|
Here at MAP, we are proud to offer extensive in-house testing for existing customers, potential customers and any other acoustical or thermal inquiry. Those capabilities include ASTM E1050, ASTM C384, ASTM E2611 and product development troubleshooting. This laboratory is located at our Easton, PA corporate headquarters. We look forward to assisting you with your future acoustical and thermal research. |
 |
|
||
|
MAP capabilities include the measurement and reporting of the normal incidence sound absorption coefficient per ASTM E1050 method. We utilize the latest Bruel & Kjaer test equipment, PULSE analyzer, and material testing software. Variety of materials can be tested and, according to their results, physical properties adjusted to meet the desirable sound absorption criteria.
|
| |
|
||
|
In addition to a sound absorption testing, MAP is capable of measuring the transmission loss (TL) by impedance tube ASTM E2611 method. This method provides for fast measurement of transmission loss and is very useful in directly comparing various materials' sound transmission loss characteristics without the extensive and expensive STC testing.
|
| |
|
||
|
Custom materials and product design are the specialty of MAP. We provide research and development services that best align with customers' physical requirement and cost constraints. MAP utilizes the in-house R&D capabilities and vast network of suppliers which are capable of producing custom developed products that meet the desired specifications.
|
| |
|
||
|
Many of our customers rely on MAP’s expertise to improve the performance of their products. Our knowledge of materials and processes, extensive acoustical library, and in-house testing capabilities allow for enhancement of the acoustical and physical aspects of products.
|
| |
Glass Fiber vs. Foam Testing |
||
| MAP has an ongoing commitment in researching our raw materials to the greatest extent, in order to provide customers with the best possible solutions. The below chart represents E1050 sound absorption coefficient when comparing glass fiber vs. foams. |
 |