4.7 Article

Estimating the airflow resistivity of porous materials in an impedance tube using an electroacoustic technique

Journal

APPLIED ACOUSTICS
Volume 201, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2022.109089

Keywords

Airflow resistivity; Porous materials; Electroacoustics; Impedance tube

Categories

Funding

  1. Conselleria de Innovacion, Universidades, Ciencia y Sociedad - Generalitat Valen-ciana [ACIF/2020/401]
  2. European Social Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Airflow resistivity is an important parameter for evaluating sound-absorbing materials. This paper proposes an electroacoustic method to indirectly estimate the airflow resistivity of material samples, which shows good agreement with other standardized methods.
Airflow resistivity is an essential parameter for characterizing air-saturated porous sound-absorbing materials theoretically and selecting sound-absorbing materials in practice. Although standardized meth-ods can determine this non-acoustic parameter in the laboratory, many indirect alternative methods have been proposed to measure it. One of them is the technique presented in the 1980s by Ingard and Dear using a standing wave tube, a loudspeaker, and two microphones. This paper suggests an electroacoustic procedure based on a modification of the Ingard and Dear setup. Equations are derived through the trans-fer matrix method. After a simple calibration, the airflow resistivity of a material sample is indirectly esti-mated from the total electric impedance measured at the loudspeaker input connection terminals. Thus, implementing the proposed method is straightforward and inexpensive, since microphones and complex instrumentation are unnecessary. The method is tested by comparing measured values of the airflow resistivity of different material samples with those obtained through the Ingar and Dear approach and the ISO standardized method. Reasonably good agreement is observed, confirming the validity of the electroacoustic method. (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available