See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313153453

The low frequency characterisation of underwater material properties in a

pressure vessel via single, dual and multiple hydrophone techniques

Conference Paper · January 2007

CITATIONS READS

3 58

7 authors, including:

Stephen P Robinson Victor F Humphrey

National Physical Laboratory University of Southampton
145 PUBLICATIONS   747 CITATIONS    177 PUBLICATIONS   1,788 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TRIDISMA View project

Underwater noise assessment from marine piling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephen P Robinson on 29 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE LOW FREQUENCY CHARACTERISATION OF
UNDERWATER MATERIAL PROPERTIES IN A PRESSURE
VESSEL VIA SINGLE, DUAL AND MULTIPLE HYDROPHONE
TECHNIQUES.

M. J. Martina, C. T. Hugina, S. P. Robinsonb, G. A. Beamissb, G. Haymanb, J. D. Smithc,

V. F. Humphreyd

a
QinetiQ Ltd, Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 0LX, UK.
b
National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 0LW, UK.
c
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK.
d
Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.

Contact: Michael Martin, QinetiQ Ltd, Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 0LX, UK. Fax:
+44 1252 392035. E-mail: mjmartin1@QinetiQ.com

Abstract: The underwater acoustic properties of materials are typically assessed by

insonifying a large panel of the test material and measuring the reflected and transmitted
pressure via a single hydrophone. This is usually conducted in open water, which allows
measurements to be made down to low kilohertz frequencies, but is reliant on ambient
conditions. It is desirable to conduct these experiments in a controlled laboratory
environment, thus reducing significantly both the cost and inconvenience of measurements
which would otherwise be conducted at sea. The Acoustic Pressure Vessel at the National
Physical Laboratory in the UK allows the simulation of ocean conditions through varying
temperature and pressure, and can accommodate a measurement system which permits
panels of a moderate size to be assessed. The physical dimensional constraints of the
system place limits on the suitability of the traditional single hydrophone pressure
technique, particularly at low kilohertz frequencies, due to diffracted and reflected
secondary signals which cannot be time gated out of the primary signal during analysis.
Measurements conducted by QinetiQ and NPL show that through employing either a dual
hydrophone intensity probe or hydrophone array it is possible to discriminate against
these undesirable signals, thus reducing the error in these measurements at low
frequencies. This provides a very cost efficient and convenient measurement facility to
undertake materials assessment which otherwise could be prohibitively expensive.

Keywords: Reflection loss, insertion loss, simulated ocean conditions, panel

measurements
1. INTRODUCTION

In underwater acoustics it is often desirable to obtain knowledge of the acoustic

properties of materials, in particular reflection and insertion loss. This can be achieved via
a fairly straightforward measurement technique whereby a large panel of the test material
is insonified and the reflected and transmitted sound waves are measured and compared
with the incident wave. However, this technique has several practical limitations. Since
most of the materials under examination exhibit changes in their properties with
temperature and pressure, it is often necessary to conduct these experiments in the open
ocean, deploying a special test rig from a suitable vessel; this is undertaken at great
expense. It is, therefore, desirable to conduct these measurements in a controlled
laboratory environment. Such a facility exists at the National Physical Laboratory (NPL)
in the UK, which houses an Acoustic Pressure Vessel (APV) capable of simulating ocean
conditions. The facility allows acoustic panels of modest size to be deployed within it for
assessment down to low kilohertz frequencies. The physical dimensions of the APV,
however, impose limitations on the measurements that can be performed, particularly at
low frequencies. Firstly, the access ports to the vessel limit the size of the test panel to the
order of a wavelength at low kilohertz frequencies, which has the detrimental effect of
producing significant diffracted signals within the measurement area. Secondly, the walls
and experimental structure within the vessel reflect the incident signal and produce a
sequence of delayed echoes.
In overcoming these obstacles a combination of solutions has been employed. A
directional acoustic source, in the form of a parametric array, is used to minimise reflected
signals from the vessel and provide a single pressure pulse incident on the test panel which
is capable of being satisfactorily time resolved when measured by a hydrophone. This
provides a good measurement of reflection loss; however, the transmitted signal is still
corrupted as a result of diffraction. Therefore, it is necessary to employ a directional
receiver in the form of either a dual hydrophone intensity sensor (which measures the axial
component of acoustic intensity), or a large area sensor in the form of a hydrophone array
(which measures the axial plane wave component of the sound wave). This paper presents
examples of three techniques – using a single hydrophone, intensity sensor and
hydrophone array.

2. THE PARAMETRIC ARRAY

A parametric array uses the non-linear propagation of primary wavefields to generate

additional lower frequency (secondary) components that are then used to make
measurements. The principle of a parametric array was first proposed by Westervelt in
1963 [1] and has since been used in a range of sonar applications. The non-linear
interaction of two coaxial, high amplitude primary waves results in the generation of
secondary waves that appear to come from "pseudo sources" distributed throughout the
interaction region of the primaries. The distribution of these pseudo sources, and their
phases, effectively forms an end-fire array with a characteristically narrow beam, the beam
characteristics being determined by the length of the interaction region rather than the
original transducer size. The primary transducer is driven with a short pulse of a carrier
frequency, with a raised cosine bell envelope. The low-frequency secondary waveform
generated on axis can be shown to be proportional to the second derivative, with respect to
time, of the square of the transmitted pulse envelope [1]. The generated waveform shape
and spectrum is then easily modified by altering the envelope function. In practice, for
parametric array measurements in confined spaces, it is necessary to limit the length of the
interaction region of the primary beams. This is achieved by placing a panel of absorbing
material, known as the acoustic filter, across the field at some distance from the source
transducer to absorb the high-frequency primary beams and transmit only the low-
frequency beam. Further details of the parametric array can be found in [2, 3].

3. THE TRADITIONAL PRESSURE TECHNIQUE

The simplest and traditional method of capturing the energy incident upon, reflected
from and transmitted by the test panel is via a single hydrophone placed on either side of
the test object [4]. For these measurements, spherical Brüel & Kjær type 8105
hydrophones were used. Spectral analysis is then performed on the time histories, from
which the reflection and insertion loss can be calculated [5] from the incident, reflected
and transmitted pressure waves (pi, pr, and pt) by

 p ( f )  p ( f )
R( f ) = −20 log10  r , and T ( f ) = −20 log10  t , (1, 2)
p
 i ( f )  p
 i ( f ) 

where R is the reflection loss, T is the insertion loss and f is frequency.

The time history containing the reflected pressure wave will also contain the incident
signal. Ideally, the hydrophone would be placed in such a position that it would be
possible to time resolve the incident and reflected signals; however, at the low kilohertz
frequencies concerned this is not possible since to do so produces further corruption to the
reflected signal via diffraction and vessel reflections. It is, therefore, necessary to subtract
from the reflection time history an incident signal recorded at the same point and under the
same conditions without the test panel present. It should also be noted that, in capturing
the reflected and incident signals at the same measurement point, the reflected signal has
travelled further, i.e. twice the separation between the measuring hydrophone and the test
object; for this reason, and since the wave front is not a true plane wave, it is necessary to
correct the reflection loss for the reduction in signal amplitude due to spherical radiation
loss [2, 5]. In measuring the insertion loss it is not possible to capture the incident signal at
the measurement point behind the test panel, and for this reason a separate measurement
must be made to capture the incident signal without the test panel present.

4. THE INTENSITY SENSOR

Intensity is a vector quantity; a suitable intensity sensor allows the component of

intensity in a given direction to be measured. As a consequence, such a sensor has some
discrimination against diffracted and reflected signals
v arriving from off axis sources.
The time-averaged acoustic intensity vector, I , can be defined as the time averaged
product of the acoustic pressure and the acoustic particle velocity. However, particle
velocity is not a quantity which can be easily obtained through direct measurement;
therefore, it is more convenient to derive the quantity through the somewhat simpler
measurement of an approximation of the pressure gradient between two positions, the “p-
p” technique [6]. In this manner, two hydrophones can be utilised in order to measure the
pressure at the two positions, from which the intensity can readily be computed via the
imaginary part of the cross spectrum [6, 7]. The intensity sensor used for the
measurements reported here is shown in Fig. 1 and was constructed from two spherical
Brüel & Kjær type 8105 hydrophones held in a nylon mount, so that their relative
positions were accurately known. Further details of the probe can be found in [7].

5. HYDROPHONE ARRAY

The acoustic pressure wave generated by the truncated parametric array is an

approximation to a plane wave which can be readily acquired and time resolved by a
single hydrophone under free-field conditions. The measurements in the APV, however,
are not true free-field measurements, particularly when a test panel is present. Since the
signals of interest are plane waves with wavefronts normal to the beam axis, and the
corrupting signals are predominately travelling in different directions, it is possible to
utilise a planar array to identify the plane wave components of interest.
The planar array used was constructed from seven ball hydrophones of approximately
16mm diameter which were mounted using elastic cord and an aluminium frame in a
pseudo random, 2D arrangement to cover an area of approximately 0.1m2, effectively
creating a large area device as shown in Fig. 2. It is desirable to capture the signals on all
seven array hydrophones simultaneously; however, with the data capture system available
this was only achievable by compromising resolution and reducing the sampling
frequency.
Measurements were also performed by capturing the hydrophone signals in succession,
but in pairs; the difference between the two techniques was negligible, although the
simultaneous capture was desirable due to practical time considerations. In the analysis, an
average was initially calculated across the seven channels and the resulting waveforms
averaged over a number of pulses. The subsequent analysis followed that of the single
hydrophone pressure technique.

6. THE EXPERIMENTAL ARRANGEMENT IN THE APV

The APV consists of a cylindrical tank of external dimensions 7.6 m long by 2.5 m in
diameter [8]. The tank may be pressurized to simulate increased water depth up to a
maximum hydrostatic pressure of 68 bar. The facility also allows the water temperature to
be controlled in the range from 2 ºC to 35 ºC. There are two access ports, the centres of
which are 2.4 m apart. A diagram of the arrangement inside the vessel is shown in Fig. 3.
A mounting arrangement enables the hydrophones to be positioned at any preferred
distance from the panel face in the range from 0 m to 0.4 m. Typically, for the traditional
pressure technique, one hydrophone is mounted each side of the test panel. However, to
achieve a better quality measurement, one side of the panel was measured at a time,
appropriate to the coefficient to be measured, i.e. reflection or transmission. For the case
of the intensity probe, and also the multi-hydrophone array, this was required anyway. The
parametric array was provided by a 300 kHz piezoelectric transducer placed at the end of
the vessel and was truncated by the acoustic filter which was a 30 mm thick Expancel-
filled polyurethane. The separation between the source transducer and the panel under test
was 2.75 m and the acoustic filter was normally 1.88 m from the transducer [5].
7. THE TEST PANEL

In comparing the various measurement techniques, assessments were conducted on a

test panel that was 800 mm wide, 900 mm tall and 125 mm thick. The panel, designed and
fabricated by QinetiQ, consisted of a two layer acoustic absorber fabricated from
polyurethane to which Expancel spheres had been added as a filler material, backed by
steel. A theoretical model describing the response of the panel has been developed [9].
This model utilises dynamic material properties in a transmission matrix, and was used to
design the panel to exhibit specific features in its reflection loss at low kilohertz
frequencies, along with substantial insertion loss, as shown in Fig. 4. Assumptions and
approximations made within the model result in potential inaccuracies in the predictions;
however, the results produced are an extremely good indicator of material trends and can
be used as an effective design tool.

8. RESULTS

Fig. 5 shows the results obtained from the test panel for reflection loss in the range
1 kHz to 7 kHz for hydrostatic pressures of 1 bar (atmospheric pressure) and 28 bar
(approx. 280 m depth) and for a temperature of 8 °C. In each measurement technique the
hydrophone-to-panel spacing was kept constant, and a subtraction performed to remove
incident signal from the reflected time history. As can be seen, an overall level of echo
reduction in excess of approximately 4 dB, and rising with frequency, is measured across
the frequency range. This level varies, as expected, with the response of the panel to
hydrostatic pressure.
The results show several peaks in the response, as predicted, due to resonances of the
panel when it is an odd number of quarter wavelengths thick, where the wavelength is that
in the panel. The peaks change as pressure is applied to the panel, reducing in amplitude
and changing in frequency, and do so in the manner expected from knowledge of the panel
material. The exact level and frequencies of these features can be influenced by the
windows applied to signals in the time domain. Care must be taken not to introduce
artefacts due to the inclusion (within the applied windows) of diffracted signal from the
panel edges and reflections from the experimental structure. However, it is inevitable that
some unwanted signal will be included.
When compared to the use of a single hydrophone receiver, both the intensity sensor
and the array offer some discrimination against unwanted signals arriving from high
angles (e.g. diffraction from panel edges, scattering from mounts). It is believed that the
array offers potentially the greatest rejection of such signals, but requires greater
processing (using seven hydrophone channels), and correcting for spherical spreading loss
is more difficult. Other differences can occur due to the fact that the parametric source
produces a field which contains a range of spatial frequencies, and the sensors may
respond to the non-planar nature of the insonifying field in different ways. This may
contribute to the differences in the positions of the peaks in the panel response. It must
also be noted that there is insufficient frequency resolution to accurately define the sharp
low frequency peaks. However, the skilled operator is able to position the windows such
that these artefacts are minimised or removed.
These results show good agreement with the theoretical model for the panel, as per Fig.
4(a). Differences in the overall levels and in the behaviour with pressure can be explained
by assumptions made in the model, particularly in the Expancel model [9] and can also be
attributed in part to ageing and conditioning of the test panel material.
Fig. 6 shows the results obtained from the test panel for insertion loss in the range
1 kHz to 7 kHz for hydrostatic pressures in the range 1 bar (atmospheric pressure) to 28
bar (approx. 280 m depth) and for a temperature of 8 °C. Insertion loss in excess of 9 dB is
measured at 2 kHz and, in general, rises with increasing frequency; a correction for
spherical radiation loss is not necessary for this measurement. This level varies with
hydrostatic loading of the panel and the behaviour again follows the expected trend.
The strong peaks present in the intensity results between 3 kHz and 4 kHz are artefacts
of uncertain origin, but may be due to the unavoidable inclusion of diffracted signal within
the applied windows. These features are also present (although to a lesser extent) in the
single hydrophone measurements, but are considerably reduced in the array measurements
which, in general, show by far the smoothest response. It is believed that these are more
apparent in the intensity measurements since intensity becomes harder to measure
accurately as the signal level of interest decreases relative to the corrupting signals. This
contaminates the tail of the transmitted signal, and at the pressures corresponding to the
greatest attenuation becomes a dominant event. Additionally, the dip seen just above 1
kHz is an artefact produced by a combination of contamination due to diffracted and
reflected signal and also the necessity to close the window before the arrival of large
reflections from the tank wall. It is believed that the overall level measured via the
intensity technique is broadly correct, but for high insertion loss the artefacts produced by
this technique can make it unsuitable; consequently, the multi-hydrophone array would be
the preferred technique.
Comparison with the model, Fig. 4(b), shows lower measured values of insertion loss.
However, the higher levels predicted by the model, particularly at high pressure, are likely
to be mainly due to assumptions used in the input parameters; therefore, the overall levels
measured are reasonable.

9. CONCLUSIONS

The methods described in this paper have been shown to be capable of determining the
reflection and insertion coefficients of panel materials at low kilohertz frequencies. By
using both a directional source and receiver it is possible to provide some discrimination
against unwanted signals that are diffracted from the panel edges and reflected from the
tank boundaries. This enables panels of modest size to be measured at frequencies as low
as 1 kHz. Each of the methods described has its own advantages and disadvantages. The
results presented here demonstrate their successful use to assess the properties of a test
panel exhibiting insertion loss of 12 dB at 2 kHz and reflection loss containing specific
peaks in excess of 15 dB, which varied from 1.8 kHz to 1.2 kHz through changing applied
hydrostatic pressure from ambient to 28 bar.

10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the support of the National Measurement System Policy Unit
of the UK Department of Trade and Industry, and the UK Ministry of Defence for funding
this project. The authors would also like to thank Mr John House (QinetiQ) for assistance
and advice, and also Dr Richard Bryant (QinetiQ) and Ms Alison Daniel (QinetiQ) for
fabrication of the test panel. © Crown Copyright 2007.
REFERENCES

[1] P. J. Westervelt, Parametric acoustic array, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 35, pp535-537, 1963.
[2] V. F. Humphrey, The measurement of acoustic properties of limited size panels by use of a
parametric source, J. Sound. Vib., 98, pp67-81, 1985.
[3] V. F. Humphrey and H. O. Berktay, The transmission coefficient of a panel measured
with a parametric source, J. Sound. Vib., 101, pp85-106, 1985.
[4] R. J. Bobber, Underwater Electroacoustic Measurements, Peninsula Press, New York, 2nd
edition, 1988.
[5] V. F. Humphrey, N. L. Carroll, J. D. Smith, G. A. Beamiss, G. Hayman, T. J. Esward
and S. P. Robinson, Acoustic characterisation of panel materials under simulated ocean
conditions, In Proc. I.O.A., 25, 2003.
[6] F. J. Fahy, Sound Intensity, Chapman & Hall, 1989.
[7] M. J. Martin, C. T. Hugin, S. P. Robinson, G. A. Beamiss , G. Hayman and V. F.
Humphrey, The measurement of low frequency underwater material properties via a sound
intensity technique, In UDT Europe 2006.
[8] R. C. Preston and S. P. Robinson, New acoustic pressure vessel capability for the UK, In
Proc. I.O.A., 20, pp73-77, 1998.
[9] A. M. Baird, F. H. Kerr and D. J. Townend, Wave propagation in a viscoelastic medium
containing fluid-filled microspheres, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 105, pp1527-1538, 1999.

Figure 1 Acoustic intensity sensor; Figure 2 Hydrophone arrangement for

38mm spacer with two B&K 8105s. seven hydrophone array.

Small Port Large Port

Transducer Acoustic Test Panel Hydrophones

Filter

Figure 3 Schematic diagram of parametric array in APV, showing location of transducer,

acoustic filter, test panel and hydrophones in position for traditional pressure technique.
 Figure 4 Predicted reflection loss (left) and insertion loss (right) for the test panel in the
range 1 kHz to 7 kHz for hydrostatic pressures in the range 1 bar (atmospheric pressure)
to 28 bar (approx. 280 m depth) and for a temperature of 8 °C.

Figure 5 Measured reflection loss for the test panel in the range 1 kHz to 7 kHz for all
three measurement techniques, at hydrostatic pressures of 1 bar (atmospheric pressure)
and 28 bar (approx. 280 m depth) and for a temperature of 8 °C.

Figure 6 Measured insertion loss for the test panel in the range 1 kHz to 7 kHz for all
three measurement techniques, at hydrostatic pressures in the range 1 bar (atmospheric
pressure) to 28 bar (approx. 280 m depth) and for a temperature of 8 °C.

View publication stats