NASA CR-132430

COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE OF HELICOPTER

NOISE: CRITERIA AND APPLICATION
By Charles L. Munch
Robert J. King

Prepared Under Contract No. NAS1-12495 By

Sikorsky Aircraft
Division of United Aircraft Corporation
Stratford, Connecticut
for
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

This page intentionally left blank.

ii

TABLE O F CONTENTS
PAGE
............................... v
vi
ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
viii
SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLES..

SUMMARY................................

INTRODUCTION.

....................... 3
Noise Criteria Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
S e l e c t i o n of a r a t i n g s c a l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
'4
Tone c o r r e c t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Duration e f f e c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S e l e c t i o n of a common comparison b a s i s for r a t i n g schemes .5
Evalu&tisn of c - i r e n t c r i t e r i a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

NOISE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

The impact of impulsive noise on a c c e p t a b i l i t y of helicopt e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

. . . . .11
LbN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

S e l e c t i o n of Criteria f o r C i v i l Helicopter Operations.

Computation of

A c c e p t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a i n terms of

bN.. . . . . . . . . .1 2

......................
..................
C I V I L TRANSPORT HELICOPTER NOISE EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e Basic Helicopter. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6
16
Helicopter Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Noise P r e d i c t i o n Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Basic Helicopter Noise C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Noise Reduction Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
E f f e c t of Impulsive Noise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Noise Reduction t o Meet t h e Community Acceptance C r i t e r i a . . . .I9
HARDWARE TESTS REQUIRED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.20
14
Use of t h e C r i t e r i a .
S e l e c t i o n of Typical Locations and Operations for Evaluation of
15
Baseline Helicopter Noise

iii

TABLF: OF CONTENTS ( c o n t i n u e d )
PAGE
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
37
TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A1
Example Use of Noise Acceptance C r i t e r i a . . . . . . . . . . . . A 1
Noise Acceptance C r i t e r i a
C i v i l H e l i c o p t e r Operations

TABLES

PAGE

I.

11.
111.

IV.
V.

VI.
VII.

Frequency Weighted T e r m s Used t o Define Judged Annoyance Loudness .37

S i m i l a r i t y of SPL(A) and PNL Unit Accuracy for Assessing Noise
Spectrum Annoyance

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Conversion of F e d e r a l Noise C r i t e r i a Units t o LA . . . . . . . . .39
Measured Community Noise Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .bo
Data Used i n Preparing Blade Slap C r e s t F a c t o r Information . . . .bo
Recommended C i v i l Helicopter Operations for Determining A i r c r a f t
Compliance w i t h Noise Criteria
Summary. of A i r c r a f t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Hardware Changes Evaluated . . . . . . . . . .42

LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
-

1. Comparison of Domestic and Foreign F e d e r a l Community Acceptance

Noise Guidelines

........................

2.

Comparison of C l e a r l y Acceptable L i m i t s of F e d e r a l Regulations

3.

Comparison of R e s i d e n t i a l Community Noise Regulations.

4.

E f f e c t of Blade S l a p on Judged Annoyance of

5.

I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n Used i n t h e I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Impulsive Noise

Annoyance.

43

. 44

. . . . . 45
H e l i c o p t e r s . . . . . 46

...........................

47

. . . 48

6.

Blade S l a p Annoyance as a Function of S i g n a l C r e s t F a c t o r .

7.

Oscillograph Traces of H e l i c o p t e r Sounds Used i n Impulsive Noise

Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k g

8.

P o s s i b l e Preliminary Impulsive Noise Annoyance P e n a l t y C r i t e r i a . 50

9.

Comparison of Federal, Camznity, and S%a%e Noise Regulations and

51
Guidelines w i t h t h e Proposed Community Acceptance C r i t e r i o n .

10.

Recommended Community Noise Acceptance Criteria.

11. E f f e c t of Ambient Noise on t h e Calculated

c r a f t Noise S i g n a t u r e .
12.

13.

LDN f o r

..
........
a Given A i r -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
CH-53D H e l i c o p t e r Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
S-67-40 Commercial Transport Helicopter. . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

14.

Typical C o r r e l a t i o n of P r e d i c t e d and Measured Performance of a n

H-53 H e l i c o p t e r .

15.

Comparison of

16.

Comparison of C a l c u l a t e d and Measured PNLT Time H i s t o r y f o r t h e

CH-53D H e l i c o p t e r .

17.

........................
56
Measured and P r e d i c t e d Rotor Noise . . . . . . . . 57
.......................

58

Four Takeoff P r o f i l e s for t h e S-65-40 H e l i c o p t e r Used for

Noise Evaluation

........................

18. Comparison of Actual and Approximate F l i g h t P r o f i l e s

19.

52

. . . . . . 60

Equal Noise Ground Contours for Takeoff 1 V e r t i c a l Climb t o 500

Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G I

vi,

59

LIST OF FIGURES ( c o n t i n u e d )

- Vertical

PAGE
-

20.

Equal Noise Ground Contours f o r Takeoff 2

250 F e e t .
,
,

21.

Equal Noise Ground Contours f o r Takeoff 3

22.

Equal Noise Ground Contours f o r Takeoff 4

23.

Comparison of t h e 95 SENEL Ground Noise Contours f o r Four D i f f e r .

65
e n t Takeoffs of t h e Baseline Helicopter

24.

Noise F o o t p r i n t Area C h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r Four Baseline Helicopter

Takeoffs..
,
66

25.

. .........

Climb t o

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
- Oblique. . . .
- Horizontal . .

. . . 63
. . . 64

........ ...

................... ......
Equal Noise Ground Contours f o r Landing - 10' Glide Slope. . . . 67

26.

Comparison of Baseline Helicopter Noise C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s With

Community Acceptance C r i t e r i a .

27.

Contribution of Each Noise Source t o t h e Baseline Helicopter

Noise..

28.

Baseline Helicopter Cruise Noise Compared With t h e Noise Acceptance C r i t e r i a

29.

E f f e c t of Impulsive Noise on a H e l i c o p t e r ' s Noise Annoyance

Characteristics.

30.

Comparison of t h e Noise F o o t p r i n t s of t h e Baseline S-65-40

H e l i c o p t e r and S i x Modified S-65-40 H e l i c o p t e r s .

31.

SENEL F o o t p r i n t Area C h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r t h e Modified S-65-40

Helicopters.

32.

Octave Band Noise Reduction Resulting i n Modification F H e l i copter..

,

33.

Flight

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
. . . . . . . . 72

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73'

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
P r o f i l e s of t h e Modified S-65-40 H e l i c o p t e r s . . . . . . . 75

vii

SYMBOLS
C

T o t a l number of a i r c r a f t t y p e s

CNEL

Community Noise Exposure Level

CNR

Composite Noise Rating

EPNL

E f f e c t i v e Perceived Noise Level ( t o n e and d u r a t i o n c o r r e c t e d PNL)

EPNdB

U n i t s of E f f e c t i v e Perceived Noise Level

O v e r a l l Sound P r e s s u r e Level

LA

A-weighted sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l ; A-weighted sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l

f o r 1 exposure of 1 0 second d u r a t i o n

LB
LC
T

-3

L~~
%I

LNN

LLS
LT

LLZ
Ln
L

50

L90
L

LA

B-weighted sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l
C-weighted sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l
Daytime noise l e v e l
Day-Night n o i s e l e v e l
N-weighted sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l ; n i g h t t i m e n o i s e l e v e l
NN-weighted sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l
Stevens' loudness l e v e l
T o t a l accumulated n o i s e exposure d u r i n g a day
Zwicker's loudness l e v e l
Noise l e v e l of t h e n-th period of t h e day
Level of ambient n o i s e t h a t i s exceeded 50% of t h e t i m e
Level of ambient n o i s e t h a t i s exceeded 90% of t h e t i m e
Steady blade a i r l o a d i n g ; Ambient n o i s e l e v e l
A-th b l a d e a i r l o a d i n g harmonic

Ut)

A-weighted sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l as a f u n c t i o n of time

Number of o p e r a t i o n s p e r day or n i g h t ; number of A t increments

contained i n t h e i n t e r n a l t t o t + AT
0

viii

SYMBOLS (continued)
NC

Noise C r i t e r i o n l e v e l

NEF

Noise Exposure Forecast

NI

Noisiness Index

NNI

Noise and Number Index

Nt

Number of c o n s t a n t noise energy p e r i o d s per day

T o t a l number of f l i g h t p a t h s over which "C"

PNL

Perceived Noise Level

PNdB

Units of Perceived Noise Level

PNLt

Tone c o r r e c t e d Perceived Noise Level

a i r c r a f t types f l y

Mean Annoyance Level

SENEL

S i n g l e Event Noise Exposure Level ( t o n e and d u r a t i o n c o r r e c t e d

dBA)

SIL

Speech I n t e r f e r e n c e Level

SPL(A) A-weighted Sound Pressure Level

AT

Time i n t e r v a l during which t h e a i r c r a f t n o i s e l e v e l i s above t h e

ambient l e v e l

dB

Decibel

dBA

Units of A-weighted sound pressure l e v e l

dBAt

Airloading harmonic delay f a c t o r

At

Tone c o r r e c t e d dBA

Duration of t h e n-th period of t h e day

T i m e when a i r c r a f t n o i s e l e v e l f i r s t exceeds t h e ambient

At

Time increment between successive v a l u e s of L(t)

Time

Airloading harmonic number

ix

SYMBOLS ( c ont inued )

0

Standard d e v i a t i o n
I s o p h e r i c Index

COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE OF HELICOPTER

NOISE: CRITERIA AND APPLICATION

By Charles L. Munch and Robert J . King

Sikorsky A i r c r a f t D i v i s i o n
United A i r c r a f t Corporation

SUMMARY

A study w a s conducted t o define t h o s e c r i t e r i a necessary f o r c i v i l

h e l i c o p t e r o p e r a t i o n s t o be a c o u s t i c a l l y a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e communities from
which t h e y o p e r a t e and over which they f l y . The s t u d y involved surveying
e x i s t i n g domestic and f o r e i g n F e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s and g u i d e l i n e s , s t a t e
and l o c a l n o i s e ordinances, r e s u l t s of community n o i s e annoyance s t u d i e s ,
and r e s u l t s of i n d i v i d u a l a i r c r a f t noise annoyance s t u d i e s i n order t o
establish the criteria.
The f i n a l c r i t e r i a s e l e c t e d a r e based on t h e Day-Night Noise Level,
a measure of t o t a l n o i s e exposure. The b a s i c r a t i n g u n i t i s t h e "A"
weighted sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l (dBA) which has accuracy comparable t o o t h e r
u n i t s c u r r e n t l y used f o r a i r c r a f t . An L
a criDN of 60 i s recommended asvalue
t e r i o n f o r areas where t h e ambient noise i s below 58 dBA. An
2 dBA above t h e l o c a l ambient i s recommended f o r a r e a s where t h e ambient
i s above 58 dBA. This assures t h a t t h e energy c o n t r i b u t e d by any new noise
source (such as a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n s ) is less t h a n t h e e x i s t i n g ambient noise
energy. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s found important f o r a i r c r a f t n o i s e r a t i n g such as
t o n e c o n t e n t , d u r a t i o n , and number of o p e r a t i o n s have been accounted f o r .
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e c a p a b i l i t y f o r r a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l and cumulative a i r c r a f t
o p e r a t i o n s f o r community a c c e p t a b i l i t y , t h e s e c r i t e r i a i n c l u d e t h e e f f e c t s
of o t h e r non-aircraft n o i s e sources and t h e ambient n o i s e environment.
This broad c a p a b i l i t y makes t h e c r i t e r i a widely a p p l i c a b l e .

%u,

LDN

As p a r t of t h e study a c u r r e n t g e n e r a t i o n 50 passenger c i v i l t r a n s p o r t h e l i c o p t e r developed from a 18100 t o 22700 kg (40,000 t o 50,000 pound)

s i n g l e main r o t o r m i l i t a r y t r a n s p o r t was a c o u s t i c a l l y evaluated f o r t y p i c a l
commercial s e r v i c e using t h e recommended
c r i t e r i a . It w a s found t h a t
t h e unmodified a i r c r a f t meets t h e c r i t e r i o n l e v e l s i n c r u i s e f l i g h t .
For t y p i c a l t a k e o f f s and l a n d i n g s , some m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e main and t a i l
r o t o r were found t o be necessary f o r t h e h e l i c o p t e r t o meet t h e c r i t e r i a ,
however t h e s e changes do not g r e a t l y a l t e r t h e a i r c r a f t ' s performance.

LDN

The modifications found necessary include t i p speed r e d u c t i o n s and u s e

of advanced design b l a d e s . Some t u r b i n e engine i n l e t and exhaust n o i s e
suppression w a s found t o be necessary, however, t h e p e n a l t y i n weight and
power l o s s i s q u i t e s m a l l .

INTRODUCTION
The c u r r e n t study was undertaken i n r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e f a c t t h a t
t h e r e i s a growing need f o r s i g n i f i c a n t improvements i n c i v i l short-haul
air t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems. With m a j o r a i r p o r t s moving f u r t h e r and f u r t h e r
from t h e c i t y c e n t e r ( o r b u s i n e s s d i s t r i c t ) t h e r e i s an obvious need f o r
r e l i a b l e , e f f i c i e n t c i t y center t o c i t y center short haul a i r transport
systems t h a t can be good neighbors t o t h e r e s i d e n t s of t h e communities
t h e y s e r v e . I n t h i s r e g a r d , t h e h e l i c o p t e r i s an i d e a l candidate a s a
v e h i c l e t o use i n such a t r a n s p o r t system. It i s capable of reasonably
high speeds, it can c a r r y 50 t o 100 passengers or more, and it can o p e r a t e
from s m a l l t e r m i n a l s , a n e c e s s i t y i n c i t y c e n t e r s where l a n d i s a t a
premium. Perhaps most importantly, t h e h e l i c o p t e r i s g e n e r a l l y q u i e t e r
t h a n o t h e r V/STOL systems (for a given s i z e ) because it has a much lower
disk loading tiiui tiie other systems.
I n undertaking a study t o e v a l u a t e h e l i c o p t e r s i n a c i v i l t r a n s p o r t
system it i s necessary t o have a v a i l a b l e a n o i s e acceptance c r i t e r i a
a g a i n s t which t h e i r a c o u s t i c performance can be measured. There a r e i n
e x i s t a n c e today as many as 25 t o 30 d e s c r i p t o r s f o r s c a l i n g an i n d i v i d u a l ' s
annoyance t o n o i s e and perhaps 8 t o 1 2 methods f o r d e s c r i b i n g community
annoyance and/or r e a c t i o n t o a l l types of n o i s e . Therefore, one of t h e p r i mary a i m s of t h e p r e s e n t study i s t o evaluate a l l of t h e s e measures along
w i t h e x i s t i n g or proposed f e d e r a l , s t a t e , and l o c a l n o i s e g u i d e l i n e s and
r e g u l a t i o n s and f r m them evolve workable, a c c u r a t e n o i s e c r i t e r i a t o p r e d i c t
t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y of p r o j e c t e d h e l i c o p t e r o p e r a t i o n s t o a community.
The o t h e r main o b j e c t i v e of t h i s s t u d y i s t o compare t h e n o i s e
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a c u r r e n t generation 50 passenger h e l i c o p t e r with t h e
c r i t e r i a and then determine hardware changes t h a t can be made t o t h e a i r c r a f t
t o a l l o w it t o meet t h e c r i t e r i a . For t h e purposes of t h e - s t u d y , t h e c i v i l
h e l i c o p t e r i s considered t o be a d e r i v a t i v e of a m i l i t a r y t r a n s p o r t h e l i c o p t e r i n t h e 18100 t o 22700 kilogram (40,000 t o 50,000 pound) g r o s s weight
category. Hardware changes considered are t h o s e t h a t a r e developed
enough t o be a p p l i e d t o t h e h e l i c o p t e r i n t h e 1975-1976 time frame w i t h l i t t l e
or no a d d i t i o n a l development t i m e r e q u i r e d . Preliminary estimates of changes
i n a i r c r a f t performance due t o t h e hardware changes are t o be made.

NOISE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

S e l e c t i o n of a community noise acceptance c r i t e r i a involves s e v e r a l

d i s c r e t e s t e p s s t a r t i n g with s e l e c t i o n of t h e b a s i c u n i t r e l a t i n g p h y s i c a l
sound t o human r e a c t i o n . Once t h e r a t i n g s c a l e i s s e l e c t e d , t h e number on
t h i s s c a l e t h a t corresponds t o a noise exposure a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e average
member of t h e cornunity must be determined. F u r t h e r , it must be determined
wnether t'ne environment t o which t h i s average commw-ity member has become
aclimated has an i n f l u e n c e on his "acceptabie" n o i s e l e v e l m d i f s o what
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s between t h i s ambient n o i s e envieonment and h i s t o l e r a n c e
t o new n o i s e exposure. Another f a c t o r t o b e considered i s t h e e f f e c t of
exposure d u r a t i o n on t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y of n o i s e . The d u r a t i o n of each
exposure as w e l l as t h e number of exposures p e r day has been shown t o
i n f l u e n c e n o i s e a c c e p t a b i l i t y and t h i s t o o must be included i n t h e f i n a l
c r i t e r i a . F i n a l l y , t h e r e i s t h e question of t h e annoyance of p e r i o d i c
impulsive n o i s e (known as "blade slap" on h e l i c o p t e r s ) . The annoyance
of t h i s t y p e of n o i s e i s not adequately accounted f o r i n any e x i s t i n g
r a t i n g s c a l e and t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e s a c o r r e c t i o n t o properly d e f i n e i t s
annoyance.
Each of t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d above w i l l be d e a l t w i t h i n
d e t a i l below. The r e s u l t i n g community n o i s e a c c e p t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a accounts
f o r each of t h e f a c t o r s i n a conservative manner and w i l l , i f observed,
r e s u l t i n community/helicopter c o m p a t i b i l i t y . One t o p i c r e q u i r i n g f u r t h e r
r e s o l u t i o n , however, i s t h a t of t h e blade s l a p annoyance penalty. There
i s not s u f f i c i e n t r e l i a b l e data a v a i l a b l e a t t h i s time t o f i n a l l y r e s o l v e
e i t h e r t h e method of q u a n t i f y i n g e x i s t e n c e of b l a d e s l a p i n a n o i s e s i g n a l
or i n measuring an o b s e r v e r ' s annoyance r e a c t i o n t o it.

Noise C r i t e r i a Development

S e l e c t i o n of a r a t i n g s c a l e .
There a r e three b a s i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s
i n choosing a s c a l e f o r r a t i n g t h e annoyance of n o i s e . F i r s t i s t h e
p r e c i s i o n of t h e s c a l e . This i s perhaps t h e most important f a c t o r i n t h e
choice of a s c a l e because it determines t h e degree t o which a c a l c u l a t e d
r a t i n g matches t h e s u b j e c t i v e r a t i n g of a t y p i c a l member of t h e community.
S c a l e i n a c c u r a c i e s could render a n e n t i r e r a t i n g system worthless. The
second c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h a t of commonality with o t h e r systems. The c u r r e n t
t r e n d of developing a new annoyance scale f o r each new n o i s e source has l e d
t o some confusion, hence a s c a i e t h a t i s e a s i l y recognized and i s of use
t o non-acousticians must be s e l e c t e d . The t h i r d c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s e a s e of
use. A simple weighting s c a l e t h a t produces a d i r e c t readout on a simple
meter i s p r e f e r a b l e t o a method which r e q u i r e s a computer or long hand
c a l c u l a t i o n t o produce a r e s u l t .

The "A" weighted sound pressure l e v e l (SPL(A) i n dBA) has been

s e l e c t e d as t h e b a s i c u n i t of annoyance measurement f o r t h e community
annoyance c r i t e r i a because of t h e above c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Candidate u n i t s
t h a t w e r e surveyed are l i s t e d i n Table I. The "A" weighted sound p r e s s u r e
l e v e l w a s found i n s e v e r a l s t u d i e s t o be as a c c u r a t e as any of t h e o t h e r
u n i t s . It i s t h e most commonly used u n i t f o r r a t i n g a v a r i e t y of n o i s e
t y p e s i n c l u d i n g a i r c r a f t , motor v e h i c l e s , and community ambients, and it
i s e a s i l y measured using a standard sound l e v e l meter.
The s u i t a b i i i t y of SPL(A) for rating t h e annoyance of a i r c r a f t n o i s e
i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d i n s e v e r a l s t u d i e s (eg.
References 1-7). SPL(A) w a s
compared i n t h e s e s t u d i e s w i t h s e v e r a l o t h e r measures of a i r c r a f t n o i s e
annoyance and found t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y as good o r b e t t e r t h a n t h e r e s t .
A study performed by Ollerhead (Reference 3) on g e n e r a l a v i a t i o n a i r c r a f t
n o i s e r e s u l t e d i n c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between measured and computed
s u b j e c t i v e r a t i n g s of 0.867 f o r SPL(A) and 0.88 f o r PNL. This and o t h e r
data are l i s t e d i n Table 11. The other r a t i n g u n i t s had c o r r e l a t i o n
The s i m i l a r i t y i n c o r r e l a t i o n
c o e f f i c i e n t s i n t h e range 0.714 t o 0.879.
between PNL, t h e commonly used u n i t f o r a i r c r a f t n o i s e annoyance, and
SPL(A) i s t y p i c a l and shows t h a t t h e two measures d i f f e r i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y
i n t h e i r a b i l i t y t o rate a i r c r a f t noise f o r annoyance. Perhaps t h e l a r g e
amount of s t u d y regarding t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e s e s i m i l a r r a t i n g u n i t s
i s summed best by D. M. Green i n Reference 6: "The e x i s t i n g procedures,
a t l e a s t i n my opinion, a r e s o c l o s e t h a t it i s r e a l l y r a t h e r p o i n t l e s s
t o argue about t h e s u p e r i o r i t y of one o r a n o t h e r . What is needed i s t h e
r e s u l t of an experiment using a c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d s e t of s p e c t r a where
t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e d i c t i o n are very g r e a t . Otherwise, I t h i n k w e w i l l
continue t o f i n d t h a t a l l of t h e methods are about e q u a l l y good and while
one, on t h e average, may be somewhat b e t t e r , no one i s c l e a r l y s u p e r i o r t o
a l l t h e others". An experiment such as t h a t mentioned by M r . Green w a s
performed subsequent t o h i s remarks by J . B. Ollerhead (Reference 1).
Using s p e c t r a which v a r i e d from pure j e t a i r c r a f t t o r o t o r c r a f t he found
t h a t t h e r e w a s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e among t h e r a t i n g u n i t s .

I n summary, t h e SPL(A) u n i t , although not s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e t t e r t h a n

any of t h e o t h e r u n i t s a v a i l a b l e , i s of comparable accuracy t o them and
o f f e r s major advantages of commonality w i t h n o n - a i r c r a f t r a t i n g schemes,
ease of measurement, and a v a i l a b i l i t y of measurement equipment.

Tone c o r r e c t i o n s .
There i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence (References 1,
2, 8, 9 ) t o support t h e need f o r a c o r r e c t i o n t o account f o r t h e i n c r e a s e
i n annoyance of s i g n a l s containing pure t o n e s . This s u b j e c t i v e i n c r e a s e
i n annoyance i s over and above t h e c a l c u l a t e d c o n t r i b u t i o n made by t h e t o n e
t o t h e o v e r a l l annoyance r a t i n g . The most r e c e n t and w e l l documented
s t u d i e s (Reference 3 f o r one) i n d i c a t e t h a t such a c o r r e c t i o n enhances
annoyance p r e d i c t i o n only f o r tones above 500 Hertz i n frequency.
The F e d e r a l Aviation Administration has adopted a tone c o r r e c t i o n
i n i t s n o i s e s t a n d a r d s f o r t r a n s p o r t category a i r c r a f t (Reference 1 0 ) .

Although a p p l i e d i n t h i s case t o t h e ?NL r a t i n g u n i t , t h e c o r r e c t i o n i s

independent of t h e annoyance r a t i n g u n i t c a l c u l a t i o n procedure and hence
i s a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r u n i t s . There i s a n e a r l y constant d i f f e r e n c e between
PNL and SPL(A) f o r most noise s p e c t r a so it w i l l be assumed t h a t because
a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e t o n e c o r r e c t i o n enhances t h e annoyance p r e d i c t i o n accuracy of PNL it w i l l a l s o enhance t h e annoyance p r e d i c t i o n accuracy of SPL(A).
The procedure t o be used t o determine t h i s c o r r e c t i o n i s t h a t described i n
Reference 11, w i t h t h e exception t h a t only t o n e s w i t h frequencies above
500 Hz a r e included.

Duration e f f e c t s .
Nearly a l l a v a i l a b l e evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e
time t o which a s u b j e c t i s exposed t o noise a f f e c t s h i s judgement as t o
i t s annoyance. The consensus of t h i s evidence f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e
time-annoyance r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a d i r e c t a c o u s t i c energy summation; i . e .
annoyance i n c r e a s e s 3 dB p e r doubling o f exposure time. Other r e l a t i o n s h i p s
have evolved from t h e many experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on t h e s u b j e c t .
These i n c l u d e doppler s h i f t c o r r e c t i o n s , onset c o r r e c t i o n s , and higher and
lower r a t e s of accumulated annoyance with time. The more s o p h i s t i c a t e d
of t h e s e other r e l a t i o n s h i p s have been developed f o r s p e c i a l i z e d c l a s s e s
of n o i s e sources; i n any c a s e , t h e y have not achieved g e n e r a l acceptance.
The i n s t a n c e s of o t h e r t h a n d i r e c t energy summation f o r accumulating annoyance w i t h time a r e i n t h e minority and have been adopted f o r r e g u l a t o r y use
only i n a f e w f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s . The c u r r e n t f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n f o r t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t i n c l u d e s t h e d i r e c t energy summation method of accumulating
annoyance with t i m e .
The near u n i v e r s a l acceptance of t h e energy summation procedure
as w e l l as i t s s i m p l i c i t y of use has l e a d t o i t s s e l e c t i o n f o r u s e i n t h e
c i v i l h e l i c o p t e r c r i t e r i a . Not only may t h e d u r a t i o n of a s i n g l e event
( f l y o v e r , t a k e o f f , or l a n d i n g ) be r a t e d a c c u r a t e l y f o r annoyance, but a l s o
e f f e c t s of m u l t i p l e sources and events a r e a c c u r a t e l y and simple included.
S e l e c t i o n of a common comparison b a s i s f o r r a t i n g schemes. - It i s
necessary t o reduce t o a common b a s i s a l l of t h e r a t i n g schemes t o be
e v a l u a t e d i n order t o develop t h e c i v i l t r a n s p o r t h e l i c o p t e r community
t h e "A"
n o i s e acceptance c r i t e r i a . The common u n i t s e l e c t e d is L
A'
weighted sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l (SPL(A)) of a s i n g l e event w i t h a c o n s t a n t
n o i s e l e v e l and a d u r a t i o n of 1 0 seconds. It w a s s e l e c t e d because SPL(A)
i s comon t o most n o n - a i r c r a f t annoyance r a t i n g schemes, SPL(A) i s t o be
used i n t h e developed c r i t e r i a , t h e 10 second d u r a t i o n i s common t o most
a i r c r a f t r a t i n g schemes, and use of a s i n g l e event e l i m i n a t e s any confusion
which might be caused by t h e v a r i o u s summation methods used i n a i r c r a f t
noise annoyance r a t i n g schemes. LA is defined as:
LA = 10 loglo

(3

antilog

rSPL(Alat

1 0 sec

L* = 10loglo

.
I"/
f T antilog

spL(A)d$
10

10

where JT antilog{-$tt
r e p r e s e n t s t h e t o t a l energy i n t h e
s i g n a l over a F u l l 24 hour period and 10 s e c i s t h e normalizing t i m e . A l l
c r i t e r i a t o be compared must now be converted t o t h i s u n i t . This i s done
r a t h e r simply by noting (References 3, 12, 13) t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e between
a spectrum's SPL(A) and i t s PNL i s , on t h e average, 1 3 dB and t h a t a l l c r i t e r i a considered use one of t h e s e two basic u n i t s . So noting t h i s r e l a t i o n ship:
SPL(A) = PNL

13

(2)

t h e v a r i o u s c r i t e r i a may be compared. Composite Noise Rating (CNR) w i l l

be converted t o L as a n example. From Reference 12 f o r an exposure
A
d u r a t i o n of 10 seconds:
CNR = 1 0 Loglo

(lOpNL'lo)

+ 1 0 LOGIO(n)

12

(3)

Here t h e 10 second d u r a t i o n has a l r e a d y been accounted f o r hence LA=PNL-13.

The number of f l i g h t s , n, i s s e t equal t o one r e s u l t i n g i n t h e folowing
r e i a t i o n f o r CNii:

CNR = 1 0 loglo

or :

LA = CNR

(1

10

-12 = LA

13-12 = LA

(4)
(5)

Evaluation of c u r r e n t c r i t e r i a .
The same conversion process given
i n t h e example above w a s a p p l i e d t o s e v e r a l domestic and f o r e i g n f e d e r a l
n o i s e standards r e s u l t i n g i n Table 111. These conversions were applied
t o t h e various standards t o d e f i n e t h e range of acceptable l e v e l s f o r each
To i n s u r e t h a t t h e l e v e l derived i s conservative
standard i n terms of L
A'
i n terms of being acceptable t o t h e exposed community t h e v a r i o u s standards
were t r e a t e d as shown i n Figure 1. For each standard l i s t e d a range of
l e v e l s i s blocked out. This range defines t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s ' b e s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e marginally acceptable range of l e v e l s t h a t s e p a r a t e t h e
c l e a r l y acceptable and c l e a r l y unacceptable l e v e l s i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r
standard. Some i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was necessary because of t h e v a r i a t i o n s
i n language used t o d e f i n e t h e degree of a c c e p t a b i l i t y of noise i n t h e
standards. There i s a l a r g e range of marginally acceptable l e v e l s with
t h e average c e n t e r f a l l i n g i n t h e LA range of 100 t o 110.
The lower end of t h e shaded regions i n Figure 1, which i s t h e upper
boundary of t h e c l e a r l y acceptable region, w a s s e l e c t e d f o r f u r t h e r conside r a t i o n . This l e v e l , r a t h e r than t h e c e n t e r of t h e marginally acceptable
range, w a s chosen i n an e f f o r t t o bias t h e u l t i m a t e c r i t e r i a i n f a v o r of
t h e community. This d e c i s i o n w a s made t o provide r e s u l t i n g c r i t e r i a l e v e l s
a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e community.

Figure 2 shows t h e " c l e a r l y acceptable" l e v e l s of Figure 1, a g a i n

i n terms of t h e common r a t i n g f a c t o r L
The mean of a l l t h e s t a n d a r d s
i s 97.5 dB with a standard d e v i a t i o n
6 . 5 . When t h e obviously conservat i v e HUD t r a f f i c n o i s e ( p o s s i b l y out of t h e range of t h e o t h e r s because
of d i f f i c u l t y i n i n t e r p r e t f n g it i n L u n i t s ) i s removed from t h e average
process t h e numbers become 100 and 4.4 dB r e s p e c t i v e l y . It i s f e l t t h a t
t h i s 100 dB i n L u n i t s r e p r e s e n t s a conservative e s t i m a t e of n o i s e exposure
A
which would be considered c l e a r l y acceptable according t o t h e c r i t e r i a
evaluated.

04

Community c r i t e r i a : Twenty-two community n o i s e r e g u l a t i o n s were

e v a l u a t e d on t h e same basis as t h e f e d e r a l c r i t e r i a . The L v a l u e s computed
B
from them are shown i n Figure 3 . The mean and standard d e v i a t i o n of t h e
r e g u l a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d by t h e open c i r c l e s are 93.5 and 3.0 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Regulations corresponding t o t h e darkened c i r c l e s were considered o u t of
l i n e w i t h t h e main body of d a t a . The e n t i r e data set had a mean of
93 dB and a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of approximately 6 i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e main
body, or two t h i r d s of a s t a n d a r d s e t , of data w a s between 87 and 99 dB;
data p o i n t s o u t s i d e of t h e s e bounds were not considered f u r t h e r and were
dropped from t h e average.
The s i x t e e n community n o i s e r e g u l a t i o n s considered i n t h e Figure

3 average i n c l u d e s e v e r a l l a r g e c i t i e s such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and

M i a m i and some smaller c i t i e s and towns. New York C i t y i s not shown i n
Figure 3 because r e g u l a t i o n s f o r a i r c r a f t n o i s e are j u s t now being considered and t e n t a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s a r e not yet a v a i l a b l e . The LA numbers i n d i c a t e d
i n t h e f i g u r e are f o r r e s i d e n t i a l zones except where a d i s t i n c t i o n w a s
made i n t h e r e g u l a t i o n . Normally, commercial and i n d u s t r i a l zones are allowed
t o be 5 t o 10 dB higher t h a n t h o s e l e v e l s shown.
The L values f o r community r e g u l a t i o n s were d e r i v e d using t h e same
A
grnund r u l e s and s c a l e d e f i n i t i o n as f o r t h e f e d e r a l c r i t e r i a t r e a t e d
e a r l i e r . However, t h e n a t u r e of t h e s e community ordinances r e q u i r e d a
s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t method of d e r i v i n g t h e LA v a l u e . The ordinances under
c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e g u l a t e t h e allowable noise over t h e t o t a l 24 hour p e r i o d
of a day. Therefore t o develop t h e comparable 10 second allowable n o i s e
exposure ( L ) t h e t o t a l n o i s e over t h i s 24 hour p e r i o d must be summed and
A
converted back t o an equivalent 1 0 second d u r a t i o n of constant l e v e l .
The procedure i s as follows:
The t o t a l n o i s e exposure L, accumulated during a day is:

= 10

where L i s t h e n o i s e l e v e l f o r t h e nth p e r i o d with d u r a t i o n A t seconds.

The Nt g e r i o d s c o n s t i t u t e a f u l l day. The LA term i s t h e n equa? t o LT
minus 10
( t o account f o r t h e 1 0 second d u r a t i o n assumed). Hence:

LA = 1 0 Loglo

Ln
a n t i l o g ( ~ ) Atn
x

(7)

-10

I n c a s e s where a n allowable l e v e l i s n o t given f o r n i g h t time p e r i o d s

t h e l e v e l i s assumed t o be f i v e d B below t h a t allowed f o r daytime p e r i o d s .
Night i s assumed t o have a d u r a t i o n of 9 hours and day i s t h e remaining
15 hours.

A s an example of t h e computation c o n s i d e r t h e c a s e of Farmington,

Connecticut. The allowable daytime noise l e v e l i s 46 dBA with no c o r r e c t i o n
given f o r nighttime. I n c a l c u l a t i n g LA t h e nighttime n o i s e l e v e l w i l l t h e n
be 5 1 dB, which i s a p e n a l t y of 5 dB f o r t h i s p e r i o d . The c a l c u l a t i o n
i s as f o l l o w s .

= 1 0 Loglo {antilog(%)x
LA

9 x 3600 + a n t i l o g 46+5
( T ) x 15

38004

L = 99
10 = 8 d
BAlo
-S t a t e C r i t e r i a : S t a t e c r i t e r i a f o r allowable n o i s e exposure i n
r e s i d e n t i a l areas are not common. However, t h o s e f o r t h e t h r e e states
f o r which such information w a s a v a i l a b l e were t r e a t e d i n t h e same manner as
t h e community ordinances. The r e s u l t i n g average i s an LA of 96.3 dBA.

Impact" t y p e c r i t e r i a : Studies such as References 1 4 , 1 5 and

16 i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e most e q u i t a b l e method of determining t h e amount of
11

n o i s e t o which a community can be exposed i s t o relate it t o t h e e x i s t i n g

ambient n o i s e c o n d i t i o n s . This appears t o be a reasonable approach t o t h e
problem because of t h e w e l l known f a c i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s t o become acclimated t o t h e i r environment. Those l i v i n g i n high n o i s e areas have become accustomedlto it and are less disturbed by a n o i s e of a given l e v e l
than t h o s e l i v i n g i n a lower ambient noise area.
A s a check on t h i s t h e o r y and as a n a d d i t i o n a l check on t h e
t o l e r a b l e n o i s e l e v e l s i n v a r i o u s communities, s e v e r a l c a t e g o r i e s of amb i e n t n o i s e l e v e l were e v a l u a t e d i n terms of t h e common u n i t L
Ambient
n o i s e l e v e l s were determined from Reference 15 ( O l l e r h e a d ) and eference
17 (Donley). These two r e f e r e n c e s u t i l i z e l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of measured
data t o d e r i v e average q u a n t i t i e s and t h e y a g r e e s u b s t a n t i a l l y on l e v e l s .
Data from Reference 18 i s f o r s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s and a l s o g e n e r a l l y a g r e e .
For i n s t a n c e , i n t h e c a s e of suburban r e s i d e n t i a l n o i s e l e v e l s during t h e
and L
l e v e l s of 45.6 and 50.9
daytime hours Reference 1 5 c i t e s L
dBA r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e correspondi8: levelzOfrom Reference 17 are 43
and 50 dBA. The data of Reference 1 5 w a s used f o r t h e following computations
because t h e y w e r e presented i n a more e a s i l y used format. The s p e c i f i c
data used i s contained i n Table N. The L
and L
levels referred t o
i n t h e t a b l e and above a r e t h e "A" weightea0ambien?'sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l s
which are exceeded during t h e measurement p e r i o d 50 and 90 percent of t h e
time r e s p e c t i v e l y . This method of presenting ambient n o i s e i s necessary
due t o i t s s t a t i s t i c a l n a t u r e .

The L v a l u e s f o r t h e s e ambient n o i s e c o n d i t i o n s were determined

A
with t h e same procedure used f o r community ordinances. LA v a l u e s f o r t h e
c i t y c e n t e r and suburban r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s a r e 110 and 85.3 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
They cover t h e f u l l range of e x i s t i n g ordinances and provide a t l e a s t a
p a r t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e wide spread i n t h e s e r e g u l a t i o n s . The previous
n o i s e exposure environment of t h e various areas probably i n f l u e n c e t h e l e v e l s
which r e s i d e n t s consider reasonable.
The impact t o ambient t m e c r i t e r i a t a k e t h e e x i s t i n g ambient
n o i s e l e v e l s , sometimes bounded by a lower l i m i t , and s t a t e t h a t new n o i s e
i n t h e a r e a can i n c r e a s e t h i s ambient only by "X" dB. I n a c t u a l p r a c t i c e ,
t h i s number "X" ranges from two t o f i v e dB f o r t h e r e g u l a t i o n s surveyed.
Although not mentioned i n previous s e c t i o n s a s m a l l percentage of t h e community n o i s e r e g u l a t i o n s surveyed were i n f a c t impact t o ambient t y p e s and
t h e i r allowable l e v e l s were determined by applying t h e allowable impact
t o t h e ambients t y p i c a l of t h e i r l o c a t i o n .
The impact of impulsive n o i s e on a c c e p t a b i l i t y of h e l i c o p t e r s . Very l i t t l e information i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e regarding t h e e f f e c t
of r e p e a t e d impulses ( b l a d e s l a p ) on the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of h e l i c o p t e r n o i s e .
Many s t u d i e s on t h e annoyance of sonic booms have been performed, but t h e
r e s u l t s are not d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e t o b l a d e s l a p c o n d i t i o n s where t h e
impulses are r e p e t i t i v e and where t h e o v e r a l l amplitude i n c r e a s e s and t h e n
d e c r e a s e s as t h e h e l i c o p t e r passes over. Based on t h e sketchy information
a v a i l a b l e from t h e l i t e r a t u r e (References 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) it appears
( a s shown i n Figure 4 ) t h a t t h e r e should be a 4 t o 6 PNdB p e n a l t y when
impulsive n o i s e i s p r e s e n t i n a s i g n a l . I n terms of A-weighted sound l e v e l
t h e p e n a l t y appears t o be somewhat l a r g e r , on t h e o r d e r of 8 t o 1 3 dBA.
One of t h e major d i f f i c u l t i e s i n applying a p e n a l t y f o r impusive
n o i s e i s i n e s t a b l i s h i n g an o b j e c t i v e means t o d e f i n e i t s presence and
s e v e r i t y . A study performed i n 1963 (Reference 23) i n d i c a t e s t h a t impulses
r e p e a t e d i n excess of 18.80 p e r second are perceived a s s t e a d y (continuous)
n o i s e . Most i n v e s t i g a t o r s , i n c l u d i n g t h e a u t h o r s , have concluded t h a t phase
information i s necessary t o t h e determination of whether a spectrum has
impulsive content. Others, i n t h e minority, contend t h a t phase information
i s i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e determination of t h e n o i s i n e s s of impulsive n o i s e .
Leverton (Reference 20) d e f i n e s no o b j e c t i v e method of d e f i n i n g t h e presence
of i m p u l s i v i t y i n a s i g n a l but contends t h a t i f it i s s u b j e c t i v e l y p r e s e n t
a p e n a l t y of 12 dB should be imposed r e l a t i v e t o t h e n o i s i n e s s computed
by conventional o b j e c t i v e means.
Because of t h e l a c k of c o n s i s t e n t information on t h e annoyance
of impulsive n o i s e and on o b j e c t i v e means of determing i t s presence, a
l i m i t e d t e s t w a s conducted. This t e s t w a s meant t o be no more than a crude
beginning toward d e f i n i n g an a c c u r a t e b l a d e s l a p annoyance assessment method.
Consequently, only preliminary recommendations can be made a t t h i s p o i n t .

The c r e s t f a c t o r of a s i g n a l , which, i n dB, is 20 t i m e s t h e common

logarithm of t h e r a t i o of peak t o root-mean-square ( r m s ) sound p r e s s u r e
l e v e l , w a s s e l e c t e d f o r e v a l u a t i o n as an impulse n o i s e i n d i c a t o r because
it has known v a l u e s f o r common noise types ( 3 dB f o r s i n u s o i d a l o r p i t c h e d
n o i s e , 10 dB f o r Gaussian or broadband n o i s e ) and seems l o g i c a l for t h e desc r i p t i o n of blade s l a p n o i s e which i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a h i g h l y peaked t i m e
h i s t o r y . It i s a l s o a parameter which i s r a t h e r e a s i l y measured. Select i o n of a frequency spectrum based d e s c r i p t o r was avoided because of t h e
need t o i n c l u d e phase information necessary t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e b l a d e s l a p
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . The meter used t o determine t h e peak s i g n a l l e v e l had a
time c o n s t a n t T of 0.005 seconds. The e a r has a t i m e constant of about
0.05 seconds. The e f f e c t of t i m e constant i s not known and should be t h e
s u b j e c t of f u r t h e r study. The instrumentation used f o r t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n
i s d e s c r i b e d i n Figure 5 .
Unfortunately t h e peak meter used was a "capture-and-hold" t y p e
peak impulse meter which r e g i s t e r s t h e h i g h e s t peak l e v e l obtained.
I n r e t r o s p e c t , t h e peak l e v e l r e q u i r e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e c r e s t f a c t o r
should have been t h e average peak l e v e l because a random peak or two i n
an otherwise r e p e t i t i v e s i g n a l would produce t o o high a peak reading f o r
t h e s i g r l a l in gerreral, and hence, a n abnormally high c r e s t f a c t o r .
Nine recorded h e l i c o p t e r n o i s e samples were evaluated during t h e
study. They were s u b j e c t i v e l y c l a s s i f i e d as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e and e x t e n t
of b l a d e s l a p by t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s ( a d m i t t e d l y not an unbiased or naive
e v a l u a t i o n ) during a l i s t e n i n g t e s t . The t r u e rms and peak sound p r e s s u r e
l e v e l s w e r e then determined with t h e use of t h e F i g u r e 5 instrumentation.
R e s u l t s a r e t a b u l a t e d i n Table V . The d a t a i s p l o t t e d as c r e s t f a c t o r
v e r s u s s u b j e c t i v e blade s l a p r a t i n g i n F i g u r e 6. The t e n t a t i v e boundary
f o r b l a d e s l a p e x i s t e n c e a t a c r e s t f a c t o r of 13 dB i s shown i n t h e f i g u r e .
The boundary i s not based on a l e a s t squares f i t l i n e c r o s s i n g t h e blade
s l a p h o blade s l a p o r d i n a t e d i v i s i o n . I n s t e a d , it w a s merely s e l e c t e d
as t h e p o i n t below which a l l d a t a were s u b j e c t i v e l y r a t e d a s having no
d e f i n i t e l y d i s c e r n i b l e blade s l a p content and above which a l l d a t a w a s
rated as having blade s l a p t o some degree. It should be noted t h a t a t t h e
boundary c r e s t f a c t o r v a l u e t h e r e a r e two d a t a p o i n t s with d i f f e r i n g judgements as t o blade s l a p content. This occurrence w a s not unexpected i n a
p r e l i m i n a r y t e s t such as t h e one conducted and s e r v e s t o i n d i c a t e t h a t more
d a t a of higher q u a l i t y i s needed and t h e d i v i d i n g l i n e between t h e slap
and non-slap c o n d i t i o n i s not c l e a r cut.
Oscillograms of t h e o v e r a l l sound p r e s s u r e of t h e a c o u s t i c s i g n a l s
evaluated a r e shown i n Figure 7. I n g e n e r a l t h o s e s i g n a l s which were subj e c t i v e l y r a t e d as having blade s l a p appear impulsive i n n a t u r e i n t h e t r a c e s .
The two cases which w e r e shown i n Figure 7 t o have t h e same c r e s t f a c t o r ,
t h e V e r t 0 1 1 0 7 and t h e Sikorsky S-~I-F, have e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t p r e s s u r e
s i g n a t u r e s . The reason f o r t h i s apparent anomaly may l i e i n t h e method of
determining peak sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l as discussed above. It p o i n t s o u t ,

10

i n any c a s e , t h a t t h e r e i s considerably more t o be l e a r n e d about t h e

problem.
A s noted i n Figure 4, when blade s l a p i s p r e s e n t t h e r e i s a n
a s s o c i a t e d annoyance p e n a l t y . While t h e d a t a used i s very l i m i t e d , it appears
t h a t p e n a l t i e s of 8 t o 13 dBA a r e t y p i c a l . It i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a prelimi n a r y impulsive n o i s e annoyance penalty could be t h a t shown i n Figure 8. The
p e n a l t y i n dBA i s added d i r e c t l y t o t h e c a l c u l a t e d (or measured) a i r c r a f t
SENEL v a l u e t o a r r i v e a t t h e c o r r e c t e d SENEL v a l u e f o r t h e a i r c r a f t . The
c o r r e c t e d v a l u e i s 'clsed i n determining i f t h e a i r c r a f t meets t h e
%N e purpose
t e r i o n . It i s recognized t h a t t h i s penalty i s , a t b e s t , crude. T
of t h i s l i m i t e d s t u d y was not t o define a s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i o n t o measure t h e
e x i s t a n c e and e x t e n t of blade s l a p , but r a t h e r w a s t o determine t h e p o t e n t i a l
of a simple measure ( t h e c r e s t f a c t o r ) t o o b j e c t i v e l y i n d i c a t e t h e presence
of b l a d e s l a p . Much work remains t o be done i n t h i s area t o c l e a r l y d e f i n e
t h e presence of b l a d e s l a p and t h e a s s o c i a t e d p e n a l t y t o SENEL.

S e l e c t i o n of C r i t e r i a f o r C i v i l Helicopter Operations
A combination of t h e foregoing d i s c u s s i o n s
Computation of IT.
i n d i c a t e s t n a t t n e 1-oilowing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s should be incorpcrated i ~ ?a_
c i v i l helicopter noise c r i t e r i a :

- The b a s i c r a t i n g u n i t should be dBA

- Duration should be considered over a f u l l day of exposure.
- Exposure accumulation should be by t h e energy summation method.
- The annoyance e f f e c t of tones above 500 H e r t z should be considered.
- Ambient n o i s e l e v e l s must be included.
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are included i n t h e LDS measure (Day-Night Noise

These
L e v e l ) . This u n i t has r e c e n t l y been recommended by t h e Environmental Prot e c t i o n Agency f o r a i r c r a f t annoyance r a t i n g i n i t s r e c e n t d e l i b e r a t i o n s i n
t h e A i r c r a f t / A i r p o r t Noise Study. The d r a f t r e p o r t which d e s c r i b e s t h i s
recommendation i n g r e a t d e t a i l and with f u l l t e c h n i c a l s u b s t a n t i a t i o n i s
l i s t e d as Reference 24. The b a s i c L
u n i t has been transformed somewhat i n
DN
format t o f i t t h e requirements of t h i s s t u d y as shown below:
t + AT
SENEL = 10Loglo
a n t i l o g L ( t ) dt

Lo1

OR
N

SENEL = 1 0 l o g

antiloglO

'Ok=o
P
LD = 10

antilog
antilog

SENEL.

id

47.3

p*]

At
C

(54,000

-igl

(9)
P
C

j=1

AT

ij

(10)

11

LN = 10

10a n t i l o g (-SENEL 5 . 3 ) + (32,000

j =1
\
lo
= a n t i l o g ($$
-45.1

-igj j41

ATij)

(11)

Equations ( 8 ) and ( 9 ) d e f i n e the S i n g l e Event Noise Exposure Level

(SENEL). The SENEL i s t h e t o t a l noise dose f o r a s i n g l e t a k e o f f , l a n d i n g ,
or f l y b y . It i s t h e parameter which corresponds t o E f f e c t i v e Perceived
Noise Level (EPNL) i n t h e c u r r e n t FAA c e r t i f i c a t i o n procedure and it i s
t h e one which would be used f o r a i r c r a f t c e r t i f i c a t i o n under t h e proposed
procedure. It h a s been used i n t h e S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a Noise Standards
(Reference 25).
Equations ( 1 0 ) and (11)describe t h e average day and n i g h t n o i s e
l e v e l s r e s p e c t i v e l y . They c a l l f o r summation of t h e SENELs generated by
t h e v a r i o u s a i r c r a f t on t h e i r v a r i o u s f l i g h t p a t h s a t t h e p o i n t of observ a t i o n , t h e a d d i t i o n of ambient n o i s e exposure over t h e time when it i s
iiot exceeded 5J t h e a i r c m f t noise, and normalization t o t h e t i m e d u r a t i o n
of t h e day or n i g h t p e r i o d s t o o b t a i n an average r a t h e r t h a n a t o t a l exposure l e v e l . The day and n i g h t periods a r e from 0700 t o 2200 hours and from
2200 t o 0700 hours r e s p e c t i v e l y i n accordance w i t h t h e EPA recommendation
(Reference 24) and t h e c u r r e n t NEF exposure c r i t e r i a (Reference 1 2 ) . Note
t h a t t h e n i g h t SENEL numbers a r e m u l t i p l i e d by a f a c t o r of 1 0 t o a t t a i n t h e
1 0 d B p e n a l t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s time p e r i o d .
Equation ( 1 2 ) d e s c r i b e s t h e method of combining t h e day and n i g h t
n o i s e l e v e l which i s
average n o i s e l e v e l s t o o b t a i n t h e day-night
t o be t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r a c c e p t a b i l i t y . The day and n i g h t p e r i o d s a r e .
weighted according t o t h e f r a c t i o n of t h e f u l l 24 hour day t h e y occupy.
Hence t h e 10 dB p e n a l t y imposed on t h e n i g h t p e r i o d i s p a r t i a l l y balanced
because of t h e smaller percentage of t h e t o t a l r a t i n g p e r i o d it occupies.

(LDN)

A c c e p t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a i n terms of LDN. - LDN has been d e f i n e d as t h e

u n i t whicn reiaLes m e a - m e x p D s u r L
I,U hm a n annoyance t o t h e same
m b e r which c o r r e l a t e s
n o i s e . It now remains t o determine t h e a c t u a l
w i t h community acceptance.

LbN

A s a s t a r t i n g point i n defining t h e acceptable L

it should be
DN
mentioned t h a t t h e Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency i n i t s d r a f t r e p o r t
l e v e l of 60 as meeting requirements
(Reference 24) recommended a constant
f o r human c o m p a t i b i l i t y i n t h e a r e a s o$N annoyance, speech i n t e r f e r e n c e ,
and hearing damage r i s k . The e x c e l l e n t t e c h n i c a l s u b s t a n t i a t i o n o f f e r e d
by EPA i n t h e i r document makes t h i s l e v e l worthy of s t r o n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

12

The average community acceptable n o i s e l e v e l s s p e c i f i e d by t h e

three c a t e g o r i e s of standards were determined i n terms of L i n a previous
s c a l e t oA determine t h e
s e c t i o n . These w i l l now be converted i n t o t h e
c r i t e r i o n value t o be used. The r e s u l t s a r e shown i n Figure 10. The lowest
mean v a l u e shown i n t h e f i g u r e i s t h a t f o r community r e s i d e n t i a l area s t a n dards, a n
l e v e l of 59.5 dBA. The other two c a t e g o r i e s f a l l at LDN

LDN

The Figure 9 sunmary i n combination with t h e EPA recommendation

= 60 as t h e b a s i c c r i t e r i o n f o r cornunity
l e a d s t o t h e s e l e c t l o n of L
acceptance of c i v i l helicop%r n o i s e . This i s f e l t t o be a conservative
choice because it i s deslgned t o meet community n o i s e standards as w e l l
as s t a n d a r d s f o r o t h e r ty-pes of n o l s e i n s t e a d of being aimed p r i n c i p a l l y
a t a i r c r a f t noise. Other a i r c r a f t o r i e n t e d standards allow higher n o i s e
exposures t h a n do t h e community r e g u l a t i o n s .
S e l e c t i o n of L
= 60 i s not the f i n a l s t e p i n community n o i s e
c r i t e r i a s e l e c t i o n . TEYs noise exposure i s u l t i m a t e l y d e s i r e a b l e , but
cannot be a t t a i n e d under a l l circumstances a t t h e p r e s e n t time. The reason
f o r t h i s i s t h e e x i s t e n c e of ambient noise l e v e l s " which a l r e a d y exceed
t h e c r i t e r i o n (60
and t o which, presumably, no f u r t h e r n o i s e may be
added. This would YGeclude any a i r c r a f t operations at a l l i n areas where
high ambient n o i s e l e v e l s e x i s t . This s i t u a t i o n can not be allowed t o
occur because it would e l i m i n a t e a i r c r a f t operations i n j u s t those l o c a t i o n s
where a i r c r a f t noise would be t h e least n o t i c e a b l e .
To overcome t h i s problem, t h e complete c r i t e r i o n i s comprised of
two segments based on ambient noise l e v e l s i n t h e area under consideration.
This c r i t e r i o n i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 1 0 . The allowable LDN i s 60 dBA
f o r a r e a s wfth ambient n o i s e l e v e l s of 58 dBA and below. Where ambient
n o i s e exceeds 58 dBA t h e allowable
equals t h e ambient l e v e l p l u s 2
dBA. The l a t t e r p o r t i o n of t h e c r i t e r i o n may be termed an impact t o ambient
type. Because of t h i s l i m i t new noise sources i n an area add l e s s energy
t h a n t h e e x i s t i n g amblent noise.

hN

The impact type standard does a number of t h i n g s t o make t h e proposed

c r i t e r i o n workable as f a r as both t h e community and t h e a i r c r a f t i n d u s t r y
a r e concerned. F i r s t , it allows operation of a i r c r a f t i n a r e a s where ambient
n o i s e i s high and t h e p u b l i c i s acclimated t o it. Second, it allows only
a small impact t o t h e ambient s o t h a t t h e increased n o i s e exposure i n t h e s e
a r e a s w i l l not be s o l a r g e as t o draw s i g n i f i c a n t n o t i c e . T h i r d , automatic
de-escalation of n o i s e l e v e l s i s b u i l t - i n by way of t h e ambient noise l e v e l .
A s t h i s ambient decreases over t h e years due t o s t r i c t e r c o n t r o l s on n o i s e
sources other t h a n a i r c r a f t , t h e a i r c r a f t n o i s e w i l l have t o be lowered
accordingly. Perhaps a p p l i c a t i o n of such a c r i t e r i o n could c a l l for p e r i o d i c
"Ambient n o i s e i s defined as t h e 24 hour L
t h e standard d e v i a t i o n about t h i s l e v e l .

50

l e v e l p l u s 0.115 t i m e s

updating of t h e ambient noise s t a t i s t i c s and corresponding adjustments of

a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n s and equipment use a t a s p e c i f i c s i t e . If t h e updating i s
held t o reasonable p e r i o d s , t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of new,quieter, a i r c r a f t and
equipment would presumably keep pace with t h e ambient noise r e d u c t i o n s .
A i r s e r v i c e would not t h e n be severely impacted by ambient noise r e d u c t i o n s .
U s e of t h e Criteria
U s e or' t h e c r i t e r f o n I s r e l a t i v e l y simple md Is similar t o c u r r e n t
a i r c r a f t n o i s e annoyance e v a l u a t i o n procedures. F i r s t , t h e a i r c r a f t
SENEL i s c a l c u l a t e d from t h e measured or p r e d f c t e d SPL(A) time h i s t o r y .
The v a l u e s of SPL(A) used may be tone c o r r e c t e d depending on t h e s p e c i f i c
a p p l i c a t l o n . All of t h e SENELs from a l l a f r c r a f t f o r a day or n i g h t time
period a r e summed and combfned w i t h t h e ambient n o i s e and d u r a t i o n data
t o determine t h e day and n i g h t n o t s e l e v e l s .
i s t h e n computed as t h e
f i n a l step.

LDN

hN

Figure 11shows an example of t h e SENEL and corresponding

computations. Four simulated n o i s e l e v e l
time h i s t o r i e s a r e shown.
For Event 1, t h e peak noise l e v e l i s 25 d B above t h e ambient. I n t h i s case
t h e SENEL i s t h e summation of energy between t h e p o i n t s 10 dBA down from
t h e peak ( a n approximation made with l i t t l e e r r o r t o save computation
time f o r p r e d i c t e d d a t a ) and has a duration of 1 0 seconds. The c a l c u l a t e d
v a l u e f o r a t o t a l of 100 f l i g h t s with t h e i d e n t i c a l time h i s t o r y i s
d B above t h e ambient l e v e l . Event 2 has t h e same maximum SPL(A) as
t h e previous (and t h e o t h e r ) events except t h a t t h e ambient l e v e l i s now
only 10 d B below t h e peak. The SENEL i s unchanged, however t h e impact of
100 f l i g h t s a t t h i s l e v e l on t h e L
is now only 0.2 d B due t o t h e increased
ambient l e v e l . For Event 3 t h e amgyent i s only 5 dB below t h e peak and t h e
d u r a t i o n i s consequently reduced t o 5 seconds ( t h e time t h e s i g n a l i s above
t h e ambient).
The SENEL i s reduced s l i g h t l y compared t o t h e two previous
cases and t h e L
i s approximately equal t o t h e ainbient noise l e v e l .
For t h e c a s e ofD#vent 4 t h e ambient i s higher t h a n t h e peak of t h e n o i s e
t i m e h i s t o r y , t h e SENEL i s zero, and the LDN i s equivalent t o t h e ambient.
A complete example showing use of t h e c r i t e r i a i s given i n t h e Appendix.

$9

Some comment i s i n order regarding t h e consequences of modifying

t h e c r i t e r i o n t o a t t a i n lower community n o i s e exposure. It should be
pointed out t h a t t h e r e i s no need seen f o r such modification because t h e
c r i t e r i o n as constructed meets n e a r l y a l l of t h e c r i t e r i a and community
annoyance s t u d i e s surveyed and has an extremely high p r o b a b i l i t y of community
acceptance. However, if it were thought necessary t o impose a r e s t r i c t i o n
of L
= 60 f o r ambients above 60 dBA a b s o l u t e l y no new n o i s e would be
perm?!ted.
I n f a c t , even t h e ambient would exceed t h e
establishment of a i r c r a f t (or any noise producing) f a c i i t iOfe s 6 a0 t* high
The ambient
l o c a t i o n s i s t h e r e f o r e precluded, a s i t u a t i o n which should not be allowed
t o occur. A second a l t e r n a t e modification t o t h e c r i t e r i o n i s an extension
of t h e impact t o ambient type of ordinance t o ambient l e v e l s below 58 dB.

?P

I t s consequence i s t h a t no reasonable a i r c r a f t (or perhaps even c a r s or

t r u c k s ) could o p e r a t e i n ambfent l o c a t i o n s much below 60 dBA because t h e
impact of a f i x e d SENEL would become so l a r g e t h a t a n extremely low number
of e v e n t s would consume t h e 2 dBA impact allowed. T h i s a l s o should not
be allowed t o happen, e s p e c i a l l y i n view of t h e bulk of information
(Reference 24) indicating 60 LDN t o be a p r a c t i c a l lower l i m i t .
S e l e c t i o n of Typical Locat$ons and Operations f o r
EvaLuatlsn of Baseline B e l i c o p t e r Nolse
Because
is a n i n t e g r a t e d measure i n c l u d i n g e f f e c t s such as
ambient n o i s e leve!,
t i m e of day, and number of o p e r a t i o n s , it i s necessary
t o s p e c i f y certalln ground r u l e s t o be used i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y
of c e r t a i n h e l i c o p t e r tyyes and/or aperatfona. A set of s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s
were compiled f o r e v a l u a t f o n of h e l i c o p t e r s I n t h i s study. These c o n d i t i o n s
were chosen wllth t h e a s s f s t a n c e of o p e r a t i o n s a n a l y s i s personnel t o make them
r e a l i s t i c I n terms of r e q u i r e d h e l i p o r t (or c l e a r zone) s i z e and number of
o p e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r economic v i a b i l i t y .
H e l i p o r t l o c a t i o n s and p e r t i n e n t information are summarized i n
Table V I . The f i r s t three a r e c f t y type o p e r a t i n g l o c a t i o n s , a i l w i t h
ambient n o i s e l e v e l s above 58 dEA. The number of o p e r a t i o n s a r e r e l a t i v e l y
high which would be expected f o r l o c a t i o n s i n high population areas. Night
o p e r a t i o n s are l i m l t e d s e v e r e l y as they would have t o be i n a r e a l o p e r a t i o n
because of t h e 10 dBA p e n a l t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h them, The allowable f o o t p r i n t
a r e a of Table V I i s a n e s t i m a t e of what could be s e t aside f o r a h e l i p o r t
o r a v a i l a b l e f o r a c l e a r ( n o i s e i n s e n s i t i v e ) area f o r t h a t l o c a t i o n and t h e
is from t h e recommended c r i t e r i o n l e v e l a t t h e s p e c i f i e d
allowable L
ambient. T% areas are small f o r c i t y c e n t e r o p e r a t i o n , but l a r g e f o r t h e
c a s e of t h e urban shopping c e n t e r where l a r g e areas s e t aside f o r automobile
parking are a v a i l a b l e . The ambient n o i s e l e v e l f o r t h e urban r e s i d e n t i a l
h e l i p o r t , which i s less l i k e l y t o be used i n a c t u a l p r a c t i c e t h a n t h e o t h e r s ,
i s w e l l below 58 dB. The number of o p e r a t i o n s i s s m a l l and i s l i m i t e d t o
daytime only. The l a s t two l o c a t i o n s are not t a k e o f f / l a n d i n g l o c a t i o n s ,
but r a t h e r t h e y a r e f o r f l y o v e r s of normally q u i e t areas at 1500 and 3000
f e e t a l t i t u d e . The allowable f o o t p r i n t area i s zero i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e
c r i t e r i a may n o t be exceeded a t any p o i n t on t h e ground when t h e h e l i c o p t e r p a s s e s overhead.

bN

C I V I L TRANSPORT HELICOPTER
NOISE EVALUATION

A s a f i r s t s t e p i n a s s e s s i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of h e l i c o p t e r s t o
t h e c i t y - c e n t e r s h o r t h a u l market, t h e n o i s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c u r r e n t
h e l i c o p t e r s t h a t a r e l i k e l y candidates f o r c i v i l t r a n s p o r t must be d e t e r mined and compared with t h e community n o i s e acceptance c r i t e r i a developed

15

i n t h e previous s e c t i o n . P o t e n t i a l candidate a i r c r a f t are t h o s e m i l i t a r y

t r a n s p o r t h e l r c o p t e r s of 18100 t o 22700 Kg (40,000 t o 50,000 pounds)
g r o s s weight capable of c a r r y i n g approxrmately 50 people i n a c i v i l c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Nominal range f o r t h e s e a i r c r a f t i s a t l e a s t 371 Km (200 n a u t i c a l
miles).
The p a r t i c u l a r a i r c r a f t i n th5s category s e l e c t e d f o r e v l a u a t i o n
i n t h i s study i s t h e Marlne Corps CH-53D h e l i c o p t e r . This a i r c r a f t , t o
be d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l below, meets a l l of t h e b a s i c s i z e , weight, and range
criteria.
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e Basic Helicopter

Helicopter description.
The h e l i c o p t e r s e l e c t e d f o r e v a l u a t i o n
as a c i v i l t r a n s p o r t , t h e CH-53D, i s deacrlbed i n d e t a i l i n Figure 12.
B r i e f l y , it i s a - s i n g l e main r o t o r m i l i t a r y t r a n s p o r t h e l i c o p t e r of 16750
Kg (37,000 pounds) mission g r o s s weight (18600 Kg (41,000 l b ) maximum
g r o s s w e i g h t ) . It 's commercial d e r i v a t i v e , h e r e i n c a l l e d t h e S-65-40, has
a design g r o s s weight of 18600 Kg (41,000 pounds), achieved by using uprated
engines and improved r o t o r b l a d e s , Figure 1 3 shows t h e g e n e r a l arrangement
of t h i s a i r c r a f t . The S-65-40 i s t h e b a s e l i n e a i r c r a f t which w l l l be
e v a l u a t e d a g a i n s t t h e developed n o i s e acceptance c r i t e r i a .

Noise p r e d i c t i o n method.
The method used t o p r e d i c t t h e h e l i c o p t e r
n o i s e f o r t y p i c a l o p e r a t i o n s i s based on t h e procedures presented i n
Reference 26. The Reference 26 computer program i s designed t o c a l c u l a t e
t h e n o i s e from V/STOL propulsion components such as r o t o r s , p r o p e l l e r s ,
t u r b o s h a f t engines,fan engines, and j e t s and combine them t o produce a
time h i s t o r y of t h e a i r c r a f t noise a t an observation s t a t i o n on t h e ground
f o r a p r e s c r i b e d f l i g h t p r o f i l e . For t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , a modified v e r s i o n
of t h e program w a s used. The modified v e r s i o n .is s p e c i a l i z e d t o h e l i c o p t e r s
By i n c l u d i n g i n the-program only rotors and turboshaft-engines as n o i s e producing components. The purpose of t h i s i s t o make t h e program more compact
and t o speed processing t i m e .
The t i m e h i s t o r y of PNLT and dBA needed t o c o m p u t e t h e EPNL and
SENEL r e s p e c t i v e l y i s c o n s t r u c t e d a t an observer l o c a t i o n by c a l c u l a t i n g
(for s u c c e s s i v e a i r c r a f t l o c a t i o n s ) t h e n o i s e from each of t h e components,
summing t h e components' t o produce t h e v e h i c l e spectrum, and t h e n converting
t h i s spectrum t o PNLT and dBA l e v e l s . The t i m e h i s t o r y i s t h e n i n t e g r a t e d
over t h e a p p r o p r i a t e time i n t e r v a l t o produce t h e EPNL and SENEL v a l u e s .
A i r c r a f t l o c a t i o n s along t h e f l i g h t path a r e computed by a s e p a r a t e subr o u t i n e . The complete f l i g h t p a t h i s s i m p l i f i e d t o a s e r i e s of s t r a i g h t
l i n e and.
_____h e l i c a l , segments along a n y -on e of .which a l l a p e r a t i n g parameters
are c a l c u l a t e d By a h e l e c o p t e r low.speea dynamic-perf ormance program.
This program has been shown t o be a c c u r a t e f o r speeds up t o 77 m/sec
(150 k n o t s ) by c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h f l i g h t t e s t d a t a . Figure 1 4 shows a
comparison of p r e d i c t e d and measured f l i g h t parameters f o r t h e CH-53D
i n d i c a t i n g t h e accuracy of t h e program.
~

16

~~

Main r o t o r and t a l l r o t o r noise I s c a l c u l a t e d using t h e s i m p l i f i e d

approach suggested by Lowson and Ollerhead (Reference 27). I n t h i s method
t h e l o a d i n g i s considered t o be concentrated a t an " e f f e c t i v e " r a d i u s and
t h e harmonics of a i r l o a d i n g a r e assumed t o follow a uniform exponential
f a l l - o f f i a m l i t u d e based on t h e steady l o a d i n g . This i s r e p r e s e n t e d as
oc L
X where A i s t h e harmonic number, LX i s t h e amplitude of t h e
0
X-th harmonic, L i s t h e steady l o a d , t h e k determines t h e r a t e a t which
t h e loading amplftude f a l l s o f f w i t h i n c r e a s i n g A . The broadband p o r t i o n
of t h e spectrum i s c a l c u l a t e d using a v e r s i o n of t h e method presented by
S c h l e g e l , King and Mull i n Reference 28. Figure 15 demonstrates t h e
accuracy of t h e r o t o r n o i s e p r e d i c t l o n method.

-k

The procedure f o r c a l c u l a t i n g t u r b o s h a f t engine n o i s e i s e n t i r e l y

e m p i r i c a l . It i s based on n o i s e d a t a f o r s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t engines.
Both sound power and d i r e c t i v i t y are accounted f o r i n t h e method. A
m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e program now allows u s e of measured engine d a t a when it
i s a v a i l a b l e i n s i f f i c i e n t d e t a l l . For t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y t h e g e n e r a l i z e d
procedure w a s found t o be acceptable as shown by t h e Figure 17 comparison of
t h e measured and p r e d i c t e d time h i s t o r i e s of n o i s e f o r t h e C H - 5 3 h e l i c o p t e r .
D e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of procedures used i n t h i s study can be found
i n Reference 26.
Basic h e l i c o p t e r n o i s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . - The b a s i c c i v i l helicopt e r , t h e S-65-40, w a s a c o u s t i c a l l y evaluated f o r s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t t a k e o f f
and l a n d i n g f l i g h t p r o f i l e s t o e s t a b l i s h i t s a c o u s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
Four of t h e t a k e o f f p r o f i l e s a r e shown i n Figure . 1 7 Two of them are vert i c a l climb-outs t o a pre-determined a l t i t u d e and t h e o t h e r two are more
11
normal" type t a k e o f f s . These f l i g h t p r o f i l e s were approximated by a s e r i e s
of s t r a i g h t l i n e segments i n t h e a c o u s t i c p r e d i c t i o n program, as discussed
above. Comparisons of t h e a c t u a l and approximate f l i g h t p r o f i l e s a r e shown
i n F i g u r e 18.
F i g u r e s 19, 2 0 , 21 and 22 show t h e c a l c u l a t e d c o n s t a n t SENEL ground
contours f o r each of t h e f o u r f l i g h t s . It i s r e a d i l y apparent t h a t t h e
shapes of t h e contours a r e d i f f e r e n t for each f l i g h t . This i s more e a s i l y
seen i n t h e Figure 23 comparisons o f t h e f o u r 95 SENEL contours. The
n o i s e contours f o r t h e f l i g h t s w i t h an i n i t i a l v e r t i c a l climb do not extend
as far down range as t h e more normal type t a k e o f f s , however t h e y do extend
This i s t o be expected
f u r t h e r t o t h e s i d e and r e a r of t h e takeoff p o i n t
because of t h e time i n t e g r a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e SENEL. For t h e vert i c a l t a k e o f f s t h e h e l i c o p t e r spends more t i m e i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e o r i g i n
hence t h e d u r a t i o n c o r r e c t i o n a t a p o i n t near t h e o r i g i n w i l l be l a r g e r t h a n
f o r t h e oblique t a k e o f f s .

Although contour shape i s important, t h e u n i t of i n t e r e s t i n

regard t o t h e n o i s e c r i t e r i a i s t h e t o t a l a r e a encompassed by a s p e c i f i e d
SENEL contour. Figure 24 shows t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r t h e f o u r t a k e o f f s
of Figure .l7. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t although t h e contours have

q u i t e d i f f e r e n t shapes, Figure 24 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t o t a l a r e a encompassed

by a given SENEL contour i s about t h e same f o r all f l i g h t s . Apparently,
down range d i s t a n c e i s given up f o r increased s i d e l i n e and rearward
d i s t a n c e i n performing a v e r t i c a l t a k e o f f . Thus while t o t a l a r e a does not
change s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h changfng f l l g h t p r o f i l e , It i s p o s s i b l e t o a l t e r
t h e shape of t h e n o i s e contour on t h e ground t o s u i t s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s ,
such as p a r t i c u l a r l y n o i s e s e n s i t i v e a r e a s l o c a t e d near or under t h e f l i g h t
path.
The same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of equal contour a r e a r e g a r d l e s s of f l i g h t
p r o f i l e w a s found t o e x f s t f o r dfff'erent l a n d i n g s . Figure 25 shows t h e
n o i s e contours f o r a t y p i c a l landfng, A f a c t t o be noted i s t h a t a given
SENEL contour on landing i s much smaller t h a n f o r t a k e o f f , t h u s when takeoff
and landing o p e r a t t o n s are conducted from t h e same d i r e c t i o n t h e t o t a l
ground area encompassed by a given SENEL contour i s about t h e same as f o r
t h e t a k e o f f alone.

Noise r e d u c t i o n requirements.
Because t h e t o t a l a r e a enclosed by
a given SENEL contour i s independent of t h e t a k e o f f p r o f i l e a l l comparisons w i t h c r i t e r i o n requirements and a l l hardware c h - w e s w i l l be evaluated
x i t h mljr m e t & e n f f t.ype, t h e obllque t a k e o f f (which i s a s t a n d a r d h e l i c o p t e r maneuver). Figure 26 compares t h e SENEL f o o t p r i n t area c h a r a c t e r i s t i c with t h e c r i t e r i a l e v e l s developed above. It i s obvious t h a t t h e noise
l e v e l ( t h e SENEL) must be reduced by a t l e a s t 7 dBA t o meet t h e c r i t e r i o n
l e v e l a t l o c a t i o n 4 (urban r e s i d e n t l a l area).
Figure 27 shows t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of each n o i s e producing component
(main r o t o r , t a i l rotor, engines) t o t o t a l n o i s e a t s e v e r a l observer locaL
t i o n s . To achieve a t o t a l r e d u c t i o n of 7 dBA t h e n o i s e of a l l sources
must be reduced although t h e main r o t o r n o i s e must be reduced more t h a n t h e
o t h e r two sources.
Cruise n o i s e i s a l s o a p o t e n t i a l problem because f l i g h t s may be
r o u t e d over r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s a t r e l a t i v e l y low a l t i t u d e s (1500 f t and u p ) .
Figure 28 shows t h e c r u i s e n o i s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c on t h e ground f o r l e v e l
f l i g h t a t 77 m/sec ( 1 5 0 k n o t s ) . No modifications a r e necessary h e r e
because t h e b a s e l i n e a i r c r a f t a l r e a d y i s q u i e t e r t h a n t h e recommended
criterion level.
E f f e c t of impulsive n o i s e . - Figure 29 has been prepared t o demonstrate t h e e f f e c t impulsive n o i s e can have on t h e community annoyance of
h e l i c o p t e r n o i s e . If severe impulsive n o i s e were p r e s e n t i n t h e sound
generated by t h e b a s e l i n e h e l i c o p t e r performing t h e oblique t a k e o f f maneuver
t h e SENEL f o o t p r i n t a r e a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c would be as shown i n F i g u r e 29
assuming t h e 1 0 dBA p e n a l t y discussed p r e v i o u s l y . The f o o t p r i n t a r e a f o r
a given SENEL l e v e l i n c r e a s e s d r a s t i c a l l y . It i s q u i t e obvious t h a t every
e f f o r t should be expended t o e l i m i n a t e impulsive n o i s e .

Noise Reduction t o Meet t h e

Community Acceptance C r i t e r i a
The b a s e l i n e h e l i c o p t e r was found (above) t o r e q u i r e a n o i s e l e v e l
r e d u c t i o n of up t o 7 dBA i n order t h a t it meet t h e recommended community
acceptance c r i t e r i a . Several d i f f e r e n t techniques t o reduce t h e noise were
evaluated i n an e f f o r t t o f i n d t h e best compromise between a c o u s t i c and
aerodynamic performance. The techniques included reducing main and t a i l
r o t o r t i p speeds, reducing blade loadlng, i n c r e a s i n g r o t o r s o l i d i t y , using
advanced blade designs, and s i l e n c i n g engine i n l e t and exhaust noise.
Table V I 1 summarizes t h e design parameters f o r t h e b a s e l i n e
CH-53D and 6 modified a i r c r a f t evaluated f o r t h e i r n o i s e r e d u c t i o n p o t e n t i a l .
Figure 30 compares t h e noise f o o t p r i n t shapes of t h e modified and b a s e l i n e
a i r c r a f t and Figure 31 compares t h e noise c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e modified
a i r c r a f t with t h e recommended noise c r i t e r i a and Figure 32 shows t h e n o i s e
r e d u c t i o n by octave band f o r Modification P. Modifications A and B do
not meet t h e c r i t e r l a a t Location 4 (urban r e s i d e n t i a l ) , b u t Modifications
C , D , E and F meet a l l of t h e cr2terTa. I t remains t o s e l e c t t h e b e s t
a i r c r a f t from among t h e C,D,E, o r F ModifTcations.
The prime c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n s e i e c t i n g one or more of' t h e u o d i f i e d
a i r c r a f t f o r f u r t h e r study a r e mtnimizing t h e performance l o s s e s and minimizing t h e hardware changes requTred. Performance must be maintained t o
r e t a i n as much of t h e design range/payload as p o s s i b l e . By keeping hardware
changes.to a minimum, expensive .(.both i n d o l l a r s and i n weight) design changes can be avoided. Modifications E and F, t h e r e f o r e , appear t o be t h e most
promising because t h e changes r e q u i r e d are minimized, e s p e c i a l l y f o r t h e main
r o t o r , and becuase as shown i n Figure 33 f l i g h t performance i s degraded t h e
least.
O f t h e two modified a i r c r a f t , E and F , Modification F i s t h e most
a t t r a c t i v e because very l i t t l e i n t h e way of design changes are r e q u i r e d .
The 10% t i p speed r e d u c t i o n r e q u i r e d for t h e main and t a i l r o t o r s can be
accomplished by lowering t h e engine speed r a t h e r t h a n by designing a new
transmission. This i s e s p e c i a l l y a t t r a c t i v e because r o t o r speed can be
i n c r e a s e d t o 100% t o improve performance once t h e h e l i c o p t e r i s c l e a r of
noise s e n s i t i v e areas. I n f a c t , t h e only hardware changes r e q u i r e d are
t h e a d d i t i o n of englne s i l e n c e r s and use of advanced design r o t o r blades.

Modification F , however , is a somewhat higher r i s k design t h a n i s

Modification E. Tip speed r e d u c t i o n , engine s i l e n c i n g , and increased
r o t o r s o l i d i t y have a l l been previously v e r i f i e d as e f f e c t i v e noise reduction methods (Reference 2 9 ) . The noise r e d u c t i o n p o t e n t i a l of t h e
advanced design main r o t o r blades has been demonstrated by w h i r l tower and
f l i g h t t e s t i n g . Unfortunately, t h e acoustic performance p r e d i c t e d f o r
t h e advanced design blades on t h e t a i l r o t o r has not y e t been completely
experimentally v e r i f i e d . Recent preliminary unpublished f u l l s c a l e t e s t
d a t a , however, show promising r e s u l t s i n t h i s~area._ On _t h e o t h e r hand,

19

Modification E which a l s o meets t h e noise c r i t e r i a , w i l l s u f f e r a loss

of payload, w i l l r e q u i r e new hardware (gearbox, wider b l a d e s , hub t o a c c e p t
6 b l a d e s , e t c . ) , and long, expensive design and t e s t p r o g r a m s t o substant i a t e t h e new hardware and r e c e i v e FAA c e r t i f i c a t i o n .
HARDWARE TESTS REQUIRED

The previous s e c t i o n described two modified a l r c r a f t t h a t meet

t h e requirements of t h e community noise acceptance c r i t e r i a and p o t e n t i a l l y
r e s u l t i n t h e l e a s t performance degradatfan. I n order t o develop t h e n o i s e
r e d u c t i o n concepts I n t o f l i g h t warthy hardware a s e r i e s of ground and f l i g h t
t e s t s must be performed f o r each f t e m i n a d d t t i o n t o d e t a i l e d s t r u c t u r a l
and dynamic a n a l y s e s . I n p a r t f c u l a r , t h e Modiffcation F t a i l r o t o r design
must be both a c o u s t i c a l l y and aerodynamically s u b s t a n t i a t e d .
The r e q u i r e d engine n o i s e r e d u c t i o n s must be achieved through u s e
of a c o u s t i c a l l y t r e a t e d i n l e t and exhaust d u c t s . The technology necessary
t o design i n l e t n o i s e suppression l a a v a i l a b l e from NASA sponsored s t u d i e s
of a c o u s t i c a l l y t r e a t e d n a c e l l e s f o r turbofan engines and t h e r e i s some
information a v a i l a b l e on desrgn of exhaust nofse t r e a t m e n t s . Eowever , work
must be done t o adapt t h i s technology t o t u r b o s h a f t engines and methods of
i n c o r p o r a t i n g a n t i - i c i n g i n t o t h e design must be developed. A p r e l i m i n a r y
s t u d y by t h e authors i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e necessary n o i s e E d u c t i o n can be
achieved w i t h i n t h e c u r r e n t duct o u t e r envelope.
Most of t h e work necessary t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e advanced design main
r o t o r b l a d e s on t h e a i r c r a f t has already been completed and t h e a c o u s t i c
performance measured. Acoustic s u b s t a n t i a t i o n of t h e blades on t h e a i r c r a f t
remains t o be completed. AnaLyses must be performed, however, t o determine
dynamic s t a b i l i t y a t t h e reduced o p e r a t i n g speed.
The t a i l r o t o r i s t h e one piece of hardware r e q u i r i n g t h e most
e x t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s and t e s t i n g . The Modification E d e s i g n with more b l a d e s ,
wider chord, and s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced t i p speed must be analyzed and t h e n
t e s t e d ( s t a t i c and f l i g h t ) t o be sure of dynamic s t a b i l i t y i n a l l f l i g h t
regimes. A new gearbox must be designed and t e s t e d . The Modification F
d e s i g n i n c o r p o r a t i n g advanced design blades and b l a d e t i p s must be acoust i c a l l y as w e l l as dynamically s u b s t a n t i a t e d .
Gearbox n o i s e has not been discussed i n t h i s r e p o r t because it i s
of secondary importance compared with t h e engipes and r o t o r s , , There i 8
t h e p o s s i b m f , however, t h a t i f gearbox'nolse is-found t o be a problem
a s o t h e r sources of n o i s e a r e suppressed it can be d e a l t w i t h i n a
s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d manner.

20

CONCLUSIONS
The f o l l o w i m conclusions r e s u l t from t h e c u r r e n t study:
Noise Acceptance C r l t e r i a

LD8

1.

The recammended n o i s e a c c e p t m c e c r i t e r i a (based on t h e

view.
l e v e l of 60) a r e c o n s e r v a t i v e from t h e community's p i n t
They are well below t h e average of F e d e r a l (domestic and f o r e i g n )
g u i d e l i n e s 'and s l i g h t l y below t h e average of c u r r e n t s t a t e and l o c a l
n o i s e limits. They a r e a l s o i n l f n e w i t h EPA f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g
community annoyance.

2.

The recommended c r i t e r i a a r e f a i r t o t h e c a m u n i t y as w e l l as
t h e h e l i c o p t e r operator. C r i t e r i a l e v e l s were s e l e c t e d t o be w i t h i n
t h e "campletely acceptable" range of c o m u n i t y r e a c t i o n t o n o i s e
b u t a t t h e same time t h i s study showed t h a t c u r r e n t g e n e r a t i o n
a i r c r a f t , with some modrfications , can be made a c c e p t a b l e f o r t y p i ca41 commercial t r a n s p o r t operations.

3.

The recommended c r i t e r h a r e not unduly r e s t r i c t i v e t o t h e commerc i a 1 t r a n s p o r t o p e r a t o r , Because of t h e n a t u r e of t h e c r i t e r i a

he has t h e a b i l i t y t o vary schedulfng, a f r c r a f ' t t y p e , f l i g h t prof i l e s , t a k e o f f and landing r o u t e s , and even t h e h e l i p o r t l o c a t i o n i n
order t o design a n o p e r a t i o n t h a t i s a c c e p t a b l e both t o t h e cammuni t y and t o himself.

4.

The recammended c r i t e r i a are p r e f e r a b l e t o o t h e r a i r c r a f t n o i s e

annoyance c r i t e r i a because they consider t h e t o t a l n o i s e load on
a ccmnmunity. A s such, a l l noises i n c l u d i n g ambient are accounted
Other measures a r e
f o r i n t h e c a l c u l a t e d annoyance l e v e l ,
designed f o r a i r c r a f t o n l y , or f o r

5.

Use of t h e c r i t e r i a encourages d e - e s c a l a t i o n of a i r c r a f t n o i s e i n
t h e f u t u r e . A i r c r a f t n o i s e will a u t o m a t i c a l l y be de-escalated as
o t h e r sources c o n t r i b u t i n g t o c e r t a i n ambients a r e reduced. This
occurs because t h e c r i t e r i o n l e v e l f o r a given a r e a i s a d i r e c t
f u n c t i o n of t h e l o c a l ambient down t o a " f l o o r " l e v e l of %N = 6 0 .

6.

Although very l i m i t e d r e s u l t s are a v a i l a b l e , impulsive n o i s e

g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e s perceived annoyance i n a community. It appears
t h a t a p e n a l t y of 5 t o 1 0 dBA should be added t o t h e measured ( o r
computed) S i n g l e Event N o i s e Exposure Level (SENEL) f o r an a i r c r a f t
producing impulsive n o i s e .

21

7.

Tone c o r r e c t i o n s , as t h e y are c a l c u l a t e d f o r Tone Corrected

Perceived Noise Level, should be a p p l i e d t o t h e A-weighted sound
l e v e l (dRA), but only f o r tones above 500 Hz f o r h e l i c o p t e r s and
p r o p e l l e r driven a 3 r c r d - k .
C i v i l Helicopter Operations

A c u r r e n t generation 50 passenger h e l i c o p t e r , derived f r a a

s i n g l e main rotor m i l i t a r y t r a n s p o r t h e l i c o p t e r i n t h e i8iOO t o 22700
Kg (40,000 t o 50,000 pound) weight c l a s s w a s evaluated t o determine t h o s e
hardware changes necessary f o r it t o meet t h e recommended community acceptance c r i t e r i a :
1.

The b a s i c h e l i c o p t e r I n t h e c i v i l t r a n s p o r t c o n f i g u r a t i o n meets
t h e c r u i s e nofse c r i t e r i a w T t h no changes.

2.

The b a s i c c i v i l h e l i c o p t e r meets a l l of t h e c r i t e r i a with l i t t l e

modification. Main r o t o r changes involve use of advanced design
blades and a 10% t i p speed r e d u c t i o n , t h e t a i l r o t o r i n c o r p o r a t e s
a 10% t i p speed r e d u c t i o n and use of advanced design blades, and
t h e engines r e q u i r e a s m a l l amount of i n l e t and exhaust n o i s e
silencing.

3.

The modified a i r c r a f t s u f f e r s l i t t l e degradation of performance.

A d d i t i o n a l weight added for engine s i l e n c i n g i s l e s s than 100
pounds, t h e r e i s no l o s s of engine performance, and t a k e o f f perf omance i s v i r t u a l l y unchanged. D e t a i l e d s t u d i e s are necessary
t o d e f i n e a c t u a J performance and t o determine any p o s s i b l e s t a b i l i t y
or o t h e r problems.

4.

By paying c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n t o d e t a i l r o t o r and blade design and

t o engine s e l e c t i o n and i n s t a l l a t i o n d e t a i l s it i s p o s s i b l e t o
design a 100 passenger c i v i l t r a n s p o r t h e l i c o p t e r (or compound
h e l i c o p t e r ) f o r t h e 1980-85 time frame t h a t w i l l m e e t t h e n o i s e
acceptance c r i t e r i a as w e l l as reasonable performance o b j e c t i v e s .
RECOMMENDATI ON S

1.

22

Subjective t e s t i n g should be c a r r i e d out t o determine t h e annoyance

p e n a l t y f o r t h e presence of impulsive noise. A t t h e same time a
method should be e s t a b l i s h e d t o q u a n t i t a t i v e l y d e f i n e t h e e x i s t a n c e
of impulsive noise and t o i n d i c a t e i t s s e v e r i t y . The c r e s t f a c t o r
o f t h e sound (Peak Level/RMS Level i n dB) has shown some promise
as t h e r e q u i r e d impulsive noise measure. The s u b j e c t i v e t e s t i n g
should include impulsive noise " s e v e r i t y " as w e l l as peak amplitude
as a parameter.

2.

F u r t h e r communlty subject2ve s t u d i e s should be conducted t o v e r i f y

t h e a b s o l u t e lower l i m i t of 60
f o r a r e a s with ambient l e v e l s
below 58 dBA.

3.

A d d i t i o n a l psycho-acoustic t e s t i n g should be c a r r i e d o u t t o v e r i f y
t h e a p p l i c a t f o n of t o n e c o r r e c t f o n s t o t h e A-weighted sound l e v e l
(dBA) and t o v e r f f y t h a t only tones above 500 Hz should be included
i n t h e c a l c u l a t f o n of t o n e c o r r e c t e d dBA (dBAt) f o r h e l i c o p t e r s and
propeller a i r c r a r t

LDN

4.

The i n d i c a t e d h e l i c o p t e r component t e s t s should be conducted t o

v e r i f y t h e p r e d i c t e d noPse reduction and t o e s t a b l i s h aerodynamic
p e r f ormanc e.

5.

The b a s i c h e l i c o p t e r should be modified t o t h e recammended

c o n f i g u r a t l o n and f l f g h t t e s t e d t o v e r l f y t h e p r e d i c t e d n o i s e
l e v e l s and aerodynamlc performance.

6.

Usfng advanced desfgn concepts f o r t h e main and t a f l r o t o r s , a u x i l l i a r y propulslon ( i f any) , and engine i n s t a l l a t 3 o n a 1980-85 t i m e
frame 100 passenger c f v l l t r a n s p o r t h e l i c o p t e r should be designed
t o meet t h e recammended nofse c r i t e r i a as w e l l as reasonable performance g o a l s .

Sikorsky A i r c r a f t ,
United A i r c r a f t Corporation
S t r a t f o r d , Connecticut, February 27 , 1974.

23

REFERENCES

1.

Ollerhead, J. B. , AN EVALUATION OF METHODS FOR SCALING AIRCRAFT

NOISE PERCEPTION, NASA CR-1883, October 1971.

2.

Ollerhead, J . B., SCALING AIRCRAFT NOISE PERCEPTION, J1. Sound

Vib., Vol. 26, NO. 3, 1973,pp. 361-388

3.

Ollerhead, J. B . , SUWECTIlrE EVALUATION OF GENERAL AVIATION

AIRCRAFT NOISE , FAA-NO-68-35, A p r l l 1968.

4.

Tanner, C. S. and Glass, R. E., ANALYSIS OF OPERATIONAL NOISE

MEASUREMENTS I N TERMS OF SELECTED HUMAN RESPONSE NOISE EVALUATION
MEASURES, FAA-RD-71-112, December 1971.

5.

Pearsons, K. S . , NOISINESS JUDGEMENTS OF HELICOPTER FLYOVERS,

FAA-DS-67-1, January 1967.

6.

Green, D. M . , PSYCHOPHYSICAL COMPARISON METHODS, i n TRANSPORTATION

NOISES, ed. by J. Chalpnfk, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington P r e s s ,
S e a t t l e , Washing. , 1970.

7.

S t e r n f e l d , H. , Hinterkeuser , R . B., and Davis, T . , ACCEPTABILITY

OF VTOL AIRCRAFT NOISE DETERMINED BY ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVE TESTING,
NASA-CR-2043, June 1972.

8.

Adcock, B. D . and Ollerhead, J . B., EFFECTIVE PERCEIVED NOISE

LEVEL EVALUATED FOR STOL AND OTHER A I K R A F T SOUNDS, FAA-NO-70-5,
May 1970.

9.

Kry-ter, K. D , , A NOTE ON THE QUANTITY (EFFECTIVE) PERCEIVED

NOISINESS AND UNITS OF PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL, J1. Sound V i b .
Vol. 25, No. 3, 1972.

10.

F e d e r a l Aviation Administration, FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION,

PART 36, NOISE STANDARDS, AIRCRAFT TYPE CERTIFICATION, December
1, 1969.

11.

S p e r r y , W. C . ,

AIRCRAFT NOISE EVALUATION, FAA-NO-68-34,

September

1968.
12.

Galloway, W. J. and Bishop, E. E . , NOISE EXPOSURE FORECASTS:

EVOLUTION, EVALUATION, EXTENSIONS, AND LAND USE INTERPRETATIONS,
FAA-NO-70-9, August 1970.

13.

Botsford, J. H., USING SOUND LEVELS TO GAUGE HUMAN RESPONSE TO

NOISE, Sound & V i b r a t i o n , October 1969.

24

14.

Robinson, D. W. , A NEW BASIS FOR AIRCRAEC NOISE RATING, N a t i o n a l

P w s i c a l L a b o r a t o w , NPL Aero Report AC 49, March 1971.

15

Wyle L a b o r a t o r l e s , COMMUNITY NOISE , E n v i r o n m n t a l P r o t e c t i o n

Agency PB 207-124, December 1971.

16.

Johnston, G. W., V/STOL COMMUNITY ANNOYANCE DUE TO NOISE:

PROPOSED INDICIES AND LEVELS, UTIAS T e c h n i c a l Note No. 177, March
1972.

17

Donley, R . , COMMUNITY NOISE REGUZATION, Sound & V i b r a t i o n ,

February 1969.

18.

Schultz , T

. J. , NOISE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES , TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ,

HUD Report No. TE/NA-172,

1972.

19.

F l d e l l , S. and Pearsons, K. S . , STUDY OF THE AUDIBILITY OF IMPULSIVE SOUNDS, NASA CR-1598, Mag 1970.

20.

Leverton, J. W.,
1972

21.

Kryter, K. D. , Johnson, P. 3. and Young, J. R . , JUDGEMENT TESTS

OF FLYOVER NOISE FROM VARIOUS AIRCRAFT, NASA CR-1635, August 1970.

22.

S t a v e , A. M. and Klng, R . J., THE ANNOYANCE OF V/STOL NOISE

PHASE I , IMPULSE NOISE, Sfkorsky Engineering Report SER-50678,
October 1970.

23.

HELICOPTER NOISE-BLADE SLAP, NASA CR-1983,

March

W i l l i a m s , H. L. and Majer, A. J. , I S I T IMPACT OR CONTINUOUS NOISE? ,

Archives Environmental Health, October 1963, pp. 37-40.

24.

von Gierke, H. E., IMPACT CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE INCLUDING

IMPLICATIONS OF IDENTIFYING AND ACHIEVING LEVELS OF CUMULATIVE
NOISE EXPOSURE, Task Group 3 . D r a f t Report of EPA A i r c r a f t / A i r p o r t
Noise Report Study, June 1, 1973.

25

S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a , Department of Aeronautics, NOISE STANDARDS,

T i t l e 4, R e g i s t e r 7 0 , No. 48-11.28.70.

26.

Munch, C . L., PREDICTION OF V/STOL NOISE FOR APPLICATION TO

COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE, Dept. of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Report No.
DOT-TSC-OST-73-19,
May 1973.

27

Lowson, M. V. and Ollerhead, J . B . , STUDIES OF HELICOPTER ROTOR

NOISE, USAAVLABS Technical Report 68-60, January 1969.

25

28.

S c h l e g e l , R. G . , K i n g , R . J., and Mull, H. R . , HELICOPTER ROTOR

NOISE G E N m T I O N AND FBOPAGATTON, USAAVLABS Technical Report

66-4,1966.
29

26

S c h l e g e l , R . G. , HUSH FINAL REPORT - QUIET HELICOPTER PROGRAM,

Sikorsky Aircraf't Engineering Report SER-611478 , January 1970.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

Adcock, B. D. and Ollerhead, J. B . , " E f f e c t i v e Perceived Noise

Level Evaluated f o r STOL and Other A i r c r a f t Sounds", FAA-NO-70-5,
May 1970.

2.

Banerian, G.,"A Look a t t h e Duration Correction f o r Computing

EPNL'~, J o u r n a l Sound-Vib. , Vol. 23, No. 4, 1972.

3.

d e Barbenza, C. M . , Bryan, M. E. , and Tempest, W.

Loudness Functlons", J1. Sound Vib. , Vol. 11, No.
399-410.

4.

Barlow, W. H. , McCluskey, W. C. , and F e r r i s , H. W. , " O H - ~ A Phase

I1 Quiet Helicopter Program", USAAMRDL !I'R 72-79, September 1972.

5.

Beland, R . D. , e t a l , " A i r c r a f t Noise Impact Planning, Guidelines

for Local Agencies", Department of Housing and Urban Development
PB-213 020, November 1972.

6.

Bishop, D. E. , "Judgements of t h e R e l a t i v e and Absolute Accept a b i l i t y of A i r c r a f t Noise, 51. A c o u s t i c a l SOC. Am, Vol. 40,
NO. 1, 1966, pp. 108-122.

7.

Bishop, D. E. , "Helicopter Noise C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r H e l i p o r t

Planning", FAA-ADS-40 , March 1965.

8.

Bishop, D. E. , and Horonjeff , R . D. , "Noise Exposure F o r e c a s t

Contour I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of A i r c r a f t Noise Tradeoff S t u d i e s " ,
FAA NO-69-2, May 1969.

9.

Bishop, D. E. and Horonjeff, R. D . , "Procedures f o r Developing

Noise Exposure F o r e c a s t Areas f o r A i r c r a f t F l i g h t Operations",
FAA DS-67-10, August 1967.

, "Individual
4 , 1970, pp.

10.

B l a z i e r , W. E., " C r i t e r i a f o r Control of Community Noise"

A c o u s t i c a l Society of America, November 1967, M i a m i , F l a .

11.

Borsky, P. N . , "Noise as Perceived by t h e Community," Proceedings

of SAE/DOT Conference on A i r c r a f t and t h e Environment, Washington
D . C. , February 1971.

12.

Botsford, J. H. , "Using Sound Levels t o Gauge Human Response

t o Noise", Sound and Vibration, October 1969.

13.

Bowes, M. A . , " T e s t and Evaluation of A Quiet Helicopter Conf i g u r a t i o n HH-43B" , USAAMRDL TR 71-31 , January 1972.

27

14.

Bragdon, C . R . , "Community Noise and t h e P u b l i c I n t e r e s t " , Sound

and V i b r a t i o n , December 1969.

15

Bragdon, C . R . , "Urban P l a n n b g and Noise Control", Sound and

V i b r a t i o n , May. 1973.

16.

Bragdon, C . R . , "Nolse P o l l u t i o n
The Unquiet Crisis", U n i v e r s i t y
of Pennsylvania Press, P h f l a d e l p h i a , 1971.

17

Bregman, H. L. and Pearson, R . R . , "Development of A Noise

Annoyance S e n s f t l v t t y Scale", NASA CR-1957, February 1972.

18.

Broadbent, D. E. and Robinson, D. W. , "Subjective Measurements

of t h e R e l a t i v e Annoyance of Simulated Sonic Bangs and A i r c r a f t
Noise", J1. Sound Vfb., Yol. 1, No. 2, 1964, pp. 162-174.

19

Carter, N. L., " E f f e c t s of Rfse Tfme and R e p e t i t i o n Rate on t h e

Loudness of Acoustic TransPents", J1. Sound Vfb., Vol. 21, No. 2,
1972, pp. 227-239.

20 *

CivZl Aeronautfcs Board, "Direct E x h i b i t s and D i r e c t Testimony

of Pioneer A l r l i n e s Inc. i n the Reopened Washington-Baltimore H e l i c o p t e r S e r v i c e I n v e s t f g a t i o n , " Dockett 17665 e t a l , Washington
D. C . , J u l y 19, 1971.

21.

Clarke, F. R . and Rryter , K. D. "Perceived Noisiness Under Anec h o i c , Semi-Reverberant , and Earphone L i s t e n i n g Conditions",
NASA CR-2108, August 1972.

22.

Cohen, A. "Airport Noise, Sonic B o a s , and P u b l i c Health", Proceedings of SAE/DOT Conference on A i r c r a f t and t h e Environment,
Washington D. C . , February 1971.

23.

Cohen, A. et a l , " C o r r e l a t i o n of O b j e c t i o n a b i l i t y R a t i n g s of
Noise w i t h Proposed Noise-Annoyance Measures", U. S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, N66 24827, May 1964.

24.

Cole, J. N. and England, R . T . , "Evaluation of Noise Problems

A n t i c i p a t e d w i t h Future VTOL A i r c r a f t " , AMRL-TR-66-245, May 1967.

25

Connor, W. K. and P a t t e r s o n , H. P.,

Community Reaction t o
A i r c r a f t Noise Around Smaller C i t y A i r p o r t s " , NASA CR-2104, August
1972.

26.

Cox, C. R . , "Helicopter Noise Reduction and Its E f f e c t s on

Operations", Proceedings of t h e American H e l i c o p t e r S o c i e t y ,
25th Annual Forum, Washington D. C . , May 1969.

28

I1

27

Crosse, G. W. , Davidson, I. M. , Hargest , T. J . , P o r t e r , M. J. ,

"A Controlled Experfment on the P e r c e p t i o n of Helicopter Rotor
Noise", S1. R o p l Aero. SQC., Vol. 64, October 1960, pp. 629-632.

28.

Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , "Transportation Noise and I t s Control",

PB-213-007 , June 1972.

29

Donley, R . "Community Nollse Regulation"

February 1969.

30

Eastman, S. E., "Comparative Cost and Capacity Estimates of

V e r t i p o r t a and Afrporta 1975-1985", AIAA paper 69-208, February

, Sound

and V i b r a t i o n ,

1969
31.

Edge, P. M . , Chambers, R . M. and Hubbard, H. H., "Evaluation

of Measures of A t r c r a f t Noise", Proceedings of NASA A i r c r a f t S a f e t y
and Operating Problems Conf., NASA SP-270, Volume 1, 1971.

32.

E i n s w e i l e r , R . C . , "Plannlng for Compatibility of A i r c r a f t and

Environment", Proceedfngs of' SAE/DOT Conference on A i r c r a f t and t h e
Envrronment , Washington D . C. , February 1971.

33.

F e d e r a l Av3ation Adminiatration, "Part 36 , Noise Standards"

AlSrcraft T n e C e r t i f i c a t f o n , December 1, 1969.

34.

F i d e l l , S. and Pearsons, K. S., "Study of t h e A u d i b i l i t y of

Impulsive Sounds" , NASA CR-1598 , May 1970.

35

F i d e l l , S . , Pearsons, K. S . , G r i g n e t t i , M . , and Green, D. M . ,

"The Noisiness of Impulsive Sounds", J1. A c o u s t i c a l SOC. Am.,
Vol. 48, No. 6, 1970, pp. 1304-1310.

36.

Gach, M. , "Appraisal of Community Response t o A i r c r a f t Noise",

Proceedings of SAE/DOT Conference on A i r c r a f t and t h e Environment ,
Washington D. C. , February 1971.

37

Galloway, W. J . , 11Noise Exposure F o r e c a s t s as I n d i c a t o r s of

Community Response", Proceedings of SAE/DOT Conference on A i r c r a f t
and t h e Environment, Washington D. C . , February 1971.

38.

Galloway, W. J . , Bishop, D. E . , "Noise Exposure F o r e c a s t s :

Evolution, Evaluation, Extensions and Land U s e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s " ,
FAA-NO-70-9, August 1970.

39

Galloway, W. J. and von Gierke, H. E . , " I n d i v i d u a l and Community

Reaction t o A i r c r a f t Noise; Present S t a t u s and S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n
E f f o r t s " , Committee No. 4 Report, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conf. on Reduction
of Noise and Disturbance of C i v i l A i r c r a f t , London, November 1966.

29

40.

41.

G a r r e t t , R . M. , "Determination of t h e Loudness of Repeated Pulses

of Noise", J1. Sound Vib., Vol. 2 , No. 1, 1965, pp. 42-52.

J. R .

, ? I The Mechanics

of F o r e c a s t i n g t h e Community Noise

Impact of a T r a n s p o r t a t t o n System"
November 1971.

, The

Rand Corporation , AD-737684

42.

George Washington U n i v e r s i t y , "Laws and Regulatory Schemes f o r

Noise Abatement" , EnviroLunentalP r o t e c t i o n Agency , PB 206719 ,
December 31, 1971.

43.

George Washington U n i v e r s i t y , " S o c i a l Impacts of C i v i l A v i a t i o n

and I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r R&D Polfcy (CARD Study)", DOT TSTT10-6,
NASA CR-1988, September 1971.

44.

von Gierke , H. , "Impact C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of Noise Including

I m p l i c a t i o n s of I d e n t i f y i n g and Achieving Levels o f Cumulative
Noise Exposure," Task Group 3 Draft Report of EPA A i r c r a f t l A i r p o r t
Noise Report Study, June 1, 1973.

45 *

Goedike, W. "Communities Act t o Reduce t h e Impact of J e t A i r c r a f t

Noise", Proceedings of SAE/DOT Conference on A i r c r a f t and t h e Environment , Washington D. C , February 1971.

, Transportation

46.

Green , D. M. , "Psychophysical Comparison Methods"

Noises, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington P r e s s , 1970.

47.

H a l w e s , D . R . , " F l i g h t Operations t o Minimize Noise"

February 1971.

48.

H a l w e s , D. R . and Cox, C . R . , "Noise Reduction P o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r

a Light H e l i c o p t e r " , SAE Paper 690683, October 1969.

49.

H a r r i s , C . M. , "Handbook of Noise Control", McGraw-Hill Book

Co., New York, N . Y . , 1957.

50

, Vertif l i t e ,

Hazard, W. R . , " P r e d i c t i o n s of Noise Disturbance Near Large A i r p o r t s " , J1. Sound Vib. , Vol. 15, No. 4, 1971.

51.

Hinterkeuser, E. G. and S t e r n f e l d , H., "Subjective Response t o

Synthesized F l i g h t Noise Signatures of S e v e r a l Types of V/STOL
A i r c r a f t , NASA CR-1118, August 1968.

52.

Howes , W. L. , "Loudness Determined by Power Summation''

TM X-2300 , May 1971.

53.

Howes , W. L. , "Relations Among Loudness , Loudness Level, and SPL",

NASA TM X-2298, May 1971.

30

, NASA

54

Hunting, A. W. and Fleming, R . S . , "Helicopter S t e e p Angle GCA

Approach Evaluation", FAA P r o J e c t R e p o r t , AD 676528, May 1968.

55

H q l b u r t , R. , "Operations Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement, S a f e t y , and Costs," Task Group 2 Draft Report of EPA
A i r c r a f t / A i r p o r t Noise Report Study, June 1, 1973.

56.

Jagger , D. H. and Kemp, E.D.G. , "The P o t e n t i a l and Development of

a V/STOL I n t e r - C i t y A i r l i n e r " , A i r c r a f t Engineering , January 1970.

57.

Jonsson, E. and Sorensen, S . , "Adaptation t o Community Noise

A Case Study", J1. Sound V P b . , Vol. 26, No. 4 , 1973.

58.

Johnston, G.W. , "V/STOL Community Annoyance Due t o Noise: Proposed

I n d i c e s and Levels", UTIAS Technical Note No. 177, March 1972.

59

Knight , K. G. , "Regulatory Approaches t o C o n t r o l l i n g R a i l Rapid

T r a n s i t Nolse" , Proceedings of t h e SAE-EPA-DOT I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Conference on T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and t h e Environment , Paper 720858 ,
Washington D . C . , June 1972.

60.

b o w l e r , A.E., "The Second Noise and S o c i a l Survey Around Heathrow London Airport", Proceedings of t h e 7 t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l Cong r e s s on Acoustics, Volume 2, (A73-12951 03-12) Budapest, Akademas
Kiado, 1971.

61.

Kryter, K. D . , I1 Concepts of Perceived N o i s i n e s s , Their Implementation and Application", J1. A c o u s t i c a l SOC. Am., Vol. 43,
NO. 2, 1968, pp. 344-361.

62.

K r y t e r , K. D . , "Laboratory T e s t s of P h y s i o l o g i c a l - Psychological
Reactions t o Sonic Booms", J1. A c o u s t i c a l SOC. Am., Vol. 39,
No. 5, 1966, pp- 565-572.

63.

K r y t e r , K. D. , " P o s s i b l e Modifications t o t h e C a l c u l a t i o n of
Perceived Noisine'ss" , NASA CR-1636 , August 1970.

64.

K r y t e r , K. D . , "A Note on t h e Q u a n t i t y ( E f f e c t i v e ) Perceived

Noisiness and Units of Perceived Noise Level", J1. Sound Vib.,
Vol. 25, No. 3, 1972.

65.

K r y t e r , K. D . , Johnson, P. J . , Young, J . R . , "Judgement T e s t s of

Flyover Noise F r m Various A i r c r a f t " , NASA CR-1635 , August 1970.

66.

K r y t e r , K. D. and Pearsons, K. S . , "Judged Noisiness of a Band

of Random Noise Containing an Audible Pure Tone", J1. A c o u s t i c a l
S o c i e t y America, 1966, pp. 138-150.

31

67.

68.

K r y t e r , K. D. and Pearsons, K. S . , "Some E f f e c t s of S p e c t r a l

Content and Duration on Perceived Noise Level" , J1. Acoustical
SOC. ~ m . , VOI.
35, NO. 6, 1963, pp. 866-883.
Kurze, U. J.

, "Statistics

of Road T r a f f i c Noise", J1. Sound Vib.,

Vol. 18, No. 2, 1971.

, "Helicopter

- Blade Slap",

NASA CR-1983,

69.

Leverton, J. W.
March 1972.

70

Leverton, J. W., "Noise of R o t o r c r a f t " , Westland Research Paper

R . P. 365, March 1969.

71.

L i t t l e , J. W. and Mabry, J. E . , ? ? Empirical Comparisons of C a l c u l a t i o n

Procedures f o r Estimatfng Annoyance of J e t A i r c r a f t Flyovers",
J1. Sound Vfb., V o l . 1 0 , No. 1, 1969, pp. 71-80.

72

Mayo, L. H. and Ware, R . C . , "The Evolving Regulatory S t r u c t u r e

of Environmental Noise Abatement and Control", I E S Preceedings
A72-32601 15-05, 1972.

73.

M i l l e r , L. M. and Ver, I. L. , "Noise Study i n Manhattan, New York

C i t y f o r t h e Evaluatlon of Domlnant Noise Sources Including
Helicopter T r a f f i c " , Bolt Beranek and Newman Report No. 1610,
4 August 1967.

74

Moreira, N. M. and Bryan, M. E . , "Noise Annoyance S u s c e p t i b i l i t y "

J1. Sound Vib. , Vol. 21, No. 4, 1972, pp. 449-462.

75.

Morse, K. M. , "Community Noise - The S t a t e of t h e A r t , I n d u s t r i a l

Aspect", 74th Annual Meetlng, A c o u s t i c a l Sooiety of America,
November 1967.

76

Mull, H. R., "Washington D. C . Helicopter Demonstration",

Harold R . Mull and Associates Report R-6606, September 1969.

77

Mull, H. R . , "External Noise C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Two Commercial

Transport Helicopters", United Acoustic Consultant Report R-642,
January 1964.

78.

Muller, J . L . , "Calculation of A i r c r a f t Noise Duration", J1.

Sound Vib., Vol. 16, No. 4, 1971.

79

N a g e l , D. C . , P a r n e l l , J . E. and P a r r y , H. J . , "Procedure f o r
Correcting Perceived Noise Level f o r t h e E f f e c t of Background
Noise", T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Noises, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington P r e s s , 1970.

32

Nofse

80.

National Bureau of Standards, "The S o c i a l Impact of Noise",

Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency PB 206 724, December 1971.

81.

N a t i o n a l E l e c t r i c a l Manufacturers A s s o c i a t i o n , "Gas Turbine

Sound and Its Reduction", NEMA Pub. NO. SM133-1964.

82.

Northeastern I l l i n o i s Planning Commission, "Metropolitan A i r c r a f t

Noise Abatement P o l l c y Study, O ' H a r e I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t ,
Chicago, I l l i n o i s " , PB 203618, 1971.

83.

Ollerhead, J. B. , "Scaling A i r c r a f t Notse Perception", J1. Sound

Vib. , Vol. 26, No. 3 , 1973, pp. 361-388

84.

Ollerhead, J . B . , "An Evaluation of Methods for Scaling A i r c r a f t

Noise Perceptfon", NASA CR-1883, October 1971.

85

Ollerhead, J . B., "Subjectlve Evaluation of General Aviation

A i r c r a f t Noise", FAA-NO-68-35, A p r i l 1968.

86.

Ostergaard, P. B. and Donley, R . , "Background Noise Levels i n

Suburban Communities", J1. Acoustical SOC. Am., Vol. 36, No. 3 ,
March 1964.

87

P a r r y , H. J . and P a r r y , J . K . , I 1The I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and Meaning

of Laboratory Determtnations of t h e E f f e c t of Duration on t h e Judged
A c c e p t a b i l i t y of Noise", J1. Sound Vib., Vol. 20, No. 1, 1972.

88.

P a u l l i n , R . L. and Miller , J.S.F. , " A i r c r a f t Noise Abatement

The Prospects f o r a Quieter Metropolitan Environment'' , A I M
Paper No. 69-800, J u l y 1969.

89.

P a u l l i n , R . L . , "Aviation and Environmental Q u a l i t y " , A I M

Paper No. 71-729, June 1971.

90.

Pearsons, K. S . , "Laboratory Studies on t h e E f f e c t s of Duration

and S p e c t r a l Complexity on Subjective Ratings of Noise", ASHA
Reports No. 4, 1969, pp. 228-237.

91.

Pearsons, K. S . , "Combination E f f e c t s of Tone and Duration Parameters on Perceived Noisiness", NASA-CR-1283 , February 1969.

92.

P e y s o n s , K. S . , "Noisiness Judgements of Helicopter Flyovers",

FAA DS-67-1 , January 1967.

93.

Pearsons , K. S. , Bennett , R . L. and F i d e l l , S. , "Study of t h e

E f f e c t s of t h e Doppler S h i f t on Perceived Noisiness", A c o u s t i c a l
S o c i e t y of America, Houston, Texas, November, 1970.

33

94

Pearsons, K. S . , HoronJeff, R . D . , and Bishop, D. E . ,

of Tones P l u s Noise", NASA CR-1117, August 1968.

(1

The Noisiness

Pearsons, K . S. and K r y t e r , K. D . , "Laboratory Tests of S u b j e c t i v e

Reactions t o Sonic Boom", NASA CR-187, March 1965.
Powers , J. K. , " A i r c r a f t Noise Standards and Regulations", FAARD-71-24, March-April 1971.
R e i c h a r d t , W . , "Subjective and Objective Measurement of t h e
Loudness Level of S f n g l e and Repeated Impulses", J1. A c o u s t i c a l
SOC. AIII., V O ~ . 47, No. 6 , 1970, pp. 1557-1562.
Robinson, D. W . , "A New Basis f o r A i r c r a f t Noise Rating" National
P h y s i c a l Laboratory NPL Aero Report AC 49, March 1971.
Robinson, D. W. and Bowahcr, J. M. , "A S u b j e c t i v e Experiment
w i t h H e l i c o p t e r Noises", J1. Royal Aero. SOC., September 1961,
pp. 635-637.
Rylander, R . , Sorenson, S . , Kajland, A , , "Annoyance Reaction
From A i r c r a f t iu'oise Exposure" , $1. Soimd & Vlb. , V d . 2 b , 51s.
1972, pp. 419-444.

4,

Rylander, R . , Sorensen, S . , Alexander, A., G i l b e r t , Ph.,

A Comparison Between
"Determinants f o r A i r c r a f t Noise Annoyance
French and Scandanavian Data", J1. Sound Vib., Vol. 28, No. 1,
1973. pp. 15-21.

S c h l e g e l , R . G . , "HUSH F i n a l Report
Q u i e t H e l i c o p t e r Program",
Sikorsky Engineering Report SER 611478, January 1970.
S c h u l t z , T. J . , "Noise Assessment Guidelines Technical Background",

HUD Report No. TE/NA 172, 1972.

Semotan, J . and Semotanova, "Startle and Other Human Responses
t o Noise", J1. Sound Vib. , Vol. 1 0 , NO. 3, 1969, pp. 480-489.
S e r e n d i p i t y I n c . , "A Study of t h e Magnitude of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
Noise Generation and P o t e n t i a l Abatement", Department of Transp o r t a t i o n Report No. OST-ONA-71-1, November 19-70.
S o c i e t y of Automotive Engineers , "Technique f o r Developing Noise
Exposure Forecasts" , FAA Ds-67-14 , August 1967.
Sperry, W. C . , ''Noise Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis
Including R e t r o f i t t i n g " , T a s k Group 4 D r a f t Report of EPA A i r c r a f t /
A i r p o r t Noise Report Study, June 1, 1973.

34

108.

Sperry, W. C .

, "Aircraft

Noise Evaluation"

, FAA-NO-68-34 , September

1968.

log.

S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a Department of Aeronautics, "Noise Standards"

T i t l e 4 , R e g i s t e r 70, No. 48-11.28.70.

110.

Stave, A. M. and King, R . J., "The Annoyance of V/STOL Noise

Phase I , Impulse Nofse" , Sfkorsky Engineering Report SER 50678 ,
October 1970.

111.

Stepniewski, W. Z . , Schm3tz, F. H . , " P o s s i b i l i t i e s and Problems

of Achieving Community Acceptance of VTOL", I n t e r n a t i o n a l Council
of t h e Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS Paper No. 72-34, Amsterdam,
August/September 1972.

112.

S t e r n f e l d , H . , Hinterkeuser, R . B., Hackman, R . B . , Davis J . ,

" A c c e p t a b i l i t y of VTOL A i r c r a f t Noise Determined by Absolute
S u b j e c t i v e Testing", NASA CR-2043, June 1972.

113.

Tanner , C . S. and Glass, R . E. , "Analysis of Operational Noise

Measurements i n Terms of Selected Human Response Noise Evaluation
i.ieas-u-es", Fj?&-iiD-7i-ii2,
Decaber 1971.

114.

Tracor I n c .
J u l y 1971.

115.

Wells, R . J . , " J u r y Ratings of Complex A i r c r a f t Noise S p e c t r a

Versus Calculated Ratings", Presented a t 80th Meeting of t h e
A c o u s t i c a l Society of America, November 1970.

116.

W i l l i a m s , J . M . and Berthoud, R . , "Helicopter Noise i n C e n t r a l

London", S o c i a l & Community Planning Research Paper P . 184,
November 1970.

117.

W i l l i a m s , H. L. and Majer, A . J . , "Is It Impactor Continuous

Noise?" , Archives Environmental Health, October 1963, pp. 37-40.

118.

W i l l i a m s , C . E . , Pearsons, K. S . , and Hecker, M. H. L . , "Speech

I n t e l l i g i b i l i t y i n t h e Presence of Time-Varying A i r c r a f t Noise"
J1. A c o u s t i c a l SOC. Am. , Vol. 50, No. 2 , 1971, pp. 426-434.

119.

W i l l i a m s , C . E., Stevens, K . N . , Hecker, M. H. L., and Pearsons,

K. S . , "The Speech I n t e r f e r e n c e E f f e c t s of A i r c r a f t Noise", FAA
T .R. Ds-67-19 , September 1967.

120.

Wyle Labor a t or ie s , "Community Noi s e" Environmenta 1 P r o t e c t i o n

Agency PB 207 124, December 1971.

, "Community

Reaction t o A i r p o r t Noise", NASA CR-1761,

35

121.

122.

I?

Yeowwt, N . S.,
An Acceptable Exposure Level f o r A i r c r a f t Noise
i n R e s i d e n t i a l Communities", J1. Sound Vib. Vol. 25, No. 2, 1972.
Yeowart , N . S. , Bryan, M. E. , and Tempest , W. , "Low-Frequency
Noise Thresholds", J1. Sound V i b . , Vol. 9, NO. 3, 1969 , pp.

447-453.

123.

A Balanced Approach", Proceedings

Young. T . C . , "Nolse Abatement
of t h e SAE-EPA-DOT Tnternational Conference on T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and
t h e Environment, Paper 720626, Washington D . C., June 1972.

124.

Zepler, E. E . and Harel, J . P. P., "The Loudness of Sonic Booms

and Other Impulsive Sounds", J1. Sound Vib., Vol. 2 , No. 3 ,
1965 pp. 249-256.

125.

Zepler, E. E. , S u l l i v a n , B. M., Rice, C . G . , G r i f f i n , M. J.,

Aldman, M . , Dickinson, P. J., Shepherd, K. P . , Ludlow, J . E . ,
and Large, J. B., ? ? Human Response t o T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Noise and V i bration"

36

, J1.

Sound Vib.

, Vol.

28, No. 3, 1973, p p - 375-4010

aJ

t,

a,

d+

rl

a,

a
d
3

f,

a,

ho

*rl

cP

k
Ld

a
c
d

+)

II)

ffl

aJ

>
k

2
6
z

k
a,

Pa
H

P-

2
r-

aJ

2
4

ffl

rn
aJ

k
PI

4
z
P-

aJ
P

a,
k

rl

c
M
*r-

r i

aJ

aJ

;
aJ
k

a,

'H

k
aJ

+J

aJ

u
aJ

c
u

>
0

-F9

Ld
k

aJ

F9

aJ
aJ

PI

4
H
m

PI

37

d
l
d

a,

G
k

a,
rl
rl

0
\

A
U

0
U

38

d
cd

d
a,
d

rl
ri

a,
rl
ri

aJ

k
aJ

aJ
P

&

4
M

c,

ri

0
.d
4J

cd

m
u3
I

4
4

rrl
I

-3

4
4

t-

w
I

3
M

4
4

w
I

cu

-3

4
4

rl
e,
ffi
+J
k

cd
k

R
4

4
0

E+

u)

E+

+J

61
cd
k

a,
m
3
I

CJ

.rl

-rl

bo

.rl

u)

+J

h
cd
k
CJ
k

*rl

ffi
w
B

a
a

m
a
z

-P
h

(H

k"

::

.rl

cd

.rl

4
I

aJ
k
k

h
cd

2cd

k
.ti

P
k
cd

cd
k

Ld
k

.rf

a,
0

CJ

.rl

Ti

cd

rl
rl

0
.rl

k
k

-rl

E+

cd

0
k

s
P

ri

-rl

u)

u)

u)

ho
G

rl
cd

Ld

ffi

w
rn
H

0
2

2w

+J

-d

2
Pi

PI

a
a

2
Pi

2a 2a

a
a
2
PI

2
a

m
a
z
PI

4
a
a

n
w
R
rl

a,

z
4

3H
u)

P;

ho

Yz

B
z

cd
ffi

aJ
m
.rl

2
a,
P

*rl
Lo

pc

a,

+J

2
V

a,

$m
0

pc

wx

a,
m
*d

e;

2
a
c

n
0
.rl

a,

t=

aJ

2
6c

2
a
c

Ld

rn
rn
aJ

.rl

a,

PI

pc

.rl

20

Lo

.rl

a
c

cd

Lo

.rl

ZZ

c
cd

Lo
.rl

Ld

rl

a,

k
0

k.

P
k
cd

a,
Lo
T i

.rl

CJ
k

7
Lo

aJ

c,
k

aJ

aJ

.rl

0
.rl

rl

aJ

a
*d
3
0

k
k

Ld

k
E
3

8 2 2
0

rl

w
2

w
2
V

39

$a ) 3u
kld

co
0
W

aJ

>

Ln

w
4

Ln

.d

Ln

t-'

.r-

a
0

m
r-

u
P

rl

aJ

+,

+,

*rl

40

In

ri

t-

-4

c,

a,

k
0

b?
0

e;

0
F

aJ

X
a,

cn
2,

0
H

ri

3w

tl
d

PI
0

aJ

H
a 5.
k - 0
a

rn
v i

4
w

4
H
k-

ld

c
W

.n

aJ

tl
ri

n
w
n

c,
d

a,

e;

In

a
aJ
a
e,

0
L n

GI

In

u
w
e;

aJ

c
P

I:

ffls

aJ

k
a,

k
a,

CJ

UI

*rl
pi
Ql

G O
0

or-

0 0

a
m
a, N O
c
+J
.rl
0

ea,

a
*rl

* m
m

om
ocu

-t

o
II

c
ffl
cd

20

a,

II

aJ

-d

5::
3 .Y
3 2
Ps

41

In

o
\

;fco-=tot-o

. r n d r l

Pi

In

l
d
k
E
3

rl

Pi

ld

k
E+

Ln

'

rn

k
E+

In

rn

CrJ

k
E+

dcd

r i

F9
(H

a d

a,

42

c a

a
k
0
s
u

a,
a,
Pi
rn

Pi

*rl

E+

Pi

cd
k

r n B

-a

m
-0

1
Z

0
I-

a
rx

a
a

z
0

0
W

cn

LL

0
W
[L

cn
0
a
X

[L

0
LL

-1

a
cn
a
W

tI
(3
W

3
I

a
ILL

a
rx
0

->
[L

I-

z
3
0
0
v

-a
0
[L

LL

I
I3
0

cn

I
-

IZ

a:

?
z
z

0
v)

z
1
W

a
[L

I
[L

u
W

2
0
z
0
LL
LL

a
-

[L

(3

I-

3
3

43

MEANl

FEDERAL CRITERIA

6 (GERMANY)

HUD -TRAFFIC
NOISE INCL.

"0

6-l (NETHERLANDS)

N (FRANCE)

0
0
0

NEF (USA)
CNR ( U S A )
HUD -NONAIRCRAFT NOISE

N N I (GREAT BRITAIN)

LDN (USA)
HUD

- TRAFFIC

NOISE

80

90

i 00

A-WEIGHTED S P L FOR
ONE IO-SEC EXPOSURE PER DAY

Figure 2.

44

Comparison o f C l e a r l y Acceptable L i m i t s of F e d e r a l Regulations.

I IO
1

DARKENED C I R C L ES IN D I CAT E REG UL AT ION S

OUT OF L I N E W I T H THE M A I N BODY OF DATA

COMMUNITY

INGLEWOOD, CALIF.

1
i
i
1

BOULDER, CO.

BOSTON, MASS.
ANAHEIM

, CALIF

SPRINGFIELD, MASS
BINGHAMTON

, N.Y.

0
0

BEVERLY H I L L S , CALIF.

DENVER, CO.
FAIR L A W N
WARWICK

, N.J.

, R. I .

FARMINGTON , CT.

0
0

NEW H A V E N , CT.
COLUMBUS, OH.

ii

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

DAYTON ,OH.
M I A M I , FL.
PEORIA

D A L L A S , TX.

MINNEAPOLIS

0
0

,MI.

, IL.

TUCSON, AR.
CHICAGO, IL.
B A L T I M O R E , MD.

rMEANl
I

93.5 13.0 I

LOS ANGELES , C A L I F .
80

90

IO0

I10

A-WEIGHTED S P L FOR
ONE IO-SEC EXPOSURE PER DAY

Figure 3.

Comparison of Residential Community Noise Regulations.

45

5
-J
W

SYMBOL

>

COM PAR IS0 N

UNIT

TEST
HELO

0
0

EPNLt

6-2048

dB(A)

8-2048

PNL

CH-46

PN L

S-61

Ll

PNL

CH-34

e
l

dB(A)

U H - IB
CH-46

W
-I

ILL

a
E
0

IL

LL

W
LL

-5

lx

I-

>
-

I-

w -10
LL

rn
0
I

t u
aJ

-I

DARKENED SYMBOLS INDICATE PRESENCE

OF BLADE SLAP

- 15
CV-880

8-727

L-1049G

DC-8-30

NON-SLAP '
HELO

A I R C R A F T USED AS REFERENCE SOUND

L e q IS TEST HELICOPTER LEVEL AT W H I C H I T I S JUDGED

TO BE AS ANNOYING AS THE REFERENCE SOUND

Figure 4.

46

E f f e c t of Blade Slap on Judged Annoyance of H e l i c o p t e r s .

RECORDER

- MONITOR NG
- SPEAKER / A M P L I F I E R

OCTAVE
BAND
ANALYZER

SOUND
LEVEL
METER

T R U E RMS
VOLT M E T ER

OSClL LOGRA PH

IMPULSE
(PEAK 1
NO I SE
AN ALY Z E R

Figure 5.

Instrumentation Used in the Investigation of Impulsive Noise

Annoyance.

47

3
N

DLI

9
a

-P
v1

al

n
-

m
-0
L

LT

0
I-

rl

cd

G
M

-rl

cn
%
0

G
0

.ri

!-

cn

W
LT
0

c33

w
a,
In

.ri

z
0
z

48

cn

,j

rn
.d

2
Y

i
I

k
0

rl
rl

-d
0

rn
0

49

14

12

10

12

14

16

18

20

A I R C R A F T ACOUSTIC SIGNAL CREST FACTOR

Figure 8.

22

dB

P o s s i b l e Preliminary Impulse Noise Annoyance P e n a l t y

Criterion.

ref: 0.0002 p bar

Ldn-dB(A)

60
i

70
l

- 1

DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN F E D E R A L S T A N D A R D S

C O M M U N I T Y STANDARDS ( RES1 D E N T IA L AREAS)

I+-+

S T A T E STANDARDS ( R E S I D E N T I A L AREAS)

I
I
PROPOSED
CRITERION

MEAN

Figure 9 ' .

STANDARD D E V I A T I O N
ABOUT THE MEAN

Comparison of Federal, Community, and State Noise Regulations

and Guidelines with the Proposed Community Acceptance
Criterion.

80
L.

i
c\1

870 -0

U NAC CE PTA BL E

s
h

TI
I

TI
-I

60

40

50
AMBIENT SOUND PRESSURE

Figure 1 0 .

52

ACCEPTABLE

70
L E V E L - dB(A) ref: 0.0002 p b a r

60

Recommended Community Noise Acceptance C r i t e r i a .

80

1:
<
0

-I

1
1

c,
a3

TI

E
U

a,

iI

rn

I-

+
I

I-

.r(

c3

>

(d

0
1
I

I-

z
>

W N
W

ar
10
rl
0

e
4

cu
ui
OD

a
m

u?
OD

v ) j

cti

v)
Y

D
Y

w
m

a
v

cn

-I

TI

*yzn
-I

53

54

.
I

I
I
N

I-

m
I

o
f
I-

z
W
A

W
A

J
A

a
W
>

r-

I-

a
a

0
l-

41

h
m

I
-t

f
i

55

80

c
V

+
60

z
a
c
0

w
3
W

40

v
z
a
c

20

1
4

_1

a
V
F

___

COMPUTED W I T H T E S T D A T A I N P U T
PROGRAM G E N E R A T E D T I M E H I S T O R I E S

25

LL

[L

>

g
2
n
c

20

15

IO

; [
;r

100

N
LT
0

Figure 14.

Typical Gorrelation of P r e d i c t e d and Measured H-53

Helicopter Performance.

40

- 0 -C A L C U L A T E D

40

30

20

10

T A I L ROTOR

Figure 15.

Comparison of Measured and P r e d i c t e d Rotor Noise.

57

IO0
c

95

a
I

- -

85

t-

---

-1

80

a
i

90 -

L.

MEASURED
CALCULATED

75

IO0

95

90

85

80

z
a
I

5z
a

75

Figure 1 6 .

----I

Comparison of Calculated and Measured PNLT T i m e H i s t o r y

for t h e CH-53D Helicopter.

l60C
RUN
I

I 4oc

V E R T I C A L TO 1 5 2 M 1 5 0 0 F T l AT 5 5 0 0 K W l 7 4 0 0 S H P )

'

Go

V E R T I C A L TO 7 6 M ( 2 5 0 F T l AT 5 6 5 0 K W l 7 5 6 0 S H P l

OELIOUE TO CDP AT 4800KW ( 6 4 0 0 S H P )

HORIZONTAL TO 10.3M/SEC(ZOKN) AT 5 2 0 0 K W ( 7 0 0 0 S H P ) C L I M B TO I Z . Z M ( 4 0 F T )
AT 5 Z O O K W ( 7 0 0 0 S H P ) , GO TO 4 1 . 1 M / S E C 1 8 0 K N ) W I T H i 6 5 0 K W 1 7 5 6 0 S H P )

400

4"1M/SEC(B0KN)
WITH 5 6 5 0 K W 1 7 5 6 0 S H P )

1 BOKN 1
11.7 M/SEC ( 2 3 0 0 F T / M I N )

I20C

44 M/SEC

3 50

I-

IO00

LL

800

5a

200

coo
I50
400
IO0

20 0

Figure

.5

I .o

I .5
2 .o
2.5
DISTANCE DOWN RANGE , F T

3.0

3.5 x io3

17,'.Four

Takeoff P r o f i l e s f o r t h e S-65-40 Helicopter Used

f o r Noise Evaluation.

59

ln

0
0

60

0
0
0

0
0

co

0
0
(D

0
0

0
0

0
0

I
n

61

a,
v1

0
(u

M
I

N
I

62

a
r:

a,

63

--

64

+IL L

0 0

o m
In-cu-z

--cum*

*El
0

u
a,

rn

.d

i
,

65

aJ

In

cn
[II

a l ,
F9

I-

I
0
(u

A
-

0
h

W
[II

0
v)
L

a
W
In

[II

a
I-

z
U

Y Y

YY

aa aa

kI- t-I-

: I (
I

(u

LL

-I

i i I

IO
0

W
v)

In

0
0

(u

Q,

.ti

66

E
Y

cu0
0

rl
I

0
(H

a
d

0
aJ

rn

"I

aJ
k

bo

.rl

9
-

In

?
-

In

v,

U
W

I-

N Z

-9
Y
W

cr

10

73
0

..

a
* w
o n
a

(v

I-

2
-

NI-

?g
LL

-I
W

Z
- w

0
0

?v,

k
0

E:

m a l

0
0

(v

3
3

68

0
0

90

80

1
0

In

70

a
60

50

IO0
I

+ -

OBSERVER
x=310M (IOOOFT)
y = 155M ( 5 0 0 F T )
S R = 174M ( 5 6 1 F T )

90

+ -

80

70

60

50
0

Figure 27.

16
T I M E , SEC

24

32

8
16
T I M E , SEC

24

Contribution of Each Noise Source t o t h e Baseline S-65-40

Helicopter Noise.

0
0

1
I
1
I
I
I

0
rr,

l
d
*ri

aJ
*ri

k
V

0
0

5:
0

O m

o m
W

IW

2
c

n
3
I-

0
5
O a
In

0
0
rr)

0
0

0
0

I
0

0
(0

IC

a3

cu

0(D

I30

-- - -

NO B L A D E S L A P
SEVERE B L A D E SLAP

ASSUMED

I20
N

E
\

z
10
I

110

X
N
rc

100

#.

z
w

v)

90

80

.005

.002

-01
.02
.05
.I
.2
.5
S E N E L F O O T P R I N T AREA , SQUARE K I L O M E T E R S
1

.005

.01

.02

.05

.I

.2

SENEL FOOTPRINT AREA

Figure 29.

, SQUARE M I L E S

Effect of Impulsive Noise on a Helicopter's Noise Annoyance

Characteristics.

(u

5M

0
M

a,

72

I
R

-CU
0

-0

0
-0

-?

(u

-0

0
4

-0
I

CU

,WIN , - O l x Z

WBP

'

a,

3
00
OD'

13N3S

73

M O D I F I E D M A I N ROTOR
I NS T A L L ED

BASELINE HELICOPTER

OCTAVE B A N D N U M B E R

OCTAVE BAND NUMBER

! ! = 6 3 H z RAND)

M O D I F I E D M A I N AND T A I L
ROTORS I N S T A L L E D

80 -

TOTAL dBA

70 -

- -

60 50 40

MODIFICATION F HELICOPTER

rI

,-TOTAL

dBA

30
OCTAVE BAND NUMBER

Figure 32.

74

OCTAVE B A N D N U M B E R

Octave Band Noise Reduction Resulting in Modification F

Helicopter.

A L L

w
m
m

u
m

0
+-a
0
LL
a
0
H

0
0

'

In

I
0
0
pc

0
0

0
0

In

I
0
0

I4

0
0

0
0

0
0

3 a nL Ii

m
m

iv

75

APPENDIX
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF LDN
A sample c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e
v a l u e a t a s i n g l e p o i n t on the
ground w i l l be computed using t h e
i o n s of Figure 9 i n t h e main body
of t h e r e p o r t . The necessary fnfcmnation is giver, belew:
Number of d i f f e r e n t a i r c r a f t : 2
Number of f l i g h t s : 50 day
1 night f o r a i r c r a f t 1
25
0 nfght for a l r c r a f t 2
Number of f l i g h t p a t h s :
1
T i m e ASrcraft Sound l a above ambient: 1 5 s e c f o r a i r c r a f t 1 and
10 sec f o r a i r c r a f t 2
Ambient Noise Level: 75 dBCl
SENEL C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

F l i g h t Path:

110
8100
I
I 4

w
rn

90

I'

A/C 2

I1

100 200
1000
S l a n t Range - f t

1.

b se r v e r

SR = 193'

C a l c u l a t e t h e Daytime Noise Level, L,

2
(54000-igl

= l0Log

10
L

1
jglNiJAT i j )
50ant

102.5
+
10

25ant

100
1
0

75

(54000-50(15)-25(10)) a n d ( - 4 7 . 3

A1

-47.3

LD = 10loglo
=

124.5-47.3 = 77.2 dBA

2.

-45.1
LN = 10loglo

5
3.

+ (32000-15) a n t
11.78~10
11+ 1.01x1012} -45.1

75.6 dBA

C a l c u l a t e t h e Day-Night Noise Level,

LDN = 10loglo
bN= 10loglo

ant

($-,/lo)

ant

(77.2/10).C 0.375 a n t (75.6/10))

+ 0.375 a n t ($/lo))

LDN = 10loglo {3.28xlO 7 -+ 1.36~10

LDN = 76.7 dBA

A2

LDN