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 soundattenuating 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 airflowgenerated 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

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 endreflection 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).

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

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 log10 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 crosssectional 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 4

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 systemeffect 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

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 reverseflow 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 pressuredrop 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 crosssectional 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).

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.

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, flowgenerated 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 mockup 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 pitottube 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.

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 m3 (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.

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 interlaboratory 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, 7

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 Operating Manual. 11. Certified Ratings Program

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).

AMCA Publication 1011-03. Certified Rating Program Acoustical Duct Silencers. ASHRAE 2003. 2003 ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC Applications, Chapter 47.