Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2003-01-1653
parameters of uniform tubes, flare tubes and expansion By decomposition theory, the auto spectrum of the
chambers. They used a two-load, four-microphone incident wave S AA is
approach, but the method was unstable when the two
loads were not “sufficiently” different over the entire S11 + S 22 − 2C 12 cos kx12 + 2Q12 sin kx12
frequency range. The most accepted approach today is
S AA = , (2)
4 sin 2 kx12
the approach developed by Munjal and Doige [10] who
proposed a two-source method for measuring the four-pole
where S 11 and S 22 are the auto spectra of the total acoustic
parameters of an acoustic element or combination of
pressure at points 1 and 2, respectively; C12 and Q12 are
elements. The method can also be used in the presence
the real and imaginary parts of cross spectrum between
of a mean flow.
points 1 and 2; k is the wave number; and x12 is the
distance between the two microphones [4].
This paper will compare the decomposition method, the
two-source method and the two-load method. Examples
The rms amplitude of the incident wave sound pressure p i
will include (1) an expansion chamber and (2) a double
can be founded from
expansion chamber with an internal connecting tube. The
methods will be developed mathematically, and then
applied to the examples. The measured results will be pi = S AA . (3)
compared with boundary element method (BEM) results.
It follows that the sound power for each wave can be
DECOMPOSITION METHOD expressed in terms of the incident (p i) and transmitted (p t)
rms pressure amplitudes as
The muffler TL is the acoustical power level difference
between the incident and transmitted waves assuming an pi2
anechoic termination [11], i.e., Wi = S (4)
ρc i
Wi and
TL = 10 log 10 , (1)
pt2
Wt Wt = So , (5)
ρc
where Wi is the incident sound power and Wt is the
transmitted sound power. Generally, the transmitted respectively. In Equations (4) and (5), ρ is the fluid
sound power can be easily obtained by simply measuring density, c is the speed of sound, and S i and S o are the
the sound pressure at the outlet. The corresponding muffler inlet and outlet tube areas, respectively. Inserting
sound power can be related to the sound pressure if a Equations (4) and (5) into Equation (1), the TL can be
plane wave with no reflection is assumed. However, the expressed as
incident sound power is more difficult to measure due to
the sound reflection from the muffler. pi S
TL = 20 log 10 + 10 log 10 i . (6)
pt So
As shown in Figure 1, for one-dimensional sound traveling
along a duct, a standing wave develops when a change in
the impedance is encountered at the muffler inlet. The A common error is to attempt to apply decomposition
sound pressure can be decomposed into its incident and method to downstream of the muffler using a pair of
reflected spectra, SAA and SBB, respectively. One way to microphones if the termination is not anechoic. This will
decompose the wave is to use the two-microphone not work as p t is not the same as the incident” wave
method and to separate the waves using decomposition sound pressure downstream.
theory [4].
The TL for the expansion chamber shown in Figure 2 was
measured by the decomposition method. An
Microphones anechoic termination whose absorption coefficient is
about 0.95 over 100-3000 Hz frequency range was used in
Speaker SAA 1 3 the measurement. The TL results are compared to
2
numerical results from the BEM (also shown in Figure 2).
It is apparent that the measured results deviate from the
BEM results over the whole frequency range. This is likely
due to the termination not being anechoic enough.
SBB Anechoic
x12
termination
Muffler
50
Measured p 2a B23
p 3a
BEM 1 = A23 D D A
40 Ø 1.375 Ø6.035 Ø 1.375
( p − A12 2a
p ) C D23
34
p 3a + (C34 − 34 34
) p4 a
1a 23
B12 34
B B 34
TL (dB)
30 8 (9)
20 is developed where Aij, Bij, Cij and Dij are the four poles for
acoustical element i–j; p ia is the sound pressure and via is
10
the particle velocity at point i for Configuration a.
0
One can see in Equation (9) that there are four unknowns,
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 A23, B23, C23 and D23 , but only two equations. By moving
Frequency (Hz)
the sound source to the other end (Configuration b in
Figure 2 Decomposition method vs. BEM Figure 4), two additional equations are obtained and the
(Muffler dimensions in inches) four poles of element 3-2 can be evaluated. For
Configuration b, one can then write
−1
TWO-SOURCE METHOD [10] p3b A23 − B 23 p 2b 1 D23 B 23 p2 b
v = − C =
D23 v2b ∆ C 23 A23 v2b
, (10)
3b 23
The two-source method is based on the transfer matrix
approach. An acoustical element can be modeled by its
where ∆ is the determinant of the matrix, ∆= A23D23-B23C23
four-pole parameters, as show in Figure 3. The transfer
and minus sign “-” is from the change of the velocity
matrix is
direction in Configuration b.
p1 A B p 2 1 2 Muffler 3 4
Source
v = C D v , (7)
1 2
Acoustical element
1 2 Configuration b
p1 p2
v1 v2 Figure 4 Setup of two-source method
p3b p2b
When using the two-source method, two sound sources 1 = 1 D23 B 23 C12 A12 D12 A
( ∆ 34 p4b − D34 p4 a ) ∆ C23 A23 ( − ) p1b − 12
should be placed as shown in Figure 4. Configuration a p2b
will be examined first. Using the transfer matrix method, B34 ∆12 ∆ 12 B12 B12
one can readily obtain four-pole equations for the straight (11)
tube elements between microphones 1-2 and 3-4.
Similarly, the four-pole equation for element 2-3 which where ∆12 =A12D12 - B12C12, ∆34 =A34D34 - B34C34. p ib is the
includes the muffler can be expressed as sound pressure and vib is the particle velocity at point i for
configuration b. Using both Equations (9) and (11), the
four-pole parameters can be written as
p2 a A23 B23 p3 a
v = C D23 v . (8)
2 a 23 3a ∆ 34 ( H 32 a H 34 a − H 32 b H 34a ) + D34 ( H 32 b − H 32a )
A23 = (12)
∆ 34 ( H 34 b − H 34 a )
where the subscript a refers to Configuration a in Figure 4.
Combining the four-pole equations for 1-2, 3-4 and 2-3, the B34 ( H 32a − H 32 b )
equation B23 = (13)
∆ 34 ( H 34 b − H 34 a )
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
2.24 2.24
( H 31a − A12 H 32 a )(∆ 34H 34b − D34 ) − (H 31b − A12H 32b )(∆34 H 34a − D34 ) 100
C 23 =
B12∆ 34 ( H 34b − H 34 a ) Ø1.375 Ø6.035 Ø1.375 Ø1.375
80
(14) 4.125
TL (dB)
8
20
where H ij = p j / pi , which are measured. Two-source Method
BEM
0
Assuming that flow can be neglected, the four poles for 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
elements 1-2 and 3-4 can be expressed as Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6 Two-source method vs. BEM
jρ c sin kl12 (Muffler dimensions in inches)
A12 B12 cos kl12
C = , ∆12 = 1 (16)
12 D12 j sin kl12 /(ρc ) cos kl12 TWO-LOAD METHOD [9]
and
In Equation (9), one can see that there are four unknowns,
A34 B34 cos kl34 jρc sin kl34
C = , ∆ 34 = 1 (17) A23, B23, C23 and D23, but there are only two equations.
34 D34 j sin kl /(ρ c)
34
coskl34 Instead of moving the sound source to the other end to get
two additional equations, the same result can be obtained
respectively. In Equations (16-17), l12 and l34 are the by changing the end condition, as shown in Figure 7.
microphone spacings for elements 1-2 and 3-4, Changing the end condition effectively changes the
respectively. The TL can then be expressed in terms of impedance at the termination from Za to Zb. Equations (12
the four-pole parameters and tube areas as [6] - 15) can be used again, and the four-pole parameters of
element 2-3 can be obtained, as can the TL from Equation
1 B S (18).
TL = 20 log 10 A23 + 23 + ρc ⋅ C 23 + D23 + 10 log 10 i .
2 ρ c So In the two-load method, it is obvious that if two loads are
(18) very similar, the result will be unstable. Generally, two
It should be noted that the two-source method can be loads can be two different length tubes, a single tube with
implemented using only two microphones with random and without absorbing material, or even two different
excitation. One can obtain all necessary transfer functions mufflers. In this research, two loads were achieved by a
Hij by moving one microphone and using the other tube with and without absorbing material.
microphone as a reference. Test Element
Source 1 2 3 4
The TL comparison is shown in Figure 5 for the expansion
chamber used previously in Figure 2. The two-source Za
method agreed especially well with the BEM results. The
termination was the straight tube with absorbing material.
50
Load 1
Two-source Method 1 2 3 4
40 BEM Ø 1.375 Ø 6.035 Ø 1.375
Zb
TL (dB)
30 8
20
Load 2
10
Figure 7 Setup of two-load method
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Figure 8 shows the TL comparison for the double
Frequency (Hz) expansion chamber shown. Excellent agreement was
obtained using the two-load method and the two-source
Figure 5 Two-source method vs. BEM method.
(Muffler dimensions in inches)
Figure 9 shows a comparison of the real part of the four-
Figure 6 shows another TL comparison for a double pole parameter A23 for the expansion chamber in Figure 9.
expansion chamber. Again, the measured results agreed Though the TL was measured accurately by the two-load
with the BEM results. method, the four-pole parameters are not as clean
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
12
60
0 2239 (1988).
-2 5. ASTM standard, E1050-98, “Standard Test Method for
-4 Impedance and Absorption of Acoustical Material
-6 Ø1.375 Ø6.035 Ø1.375
Using a Tube, Two Microphones and a Digital
-8 Frequency Analysis System,” (1998).
-10 4
6. Munjal, M.L., Acoustics of Ducts and Mufflers, New
-12 York: Wiley-Interscience (1987).
7. To, C.W.S. and Doige, A.G., “A Transient Testing
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Technique for The Determination of Matrix Parameters
Frequency (Hz) of Acoustic Systems, 1: Theory and Principles,”
Figure 9 Real part of the four pole parameter A Journal of Sound and Vibration, 62, 207-222 (1979).
(Muffler dimensions in inches) 8. To, C.W.S. and Doige, A.G., “A Transient Testing
Technique for the Determination of Matrix Parameters
CONCLUSIONS of Acoustic Systems, 2: Experimental Procedures
and Results,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 62, 223-
Three methods for measuring muffler TL have been 233 (1979).
discussed in this paper. The results indicated the 9. Lung, T.Y. and Doige, A.G., “A Time-averaging
limitations of the decomposition method in the absence of Transient Testing Method for Acoustic Properties of
a good anechoic termination. Furthermore, the Piping Systems and Mufflers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am,
decomposition method does not lead to the four-pole 73, 867-876 (1983).
parameters of the muffler; these are necessary for 10. Munjal, M.L. and Doige A.G., “Theory of a Two
predicting the IL of the system. However, both the two- Source-location Method for Direct Experimental
source and two-load methods accurately measured the Evaluation of the Four-pole Parameters of an
muffler TL without the use of an anechoic termination. Aeroacoustic Element,” Journal of Sound and
Theoretically, any termination could be used, but a Vibration, 141(2), 323-333 (1990).
termination with high reflection is not recommended. 11. Beranek, L.L. and Vér, I.L., Noise and Vibration
When the termination is highly reflective, the signal-to- Control Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 374
noise ratio is low, and random errors can be large, which (1992).
may contaminate the experimental results.
CONTACT
The two-load method is easier to employ than the two-
source method, since the sound source does not have to For additional information concerning this article, please
be moved. This assumes that the two loads are different contact Dr. A. F. Seybert at (859) 257-6336 x 80645 or
enough. However, this study indicated that the two-source via email seybert@engr.uky.edu.
method might be the better choice for determining the