Sound absorption coefficient measurement by extracting

the first reflected wave in a short tube

Zhengyu Wei, Hong Houa), Nansha Gao, Yunke Huang

Laboratory of Ocean Acoustics and Sensing, School of Marine Science and Technology, Northwestern

Ploytechnical University, 710072 Xi’an, China

Jianhua Yang

School of Automation, Northwestern Polytechnical University, 710072 Xi’an, China

Abstract

This study presents a method for measuring the normal incident sound absorption coefficients of

acoustic materials by extracting the first reflected wave in a short pulse tube. Instead of generating a

short pulse in a tube with an open end, the inverse filter method is used when a sample is added at the

end of the tube, which makes it possible to extract the first reflected wave directly from the superposed

sound field in the time domain. The length of the tube used in this proposed pulse separation method is

half as long as that of the traditional pulse separation method, which makes it can be used in a general

commercial impedance tube. Two different materials are investigated. When the proposed method is

compared to the traditional transfer function method and the traditional pulse separation method, good

a) Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: houhong@nwpu.edu.cn

 agreement can be observed among these three methods.

Keywords: sound absorption measurement; superposed sound field; first reflected wave; pulse

separation

PACS number: 43.58.Bh

1 1. Introduction

2 The normal incident sound absorption coefficient is an important indicator to characterize acoustic

3 materials. A multitude of studies have involved the measurement of the normal incident sound absorption

4 in an impedance tube, and these methods can be divided into two types: the transfer function methods

5 and the pulse separation methods.

6 Chun and Blaser1,2 used two flush-mount microphones on a tube to decompose the wave field in

7 terms of the two directions of propagation and obtain acoustic parameters from their ratio, which is the

8 widely used transfer function method (which can be used to validate a model or algorithm or a designed

9 acoustic structure3-5, and also used as a foundation of the measurement of different acoustic parameters6,7).

10 However, there are still limitations to this traditional method8-11: first, the phase and magnitude

11 mismatches that occur between the two sensors employed in this method can influence the accuracy of

12 the test results, and second, the test frequency range of this method is related to the microphone spacing,

13 which is the well-known half-wavelength restriction of the transfer function method.

14 In fact, if the duration of the test signal is short enough, the incident and first reflected wave in the
15 tube (i.e., the first two pulses in the time domain) can be separated in the time domain directly and can

16 be used to calculate the absorption coefficient, which is the so called pulse separation method14-19.

17 Experimental measurements of acoustic impulse responses have long been published12,13, which can be

18 used for the pulse separation method. In 2003, R. D. Stevens et al.14 used a maximum-length sequence

19 to yield an accurate estimate of the system impulse response of a pulse tube system and then used the

20 separated incident pulse and the first reflected pulse from the surface of the sample to calculate the

21 complex reflection coefficient of a sample. However, the duration of the pulse response of a loudspeaker

22 is very long (approximately 10 ms), and the tube therefore must be long enough (7.5 m) for the separation

23 of the incident and first reflected waves, which is not convenient for measurement. R. Ramakrishnan et

24 al.15 used the inverse filter method to generate a short pulse in a tube by eliminating the pulse response

25 of the generator system. However, a very long tube (approximately 2.18 m) is still needed to edit out the

26 pipe end reflection. A similar method is described in Ref. 16. In 2006, Jing et al.17 considered the

27 influence of the pipe end reflection and generated a pure short pulse in a tube with an open end. Sun et

28 al.18,19 employed this pulse generation technique to measure the normal incident sound absorption

29 coefficient by separating the first two pulses in the time domain. Thus, the step of editing out the pipe

30 end reflection and a very long tube are not required.

31 The transfer function method decomposes the sound field in the tube into two terms: the positive

32 wave and the negative wave. Meanwhile, the pulse separation method just uses the first two pulses in the

33 time domain to calculate the reflection coefficient, and both limitations of the transfer function method
34 can be avoided. However, to capture the first two pulses in the time domain, the tube used for the pulse

35 separation method is usually not too short, and at least one microphone needs to be mounted at the middle

36 of the tube14 (some methods15,16,18,19 require another microphone close to the loudspeaker to eliminate

37 the response of the generator system), which means that a special tube still needs to be made for

38 measurement using the pulse separation method (the general commercial impedance tubes are always

39 too short and their microphone spacing is also too small).

40 The work presented here basically lies within the system established by Sun et al. 18,19. In this paper,

41 the length of the tube used for pulse separation method18,19 is further shortened and the method for

42 extracting the first reflected wave from the superposed sound field is proposed. First, the theoretical

43 derivation of the pulse generation method is given, the pulse separation method is discussed for different

44 situations (different tube lengths and sensor spacings). Then, the shortest tube length for the measurement

45 of the incident absorption coefficient using the pulse method is presented, the first reflected wave is

46 extracted, and the normal incident sound absorption coefficient can be calculated by the ratio of the

47 extracted reflected wave and the incident wave. Several corresponding experiments are performed to

48 verify the proposed method. Experimental results for two different materials in this paper agree well with

49 results obtained by the other verified methods.

50 2. Method of generating the desired pulse in the tube

51 The scheme of the measurement system used in this study is shown in Fig. 1, and this system
52 includes an impedance tube, a B&K2716C power amplifier, a B&K3560C data acquisition system

53 controlled by a computer, and a 1/4 in MPA416 condenser microphone used to record the data at two

54 positions. The input (AI) and output (AO) channels of the B&K3560C board are programmed to be

55 synchronized, with sampling rates of 65536 Hz.

FIG. 1. Schematic of the measurement system.

56

57 The principle of pulse generation in a tube for the pulse separation method, which is introduced in

58 Refs. 18-19, usually consists of two steps: first, a designed broadband signal (i.e., hi in Fig. 1(a)) is fed

59 into the system without a sample added at the tube end, and the acoustic response signal (i.e., hr(xa) in

60 Fig. 1(a)) is recorded by a microphone located close to the sound source (position a in Fig. 1(a)). The

61 impulse response of the sound generation system H(xa, ω) can thus be obtained by H(xa,ω) = Hr(xa,ω)/Hi

62 (ω), where Hi(ω) and Hr(xa, ω) are the Fourier transforms of the input excitation (also the designed

63 broadband pulse) hi and the output signal hr(xa), respectively. Second, the spectrum of the driving signal
What is the difference between input exitation and driving signal? Explain!

64 Hd(ω) can be deduced by the ratio of the spectrum of the desired pulse signal Hi(ω) to the resolved

65 impulse response H(xa, ω) as Hd (ω) = Hi(ω)/H(xa, ω). Applying an inverse Fourier transform to Hd(ω),

66 the driving signal of the loudspeaker-pipe system hd is obtained.

67 The impulse response H(xa, ω) corresponds to the frequency response of the generator as well as

68 the microphone position in the tube. In fact, the wave field of the tube can be decomposed in terms of

69 the forward and backward propagation waves7; thus, Hr(xa, ω) can be written as follows:

H i    H g  
70 H r  xa ,     e  jkxa +rt e  jk  2l  xa   (1)
1  rt rs e  jk 2l  

How to find rs and rt to use equation 1 ?

71 where Hg(ω) denotes the frequency response of the sound generator, k is the complex wavenumber, l is

72 the distance between the surface of the loudspeaker to the left surface of the sample (as shown in Fig.

73 1(a)), and rs and rt are the complex reflection coefficients at the surface of the sound source and at the

74 surface of the end, respectively. It should be noted that the frequency response at position xa (caused by

75 the wave propagation process in the tube) can also be viewed as a linear system, and its frequency

76 response can be expressed as follows:

e  jkxa +rt e 
 jk 2 l  xa 

77 H p  xa ,    (2)
1  rt rs e  jk 2l

78 Consequently, Hd(ω) can also be written as Hd(ω)= Hi(ω)/(Hg(ω)∙ Hp(xa, ω)). It is clear that a single

79 desired pulse is generated at position a when hd is fed into the system (i.e., substituting Hd(ω) in Eq. (1)

80 for Hi(ω)).

81 3. Pulse separation method for measuring the incident absorption coefficient

82 After generating the desired short pulse at position xa, the sample is added at the end of the tube.

83 The source is excited using the calculated driving signal hd, the single microphone is moved to another

84 position to test the sound pressure (i.e., hr’(xb) in Fig. 1(a)), and the frequency response can be expressed

85 as

H r  xb ,    H d    H g    H p  xb ,  
H p  xb ,  
 H i   
H p  xa ,  
86  jk  2 l  xb  (3)
e  jkxb  rm  e 1  rs rt  e  jk 2l
=H i      jk  2 l  xa 

e  jkxa  rt  e 1  rs rm  e  jk 2l
 H i    e
 jk  xb  xa   jk  2 l  xb  xa   jk  2 l  xb  3 xa 
 rm e  rt e  
 

87 where rm is the complex reflection coefficient at the left surface of the sample. Eq. (3) shows that although

88 the output signal at position xb contains many terms, the first and second terms correspond to the incident

89 wave and the first reflected wave in the tube, respectively, and these terms can be used to calculate the

90 absorption coefficient of the sample when the length of the desired pulse and the two microphone

91 positions are suitable:

pr 2
92 rm  , am  1  rm (4)
pi

93 where pr and pi denote the first reflected wave and the incident wave, respectively, and am is the

94 absorption coefficient of the sample.

95 3.1. Situation 1 (the traditional pulse separation method)

96 It is clear that the distance between the sensor (located at xb) and the surface of the specimen should

97 be large enough to separate the incident pulse and first reflected pulse. However, it is not enough to
 98 directly crop the first reflected pulse in the time domain, as this may cause the third term in Eq. (3) to be

99 superposed on the first reflected wave (i.e., the second term in Eq. (3)). Consequently, the sufficient and

100 necessary condition to separate the incident wave and the first reflected wave from the surface of the

101 sample is that there is no superposition among the first three terms in Eq. (3). Assuming that the length

102 of the desired pulse (i.e., hi) is τ in the time domain, this condition can be expressed by the following two

103 equations:

104 2l     c , 2s    c (5)

105 where c is the speed of sound in air, while l’ = l−xb and s = xb−xa denote the distance from position b to

106 the surface of the sample and the distance between the two microphone positions, respectively.

107 In this situation (which was introduced in Ref. 18 and 19.), the incident wave and the first reflected

108 wave can be separated directly in the time domain using a rectangular window18, and the attenuation

109 coefficient can be obtained by Eq. (4).

110 3.2. Situation 2 (wide microphone spacing)

111 In the first step of generating the desired signal, the reflection coefficient rt is not known, and when

112 2s’≥ τ∙c is not established, the exact reflection wave cannot be obtained. Thus, the premise to measure

113 the attenuation coefficient using the pulse method is that the first reflected wave (i.e., the second term in

114 Eq. (3)) and the third term in Eq. (3) are not superposed. However, when the incident wave and the first

115 reflected wave are superposed (i.e., the 2l’ ≥ τ∙c is not established, the position b is close to the surface
116 of the sample) because the waveform of the incident wave can be controlled and is just equal to the

117 desired signal and after the process of generating the desired signal, one can still obtain the first reflected

118 wave by subtracting the incident wave from the superimposed recorded sound pressure as follows:

H r  xb ,    H r  xb ,    H i    e jks
119 (6)
 H i     rm e    rt e 
 jk 2 l   3 s 
 
 jk 2 l   s

120 The attenuation coefficient can be calculated using Eq. (4). In this situation, since position b is close

121 to the surface of the sample, the total length of the pulse tube can be shorter on the basis of Ref. 18.

122 3.3. Situation 3 (the short pulse tube method)

123 In fact, with an unknown reflection coefficient rt, the end of the tube can be arbitrary (Sun et al.18

124 used an open end in the first step of pulse generation). If the end of the tube is the tested sample, i.e., the

125 first step of pulse generation is performed with the sample added at the end of the tube, then, rt= rm, and

126 Eq. (3) can be written as follows:

 jk  xb  xa   jk  2  l  xa    xb  xa  
e  rm e
H r  xb ,    H i   
1  rm   1  e
 jk 2  l  xa 
127 (7)
= H i     e  jks
 rm e  jk  2 l   s 
 rm e  jk  2 l   s  2  jk  4 l   s 
 rm e  

128 where s=xb xa and l’’=l xa. (i.e., s is the spacing between position a and position b; l’’ is the distance

129 from position a to the left surface of sample.) When 2l’ τ∙c is not established (the same as situation 2),

130 after subtracting the incident wave, one can obtain the following:

H r  xb ,    H r  xb ,    H i    e jks
131 (8)
 H i     rm e
 jk  2 l   s   jk  2 l   s   jk  4 l   s 
 rm e  rm 2 e  
132 If the microphone spacing is small and 2s τ∙c is also not established, then the first reflected wave

133 is still superposed with the next term; however, it can be seen from Eq. (7) that the factor of the third

134 term is “−rm”; thus, the third term can be eliminated by

H r xb ,    H r  xb ,    1+e  jk 2 s 

135 (9)
 H i     rm e
 jk  2 l   s   jk  2 l   3 s   jk  4 l   s 
 rm e  rm 2 e  

136 Although some new terms are introduced in Eq. (9), the delay between the second term and the first

137 term (i.e., the first reflected wave) is doubled, which makes it more convenient to crop the first reflected

138 wave. One can repeat this step if the time delay is still not enough to separate the two terms, and Eq. (10)

139 can be deduced as follows:

Where does this deduction come from?
 n

H rn  xb ,    H r  xb ,     1  e  jk 2  s 
 i 1
i 


140 (10)

 H i     rm e  jk  2l  s   rm e
  jk  2l   2n1 1s   r 2 e jk  4l  s   

m 

141 where n (n = 1, 2, 3 ⋯) is the number of iterations. It should be noted that the third term in Eq. (10)

142 cannot be eliminated; thus, for the short pulse tube method, the limit of the microphone spacing should

143 be 2l” ≥ τ∙c and 2(n+1)∙s ≥ τ∙c.

144 In this situation, the only size limitation is that position a and the surface of the tested sample should

145 be greater than half of the distance a sound wave travels in the time duration of the incident wave, which

146 means that the total length of the tube used for the pulse separation method can be shorter and the

147 microphone spacing can be smaller than situation 2. Thus, the superposed first reflected wave can be

148 extracted and it is possible to use the proposed pulse separation method in a commercial impedance tube.
149 4. Experiment and results

150 4.1. Experimental setup

151 For the convenience of experimental verification, a homemade variable-depth (changed by moving

152 the piston) impedance tube (shown in Fig. 2) with several microphone positions is used in this experiment.

153 The downstream tube is detachable (when the downstream tube is removed, there is an open end), and

154 the sample is mounted at the rigid end of the downstream tube. Microphone position 1 (as shown in Fig.

155 2(b)) is used for signal generation (with an open end for the traditional pulse separation method; with a

156 downstream tube and a sample for the proposed short pulse tube method) in this experiment. The desired

157 impulse signal used in this experiment is a Butterworth pulse18 (as shown in Fig. 3(a)). A rectangular

158 window is used to cut the separated incident wave and the first reflected wave in the time domain, and

159 the captured pulses are zero-padded before FFT to calculate the absorption coefficient. Two different

160 polyurethane foam materials, the A1 sample and A2 sample, are used in this experiment. Taking the A1

161 sample as an example, the processing of the traditional pulse separation method and that of the proposed

162 short pulse tube method are given.

 (a)

(b)

FIG. 2. (Colour online) The entire measurement system: (a) photograph of the measurement system and

(b) schematic of the homemade impedance tube.

163 4.2. Experiment and results

164 For situation 1, the traditional pulse separation method proposed by Sun et al.18,19, the depth of the
165 downstream tube is ld=180 mm, and position 4 is used for coefficient measurement (i.e., s =180 mm, l’

166 =215 mm). When the calculated driving signal is fed into the system, the responses at position 1 (with

167 an open end) and position 4 (with the downstream tube and A1 sample) are recorded separately. From

168 Fig. 3(a), one can see that because the frequency response of the loudspeaker system and that of the pulse

169 propagation in the open-ended tube are offset, the response at position 1 is very close to the single desired

170 pulse. Since the tube system is changed after adding a sample, the response at position 4 (shown in Fig.

171 3(b)) contains a series of pulses, and there is a one-to-one correspondence between these pulses and the

172 terms in Eq. (3). It is clear that the first reflected wave can be separated from both the incident wave and

173 the third pulse when the appropriate position spacing is selected (i.e., Eq. (5) is satisfied).

(a) (b)

(a) is missing information ?

FIG. 3. (Colour online) (a) and (b) show the measured responses at positions 1 and 5, respectively, for

the traditional pulse separation method (i.e., situation 1).

174 For situation 2, position b is close to the surface of the sample, the depth of the downstream tube is

175 0 mm, and position 5 is used (i.e., s = 180 mm, l’ = 35 mm). The measured sound pressure at position 5

176 is plotted in Fig. 4(a). According to Fig. 4(a), the incident wave and the first reflected wave are

177 superposed, but the third pulse is not superposed upon the two pulses, and then, the reflected wave can

178 be obtained by Eq. (7). Fig. 5(b) shows the process of deducing the first reflected wave in this situation:

179 first, the measured desired pulse (recorded at position 1 with an open end) is added to a time delay of

180 2s/c, and then, the desired pulse coincides with the first incident wave recorded at position 5. The

181 reflected wave can then be separated directly in the time domain after subtracting the two signals.

(a)
 (b) (c)

FIG. 4. (Colour online) (a) The measured responses at positions 1 and 5, respectively, in situation 2. (b)

Adding a certain time delay (i.e., 2s/c) to the sound pressure recorded at position 1. (c) Subtracting the

incident wave from the measured response at position 5.

182 For the general small commercial impedance tube (whose diameter is approximately 30 mm), the

183 microphone spacing is usually approximately 20 mm for a wide test frequency, and thus, both Suns’

184 method and situation 2 (when position b is close to the surface of the sample) may not apply to the

185 commercial tube. Then, a small microphone spacing should be considered (i.e., situation 3, the proposed

186 short pulse tube method).

187 For the proposed short pulse tube method, position 2 is used, and the piston is pushed into the

188 upstream tube until the front surface of the sample is just at position 4; then, s = 20 mm and l’ = 160 mm,

189 and Eq. (5) is not satisfied. Fig. 5(a) shows the response at position 2, and it is clear from Fig. 5(a) that
190 the first reflected wave is superposed by the third pulse. As shown in Fig. 5(b), the time domain signal

191 corresponding to Hr’’(xb, ω) can be obtained by subtracting the incident wave. In addition, one can easily

192 obtain the first reflected wave (i.e., the first term in Eq. (9)) using Eq. (9). Fig. 5(c) shows the wave form

193 of Hr’’’(xb, ω). However, it can be seen from Fig. 5(c) that the first reflected wave is still superposed by

194 the next wave, and thus, to extract the first reflected wave, one should repeat this step at least three times

195 using Eq. (10) (the second term of Eq. (10) will be -rmexp(-jk0(2l’’+15s)). The spacing of positions 1 and

196 2 is 20 mm, and the time delay between the first reflected wave and the next wave is approximately 1

197 ms. As shown in Fig. 5(d), the first reflected wave can be separated directly in the time domain after

198 repeating this step three times.

(a) (b)
 (c) (d)

FIG. 5. (Colour online) (a) The measured response at position 2 for the proposed short tube pulse

separation method (i.e., situation 3). (b) Subtracting the incident wave from the measured response at

position 2 (solid line is the subtraction result) and adding a certain time delay (i.e., 2s/c) to the subtraction

result (shown as the dashed line). (c) Wave form corresponding to Eq. (9). (d) Repeating this step three

times (corresponding to Eq. (10)) and obtaining the first reflected wave.

199 4.3. Calculation of the absorption coefficient

200 Fig. 6 shows the spectrum of the incident wave as well as the spectra of the reflected waves obtained

201 in different situations (situations 1, 2 and 3). From Fig. 6 one can see that the spectra of the pair of the

202 incident and reflected waves in the three situations almost overlap, which means that the proposed short

203 pulse separation method is available. After obtaining the incident wave and the first reflected wave from

204 the surface of the sample, the complex reflection coefficient and the absorption coefficient can be
205 calculated by Eq. (4).

(a) (b)

FIG. 6. (a) and (b) show the spectra of the incident waves and those of the first reflected waves (from

the front surface of sample A) for different pulse separation situations (i.e., situations 1, 2 and 3).

206 The calculated absorption coefficients for samples A and B are shown in Fig. 7 using the traditional

207 pulse separation method (i.e., situation 1) and two other pulse methods (including situations 2 and 3 in

208 Sec. 3). The results for the traditional transfer function method (positions 3 and 4, two microphones,

209 random excitation, a Hanning window and 150 average are used) are also given. As shown in Fig. 7, the

210 general trends of the four methods are similar. However, the results for the transfer function method at

211 low frequencies show obvious fluctuations, which is caused by the spacing of the two microphones and

212 the accuracy of the analysis system10,11. For the results of the three pulse separation methods, there is
213 little fluctuation in the low frequency range, and the three resulting curves almost coincide with each

214 other.

(a) (b)

FIG. 7. The calculated results using different methods: (a) the results for sample A and (b) the results

for sample B.

215 For the pulse separation method (proposed by Sun et al.18,19), the premise is that both the microphone

216 spacing and the distance from the second microphone to the surface of the sample should be greater than

217 half of the distance a sound wave travels in the time duration of the incident wave, and this premise

218 makes the tube not very short (the length of the tube introduced in Ref. 18 is at least 400 mm). According

219 to the above analysis (Section 3), the length of the tube can be as short as 170 mm (for an incident wave

220 with a 1 ms duration and assuming the speed of sound in air is 340 m/s) for the proposed short tube pulse
221 separation method, which makes the measurement more convenient and makes it possible to use the

222 pulse separation method in a general commercial tube.

223 Fig. 8 shows the results measured by a B&K 4206 impedance tube (as shown in Fig. 8(a)) using the

224 traditional transfer function method and the proposed short tube pulse separation method. Good

225 agreement between the two methods can be observed from Fig. 8(b) and (d); the mean deviations between

226 the two methods are 1.05 % and 0.86 % for the two materials from 300 Hz to 6400 Hz, which means that

227 the proposed short tube pulse separation method is useful at least in the frequency range from 300 Hz to

228 6400 Hz. Additionally, the resulting curves obtained by the pulse separation method are smoother and

229 have less fluctuations in the low frequency range than those from the transfer function method (as shown

230 in Fig. 8(c) and (e)).

(a)
 - It is interesting to say what the materials are and their thicknesses.
- Was a repeatability test or statistical evaluation of the dispersion of the results performed?

(b) (c)

(d) (e)

FIG. 8. The calculated results using different methods in a commercial impedance tube. (a) Photograph

of the B&K 4206 impedance tube. (b) The results for sample A. (c) The results for sample A (from 0

Hz to 500 Hz). (d) The results for sample B. (e) The results for sample B (from 0 Hz to 500 Hz).

231 5. Conclusions

232 This paper presents a pulse method to measure the incident sound absorption coefficient by
233 extracting the first reflected wave in a short tube. A short Butterworth pulse is generated in the tube when

234 the tested sample is added at the end (instead of an open end). Then, the first reflected wave can be

235 deduced from the superposed waveform, and the incident sound absorption coefficient can be obtained

236 from the first reflected wave and incident wave. Compared to the traditional pulse separation method as

237 well as the transfer function method, there are no limitations regarding the microphone spacing using

238 this method (the traditional pulse separation method needs a large microphone spacing for separation of

239 the incident and reflected waves; the transfer function method needs different microphone spacings for

240 different frequency ranges of interest). The only microphone position limit for this method is that the

241 spacing between the first microphone position (close to the sound source) and the surface of the tested

242 sample (added at the end of the tube) should be greater than half of the distance a sound wave travels in

243 the time duration of the incident wave. Thus, the tube used for the proposed pulse separation method can

244 be very short (approximately 170 mm when the duration of the incident wave is 1 ms), which makes the

245 measurement more convenient. The proposed method can also be used in a general commercial tube. The

246 results obtained with this proposed method are in good agreement with those obtained using the transfer

247 function method and the traditional pulse separation method, and show better quality in the low frequency

248 range.

249 Acknowledgments

250 This work was financially supported by the National Key Research and Development Program
251 of China (Grant No. 2016YFF0200902), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.

252 11474230 and 11704314), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No.2018M631194)

253 and Foundation of Shaanxi Educational Committee (Grant No. 2018BSHYDZZ03). We thank the

254 reviewers for their suggestions, which greatly helped us to improve this paper.

255 References

1
256 J. Y. Chung and D. A. Blaser, “Transfer function method of measuring in-duct acoustic properties.

257 I. Theory,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 68, 907-913 (1980)

2
258 J. Y. Chung and D. A. Blaser, “Transfer function method of measuring in-duct acoustic properties.

259 II. Experiment,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 68, 914-921 (1980)

3
260 J. Zhao, M. Bao, X. Wang, H. Lee and S. Sakamoto, “An equivalent fluid model based finite-

261 difference timedomain algorithm for sound propagation in porous material with rigid frame,” J.

262 Acoust. Soc. Am. 143(1), 130-138(2018).

4
263 B. -S. Kim, J. Park, “Double resonant porous structure backed by air cavity for low frequency

264 sound absorption improvement,” Composite Structures 183, 545-549 (2018)

5
265 P. H. Mareze, E. Brandão, W. D’A. Fonseca, O. M. Silva and A. Lenzi, “Modeling of acoustic

266 porous material absorber using rigid multiple micro-ducts network: Validation of the proposed

267 model,” J. Sound. Vib. 443, 376-396 (2019).

6
268 B. -S. Kim, Y. Seong, J. Park, “Modified two-thickness method for measurement of the acoustic
269 properties of porous materials,” Appl. Acoust. 146, 184-189 (2019).

7
270 Y. Salissou and R. Panneton, “A general wave decomposition formula for the measurement of

271 normal incidence sound transmission loss in impedance tube,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 2083-2090

272 (2009).

8
273 Hans Bodén and Mats Åbom, “Influence of errors on the two-microphone method for measuring

274 acoustic properties in ducts,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 79, 541-549 (1986).

9
275 W. T. Chu, “Extension of the two-microphone transfer function method for impedance tube

276 measurements,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 80, 347-348 (1986).

10
277 “Acoustics—Determination of sound absorption coefficient and impedance in impedance tubes—

278 Part2: Transfer-function method,” ISO Standard 10534-2:1998 (International Organization for

279 Standardization, Geneva, 1998).

11
280 “Standard test method for impedance and absorption of acoustical materials using a tube, two

281 microphones, and a digital frequency analysis system,” ASTM Standard No. E1050-98 (ASTM

282 International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006).

12
283 D. D. Rife and J. Vanderkooy, “Transfer-function measurement with maximum-length sequences,”

284 J. Audio Eng. Soc. 37, 102-113 (1989)

13
285 A. Farina, “Simultaneous measurement of impulse response and distortion with a swept-sine

286 technique,” 108th Audio Engineering Society Convention, Paris, France, (2000).

14
287 R. D. Stevens and J. Vanderkooy, “A Novel Single-Microphone Method of Measuring Acoustical
288 Impedance in a Tube,” 115th Audio Engineering Society Convention, New York, USA, (2003).

15
289 R. Ramakrishnan, M. Salikuddin, K. K. Ahuja, “Generation of desired signals from acoustic

290 drivers,” J. Sound. Vib. 85, 39-51 (1982).

16
291 K. Y. Fung and X. Jing, “Characterization of impedance boundary as damped harmonic oscillators

292 via impulse reflection,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119, 3831-3838 (2006).

17
293 X. Jing and K. Y. Fung, “Generation of desired sound pulses,” J. Sound. Vib. 297, 616-626 (2006).

18
294 L. Sun, H. Hou, D. L.-Y. Dong, and F.-R. Wan, “Sound Absorption Measurement in a Circular

295 Tube Using the Echo-Pulse Method,” Acta. Acust united. Ac. 96, 973-976 (2010).

19
296 L. Sun and H. Hou, “Measurement of sound absorption by underwater acousitc material using

297 pulse-separation method,” Appl. Acoust. 85, 106-110 (2014).