Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Acoustics / July 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

European to American units: Young's Modulus and Damping conversion

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Matthew Colvard - 15 Jul 2005 22:26 GMT
I am trying to use a prediction program called INSUL.  The Young
Modulus can be entered either in units called GPa or in Hertz*Kg per
square meter.  The information from the manufacturer is in Durameters.
What is the conversion?
Also the American units for damping are in STC values.  But the damping
in the program seems to be unitless and expressed as a percentage.  Any
ideas?
Thanks alot,
Matthew
Angelo Campanella - 16 Jul 2005 02:53 GMT
> I am trying to use a prediction program called INSUL.  The Young
> Modulus can be entered either in units called GPa or in Hertz*Kg per
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> in the program seems to be unitless and expressed as a percentage.  Any
> ideas?

For starters, young's modulus for iron and steel is about 30 million psi
(3x10^7 pounds per square inch). Aluminum is 10^7.

GPa sounds like gigapascals (10^9 pascals). Pascals and psi are the same
entity (pressure). Likewise for Kg/m^2. It looks like all you have left
to do is to figure out what Hertz is doing there.

Damping, when expressed in percentage, refers to percent of critical
damping (single half-cycle response to an impulse).

That's all I can relate at the moment.

Angelo Campanella
Kari Pesonen - 16 Jul 2005 10:15 GMT
>I am trying to use a prediction program called INSUL.  The Young
> Modulus can be entered either in units called GPa or in Hertz*Kg per
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Thanks alot,
> Matthew

Pa = N/m^2 = (kg m/(s^2 m^2))= Hz^2 kg/m. Perhaps this definition?

STC = Sound Transmission Class in dB corresponds roughly weighted sound
reduction
Rw defined in  ISO-717-series standard.

I expect that INSUL expects material damping  known also as dissipation
or (internal, material) loss factor (bellow n, usually symbol is Greek eta)

n = 2(C/Ccr) = ln(10^6)/(wn T60) = 2.20/(fn T60)

C = viscous damping coeff. N s/m,
Ccr = critical damping coeff. N s/m,
fn = natural frequency Hz
wn = natural frequency rad/s
T60 = reverberation time s (time within that vibration is damped 60 dB or to
10^-6)

for one degree of vibration systems:
Ccr = 2 sqrt(k m) = 2 m wn
k = spring constant N/m
m = mass kg

For steel n = 0,001...0,006 or 0,1...0,6 % (infinite plates in flexural
vibration)

Kari Pesonen
Noral Stewart - 16 Jul 2005 13:00 GMT
Your posting is full of misunderstandings.

Modulus has units of force per unit area like pressure.  Pa is such a unit
in the metric system equivalent N/m^2.  However, commonly in metric
countries, units of mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity are used
instead of force units such as Newtons.  Thus, you get units like
kg-m/(sec^2) instead of N.  From this it looks like you are getting a Hz
into the units but I believe it works out as Kari Pesonen suggests rather
than the units you get.  I do not have access to my copy of INSUL right now
to check just what it says.

Though there may be some relationship, I do not believe Durometer is the
same thing as Young's modulus.

STC is not a measure of damping.  It is a single number rating of the sound
blockage ability of a partition.  It is one of the results that INSUL
provides rather than an iput parameter.  Damping of the material is one of
the input parameters.

The damping you are referring to in percentage is probably that input
parameter which is the actual material damping, that is the true meaning of
damping related to the ability of the material to damp vibrations.  This
influences the sound blockage at the coincidence frequency of the panel.

I think part of your problem is the common misuse of the the term "damping"
to mean various things acoustical such as sound absorption or even sound
blockage, rather than confining its use to the proper meaning.

>I am trying to use a prediction program called INSUL.  The Young
> Modulus can be entered either in units called GPa or in Hertz*Kg per
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Thanks alot,
> Matthew
Angelo Campanella - 16 Jul 2005 21:06 GMT
> Though there may be some relationship, I do not believe Durometer is the
> same thing as Young's modulus.

    It depends on the math model being used. If STC and INSUL is used in
the same breath, it may mean that INSUL wants to predict the STC of a
partition or the like.

    In reaching beyond the Mass Law, one may use the "plateau" method of TL
estimation, where the coincidence frequency is estimated, then a
three-sloped curve is predicted to represent the TL behavior with
frequency.

    An example is concrete, 8" thick. There the plateau level has a of
about 38dB. It extends above and below the coincidence frequency of
about 200Hz by about an octave. Below 100Hz, the TL drops off about6 dB
per octave. Above 400Hz, TL increases by about 12 dB per octave.
(Rettinger, "Acoustics", Chem Pub. Co. 1968, p110).

    Computation of the coincidence frequency needs Young's modulus and
thickness in addition to density to proceed. Damping is also needed to
round off the resonances.

    Durometer is an empirical measure of elasticity. I'm sure that there is
a one-to-one correspondence of Durometer to Young's Modulus of the same
material, but that relationship escapes me. The term "Shore A" hardness
is also involved.

        Angelo Campanella
The Ghost - 16 Jul 2005 21:39 GMT
>> Though there may be some relationship, I do not believe Durometer is
>> the same thing as Young's modulus.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
>           Angelo Campanella


http://www.moldeddimensions.com/hardness.htm

For what it's worth, according to the above link "Frequently, hardness is
assumed to correlate with stiffness (modulus), but this is not always true.
Variations of a few points in hardness can show a marked difference in
compression-deflection."  The claims may be right, or may be wrong. I don't
know because I don't have any specific experience in these matters.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.