中俄在250 Hz～200 kHz频段的水声声压比对校准

陈毅; 王月兵; 费腾; A. E. Isaev; A. M. Enyakov; A. N. Matveev

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-1158.2012.01.11

PDF(977 KB)

计量学报 ›› 2012, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (1) : 47-51. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1158.2012.01.11

中俄在250 Hz～200 kHz频段的水声声压比对校准

陈毅¹,王月兵¹,费腾¹,A. E. Isaev²,A. M. Enyakov²,A. N. Matveev²

作者信息 +

Underwater Acoustics Sound Pressure Calibration Comparison between China and Russia in the Frequency Range 250Hz to 200kHz

CHEN Yi¹,WANG Yue-bing¹,FEI Teng¹,A. E. Isaev²,A. M. Enyakov²,A N. Matveen²

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

2009年9月至2010年6月,利用B&K 8104和TC 4033水听器作为比对校准用标准水听器,杭州应用声学研究所和俄罗斯国立物理技术与无线电工程测量研究院之间开展了250 Hz～200 kHz频段水声声压的比对校准。尽管中俄双方所使用的测量方法、校准技术和测量装置不同,但双方的校准结果非常一致,最大的偏差只有0.36 dB。经中俄双方专家讨论和分析后一致认为,两个部门在该频段内校准水声声压所采用的测量方法和校准技术是正确的,测量装置给出的校准结果是精确、可靠的。

Abstract

Using B&K 8104 and TC 4033 as standard hydrophones,an underwater acoustics sound pressure calibration comparison in the frequency range 250Hz to 200kHz was carried out between HAARI of China and VNIIFTRI of Russia from September, 2009 to June, 2010. Although the different measurement methods,calibration techniques and measurement facilities were used,the calibration results from both sides were very close,and the maximum deviation was only 0.36 dB. After the discussing and analyzing by the experts from China and Russia,the consensus conclusion was gotten that the measurement methods and calibration techniques using in the comparison calibration are correct,and the results from measurement facilities are accurate and reliable.

导出引用

陈毅,王月兵,费腾,A. E. Isaev,A. M. Enyakov,A. N. Matveev. 中俄在250 Hz～200 kHz频段的水声声压比对校准[J]. 计量学报. 2012, 33(1): 47-51 https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-1158.2012.01.11

CHEN Yi,WANG Yue-bing,FEI Teng,A. E. Isaev,A. M. Enyakov,A N. Matveen. Underwater Acoustics Sound Pressure Calibration Comparison between China and Russia in the Frequency Range 250Hz to 200kHz[J]. Acta Metrologica Sinica. 2012, 33(1): 47-51 https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-1158.2012.01.11

中图分类号： TB95

参考文献

［1］Robinson S P, Harris P M, Ablitt J, et al. An international key comparison of free-field hydrophone calibrations in the frequency range 1 to 500 kHz［J］. J Acoust Soc Am, 2006, 120(3): 1366-1373.
［2］Enyakov A M, Likhatchev S M, Platonov V A, et al. A Russian-Chinese international comparison of hydrophone calibration methods［J］. Metrologia, 1999, 36(4): 297-303.
［3］袁文俊,陈毅,Enyakov A M,等.中俄标准水听器在0.01～1 Hz频段的双边比对校准［J］. 计量学报, 2005, 26(3): 259-262.
［4］Wang Yuebing, Chen Yi, Fei Teng, et al. Report on the COOMET Pilot Comparison 473/RU/09:Calibration of hydrophones in the frequency range from 250 Hz to 200 kHz［R］. CCAUV/10-20, 2010.
［5］International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60565:2006.Underwater acoustics-Hydrophones-Calibration in the frequency range 0.01 Hz to 1 MHz［S］. 2006.
［6］Isaev A E, Matveev A N. Two approaches to hydrophone free-field calibration at continuous radiation in non-anechoic water tank［J］. Measurement Engineering, 2008, 12: 47-51.
［7］Isaev A E, Matveev A N. Use of a complex moving weighed averaging method for receiver non-uniform frequency response restoration［J］. Acoustical Physics, 2010, 56(5): 693-696.
［8］BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML. Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement［M］. Geneva, Switzerland:International Organization for Standardization, 1995.