Need Help Designing Speaker Enclosure/Engineering

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris Larabee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Designing Speaker
Click For Summary
A new user on a physics forum is seeking help with designing a closed baffle enclosure for a 10.1'' subwoofer after encountering issues with their calculations. They initially calculated the acoustic box compliance and volume but ended up with confusing results, leading to doubts about their understanding of the formulas. Another user provided a correct calculation using Thiele/Small parameters, yielding a compliance volume of approximately 49 liters, which aligns with manufacturer recommendations. The discussion also touched on dimensional analysis, helping clarify the units involved in the calculations. Overall, the exchange emphasizes the importance of accurate calculations and understanding the underlying physics in speaker design.
Chris Larabee
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello all, first post here to physics forums and I have a lot to learn. I will be attending a northern Ontario university for Mechanical Engineering in fall so hopefully this relationship proves fruitful.

Here is my problem, I bought a new stereo for my jeep.. and I am having trouble designing a closed baffle enclosure for my 10.1'' subwoofer.

Here is where I am and how I got there, and why I am having trouble...

Given:
Fs = resonant frequency = 33.5 Hz
Cms = mechanical compliance = 0.0002m/N (metres / Newton)
Sd = effective area of cone = 0.0415m^2 (metres squared)

Unknown:

Cas = Acoustic Driver Compliance Cas=Cms*Sd^2
Cab = Acoustic Box Compliance Cab=Cas *R\
R= driver to box compliance ratio
R = 2

So: Cas = 0.0002m*(0.0415m^2)^2
=0.0002m/N*(0.00172225m^4)
Cas = 3.4 * 10 ^-7 m^5/N

Therefore Cab = 3.4 * 10 ^-7 m^5/N divided by two
= 1.72 x 10^-7m5/N

Now Volume of the Box Vb = Cab *Gamma Constant (Lets assume it is 5.77)
Vb = 1.72 x 10^-7 m^5 /N * 5,77
Vb = approx .99 x 10^-7m5/N

^^^^NOW HERE IS MY ISSUE^^^^

How the hell am I coming up with such a wrong answer, surly area is not expressed in terms of M^5/Newton and why is my volume so high? The Manufacturer recommends an enclosure from 0.08 m^2

please HELP, I will greatly appreciate it and contribute as much as I can to this forum :)

Also I am fresh out of high school took a year off, and its been 2 years since high level Math or Physics courses so please excuse me if the mistake I am making is pity.
 
Science news on Phys.org
Hi Chris, and welcome to PF!
I checked the Thiele/Small parameters page on Wikipedia to look at the equation (which I did not know by heart), and my quick calculation with your numbers yielded an equivalent compliance volume that is 49 liter. I will post my calculation here in a while...

EDIT:
According to wiki, the equation is

Vas = ρ * c2 * Sd2 * Cms

and with your values above, this yields

Vas = 1.184 * 346.12 * 0.04152 * 0.0002 m3 ≈ 0.048852 m3 ≈ 49 liters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Chris Larabee
DennisN said:
Hi Chris, and welcome to PF!
I checked the Thiele/Small parameters page on Wikipedia to look at the equation (which I did not know by heart), and my quick calculation with your numbers yielded an equivalent compliance volume that is 49 liter. I will post my calculation here in a while...

EDIT:
According to wiki, the equation is

Vas = ρ * c2 * Sd2 * Cms

and with your values above, this yields

Vas = 1.184 * 346.12 * 0.04152 * 0.0002 m3 ≈ 0.048852 m3 ≈ 49 liters.
Thank you so much! If you could post your solution I would greatly appreciate it, I know there are other ways but I found the thiele parameters easy.. I'm sure that won't be the case for my mid frequency and tweeter drivers.
 
DennisN said:
Hi Chris, and welcome to PF!
I checked the Thiele/Small parameters page on Wikipedia to look at the equation (which I did not know by heart), and my quick calculation with your numbers yielded an equivalent compliance volume that is 49 liter. I will post my calculation here in a while...

EDIT:
According to wiki, the equation is

Vas = ρ * c2 * Sd2 * Cms

and with your values above, this yields

Vas = 1.184 * 346.12 * 0.04152 * 0.0002 m3 ≈ 0.048852 m3 ≈ 49 liters.
I noticed something in your calculations , shouldn't it be p * c^2 * (0.0415m^2)^2 * 0.0002m/N? Which leaves me in the same confused state as to what to do with Newtons
 
Chris Larabee said:
I noticed something in your calculations , shouldn't it be p * c^2 * (0.0415m^2)^2 * 0.0002m/N? Which leaves me in the same confused state as to what to do with Newtons

Maybe, just maybe, if we resolve everything to mass, length and time:

Newton is force which = ma so it could have units mass X length/time^2

so
Vas = ρ * c2 * Sd2 * Cmsrho would be mass/length^3
c^2 would be length^2/time^2
Sd^2 would be length^4
Cms in meters per Newton would be length/(mass X length/time^2) equals time^2/mass

so i get for units of Vas

[mass/length^3] X [length^2/time^2 ] X[length^4] X [ time^2/mass]

which has for numerator = mass X length^2 X length^4 X time^2
and has for denominator = length^3 X time^2 X 1 X mass

so mass cancels
time^2 cancels
all that's left is length^3 which is volume.

Chris Larabee said:
Which leaves me in the same confused state as to what to do with Newtons

use 'em to get rid of that pesky velocity and mass

hope above helps

old jim
 
jim hardy said:
Maybe, just maybe, if we resolve everything to mass, length and time:

Newton is force which = ma so it could have units mass X length/time^2

so
Vas = ρ * c2 * Sd2 * Cmsrho would be mass/length^3
c^2 would be length^2/time^2
Sd^2 would be length^4
Cms in meters per Newton would be length/(mass X length/time^2) equals time^2/mass

so i get for units of Vas

[mass/length^3] X [length^2/time^2 ] X[length^4] X [ time^2/mass]

which has for numerator = mass X length^2 X length^4 X time^2
and has for denominator = length^3 X time^2 X 1 X mass

so mass cancels
time^2 cancels
all that's left is length^3 which is volume.
use 'em to get rid of that pesky velocity and mass

hope above helps

old jim
Thank you sir, I had forgotten all about dimensional analysis. I was a bad student in grade 12, often stoned for the majority of physics so I don't recall much. I did much better in grade 11, and since have learned my lesson that smoking everyday is something my brain can no longer do if I wish to keep what intelligence I have left, let that be a lesson to some.

Thank you
 
I sacrificed quite a few brain cells to beer and won't cast stones.

Glad to see you digging into speakers, they're really interesting.

Have fun
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
55
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
572
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K