The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Could someone help out interpreting material's gas flow properties
Old 11th May 2011
  #121
Lives for gear
 
andy3's Avatar
 

thx guys. I want the air into the corner (Various reasons). Thanks anyway. you rock!
Old 11th May 2011
  #122
Lives for gear
 

^^^^
Old 26th December 2011
  #123
Here for the gear
 

Hi to all ,

I took my time to read this thread as i tryed to get informed to others but no results so i decided to post my thoughts here.

I am from East Europe and im building bass traps / apsorbers for my home room.
I found this two types of rock wool in my nearest building material supplyer.

Now there are few things i cant connect ,everybody is writing about density and all ,and i dont know what density should be.

Take a look at this two parameters at pictures i posted . ( Rd m2K/W and "lamda" d W/mK )

What is the density ,how are theese two products in relation of the things you have been saying ,like something with 58 kg/m3 or 100kg/m3.

Thank you in advance ,looking foward to get a reply..

Cheers
Attached Thumbnails
Could someone help out interpreting material's gas flow properties-photo1186.jpg   Could someone help out interpreting material's gas flow properties-photo1187.jpg  
Old 26th December 2011
  #124
Gear Guru
Technical

For acoustics the data we would like is Gas Flow Resistivity. However, these materials are used as thermal insulation in the real world. So they don't show GFR or even Density sometimes.
I can't even read the small print on those photos. Look up the manufacturers Data sheets or ask them about density.
703 is about 50KG per Cubic Metre. 705 is about 100KG.

Things don't need to be exact at all.
DD
Old 28th December 2011
  #125
Here for the gear
 

Thank you for a fast reply.

True ,but it also says it is in use for thermal insulation and acoustic as well ,

Looks like i should really do that ,again if any of you guys can explain and compare my data from those 2 pics i uploaded to like 703 and 705 i would be glad

Wonder what settings of rockwool would be allright for mic screen purpose ? hm
Old 10th January 2012
  #126
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeeZ22 View Post
... if any of you guys can explain and compare my data from those 2 pics i uploaded to like 703 and 705...
Looks like we're neighbours (I'm from Romania)

First of all, hello everyone. I'm new here. Really helpful forum.



As it has been stated above, gas flow resistivity is the most important factor when it comes to sound absorption.

The densities are for those products are:

ROCKWOOL STEPROCK - C 120 KG/M3 meant for floor insulation - reduces impact noise (footsteps, etc.)

According to the graphs below, air flow resistivity should be 70.000 MKS Rayls/m = 70.000 KPa.s/m2 roughly equivalent to OC 705 96 kg/m3 glass wool.

ROCKWOOL MULTIROCK - C 28 KG/M3 meant for general thermal insulation

According to the graphs below, air flow resistivity should be 8.000 MKS Rayls/m = 8.000 KPa.s/m2 roughly equivalent to a lower-density OC 701 - should be 18 kg/m3.


Owens Corning 700 Series specific density and air flow resistance. Density is taken from data sheets. I copied the Air flow resistance from one of Avare's posts dating back to 2008, when he mailed Owens Corning asking for the information. So It's not published official information (from what I gather, NASA measured the 703 to be 24.000 MKS Rayls/m)

OC 701 1.5 pcf = 24 kg/m3 = 8.000 MKS Rayls/m = 8.000 K Pa.s/m2
OC 703 3.0 pcf = 48 kg/m3 = 16.000 MKS Rayls/m = 16.000 K Pa.s/m2
OC 705 6.0 pcf = 96 kg/m3 = 30.000 MKS Rayls/m = 30.000 K Pa.s/m2
OC 707 7.0 pcf = 112 kg/m3

As a general rule of the thumb, in East Europe, Rockwool has the following system for describing density:

ROCKWOOL AIRROCK LD LOW DENSITY - 40 kg/m3 - roughly equivalent to OC 701 or 711
ROCKWOOL AIRROCK ND NORMAL DENSITY- 50 kg/m3 - roughly equivalent to OC 702
ROCKWOOL AIRROCK HD HIGH DENSITY - 70 kg/m3 - roughly equivalent to OC 703
ROCKWOOL AIRROCK XD EXTREME DENSITY- 90 kg/m3 - roughly equivalent to OC 704


All of these equivalents are based on the two graphs below. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The examples above are referring to a "general building" product, but I suspect it's mostly the same as the better-known Rockwool RW series, measured in Bob Gold's Absorption Coefficients Table

Rockwool RWA45 = 45 kg/m3
Rockwool RW3 = 60 kg/m3
Rockwool RW5 = 100 kg/m3
Rockwool RW6 = 140 kg/m3


Quoting Scott R. Foster:
"...rockwool requires a higher density because of the nature of the material. Generally you could expect similar acoustic performance with a panel about 50% denser in grade [this would approximately match the gas flow properties of 703] which works out to about 5 lbs. per cubic foot or about 60 kg/m3. But even at this density rockwool has inferior handling properties to 703 and yields a heavier panel [no biggy for a hang forget application, but if portability matters this is a flaw]."

Quoting Andre Vare:
"Rockwool is broady equivalent at slightly denser at around 48 kg/m^3 fiberglas at 64 kg/m^3. the relationship acoustically is not linear."


Some useful graphs - I thing I saw them posted somewhere on the forum before, sorry for the redundancy but I believe they're important:



Source: Rockwool Marine & Offshore Acoustic Manual - Highly recommended reading



Source: Building Acoustics, author Tor Erik Vigran
Attached Images

Last edited by sentient; 10th January 2012 at 02:03 PM.. Reason: forgot some links
Old 10th January 2012
  #127
Gear Guru
GFR

Here's a very well written post from Hannes.
Note however he uses 16000 for OC703, while NASA regarded it as 27,000.
He then regards 705 as 45000, which ties in with NASA if one were to guess, but does not tie in with OC published 30000 or the 70000 from the graphs.
So, perhaps most of the confusion is to do with OC's released figures.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6328646-post88.html


The graphs show a fairly linear relationship, I expect that is a prediction, not a set of measured results.

Common Gas Flow Resistivity numbers.


Here's a load of published GFRs. Common Gas Flow Resistivity numbers.

I was thinking about compiling all the say 50KG products to see what the range of GFR's is.

I suspect it is surprisingly broad.



DD
Old 10th January 2012
  #128
Lives for gear
 
andrebrito's Avatar
 

Hello,

In Europe you can find rockwool from 20 or 30 kg/m3 up to 150-200 kg/m3
Old 20th February 2012
  #129
Gear Maniac
 

Sorry to add an air gap to this wonderfully dense thread -- I really appreciate all the info being shared here. My head hurts in a good way! And Andre, I also appreciate your sigs!
Old 28th October 2016
  #130
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sentient View Post
Looks like we're neighbours (I'm from Romania)

First of all, hello everyone. I'm new here. Really helpful forum.



As it has been stated above, gas flow resistivity is the most important factor when it comes to sound absorption.

The densities are for those products are:

ROCKWOOL STEPROCK - C 120 KG/M3 meant for floor insulation - reduces impact noise (footsteps, etc.)

According to the graphs below, air flow resistivity should be 70.000 MKS Rayls/m = 70.000 KPa.s/m2 roughly equivalent to OC 705 96 kg/m3 glass wool.

ROCKWOOL MULTIROCK - C 28 KG/M3 meant for general thermal insulation

According to the graphs below, air flow resistivity should be 8.000 MKS Rayls/m = 8.000 KPa.s/m2 roughly equivalent to a lower-density OC 701 - should be 18 kg/m3.


Owens Corning 700 Series specific density and air flow resistance. Density is taken from data sheets. I copied the Air flow resistance from one of Avare's posts dating back to 2008, when he mailed Owens Corning asking for the information. So It's not published official information (from what I gather, NASA measured the 703 to be 24.000 MKS Rayls/m)

OC 701 1.5 pcf = 24 kg/m3 = 8.000 MKS Rayls/m = 8.000 K Pa.s/m2
OC 703 3.0 pcf = 48 kg/m3 = 16.000 MKS Rayls/m = 16.000 K Pa.s/m2
OC 705 6.0 pcf = 96 kg/m3 = 30.000 MKS Rayls/m = 30.000 K Pa.s/m2
OC 707 7.0 pcf = 112 kg/m3

As a general rule of the thumb, in East Europe, Rockwool has the following system for describing density:

ROCKWOOL AIRROCK LD LOW DENSITY - 40 kg/m3 - roughly equivalent to OC 701 or 711
ROCKWOOL AIRROCK ND NORMAL DENSITY- 50 kg/m3 - roughly equivalent to OC 702
ROCKWOOL AIRROCK HD HIGH DENSITY - 70 kg/m3 - roughly equivalent to OC 703
ROCKWOOL AIRROCK XD EXTREME DENSITY- 90 kg/m3 - roughly equivalent to OC 704


All of these equivalents are based on the two graphs below. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The examples above are referring to a "general building" product, but I suspect it's mostly the same as the better-known Rockwool RW series, measured in Bob Gold's Absorption Coefficients Table

Rockwool RWA45 = 45 kg/m3
Rockwool RW3 = 60 kg/m3
Rockwool RW5 = 100 kg/m3
Rockwool RW6 = 140 kg/m3


Quoting Scott R. Foster:
"...rockwool requires a higher density because of the nature of the material. Generally you could expect similar acoustic performance with a panel about 50% denser in grade [this would approximately match the gas flow properties of 703] which works out to about 5 lbs. per cubic foot or about 60 kg/m3. But even at this density rockwool has inferior handling properties to 703 and yields a heavier panel [no biggy for a hang forget application, but if portability matters this is a flaw]."

Quoting Andre Vare:
"Rockwool is broady equivalent at slightly denser at around 48 kg/m^3 fiberglas at 64 kg/m^3. the relationship acoustically is not linear."


Some useful graphs - I thing I saw them posted somewhere on the forum before, sorry for the redundancy but I believe they're important:

Could someone help out interpreting material's gas flow properties-air-flow-resistivity-rockwool.png

Source: Rockwool Marine & Offshore Acoustic Manual - Highly recommended reading

Could someone help out interpreting material's gas flow properties-airflow-resistivity-glass-wool-vs-mineral-wool.png

Source: Building Acoustics, author Tor Erik Vigran
OC 703 is 3 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) or 45 kilograms per cubic meter. not 75kg cubic meter, can replaced in europe with :
ISOVER /SAINT GOBAIN:
ISOVER EXTRAWALL 4+ con density 40 kg/m3
E100 S con density 50 kg/m3W/mK,
CLIMA 34 con density 55 kg/m3
Old 28th October 2016
  #131
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alidav View Post
OC 703 is 3 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) or 45 kilograms per cubic meter. not 75kg cubic meter, can replaced in europe with :
ISOVER /SAINT GOBAIN:
ISOVER EXTRAWALL 4+ con density 40 kg/m3
E100 S con density 50 kg/m3W/mK,
CLIMA 34 con density 55 kg/m3
Hi! As I posted...:

"OC 703 3.0 pcf = 48 kg/m3 = 16.000 MKS Rayls/m = 16.000 K Pa.s/m2"

But anyway... why are you digging up a 4 year old thread? :P
Old 28th October 2016
  #132
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sentient View Post
Hi! As I posted...:

"OC 703 3.0 pcf = 48 kg/m3 = 16.000 MKS Rayls/m = 16.000 K Pa.s/m2"

But anyway... why are you digging up a 4 year old thread? :P
I must have read wrong sorry,
it a nice interesting post related material choice, thank you.
Old 6th June 2019
  #133
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
Porous Absorber Calculator is your best friend.

I need to make a keyboard macro with that sentence.

Dammit, is it so difficult do download the bloody thing and insert some bloody numbers?

OK, here are some values as being written in my secret documents (no actually derived from Porous Absorber Calculator, hehe) for 48 Hz. Served on a silver tablet:

10 cm absorption, 10 cm gap, 16800 Pa*s/m²:
27 % absorption (equals a resulting dip of - 5.7 dB per wall for an uneven mode)

30 cm absorption 5000 Pa*s/m², 20 cm gap:
60 % absorption (equals -2.2 dB)

30 cm absorption 5000 Pa*s/m², 40 cm gap:
68 % absorption (equals - 1.7 dB)

60 cm absorption 2000 Pa*s/m², 50 cm gap:
85 % absorption (equals - 0.7 dB)

All values given for normal incidence. Porous Absorption Calculator is based on the formulas of Delany and Bazley and requires the gas flow resistivity to be between 1000 Pa*s/m² and 50000 Pa*s/m² (as is the case here).

Hannes
Sorry to dig up a very dead and buried thread. However, this is about a subject that is very relevant for me at the moment.

I don't quite get what Hannes is saying here. Or, I'd like to confirm that I'm interpreting this correctly:

Higher percentages of absorption means less attenuation in dB? (see the bold text in the quoted post).

I'm concidering building a Helmholtz absorber for 37Hz (fundamental axial mode in my room) and I used the Helmholtz Absorber Calculator to get an idea of what I would need (see attached image).
So, relating to the above, an absorption of almost 1 would mean very little attenuation? E.G. useless? Doesn't make sense to me... But I could be wrong. Can someone please clarify?
Attached Thumbnails
Could someone help out interpreting material's gas flow properties-37hz-helmholz-absorber.jpg  
Old 6th June 2019
  #134
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

jamesblond,

what I wrote only applies to absorption, and there only in the case when you have the thickness of the absorbing panel as a free parameter of your choice. A Helmholtz absorber is an entirely different topic, so let not yourself confuse with what I wrote above.

Hope this helps
Hannes
Old 6th June 2019
  #135
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
jamesblond,

what I wrote only applies to absorption, and there only in the case when you have the thickness of the absorbing panel as a free parameter of your choice. A Helmholtz absorber is an entirely different topic, so let not yourself confuse with what I wrote above.

Hope this helps
Hannes
Thanks, Hannes.

But that doesn't explain why a high absorption figure equates to lower attentuantion in dB. Unless I'm misinterpreting your post.
Old 6th June 2019
  #136
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesblond View Post
Thanks, Hannes.

But that doesn't explain why a high absorption figure equates to lower attentuantion in dB. Unless I'm misinterpreting your post.
jamesblond, that should not be the case. I think in the original post from 11 years ago it might have been about filling up a dip (a null) in the frequency response.

In general, higher absorption figures should be related to higher attenuation.
Old 6th June 2019
  #137
Gear Head
 

Aaahhh, it's about cancelling a dip! In that case I get it: the dB figures you state are the remaining dip. Which makes sense.

Thanks!

(Byt the way: I have no problem reading and reviving old threads, if they are relevant and of use to me).
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump