6) we considered other approaches where ω might
be constant for some source regions. The resulting expressions are different for the different components.
The convective Mach number, Mc, is calculated from the following relation

Mc = nc [(V/camb) – Mf] (2c)

NASA/TM—2009-215524 9
 In our recent work (Refs. 4 to 6) initially nc was assumed constant at 0.62, as has been assumed in
many early models. We found that using a variable nc was quite helpful. Such variations could be related
to flow-acoustic interaction, or “flow shielding.” These considerations are explored more thoroughly by
Gliebe, et al (Ref. 28).
The effect of refraction is incorporated in the spectral directivity relations in an empirical manner, but
crudely in the direction suggested by theory. The relative sound pressure level, SPL – UOL, is correlated
as a function of the effective directivity angle, θ′, and the logarithmic Strouhal number, log S, where the
Strouhal number is calculated as follows

S = (f D/Ve) (T/Tamb)0.4 (1 + cos θ′) (3)

Where D is the characteristic diameter, typically (4A/π)0.5, and T is the region total temperature.
Analogously to the level relation (Eq. (2)), the Doppler factor, [1 – Mf cos θcor], is no longer included,
except for the plug separation noise component; flight comparisons will determine whether it should be or
not. The effective angle, to account for refraction effects, is calculated as follows

θ′ = θcor (V/camb)0.1 (3a)

It is by use of this effective directivity angle that, in a very simple and approximate way, refraction is
accounted for. It is assumed that the spectra for widely differing jet velocities are similar at this adjusted
angle rather than at the same geometric angle. This approach, in conjunction with the analytically
modeled convection effect in Equation (2), correlates the variation of SPL with frequency and angle
rather well, as shown later herein. The resulting spectral directivity tables are developed iteratively as
further discussed later in this report.
The source location for a mixing region noise, Xs, is as follows

Xs = [L + (XC + θ/θF) D]/LSF (4)

L is the displacement of the start of the mixing region from the fan nozzle exit plane, while XC and θF are
empirical length and angle scaling factors. LSF is the linear scale factor, full-scale dimension divided by
model-scale dimension. The uncorrected angle, θ, is used here to start the correction process in closed
form. Even though the experimental data are scaled to the correct size for comparisons, the linear scale
factor is used in conjunction with the experiment geometry to correct the predictions for the effect of
source location.

Shock Noise Components

The relationships used to predict any shock noise component OASPLsh, for M ≥ 1.0, is as follows

OASPLsh = Csh + 10 log [(ρamb/ρISA)2(camb/cISA)4] + 10 log (A/Rcor2)

+10 log {β4/(1 + β4)} – 40 log (1 – Mf cos θcor) - F (θcor - θM) (5)

Where β is the shock strength and the ambient property and area/distance terms also used in the
internal mixing noise relations have the same meaning. The shock strength parameter β is calculated as
follows

β = [(M2 – Md 2)2 + 0.01 Md/(1 – D1/D2)]1/4 (5a)

NASA/TM—2009-215524 10
 Where M is the particular stream Mach number expanded to ambient conditions and Md is the design
Mach number. D1 is the inner diameter and D2 is the outer diameter for the stream under consideration.
The term 0.01 Md/(1 – D1/D2) is included to prevent a singularity at M = Md, where β is at its minimum.
The intercept Csh may be dependent on geometry. The Mach angle is denoted by θM, calculated as follows

θM = 180 – sin-1 (1/M) (in degrees) (5b)

(Note on terminology: θM will always have an additional subscript; otherwise the subscript M on other
variables refers to the merged region.) The term F (θcor - θM) is calculated as follows

F(θcor − θ M ) = 0.0 for θcor < θ M ⎫

⎬ (5c)
F(θcor − θ M ) = 0.75(θcor − θ M ) for θcor ≥ θ M ⎭

Spectral directivity effects are calculated next. The relative sound pressure level, SPLsh – OASPLsh, is
given in tabular form as a function of the directivity angle θ and the logarithmic Strouhal number log Ssh.
The Strouhal number is calculated as follows

Ssh = [fβDh/(0.7V)] (1 – Mf cos θcor){[1 + (0.7 V/camb) cos θcor]2 + α2(0.7 V/camb)2}1/2 (6)

It may very well be that the tables eventually developed will be different for under-expanded and
over-expanded cases, but at present this is not the case.
The source location for shock noise, Xs,sh, is as follows

Xs,sh = [L + 2 Dh (M2-1)1/2]/LSF (7)

Since the characteristic dimensions for shock noise components are typically the exit dimensions of a
convergent-divergent nozzle, while the characteristic dimensions for mixing noise are typically those of
the nozzle throat, up to eight diameters are needed to fully describe the geometry of a nozzle as complex
as a coannular, convergent-divergent plug nozzle.

Component Extraction Examples

The process of component noise separation and coefficient adjustment is illustrated in the following.
Examples are shown here and in References 4 to 6 for a wide enough range of situations to give the reader
an appreciation of the power of this approach and the issues that must be addressed in its application. The
experimental/extracted component SPLs are obtained from the following relation for each component:
SPLcomp,EE = SPLexp – (SPLPred - SPLcomp,Pred). There are adjustments made; the component coefficients are
adjusted, generally by a small amount to minimize errors, but no adjustments are made to the spectral
directivity relations. Since several examples of this sort have been shown for coannular nozzles in the
previous task (Ref. 6) and the predicted spectral directivity relations are only slightly different (and those
differences mainly confined to extremes in angle and frequency), the examples shown here are for single-
stream nozzles. The cases shown in Reference 6 include subsonic and supersonic cases with both inverted
and conventional velocity profiles and also include suppression modifications to both streams.

Shock-Free Conical Nozzle

A near-static case for a small model in the Lockheed Georgia anechoic chamber (Ref. 29) for a
relatively high subsonic jet velocity, Vj/camb = 0.98 is shown in Figure 3 for four far-field locations:
forward quadrant, θ = 90 deg (Fig. 3(a)), θ = 120 deg (Fig. 3(b)), θ = 135 deg (Fig. 3(c)), and near the

NASA/TM—2009-215524 11
peak noise angle in aft quadrant at θ = 150 deg (Fig. 3(d)). (The low Mf is the result of the pumping effect
of the small model jet on the facility free jet. Because of the very low Mf no shear layer corrections are
made.) The coannular nozzle relations (essentially Ref. 6) are used, but with the conical nozzle conditions
and parameters used for each component. The measured noise spectra (SPLexp) are shown by the heavy
solid line (unsmoothed); the downstream/merged noise spectra (SPLL,EE) are indicated by the c symbols
connected by the dashed curve, the initial/outer shear layer noise spectra (SPLS,EE) are indicated by the
symbols connected by the dotted curve and the intermediate/transitional (inner stream) noise spectra
(SPLT,EE) are indicated by the ‘ symbols connected by the dot-dash curve. Data are not usually plotted if
SPLcomp,EE - SPLexp ≤ - 10.0 dB, since such data are not meaningful; where such low values are shown, it is
simply to show that the particular component does not contribute significantly at that angle. Comparisons
are only meaningful for the dominant component at each frequency and angle. It should be noted that
regardless of whether or not component levels are plotted, using this method of extraction, the
antilogarithmic sum of the components always equals the total SPL, whether experimental or predicted.
Comparing the plots at the four angles shows that the various components have different directivity
effects.
The magnitude of the adjustment applied to the total experimental SPLs to yield the component
values can be seen by comparing the extracted component spectra with the total. At all angles for this test
case the downstream/merged mixing noise is dominant over most of the spectrum, but the outer shear
layer does contribute at high frequency. For other cases the other noise components can also become
important, depending on test conditions and geometry. Where the extracted component SPL is within
4.0 dB of the total, the data are correlated in normalized spectral form, as discussed later herein. The
values of the corrected effective directivity angles for each noise component are noted on these figures:
for large scale (previously called merged) mixing noise, θ′L = thet′L (on figure 3); for small scale
(previously called outer shear layer) mixing noise, θ′S = thet′S (on figure 3); and for
transitional/intermediate scale (previously called inner stream) mixing noise, θ′T = thet′T (on figure 3).
Since for this particular case for all these components, the (Ve/c)0.1 is close to 1.00, θcomp ≅ θ′comp, and the
magnitude of the correction due to source location can be seen.
Once the noise spectra have been broken down into their components, the experimental/extracted
components can be compared with prediction, as shown in Figure 4, for the same case as in Figure 3. The
same symbols are used for each component as in Figure 3, but now the corresponding curves are the
predicted values. The coefficients for the various components, CL, CS, and CT, are adjusted to minimize
the average error (experimental minus predicted) at all angles where the data are considered valid, over
the frequency range where that component is most important. The adjusted values of the component
coefficients are shown on each such figure. (Note that as the coefficients change relative to each other, the
correction SPLcomp,EE - SPLexp as a function of frequency and angle, also changes.) Fairly good agreement
between experimental/extracted and predicted spectra can be seen, but not as good as seen in recent
coannular nozzle cases. Considering that these 27-year-old data were obtained in a fairly small facility
with a small (5-cm diameter) nozzle, these results are encouraging with regard to the likelihood that a
“universal” correlation may be achievable.
Similar comparisons for a higher jet velocity, but still subsonic due to elevated temperature, are
shown in Figures 5 and 6 for similar-vintage data from the NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC,
predecessor to GRC, Ref. 30) dual-stream hot-jet facility. These tests were made with a coannular nozzle
having no flow in the outer stream. For this outdoor facility, both ground and pole-mounted (nozzle
centerline level) microphones were used; both were corrected analytically and merged—low frequencies
from the ground microphones and high frequencies from pole microphones, with variably-weighted
averaging at middle frequencies. The conical nozzle was 10-cm diameter, twice the linear dimension and
four times the area of the nozzle for which data are shown in Figures 3 and 4. With the larger size and
higher jet velocity, the contributions of the small scale mixing and intermediate/transitional mixing are
more significant although the large scale mixing is still the most important. In terms of full-scale
perceived noise level, the intermediate/transitional contribution is probably significant.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 12
 Conical Nozzle With Shock Noise
Similar analyses for a static case from GE’s anechoic free-jet facility, scaled to nominal full size on a
2400-ft sideline at takeoff conditions, Vj/camb = 2.11 and Mf = 0.0 (Ref. 31), are shown in Figures 7 and 8.
The adjustments to the mixing noise components are CL –1.0, CT –2.0, CS +4.5, with CSh exactly as
predicted. Shock noise is very dominant at θ = 40 deg (Fig. 7(a)); shock noise is the controlling
component from 100 to 1000 Hz. Shock noise is also dominant at θ = 70 deg (Fig. 7(b)), but not as
dominant over mixing noises as at θ = 40 deg. Also apparent at θ = 70 deg is a tone in the vicinity of
159 Hz, probably due to shock “screech,” a common problem with small nozzles. At θ = 100 deg
(Fig. 7 (c)) the large-scale turbulent mixing noise is dominant up to 316 Hz, with shock noise dominant at
400 to 500 Hz, transitional-scale turbulent mixing noise dominant at 800 to 1590 Hz, and small-scale
turbulent mixing noise dominant at 2512 to 5010 Hz. From about 251 to 2512 Hz, no individual
component is within 2.0 dB of the total, which illustrates how difficult it can be to isolate and then
correlate individual components. Similar results are seen at θ = 120 deg (Fig. 7(d)), but with shock noise
becoming a less than significant contributor. At the aft angles, θ = 140 and 160 deg (Fig. 7(e) to (f)),
large-scale turbulent mixing is dominant over most of the spectrum, but a hump can be seen in the 159 to
200 Hz range. Whether this hump is due to a tone, like the “screech” tone evident in the forward quadrant,
or an additional mechanism such as large eddy Mach wave radiation, is uncertain. The level of agreement
shown in Figure 8 was achieved by changing α from 0.2 to 0.3, which has a significant effect only in the
rear quadrant. Note that for the cases previously analyzed in References 4 to 6 the change in α does have
a small, but noticeable effect; experimental/extracted component coefficients typically change by a few
tenths of a dB.

Component Correlations
The same extraction and coefficient adjustment approach demonstrated in the foregoing section was
applied to an more extensive set of data from References 23, and 30 to 34 used in Reference 6 as well as
single stream conic and convergent divergent (C-D) nozzle data from Reference 29. This includes
reevaluation of representative cases previously analyzed in Reference 6 to assure that the changes made to
the predictive model to cover a wider range of conditions and geometries do not degrade the agreement
demonstrated in the earlier comparisons. The baseline (unsuppressed) configurations are considered first,
with the expectation that the changes will be minor for the relatively dominant merged mixing and outer
shear layer mixing noise components and that some further improvements and/or simplifications may be
found for the less dominant components. The change of α from 0.2 to 0.3 is used throughout. New
correlations for the coefficients are developed in this section.
For all the components, adjusted spectral directivity relations are developed, although these changes
for most components are relatively small with respect to the relations of Reference 6. These tables are
given for large scale mixing noise (formerly merged mixing noise) in Table I, for small scale mixing
noise (formerly outer shear layer mixing noise) in Table II, for transitional/intermediate scale mixing
noise (formerly inner stream mixing noise) in Table III, for inner stream plug separation noise in
Table IV, for plug/downstream shock noise in Table V, for outer stream shock noise in Table VI, and for
single stream or inner stream shock noise in Table VII. Since our previous reports have include a number
of comparisons of the normalized experimental/extracted spectra with the tabulated values, further
spectral comparisons herein will be limited to comparisons of total predicted spectra with experimental
values, with predicted component levels shown to indicate the relative contributions of the different
source mechanisms.
Note that, as in Reference 6, the effects of nozzle exit mixing enhancement modification are
correlated only in terms of influence on levels and not the spectra, so simple “delta” correlations are all
that is justified, at present, to represent the observed reductions in merged noise at the expense of small
increases in the higher frequency components. However, there is some evidence of small spectral and

NASA/TM—2009-215524 13
directivity effects, particularly on merged mixing noise, and an approach to modifying the relations is
discussed. As in the previous model (Ref. 6), it is assumed, for correlation purposes, that the effects of
outer nozzle chevrons is additive to that for inner nozzle chevrons. The chevron effects are correlated in
terms of perimeter ratio, where the perimeter ratio for each stream is defined as the ratio of the total
wetted perimeter for that stream (i.e., both inner and outer perimeters) divided by the total wetted
perimeter for the unsuppressed annular passage.
Regarding statistics to be cited below, in comparing repeat tests for the nominal BPR = 5 external
plug nozzle (Conf. 3BB, Ref. 23) at Vmix/camb = 1.072±0.014 and Mf = 0.28, 3BB-549 relative to 3BB-
396, the following is observed: the average error in OASPL is –0.8 dB, while the standard deviation is
0.7 dB and RMS error is 0.8 dB. When the data at all frequencies and angles are considered, they show an
average error of –0.9 dB, with standard deviation and RMS error both 1.2 dB. Breaking this down into
low, middle and high frequency ranges, the corresponding error results are –0.8, 1.0 and 0.9 dB from
50 to 500 Hz (where large scale mixing is generally dominant); –0.9, 1.3 and 1.3 for 631 to 1995 Hz
(where transitional and small scale mixing are generally dominant); and –1.0, 1.7 and 1.7 for 1995 to
3980 Hz (where small scale mixing and/or plug separation are generally dominant).

Large Scale Mixing Noise

In Reference 4 several different assumptions regarding the density exponent ωL (ωM in earlier
models) were investigated. Because of the range of test conditions included there was a significant range
of temperature and velocity, so the method of correlating density effects was quite significant. Considered
were ωL = 0.0, 1.0, and 2.0, as well as the variable ωL (from Equation (2b)). The variable ωL was found to
provide the most satisfactory correlation, yielding the simplest velocity effect. In Reference 6, a small
effect of nozzle extension was included that now does not appear appropriate. With the generalized
convection formulation, the normalized baseline (unsuppressed) large scale mixing noise overall level is
defined as follows

UOLL,Norm = UOLL - 10 log [(ρamb/ρISA)2 (camb/cISA)4] - 10 log (AL/Rcor,L2) - 10 ωL log (ρL/ρamb)

+ 20 log [(1 + Mc,L cos θcor,L)2 + 0.09 Mc,L2] (8)

Where, analogous to Reference 6

ωL = 3 (Ve,L/camb)3.5/[0.6 + (Ve,L/camb)3.5] – 1 (8a)

Ve,L = Vmix [1 – Mf (camb/Vmix)]1/2 (8b)

Mc,L = nc,L [(Vmix/camb) – Mf] (8c)

nc,L = 0.4/(1 + 1.5 {VO/VI}4) + 0.3 (Dual-stream nozzle) (8d)

nc,L = 0.460 (Single-stream nozzle) (8e)

AL = AI + AO (Dual-stream nozzle) (8f)

AL = AI (Single-stream nozzle) (8g)

. . . .
Vmix = (mIVI + mOVO)/(mI + mO) (Dual-stream nozzle) (8h)

Vmix = VI (Single-stream nozzle) (8i)

NASA/TM—2009-215524 14
 ρL = Pamb / (R tmix) (8j)

tmix = Tmix – (γ – 1) Vmix2/(2γR) (8k)

. .
 ITI + m
Tmix = ( m  OTO)/(mI + mO) (Dual-stream nozzle) (8l)

Tmix = TI (Single-stream nozzle) (8m)

Note that the areas are isentropically fully-expanded and that jet properties are fully-expanded and
mass averaged. In this case, the large scale merged density, ρL, is computed using the ideal gas state
equation with the mass averaged specific heat ratio γ and gas constant R along with the merged static
temperature tmix (which is in turn computed with isentropic relations using the mass averaged total
temperature and Vmix). Strictly, the mixed jet velocity should be computed via a bona fide thermodynamic
mixing analysis rather than the simple averaging method specified above. A true velocity mixing analysis
could improve the quality of the correlation and this effect could be explored in future studies. Of course
for a single stream nozzle, the mass averaged conditions are simply those of that (inner) stream conditions
with AO = VO = m  O = 0. Also for the single-stream case, nc,L is calculated for VO/VI = 1.00, yielding nc,L
= 0.460; this is a significant change from the 0.620 value used in our earlier single-stream formulations,
but it appears to be consistent with the new assumptions of k = 4 and α = 0.3.
Values of this normalized large scale mixing noise level are plotted against the nondimensionalized
effective jet velocity parameter log (Ve,L/camb) and found to correlate well. The two-segment approach
used in References 4 to 6 would be adequate, but in attempting to make our relations as general as
possible, the predicted values of UOLL as a function of the velocity parameter for several different
approaches are compared in Figure 9. The two-segment approach for dual-stream nozzle merged mixing
noise from Task 9 (Ref. 6) is shown by the solid line connecting circle symbols; the relation for the
2DME merged mixing noise at sideline orientation (Ref. 1) is shown by the dashed line connecting square
symbols; the original ANOPP jet noise relation for OASPL is shown by the dotted line connecting
triangle symbols; and the conventional-profile coannular nozzle OASPL relation is shown by the dash-dot
line connecting diamond symbols. Since the OASPL of these jets is controlled by the merged/large-scale
contributions, these comparisons are valid. Since the formulation of the original ANOPP model was
based partially on the correlation of von Glahn (Ref. 24) that included very high jet velocity rocket data,
we now suggest the following relation, labeled “Trial” in Figure 9

UOLL,Norm = 140.0 + 10 log [(Ve,L/camb)8/{1 + 0.02 (Ve,L/camb)5}] (9)

This relationship is now compared with data from several unsuppressed dual-stream and single-
stream configurations, as shown in Figure 10. Dual-stream comparisons are shown in Figure 10(a) for a
large number of configurations from References 23, 30, 31, and 34. Only 3 of the 91 data points fall
outside the ±3.0 dB band, and the average over-prediction is 0.1 dB. With this very small average error,
the standard deviation and the RMS error are essentially equal at 1.6 dB, which we consider to be very
good when consideration is given to the repeatability RMS error of 0.8 dB seen for OASPL. The single-
stream data (Refs. 29 to 31) shown in Figure 10(b) agree reasonably, but on average the experimental
values fall below the correlation based on the dual-stream configurations; however, all these single-stream
data are rather old and so may not be as reliable in an absolute sense as the more recent data. The fact that
one relationship does as well as it does for such a wide range of cases is quite encouraging.
In Figure 11 data for both suppressed and unsuppressed configurations at BPR ≅ 5 are shown,
compared with the baseline correlation modified for suppression effects as in Reference 6

UOLL,Norm + 45 [log (PRIPRO)]/(1 + BPR) = 140.0 +10 log [(Ve,L/camb)8/{1+0.02 (Ve,L/camb)5}] (10)

NASA/TM—2009-215524 15
 The experimental data agree reasonably well with the predicted trend versus velocity, but on average
fall slightly the prediction. Note that the unsuppressed BPR ≅ 5 data (repeated from Figure 10(a)) also fall
below the relation, but only by an average of 0.2 dB. The suppressed cases fall an average of 2.8 dB
below the prediction; so this means that the current formulation somewhat (2.6 dB) under-predicts the
suppression benefits. Because of this significant average error, the RMS error is rather large at 3.2 dB,
whereas the standard deviation is only 1.5 dB. A revised correlation, along the lines suggested below,
should lead to a relation with RMS error approaching 1.5 dB. Although this relationship works reasonably
well, perhaps a better long-term approach is to modify the calculation to account for the reduction noise
by assuming that it is the result of a reduction in Vmix, and consequently Ve,L, due to the mixing
enhancement, in which case the relation might be, based on these limited comparisons

Vmix,supr = Vmix {[log (PRIPRO)]/(1 + BPR)}0.5

However, such a change in the characteristic velocity would result in a change in Strouhal relations,
and furthermore, when considering a wider range of suppressor designs, we expect that an additional
variable, most likely suppressor area ratio and/or mixer area ratio, will be required. Thus the more general
approach we envision at present is as follows

Vmix,supr/Vmix = Function of (PRI, PRO, BPR, SAR, MAR)

Where SAR and MAR are the suppressor area ratio and mixer area ratio, respectively (Ref. 1). The
relation developed must, of course, also give agreement with single-stream suppressor results. The
magnitude of such an effort is beyond the scope of the current task, but should be considered in a follow-
on effort.
The Strouhal relations of Reference 6 are retained. The relative sound pressure level, SPLL – UOLL, is
correlated in Table I as a function of the effective directivity angle, θ′L, and the logarithmic Strouhal
number, log SL, where the Strouhal number is calculated as follows

SL = (f DL/Ve,L) (TL/Tamb)0.4 (1 + cos θ′L) (11)

Where for dual-stream configurations DL is taken to be DM, the equivalent diameter based on total fan
plus core fully-expanded merged area, [4(AI + AO)/π]1/2, while for a single-stream nozzle DL is simply
taken to be the equivalent diameter of the fully-expanded single jet: (4AI/π)1/2. Note that this is the only
noise component that utilizes fully-expanded areas in computing the characteristic length for the Strouhal
number; all others use hardware geometry. Analogously the temperature TL is the total temperature of the
single jet or for the dual-stream case TL is taken to be Tmix, the mass-averaged total temperature.
The effective angle, to account for refraction effects, is calculated as follows

θ′L = θcor,L (Vmix/camb)0.1 (11a)

Of course, for the single-stream case Vmix is replaced by the fully-expanded single jet velocity. It is by
use of this effective directivity angle that in a very simple and approximate way refraction is accounted
for. It is assumed that the spectra for widely differing jet velocities are similar at this adjusted angle rather
than at the same geometric angle. This approach, in conjunction with the analytically modeled convection
effect in Equation (8), correlates the variation of SPL with frequency and angle rather well, as shown
herein.
The source location for merged region noise, Xs,L, is calculated from Equation (4) modified for this
component specifically, including the effect of the mixing enhancement modifications, as follows

Xs,L = [LI + (4 + θ/30) DL (PRIPRO)-0.25]/LSF (12)

NASA/TM—2009-215524 16
 Note that the uncorrected angle, θ, in degrees, is used here to start the correction process (Eqs. (1) to
(1c)) in closed form.

Small Scale Mixing Noise

There is not enough independent variation of outer stream velocity and temperature in the
experimental data for dual-stream exhausts to really determine the best approach to correlating density
effects. Therefore, as in References 4 to 6, since the variable ωM relation was found appropriate for
merged mixing noise, the analogous assumption is made here, and the variable ωS is calculated from
Equation (2b). Based on these considerations, the normalized baseline (unsuppressed) outer shear layer
mixing noise overall level is defined as follows

UOLS = CS + 10 log [(ρamb/ρISA)2 (camb/cISA)4] + 10 log (AS/Rcor,S2) + 10 ωS log (ρS/ρamb)

+ 75 log (Ve,S/camb) - 20 log [(1 + Mc,S cos θcor,S)2 + 0.09 Mc,S2] (13)

Where α = 0.3, and as explained in References 4 to 6

ωS = 3 (Ve,S/camb)3.5/[0.6 + (Ve,S/camb)3.5] – 1 (13a)

Ve,S = VS [1 – Mf (camb/VS)]1/2 (13b)

Mc,S = nc,S [(VS/camb) – Mf] (13c)

nc,S = 0.3/(1 + {VO/VI}2) + 0.35 (Dual-stream nozzle) (13d)

nc,S = 0.500 (Single-stream nozzle) (13e)

AS = AO (Dual-stream nozzle) (13f)

AS = AI (Single-stream nozzle) (13g)

VS = VO (Dual-stream nozzle) (13h)

VS = VI (Single-stream nozzle) (13i)

TS = TO (Dual-stream nozzle) (13j)

TS = TI (Single-stream nozzle) (13k)

ρS = Pamb / (R tS) (13l)

tS = TS – (γ – 1) VS2/(2γR) (13m)

Note that the area is fully expanded isentropic and that fully-expanded jet properties are used outer
stream for a dual-stream nozzle, and inner stream for a single-stream nozzle. Also note that for a single-
stream nozzle, VO/VI = 1.0, yielding nc,S = 0.500. The small scale density, ρS, is computed using the ideal
gas state equation with the specific heat ratio γ and gas constant R of the appropriate stream along with
the static temperature tS (which is in turn computed with isentropic relations using the total temperature
and VS). In Reference 6, the coefficient then labeled CO was taken to be constant 133.0. For the wider
range of conditions and configurations now considered, this assumption no longer appears valid.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 17
Experimental/extracted coefficients CS results are plotted against outer-stream/inner-stream velocity
ration VO/VI for a wide range of unsuppressed dual-stream configurations are shown in Figure 12(a). An
S-shaped correlation relation is currently used

CS = 130.0 + [6/{1 + 1.5 (VO/VI)3.5}] (14)

For single-stream nozzles with VO = 0, CS = 136.0. Single-stream results are also shown in
Figure 12(a) to help establish proper limiting behavior. However, one approach to improve agreement for
single-stream nozzles at high frequencies may be to evaluate CS where VO/VI is unity, rather than zero,
resulting in a value of 132.4 instead of 136.0. Conical nozzle results, arbitrarily plotted on the logarithmic
scale at VO/VI = 0.1, agree well with the low velocity ratio dual-stream results. On the other hand, one
annular nozzle result, arbitrarily plotted at VO/VI = 9, indicates agreement with high velocity ratio dual-
stream results. Much of the scatter is due to the fact that this component is mainly observed at relatively
high frequency, where the data are inherently more prone to error and where it is difficult to separate the
competing contributions of intermediate/transitional-scale mixing along with plug separation and shock
noises, when they are present. Recall that the repeatability of the experimental data is almost twice as
poor at high frequency than at low frequency (standard deviation 0.9 dB for lows and
1.7 dB for highs). It is also likely that with further analysis and evolution of the model, the form of this
relation may change considerably, though not much in magnitude, resulting ultimately in a model that is
more accurate and aesthetically pleasing. Even so, for the dual-stream configurations the average error
(predicted minus experimental) is—0.3 dB, the RMS error is 1.5 dB and the standard deviation is 1.5 dB.
For the much more limited single-stream cases the average error is—0.5 dB, with 2.2 dB RMS error and
2.1 dB standard deviation.
As for the large-scale mixing noise, the assumption is made that the effect of noise suppression nozzle
exit modifications is as found in Reference 6, ΔCS = 3.37 log (PRIPRO), so in Figure 12(b) the perimeter-
ratio corrected coefficient, CS - 3.37 log (PRIPRO) is plotted against VO/VI. This expression, in
combination with that for large scale mixing, quantifies the finding that the suppression of low frequency
noise with enhanced mixing must be traded against an increase, though smaller, in middle and higher
frequency noise. In other words, nozzle exit modifications actually cause an increase in small scale
mixing noise. On average, the suppressed level is under-predicted by 1.4 dB, with 1.7 dB RMS error and
1.0 dB standard deviation. For the BPR ≅ 5 baselines in comparison the under-prediction is 0.1, so the
increase in high frequency noise due to the enhanced mixing is under-predicted by 1.3 dB. Recall that the
low frequency benefit appears to under-predicted by 2.7 dB; it is apparent that the evolution of the model
is indicating stronger effects, both positive and negative, for the mixing enhancement.
The relative sound pressure level, SPLS —UOLS, is correlated in Table II as a function of the effective
directivity angle θ′S and the logarithmic Strouhal number log SS, where the Strouhal number is calculated
as follows

SS = (f DS/Ve,S) (TS/Tamb)0.4 (1 + cos θ′S) (15)

Where DS is the outer throat physical diameter of the flow stream(s) (D2,O,th for dual-stream or D2,I,th
for a single-stream nozzle), and TS is the total temperature of the outer stream (TO for dual-stream or TI
for single-stream nozzles). The effective angle, to account for refraction effects, is calculated as follows

θ′S = θcor,S (VS/camb)0.1 (15a)

These spectral directivity tables are developed iteratively as discussed in Reference 6.

No effect of the mixing devices is expected on the location for outer shear layer noise, Xs,S, calculated
as follows

NASA/TM—2009-215524 18
 Xs,S = (θ/45) DS/LSF (16)

Again, note that the uncorrected angle, θ, in degrees, is used here to start the correction process in
closed form.

Transitional/Intermediate-Scale Mixing Noise

A significant change from the early model (Ref. 3) was made in References 4 to 6; it was found that
much better agreement is obtained if the characteristic velocity VI/O is taken to be the larger of VO and VI,
and that the overall level correlates reasonably well with ωT = 0.0. Our original attempts to correlate this
component used a velocity difference term, ⏐VO - VI⏐, but it was found that this component was present
even as the difference term approached zero, so the more complicated form gradually evolved (Refs. 4 to
6). It is interesting to note that in developing a prediction procedure for conventional velocity profile
coannular nozzles, Fisher, et al. (Refs. 16 and 17) found that a term dependent on VI was needed.

UOLT = CT + 10 log [(ρamb/ρISA)2 (camb/cISA)4] + 10 log (AT/Rcor,T2) + 10 ωT log (ρI/ρO)

+75 log (Ve,T/camb) - 20 log [(1 + Mc,T cos θcor,T)2 + 0.09 Mc,T2] (17)
Where
Ve,T = VI/O [1 – Mf (camb/VI/O)]1/2 (17a)
Mc,T = nc,T [(VI/O/camb) – Mf] (17b)
VI/O = MAX (VO, VI) (17c)
nc,T = 0.3/(1 + 0.5 {VO/VI}2) + 0.30 (Dual-stream nozzle) (17d)
nc,T = 0.500 (Single-stream nozzle) (17e)
AT = AI (17f)

Once again, the inner area is fully expanded isentropic and fully-expanded jet conditions are used.
Note that in our earlier analyses the density ratio effect was found to be minor, ωT = 0.0. It would seem
that for the single-stream case, (ρI/ρO) should be replaced by (ρI/ρamb), but so long as ωT = 0.0, this does
not matter. Also for single-stream cases nc,T is calculated for VO/VI = 1.00, or nc,T = 0.500.
This component is treated in a similar manner to the small-scale mixing noise, in that the coefficient
CT appears to be a function of velocity ratio, but here the fully expanded area ratio AO/AI appears to be a
factor also, with the relationship otherwise as in Reference 6. The data and the resulting correlation are
shown in Figure 13. This component is only marginally significant in most cases, so the scatter is large. It
also may very well be that the issue of density effect should be reconsidered. Results for the unsuppressed
dual-stream and single-stream nozzles are shown in Figure 13(a). As for the small-scale mixing noise, an
S-shaped relationship is used, with rather weak justification in view of the scatter, but to assure less risky
extrapolation to high and low values of the velocity-ratio and area-ratio parameter. The single-stream
cases, both conical and annular appear to agree with the low velocity ratio, low area ratio limit exhibited
by the dual stream cases. The resulting correlation expression is

CT = 127.0 + 8.0/[1 + 0.25 {(VO/VI) (AO/AI)}5] (18)

For single-stream nozzles with VO = AO = 0, CT = 135.0. For the dual-stream cases the average over-
prediction is 1.2 dB, the RMS error is 3.3 dB, and the standard deviation is 3.1 dB. For the single-stream
cases, the average over-prediction is 1.5 dB, the RMS error is 2.7 dB, and the standard deviation is
2.2 dB. So the model is somewhat conservative.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 19
 As for the large-scale and small-scale mixing noises, the assumption is made that the effect of noise
suppression nozzle exit modifications is as found in Reference 6, ΔCT = ΔCL = - 45 [log (PRIPRO)]/(1 +
BPR), so in Figure 13(b) the perimeter-ratio corrected coefficient, CT + 45 [log (PRIPRO)]/(1 + BPR) is
plotted against (VO/VI) (AO/AI). On average, the suppressed level is significantly over-predicted by
3.9 dB, with the RMS error 4.7 dB and the standard deviation 2.7 dB. With this component being a
relatively minor contributor for the suppressed cases, the real impact of these poor statistics is not highly
significant, but still it should be reevaluated as a more universally-applicable model is developed.
The relative sound pressure level, SPLT – UOLT, is correlated in Table III as a function of the
effective directivity angle θ′T and the logarithmic Strouhal number log ST, where the Strouhal number is
calculated as follows

ST = (f D2,I,th/Ve,T) (TI/TO)0.4 (1 + cos θ′T) (19)

Where D2,I,th is the outer physical throat diameter of the inner stream nozzle and TI is the core (inner
stream) total temperature; for the single-stream case TO is replaced by Tamb. The effective angle, to
account for refraction effects, is calculated as follows

θ′T = θcor,I (Ve,T/camb)0.1 (19a)

The spectral directivity comparisons for the suppressed configurations are not shown since the
spectral range is very limited in most cases and the scatter relatively large. Comparisons for unsuppressed
configurations are shown in References 4 to 6, and since the changes in spectral directivity correlations
are so minor, they are not repeated herein.
No effect of the mixing devices is expected on the location for source location for inner stream
mixing noise, Xs,T, calculated as follows

Xs,T = [LI + (θ/45) Dh,I,th]/LSF (20)

The hydraulic diameter of the inner stream throat, Dh,I,th, is defined as D2,I,th—D1,I,th. Again, note that
the uncorrected angle, θ, in degrees, is used here to start the correction process in closed form.

Inner Stream Plug Separation Noise

This component appears only on nozzles with relatively blunt-tipped plugs, and then strongly only for
high bypass ratio and low mixed jet velocity. There is also a concern as to whether the high frequency
noise is really due to flow separation from the plug or whether it might be due to upstream sources such
as valve noise. The fact that the experimental/extracted component coefficients are on the order of 10 dB
less for the LaRC facility (Ref. 34) than for the GRC facility (Ref. 23) supports this notion, as discussed
in Reference 6. The modified relations developed in Reference 6 are now used, and the
experimental/extracted normalized level is calculated as follows

UOLP,Norm = UOLP - 10 log [(ρamb/ρISA)2 (camb/cISA)4] - 10 log (AI/Rcor,P2) - 20 log (ρI/ρO)

+ 40 log [1 – Mf cos θcor,P] (21)

ρI = Pamb / (R tI) (21a)

ρO = Pamb / (R tO) (Dual-stream nozzle) (21b)

ρO = ρamb (Single-stream nozzle) (21c)

NASA/TM—2009-215524 20
 tI = TI – (γ – 1) VI2/(2γR) (21d)

tO = TO – (γ – 1) VO2/(2γR) (Dual-stream nozzle) (21e)

Once again, the inner area AI is fully expanded isentropic and fully-expanded jet properties are used.
Note that the convecting eddy directivity term is replaced by the 40 log [1 - Mf cos θcor,P] term used for
sources moving with fixed position relative to the aircraft, e.g., shock noise. The following simple relation
is currently employed for the effective velocity, Ve,P,

Ve,P = VI (21f)

Normalized levels (Eq. (21)) are plotted against the logarithmic velocity parameter, log (Ve,P/cO) for
the unsuppressed external plug nozzles of References 23 and 34 in Figure 14(a). For single-stream
nozzles, cO is replaced by the ambient sound speed and ρO is replaced by the ambient density. It is
tempting to try to correlate the differences as a function of configuration, but in view of all the
experimental problems, particularly the possible plug misalignment in some of the cases from
Reference 23, we currently accept the scatter and use the crude relation

UOLP,Norm = 140.0 + 35 log (Ve,P/cO) (22)

This “eye-ball” relation produces an average under-prediction of 2.0 dB, an RMS error of 4.4 dB and
a standard deviation of 4.0 dB. For the nominal BPR = 13 nozzle (Ref. 19), the experimental levels
average 4.6 dB above the general correlation (Eq. (22)), with an RMS error of 4.6 dB, but a standard
deviation of only 0.4 dB, so they would correlate with very little scatter for CP = 144.6 dB. For the
nominal BPR = 8, the reason not to try to correlate configuration effects becomes apparent. For very
similar configurations the GE/GRC data (Ref. 23) indicate that the noise is under-predicted by an average
of 5.6 dB with RMS error 5.7 dB and standard deviation 1.4 dB, while for the LaRC test (Ref. 34) the
noise is over-predicted by 2.4 dB with RMS error 2.9 dB and standard deviation 1.5 dB. So on average,
there is an 8.5 dB difference. Similar comparisons for the nominal BPR = 5 GE/GRC and LaRC tests of
baseline and suppressed configurations (Fig. 14 (b)) show similar problems: over-prediction 0.2 dB, RMS
error 3.6 dB, and standard deviation 3.6 dB for Reference 23; over-prediction 2.0 dB, RMS error 2.2 dB,
and standard deviation 0.9 dB for Reference 34.
Strouhal-type scaling of the frequency spectra in terms of the plug separation parameter utilized
herein is not very convincing. Therefore, we offer an alternative approach where the characteristic
velocity is the geometric mean of Ve,P and the ambient sonic velocity camb. The relative sound pressure
level, SPLP—UOLP, is correlated in Table IV as a function of the effective directivity angle θ′P and the
modified logarithmic Strouhal number log SP, where the Strouhal number is calculated as follows

SP = [2 f rpt/{(Ve,P)0.5(camb)0.5}] [1 - Mf cos θcor,P] (23)

Where rpt is the inner stream nozzle physical plug tip radius. The temperature ratio term is omitted.
The effective angle, to account for refraction effects, is calculated as follows

θ′P = θcor,P (Ve,P/camb)0.1 (23a)

No effect of the mixing devices is expected on the source location. The source location for inner
stream plug separation noise, Xs,P, with θ once again in degrees, is as follows

Xs,P = [LI + LP + 2 (θ/45) rpt]/LSF (24)

NASA/TM—2009-215524 21
 Plug/Downstream Shock Noise
For the cases investigated to the present, it appears that this noise component only occurs when there
is a plug present, both streams are fully-expanded supersonic with total pressures PO ≥ PI, and there are no
noise suppression modifications to the nozzle exit planes that might prevent this shock interaction
process. At present, such a component is not included for single-stream plug nozzles, but this may need to
be reconsidered in the future. Equation (5) is made specific to this source, as follows

OASPLD,sh = CD,sh + 10 log [(ρamb/ρISA)2(camb/cISA)4] + 10 log (AM/Rcor,D2)

+ 10 log {βD4/(1 + βD4)} – 40 log (1 – Mf cos θcor,D) - F (θcor,D - θM,D) (25)

Where AM is the fully expanded merged area, AI + AO. If in the future the method for this shock noise
source is modified to include extensions for single-stream plug nozzles, AM would be simply AI. Also,

βD = [(MD2 – Md,D2)2 + 0.01 Md,D / (1 – D1,I,ex/D2,O,ex)]1/4 (25a)

Where MD is the isentropically-calculated Mach number based the mass-averaged specific heat ratio
and the fully-expanded area-weighted pressure ratio, and Md,D is the overall nozzle design Mach number,
calculated as follows:

MD = {[(PD/Pamb)(γ – 1)/γ - 1][2/(γ – 1)]}1/2 (25b)

PD = (PIAI + POAO) / (AO + AI) (25c)

Md,D = (1 - 0.5{1 - 2rpt/D2,O,ex})(Md,I +Md,O BPR)/(1+BPR)+0.5{1 - 2rpt/D2,O,ex}MD (25d)

This formulation accounts for the reduction in shock strength due to both C-D exits and a sharp plug
tip. D1,I,ex is the inner diameter of the inner-stream nozzle exit and D2,O,ex is the outer diameter of the
outer-stream nozzle exit. Note that the values for design Mach numbers Md,I and Md,O are unity for
convergent inner and outer nozzles, respectively. As in the case of the large scale mixing noise, better
statistical correlations may be achieved using a bona fide thermodynamic mixing analysis. The Mach
angle is denoted by θM,D, calculated as follows

θM,D = 180 – sin-1 (1/MD) (in degrees) (25e)

The term F (θcor,D - θM,D) is calculated as follows

( )
F θ cor ,D − θ M ,D = 0.0 for θcor ,D < θ M ,D ⎫⎪
( ) (
F θ cor ,D − θ M ,D = 0.75 θ cor ,D − θ M ,D ) ⎬
for θcor ,D ≥ θ M ,D ⎪⎭
(25f)

The relation found appropriate for the coefficient CD,Sh is as follows

CD,sh = 164.5 – 50 log [1 + (D1,I,ex / D2,O,ex)2] (25g)

The spectral directivity relations are given in Table V. The Strouhal number is calculated from
Equation (6) with the appropriate variables, as follows

NASA/TM—2009-215524 22
 SD,sh = [fβDDh,D,ex /(0.7VD)] (1 – Mf cos θcor,D) {[1 + (0.7VD/camb) cosθcor,D]2
+ 0.04 (0.7VD/camb)2}1/2 (26)

Where Dh,D,ex is the “total” hydraulic nozzle exit diameter, D2,O,ex – D1,I,ex, and VD is calculated from
MD and the mass-averaged total temperature

VD = MD (γ R tD)1/2 (26a)

tD = TD / [1 + MD2 (γ - 1) / 2] (26b)

. . . .
TD = (mITI + mOTO)/(mI + mO) (26c)

The source location for downstream shock noise, Xs,D,sh, is taken to be as follows

Xs,D,sh = [LP + LI + 2 DM (MD2 - 1)1/2]/LSF (27)

Where DM is the equivalent diameter based on total fan plus core fully-expanded merged area,
[4(AI + AO)/π]1/2.

Outer Stream Shock Noise

Outer stream shock noise is present only for dual-stream nozzles when the outer stream is fully-
expanded supersonic and plug/downstream shock noise is absent. To calculate outer stream shock noise,
Equation (5) is made specific to this source, as follows

OASPLO,sh = CO,sh + 10 log [(ρamb/ρISA)2(camb/cISA)4] + 10 log (AO/Rcor,O2)

+ 10 log {βO4/(1 + βO4)} – 40 log (1 – Mf cos θcor,O) - F (θcor,O - θM,O) (28)

Where the subscript O refers to the outer stream. AO is the fully-expanded area of the outer stream.
The shock strength parameter βO is calculated as follows

βO = [(MO2 – M d,O 2)2 + 0.01 Md,O/(1 – D1,O,ex/D2,O,ex)]1/4 (28a)

Where MO is the outer stream Mach number fully expanded to ambient conditions and Md,O is the
outer stream nozzle design Mach number. Note that the value of the design Mach number Md,O is unity
for convergent outer stream nozzles. D1,O,ex is the outer stream nozzle exit inner diameter and D2,O,ex is the
outer stream nozzle exit outer diameter. The Mach angle is denoted by θM,O, calculated as follows

θM,O = 180 – sin-1 (1/MO) (in degrees) (28b)

The term F (θcor,O - θM,O) is calculated as follows

( )
F θcor ,O − θ M ,O = 0.0 for θcor ,O < θ M ,O ⎪
⎫
⎬ (28c)
( ) (
F θcor ,O = 0.75 θ cor ,O − θ M ,O ) for θcor ,O ≥ θ M ,O ⎪⎭

NASA/TM—2009-215524 23
 Results recently reported by Viswanathan (Ref. 35) indicate that outer stream shock noise may remain
a significant contributor in the rear quadrant, so this term may need reevaluation in the future, but this is
not surprising since this term was developed arbitrarily to give proper limiting behavior.
The relation found appropriate for the coefficient CO,sh is dependent on geometry and whether or not
the inner stream is supersonic, as follows (as in Refs. 5 and 6)

[ (
C O,sh = 168.0 − 60 log 1 + D1,O,ex / D 2,O,ex )2 ] for M I ≥ 1.0 ⎪
⎫
⎬ (28d)
[ (
C O,sh = 163.5 − 45 log 1 + D1,O,ex / D 2,O,ex )]
2
for M I < 1.0 ⎪⎭

The spectral directivity relations are given in Table VI. The Strouhal number is calculated from
Equation (6) modified and with the appropriate variables, as follows

O,sh = [fβO(Dh,O,ex0.9Deq,O,ex0.1)/(0.7VO)](1 – Mf cos θcor,O)

{[1 + (0.7 VO/camb) cos θcor,O]2+ 0.04 (0.7 VO/camb)2}1/2 (29)

Where VO is the fully-expanded jet velocity of the outer stream. The source location for the outer
stream shock noise, Xs,O,sh, is taken to be as follows

Xs,O,sh = [2 Dh,O,ex (MO2 - 1)1/2]/LSF (30)

In both of the above equations, the hydraulic diameter of the outer stream nozzle exit, Dh,O,ex, is
defined as D2,O,ex – D1,O,ex, while the equivalent diameter of the outer stream nozzle exit, Deq,O,ex, is defined
as (D2,O,ex2 – D1,O,ex2)1/2.

Inner Stream (or Single Stream) Shock Noise

Inner stream shock noise is present only for nozzles whose inner stream (or single stream) is fully-
expanded supersonic. To calculate inner stream shock noise for single-stream or dual-stream nozzles,
Equation (5) is made specific to this source, as follows:

OASPLI,sh = CI,sh + 10 log [(ρamb/ρISA)2(camb/cISA)4] + 10 log (AI/Rcor,I2)

+ 10 log {βI4/(1 + βI4)} – 40 log (1 – Mf cos θcor,I) - F (θcor,I - θM,I) (31)

Where the subscript I refers to the inner stream. AI is the fully-expanded area of the inner stream. The
shock strength parameter βI is calculated as follows

βI = [(MI2 – Md,I2)2 + 0.01 Md,I/(1 – D1,I,ex/D2,I,ex)]1/4 (31a)

Where MI is the inner stream Mach number fully expanded to ambient conditions and Md,I is the inner
stream nozzle design Mach number. Note that the value for the design Mach number Md,I is unity for
convergent inner stream nozzles. D1,I,ex is the inner stream nozzle exit inner diameter and D2,I,ex is the
inner stream nozzle exit outer diameter. The Mach angle is denoted by θM,I, calculated as follows

θM,I = 180 – sin-1 (1/MI) (in degrees) (31b)

The term F (θcor,I - θM,I) is calculated as follows

NASA/TM—2009-215524 24
 ( )
F θcor ,I − θ M ,I = 0.0
⎫
for θ cor ,I < θ M ,I ⎪
(31c)
⎬
F(θcor ,I − θ M ,I ) = 0.75(θ cor ,I − θ M ,I ) for θcor ,I ≥ θ M ,I ⎪⎭

Inner stream shock noise is shown to correlate reasonably well with a constant coefficient for the
plugless configurations (Ref. 30). Previous experience indicates that nozzle diameter ratio is a factor, so
the relation recommended is as follows

CI,sh = 158.0 - 50 log [1 + (D1,I,ex/D2,I,ex)2] (31d)

The spectral directivity relations are given in Table VII. The Strouhal number is calculated from
Equation (6) modified and with the appropriate variables, as follows

SI,sh = [fβIDh,I,ex / (0.7VI)](1 – Mf cos θcor,I){[1 + (0.7VI/camb) cos θcor,I]2

+ 0.04 (0.7VI/camb)2}1/2 (32)

Where VI is the fully-expanded jet velocity of the inner stream. The source location for the inner
stream shock noise, Xs,I,sh, is taken to be as follows

Xs,I,sh = [LI + 2 Dh,I,ex (MI2 - 1)1/2]/LSF (33)

In both of the above equations, the hydraulic diameter of the inner stream nozzle exit, Dh,I,ex, is
defined as D2,I,ex – D1,I,ex.

Comparisons With Finalized Model

A number of comparisons are presented for a wide range of geometries and test conditions to
demonstrate the degree of agreement between the finalized model and experimental data. The statistical
comparisons are summarized in Table VIII.

LaRC Free Jet Unsuppressed Cases

A statistical summary of experimental versus predicted levels for several configurations, including
one suppressed (8 petal core nozzle), and test conditions in the LaRC free jet facility at Mf = 0.10 is given
in Table VIII (a). Overall, the average under-prediction is 0.4 dB in OASPL and 0.7 dB at low frequency,
while there is an average over-prediction of 0.2 dB in the mid-frequency range and 0.7 dB at high
frequency; over all angles and frequencies not exhibiting obvious contamination the average under-
prediction is 0.2 dB. The corresponding RMS error, ε = 1.4 dB for OASPL and range from 1.7 to 2.1 dB
for the more difficult measures summing over various frequency ranges. Such agreement is certainly
encouraging, but more insight can be obtained by some more detailed graphical comparisons.
A relatively high mixed velocity case for the BPR ≅ 5 external plug nozzle (very similar to one of the
GE/GRC configurations) is considered first. The experimental OASPL directivity is compared with the
predicted total and component levels at Vmix/camb = 0.989 in Figure 15. The experimental levels are not
edited in any way except to be corrected from the measurement sideline to a constant arc distance from
the fan nozzle exit plane. Note that at this relatively high mixed velocity, the large-scale mixing noise is
the dominant term. The agreement is nearly perfect except in the forward quadrant, where contamination
may be present, and very near the peak in the rear quadrant. Note that there is a kink in the large-scale
mixing, and therefore the total, noise; this is due to the shear layer correction procedure breaking down

NASA/TM—2009-215524 25
for the far-forward region with θ = 62 deg being the smallest angle where the correction was applied.
(The actual angle where the correction should terminate is lower, ~ 25 deg for Mf = 0.10.) From
72 deg≤θ≤157 deg, there is an average over-prediction of 0.2 dB and ε = 0. 7 dB. Still more can be seen
from the spectral comparisons in Figure 16. Contamination at low frequency is very evident at θ = 48 deg
(Fig. 16(a)). At θ = 72 and 92 deg (Fig. 16(b) and (c)) any contamination is minimal and the agreement is
fairly good across the spectrum except at the highest frequencies, where the predicted plug separation
noise is not indicated by the experimental results. At θ = 117 and 130 deg (Fig. 16(d) and (e)) the
predicted plug separation noise is less and the agreement is better. At the more aft angles of θ = 151 and
157 deg (Fig. 16(f) and (g)) the agreement is good at the lowest frequencies, but there is a wide mid-
frequency range where the noise is over-predicted; at the highest frequencies there is a turn-up as might
be expected for plug separation noise, but the predicted levels for this component are significantly lower.
The apparent influence of facility/background noise contamination is much more evident at low
mixed jet velocity, specifically for Vmix/camb = 0.591 and BPR = 10.4 with internal plug. The OASPL
directivity comparison, in Figure 17, shows experimental levels significantly above predicted except for
θ≥133, and there are anomalous-looking peaks at θ = 67, 122 and 130 deg. On average the OASPL is
under-predicted by 2.4 dB, and ε = 3.1 dB. This is clearly not the kind of agreement desired, but
examination of the spectra (Fig. 18) confirms that these data are too contaminated to place much weight
on. The contamination is most evident at θ = 67 deg (Fig. 18(a)) where there is a strong relatively narrow
band peak that is almost 14 dB above the prediction at 501 Hz, and there is also a turn-up at high
frequency even though there is no external plug to supply a source for separation noise. At θ = 92 deg
(Fig. 18(b)) the low and mid-frequency levels are not too far above prediction, but the problems at high
frequency are worse. Similar comments are appropriate at θ = 130 deg (Fig. 18(c)), but the 501 Hz tone is
evident here, though not quite at obviously as at θ = 67 deg (Fig. 18(a)). At θ = 151 (Fig. 18(d)) the
agreement is good except for the high frequency problem; this is believed to be due to the fact that the jet
noise is high enough at this angle to exceed the contaminating sources. Note that even this case is
included in the statistical comparison (Table VIII (a)), eliminating only the most obviously contaminated
data.
The effect of increasing free jet Mach number is to increase the relative contamination; for otherwise
the same conditions the relative jet velocities are decreased, so the jet noise levels are reduced, while any
free-jet generated background noise increases. Because of the facility/background noise problems evident
even at Mf = 0.10 at low jet velocity, the lowest mixed jet velocity cases at Mf = 0.20 are not included in
the statistical summary in Table VIII (b).
Figure 19 shows the OASPL comparison for Mf = 0.201 for the same nozzle and essentially the same
jet conditions, Vmix/camb = 0.971, as in Figure 15. The comparison is relatively good, with an average
(58≤θ≤161 deg) under-prediction of 0.8 dB with ε = 1.2 dB, but the Mf = 0.10 agreement was
significantly better. The spectrum at θ = 51 deg (Fig. 20(a)) shows strong evidence of contamination, with
a sharp peak at 400 Hz. At θ = 71, 90 and 117 deg (Fig. 20(b) to (d)) the agreement is fairly good except
at high frequencies, where the predicted plug separation noise is not observed. At θ = 131 deg (Fig. 20(e))
the agreement is quite good across the spectrum, and at θ = 151 and 161 deg (Fig. 20(f) and (g)) the
agreement is almost as good.

GE/GRC Free Jet Unsuppressed Cases

There is a fairly large set of data available from Reference 23, so the comparisons are broken down
by configuration and free jet Mach number. For the highest BPR (~13) only one case each was reported at
Mf = 0.00 and 0.28, so the entire set is lumped together in Table VIII (c). On average, the OASPL is over-
predicted by 1.1 dB; the low frequency and mid-frequency ranges also show over-predictions of 1.7 and
1.6 dB, respectively, while at the high frequencies the noise (mainly plug separation) is under-predicted
by 1.2 dB; over all angles and frequencies not exhibiting obvious contamination the average over-

NASA/TM—2009-215524 26
prediction is 1.1 dB. The corresponding root-mean-square errors, ε, are 1.6 dB for OASPL and range
from 2.1 to 2.4 dB for the more difficult measures summing over various frequency ranges.
Graphical comparisons are shown for the only static (Mf = 0.00) case, where shear layer corrections
are not an issue, at Vmix/camb = 0.766. Figure 21 shows the OASPL comparison with very good agreement
in trend, although the levels are consistently over-predicted, by an average of 1.2 dB, and ε = 1.3 dB.
Spectral comparisons are shown in Figure 22. At θ = 60 deg (Fig. 22(a)), the agreement at low frequency
is near perfect, with a modest over-prediction at f ≥ 160 Hz. For θ = 90 deg (Fig. 22(b)) the low frequency
is good, with a slight over-prediction that increases with increasing frequency up to 2500 Hz, beyond
which it appears that the plug separation noise is under-predicted. At θ = 120 and 135 deg (Fig. 22(c) and
(d)) the observations are similar to those at θ = 90 deg (Fig. 22(b)). At the more aft angles of θ = 150 and
160 deg (Fig. 22(e) and (f)) the levels are somewhat over-predicted, but the spectral shapes are reasonably
in agreement.
For the next-lower bypass ratio configuration (BPR ≅ 8) a significant number of comparisons were
made, and the statistical results are summarized in Table VIII (d) for Mf = 0.00, Table VIII (e) for
Mf = 0.20 and Table VIII (f) for Mf = 0.28. In terms of OASPL there is an average under-prediction of
0.6 dB for the static cases and an over-prediction of 0.7 dB in simulated flight; the corresponding RMS
errors, ε, are good at 1.1 and 1.3 dB, respectively. When all frequencies not exhibiting obvious
contamination and all angles, the average agrees to 0.0 dB for the static tests, and there is an average
over-prediction of 0.3 dB in simulated flight, and the corresponding ε values are 1.5 and 2.2 dB for static
and simulated flight conditions, respectively. The increased scatter in simulated flight may be due at least
in part to the crudeness of the source location and shear layer correction models.
For, the lowest bypass ratio configuration (BPR ≅ 5) analyzed from Reference 23, the statistical
results are shown in Table VIII (g), (h) and (i) for Mf = 0.00, 0.20 and 0.28, respectively. Agreement is
very similar to the BPR ≅ 8 configuration, with an average under-prediction of 0.6 dB for the static cases
and an over-prediction of 0.9 dB in simulated flight; the corresponding RMS errors, ε, are good at 1.0 and
1.5 dB, respectively. When all frequencies not exhibiting obvious contamination and all angles, the
average agrees to 0.0 dB for the static tests, and there is an average over-prediction of 0.4 dB in simulated
flight; the corresponding ε values are 1.2 and 1.7 dB for static and simulated flight conditions,
respectively, a little better than for the BPR ≅ 8 configuration.
Graphical comparisons are shown in Figures 23 and 24 for a case very closely approximating the
external plug nozzle configuration and test conditions of the LaRC case shown in Figures 15 and 16. The
OASPL directivity agreement (Fig. 23) is comparable to that for the LaRC, but the aft-angle discrepancies
go in opposite directions. It is in this aft-angle region where the source location and shear layer effects are
most significant. The OASPL is under-predicted by 0.3 dB, with ε = 0.9 dB, very comparable to the
LaRC values of 0.2 and 0.7, respectively. The spectral agreement at the smallest angle, θ = 55 deg
(Fig. 24(a)) is somewhat better than for the LaRC case, although there is definite evidence of
contamination at low frequency. Essentially the same observations can be made at θ = 70 deg
(Fig. 24(b)), but the low frequency contamination is less, and at high frequency the plug separation noise
is over-predicted. At θ = 90 and 115 deg (Fig. 24(c) and (d)), as in the LaRC case, the agreement is good
at low frequency, and there is some over-prediction at middle and high frequencies. The agreement is
excellent at θ = 130 and 150 deg (Fig. 24(e) and (f)), somewhat better than for the LaRC case. At
θ = 165 deg (Fig. 24(g)), beyond the angular range of the LaRC results, the spectral shape agrees well
except at very high frequencies where the experimental results appear anomalous, but the experimental
levels are under-predicted by 1 to 2 dB.

LeRC Outdoor Facility

Statistical comparisons (Table VIII (j)) are not as impressive for the old LeRC outdoor test facility
reported in 1979 (Ref. 30), but this is not surprising since free-field spectra were approximated by a
weighted averaging of ground and centerline level microphones, each analytically corrected. Also, these

NASA/TM—2009-215524 27
experiments were conducted at some extreme conditions to establish limiting behavior. On average the
OASPL is under-predicted by 0.8 dB with ε = 2.4 dB, while for all frequencies at all angles the under-
prediction is 0.9 dB with ε = 3.0 dB.

Conical Nozzle in Lockheed-Georgia Anechoic Chamber

Comparisons are also made with data obtained in the mid-1970s for a small conical nozzle at near-
static conditions in the Lockheed-Georgia anechoic free jet facility, wherein data were obtained in the rear
quadrant (θ≤90 deg) only. The statistical results are given in Table VIII (k) for a limited sample; on
average the OASPL is over-predicted by 1.3 dB with ε = 1.9 dB, while for all frequencies at all angles,
the over-prediction is 0.6 dB with ε = 2.3 dB. For intermediate jet velocity, Vj/camb = 0.74, spectral
comparisons are shown in Figure 25. At θ = 90 deg (Fig. 25(a)) the agreement is excellent from 200 to
12600 Hz, but at higher frequency the noise is over-predicted due to the small-scale and intermediate
mixing components. At θ = 120 deg (Fig. 25(b)) the good agreement extends to higher frequency. At
θ = 135 deg (Fig. 25(c)) the agreement is good at high and low frequencies, with over-prediction of about
2.5 dB at middle frequencies. At θ = 150 deg (Fig. 25(d)) there is reasonable agreement in spectral shape
over most of the spectrum, but the level is over-predicted by as much as 5 dB.

Conical Nozzle at Supersonic Conditions in GE Anechoic Chamber

Further conical nozzle comparisons are now made for very high velocity supersonic exhaust
conditions in GE’s facility. The statistical results are given in Table VIII (l) for a very limited sample, one
test condition, Vj/camb = 2.11, Mj = 1.38. On average the OASPL is over-predicted by 1.5 dB with
ε = 3.6 dB; while for all frequencies at all angles, the over-prediction is 1.1 dB and ε = 3.5 dB. The
OASPL directivity comparison is shown in Figure 26, where it can be seen that the accuracy problem is
mainly in the rear quadrant; the empirical spectral directivity tables, as well as the empirical convection
velocity relations are based on very little data at these extreme conditions and may require more work.
Spectral comparisons are shown in Figure 27. In the far forward quadrant at θ = 40 deg (Fig. 27(a)) shock
noise is the dominant contributor, and considering the steep SPL versus f gradient at low frequency the
agreement is fairly good. At θ = 70 deg (Fig. 27(b)) shock noise is dominant, but less so than at θ =
40 deg, and there appears to be a “screech” tone in the 159 Hz band; except for this tone a 2 dB under-
prediction of the peak SPL, the agreement is very good. At θ = 90 deg (Fig. 27(c)) the situation becomes
very complicated, with large-scale and transitional-scale mixing becoming more important at low and
high frequencies, respectively, and shock noise dominant only in a small range near the peak. The screech
tone may again be present, elevating the SPLs in the 126 and 159 Hz bands; in general the agreement is
fairly good. At θ = 120 deg (Fig. 27(d)) the shock noise is no longer predicted to be a significant
contributor. At low frequencies where the large-scale mixing noise is predicted to dominate, the
agreement is very good, while at middle frequencies it appears that the transitional-scale mixing noise is
somewhat over-predicted, and at high frequencies where the small-scale and transitional-scale mixing
noises are predicted to contribute, rough agreement is seen. At θ = 140 deg (Fig. 27(e)) the observations
at middle and high frequencies are similar to those at θ = 120 deg, but the low frequency (predicted to be
large-scale mixing noise) there is an over-prediction of a few dB; there is also a narrow peak that could be
tone-related or, more speculatively, this could be evidence of Mach wave noise. At θ = 160 deg
(Fig. 27(f)) the agreement is not good, and there is some evidence of the same type of low frequency
narrow peak seen at θ = 140 deg. While the agreement show here is not as good as hoped for, at least
reasonable behavior of the model under these extreme conditions is encouraging.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 28
 LaRC Free Jet Suppressed Case
The statistical summary in Table VIII (a) and (b) includes results for a BPR ≅ 5 internal plug nozzle
with 8 core petals, a configuration that provides modest suppression benefits. Comparison of OASPL
prediction with the experimental results is shown in Figure 28 for Vmix/camb = 0.954 and Mf = 0.201. On
average the OASPL is under-predicted by 2.2 dB, with ε = 2.2 dB. Spectral comparisons are shown in
Figure 29; there is an average under-prediction for all frequencies and all angles of 1.5, with ε = 2.3 dB.
At θ = 62 deg (Fig. 29(a)) there is a significant apparent under-prediction at low and middle frequencies,
but comparisons with results at other conditions, particularly for lower power support our convention that
this is due to contamination from free jet background noise and/or upstream sources. At θ = 90 deg
(Fig. 29(b)) the agreement is fairly good, with modest under-prediction (or excess noise) at low to middle
frequencies, a region of modest over-prediction from 7940 to 39800 Hz and a flattening of the
experimental data at high frequency that could be due to a number of problems: excess noise, over-
correction for atmospheric attenuation, and/or instrumentation. Similar observations can be made for
θ = 111 and 125 deg (Fig. 29(c) and (d)) and to some extent at θ = 141 and 151 deg (Fig. 29(e) and (f)),
but instead of a range of over-prediction at moderately high frequencies, there are regions of nearly exact
agreement. At θ = 161 deg (Fig. 29(g)) the noise is under-predicted at all frequencies, but except for the
high frequency turn-up of the experimental data, the spectral shape is reasonably good.

GE/GRC Free Jet Suppressed Cases

There are significant sets of data available from Reference 23 for two suppressed BPR ≅ 5 external
plug nozzle configurations, one with 12 “in-flip” core chevrons (Configuration 3IB) and one with the
same core chevrons and with 24 fan nozzle chevrons (Configuration 3IC).
For the core chevrons (Conf. 3IB, Table VIII (m)) there is only one case each for Mf = 0.00 and 0.20,
with the rest at Mf = 0.28; the average over-prediction is 1.5 dB, with ε = 1.9 dB. Over all angles and
frequencies, the average under-prediction is 0.8 dB, with ε = 1.8 dB.
The OASPL directivity comparison for the static case at Vmix/camb = 1.047 is shown in Figure 30; the
average over-prediction is 0.2 dB, with ε = 1.0 dB. Spectral comparisons for this case are shown in
Figure 31. At θ = 60 deg and 90 deg (Fig. 31(a) and (b)) the agreement is quite good except at low
frequency; whether this is an actual under-prediction or excess noise exposed because of the suppression
of the large-scale turbulent mixing noise is uncertain. Except for a small under-prediction at low
frequency, the agreement at θ = 120 deg (Fig. 31(c)) is excellent. The agreement is good at θ = 135 deg
(Fig. 31(d)) with small under-prediction at low frequency slightly greater over-prediction at middle-to-
high frequency. The tendency to over-predict at high frequency is more pronounced at θ = 150 deg and
160 deg (Fig. 31(e) and (f)). Over all angles and frequencies, the average under-prediction is 0.2 dB, with
ε = 1.7 dB.
For essentially the same nozzle conditions in simulated flight at Mf = 0.28, the OASPL directivity
comparison is shown in Figure 32. Note that the experimental data do not exhibit a peak, but continue to
increase with increasing angle; this problem appears unique to the simulated flight data of Reference 23.
The average over-prediction is 1.4 dB, with ε = 1.7 dB. Spectral comparisons at θ = 60 deg (Figs 33(a))
exhibit a low-frequency apparent under-prediction similar to that seen in the static case, which again may
be due to excess noise exposed because of the suppression of the large-scale turbulent mixing noise. At
θ = 90 to 150 deg (Fig. 33(b) to (e)) the agreement is not as good as that in the static case. At θ = 165 deg
(Fig. 33(f)) the agreement is good at low and middle frequencies, while at high frequencies the
experimental values are about 3 dB above the prediction. Over all angles and frequencies, the average
over-prediction is 0.8 dB, with ε = 1.8 dB, which is very comparable to the static statistics.
Comparisons for the combined core and fan chevrons are summarized in Table VIII (n), (o), and (p)
for Mf = 0.00, 0.20, and 0.28, respectively. The statistical agreement is actually significantly better for the

NASA/TM—2009-215524 29
simulated flight cases. Combining the results for all Mf the average over-prediction is 1.1 dB, with
ε = 1.7 dB. Over all angles and frequencies, the average over-prediction is 0.2 dB, with ε = 2.2 dB.
The OASPL directivity comparison at Vmix/camb = 1.087 and Mf = 0.28 is shown in
Figure 34. Note that the experimental data, as for the core chevrons, do not exhibit a peak, but continue to
increase with increasing angle. The average over-prediction is 1.0 dB, with ε = 1.7 dB. The spectral
comparisons shown in Figure 35 are not quite as good as for the core chevrons alone, which appears to be
mainly due to an under-prediction of the increase in small-scale turbulent mixing noise with the added fan
chevrons. Over all angles and frequencies, the average over-prediction is 0.1 dB, with ε = 2.3 dB.

Concluding Remarks
The predictive tool developed herein provides reasonably accurate prediction of jet mixing and shock
noise for single-stream and dual-stream nozzles over a very wide range of geometries and test conditions,
including suppression modifications on either or both streams. The correlation of suppression device
effects is only demonstrated over a limited range, but it appears that a very general approach is within
reach with a modest change of approach. We believe that the methodology can be formulated to blend
smoothly with the model for more aggressive suppression approaches, such as the two-dimensional mixer
ejector predictive model is available in NASA Langley’s Aircraft Noise Prediction Program (ANOPP)
and in NASA Glenn’s FOOTPR code.
The approach used in developing this model might be called “hybrid experimental/empirical,” but
relevant elements of theory are utilized to the extent considered practical. Of perhaps as much value as the
predictive code itself are the methods and experience acquired in analyzing and correlating noise data
involving multiple sources. This methodology involves first using a relatively crude model to predict the
relative levels of the various noise components, using this model to deduce individual components and
then correlating those components; iteration results in rapidly improving predictive models. As this work
has evolved, in reverse, from complex to simple, MTC has attempted to relate the empirical relations as
much as possible to theory. We also believe that the breakdown of mixing noise into large-scale,
transitional/intermediate and small-scale turbulent mixing components provides the long-range hope of
transitioning to more theoretically-based models, especially for the large-scale mixing noise where
significant progress has been made recently.
This progress in relating the empirical/applied models to theory indicates that the development of a
fundamentally-sound jet noise reduction design guide is now feasible. The “design guide” approach we
now envision would provide users with a noise prediction model for jet and shock noise for nozzles with
a wide range of potential design options, rather than requiring the user to identify the model appropriate
for the type of nozzle being considered. In addition to the predictive models, the design guide
documentation would include quantitative comparisons with the available base of experimental data.
Building this up would be a significant effort, but will provide the needed credibility for the design guide.
The design guide would also be a powerful tool for research users, who would use the models capabilities
for comparisons with experimental data, to evaluate a concept of interest against the available database
and, by comparisons with previous comparisons with similar configurations, assess experimental data
quality and facility issues. Research users willing to share the results of their analyses with NASA would
aid in the continued development of the design guide database. These research comparisons would span
the range from small model tests to full-scale ground and flight tests. Results from continuing research on
noise reduction concepts could be incorporated to allow competing concepts to be evaluated against
consistent baselines; the benefits of many noise reduction approaches have in the past been overstated due
to comparisons with inappropriate baselines. Periodic updates of the predictive model, perhaps yearly,
would continue the to be made as comparative results accumulate.
This design guide approach could very well be extended beyond acoustics and include nozzle weight
and performance models. Furthermore, the approach could be extended to other engine components and
their noise characteristics.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 30
 References
1. Stone, J.R., and Clark, B.J., “Development of a Noise Prediction Code for 2-D Mixer Ejector Nozzle
Systems, I—Effects of Principal Geometric Variables,” Modern Technologies Corporation Report to
General Electric Aircraft Engines, December 30, 1996.
2. Stone, J.R., Krejsa, E.A. and Clark, B.J., “Jet Noise Source Separation and Improved Correlation
Using Separate Flow Nozzle Data,” MTC Report to GE Aircraft Engines, June 15, 2001. (Correction
of October 6, 2000 Report).
3. Stone, J.R., “Separate Flow Nozzle Jet Noise Source Separation and Correlation Extension to
Enhanced Mixing Configurations,” MTC Report to GE Aircraft Engines, June 22, 2001.
4. Stone, J.R., Krejsa, E.A. and Clark, B.J., “Jet Noise Modeling for Coannular Nozzles Including the
Effects of Chevrons,” Contract NAS3–00178, Task Order No. 6, NASA/CR—2003-212522,
September, 2003.
5. Stone, J.R., Krejsa, E.A. and Clark, B.J., “Semi-Empirical Model for Coannular Nozzle Component
Noise Extraction and Correlation Including the Effects of Noise Reduction Devices,” AIAA–2003–
1060, January 2003.
6. Stone, J.R., Krejsa, E.A. and Clark, B.J., “Jet Noise Modeling For Supersonic Business Jet
Application,” Contract NAS3-00178, Task Order No. 9, NASA/CR—2004-212984, March 2004.
7. Zorumski, W.E., “Aircraft Noise Prediction Program Theoretical Manual,” NASA TM-83199, Parts 1
and 2, February 1982.
8. Clark, B.J., “Computer Program to Predict Aircraft Noise Levels,” NASA TP-1913, September 1981.
9. Lighthill, M.J., “On Sound Generated Aerodynamically. I. General Theory,” Proc. Roy. Soc.
(London), Ser. A, vol. 211, no. 1107, March 1952, pp. 564–587.
10. Lighthill, M.J., “On Sound Generated Aerodynamically. II. Turbulence as a Source of Sound,” Proc.
Roy. Soc. (London), Ser. A, vol. 222, no. 1148, February 1954, pp. 1–32.
11. Ffowcs Williams, J.E., “Some Thoughts on the Effects of Aircraft Motion and Eddy Convection on
the Noise from Air Jets,” USAA Report 155, Southampton University, Great Britain, 1960.
12. Goldstein, M.E. and Howes, W.L., “New Aspects of Subsonic Aerodynamic Noise Theory,” NASA
TN D-7158, 1973.
13. Harper-Bourne, M. and Fisher, M.J., “The Noise from Shock Waves in Supersonic Jets,” Noise
Mechanisms, AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 131, 1974, Paper No. 11.
14. Viswanathan, K., “Quality of Jet Noise Data: Issues, Implications and Needs,” AIAA–2002–0365,
January 2002.
15. Ahuja, K.K., “Designing Clean Jet Noise Facilities and Making Accurate Jet Noise Measurements,”
AIAA–2003–0706, January 2003.
16. Fisher, M.J., Preston, G.A. and Bryce, W.D., “A Modelling of the Noise from Simple Co-axial Jets,”
AIAA–93–4413, October 1993.
17. Fisher, M.J., Preston, G.A. and Mead, C.J., “A Modelling of the Noise From Simple Coaxial Jets,
Part II—With Heated Primary Flow,” AIAA–96–1666, 1996.
18. Stone, J.R. and Clark, B.J., “Development of a Noise Prediction Code for Internal Mixer Nozzle
Systems,” MTC Report to GE under Contract NAS3–26617, March 1997.
19. Stone, J.R. and Clark, B.J., “Enhancement to Noise Prediction Code for 2-D Mixer Ejector Nozzle
System,” Final Report from MTC to GE under Contract NAS3–27235, January 1998.
20. Olsen, W. and Karchmer, A., “Lip Noise Generated by Flow Separation From Nozzle Surfaces,”
AIAA–76–3, January 1976. (Also NASA TM X–71859)
21. Stone, J.R., “Supersonic Jet Shock Noise Reduction,” AIAA Paper 84–2278, October 1984 (also
NASA TM-83799).
22. Ahuja, K.K., Tester, B.J. and Tanna, H.K., “The Free Jet as a Simulator of Forward Velocity Effects
on Jet Noise,” NASA CR-3056, October 1978.
23. Janardan, B.A., Hoff, G.E., Barter, J.W., Martens, S., and Gliebe, P.R. (GEAE), and Mengle, V. and
Dalton, W.N. (Allison Engine Co.), “AST Critical Propulsion and Noise Reduction Technologies for

NASA/TM—2009-215524 31
 Future Commercial Subsonic Engines – Separate-Flow Exhaust System Noise Reduction
Evaluation,” Final Report: NAS3–27720, Area of Interest 14.3, General Electric Report R98AEB152,
May 1998.
24. von Glahn, U.H., “Correlation of Total Sound Power and Peak Sideline OASPL From Jet Exhausts,”
AIAA–71–582, June 1971.
25. Stone, J.R., “Interim Prediction Method for Jet Noise,” NASA TM X-71618, November 1974.
26. Stone, J.R., Zola, C.L. and Clark, B.J., “An Improved Model for Conventional and Inverted-Velocity-
Profile Coannular Jet Noise,” AIAA–99–0078, January 1999.
27. Ahuja, K.K. and Bushell, K.W., “An Experimental Study of Subsonic Jet noise and Comparison with
Theory,” J. Sound Vibration, vol. 30, no. 3, 1973, pp. 317–341.
28. Gliebe, P.R., Brausch, J.F., Majjigi, R.K., and Lee, R., “Jet Noise Suppression,” in Aeroacoustics of
Flight Vehicles: Theory and Practice, Volume 2: Noise Control, NASA RP-1258, vol. 2 (WRDC TR
90-3052), August 1991, pp. 207–269.
29. Plumblee, H.E. (Ed.), “Effects of Forward Velocity on Turbulent Jet Mixing Noise,” Lockheed
Georgia Co., NASA CR-2702, 1976.
30. Goodykoontz, J.H. and Stone, J.R., “Experimental Study of Coaxial Nozzle Exhaust Noise,” AIAA
Paper 79-0631, March 1979.
31. Knott, P.R., Janardan, B.A., Majjigi, R.K., Bhutiani, P.K. and Vogt, P.G., “Free-Jet Acoustic
Investigation of High-Radius-Ratio Coannular Plug Nozzles,” NASA CR-3818, October 1984 (Date
for General Release November 1, 1985).
32. Janardan, B.A., Yamamoto, K., Majjigi, R.K., and Brausch, J.F., “Experimental Investigation of
Shock-Cell Noise Reduction for Dual-Stream Nozzles in Simulated Flight,” NASA CR-3846,
November 1984.
33. Janardan, B.A., Majjigi, R.K., Brausch, J.F. and Knott, P.R., “Free-Jet Investigation of Mechanically
Suppressed, High-Radius-Ratio Coannular Plug Model Nozzles,” NASA CR-3596, May 1985 (Date
for General Release May 1987).
34. Posey, J.W., Norum, T.D., Brown, M.G. and Bhat, T.R.S., “Jet Noise from Ultra-High Bypass
Turbofan Engines,” 143rd Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Pittsburgh, PA, June 3–7,
2002.
35. Viswanathan, K., “Parametric Study of Noise from Dual-Stream Nozzles,” AIAA–2003–1198,
January 2003.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 32
 Table I - Spectral Directivity Relations for Large-Scale Turbulent Mixing Noise
(a) Corrected Effective Directivity Angle, θ'L,cor, from 0 to 100 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLL-UOLL, dB vs. corrected effective directivity angle
parameter, Corrected effective directivity angle, θ'L,cor, deg
log SL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-3.6 -92.9 -92.9 -92.9 -92.9 -92.9 -92.9 -92.9 -92.9 -92.9 -92.9 -92.9
-2.2 -50.9 -50.9 -50.9 -50.9 -50.9 -50.9 -50.9 -50.9 -50.9 -50.9 -50.9
-2.1 -47.9 -47.9 -47.9 -47.9 -47.9 -47.9 -47.9 -47.9 -47.9 -47.9 -47.9
-2.0 -44.9 -44.9 -44.9 -44.9 -44.9 -44.9 -44.9 -44.9 -44.9 -44.9 -44.9
-1.9 -41.9 -41.9 -41.9 -41.9 -41.9 -41.9 -41.9 -41.9 -41.9 -41.9 -41.9
-1.8 -39.1 -39.1 -39.1 -39.1 -39.1 -39.1 -39.1 -39.1 -39.1 -39.1 -39.1
-1.7 -36.5 -36.5 -36.5 -36.5 -36.5 -36.5 -36.5 -36.5 -36.5 -36.5 -36.5
-1.6 -34.0 -34.0 -34.0 -34.0 -34.0 -34.0 -34.0 -34.0 -34.0 -34.0 -34.0
-1.5 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6
-1.4 -29.3 -29.3 -29.3 -29.3 -29.3 -29.3 -29.3 -29.3 -29.3 -29.3 -29.3
-1.3 -27.1 -27.1 -27.1 -27.1 -27.1 -27.1 -27.1 -27.1 -27.1 -27.1 -27.1
-1.2 -24.9 -24.9 -24.9 -24.9 -24.9 -24.9 -24.9 -24.9 -24.9 -24.9 -24.9
-1.1 -22.7 -22.7 -22.7 -22.7 -22.7 -22.7 -22.7 -22.7 -22.7 -22.7 -22.7
-1.0 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6
-0.9 -18.5 -18.5 -18.5 -18.5 -18.5 -18.5 -18.5 -18.5 -18.5 -18.5 -18.5
-0.8 -16.5 -16.5 -16.5 -16.5 -16.5 -16.5 -16.5 -16.5 -16.5 -16.5 -16.5
-0.7 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6
-0.6 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1 -13.1
-0.5 -12.0 -12.0 -12.0 -12.0 -12.0 -12.0 -12.0 -12.0 -12.0 -12.0 -12.0
-0.4 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2 -11.2
-0.3 -10.7 -10.7 -10.7 -10.7 -10.7 -10.7 -10.7 -10.7 -10.7 -10.7 -10.7
-0.2 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4
-0.1 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2 -10.2
0.0 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4
0.1 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8
0.2 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4 -11.4
0.3 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3 -12.3
0.4 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5
0.5 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0
0.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6
0.7 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2 -18.2
0.8 -19.8 -19.8 -19.8 -19.8 -19.8 -19.8 -19.8 -19.8 -19.8 -19.8 -19.8
0.9 -21.4 -21.4 -21.4 -21.4 -21.4 -21.4 -21.4 -21.4 -21.4 -21.4 -21.4
1.0 -23.0 -23.0 -23.0 -23.0 -23.0 -23.0 -23.0 -23.0 -23.0 -23.0 -23.0
1.1 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6
1.2 -26.2 -26.2 -26.2 -26.2 -26.2 -26.2 -26.2 -26.2 -26.2 -26.2 -26.2
1.3 -27.8 -27.8 -27.8 -27.8 -27.8 -27.8 -27.8 -27.8 -27.8 -27.8 -27.8
1.4 -29.4 -29.4 -29.4 -29.4 -29.4 -29.4 -29.4 -29.4 -29.4 -29.4 -29.4
1.5 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0
1.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6
1.7 -34.2 -34.2 -34.2 -34.2 -34.2 -34.2 -34.2 -34.2 -34.2 -34.2 -34.2
1.8 -35.8 -35.8 -35.8 -35.8 -35.8 -35.8 -35.8 -35.8 -35.8 -35.8 -35.8
1.9 -37.4 -37.4 -37.4 -37.4 -37.4 -37.4 -37.4 -37.4 -37.4 -37.4 -37.4
2.0 -39.0 -39.0 -39.0 -39.0 -39.0 -39.0 -39.0 -39.0 -39.0 -39.0 -39.0
3.6 -61.4 -61.4 -61.4 -61.4 -61.4 -61.4 -61.4 -61.4 -61.4 -61.4 -61.4
OASPLL-UOLL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NASA/TM—2009-215524 33
 Table I (Concluded) - Spectral Directivity Relations for Large-Scale Turbulent Mixing Noise
(b) Corrected Effective Directivity Angle, θ'L,cor, from 110 to 250 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLL-UOLL, dB vs. corrected effective directivity angle
parameter, Corrected effective directivity angle, θ'L,cor, deg
log SL 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 250
-3.6 -93.4 -91.3 -93.0 -88.4 -86.9 -88.9 -90.5 -94.5 -99.5 -104.5 -129.5
-2.2 -51.4 -49.3 -51.0 -46.4 -44.9 -46.9 -49.9 -53.9 -58.9 -63.9 -88.9
-2.1 -48.4 -46.3 -48.0 -43.4 -41.9 -43.9 -46.9 -50.9 -55.9 -60.9 -85.9
-2.0 -45.4 -43.3 -45.0 -40.4 -38.9 -40.9 -43.9 -47.9 -52.9 -57.9 -82.9
-1.9 -42.4 -40.3 -42.0 -37.4 -35.9 -37.9 -40.9 -44.9 -49.9 -54.9 -79.9
-1.8 -39.6 -37.6 -39.0 -34.4 -32.9 -34.9 -37.9 -41.9 -46.9 -51.9 -76.9
-1.7 -37.0 -35.0 -36.0 -31.4 -29.9 -31.9 -34.9 -38.9 -43.9 -48.9 -73.9
-1.6 -34.5 -32.5 -33.0 -28.4 -26.9 -28.9 -31.9 -35.9 -40.9 -45.9 -70.9
-1.5 -32.1 -30.1 -30.0 -25.4 -24.0 -26.0 -29.0 -33.0 -38.0 -43.0 -68.0
-1.4 -29.8 -27.8 -27.0 -22.5 -21.2 -23.2 -26.2 -30.2 -35.2 -40.2 -65.2
-1.3 -27.6 -25.5 -24.1 -19.7 -18.5 -20.5 -23.5 -27.5 -32.5 -37.5 -62.5
-1.2 -25.4 -23.2 -21.3 -17.0 -15.9 -17.9 -20.9 -24.9 -29.9 -34.9 -59.9
-1.1 -23.2 -21.0 -18.6 -14.4 -13.4 -15.4 -18.4 -22.4 -27.4 -32.4 -57.4
-1.0 -21.1 -18.9 -16.0 -11.9 -11.2 -13.2 -16.2 -20.2 -25.2 -30.2 -55.2
-0.9 -19.0 -16.9 -13.5 -9.7 -9.4 -11.4 -14.4 -18.4 -23.4 -28.4 -53.4
-0.8 -17.0 -15.0 -11.3 -7.9 -7.9 -9.9 -12.9 -16.9 -21.9 -26.9 -51.9
-0.7 -15.2 -13.4 -9.5 -6.4 -6.7 -8.7 -11.7 -15.7 -20.7 -25.7 -50.7
-0.6 -13.6 -11.9 -8.0 -5.2 -5.9 -7.9 -10.9 -14.9 -19.9 -24.9 -49.9
-0.5 -12.2 -10.6 -6.8 -4.4 -5.5 -7.5 -10.5 -14.5 -19.5 -24.5 -49.5
-0.4 -11.0 -9.7 -6.0 -4.0 -6.3 -8.3 -11.3 -15.3 -20.3 -25.3 -50.3
-0.3 -10.2 -9.0 -5.6 -4.8 -7.8 -9.8 -12.6 -16.6 -21.6 -26.6 -51.6
-0.2 -9.8 -8.7 -6.2 -6.3 -10.2 -12.2 -15.0 -19.0 -24.0 -29.0 -54.0
-0.1 -9.5 -9.1 -7.1 -8.3 -13.1 -15.1 -17.9 -21.9 -26.9 -31.9 -56.9
0.0 -9.8 -9.7 -8.3 -10.5 -16.0 -18.1 -20.9 -24.9 -29.9 -34.9 -59.9
0.1 -10.4 -10.4 -9.8 -12.7 -18.9 -21.1 -23.9 -27.9 -32.9 -37.9 -62.9
0.2 -11.1 -11.4 -11.4 -14.9 -21.8 -24.1 -26.9 -30.9 -35.9 -40.9 -65.9
0.3 -12.3 -12.5 -13.1 -17.1 -24.7 -27.1 -29.9 -33.9 -38.9 -43.9 -68.9
0.4 -13.6 -13.8 -15.1 -19.4 -27.6 -30.1 -32.9 -36.9 -41.9 -46.9 -71.9
0.5 -15.1 -15.4 -17.1 -21.7 -30.5 -33.1 -35.9 -39.9 -44.9 -49.9 -74.9
0.6 -16.7 -17.2 -19.2 -24.0 -33.4 -36.1 -38.9 -42.9 -47.9 -52.9 -77.9
0.7 -18.3 -19.1 -21.3 -26.3 -36.3 -39.1 -41.9 -45.9 -50.9 -55.9 -80.9
0.8 -19.9 -21.0 -23.4 -28.6 -39.2 -42.1 -44.9 -48.9 -53.9 -58.9 -83.9
0.9 -21.6 -22.9 -25.5 -30.9 -42.1 -45.1 -47.9 -51.9 -56.9 -61.9 -86.9
1.0 -23.3 -24.8 -27.6 -33.2 -45.0 -48.1 -50.9 -54.9 -59.9 -64.9 -89.9
1.1 -25.0 -26.7 -29.7 -35.5 -47.9 -51.1 -53.9 -57.9 -62.9 -67.9 -92.9
1.2 -26.7 -28.6 -31.8 -37.9 -50.8 -54.1 -56.9 -60.9 -65.9 -70.9 -95.9
1.3 -28.4 -30.5 -33.9 -40.3 -53.7 -57.1 -59.9 -63.9 -68.9 -73.9 -98.9
1.4 -30.1 -32.5 -36.0 -42.7 -56.6 -60.1 -62.9 -66.9 -71.9 -76.9 -101.9
1.5 -31.8 -34.5 -38.2 -45.1 -59.5 -63.1 -65.9 -69.9 -74.9 -79.9 -104.9
1.6 -33.5 -36.5 -40.4 -47.5 -62.4 -66.1 -68.9 -72.9 -77.9 -82.9 -107.9
1.7 -35.2 -38.5 -42.6 -49.9 -65.3 -69.1 -71.9 -75.9 -80.9 -85.9 -110.9
1.8 -37.0 -40.5 -44.8 -52.3 -68.2 -72.1 -74.9 -78.9 -83.9 -88.9 -113.9
1.9 -38.8 -42.5 -47.0 -54.7 -71.1 -75.1 -77.9 -81.9 -86.9 -91.9 -116.9
2.0 -40.6 -44.5 -49.2 -57.1 -74.0 -78.1 -80.9 -84.9 -89.9 -94.9 -119.9
3.6 -69.4 -72.5 -80.0 -90.7 -120.4 -126.1 -128.9 -132.9 -137.9 -142.9 -167.9
OASPLL-UOLL 0.2 0.9 3.2 4.2 2.6 0.6 -2.4 -6.4 -11.4 -16.4 -41.4

NASA/TM—2009-215524 34
 Table II - Spectral Directivity Relations for Small-Scale Turbulent Mixing Noise
(a) Corrected Effective Directivity Angle, θ'S,cor, from 0 to 100 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLS-UOLS, dB vs. corrected effective directivity angle
parameter, Corrected effective directivity angle, θ'S,cor, deg
log SS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-3.6 -253.5 -253.5 -253.5 -253.5 -253.5 -253.5 -253.5 -253.5 -253.5 -253.8 -253.6
-2.2 -169.5 -169.5 -169.5 -169.5 -169.5 -169.5 -169.5 -169.5 -169.5 -169.8 -169.6
-2.1 -163.5 -163.5 -163.5 -163.5 -163.5 -163.5 -163.5 -163.5 -163.5 -163.8 -163.6
-2.0 -157.5 -157.5 -157.5 -157.5 -157.5 -157.5 -157.5 -157.5 -157.5 -157.8 -157.6
-1.9 -151.5 -151.5 -151.5 -151.5 -151.5 -151.5 -151.5 -151.5 -151.5 -151.8 -151.6
-1.8 -145.5 -145.5 -145.5 -145.5 -145.5 -145.5 -145.5 -145.5 -145.5 -145.8 -145.6
-1.7 -139.5 -139.5 -139.5 -139.5 -139.5 -139.5 -139.5 -139.5 -139.5 -139.8 -139.6
-1.6 -133.5 -133.5 -133.5 -133.5 -133.5 -133.5 -133.5 -133.5 -133.5 -133.8 -133.6
-1.5 -127.5 -127.5 -127.5 -127.5 -127.5 -127.5 -127.5 -127.5 -127.5 -127.8 -127.6
-1.4 -121.5 -121.5 -121.5 -121.5 -121.5 -121.5 -121.5 -121.5 -121.5 -121.8 -121.6
-1.3 -115.5 -115.5 -115.5 -115.5 -115.5 -115.5 -115.5 -115.5 -115.5 -115.8 -115.6
-1.2 -109.5 -109.5 -109.5 -109.5 -109.5 -109.5 -109.5 -109.5 -109.5 -109.8 -109.6
-1.1 -103.5 -103.5 -103.5 -103.5 -103.5 -103.5 -103.5 -103.5 -103.5 -103.8 -103.6
-1.0 -97.5 -97.5 -97.5 -97.5 -97.5 -97.5 -97.5 -97.5 -97.5 -97.8 -97.6
-0.9 -91.5 -91.5 -91.5 -91.5 -91.5 -91.5 -91.5 -91.5 -91.5 -91.8 -91.6
-0.8 -85.5 -85.5 -85.5 -85.5 -85.5 -85.5 -85.5 -85.5 -85.5 -85.8 -85.6
-0.7 -79.5 -79.5 -79.5 -79.5 -79.5 -79.5 -79.5 -79.5 -79.5 -79.8 -79.6
-0.6 -73.5 -73.5 -73.5 -73.5 -73.5 -73.5 -73.5 -73.5 -73.5 -73.8 -73.6
-0.5 -67.5 -67.5 -67.5 -67.5 -67.5 -67.5 -67.5 -67.5 -67.5 -67.8 -67.6
-0.4 -61.5 -61.5 -61.5 -61.5 -61.5 -61.5 -61.5 -61.5 -61.5 -61.8 -61.6
-0.3 -55.5 -55.5 -55.5 -55.5 -55.5 -55.5 -55.5 -55.5 -55.5 -55.8 -55.6
-0.2 -49.5 -49.5 -49.5 -49.5 -49.5 -49.5 -49.5 -49.5 -49.5 -49.8 -49.6
-0.1 -43.5 -43.5 -43.5 -43.5 -43.5 -43.5 -43.5 -43.5 -43.5 -43.8 -43.6
0.0 -37.6 -37.6 -37.6 -37.6 -37.6 -37.6 -37.6 -37.6 -37.6 -37.8 -37.6
0.1 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.8 -32.6
0.2 -28.1 -28.1 -28.1 -28.1 -28.1 -28.1 -28.1 -28.1 -28.1 -28.3 -28.1
0.3 -24.1 -24.1 -24.1 -24.1 -24.1 -24.1 -24.1 -24.1 -24.1 -24.3 -24.1
0.4 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.8 -20.6
0.5 -17.5 -17.5 -17.5 -17.5 -17.5 -17.5 -17.5 -17.5 -17.5 -17.6 -17.6
0.6 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.1 -15.1
0.7 -13.0 -13.0 -13.0 -13.0 -13.0 -13.0 -13.0 -13.0 -13.0 -13.1 -13.1
0.8 -11.5 -11.5 -11.5 -11.5 -11.5 -11.5 -11.5 -11.5 -11.5 -11.6 -11.6
0.9 -10.5 -10.5 -10.5 -10.5 -10.5 -10.5 -10.5 -10.5 -10.5 -10.6 -10.6
1.0 -9.8 -9.8 -9.8 -9.8 -9.8 -9.8 -9.8 -9.8 -9.8 -9.9 -9.9
1.1 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.6 -9.6
1.2 -9.7 -9.7 -9.7 -9.7 -9.7 -9.7 -9.7 -9.7 -9.7 -9.8 -9.8
1.3 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.1 -10.1
1.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.4 -10.5 -10.6
1.5 -11.0 -11.0 -11.0 -11.0 -11.0 -11.0 -11.0 -11.0 -11.0 -11.1 -11.3
1.6 -11.7 -11.7 -11.7 -11.7 -11.7 -11.7 -11.7 -11.7 -11.7 -11.8 -12.2
1.7 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.7 -13.2
1.8 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.7 -14.2
1.9 -14.7 -14.7 -14.7 -14.7 -14.7 -14.7 -14.7 -14.7 -14.7 -14.8 -15.4
2.0 -15.8 -15.8 -15.8 -15.8 -15.8 -15.8 -15.8 -15.8 -15.8 -15.9 -16.6
3.6 -33.4 -33.4 -33.4 -33.4 -33.4 -33.4 -33.4 -33.4 -33.4 -33.5 -35.8
OASPLS-UOLS 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2

NASA/TM—2009-215524 35
 Table II (Concluded) - Spectral Directivity Relations for Small-Scale Turbulent Mixing Noise
(b) Corrected Effective Directivity Angle, θ'S,cor, from 110 to 250 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLS-UOLS, dB vs. corrected effective directivity angle
parameter, Corrected effective directivity angle, θ'S,cor, deg
log SS 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 250
-3.6 -253.6 -255.1 -257.6 -254.0 -256.0 -258.0 -261.0 -265.0 -270.0 -275.0 -300.0
-2.2 -169.6 -171.1 -173.6 -170.0 -172.0 -174.0 -177.0 -181.0 -186.0 -191.0 -216.0
-2.1 -163.6 -165.1 -167.6 -164.0 -166.0 -168.0 -171.0 -175.0 -180.0 -185.0 -210.0
-2.0 -157.6 -159.1 -161.6 -158.0 -160.0 -162.0 -165.0 -169.0 -174.0 -179.0 -204.0
-1.9 -151.6 -153.1 -155.6 -152.0 -154.0 -156.0 -159.0 -163.0 -168.0 -173.0 -198.0
-1.8 -145.6 -147.1 -149.6 -146.0 -148.0 -150.0 -153.0 -157.0 -162.0 -167.0 -192.0
-1.7 -139.6 -141.1 -143.6 -140.0 -142.0 -144.0 -147.0 -151.0 -156.0 -161.0 -186.0
-1.6 -133.6 -135.1 -137.6 -134.0 -136.0 -138.0 -141.0 -145.0 -150.0 -155.0 -180.0
-1.5 -127.6 -129.1 -131.6 -128.0 -130.0 -132.0 -135.0 -139.0 -144.0 -149.0 -174.0
-1.4 -121.6 -123.1 -125.6 -122.0 -124.0 -126.0 -129.0 -133.0 -138.0 -143.0 -168.0
-1.3 -115.6 -117.1 -119.6 -116.0 -118.0 -120.0 -123.0 -127.0 -132.0 -137.0 -162.0
-1.2 -109.6 -111.1 -113.6 -110.0 -112.0 -114.0 -117.0 -121.0 -126.0 -131.0 -156.0
-1.1 -103.6 -105.1 -107.6 -104.0 -106.0 -108.0 -111.0 -115.0 -120.0 -125.0 -150.0
-1.0 -97.6 -99.1 -101.6 -98.0 -100.0 -102.0 -105.0 -109.0 -114.0 -119.0 -144.0
-0.9 -91.6 -93.1 -95.6 -92.0 -94.0 -96.0 -99.0 -103.0 -108.0 -113.0 -138.0
-0.8 -85.6 -87.1 -89.6 -86.0 -88.0 -90.0 -93.0 -97.0 -102.0 -107.0 -132.0
-0.7 -79.6 -81.1 -83.6 -80.0 -82.0 -84.0 -87.0 -91.0 -96.0 -101.0 -126.0
-0.6 -73.6 -75.1 -77.6 -74.0 -76.0 -78.0 -81.0 -85.0 -90.0 -95.0 -120.0
-0.5 -67.6 -69.1 -71.6 -68.0 -70.0 -72.0 -75.0 -79.0 -84.0 -89.0 -114.0
-0.4 -61.6 -63.1 -65.6 -62.0 -64.0 -66.0 -69.0 -73.0 -78.0 -83.0 -108.0
-0.3 -55.6 -57.1 -59.6 -56.0 -58.0 -60.0 -63.0 -67.0 -72.0 -77.0 -102.0
-0.2 -49.6 -51.1 -53.6 -50.0 -52.0 -54.0 -57.0 -61.0 -66.0 -71.0 -96.0
-0.1 -43.6 -45.1 -47.6 -44.0 -46.0 -48.0 -51.0 -55.0 -60.0 -65.0 -90.0
0.0 -37.6 -39.1 -41.6 -39.0 -41.0 -43.0 -46.0 -50.0 -55.0 -60.0 -85.0
0.1 -32.6 -34.1 -36.6 -34.5 -36.5 -38.5 -41.5 -45.5 -50.5 -55.5 -80.5
0.2 -28.1 -29.6 -32.1 -30.5 -32.5 -34.5 -37.5 -41.5 -46.5 -51.5 -76.5
0.3 -24.1 -25.6 -28.1 -27.0 -29.0 -31.0 -34.0 -38.0 -43.0 -48.0 -73.0
0.4 -20.6 -22.1 -24.6 -24.0 -26.0 -28.0 -31.0 -35.0 -40.0 -45.0 -70.0
0.5 -17.6 -19.1 -21.6 -21.5 -23.5 -25.5 -28.5 -32.5 -37.5 -42.5 -67.5
0.6 -15.1 -16.6 -19.1 -19.5 -21.5 -23.5 -26.5 -30.5 -35.5 -40.5 -65.5
0.7 -13.1 -14.6 -17.1 -18.0 -20.0 -22.0 -25.0 -29.0 -34.0 -39.0 -64.0
0.8 -11.6 -13.1 -15.6 -17.0 -19.0 -21.0 -24.0 -28.0 -33.0 -38.0 -63.0
0.9 -10.6 -12.1 -14.6 -16.3 -18.3 -20.3 -23.3 -27.3 -32.3 -37.3 -62.3
1.0 -9.9 -11.4 -13.9 -16.0 -18.0 -20.0 -23.0 -27.0 -32.0 -37.0 -62.0
1.1 -9.6 -11.1 -13.6 -16.3 -18.3 -20.3 -23.3 -27.3 -32.3 -37.3 -62.3
1.2 -9.8 -11.3 -13.8 -16.9 -18.9 -20.9 -23.9 -27.9 -32.9 -37.9 -62.9
1.3 -10.2 -11.8 -14.4 -17.8 -19.8 -21.8 -24.8 -28.8 -33.8 -38.8 -63.8
1.4 -10.8 -12.4 -15.1 -19.0 -21.0 -23.0 -26.0 -30.0 -35.0 -40.0 -65.0
1.5 -11.6 -13.2 -16.0 -20.4 -22.4 -24.4 -27.4 -31.4 -36.4 -41.4 -66.4
1.6 -12.7 -14.4 -17.2 -21.8 -23.8 -25.8 -28.8 -32.8 -37.8 -42.8 -67.8
1.7 -13.8 -15.6 -18.5 -23.2 -25.2 -27.2 -30.2 -34.2 -39.2 -44.2 -69.2
1.8 -15.0 -16.8 -19.8 -24.6 -26.6 -28.6 -31.6 -35.6 -40.6 -45.6 -70.6
1.9 -16.2 -18.1 -21.1 -26.0 -28.0 -30.0 -33.0 -37.0 -42.0 -47.0 -72.0
2.0 -17.4 -19.4 -22.5 -27.4 -29.4 -31.4 -34.4 -38.4 -43.4 -48.4 -73.4
3.6 -36.6 -40.2 -44.9 -49.8 -51.8 -53.8 -56.8 -60.8 -65.8 -70.8 -95.8
OASPLS-UOLS 0.0 -1.6 -4.2 -6.7 -8.7 -10.7 -13.7 -17.7 -22.7 -27.7 -52.7

NASA/TM—2009-215524 36
 Table III - Spectral Directivity Relations for Transitional-Scale Turbulent Mixing Noise
(a) Corrected Effective Directivity Angle, θ'T,cor, from 0 to 100 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLT-UOLT, dB vs. corrected effective directivity angle
parameter, Corrected effective directivity angle, θ'T,cor, deg
log ST 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-3.6 -206.0 -205.2 -204.6 -204.2 -204.0 -204.4 -204.8 -205.3 -205.8 -198.5 -194.0
-2.2 -122.0 -121.2 -120.6 -120.2 -120.0 -120.4 -120.8 -121.3 -121.8 -114.5 -110.0
-2.1 -116.0 -115.2 -114.6 -114.2 -114.0 -114.4 -114.8 -115.3 -115.8 -108.5 -104.0
-2.0 -110.0 -109.2 -108.6 -108.2 -108.0 -108.4 -108.8 -109.3 -109.8 -102.5 -98.0
-1.9 -104.0 -103.2 -102.6 -102.2 -102.0 -102.4 -102.8 -103.3 -103.8 -96.5 -92.0
-1.8 -98.0 -97.2 -96.6 -96.2 -96.0 -96.4 -96.8 -97.3 -97.8 -90.5 -86.0
-1.7 -92.0 -91.2 -90.6 -90.2 -90.0 -90.4 -90.8 -91.3 -91.8 -84.5 -80.0
-1.6 -86.0 -85.2 -84.6 -84.2 -84.0 -84.4 -84.8 -85.3 -85.8 -78.5 -74.0
-1.5 -80.0 -79.2 -78.6 -78.2 -78.0 -78.4 -78.8 -79.3 -79.8 -72.5 -68.0
-1.4 -74.0 -73.2 -72.6 -72.2 -72.0 -72.4 -72.8 -73.3 -73.8 -66.5 -62.0
-1.3 -68.0 -67.2 -66.6 -66.2 -66.0 -66.4 -66.8 -67.3 -67.8 -60.5 -56.0
-1.2 -62.0 -61.2 -60.6 -60.2 -60.0 -60.4 -60.8 -61.3 -61.8 -54.5 -50.0
-1.1 -56.0 -55.2 -54.6 -54.2 -54.0 -54.4 -54.8 -55.3 -55.8 -48.5 -44.0
-1.0 -50.0 -49.2 -48.6 -48.2 -48.0 -48.4 -48.8 -49.3 -49.8 -42.5 -38.0
-0.9 -44.0 -43.2 -42.6 -42.2 -42.0 -42.4 -42.8 -43.3 -43.8 -37.5 -33.0
-0.8 -38.0 -37.2 -36.6 -36.2 -36.0 -36.4 -36.8 -37.3 -37.8 -32.5 -28.5
-0.7 -33.0 -32.2 -31.6 -31.2 -31.0 -31.4 -31.8 -32.3 -32.8 -28.0 -24.5
-0.6 -28.5 -27.7 -27.1 -26.7 -26.5 -26.9 -27.3 -27.8 -28.3 -24.0 -21.0
-0.5 -24.5 -23.7 -23.1 -22.7 -22.5 -22.9 -23.3 -23.8 -24.3 -20.5 -18.0
-0.4 -21.0 -20.2 -19.6 -19.2 -19.0 -19.4 -19.8 -20.3 -20.8 -17.5 -15.5
-0.3 -18.0 -17.2 -16.6 -16.2 -16.0 -16.4 -16.8 -17.3 -17.8 -15.0 -13.5
-0.2 -15.5 -14.7 -14.1 -13.7 -13.5 -13.9 -14.3 -14.8 -15.3 -13.0 -12.0
-0.1 -13.5 -12.7 -12.1 -11.7 -11.5 -11.9 -12.3 -12.8 -13.3 -11.5 -11.0
0.0 -12.0 -11.2 -10.6 -10.2 -10.0 -10.4 -10.8 -11.3 -11.8 -10.5 -10.5
0.1 -11.0 -10.2 -9.6 -9.2 -9.0 -9.4 -9.8 -10.3 -10.8 -10.0 -10.3
0.2 -10.5 -9.7 -9.1 -8.7 -8.5 -8.9 -9.3 -9.8 -10.3 -9.8 -10.5
0.3 -10.3 -9.5 -8.9 -8.5 -8.3 -8.7 -9.1 -9.6 -10.1 -10.0 -10.9
0.4 -10.5 -9.7 -9.1 -8.7 -8.5 -8.9 -9.3 -9.8 -10.3 -10.4 -11.5
0.5 -10.9 -10.1 -9.5 -9.1 -8.9 -9.3 -9.7 -10.2 -10.7 -11.0 -12.7
0.6 -11.5 -10.7 -10.1 -9.7 -9.5 -9.9 -10.3 -10.8 -11.3 -12.2 -13.9
0.7 -12.7 -11.9 -11.3 -10.9 -10.7 -11.1 -11.5 -12.0 -12.5 -13.4 -15.1
0.8 -14.0 -13.2 -12.6 -12.2 -12.0 -12.4 -12.8 -13.2 -13.7 -14.6 -16.3
0.9 -15.4 -14.6 -14.0 -13.6 -13.4 -13.8 -14.1 -14.4 -14.9 -15.8 -17.5
1.0 -16.8 -16.0 -15.4 -15.0 -14.8 -15.2 -15.4 -15.6 -16.1 -17.0 -18.7
1.1 -18.2 -17.4 -16.8 -16.4 -16.2 -16.6 -16.7 -16.8 -17.3 -18.2 -19.9
1.2 -19.6 -18.8 -18.2 -17.8 -17.6 -18.0 -18.0 -18.0 -18.5 -19.4 -21.1
1.3 -21.0 -20.2 -19.6 -19.2 -19.0 -19.4 -19.3 -19.2 -19.7 -20.6 -22.3
1.4 -22.4 -21.6 -21.0 -20.6 -20.4 -20.8 -20.6 -20.4 -20.9 -21.8 -23.5
1.5 -23.8 -23.0 -22.4 -22.0 -21.8 -22.2 -21.9 -21.6 -22.1 -23.0 -24.7
1.6 -25.2 -24.4 -23.8 -23.4 -23.2 -23.6 -23.2 -22.8 -23.3 -24.2 -25.9
1.7 -26.6 -25.8 -25.2 -24.8 -24.6 -25.0 -24.5 -24.0 -24.5 -25.4 -27.1
1.8 -28.0 -27.2 -26.6 -26.2 -26.0 -26.4 -25.8 -25.2 -25.7 -26.6 -28.3
1.9 -29.4 -28.6 -28.0 -27.6 -27.4 -27.8 -27.1 -26.4 -26.9 -27.8 -29.5
2.0 -30.8 -30.0 -29.4 -29.0 -28.8 -29.2 -28.4 -27.6 -28.1 -29.0 -30.7
3.6 -50.4 -49.6 -49.0 -48.6 -48.4 -48.8 -46.6 -44.4 -44.9 -45.8 -47.5
OASPLT-UOLT -0.6 0.2 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.2 -0.3 0.0 -0.5

NASA/TM—2009-215524 37
 Table III (Concluded) - Spectral Directivity Relations for Transitional-Scale Turbulent Mixing Noise
(b) Corrected Effective Directivity Angle, θ'T,cor, from 110 to 250 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLT-UOLT, dB vs. corrected effective directivity angle
parameter, Corrected effective directivity angle, θ'T,cor, deg
log ST 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 250
-3.6 -194.3 -189.3 -184.3 -179.3 -174.3 -173.3 -171.5 -173.0 -174.0 -174.5 -195.0
-2.2 -110.3 -105.3 -100.3 -95.3 -90.3 -89.3 -87.5 -89.0 -90.0 -90.5 -111.0
-2.1 -104.3 -99.3 -94.3 -89.3 -84.3 -83.3 -81.5 -83.0 -84.0 -84.5 -105.0
-2.0 -98.3 -93.3 -88.3 -83.3 -78.3 -77.3 -75.5 -77.0 -78.0 -78.5 -99.0
-1.9 -92.3 -87.3 -82.3 -77.3 -72.3 -71.3 -69.5 -71.0 -72.0 -72.5 -93.0
-1.8 -86.3 -81.3 -76.3 -71.3 -66.3 -65.3 -63.5 -65.0 -66.0 -66.5 -87.0
-1.7 -80.3 -75.3 -70.3 -65.3 -60.3 -59.3 -57.5 -59.0 -60.0 -60.5 -81.0
-1.6 -74.3 -69.3 -64.3 -59.3 -54.3 -53.3 -53.0 -55.0 -56.5 -57.5 -75.0
-1.5 -68.3 -63.3 -58.3 -53.3 -48.3 -47.3 -48.5 -51.0 -53.0 -54.5 -73.5
-1.4 -62.3 -57.3 -52.3 -47.3 -42.3 -42.3 -44.0 -47.0 -49.5 -51.5 -72.0
-1.3 -56.3 -51.3 -46.3 -41.3 -37.3 -37.8 -40.0 -43.5 -46.5 -49.0 -70.5
-1.2 -50.3 -45.3 -40.3 -36.3 -32.8 -33.8 -36.5 -40.5 -44.0 -47.0 -69.5
-1.1 -44.3 -39.3 -35.3 -31.8 -28.8 -30.3 -33.5 -38.0 -42.0 -45.5 -69.0
-1.0 -38.3 -34.3 -30.8 -27.8 -25.3 -27.3 -31.0 -36.0 -40.5 -44.5 -69.3
-0.9 -33.3 -29.8 -26.8 -24.3 -22.3 -24.8 -29.0 -34.5 -39.5 -44.0 -70.1
-0.8 -28.8 -25.8 -23.3 -21.3 -19.8 -22.8 -27.5 -33.5 -39.0 -44.3 -71.3
-0.7 -24.8 -22.3 -20.3 -18.8 -17.8 -21.3 -26.5 -33.0 -39.3 -45.1 -72.8
-0.6 -21.3 -19.3 -17.8 -16.8 -16.3 -20.3 -26.0 -33.3 -40.1 -46.3 -74.6
-0.5 -18.3 -16.8 -15.8 -15.3 -15.3 -19.8 -26.3 -34.1 -41.3 -47.8 -76.4
-0.4 -15.8 -14.8 -14.3 -14.3 -14.8 -20.1 -27.1 -35.3 -42.8 -49.6 -78.2
-0.3 -13.8 -13.3 -13.3 -13.8 -15.1 -20.9 -28.3 -36.8 -44.6 -51.4 -80.0
-0.2 -12.3 -12.3 -12.8 -14.1 -15.9 -22.1 -29.8 -38.6 -46.4 -53.2 -81.8
-0.1 -11.3 -11.8 -13.1 -14.9 -17.1 -23.6 -31.6 -40.4 -48.2 -55.0 -83.6
0.0 -10.8 -12.1 -13.9 -16.1 -18.6 -25.4 -33.4 -42.2 -50.0 -56.8 -85.4
0.1 -11.1 -12.9 -15.0 -17.6 -20.4 -27.2 -35.2 -44.0 -51.8 -58.6 -87.2
0.2 -11.8 -14.0 -16.6 -19.4 -22.2 -29.0 -37.0 -45.8 -53.6 -60.4 -89.0
0.3 -12.8 -15.6 -18.2 -21.4 -24.0 -30.8 -38.8 -47.6 -55.4 -62.2 -90.8
0.4 -14.3 -17.3 -20.0 -23.4 -25.8 -32.6 -40.6 -49.4 -57.2 -64.0 -92.6
0.5 -15.8 -19.1 -21.9 -25.4 -27.6 -34.4 -42.4 -51.2 -59.0 -65.8 -94.4
0.6 -17.3 -20.9 -23.9 -27.4 -29.4 -36.2 -44.2 -53.0 -60.8 -67.6 -96.2
0.7 -18.8 -22.7 -25.9 -29.4 -31.2 -38.0 -46.0 -54.8 -62.6 -69.4 -98.0
0.8 -20.3 -24.5 -27.9 -31.4 -33.0 -39.8 -47.8 -56.6 -64.4 -71.2 -99.8
0.9 -21.8 -26.3 -29.9 -33.4 -34.8 -41.6 -49.6 -58.4 -66.2 -73.0 -101.6
1.0 -23.3 -28.1 -31.9 -35.4 -36.6 -43.4 -51.4 -60.2 -68.0 -74.8 -103.4
1.1 -24.8 -29.9 -33.9 -37.4 -38.4 -45.2 -53.2 -62.0 -69.8 -76.6 -105.2
1.2 -26.3 -31.7 -35.9 -39.4 -40.2 -47.0 -55.0 -63.8 -71.6 -78.4 -107.0
1.3 -27.8 -33.5 -37.9 -41.4 -42.0 -48.8 -56.8 -65.6 -73.4 -80.2 -108.8
1.4 -29.3 -35.3 -39.9 -43.4 -43.8 -50.6 -58.6 -67.4 -75.2 -82.0 -110.6
1.5 -30.8 -37.1 -41.9 -45.4 -45.6 -52.4 -60.4 -69.2 -77.0 -83.8 -112.4
1.6 -32.3 -38.9 -43.9 -47.4 -47.4 -54.2 -62.2 -71.0 -78.8 -85.6 -114.2
1.7 -33.8 -40.7 -45.9 -49.4 -49.2 -56.0 -64.0 -72.8 -80.6 -87.4 -116.0
1.8 -35.3 -42.5 -47.9 -51.4 -51.0 -57.8 -65.8 -74.6 -82.4 -89.2 -117.8
1.9 -36.8 -44.3 -49.9 -53.4 -52.8 -59.6 -67.6 -76.4 -84.2 -91.0 -119.6
2.0 -38.3 -46.1 -51.9 -55.4 -54.6 -61.4 -69.4 -78.2 -86.0 -92.8 -121.4
3.6 -59.3 -71.3 -79.9 -83.4 -79.8 -86.6 -94.6 -103.4 -111.2 -118.0 -146.6
OASPLT-UOLT -2.0 -3.2 -4.2 -5.2 -6.2 -11.2 -17.4 -24.4 -30.4 -35.4 -60.4

NASA/TM—2009-215524 38
 Table IV - Spectral Directivity Relations for Inner Stream Plug Separation Noise
(a) Corrected Effective Directivity Angle, θ'P,cor, from 0 to 100 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLP-UOLP, dB vs. corrected effective directivity angle
parameter Corrected effective directivity angle, θ'P,cor, deg
log SP 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-3.6 -194.1 -191.6 -188.6 -185.1 -181.1 -176.6 -170.8 -165.4 -162.8 -161.5 -161.7
-2.2 -138.1 -135.6 -132.6 -129.1 -125.1 -120.6 -114.8 -109.4 -106.8 -105.5 -105.7
-2.1 -134.1 -131.6 -128.6 -125.1 -121.1 -116.6 -110.8 -105.4 -102.8 -101.5 -101.7
-2.0 -130.1 -127.6 -124.6 -121.1 -117.1 -112.6 -106.8 -101.4 -98.8 -97.5 -97.7
-1.9 -126.1 -123.6 -120.6 -117.1 -113.1 -108.6 -102.8 -97.4 -94.8 -93.5 -93.7
-1.8 -122.1 -119.6 -116.6 -113.1 -109.1 -104.6 -98.8 -93.4 -90.8 -89.5 -89.7
-1.7 -118.1 -115.6 -112.6 -109.1 -105.1 -100.6 -94.8 -89.4 -86.8 -85.5 -85.7
-1.6 -114.1 -111.6 -108.6 -105.1 -101.1 -96.6 -90.8 -85.4 -82.8 -81.5 -81.7
-1.5 -110.1 -107.6 -104.6 -101.1 -97.1 -92.6 -86.8 -81.4 -78.8 -77.5 -77.7
-1.4 -106.1 -103.6 -100.6 -97.1 -93.1 -88.6 -82.8 -77.4 -74.8 -73.5 -73.7
-1.3 -102.1 -99.6 -96.6 -93.1 -89.1 -84.6 -78.8 -73.4 -70.8 -69.5 -69.7
-1.2 -98.1 -95.6 -92.6 -89.1 -85.1 -80.6 -74.8 -69.4 -66.8 -65.5 -65.7
-1.1 -94.1 -91.6 -88.6 -85.1 -81.1 -76.6 -70.8 -65.4 -62.8 -61.5 -61.7
-1.0 -90.1 -87.6 -84.6 -81.1 -77.1 -72.6 -66.8 -61.4 -58.8 -57.5 -57.7
-0.9 -86.1 -83.6 -80.6 -77.1 -73.1 -68.6 -62.8 -57.4 -54.8 -53.5 -53.7
-0.8 -82.1 -79.6 -76.6 -73.1 -69.1 -64.6 -58.8 -53.4 -50.8 -49.5 -49.7
-0.7 -78.1 -75.6 -72.6 -69.1 -65.1 -60.6 -54.8 -49.4 -46.8 -45.5 -45.7
-0.6 -74.1 -71.6 -68.6 -65.1 -61.1 -56.6 -50.8 -45.4 -42.8 -41.5 -41.7
-0.5 -70.1 -67.6 -64.6 -61.1 -57.1 -52.6 -46.8 -41.4 -38.8 -37.5 -37.7
-0.4 -66.1 -63.6 -60.6 -57.1 -53.1 -48.6 -42.8 -37.4 -34.8 -33.5 -33.7
-0.3 -62.1 -59.6 -56.6 -53.1 -49.1 -44.6 -38.8 -33.4 -30.8 -29.5 -29.7
-0.2 -58.1 -55.6 -52.6 -49.1 -45.1 -40.6 -34.8 -29.4 -26.8 -25.5 -25.7
-0.1 -54.1 -51.6 -48.6 -45.1 -41.1 -36.6 -30.8 -25.4 -22.8 -21.5 -21.7
0.0 -50.1 -47.6 -44.6 -41.1 -37.1 -32.6 -26.8 -21.4 -18.8 -17.5 -17.7
0.1 -46.6 -44.1 -41.1 -37.6 -33.6 -29.1 -23.3 -17.9 -15.3 -14.0 -14.2
0.2 -43.8 -41.3 -38.3 -34.8 -30.8 -26.3 -20.5 -15.1 -12.5 -11.2 -11.4
0.3 -42.0 -39.5 -36.5 -33.0 -29.0 -24.5 -18.7 -13.3 -10.7 -9.4 -9.6
0.4 -41.0 -38.5 -35.5 -32.0 -28.0 -23.5 -17.7 -12.3 -9.7 -8.4 -8.6
0.5 -41.4 -38.9 -35.9 -32.4 -28.4 -23.9 -18.1 -12.7 -10.1 -8.8 -9.0
0.6 -42.0 -39.5 -36.5 -33.0 -29.0 -24.5 -18.7 -13.3 -10.7 -9.4 -9.6
0.7 -43.2 -40.7 -37.7 -34.2 -30.2 -25.7 -19.9 -14.5 -11.9 -10.6 -10.8
0.8 -44.4 -41.9 -38.9 -35.4 -31.4 -26.9 -21.1 -15.7 -13.1 -11.8 -12.0
0.9 -45.6 -43.1 -40.1 -36.6 -32.6 -28.1 -22.3 -16.9 -14.3 -13.0 -13.2
1.0 -46.8 -44.3 -41.3 -37.8 -33.8 -29.3 -23.5 -18.1 -15.5 -14.2 -14.4
1.1 -48.0 -45.5 -42.5 -39.0 -35.0 -30.5 -24.7 -19.3 -16.7 -15.4 -15.6
1.2 -49.2 -46.7 -43.7 -40.2 -36.2 -31.7 -25.9 -20.5 -17.9 -16.6 -16.8
1.3 -50.4 -47.9 -44.9 -41.4 -37.4 -32.9 -27.1 -21.7 -19.1 -17.8 -18.0
1.4 -51.6 -49.1 -46.1 -42.6 -38.6 -34.1 -28.3 -22.9 -20.3 -19.0 -19.2
1.5 -52.8 -50.3 -47.3 -43.8 -39.8 -35.3 -29.5 -24.1 -21.5 -20.2 -20.4
1.6 -54.0 -51.5 -48.5 -45.0 -41.0 -36.5 -30.7 -25.3 -22.7 -21.4 -21.6
1.7 -55.2 -52.7 -49.7 -46.2 -42.2 -37.7 -31.9 -26.5 -23.9 -22.6 -22.8
1.8 -56.4 -53.9 -50.9 -47.4 -43.4 -38.9 -33.1 -27.7 -25.1 -23.8 -24.0
1.9 -57.6 -55.1 -52.1 -48.6 -44.6 -40.1 -34.3 -28.9 -26.3 -25.0 -25.2
2.0 -58.8 -56.3 -53.3 -49.8 -45.8 -41.3 -35.5 -30.1 -27.5 -26.2 -26.4
3.6 -78.0 -75.5 -72.5 -69.0 -65.0 -60.5 -54.7 -49.3 -46.7 -45.4 -45.6
OASPLP-UOLP -32.6 -30.1 -27.1 -23.6 -19.6 -15.1 -9.3 -3.9 -1.3 0.0 -0.2

NASA/TM—2009-215524 39
 Table IV (Concluded) - Spectral Directivity Relations for Inner Stream Plug Separation Noise
(b) Corrected Effective Directivity Angle, θ'P,cor, from 110 to 250 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLP-UOLP, dB vs. corrected effective directivity angle
parameter Corrected effective directivity angle, θ'P,cor, deg
log SP 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 250
-3.6 -158.3 -160.1 -163.1 -166.1 -168.1 -170.1 -171.1 -172.6 -174.1 -176.1 -186.1
-2.2 -102.3 -104.1 -107.1 -110.1 -112.1 -114.1 -115.1 -116.6 -118.1 -120.1 -130.1
-2.1 -98.3 -100.1 -103.1 -106.1 -108.1 -110.1 -111.1 -112.6 -114.1 -116.1 -126.1
-2.0 -94.3 -96.1 -99.1 -102.1 -104.1 -106.1 -107.1 -108.6 -110.1 -112.1 -122.1
-1.9 -90.3 -92.1 -95.1 -98.1 -100.1 -102.1 -103.1 -104.6 -106.1 -108.1 -118.1
-1.8 -86.3 -88.1 -91.1 -94.1 -96.1 -98.1 -99.1 -100.6 -102.1 -104.1 -114.1
-1.7 -82.3 -84.1 -87.1 -90.1 -92.1 -94.1 -95.1 -96.6 -98.1 -100.1 -110.1
-1.6 -78.3 -80.1 -83.1 -86.1 -88.1 -90.1 -91.1 -92.6 -94.1 -96.1 -106.1
-1.5 -74.3 -76.1 -79.1 -82.1 -84.1 -86.1 -87.1 -88.6 -90.1 -92.1 -102.1
-1.4 -70.3 -72.1 -75.1 -78.1 -80.1 -82.1 -83.1 -84.6 -86.1 -88.1 -98.1
-1.3 -66.3 -68.1 -71.1 -74.1 -76.1 -78.1 -79.1 -80.6 -82.1 -84.1 -94.1
-1.2 -62.3 -64.1 -67.1 -70.1 -72.1 -74.1 -75.1 -76.6 -78.1 -80.1 -90.1
-1.1 -58.3 -60.1 -63.1 -66.1 -68.1 -70.1 -71.1 -72.6 -74.1 -76.1 -86.1
-1.0 -54.3 -56.1 -59.1 -62.1 -64.1 -66.1 -67.1 -68.6 -70.1 -72.1 -82.1
-0.9 -50.3 -52.1 -55.1 -58.1 -60.1 -62.1 -63.1 -64.6 -66.1 -68.1 -78.1
-0.8 -46.3 -48.1 -51.1 -54.1 -56.1 -58.1 -59.1 -60.6 -62.1 -64.1 -74.1
-0.7 -42.3 -44.1 -47.1 -50.1 -52.1 -54.1 -55.1 -56.6 -58.1 -60.1 -70.1
-0.6 -38.3 -40.1 -43.1 -46.1 -48.1 -50.1 -51.1 -52.6 -54.1 -56.1 -66.1
-0.5 -34.3 -36.1 -39.1 -42.1 -44.1 -46.1 -47.1 -48.6 -50.1 -52.1 -62.1
-0.4 -30.3 -32.1 -35.1 -38.1 -40.1 -42.1 -43.1 -44.6 -46.1 -48.1 -58.1
-0.3 -26.3 -28.1 -31.1 -34.1 -36.1 -38.1 -39.1 -40.6 -42.1 -44.1 -54.1
-0.2 -22.3 -24.1 -27.1 -30.1 -32.1 -34.1 -35.1 -36.6 -38.1 -40.1 -50.1
-0.1 -18.3 -20.1 -23.1 -26.1 -28.1 -30.1 -31.1 -32.6 -34.1 -36.1 -46.1
0.0 -14.8 -16.6 -19.6 -22.6 -24.6 -26.6 -27.6 -29.1 -30.6 -32.6 -42.6
0.1 -12.0 -13.8 -16.8 -19.8 -21.8 -23.8 -24.8 -26.3 -27.8 -29.8 -39.8
0.2 -10.2 -12.0 -15.0 -18.0 -20.0 -22.0 -23.0 -24.5 -26.0 -28.0 -38.0
0.3 -9.2 -11.0 -14.0 -17.0 -19.0 -21.0 -22.0 -23.5 -25.0 -27.0 -37.0
0.4 -9.6 -11.4 -14.4 -17.4 -19.4 -21.4 -22.4 -23.9 -25.4 -27.4 -37.4
0.5 -10.2 -12.0 -15.0 -18.0 -20.0 -22.0 -23.0 -24.5 -26.0 -28.0 -38.0
0.6 -11.4 -13.2 -16.2 -19.2 -21.2 -23.2 -24.2 -25.7 -27.2 -29.2 -39.2
0.7 -12.6 -14.4 -17.4 -20.4 -22.4 -24.4 -25.4 -26.9 -28.4 -30.4 -40.4
0.8 -13.8 -15.6 -18.6 -21.6 -23.6 -25.6 -26.6 -28.1 -29.6 -31.6 -41.6
0.9 -15.0 -16.8 -19.8 -22.8 -24.8 -26.8 -27.8 -29.3 -30.8 -32.8 -42.8
1.0 -16.2 -18.0 -21.0 -24.0 -26.0 -28.0 -29.0 -30.5 -32.0 -34.0 -44.0
1.1 -17.4 -19.2 -22.2 -25.2 -27.2 -29.2 -30.2 -31.7 -33.2 -35.2 -45.2
1.2 -18.6 -20.4 -23.4 -26.4 -28.4 -30.4 -31.4 -32.9 -34.4 -36.4 -46.4
1.3 -19.8 -21.6 -24.6 -27.6 -29.6 -31.6 -32.6 -34.1 -35.6 -37.6 -47.6
1.4 -21.0 -22.8 -25.8 -28.8 -30.8 -32.8 -33.8 -35.3 -36.8 -38.8 -48.8
1.5 -22.2 -24.0 -27.0 -30.0 -32.0 -34.0 -35.0 -36.5 -38.0 -40.0 -50.0
1.6 -23.4 -25.2 -28.2 -31.2 -33.2 -35.2 -36.2 -37.7 -39.2 -41.2 -51.2
1.7 -24.6 -26.4 -29.4 -32.4 -34.4 -36.4 -37.4 -38.9 -40.4 -42.4 -52.4
1.8 -25.8 -27.6 -30.6 -33.6 -35.6 -37.6 -38.6 -40.1 -41.6 -43.6 -53.6
1.9 -27.0 -28.8 -31.8 -34.8 -36.8 -38.8 -39.8 -41.3 -42.8 -44.8 -54.8
2.0 -28.2 -30.0 -33.0 -36.0 -38.0 -40.0 -41.0 -42.5 -44.0 -46.0 -56.0
3.6 -47.4 -49.2 -52.2 -55.2 -57.2 -59.2 -60.2 -61.7 -63.2 -65.2 -75.2
OASPLP-UOLP -0.8 -2.6 -5.6 -8.6 -10.6 -12.6 -13.6 -15.1 -16.6 -18.6 -28.6

NASA/TM—2009-215524 40
 Table V - Spectral Directivity Relations for Plug/Downstream Shock Noise
(a) Corrected Directivity Angle, θ[Link],cor, 0 to 90 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLD,sh-UOLD,sh, dB vs. corrected directivity angle
parameter Corrected directivity angle, θD,sh,cor, deg
log SD,sh 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-3.6 -174.2 -173.0 -171.8 -170.6 -169.4 -168.2 -166.0 -165.3 -159.8 -159.6
-2.2 -104.2 -103.0 -101.8 -100.6 -99.4 -98.2 -96.0 -95.3 -89.8 -89.6
-2.1 -99.2 -98.0 -96.8 -95.6 -94.4 -93.2 -91.0 -90.3 -84.8 -84.6
-2.0 -94.2 -93.0 -91.8 -90.6 -89.4 -88.2 -86.0 -85.3 -79.8 -79.6
-1.9 -89.2 -88.0 -86.8 -85.6 -84.4 -83.2 -81.0 -80.3 -74.8 -74.6
-1.8 -84.2 -83.0 -81.8 -80.6 -79.4 -78.2 -76.0 -75.3 -69.8 -69.6
-1.7 -79.2 -78.0 -76.8 -75.6 -74.4 -73.2 -71.0 -70.3 -64.8 -64.6
-1.6 -74.2 -73.0 -71.8 -70.6 -69.4 -68.2 -66.0 -65.3 -59.8 -59.6
-1.5 -69.2 -68.0 -66.8 -65.6 -64.4 -63.2 -61.0 -60.3 -54.8 -54.6
-1.4 -64.2 -63.0 -61.8 -60.6 -59.4 -58.2 -56.0 -55.3 -49.8 -49.6
-1.3 -59.2 -58.0 -56.8 -55.6 -54.4 -53.2 -51.0 -50.3 -44.8 -44.6
-1.2 -54.2 -53.0 -51.8 -50.6 -49.4 -48.2 -46.0 -45.3 -39.8 -39.6
-1.1 -49.2 -48.0 -46.8 -45.6 -44.4 -43.2 -41.0 -40.3 -34.8 -34.6
-1.0 -44.2 -43.0 -41.8 -40.6 -39.4 -38.2 -36.0 -35.3 -29.8 -29.6
-0.9 -39.2 -38.0 -36.8 -35.6 -34.4 -33.2 -31.0 -30.3 -24.8 -24.6
-0.8 -34.2 -33.0 -31.8 -30.6 -29.4 -28.2 -26.0 -25.3 -19.8 -19.6
-0.7 -29.2 -28.0 -26.8 -25.6 -24.4 -23.2 -21.0 -20.3 -14.8 -14.6
-0.6 -24.2 -23.0 -21.8 -20.6 -19.4 -18.2 -16.0 -15.3 -9.8 -9.6
-0.5 -19.2 -18.0 -16.8 -15.6 -14.4 -13.2 -11.0 -10.3 -7.3 -7.6
-0.4 -14.2 -13.0 -11.8 -10.6 -9.4 -8.2 -7.0 -7.3 -9.3 -8.6
-0.3 -16.2 -15.0 -13.8 -12.6 -11.4 -10.2 -9.0 -9.3 -10.3 -9.6
-0.2 -18.2 -17.0 -15.8 -14.6 -13.4 -12.2 -11.0 -10.3 -11.3 -10.6
-0.1 -20.2 -19.0 -17.8 -16.6 -15.4 -14.2 -12.0 -11.3 -12.3 -11.6
0.0 -22.2 -21.0 -19.8 -18.6 -16.4 -15.2 -13.0 -12.3 -13.3 -12.6
0.1 -23.2 -22.0 -20.8 -19.6 -17.4 -16.2 -14.0 -13.3 -14.3 -13.6
0.2 -24.2 -23.0 -21.8 -20.6 -18.4 -17.2 -15.0 -14.3 -15.3 -14.6
0.3 -25.2 -24.0 -22.8 -21.6 -19.4 -18.2 -16.0 -15.3 -16.3 -15.6
0.4 -26.2 -25.0 -23.8 -22.6 -20.4 -19.2 -17.0 -16.3 -17.3 -16.6
0.5 -27.2 -26.0 -24.8 -23.6 -21.4 -20.2 -18.0 -17.3 -18.3 -17.6
0.6 -28.2 -27.0 -25.8 -24.6 -22.4 -21.2 -19.0 -18.3 -19.3 -18.6
0.7 -29.2 -28.0 -26.8 -25.6 -23.4 -22.2 -20.0 -19.3 -20.3 -19.6
0.8 -30.2 -29.0 -27.8 -26.6 -24.4 -23.2 -21.0 -20.3 -21.3 -20.6
0.9 -31.2 -30.0 -28.8 -27.6 -25.4 -24.2 -22.0 -21.3 -22.3 -21.6
1.0 -32.2 -31.0 -29.8 -28.6 -26.4 -25.2 -23.0 -22.3 -23.3 -22.6
1.1 -33.2 -32.0 -30.8 -29.6 -27.4 -26.2 -24.0 -23.3 -24.3 -23.6
1.2 -34.2 -33.0 -31.8 -30.6 -28.4 -27.2 -25.0 -24.3 -25.3 -24.6
1.3 -35.2 -34.0 -32.8 -31.6 -29.4 -28.2 -26.0 -25.3 -26.3 -25.6
1.4 -36.2 -35.0 -33.8 -32.6 -30.4 -29.2 -27.0 -26.3 -27.3 -26.6
1.5 -37.2 -36.0 -34.8 -33.6 -31.4 -30.2 -28.0 -27.3 -28.3 -27.6
1.6 -38.2 -37.0 -35.8 -34.6 -32.4 -31.2 -29.0 -28.3 -29.3 -28.6
1.7 -39.2 -38.0 -36.8 -35.6 -33.4 -32.2 -30.0 -29.3 -30.3 -29.6
1.8 -40.2 -39.0 -37.8 -36.6 -34.4 -33.2 -31.0 -30.3 -31.3 -30.6
1.9 -41.2 -40.0 -38.8 -37.6 -35.4 -34.2 -32.0 -31.3 -32.3 -31.6
2.0 -42.2 -41.0 -39.8 -38.6 -36.4 -35.2 -33.0 -32.3 -33.3 -32.6
3.6 -58.2 -57.0 -55.8 -54.6 -52.4 -51.2 -49.0 -48.3 -49.3 -48.6
OASPLD,sh-UOLD,sh -8.8 -7.6 -6.4 -5.2 -3.7 -2.5 -0.8 -0.5 -0.4 0.0

NASA/TM—2009-215524 41
 Table V (Concluded) - Spectral Directivity Relations for Plug/Downstream Shock Noise
(b) Corrected Directivity Angle, θ[Link],cor, 100 to 180 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLD,sh-UOLD,sh, dB vs. corrected directivity angle
parameter Corrected directivity angle, θD,sh,cor, deg
log SD,sh 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
-3.6 -159.6 -159.6 -159.6 -159.6 -159.6 -159.6 -159.6 -159.6 -159.6
-2.2 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6
-2.1 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6
-2.0 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6
-1.9 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6
-1.8 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6
-1.7 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6
-1.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6
-1.5 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6
-1.4 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6
-1.3 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6
-1.2 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6
-1.1 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6
-1.0 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6
-0.9 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6
-0.8 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6
-0.7 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6
-0.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6
-0.5 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6
-0.4 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6
-0.3 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6
-0.2 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6
-0.1 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6
0.0 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6
0.1 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6
0.2 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6
0.3 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6
0.4 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6
0.5 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6
0.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6
0.7 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6
0.8 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6
0.9 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6
1.0 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6
1.1 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6
1.2 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6
1.3 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6
1.4 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6
1.5 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6
1.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6
1.7 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6
1.8 -30.6 -30.6 -30.6 -30.6 -30.6 -30.6 -30.6 -30.6 -30.6
1.9 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6 -31.6
2.0 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6 -32.6
3.6 -48.6 -48.6 -48.6 -48.6 -48.6 -48.6 -48.6 -48.6 -48.6
OASPLD,sh-UOLD,sh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NASA/TM—2009-215524 42
 Table VI - Spectral Directivity Relations for Outer Stream Shock Noise
(a) Corrected Directivity Angle, θ[Link],cor, 0 to 90 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLO,sh-UOLO,sh, dB vs. corrected directivity angle
parameter Corrected directivity angle, θO,sh,cor, deg
log SO,sh 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-3.6 -186.6 -184.6 -182.6 -180.6 -178.6 -176.6 -174.6 -174.6 -174.6 -174.6
-2.2 -116.6 -114.6 -112.6 -110.6 -108.6 -106.6 -104.6 -104.6 -104.6 -104.6
-2.1 -111.6 -109.6 -107.6 -105.6 -103.6 -101.6 -99.6 -99.6 -99.6 -99.6
-2.0 -106.6 -104.6 -102.6 -100.6 -98.6 -96.6 -94.6 -94.6 -94.6 -94.6
-1.9 -101.6 -99.6 -97.6 -95.6 -93.6 -91.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6
-1.8 -96.6 -94.6 -92.6 -90.6 -88.6 -86.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6
-1.7 -91.6 -89.6 -87.6 -85.6 -83.6 -81.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6
-1.6 -86.6 -84.6 -82.6 -80.6 -78.6 -76.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6
-1.5 -81.6 -79.6 -77.6 -75.6 -73.6 -71.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6
-1.4 -76.6 -74.6 -72.6 -70.6 -68.6 -66.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6
-1.3 -71.6 -69.6 -67.6 -65.6 -63.6 -61.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6
-1.2 -66.6 -64.6 -62.6 -60.6 -58.6 -56.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6
-1.1 -61.6 -59.6 -57.6 -55.6 -53.6 -51.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6
-1.0 -56.6 -54.6 -52.6 -50.6 -48.6 -46.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6
-0.9 -51.6 -49.6 -47.6 -45.6 -43.6 -41.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6
-0.8 -46.6 -44.6 -42.6 -40.6 -38.6 -36.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6
-0.7 -41.6 -39.6 -37.6 -35.6 -33.6 -31.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6
-0.6 -36.6 -34.6 -32.6 -30.6 -28.6 -26.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6
-0.5 -31.6 -29.6 -27.6 -25.6 -23.6 -21.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6
-0.4 -26.6 -24.6 -22.6 -20.6 -18.6 -16.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6
-0.3 -21.6 -19.6 -17.6 -15.6 -13.6 -11.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6
-0.2 -19.6 -17.6 -15.6 -13.6 -11.6 -9.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6
-0.1 -20.6 -18.6 -16.6 -14.6 -12.6 -10.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6
0.0 -21.6 -19.6 -17.6 -15.6 -13.6 -11.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6
0.1 -22.6 -20.6 -18.6 -16.6 -14.6 -12.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6
0.2 -23.6 -21.6 -19.6 -17.6 -15.6 -13.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6
0.3 -24.6 -22.6 -20.6 -18.6 -16.6 -14.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6
0.4 -25.6 -23.6 -21.6 -19.6 -17.6 -15.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6
0.5 -26.6 -24.6 -22.6 -20.6 -18.6 -16.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6
0.6 -27.6 -25.6 -23.6 -21.6 -19.6 -17.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6
0.7 -28.6 -26.6 -24.6 -22.6 -20.6 -18.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6
0.8 -29.6 -27.6 -25.6 -23.6 -21.6 -19.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6
0.9 -30.6 -28.6 -26.6 -24.6 -22.6 -20.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6
1.0 -31.6 -29.6 -27.6 -25.6 -23.6 -21.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6
1.1 -32.6 -30.6 -28.6 -26.6 -24.6 -22.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6
1.2 -33.6 -31.6 -29.6 -27.6 -25.6 -23.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6
1.3 -34.6 -32.6 -30.6 -28.6 -26.6 -24.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6
1.4 -35.6 -33.6 -31.6 -29.6 -27.6 -25.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6
1.5 -36.6 -34.6 -32.6 -30.6 -28.6 -26.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6
1.6 -37.6 -35.6 -33.6 -31.6 -29.6 -27.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6
1.7 -38.6 -36.6 -34.6 -32.6 -30.6 -28.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6
1.8 -39.6 -37.6 -35.6 -33.6 -31.6 -29.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6
1.9 -40.6 -38.6 -36.6 -34.6 -32.6 -30.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6
2.0 -41.6 -39.6 -37.6 -35.6 -33.6 -31.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6
3.6 -57.6 -55.6 -53.6 -51.6 -49.6 -47.6 -45.6 -45.6 -45.6 -45.6
OASPLO,sh-UOLO,sh -12.0 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NASA/TM—2009-215524 43
 Table VI (Concluded) - Spectral Directivity Relations for Outer Stream Shock Noise
(b) Corrected Directivity Angle, θ[Link],cor, 100 to 180 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLo,sh-UOLo,sh, dB vs. corrected directivity angle
parameter Corrected directivity angle, θO,sh,cor, deg
log SO,sh 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
-3.6 -174.6 -174.6 -174.6 -174.6 -179.6 -179.6 -179.6 -179.6 -179.6
-2.2 -104.6 -104.6 -104.6 -104.6 -109.6 -109.6 -109.6 -109.6 -109.6
-2.1 -99.6 -99.6 -99.6 -99.6 -104.6 -104.6 -104.6 -104.6 -104.6
-2.0 -94.6 -94.6 -94.6 -94.6 -99.6 -99.6 -99.6 -99.6 -99.6
-1.9 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6 -94.6 -94.6 -94.6 -94.6 -94.6
-1.8 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6 -89.6
-1.7 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6 -84.6
-1.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6 -79.6
-1.5 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6 -74.6
-1.4 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6 -69.6
-1.3 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6 -64.6
-1.2 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6 -59.6
-1.1 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6 -54.6
-1.0 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6 -49.6
-0.9 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6
-0.8 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6 -39.6
-0.7 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6 -34.6
-0.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6
-0.5 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6
-0.4 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6
-0.3 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6
-0.2 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6
-0.1 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6
0.0 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6
0.1 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6
0.2 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6
0.3 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6 -11.6
0.4 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6 -12.6
0.5 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6 -13.6
0.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6 -14.6
0.7 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6 -15.6
0.8 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6 -16.6
0.9 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6 -17.6
1.0 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6 -18.6
1.1 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6 -19.6
1.2 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6 -20.6
1.3 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6 -21.6
1.4 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6
1.5 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6 -23.6
1.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6 -24.6
1.7 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6 -25.6
1.8 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6 -26.6
1.9 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6
2.0 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -29.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6 -28.6
3.6 -45.6 -45.6 -45.6 -45.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6 -44.6
OASPLO,sh-UOLO,sh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NASA/TM—2009-215524 44
 Table VII - Spectral Directivity Relations for Inner Stream Shock Noise
(a) Corrected Directivity Angle, θ[Link],cor, 0 to 90 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLI,sh-UOLI,sh, dB vs. corrected directivity angle
parameter Corrected directivity angle, θI,sh,cor, deg
log SI,sh 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-3.6 -181.0 -181.0 -181.0 -181.0 -181.0 -181.5 -182.0 -182.5 -178.0 -178.4
-2.2 -111.0 -111.0 -111.0 -111.0 -111.0 -111.5 -112.0 -112.5 -108.0 -108.4
-2.1 -106.0 -106.0 -106.0 -106.0 -106.0 -106.5 -107.0 -107.5 -103.0 -103.4
-2.0 -101.0 -101.0 -101.0 -101.0 -101.0 -101.5 -102.0 -102.5 -98.0 -98.4
-1.9 -96.0 -96.0 -96.0 -96.0 -96.0 -96.5 -97.0 -97.5 -93.0 -93.4
-1.8 -91.0 -91.0 -91.0 -91.0 -91.0 -91.5 -92.0 -92.5 -88.0 -88.4
-1.7 -86.0 -86.0 -86.0 -86.0 -86.0 -86.5 -87.0 -87.5 -83.0 -83.4
-1.6 -81.0 -81.0 -81.0 -81.0 -81.0 -81.5 -82.0 -82.5 -78.0 -78.4
-1.5 -76.0 -76.0 -76.0 -76.0 -76.0 -76.5 -77.0 -77.5 -73.0 -73.4
-1.4 -71.0 -71.0 -71.0 -71.0 -71.0 -71.5 -72.0 -72.5 -68.0 -68.4
-1.3 -66.0 -66.0 -66.0 -66.0 -66.0 -66.5 -67.0 -67.5 -63.0 -63.4
-1.2 -61.0 -61.0 -61.0 -61.0 -61.0 -61.5 -62.0 -62.5 -58.0 -58.4
-1.1 -56.0 -56.0 -56.0 -56.0 -56.0 -56.5 -57.0 -57.5 -53.0 -53.4
-1.0 -51.0 -51.0 -51.0 -51.0 -51.0 -51.5 -52.0 -52.5 -48.0 -48.4
-0.9 -46.0 -46.0 -46.0 -46.0 -46.0 -46.5 -47.0 -47.5 -43.0 -43.4
-0.8 -41.0 -41.0 -41.0 -41.0 -41.0 -41.5 -42.0 -42.5 -38.0 -38.4
-0.7 -36.0 -36.0 -36.0 -36.0 -36.0 -36.5 -37.0 -37.5 -33.0 -33.4
-0.6 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0 -31.0 -31.5 -32.0 -32.5 -28.0 -28.4
-0.5 -26.0 -26.0 -26.0 -26.0 -26.0 -26.5 -27.0 -27.5 -23.0 -23.4
-0.4 -21.0 -21.0 -21.0 -21.0 -21.0 -21.5 -22.0 -22.5 -18.0 -18.4
-0.3 -16.0 -16.0 -16.0 -16.0 -16.0 -16.5 -17.0 -17.5 -13.0 -13.4
-0.2 -11.0 -11.0 -11.0 -11.0 -11.0 -11.5 -12.0 -12.5 -8.0 -8.4
-0.1 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 -6.0 -6.5 -7.0 -7.5 -6.0 -6.4
0.0 -4.0 -4.0 -4.0 -4.0 -4.0 -4.5 -5.0 -5.5 -7.5 -7.9
0.1 -5.5 -5.5 -5.5 -5.5 -5.5 -6.0 -6.5 -7.0 -9.5 -9.4
0.2 -7.5 -7.5 -7.5 -7.5 -7.5 -8.0 -8.5 -9.0 -11.5 -10.9
0.3 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -10.0 -10.5 -11.0 -13.5 -12.4
0.4 -11.5 -11.5 -11.5 -11.5 -11.5 -12.0 -12.5 -13.0 -15.5 -13.9
0.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -13.5 -14.0 -14.5 -15.0 -17.5 -15.4
0.6 -15.5 -15.5 -15.5 -15.5 -15.5 -16.0 -16.5 -17.0 -19.5 -16.9
0.7 -17.5 -17.5 -17.5 -17.5 -17.5 -18.0 -18.5 -19.0 -21.5 -18.4
0.8 -19.5 -19.5 -19.5 -19.5 -19.5 -20.0 -20.5 -21.0 -23.5 -19.9
0.9 -21.5 -21.5 -21.5 -21.5 -21.5 -22.0 -22.5 -23.0 -25.5 -21.4
1.0 -23.5 -23.5 -23.5 -23.5 -23.5 -24.0 -24.5 -25.0 -27.5 -22.9
1.1 -25.5 -25.5 -25.5 -25.5 -25.5 -26.0 -26.5 -27.0 -29.5 -24.4
1.2 -27.5 -27.5 -27.5 -27.5 -27.5 -28.0 -28.5 -29.0 -31.5 -25.9
1.3 -29.5 -29.5 -29.5 -29.5 -29.5 -30.0 -30.5 -31.0 -33.5 -27.4
1.4 -31.5 -31.5 -31.5 -31.5 -31.5 -32.0 -32.5 -33.0 -35.5 -28.9
1.5 -33.5 -33.5 -33.5 -33.5 -33.5 -34.0 -34.5 -35.0 -37.5 -30.4
1.6 -35.5 -35.5 -35.5 -35.5 -35.5 -36.0 -36.5 -37.0 -39.5 -31.9
1.7 -37.5 -37.5 -37.5 -37.5 -37.5 -38.0 -38.5 -39.0 -41.5 -33.4
1.8 -39.5 -39.5 -39.5 -39.5 -39.5 -40.0 -40.5 -41.0 -43.5 -34.9
1.9 -41.5 -41.5 -41.5 -41.5 -41.5 -42.0 -42.5 -43.0 -45.5 -36.4
2.0 -43.5 -43.5 -43.5 -43.5 -43.5 -44.0 -44.5 -45.0 -47.5 -37.9
3.6 -71.5 -71.5 -71.5 -71.5 -71.5 -72.0 -72.5 -73.0 -75.5 -65.9
OASPLI,sh-UOLI,sh 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.3 0.8 0.3 -0.2 0.0

NASA/TM—2009-215524 45
 Table VII (Concluded) - Spectral Directivity Relations for Inner Stream Shock Noise
(b) Corrected Directivity Angle, θ[Link],cor, 100 to 180 deg
Frequency Normalized sound pressure level, SPLIsh-UOLI,sh, dB vs. corrected directivity angle
parameter Corrected directivity angle, θI,sh,cor, deg
log SI,sh 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
-3.6 -178.6 -178.8 -179.0 -179.2 -179.4 -179.6 -179.8 -180.0 -180.2
-2.2 -108.6 -108.8 -109.0 -109.2 -109.4 -109.6 -109.8 -110.0 -110.2
-2.1 -103.6 -103.8 -104.0 -104.2 -104.4 -104.6 -104.8 -105.0 -105.2
-2.0 -98.6 -98.8 -99.0 -99.2 -99.4 -99.6 -99.8 -100.0 -100.2
-1.9 -93.6 -93.8 -94.0 -94.2 -94.4 -94.6 -94.8 -95.0 -95.2
-1.8 -88.6 -88.8 -89.0 -89.2 -89.4 -89.6 -89.8 -90.0 -90.2
-1.7 -83.6 -83.8 -84.0 -84.2 -84.4 -84.6 -84.8 -85.0 -85.2
-1.6 -78.6 -78.8 -79.0 -79.2 -79.4 -79.6 -79.8 -80.0 -80.2
-1.5 -73.6 -73.8 -74.0 -74.2 -74.4 -74.6 -74.8 -75.0 -75.2
-1.4 -68.6 -68.8 -69.0 -69.2 -69.4 -69.6 -69.8 -70.0 -70.2
-1.3 -63.6 -63.8 -64.0 -64.2 -64.4 -64.6 -64.8 -65.0 -65.2
-1.2 -58.6 -58.8 -59.0 -59.2 -59.4 -59.6 -59.8 -60.0 -60.2
-1.1 -53.6 -53.8 -54.0 -54.2 -54.4 -54.6 -54.8 -55.0 -55.2
-1.0 -48.6 -48.8 -49.0 -49.2 -49.4 -49.6 -49.8 -50.0 -50.2
-0.9 -43.6 -43.8 -44.0 -44.2 -44.4 -44.6 -44.8 -45.0 -45.2
-0.8 -38.6 -38.8 -39.0 -39.2 -39.4 -39.6 -39.8 -40.0 -40.2
-0.7 -33.6 -33.8 -34.0 -34.2 -34.4 -34.6 -34.8 -35.0 -35.2
-0.6 -28.6 -28.8 -29.0 -29.2 -29.4 -29.6 -29.8 -30.0 -30.2
-0.5 -23.6 -23.8 -24.0 -24.2 -24.4 -24.6 -24.8 -25.0 -25.2
-0.4 -18.6 -18.8 -19.0 -19.2 -19.4 -19.6 -19.8 -20.0 -20.2
-0.3 -13.6 -13.8 -14.0 -14.2 -14.4 -14.6 -14.8 -15.0 -15.2
-0.2 -8.6 -8.8 -9.0 -9.2 -9.4 -9.6 -9.8 -10.0 -10.2
-0.1 -6.6 -6.8 -7.0 -7.2 -7.4 -7.6 -7.8 -8.0 -8.2
0.0 -8.1 -8.3 -8.5 -8.7 -8.9 -9.1 -9.3 -9.5 -9.7
0.1 -9.6 -9.8 -10.0 -10.2 -10.4 -10.6 -10.8 -11.0 -11.2
0.2 -11.1 -11.3 -11.5 -11.7 -11.9 -12.1 -12.3 -12.5 -12.7
0.3 -12.6 -12.8 -13.0 -13.2 -13.4 -13.6 -13.8 -14.0 -14.2
0.4 -14.1 -14.3 -14.5 -14.7 -14.9 -15.1 -15.3 -15.5 -15.7
0.5 -15.6 -15.8 -16.0 -16.2 -16.4 -16.6 -16.8 -17.0 -17.2
0.6 -17.1 -17.3 -17.5 -17.7 -17.9 -18.1 -18.3 -18.5 -18.7
0.7 -18.6 -18.8 -19.0 -19.2 -19.4 -19.6 -19.8 -20.0 -20.2
0.8 -20.1 -20.3 -20.5 -20.7 -20.9 -21.1 -21.3 -21.5 -21.7
0.9 -21.6 -21.8 -22.0 -22.2 -22.4 -22.6 -22.8 -23.0 -23.2
1.0 -23.1 -23.3 -23.5 -23.7 -23.9 -24.1 -24.3 -24.5 -24.7
1.1 -24.6 -24.8 -25.0 -25.2 -25.4 -25.6 -25.8 -26.0 -26.2
1.2 -26.1 -26.3 -26.5 -26.7 -26.9 -27.1 -27.3 -27.5 -27.7
1.3 -27.6 -27.8 -28.0 -28.2 -28.4 -28.6 -28.8 -29.0 -29.2
1.4 -29.1 -29.3 -29.5 -29.7 -29.9 -30.1 -30.3 -30.5 -30.7
1.5 -30.6 -30.8 -31.0 -31.2 -31.4 -31.6 -31.8 -32.0 -32.2
1.6 -32.1 -32.3 -32.5 -32.7 -32.9 -33.1 -33.3 -33.5 -33.7
1.7 -33.6 -33.8 -34.0 -34.2 -34.4 -34.6 -34.8 -35.0 -35.2
1.8 -35.1 -35.3 -35.5 -35.7 -35.9 -36.1 -36.3 -36.5 -36.7
1.9 -36.6 -36.8 -37.0 -37.2 -37.4 -37.6 -37.8 -38.0 -38.2
2.0 -38.1 -38.3 -38.5 -38.7 -38.9 -39.1 -39.3 -39.5 -39.7
3.6 -66.1 -66.3 -66.5 -66.7 -66.9 -67.1 -67.3 -67.5 -67.7
OASPLI,sh-UOLI,sh -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1.0 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8

NASA/TM—2009-215524 46
 Table VIII - Statistical Summary

Errors (experimental minus predicted) using predicted coefficients

Nozzle/Plug Suppression BPR Mf VO/VI Vmix/camb Δ{OASPL} Δ{All f} ε{OASPL} ε{All f}
(a) LaRC data, Mf = 0.10
Internal None 5.0 0.10 0.81 0.814 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.7
Internal None 5.1 0.10 0.69 0.965 0.3 -0.4 0.7 1.9
Internal None 9.0 0.10 0.95 0.677 0.7 0.7 1.9 2.0
Internal None 8.0 0.10 0.78 0.841 -0.3 -0.2 1.2 2.0
Internal None 10.4 0.10 0.79 0.592 2.4 1.5 3.1 2.4
Internal None 13.1 0.10 0.90 0.800 -0.4 -0.1 1.8 1.9
Internal None 14.4 0.10 0.81 0.635 1.0 0.7 2.5 2.3
External None 9.1 0.10 0.93 0.672 0.3 0.3 1.4 1.9
External None 8.0 0.10 0.78 0.828 -0.1 -0.1 0.8 1.7
External None 4.8 0.10 0.81 0.835 -0.2 -0.5 0.9 2.0
External None 4.9 0.10 0.72 0.989 -0.3 -0.7 0.7 2.3
Internal 8 Core Petals 5.1 0.10 0.80 0.812 1.2 0.6 1.4 2.2
Internal 8 Core Petals 5.1 0.10 0.69 0.973 0.9 0.3 1.0 2.1
Average for LaRC, Mf = 0.10: 0.4 0.2 1.4 2.0
(b) LaRC data, Mf = 0.20
Internal None 4.8 0.20 0.81 0.808 2.5 1.7 2.3 2.1
Internal None 4.7 0.20 0.72 0.978 1.3 1.0 1.5 2.0
Internal None 9.1 0.20 0.98 0.649 ........ 3.0 ........ 3.8
Internal None 8.1 0.20 0.78 0.808 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.9
External None 9.1 0.20 0.98 0.648 1.4 2.7 1.6 3.6
External None 8.1 0.20 0.79 0.811 1.3 1.0 1.5 2.7
External None 4.9 0.20 0.79 0.790 2.0 1.6 2.1 2.7
External None 4.7 0.20 0.72 0.972 0.8 0.5 1.2 2.2
Internal 8 Core Petals 4.9 0.20 0.79 0.790 5.1 3.5 4.7 4.1
Internal 8 Core Petals 4.8 0.20 0.70 0.954 2.2 1.5 2.2 2.3
Average for LaRC, Mf = 0.20: 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.7
(c) GE/GRC Configuration 7BB, Mf = 0.00 - 0.28
External None 14.9 0.20 0.84 0.591 1.0 0.7 2.0 3.9
External None 13.3 0.20 0.74 0.654 -0.8 -0.6 1.2 2.0
External None 13.1 0.20 0.71 0.707 -1.4 -1.3 1.6 2.1
External None 12.9 0.20 0.69 0.760 -1.7 -1.6 1.8 2.2
External None 12.3 0.20 0.65 0.801 -1.6 -1.5 1.7 2.2
External None 13.3 0.28 0.70 0.769 -1.7 -1.4 2.0 2.6
External None 13.3 0.00 0.70 0.766 -1.2 -1.6 1.3 1.9
Average for Conf. 7BB, Mf = 0.00-0.28: -1.1 -1.0 1.6 2.4
(d) GE/GRC Configuration 5BB, Mf = 0.00
External None 7.6 0.00 0.80 0.712 0.0 -0.1 0.7 1.4
External None 7.3 0.00 0.73 0.804 0.4 -0.3 0.5 1.3
External None 6.9 0.00 0.69 0.870 0.9 0.2 1.1 1.5
External None 6.6 0.00 0.62 0.949 1.2 0.2 1.4 1.9
Average for Conf. 5BB, Mf = 0.00: 0.6 0.0 0.9 1.5
(e) GE/GRC Configuration 5BB, Mf = 0.20
External None 7.9 0.20 0.82 0.709 -0.9 -0.4 1.2 2.0
External None 9.5 0.20 0.97 0.709 -1.2 -0.4 2.0 2.6
Average for Conf. 5BB, Mf = 0.20: -1.1 -0.4 1.6 2.3
(f) GE/GRC Configuration 5BB, Mf = 0.28
External None 7.9 0.28 0.82 0.712 -0.3 0.2 1.5 2.5
External None 6.9 0.28 0.68 0.869 -0.7 -0.4 0.9 2.1
External None 6.6 0.28 0.62 0.945 -0.1 -0.1 0.9 2.0
Average for Conf. 5BB, Mf = 0.28: -0.4 -0.1 1.1 2.2
Average for Conf. 5BB in simulated flight: -0.7 -0.2 1.3 2.3

NASA/TM—2009-215524 47
 Table VIII (Continued) - Statistical Summary

Errors (experimental minus predicted) using predicted coefficients

Nozzle/Plug Suppression BPR Mf VO/VI Vmix/camb Δ{OASPL} Δ{All f} ε{OASPL} ε{All f}
(g) GE/GRC Configuration 3BB, Mf = 0.00
External None 4.8 0.00 0.65 1.088 1.1 0.5 1.5 1.8
External None 5.0 0.00 0.67 1.048 0.8 0.1 1.3 1.8
External None 5.3 0.00 0.75 0.957 0.6 -0.1 0.8 1.4
External None 5.8 0.00 0.82 0.889 -0.1 -0.4 0.5 1.2
Average for Conf. 3BB, Mf = 0.00: 0.6 0.0 1.0 1.6
(h) GE/GRC Configuration 3BB, Mf = 0.20
External None 5.0 0.20 0.68 1.047 0.3 0.0 0.9 1.3
External None 6.0 0.20 0.88 0.826 -1.6 -1.0 1.8 1.7
External None 6.4 0.20 0.95 0.759 -2.0 -1.0 2.3 2.1
External None 6.6 0.20 1.02 0.636 -1.1 -0.1 1.7 2.3
Average for Conf. 5BB, Mf = 0.20: -1.1 -0.5 1.7 1.8
(i) GE/GRC Configuration 3BB, Mf = 0.28
External None 4.8 0.28 0.65 1.059 0.3 0.1 0.9 1.6
External None 5.0 0.28 0.67 1.050 -0.2 -0.2 0.7 1.4
External None 6.2 0.28 0.89 0.827 -1.8 -1.0 2.1 2.1
Average for Conf. 3BB, Mf = 0.28: -0.6 -0.3 1.2 1.7
Average for Conf. 3BB in simulated flight: -0.9 -0.4 1.5
(j) LeRC Outdoor Dual-Stream Hot Jet, Mf = 0.00
Ext. Core Coax. None 1.8 0.00 0.37 1.040 0.3 1.0 1.8 2.4
Ext. Core Coax. None 1.3 0.00 1.33 2.021 -2.2 -2.0 2.3 2.3
Ext. Core Coax. None 1.1 0.00 0.45 1.041 0.8 0.8 2.9 2.4
Average for AR = 1.3, Mf = 0.00: -0.4 0.0 2.3 2.4
Coplanar Coax. None 2.0 0.00 0.37 1.009 -0.7 -0.4 3.0 3.6
Coplanar Coax. None 1.5 0.00 1.33 2.038 -0.3 -0.1 0.7 1.8
Average for AR = 1.4, Mf = 0.00: -0.5 -0.2 1.8 2.7
Coplanar Coax. None 2.8 0.00 0.69 0.724 2.8 2.3 3.1 2.7
Coplanar Coax. None 1.7 0.00 2.84 1.721 1.0 0.9 1.3 2.6
Coplanar Coax. None 1.8 0.00 0.28 1.252 1.2 2.8 1.5 3.8
Coplanar Coax. None 1.6 0.00 0.44 0.958 0.8 0.9 3.9 3.4
Average for AR = 1.9, Mf = 0.00: 1.5 1.7 2.4 3.1
Coplanar Coax. None 4.6 0.00 0.37 0.839 2.3 1.7 3.6 4.4
Coplanar Coax. None 3.5 0.00 1.33 2.134 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.5
Coplanar Coax. None 4.6 0.00 0.37 2.134 2.3 1.7 3.6 4.4
Average for AR = 3.3, Mf = 0.00: 2.0 1.7 2.9 3.8
Average for old LeRC tests, Mf = 0.00: 0.8 0.9 2.4 3.0
(k) Lockheed Conic, Mf = 0.02 - 0.05
Conical None N/A 0.02 N/A 0.407 0.4 1.2 0.7 2.2
Conical None N/A 0.04 N/A 0.736 -1.3 -0.7 1.7 1.9
Conical None N/A 0.05 N/A 0.984 -3.1 -2.2 3.3 2.9
Average for Lockheed Conic, Mf = 0.02 - 0.05: -1.3 -0.6 1.9 2.3
(l) GE Cell 41 Conic, Mf = 0.00
Conical None N/A 0.00 N/A 2.120 -1.5 -1.1 3.6 3.5

NASA/TM—2009-215524 48
 Table VIII (Concluded) - Statistical Summary

Errors (experimental minus predicted) using predicted coefficients

Nozzle/Plug Suppression BPR Mf VO/VI Vmix/camb Δ{OASPL} Δ{All f} ε{OASPL} ε{All f}
(m) GE/GRC Suppressed Configuration 3IB, Mf = 0.0-0.28
External Core Chevrons 5.0 0.00 0.67 1.047 0.2 -0.2 1.0 1.7
External Core Chevrons 5.0 0.20 0.68 1.046 -0.9 -0.5 1.2 1.3
External Core Chevrons 4.8 0.28 0.65 1.087 -1.3 -0.7 1.6 1.7
External Core Chevrons 4.8 0.28 0.65 1.070 -1.3 -0.6 1.7 2.0
External Core Chevrons 6.1 0.28 0.88 0.814 -2.1 -0.7 2.6 2.7
External Core Chevrons 5.0 0.28 0.67 1.049 -1.4 -0.8 1.7 1.8
External Core Chevrons 5.4 0.28 0.74 0.979 -2.0 -1.2 2.3 2.2
External Core Chevrons 5.9 0.28 0.83 0.891 -2.3 -1.0 2.7 2.6
External Core Chevrons 6.1 0.28 0.87 0.828 -2.2 -0.8 2.6 2.6
Average for Conf. 3IB, Mf = 0.0-0.28: -1.5 -0.7 1.9 2.1
(n) GE/GRC Suppressed Configuration 3IC, Mf = 0.0
External Cr&Fn Chvs 4.9 0.00 0.65 1.087 0.2 0.0 1.0 1.9
External Cr&Fn Chvs 5.1 0.00 0.68 1.048 0.2 0.2 0.8 1.6
External Cr&Fn Chvs 5.4 0.00 0.74 0.978 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.5
External Cr&Fn Chvs 6.0 0.00 0.83 0.892 -0.7 -0.1 0.9 1.5
External Cr&Fn Chvs 6.8 0.00 1.03 0.637 -0.7 0.2 1.2 1.7
Average for Conf. 3IC, Mf = 0.0: -0.2 0.1 0.9 1.6
(o) GE/GRC Suppressed Configuration 3IC, Mf = 0.20
External Cr&Fn Chvs 5.1 0.20 0.68 1.057 -1.0 -0.4 1.6 1.9
External Cr&Fn Chvs 6.2 0.20 0.87 0.833 -1.8 -0.5 2.1 2.6
External Cr&Fn Chvs 6.5 0.20 0.93 0.762 -1.9 -0.6 2.3 2.6
Average for Conf. 3IC, Mf = 0.20: -1.5 -0.5 2.0 2.4
(p) GE/GRC Suppressed Configuration 3IC, Mf = 0.28
External Cr&Fn Chvs 4.9 0.28 0.65 1.087 -1.0 -0.1 1.7 2.3
External Cr&Fn Chvs 5.1 0.28 0.68 1.053 -1.3 -0.3 1.8 2.2
External Cr&Fn Chvs 5.4 0.28 0.74 0.987 -1.7 -0.6 2.2 2.3
External Cr&Fn Chvs 6.0 0.28 0.84 0.896 -2.3 -0.9 2.7 2.9
External Cr&Fn Chvs 6.1 0.28 0.87 0.834 -1.5 -0.2 2.1 2.7
External Cr&Fn Chvs 7.1 0.28 0.98 0.823 -1.5 0.0 2.4 3.1
Average for Conf. 3IC, Mf = 0.28: -1.5 -0.3 2.1 2.6
Average for Conf. 3IC, Mf = 0.0-0.28: -1.1 -0.2 1.7 2.2

NASA/TM—2009-215524 49
 Figure 1.—Separate-Flow Coannular Plug Nozzle Geometry and Mixing Noise Generation Regions.

Figure 2.—Noise Source and Microphone Location Geometry.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 50
 100
SPLexp Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L =
SPLL,EE 82.4, thet'S = 87.7, and thet'T = 87.5
95
SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
90

Free-Field 85
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 80
Level
at 9 ft,
SPL, dB 75

70

65

60
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

Directivity Angle = 90 deg

105
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L =
SPLexp 111.9, thet'S = 117.2, and thet'T = 117
100 SPLL,EE
SPLS,EE
95 SPLT,EE

Free-Field
90
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 85
Level
at 9 ft,
80
SPL, dB

75

70

65
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 120 deg

Figure 3.—Component Spectral Extraction Using Predicted Spectral Directivities and Experimental
Coefficients for Conical Nozzle with Vj/camb = 0.98 and Mf = 0.05 (Ref. 29).

NASA/TM—2009-215524 51
 110
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L =
SPLexp 127.6, thet'S = 132.4, and thet'T = 132.1
105 SPLL,EE
SPLS,EE
100 SPLT,EE

Free-Field
Lossless 95
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 9 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80

75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 135 deg

110
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L =
SPLexp 144.1, thet'S = 147.8, and thet'T = 147.5
105 SPLL,EE
SPLS,EE
100 SPLT,EE

Free-Field
95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 9 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80

75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 150 deg

Figure 3.—Concluded.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 52
 100
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L =
SPLL,EE 82.4, thet'S = 87.7, and thet'T = 87.5
95 SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
90 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
Free-Field SPLT,Pred
85
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 80
Level
at 9 ft,
SPL, dB 75

70
Noise Component Coefficients: CL =
137.5, CS = 135.1, and CT = 132.7
65

60
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 90 deg

105
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L =
SPLL,EE 111.9, thet'S = 117.2, and thet'T = 117
100 SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
95 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
Free-Field SPLT,Pred
90
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 85
Level
at 9 ft,
SPL, dB 80

75
Noise Component Coefficients: CL =
137.5, CS = 135.1, and CT = 132.7
70

65
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 120 deg

Figure 4.—Comparison of Extracted and Predicted Component Spectral and Using Experimental
Coefficients for Conical Nozzle with Vj/camb = 0.98 and Mf = 0.05 (Ref. 29).

NASA/TM—2009-215524 53
 110
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L =
SPLL,EE 127.6, thet'S = 132.4, and thet'T = 132.1
105 SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
100 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
Free-Field SPLT,Pred
95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 9 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80
Noise Component Coefficients: CL =
137.5, CS = 135.1, and CT = 132.7
75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 135 deg

110
SPLL,EE Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 144.1,
SPLS,EE thet'S = 147.8, and thet'T = 147.5
105
SPLT,EE
SPLL,Pred
100
SPLS,Pred
Free-Field SPLT,Pred
95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 9 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80
Noise Component Coefficients: CL = 137.5,
CS = 135.1, and CT = 132.7
75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 150 deg

Figure 4.—Concluded.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 54
 115
SPLexp Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 91.7,
SPLL,EE thet'S = 93.2, and thet'T = 97.8
110
SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
105

Free-Field
100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 16.33 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 95 deg

130
SPLexp Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L =
SPLL,EE 142, thet'S = 143.4, and thet'T = 145.2
125
SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
120

Free-Field
115
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 110
Level
at 16.33 ft,
SPL, dB 105

100

95

90
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 139 deg

Figure 5.—Component Spectral Extraction Using Predicted Spectral Directivities and Experimental
Coefficients for Conical Nozzle with Vj/camb = 1.74 and Mf = 0.0 (Ref. 30).

NASA/TM—2009-215524 55
 115
SPLL,EE Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L =
SPLS,EE 91.7, thet'S = 93.2, and thet'T = 97.8
110
SPLT,EE
SPLL,Pred
105 SPLS,Pred
SPLT,Pred
Free-Field
100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 16.33 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85
Noise Component Coefficients: CL =
146.8, CS = 135.6, and CT = 131.8
80

75
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 95 deg

130
SPLL,EE Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L =
SPLS,EE 142, thet'S = 143.4, and thet'T = 145.2
125
SPLT,EE
SPLL,Pred Noise Component
120 SPLS,Pred Coefficients: CL = 146.8, CS
= 135.6, and CT = 131.8
SPLT,Pred
Free-Field 115
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 110
Level
at 16.33 ft,
105
SPL, dB

100

95

90
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 139 deg

Figure 6.—Comparison of Extracted and Predicted Component Spectral and Using Experimental
Coefficients for Conical Nozzle with Vj/camb = 1.74 and Mf = 0.0 (Ref. 30).

NASA/TM—2009-215524 56
 95
SPLexp
90 SPLL,EE
SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
85
SPLsh,EE

Free-Field 80
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 75
Level
at 2400 ft,
SPL, dB 70

65
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 39.6,
thet'S = 42.1, thet'T = 42.5, and thetsh = 38.8
60

55
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 40 deg

100
SPLexp Note screech at f = 159 Hz
95 SPLL,EE
SPLS,EE
90 SPLT,EE
SPLsh,EE
Free-Field
85
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 80
Level
at 2400 ft, 75
SPL, dB

70
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 69.7,
thet'S = 73, thet'T = 74.1, and thetsh = 68.5
65

60
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 70 deg

Figure 7.—Component Spectral Extraction Using Predicted Spectral Directivities and Experimental
Coefficients for Conical Nozzle with Vj/camb = 2.11 and Mf = 0.0 (Ref. 31).

NASA/TM—2009-215524 57
 105
SPLexp Note possible screech at f = 159 -200 Hz
100 SPLL,EE
SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
95
SPLsh,EE

Free-Field 90
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 85
Level
at 2400 ft,
80
SPL, dB

75
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 100.2,
thet'S = 103.9, thet'T = 105.6, and thetsh = 98.3
70

65
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 100 deg

110
SPLexp
105 SPLL,EE
SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
100
SPLsh,EE
Free-Field
95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 2400 ft,
85
SPL, dB

80
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 122.6, thet'S =
125.7, thet'T = 127.3, and thetsh = 118.6
75

70
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 120 deg

Figure 7.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 58
 120
SPLexp
115 SPLL,EE
SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
110
SPLsh,EE

Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 2400 ft,
95
SPL, dB

90

85
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 145.1, thet'S =
147.5, thet'T = 149.1, and thetsh = 138.9
80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(e) Directivity Angle = 140 deg

110
SPLexp Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 168.3, thet'S
105 SPLL,EE = 170, thet'T = 171.1, and thetsh = 159.3
SPLS,EE
100 SPLT,EE
SPLsh,EE
95
Free-Field
Lossless 90
Sound
Pressure 85
Level
at 2400 ft, 80
SPL, dB
75

70

65

60
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(f) Directivity Angle = 160 deg

Figure 7.—Concluded.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 59
 95
SPLL,EE
SPLS,EE
90
SPLT,EE
SPLsh,EE
85 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
Free-Field 80 SPLT,Pred
Lossless
SPLSh,Pred
Sound
Pressure 75
Level
at 2400 ft,
70
SPL, dB Noise Component Coefficients: CL = 144,
CS = 139.5, CT = 135, and Csh = 158
65
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 39.6,
thet'S = 42.1, thet'T = 42.5, and thetsh = 38.8
60

55
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 40 deg

100
SPLL,EE Note screech (extracted levels meaningless) at f = 159
95 SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
SPLsh,EE
90
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
Free-Field
85 SPLT,Pred
Lossless
Sound SPLSh,Pred
Pressure 80
Level
at 2400 ft,
75
SPL, dB

70
Noise Component Coefficients: CL = 144,
CS = 139.5, CT = 135, and Csh = 158
65
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 69.7, thet'S
= 73, thet'T = 74.1, and thetsh = 68.5
60
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 70 deg

Figure 8.—Comparison of Extracted and Predicted Component Spectral and Using Experimental
Coefficients for Conical Nozzle with Vj/camb = 2.11 and Mf = 0.0 (Ref. 31).

NASA/TM—2009-215524 60
 105
SPLexp Note possible screech at f = 159 -200 Hz
100 SPLL,EE
SPLS,EE
SPLT,EE
95
SPLsh,EE

Free-Field 90
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 85
Level
at 2400 ft,
80
SPL, dB

75
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 100.2,
thet'S = 103.9, thet'T = 105.6, and thetsh = 98.3
70

65
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 100 deg

110
SPLL,EE Noise Component Coefficients: CL = 144,
SPLS,EE CS = 139.5, CT = 135, and Csh = 158
105
SPLT,EE
SPLsh,EE
100 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
Free-Field 95 SPLT,Pred
Lossless SPLSh,Pred
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 2400 ft,
85
SPL, dB

80
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 122.6, thet'S =
125.7, thet'T = 127.3, and thetsh = 118.6
75

70
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 120 deg

Figure 8.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 61
 120 SPLL,EE
Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 145.1, thet'S =
SPLS,EE
147.5, thet'T = 149.1, and thetsh = 138.9
115 SPLT,EE
SPLsh,EE Noise Component Coefficients: CL = 144,
CS = 139.5, CT = 135, and Csh = 158
110 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
Free-Field 105 SPLT,Pred
Lossless SPLSh,Pred
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 2400 ft,
95
SPL, dB

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(e) Directivity Angle = 140 deg

110 SPLL,EE
SPLS,EE
105 SPLT,EE
SPLsh,EE
100 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
95
SPLT,Pred
Free-Field
SPLSh,Pred
Lossless 90
Sound
Pressure 85
Level
at 2400 ft, 80
SPL, dB
75 Noise Component Coefficients: CL = 144,
CS = 139.5, CT = 135, and Csh = 158
70

65 Effective Directivity Angles: thet'L = 168.3, thet'S

= 170, thet'T = 171.1, and thetsh = 159.3
60
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(f) Directivity Angle = 160 deg

Figure 8.—Concluded.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 62
 190
Task 9 Correlation:
UOLM = 141 + 90 log (Ve,M/camb) for log (Ve,M/camb) < 0.1143
180 UOLM = 145 + 55 log (Ve,M/camb) for log (Ve,M/camb) > 0.1143
AIAA-81: OASPL = 141 + 75 log (Ve,,j/camb)
7.5 4.5
170 ANOP-76: OASPL = 141 + 10 log[(Ve,j/camb) /{1+0.01(Ve,j/camb) }]
8 5
Current Trial: UOLL = 140 + 10 log[(Ve,L/camb) /{1+0.02(Ve,L/camb) }]
160

Normalized
Overall 150
Noise
Level, 140 Task 9
UOLL, dB
2DME
130 ANOP-76
AIAA-81
120 Trial
Trial + 3.0
110
Trial - 3.0

100
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Logarithmic Velocity Parameter, log (Ve,L/camb)

Figure 9.—Comparison of Unsuppressed Merged or Large Scale Mixing Noise Level and Overall Sound
Pressure Level Correlations.

170 Configuration, Mf
Configuration: Correlation
165
I/E/C - Internal (or No) Plug, External Corr. + 3.0
160 Plug, Coplanar Plugless; Corr. - 3.0
Number - Approximate Nominal BPR; C1BL, 0.00
155
BL - Baseline. I1BL, 0.00
150 C2BL, 0.00
C3BL, 0.00
145 E4BL, 0.00
Normalized I5BL, 0.10
140
Overall I5BL, 0.20
Noise 135 E5BL, 0.00
Level, E5BL*, 0.10
130 E5BL*, 0.20
UOLL, dB
E5BL, 0.20
125
E5BL, 0.28
120 I8BL*, 0.10
I8BL*, 0.20
115 E8BL, 0.00
E8BL*, 0.10
110
E8BL*, 0.20
105 E8BL, 0.20
E8BL, 0.28
100 I11BL, 0.10
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 E13BL, 0.00
E13BL, 0.20
Logarithmic Velocity Parameter, log (Ve,L/camb) E13BL, 0.28
I14BL, 0.10
(a) Unsuppressed Coannular Nozzles
Figure 10.—Comparison of Experimental/Extracted Large Scale Mixing Noise with Correlation for
Unsuppressed Configurations.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 63
 170 Configuration, Mf
165
Correlation
160
Corr. + 3.0
155 Corr. - 3.0
150 Le Con, 0.00
145 GE Con, 0.00
Normalized
Overall 140 Lk Con, ~0.02
Noise 135 Lk CD, ~0.05
Level,
130 Le Ann., 0.00
UOLM, dB
125
120
115
110
105
100
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Logarithmic Velocity Parameter, log (Ve,M/camb)

(b) Single Stream Unsuppressed Nozzles

Figure 10.—Concluded.

170
Configuration, M f
Configuration:
Normalized Overall Noise Level Corrected for Perimeter,

165 I/E/C - Internal (or No) Plug, External Plug,

Correlation
Coplanar Plugless;
160 Number - Approximate Nominal BPR; Corr. + 3.0
BL/CP/CC/CF/OC - Baseline. Core Petals Corr. - 3.0
UOL L - 45 [log (PRIPR O )]/(1+BPR), dB

155
(8), Core Chevrons (12), Core & Fan E5BL, 0.00
150 Chevrons (12 & 24), Outer (IVP) Chutes (20)
E5BL*, 0.10
E5BL*, 0.20
145
E5BL, 0.20
140 E5BL, 0.28
I5CP*, 0.10
135
I5CP*, 0.20
130 E5CC, 0.0
E5CC, 0.20
125
E5CC, 0.28
120 E5CF, 0.0
E5CF, 0.20
115
E5CF, 0.28
110 E4OC, 0.0

105
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Logarithmic Velocity Parameter, log (Ve,L /c amb )

Figure 11.—Comparison of Experimental/Extracted Large Scale Mixing Noise with Correlation for Unsuppressed
and Suppressed BPR ≅ 5 Configurations.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 64
 140 Pred
Pred + 3.5
139 Pred - 3.5
C1BL, 0.00
138 I1BL, 0.00
137 C2BL, 0.00
C3BL, 0.00
136 E4BL, 0.00
I5BL*, 0.10
Small 135 I5BL*, 0.20
Scale 134 E5BL, 0.00
E5BL*, 0.10
Turbulent
E5BL*, 0.20
Mixing 133
E5BL, 0.20
Noise E5BL, 0.28
132
Coefficient, I8BL*, 0.10
CS, dB 131 I8BL*, 0.20
E8BL, 0.00
130 E8BL*, 0.10
129 E8BL*, 0.20
E8BL, 0.20
128 E8BL, 0.28
I11BL*, 0.10
127 E13BL, 0.00
E13BL, 0.20
126 E13BL, 0.28
0.1 1.0 10.0 I14BL*, 0.00
Le Con, 0.00
Velocity Ratio, VO/VI
Lk Con, 0.04
GE Con, 0.00
(a) Unsuppressed Single-Stream and Dual-Stream Nozzles Ann., 0.00

140
Pred
139
Pred + 3.5
138 Pred - 3.5
Small 137 E5BL, 0.00
Scale 136 E5BL*, 0.10
Turbulent
Mixing 135 E5BL*, 0.20
Noise E5BL, 0.20
134
Coefficient E5BL, 0.28
Corrected 133
for I5CP*, 0.10
Perimeter 132 I5CP*, 0.20
Ratio, 131
E5CC, 0.0
CS - 3.37
log (PRIPRO),130 E5CC, 0.20
dB 129 E5CC, 0.28

128 E5CF, 0.0

E5CF, 0.20
127
E5CF, 0.28
126
0.1 1.0 10.0
Velocity Ratio, VO/VI

(b) Suppressed and Unsuppressed (BPR ~ 5) Dual-Stream Nozzles

Figure 12.—Correlation of Small Scale Mixing Noise Level.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 65
 140 Correlation
Corr. + 5.0
Corr. - 5.0
138
C1BL, 0.00
I1BL, 0.00
136 C2BL, 0.00
C3BL, 0.00
134 E4BL, 0.00
I5BL*, 0.10
Transition I5BL*, 0.20
132 E5BL, 0.0
Region
Mixing E5BL*, 0.10
130 E5BL*, 0.20
Noise
E5BL, 0.20
Coefficient, E5BL, 0.28
CT, dB 128 I8BL*, 0.10
I8BL*, 0.20
126 E8BL, 0.00
E8BL*, 0.10
124 E8BL*, 0.20
E8BL, 0.20
E8BL, 0.28
122 I11BL*, 0.10
E13BL, 0.00
120 E13BL, 0.20
E13BL, 0.28
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
I14BL*, 0.00
Product of Velocity Ratio and Fully-Expanded Area Ratio, (VO/VI)(AO/AI) LeCon, 0.00
LkCon, ~0.02
GECon, 0.00
(a) Unsuppressed Single-Stream and Dual-Stream Nozzles Ann., 0.00

142 Correlation
Corr. + 5.0
140
Corr. - 5.0
138 E5BL, 0.0
Transition
Region 136 E5BL*, 0.10
Mixing E5BL*, 0.20
Noise 134 E5BL, 0.20
Coefficient
E5BL, 0.28
Corrected 132
for I5CP*, 0.10
130
Perimeter I5CP*, 0.20
Ratio, 128 E5CC, 0.0
CT + 45 [log
E5CC, 0.20
(PRI PRO)]/ 126
E5CC, 0.28
(1+BPR), dB
124 E5CF, 0.0
E5CF, 0.20
122
E5CF, 0.28
120
0.1 1.0 10.0
Product of Velocity Ratio and Fully-Expanded Area Ratio, (V O /VI)(A O /A I)

(b) Suppressed and Unsuppressed (BPR ~ 5) Dual-Stream Nozzles

Figure 13.—Correlation of Transitional/Intermediate Scale Mixing Noise Level.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 66
 155
E5BL, 0.0
E5BL*, 0.10
150 E5BL*, 0.20
E5BL, 0.20
E5BL, 0.28
E8BL, 0.00
145
E8BL*, 0.10
Normalized E8BL, 0.20
Overall
E8BL*, 0.20
Noise 140
Level, E8BL, 0.28
UOLP, dB E13BL, 0.00
E13BL, 0.20
135 E13BL, 0.28
Correlation
Corr + 6.0
130 Corr - 6.0

125
-0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Logarithmic Velocity Parameter, log (Ve,P/cO)

(a) Unsuppressed Nozzles in GRC and LaRC Facilities

155
E5BL, 0.0
E5BL, 0.20
150 E5BL, 0.28
E5CC, 0.0
E5CC, 0.20
145 E5CC, 0.28
Normalized E5CF, 0.0
Overall
E5CF, 0.20
Noise 140
Level, E5CF, 0.28
UOLP, dB Correlation

135 Corr + 6.0

Corr - 6.0

130

125
-0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Logarithmic Velocity Parameter, log (Ve,P/cO)

(b) Suppressed and Unsuppressed (BPR ~ 5) Nozzles in GRC Facility

Figure 14.—Correlation of Plug Separation Noise Levels.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 67
 130
OASPLexp Note that shear layer correction relation for
OASPLpred merged breaks down for θ < 60 deg
125 OASPLL,pred (causes kink in predicted meged noise)
OASPLS,pred
OASPLT,pred
120
OASPLP,pred

Lossless 115
Free-Field
Overall
Sound
110
Pressure
Level
at 11.5 ft,
105
OASPL, dB

100

95

90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Directivity Angle, θ, deg
Figure 15.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Directivities for LaRC External Plug Nozzle with
BPR ≅ 5 at Vmix/camb = 0.989 and Mf = 0.10.

110
Note apparent contamination for f < 1585 Hz SPLexp
SPLpred
105
SPLL,pred
SPLS,pred
100 SPLT,pred
SPLP,pred
Free-Field 95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80

75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 48 deg

Figure 16.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Spectra for LaRC External Plug Nozzle with BPR ≅ 5
at Vmix/camb = 0.989 and Mf = 0.10.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 68
 110
SPLexp
SPLpred
105
SPLL,pred
SPLS,pred
100 SPLT,pred
SPLP,pred

Free-Field 95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80

75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 72 deg

110
SPLexp
SPLpred
105 SPLL,pred
SPLS,pred
100 SPLT,pred
SPLP,pred

Free-Field 95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80

75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 92 deg

Figure 16.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 69
 115
SPLexp
SPLpred
110
SPLL,pred
SPLS,pred
105 SPLT,pred
SPLP,pred

Free-Field 100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 117 deg

115
SPLexp
SPLpred
110
SPLL,pred
SPLS,pred
105 SPLT,pred
SPLP,pred

Free-Field 100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(e) Directivity Angle = 130 deg

Figure 16.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 70
 117
SPLexp
SPLpred
112
SPLL,pred
SPLS,pred
107
SPLT,pred
SPLP,pred
102
Free-Field
Lossless
97
Sound
Pressure
Level 92
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB
87

82

77

72
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(f) Directivity Angle = 151 deg

120
SPLexp
SPLpred
115
SPLL,pred
SPLS,pred
110 SPLT,pred
SPLP,pred

Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 11.5 ft,
95
SPL, dB

90

85

80
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(g) Directivity Angle = 157 deg

Figure 16.—Concluded.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 71
 110
OASPLexp Note that shear layer correction relation for
OASPLpred merged breaks down for θ < 60 deg
105 (causes kink in predicted meged noise)
OASPLL,pred
OASPLS,pred
100 OASPLT,pred

Lossless
95
Free-Field
Overall
Sound
90
Pressure
Level
at 11.5 ft,
85
OASPL, dB

80

75

70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Directivity Angle, θ, deg
Figure 17.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Directivities for LaRC Internal Plug Nozzle with BPR ≅ 11 at
Vmix/camb = 0.591 and Mf = 0.10.

95
Note apparent contamination for SPLexp
f < 1259 and > 31,600 Hz SPLpred
90 SPLL,pred
SPLS,pred
85 SPLT,pred

Free-Field 80
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 75
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 70

65

60

55
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 67 deg

Figure 18.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Spectra for LaRC Internal Plug Nozzle with BPR ≅ 11
at Vmix/camb = 0.591 and Mf = 0.10.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 72
 95
SPLexp
SPLpred
90
SPLL,pred
SPLS,pred
85 SPLT,pred

Free-Field 80
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 75
Level
at 11.5 ft,
70
SPL, dB

65

60

55
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 92 deg

100
SPLexp
SPLpred
95
SPLL,pred
SPLS,pred
90 SPLT,pred

Free-Field 85
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 80
Level
at 11.5 ft,
75
SPL, dB

70

65

60
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 130 deg

Figure 18.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 73
 100
SPLexp
SPLpred
95
SPLL,pred
SPLS,pred
90 SPLT,pred

Free-Field 85
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 80
Level
at 11.5 ft,
75
SPL, dB

70

65

60
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 151 deg

Figure 18.—Concluded.

125
OASPL,exp Note that shear layer correction relation for
OASPLPred merged breaks down for θ < 60 deg
120 OASPLL,Pred (causes kink in predicted meged noise)
OASPLS,Pred
OASPLT,Pred
115
OASPLP,Pred

Lossless 110
Free-Field
Overall
Sound
105
Pressure
Level
at 11.5 ft,
100
OASPL, dB

95

90

85
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Directivity Angle, θ, deg
Figure 19.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Directivities for LaRC External Plug Nozzle with
BPR ≅ 5 at Vmix/camb = 0.971 and Mf = 0.201.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 74
 110
SPLexp
Note apparent contamination for f < 631 Hz
SPLPred
105
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
100 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80

75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz
(a) Directivity Angle = 51 deg

110
SPLexp
SPLPred
105
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
100 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80

75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 71 deg

Figure 20.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Spectra for LaRC External Plug Nozzle with BPR ≅ 5
at Vmix/camb = 0.971 and Mf = 0.201.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 75
 110
SPLexp
SPLPred
105
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
100 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80

75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 90 deg

115
SPLexp
110 SPLPred
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
105 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 117 deg

Figure 20.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 76
 115
SPLexp
SPLPred
110 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
105 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(e) Directivity Angle = 131 deg

115
SPLexp
SPLPred
110 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
SPLT,Pred
105
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(f) Directivity Angle = 151 deg

Figure 20.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 77
 120
SPLexp
115 SPLPred
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110
SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
105
Free-Field
Lossless
Sound 100
Pressure
Level 95
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB
90

85

80

75
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(g) Directivity Angle = 161 deg

Figure 20.—Concluded.

125

OASPLexp
120 OASPLPred
OASPLL,Pred
OASPLS,Pred
115 OASPLT,Pred
OASPLP,Pred
Lossless
110
Free-Field
Overall
Sound
105
Pressure
Level
at 40 ft,
100
OASPL, dB

95

90

85
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Directivity Angle, θ, deg

Figure 21.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Directivities for GE/GRC External Plug Nozzle with
BPR ≅ 13 at Vmix/camb = 0.766 and Mf = 0.00.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 78
 110
SPLexp
SPLPred
105
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
100 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80

75

70
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 60 deg

110
SPLexp
SPLPred
105 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
SPLT,Pred
100 SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80

75

70
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 90 deg

Figure 22.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Spectra for GE/GRC External Plug Nozzle with
BPR ≅ 13 at Vmix/camb = 0.766 and Mf = 0.00.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 79
 115
SPLexp
SPLPred
110 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
105 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 120 deg

115
SPLexp
SPLPred
110 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
105 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field
100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 135 deg

Figure 22.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 80
 115
SPLexp
SPLPred
110
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
105 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field
100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(e) Directivity Angle = 150 deg

115
SPLexp
SPLPred
110
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
105 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(f) Directivity Angle = 160 deg

Figure 22.—Concluded.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 81
 135
OASPLexp
OASPLPred
130 OASPLL,Pred
OASPLS,Pred
OASPLT,Pred
125
OASPLP,Pred

Lossless 120
Free-Field
Overall
Sound
115
Pressure
Level
at 40 ft,
110
OASPL, dB

105

100

95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Directivity Angle, θ, deg

Figure 23.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Directivities for GE/GRC External Plug Nozzle with
BPR ≅ 5 at Vmix/camb = 1.047 and Mf = 0.20.

115
SPLexp
SPLPred
110
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
105 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 55 deg

Figure 24.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Spectra for GE/GRC External Plug Nozzle with
BPR ≅ 5 at Vmix/camb = 1.047 and Mf = 0.20.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 82
 115
SPLexp
SPLPred
110 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
105 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 70 deg

120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 90 deg

Figure 24.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 83
 120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
SPLT,Pred
110
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 115 deg

125
SPLexp
SPLPred
120 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
115 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 110
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 105
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 100

95

90

85
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(e) Directivity Angle = 130 deg

Figure 24.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 84
 125
SPLexp
SPLPred
120
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
115 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 110
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 105
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 100

95

90

85
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(f) Directivity Angle = 150 deg

130
SPLexp
SPLPred
125
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
120
SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
115
Free-Field
Lossless
110
Sound
Pressure
Level 105
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB
100

95

90

85
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(g) Directivity Angle = 165 deg

Figure 24.—Concluded.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 85
 95
SPLT,exp
90 SPLPred
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
85 SPLT,Pred

Free-Field
80
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 75
Level
at 9 ft,
SPL, dB 70

65

60

55
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 90 deg

95
SPLT,exp
90 SPLPred
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
85 SPLT,Pred

Free-Field
80
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 75
Level
at 9 ft,
SPL, dB 70

65

60

55
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 120 deg

Figure 25.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Spectra for Lockheed Georgia Conical Nozzle at
Vj/camb = 0.740 and Mf = 0.036 (Pseudo-static).

NASA/TM—2009-215524 86
 100
SPLT,exp
95 SPLPred
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
90 SPLT,Pred

Free-Field
85
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 80
Level
at 9 ft,
SPL, dB 75

70

65

60
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 135 deg

100

SPLT,exp
95 SPLPred
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
90
SPLT,Pred
Free-Field
85
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 80
Level
at 9 ft,
SPL, dB 75

70

65

60
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 150 deg

Figure 25.—Concluded.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 87
 125
OASPLexp
120 OASPLPred
OASPLL,Pred
OASPLS,Pred
115 OASPLT,Pred
OASPLI,sh,Pred
Lossless
110
Free-Field
Overall
Sound
105
Pressure
Level
at 40 ft,
100
OASPL, dB

95

90

85
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Directivity Angle, θ, deg

Figure 26.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Directivities for GE Conical Nozzle at Vj/camb = 2.11
and Mf = 0.00.
100
SPLexp
SPLPred
95
SPLS,Pred
SPLL,Pred
90 SPLT,Pred
SPLI,sh,Pred
Free-Field 85
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 80
Level
at 2400 ft,
SPL, dB 75

70

65

60
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 40 deg

Figure 27.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Spectra for GE Conical Nozzle at Vj/camb = 2.11
and Mf = 0.00.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 88
 100
SPLexp Note screech at f = 159 Hz
95 SPLPred
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
90
SPLT,Pred
SPLI,sh,Pred
Free-Field 85
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 80
Level
at 2400 ft,
SPL, dB 75

70

65

60
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 70 deg

100
SPLexp Note screech at f = 125-159 Hz
SPLPred
95
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
90 SPLT,Pred
SPLI,sh,Pred
Free-Field 85
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 80
Level
at 2400 ft,
SPL, dB 75

70

65

60
10 100 1000 10000

1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 90 deg

Figure 27.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 89
 110
SPLexp
105 SPLPred
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
100
SPLT,Pred
SPLI,sh,Pred
Free-Field 95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 2400 ft,
SPL, dB 85

80

75

70
10 100 1000 10000

1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 120 deg

120
SPLexp
115 SPLPred
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110
SPLT,Pred
SPLI,sh,Pred
Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 2400 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(e) Directivity Angle = 140 deg

Figure 27.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 90
 115
SPLexp
110 SPLPred
SPLL,Pred
105 SPLS,Pred
SPLT,Pred
100 SPLI,sh,Pred

Free-Field
Lossless 95
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 2400 ft, 85
SPL, dB
80

75

70

65
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(f) Directivity Angle = 160 deg

Figure 27.—Concluded.

125
OASPL,exp Note that shear layer correction relation for
OASPLPred merged breaks down for θ < 60 deg
120 (causes kink in predicted meged noise)
OASPLL,Pred
OASPLS,Pred
115 OASPLT,Pred

Lossless
110
Free-Field
Overall
Sound
105
Pressure
Level
at 11.5 ft,
100
OASPL, dB

95

90

85
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Directivity Angle, θ, deg

Figure 28.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Directivities for LaRC BPR ≅ 5 Internal Plug Nozzle
with Core Petals at Vmix/camb = 0.954 and Mf = 0.201.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 91
 105
Note that this is the lowest angle where merged source SPLexp
location can be applied to modify shear layer correction, SPLPred
100
and possible contamination for f < 794 and > 39810 Hz SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
95 SPLT,Pred

Free-Field 90
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 85
Level
at 11.5 ft,
SPL, dB 80

75

70

65
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 62 deg

105
SPLexp
SPLPred
100
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
95 SPLT,Pred

Free-Field 90
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 85
Level
at 11.5 ft,
80
SPL, dB

75

70

65
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 90 deg

Figure 29.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Spectra for LaRC BPR ≅ 5 Internal Plug Nozzle
with Core Petals at Vmix/camb = 0.954 and Mf = 0.201.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 92
 105
SPLexp
SPLPred
100
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
95 SPLT,Pred

Free-Field 90
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 85
Level
at 11.5 ft,
80
SPL, dB

75

70

65
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 111 deg

110
SPLexp
SPLPred
105
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
100 SPLT,Pred

Free-Field 95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 11.5 ft,
85
SPL, dB

80

75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 125 deg

Figure 29.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 93
 110
SPLexp
SPLPred
105
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
100 SPLT,Pred

Free-Field 95
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 90
Level
at 11.5 ft,
85
SPL, dB

80

75

70
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(e) Directivity Angle = 141 deg

115
SPLexp
SPLPred
110
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
105 SPLT,Pred

Free-Field 100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 11.5 ft,
90
SPL, dB

85

80

75
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(f) Directivity Angle = 151 deg

Figure 29.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 94
 120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110 SPLT,Pred

Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 11.5 ft,
95
SPL, dB

90

85

80
100 1000 10000 100000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(g) Directivity Angle = 161 deg

Figure 29.—Concluded.

135
OASPLexp
OASPLPred
130
OASPLL,Pred
OASPLS,Pred
125 OASPLT,Pred
OASPLP,Pred

Lossless
120
Free-Field
Overall
Sound
115
Pressure
Level
at 40 ft,
110
OASPL, dB

105

100

95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Directivity Angle, θ, deg

Figure 30.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Directivities for GE/GRC BPR ≅ 5 External Plug
Nozzle with Core Chevrons; Vmix/camb = 1.047 and Mf = 0.00.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 95
 120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 60 deg

125
SPLexp
SPLPred
120
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
115 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 110
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 105
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 100

95

90

85
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 90 deg

Figure 31.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Spectra for GE/GRC BPR ≅ 5 External Plug Nozzle
with Core Chevrons at Vmix/camb = 1.047 and Mf = 0.00.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 96
 125
SPLexp
SPLPred
120
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
115 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 110
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 105
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 100

95

90

85
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 120 deg

130
SPLexp
SPLPred
125
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
120 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 115
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 110
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 105

100

95

90
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 135 deg

Figure 31.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 97
 130
SPLexp
SPLPred
125
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
120 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 115
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 110
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 105

100

95

90
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(e) Directivity Angle = 150 deg

130
SPLexp
SPLPred
125
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
120 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
115
Free-Field
Lossless
Sound 110
Pressure
Level 105
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB
100

95

90

85
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(f) Directivity Angle = 160 deg

Figure 31.—Concluded.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 98
 130
OASPLexp
OASPLPred
125
OASPLL,Pred
OASPLS,Pred
120 OASPLT,Pred
OASPLP,Pred

Lossless
115
Free-Field
Overall
Sound
110
Pressure
Level
at 40 ft,
105
OASPL, dB

100

95

90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Directivity Angle, θ, deg

Figure 32.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Directivities for GE/GRC BPR ≅ 5 External
Plug Nozzle with Core Chevrons; Vmix/camb = 1.049 and Mf = 0.28.

115
SPLexp
SPLPred
110
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
105 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 100
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 95
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 90

85

80

75
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 60 deg

Figure 33.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Spectra for GE/GRC BPR ≅ 5 External Plug Nozzle
with Core Chevrons at Vmix/camb = 1.049 and Mf = 0.28.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 99
 120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 90 deg

120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 120 deg

Figure 33.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 100
 120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115 SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 135 deg

120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(e) Directivity Angle = 150 deg

Figure 33.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 101
 125

SPLexp
120
SPLPred
SPLL,Pred
115
SPLS,Pred
SPLT,Pred
110 SPLP,Pred
Free-Field
Lossless
Sound 105
Pressure
Level 100
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB
95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(f) Directivity Angle = 165 deg

Figure 33.—Concluded.

135
OASPLexp
130 OASPLPred
OASPLL,Pred
OASPLS,Pred
125 OASPLT,Pred
OASPLP,Pred
Lossless
120
Free-Field
Overall
Sound
Pressure
115
Level
at 40 ft,
OASPL, dB 110

105

100

95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Directivity Angle, θ, deg

Figure 34.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Directivities for GE/GRC BPR ≅ 5 External Plug Nozzle
with Core and Fan Chevrons at Vmix/camb = 1.087 and Mf = 0.28.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 102
 120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(a) Directivity Angle = 60 deg

120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(b) Directivity Angle = 90 deg

Figure 35.—Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Spectra for GE/GRC BPR ≅ 5 External
Plug Nozzle with Core and Fan Chevrons at Vmix/camb = 1.087 and Mf = 0.28.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 103
 120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(c) Directivity Angle = 120 deg

120
SPLexp
SPLPred
115
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
110 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 105
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 100
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 95

90

85

80
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(d) Directivity Angle = 135 deg

Figure 35.—Continued.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 104
 125
SPLexp
SPLPred
120
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
115 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred
Free-Field 110
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 105
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 100

95

90

85
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(e) Directivity Angle = 150 deg

125
SPLexp
SPLPred
120
SPLL,Pred
SPLS,Pred
115 SPLT,Pred
SPLP,Pred

Free-Field 110
Lossless
Sound
Pressure 105
Level
at 40 ft,
SPL, dB 100

95

90

85
10 100 1000 10000
1/3-Octave-Band Center Frequency, f, Hz

(f) Directivity Angle = 165 deg

Figure 35.—Concluded.

NASA/TM—2009-215524 105
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.
Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB
control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
01-03-2009 Technical Memorandum
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Jet Noise Modeling for Suppressed and Unsuppressed Aircraft in Simulated Flight NAS3-00178
5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Stone, James, R.; Krejsa, Eugene, A.; Clark, Bruce, J.; Berton, Jeffrey, J.
5e. TASK NUMBER
10
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
WBS 984754.[Link].02
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NUMBER
John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field E-16805
Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ACRONYM(S)
Washington, DC 20546-0001 NASA
11. SPONSORING/MONITORING
REPORT NUMBER
NASA/TM-2009-215524
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject Category: 07
Available electronically at [Link]
This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 301-621-0390

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT
This document describes the development of further extensions and improvements to the jet noise model developed by Modern
Technologies Corporation (MTC) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The noise component extraction and
correlation approach, first used successfully by MTC in developing a noise prediction model for two-dimensional mixer ejector (2DME)
nozzles under the High Speed Research (HSR) Program, has been applied to dual-stream nozzles, then extended and improved in earlier
tasks under this contract. Under Task 6, the coannular jet noise model was formulated and calibrated with limited scale model data, mainly
at high bypass ratio, including a limited-range prediction of the effects of mixing-enhancement nozzle-exit chevrons on jet noise. Under
Task 9 this model was extended to a wider range of conditions, particularly those appropriate for a Supersonic Business Jet, with an
improvement in simulated flight effects modeling and generalization of the suppressor model. In the present task further comparisons are
made over a still wider range of conditions from more test facilities. The model is also further generalized to cover single-stream nozzles of
otherwise similar configuration. So the evolution of this prediction/analysis/correlation approach has been in a sense backward, from the
complex to the simple; but from this approach a very robust capability is emerging. Also from these studies, some observations emerge
relative to theoretical considerations. The purpose of this task is to develop an analytical, semi-empirical jet noise prediction method
applicable to takeoff, sideline and approach noise of subsonic and supersonic cruise aircraft over a wide size range. The product of this task
is an even more consistent and robust model for the Footprint/Radius (FOOTPR) code than even the Task 9 model. The model is validated
for a wider range of cases and statistically quantified for the various reference facilities. The possible role of facility effects will thus be
documented. Although the comparisons that can be accomplished within the limited resources of this task are not comprehensive, they
provide a broad enough sampling to enable NASA to make an informed decision on how much further effort should be expended on such
comparisons. The improved finalized model is incorporated into the FOOTPR code. MTC has also supported the adaptation of this code for
incorporation in NASA’s Aircraft Noise Prediction Program (ANOPP).
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Jet aircraft noise; Noise prediction; Noise reduction; Aeroacoustics

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF STI Help Desk (email:help@[Link])
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGES 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)
U U PAGE UU 113 301-621-0390
U
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18