190 likes | 262 Views
Analytic and Experimental Results of Spatial Correlations of Vector Intensity Sensors. Nathan K. Naluai Graduate Program in Acoustics Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 nathan.naluai@navy.mil. “Diffuse Field” Model of Isotropic Noise.
E N D
Analytic and Experimental Results of Spatial Correlations ofVector Intensity Sensors Nathan K. Naluai Graduate Program in Acoustics Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 nathan.naluai@navy.mil
“Diffuse Field” Model of Isotropic Noise • Generally assumes sound coming from all directions • One model definition (Jacobsen) • Sound field in unbounded medium • Generated by distant, uncorrelated sources • Sources uniformly distributed over all directions • Field would be homogeneous and isotropic • Time-averaged intensity is zero at all positions
z θi kij uz(ra ,t) ux(rb ,t) p(0,t) y φj x Coordinate System Orientation Notation conventions:
Analytic Solutions for Spatial Correlationsof Separated Sensors in Isotropic Noise
Intensity Correlation Derivations Instantaneous Intensity: The correlation between spatially separated intensity sensors is:
Intensity Correlation Derivations For four Gaussian random variables [Bendat & Piersol]: Can re-write the intensity correlation expression as
Analytic Expressions for Spatial Correlationsof Intensity Sensors in Isotropic Noise
1 1 0.5 0.5 Correlation Coefficient 0 0 -0.5 -0.5 -1 -1 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Spacing (in wavelengths, λ) Correlations for Separated Sensors in Isotropic Noise Correlation Coefficient Spacing (in wavelengths, λ)
N4 N7 N10 Computational Experiment Design/Layout • Computational Simulation in MATLAB environment • Source distribution determined by variable M, (no. of sources about “equator”) • Each source generating noise (0-6.4kHz band) • Signals oversampled to allow for 1mm separation resolution • Assumptions • Plane wave superposition • Sensor separation: 7cm • Air-like medium (c, ρ) r1 r2
Where S can be considered the number of sample “locations” in field. Resulting curve is the average over those locations Pressure-Pressure Spatial Correlations 1 Simulation 0.8 Theory 0.6 p 2 p ρ 0.4 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 kd Input Parameters for Computational Experiment
1 Simulation Theory 0.8 0.6 xy 2 r 0.4 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 kd Equal Amplitude Distribution (Ideal Case)
1 Simulation Theory 0.8 0.6 xy 2 r 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 kd Equal Amplitude Distribution (Ideal Case)
1 Random Amplit. Theory COS Weighting 0.5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 kd 1 Random Amplit. Theory COS Weighting 0.5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 kd Random Amplitude Source Weighting
Effect of Inter-channel Phase Offsets on Correlation Random Phase held fixed over averaging period Theory 0.6 Mismatched 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 kd Phase shift applied on every 3rd average Theory 0.6 Mismatched 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 kd
8.5m to Amp (R-Ch) to Amp (L-Ch) 5.5m 0.197 m 6.1 m Physical Correlation Measurements • Reverberant Acoustic Test Tank (ASB-PSU) • Two Lubell LL-9162 sources (uncorrelated noise) • Low freq. rolloff at 1-kHz • pa-probe (McConnell) • Sensitivity axes aligned • Outputs recorded at four separate locations in tank. • 64 avgs at each location
1 1 Theory Theory Simulation Simulation Experimental Experimental 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 kd kd Physical Correlation Measurements
1 1 Theory Theory Simulation Simulation Experimental Experimental 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 kd kd Physical Correlation Measurements
1 1 Theory Theory Simulation Simulation Experimental Experimental 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 kd kd Physical Correlation Measurements
Summary • Analytical solutions for spatially separated Intensity measurements have been derived and verified experimentally • Constant phase offsets have no effect on the agreement between the coherence and the theoretical predictions • Intensity measurements demonstrate shorter correlation lengths than the component measures • Suggest that intensity processing of vector sensor arrays may be less susceptible to ambient noise contamination than traditional pressure hydrophone array. • Examine performance of intensity vector sensor arrays • Possible gains in directivity