https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=20060018369 2019-09-03T07:20:36+00:00Z

Aeroacoustic Improvements to Fluidic Chevron Nozzles

Brenda Henderson* and Kevin Kinzie†

NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton,VA, 23681

Julia Whitmire‡ and Amal Abeysinghe§

Goodrich Aerostructures, Chula Vista 91910

Fluidic chevrons use injected air near the trailing edge of a nozzle to emulate mixing and
jet noise reduction characteristics of mechanical chevrons. While previous investigations of
“first generation” fluidic chevron nozzles showed only marginal improvements in effective
perceived noise levels when compared to nozzles without injection, significant improvements
in noise reduction characteristics were achieved through redesigned “second generation”
nozzles on a bypass ratio 5 model system. The second-generation core nozzles had improved
injection passage contours, external nozzle contour lines, and nozzle trailing edges. The new
fluidic chevrons resulted in reduced overall sound pressure levels over that of the baseline
nozzle for all observation angles. Injection ports with steep injection angles produced lower
overall sound pressure levels than those produced by shallow injection angles. The
reductions in overall sound pressure levels were the result of noise reductions at low
frequencies. In contrast to the first-generation nozzles, only marginal increases in high
frequency noise over that of the baseline nozzle were observed for the second-generation
nozzles. The effective perceived noise levels of the new fluidic chevrons are shown to
approach those of the core mechanical chevrons.

I. Introduction

I N recent years, chevron mixing devices for jet noise reduction have advanced to the point that they are now in
commercial service. Chevrons, or serrations, placed around the trailing edge of either the core or fan exhaust
nozzle promote mixing of the jet flow and result in lower bulk jet velocity and lower noise. Mixing occurs by
penetrating the chevron tip a small distance into the flow and producing streamwise vorticity from the pressure
differential across the chevron. Mechanical chevrons are relatively simple to manufacture and install. However, as
passive devices with a fixed geometry, they have the disadvantage of only being optimized for one flight condition.
They cannot adapt to changes in the flow environment and adjustments cannot be made to compensate for changing
flight operations or installation effects. In addition, thrust losses that occur while generating the mixing remain
during cruise even though noise reduction is generally only needed during takeoff.
Active mixing techniques are particularly attractive as they have the potential to optimize jet noise reduction
throughout flight operations and can be deployed only when noise reduction is necessary and accompanying
performance penalties can be tolerated. One such active mixing technique is to inject air at the trailing edge of the
exhaust nozzle in such a way as to generate similar vorticity and mixing characteristics as the mechanical chevron.
These “fluidic chevrons” can be operated with different injection flow rates or injection location in a way that
optimizes their performance for the given flight condition.
The key to successful noise reduction with chevron nozzles (mechanical or fluidic) is to reduce low frequency
noise and not significantly increase high frequency noise1,2,3. For mechanical chevrons, the number of chevrons, the
serration geometry, and the penetration depth as well as many other factors affect the acoustic radiation resulting
from the chevron nozzle. Comparisons between numerical results and acoustic measurements indicate that some of

*
Reasearcher, Aeroacoustics Branch, MS 166, Hampton, VA 23681.
†
Now at GE Energy, Acoustics Technical Leader, PGT Aerodynamic and Acoustics Technology, P.O. Box 648,
GTTL 1236, Greenville, SC 29602.
‡
Staff Engineer, Acoustics Group, MZ 107N, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
§
Senior Engineer, Acoustics Group, MZ 107N, Chula Vista, CA 91910.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
the most aggressive mixers produce unacceptable levels of high frequency noise that completely offset any low
frequency noise reduction when the effects of human perception of noise are taken into account.
The same potential problem occurs for fluidic chevrons. Henderson et al4. and Kinzie et al5. describe fluidic
chevrons tested in the NASA Langley Jet Noise Laboratory. These fluidic chevrons were the first of their kind
designed with small slots cut near the trailing edge nozzle to allow air to inject into the flow and promote mixing
between the core and fan streams. Various injection parameters were considered including injection port count,
injection pressure ratio, and injector orientation. These “first generation” experiments demonstrated that while low
frequency noise reduction is possible, there is also the potential for significant levels of increased high frequency
noise. While the reason for the high frequency noise could not be demonstrated conclusively, the augmented levels
were generally attributed to details of the injector port design such as flow path and increased thickness of the core
nozzle trailing edge. Henderson et al4. showed that the increase in noise could not be accounted for simply by the
injector noise alone.
This paper reports on a “second generation” fluidic chevron nozzle design that incorporated lessons learned
from the experiments of references 4 and 5. For the second-generation design, more care was taken to design the
internal flow path of the injectors so that the effects of injection angle could be determined. In addition, a special
fabrication process was developed so that the nozzle trailing edge thickness was minimized everywhere.

II. Experimental Approach

The experiments were conducted in the Low Speed Aeroacoustics Wind Tunnel (LSAWT) at NASA Langley
Research Center shown schematically in Fig. 1. The LSAWT is an in-draft wind tunnel that provides a free jet for
forward flight effects that can reach Mach numbers up to 0.32. The free jet exhausts through a 56 in square nozzle
into a 34 ft long test cell with a 17 ft x 17 ft cross section. The floor, ceiling, and walls of the test cell are treated
with fiberglass wedges. The acoustically treated flow collector is designed to improve flow recirculation effects in
the test cell.

Microphone Array
Microphone Array

Tunnel Nozzle
JES

Collector

Figure 1. A schematic of the Low Speed Aeroacoustics Wind Tunnel (LSAWT) and the Jet Engine
Simulator (JES).
The Jet Engine Simulator (JES) centered in the free stream jet consists of a coannular air stream used to
accurately simulate engine nozzles systems. Each stream is equipped with a propane-fired, sudden-expansion
burner and an electric pre-heater used to achieve real engine temperatures of commercial turbo-fan engines.
Acoustic measurements are made with a 28-element sideline microphone array (see Fig.1) located at 12 ft from
the centerline axis of the JES. The ¼ in diameter Bruel Kjaer type 4939 are used with the grid caps removed and
calibrated with a piston phone and electrostatic calibrator. One-third octave data includes corrections for
microphone calibration, wind tunnel background noise, and atmospheric absorption (corrected to the same reference
day using the Shields and Bass6 method). The Amiet7 point source correction is used to account for acoustic
propagation through the free jet shear layer. A Doppler shift is used for spectral data. The data is scaled to full scale
and reported at a sideline distance of 1783 ft.
A representative 1/9th scale, bypass ratio (BPR) 5 model system was used in the experiments. The baseline
model consists of an externally plugged, 5.07 in diameter core nozzle with an exit area of 10.98 in2 and a 9.45 in
diameter fan nozzle with an exit area of 29.14 in2. The baseline core nozzle had a uniform thickness of
approximately 0.035” at the trailing edge. (This baseline is different than that used in the previous fluidic chevron
work of Henderson et al.4 and Kinzie et al.5, where the baseline core nozzle consisted of the fluidic chevron nozzle
with no injection flow.) For the fluidic chevron configurations, the baseline core nozzle was replaced with one of

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
four, second-generation fluidic chevron nozzles. These second-generation configurations introduced air through the
pylon into contoured injection passages in the core nozzle (see Fig. 2). The injected air entered the core stream
through six slots located near the nozzle trailing edge, spaced around the nozzle circumference. Four fluidic
chevron nozzles were designed for the purpose of determining the effects of injection angle (angle between the
injected flow and the core nozzle flow), slot length, and injection pressure ratio on the radiated noise. Two injection
angles were used, called the steep angle and the shallow angle, with the former indicating an injection velocity more
perpendicular to the direction of the core stream velocity. Three injector exit geometries were used, called the long
slot, the short slot, and the perforated slot. The combinations of injection angle and slot geometry chosen for the
four fluidic chevron core nozzles tested were: Configuration 1 – steep angle, short slot; Configuration 2 – shallow
angle, short slot; Configuration 3 – steep angle, long slot; and Configuration 4 – shallow angle, perforated slot.
The total pressure of the injected air was controlled by a regulator and was measured along with its temperature
in order to calculate the injected mass, momentum and velocity. For proprietary reasons, all the injected air
properties reported are normalized by the maximum value obtained throughout the testing, and the details of the slot
geometries are not given. The
Injection Air Supply pylon was clocked at an angle of
135o to the microphone array axis
for all tests.
Data were acquired at
Pylon representative takeoff and cutback
power conditions although only
data for takeoff power conditions
with flight Mach numbers equal to
0.1 and 0.28 are presented here. In
the experiments, the core nozzle
pressure ratio (NPR, the ratio of the
Fan Nozzle
stagnation pressure to the ambient
pressure), was equal to 1.56 and the
total temperature was 1491 oR. The
Fluidic Chevron
Slotted Core
core nozzle
fan NPR was equal to 1.75 and the
total temperature was 647 oR. For
Figure 2. A schematic of the bypass ratio 5 model system used in the each nozzle and operating
experiments. condition, three or four replications
of the data were taken.

III. Results
The first results presented give the effect of changing the injection pressure on the noise produced by the fluidic
chevron nozzle Configuration 1, the steep angle short slot injector. Figure 3 gives the sideline directivities of the
baseline nozzle and Configuration 1 nozzle
2 dB with three values of injection pressure (where
IPR* is the ratio of the stagnation gage
pressure to its maximum value). For the
fluidic chevrons, the overall sound pressure
OASPL (dB)

levels at all angles decrease as the injection

pressure increases, reaching a minimum
OASPL within the range of IPR* tested.
IPR* = 0.18 The 1/3 octave band acoustic spectra in Fig.
IPR* = 0.64 4 show that fluidic injection results in low
IPR* = 1.0
Baseline frequency noise reduction from the baseline
at observation angles of both 90o and 140o
(the downstream peak jet noise direction).
60 90 120 150 180
Also, higher injection pressures result in
Sideline Angle (deg) increased high frequency noise over that of
Figure 3. Sideline OASPL directivities for the fluidic the baseline nozzle at angles near 90o.
chevron nozzle with steep injectors at a flight Mach number However, it will be shown that the increased
of 0.28. high frequency noise resulting from fluidic

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 5 dB 5 dB
SPL (dB)

)
(
IPR* = 0.18 IPR* = 0.18
IPR* = 0.64 IPR* = 0.64
IPR* = 1.0 IPR* = 1.0
Baseline Baseline

10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000

Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)
Figure 4. The 1/3 octave band acoustic spectra for the fluidic chevron nozzle with steep injectors and the
baseline nozzle at a flight Mach number of 0.28 and observation angles equal to (a) 90o and (b) 140o.
injection with the second-generation
2 dB nozzles is significantly reduced from that
occurring with the first-generation nozzles.
The effect of steep verses shallow
injection angles can be seen by comparing
OASPL (dB)

the results from the steep angle short slot

injector nozzle to those of the shallow
angle short slot injector nozzle
(Configuration 2). The sideline directivity
IPR* = 0.18
and spectra for the shallow injector are
IPR* = 0.64
IPR* = 1.0 given in Figs 5 and 6 at the same IPR* as
Baseline for the steep injector in Figs 3 and 4.
Although the trends are the same for the
steep and shallow injectors, all noise
60 90 120 150 180 changes at a given injector pressure are
significantly smaller for the shallow
Sideline Angle (deg)
injector than they are for the steep injector.
Figure 5. Sideline OASPL directivities for the fluidic
chevron nozzle with shallow injectors compared to the
baseline nozzle at a flight Mach number of 0.28.

5 dB
5 dB
)
SPL (dB)

IPR* = 0.18
IPR* = 0.18
IPR* = 0.64 IPR* = 0.64
IPR* = 1.0 IPR* = 1.0
Baseline Baseline

10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000

Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)
Figure 6. The 1/3 octave band acoustic spectra for the fluidic chevron nozzle with shallow injectors and the
baseline nozzle at a flight Mach number of 0.28 and observation angles equal to (a) 90o and (b) 140o.
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The effect of injection slot length on the radiated noise is seen by comparing results of Configurations 1 (steep
angle short slot) and 3 (steep angle long slot). These results, given in figs 7 and 8, were obtained for equal injector
mass flow, which required the injection pressure for the fluidic chevron with the long slot to be reduced from that
for the fluidic chevron with the short slot.
Figure 7 shows that increasing the slot
2 dB length increases the overall sound
pressure levels at all observation angles.
For angles near the broadside of the jet
OASPL (dB)

[see Fig. 8 (a)], both fluidic chevrons

produce very similar spectra although
fluidic chevrons with short slots produce
slightly lower sound pressure levels than
fluidic chevrons with long slots. In the
Short Slot peak jet noise direction [see Fig. 8 (b)],
Long Slot the acoustic spectra for both fluidic
Baseline chevrons are quite similar.
Comparisons between the
directivities and the acoustic spectra of
60 90 120 150 180 the current baseline nozzle, a first-
Sideline Angle (deg) generation fluidic chevron nozzle, and a
Figure 7. Sideline OASPL directivities for fluidic chevron second-generation fluidic chevron nozzle
nozzles with short and long injectors at the same mass flow rate, are shown in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively.
compared to the baseline nozzle. The flight Mach number is The same injection pressures were used
0.28. for both chevron nozzles. The
improvements made to the second-

5 dB
5 dB
SPL (dB)

)
(

Short Slot
Short Slot
Long Slot
Long Slot
Baseline
Baseline

10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000

Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)
Figure 8. The 1/3 octave band acoustic spectra for chevron nozzles with short and long slot lengths and the
baseline nozzle at a flight Mach number of 0.28 and observation angles equal to (a) 90o and (b) 140o.
generation nozzles included thinner nozzle trailing edges, injection passages instead of slots cut into a common
plenum, and injection ports that were moved in the downstream direction toward the nozzle trailing edges. The
overall sound pressure levels (see Fig. 9) are similar for the first-generation and second-generation nozzles and show
reductions in acoustic radiation over that of the baseline nozzle for all observation angles. For observation angles
near the broadside of the jet (see Fig. 10), the improvements to the second-generation nozzle are shown to
significantly reduce the high frequency acoustic radiation produced by the first-generation nozzle. The high
frequency noise characteristics of the first-generation nozzles resulted in poor acoustic performance when evaluated
on an effective perceived noise level basis.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Effect of
injection
OASPL (dB)

SPL (dB)
shaping
5 dB
2 dB

Fluidic Chevron - Generation II Fluidic Chevron - Generation II

Fluidic Chevron - Generation I Fluidic Chevron - Generation I
Baseline Baseline

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 10 100 1000 10000

Sideline Angle (deg) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 9. Sideline OASPL directivities for the best Figure 10. The acoustic radiation at an
first-generation fluidic chevron, the best second- observation angle of 90o for the nozzle
generation fluidic chevron, and the baseline nozzle at a configurations in Figure 9.
flight Mach number of 0.28. The IPR* is the same for
both fluidic chevrons.
To reduce the effective perceived noise levels associated with the fluidic chevron nozzles, the maximum noise
reduction at low frequencies in the peak jet noise direction must be achieved while controlling high frequency
increases at broadside angles. The 80 Hz band at an observation angle of 134o was chosen to evaluate low
frequency noise characteristics and the 3160 Hz band at an angle of 90o was chosen to evaluate the high frequency
noise characteristics of the fluidic injectors. A plot of the sound pressure levels in the 80 Hz band at an observation
angle 134o as a function of the component
Baseline of the injection velocity in the direction
perpendicular to the core nozzle flow is
shown in Fig. 11, where the injection
velocity has again been normalized by the
SPL (dB)

maximum value achieved in the

0.5 dB experiments. The four configurations
shown in the legend represent the four
different fluidic chevron nozzles used in the
Configuration 1
experiments. All fluidic chevron nozzles
Configuration 2
Configuration 3
and all injection conditions resulted in
Configuration 4 lower sound pressure levels than that of the
baseline nozzle. As shown in the plot, the
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 low frequency sound pressure levels
Normalized Perpendicular Velocity decrease as the injected velocity component
increases. Although Greska and
Figure 11. The sound pressure levels produced by all of the Krothapalli8 showed a reduction in overall
second-generation fluidic chevrons in the 80 Hz band at an sound pressure level with increasing
observation angle of 134o as a function of the component of the injector momentum, the low frequency data
normalized injection velocity in a direction perpendicular to the from the present experiment did not scale
core nozzle axis. The flight Mach number is 0.28. well with either the momentum or the
injection mass flow rate.
A plot of the sound pressure levels in the 3160 Hz band at an observation angle of 90o is shown in Fig. 12 as a
function of the injection flow momentum in a direction perpendicular to the core nozzle flow. The momentum has
been normalized by the maximum momentum used in the experiments. (The data did not collapse as well when
plotted against the injection mass flow rate or the injection velocity component perpendicular to the core nozzle
axis.) While all injection nozzles and all injection conditions result in increased sound pressure levels over that of
the baseline nozzle, reducing the perpendicular momentum reduces high frequency noise radiated in this direction.
Papamoschou and Hubbard9 showed that the penetration depth of a transverse supersonic jet into supersonic flow
was related to the ratio of the momentum of the transverse jet to the momentum of the supersonic flow. The

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 increases in high frequency noise with
increasing injector momentum observed in
Fig. 12 may be related to the injector
penetration depth although increases in
penetration depth appear to decrease low
frequency noise8.
SPL (dB)

Configuration 1
Configuration 2 The effectiveness of the fluidic chevrons
Configuration 3
Configuration 4
at lower flight Mach number can be seen in
Figs 13 through 16. These figures again
1 dB present the sideline directivities and
Baseline
acoustic spectra for Configurations 1 and 2
at different IPR*, now at flight Mach
number 0.10.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 The acoustic characteristics of the
fluidic chevron nozzle with steep injectors
Normalized Perpendicular Momentum
Figure 12. The sound pressure levels produced by all of the at flight Mach number 0.10 (Figs 13 and 14)
second-generation fluidic chevrons in the 3160 Hz band at an are seen to be similar to those at 0.28 (Figs
o
observation angle of 90 as a function of the component of the 3 and 4). At both Mach numbers there is
normalized injection momentum perpendicular to the core high frequency noise increase at 90°and low
frequency decrease at 140°, although these
nozzle flow direction. The flight Mach number is 0.28
effects may be smaller than at Mach 0.28.
The only difference in the trends between
the two Mach numbers is that the increase
2 dB in OASPL at highest injection pressure at
Mach 0.28 is not present at Mach 0.10, due
OASPL (dB)

to the high frequency noise increases being

more severe at the higher Mach number.
Results for shallow injection at Mach 0.10
(Figs 15 and 16)are also similar to those at
IPR*=0.18 Mach 0.28 (Figs 5 and 6). The OASPL
IPR* = 0.45 decreases with injection pressure are
IPR*=1.0
Baseline somewhat higher at Mach 0.10, but this
results only because the shape of the
directivity of the jet noise changes with
60 90 120 150 180
flight Mach number.
Sideline Angle (deg)
Figure 13. Sideline OASPL directivities for the fluidic chevron
nozzle with steep injectors and the baseline nozzle at a flight
Mach number of 0.10.

5 dB 5 dB
SPL (dB)
SPL (dB)

IPR*=0.18 IPR*=0.18
IPR* = 0.45 IPR* = 0.45
IPR*=1.0 IPR*=1.0
Baseline Baseline

10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000

Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)
Figure 14. The 1/3 octave band acoustic spectra for fluidic chevrons with the steep injectors at a flight Mach
number of 0.10 and observation angles equal to (a) 90o and (b) 140o.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The sideline directivities for the best
(in terms of lowest EPNL) second-
2 dB generation fluidic chevron nozzle, the
baseline nozzle, and a core mechanical
OASPL (dB)

chevron nozzle are shown in Fig. 17.

The overall sound pressure levels
produced by the mechanical chevron
are slightly lower than those of the
IPR* = 0.18 fluidic chevron at all observation
IPR* = 0.45 angles although both chevron nozzles
IPR* = 1.0 significantly reduce acoustic radiation
Baseline
over that of the baseline nozzle. The
acoustic spectra at an observation
60 90 120 150 180 angle of 90o for the three nozzles are
Sideline Angle (deg) shown in Fig. 18. The spectra for the
mechanical chevron and the fluidic
Figure 15. Sideline OASPL directivities for the fluidic chevron chevron are quite similar although the
nozzles with shallow injectors and the baseline nozzle at a flight mechanical chevron reduces low
Mach number of 0.10 frequency noise more than the fluidic

5 dB
5 dB
)
SPL (dB)

IPR* = 0.18 IPR* = 0.18

IPR* = 0.45
IPR* = 1.0 IPR* = 0.45
Baseline IPR* = 1.0
Baseline

10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000

Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)
Figure 16. The 1/3 octave band acoustic spectra for the fluidic chevrons with shallow injectors at a flight
Mach number of 0.10 and observation angles equal to (a) 90o and (b) 140o.
OASPL (dB)

2 dB
SPL (dB)

5 dB

Fluidic Chevron -Generation II Fluidic Chevron - Generation II

Mechanical Chevron Mechanical Chevron
Baseline Baseline

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 10 100 1000 10000

Frequency (Hz)
Sideline Angle

Figure 17. Sideline OASPL directivities for the best Figure 18. The acoustic radiation at an observation
second-generation fluidic chevron nozzle, a core angle of 90o for the mechanical chevron, fluidic
mechanical chevron nozzle, and the baseline nozzle at a chevron, and the baseline nozzle at a flight Mach
flight Mach number of 0.10. number of 0.10.
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Table 1. ΔEPNL chevron. Computation of the reductions in effective perceived noise levels for the
Configuration ΔEPNL mechanical and fluidic chevron over that of the baseline nozzle are shown in Table
1. The effective perceived noise levels of the fluidic chevron nozzles are
Fluidic Chevron 0.8 approaching those of the core mechanical chevrons after two generations of
Mechanical Chevron 0.81.1
- 1.1 nozzles. Additional development of the fluidic injection technique may result in
EPNL levels that equal or exceed those of the mechanical chevrons.

IV. Conclusion
Improvements to the injection passages and nozzle trailing edges of the second-generation fluidic chevron
nozzles have resulted in better acoustic performance than those of the first-generation nozzles. High frequency
noise produced by the first-generation nozzles has been reduced with the second-generation nozzles and significant
improvements in effective perceived noise levels have also been achieved. A comparison between the new fluidic
chevrons and the core mechanical chevrons has shown that the acoustic characteristics of the fluidic chevrons are
approaching those of the mechanical chevrons after two generations of nozzles.
Increased low frequency noise reduction in the peak jet noise direction is achieved with increased injection
velocity in the direction perpendicular to the core nozzle flow and, therefore, injectors with steep injection angles
demonstrate better low frequency noise characteristics than those with shallow injection angles for the same mass
injection rate. High frequency noise increases at angles near the broadside of the jet scales with the momentum of
the injected flow. To achieve acceptable effective perceived noise levels, the high frequency increases associated
with increased momentum of the injected flow must be balanced with low frequency reductions associated with
increased injected velocity. Future flow-field measurements with particle image velocimetry will be used to
understand better the connection between the injection flow parameters and the physics of the jet plume.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Jet Noise Laboratory staff for their many contributions to the planning and
operation required for the experiment that produced the results written in this paper. Alan Douglas and Harry
Haskin are also acknowledged for leading the mechanical design of the model system.

References
1
Janarden, B.A., Hoff, G.E., Barter, J.W., Martens, S., Gliebe, P.R., Mengel, V., and Dalton, W.N., “AST critical propulsion
and noise reduction technologies for future commercial subsonic engines,” NASA/CR-2000-2100039, 2000.
2
Saiyed, N., and Bridges, J., “Tabs and mixers for reducing low bypass ratio jet noise,” AIAA-99-1986, Bellevue, WA,
1999.
3
Martens, S., “Jet noise reduction technology development at GE Aircraft Engines,” ICAS 2002 Congress, pp. 842.1-842.10.
4
Henderson, B.S., Kinzie, K.W., Whitmire, J., and Abeysinghe, A., “The impact of fluidic chevrons on jet noise, AIAA 2005-
2888, Montery, CA, 2005
5
Kinzie, K.W., Henderson, B.S., Whitmire, J., and Abeysinghe, A., “Fluidic chevrons for jet noise reduction,” Proceedings of
The 2004 International Symposium on Active Control of Sound and Vibration (ACTIVE 2004), INCE/USA, Williamsburg, VA,
2004.
6
Shields, F. D. and Bass, H. E. “A study of atmospheric absorption of high frequency noise and application to fractional
octave bands of noise,” NASA Contractor Report 2760, 1976.
7
Amiet, R. K., “Correction of open jet wind tunnel measurements for shear layer refraction,” AIAA-77-54, 1977.
8
Greska, B., and Krothapalli, A., “Jet noise reduction using aqueous microjet injection,” AIAA-2004-2971, 2004.
9
Papamoschou, D., and Hubbard, D. G., “Visual observations of supersonic transverse jets,” Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 14,
1993, pp 468 – 476.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics