# Tonal-Noise Assessment of Quadrotor-Type UAV Using Source-Mode Expansions

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

- -
- thickness noise associated with fluid-displacement effects around moving blades;
- -
- loading noise generated by the steady and unsteady blade forces, essentially the lift;
- -
- flow noise due to flow inhomogeneities around the blades.

## 2. Basic Aerodynamic Features of Quadrotors

## 3. Prediction of Tonal Loading Noise

#### 3.1. General Formulation

- -
- the angle of the dipoles is the same value $\gamma \left(r\right)$ as for the actual fluctuating lift;
- -
- the angular frequency $\omega $ of the stationary dipoles is $mB\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\Omega}$;
- -
- the dipole strength at the azimuth $\alpha $ along the circle is defined as ${F}_{s}\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}{\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{i}\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}n\alpha}$.

**Figure 2.**Source and observer coordinates in the individual reference frame of a rotor. Similar coordinates are defined for other rotors, with both possible directions of rotation.

#### 3.2. Far-Field Formulation

#### 3.3. Steady-Loading Noise and Forward-Flight Induced Unsteady-Loading Noise

#### 3.4. Generic Potential-Interaction Noise Model

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Papa, U.; Iannace, G.; Core, G.D.; Giordano, G. Sound power level and sound pressure level characterization of a small unmanned aircraft system during flight operations. Noise Vib. Worldw.
**2017**, 48, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Christian, A.; Cabell, R. Initial Investigation into the Psychoacoustic Properties of Small Unmanned Aerial System Noise. In Proceedings of the 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 5–9 June 2017. AIAA 2017-4051 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Vascik, P.D.; Hansman, R.J. Scaling Constraints for Urban Air Mobility Operations: Air Traffic Control, Ground Infrastructure, and Noise. In Proceedings of the 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 25–29 June 2018. AIAA 2018-3849 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Nardari, C.; Casalino, D.; Polidoro, F.; Coralic, V.; Brodie, J.; Lew, P. Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Flow Confinement Effects on UAV Rotor Noise. In Proceedings of the 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Delft, The Netherland, 20–23 May 2019. AIAA 2019-2497 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Casalino, D.; van der Velden, W.C.P.; Romani, G.; Gonzales-Martino, I. Aeroacoustic Analysis of Urban Air Operations using the LB/VLES Method. In Proceedings of the 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Delft, The Netherland, 20–23 May 2019. AIAA 2019-2662 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Intaratep, N.; Alexander, W.N.; Devenport, W.J.; Grace, S.M. Experimental Study of Quadcopter Acoustics and Performance at Static Thrust Conditions. In Proceedings of the 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Lyon, France, 30 May–1 June 2016. AIAA 2016-2873 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Yauwenas, Y.; Fisher, J.; Moreau, D.; Doolan, C. The effect of inflow disturbance on drone propeller noise. In Proceedings of the 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Delft, The Netherland, 20–23 May 2019. AIAA 2019-2663 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Serré, R.; Gourdain, N.; Jardin, T.; Jacob, M.; Moschetta, J. Towards silent micro-air vehicles: Optimization of a low Reynolds number rotor in hover. Int. J. Aeroacoustics
**2019**, 18, 690–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - McKay, R.S.; Kingan, M.J. Multirotor Unmanned Aerial System Propeller Noise Caused by Unsteady Blade Motion. In Proceedings of the 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Delft, The Netherland, 20–23 May 2019. AIAA 2019-2499 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, H.; Zhou, T.; Fattah, R.; Zhiang, X. Multi-rotor noise scattering by a drone fuselage. In Proceedings of the 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Delft, The Netherland, 20–23 May 2019. AIAA 2019-2586 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Bian, H.; Fattah, R.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, X. Noise prediction of drones in urban environments. In Proceedings of the 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Delft, The Netherland, 20–23 May 2019. AIAA 2019-2685 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Ffowcs Williams, J.E.; Hawkings, D.L. Sound Generation by Turbulence and Surfaces in Arbitrary Motion. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A
**1969**, A264, 321–342. [Google Scholar] - Ffowcs-Williams, J.E.; Hawkings, D.L. Theory relating to the noise of rotating machinery. J. Sound Vib.
**1969**, 10, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Goldstein, M.E. Aeroacoustics; Mc Graw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Lighthill, M.J. The Bakerian Lecture 1961, Sound generated aerodynamically. Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.
**1962**, 267, 147–182. [Google Scholar] - Dahan, C.; Avezard, L.; Guillien, G.; Malarmey, C.; Chombard, J. Propeller Light Aircraft Noise at Discrete Frequencies. J. Aircr.
**1981**, 18, 480–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tinney, C.E.; Sirohi, J. Multirotor Drone Noise at Static Thrust. AIAA J.
**2018**, 56, 2816–2826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Misiorowski, M.; Gandhi, F.; Oberai, A.A. A Computational Study on Rotor Interactional Effects for a Quadcopter in Edgewise Flight. AIAA J.
**2019**, 57, 5309–5319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Yoon, S.; Lee, H.C.; Pulliam, T.H. Computational Analysis of Multi-Rotor Flows. In Proceedings of the 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, 4–8 January 2016. AIAA 2016-0812 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Ventura Diaz, P.; Yoon, S. High-Fidelity Computational Aerodynamics of Multi-Rotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. In Proceedings of the AIAA SciTech Forum, Kissimmee, FL, USA, 8–12 January 2018. AIAA 2018-1266 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Moreau, S.; Sanjosé, M. Sub-harmonic broadband humps and tip noise in low-speed ring fans. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
**2016**, 139, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Roger, M.; Moreau, S. Aeroacoustic Installation Effects in Cooling Fan Systems Part 1: Scattering by Surrounding Surfaces. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Transport Phenomena and Dynamics of Rotating Machinery, Honolulu, HI, USA, 17–22 February 2008. 2008-20222 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Roger, M.; Kucukcoskun, K. Near-and-Far Field Modeling of Advanced Tail-Rotor Noise Using Source-Mode Expansions. J. Sound Vib.
**2019**, 453, 328–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Anderson, J.D. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Roger, M.; Moreau, S.; Guédel, A. Vortex-shedding noise and potential-interaction noise modeling by a reversed sears’ problem. In Proceedings of the 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Cambridge, MA, USA, 8–10 May 2006. AIAA 2006-2607 paper. [Google Scholar]
- Batchelor, G.K. An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Roger, M.; Moreau, S.; Kucukcoskun, K. On sound scattering by rigid edges and wedges in a flow, with applications to high-lift device aeroacoustics. J. Sound Vib.
**2016**, 362, 252–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Generic quadrotor architecture with main geometrical parameters (

**a**) and addressed test cases of hover (struts) and of forward flight (no strut) (

**b**).

**Figure 3.**Idealized instantaneous velocity triangle for a blade cross-section in forward flight with negative pitch (red) and main definitions.

**Figure 4.**Weighting factors on the steady-loading noise (

**a**) and on the low-order blade-loading harmonics of unsteady-loading noise $s=1$ and $s=-1$ ((

**b**) and (

**c**), respectively). Values of $X=Msin\theta $ by steps of 0.1 from 0.2 to 0.9. Value $X=0.18$ featured in red added as representative of the drone D1 ($B=2$). Value $X=0.7$ highlighted in blue as representative of the quadrotor reported by Yoon et al. [19] ($B=3$). Vertical dashed lines standing for the first three BPF orders $n=B,\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}n=2B,\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}n=3B$.

**Figure 5.**(

**a**) Isocontours of the sectional thrust coefficient on a front rotor of the quadrotor D1 in forward flight, from [18]. Typical values given on the plot. (

**b**) Modulus of the associated Fourier coefficients for ten circular cuts.

**Figure 6.**Two periods of the unwrapped angular profiles of sectional thrust for the 10 circular cuts in the map of Figure 5a (numbered on the plot). Inner and outer profiles highlighted on the left and right parts by black and colored markers, respectively, for clarity.

**Figure 7.**Three-dimensional directivity patterns of forward-flight noise, at $10\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}{R}_{T}$ from the quadrotor center. Single rotor (gray-blue) and pair of front rotors (dark red). Flight in the direction ${\mathbf{e}}_{X}$. Synchronized rotors with zero phasing (top) and half-blade passage phasing (bottom). Configuration D1, scales in arbitrary decibels.

**Figure 8.**Computed instantaneous pressure maps of the steady-loading noise (

**a**–

**d**) and of the total noise (

**e**,

**f**), in the plane of the front rotors of configuration D1, at the BPF. (

**a**,

**b**) Single-rotor signature; (

**c**,

**e**) zero phasing; (

**d**,

**f**) half-blade passage phasing. Rotations indicated by arrows, flight direction along ${\mathbf{e}}_{X}$, tip-radius circles drawn in white.

**Figure 9.**Azimuthal profiles of the upwash on the blades (normal to the chord) according to the potential-interaction model [25]. Configurations D1 (

**a**) and D2 (

**b**).

**Figure 11.**Three-dimensional directivity patterns of potential-interaction noise at $10\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}{R}_{T}$ from the quadrotor center. Single rotor (gray-blue) and pair of front rotors (dark red). Flight in the direction ${\mathbf{e}}_{X}$. Half-blade passage phasing synchronization. Configurations D1 (upper plots) and D2 (lower plots), same scales in arbitrary decibels.

**Table 1.**Main parameters of the quadrotor configurations used as test cases. Drone D1 used in both Section 3.3 and Section 3.4, drone D2 used only in Section 3.4.

L (m) | D (m) | ${\mathit{R}}_{\mathit{H}}$ (m) | ${\mathit{R}}_{\mathit{T}}$ (m) | d (m) | a (m) | $\mathbf{\Omega}$ (rpm) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

drone D1 | 0.229 | 0.323 | 0.019 | 0.152 | 0.076 | 0.014 | 4058 |

drone D2 | 0.177 | 0.250 | 0.01 | 0.083 | 0.025 | 0.012 | 4058 |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Roger, M.; Moreau, S.
Tonal-Noise Assessment of Quadrotor-Type UAV Using Source-Mode Expansions. *Acoustics* **2020**, *2*, 674-690.
https://doi.org/10.3390/acoustics2030036

**AMA Style**

Roger M, Moreau S.
Tonal-Noise Assessment of Quadrotor-Type UAV Using Source-Mode Expansions. *Acoustics*. 2020; 2(3):674-690.
https://doi.org/10.3390/acoustics2030036

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Roger, Michel, and Stéphane Moreau.
2020. "Tonal-Noise Assessment of Quadrotor-Type UAV Using Source-Mode Expansions" *Acoustics* 2, no. 3: 674-690.
https://doi.org/10.3390/acoustics2030036