Low-frequency echo-reduction and insertion-loss measurements

from small passive-material samples under ocean

environmental temperatures and hydrostatic pressures
Jean C. Piquette and Stephen E. Forsythe
Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Newport, 1176 Howell Street, Newport, Rhode Island 02840
共Received 26 April 2001; accepted for publication 18 July 2001兲
System L is a horizontal tube designed for acoustical testing of underwater materials and devices,
and is part of the Low Frequency Facility of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, Rhode
Island. The tube contains a fill fluid that is composed of a propylene glycol/water mixture. This
system is capable of achieving test temperatures in the range of ⫺3 to 40 deg Centigrade, and
hydrostatic test pressures in the range 40 to 68 950 kPa. A unidirectional traveling wave can be
established within the tube over frequencies of 100 to 1750 Hz. Described here is a technique for
measuring the 共normal-incidence兲 echo reduction and insertion loss of small passive-material
samples that approximately fill the tube diameter of 38 cm. 共Presented also is a waveguide model
that corrects the measurements when the sample fills the tube diameter incompletely.兲 The validity
of the system L measurements was established by comparison with measurements acquired in a
large acoustic pressure-test vessel using a relatively large panel of a candidate material, a subsample
of which was subsequently evaluated in system L. The first step in effecting the comparison was to
least-squares fit the data acquired from the large panel to a causal material model. The material
model was used to extrapolate the panel measurements into the frequency range of system L. The
extrapolations show good agreement with the direct measurements acquired in system L.
关DOI: 10.1121/1.1402115兴
PACS numbers: 43.58.Vb, 43.20.Fn, 43.20.Ye, 43.58.Bh 关SLE兴

I. INTRODUCTION
The normal-incidence echo reduction and insertion loss
are quantities that are often needed to characterize the per-
formance of passive acoustical materials such as absorbers,
decouplers, and acoustic windows. These are often deter-
mined in a panel test.1 Unfortunately as test frequency is
lowered, panel size must be increased in order to avoid the
disturbing influence of waves originating at the panel edges.
For example, conventional panel measurements, as con-
ducted in the Acoustic Pressure Tank Facility 共APTF兲 of the
Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport, RI 共NUWC兲 are
typically limited to frequencies above 10 kHz for samples of
76⫻76-cm (30⫻30-in.) lateral dimensions. The lower-
frequency limit for panels of this size is reduced to about
3400 Hz if the ONION method is used.2 However, frequen-
cies even lower than this are often of interest. Panel tests
generally must be excluded as test frequency is lowered sig-
nificantly, owing to the high cost of fabricating large samples
and the inability of existing test facilities to accommodate
large samples. For example, APTF is limited to panels less
than 1.8 m on a side in order that the panel can fit through
the facility access port. Even for a panel of this size, tested
using conventional methods, the low-frequency limit for
echo reduction is about 2 kHz and that for insertion loss is
about 3 kHz. The ONION method would only extend the
low-frequency cutoff to about 1.5 kHz for both measure-
ments.
An obvious way to attain lower frequencies without in-
creasing sample size is to conduct tests in a rigid-walled
tube, such as an impedance or pulse tube.3 However, such
methods, which typically utilize pulsed sound, usually obtain
only the echo reduction, not the insertion loss. Such methods
also often involve backing the sample with some other ma-
terial in order to avoid the influence of unwanted reflections
from the tube end. Hence, the echo reduction that is mea-
sured in this manner is characteristic not only of the sample
under test, but also of the backing material. As frequency is
lowered significantly the methods employed in pulse tubes
clearly become inapplicable, especially once the wavelength
in the tube fill fluid exceeds the tube length.
An alternative kind of rigid-walled-tube-based measure-
ment is considered here. System L, one of a group of rigid-
walled tubes available for acoustic testing 共under ocean en-
vironmental conditions of temperature and hydrostatic
pressure兲 at NUWC, has the capability to create a unidirec-
tional traveling wave in steady state. 共This is accomplished
through the use of active terminations of the tube, thus simu-
lating a tube of infinite length.兲 Hence, it is possible to place
a sample of interest near the tube’s center and to test the
sample without needing to back the sample in some special
way. If desired, the sample can be affixed to a backing plate,
or the intrinsic properties of a nonbacked sample can be
tested instead.
A description of system L is given in Sec. II. The mea-
surement concept for using system L to determine low-
frequency echo reduction and insertion loss is described in
Sec. III. Measurements both with and without a sample
present in the tube are required to effect the present tech-
nique. The required ‘‘without-sample’’ measurements, and
their use to adjust nominal hydrophone sensitivities and po-
sitions as well as the speed of sound of the tube fill fluid, are
discussed in Sec. IV. The required ‘‘with-sample’’ measure-
ments are discussed in Sec. V. Also described in Sec. V are

1998 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110 (4), October 2001 0001-4966/2001/110(4)/1998/9/$18.00

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 160.36.178.25 On: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:23:40

FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the system L tube. The sample under
test 共not shown兲 is positioned near the tube center, and must approximately
fill the 38-cm tube diameter. Also not shown is a series of hydrophones
situated along the upper interior length of the tube. The ‘‘first’’ such hydro-
phone is located at an offset distance of about 15 cm from the projector
array nearest the removable tube cover, shown on the right side of the figure.
This hydrophone offset was selected to avoid the near-field region of the
proximate projector array. This first hydrophone is taken to be the ‘‘refer-
ence’’ hydrophone. The five other hydrophones are nominally located at 32-,
64-, 104-, 136-, and 168-cm distances from the reference hydrophone.
共These values of the nominal hydrophone positions are adjusted, by amounts
of less than 1 cm, using a least-squares procedure described in the text.兲
Positioning the sample near the tube center results in three of these six
hydrophones being situated to either side of the sample. The measurements
obtained from one such triad of hydrophones 共in the reflection region
shown兲 are used to decompose analytically the components of the standing
wave that appears in this area of the tube when a sample is present. Mea-
surements obtained from the triad of hydrophones on the other side of the
sample 共in the transmission region shown兲 are used both to help establish a
unidirectional traveling wave in that region, and to determine the amplitude
of the through-the-sample transmitted wave.
comparison measurements acquired from a relatively large
test panel, evaluated in APTF. A description of a causal ma-
terial model used to extrapolate the APTF measurements into
the system-L frequency range is also given. A summary and
the conclusions are provided in Sec. VI. Finally, the Appen-
dix provides the details of a simple waveguide model that is
used to correct the system L measurements for samples that
fail to fill completely the cross section of the tube.
II. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM L
System L 共see Fig. 1兲 is a horizontal tube designed for
acoustical testing of underwater materials and devices, and is
part of the Low Frequency Facility of the Naval Undersea
Warfare Center in Newport, RI. The tube is of 38 cm inner
diameter, and is 243 cm in length. It contains a fill fluid that
is composed of a propylene glycol 共antifreeze兲/water mix-
ture. 共The antifreeze is added to the water in a ratio of 1 part
antifreeze to 3 parts water. The resulting mixture has a speed
of sound of about 1600 m/s, which is slightly greater than
that of pure water.兲 Pressurization apparatus allows hydro-
static test pressures as high as 68 950 kPa, thus simulating an
ocean depth of up to about 6.9 km.
Each end of the tube is fitted with a projector array
consisting of seven pressure-compensated transducers. Also,
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 4, October 2001 J. C. Piquette and S. E. Forsythe: Low-frequency echo and loss measurement
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 160.36.178.25 On: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:23:40
an array of six hydrophones is mounted along the upper in-
terior length of the tube to aid in the production of a travel-
ing wave. The first such hydrophone is located at an offset
distance of 15 cm from the projector array closest to the tube
cover 共shown at the right side of Fig. 1兲. Denoting that hy-
drophone’s position as the zero, or reference, position, the
remaining hydrophones are situated at distances of 32, 64,
104, 136, and 168 cm from the reference hydrophone. The
last such hydrophone is thus also located about 15 cm from
the proximate projector array. By monitoring the amplitudes
and phases of the waves received by each of these six hy-
drophones, more than enough information is acquired to de-
termine the drives that must be applied to each of the two
projector arrays in order to establish a unidirectional travel-
ing wave within system L. 共The U.S. Navy’s first use of
active cancellation methods, performed at what was then the
Underwater Sound Reference Laboratory in Orlando,
Florida, is described in Ref. 4. The current version of the
hardware and software in system L is a modern computer-
based descendant of the techniques described in this early
reference.兲
III. MEASUREMENT CONCEPT
A sample is mounted approximately midway between
the two projector arrays of the system L tube 共note again Fig.
1兲. The sample is oriented such that a normal to its surface is
parallel to, and approximately coincident with, the tube cen-
terline. 共If the sample does not entirely fill the cross section
of the tube, it is necessary to correct the measurements. A
suitable waveguide model is described in the Appendix.兲 The
two projectors in system L are driven in a manner that estab-
lishes acoustic waves within the tube that simulate those that
are present in a standard normal-incidence panel test.1 In
such a test on one side of the panel there appear two waves,
one of which approaches the sample 共and which is called the
‘‘incident’’ wave兲, and the other of which recedes from the
sample 共and which is called the ‘‘reflected’’ wave兲. On the
opposite side of the sample there appears only one wave,
which recedes from the sample 共and which is called the
‘‘through-the-panel transmitted wave’’兲. The two waves ap-
pearing in the reflection region of system L combine to cre-
ate a standing wave; the single wave appearing in the trans-
mission region is a unidirectional traveling wave.
The reflected wave unquestionably loads the projector
array that it impinges upon, thereby modifying its output.
However, there are three hydrophones situated between that
projector and the sample, and both the amplitudes and phases
of the received signals are recorded at each of these three
hydrophones. Hence, there is more than sufficient informa-
tion available to decompose analytically the standing wave
into its individual, oppositely directed, components. Once
the amplitudes of these standing-wave components are
known, they can be used to compute the sample’s pressure
reflection coefficient, and hence the sample’s echo reduction
共taken here to be ⫺20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of
the magnitude of the pressure reflection coefficient兲.
There are also three hydrophones situated at 共approxi-
mately兲 known positions in the transmission region. Ampli-
tude and phase are also accurately measured at these hydro-
1999
 phones. The amplitude of the unidirectional traveling wave
appearing there can thus be combined with the incident-wave
amplitude determined from the reflection-region measure-
ments to compute the sample’s pressure transmission coeffi-
cient, and hence its insertion loss. 共This is taken here to be
⫺20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the magnitude of
the pressure transmission coefficient.兲
Pulsed sound would not be an adequate method to
achieve the measurements of interest. With the sample lo-
cated near the tube center as described, the distance between
the sample and the projector array in the transmission region
is less than 99 cm. Even neglecting turn-on transients of the
source共s兲, and response transients of the sample, this avail-
able distance would be only one cycle in the fill fluid at
about 1500 Hz. It is clear that sufficient data could not be
accurately acquired to characterize the sample to frequencies
as low as 100 Hz if it were not possible to create a traveling
wave.
IV. ‘‘NO-SAMPLE’’ EXPERIMENTS AND ASSOCIATED
LEAST-SQUARES ADJUSTMENTS
A. Background
Even relatively modest errors in sensitivity 共of a few
tenths of a dB兲, or in the ‘‘known’’ hydrophone locations 共of
a few tenths of a cm兲, can produce several dB of error in the
determinations of the amplitudes of the three wave fields
共incident, reflected, transmitted兲 of interest. In order to cir-
cumvent this problem, least-squares adjustments of the hy-
drophone sensitivities and positions, and also of the speed of
sound of the tube fill fluid, are required.
The notion behind the least-squares adjustments is the
determination of those hydrophone sensitivities and posi-
tions, and that speed of sound of the fill fluid, that best sat-
isfy the requirements for echo reduction and insertion loss
when no sample is present. Naturally, with no sample present
one ideally should find a null reflected wave 共infinite echo
reduction兲 and should find a through-the-sample transmitted
wave of amplitude equal to the incident wave 共zero insertion
loss兲.
Although six hydrophones are present in system L, and
although all six are typically used in the creation of a trav-
eling wave within the tube when it is used in its standard
mode of transducer calibration, in the present measurement
only three hydrophones are available for this purpose. Once
a sample has been placed inside the tube near its center, a
standing wave will be created in the reflection region. Three
of the six hydrophones are located in this region, and thus
are unavailable for use in building a traveling wave. The
‘‘no-sample’’ measurements in the system L tube help to es-
tablish the fact that a good traveling wave can indeed be built
using only these three hydrophones.
B. Determination of the ‘‘no-sample’’ system transfer
matrix
Two no-sample data sets are required. The two no-
sample data sets involve measurements of the complex volt-
age responses at each of the six hydrophones for each of two
drive conditions. In each of these tests, one of the projectors
2000 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 4, October 2001 J. C. Piquette and S. E. Forsythe: Low-frequency echo and loss measurement
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 160.36.178.25 On: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:23:40
is driven to steady state while the voltage driving the other
projector is held at zero. Of course, driving the system in this
manner creates a standing wave within the tube.
冉冊
Consider the following equation that defines the
冉冊
system-L transfer matrix:
a 11 a 12
m1
a 21 a 22 m2
a 31
a 41
a 32
a 42
⫻ 冉 冊
d1
d2
⫽
m3
m4
. 共1兲
a 51 a 52 m5
m6
a 61 a 62
Here, the a matrix is the 共initially unknown兲 transfer matrix;
the d matrix is the ‘‘drive’’ matrix, i.e., the complex drive
voltages applied to each of the two projectors; and the m
matrix is the matrix of measured complex responses at each
of the six hydrophones in system L. 共It should be understood
that the elements of the a matrix must be determined not
only for the case in which no sample is present, but must also
be determined afresh for each sample and each condition of
temperature, hydrostatic pressure, and frequency of interest.兲
When measurements are acquired as described above,
each of the 12 elements of the transfer matrix can be deter-
mined, six at a time. For example, when one projector is
driven 共e.g., the projector that corresponds to element d 1 of
the d matrix兲, while the other projector is shorted out 共i.e.,
d 2 ⫽0兲, notice that Eq. 共1兲 reduces to the six equations
a 11d 1 ⫽m 1 ; a 21d 1 ⫽m 2 ; a 31d 1 ⫽m 3 .
共2兲
a 41d 1 ⫽m 4 ; a 51d 1 ⫽m 5 ; and a 61d 1 ⫽m 6 .
Since m 1 through m 6 are the measured hydrophone re-
sponses, and since the applied drive d 1 is obviously also
known, it is clear that Eq. 共2兲 can be used to determine the
unknown 共complex兲 elements a 11 through a 61 of the transfer
matrix. In a similar manner, the remaining six unknown ele-
ments of the transfer matrix are determined when the system
is driven under the conditions d 1 ⫽0 and d 2 ⫽0. Once all the
elements of the a matrix have been determined by this pro-
cess, projector drives that could be used to create a unidirec-
tional traveling wave in the system L tube can be computed.
In principle, a traveling wave can be built within the
tube based on the responses of any two 共or more兲 of the six
hydrophones. To do this, a submatrix equation, consisting of
only those rows of Eq. 共1兲 that are associated with the hy-
drophones that are to be used to build the traveling wave, is
created. Unlike the situation in which the elements of the
transfer matrix were initially determined, in the present case
the d elements of the submatrix equation are unknown, but
the a elements are known. Also, the m elements of this sub-
matrix equation are ‘‘seeded’’ with the desired hydrophone
responses, which correspond to the expected hydrophone re-
sponses to a unidirectional traveling wave. These desired
values are determined by evaluating the unidirectional
traveling-wave function exp关ikx兴 at the 共nominal兲 ‘‘known’’
hydrophone positions x. 共The implied time dependence
exp关⫺i␻t兴 is suppressed.兲 The resulting submatrix equation
can then be solved for the unknown elements of the d matrix.
 Since the submatrix equation has only two unknown quanti-
ties, viz., d 1 and d 2 , but three equations result from the val-
ues at each of the three available hydrophones in the trans-
mission region, the problem is solved using linear least-
squares methods. The problem must be solved at each
measurement frequency and hydrostatic pressure of interest.
The best-fit values of d 1 and d 2 obtained at each frequency
can then be used to evaluate the ‘‘forward’’ problem that
would be observed if these two computed drives were in fact
applied to the projectors in the system L tube. By substituting
these computed drives into Eq. 共1兲, together with the now-
known a-matrix elements for the no-sample case, the re-
sponses at all six hydrophones can then be computed.
C. Least-squares adjustments of hydrophone
sensitivities and positions, and of the sound speed
of the fill fluid
To effect the required least-squares adjustments, a
‘‘cost’’ function must be defined. There is considerable lati-
tude available in the definition of this function. It is impor-
tant that the cost function be defined in a way that ensures
that the adjustments remain relatively small. The principle of
‘‘fitting-to-goal’’ was also adopted in designing this function.
One such condition is that the amplitude of the reflected
wave appearing in the reflection region of the tube when no
sample is present should be as small as possible. The second
condition is that the amplitude of the wave appearing in the
transmission region of the tube when no sample is present
should be as close as possible to the amplitude of the inci-
dent wave. An auxiliary condition imposes the requirement
that the adjustments be small relative to the initial values of
the quantities being adjusted, since it is not expected that the
initial hydrophone sensitivities and positions, as well as the
speed of sound of the tube fill fluid, would ever be grossly in
error.
The specific form of the adopted cost function is
冋
n 5
f⫽ 兺
i⫽1
兩 R i 兩 2 ⫹ 共 1⫺ 兩 T i 兩 兲 2 ⫹W 1 兺 共 1⫺xc j 兲 2
j⫽1
⫹W 2 冋兺 5
j⫽1
册
共 1⫺xc j 兲 ⫹W 3
2 5
兺 共 1⫺ec j 兲 2
j⫽1
⫹W 4 共 1⫺cc 兲 2 . 册 共3兲
The outermost sum of Eq. 共3兲 is taken over the test frequen-
cies of interest. 共This sum excludes certain frequencies at
which there are obvious resonances in the system.兲 The
quantities 兩 R i 兩 are the amplitudes of the effective pressure
reflection coefficients. The quantities 兩 T i 兩 are the amplitudes
of the effective pressure transmission coefficients. The quan-
tities xc j are hydrophone-position ‘‘correction factors,’’
taken initially to be unity. When multiplied times the initial
‘‘known’’ hydrophone positions, these factors produce ‘‘cor-
rected’’ hydrophone positions. The quantities ec i are hydro-
phone calibration correction factors. These are also taken
initially to be unity. The quantity cc is the tube fill-fluid
sound-speed correction factor. The sums that run from j⫽1
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 4, October 2001
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 160.36.178.25 On: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:23:40
to j⫽5 are sums over hydrophones. 共One of the six hydro-
phones in the system is taken to be a reference hydrophone,
whose position and calibration are taken to be known ex-
actly.兲 Finally, the quantities W 1 through W 4 are dimension-
less weighting factors, which determine the extent to which
the associated sums affect the cost function, and whose val-
ues are at our disposal. The following numerical values were
found to give good results:
W 1 ⫽0.2; W 2 ⫽0.1; W 3 ⫽0.1 W 4 ⫽0.1. 共4兲
This scheme for determining corrections was found to pro-
duce reasonable changes to the initial positions, calibrations,
and fill-fluid sound speed. For example, the results of one
typical calculation produced the following set of values:
xc 1 ⫽0.998 35; xc 2 ⫽1.000 40; xc 3 ⫽1.003 61;
xc 4 ⫽0.994 764; xc 5 ⫽1.001 14;
共5兲
ec 1 ⫽0.988 471; ec 2 ⫽0.997 562; ec 3 ⫽1.006 29;
ec 4 ⫽1.023 04; ec 5 ⫽1.010 18; cc⫽0.999 278.
It can be seen that the correction factors do not differ much
from unity, and are distributed mostly randomly, as would be
expected of true measurement errors in the adjusted quanti-
ties. In this way, it is found that the largest absolute change
in hydrophone position is slightly more than 0.7 cm. The
largest change in hydrophone calibration is found to be
slightly less than 0.2 dB. The change in the speed of sound of
the hydrophone fill fluid is less than 1.17 m/s.
The results obtained by applying this procedure to the
data acquired with no sample in the system-L tube, for one
typical case, are shown in Figs. 2共a兲 and 共b兲 and Fig. 3. In
Fig. 2共a兲 the effective echo reduction seen at the three hy-
drophones used to build the traveling wave in the through-
the-sample transmitted-wave region is shown. It is seen that
typical echo reductions in this region are of the order of 70
dB, except at obvious tube resonances. These extremely high
echo reductions are to be expected, since the traveling-wave
drives have been computed using the transfer function as
determined at these particular hydrophones.
In Fig. 2共b兲 the effective echo reductions computed at
the other triad of hydrophones, that is, the three hydrophones
that were not used to establish the traveling wave, are shown.
The associated pressure reflection coefficients are those used
in the computation of the R i quantities of Eq. 共3兲. The typical
value seen in Fig. 2共b兲 of the associated echo reduction is
about 40 dB. 共When no corrections are applied to the hydro-
phone calibrations and positions, and to the sound speed of
the tube fill fluid, the typical echo reductions seen at these
hydrophones are about 25 dB. Thus, the small corrections to
these quantities have a significant impact upon the reduction
of measurement error.兲 The typical value of 40 dB for the
echo reduction suggests that a reflected ‘‘error wave’’ of am-
plitude about 1% of that of the incident wave is present in
the reflection region of the tube. If an error wave of this same
amplitude is also present when a sample of 20-dB intrinsic
echo reduction is being measured in system L using the
present method, an error of slightly less than 1 dB in the
J. C. Piquette and S. E. Forsythe: Low-frequency echo and loss measurement 2001

FIG. 2. 共a兲 Effective echo reduction, obtained at the three hydrophones
located in the transmission region shown in Fig. 1, when no sample is
present in the tube. The very large numerical values are obtained simply
because the LS determination of the projector drives is only a slightly over-
determined problem, with the two required drives being determined from the
three hydrophones available in the transmission region using a least-squares
process. 共TW⫽traveling wave; ER⫽echo reduction兲. 共b兲 Effective echo re-
duction, obtained at the three hydrophones located in the reflection region
shown in Fig. 1, when no sample is present in the tube. It can be seen that
the typical value obtained for the echo reduction is about 40 dB, ignoring
obvious tube resonances. If no adjustments of the hydrophone sensitivities
and positions, as well as the speed of sound of the tube fill fluid were
performed 共as described in the text兲, the typical echo reduction obtained at
these hydrophones for this case is about 25 dB. 共TW⫽traveling wave;
ER⫽echo reduction兲.
measurement can be expected. For a sample of 30-dB intrin-
sic echo reduction, the measurement error could be some-
what greater than 3 dB.
In Fig. 3 is shown the effective insertion loss when no
FIG. 3. Effective insertion loss, obtained in the transmission region shown
in Fig. 1, when no sample is present. This insertion loss is computed by
combining the results obtained from the triad of hydrophones located in this
region with those obtained from the triad in the reflection region, required to
determine the incident-wave amplitude. It is seen that the typical insertion
loss obtained is about 0.1 dB, except at obvious tube resonances. If no
adjustments of the hydrophone sensitivities and positions, and the fill-fluid
sound speed, were performed, the typical insertion loss obtained is about 1
dB. 共TW⫽traveling wave; IL⫽insertion loss兲.
2002 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 4, October 2001 J. C. Piquette and S. E. Forsythe: Low-frequency echo and loss measurement
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 160.36.178.25 On: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:23:40
sample is present. This is the insertion loss associated with
the T i quantities of Eq. 共3兲. The typical insertion loss seen in
this figure is of the order of magnitude of about 0.1 dB. This
again suggests that a through-the-sample transmitted error
wave of amplitude about 1% of that of the incident wave is
present in the transmission region. The respective insertion-
loss errors, in samples that are characterized by 20- to 30-dB
intrinsic insertion loss, are again in the 1- to 3-dB range,
respectively.
V. ‘‘WITH-SAMPLE’’ EXPERIMENTS
A. Acoustic Pressure Tank Facility „APTF…
measurements
Before acquiring any data with samples in system L, a
relatively large sample was first tested in APTF. This sample
共a decoupler兲 was measured in order to obtain baseline re-
sults that could be used to judge the quality of the system L
measurements. The dimensions of the test panel were ap-
proximately 82⫻92 cm (32 41 in.⫻36 41 in.), and the sample
was of approximately 5-cm 共2-in.兲 thickness. This relatively
large panel size enabled the use of standard measurement
techniques to approximately determine sample response in
the frequency interval of interest. Although highly accurate
measurements at the frequencies of interest in system L
could not be conducted in APTF, the measurements could be
extrapolated into the desired frequency regime. This was
possible because the sample of interest consisted of a single-
layer material; edge diffraction was found not to be too
strong; and new causal theoretical expressions for the sound
speed and loss of the material could be employed in the
extrapolations. We developed these theoretical expressions
using the appropriate Hilbert transform implementation of
the causality principle.5 The transforms were carried out ana-
lytically. The results of the analytical calculations were also
verified numerically.
The model we used to derive a causal relationship be-
tween the sound speed and loss of the sample, based on the
use of Kramers–Kronig relations,5 is of the form
␻ ␻
⫽ ⫹ 关 ␣ 共 ␻ 兲兴 , 共6兲
c phase共 ␻ 兲 c ⬁
where ␻ denotes the angular frequency; c phase( ␻ ) and ␣共␻兲
are the phase speed and loss of the sample material expressed
as functions of ␻, respectively; c ⬁ is the phase speed at
infinite frequency; and the 关 兴 notation denotes the Hilbert
transform. The numerical value of c ⬁ is to be determined by
least-squares fitting.
In order that Eq. 共6兲 yield reasonable results without
requiring the introduction of specialized methods of
analysis,6 it is helpful to use only functions for ␣共␻兲 that
remain finite as ␻ →⬁. We chose to introduce a loss function
that is approximately linear with frequency, at least over a
major segment of the frequency interval of our experiments,
and to use a filtering function to eliminate the divergence for
large frequencies. The loss function we chose to introduce is
a 1兩 ␻ / ␻ 0兩
␣共 ␻ 兲⫽ , 共7兲
1⫹b 共 ␻ / ␻ 0 兲 4
 where a 1 is a constant that measures the ‘‘strength’’ of the
loss, and which is to be determined by least-squares fitting.
关Note that the function defined in Eq. 共7兲 is approximately
linear for frequencies below ␻ 0 .兴 The constants b and ␻ 0 are
parameters that describe the filter characteristics, and their
values are at our disposal. The choice of a filter with a
fourth-order pole is somewhat arbitrary, but this ensures rela-
tively rapid convergence of the Hilbert-transform integral.
Fortunately, the Hilbert transform of a( ␻ ) as given by Eq.
共7兲 can be carried out analytically in a straightforward fash-
ion. The result is

关 ␣ 共 ␻ 兲兴 ⫽⫺
冉
a 1 ␻ 0 ␻ ␲ 冑b ␻ 2 ⫹ ␻ 20 ln 冉 冊冊
b␻4
␻ 40
. 共8兲
2 ␲ 共 b ␻ 4 ⫹ ␻ 40 兲

Here ln denotes the natural logarithm.

Panel measurements, as acquired in APTF, directly mea-
sure the amplitudes and phases of the incident, reflected, and
through-the-panel transmitted waves. Unfortunately, it is not
possible to avoid the contaminating influence of the wave
originating at the sample edge for the current sample
(32 14 in.⫻36 41 in.) at the frequencies of interest. Thus, even if
the causal model described above were an exact description
of sample performance, exact agreement between theory and
measurement would not be expected. However, since the
model involves only two adjustable parameters 共c ⬁ and a 1 兲,
it was hoped that least-squares fitting would help to discrimi-
nate against edge effects, essentially treating these effects as
a form of 共coherent兲 noise. Since many frequencies are in-
volved in the fitting process but only two constants are being
adjusted, it was felt that the combined effects of the many
test frequencies involved, covering the wide frequency inter-
val of 250 to 15 000 Hz, might reduce the influence of the
coherent noise.
The causal dispersion model of Eqs. 共6兲–共8兲 was incor-
porated into a single-layer reflection/transmission model of
the sample, and the resulting model was fitted to the APTF
data acquired from the panel to determine c ⬁ and a 1 at each
hydrostatic pressure. In Figs. 4共a兲 and 共b兲 and Figs. 5共a兲 and
共b兲 are shown the results of the measurements and of the
fitting process for two of the hydrostatic pressures that were
tested. Data are shown as dots, while the theoretical results,
based on least-squares fitting of the causal model, are shown
as solid lines. The solid lines are extended down to 100 Hz in
order to cover the low-frequency limit to be tested in system
L. 共The low-frequency cutoff for the insertion-loss measure-
ments in APTF was 250 Hz, while the low-frequency limit of
the echo-reduction measurements was 2000 Hz. These low-
frequency limits are well below those usually applied in that
facility.兲 As can be seen, the theory agrees reasonably well
with the measurements over much of the data, although the
effects of edge diffraction are clearly present, especially in
Fig. 5共b兲.
In fitting the APTF measurements, the filter parameters
of the causal model were set such that ␻ 0
⫽2 ␲ 40 000 radians/s and b⫽0.5 共dimensionless兲 in all
cases. At the 100 psi hydrostatic test pressure used in the
measurements presented in Figs. 4共a兲 and 共b兲, the two fitted
1
FIG. 4. Insertion loss and echo reduction of the 82⫻92-cm (32 4 -in.
1
⫻36 4 -in.) panel at a hydrostatic test pressure of 689 kPa 共100 psi兲. Dots are
data; solid lines are from a least-squares fit of a causal panel model to the
measurements. Two parameters were adjusted in the fits. 共a兲 Insertion loss.
共b兲 Echo reduction.
model parameters were found to be c ⬁ ⫽3.5⫻104 cm/s and
a 1 ⫽2.1 cm⫺1. At the 500 psi hydrostatic test pressure,
shown in Figs. 5共a兲 and 共b兲, the two fitted model parameters
were found to be c ⬁ ⫽3.9⫻104 cm/s and a 1 ⫽1.1 cm⫺1.
These values, and their changes with hydrostatic pressure,
are reasonable for the sample under test. At 100 psi, the
sound speed in the material, which can be computed from the
causal model of Eqs. 共6兲–共8兲 using the fitted constants, is
about 2.7⫻104 cm/s, while the associated loss factor is about
0.53 cm⫺1. At 500 psi, the computed sound speed in the
material is about 3.3⫻104 cm/s, while the loss factor is about
0.28 cm⫺1.
B. Sample measurements in system L
An approximately circular subsample of 38-cm 共15-in.兲
diameter was next cut from one corner of the 32 41 -in.
⫻36 14 -in. decoupler panel for testing in system L. A corner
cut was used to permit retesting of the panel in APTF, should
that have proved necessary. The subsample was then
mounted in system L, and suitable measurements acquired.
Recall that the basic concept behind the present mea-
surement method involves driving the two transducers to cre-
ate a traveling wave on one side of the sample and a standing
wave on the other. However, there is no need in practice to
actually produce such waves within the system when a
sample is present. The same kinds of standing-wave mea-
surements used to determine the system transfer function
when no sample is present in the tube can also be used when

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 4, October 2001 J. C. Piquette and S. E. Forsythe: Low-frequency echo and loss measurement 2003

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 160.36.178.25 On: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:23:40
 1
FIG. 5. Insertion loss and echo reduction of the large panel (32 4 -in.
1
⫻36 4 -in.) at a hydrostatic test pressure of 3450 kPa 共500 psi兲. Dots are
data; solid lines from a least-squares fit of a causal panel model to the
measurements. Two parameters were adjusted in the fits. 共a兲 Insertion loss.
共b兲 Echo reduction.
a sample is present as well. That is, when a sample is present
a transfer-matrix equation of the form of Eq. 共1兲 still applies
to the measurements. Of course, the elements of the transfer
matrix will obviously be different depending upon whether
or not a sample is present, and will obviously be different for
each sample and each particular test circumstance. Moreover,
the same technique used to determine the projector drives
that would produce a unidirectional traveling wave in the
transmission region when no sample is present can again be
used to determine the drives needed to establish such a wave
even when a sample is present. Once the measurements that
determine the transfer matrix elements for the with-sample
case have been acquired, there is no need to actually estab-
lish these waves in the tube. The amplitudes of the waves
that would appear in each half of the tube can be determined
instead from the with-sample transfer matrix, and the ampli-
tudes of these waves can be combined in the usual way to
determine sample echo reduction and insertion loss.
The results obtained when the decoupler subsample was
evaluated in this way are shown in Figs. 6共a兲 and 共b兲 and
Figs. 7共a兲 and 共b兲. The dots once again are the measured
values, obtained by the present method, and the solid lines
are theoretical values based on extrapolating the APTF mea-
surements. The two adjusted parameters determined at each
hydrostatic pressure tested in APTF were used in the theo-
retical expressions of the causal model to compute the solid-
line curves shown in the figures. As can be seen, agreement
between the measurements and the extrapolations is quite
good.
2004 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 4, October 2001 J. C. Piquette and S. E. Forsythe: Low-frequency echo and loss measurement
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 160.36.178.25 On: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:23:40
FIG. 6. Insertion loss and echo reduction, at a hydrostatic test pressure of
689 kPa 共100 psi兲, of an approximately circular, 38-cm diameter, subsample
1 1
cut from the 32 4 -in.⫻36 4 -in. panel, as tested using the new procedure in
system L. Dots are data; solid lines are extrapolations of the causal model
fitted to the large-panel measurements shown in Fig. 4. 共a兲 Insertion loss. 共b兲
Echo reduction.
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A technique for measuring the echo reduction and the
insertion loss of small passive-material samples in NUWC’s
system L was described. The method allows for the measure-
ments to be acquired over the full range of ocean environ-
mental conditions in the frequency range of 100 to 1750 Hz.
‘‘No-sample’’ measurements are acquired in system L and
are used to adjust the hydrophone sensitivities and positions.
The speed of sound of the tube fill fluid 共a propylene glycol/
water mixture兲 is also adjusted. With-sample measurements
are obtained and are used to determine the elements of the
transfer matrix of the tube/sample system. 共The corrected
quantities deduced from the no-sample tests are held fixed in
determining the elements of the with-sample transfer ma-
trix.兲 This transfer matrix is then used to determine the echo
reduction and the insertion loss of the sample under test.
A causal material model was developed and applied to
measurements acquired from a relatively large sample panel
evaluated in NUWC’s APTF. The model was used to ex-
trapolate the APTF measurements into the frequency range
of system L. The extrapolations showed good agreement
with the direct measurements acquired using the new
method.

FIG. 7. Insertion loss and echo reduction, at a hydrostatic test pressure of
3450 kPa 共500 psi兲, of an approximately circular, 38-cm diameter, sub-
1 1
sample cut from the 32 4 -in.⫻36 4 -in. panel, as tested using the new proce-
dure in system L. Dots are data; solid lines are extrapolations of a causal
model fitted to the large-panel measurements shown in Fig. 5. 共a兲 Insertion
loss. 共b兲 Echo reduction.
The new technique is currently available for evaluation
of customer samples in system L.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Alfred
Garceau, who prepared the samples and acquired the data
from system L. We are also grateful to Dr. James J. Dlubac,
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, West Be-
thesda, Maryland, for providing material samples and for
valuable technical consultation. The work was supported by
the Office of Naval Research 共Code 321兲.
APPENDIX: AREA CORRECTION FOR SAMPLES
THAT DO NOT FILL THE TUBE COMPLETELY
In our experimental apparatus it is impossible to com-
pletely fill the system L tube with a material sample. This
results in an experimental error since the effect of the smaller
sample is based on a mix of the sample volume and the fluid
volume that is replacing the rest of the ideal sample’s outer
perimeter. For low frequencies, following the analysis in
Kinsler and Frey7 of the effective impedance of a branching
pipe, we can define the relevant acoustic quantities following
Fig. 8:
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 4, October 2001 J. C. Piquette and S. E. Forsythe: Low-frequency echo and loss measurement
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 160.36.178.25 On: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:23:40
FIG. 8. Boundary conditions and pertinent acoustic variables for a branch-
ing pipe.
共1兲 A is the relative surface area of the sample 共A⫽1 com-
pletely fills the pipe兲.
共2兲 L, R are the complex pressures of the left- and right-
moving waves. Here, we assume without loss of gener-
ality that an outgoing traveling wave field is established
at the right tube end and that the pressure of the incom-
ing wave at the left is unity.
共3兲 l 1 , l 2 , r 1 , r 2 are the complex pressures of the left- and
right-moving waves on either side of the sample in the
upper 共sample-only兲 branch of the pipe.
共4兲 l 3 , l 4 , r 3 , r 4 are the complex pressures of the left- and
right-moving waves on either side of the fluid sample in
the lower 共fluid-only兲 branch of the pipe.
共5兲 R s , T s , R s⬘ , T s⬘ are the reflection and transmission co-
efficients of the sample in the forward and reversed di-
rection. For multilayered samples, R s and R s⬘ are in gen-
eral different, but T s and T s⬘ are equal 共see Rudgers8兲.
共6兲 T f is the transmission coefficient of the fluid 共lower
branch兲. This number has magnitude 1.0 but has a phase
associated with the travel time through a layer of fluid
equal to the thickness of the panel 共required to keep the
definition of transmission coefficient consistent as a
phase shift relative to the incident wave for both fluid
and sample兲. The reflection coefficient of the fluid
sample is 0.
The relevant continuity conditions are
共1兲 l 1 ⫽R s r 1 ⫹T s⬘ l 2 共transmission and reflection through the
sample兲,
共2兲 r 2 ⫽T s r 1 ⫹R s⬘ l 2 共transmission and reflection through the
sample兲,
共3兲 l 4 ⫽T f l 3 共transmission through the sample thickness of
fluid兲,
共4兲 r 4 ⫽T f r 3 共transmission through the sample thickness of
fluid兲,
共5兲 1⫹L⫽l 1 ⫹r 1 共continuity of pressure at the top left
fork兲,
共6兲 1⫹L⫽l 3 ⫹r 3 共continuity of pressure through the bottom
left fork兲,
共7兲 R⫽l 2 ⫹r 2 共continuity of pressure at the top right fork兲,
共8兲 R⫽l 4 ⫹r 4 共continuity of pressure at the bottom right
fork兲,
共9兲 1⫺L⫽A(r 1 ⫺l 1 )⫹(1⫺A)(r 3 ⫺l 3 ) 共continuity of vol-
ume velocity at left fork兲,
2005
 TABLE I. Comparison of analytical and CHIEF results.

Frequency Analytical R s CHIEF R s Analytical T s CHIEF T s

500 ⫺0.034 154⫺0.005 671 7i ⫺0.034 106⫺0.006 822 5i 0.961 71⫹0.135 58i 0.961 93⫹0.135 56i
1000 ⫺0.073 975⫺0.027 533i ⫺0.075 313⫺0.028 784i 0.906 18⫹0.261 51i 0.905 07⫹0.261 33i
1500 ⫺0.113 55⫺0.066 766i ⫺0.117 98⫺0.068 186i 0.834 04⫹0.375 63i 0.832 08⫹0.0374 69i
2000 ⫺0.146 77⫺0.122 63i ⫺0.152 98⫺0.123 03i 0.746 61⫹0.475 01i 0.743 96⫹0.471 84i
2500 ⫺0.168 05⫺0.192 29i ⫺0.175 41⫺0.199 75i 0.646 41⫹0.556 52i 0.641 03⫹0.550 5i
3000 ⫺0.173 14⫺0.271 08i ⫺0.181 64⫺0.284 7i 0.537 81⫹0.617 52i 0.527 65⫹0.603 65i

共10兲 R⫽A(r 2 ⫺l 2 )⫹(1⫺A)(r 4 ⫺l 4 ) 共continuity of volume Here, T f is e ikd , the phase correction for traveling through
velocity at right fork兲. the thickness of fluid, d, at the sample edge; A is the area
correction ratio.
共A1兲
The above expressions for transmission and reflection
coefficients were tested using a model of the system L tube
The above system can be solved for R s and T s , eliminating
and a sample with realistic material properties based on our
all but the variables L, R, R s⬘ , T s⬘ , and A. At this point, it can
version of CHIEF 共combined Helmholtz integral equation
be assumed that two sets of measurements were done: first
formulation.兲9,10 The system L tube and sample were simu-
with the sample in its ‘‘normal’’ position, with measured re-
lated, the ends of the tube were driven by imposing unit
flected and transmitted amplitudes L 1 and R 1 and then with
surface velocity on the left and right ends of the tube, suc-
the sample in the ‘‘flipped’’ position 共turned 180 deg along
cessively, and the pressure field was measured at points in
the pipe axis to face the other way兲 with corresponding am-
the tube corresponding to actual hydrophone locations. The
plitudes L 2 and R 2 for the reflected and transmitted waves.
sample was defined as being 2-in. thick 共two 1-in. layers兲
共In fact, the flipped response can be derived by using the two
with the following material properties 共shear was assumed
with-sample measurements to calculate incident, transmitted,
negligible兲:
and reflected waves with the outgoing wave in the opposite
direction, so no more measurements are needed.兲 ␳ 1 ⫽1800 kg/m3, c l1 ⫽2600⫹520i m/s
The above-described reflection and transmission coeffi-
cients can then be written as 共 imaginary part represents loss兲 , c s1 ⫽0,

共1兲 R s ⫽R s (L 1 ,R 1 ,A,T s⬘ ), ␳ 2 ⫽800 kg/m3, c l2 ⫽1000⫹200i m/s, c s2 ⫽0.

共2兲 R s⬘ ⫽R s⬘ (L 2 ,R 2 ,A,T s ), The radius of the sample was taken to be 0.7071 times the
共A2兲
共3兲 T s ⫽T s (L 1 ,R 1 ,A,R s⬘ ), radius of the tube, giving an area ratio of 0.5. The results are
共4兲 T s⬘ ⫽T s⬘ (L 2 ,R 2 ,A,R s ), given in Table I. As can be seen by inspection, the agreement
is good at all frequencies, with deviations increasing with
where the R s ( ), etc., are the functional forms derived from
frequency as the assumptions about the plane wave unifor-
Eq. 共A1兲 above with the L 1 , L 2 , etc. substituted for the L
mity of the field begin to break down.
and R in the original solution.
Solving the above system gives
共 1 兲 R s ⫽⫺ 共 L 1 L 2 兲 ⫹ 共 R 1 ⫺T f 兲共 R 2 ⫺T f 兲 ⫹A 共共 R 1 ⫺T f 兲
R. J. Bobber, Underwater Electroacoustic Measurements 共U. S. Govern-
1

ment Printing Office, Washington, 1970兲, pp. 287–299.

⫻ 共 ⫺R 2 ⫹T f 兲 ⫹L 1 共 1⫹L 2 ⫺T 2f 兲兲 /D,
共 2 兲 R s⬘ ⫽⫺ 共 L1L2 兲 ⫹ 共 R 1 ⫺T f 兲共 R 2 ⫺T f 兲 ⫹A 共共 R 1 ⫺T f 兲
⫻ 共 ⫺R 2 ⫹T f 兲 ⫹L 2 共 1⫹L 1 ⫺T 2f 兲兲 /D,
共A3兲
共 3 兲 T s ⫽A 共共 A⫺1 兲共 1⫹L 1 兲共 1⫹L 2 兲 T f ⫺R 1 共共 A⫺1 兲 R 2 T f
⫹T 2f 兲 ⫺1 兲 /D,
共 4 兲 T s⬘ ⫽A 共共 A⫺1 兲共 1⫹L 1 兲共 1⫹L 2 兲 T f
⫺R 2 共共 A⫺1 兲 R 1 T f ⫹T 2f 兲 ⫺1 兲 /D,
where
D⫽L1L2⫹A 2 共 1⫹L1⫹L2⫹L1L2⫺R1R2 兲
⫹ 共 R1⫺T f 兲共 T f ⫺R2 兲 ⫺A 共 L1⫹L2⫹2L1L2
10
⫺2R1R2⫹R1T f ⫹R2T f 兲 .
2
J. C. Piquette, ‘‘Transmission coefficient measurement and improved su-
blayer material property determination for thick underwater acoustic pan-
els: A generalization and improvement of the ONION method,’’ J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 92, 468 – 477 共1992兲.
3
See Ref. 1, pp. 305–310.
4
L. G. Beatty, ‘‘Acoustic impedance in a rigid-walled cylindrical sound
channel terminated at both ends with active transducers,’’ J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 36, 1081–1089 共1964兲.
5
See, for example, C. W. Horton, ‘‘Dispersion relationships in sediments
and sea water,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 55, 547–549 共1974兲.
6
K. R. Waters, M. S. Hughes, J. Mobley, and J. G. Miller, ‘‘On the appli-
cability of Kramers–Kronig relations for untrasonic attenuation obeying a
frequency power law,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108, 556 –563 共2000兲.
7
L. E. Kinsler, A. R. Frey, A. B. Coppens, and J. V. Sanders, Fundamentals
of Acoustics, 3rd ed. 共Wiley, New York, 1982兲, pp. 235–237.
8
A. J. Rudgers and C. A. Solvoid, ‘‘Apparatus-independent acoustical-
material characteristics obtained from panel-test measurements,’’ J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 76, 926 –934 共1984兲.
9
G. W. Benthien, D. Barach, and D. Gillette, CHIEF User’s Manual 共Naval
Oceans System Center, 1988兲.
H. Schenck, ‘‘Improved integral formulation for acoustic radiation prob-
lems,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 44, 41–58 共1968兲.

2006 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 4, October 2001 J. C. Piquette and S. E. Forsythe: Low-frequency echo and loss measurement

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 160.36.178.25 On: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:23:40