This study investigates how ground surface treatment and building presence influence the acoustic field of a hovering unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) using a controlled scaled-model experimental setup. A tracked dynamically hovering UAV was used as the acoustic source and operated at prescribed source locations, and sound pressure level spectra were measured along a linear microphone array and at local on-structure receiver positions. The corresponding motion-capture records were used to verify the static-hover condition during the acoustic-recording windows. The experiment was designed to provide a controlled model-scale benchmark for relative propagation comparisons rather than to serve as a direct full-scale SPL prediction. Spectral differences were evaluated among four environmental conditions combining rigid or artificial grass-covered ground with building-present or no-building configurations. The artificial grass layer, used as a controlled partially absorptive surface treatment relative to the bare acrylic floor, produced a consistent high-frequency spectral reduction with weak spatial variation along the main array. In contrast, the model building produced a spatially non-uniform effect, with stronger high-frequency reduction in the building-shielded region and much weaker changes in the region with direct source exposure. Both effects were less pronounced at lower frequencies, where diffraction and phase-sensitive interference became more important. The ground–building interaction had limited impact on band-mean levels, although localized frequency-selective deviations remained observable in representative narrowband spectra. The local on-structure observations further showed that near-structure spectra can be sensitive to local source–receiver geometry and UAV hovering height. Overall, the results provide a repeatable scaled-model benchmark for identifying frequency-dependent, spatially structured, and localized spectral features in UAV noise propagation, and support the development and validation of urban air mobility noise prediction methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zeng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: