AFMG Network Forum
AFMG Network Forum Index -> EASE 4 -> Seperate enclosed spaces within a single model
Post new topic  Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic 
Seperate enclosed spaces within a single model
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:44 am Reply with quote
Kyle Ridenour
Member
 
Joined: 26 Feb 2018
Posts: 2




Hi, all.

Topic is EASE modeling of acoustical characteristics in separate closed spaces within a single model.

Thought excercise scenario I set up was to model two seperate closed 10 foot cubes seperated by about 15 feet of airspace. I then surfaced one of the cubes with marble (all surfaces) and one of the cubes with the default "absorber" material. I put an audience area in each, and then a "sphere" speaker within the cube that was surfaced entirely with Marble.

I found that when I turned on the loudspeaker on and modeled direct SPL energy without shadowing, the program showed energy on the audience area within both cubes, with little (no?) attenuation of the signal in either cube due to "passing through" the marble or the absorber.

When I then turned shadowing on and modeled direct SPL energy, the result was that the marble cube had energy on the audience area (as expected), and the absorber cube had no energy at all (again as expected). So, in other words, the marble acted as the barrier that I expected it to be due to the shadowing setting with respect to a direct SPL calculation.

When I repeated this excercise, however, for "total SPL", I found that, both with and without shadowing, the model showed energy on the audience area within both cubes, with very little attenuation in the absorber cube with no loudspeaker in it as compared to the marble cube that had the loudspeaker within.

What I think this is teaching me is that some of the available calculations within the program will have a hard time with completely seperate closed spaces within a single model, at least with regard to accurate prediction of things like Total SPL in each area when such a complete seperation exists. I do notice that the room information does seemingly treat the enclosed volume (in my case, both separate "cubes") as a single room, and therefore the calculations are possibly subject to some possibly misleading assumptions with regard to enclosed volume, absorption coefficients (and therefore RT, etc) in each unique separate space.

Does this track with other experiences out there, or am I simply missing something? It does seem to me that the majority of other calculations seem to "understand" this seperation, but I would be very interested to know what other calculations may struggle here, if nothing else because the volumes and absorption information is compromised at some level by averaging across the seperate spaces within the same model.

For the record, my history with EASE is much more traditional (single space modeling), and it may be that the answer is that I need to sub divide my process to reflect each seperate space as a truly seperate model in order to get the best results. In this case, we have a large project that has seperate acoustical spaces, and that led me to test the theory prior to setting out on the complete modeling process. The results were interesting, so I thought I would ask some questions to increase my understanding.

Any help appreciated! Cheers!

-Kyle
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:43 am Reply with quote
Waldemar
Member
 
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 112




Hi Kyle,

it is not allowed to use more than one closed room in EASE.
All calculations which use statistical formulas, give wrong results.
If you do not use any statistical input, like the calculations with AURA, the results will be correct.
Regardless of this, we do not recommend to use several closed rooms in one project.

_________________
Best Regards
SDA, Waldemar Richert
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:08 pm Reply with quote
Kyle Ridenour
Member
 
Joined: 26 Feb 2018
Posts: 2




As I assumed, Waldemar, and I have moved forward with that assumption. Just wanted to check my understanding. Many thanks for the confirmation!

Cheers!

-Kyle
View user's profile Send private message
AFMG Network Forum Index -> EASE 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 1  

  
  
 Post new topic  Reply to topic  


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2003 phpBB Group
Theme created by Vjacheslav Trushkin
Variation by CodeWeavers and AFMG