Hubbry Logo
End correctionEnd correctionMain
Open search
End correction
Community hub
End correction
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
End correction
End correction
End correction
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Whenever a wave forms through a medium/object (organ pipe) with a closed/open end, there is a chance of error in the formation of the wave, i.e. it may not actually start from the opening of the object but instead before the opening, thus resulting on an error when studying it theoretically. Hence an end correction is sometimes required to appropriately study its properties. The end correction depends on the radius of the object.

An acoustic pipe, such as an organ pipe, marimba, or flute resonates at a specific pitch or frequency. Longer pipes resonate at lower frequencies, producing lower-pitched sounds. The details of acoustic resonance are taught in many elementary physics classes. In an ideal tube, the wavelength of the sound produced is directly proportional to the length of the tube. A tube which is open at one end and closed at the other produces sound with a wavelength equal to four times the length of the tube. A tube which is open at both ends produces sound whose wavelength is just twice the length of the tube. Thus, when a Boomwhacker with two open ends is capped at one end, the pitch produced by the tube goes down by one octave.

The analysis above applies only to an ideal tube, of zero diameter. When designing an organ or Boomwhacker, the diameter of the tube must be taken into account. In acoustics, end correction is a short distance applied or added to the actual length of a resonance pipe, in order to calculate the precise resonant frequency of the pipe. The pitch of a real tube is lower than the pitch predicted by the simple theory. A finite diameter pipe appears to be acoustically somewhat longer than its physical length.[1]

A theoretical basis for computation of the end correction is the radiation acoustic impedance of a circular piston. This impedance represents the ratio of acoustic pressure at the piston, divided by the flow rate induced by it. The air speed is typically assumed to be uniform across the tube end. This is a good approximation, but not exactly true in reality, since air viscosity reduces the flow rate in the boundary layer very close to the tube surface. Thus, the air column inside the tube is loaded by the external fluid due to sound energy radiation. This requires an additional length to be added to the regular length for calculating the natural frequency of the pipe system.

The end correction is denoted by and sometimes by . In organ pipes, a displacement antinode is not formed exactly at the open end. Rather, the antinode is formed a little distance away from the open end outside it.

This is known as end correction, which can be calculated as:

  • for a closed pipe (with one opening):
,
If you add this in total length calculated based on sound frequency the actual length will be longer. This equation will increase the flute length if flute diameter will be larger but in real sense it reduces the length as the diameter increases. It looks contradictory but in real sense this equation is not accurate for all bore / pipe diameter. For example this is correct for G bass flute for 20mm bore diameter but as diameter increases then this equation have negative effect means length will reduce. The pipe wall thickness correction also need to be added here for accuracy.

where is the radius [dubious – discuss] of the neck and is the hydraulic diameter of the neck;[2]

  • and for an open pipe (with two openings):
.

The exact number for the end correction depends on a number of factors relating to the geometry of the pipe. Lord Rayleigh was the first experimenter to publish a figure, in 1871: it was [citation needed]. Other experiments have yielded results such as [3] and .[4] The end correction for ideal cylindrical tubes was calculated to be by Levine and Schwinger.[5]

Notes

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

End correction

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
End correction is a fundamental concept in acoustics referring to the additional effective length beyond the physical end of a resonant tube or pipe, where the antinode (or node) of a standing wave is displaced outward due to the of air outside the opening. This adjustment accounts for the kinetic energy stored in the air near the open end, which contributes to the as if the tube were longer. The magnitude of the end correction depends on the tube's geometry and boundary conditions; for an unflanged open pipe, it is approximately 0.6 times the inner rr of the tube (or 0.3 times the ). For a flanged pipe, where the end is mounted on a baffle, the correction increases to about 0.82rr. In practice, for a pipe closed at one end, the effective length for the fundamental resonance becomes L+0.6rL + 0.6r, where LL is the physical length, allowing the fundamental frequency to be calculated as f=v/(4(L+0.6r))f = v / (4(L + 0.6r)), with vv being the in air. For pipes open at both ends, the correction is added to each end, yielding f=v/(2(L+1.2r))f = v / (2(L + 1.2r)). End corrections are crucial in laboratory experiments to measure the speed of sound accurately, as they refine the relationship between resonance lengths and wavelengths without which errors of several percent can occur. In musical acoustics, they play a key role in the design and intonation of wind instruments such as flutes, oboes, and organ pipes, where precise control of effective length determines pitch and harmonic content. Variations in end correction due to factors like flow velocity or higher harmonics can also influence timbre and require empirical adjustments in instrument construction.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition

End correction refers to the additional effective length beyond the physical end of a resonant pipe required to accurately model the position of the displacement antinode (or antinode) at an open end, accounting for the inertia of the oscillating outside the pipe. This adjustment is necessary because the air near the open end participates in the motion, extending the antinode slightly beyond the pipe's edge and thereby increasing the pipe's effective acoustic length. The end correction is typically on the order of 0.6 times the of the tube for an unflanged open end, though it can vary slightly based on factors such as the pipe's and whether a is present (e.g., approximately 0.82 times the for a flanged end). The concept was first systematically analyzed by Lord Rayleigh in his foundational two-volume work The Theory of Sound (1877–1878), where he derived the correction using principles of wave reflection and acoustic radiation impedance at the pipe's open end. In general, the effective LeffL_{\mathrm{eff}} of a resonant pipe is calculated as Leff=L+neL_{\mathrm{eff}} = L + n e, where LL is the physical of the pipe, ee is the end correction per open end, and nn is the number of open ends (1 for a pipe closed at one end or 2 for a pipe open at both ends).

Basic Principles of Resonance in Pipes

Standing waves in air columns, such as those in pipes, form through the superposition of incident and reflected waves, where the interference creates regions of constructive and destructive that appear stationary. This occurs when the pipe length accommodates an integer number of wave segments, leading to sustained vibrations at specific frequencies determined by the pipe's and the in air. The reflected wave arises from the boundary conditions at the pipe ends, which enforce particular patterns of air displacement and variation. At a closed end of the pipe, the boundary condition imposes a displacement node, where air velocity is zero due to the rigid barrier preventing motion. Correspondingly, this results in a antinode, as the compression and of air molecules build up maximum fluctuation against the closed surface. In contrast, at an open end, the equals , creating a node with minimal variation, while the displacement reaches an antinode, allowing maximum air molecule oscillation just beyond the pipe's edge. These displacement and patterns are out of phase by π/2 radians, reflecting the relationship between and in longitudinal sound waves. For the fundamental mode in a closed pipe (one open end), the pipe length LL corresponds to one-quarter , λ/4=L\lambda/4 = L, establishing the prerequisite wave relation for . Higher harmonics follow odd multiples, with resonant frequencies given by fn=(2n−1)v/(4L)f_n = (2n-1) v / (4L), where vv is the , n=1,2,3,…n = 1, 2, 3, \ldots, yielding only odd harmonics. In an open pipe (both ends open), the fundamental mode fits half a , λ/2=L\lambda/2 = L, and all harmonics are possible, with frequencies fn=nv/(2L)f_n = n v / (2L) for n=1,2,3,…n = 1, 2, 3, \ldots. These ideal relations assume sharp boundaries and neglect real-world extensions of the wave pattern.

Physical Origin

Why End Correction is Needed

In the ideal model of standing waves in a pipe with an open end, the antinode—where air particles oscillate with maximum —is assumed to occur precisely at the geometric end of the tube. However, in reality, this antinode does not form exactly at the open end due to the behavior of air molecules near the boundary. The air at the open end oscillates freely into the surrounding , causing the average position of these oscillations to shift slightly beyond the physical end of the pipe. This displacement arises primarily from the kinetic energy associated with air motion outside the pipe, which contributes to the overall resonance as the wavefront radiates into free space. Specifically, the velocity antinode extends outward by approximately 0.6 times the tube radius (r), as the oscillating air mass interacts with the unbounded region beyond the end, effectively incorporating additional inertia into the vibrating column. This "inertia" of the external air mimics an extension of the pipe's length, akin to how added mass in fluid dynamics increases the effective inertia of an object. The pressure node is displaced slightly outward from the physical end of the tube, while the velocity antinode extends further outward; the displacement of these features contributes to the end correction needed for accurate modeling. Without accounting for this end correction, calculations based on the physical length of the pipe would overestimate the resonant , as the effective resonating air column is longer than measured. This discrepancy leads to systematic errors in determining the from experiments or in tuning musical instruments like organ pipes and flutes, where precise control is essential. For instance, ignoring the correction in speed-of-sound measurements can yield values up to several percent higher than the true figure, depending on the tube's radius.

Theoretical Derivation

The theoretical derivation of end correction originates from Lord Rayleigh's analysis in the late , where he modeled the open end of a pipe as a source of acoustic radiation and accounted for the of the air motion extending beyond the physical . For an unflanged pipe, Rayleigh treated the open end by considering the ϕ\phi in the region outside the tube, assuming irrotational and at low frequencies where the is much larger than the pipe radius aa. The satisfies ∇2ϕ=0\nabla^2 \phi = 0, with boundary conditions of zero normal velocity on the pipe walls and continuity of pressure and velocity at the . To find the effective length extension, Rayleigh equated the of the external motion—integrated over a cylindrical volume adjacent to the open end—to that of an equivalent uniform flow inside a pipe of added length ee. This leads to the end correction e≈0.6ae \approx 0.6a for unflanged pipes, derived from the hemispherical spreading of the flow and the resulting inertial loading at the end. Building on Rayleigh's kinetic energy approach, a more rigorous solution was provided by Levine and Schwinger in 1948, who solved the exact boundary-value problem for sound radiation from an unflanged circular pipe using Fourier-Bessel transforms. They assumed axially symmetric excitation with the velocity potential ϕ\phi satisfying the ∇2ϕ+k2ϕ=0\nabla^2 \phi + k^2 \phi = 0 (where k=ω/ck = \omega / c is the ), subject to the boundary condition that the normal derivative ∂ϕ/∂z=0\partial \phi / \partial z = 0 on the pipe walls for z<0z < 0 and r=ar = a, and outgoing spherical waves at infinity. Inside the pipe (z<0z < 0), the potential takes the form ϕ=(Aeikz+Be−ikz)J0(kr)\phi = (A e^{ikz} + B e^{-ikz}) J_0(kr), while outside it expands in form over Hankel functions to match the aperture conditions. At low frequencies (ka≪1ka \ll 1), the approaches −1+2ika(0.6133+O(ka2))-1 + 2i ka (0.6133 + O(ka^2)), yielding the end correction e≈0.6133ae \approx 0.6133 a through evaluation of the logarithmic ∫0∞log⁡[1/(2I1(x)K1(x))]x(x2+(ka)2)dx≈0.6133a\int_0^\infty \frac{\log[1/(2 I_1(x) K_1(x))] }{x (x^2 + (ka)^2)} dx \approx 0.6133 a as ka→0ka \to 0, confirming Rayleigh's approximation with higher precision via integration over the effective hemispherical flow field. For flanged pipes, where the open end is mounted on an infinite baffle, Rayleigh applied the to double the effective radiation impedance compared to the unflanged case, treating the baffle as a plane that reflects the flow. This image principle effectively increases the contribution, leading to an end correction e≈0.82ae \approx 0.82 a. and Schwinger's framework extends this by showing that the flange modifies the low-frequency radiation to yield e≈0.8216ae \approx 0.8216 a, derived analogously but with the baffle enforcing antisymmetric conditions across the plane. For the flanged case, a simple low-frequency approximation from Rayleigh's energy method is e≈83πa≈0.85ae \approx \frac{8}{3\pi} a \approx 0.85 a, obtained by expanding the profile near the edge and integrating the inertial term for plane-wave dominance, though more precise calculations yield about 0.82a.

Formulas for Different Configurations

Closed Pipes (One Open End)

In pipes closed at one end, such as certain organ pipes or resonance tubes, the end correction accounts for the displacement of the antinode beyond the physical open end, resulting in an effective length Leff=L+eL_{\text{eff}} = L + e, where LL is the physical length and ee is the end correction for the single open end. This adjustment is necessary because the air column's oscillation extends slightly outside the tube due to inertial effects near the open boundary. For the fundamental resonance mode, the effective length corresponds to one-quarter of the : L+e=λ/4L + e = \lambda / 4, leading to the f1=v/[4(L+e)]f_1 = v / [4 (L + e)], where vv is the in air. The end correction ee is approximately 0.6r0.6 r (with rr the pipe ) or equivalently 0.3d0.3 d (with dd the ), based on empirical measurements for unflanged cylindrical tubes. Higher harmonics in closed are restricted to odd multiples of the fundamental due to the boundary conditions—a node at the closed end and an antinode at the open end—yielding frequencies fn=(2n−1)f1f_n = (2n - 1) f_1 for n=1,2,[3,… ](/page/3Dots)n = 1, 2, [3, \dots](/page/3_Dots). This selective produces the characteristic of instruments like the . In tube experiments, the end correction ensures accurate determination of the using v=2f(l2−l1)v = 2 f (l_2 - l_1), where l1l_1 and l2l_2 are the first and second lengths and ff is the driving frequency, as the correction terms cancel in the difference l2−l1=λ/2l_2 - l_1 = \lambda / 2. Without this understanding, single- measurements would overestimate vv by neglecting ee.

Open Pipes (Both Ends Open)

In pipes open at both ends, the boundary conditions establish displacement antinodes near each extremity, with the air column supporting standing waves where the effective length accounts for the displacement of these antinodes beyond the physical ends due to end correction. This configuration is typical in instruments like flutes and flue pipes of organs, where the symmetry allows for a complete set of integer harmonics. The effective LeffL_{\text{eff}} of such a pipe is given by Leff=L+2e,L_{\text{eff}} = L + 2e, where LL is the physical of the pipe and ee is the end correction at each open end, approximately e≈0.6re \approx 0.6r with rr being the inner of the pipe. This adjustment arises because the node (or displacement antinode) forms slightly outside the pipe's rim, effectively lengthening the resonating air column by about 60% of the per end. For the fundamental mode, the effective length equals half the of the sound wave: L+2e=λ12,L + 2e = \frac{\lambda_1}{2}, yielding the f1=v2(L+2e),f_1 = \frac{v}{2(L + 2e)}, where vv is the in air. Higher harmonics occur at integer multiples of this frequency, fn=nf1f_n = n f_1 for n=1,2,[3,… ](/page/3Dots)n = 1, 2, [3, \dots](/page/3_Dots), producing both even and odd that enrich the instrument's tonal quality. Unlike closed at one end, which support only odd harmonics due to an antinode-node asymmetry, open exhibit antinodes at both ends, enabling a fuller of harmonics that defines the bright, versatile sound of flutes and open organ in musical applications.

Experimental Determination

Resonance Tube Experiment

The resonance tube experiment is a standard laboratory method to observe in a closed pipe and determine the end correction by measuring positions of standing waves. The apparatus consists of a vertical or metal tube, typically 1-2 meters long, partially filled with to form the air column; the surface acts as the closed end (node), while the top remains open (antinode). A of known (e.g., 512 Hz) or a is mounted above the open end to introduce sound waves. The air column length is adjusted by controlling the water level, often via a connected and rubber tubing to minimize spills and ensure precise control. In the procedure, the tube is initially filled nearly full with to create a short air column. The is struck gently with a rubber and held horizontally above the open end, directing sound into the tube. The water level is slowly lowered—either manually or by adjusting the —to increase the air column length until the first position l1l_1 is detected, marked by a sudden increase in . This step is repeated, continuing to lower the water until the second resonance position l2l_2 is found, again at maximum . Measurements of l1l_1 and l2l_2 are recorded multiple times for accuracy, using a meter scale along the tube. Observations reveal that the resonance positions l1l_1 and l2l_2 deviate from the ideal lengths of λ/4\lambda/4 and 3λ/43\lambda/4 (where λ\lambda is the wavelength) predicted for a perfectly closed pipe without end effects, due to the additional effective length from end correction. The difference l2−l1l_2 - l_1 is consistently approximately λ/2\lambda/2, corresponding to the half-wavelength spacing between successive resonances in the closed pipe configuration. This setup illustrates fundamental resonance principles in pipes with one closed end. Safety precautions are essential: the must be struck only with a soft rubber on a padded surface to prevent damage to the fork or equipment, and protective eyewear should be worn to guard against potential water splashes during level adjustments. Rubber tubing connecting the to the tube further reduces splash risks. In modern variations, the experiment incorporates a sensitive inserted into the tube to electronically detect peaks via maxima, often interfaced with an or for enhanced precision and to minimize subjective auditory judgments.

Calculation of End Correction from Measurements

In the resonance tube experiment for a closed pipe, the end correction ee is computed from the measured lengths of the air column at the first resonance l1l_1 (corresponding to λ/4\lambda/4) and the second resonance l2l_2 (corresponding to 3λ/43\lambda/4), using the formula e=l2−3l12.e = \frac{l_2 - 3 l_1}{2}. This expression arises from the relations l1+e=λ/4l_1 + e = \lambda/4 and l2+e=3λ/4l_2 + e = 3\lambda/4, which eliminate λ\lambda upon substitution to isolate ee. The vv is independently determined from the difference in resonance lengths, which equals λ/2\lambda/2, yielding v=2f(l2−l1),v = 2 f (l_2 - l_1), where ff is the known frequency of the tuning fork exciting the resonance. Substituting this vv back into the wavelength from the first resonance allows verification of ee, ensuring consistency across multiple trials with the same tuning fork or different frequencies; typical values obtained are approximately e≈0.3de \approx 0.3 d, where dd is the inner diameter of the tube. Error analysis in these calculations often reveals small discrepancies in ee between trials, typically on the order of 0.01–0.05 cm, attributable to variations in ambient affecting vv (since v≈331+0.6Tv \approx 331 + 0.6 T m/s with TT in °C) or slight inaccuracies in measurement from the . To minimize such errors, measurements are repeated at controlled temperatures, and ee is averaged over trials for reliability; inconsistencies exceeding 10% of 0.3d0.3 d may indicate unaccounted factors like minor tube irregularities. For open pipes (both ends open), a similar differencing approach applies using physical resonance lengths l1l_1 (fundamental) and l2l_2 (), where the difference l2−l1=λ/2l_2 - l_1 = \lambda/2, yielding v=2f(l2−l1)v = 2 f (l_2 - l_1). The end correction per end is then e=l2−2l12e = \frac{l_2 - 2 l_1}{2}, derived from l1+2e=λ/2l_1 + 2e = \lambda/2 and l2+2e=λl_2 + 2e = \lambda. This method is less common in introductory laboratories due to the need for precise adjustment at both ends.

Factors Influencing End Correction

Dependence on Tube Radius and Frequency

The end correction ee in unflanged pipes exhibits a primary linear dependence on the tube radius rr, such that e∝re \propto r. In the low-frequency limit, where the radius is much smaller than the wavelength (r≪λr \ll \lambda), the end correction approaches e≈0.61re \approx 0.61 r, as derived from the exact solution for sound radiation from an unflanged circular pipe using the Wiener-Hopf technique. This scaling arises because the acoustic field outside the pipe extends over a distance proportional to the aperture size, effectively shifting the position of the velocity antinode beyond the physical end by an amount tied to the geometry. Wider tubes thus incur larger absolute end corrections, which proportionally impact resonant frequencies more significantly in scenarios involving longer wavelengths, such as lower-frequency resonances. At higher frequencies, corresponding to shorter wavelengths and larger values of r/λr / \lambda, the end correction deviates from the low-frequency asymptotic value and generally decreases. This reduction occurs because the impedance changes with frequency, altering the phase shift at the open end; approximations for the , such as the causal model R(ω)=−(1−jka/α)−(ν+1)R(\omega) = -(1 - j k a / \alpha)^{-(\nu + 1)} with α≈1.23\alpha \approx 1.23 and ν≈0.50\nu \approx 0.50 (where k=2π/λk = 2\pi / \lambda and a=ra = r), capture this behavior for kr≲2k r \lesssim 2, leading to effective end corrections that diminish relative to 0.61r0.61 r. These frequency-dependent corrections are crucial for accurate modeling beyond the plane-wave assumption but remain small until krk r approaches the cutoff for higher modes. Empirical investigations support these theoretical trends, showing that e/r≈0.61e / r \approx 0.61 holds closely for r/λ<0.1r / \lambda < 0.1, with a slight increase in the normalized correction for modestly larger ratios before the overall decline at elevated frequencies. Early resonance experiments using electrical detection of peaks in closed pipes demonstrated this variation, with end corrections rising toward the low-frequency limit as frequency decreased, up to approximately 0.7 r in some cases, followed by a decrease at very low frequencies due to viscous effects. More recent numerical simulations of the Navier-Stokes equations for unflanged tubes confirm the radius proportionality and weak frequency independence at low krk r, with deviations emerging as r/λr / \lambda grows.

Effects of Flanges and Other Geometries

In acoustic pipes, the presence of a flange at the open end significantly modifies the end correction due to the reflection of pressure waves from the flange, which can be modeled as an image source enhancing the radiation impedance. For a flanged circular pipe, the low-frequency end correction is precisely 0.82 times the pipe radius rr, or approximately 0.85 rr in practical estimates. Compared to an unflanged open end, where the end correction is about 0.61 rr, increases the value by roughly 30–40%, as the rigid boundary alters the distribution outside the pipe. This effect is particularly relevant in organ pipes, where flanges are commonly employed to achieve precise tuning and enhanced projection. For other geometries, such as conical bores in instruments like the , the end correction varies along the length due to the changing radius, typically being smaller than for a cylindrical pipe of equivalent mouth diameter and increasing with the cone's apex angle. Bell-shaped or flared ends, as in instruments, reduce the end correction relative to a simple unflanged termination by improving acoustic coupling to the external medium, while perforated ends decrease it further depending on , with higher leading to values closer to unflanged cases.

Applications

In Musical Instruments

In organ pipes, the end correction results in the physical of the pipe being shorter than the ideal predicted by simple wave theory to achieve the desired pitch, as the effective vibrating air column extends beyond the pipe's mouth. This effect causes the pipe to sound flatter than expected based on its measured alone. For flue pipes with flanged mouths, the end correction is increased compared to unflanged configurations, typically to approximately 0.82 times the pipe radius, necessitating adjustments in voicing—such as the height of the cut-up edge—to optimize and tonal stability. In woodwind instruments like flutes, which operate as open pipes with both ends effectively open, end corrections at tone holes and the pipe ends are approximately 0.6 times the , influencing the positioning of finger holes to ensure accurate intonation across the scale. Clarinets, functioning more like closed pipes due to the reed at one end, employ an effective end correction of about 0.3 times the diameter (equivalent to 0.6 times the ) at the open end, particularly accounting for the bell's contribution, which helps maintain pitch consistency in the odd-harmonic series. These corrections are critical for the instrument's responsiveness and harmonic balance. Brass instruments, such as trumpets, feature bell flares that significantly modify the end correction beyond simple cylindrical values, effectively increasing it beyond the standard ~0.6r for unflanged pipes, which not only adjusts the resonant frequencies but also enhances by improving and higher harmonic projection. The flare's geometry integrates with horn theory to extend the acoustic , contributing to the instrument's characteristic brightness and . In tuning practices for wind instruments, manufacturers incorporate empirical end correction values, such as 0.61 times the for unflanged open ends, into scale designs to achieve precise intonation across all registers, often refining these through iterative acoustic measurements and adjustments to bore and bell dimensions. This approach ensures harmonic alignment and playability, drawing from established acoustic models while adapting to material and geometric variations.

In Acoustic Measurements

In laboratory settings, end correction plays a crucial role in determining the using tubes, where it adjusts the effective of the air column to account for the antinode extending beyond the open end. The formula for the , v=fλv = f \lambda, is refined by incorporating the end correction ee, typically yielding v=4f(L+e)v = 4f(L + e) for a closed tube at the first , where LL is the measured and ff is the . This adjustment reduces errors significantly; without it, values can deviate by up to 10%, but with proper application, accuracies better than 1% are achievable, as demonstrated in controlled experiments using tuning forks and water-adjusted tubes. In impedance tube measurements, end correction is essential for accurately assessing the acoustic absorption and impedance of materials, particularly under standards like ASTM E1050, which employs a two-microphone method to derive normal incidence sound absorption coefficients. The correction modifies the effective path length between and the sample, compensating for wave beyond the tube ends, and is often modeled as e≈0.61re \approx 0.61 r for unflanged pipes, where rr is the radius. This ensures precise calculation of complex impedance and reflection coefficients, minimizing errors from evanescent modes or geometric mismatches, which can otherwise distort results by up to several percent in low-frequency ranges (50–1600 Hz). techniques, such as subtracting probe-specific impedance terms, further enhance reliability in these setups. For and ultrasonic applications in , end correction adjusts for the effective radiating length of housings, where the factor remains approximately e≈0.6re \approx 0.6 r in air-equivalent media, adapted for water's higher (about 1480 m/s). This is critical in calibrating and responses, ensuring accurate beam patterns and sensitivity measurements in test tanks, as partial reflections and housing geometries can introduce phase errors otherwise. Recent calibrations in high-pressure confirm its role in extending usable frequency ranges to 40–1500 Hz for nonresonant transducers. Post-2020 advances leverage computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations to predict end corrections for complex geometries in aeroacoustics, reducing reliance on empirical data. For instance, axisymmetric CFD models of unflanged pipes, using RANS equations in tools like Star-CCM+, accurately forecast nonlinear effects and minor losses at cryogenic conditions, with errors under 15% compared to experiments, particularly for pipe spacings below 0.1 diameters. Hybrid methods combining modal expansions and boundary element simulations further enable low-frequency predictions (Helmholtz number up to 2.5) for inclined flanged pipes, achieving 4% accuracy in end correction estimates with minimal computational degrees of freedom. These approaches are increasingly applied in aeroacoustic design to optimize noise propagation in ducts and exhausts.

References

  1. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Class/PhSciLab/restubei.html
  2. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/157/2/1176/3335898/Understanding-end-corrections-and-flow-near-the
  3. https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Waves_and_Acoustics/Laboratory_Manual_-_The_Science_of_Sound_%28Fiore%29/05%253A_Resonant_Pipes/5.01%253A_Section_1-
  4. https://www.britannica.com/science/end-correction
  5. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Waves/opecol2.html
  6. https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/fluteacoustics.html
  7. https://phys.libretexts.org/Courses/Georgia_State_University/GSU-TM-Physics_I_%282211%29/11%253A_Waves/11.10%253A_Sources_of_Musical_Sound
  8. https://www.ioa.org.uk/system/files/proceedings/ks_peat_end_corrections_due_to_perforated_pipes.pdf
  9. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/17-5-sound-interference-and-resonance-standing-waves-in-air-columns/
  10. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/Lesson-5/Closed-End-Air-Columns
  11. https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/phy51/phy51/node46.html
  12. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/Lesson-5/Open-End-Air-Columns
  13. https://ccrma.stanford.edu/courses/150-2001/resonance.html
  14. https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Waves_and_Acoustics/Book%253A_Sound_-_An_Interactive_eBook_%28Forinash_and_Christian%29/11%253A_Tubes/11.01%253A_Standing_Waves_in_a_Tube/11.1.01%253A_Tube_Resonance
  15. https://www.smc.edu/academics/academic-departments/physical-sciences/physics/documents/physics-23/Phys_23_T6_The_speed_of_sound_using_the_resonance_of_longitudinal_waves.pdf
  16. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mechanics/article/on-rayleighs-computation-of-the-end-correction-with-application-to-the-compression-wave-generated-by-a-train-entering-a-tunnel/3CD25414459E9F038AB2509806728C32
  17. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Waves/clocol.html
  18. https://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section3_6/Sec3_6.htm
  19. https://astro.pas.rochester.edu/~aquillen/phy103/Homeworks/work6.pdf
  20. http://www.phys.ufl.edu/courses/phy2464/pres-files/Pres14.pdf
  21. https://pressbooks.uiowa.edu/clonedbook/chapter/sound-interference-and-resonance-standing-waves-in-air-columns/
  22. https://www.pas.rochester.edu/~sybenzvi/courses/phy103/2016f/phy103_air_column.pdf
  23. https://byjus.com/physics/speed-of-sound-in-air-at-room-temperature-using-a-resonance-tube-by-two-resonance-positions/
  24. https://www.savemyexams.com/a-level/physics/ocr/17/revision-notes/4-electrons-waves-and-photons/4-9-superposition-and-stationary-waves/4-9-10-determining-the-speed-of-sound-in-air-in-a-resonance-tube/
  25. https://sciencefirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/15160-_1-of-2_-Resonance-Tube-Set_INSTRUCTOR.pdf
  26. https://physics.nyu.edu/~physlab/GenPhysII_PhysIII/Intermediate_Physics_I_writeups/Resonace-tube-physics-majors-08-25-2017.pdf
  27. https://www.rose-hulman.edu/~moloney/AppComp/2000Entries/Entry10/entry10.htm
  28. https://physicsprc.southernct.edu/docs/newloydlab22.pdf
  29. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.73.383
  30. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.3625
  31. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.31.267
  32. https://coewww.rutgers.edu/~norris/papers/1989_JSoundVibration_135_85-93.pdf
  33. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/131/5/3638/614622/A-hybrid-finite-element-approach-to-modeling-sound
  34. https://spot.colorado.edu/~pricej/downloads/AcousticWaveguides.pdf
  35. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0370-1301/62/12/304
  36. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article-pdf/41/6_Supplement/1609/18759339/1609_1_online.pdf
  37. https://sbe.org/handbook/fundamentals/Audio/Audio-The_Physical_Nature_of_Sound.pdf
  38. http://www.colinpykett.org.uk/end-correction-natural-frequency-timbre-physical-modelling-organ-pipe.htm
  39. https://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Experimenting_with_woodwind_instruments.pdf
  40. https://historicbrass.org/images/hbj/hbj-2020/HBSJ_2020_JL01_003_Pyle.pdf
  41. https://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/The-Acoustics-of-Brass-Musical-Instruments-Thomas-R.-Moore.pdf
  42. https://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/AT/
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231078615_Experimenting_with_end-correction_and_the_speed_of_sound
  44. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/physics/investigating-accuracy-aircolumn-7150.php
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665642316300918
  46. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090020439/downloads/20090020439.pdf
  47. https://www.astm.org/e1050-19.html
  48. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article-pdf/39/1/48/18754275/48_1_online.pdf
  49. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0717318.pdf
  50. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4141/6/3/63
  51. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/151/2/1142/2838100/Low-frequency-acoustic-radiation-from-a-flanged
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.