Acoustic impedance model shows good agreement with experiments in air-backed and porous-backed configurations, suggesting its effectiveness.
This paper develops a semi-empirical acoustic impedance model of circular perforates under a low-Mach-number ([Formula: see text]) grazing air flow. The formulation combines a no-flow impedance, appropriate to the high–Strouhal-number ([Formula: see text]) regime, and a with-flow impedance given by the low-Strouhal-number asymptotic limit of the proposed linear theory. The model accounts for viscous losses, shear-flow effects, coupling between adjacent orifices, porous media via complex effective densities, and acoustic nonlinearities at high sound-pressure levels (SPLs). Realistic shear-layer convection is represented by an empirical phase-speed factor [Formula: see text], whose real and imaginary parts primarily affect the acoustic resistance and reactance, respectively. Validation against published experimental datasets ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text]) indicates that, for air-backed configurations, [Formula: see text]. with [Formula: see text], whereas for porous-backed configurations, we adopt [Formula: see text] and neglect [Formula: see text]. Overall, the model shows good agreement with experiments and robustness across representative operating conditions. As a limitation, the model does not capture certain behaviors that may arise at moderate [Formula: see text] (e.g., negative resistance and coupling between grazing flow and acoustic nonlinearity), which lie beyond the present scope.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: