Look these theses:

for thesis of Rostand TAYONG BOUMDA: from page 36

When I was working on such measurements, the first calibrations I made were relative to open termination, anechoic termination, and rigid termination in the impedance tube. This gives you 3 comparisons to ideal theoretical values. 

Look at this article:

Acoustic properties of unconsolidated granular mixes, V.V Voronina and K.V. Horoshenkov , Applied Acoustics 65 (2004) 673-691

In general a two microphone method is not accurate. One has to use more than two microphones. For accurate measurements I use 6 microphones. A great advantage of this is that one can obtain an acoustic determination of the speed of sound. We carry out a series of 20 measurements at different frequencies. The unknowns to be determined are 20x2 amplitudes (p+ and p- at 20 frequencies) plus the speed of sound c> So we solve by least square a set of 120 equations with 41 unknowns.  After relative calibration of the microphones carried out at the relevant frequencies (placing all microphones in one plane along the tube near a closed end) we carry out measurements with a closed pipe termination. Typical accuracy is 0.3% in the reflection coefficient. Attached you will find descriptions of typical results of the method.

Note that the impedance tube should be quite rigid! Wall vibrations can dramatically pollute your results.

Note that we use a single frequency excitation and a lock-in post processing method, which is essential to obtain high accuracies. Broad-band measurements are a pain in the neck!

Note that large errors can be induced by the way the porous sample is mounted in the impedance tube. Such errors can be very important for narrow tubes. 

Note that the impedance tube only provides information concerning normal wave incidence. Theory should be used to deduce from those data the absorption under other incidence or in a diffuse acoustic field.

Thera are many models, in fact, depending on what you desire to model one can be more appropriate or the other. JASA and Applied acoustics has many papers on the subject. A good book is Acoustic absorbers and diffusers from T. Cox or Propagation of sound in porous media from Allard. 

The impedance tube is well accepted for validation, but if you need more data you probably need to get your hands on in situ methods, which can be quite hard. You can look for some papers in my page. There is also a review coming up on Acta Acustica on this subject. I am proof reading it now.

I think linearized equations from conservations of mass, momentum and energy are well-organized model for attenuation prediction. Many papers can be found in my page.

The JCA is the most used model but it requires five parameters.

You could use the inverse techniques to have an idea of these values:

• Acoustical determination of the parameters governing viscous dissipation in porous media, Raymond Panneton and Xavier Olny J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119 , 2027 (2006) ; http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2169923
• Acoustical determination of the parameters governing thermal dissipation in porous media, Xavier Olny and Raymond Panneton J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123 , 814 (2008) ; http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2828066
• Evaluation of the acoustic and non-acoustic properties of sound absorbing materials using a three-microphone impedance tube• Applied Acoustics, Volume 71, Issue 6, June 2010, Pages 506-509

If you want to use a simpler model (e.g. Delany-Bazley model) I suggest you the Miki model:

• Miki Y., Acoustical properties of porous materials - Modifications of Delany-Bazley models, J. Acoust. Soc. Jpn (E). 11(1), 1990, pp. 19-24

but be careful because this model is valid only for fibrous materials !

Thank you very much to everybody, take time to answer for me. really appropriate.

can anybody describe me shortly what are the parameters require to estimate acoustical if i use Wilson Model and Miki Model. thank you.

The model you choose depends on the sample you tested (opened or close porosity, pores shape, etc…) and its surrounding. Once these are clearly defined, only then you can choose a model which is relevant to your case. Why don’t you give us more information about the tested sample and the measurement conditions (backed or not by a plate or by a rigid wall) and we might help you pick up a more appropriate model. Please, keep in mind that all the models are good yet built under specific assumptions and conditions.

It is normally expected that the more properties you know and have about a sample, the more precised you can predict the behaviour or the response of the sample. For this reason, you might want to know the most common or easily measurable properties (not the “exact” properties). For an opened porosity sample (under rigid approximation), the most common properties used are those from JCA model.