0
Journal of Vibration and Acoustics | Volume 138 | Issue 5 | research-article
Research Papers

Design Optimization of Honeycomb Core Sandwich Panels for Maximum Sound Transmission Loss

[+] Author and Article Information
Rohan Galgalikar

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Clemson University,
Fluor Daniel Building, Room 221,
Clemson, SC 29634-0921
e-mail: rgalgal@g.clemson.edu

Lonny L. Thompson

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Clemson University,
Fluor Daniel Building, Room 221,
Clemson, SC 29634-0921
e-mail: lonny@clemson.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Noise Control and Acoustics Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF VIBRATION AND ACOUSTICS. Manuscript received August 23, 2015; final manuscript received April 15, 2016; published online May 27, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Ronald N. Miles.

J. Vib. Acoust 138(5), 051005 (May 27, 2016) (13 pages) Paper No: VIB-15-1339; doi: 10.1115/1.4033459 History: Received August 23, 2015; Revised April 15, 2016
Article
References
Figures
Tables
Citing Articles

This study focuses on sound transmission frequency response through honeycomb core sandwich panels with in-plane orientation. Specifically, an optimization technique has been presented to determine the honeycomb unit cell geometric parameters that maximize the sound transmission loss (STL) through a sandwich panel, while maintaining constraints of constant mass and overall dimensions of panel length and height. The vibration characteristics and STL response of a sandwich panel are parameterized in terms of four honeycomb unit cell independent geometric parameters; two side lengths, cell wall thickness, and interior cell wall angle. With constraints of constant mass and overall dimensions, relationships are determined such that the number of independent variables needed to define the honeycomb cell and panel geometry is reduced to three; the integer number of unit cells in the longitudinal direction of the core, number of unit cells in the height direction, and interior cell wall angle. The optimization procedure is implemented by linking a structural acoustic finite-element (FE) model of the panel, with modefrontier, a general purpose optimization software. Optimum designs are obtained in representative frequency ranges within the resonance region of the STL response. Optimized honeycomb geometric solutions show at least 20% increase in STL response compared to standard hexagonal honeycomb core panels. It is found that the STL response is not only affected by the cell wall angle, but strongly depends also on the number of unit cells in the horizontal and vertical direction.
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

1
Evans, M. J. , Faulkner, S. L. , Fisher, R. , Wells, T. C. , and Hadlum, P. , 1996, “ Light-Weight, High-Strength, Stiff Panels,” U.S. Patent No. 5,445,861.
2
Gu, S. , Lu, T. J. , and Evans, A. G. , 2001, “ On the Design of Two-Dimensional Cellular Metals for Combined Heat Dissipation and Structural Load Capacity,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 44(11), pp. 2163–2175. [CrossRef]
3
Carbery, D. J. , Ikegami, R. , Martin, T. D. , Newton, J. F. , and Westre, W. N. , 1995, “ Lightweight Honeycomb Panel Structure,” U.S. Patent No. 5,445,861.
4
Paik, J. K. , Thayamballi, A. K. , and Kim, G. S. , 1999, “ The Strength Characteristics of Aluminum Honeycomb Sandwich Panels,” Thin-Walled Struct., 35(3), pp. 205–231. [CrossRef]
5
Evans, A. G. , Hutchinson, J. W. , Fleck, N. A. , Ashby, M. F. , and Wadley, H. N. G. , 2001, “ The Topological Design of Multifunctional Cellular Metals,” Prog. Mater. Sci., 46(3–4), pp. 309–327. [CrossRef]
6
Vinson, J. R. , 2001, “ Sandwich Structures,” ASME Appl. Mech. Rev., 54(3), pp. 201–214. [CrossRef]
7
Nilsson, A. C. , 1990, “ Wave Propagation in and Sound Transmission Through Sandwich Plates,” J. Sound Vib., 138(1), pp. 73–94. [CrossRef]
8
El-Raheb, M. , and Wagner, P. , 1997, “ Transmission of Sound Across a Trusslike Periodic Panel; 2-D Analysis,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 102(4), pp. 2176–2183. [CrossRef]
9
Kim, Y.-J. , and Han, J.-H. , 2013, “ Identification of Acoustic Characteristics of Honeycomb Sandwich Composite Panels Using Hybrid Analytical/Finite Element Method,” ASME J. Vib. Acoust., 135(1), p. 11006. [CrossRef]
10
Qian, Z. , Chang, D. , Liu, B. , and Liu, K. , 2013, “ Prediction of Sound Transmission Loss for Finite Sandwich Panels Based on a Test Procedure on Beam Elements,” ASME J. Vib. Acoust., 135(6), p. 61005. [CrossRef]
11
Ng, C. F. , and Hui, C. K. , 2008, “ Low Frequency Sound Insulation Using Stiffness Control With Honeycomb Panels,” Appl. Acoust., 69(4), pp. 293–301. [CrossRef]
12
Ruzzene, M. , Mazzarella, L. , Tsopelas, P. , and Scarpa, F. , 2002, “ Wave Propagation in Sandwich Plates With Periodic Auxetic Core,” J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct., 13(9), pp. 587–597. [CrossRef]
13
Ruzzene, M. , and Scarpa, F. , 2003, “ Control of Wave Propagation in Sandwich Beams With Auxetic Core,” J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct., 14(7), pp. 443–453. [CrossRef]
14
Scarpa, F. , and Tomlinson, G. , 2000, “ Theoretical Characteristics of the Vibration of Sandwich Plates With In-Plane Negative Poisson's Ratio Values,” J. Sound Vib., 230(1), pp. 45–67. [CrossRef]
15
Watters, B. G. , and Kurtze, G. , 1959, “ New Wall Design for High Transmission Loss or High Damping,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 31(6), pp. 739–748. [CrossRef]
16
Ford, R. D. , Lord, P. , and Walker, A. W. , 1967, “ Sound Transmission Through Sandwich Constructions,” J. Sound Vib., 5(1), pp. 9–21. [CrossRef]
17
Krokosky, E. M. , and Smolenski, C. P. , 1973, “ Dilational-Mode Sound Transmission in Sandwich Panels,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 54(6), pp. 1449–1457. [CrossRef]
18
Dym, C. L. , and Lang, M. A. , 1974, “ Transmission of Sound Through Sandwich Panels,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 56(5), pp. 1523–1532. [CrossRef]
19
Narayanan, S. , and Shanbag, R. L. , 1982, “ Sound Transmission Through Damped Sandwich Panel,” J. Sound Vib., 80(3), pp. 315–327. [CrossRef]
20
Rossing, T. D. , 2007, Handbook of Acoustics, Springer, New York.
21
Moore, J. A. , and Lyon, R. H. , 1991, “ Sound Transmission Loss Characteristics of Sandwich Panel Constructions,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 89(2), pp. 777–791. [CrossRef]
22
Vos, R. , and Barrett, R. , 2011, “ Mechanics of Pressure-Adaptive Honeycomb and Its Application to Wing Morphing,” Smart Mater. Struct., 20(9), p. 094010. [CrossRef]
23
Ruan, D. , Lu, G. , Wang, B. , and Yu, T. X. , 2003, “ In-Plane Dynamic Crushing of Honeycombs—A Finite Element Study,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 28(2), pp. 161–182. [CrossRef]
24
Papka, S. D. , and Kyriakides, S. , 1994, “ In-Plane Compressive Response and Crushing of Honeycomb,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 42(10), pp. 1499–1532. [CrossRef]
25
Ju, J. , Ananthasayanam, B. , Summers, J. D. , and Joseph, P. , 2010, “ Design of Cellular Shear Bands of a Non-Pneumatic Tire-Investigation of Contact Pressure,” SAE Paper No. 2010-01-0768.
26
Thamburaj, P. , and Sun, J. Q. , 2002, “ Optimization of Anisotropic Sandwich Beams for Higher Sound Transmission Loss,” J. Sound Vib., 254(1), pp. 23–36. [CrossRef]
27
Denli, H. , and Sun, J. Q. , 2007, “ Structural-Acoustic Optimization of Sandwich Structures With Cellular Cores for Minimum Sound Radiation,” J. Sound Vib., 301(1–2), pp. 93–105. [CrossRef]
28
Franco, F. , Cunefare, K. A. , and Ruzzene, M. , 2007, “ Structural-Acoustic Optimization of Sandwich Panels,” ASME J. Vib. Acoust., 129(3), p. 330. [CrossRef]
29
Denli, H. , and Sun, J. Q. , 2008, “ Structural-Acoustic Optimization of Sandwich Cylindrical Shells for Minimum Interior Sound Transmission,” J. Sound Vib., 316(1–5), pp. 32–49. [CrossRef]
30
Ruzzene, M. , 2004, “ Vibration and Sound Radiation of Sandwich Beams With Honeycomb Truss Core,” J. Sound Vib., 277(4–5), pp. 741–763. [CrossRef]
31
Griese, D. , Summers, J. D. , and Thompson, L. , 2014, “ The Effect of Honeycomb Core Geometry on the Sound Transmission Performance of Sandwich Panels,” ASME J. Vib. Acoust., 137(2), p. 021011.
32
Gibson, L. J. , and Ashby, M. F. , 1999, Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
33
Ingard, U. , 2010, Notes on Acoustics, Laxmi Publications, Ltd., Hingham, MA.
34
Lin, G. , and Garrelick, J. M. , 1977, “ Sound Transmission Through Periodically Framed Parallel Plates,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 61(4), pp. 1014–1018. [CrossRef]
35
2009, “ Dassault Systems, ABAQUS 6.9, Help Manual,” Dassault Systems.
36
Graff, K. F. , 1975, Wave Motion in Elastic Solids, Courier Corp.
37
Doyle, J. F. , 1997, “ Wave Propagation in Structures,” Spectral Analysis Using Fast Discrete Fourier Transforms (Mechanical Engineering Series), Springer, New York.
38
Williams, E. G. , 1982, “ Numerical Evaluation of the Rayleigh Integral for Planar Radiators Using the FFT,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 72(6), p. 2020. [CrossRef]
39
Kirkup, S. M. , 1994, “ Computational Solution of the Acoustic Field Surrounding a Baffled Panel by the Rayleigh Integral Method,” Appl. Math. Modell., 18(7), pp. 403–407. [CrossRef]
40
Zhu, H. X. , Hobdell, J. R. , and Windle, A. H. , 2001, “ Effects of Cell Irregularity on the Elastic Properties of 2D Voronoi Honeycombs,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 49(4), pp. 857–870. [CrossRef]
41
Becker, W. , 1998, “ The In-Plane Stiffnesses of a Honeycomb Core Including the Thickness Effect,” Arch. Appl. Mech., 68(5), pp. 334–341. [CrossRef]
42
Grediac, M. , 1993, “ A Finite Element Study of the Transverse Shear in Honeycomb Cores,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 30(13), pp. 1777–1788. [CrossRef]
43
2010, “ Esteco, modeFRONTIER 4.3.0, Help Manual,” Esteco SpA.
44
2010, “ Minitab 16, Help Manual,” Minitab, Inc.
45
Shan, N. , 2011, “ Analytical Solutions Using High Order Composite Laminate Theory for Honeycomb Sandwich Plates With Viscoelastic Frequency Dependent Damping,” M.S. thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Examples of sandwich panels with same global dimensions but different core geometries

+Examples of sandwich panels with same global dimensions but different core geometries
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Examples of sandwich panels with same global dimensions but different core geometries
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Honeycomb unit cell configuration (a) regular and (b) auxetic

+Honeycomb unit cell configuration (a) regular and (b) auxetic
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Honeycomb unit cell configuration (a) regular and (b) auxetic
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Honeycomb core sandwich panels illustrating (a) In-plane configuration where the load is parallel to the plane of the honeycomb unit cell and (b) out-of-plane configuration where the load is perpendicular to the plane of the honeycomb unit cell

+Honeycomb core sandwich panels illustrating (a) In-plane configuration where the load is parallel to the plane of the honeycomb unit cell and (b) out-of-plane configuration where the load is perpendicular to the plane of the honeycomb unit cell
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Honeycomb core sandwich panels illustrating (a) In-plane configuration where the load is parallel to the plane of the honeycomb unit cell and (b) out-of-plane configuration where the load is perpendicular to the plane of the honeycomb unit cell
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mesh model of the structural-acoustic domain

+Mesh model of the structural-acoustic domain
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Mesh model of the structural-acoustic domain
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

STL versus Frequency plots for mesh convergence study of the reference honeycomb case in the (a) 200–400 Hz and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range

+STL versus Frequency plots for mesh convergence study of the reference honeycomb case in the (a) 200–400 Hz and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
STL versus Frequency plots for mesh convergence study of the reference honeycomb case in the (a) 200–400 Hz and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Auxetic honeycomb unit cell configurations with (a) constraint satisfied h > |2 l sin θ| and (b) constraint not satisfied h > |2 l sin θ|

+Auxetic honeycomb unit cell configurations with (a) constraint satisfied h > |2 l sin θ| and (b) constraint not satisfied h > |2 l sin θ|
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Auxetic honeycomb unit cell configurations with (a) constraint satisfied h > |2 l sin θ| and (b) constraint not satisfied h > |2 l sin θ|
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic of the structural-acoustic FE model

+Schematic of the structural-acoustic FE model
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Schematic of the structural-acoustic FE model
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

STL characteristics for the reference design case with 30 deg cell wall angle

+STL characteristics for the reference design case with 30 deg cell wall angle
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
STL characteristics for the reference design case with 30 deg cell wall angle
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Work flow describing the different stages of optimization in the current study

+Work flow describing the different stages of optimization in the current study
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Work flow describing the different stages of optimization in the current study
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Four-dimensional bubble chart showing variation in STL response of the sandwich panels as a function of the three independent input variables obtained for DOEs in (a) frequency range 200–400 Hz; and (b) frequency range 600–800 Hz

+Four-dimensional bubble chart showing variation in STL response of the sandwich panels as a function of the three independent input variables obtained for DOEs in (a) frequency range 200–400 Hz; and (b) frequency range 600–800 Hz
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Four-dimensional bubble chart showing variation in STL response of the sandwich panels as a function of the three independent input variables obtained for DOEs in (a) frequency range 200–400 Hz; and (b) frequency range 600–800 Hz
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Sandwich panel configurations for the designs with highest STL response (see Table 2) obtained in the DOE for (a) 200–400 Hz; and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range

+Sandwich panel configurations for the designs with highest STL response (see Table 2) obtained in the DOE for (a) 200–400 Hz; and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Sandwich panel configurations for the designs with highest STL response (see Table 2) obtained in the DOE for (a) 200–400 Hz; and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of STL characteristics of designs with highest and lowest (three each) values of ASTL for 200–400 Hz frequency range

+Comparison of STL characteristics of designs with highest and lowest (three each) values of ASTL for 200–400 Hz frequency range
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Comparison of STL characteristics of designs with highest and lowest (three each) values of ASTL for 200–400 Hz frequency range
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Four-dimensional Bubble chart showing the results of the local optimization study (predicted ASTL) conducted with the Shepherd K-Nearest RSM function for (a) 200–400 Hz frequency range and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range

+Four-dimensional Bubble chart showing the results of the local optimization study (predicted ASTL) conducted with the Shepherd K-Nearest RSM function for (a) 200–400 Hz frequency range and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Four-dimensional Bubble chart showing the results of the local optimization study (predicted ASTL) conducted with the Shepherd K-Nearest RSM function for (a) 200–400 Hz frequency range and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of STL response of the Optimum design and reference design (θ = 30 deg) for (a) 200–400 Hz and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range

+Comparison of STL response of the Optimum design and reference design (θ = 30 deg) for (a) 200–400 Hz and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Comparison of STL response of the Optimum design and reference design (θ = 30 deg) for (a) 200–400 Hz and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Mode shapes of sandwich panel (a) Flexural mode in which the top and bottom face-sheets vibrate in the same direction and (b) Dilatational mode of vibration in which the face sheets vibrate in the opposite direction

+Mode shapes of sandwich panel (a) Flexural mode in which the top and bottom face-sheets vibrate in the same direction and (b) Dilatational mode of vibration in which the face sheets vibrate in the opposite direction
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Mode shapes of sandwich panel (a) Flexural mode in which the top and bottom face-sheets vibrate in the same direction and (b) Dilatational mode of vibration in which the face sheets vibrate in the opposite direction
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Four-dimensional Bubble chart showing the results of global optimization study (predicted ASTL) conducted with the Shepherd K-Nearest RSM function for (a) 200–400 Hz frequency range and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range

+Four-dimensional Bubble chart showing the results of global optimization study (predicted ASTL) conducted with the Shepherd K-Nearest RSM function for (a) 200–400 Hz frequency range and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Four-dimensional Bubble chart showing the results of global optimization study (predicted ASTL) conducted with the Shepherd K-Nearest RSM function for (a) 200–400 Hz frequency range and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Pareto Chart of Standardized Effects showing the results of sensitivity analysis conducted on the design data of DOE for the 200–400 Hz frequency range

+Pareto Chart of Standardized Effects showing the results of sensitivity analysis conducted on the design data of DOE for the 200–400 Hz frequency range
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Pareto Chart of Standardized Effects showing the results of sensitivity analysis conducted on the design data of DOE for the 200–400 Hz frequency range
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Correlation between high STL and low in-plane stiffness (E11) for the honeycomb core sandwich panels for (a) 200–400 Hz and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range

+Correlation between high STL and low in-plane stiffness (E11) for the honeycomb core sandwich panels for (a) 200–400 Hz and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Correlation between high STL and low in-plane stiffness (E11) for the honeycomb core sandwich panels for (a) 200–400 Hz and (b) 600–800 Hz frequency range

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
A Mathematical Model and Heuristic Procedure for Cellular Layout
International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering, 3rd (ICSTE 2011)
Better Decisions
Total Quality Development> Chapter 3
Getting Ready for Production
Total Quality Development> Chapter 6
Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis of Conflicting Preferences
Decision Making in Engineering Design> Chapter 12
An Easy-to-Approach Comprehensive Model and Computation for SOFC Performance and Design Optimization
Inaugural US-EU-China Thermophysics Conference-Renewable Energy 2009 (UECTC 2009 Proceedings)
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