You are on page 1of 8

Theoretical and experimental studies of surface waves on solid – fluid interfaces when the value of the fluid sound

velocity is located between the shear and the longitudinal ones in the solid
´ de ´ ric Padilla, Michel de Billy, and Ge ´ rard Quentin Fre
´ Paris 7 – Denis Diderot, Groupe de Physique de Solides – CNRS UMR 7588, Tour 23, Universite 2 place Jussieu, 75251 Paris, France

͑Received 12 May 1998; accepted for publication 31 March 1999͒ The existence of two surface waves propagating on a plane solid–fluid interface is demonstrated when the value of the fluid sound velocity is located between the shear and the longitudinal ones in the solid. First, the Scholte–Stoneley dispersion equation is studied analytically and numerically to find the roots corresponding to the Stoneley and the Rayleigh waves. The anatomy of each one is then described with the formalism of the evanescent plane waves: both waves are unleaky. Finally, the results are confirmed experimentally by measuring the times of flight on a Plexiglas–water interface and on a PVC–water interface. © 1999 Acoustical Society of America. ͓S0001-4966͑99͒02607-7͔ PACS numbers: 43.35.Pt ͓HEB͔

INTRODUCTION

Two surface waves may propagate on a plane solid– liquid interface: the generalized Rayleigh wave and the Stoneley wave.1,2 Results are well established when the fluid sound velocity c F is lower than the velocities of the bulk shear wave c S and the bulk longitudinal wave c L in the solid. In that case the generalized Rayleigh wave propagates with a phase velocity slightly lower than c S and radiates energy into the fluid. The Stoneley wave phase velocity is lower than the velocities in the three medium. The main objective of this paper is to study the existence of such surface waves on interfaces when the fluid sound velocity is larger than the velocity of the bulk shear wave in the solid: c S р c F р c L . We may call these types of interfaces ‘‘plastic–fluid’’ interfaces by opposition to the ‘‘metal– fluid’’ interface as described in the previous paragraph. It seems that few works are concerned with the plastic– fluid interface. Following the results of Brower et al.,3 if such surface waves exist, they would be unleaky, because their phase velocities are close or lower than c S . Consequently, it should be very difficult to generate them from the fluid. This may be the reason why the existence of these waves was not detected with the study of plastic plates by reflection or transmission coefficient.4–6 Nevertheless, the Stoneley wave has been recently observed experimentally on a PVC–water ͑PVC: polyvinyl chloride͒ interface, with a ` s showed highly viscoelastic type of PVC.7 Favretto-Anre that a decaying Stoneley wave could propagate on this interface, but didn’t study the Rayleigh wave. Numerical studies of the dispersion equation for plane interfaces may be found in the domain of geophysics. Some authors searched the roots of the equation to describe the pulse which could propagate along the interface with an integral method. They were interested in the roots which should have a physical significance. Gilbert and Laster8 studied the solid–solid problem and
666 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106 (2), August 1999

relaxed one of the solids to a fluid, but only with c F р c S . Pilant9 did the same for all fluid sound velocities. But he predicted that only the Stoneley wave should exist when c S р c F р c L . Phinney10 treated the solid–fluid interface, but, in the real root corresponding to the Stoneley wave, he looked only for complex roots. Now as we might see further, when c S р c F , the Rayleigh root becomes real. Our purpose is to show numerically and experimentally that a Rayleigh wave and a Stoneley wave may propagate on a general plastic–fluid interface. To carry out this work, we use the formalism of the evanescent plane waves11,12 coupled with an analysis of the Scholte–Stoneley dispersion equation. For this last point we follow the approach of Ansell,13 who studied all the solutions of the equation. Each of these solutions is located on a Riemann sheet and the anatomy of the corresponding surface wave is described. By comparing with the metal–fluid case, the numerical study is limited to the roots which become the Rayleigh root of the plastic– vacuum interface as the density of the fluid decreases to zero. When these two roots are found it is then possible to show that the two corresponding surface waves are not leaky. Finally, the results are confirmed experimentally by measuring the times of flight on a Plexiglas–water interface and on a PVC–water interface. Section I is devoted to a brief survey of the general properties of the evanescent plane waves. It is a very useful tool to understand the structure of waves as was done for the generalized Rayleigh wave,14 the circumferential Rayleigh wave,15 and the Lamb waves.16 In Sec. II, we study analytically the Scholte–Stoneley equation and its different solutions. Particular attention is brought to the roots corresponding to the Rayleigh and Stoneley surface waves. In Sec. III, these solutions are calculated as the density of the fluid decreases to zero. It is shown that on a plastic–
© 1999 Acoustical Society of America 666

0001-4966/99/106(2)/666/8/$15.00

Downloaded 01 Sep 2012 to 211.37.12.238. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/terms

106. K Lz ). ͑5͒ where the dimensionless parameter ␳ ϭ ␳ F / ␳ S is the ratio between the fluid density and the solid density.12. and: 2 K iz ϭ ͱK 2 i ϪKx ͑6͒ where the subscript i will differentiate the three types of homogeneous waves. Each root K x 0 is the solution of one of the four equations S j ( K x 0 ) ϭ 0. THE SCHOLTE–STONELEY EQUATION is the z component of the complex wave vector Ki ( i ϭ F . Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright. noted S j and S Ϫ j with j ϭ 1. Kϭ KЈ ϩ KЉ is the complex wave vector where KЈ stands for the wave vector and KЉ for the attenuation vector..4. ͑1͒: 2 2 2 4 S ͑ K x ͒ ϭ K Fz ͓ 4 K 2 x K Sz K Lz ϩ ͑ K S Ϫ 2 K x ͒ ͔ Ϫ ␳ K S K Lz ϭ 0. ͑5͒. The Riemann surface for the function S also has eight sheets which are designated by a group of three signs ( Ϯ . i ϭ F designates the longitudinal wave in the fluid. ͑3͒ ͑4͒ KЈ • KЉ ϭ 0. The product of the four functions S j is a polynomial of degree eight in K 2 x with real coefficients.18 The component K iz is a complex square root. ͑2͒ leads to the system: 2 K Ј2ϭ K 2 i ϩKЉ .org/terms . We deduce from Eq. August 1999 and is noted with a ϩ sign. IV experimental results concerning the existence of these waves and we show that good agreement exists between the numerical predictions and the experimental measurements. A coordinate system attached to the interface is noted ( x. the conjuPadilla et al. K Sz . A.e..238. Analysis of the equation The plane solid–fluid interface may be treated as a twodimensional problem without loss of generality. Acoust. Am. Soc. Each of the three complex wave vector Ki has a projection K x on the interface which is the solution of Eq. i ϭ L the longitudinal wave in the solid and i ϭ S the shear wave in the solid. To assign the root to its corresponding equation.. No. Vol. Ј у 0. ͑1͒ where D0 is the complex amplitude vector. Separating real and imaginary parts of Eq. FORMALISM OF THE EVANESCENT PLANE WAVES TABLE I. each function S j is tested with the different solutions. These functions are written in Table I. Ϯ ). II. The dispersion equation for a wave propagating at the 667 J. which comes from Eq. 11 and 12. 2. ͑4͒ that the propagation direction of the evanescent plane wave is always orthogonal to its damping direction. This component verifies the generalized Descartes–Snell laws. and so the wave vector K obeys the dispersion equation: K• Kϭ K 2 i. This polynomial may be solved with a classical procedure ͑here the Bairstow’s method͒. i. Finally we present in Sec. ͑2͒. when K Fz Sign of Function 2 2 2 S 1 ( K x ) ϭ K Fz ͓ 4 K x K Sz K Lz ϩ ( K 2 SϪ 2 K x ) ͔ ϩ␳K4 K S Lz 2 2 2 S 2 ( K x ) ϭ K Fz ͓ 4 K x K Sz K Lz ϩ ( K 2 SϪ 2 K x ) ͔ Ϫ␳K4 K S Lz 2 2 2 S 3 ( K x ) ϭ K Fz ͓ Ϫ 4 K x K Sz K Lz ϩ ( K 2 SϪ 2 K x ) ͔ Ϫ␳K4 K S Lz 2 2 2 S 4 ( K x ) ϭ K Fz ͓ Ϫ 4 K x K Sz K Lz ϩ ( K 2 SϪ 2 K x ) ͔ 4 ϩ ␳ K S K Lz Ј K Fz ϩ ϩ ϩ ϩ Ј K Sz Ϫ ϩ Ϫ ϩ Ј K Lz Ϫ ϩ ϩ Ϫ In the solid and in the fluid. Each of the signs stands for the Riemann sheet of ( K Fz .: Surface waves on plastic – fluid interfaces 667 Downloaded 01 Sep 2012 to 211.e.37. The four functions S j when K Fz is on the top Riemann sheet. We set out here briefly the main properties that we shall use in the next sections. ͑3͒. A surface wave as the generalized Rayleigh wave14 or the Stoneley wave17 can be decomposed as a set of three evanescent plane waves: a longitudinal wave in the fluid. see http://asadl. In a free isotropic medium. i.2. we shall describe the waves with the formalism of the evanescent plane waves as presented in Refs. S ) which satisfies the dispersion Eq.13 Some of these results are developed and physical interpretations are given with the formalism used in the previous section. z). Ki is the wave number of the homogeneous plane wave i and Ki ϭ ␻ / c i where c i is the phase velocity of the homogeneous plane wave i. The top Riemann sheet is defined by: Ϫ ␲ ␲ р arg͓ K iz ͔ р 2 2 The presentation of the Scholte–Stoneley equation in this section is based on the work of Ansell.fluid interface a Rayleigh wave may be defined which propagates with no loss. Let the acoustic displacement vector d ͑or any other acoustical disturbances͒ be d͑ r. r is the spatial coordinate. Equation ͑5͒ contains three square roots K iz . And so the function S gives rise to eight separate functions. ͑2͒ solid–fluid interface is obtained by writing the continuity of the normal acoustic displacement and the continuity of the normal stress tensor on the plane z ϭ 0. The z axis is normal to the boundary z ϭ 0 and the x axis is parallel to it. Because of the inequality K Ј у Ki . I. Ϯ . If K x 0 is a zero of the polynomial. where K Ј ϭ ʈ KЈ ʈ . The phase velocity in the direction of propagation is c ph ϭ ␻ / K Ј .3. a longitudinal wave and a shear wave in the solid. The wave propagates in the KЈ direction and is exponentially damped in the KЉ direction. t ͒ ϭ D0 exp i ͑ K• rϪ ␻ t ͒ . the acoustic displacement d must satisfy the Helmholtz equation. It may be written on two Riemann sheets which correspond to the square root with a positive real part and the square root with a negative real part. ␻ is the angular frequency and t is the time.1 The Scholte– Stoneley equation for the wave number K x along the interface is obtained by writing the acoustic displacement in the fluid and in the solid as in the relation Eq. the evanescent plane wave propagates in medium i with a velocity c ph lower than the velocity c i . The functions S Ϫ j are obtained by replacing K iz by Ϫ K iz . L .

i. Location of the roots We focus here on the differences between the solutions of the Scholte–Stoneley equation for the generalized Rayleigh wave and the Stoneley wave on two types of interface: first the ‘‘metal–fluid’’ interface ( c F р c S р c L ) and then the ‘‘plastic–fluid’’ interface ( c S р c F р c L ). It means that the solutions of Eq. The black point is the solution K R for the metal–fluid interface. Rayleigh wave Ј ϭ 0. The materials used are steel ( ␳ S ϭ 7. ͑5͒ which is called the Rayleigh zero K R is defined by the limit procedure when the density of the fluid decreases to zero. ͑5͒. ͑5͒ move in the complex K x plane and the root of one function S j ( K x ) ϭ 0 may become the root of another function S n j ( K x ) ϭ 0 as it crosses a branch cut. 2. Ϫ . K Sz Љ у 0 and K Lz Љ у 0. Vol. roots of Eq. computations have been done from ␳ F ϭ 1 to ␳ F ϭ 0 to study the limit procedure from the solid–water interface to the solid–vacuum interface. Am. see http://asadl. 106. Indeed.: Surface waves on plastic – fluid interfaces 668 Downloaded 01 Sep 2012 to 211. FIG. K iz is purely imaginary.5132). and the K iz Љ for which K x is a zero of Eq. ϩ ϱ ͓ . the structure of the wave is detailed. III. A. ͑5͒ with Ј у 0 and K x Љ у 0 may be studied only. There are also three branch cuts on the real axis.. ͑5͒ as the current parameter ␳ decreases from ␳ F / ␳ S to zero. Љ . In the next section we study the values of the roots of Eq. we know on which Riemann sheet is located each solution K x 0 of Eq. As the leaky Rayleigh wave propagates. the imaginary part of K R vanishes and its real part is the real Rayleigh zero for the solid–vacuum interface K R 0 as illustrated by the curve in Fig. Metal–fluid interface There are three branch points in the complex K x plane for the function S at K x ϭ Ki where K iz is zero. The structure of the wave is the one of a leaky surface wave.12. It is the structure of the Rayleigh wave on a ‘‘metal–fluid’’ interface. 1. With this analysis. its amplitude is exponentially damped in the directions normal to the interface and along the interface during the propagation.238. c L ϭ 5740 m/s. Ϫ ).8. When ␳ F ϭ 0. and K iz problem of the choice of the sign of the square roots remains.org/terms . are tested for the numerical computation. Ј / KF when ␳ F decreases from 1 to 0 ͑the origin of the abscissa is K x ϭ 0.FIG. But as noticed by Ansell this occurs only at K x ϭ KS or K x ϭ KS /2. ͑5͒ is then detersign of K iz mined. So it gate value K 0 0 is possible to restrain the study in the first quadrant of the complex K x plane. Ϫ . Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright. c F ϭ 1480 m/s͒. K iz Љ у 0 and In that case. ͑a͒ Structure of a surface wave corresponding to a complex root which is on the Riemann sheet ( Ϫ . The Scholte– Stoneley equation becomes the Rayleigh equation and the generalized Rayleigh wave becomes a free Rayleigh wave. Soc. energy is radiated into the liquid.e. 1. August 1999 The particular complex zero of Eq. 2. 2. which are: ͓ Ki . In this situation. ͑b͒ Structure of a surface wave corresponding to a real root which is greater than Ki in the three medium and Љ р 0. the two possible values of K iz Љ р 0. The On these intervals. c S ϭ 3112 m/s͒ and water ( ␳ F ϭ 1. The structure of the corresponding interface wave is also completely defined: The propagation and the damping direction of the waves in the Ј and K iz Љ as fluid and in the solid are fixed by the signs of K iz illustrated by Fig. NUMERICAL STUDY OF THE SCHOLTE–STONELEY EQUATION ¯ x and the opposite Ϫ K x are also zeroes. The inPadilla et al. The normalized Rayleigh root K R / KF in the complex K x plane. Ϫ ). the intersection between two Riemann sheets. Acoust. As shown in Fig. It is the structure of the Stoneley solution for K Fz wave on a ‘‘metal–fluid’’ interface.37.. 1͑a͒. This solution is located on the Riemann sheet ( Ϫ . 1. the 668 J. No. Kx B. For each solution. the black triangle is the solution K R 0 for the metal–vacuum interface.

37. 5. The two normalized real roots K x black square is the Rayleigh root. see http://asadl. 2. Љ у 0. Acoust. August 1999 The parameter ␳ may be greater or lower than ␳ c resulting from the density of the ‘‘plastic’’ material. Synthesis for the ‘‘plastic – fluid’’ interface. A decomposition of a bounded beams into plane waves shows that the wave is limited in space and that its amplitude is finite. 2. As we have seen in the previous Subsection III A 2. Ј / KF as a function of ␳ F . In the case of the PVCwater interface.56. K Sz Љ ley wave. c F ϭ 1480 m/s͒. K ST is greater than Ki in the three medium. It comes to a limit when the Rayleigh angle of radiation increases to 90 degrees.: Surface waves on plastic – fluid interfaces 669 Downloaded 01 Sep 2012 to 211.238. 3. the Stoneley wave and the Rayleigh wave have a phase velocity along the boundary which verifies the following relation: Padilla et al. this root is related to the Stone669 J. the surface wave is a shear wave propagating along the interface. c S ϭ 1050 m/s. K Sz Љ у 0 and K Lz Љ у 0. Vol. as illustrated by the curve in Fig.12. these two roots may be related to a Stoneley wave and a Rayleigh wave. Therefore the corresponding wave has the у 0 and K Lz same structure as on the metal–fluid interface. 1͑b͒. the Rayleigh angle of radiation would be an imaginary angle. Plexiglas – water interface: ␳у␳c . the Љ у 0. K R is greater than Ki in the three medium. It can be decomposed into three steps. The FIG. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright.17 The direction of propagation is along the interface and the direction of damping is normal to it as plotted in Fig.org/terms . as illustrated by the curve in Fig. Therefore the structure of the wave is different than the structure of the generalized Rayleigh wave. Am. Note that in every case.3 As the phase velocity along the interface c R is always close to c S . ͑7͒ The Stoneley zero K ST is defined as the greatest real root of Eq. 4. They are two real roots of the Scholte–Stoneley equation which go to K R 0 in the limit ␳ F ϭ 0. We propose an example for each situation. Rayleigh wave crease of amplitude in the liquid away from the interface can be explained by taking into account the effect of bounded beams present in real experimental situations.. 19. 4. Hence. This structure is coherent with the one at the metal–fluid interface. the plastic–fluid interface case is rather tricky. PVC – water interface: ␳р␳c . Stoneley wave The second real root K R exhibits two different types of numerical behavior as ␳ F decreases to zero. ͑5͒. The structure of the Rayleigh wave on a PVC–water interface as a set of three evanescent plane waves. 106. As we shall see. Its amplitude decreases in both media away from the interface. Thereafter. For any values of ␳ . a. Again the solution is found when K Fz Љ у 0. Characteristics of the materials used are for PVC ( ␳ S ϭ 1. Љ р 0. K R equals KS and K Sz Љ K Lz ϭ 0. c S and c L . It depends on the relative values of the parameter ␳ and the factor ␳ c given by the relationship13 ␳ cϭ ͱ 1Ϫ͑ KF /KS͒2 1Ϫ͑ KL /KS͒2 . K Sz Љ у 0 and K Lz Љ and the solution is found when K Fz у 0. ␳ is lower than ␳ c . K Sz Љ у 0 and K Lz Љ у 0. The Stoneley wave is lossless in its direction of propagation. At first. where ␳ is greater than ␳ c . 3. 1. ͑5͒ is also greater than Ki in the three medium. B. Next. the components K iz are purely imaginary like for the Stoneley wave. solution is found when K Fz the structure of the wave is different from the structure of the Stoneley wave because the attenuation vector in the fluid is directed toward the interface as shown in Fig. Љ р 0. K Sz Љ р 0 and for ␳ у ␳ c . It has been tabulated by Strick and Ginzbarg in Ref. b. 2.14 The existence of this leaky surface wave is submitted to certain conditions. For this particular value of ␳ . Consequently the components K iz are purely imaginary. a change of the sign of K Sz Љ у 0. Soc. the velocity c S must be greater than the velocity c F in the fluid. c. If not. Consequently.FIG. With the Plexiglas–water interface. a change of determination is found in the numerical behavior of the root as ␳ F decreases to zero. On both types of plastic-fluid interface. at the point ␳ ϭ ␳ c . Plastic–fluid interface When compared to the metal–fluid interface case. c L ϭ 2380 m/s͒ and for water ( ␳ F ϭ 1. It is then the same solution for K Fz determination as for the PVC-water interface. Stoneley wave The greatest of the two real roots of Eq. The black point is the Rayleigh root at the plastic– vacuum interface. No. and so the phase velocity of the surface wave along the boundary is lower than the velocities c F . for Љ occurs: K R becomes a ␳ р ␳ c . the solution is found when K Fz Љ у 0. the black triangle the Stoneley root at the plastic–fluid interface.

An experimental confirmation of their existence is presented in the next section. The experiments are realized at room temperature ( c F Ϸ 1480Ϯ 5 m/s͒. At the beginning. the free Rayleigh wave gives rise to a generalized Rayleigh wave ͑R͒ and a Stoneley wave ͑ST͒ as described in Refs. ͑S͒ bulk shear wave. 6. 670 J.13 This is not surprising if we consider that most of the former experimental studies of surface waves ͑and Lamb waves͒ with plastic materials have been made on reflection and transmission coefficients. 2. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright. The direction of the polarization of the transmitters is perpendicular to the interface. Two shear contact transducers ͑Em. ͑8͒ FIG.12. In this context. c STр c R р c S р c F р c L . This was made possible by a direct study of the Scholte–Stoneley dispersion equation which leads to a different approach of the problem. it seems possible to define a Rayleigh wave on solid–liquid interfaces even when the sound velocity in the fluid is larger than the shear wave velocity in the solid. Soc. A. 106. August 1999 IV.FIG. only the complex roots have been studied. As we have seen. which correspond to leaking pseudo-surface waves. By deformation of the branch line contours onto lower Riemann surfaces. No. As in geophysics in the references we have cited.. it is the first time that this Rayleigh wave is mentioned. When the sample is immersed in water. see http://asadl. In a way. Experimental device These experiments are based on the technique used by de Billy20 to generate surface waves on wedges. The emitter is driven with short pulses of 1 MHz central frequency. ͑ST͒ Stoneley wave. The plane interface may be considered as the limit case of a 180 degrees apex wedge. ͑Re͒ receptor transducer. These results have to be compared with the works about pseudo-Rayleigh waves. To our knowledge. the sample is in air and is then partially immersed in water in steps of 4 mm. ͑R͒ generalized Rayleigh wave. the contribution of the roots lying on these lower sheets may be underscored.8–10 the propagation of surface waves on plane interfaces has been treated with integral methods.org/terms . However. such a surface wave is unleaky. Vol. particular point ␳ F ϭ ␳ c ␳ S when K R / KF ϭ KS / KF . Re͒ are coupled with the extremities of the faces of a rectangular sample ͑Fig. Recorded wavetrains The recorded wavetrains obtained with a Plexiglas sample of 140 mm long for different lengths of immersion z are presented in Fig. 7. it should be very difficult to generate it from the fluid. At the Plexiglas–vacuum interface. B. we can say that we study here a ‘‘pseudoRayleigh wave.: Surface waves on plastic – fluid interfaces 670 Downloaded 01 Sep 2012 to 211. The three steps are: full line for ␳ F ϭ 1 to ␳ F ϭ ␳ c ␳ S . there is one sheet of integration wherein lies the Stoneley root of the dispersion equation for solid–fluid interfaces. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The purpose of the experiments is to measure arrival times for the two surface waves.238.4. 5. which is also called pseudoRayleigh waves: The corresponding root of the dispersion equation is located on a different sheet from the integration sheet. dashed line for ␳ F ϭ ␳ c ␳ S to ␳ F ϭ 0.5 As this wave is not a leaky wave. 21 and 22. The arrival time of the bulk shear wave is Padilla et al. ( R 0 ) free Rayleigh wave. Schematic diagram of the experimental device.’’ but in a particular case where this wave is not leaky. even if it has been predicted numerically by Ansell.37. The phase velocities deduced from the numerical computations for K R and K ST might then be compared to the experimental ones deduced from the times of flight on the sample. Unlike the case when c S у c F . Am. The normalized real Rayleigh root K R / KF as a function of ␳ F . Acoust. ͑Em͒ emitter transducer. The emitter generates simultaneously a bulk shear wave ͑S͒ and a free Rayleigh surface wave ( R 0 ) at the solid–air interface ͑considered as a solid–vacuum interface͒. 6͒. The interpretation using the formalism of the evanescent plane waves induced us to think on a different interpretation of the structure of the waves. It is the case of the generalized Rayleigh wave. only the bulk shear wave ͑S͒ and the free Rayleigh wave ( R 0 ) are present.

independent of the presence of the fluid and its amplitude remains constant. Thus the theoretical arrival times t R of the Rayleigh wave and t ST of the Stoneley wave are. and the propagation of a generalized Rayleigh wave or a Stoneley wave on the distance z. ͑g͒ z ϭ 48 mm. Am.TABLE II. 106.12. c R0 c R c R0 c R0 c R ͩ t STϭ 1 LϪz z L 1 ϩ ϭ Ϫz Ϫ . the velocity of the generalized Rayleigh wave is greater than the one of the free Rayleigh wave. and with a positive slope for the Stoneley wave ͑because c R 0 у c ST) as seen in Fig. These have been supposed for the calculations as due to the propagation of a free Rayleigh wave on a distance L Ϫ z and of a longitudinal wave in the fluid on distance z. which produces consequently an inaccuracy on the experimental measurement. ͑a͒ Free sample. see http://asadl. ͑d͒ z ϭ 24 mm. Wavetrains obtained at the Plexiglas–water interface ͑140 mm long͒ for different lengths of immersion.1%. The comparison between the theoretical predictions and the experimental values is good. The same kind of echoes have been recorded with the PVC sample. the echo of this surface wave arrives earlier and earlier and becomes indistinguishable from the echo of the shear bulk wave. ͑c͒ z ϭ 16 mm. ͑e͒ z ϭ 32 mm. No. ͑b͒ z ϭ 8 mm. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright. It is interesting to notice that the echoes of the two surface waves 671 J. respectively: t Rϭ 1 LϪz z L 1 ϩ ϭ Ϫz Ϫ . The arrival times t F of this expected wave have also been plotted in Fig. So we have t Fϭ LϪz z L 1 1 ϩ ϭ Ϫz Ϫ . Vol. t S ϭ L / c S . Longitudinal and transverse velocities c L and c S have been measured with an accuracy of Ϯ 0. ͑h͒ z ϭ 56 mm. 8 where the theoretical and experiment arrival times are plotted. A generalized Rayleigh wave ͑R͒ and a Stoneley wave ͑ST͒ appear when the solid is immersed. the arrival times correspond to the propagation of a free Rayleigh wave on the distance L Ϫ z .37.org/terms . The corresponding variations are linear with a negative slope for the Rayleigh wave ͑because c R у c R 0 ). As the immersed distance increases. Material Plexiglas PVC ␳S 1. The differences do not exceed 2%. 8 as a function of z. August 1999 where c R 0 designates the celerity of the free Rayleigh wave. 7. The calculated values of the velocities are given in Table II. c R0 c ST c R 0 c R 0 c ST ͩ ͪ ͑9͒ ͪ ͑10͒ FIG. Acoust. Characteristics of the solids and of the surface waves. When a length z of the solid is immersed. One could imagine that a longitudinal wave is generated at the air–water boundary.56 c L ͑m/s͒ 2745 2236 c S ͑m/s͒ 1390 1112 c R 0 ͑m/s͒ 1295 1040 c R ͑m/s͒ 1363 1110 c ST ͑m/s͒ 1058 914 move apart one from the other. On the contrary. As the velocity of the Stoneley wave is clearly below the velocity of the free Rayleigh wave ͑numerical values are presented in the next Subsection IV C͒. ͑f͒ z ϭ 40 mm.18 1. c R0 c F c R0 c R0 c F ͩ ͪ ͑11͒ Padilla et al. For the bulk shear wave. It comes certainly from the fact that the beginning of the Stoneley echo is not clearly defined. A better agreement is observed for the Rayleigh wave. C.. the corresponding echo arrives later as z increases. Soc. and that the Rayleigh echo detected is an artifact.: Surface waves on plastic – fluid interfaces 671 Downloaded 01 Sep 2012 to 211. Arrival times The arrival times have been calculated and measured on a Plexiglas sample ( L ϭ 140 mm͒ and on a PVC sample ( L ϭ 100 mm͒. 2.238. and is close to c S .

9 W. ‘‘Restrictions on the existence of leaky Rayleigh waves. ‘‘Complex roots of the Stoneley-wave equation. Two roots are found. A problem appears with the decay of amplitude of the Rayleigh wave as the immersed length of the sample increases. D. 4 T. Quentin. see http://asadl. and so the second may be defined as the Rayleigh root. Seismol. Ansell. Poire 1 2 As c F is greater than c R 0 . To verify experimentally these conclusions. Laster.’’ IEEE Trans. Soc. M. August 1999 Padilla et al.238. and so to describe the anatomy of the corresponding wave by using the formalism of the evanescent plane waves. Am. ‘‘Rayleigh and Lamb waves at liquid solid boundaries. Hayes. 205–216 ͑1989͒. Deschamps. These results establish that the echo may be identified as due to a Rayleigh wave. London. 8 F. Computations have been made with a model of viscoelastic solid to take account of a dissipation. but it misreads the observed phenomena. Theoretical arrival times ͑full lines͒ are compared with the measured arrival times for the Stoneley wave ͑black points͒ and for the Rayleigh wave ͑black squares͒. It can be concluded that no mistake was made concerning the Rayleigh echo. G. Brower. Acoust. Seismol. Empty circles indicate the calculated arrival times of a longitudinal wave in the fluid. ‘‘Propagation of leaking interface waves. Rayleigh and Lamb Waves ͑Plenum. L. but the results are not conclusive. Soc. G. 299–319 ͑1962͒. E. Variation of the arrival times of the Rayleigh wave and the Stoneley wave as a function of the immersed length z on Plexiglas–water ͑a͒ interface and PVC–water interface ͑b͒.’’ Bull.7 which dealt with a viscoelastic PVC sample of a different type. Therefore. New York. it is seen that as the immersed length increases. 6 ´ e and M. 224–230 ͑1992͒.’’ Pure Appl.’’ Bull. 94.’’ Bull. 13 J. 51. ‘‘Les ondes planes e ´ vanescentes dans les fluides parfaits et les B. Viktorov. Fiorito. A. 10 R. 2. This case is different from the one observed by 672 J. 52. ‘‘Theoretical study of the Stoneley-Scholte wave at the N. 1980͒. Behravesh. the Stoneley wave is actually attenuated during its propagation. The author showed that. A test is made with a viscoelastic model. Soc. and W.Favretto. 1993͒. Himberger. H. 829–838 ͑1996͒. The main objective of this paper is to know if surface waves could exist on plastic–fluid interfaces. Gilbert and S. 2. But the material is not the same as used in our experiments. Favretto-Anre interface between an ideal fluid and a viscoelastic solid. Cheve ` faces paralle ` les dissipative: Confrontation the ´ orie au sein d’une lame a ´ rience ͑in French͒. 62. To determine numerically the proper roots of the equation. M. On the other side. 171–175 ͑1975͒. only the Rayleigh wave is attenuated.: Surface waves on plastic – fluid interfaces 672 Downloaded 01 Sep 2012 to 211. Other hypothesis are studied. the corresponding variations are linear and show a negative slope.org/terms . 527–555 ͑1961͒. 65. Bivectors and Waves in Mechanics and Optics ͑Chapman & Hall. ‘‘Interactions d’ondes planes he ´ te ´ roge ` nes P. No. They are found to be in very good agreement with the theoretical predictions. 11 ´ e. 1967͒. I. The study of the corresponding anatomy shows that these two surface waves are not leaky and propagate with no loss in their direction propagation along the boundary. Sonics Ultrason.’’ Acustica 82. L. 7. Derem. 5 W. With the analytical approach. 8. 285–299 ͑1972͒.’’ J. the existence of the two waves is confirmed. A. It propagates with no loss on the plastic–fluid interface. This question still awaits answers. J. Soc. The Stoneley and the Rayleigh roots of the Scholte– Stoneley equation are studied analytically and numerically. This effect has not yet been explained and is not consistent with the theory: The surface waves are supposed to be lossless. as seen in Fig. Vol. New York. 14 ´ e. a comparison is made with the case of the metal–fluid interface. V. From the records. Brekhovskikh. where the fluid sound velocity is larger than the shear wave velocity in the solid. ‘‘The roots of the Stoneley wave equation for liquid-solid interfaces. Indeed. A. 306–308 ͑1979͒. Mayer.37.’’ Ultrasonics 13. ‘‘The formalism of the evanescent G. G. for this type of material. 3 N.12. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright. Am. 172–188 ͑1972͒. it is possible to locate each root on the Riemann surface of the Scholte–Stoneley equation. the amplitude of the Stoneley waves remains constant. J. Am. Am. expe 7 ` s. the Rayleigh echo decreases as z increases. One of the two is the Stoneley root. Plona. CONCLUSION FIG. SU-26. times of flight are measured on a Plexiglas and on a PVC sample. Madigosky and R. 1105–1115 ͑1979͒. ‘‘Modal resonance analysis of acoustic transmission and reflection losses in viscoelastic plates. and W. Geophys. Poire ´ lastiques ͑in French͒. which go to the Rayleigh root of the solid–vacuum interface as the density of the fluid decreases to zero. and B.’’ J. 106. Pilant.. Phinney. The calculated values of t F are quite different from these of t R . Acoust. But. these computations show that the attenuation which is due to viscoelasticity should be greater on the Stoneley wave than on the Rayleigh wave. solides e 12 Ph. Am. Soc. Boulanger and M. Waves in Layered Media ͑Academic. Seismol. ‘‘Excitation and propagation of pulses on a interface. Mayer. Acoust. which is not consistent with the theory.’’ Acustica 76.

Soc.37. 18 M. Acoust. 19 E. 106.’’ J. Padilla. Am. Poncelet and M. 3261–3269 ͑1997͒. Luppe ´ . Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright. de Billy. ‘‘Influence of the wetting and the angle of immersion on the generation of a Scholte wave: Experimental investigation. Soc. Strick and A. 292– 300 ͑1997͒. S. ‘‘Stoneley-wave velocities for a fluid-solid interface. ‘‘Evanescent plane waves and the ScholteB. Poire Stoneley interface wave. 4. 22 M. Acoust. 281–292 ͑1956͒. 3. ‘‘Experimental study of the Scholte wave propagation on a plane surface partially immersed in a liquid.. 54. Appl.org/terms .’’ J. Lett. de Billy. 16 O. No. Phys. Talmant. B.12. Am. and M. 2841–2848 ͑1994͒. 46. 4314–4322 ͑1983͒. Am. Ginzbarg. 2. Acoust. Acoust. see http://asadl.238.plane waves and its importance in the study of the generalized Rayleigh wave. ‘‘On the scattering of antisymetric edge modes. 15 ´ e. Soc. Acoust. 321–336 ͑1990͒. 17 ´ e and F. Seismol. 96A. August 1999 Padilla et al. ‘‘Reflection and refraction of the evanscent plane wave on plane interfaces. Rayleigh circumferenF. Quentin.’’ J. G. 575–588 ͑1991͒. Poire tial wave and evanescent plane waves ͑in preparation͒. Quentin. 21 M. Am. Vol.’’ J. Deschamps. 101.: Surface waves on plastic – fluid interfaces 673 Downloaded 01 Sep 2012 to 211. Am. Soc.’’ Bull. 102. de Billy and G. 673 J. ‘‘Lamb waves generated by complex harmonic inhomogeneous plane waves.’’ J. 20 M.’’ Phys. Acoust.’’ J. 85–87 ͑1983͒. Soc. 96. Deschamps.