The impedance eduction technique is widely used by the aeroacoustics community to obtain liner property in a flow duct. However, the obtained impedance is often found to be discontinuous in the frequency domain which violates theoretical liner models. The low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR, in dB) is one factor leading to this unexpected result. To overcome this, a weighting coefficient, represented by an SNR dependent sigmoid function with two control parameters, is introduced to the cost function in the iteration process. The proposed algorithm is employed to measure the impedances of two liners and results show an improvement in the smoothness of the resultant impedance curves over those obtained from conventional cost function.
GuessAW. Calculation of perforated plate liner parameters from specified acoustic resistance and reactance. J Sound Vibration1975; 40: 119–137. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-460X(75)80234-3.
2.
BellucciVFlohrPPaschereitCO. Numerical and experimental study of acoustic damping generated by perforated screens. AIAA J2004; 42: 1543–1549. DOI: 10.2514/1.9841.
3.
LeeYYLeeEWMNgCF. Sound absorption of a finite flexible micro-perforated panel backed by an air cavity. J Sound Vibration2005; 287: 227–243. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2004.11.024.
4.
SohnCHParkJH. A comparative study on acoustic damping induced by half-wave, quarter-wave, and helmholtz resonators. Aerospace Sci Tech2011; 15: 606–614. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2010.12.004.
5.
WatsonWRJonesMGTannerSE, et al.A finite element propagation model for extracting normal incidence impedance in nonprogressive acoustic wave fields. J Comput Phys1996; 125: 177–186.
6.
WatsonWTracyMJonesM, et al.Impedance Eduction in the Presence of Shear Flow. 7th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. Maastricht, Netherlands: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2001.
7.
AuréganYLerouxMPagneuxV. Measurement of liner impedance with flow by an inverse method. 10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2004.
8.
ElnadyTBodénH. An inverse analytical method for extracting liner impedance from pressure measurements. 10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2004.
9.
PrimusJPiotESimonF. An adjoint-based method for liner impedance eduction: validation and numerical investigation. J Sound Vibration2013; 332: 58–75.
10.
SantanaLDRoeckWDDesmetW. Indirect acoustic impedance eduction in presence of flow based on an analytical two-port formulation. Mech Syst Signal Process2014; 48: 388–403. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2014.02.016.
11.
TroianRDragnaDBaillyC, et al.Broadband liner impedance eduction for multimodal acoustic propagation in the presence of a mean flow. J Sound Vibration2017; 392: 200–216. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2016.10.014.
12.
WuGLiSZhaoH, et al.Experimental and frequency-domain study of acoustic damping of single-layer perforated plates. Aerospace Sci Tech2017; 69: 432–438, DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2017.07.010.
13.
WengCSchulzARonnebergerD, et al.Flow and viscous effects on impedance eduction. AIAA J2018; 56: 1118–1132. DOI: 10.2514/1.J055838.
14.
JonesMGNarkDMHowertonBM. Impedance eduction for uniform and multizone acoustic liners. Int J Aeroacoustics2021; 20: 458–477. DOI: 10.1177/1475472x211023855.
15.
ElnadyTBodénHElhadidiB. Validation of an inverse semi-analytical technique to educe liner impedance. AIAA J2009; 47: 2836–2844. DOI: 10.2514/1.41647.
16.
JonesMGWatsonWRHowertonBM, et al.Comparative Study of Impedance Eduction Methods. 19th Part 2: Nasa Tests and MethodologyAIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 2013.
17.
RichterCThieleFHLiXD, et al.Comparison of time-domain impedance boundary conditions for lined duct flows. AIAA J2007; 45: 1333–1345. DOI: 10.2514/1.24945.
18.
MonteghettiFMatignonDPiotE, et al.Design of broadband time-domain impedance boundary conditions using the oscillatory-diffusive representation of acoustical models. The J Acoust Soc America2016; 140: 1663–1674, Article. DOI: 10.1121/1.4962277.
19.
Busse-GerstengarbeSRichterCThieleFH, et al.Impedance eduction based on microphone measurements of liners under grazing flow conditions. AIAA J2012; 50: 867–879. DOI: 10.2514/1.J051232.
20.
MurrayPBAstleyRJ. Development of a single degree of freedom perforate impedance model under grazing flow and high spl. In: 18th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference Colorado; 2012.
21.
SpillereAMNMedeirosAACordioliJA. An improved impedance eduction technique based on impedance models and the mode matching method. Applied Acoustics, 2018.
22.
ZhangPHuangYYangZ, et al. Effect of source direction on liner impedance eduction with consideration of shear flow. Appl Acoust2021; 183: 108297. DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108297.
23.
JonesMWatsonWParrottT. Benchmark data for evaluation of aeroacoustic propagation codes with grazing flow. 11th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2005.
24.
EversmanWGallmanJM. Impedance eduction with an extended search procedure. AIAA J2011; 49: 1960–1970. DOI: 10.2514/1.J050831.
25.
YangCFangYZhaoC, et al.. On modeling the sound propagation through a lined duct with a modified ingard-myers boundary condition. J Sound Vibration2018; 424: 173–191.
26.
LeeS-JKimS-H. Noise estimation based on standard deviation and sigmoid function using a posteriori signal to noise ratio in nonstationary noisy environments. Int J Control Automation Syst2008; 6: 818–827.
27.
YongPCNordholmSDamHH. Optimization and evaluation of sigmoid function with a priori SNR estimate for real-time speech enhancement. Speech Commun2013; 55: 358–376. DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2012.09.004.
