Toward Development of Standard

Practices in Direct Field Acoustic

Testing
Mike Van Dyke

The Aerospace Corporation

June 26-28, 2007

Copyright 2007, The Aerospace Corporation. All rights reserved

1
 Objectives

Illustrate need for developing industry standard practices for

direct field acoustic testing

Highlight work done by Aerospace

Solicit feedback and call for industry participation

2
 Direct Field Acoustic Testing
Acoustic testing that relies primarily on the control of the
direct sound field from acoustic sources with the objective of
exposing a test article to specified average test levels
Compared to reverberant
chamber testing that relies on
controlled excitation of the
characteristic reverberant
response of a chamber to
achieve specified test levels

Usually implemented with array

of electrodynamic loudspeakers
surrounding test article

3
 Attractive Features of Direct Field
Acoustic Testing
Test can be performed in variety of test spaces
Reason: Less dependence on room characteristics to achieve desired levels
Portable test equipment
Test equipment can be configured to accommodate test article and space

In situ testing minimizes issues related to transportation

Eliminates logistic, safety issues associated with use of nitrogen (typically
used in chamber testing to reduce attenuation of high frequency waves)
Minimal number of personnel needed to operate test
Testing can be performed by vendor if no equipment/expertise available
Easy to make many test iterations for investigative, experimental testing
Enables non-conventional test capabilities for specific purposes
Simulation of spatial sound gradients
Non-stationary acoustic testing
Narrowband control of sound spectrum (Larkin, Smallwood, 2003)

4
 Relative Influence of Direct and
Reverberant Fields on Test Article
Direct Field Direct Field
Reverberant Field critical Reverberant Field
Total Pressure Field distance Total Pressure Field

sound pressure level (dB)

sound pressure level (dB)

critical
distance
Reverberant
Reverberant field
Direct field field dominates
dominates dominates

source test article source test article

distance from source distance from source

Case 1: Room With Low Reverberance* Case 2: Room With High Reverberance*

Test article lies in region Test article lies in region

dominated by direct field dominated by reverberant field
* Frequency Dependent

5
 Sensitivity of Direct Field Acoustic
Testing to Test Configuration
Achievable sound levels dependent on proximity, number of
sources

Spatial distribution of direct acoustic field non-uniform and

dependent on
Loudspeaker placement and orientation with respect to test article
Directivity of sound source
Directivity effect increases where half-wavelength < driver diameter
Control microphone placement
e.g., mic placed in acoustic minimum can cause over-test, visa versa
Test article size and geometry (scattering characteristics)
Correlation and phasing between source loudspeakers

6
 Sensitivity of Direct Field Acoustic
Testing to Test Configuration
Acoustic waves impinge on test article at discrete incidence
angles (vs. random incidence angles reverberant chamber diffuse
field)
Dependent on source orientation and location
Affects vibroacoustic response and transmission loss of test structures
Difference in panel response to normal vs. diffuse incidence noted previously
(Larkin, et al, 1999, Anthony, et al, 1999)

All of the above considerations are frequency dependent

7
 Research Efforts by Aerospace

Immediate objective
Develop in-house direct field acoustic testing capability
Initial phases Testing at Sandia National Laboratories
Follow-on phase purchase equipment and demonstrate mobile
test capability

Long term objectives

Customer support using test capability
Portable characterization testing, vibroacoustic anomaly resolution
Actively participate in developing industry best practices

8
 Current Research Activities
Performed testing at Sandia National Laboratories facility*
Validated equipment suite as prototype for Aerospace portable direct
acoustic testing laboratory
To be used for characterization testing of small to mid-sized test articles
Achieved 132 dB overall SPL in direct field dominant test space (highbay)

Collected initial data sets for characterizing direct acoustic testing

Comparison between two test spaces
Highbay low reverberance (T60 < 1 sec), direct field dominates at test article
Reverberant Chamber high reverberance (T60 ~ 10 sec) reverberant field
dominates
52 test runs using various configurations
Loudspeaker configuration
Control microphone number and placement
Test article orientation
24 x 48 x aluminum honeycomb panel for nominal test article

*Tests conducted by SNL using SNL equipment

9
 Example Test Configuration
Microphone (top view) SB-1000 M4
Heights

VA4

test panel
Control mics VA4
R7,8
C1-C6 (6 positions, 120o 90o
centered single mic) 60o
24 150o 30o

Setup in Highbay Panel centered vertically

12 12 0o
With VA4 loudspeakers VA4 180o VA4
36

210o 330o
A3
SB-1000s
(stacked 2-high) 240o 300o
A2
270o
48 A1
2 x 4 x VA4 VA4
24 Honeycomb
Test panel Reference mics
A4
SB-1000 M4
Setup in Reverberant Chamber

10
 Test Control Highbay vs. Chamber
Example test configuration diagram on previous chart
Control Mics in Highbay Control Mics in Reverberant Chamber
135 135
Spec Spec
130 Ctrl Avg 130 Ctrl Avg
Ctrl Envelope Ctrl Envelope
Tolerance Tolerance
125 125
SPL in dB re 20 Pa

SPL in dB re 20 Pa
120 120

115 115

110 110

105 105

100 100

95 95
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency Frequency

Control mic average well within tolerance for both highbay and chamber test spaces

Spatial variability between control mics more pronounced in mid-frequency range for
direct field dominated highbay test space (shown by envelope of control mic max
and min)

11
 Reference Mics Highbay vs. Chamber
Example test configuration
Reference Mics in Highbay Reference Mics in Reverberant Chamber
135 135
Spec Spec
130 Ref Mic R7 130 Ref Mic R7
Ref Mic R8 Ref Mic R8
Tolerance Tolerance
125 125

SPL in dB re 20 Pa
SPL in dB re 20 Pa

120 120

115 115

110 110

105 105

100 100

95 95
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency Frequency

Reference mics not in control loop purpose to measure sound field near test article
(12 from center)

Frequency response variance from nominal spec more pronounced in highbay test
space (direct field dominated)

12
Panel Response Highbay vs. Chamber
Example test configuration (Response at panel center)
1
Panel Center Response PSD: Highbay vs. Chamber Tests
10
___ Highbay (10.2 grms)
Highbay
0
10
___ Chamber (10.6 grms)
Chamber

-1
10
g /Hz

-2
10
2

-3
10

-4
10

2 3
10 10
frequency

Primary differences noted in major panel mode responses

Overall grms response is comparable for this particular configuration

13
 Panel Response Comparison
Selected Configurations
Highbay
RMS Panel Response Scatter direct
(dominant Over Run
Highbay Configuration
Series
field) RMS Panel Response Scatter Over Run Series
Chamber (dominant reverberant field)
Chamber Configuration
Panel Response Variability for Different Test Configs Panel Response Variability for Different Test Configs
22 22
20 20
18 18
16 16
14 14
g's rms

g's rms
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
Avg Avg
2 2
0 Upper Lower 0 Upper Lower
Center (A1) Off-Center Center (A1) Off-Center
(A2) Corner (A3) Corner (A4) (A2) Corner (A3) Corner (A4)
Variations on example test configuration
Fixed test article and loudspeaker placement - VA4s placed at 60 deg
3 control mics @ 120 deg, 6 control mics @ 60 deg, clocking of control mics
Response variation between configurations comparable between highbay and chamber.
Overall responses slightly higher for runs in reverberant chamber test space

14
 Highbay Test Space: Panel Response
vs. All Test Configurations
31 runs performed in highbay with
Rms Panel Response
Highbay (dominantScatter Over All
direct field) different test configurations
Test
Panel Configurations
Response infor
Variability Highbay Test
Different TestSpace
Configs
Loudspeakers spaced @ 120 deg vs.
22 60 deg.
20 Test article orientation (clocking) with
18 respect to loudspeakers
16 Control mic number, placement
14
g's rms

12
10 Measure of panel response shows
8 significant scatter around mean
6
4
Changes in loudspeaker spacing and
test article orientation contributed
2
significantly to scatter
0 Center (A1) Off-Center Upper Lower
(A2) Corner (A3) Corner (A4)

Note: results highly repeatable for

any single configuration

15
 Initial Observations from Testing
Test specification with overall SPL = 132 dB achieved well within
tolerance with equipment used

Spatial variability of sound field more pronounced for highbay test

space (direct sound field dominant) than for chamber (reverberant
sound field dominant)

Panel response comparable between highbay test space and

chamber test space for similar selected test configurations
Differences pronounced in comparison of response of major modes

Wide variability of panel response noted between different

configurations in highbay test space (dominated by direct field)

16
 General Observation
Direct field acoustic testing prone to variability in results,
depending on test configuration
Lends itself to wide variation of test configurations, while particularly
sensitive to test configuration
Achieving spec with control mic average does NOT guarantee
consistent test results
No direct control of entire sound field at test article
Structural response, sound transmission and scattering also dependent upon
angle of incidence and spatial correlation not indicated by control SPL

Industry-wide acceptance of direct field acoustic testing calls

for development of an industry standard practice

Based on experience and theoretical/experimental investigation

Current IEST Recommended Practice for High-Intensity Acoustic Testing
(see bibliography) contains brief description of typical practices for direct
field acoustic testing can act as starting point

17
 Suggested Areas for Development
Characterization of direct sound field
Acoustic spatial variability, diffuse vs. discrete incidence, statistical
uncertainty, etc.

Optimization of test configuration and control parameters to

achieve desired acoustic power, sound field characteristics

Characterize response and sound transmission of structure as

function of defined direct sound field characteristics
Develop means of comparison with reverberant chamber testing and
flight

Guidelines for meeting safety and environmental regulations

18
 Next Steps
Convene industry experts in the field

Assess current state-of-the-art, discuss concepts,

methodologies

Chart course toward accepted industry standard practices

19
 Acknowledgements

Sandia National Laboratories, for use of facilities and equipment

Paul Larkin, Sandia National Laboratories, for consultation and
coordination of testing at SNL
David Gurule, Eric Stasiunas, Sandia National Laboratories, for
conducting testing at SNL

Work supported by The Aerospace Corporations Internal

Research and Development funds

20
 Bibliography
P. A. Larkin, D. O. Smallwood, Control of an Acoustical Speaker System In a Reverberant
Chamber, (presented at the 21st Aerospace Testing Seminar), Journal of the IEST, Vol. 47, No.
2, 2004, pp. 82-111

P. A. Larkin, M. Whalen, Direct, Near Field Acoustic Testing, Paper 1999-01-5553, presented
at SAE World Aviation Congress, San Francisco, CA, Oct 19-21, 1999

D. Anthony, T. Scharton, A. Leccese, Direct Acoustic Test of Quikscat Spacecraft, Paper

1999-01-5550, Presented at 1999 SAE World Aviation Conference, San Francisco, CA, Oct 19-
21, 1999

High-Intensity Acoustic Testing, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology, Design,

Test, and Evaluation Division Recommended Practice 040.1, IEST-RP-DTE040.1, 2003, Rolling
Meadows, IL

Pierce, A. D., Acoustics, An Introduction to Its Physical Principles and Applications, 2nd ed.,
Acoustical Society of America, 1989, Woodbury, NY

Kinsler, Frey, Coppens, Sanders, Fundamentals of Acoustics, 3rd ed., Wiley & Sons, 1982, New
York

L. L. Beranek, Acoustics, 2nd ed., Acoustical Society of America, 1993, Woodbury, NY

21
Call for Discussion

22
Backup

23
 Test Equipment Sound System
Loudspeakers
6 VA4 full range (Maryland Sound)
contain high, mid and low drivers
VA4
4 SB1000 sub bass (Maryland Sound)
Each contain 2 18 woofers
2 M-4 mid-bass horn (JBL)
Supplement acoustic power near 250 Hz

M4
Amplifier rack
5 Crown MT5002VZ
5 kW (2.5 kW/chan)
w/ programmable input processor module SB-1000
1 Crown MT2402
2.5 kW (1.25 kW/chan)
w/ programmable input processor module
IQPIP-USP2 computer control system

PC-based digital amplifier control

Control parameters set over ethernet
Set driver crossover frequency
Set voltage limits for protection
Monitor power draw and thermal

24
 Test Equipment - Control

Random controller and data acquisition

Spectral Dynamics Jaguar Acoustic Control & Analysis
Same HW as used for random vibration closed loop control
SW modified for random acoustic control and analysis
Data acquisition and data reduction (spectral analysis)
SCSI drive
Real time data streaming and storage

Remote communication interface for Jaguar

Sun workstation

25
 Panel Response (cont.)
Example configuration (Response at panel free corner)
1
Panel Corner Response PSD: Highbay vs. Chamber Tests
10
___ Highbay (11.8 grms)
Highbay
0
10
___ Chamber (13.7 grms)
Chamber

-1
10
g /Hz

-2
10
2

-3
10

-4
10

2 3
10 10
frequency

A number of modes more readily excited in chamber space test

than in highbay test
May possibly be effect of support boundary conditions at corners

26