1974
DOI: 10.1016/s0022-460x(74)80357-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An in situ method of wall acoustic impedance measurement in flow ducts

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
48
0

Year Published

1977
1977
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 139 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, through extensive experiments Melling (1973) determined the impedance of a liner by applying a semi-empirical method and realized that the linear or nonlinear behaviour of the excited flow in the liner depended mostly on the incident sound pressure level (SPL). The popular two-microphone method for impedance eduction, such as used by Dean (1974), was used because of its simplicity and reliability, even when a grazing flow was present. Solving an associated inverse problem is an indirect way to educe the impedance and has been studied by several, including Jones et al (2002), Taktak et al (2010), Enghardt et al (2012) and Piot, Primus & Simon (2012).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example, through extensive experiments Melling (1973) determined the impedance of a liner by applying a semi-empirical method and realized that the linear or nonlinear behaviour of the excited flow in the liner depended mostly on the incident sound pressure level (SPL). The popular two-microphone method for impedance eduction, such as used by Dean (1974), was used because of its simplicity and reliability, even when a grazing flow was present. Solving an associated inverse problem is an indirect way to educe the impedance and has been studied by several, including Jones et al (2002), Taktak et al (2010), Enghardt et al (2012) and Piot, Primus & Simon (2012).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to the physical differences in the experimental setup and conditions it is important to mention that the impedance eduction methods are also different. The simulations use a two microphone method (Dean 1974) that connects pressure measurements taken on the liner facesheet and along the cavity end wall to estimate the local impedance that we showed to be useful when orifice effects are avoided (Zhang & Bodony 2012). Using the same data collected in Jones et al (2010), different hypotheses are available to link the mean flow and the pressure measurements taken within the GFIT to the estimated liner impedance.…”
Section: Surface Dragmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First developed by Dean [6], the in situ method relies on measurements performed with two microphones. The first, microphone μ 1 , is flush-mounted to the surface of the liner over which the flow is grazing (z = −25 mm, Fig.…”
Section: In Situ Microphone Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most basic and commonly used direct methods to determine the acoustic impedance, are the two microphone technique and the insitu method [1,2]. This last methodology, specifically designed for acoustic liners, assumes that for a resonant cavity a unique relationship exists between the internal acoustic pressure and the acoustic particle velocity along the perforated plate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%