0
Research Papers

Prediction of Sound Transmission Loss for Finite Sandwich Panels Based on a Test Procedure on Beam Elements

[+] Author and Article Information
Bilong Liu

e-mail: liubl@mail.ioa.ac.cn

Ke Liu

Key Laboratory of Noise and Vibration Research,
Institute of Acoustics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing 100190, China

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Vibration and Acoustics. Manuscript received September 4, 2012; final manuscript received January 7, 2013; published online June 19, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Thomas J. Royston.

J. Vib. Acoust 135(6), 061005 (Jun 19, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: VIB-12-1250; doi: 10.1115/1.4023842 History: Received September 04, 2012; Revised January 07, 2013

An approach on the prediction of sound transmission loss for a finite sandwich panel with honeycomb core is described in the paper. The sandwich panel is treated as orthotropic and the apparent bending stiffness in two principal directions is estimated by means of simple tests on beam elements cut from the sandwich panel. Utilizing orthotropic panel theory, together with the obtained bending stiffness in two directions, the sound transmission loss of simply-supported sandwich panel is predicted by the modal expansion method. Simulation results indicated that dimension, orthotropy, and loss factor may play important roles on sound transmission loss of sandwich panel. The predicted transmission loss is compared with measured data and the agreement is reasonable. This approach may provide an efficient tool to predict the sound transmission loss of finite sandwich panels.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of sound transmission through a rectangular sandwich panel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of sandwich panel with honeycomb core

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The honeycomb panel layout with hexagon cell core

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Beams cut from Panel A

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Setup for beam measurement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Fitted bending stiffness of Panel A. Beam Ax (dashed line); Beam Ay (solid line); measured data of Beam Ax (triangle); measured data of Beam Ay (circle).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Influence of effective loss factors on predicted TL (single-layered aluminum panel with same weight and size as Panel A). η = 0.04, with ηmna (asterisk); η = 0.02, with ηmna (circle); η = 0.01, with ηmna (triangle); η = 0.01, without ηmna (square); (1/3 octave bands).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Fitted bending stiffness of Panel B. Beam Bx (dashed line); Beam By (solid line); measured data of Beam Bx (triangle); measured data of Beam By (circle).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of TL by different models (Panel A). Infinite model (0 ∼ 78 deg) (dashed line); finite model (solid line); mass law (dashed-dotted line); infinite model (0 ∼ 90 deg) (dotted line).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of TL by different models (Panel B). Infinite model (0 ∼ 78 deg) (dashed line); finite model (solid line); mass law (dashed-dotted line); infinite model (0 ∼ 90 deg) (dotted line).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of TL by different models (aluminum panel). Infinite model (0 ∼ 90 deg) (circle); infinite model (0 ∼ 78 deg) (square); finite model (triangle); (1/3 octave bands).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of TL by different models (single-layered panel). Infinite model (0 ∼ 90 deg) (circle); infinite model (0 ∼ 78 deg) (square); finite model (triangle); (1/3 octave bands).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Influence of effective loss factors on predicted TL (Panel A). η = 0.04, with ηmna (asterisk); η = 0.02, with ηmna (circle); η = 0.01, with ηmna (triangle); η = 0.01, without ηmna (square); (1/3 octave bands).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Influence of effective loss factors on predicted TL (Panel B). η = 0.04, with ηmna (asterisk); η = 0.02, with ηmna (circle); η = 0.01, with ηmna (triangle); η = 0.01, without ηmna (square); (1/3 octave bands).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Wavenumbers of air, sandwich panels and single-layered aluminum panels. Direction x (dotted line); direction y (solid line); air (dashed line); single-layered aluminum panel (dashed-dotted line).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Influence of orthotropy on predicted TL for Panel A. Dx and Dy in two directions, respectively (circle); Dx in both directions (square); Dy in both directions (triangle); (1/3 octave bands).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Influence of orthotropy on predicted TL for Panel B. Dx and Dy in two directions, respectively (circle); Dx in both directions (square); Dy in both directions (triangle); (1/3 octave bands).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Test arrangement for samples

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Test description for samples

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Measured and predicted TL for Panel A. Measurement (circle); finite model (triangle); infinite model (0 ∼ 78 deg) (dotted line).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Measured and predicted TL for Panel B. Measurement (circle); finite model (triangle); infinite model (0 ∼ 78 deg) (dotted line).

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In