OSU Vibro Acoustic Analysis

Important Notice
In August 1, 2013, PABCO® Gypsum, a division of PABCO® building products, LLC acquired
the QuietRock® business and operations from Serious Energy, Inc. Serious Energy, Inc. corporate
structure and legal name changed through the years from Quiet Solution, Inc. to Serious
Materials, Inc to Serious Energy, Inc. The acquisition of the QuietRock® business by PABCO®
Gypsum includes the products, technical data, test reports and other intellectual property. For
the avoidance of confusion, references to “Quiet Solution”, “Serious Materials”, or “Serious
Energy” used within test reports, in general, should be understood as references to PABCO®
Gypsum as of August 1, 2013.
QuietRock by PABCO® Gypsum 37851 Cherry Street Newark, CA 94560 | 1.800.797.8159 | www.QuietRock.com
CUSTOMER: Marc Porat / Kevin Surace CUST. REF. NO: PO 00001
COMPANY: Quiet Solution CTC ACCT. NO: 154C001
REPORT DATE: May 10, 2003 CTC REPORT NO: 030100
PREPARED BY: David Raymond DISTRIBUTION: D. Richard
SUBJECT Evaluation of Quiet Solution Viscoelastic Polymer Applied to Brass
INTRODUCTION
Quiet Solution provided CTC with a pair of brass

cymbals for testing their NoiseKiller product. The
purpose of the test was to determine the effectiveness of
the coating over a range of temperatures. A set of brass
cymbals was chosen as the test object to demonstrate
the product. An untreated cymbal was compared to one
that had the Quiet Solution treatment applied to the
bottom surface. Impact vibration response analysis was
used as the basis for the evaluation. A baseline test of
the standard cymbal was conducted at ambient followed
by identical tests between –50° F and +150° F on the
Figure 1 - Cymbal with Miniature Response
treated cymbal. Accelerometer and Thermocouple to Monitor
Temperature
CONCLUSION
The Quiet Solution NoiseKiller product provided very effective damping from -50° F to +150°
F. The mean vibration levels were reduced by 15 db to 30 db over the test temperature range.
RESULTS
Vibration damping was evaluated by measuring acceleration levels of the cymbal at the same
location for treated and untreated cases. Baseline untreated response was taken for one brass
cymbal at 65° F. This was used as a comparison point for the treated cymbal at various
temperatures. The treated cymbal response spectra were compared to give a relative
evaluation of the overall efficiency of the material in providing damping over a wide temperature
range. The average or mean value of each spectra from 10 Hz to 10 KHz was used as the
overall basis of comparison. The treated cymbal provided damping over the entire range. The
impact response window results are presented in acceleration units of db g per lb force. This
normalizes impact force that was measured for each strike of the cymbal.
The mean value results as a function of temperature are plotted with a reference line for the
room temperature response of an un-damped untreated cymbal in Figure 2. For the purposes
of this test the untreated cymbal was not tested at all temperatures since it has relatively small
1205 Coleman Avenue Santa Clara, California 95050 Phone 408.289.2242 Fax 408-289-4429 www.ctc-consultants.com
CTC Test Report 030100
p. 2
inherent damping. Figure 3 shows the db difference measured between the treated and the
baseline untreated case as a function of temperature. Figure 4 shows a time history
comparison plot of treated and untreated g response levels.
25
120
Quiet Solution Cymbal Vibration Damping Comparison
110 Untreated at 65 F versus Treated* -50 F to +150 F
100
Baseline Reference Untreated Brass Cymbal at +65 F
90
80
Vibration Reduction
db, g/lbf
70
60
Cymbal Response Treated With
Quiet Solution "Noise Killer"
50
M aximum Performance at 110F

40
30 *Treated Values taken from mean response from 10 Hz to 10 KHz

Untreated Response Value taken at +65 F
20
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Temperature Degrees F
Figure 2 – Mean Vibration Response of Cymbal Treated with NoiseKiller

versus Untreated Cymbal at Ambient 65° F.
1205 Coleman Avenue Santa Clara, California 95050 Phone 408.289.2242 Fax 408.289.4429 www.ctcudlp.com
p. 3
60
Untreated at 65 F versus Treated -50 F to +150 F
50
40
Reduction in Level Compared to Baseline
Untreated Response at +65 F
db, g/lbf
30
20
Maximum Performance at 110 F

10
*Treated Values taken from mean response from 10 Hz to 10 KHz
Untreated Response Value taken at +65 F
0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Temperature Degrees F
Figure 3 – Mean Vibration Amplitude Reduction Between

Untreated and Treated Cymbals
p. 4
100

80
Time History - Untreated at 65 F versus Treated at 110 F
60
Red - Untreated
40
Blue - Treated
20
Response g
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 .15 0 .2 0 .2 5 0 .3 0 .3 5 0 .4 0 .4 5 0 .5
Time - Seconds
Figure 4 – Example Time History of Cymbal Treated with NoiseKiller versus

Un-Treated Cymbal
p. 5
DISCUSSION
Testing was conducted at CTC’s Mechanical Test Lab in Santa Clara California.
The test procedure was as follows:
1) A very small Endevco 2250-A accelerometer

with response to 10 Khz was attached to the
top surface of the cymbal approximately ½ way
between the center and the outside.
2) A type K thermocouple was installed near the
center hole of the cymbal to monitor
temperature. Each run was conducted when
the cymbal was stabilized at the correct
temperature.
3) The cymbal exposed to temperature was
installed on a short stand in an environmental
chamber that was programmed to achieve the
correct test temperatures.
4) A 2 channel Data Physics spectrum analyzer
connected to a PC laptop acquired data
between 10 Hz and 10 KHz. (actual sample Figure 5 – Cymbal on Stand in
rate higher to achieve FFT bandwidth). Environmental Chamber
5) The analyzer was programmed for force response window. A modal impact hammer
with a piezoelectric PCB force sensor was connected to the first channel of the spectrum
analyzer, the response accelerometer to the second.
6) An impact response FFT window was chosen to evaluate the response of the cymbal to
impact. This window normalizes the response in terms of g per lb impact force for ease
of comparison since each strike from the modal hammer does not have the same impact
force. The analyzer was triggered off the impact hammer and acquired spectral
averages for each impact. For each run 10 impacts were averaged together. Incorrect
looking or double hit impacts were rejected and not included in the averaged window.
7) The spectral data was plotted in the g/lb versus frequency format. Time history and
spectral output data was exported in ASCII format to MS Excel files for further plotting
and calculation.
David Raymond
PE ME
p. 6
APPENDIX A
SPECTRAL DATA PLOTS
General Plot Notes:
Y axis units – Magnitude values for g per lbf are plotted on a db scale referenced to
zero db = 1 g per lbf. The g response values were normalized for
impact force since 10 impact spectra were averaged together.
db units - db=20 log (x/x ref) In this case x= g/lbf measured and x ref = 1 g/lbf, This
is the calculation typically used for sound or vibration levels.
Note that electrical db measurement related to power are calculated db=10 log (x/ x ref),
The mean value of the db reading is shown for each plot and is used as the relative
basis of comparing vibration levels for this test.
p. 7
Untreated Cymbal Response @ +65 F

200.0
180.0 Mean: 91.5095
160.0
140.0
dBMag, g / lbf
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0
0 2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz
p. 8
Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @- 50 F

140.0
120.0
Mean: 71.7617
100.0
dBMag, g / lbf
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0
0 2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz
p. 9

140.0
Mean: 73.4613
120.0
100.0
dBMag, g / lbf
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0
0 2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz
p. 10

140.0
Mean: 70.1858
120.0
100.0
dBMag, g / lbf
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0
0 2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz
p. 11
Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @ +10F

140.0
Mean: 71.2201
120.0
100.0
dBMag, g / lbf
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0
0 2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz
p. 12
Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @ +30 F

140.0
Mean: 76.522
120.0
100.0
dBMag, g / lbf
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0
0 2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz
p. 13

120.0
Mean: 67.355
100.0
80.0
dBMag, g / lbf
60.0
40.0
20.0
0
0 2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz
p. 14

120.0
110.0
Mean: 67.1472
100.0
90.0
80.0
dBMag, g / lbf
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0
0 2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz
p. 15

140.0
120.0
Mean: 65.2494
100.0
dBMag, g / lbf
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0
2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz
p. 16
Quiet SolutionTreated Cymbal, Response @ +110 F

120.0
Mean: 62.4465
100.0
80.0
dBMag, g / lbf
60.0
40.0
20.0
0
0 2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz
p. 17
Quiet SolutionTreated Cymbal, Response @ +130F

140.0
120.0
Mean: 65.4805
100.0
dBMag, g / lbf
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0
0 2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz
p. 18
Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @ +150F

140.0
Mean: 72.3188
120.0
100.0
dBMag, g / lbf
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0
0 2.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K
Hz

OSU Vibro Acoustic Analysis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

OSU Vibro Acoustic Analysis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Important Notice

COMPANY: Quiet Solution CTC ACCT. NO: 154C001

REPORT DATE: May 10, 2003 CTC REPORT NO: 030100

PREPARED BY: David Raymond DISTRIBUTION: D. Richard

SUBJECT Evaluation of Quiet Solution Viscoelastic Polymer Applied to Brass

Quiet Solution provided CTC with a pair of brass

M aximum Performance at 110F

30 *Treated Values taken from mean response from 10 Hz to 10 KHz

Figure 2 – Mean Vibration Response of Cymbal Treated with NoiseKiller

Maximum Performance at 110 F

Figure 3 – Mean Vibration Amplitude Reduction Between

Quiet Solution Cymbal Vibration Damping Comparison

Figure 4 – Example Time History of Cymbal Treated with NoiseKiller versus

The test procedure was as follows:

1) A very small Endevco 2250-A accelerometer

SPECTRAL DATA PLOTS

General Plot Notes:

Untreated Cymbal Response @ +65 F

180.0 Mean: 91.5095

Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @- 50 F

Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @- 30 F

Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @- 10 F

Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @ +10F

Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @ +30 F

Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @ +50 F

Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @ +70 F

Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @ +90 F

Quiet SolutionTreated Cymbal, Response @ +110 F

Quiet SolutionTreated Cymbal, Response @ +130F

Quiet Solution Treated Cymbal, Response @ +150F

Вам также может понравиться