AIAA 2001-2266 Comparison of Two Acoustic Waveguide Methods for Determining Liner Impedance

Acoustic measurements taken in a flow impedance tube are used to assess the relative accuracy of two waveguide methods for impedance eduction in the presence of grazing flow. The aeroacoustic environment is assumed to contain forward and backward-traveling acoustic waves, consisting of multiple modes, and uniform mean flow. Both methods require a measurement of the complex acoustic pressure profile over the length of the test liner. The Single Mode Method assumes that the sound pressure level and phase decay rates of a single progressive mode can be extracted from this measured complex acoustic pressure profile. No a priori assumptions are made in the Finite Element Method regarding the modal or reflection content in the measured acoustic pressure profile. The integrity of each method is initially demonstrated by how well their no-flow impedances match those acquired in a normal incidence impedance tube. These tests were conducted using ceramic tubular and conventional perforate liners. Ceramic tubular liners were included because of their impedance insensitivity to mean flow effects. Conversely, the conventional perforate liner was included because its impedance is known to be sensitive to mean flow velocity effects. Excellent comparisons between impedance values educed with the two waveguide methods in the absence of mean flow and the corresponding values educed with the normal incident impedance tube ∗Research Scientist, Structural Acoustics Branch, Aerodynamics, Aerothermodynamics and Acoustics Competency †Senior Research Scientist, Computational Modeling and Simulation Branch, Aerodynamics, Aerothermodynamics and Acoustics Competency, Member of AIAA ‡Research Scientist, Aeroacoustics Branch, Aerodynamics, Aerothermodynamics and Acoustics Competency §Senior Research Scientist, Structural Acoustics Branch, Aerodynamics, Aerothermodynamics and Acoustics Competency Copyright c ©2001 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. No copyright is asserted in the United States under Title 17, U.S. Code. The U.S. Government has a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for government purposes. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner. were observed. The two methods are then compared for mean flow Mach numbers up to 0.5, and are shown to give consistent results for both types of test liners. The quality of the results indicates that the Single Mode Method should be used when the measured acoustic pressure profile is clearly dominated by a single progressive mode, and the Finite Element Method should be used for all other cases.