PRACTICE IN SCATTERING SURFACES
Michael Manoleskos 420099613
Research Report, DESC9031, Semester 1 2016
Graduate Program in Audio and Acoustics
Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney
1. INTRODUCTION
Scattering surfaces are a relatively new area of studied
acoustics. Although scattering has been implemented in
architectural acoustics for thousands of years, predictable
scattering has only been distinguished within the last 40
years. This is exemplified through the work of Manfred
R. Schroeder with the invention of the maximums-length
sequence diffuser (1975) [1]. Given the embryonic stage
within the life of modern studied scattering, it is evident
that new devices are being designed and built with the
potential for new developments to be discovered.
As opposed to the Schroeder MLS diffuser, present
diffusers are now able to scatter sound in uniform
distribution from different angles, at a higher bandwidth,
and can also provide effective absorption at different
frequencies. The main benefit of scattering sound in
room acoustics over absorption is that; the sound energy
is not removed from the room, which allows for the room
to maintain an open sound. This can improve room
acoustics to make speech more intelligible and enhance
the auditory environment for musical and audio
applications. Although diffusers allow this benefit, they
are often large, complicated in design and expensive to
make.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the basics
of a scattering surface. The paper will seek to create a
space conscious, cost effective dual-layered panel with a
practical scattering coefficient from flat surfaces, which
uses a reduction in typical materials. Essentially, the
research is looking to achieve a balance between
achieving an effective panel that does not require the
depth, cost or involve the complicated visual design of a
traditional panel. We will aim to provide a basic
scattering coefficient with the expectation that on
completion of this study we will formulate a greater
understanding of scattering surfaces. We should then be
able to design a similar panel with a greater scattering
coefficient than the first. A simple design using separated
multiple layers of medium density fiberboard, with open
areas is proposed.
This paper will seek to investigate the scattering
coefficient of a device that utilizes three flat layers
(including the use of an extraneous surface) of thin
separated (or disconnected) layers of material. We will
aim to achieve a positive result for the scattering
coefficient, with a reduction in materials that are usually
commonplace amongst scattering devices and diffuser
systems.
We will ask; does the two layered design work better
than a one layer design? Does the angle between the two
layers affect the scattering coefficient? Is this particular
design relative to wavelength? Does the air gap affect the
scattering coefficient?
This paper hypothesizes that if we can scatter sound
at a positive coefficient in the presence of spaced air gaps
utilizing flat surfaces, then it is possible that we will be
able to achieve a cost effective discreet design through
the use of reduced materials.
We will analyse the scattering results, with the aim of
providing positive scattering coefficients. The context of
which is that we may able to justify further research into
the limited available designs of existing scattering
devices. We will also measure a single layered device
and seek to validate that the use of dual layers interacting
with an extraneous surface will provide a superior
scattering coefficient. A further measurement will take
place observing the relationship between the angle of the
top layer and the scattering coefficient.
It has been considered in the design that a reduction
of scattering (as opposed to a traditional scattering
device) will be present via the inclusion of air gaps.
Thus, within the considerations of design, it is premised
that if we scatter with air gaps present, then we should be
in a position to assess if a trade off between the mass of
the system and scattering capability is fit for practical
use.
We will observe common scattering devices to
further understand the workings of the high scattering
coefficients. Through understanding the scattering
capabilities of these devices, we should be in a position
to achieve a positive result from a capable two layer
system with scattering capabilities.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Diffraction
It can be stated that wavefronts of sound travel in straight
lines [3]. This concept is true to sound ray theory; which
is applied to mid to high frequencies. If an obstacle is
situated in the path of a sound ray, the sound ray can
change direction and diffract through phase
interference. However, if the obstacle is larger in
dimension than the physical size of the wave, the wave
will be reflected rather than experience a change of
direction. Thus, diffraction can at its simplest, can be
described as the directional change of a sound wave.
Diffraction can be achieved through; apertures, slits,
zone plates, edges or any obstacle relative to the
wavelength size. We can use this occurrence within the
designs of room treatment devices and create targeted
diffractions that scatter sound. This concept however has
been used within architecture to scatter sounds for
thousands of years. An example is the diffraction effects
caused by seating arrangements at the Hellenistic
amphitheatre of Epidaurus [21]. The seats or obstacles
are arranged in such a way that the sound within the
amphitheatre are spread out amongst the audience. This
technique was not limited to this one design, however
used in many instances and can provide further theory to
diffraction in room treatment design.

2.2 Scattering from Objects
Scattering can be achieved through diffraction from
various objects. Evidently, we could achieve a scattering
result from a bunch of bananas. We will however be
seeing to achieve positive scattering coefficients from
flat surfaces, which will indeed prove a more difficult
task than measuring curved or angled objects. In Figure
1, we can see that objects such as a theatre audience,
stairs, tables and chairs all produce a positive scattering
coefficient.
Figure 1. Scattering Coefficient of various surfaces and
objects; Data sourced from [15][16][17][18][19][20]
These objects are however utilizing curved or angled
surfaces, which we can identify as being a traditional
scattering method. When looking to achieve scattering
from flat surfaces, we could consider that it would be
unlikely to achieve scattering coefficients as great as in
the table above. However, it should be considered that
when considering the nature of diffraction occurring
through a slit or aperture, we would in this instance be
achieving scattering from what could be a flat surface.
It is observed that when looking to achieve a positive
scattering coefficient, we essentially can just place an
object or shape relative to wavelength in front of a sound
source. We usually see scattering from objects that are
angled or curved in nature, so essentially scattering
should occur from anything that is not flat. An example
is; if the angled or curved object is smaller in dimension
than the wavelength, the surface would act as mostly
reflective and if the angled or curved object is larger in
dimension than the wavelength, the surface would scatter
the sound. It could also be said that if an object is
significantly larger than the wavelength it could also
produce reflection. With this in consideration, scattering
devices would be considered to be frequency dependent.
Scattering although is usually targeted at mid to high
frequencies, with lower frequencies providing more
practical control through absorption.
2.3 Schroeder Diffusers
In terms of scattering, Schroeder diffusers provide a high
scattering coefficient. For this study, the workings of
Schroeder diffusers are relevant in order to understand
high scattering devices, their parameters and what
dimensions could potentially be used in order to target
specific wavelengths. These systems are not using what
could be described as a flat surface, however in terms of
scattering, we will see the greatest scattering coefficients.
In the 1970s Manfred R. Schroeder developed a
series of diffusers that were capable of effectively
scattering and diffusing sound. The goal it seemed with
each development was to create a device that was
superior to the previous in terms of bandwidth and
performance. It could be suggested that we have not seen
major developments in scattering since the works of
Schroeder. It would be accepted that Schroeders models
are the platform of the designs of the most capable
diffusers in use today.
In theory, the designs of diffusers are quite simple in
terms of the rules that we would follow to achieve
performance. We observe a direct correlation between
the physical sizes of the device parameters and the
physical sizes of the targeted wavelengths that are to be
diffused. With an understanding of diffraction, a devices
parameters can be tuned to a targeted outcome
theoretically for a practical application.
2.3.1 MLS Diffuser
The Maximum-Length Sequence Diffusers (MLS) uses a
limitation of two different depths, where the width of the
depth is equal to or smaller than half the wavelength of
the target frequency [1]. The reason for this is that
Schroeder discovered that maximum-length sequences
can be used to create pseudo-random noise by the
application of certain sequences of 1 and -1 [3]. The
power spectrum of pseudo random noise essentially has a
flat power spectrum at all frequencies [2]. With a flat
power spectrum, scattering and diffusion can be achieved
through applying 1 and -1.
Observed in Figure 2 is an example of a MLS
Diffuser. The test consisted of sheet metal following the
binary maximum length sequence of - + + - + - + + + + -
- - + -with the well depths equating to one quarter
wavelength.
Figure 2. Maximum Length Sequence Diffuser (MLS)
[3]
The resulting effect produced diffusion at a one octave
bandwidth with specular reflection occurring outside of
the diffused octave. This is caused by the wavelength
reradiating at the same phase through the well depth
being half a wavelength [2].
Further to the study, when a narrow strip of metal
covered just one of the () grooves, the reflection pattern
showed essentially specular reflection [3]. We can
assume that in this instance that the device would still
scatter at some frequencies, however not evenly.
 Observed in Schroeders study is essentially a two
layer system in this study. We would expect that a two
layer system utilising a maximum length sequence in
design would provide effective scattering. We would
expect however, that given we are using flat surfaces
without the use of angles; we would not achieve a high
result in comparison.
We would also consider that to scatter sound at low
mid and mid frequencies, we would require a larger area
to cater for the size of the relative physical wavelength.
This is a consideration when designing a device capable
for use in practical situations.
2.3.2 QRD Diffuser
After the MLS diffuser design, Schroeder developed the
Quadratic-Residue Diffuser (QRD). It is known that this
device was developed in order to increase the bandwidth
of diffusion. The QRD uses an array of varying well
depths determined by a quadratic-residue sequence which
optimizes diffusion in a plane transverse to the alignment
of the wells [2]. The target frequencies are achieved
through the maximum well depth being the longest
wavelength and with the well width (which is constant)
being about half a wavelength of the shortest wavelength.
See figure 3. The result achieved like the MLS, is the
phenomenon of diffraction through periodic reflection
phase grating [12].
Figure 3. Quadratic-residue sequences [3]
This device provides a more efficient result as opposed to
the MLS diffuser, with the ability to scatter and diffuse
sound over multiple octaves. It is observed in Figure 3
that the sequence can extend through multiple periods to
extend the size of the diffuser. This in turn increases the
bandwidth of scattering with the device being able to
scatter sound a further octave above and below the
threshold of diffusion.
Given the ability to extend through multiple periods,
this device can be considered in this paper as a scattering
device with potentially several layers. However, it would
be expected that the well depths of a QRD would need to
remain connected rather than disconnected in order to
scatter effectively without becoming an absorptive
device.
2.4 Scattering from Flat Surfaces
The traditional methods of scattering do not consider
scattering from flat surfaces. We are more looking at the
design of the room and utilising the architectural
placement within the design of the room itself or using
objects such as strategically placed blocks or chairs. In
relation to scattering from flat surfaces, it has been found
that number sequence theories can also be applied to a
flat surface. The number sequences can also be used to
create a surface that can scatter sound. One way this can
be formed is by taking a 1023 length MLS and folding
into a 31x32 array using the Chinese Remainder theorem.
This surface achieves diffractive properties through
altering the impedance of the surface. The openings
around the flat surface reflect and scatter the sound in a
unipolar reflection [4]. This particular style of panel as a
singular flat surface is not as effective as a more
traditional scattering device. We only see the highest
achieved scattering coefficients around 0.1 to 0.2. The
actual result of this device is a high absorption
coefficient and low scattering coefficient. So when
scattering with flat surfaces, it would appear that
openings within the design can create absorption.
3. DESIGN OF TEST SAMPLE
The intention is to scatter sound with flat surfaced
multiple layers with the use of limited materials.
Sscattering techniques will be utilised without angling or
curving the surface.
The designed surface has used a random sequence of +
+ - + - + + - - - +. Given that scattering is only being
considered, not diffusion, the sequence should not have a
major impact on the scattering coefficient if the design is
focused on the openings being relative to wavelength.
The design size of slots at 2 centimetres equates to
relative wavelength of 4915 Hz, with the open area of 6
centimetres relative to 1650 Hz. We would expect that
we would achieve a scattering result at these frequencies
for the top layer of design. The second design layer
follows the sequence of + + - + + + + - - + +. This
sequence was used in order to allow for interactions
between the two layers to occur within the device. It is
assumed that the less open areas in the 2nd layer should
cater for scattering over absorption. With more open
areas beneath the 1st layer, it could be assumed that we
may unintentionally achieve a result comparable to
Helmholtz slat absorption. With more flat areas beneath
the 1st layer we would expect to see diffraction when
sound is reflected on the exit journey of the device.
We observe one width dimension within the 2nd layer
of 4 centimetres, which theoretically targets the
frequency of 3300Hz. As this width is beneath the first
surface we would not expect a profound result at this
frequency. This will however provide insight as to the
question Does the angle between the two layers affect
the scattering coefficient?. With the top angle in
rotation, we should be able to observe the 2nd layers 4
centimetre dimension receiving more attention at certain
angles of the top layer panel.
A depth axis follows a double distance rule similar
to depths to achieve a higher scattering coefficient in the
manner of a QRD. We would hope to see that the depth
interaction would potentially add to an octave above the
design frequency being scattered. This design should
expect to see reinforcement in scattering around 4915
Hz. It is predicted that we will see a higher scattering
coefficient with the second layer included. This is
assumed as a second layer will provide reinforcement to
the axis of depth in order to contribute to the scattering
coefficient.
The final layer (or just the extraneous surface)
consists of the acrylic glass base. This area is adjoined by
a doubled distance in air gap space and is expected to
enforce the scattering coefficient through further
strengthening the axis of depth within the device.
Test sample See Figure 4.
Material Medium Density Fibreboard
Scatter - 2 panel layers
Sequence 1 ++-+-++---+
Sequence 2 ++-++++--++
Slot depth in mm 0,0,20,0,5,0,0,5,20,5,0
Panel depth in mm 3 increments for each measurement. This measurement
Air gap 1 in mm 3.5mm
Air gap 2 in mm 10.5mm
Total sample depth in mm 20
Figure 4. A photograph of the test sample
4. METHODOLOGY
In order to collect the necessary data, it is important to
understand the scattering coefficient and how and why it
is measured. Scattering is a measurement adjacent to
diffusion and it is important to understand the
relationship:
Acoustic scattering refers to the non-specular
reflection of incident sound energy from a reflective
surface. However, acoustic diffusion refers to how
evenly the sound energy is scattered. We can say all that
is diffuse scatters, but all that scatters is not necessarily
diffuse. Any understanding of the properties of scattering
is not sufficient for stating the relative diffusion. With
this understanding, data collection for testing the
diffusion of a surface is split into two areas. The
Scattering Coefficient ISO 17497-1: How much of the
incident sound is scattered away from the specular zone
[6] and the Diffusion Coefficient ISO 17497-2: How
uniformly is the incident sound scattered [6].
For the measurements required to answer the
questions of this paper efforts have been made to
conform to International Standard, ISO Standard 17497-
1:2004+A1:2014 (Scattering Coefficient).
4.1 Scattering Measurements
A total of 10 measurements were made. The first
measurement consists of both layers measured as a single
unit reflecting the complete design of the test sample.
The second measurement consists of measuring the 1 st
layer surface independently. This measure when
compared to the first seeks to answer the question does
the two layered design work better than a one layer
design?. The third measurement consists of measuring
the 1st layer surface independently, however with the
sample placed directly on the acryllic base plate. This
removes the air gap from the system and seeks to answer
the question; does the air gap have an effect on the
scattering coefficient?. The remaining 7 measurements
consist of both layers in the first measurements
configuration, however rotating the 1st layer in 45 degree
seeks to answer the question does the angle between the
two layers affect the scattering coefficient?. After
observing the completion of the above measurements, we
will then be able to answer the question is this particular
design relative to wavelength?.
4.2 Measurement Procedure
The scattering coefficients were obtained at Sydney
University on 14/05/2016. Two different microphone
positions were used for each measurement. The
measurement used the rotating table method within a
scale model reverberation room with a volume of
0.253m3. See Figure 4. The results were processed and
generated using AARAE [13]. IRS Noise was used in the
measurement to limit distortion.
The test sample was circular and placed on a
reflective base plate of the same diameter within a
circular acrylic glass surrounding. The reverberation time
was then measured with and without the test sample to
determine the random incidence absorption coefficient
(s. The equation is as follows:
V 1 1 4V
s 55.3 m2 m1
S c2T2 c1T1 S
(1)
The sample within the circular acrylic glass surrounding
was then placed on the base plate which was mounted on
the turntable. Measurements were then made while
sequentially rotating the test sample. The turntable was
turned in 72 steps of 5for each new measurement. The
impulse responses were measured by synchronised
averaging, the correlated part of the impulse response
was obtained and the reverberation time derived. The
specular absorption coefficient (spec) was then
determined from:
V 1 1 4V
spec 55.3 m4 m3
S c4T4 c3T3 S
(2)
This measurement treats the scattered energy as an
additional energy loss and is included in the specular
absorption coefficient (spec>-s). The random-
incidence scattering coefficient was calculated from:
 1 spec spec s Figure 6. Measurement results for the 1st layer and 1st
s 1 layer no airgap
1 s 1 s (3)

As this measurement was performed in scale, it is

noted that in the case of scale measurements the air
attenuation may cause a reduced accuracy at high
frequencies. [8].

5. RESULTS

The results have indicated positive values for the

scattering coefficient across all measurements. All results
Figure 7. A photograph of the scale model reverberation
under 0.01 have been rounded up.
room
Observed in Figure 5 below are the results for the
dual layered system (both layers measured as a single
Figure 9 displays the results of the 1st layer rotation in 45
unit).
degree increments as illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 5. Measurement results for the Dual Layer system

(both layers measured as a single unit)
Figure 8. A chart indicating measurement angles
It can be observed in the graph that the results indicate reflected in Figure 9[22]
scattering coefficients at the design frequencies.
In Figure 6, the results can be observed with the top
layer acting as a singular device (the 1st layer surface
independently). Measurements were taken with the
surface inclusive of an air gap below and with the surface
placed directly within the acrylic plate removing the air
gap all together (1st layer surface independently, with the
sample placed directly on the acryllic base plate) See
Figure 7.

Figure 9. Measurement results for1st layer rotation in 45

degree increments

Figure 10 displays the three highest scattering results

being; the dual layer panel, 1st layer panel with air gap
and 1st layer rotation at 180 degrees.

Figure 10. Measurement results for the top three
performing in regard to effective scattering coefficient
6. DISCUSSION
Scattering results have been achieved across all
measurements whilst validating wavelength being
relative to design dimensions. This is a positive outcome
given that usually when we are not scattering with a
curved or angled surface (like a Schroeder diffuser) we
would not have air gaps present within the design.
It was expected that the air gaps or separated layers
would provide some undesired absorption within the
design. It can be observed across the results of the
measurements, that although we are scattering we are
achieving a limited scattering coefficient. This is
potentially a result of absorption occurring within the
device. It is common for many flat surfaced systems to
also offer a low scattering coefficient, which can be
attributed to the absorption occurring within the device.
Figure 11. A photograph of the measurement 1st layer
rotation in 45 degree increments at 180 degrees
The absorption observed within this panel design can
likely be attributed to Helmholtz absorption. A
Helmholtz resonator is an absorber that consists of an air
filled cavity with a small opening that allows for the
opening to resonate at a particular frequency, thus
absorbing the sound. It can target particular frequencies
by varying the size of the opening or the volume of the
cavity, without increasing the depth of the construction.
Herman Von Helmholtz described in reference to the
Helmholtz resonator an apparatus able to pick out
specific frequencies from a complex sound. [8] It is
noted that the sound impinging on a Helmholtz resonator
that is not absorbed is reradiated [3] which allows for
some of the sound energy that is not absorbed to become
diffuse. This could potentially aid scattered energy
outside of the absorption frequencies. However, what we
have likely seen within this papers design is a type of
Helmholtz resonator the slat absorber. These absorbers
utilize spaced slats over an air cavity, with the mass of
the air in the slots between the slats reacting with the air
within a cavity to form a resonant system. This method
allows for the absorption of lower frequencies by
narrowing the slots and deepening the air cavity. If
applying the following calculation:
2160*sqrt(r/((d*1.2*D)*(r+w))) [3]
f = resonant frequency in Hertz (Hz)
r = slot width.
w = slat width.
d = effective depth of slot. (1.2 x the actual thickness of
the slat)
D = depth of box. [3]
We can assess this papers scattering device theoretically
as an absorptive device. This was not the intention; as we
aim to achieve a scattering coefficient, however
understanding the potential absorptive areas of the panel
can help us better understand the design principles
behind creating a scattering device that maximizes
scattering at the design frequency. This can be achieved
through avoiding absorption at the design frequencies.
When applying the formula to the dimensions of this
papers device design, we find that with our parameters
we are absorbing at; 3600Hz, 4500Hz and 5100Hz. The
multiple absorption frequencies come from the panel
having several differing widths and depths that all
contribute to their own cavity.
With the above information on Helmholtz absorption,
we can see that this particular design will inevitably
absorb at its own scattering design frequency. Given the
scattering results achieved, it can be assumed that we
have been impacted by absorption. This can be observed
at 3600Hz where we see a null in scattering. We often
see a sharp decline in scattering above and past 5100Hz
and we see a fairly low scattering coefficient at the
design frequency at 4915Hz.
It is observed in the measurement involving only the
1st layer on the acrylic base plate compared to the dual
layer design; that we see a similar scattering coefficient
at the design frequency. We would have expected to
achieve a greater scattering coefficient at the design
frequency with the increased depth of the construction.
This is observed in Figure 12 where a 20mm construction
with a lesser air gap has around double the scattering
coefficient as the design in this paper.
Given that this design does not follow the exact
principles of current targeted scattering systems, the
question; Is this particular design relative to
wavelength? is relevant to answer, as we are only
dealing with surfaces with limited individual depth
providing three differing width sizes. When observing
the results, we can see that there are peaks in the
scattering coefficient around 4915Hz and 1650Hz. This
can be observed across all measurements, indicating
scattering coefficients at the design frequencies. This
indeed, does validate the theory of wavelength being
relative to design dimensions. This result is somewhat
expected, however given that we are not dealing with
well depths or solid objects, it is positive to be achieve
scattering coefficients at the design frequency within a
flat surfaced panel.
Further validations of this particular design being
relative to wavelength are observed within the results of
the 1st layer rotation in 45 degree increments as
illustrated in Figure 8. When discussing the design for
this system, it is noted that the 2nd layer used a width
dimension of 4 centimeters. This width should be
scattering sound at 3300Hz. It was expressed that given
that this width dimension was beneath the first surface
with somewhat of an obstructed view; that is possible
that with the top angle in rotation, we should be able to
observe the 2nd layers 4 centimeter dimension receiving
more attention at certain angles of the top layer panel.
This can be validated through observation in the results
of Figure 9 Top Layer Rotation in comparison with both
the dual layer and single layered designs in Figure 5 and
Figure 6. We note that the angle of the first layer at 90
degrees and 180 degrees would give the most
unobstructed view of the 2nd layer width dimension of 4
centimeters. The results show that at 3300Hz (the design
frequency of a 4centimeter width). We are achieving the
greatest scattering coefficient at around 3300Hz when
compared to all other measurements. We also see a
reduction in 3300Hz in direct proportion to this particular
area gradually being covered by the top layer panel.
Further reinforcement of separated flat surfaces being
relative to design frequency is shown in Figure 12, the
results show a scattering device also utilizing multiple
separated layers with a targeted design frequency.
Figure 12. A photograph of the scale model
reverberation room [22]
Rather than a single or dual layered device, this device is
constructed with 4 separated layers. This particular
device was designed at 4915Hz and has peaked at the
design frequency, utilizing the same design width used in
this paper. The device in this paper has however utilized
two different widths (designed at 4915Hz & 1650Hz)
which as mentioned are reflected in the results displayed
peaks at both design frequencies.
The results in Figure 12 have however achieved a
higher scattering coefficient with the same depth of
construction and widths of the openings within the
design of this paper. We would likely see that the
reduced scattering coefficient in this papers design is
potentially due to absorption occurring which in turn is
limiting the scattering coefficient.
In answering the question; does the two layered
design work better than a one layer design? observations
can be made in figure 10 comparing the difference
between the dual layered panel and the single layered
panel (1st layer top only). It appears as if the second layer
may have provided absorption. The results show that
between 2 and 4 kHz there is a decline in scattering
within the dual layered system and a further decline
above 4 kHz. It is possible that the design has scattered
the sound beneath the surface of the panel much how we
would expect a sound to diffract when entering and
exiting a slit or aperture. This scattering within the device
may have caused multiple internal interactions that
experience a tortuous environment preventing the waves
from exiting the panel.
In relation to the likelihood of absorption at the
design frequencies, we can hypothesize at this stage that;
if the design frequency of the device considers potential
absorptive frequencies, we may achieve a greater
scattering coefficient with a two layered system over a
one layered system. Using the Helmholtz slat absorber
equation, we should be able to find design parameters
that are conducive to scattering through reducing the
likelihood of absorption at the given design frequencies
of scattering. .
We do see that the only panel system scattering at
high frequencies effectively from 4Hz to 8Hz is the
single layer with an air gap see Figure 6 - 1st layer top
only. This could be due to the highly reflective acrylic
plate diffracting sound on the way out of the panel. This
conclusion can be validated through the comparison in
Figure 6 between 1st layer top only and 1st layer no
air gap. It is observed that the 1st layer no air gap panel
is only scattering at the design frequencies, where we see
an increase in bandwidth when an air gap allowing
access to the acrylic base plate is included within the
design. This could potentially prevent the possibility of
multiple internal interactions experiencing a tortuous
environment that prevent the waves from exiting the
panel.
The results indicate that the air gap for the most part
negatively effects the scattering coefficient. As the air
gap or air gaps are added to the sample, we see negative
implications toward the scattering coefficient. We can
hypothesize at this stage that, if the design sample is only
relative to design for scattering (not for absorption) we
may possibly see a clearer result in an air gaps interaction
with the scattering coefficient.
After considering Helmholtz absorption and the
effects that air gaps potentially result in; it is likely that
the additional layers within design from Figure 12 have
offered an angular surface. This is a good point of
reference when comparing the potential effect of an air
gap on the scattering coefficient. Given that there are 4
layers of 3 millimeter flat surfaces over a 2 centimeter
overall depth this results in the air gaps being reduced to
around 1 millimeter. A 1 millimeter air gap could hardly
be considered a true air gap given that the frequency of
20kHz is larger in physical size than this provided air
gap. In relation to Helmholtz theory, the volume of the
air cavity and depth would not accommodate any
absorption of frequencies within the human range of
hearing. So, as we see a high scattering coefficient with
similar width dimensions, we do not see the relevant air
gap space to draw comparison in terms of an additional
layered device. This suggests that if the air gap within the
design from Figure 12 is too small to be considered a
genuine air gap, then the air gap within this papers design
causes a negative impact upon the scattering coefficient
as we are seeing a reduction in scattering with the same
width dimension and panel depth.
 In answering the question; does the angle between the
two layers affect the scattering coefficient? It is
observed when rotating the 1st top layer in 45 degree
increments we see a fairly similar scattering coefficient
across all angles. This indicates that the interactions
between the top and bottom layers of the device are not
interacting beneficially to the scattering coefficient. We
would expect to see a decline in scattering as the top
layer is rotated if the top and bottom layer were working
in tandem as the design of the device intended. It is
however observed that when the top layer reaches 180
degrees, the greatest scattering coefficient of this paper
has been achieved within this particular test. This
indicates the most open surface, as both larger areas of
the device are over lapping at this point. See Figure 11.
This outcome does however suggest that a dual layered
panel with air gaps is more effective when open areas are
interacting, potentially creating a less absorptive
environment.
In further consideration when observing that we have
achieved the greatest scattering coefficient from the 180
degree measurement, we note that; this is potentially due
to the previous observation in the results of Figure 9 Top
Layer Rotation in comparison with both the dual layer
and single layered designs in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The
angle of the first layer at 180 degrees would give the
most unobstructed view of the 2 nd layer width dimension
of 4 centimetres. The results show that at 3300Hz (the
design frequency of a 4centimeter width), we are
achieving the greatest scattering coefficient at around
3300Hz when compared to all other measurements. This
result would likely be attributed to the additional
dimension of 4 centimetres providing a boost between to
two main target frequencies of 1650Hz and 4915Hz. So
we would be unable to determine if the angle of the top
layer is actually providing the benefit, rather that the
open area offering an unobstructed view to a third
width dimension would be aiding the scattering
coefficient.
In assessing if a trade off between the mass of the
system and scattering capability is fit for practical use. It
is a fair comparison to observe the 4 layered system
results in Figure 12 and what was achieved in this paper
as the greatest scattering results in the Figure 10 -
measurement of 180 degrees and 1st layer top only. We
know that we have used in each of the three
measurements a total of 12mm (4 layer panel), 6mm (180
degrees) and 3mm (1st layer top only). We have achieved
a max scattering coefficient of 0.73 for the 12mm, a max
scattering coefficient of 0.38 for the 6mm and a max
scattering coefficient of 0.29 for the 3mm. This
information indicates that as the mass of the system
increases the mass of the system compared to the
scattering coefficient becomes less efficient.
7. CONCLUSION
Measurements have been conducted at Sydney
University. We have validated that even though the
design of the device created for this paper does not utilize
well depth or is an angular or curved object, that
scattering can still be designed relative to wavelength
using a thin flat surfaced panel.
The results have proven that the test sample scatters
with the inclusion of air gaps and limited material;
however it may not be ideal in practical use without a
deeper construction. A deeper construction will allow for
a scattering coefficient that can cater for more practical
frequencies to be scattered at a higher coefficient.
We can also see that this particular design will
inevitably absorb at its own scattering design frequency.
This is not ideal. Greater considerations into potential
absorptive design frequencies need to be taken in order to
design a scattering device with disconnected surfaces.
We would like to see a device that is not absorbing at the
scattering design frequency.
We can confirm that for the device in this paper a
two layered design does not necessarily work better than
a one layer design. The two layer design will only
provide a greater scattering coefficient when the two
layers are arranged in a way that provides more open
surfaces. When arranged in such a way that the layers
interact with open surfaces; a two layer system works
better than a one layer system. In any other
configuration, a one layer design works better. This
however, can be attributed to providing an extra width
dimension within the design. With this considered, we
would not be able to achieve the highest potential
scattering coefficient with a single layer device. It is
suggested that further research into two layered designs
is required in order to compare the integrity of a two
layered system.
We can also confirm that the angle of the top layer
has little to no effect on the scattering coefficient, unless
rotated into a configuration that allows for the most open
surfaces possible. As discussed, this configuration
however seems likely to scatter higher due to the extra
width dimension within the design. The results could also
be due to the design of the sample needing to have more
consideration in its potential to absorb sound. We would
expect that a correctly designed scattering device would
scatter most effectively at the design frequency when the
correct angle is in place. As we do not have a carefully
considered design sample, we can suggest that in this
instance; that the angle of the top layer has little to no
effect on the scattering coefficient
We can confirm that the air gap will have an effect on
the scattering coefficient. Given that the design of this
papers panel has also overlapped with absorption
equations, the air gap holds significance in affecting the
scattering coefficient. A negative occurrence of an air
gap achieved in this paper may not be the case if the
design of the panel had factored in potential absorptive
qualities. Therefore, the air gap will always have an
effect on the scattering coefficient when designing panels
that have separated flat surfaces
We can also confirm that the mass of the system in
the panels current state does not equate to a more
efficient system. We would hope to design a system that
provides mass efficiency in relation to scattering. It may
be possible to achieve greater scattering results through
lighter systems, with the use of a considered approach
during the design stage.
Further testing is proposed in order to understand the
implications of multiple separated layers of flat panels in
relation to the scattering coefficient. We must factor in
absorption calculations during the design stage to avoid
unwanted absorptive qualities.
8. REFERENCES
[1] M.R. Schroeder, Diffuse sound reflection by
maximum-length sequences, The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, Volume 57, Issue 1,
pp.149-150 (1975).
[2] Trevor J. Cox & Peter DAntonio, Acoustic
Absorbers & Diffusers: Theory, Design & Application,
2nd Edition, (2009).
[3] F. Alton Everest & Ken C. Pohlmann, Master
Handbook of Acoustics, Fifth Edition (2009).
[4] Trevor J. Cox & Peter DAntonio, Thirty years
since Diffuse Sound Reflection by Maximum-Length
Sequences Where are we now? p (2005).
[13] Densil Cabrera, AARAE, Audio and Acoustical
Response Analysis Environment (2015)
www.aarae.org
[14] International Standard, ISO Standard 17497-
1:2004+A1:2014 Part I: Measurements.
[15] Embrechts JJ, De Geetere L, Vermeir G,
Vorlnder M, Sakuma T (2004) Calculatio of the
random-incidence scattering coefficients of a sine-shaped
surface.

[5] US Patents, Acoustical treatments with diffusive

and absorptive properties and process of design US
6112852 A, (1999)
http://www.google.com/patents/US6112852.

[6] Peter DAntonio, Scattering versus Diffusion

Coefficients,s, (2001).

[7] Peter DAntonio & Brian Rife, The state of the

art in measurement of acoustical coefficients (2001).

[8] Helmholtz, Hermann von; Ellis, Alexander John

On the sensations of tone as a physiological basis for
the theory of music (1862).

[9] Jens Holger Rindel, Scattering in Room

Acoustics and the Related Activities in ISO and AES
(2001).

[16] Vorlnder M, Mommertz E (2000) Definition and

measurement of randomincidence scattering coefficients.

[17] Jeon JY, Zhu L, Yoo K (2003) Miral Concert

Hall: Ceramic Palace for sound scattering.

[18] Jeon JY, Lee SC, Vorlnder M (2004)

Development of scattering surfaces for concert halls.

[19] Farnetani A (2005) Investigation on the acoustics

of ancient theatres by means of modern technologies.

[20] Bork I (2005a) Report on the 3rd round robin on

room acoustical computer simulation,

[21] N. F. Declerq, C. S. Dekeyser, Acoustic diffraction

effects at the Hellenistic amphitheatre of Epidaurus: Seat
rows responsible for the marvellous acoustics, J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 121 (2007)

[22] https://share.ehs.uen.org/node/18742

[23] Michael Manoleskos Multi-Layered Scattering in

a Hybrid System 2015