AMCA International Engineering Conference, 8 9 December 2003

ACOUSTICAL DUCT SILENCERS WHAT YOU DONT HEAR IS WHAT YOU

GET
Thomas S. Paige, P.Eng.
Kinetics Noise Control, Inc. - Vibron Products Group
ABSTRACT
This paper addresses the fundamentals of duct silencers and
introduces the new AMCA 1011 Certified Rating Program
for Acoustical Duct Silencers. Some of the topics covered
include: How do silencers work? What are the key
performance ratings for silencers? How are silencers
tested? What are the issues involved in certifying the
performance of duct silencers? The historical development
of the AMCA 1011 CRP is discussed from its conception in
1997 to its launch in 2003.
INTRODUCTION
There has always been some mystery surrounding the
application of acoustic attenuation products such as duct
silencers. Part of this has to do with the subjective nature of
sound and the difficulty in assessing acceptable sound levels
and quality in typical acoustical environments. There also
exists a lack of understanding of acoustical principles
amongst some design professionals. This is somewhat
forgivable because, although the fundamentals of acoustics
are relatively simple, the performance analysis of sound-
attenuating devices can be quite complex. Often there is no
exact solution for predicting acoustic performance, and in
many cases empirical formulas have been developed, based
solely on measurement test data. The issues of design safety
margins and tolerances are also important considerations.
Over-design is usually not a feasible option, not just for
cost, but also for the limited physical space generally
allocated for sound-attenuating components in typical
building designs.
In light of the above, the role played by manufacturers in
assisting consultants and contractors in selecting suitable
sound-attenuation products has become an important
service. This is particularly true with acoustical duct
silencers. Unfortunately, there is some difficulty in
determining which specified products from one
manufacturer are equivalent to corresponding products from
another manufacturer. In other words, there is no level
playing field for duct silencers. While some manufacturers
might argue that, due to the nature of the product, the
current situation is acceptable, it appears that the consensus
amongst silencer manufacturers in North America and
internationally is that some type of standardization program
for duct silencers is desirable and necessary.
The main purpose of this paper is to describe AMCA
Internationals involvement in and commitment to the
standardization process for acoustical duct silencers.
However, to do this effectively requires an overview of the
physics, performance factors and testing methods for
silencers. This paper will attempt to deal with these issues
without resorting to complex details and mathematics.
SILENCER PERFORMANCE FACTORS AND KEY
DESIGN PARAMETERS
There are three main measurable performance indicators for
duct silencers. These are acoustic insertion loss,
aerodynamic flow-generated noise and total pressure drop.
Insertion loss is the reduction in sound power resulting from
the insertion of the silencer in the system. More specifically,
it is the measured difference in the output broadband
airborne sound power level of the system before and after
insertion of the silencer. Insertion loss is defined based on
sound power levels but measured by taking sound pressure
levels as explained later in this paper. Broadband airborne
sound contains a relatively uniform distribution of many
sound frequencies, such as the sound produced by a fan. In
selecting silencers for an application, we are concerned with
the dynamic insertion loss which is the insertion loss at
the design airflow velocity. The insertion loss of a silencer
will vary with frequency, flow velocity, temperature and
other design parameters that will be discussed later.
Insertion loss is typically stated in dB for the standard
octave-frequency bands having center frequencies from 63
Hz to 8 kHz, and is a relative value based on the arithmetic
difference between the sound levels with and without the
silencer. Silencers with a greater insertion loss are said to
have higher acoustic performance.
Airflow-generated noise, is the self-noise that a silencer
makes when air flows through its passageway. Airflow
noise at a given flow velocity is stated as a sound power
level in dB with reference to 10
-12
watts at the same standard
octave-frequency bands as insertion loss. Although airflow-
generated noise and insertion loss are both stated in dB,
there is a fundamental difference in that the flow-noise
rating is an absolute sound power level whereas we have
2
seen that insertion loss is a difference level. Confusion
sometimes results for new users learning to select silencers,
and care must be exercised in understanding and applying
these ratings. A high airflow-generated noise level is
undesirable and may limit the amount of silencer insertion
loss achievable in high-velocity or critical noise
applications. Fortunately, in most HVAC applications
having typical duct flow velocities, flow-generated noise is
seldom a problem. Nevertheless, if needed, flow-noise
ratings are commonly available in manufacturers catalogs.
The pressure drop or pressure loss of a silencer is the change
in pressure of air flowing through the silencer. A silencer is
rated in terms of its total pressure loss at a given airflow
rate. Total pressure loss is the difference between the mean
total pressures at the silencer inlet and outlet. Silencer
pressure drops are stated in Pascals or inches of water. As a
general rule, a silencer with a higher pressure drop, all other
factors being equal, will have a higher insertion loss and a
higher level of flow-generated noise. Whereas the insertion
loss is the beneficial performance parameter of a silencer,
pressure drop and flow noise are looked upon as the
unwanted but necessary evils. There is no relationship
between the silencer pressure drop and the total pressure of
the fan. It is possible to design a silencer with a low pressure
drop to be placed in a duct served by a fan having a
relatively high total pressure.
In a nutshell, the challenge in selecting a silencer is to
obtain the required minimum insertion loss without
exceeding the maximum allowable pressure drop, in a
physical size package that will fit in the space provided, and
at a minimum cost.
SILENCER PHYSICS
For many items of mechanical equipment, theoretical
performance prediction models have been developed to
reduce the amount of laboratory testing required. For
example, fan laws have been established to relate the
performance variables for a series of fans that are
dynamically similar. Unfortunately, no such silencer laws
have yet been developed.
The most commonly used silencers are known as dissipative
or absorptive silencers. These silencers use some type of
porous material (known as acoustic media) along their
passageway. The theoretical performance of dissipative
silencers is dealt with in considerable detail in Beranek and
Vr (1992) and much of the information presented below is
a summary of this work. The resulting sound attenuation is
attributed to three factors: the inlet loss, the outlet loss and
the passage attenuation. The inlet loss occurs when sound in
the duct first encounters the silencers narrow passageway.
This loss (typically 3-6 dB) is more pronounced at higher
sound frequencies where the cross-section dimensions of the
duct are much larger than the sound wavelength.
Conversely, the silencer outlet loss is higher at low
frequencies, when the cross-section dimensions are small
compared with the wavelength (similar to duct end-
reflection loss). Predicted outlet losses are small for typical
silencers installed in duct systems. The relative importance
of inlet and outlet losses is reduced as the length of the
silencer is increased.
Predicting the passage attenuation of a dissipative silencer is
a more complex matter. As would be expected, it is directly
proportional to the length of the silencer passage. It is also
directly proportional to the ratio of the lined perimeter of the
passage divided by the passage cross-sectional area. For a
typical parallel-baffle rectangular silencer (Figure 1) this
ratio is equal to 1/h where h is equal to 1/2 the distance
between the baffles. This means that the passage attenuation
is inversely proportional to the distance between the baffles,
or all other factors being equal, the passage attenuation will
be higher if the baffles are closer together. To further
complicate the matter, the passage attenuation is also a
function of an additional parameter that depends on the
geometry of the passage and the baffles, on the material
characteristics of the porous acoustic media in the baffles,
on frequency, on the airflow velocity in the passage, and in
some applications on temperature.
For wideband sound attenuation, the porous material must
be open enough so sound enters the baffle rather than being
reflected at the interface. The requirements for easy sound
penetration and high dissipation are contradictory unless the
baffle is very thick and packed with material of low flow
resistivity. The choice of baffle thickness and flow
resistivity is always a compromise. Also, silencer
manufacturers do not have strict control over the material
characteristics of the acoustic media that they use and this
becomes a weak link in the performance prediction process.
In terms of the frequency dependence of passage
attenuation, it is known that for a given baffle thickness, a
narrower passage will be more effective in attenuating
higher frequency sounds, whereas a wider passage will
attenuate better at low frequencies. As a rule of thumb, for
good low-frequency performance, the baffle thickness 2d
(Figure 1) must be on the order of 1/8 wavelength. At 125
Hz this works out to about 300 mm (12 inches).
3
Figure 1 - Typical Parallel-Baffle Rectangular Silencer
Normalized attenuation-versus-frequency curves for
parallel-baffle silencers given in Beranek and Vr (1992)
show that the bandwidth of attenuation increases with
decreasing % open area of the silencer cross-section. This
term, also know as the free-area ratio, is the ratio of the
silencer passage area divided by the face area, and is a key
design parameter in rating silencer acoustic performance.
The effect of the airflow velocity is to slightly alter the
effective propagation speed of sound in the passage
therefore creating a velocity gradient near the passage
boundary. This refracts sound toward the lining if
propagation is in the forward flow direction (airflow and
sound are traveling in the same direction as in a supply-air
system) resulting in an increase in high-frequency
attenuation. In the reverse flow direction (airflow and sound
are traveling in opposite directions as in a return-air system)
it focuses sound toward the middle of the passage resulting
in improved low-frequency attenuation.
In summary, doubling the length of a silencer will not
necessarily double the insertion loss. Insertion loss appears
to have a component which is independent of length, to
which is added a component which is proportional to length,
and a limiting factor (flanking). Interpolation between
intermediate lengths may be carried out with reasonable
accuracy (BS 4718).
To assess the relative importance of the silencer insertion
loss components, a cursory review was conducted of one
manufacturers catalog data. By comparing the overall
insertion losses for two 600 x 600 mm (24 x 24 in.)
medium-pressure-drop silencers, having lengths 900 and
2100 mm (3 and 7 ft), it was deduced that approximately 4
dB of the insertion loss at 125 Hz and 5 dB at 2 kHz was
attributed to the inlet and outlet losses. These numbers
amount to about 20 to 30% of the overall insertion loss for
the longer silencer and 35 to 50% for the shorter silencer. It
was also noted that the mid-frequency insertion loss at 500
Hz was attributed entirely to passage attenuation, and
doubling the length of the silencer would, in fact, double the
insertion loss. The results of this simple review are
presented to serve as an example only. Obviously, the
accuracy of the review could be improved by including
catalog data from several other manufacturers in the study.
While the above discussion has been limited to rectangular
parallel-baffle duct silencers, circular cross-section silencers
have some similarities. As a general rule, circular silencers
have poor high-frequency performance if the passage is
4
larger than the sound wavelength. For this reason a center
body is often used to improve the performance.
Flow-generated noise is function of the face velocity and
face area of a silencer, and the percentage open area. An
empirical prediction model has been developed based on
experimental test data (Beranek and Vr 1992). As a general
rule, flow-generated noise is proportional to roughly 50
times the log
10
of the flow velocity (BS 4718). Therefore,
doubling the airflow velocity would increase the flow noise
by about 15 dB. Note that flow noise is not a function of the
silencer length. Also, it is the authors experience that flow
noise is slightly higher for the reverse flow direction than
for forward flow. This would imply that most of the flow
noise is generated at the silencer inlet and in the forward
flow condition a silencers passage attenuation may
effectively reduce some of its own self-noise. Flow noise is
most effectively reduced by increasing the open area of the
silencer. The best source of flow-noise values is the
manufacturers catalog data.
Predicting the pressure drop of a parallel-baffle silencer is
not difficult. The total pressure drop is made up of inlet,
outlet and passage friction losses. Passage friction losses are
also proportional to silencer length, passage perimeter
absorption and inversely proportional to passage cross-
sectional area. It follows that higher silencer passage
attenuation and lower frictional pressure drop are
contradictory requirements.
Pressure-drop data in manufacturers catalogs are stated for
ideal flow conditions. This means that there are straight
unobstructed ducts before and after the silencer. This is not
always the case in the real world, and pressure drops for
installed silencers will usually be higher than those
measured in the laboratory. It is possible to predict the
magnitude of these so-called system-effect factors base on
published charts prepared for this purpose (ASHRAE 2003).
Pressure-drop multipliers are tabulated for various inlet and
outlet conditions. The resulting system-effect adjusted
pressure drop is determined by multiplying the catalog
pressure drop by the inlet and outlet correction factors.
It should be mentioned that the same system conditions also
effect the insertion loss of an installed silencer. For
example, if there are duct elbows installed downstream and
upstream of the silencer, some of the sound power may be
reflected back and pass through the silencer more than once,
therefore increasing the effective insertion loss. The
magnitudes of these system effects on insertion loss are
difficult to predict. However, it is suggested that these
effects be treated as a safety margin to offset the need for
overdesign in a silencer selection. This may explain why, in
the authors experience, very few silencers that were
selected based on manufacturers catalog data fail to
perform acoustically when installed. It is more common to
encounter field problems with excessive silencer pressure
drops or flow-generated noise when undesirable system-
effect conditions were ignored.
All of the above discussion was based on dissipative
silencers. Most silencer manufacturers also offer so-called
no-media or packless silencers. These silencers use
tuned cavities faced with micro-perforated metal to achieve
a reactive attenuation effect (Wu 1997). As a general rule
the passage attenuation for these silencers is less than
dissipative silencers and the reactive silencers need to be
much longer to achieve the equivalent insertion loss.
Packless silencers find applications in clean rooms or
pharmaceutical facilities, to eliminate the risk of particle
contamination in the air.
Another air-quality issue, that of reducing the possibility of
mold growth in the porous material of a dissipative silencer,
is dealt with by completely bagging the acoustic media in a
thin impervious film to keep moisture out. This has the
effect of reducing the high-frequency insertion loss, but this
effect is negligible at frequencies below 500 Hz, the
frequencies that are most important in HVAC applications.
In addition to the insertion loss needed to attenuate airborne
sound in the duct, it is often necessary to reduce the
breakout noise radiated from the casing of a silencer
installed in the ceiling space of a sound-sensitive room
(ASHRAE 2003). If this requirement is identified in
advance, the most economical way to reduce breakout noise
is to fabricate the silencer with a thicker than normal sheet
metal casing.
Some consultants prefer to use acoustically lined ductwork
rather than duct silencers. As a matter of interest, based on
the authors comparison of straight lined duct attenuation
versus silencer insertion loss, it appears that a 600 x 600
mm (24 x 24 in.) medium- pressure-drop silencer 2100 mm
(7 ft) long provides attenuation (at 125 Hz) equivalent to
about 11 m (35 feet) of duct with internal 2-inch thick
acoustical duct lining.
SILENCER TESTING
The earliest documented standard for silencer testing was a
British standard (BS 4718) issued in 1971. Insertion loss
was measured without airflow, by a substitution test (with
and without the silencer). Both the in-duct method using an
anechoic termination and the diffuse-field method using a
reverberant test room were described in the standard. For
the in-duct method, one acoustic measuring plane with
several microphone positions was located downstream of
5
the silencer. The flow-generated noise was measured
separately using the diffuse-field arrangement (direct or
substitution method). A flared inlet was required on the duct
opening in the reverberation room when measuring reverse-
flow generated noise. A method for measuring silencer
casing-radiated sound was described with the silencer and
anechoic termination located inside the reverberant room.
Pressure drop was measured with a straight duct
arrangement having measuring devices upstream and
downstream of the test silencer. The minimum length of
inlet and outlet ducting was 5 duct diameters or 4 m (13.1 ft)
whichever was greater. The expected accuracy for both
insertion loss and flow-generated noise was stated as 3 dB
at 125 Hz and 2 dB at higher frequencies. The pressure-
drop measurement accuracy was stated as 5%. All
acoustical data was measured and reported in octave bands.
In 1991, an International standard (ISO 7235) replaced BS
4718. The ISO standard also uses the substitution method to
measure silencer insertion loss but allows for its
measurement with flow. As with BS 4718, the sound
pressure level can be measured either in the downstream test
duct or in a reverberation room. Details are provided for
constructing a proper anechoic termination if the in-duct test
method is used. The reverberation room method is
recommended when flow noise in the vicinity of the in-duct
microphone is too high. A horn-shaped transmission
element is included at the end of the duct entering the
reverberation room to ensure efficient transfer of sound
power and minimum flow noise. As a refinement to BS
4718, sound pressure levels in ISO 7235 are measured in
1/3-octave bands. The estimated measurement accuracy is
3dB from 50 to 1250 Hz and 2 dB from 1600-10,000 Hz.
In 1973, an American standard (ASTM E 477) was first
issued and has since coexisted alongside BS 4718 and ISO
7235. This standard does not include a provision for in-duct
sound pressure level measurements but uses only the
reverberation room test method. Provisions are made for
testing both straight and elbow silencers. ASTM E 477 has
become the backbone standard for silencer testing and
performance rating certification in North America. This
standard is described in detail below.
The main components of an ASTM E 477 silencer test
facility are the fan chamber, the sound source chamber, the
test ductwork, the silencer test specimen, the substitution
duct, and the reverberation room. Devices for measuring
sound pressure level, airflow pressure and airflow velocity
are also required.
A fan capable of delivering the required air volume and
pressure, at a reasonably low sound power level, is
contained in the fan chamber. The walls of the chamber are
designed to reduce radiated sound transmission from the fan
into the test area, and the fan is mounted on vibration
isolators. Air is ducted in and out of the fan chamber
through fan system silencers to reduce airborne sound
transmission into the supply and return test ducts. Provision
is made for reversing the airflow direction of the fan. This
can be done with a labyrinth system of duct partitions and
doors inside the fan chamber or by manually repositioning
the fan (reversible fans are available but have higher sound
power levels). Variable speed drives are typically used for
varying the airflow volume or velocity. The airflow
measuring station is located at the fan chamber. Airflow
volume or velocity is measured using an orifice plate,
nozzle or venturi flowmeter instrument, or a pitot-tube
transverse method. The standard calls for at least 3 test runs
at different airflow settings. These should cover the full
design operating range of the silencer being tested
The sound source chamber is located at the upstream end of
the test duct, between the fan chamber and the silencer to be
tested. ASTM E 477 uses a 1/3-octave pink-noise signal
source with a frequency range of 50 to 5000 Hz (10 kHz
optional) driving a system of one or more audio power
amplifiers and loudspeakers. The walls of the source
chamber are designed to reduce airborne sound transmission
from the source loudspeakers into the test area. The interior
walls of the source chamber are lined with sound-absorbing
material having an NRC of at least 0.25 to ensure that the
reaction on the sound source (source impedance) remains
constant with and without the silencer in place. The sound
source system is structurally isolated from the chamber and
test duct system.
The test ducts between the sound source chamber and
reverberation room are fabricated with at least 14-gage steel
to reduce break-in and breakout sound transmission. The
upstream and downstream test ducts have the same cross-
sectional dimensions. The length of upstream duct is at least
5 duct diameters (or equivalent diameters for rectangular
duct), and the downstream duct is at least 10 duct diameters
long. All ductwork seams are sealed airtight and all joints
between duct sections have gaskets.
Flanking sound transmitted through the duct walls will
ultimately limit the maximum insertion loss that can be
measured. The standard describes a blocked-duct method
for assessing flanking noise by placing a high transmission
loss barrier immediately upstream of the silencer and
measuring the sound levels with and without the barrier.
Ideally, blocked-duct measured sound levels should be at
least 10 dB below the silencer-measured results (although
corrections can be made if at least 5 dB).
6
The silencer test specimen is inserted between the upstream
and downstream test duct sections. Transitions required to
connect the ducts to the test specimen must comply with the
standard. The test specimen is fitted with flanges and
gaskets to mate with the ducts. Typical lengths of silencer to
be tested are in the 900 to 3000 mm (3 to 10 ft) range. The
minimum cross-sectional size of silencers to be tested is
typically 600 mm (2 ft). The maximum size will depend on
the capabilities of the test facility. ASTM E 477 also
includes details for a semi-reflective plenum to be fitted
around thin-walled silencer specimens (less than 24-gage
steel) to reduce sound transmission through the casing.
The basis of the substitution test method is to measure the
sound level in the reverberation room with and without the
silencer inserted. The substitution duct is used in place of
the test specimen for the empty duct test. The substitution
duct construction is the same as the test ducting.
The reverberation room is used to create an approximate
diffuse sound field. This room is typically built of heavy
concrete to contain the measured sound within the
reverberation room and to reduce transmission of unwanted
sound from outside the room. All doors are provided with
acoustic seals. Reverberation rooms for silencer testing
typically have interior volumes of at least 300 m
3
(10,000 cu
ft) to improve the accuracy at low frequencies (125 Hz and
below). The test duct terminates abruptly at the
reverberation room wall opening. A transfer-air duct system
is required to complete the loop back to the fan.
Sound pressure level readings are taken at several positions
inside the reverberation room in accordance with the
standard. To be valid, the readings must be at least 5 dB
above the background noise level in the reverberation room
(corrections are required if less than 10 dB). Some common
sources of background noise are: flow noise from the fan or
duct system, structure-borne sound from the fan or
loudspeaker transmitted through the duct walls, airborne
sound from the fan or loudspeaker radiated into the test
room or transmitted through the duct walls, and electrical
noise in the measuring equipment. For insertion loss data to
be valid, the sound level readings must be at least 2 dB
higher than the flow-generated noise levels (corrections are
required if less than 10 dB). In ASTM E 477 all sound level
readings are taken in 1/3-octave bands. Equations are
included for converting these readings to octave-band data
for reports. The accuracy is stated as 1 dB (63 to 4000 Hz)
for tests repeated sequentially in the same laboratory and 2
dB (125 to 8000 Hz) for inter-laboratory testing of the same
silencer.
When measuring insertion loss by the substitution or
comparison method, there is no need to determine the end
reflection loss for the test duct termination at the
reverberation room wall. This loss factor will be essentially
the same with and without the silencer and will therefore
cancel out in the comparison test results. However, flow-
generated noise is measured directly in ASTM E 477 and
the readings must be corrected for end reflection loss in
accordance with AMCA 300, unless a horn-shaped
transmission element is fitted on the duct termination as
described in ISO 7235. ASTM E 477 also describes mock-
up testing for non-ducted silencers such as those mounted
directly on fans or in transfer-air openings between rooms.
Static pressure readings are taken 2.5 duct diameters
upstream and 5 duct diameters downstream from the test
specimen at various airflow settings. Typically, the pitot-
tube traverse method is used in conjunction with a suitable
manometer. Temperature, barometric pressure and humidity
readings are also recorded. The total pressure drop across
the silencer is calculated from these readings. No correction
is made for the pressure drop of the substitution duct. The
accuracy of the pressure drop measurements is not stated in
ASTM E 477.
AMCA INTERNATIONALS CERTIFIED RATING
PROGRAM FOR ACOUSTICAL DUCT SILENCERS
In 1997, an AMCA member company identified the need
for a certified rating program (CRP) for duct silencers. It
was suggested that several other manufacturers would also
be interested. AMCA conducted a survey of silencer
companies and organized a telephone conference meeting to
assess their interest. The first face-to-face meeting was held
in September 1997 at AMCA headquarters. Twelve
silencer-manufacturing companies were represented at this
meeting. The meeting included a tour of AMCAs test
facilities and an overview of AMCAs organization. The
discussions included fees, testing capabilities and
certification procedures. Participants were invited to become
provisional members of AMCA, which gave them access to
AMCA programs and activities for a small fee. Full
membership dues and product-assessment fees would not be
charged until the certified rating program was up and
running. A straw vote resulted in the majority of the
attendees agreeing that there was a need for a rating
program for duct silencers. In a second vote, the majority
agreed that this committee was the right committee to
develop the CRP. It was also suggested that Intertek Testing
Services (ITS) could serve as the interim test facility until
AMCA was able to test silencers at its own facilities.
Subcommittees were established to begin work on the CRP.
7
Additional members were invited to join the committee and
some of the original committee members withdrew for
various reasons. After several more meetings over the next
few years, the first issue of the AMCA Certified Rating
Program for Acoustical Duct Silencers (AMCA Publication
1011) was issued in October 2000. The program was
included in the newly formed Acoustic Attenuation Division
of AMCA. However, the lack of a silencer test facility
prevented the program from being implemented at that time.
Four of the CRP committee member companies took an
active role in forming the Engineering Standards Committee
within the Acoustic Attenuation Division. The first task of
this committee was to resolve the test facility issue.
AMCAs existing reverberation room facilities were
inspected and it was determined that, with some feasible
modifications, these rooms would make excellent silencer
test facilities. Using their available resources, and assisted
by AMCA staff, the committee member companies prepared
working drawings for the required alterations. Donations
were solicited for the required equipment, and expert
acoustical consultants were asked to volunteer time to
review the plans for conformance with ASTM E 477. The
drawings were sent out for firm bids. Unfortunately, some
added structural work required to elevate the fan and sound
source chambers to avoid interference with other AMCA
testing activities reversed the feasibility of the modifications
and AMCAs Board of Directors voted to cancel the project
for budgetary reasons.
The original suggestion to use Interteks testing facilities
now appeared more favorable. The Engineering Standards
Committee visited the ITS laboratory in Cortland, New
York. Again, using the resources of the committee
members, volunteer acoustical consultants and AMCA staff,
an agreement was struck with Interteks technical and
administrative staff to use the ITS laboratory for the AMCA
silencer testing program. Initial testing began in August
2003. During the same time when the committees focus
was on the testing facilities, several issues came up
regarding the existing CRP document. Several telephone
conference meetings were held in this regard. As can be
seen from the above discussions on silencer physics and
performance factors, silencer terminology can be
complicated. Even the definition of what constitutes a
silencer model was a challenge to the CRP committee!
In October 2003, the revised draft of the CRP was submitted
to all members of the Acoustic Attenuation Division for a
final vote, and it was accepted. By that time, there were 21
voting member companies in the division (both North
American and international). With the testing and
procedural issues resolved, the silencer program became
effective on November 15, 2003.
The Acoustical Duct Silencers Certified Rating Program
follows general guidelines already in place for other AMCA
certified rating programs (AMCA Publication 11). Silencer
manufacturers submit test specimens of the various lengths
of silencers that they intend to catalog in a model line.
Although there are several factors that define a particular
silencer model, the key indicator is the passage free-area
ratio. It is mandatory to first test the 600 x 600 mm (24 x 24
in.) size for each model length to be licensed. Other sizes
can then be tested based on the capabilities of the
laboratory. The manufacturers catalog data must state
which size(s) were tested.
The Intertek facility is the only laboratory currently
approved for the AMCA program. Testing is conducted in
accordance with ASTM E 477. It is anticipated that, in the
future, silencer manufacturers that have their own ASTM E
477 certified laboratories will be able to apply for AMCA
accreditation, and thus reduce their testing costs. The
precertification check tests to determine the validity of the
test data submitted by the manufacturer are done only at the
AMCA laboratory (Intertek). Before setting the check-test
tolerances, the preliminary results of an ASTM E 477 inter-
laboratory silencer testing program were reviewed by the
CRP committee (Kingsbury 2000). The tolerances for
insertion loss data in the CRP are 3 dB (125 to 8000 Hz)
and 6 dB (63 Hz). The tolerances for flow-generated noise
are 6 dB (125 to 8000 Hz) and 12 dB (63 Hz). The tolerance
for pressure drop is 20%. Some of the committee members
are of the opinion that these tolerances are too lenient and
they will likely be reviewed as the program unfolds.
Once the test data for a model is approved, the manufacturer
submits the proposed catalog data (printed or electronic) for
AMCA review. The manufacturers published catalog is
also reviewed by AMCA before issuing the license for the
silencer model. The manufacturer can then attach AMCA
certification labels on the licensed products before shipping.
This whole process appears straightforward but it is
anticipated that there will be some growing pains again
due to the complexities of duct silencers. As the program
gains momentum, the mechanical and acoustical consulting
community will be urged to include the requirement for
AMCA International certification in their specifications for
duct silencers.
SUMMARY
In this paper, an attempt is made to bring together relevant
information regarding the physics, performance, testing and
certification of duct silencers. Particular emphasis is placed
on the introduction of the AMCA International Certified
Rating Program for Acoustical Duct Silencers (AMCA
Publication 1011). To compile this technical information,
8
some generalizations were necessary. The reader is directed
to the references listed below that contain the detailed
technical information on which this paper is based.
REFERENCES
AMCA 300. Reverberation Room Method for Sound
Testing of Fans.
AMCA Publication 11. Certified Ratings Program
Operating Manual.
AMCA Publication 1011-03. Certified Rating Program
Acoustical Duct Silencers.
ASHRAE 2003. 2003 ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC
Applications, Chapter 47.
ASTM E 477-99. Standard Test Method for Measuring
Acoustical and Airflow Performance of Duct Liner
Materials and Prefabricated Silencers.
Beranek, L.L. and I.L. Vr. 1992. Noise and Vibration
Control Engineering, Chapter 10. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
BS 4718: 1971. Methods of Test for Silencers for Air
Distribution Systems.
ISO 7235: 2003. Acoustics Measurement procedures for
ducted silencers Insertion loss, flow noise and total
pressure loss.
Kingsbury, H.F. 2000. ASTM Committee E-33 Research
Report Interlaboratory Test Study on E-477, Silencer and
Duct Lining Test Method.
Wu, M.Q. 1997. Micro-perforated panels for duct silencing.
Noise Control Engineering Journal 45 (2), 88 (1997).