4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Experimental Assessment of Sound Quality Metrics for Takeoff and Landing Aircraft

期刊

AIAA JOURNAL
卷 59, 期 1, 页码 240-249

出版社

AMER INST AERONAUTICS ASTRONAUTICS
DOI: 10.2514/1.J059633

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reduction of aircraft noise over the past decades has highlighted the importance of signal characteristics in determining annoyance levels, with frequency content and tonal components playing a significant role. Sound quality metrics such as loudness, roughness, sharpness, and tonality are crucial tools in characterizing sound. Experimental measurements of landing and takeoff aircraft have been used to investigate the variability of sound quality metrics across different aircraft types and within the same aircraft, as well as potential correlations with airframe, engines, and operational conditions.
The reduction of aircraft noise over the past decades has generated a growing awareness that the characteristics of a signal can be equally or more important to annoyance than the sound pressure level. Sound can be perceived as more annoying, depending on the frequency content or tonal components. The sound quality metrics loudness, roughness, sharpness, and tonality are important tools to characterize sound. Flyover measurements of landing and takeoff aircraft are investigated in terms of sound quality metrics. The experimental dataset includes 141 measurements of 14 landing aircraft types and 160 measurements of 12 takeoff aircraft types. The sound quality metrics are compared for different aircraft types, and their variability within the same aircraft is investigated. Possible correlations of the sound quality metrics with the airframe, engines, and aircraft operational conditions are investigated. This analysis provides empirical expressions that show a good agreement with experimental data for loudness, sharpness, and roughness for takeoff aircraft. For landing aircraft, empirical expressions could only be obtained for loudness and tonality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据