In this section we study the evolution of the secondary beam at DFC in the 2D configuration by applying the procedure described above.
Figure 3 demonstrates that the amplitude of the DFC component at
generated through the PAA from the nonlinear mixing of
and
increases with propagation along the symmetry axis to reach its maximal value (91.42Pa) at around
and decreases slowly, through the space domain, due to the low attenuation at this frequency in the bubbly liquid. This behavior follows
, with
,
, and
(
). It reaches around
at
. The penetrability of the secondary beam at DFC is very high. The conversion of the acoustical energy from the primary waves to the DFC is quite low (
at
). On the other hand, the behavior of the
component when using the DM is completly different. It drops immediately and abruptly from the source and then decrease slowly with very low amplitude values that tend to be insignificant. That is, its capability to penetrate into the medium is very poor. Through the PAA process the generation of the focused secondary beam induces a lower loss of acoustic energy along the symmetry axis, and thus allows the
component to penetrate easily into the bubbly medium. If the
component were not that directive, one would expect that its behavior were the same as via the DM, like in the 1D case (
Section 3.1,
Figure 2), for which a focusing mechanism cannot exist. The acoustic pressure distributions shown in
Figure 4 for the PAA with
(a) and for the DM at
(b) in the same geometrical conditions reproduce the main differences when compared to Figure (3) in air in Ref. [
11]. The fundamental characteristics of the PAA are drawn in the bubbly liquid here: higher directivity and penetrability, but it is seen that these effects are enhanced here in the bubbly liquid, obtaining a beam at DFC that reaches the space domain further along the symmetry axis. The amplitude of the DFC is around
(between 70 and
) in the secondary beam over an important portion of the symmetry axis, with a maximum value set at
, which are respectively
and
of the amplitude
at the source. In relation to the DM (
Figure 3 and
Figure 4), the ratio increase considerably, since at
on the symmetry axis its value is
. In
Figure 5 it can be seen through the observation of the contour line that the wave remains intense (before its amplitude drops by one-half, i.e., loses 3
dB) within a much larger domain from the source along the symmetry axis in the bubbly liquid when using the PAA than with the DM. By defining
as the maximum
y-value reached by the
-contour, it is clear that the higher
is, the better is the penetrability. This domain is 110 times with the PAA (
from the source) than the one with the DM (
from the source). This result shows that the penetrability of the wave is much sharper when using the PAA in the bubbly liquid. Moreover, the difference observed between the PAA and the DM is much higher here in the bubbly liquid (factor 110) than in the results shown in
Figure 3 of Ref. [
11], for which a factor around 10 was obtained in an homogeneous fluid. This reveals the capability of bubbly liquids to potenciate the PAA effects, which was the goal of this work. From
Figure 5 we now define an angle that measures the directivity of a beam, in degrees (º):
where
is the maximum
x-value reached by the
-contour. The lower this angle is, the better is the directivity. This means that the smaller
is and the higher
is, the better it is for the prosecution of directivity. The PAA gives
=17.96
, whereas the DM gives
=37.82
, which shows the very good behavior of the PAA in terms of directivity in a bubbly liquid. The results obtained in this section suggest that bubbly liquids are ideal media to enhance the effects of the PAA.