NASA/TM—2013-216073

Effect of Two Advanced Noise Reduction

Technologies on the Aerodynamic Performance
of an Ultra High Bypass Ratio Fan

Christopher E. Hughes
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

John A. Gazzaniga
ASRC Aerospace Corporation

November 2013
 NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected
advancement of aeronautics and space science. The papers from scientific and technical
NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) conferences, symposia, seminars, or other
program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.
this important role.
• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,
The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices technical, or historical information from
of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, NASA programs, projects, and missions, often
organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates concerned with subjects having substantial
NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access public interest.
to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and
its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English-
Server, thus providing one of the largest collections language translations of foreign scientific and
of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.
Results are published in both non-NASA channels
and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which Specialized services also include creating custom
includes the following report types: thesauri, building customized databases, organizing
and publishing research results.
• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of
completed research or a major significant phase For more information about the NASA STI
of research that present the results of NASA program, see the following:
programs and include extensive data or theoretical
analysis. Includes compilations of significant • Access the NASA STI program home page at
scientific and technical data and information http://www.sti.nasa.gov
deemed to be of continuing reference value.
NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal • E-mail your question to [email protected]
professional papers but has less stringent
limitations on manuscript length and extent of • Fax your question to the NASA STI
graphic presentations. Information Desk at 443–757–5803

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific • Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at

and technical findings that are preliminary or 443–757–5802
of specialized interest, e.g., quick release
reports, working papers, and bibliographies that • Write to:
contain minimal annotation. Does not contain STI Information Desk
extensive analysis. NASA Center for AeroSpace Information
7115 Standard Drive
• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and Hanover, MD 21076–1320
technical findings by NASA-sponsored
contractors and grantees.
NASA/TM—2013-216073

Effect of Two Advanced Noise Reduction

Technologies on the Aerodynamic Performance
of an Ultra High Bypass Ratio Fan

Christopher E. Hughes
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

John A. Gazzaniga
ASRC Aerospace Corporation

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

November 2013
 Acknowledgments

This work was performed under the support of the NASA Subsonic Fixed Wing Project in the Fundamental Aeronautics
Program. The results obtained in the research described in this paper directly addresses Subsonic Fixed Wing Project
goals to reduce Generation N+1 aircraft noise, fuel burn and NOx environmental emissions. The authors would like
to acknowledge the dedicated efforts of the Test Engineers in the Wind Tunnel and Propulsion Test Branch and the
support crew at the 9- by 15-Foot Low-Speed Wind Tunnel at the NASA Glenn Research Center.

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 5301 Shawnee Road
Hanover, MD 21076–1320 Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

 Effect of Two Advanced Noise Reduction Technologies
on the Aerodynamic Performance of an
Ultra High Bypass Ratio Fan
Christopher E. Hughes
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

John A. Gazzaniga
ASRC Aerospace Corporation
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Abstract
A wind tunnel experiment was conducted in the NASA Glenn Research Center anechoic 9- by 15-Foot Low-
Speed Wind Tunnel to investigate two new advanced noise reduction technologies in support of the NASA
Fundamental Aeronautics Program Subsonic Fixed Wing Project. The goal of the experiment was to demonstrate the
noise reduction potential and effect on fan model performance of the two noise reduction technologies in a scale
model Ultra High Bypass turbofan at simulated takeoff and approach aircraft flight speeds. The two novel noise
reduction technologies are called Over-the-Rotor acoustic treatment and Soft Vanes. Both technologies were aimed
at modifying the local noise source mechanisms of the fan tip vortex/fan case interaction and the rotor wake-stator
interaction. For the Over-the-Rotor acoustic treatment, two noise reduction configurations were investigated. The
results showed that the two noise reduction technologies, Over-the-Rotor and Soft Vanes, were able to reduce the
noise level of the fan model, but the Over-the-Rotor configurations had a significant negative impact on the fan
aerodynamic performance; the loss in fan aerodynamic efficiency was between 2.75% to 8.75%, depending on
configuration, compared to the conventional solid baseline fan case rubstrip also tested. Performance results with the
Soft Vanes showed that there was no measurable change in the corrected fan thrust and a 1.8% loss in corrected
stator vane thrust, which resulted in a total net thrust loss of approximately 0.5% compared with the baseline
reference stator vane set.

I. Introduction
The NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Program Subsonic Fixed Wing Project (SFW) has set an aggressive noise
reduction goal for the next generation (N+1) subsonic commercial aircraft of 32 dB cumulative below the current
Stage 4 noise regulation. To meet this goal, a high fidelity wind tunnel experiment was conducted as part of the
SFW Project to investigate and determine the noise reduction potential of two advanced noise reduction
technologies for the Ultra High Bypass (UHB) engine cycle. These two technologies, Over-the-Rotor (OTR) metal
foam acoustic liner treatment and acoustically treated Soft Vanes (SV), were tested using the NASA Glenn Research
Center turbofan acoustic test bed propulsion simulator in the Glenn anechoic 9- x 15-Foot Low Speed Wind Tunnel
(9’x15’) at velocities simulating aircraft takeoff and landing speeds.
The objective of these technologies was to reduce the noise generated by the fan tip vortex/fan case interaction
and the rotor wake/stator interaction. They were designed to modify the local unsteady pressure response to the
flow and reduce the noise by redirecting and absorbing the acoustic energy. Acoustic results show that the OTR
acoustic treatment configurations had a minimal impact on the fan model noise, while the SV configuration did
produce significant noise reduction benefits. The acoustic results from this experiment are more fully described by
Elliot and Woodward (Ref. 1). The effect of these technologies on the fan and stator aerodynamic performance was
considered in the design process in an effort to minimize their impact. This paper presents the results obtained to
measure their effect on the UHB model fan and stator aerodynamic performance.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 1
 II. Research Hardware
The experiment used fan model hardware developed for the NASA/Pratt & Whitney Advanced Ducted
Propulsor (Ref. 2) and the NASA Fan Trailing Edge Blowing (Ref. 3) experiments, both being 18-bladed, 1.3 fan
pressure ratio UHB fan models, and both previously tested at NASA Glenn. Whenever possible, as much legacy
model hardware was used and as much of the original internal flowpath in the model was maintained. Fig. 1 shows
photos of the fan model hardware installed on the Glenn drive rig in the 9x15 wind tunnel and a close-up of the fan
disk. Fig. 2 is an illustration of the fan model showing the re-used hardware in silver and the new hardware pieces
in color (except for the fan and spinner, which were existing hardware but colored for contrast).
The two noise reduction technologies investigated were designed to reduce the noise by manipulating the noise
source mechanisms, the unsteady pressures generated when the local flow interacts with the physical model
hardware. In Fig. 2 the locations of the two technologies in the fan model are shown. One of the noise reduction
technologies, called Over-the-Rotor (OTR) treatment, was designed to address the noise generating mechanisms at
the fan tip. The intent was to modify the interaction between the fan tip flow and the fan case. This was
accomplished by incorporating a 1.5 inch thick layer of high porosity (80 to 100 pores per inch), low density (6% to
8%, or 92% to 94% open area), metallic foam (described in Refs. 4 and 5) into the fan case above the fan tip. The
metallic foam resembled a sponge material with a very large number of very small cavities. A portion of the sound
pressure fluctuations would propagate into the foam instead of propagating into the free field, and would then be
trapped or absorbed in the foam material.
Two different OTR design configurations were tested. The design rationale of the acoustically-treated rubstrips
is described by Jones, et al. (Ref. 4). Sutliff, et al. (Ref. 5) has documented the noise reduction potential of this
metal foam liner in experiments in the NASA Glenn Aeroacoustics Propulsion Laboratory (AAPL) using the
Advanced Noise Control Fan, a very low pressure ratio device, as well as with a metal foam backed perforated
rubstrip in a high speed turbofan application using a Williams International engine (Ref. 6). One design (FOAM)
had the metal foam exposed on the flow surface, substituting for the normal rub material surface used at the fan tip.
Pictures of the FOAM rubstrip are shown in Fig. 3. The other design (PERF) had a wearable, rigid plastic resin rub
material shaped to duplicate the normal rubstrip flow surface backed by the metal foam. This configuration was
intended to more realistically approach a conventional design fan case rubstrip flow surface. The plastic material
was perforated with uniformly spaced holes 0.035” in diameter, producing an open area that was 20% of the total
flow surface area of the rub surface. The hole-diameter-to-length ratio was close to 1:3. The design intent was to
allow the sound pressure fluctuations to pass unimpeded through the holes in the rub material and into the foam
behind without significantly impacting the flow at the fan tip because of the small diameter of the holes in the rub
material. Ideally, the flow would treat the rubstrip surface as a solid. Fig. 4 are pictures of the PERF rubstrip. In
order to provide a baseline for comparison for the OTR designs, a conventional, solid hardwall (HW) rubstrip was
also tested. A picture of the baseline rubstrip is shown in Fig. 5. A nominal gap of 0.030” between the fan blade tip
and the fan case rub surface was designed for all three rubstrip configurations tested, the two OTR and the baseline.
For all three rubstrips, the tip gap was reduced to nominally 0.017” at the maximum fan speed due to fan blade
growth produced by the aerodynamic and centrifugal forces.
The second of the technologies, called Soft Vanes (SV), was designed to minimize the rotor-stator interaction
noise generated as the fan wake impinges on the stator vanes. The design rationale behind the SV is discussed in
Ref. 4. Again, the intent was to modify the noise generating mechanism by changing the unsteady pressure
fluctuation response on the suction surface of the vanes. In this case, the stator vanes were hollow and divided into
four separate internal chambers of varying length and internal volume. Each chamber was designed to act upon a
certain frequency range of the interaction noise spectrum. Access to these internal chambers was provided by holes
in the vane surface from 10% to 40% of the chord. This was determined analytically to be the location of maximum
pressure response on the vanes where the fan wake impinges on the vane suction surface. The holes were then
covered by a high impedance screen material to minimize the disturbances produced by airflow over the holes, and
so minimize performance losses. The high impedance screen material provides a smooth aerodynamic surface,
supporting steady pressures, but allows for the unsteady pressure perturbations to pass through in to the treatment
Then, pressure waves in the designated specific frequencies propagated into the internal chambers and were
dissipated, or canceled, preventing them from propagating into the farfield. There were a total of 25 vanes in the
stator vane assembly. Fig. 6 is photos of the SV assembly and individual stator vane. Fig. 7 shows the acoustic
treatment design and photos of internal vane structure. A set of solid metal stator vanes (HV) with the same
aerodynamic design as the SV was also tested, in order to establish a baseline for comparison with the SV acoustic
results. Fig. 8 is a picture of the HV stator assembly and an individual stator vane.
The fan aerodynamic performance was determined by measuring the pressure and temperature rise across the
fan with four fixed, 10-element rakes located behind the fan between the fan and stators. Each rake element

NASA/TM—2013-216073 2
consisted of instrumentation to measure local total pressure and total temperature. A description of the
instrumentation can be found in Ref. 2. Stator losses were determined by measuring the thrust produced using a six-
component static force balance, since there was no allowance made in the fan model for measuring pressure losses
across the stators. Since the stators were an integral part of the nacelle system, including inlet, fan duct, cowl and
bypass nozzle, the static balance measurements included force contributions from those elements as well. A two-
component rotating force balance was used to measure the fan thrust and torque produced at the same time. By
combining the two force balance measurements and correcting to standard day conditions, the total net thrust of the
fan model system was determined. In this way, the impact of the SV on the complete fan model was measured.
These measurements were made in conjunction with farfield acoustic testing, since the model was in the flight
configuration with the complete nacelle installed and all pressure and temperature instrumentation was removed. A
description of the force balance systems and their capabilities can be found in Ref. 7. Total weight flow into the
model was determined from a previously defined curve fit of static pressure measurements in the model inlet with
fan speed for the model hardware used.

III. Test Plan

The fan and stator aerodynamic performance was measured along a fixed operating line with a nozzle area sized
to optimize fan performance at takeoff conditions for the baseline rubstrip configuration without treatments. The fan
pressure and temperature rise and adiabatic efficiency were measured at several fan speeds along the operating line
with each of the three OTR configurations installed – HW, PERF and FOAM – to determine their effect on the fan.
Finally, the fan and stator thrust with the HV and SV configurations installed was measured using the rotating and
static force balances at the same fan speed points while acoustic testing was conducted. The model is in the cleanest
aerodynamically and is the closest simulation to the engine configuration during acoustic testing.

IV. Test Results

In the succeeding sections, the effect of the two noise reduction technologies on the fan and stage aerodynamic
performance is shown. The data displayed in Figures 9 through 24 have been tabularized and can be found in
Appendix A.

A. Comparison of Hardwall and Perforated OTR Rubstrips

Figs. 9 to 11 illustrate the difference in aerodynamic performance between the hardwall (HW) baseline fan case
rubstrip and the OTR perforated (PERF) rubstrip. The results show the fan performance drops with the PERF
rubstrip installed compared with the hardwall. Fig. 9 shows that there is a loss in fan total pressure ratio with a
corresponding loss in corrected total weight at all fan speeds. The loss in total pressure was from 0.1% to 0.5% with
a drop in total weight flow from 0.6% to 1.3% as the fan speed increased from 55% to 100% of the fan design speed.
The associated change in total temperature ratio is shown in Fig. 10. Here, the change in fan performance is shown
as an increase in the total temperature, indicating a drop in performance produced as the fan tries to increase the
energy in the flow. The resultant energy imparted to the flow is in the form of heat rather than an increase in
pressure. The increase in temperature was from 0.1% to 0.2% compared to the HW rubstrip at the same fan speeds
described above. In Fig. 11, the resultant drop in fan adiabatic performance is shown, illustrating the significant
impact the PERF rubstrip has on the fan efficiency compared with the HW rubstrip. Loss in adiabatic efficiency
ranges from 2.7% to 4.0% as the fan speed increases.
To better illustrate the effect of the PERF rubstrip on fan blade loading, Figs. 12 to 14 show the various
parameter radial profiles produced from the fan exit performance rake data. Results are shown at three fan speeds;
62%, 86% and 100% of the fan design speed. These three speeds represent the aircraft acoustic rating point speeds
of approach, cutback and takeoff for this engine cycle. They can also be used as reference speeds for illustrating
detailed fan performance results since the speeds also span the fan operating line. In Fig. 12, the total pressure ratio
profiles are shown for the PERF and HW rubstrips. As can be seen, the PERF rubstrip does have an impact on the
local fan pressure loading. The fan loading is reduced along nearly the entire span of the blade, but is most
significant in the outer half of the fan blade, especially near the fan tip, or the last roughly 20% of blade span. The
difference in pressure rise ranges from 0.07% to .43% as radius increases on the blade to sensor 8, then jumps to a
1.40% drop at the last sensor near the fan tip at 100% fan speed. In Fig. 13, the total temperature ratio profiles are
shown. Interestingly, the change in fan loading seems have a slightly positive effect on the total temperature rise
since there is a slight decrease in total temperature inboard in the fan wake. At 100% fan speed, the total
temperature decreases compared to the HW baseline by 0.03% to 0.08% from sensor locations 1 to 8, then

NASA/TM—2013-216073 3
significantly increases by 1.48% at the fan tip as the PERF rubstrip disrupts the flow there. In Fig. 14, the
distribution of adiabatic efficiency along the fan blade is shown. Again, the dramatic change in fan performance
produced by the PERF rubstrip is illustrated at the fan tip with the large loss in efficiency. At 100% fan speed, peak
adiabatic efficiency losses are 0.60% at 80% span, increasing to an 18.61% loss at 100% span. At other inboard
radial locations on the fan blade, efficiency losses were much less, +/- 0.4% or less. This agrees with the slightly
improved total temperature results inboard on the fan blade in Fig. 13, where the fan is better at doing work on the
flow.

B. Comparison of Hardwall and Exposed Metal Foam OTR Rubstrips

In this section, the difference in fan performance with the hardwall (HW) baseline rubstrip and the exposed
metal foam OTR acoustic treatment (FOAM) rubstrip will be discussed. Performance comparison plots are shown
in Figs. 15 to 17. Fig. 15 shows the fan total pressure ratio and weight flow with fan speed along the fixed operating
line for both rubstrip configurations. The loss in total pressure and weight flow follows the same trend as shown in
Fig. 9, but the losses are significantly larger with the FOAM rubstrip; the losses in pressure and weight flow are
almost double the losses with the PERF rubstrip in Fig. 9. Compared with the HW baseline rubstrip performance,
the loss in total pressure is between 0.2% and 1.2% as the fan speed increases between 55% and 100%, with a
corresponding decrease in weight flow between 1.6% and 2.9% over the same speed range. In Fig. 16, the change in
total temperature ratio shows the same trend as shown in Fig. 10, but also significantly larger. The increase in total
temperature ranges between 0.1% and 0.4% as fan speed increases from 55% to 100%, almost double the
temperature increase seen with the PERF rubstrip in Fig. 10. Finally in Fig. 17, the loss in adiabatic efficiency is
shown and is from 6.8% at 55% speed to as much as 9.3% at 100% speed. This figure clearly demonstrates that this
OTR configuration is unacceptable due to the large losses in performance.
To better visualize the impact the FOAM rubstrip has on the fan blade loading, radial parameter profiles are
shown in Figs. 18 to 20 comparing the FOAM and HW rubstrips. The huge impact on the blade flow can easily be
seen in Figs. 18 and 19 by the dramatic pressure losses and temperature increases in the last roughly 40% of the fan
blade span. The last four outboard radial measurement locations show losses in efficiency from 13.3% to 28.3% at
100% speed. Interestingly, a secondary flow phenomenon may be partially the cause of these large losses. Both
pressure and temperature profiles show a large jump in losses and efficiency at the next to last radial measurement
station on the rake, followed by a slight reversal in losses at the furthest outboard rake radial measurement location.
It appears that the flow could be separating then reattaching, or that an external influence has caused unfavorable
changes to the incoming flow incidence angle to the fan blade locally. Hot wire turbulence results presented in
Ref. 1 indicate that the leading blade tip vortex looks to be significantly migrating toward the following blade. If
this vortex flow is influencing the incoming flow of the following blade, the local fan blade performance could be
significantly affected. In any case, the tip vortex flow phenomenon is occurring as a result of the open FOAM
rubstrip as the fan flow is unimpeded by the rubstrip and reacts as if there is much more open gap at the fan tip.

C. Comparison of Hard and Soft Stator Vanes

In this section, the effect of the Soft Vanes (SV) on the fan and stator aerodynamic performance will be
discussed. Thrust and torque produced by the fan and stators are used as the aerodynamic performance metric since
there was no instrumentation located behind the stator vanes to make total pressure measurements. The SV
performance is compared to a conventional, solid metal, baseline stator vane set (HV) designed to have similar
aerodynamic of the SV. The corrected thrust and corrected torque of the fan, corrected thrust of the stator vanes,
and the corrected total thrust of the fan and stators together are shown in Figs. 21 to 24. Since a measurement of the
total weight flow was not available during this part of the test, the force numbers are plotted as a function of the
percent corrected fan speed. Fig. 21 shows the corrected fan thrust produced as fan speed increases. Clearly, the
differences in fan performance between the two different rubstrip configurations are very small, within the
measurement accuracy of the force balance thrust which is +/- 5 lbs. Fig. 22 shows the corrected fan torque
produced as fan speed increases. This is a measure of the amount of work needed to drive the fan to produce thrust
at the given fan speed. Again, the differences between the two rubstrips is small, however the SV do require slightly
more power starting at fan speeds of 65% and above. The differences are small but measureable since accuracy of
the force balance torque is +/- 3.5 ft-lbs. The indication here is that there is a small increase in flow blockage with
the SV that cause a minor backpressure on the fan that requires more power to achieve the same fan speed as the HV
baseline. The blockage is most likely caused by the disturbed flow over the mesh screen covering the inlet hole
interface to the SV chambers. If the screen is not perfectly aligned with the vane surface at the leading edge of the
screen, the screen can trip the flow resulting in higher flow losses and turbulence. Fig. 23 bears this out, which

NASA/TM—2013-216073 4
shows the corrected stator thrust produced by the two stator vane assemblies. Here, the slightly reduced thrust
produced by the SV compared to the HV can be seen at fan speeds beyond 85%. The data shows the loss in thrust
increasing as the fan speed increases. Still, the losses are small compared to the total stator thrust produced, shown
in Fig. 24. The maximum loss is only 8 lbs. at 100% speed, which is 1.9% of the stator vane total thrust. Overall,
the loss in corrected total thrust, the combination of fan and stator thrust, of the SV compared to the HV is no more
than 7 lbs., or 0.5% of the corrected total thrust of 1,277 lbs. at 100% speed.

V. Summary and Conclusion

A test was conducted in the NASA Glenn 9’x15’ Low Speed Wind Tunnel as part of the Fundamental
Aeronautics Program Subsonic Fixed Wing Project to investigate the potential benefit of two advanced noise
reduction technologies and their impact on the aerodynamic performance of an Ultra High Bypass turbofan model.
The two technologies were called Over-the-Rotor (OTR) metal foam acoustic treatment and Soft Vanes (SV). Each
technology was aimed at reducing the noise produced when flow from the fan interacts with hardware located in the
flow path. In the case of OTR treatment, the acoustic pressure waves produced at the fan tip as part of the tip vortex
flow were attenuated in the tortuous path in the very small cell, highly porous, metal foam located above the fan tip.
Two OTR treatment designs were tested: one had the metal foam exposed to the flow and acted as the fan case
rubstrip; and the other had the metal foam located behind a plastic resin material which had holes accounting for
20% of the total fan rubstrip area to allow the noise access to the foam behind the plastic rubstrip. In the case of the
SV, the pressure waves generated as the fan wake interacts with the downstream stator vanes were allowed to pass
through a holes in the suction surface of the stator vanes and into tuned cavities within the hollow stator vane and
dissipate in the cavities. In addition, the entry holes in the vanes were covered with a high impedance mesh
prevented reflection of the pressure waves. This report addressed the effect these technologies had on the fan and
stator aerodynamic performance.
The test results show that both of the OTR treatment designs had a significant impact on the fan performance
compared with a hardwall, conventional rubstrip. The perforated OTR rubstrip has the least impact, but still reduced
the total weight flow as much as 1.3% at 100% fan speed, with accompanying losses in total pressure of 0.5% and
adiabatic efficiency by 4.0% compared with the solid hardwall baseline rubstrip. The exposed foam OTR rubstrip
showed a very large impact on the performance, with losses slightly more than double those shown for the
perforated OTR rubstrip. At 100% fan speed, the losses with the foam OTR rubstrip were 2.9% in weight flow,
1.2% in total pressure and 9.3% in adiabatic efficiency.
Fan and stator performance with the SV installed showed very small to negligible changes in fan and stator
forces compared with the solid set of stator vanes used as a baseline reference. Forces measured from rotating and
static force balances measured thrust and torque forces on the fan and stators. Combined fan and stator corrected
total thrust results showed using the SV produced losses in total thrust of only 0.5% at 100% fan speed compared to
the solid baseline stator vanes.
In conclusion, the performance test results presented in this paper show the effect of two advanced noise
reduction technologies, Over-the-Rotor acoustic treatment and Soft Vanes, on the aerodynamic performance of the
fan and stators. The results indicate that both Over-the-Rotor acoustic treatment designs produce large,
unacceptable losses in fan aerodynamic performance compared to the performance using a conventional, solid
hardwall rubstrip. Acoustic test results presented in Ref. 1 indicate the OTR rubstrips did have an impact on the fan
model noise, but only in the middle of the range of fan speeds tested. Further research is required to reduce the fan
losses to more acceptable levels (1% or less in fan adiabatic efficiency) and increase the noise reduction benefit at
the lower and higher fan speeds. A modified rubstrip design that reduces the impact of the OTR acoustic treatment
on the fan blade loading and fan tip flow needs to be investigated. Performance results with the Soft Vanes,
however, show small losses in the thrust produced by the fan and stators compared with conventional, solid metal
stator vanes. The performance losses are within the acceptable range (less than 1% of total system thrust). Based on
the acoustic test results shown in Ref. 1, the SV also produce a significant benefit in reducing the fan model noise,
thus making the SV noise reduction technology an attractive technology for further development into larger scale
demonstration.

References
1. Elliot, D.E.; Woodward, R.P.; Podboy, G.P.; “Acoustic Performance of Unique Liner Locations for a High
Bypass Model Turbofan at Simulated Flight Conditions,” AIAA-2009-3140.
2. Jeracki, R.J.; “Comprehensive Report of Fan Performance from Duct Rake Instrumentation on 1.294 Pressure
Ratio, 806 ft/sec Tip Speed Turbofan Simulator Models,” NASA/TM-2006-213863, 2006.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 5
3. Fite, E.B.; Woodward, R.P.; Podboy, G.G.; “Effect of Trailing Edge Flow Injection on Fan Noise and
Aerodynamic Performance,” AIAA 2006-2844.
4. Jones, M.G.; Parrott, T.L.; Sutliff, D.L.; Hughes, C.E.; “Assessment of Soft Vane and Metal Foam Engine
Noise Reduction Concepts,” AIAA-2009-3142.
5. Sutliff, D.L.; Jones, M.G.; “Foam-Metal Liner Attenuation of Low-Speed Fan Noise,” AIAA–2008-2897.
6. Sutliff, D.L.; Elliot, D.E.; Jones, M.G.; Hartley, T.C.; “Attenuation of FJ44 Turbofan Engine Noise with a
Foam-Metal Liner Installed Over-The-Rotor,” AIAA-2009-3141.
7. Jeracki, R.J.; “Model Engine Performance Measurement From Force Balance Instrumentation,” NASA/TM-
1998-208486.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 6
 Figure 1. Ultra High Bypass fan model hardware installed in the NASA Glenn 9’x15’ LSWT.

Acoustically treated
Over-the-Rotor fan case with Soft Vanes
metal foam acoustic treatment

Figure 2. Illustration of the UHB fan model indicating existing hardware in silver and new hardware in
color, and locations of noise reduction technologies.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 7
 Figure 3. Fan case with exposed metal foam (FOAM) rubstrip.

Metal Foam Treatment behind perforated rubstrip material

Figure 4. Fan case with perforated (PERF) rubstrip.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 8
 Figure 5. Baseline hardwall (HW) fan case rubstrip.

Figure 6. Acoustically treated Soft Vanes (SV), forward looking aft.

View of internal chambers

and porous suction surface

CAD model

Figure 7. Details of Soft Vane acoustic treatment design; leading edge of vane is on the left.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 9
 Figure 8. Solid Hard Vane (HV) baseline stator vanes.

1.35

HW
1.30
PERF
Fan Total Pressure Ratio, P/Pt

1.25

1.20

1.15

1.10

1.05
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Total Corrected Weight Flow, lbm/sec

Figure 9. Comparison of fan pressure rise between HW and PERF rubstrips.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 10
 1.09

HW
1.08
PERF

Fan Total Temperature Ratio, T/Tt

1.07

1.06

1.05

1.04

1.03

1.02

1.01
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Total Corrected Weight Flow, lbm/sec
Figure 10. Comparison of fan temperature rise between HW and PERF rubstrips.

1.00
HW
0.98 PERF

0.96

0.94
Fan Adiabatic Efficiency

0.92

0.90

0.88

0.86

0.84

0.82

0.80
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Total Corrected Weight Flow, lbm/sec
Figure 11. Comparison of fan adiabatic efficiency between HW and PERF rubstrips.
11.5

11.0
Rake Sensor Radial Position (hub to tip), in.

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5
HW
7.0 PERF
ap (62%)
6.5 cb (86%)
to (100%)
6.0
1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40
Fan Total Pressure Ratio, P/Pt
Figure 12. Comparison of radial fan pressure profiles between HW and PERF rubstrips.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 11
 11.5

11.0

Rake Sensor Radial Position (hub to tip), in.

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5
HW
7.0 PERF
ap (62%)
6.5 cb (86%)
to (100%)
6.0
1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13
Fan Total Temperature Ratio, T/Tt
Figure 13. Comparison of radial fan temperature profiles between HW and PERF rubstrips.

11.5

11.0
Rake Sensor Radial Position (hub to tip), in.

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5
HW
7.0 PERF
ap (62%)
6.5 cb (86%)
to (100%)
6.0
0.56 0.60 0.64 0.68 0.72 0.76 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00
Fan Adiabatic Efficiency
Figure 14. Comparison of radial fan adiabatic efficiency profiles between HW and PERF rubstrips.

1.35

HW
1.30
FOAM
Fan Total Pressure Ratio, P/Pt

1.25

1.20

1.15

1.10

1.05
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Total Corrected Weight Flow, lbm/sec
Figure 15. Comparison of fan pressure rise between HW and FOAM rubstrips.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 12
 1.10

HW
1.09
FOAM

1.08

Fan Total Temperature Ratio, T/Tt

1.07

1.06

1.05

1.04

1.03

1.02

1.01
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Total Corrected Weight Flow, lbm/sec
Figure 16. Comparison of fan temperature rise between HW and FOAM rubstrips.

1.00

0.98

0.96

0.94
Fan Adiabatic Efficiency

0.92

0.90

0.88

0.86

0.84
HW
0.82 FOAM

0.80
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Total Corrected Weight Flow, lbm/sec
Figure 17. Comparison of fan adiabatic efficiency between HW and FOAM rubstrips.

11.5

11.0
Rake Sensor Radial Position (hub to tip), in.

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5
HW
7.0 FOAM
ap (62%)
6.5 cb (86%)
to (100%)
6.0
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40
Fan Total Pressure Ratio, P/Pt
Figure 18. Comparison of fan pressure profiles between HW and FOAM rubstrips.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 13
 11.5

11.0

Rake Sensor Radial Position (hub to tip), in.

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5
HW
7.0 FOAM
ap (62%)
6.5 cb (86%)
to (100%)
6.0
1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13
Fan Total Temperature Ratio, T/Tt
Figure 19. Comparison of fan temperature profiles between HW and FOAM rubstrips.

11.5

11.0
Rake Sensor Radial Position (hub to tip), in.

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5
HW
7.0 FOAM
ap (62%)
6.5 cb (86%)
to (100%)
6.0
0.50 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.94 0.98 1.02
Fan Adiabatic Efficiency
Figure 20. Comparison of fan adiabatic efficiency profiles between HW and FOAM rubstrips.
1000

HV
900 SV

800
Corrected Fan Thrust, lbf

700

600

500

400

300

200
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Percent Corrected Fan Speed
Figure 21. Comparison of fan thrust between HV and SV stators.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 14
 700

HV

600 SV

Corrected Fan Torque, ft-lbs

500

400

300

200

100
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Percent Corrected Fan Speed
Figure 22. Comparison of fan torque between HV and SV stators.

500

HV
SV

400
Corrected Stator Thrust, lbf

300

200

100

0
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Percent Corrected Fan Speed
Figure 23. Comparison of stator thrust between HV and SV stators.

1400

1300 HV

1200 SV

1100
Corrected Total Thrust, lbf

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Percent Corrected Fan Speed
Figure 24. Comparison of total thrust between HV and SV stators.

NASA/TM—2013-216073 15
 Appendix A—Aerodynamic Performance Data

Table 1A. Performance data taken with Hardwall (HW) Rubstrip installed during HW-PERF comparison
test

Percent Corrected Fan Fan Fan

Corrected Weight Total Total Adiabatic
Fan Flow, Pressure Temperature Efficiency
Speed lbm/sec Ratio Ratio

54.99 44.88 1.0794 1.0236 0.9339

61.97 50.15 1.1021 1.0301 0.9368
64.99 52.44 1.1124 1.0330 0.9364
70.05 56.28 1.1322 1.0386 0.9353
76.63 61.35 1.1602 1.0464 0.9352
80.04 63.93 1.1762 1.0507 0.9355
86.08 68.59 1.2068 1.0590 0.9347
90.01 71.67 1.2288 1.0647 0.9367
95.44 75.96 1.2623 1.0732 0.9399
100.02 79.54 1.2930 1.0809 0.9417

Table 1B. Performance data taken with Perforated (PERF) Rubstrip installed during HW-PERF comparison
test

Percent Corrected Fan Fan Fan

Corrected Weight Pressure Temperature Adiabatic
Fan Flow, Ratio Ratio Efficiency
Speed lbm/sec

55.03 44.61 1.0787 1.0241 0.9088

61.98 49.78 1.1010 1.0306 0.9097
64.99 52.08 1.1112 1.0336 0.9097
70.01 55.86 1.1304 1.0393 0.9067
76.63 60.86 1.1582 1.0474 0.9050
80.01 63.41 1.1737 1.0518 0.9045
85.99 67.92 1.2035 1.0602 0.9033
90.02 70.98 1.2256 1.0662 0.9035
95.42 75.08 1.2571 1.0749 0.9020
100.04 78.54 1.2872 1.0827 0.9048

NASA/TM—2013-216073 16
Table 2A. Performance data taken with Hardwall (HW) Rubstrip installed during HW-FOAM comparison
test

Percent Corrected Fan Fan Fan

Corrected Weight Total Total Adiabatic
Fan Flow, Pressure Temperature Efficiency
Speed lbm/sec Ratio Ratio

55.01 44.87 1.0792 1.0231 0.9526

61.99 50.17 1.1016 1.0296 0.9491
65.03 52.45 1.1121 1.0326 0.9468
70.04 56.29 1.1315 1.0381 0.9438
76.58 61.31 1.1591 1.0458 0.9413
80.02 63.97 1.1751 1.0501 0.9420
86.04 68.65 1.2054 1.0583 0.9405
95.44 76.08 1.2606 1.0723 0.9459
100.07 79.69 1.2909 1.0801 0.9450

Table 2B. Performance data taken with Exposed Metal Foam (FOAM) Rubstrip installed during HW-
FOAM comparison test

Percent Corrected Fan Fan Fan

Corrected Weight Total Total Adiabatic
Fan Flow, Pressure Temperature Efficiency
Speed lbm/sec Ratio Ratio

55.02 44.16 1.0771 1.0241 0.8881

61.97 49.32 1.0986 1.0308 0.8839
65.01 51.48 1.1088 1.0340 0.8814
70.00 55.32 1.1275 1.0398 0.8776
76.63 60.24 1.1551 1.0480 0.8757
80.04 62.78 1.1701 1.0527 0.8720
86.07 67.25 1.1991 1.0612 0.8695
91.54 71.27 1.2276 1.0698 0.8647
95.45 74.13 1.2492 1.0759 0.8646
100.11 77.42 1.2753 1.0839 0.8574

NASA/TM—2013-216073 17
 Table 3A. Performance profile data taken with Hardwall (HW) Rubstrip installed during HW-PERF
comparison test
Percent Corrected Fan Speed 54.99 61.97 64.99 70.05 76.63 80.04 86.08 90.01 95.44 100.02
Corrected Weight Flow , lbm /sec 44.88 50.15 52.44 56.28 61.35 63.93 68.59 71.67 75.96 79.54

Radial
Pos, in. Fan Total Pressure Ratio

6.204 1.0576 1.0736 1.0812 1.0947 1.1129 1.1228 1.1411 1.1534 1.1709 1.1858
6.924 1.0674 1.0859 1.0947 1.1105 1.1332 1.1457 1.1694 1.1859 1.2093 1.2299
7.577 1.0755 1.0965 1.1066 1.1248 1.1509 1.1657 1.1934 1.2130 1.2421 1.2672
8.177 1.0807 1.1036 1.1143 1.1344 1.1631 1.1791 1.2100 1.2316 1.2639 1.2931
8.737 1.0852 1.1095 1.1209 1.1424 1.1727 1.1902 1.2234 1.2466 1.2827 1.3139
9.263 1.0877 1.1130 1.1243 1.1468 1.1787 1.1966 1.2316 1.2569 1.2938 1.3297
9.760 1.0891 1.1152 1.1266 1.1494 1.1818 1.2003 1.2371 1.2618 1.3025 1.3392
10.233 1.0895 1.1155 1.1275 1.1501 1.1822 1.2018 1.2372 1.2650 1.3052 1.3444
10.685 1.0889 1.1143 1.1253 1.1476 1.1784 1.1965 1.2320 1.2583 1.2999 1.3385
11.119 1.0724 1.0935 1.1026 1.1214 1.1477 1.1632 1.1931 1.2157 1.2527 1.2882

Fan Total Tem perature Ratio

6.204 1.0166 1.0210 1.0231 1.0268 1.0320 1.0347 1.0399 1.0433 1.0481 1.0525
6.924 1.0191 1.0241 1.0265 1.0308 1.0368 1.0401 1.0465 1.0507 1.0570 1.0623
7.577 1.0213 1.0270 1.0296 1.0345 1.0413 1.0452 1.0524 1.0574 1.0646 1.0708
8.177 1.0230 1.0291 1.0320 1.0374 1.0448 1.0490 1.0569 1.0624 1.0704 1.0773
8.737 1.0241 1.0308 1.0338 1.0395 1.0475 1.0520 1.0604 1.0663 1.0748 1.0827
9.263 1.0250 1.0319 1.0349 1.0409 1.0493 1.0540 1.0631 1.0690 1.0783 1.0862
9.760 1.0255 1.0325 1.0358 1.0417 1.0502 1.0553 1.0642 1.0708 1.0801 1.0891
10.233 1.0260 1.0330 1.0361 1.0423 1.0508 1.0556 1.0650 1.0716 1.0816 1.0906
10.685 1.0270 1.0344 1.0378 1.0443 1.0533 1.0581 1.0680 1.0746 1.0849 1.0944
11.119 1.0287 1.0368 1.0406 1.0478 1.0577 1.0633 1.0740 1.0813 1.0924 1.1030

Fan Adiabatic Efficiency

6.204 0.9733 0.9778 0.9775 0.9763 0.9699 0.9684 0.9625 0.9608 0.9594 0.9510
6.924 0.9823 0.9874 0.9897 0.9880 0.9891 0.9873 0.9840 0.9842 0.9791 0.9779
7.577 0.9866 0.9894 0.9918 0.9898 0.9912 0.9902 0.9884 0.9887 0.9897 0.9881
8.177 0.9748 0.9817 0.9824 0.9805 0.9838 0.9833 0.9831 0.9835 0.9828 0.9860
8.737 0.9801 0.9782 0.9819 0.9812 0.9810 0.9812 0.9813 0.9806 0.9858 0.9808
9.263 0.9741 0.9732 0.9752 0.9750 0.9753 0.9750 0.9715 0.9783 0.9748 0.9836
9.760 0.9683 0.9753 0.9681 0.9724 0.9747 0.9681 0.9769 0.9698 0.9788 0.9772
10.233 0.9544 0.9609 0.9666 0.9630 0.9645 0.9707 0.9650 0.9698 0.9693 0.9738
10.685 0.9125 0.9128 0.9075 0.9058 0.9014 0.9056 0.9035 0.9099 0.9167 0.9200
11.119 0.7016 0.7026 0.6977 0.6964 0.6958 0.6973 0.6996 0.7059 0.7194 0.7284

NASA/TM—2013-216073 18
 Table 3B. Performance profile data taken with Perforated (PERF) Rubstrip installed during HW-PERF
comparison test

Percent Corrected Fan Speed 55.03 61.98 64.99 70.01 76.63 80.01 85.99 90.02 95.42 100.04
Corrected Weight Flow , lbm /sec 44.61 49.78 52.08 55.86 60.86 63.41 67.92 70.98 75.08 78.54

Radial
Pos, in. Fan Total Pressure Ratio

6.204 1.0574 1.0732 1.0806 1.0937 1.1123 1.1221 1.1401 1.1528 1.1697 1.1850
6.924 1.0671 1.0854 1.0941 1.1096 1.1322 1.1444 1.1677 1.1845 1.2080 1.2287
7.577 1.0752 1.0961 1.1060 1.1239 1.1499 1.1644 1.1914 1.2117 1.2399 1.2654
8.177 1.0804 1.1030 1.1137 1.1333 1.1619 1.1775 1.2079 1.2297 1.2622 1.2907
8.737 1.0847 1.1088 1.1200 1.1409 1.1712 1.1883 1.2207 1.2446 1.2789 1.3113
9.263 1.0872 1.1122 1.1234 1.1453 1.1770 1.1945 1.2290 1.2542 1.2907 1.3250
9.760 1.0884 1.1141 1.1257 1.1478 1.1801 1.1984 1.2335 1.2592 1.2975 1.3339
10.233 1.0890 1.1147 1.1263 1.1486 1.1806 1.1990 1.2340 1.2618 1.3006 1.3385
10.685 1.0882 1.1130 1.1238 1.1451 1.1752 1.1921 1.2257 1.2513 1.2869 1.3234
11.119 1.0701 1.0898 1.0985 1.1159 1.1416 1.1565 1.1847 1.2063 1.2371 1.2702

Fan Total Tem perature Ratio

6.204 1.0166 1.0210 1.0230 1.0268 1.0320 1.0347 1.0397 1.0432 1.0479 1.0522
6.924 1.0192 1.0241 1.0264 1.0307 1.0367 1.0400 1.0460 1.0505 1.0566 1.0619
7.577 1.0213 1.0269 1.0295 1.0344 1.0413 1.0450 1.0520 1.0570 1.0643 1.0704
8.177 1.0230 1.0291 1.0318 1.0372 1.0446 1.0487 1.0563 1.0619 1.0697 1.0767
8.737 1.0242 1.0307 1.0336 1.0393 1.0472 1.0516 1.0599 1.0658 1.0742 1.0817
9.263 1.0249 1.0317 1.0348 1.0407 1.0490 1.0537 1.0624 1.0684 1.0775 1.0854
9.760 1.0255 1.0324 1.0355 1.0415 1.0499 1.0547 1.0634 1.0703 1.0791 1.0880
10.233 1.0259 1.0329 1.0360 1.0422 1.0507 1.0553 1.0648 1.0711 1.0812 1.0898
10.685 1.0283 1.0364 1.0400 1.0470 1.0569 1.0623 1.0729 1.0806 1.0916 1.1013
11.119 1.0321 1.0413 1.0456 1.0536 1.0652 1.0718 1.0842 1.0935 1.1071 1.1193

Fan Adiabatic Efficiency

6.204 0.9665 0.9693 0.9749 0.9685 0.9645 0.9647 0.9615 0.9597 0.9570 0.9524
6.924 0.9773 0.9832 0.9864 0.9829 0.9837 0.9827 0.9837 0.9824 0.9802 0.9797
7.577 0.9808 0.9863 0.9892 0.9868 0.9867 0.9880 0.9863 0.9890 0.9861 0.9877
8.177 0.9723 0.9777 0.9810 0.9788 0.9813 0.9807 0.9841 0.9825 0.9874 0.9860
8.737 0.9732 0.9754 0.9796 0.9773 0.9782 0.9797 0.9790 0.9802 0.9810 0.9852
9.263 0.9725 0.9729 0.9713 0.9716 0.9720 0.9701 0.9729 0.9767 0.9763 0.9800
9.760 0.9608 0.9681 0.9695 0.9686 0.9717 0.9704 0.9755 0.9680 0.9762 0.9752
10.233 0.9522 0.9566 0.9610 0.9576 0.9573 0.9621 0.9554 0.9661 0.9598 0.9676
10.685 0.8628 0.8539 0.8469 0.8406 0.8297 0.8267 0.8216 0.8210 0.8161 0.8225
11.119 0.6082 0.6027 0.5965 0.5945 0.5921 0.5909 0.5892 0.5890 0.5852 0.5928

NASA/TM—2013-216073 19
 Table 4A. Performance profile data taken with Hardwall (HW) Rubstrip installed during HW-FOAM
comparison test

Percent Corrected Fan Speed 55.01 61.99 65.03 70.04 76.58 80.02 86.04 95.44 100.07
Corrected Weight Flow , lbm /sec 44.87 50.17 52.45 56.29 61.31 63.97 68.65 76.08 79.69

Radial
Pos, in. Fan Total Pressure Ratio

6.204 1.0575 1.0733 1.0810 1.0941 1.1123 1.1221 1.1401 1.1691 1.1841
6.924 1.0672 1.0855 1.0945 1.1099 1.1324 1.1448 1.1683 1.2081 1.2285
7.577 1.0754 1.0963 1.1064 1.1242 1.1500 1.1647 1.1921 1.2408 1.2660
8.177 1.0806 1.1034 1.1142 1.1339 1.1622 1.1781 1.2086 1.2628 1.2917
8.737 1.0850 1.1092 1.1208 1.1418 1.1717 1.1892 1.2221 1.2809 1.3123
9.263 1.0875 1.1127 1.1242 1.1462 1.1777 1.1956 1.2301 1.2925 1.3279
9.760 1.0891 1.1149 1.1265 1.1488 1.1809 1.1996 1.2361 1.3009 1.3372
10.233 1.0895 1.1153 1.1274 1.1497 1.1814 1.2009 1.2358 1.3040 1.3431
10.685 1.0885 1.1136 1.1246 1.1466 1.1768 1.1947 1.2300 1.2977 1.3353
11.119 1.0715 1.0922 1.1016 1.1200 1.1459 1.1612 1.1909 1.2497 1.2830

Fan Total Tem perature Ratio

6.204 1.0160 1.0204 1.0226 1.0263 1.0315 1.0341 1.0393 1.0470 1.0517
6.924 1.0185 1.0235 1.0259 1.0302 1.0362 1.0395 1.0457 1.0560 1.0616
7.577 1.0207 1.0264 1.0291 1.0339 1.0407 1.0445 1.0516 1.0636 1.0702
8.177 1.0224 1.0286 1.0315 1.0369 1.0441 1.0483 1.0561 1.0694 1.0765
8.737 1.0236 1.0303 1.0333 1.0389 1.0469 1.0513 1.0596 1.0739 1.0818
9.263 1.0244 1.0314 1.0345 1.0404 1.0487 1.0533 1.0624 1.0774 1.0855
9.760 1.0250 1.0320 1.0353 1.0412 1.0496 1.0546 1.0633 1.0792 1.0883
10.233 1.0256 1.0326 1.0357 1.0419 1.0503 1.0549 1.0643 1.0810 1.0898
10.685 1.0268 1.0343 1.0378 1.0441 1.0531 1.0579 1.0677 1.0845 1.0939
11.119 1.0281 1.0362 1.0400 1.0470 1.0568 1.0623 1.0729 1.0913 1.1017

Fan Adiabatic Efficiency

6.204 1.0080 1.0012 0.9964 0.9895 0.9806 0.9798 0.9719 0.9707 0.9571
6.924 1.0137 1.0096 1.0070 1.0016 0.9993 0.9973 0.9938 0.9910 0.9835
7.577 1.0133 1.0085 1.0059 1.0026 1.0007 1.0003 0.9971 0.9999 0.9936
8.177 0.9998 0.9978 0.9971 0.9919 0.9940 0.9920 0.9915 0.9937 0.9922
8.737 0.9997 0.9933 0.9957 0.9924 0.9888 0.9895 0.9892 0.9913 0.9867
9.263 0.9926 0.9880 0.9869 0.9848 0.9836 0.9825 0.9767 0.9832 0.9874
9.760 0.9869 0.9875 0.9799 0.9815 0.9808 0.9772 0.9861 0.9859 0.9806
10.233 0.9702 0.9709 0.9764 0.9714 0.9705 0.9785 0.9694 0.9725 0.9791
10.685 0.9159 0.9112 0.9040 0.9038 0.8959 0.8998 0.9006 0.9150 0.9170
11.119 0.7093 0.7055 0.7014 0.7000 0.6986 0.7001 0.7021 0.7199 0.7256

NASA/TM—2013-216073 20
 Table 4B. Performance profile data taken with Exposed Metal Foam (FOAM) Rubstrip installed during
HW-FOAM comparison test

Percent Corrected Fan Speed 55.02 61.97 65.01 70.00 76.63 80.04 86.07 91.54 95.45 100.11
Corrected Weight Flow , lbm /sec 44.16 49.32 51.48 55.32 60.24 62.78 67.25 71.27 74.13 77.42

Radial
Pos, in. Fan Total Pressure Ratio

6.204 1.0573 1.0730 1.0807 1.0935 1.1121 1.1220 1.1401 1.1570 1.1690 1.1847
6.924 1.0671 1.0853 1.0941 1.1093 1.1319 1.1441 1.1677 1.1909 1.2079 1.2288
7.577 1.0753 1.0960 1.1060 1.1236 1.1495 1.1638 1.1912 1.2186 1.2392 1.2646
8.177 1.0805 1.1030 1.1137 1.1329 1.1613 1.1770 1.2071 1.2368 1.2599 1.2886
8.737 1.0847 1.1085 1.1197 1.1403 1.1703 1.1869 1.2198 1.2520 1.2759 1.3072
9.263 1.0870 1.1118 1.1231 1.1445 1.1761 1.1935 1.2273 1.2611 1.2871 1.3191
9.760 1.0885 1.1137 1.1254 1.1471 1.1788 1.1966 1.2312 1.2658 1.2922 1.3261
10.233 1.0888 1.1142 1.1256 1.1475 1.1793 1.1969 1.2315 1.2657 1.2899 1.3141
10.685 1.0826 1.1048 1.1148 1.1353 1.1652 1.1810 1.2100 1.2343 1.2524 1.2722
11.119 1.0588 1.0758 1.0848 1.1015 1.1265 1.1396 1.1650 1.1935 1.2181 1.2478

Fan Total Tem perature Ratio

6.204 1.0162 1.0206 1.0227 1.0264 1.0316 1.0345 1.0395 1.0443 1.0474 1.0519
6.924 1.0187 1.0237 1.0261 1.0303 1.0363 1.0397 1.0458 1.0519 1.0562 1.0617
7.577 1.0210 1.0266 1.0293 1.0341 1.0409 1.0447 1.0517 1.0586 1.0637 1.0701
8.177 1.0226 1.0287 1.0316 1.0369 1.0442 1.0483 1.0560 1.0637 1.0690 1.0762
8.737 1.0237 1.0303 1.0333 1.0389 1.0468 1.0512 1.0595 1.0674 1.0734 1.0807
9.263 1.0246 1.0313 1.0345 1.0403 1.0485 1.0532 1.0618 1.0703 1.0762 1.0843
9.760 1.0252 1.0321 1.0353 1.0413 1.0496 1.0542 1.0631 1.0718 1.0786 1.0866
10.233 1.0268 1.0344 1.0379 1.0443 1.0534 1.0585 1.0677 1.0772 1.0850 1.0956
10.685 1.0316 1.0406 1.0448 1.0525 1.0636 1.0699 1.0812 1.0918 1.0982 1.1082
11.119 1.0310 1.0398 1.0444 1.0527 1.0653 1.0724 1.0861 1.1008 1.1114 1.1240

Fan Adiabatic Efficiency

6.204 0.9893 0.9870 0.9894 0.9780 0.9740 0.9701 0.9655 0.9613 0.9623 0.9560
6.924 1.0000 0.9987 0.9970 0.9910 0.9923 0.9885 0.9892 0.9865 0.9870 0.9829
7.577 0.9998 0.9980 0.9981 0.9940 0.9939 0.9908 0.9916 0.9913 0.9923 0.9904
8.177 0.9905 0.9887 0.9876 0.9838 0.9876 0.9859 0.9862 0.9823 0.9889 0.9864
8.737 0.9905 0.9861 0.9865 0.9839 0.9817 0.9799 0.9821 0.9833 0.9816 0.9852
9.263 0.9809 0.9813 0.9786 0.9754 0.9780 0.9754 0.9758 0.9754 0.9814 0.9772
9.760 0.9746 0.9733 0.9724 0.9695 0.9701 0.9703 0.9698 0.9699 0.9669 0.9701
10.233 0.9175 0.9131 0.9073 0.9047 0.9033 0.9008 0.9061 0.9022 0.8879 0.8487
10.685 0.7255 0.7114 0.7041 0.7040 0.7021 0.6966 0.6893 0.6756 0.6763 0.6577
11.119 0.5316 0.5298 0.5304 0.5314 0.5300 0.5254 0.5181 0.5146 0.5205 0.5268

NASA/TM—2013-216073 21
 Table 5A. Force balance performance data taken with Hardwall Vanes (HV) installed during HV-SV
comparison test

Percent Corrected Corrected Corrected Corrected

Corrected Fan Fan Stage Total
Fan Thrust, Torque, Thrust, Thrust,
Speed lbf ft-lbs lbf lbf

54.99 254.98 180.06 80.54 335.52

62.01 327.91 230.83 111.23 439.14
65.08 361.16 255.08 129.43 490.59
70.00 421.42 296.23 154.61 576.03
76.58 510.54 359.14 203.41 713.95
80.03 557.56 394.34 231.46 789.02
86.00 651.60 458.37 278.28 929.88
95.38 803.76 566.72 362.02 1165.78
100.04 875.53 620.23 401.36 1276.89

Table 5B. Force balance performance data taken with Soft Vanes (SV) installed during HV-SV
comparison test

Percent Corrected Corrected Corrected Corrected

Corrected Fan Fan Stage Total
Fan Thrust, Torque, Thrust, Thrust,
Speed lbf ft-lbs lbf lbf

54.99 255.49 181.61 79.35 334.84

62.02 326.08 231.19 112.00 438.08
65.07 357.46 255.14 125.17 482.63
70.01 419.31 297.68 158.67 577.98
76.63 511.65 362.01 200.48 712.13
80.01 560.32 397.28 227.67 787.99
86.02 649.78 461.97 276.35 926.13
95.40 803.77 571.51 355.66 1159.43
100.02 877.07 704.70 393.81 1270.88

NASA/TM—2013-216073 22
 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)
01-11-2013 Technical Memorandum
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Effect of Two Advanced Noise Reduction Technologies on the Aerodynamic Performance of
an Ultra High Bypass Ratio Fan
5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Hughes, Christopher, E.; Gazzaniga, John, A.
5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 561581.02.08.03.18.04
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-17121
Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191

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

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ACRONYM(S)
Washington, DC 20546-0001 NASA
11. SPONSORING/MONITORING
REPORT NUMBER
NASA/TM-2013-216073
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject Category: 71
Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov
This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Portions of this material were presented at the 15th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (30th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference)
cosponsored by AIAA and CEAS, Miami, Florida, May 11-13, 2009.

14. ABSTRACT
A wind tunnel experiment was conducted in the NASA Glenn Research Center anechoic 9- by 15-Foot Low-Speed Wind Tunnel to
investigate two new advanced noise reduction technologies in support of the NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Program Subsonic Fixed
Wing Project. The goal of the experiment was to demonstrate the noise reduction potential and effect on fan model performance of the two
noise reduction technologies in a scale model Ultra-High Bypass turbofan at simulated takeoff and approach aircraft flight speeds. The two
novel noise reduction technologies are called Over-the-Rotor acoustic treatment and Soft Vanes. Both technologies were aimed at modifying
the local noise source mechanisms of the fan tip vortex/fan case interaction and the rotor wake-stator interaction. For the Over-the-Rotor
acoustic treatment, two noise reduction configurations were investigated. The results showed that the two noise reduction technologies,
Over-the-Rotor and Soft Vanes, were able to reduce the noise level of the fan model, but the Over-the-Rotor configurations had a significant
negative impact on the fan aerodynamic performance; the loss in fan aerodynamic efficiency was between 2.75 to 8.75 percent, depending
on configuration, compared to the conventional solid baseline fan case rubstrip also tested. Performance results with the Soft Vanes showed
that there was no measurable change in the corrected fan thrust and a 1.8 percent loss in corrected stator vane thrust, which resulted in a total
net thrust loss of approximately 0.5 percent compared with the baseline reference stator vane set.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Noise reduction; Vanes; Stators; High bypass; Turbofan; Wind tunnel; Scale model; Acoustics; Acoustic properties; Noise treatment;
Rotor; Noise (sound); Fan blades; Thrust; Aerodynamic characteristics; Fan adiabatic efficiency
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF STI Help Desk (email:[email protected])
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGES 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)
U U PAGE UU 30 443-757-5802
U
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18