In this paper, the acoustic noise reduction of aluminum honeycomb/carbon face sheet sandwich panel with Melamine Foam (MF) lining of variable thicknesses (25 mm & 50 mm) is numerically estimated and then experimentally verified using impedance tube based on transfer matrix method. The presence of carbon face sheets and MF lining can have a significant impact on the Transmission Loss (TL). The impedance tube can measure the TL for frequency range of 64 Hz–6.2 kHz. A conventional, two-microphone impedance tube, is connected to a sample holder downstream of the first microphone pair and a section downstream of the sample holder that accommodates a second pair of microphones. The Finite Element Analysis and experimental results are compared and found in good agreements. The TL levels for each layer of material is estimated prior to have TL for combined structure. Furthermore, the optimized insulation foam thickness of 50 mm is obtained based on required acoustic parameters.
DoT. Vibroacoustic modeling study of the delta II 10-foot composite fairing. J IEST1999; 42(6): 26–33.
2.
DefosseHHamdiMA. Vibro-acoustic study of Ariane V launcher during lift-off. In: The 29th International Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, Nice, France, 27–30 August 2000.
3.
BiancoDFrancescoPBarbarinM, et al.Integrated aero–vibroacoustic: the design verification process of vega-C launcher. Appl Sci2018; 8: 88.
4.
ScottJMJayBGRobertCB. General environmental specification for STS and ELV – Payloads, subsystems and components. Greenbelt, MD: GEVS-SE.” Rev. June, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 1996, p. 20771.
5.
GlaeseRMAndersonEH. Initial structural-acoustic modeling and control results for a full-scale composite payload fairing for acoustic launch load alleviation. Mountain View, CA: CSA Engineering, 2003.
6.
YuanGHWangXCHouPZ, et al.Absorbing property of open-cell melamine foam. Mater Mech Eng2007; 31(9): 55–57.
McNelisAMHughesWOMcNelisME. NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) Enhanced Melamine (ML) Foam Acoustic Test (NEMFAT). Hampton, VA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, 2014.
9.
McNelisAMHughesWO. Effect of coversheet materials on the acoustic performance of melamine foam. Cleveland, OH: NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, 2015.
10.
HughesWOMcNelisAMEmcnelisMM. Acoustic test characterization of melamine foam for usage in NASA’s payload fairing acoustic attenuation systems. Cleveland, OH: Glenn Research Center, 2014.
11.
LiBChenXYanW, et al.Theoretical and experimental study on effect of melamine foam lining on acoustic characteristics of a cylindrical cavity. Results Phys2019; 13: 102204.
12.
BoltonJS. Porous materials for sound absorption and transmission control. In: Proceedings of Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 7–10 August 2005.
13.
OlivierDSalissouYAtallaN, et al.Evaluation of the acoustic and non-acoustic properties of sound absorbing materials using a three-microphone impedance tube. Appl Acoust2010; 71(6): 506–509.
14.
WijntjesRSimonFHaaseT, et al.Benchmark for experimentation of acoustic transmission loss applied to helicopter trim panels. In: ERF 2016 42nd European Rotocraft Forum, Lille, France, 5–8 September 2016.
15.
DeaconuMCristeaL. Sound transmission loss in porous and isotropic materials. Comparative analysis between impedance tube and FEM results. In: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium of the Institute of Solid Mechanics and Session of the Commission of Acoustics, SISOM, Bucharest, Romania, 12–13 May 2016.
16.
SalissouYRaymondP. A general wave decomposition formula for the measurement of normal incidence sound transmission loss in impedance tube. J Acoust Soc Am2009; 125(4): 2083–2090.
17.
KunduABerryA. Active sound control with smart foams using piezoelectric sensoriactuator. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2011; 22(16): 1771–1787.
18.
OlivierDAtallaN. Experimental estimation of the transmission loss contributions of a sound package placed in a double wall structure. Appl Acoust2011; 22(6): 372–379.
19.
JiGFangYZhouJ, et al.Porous labyrinthine acoustic metamaterials with high transmission loss property. J Appl Phys2019; 125(21): 215110.
20.
YangYZhouCXuT, et al.Sound insulation and hydrophobic properties of phenolic resin modified melamine foam: role of micro-morphology. Mater Res Exp2019; 6: 075331.
21.
GrieseDSummersJDThompsonL. The effect of honeycomb core geometry on the sound transmission performance of sandwich panels. J Vib Acoust2015; 137.
MartinRThomasHPeterM. Experimental transmission loss investigation of sandwich panels with different honeycomb core geometries. In: Madrid Inter Noise 2019: Noise Control for Better Environment, Madrid, Spain, 16–19 June 2019.
24.
KlosJRobinsonJHBuehrleRD. Sound transmission through a curved honeycomb composite panel. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2013.
25.
ArunkumarMPJagadeeshMPitchaimaniJ, et al.Sound radiation and transmission loss characteristics of a honeycomb sandwich panel with composite facings: effect of inherent material damping. J Sound Vib2016; 383: 221–232.
26.
HouNGH. Low frequency acoustic properties of a honeycomb-silicone rubber acoustic metamaterial. Modern Phys Lett B2017; 31(11): 1750118.
27.
LiQYangD. Mechanical and acoustic performance of sandwich panels with hybrid cellular cores. J Vib Acoust2018; 140: 061016.
NuttSHuangCPetersP, et al.Acoustics and vibrations of sandwich structures - An overview. Los Angeles, CA: Gill Foundation Composites, Center University of Southern California.
30.
ColamSLeembruggenG. A computational method for analysis and design of acoustic absorbers and low frequency transmission loss. In: Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics.
31.
COMSOL Multiphysics modeling Guide.
32.
ZhengW. Development of acoustic models for high frequency resonators for turbocharged IC-Engines. MS thesis in Sound & Vibration. Stockholm, Sweden: Marcus Wallenberg Laboratory MWL, 2011.
33.
TomaszS. Finite element modeling of sound transmission loss in reflective pipe. Poznan, Poland: Poznan University of Technology Institute of Applied Mechanics, 2010.
34.
NakagawaHHirosawaKDevelopment of a narrow impedance tube to measure normal absorption coecient and transmission loss at high frequencies around 10 kHz. Acoust Sci Technol2018; 39(6): 417–423.
35.
Stuart BoltonJYooTOlivieriO. Measurement of normal incidence transmission loss and other acoustical properties of materials placed in a standing wave tube. Technical Review. Brüel & Kjær Sound & Vibration Measurement A/S, 2007.
36.
HuaXHerrinD. Practical considerations when using the two-load method to determine the transmission loss of mufflers and silencers. SAE Int J Passeng Cars – Mech Syst2013; 6(2)–1101.
37.
OblakMPirnatMBolteˇzarM. An impedance tube submerged in a liquid for the low-frequency transmission-loss measurement of a porous material. Appl Acoust2018; 139: 203–212.
38.
YousefzadehBMahjoobMMohammadiN, et al.An experimental study of sound transmission loss (STL) measurement techniques using an impedance tube. J Acoust Soc America2008; 123: 3119.
39.
MartinW. Evaluation of impedance tube methods a two microphone in-situ method for road surfaces and the three microphone transfer function method for porous materials. MS Thesis. Gothenburg, Sweden: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Division of Applied Acoustics, Chalmers University of Technology, 2012.
40.
BoltonJSShiauNMKangYJ. Sound transmission through multi-panel structures lined with elastic porous materials. J Sound Vib1996; 191(191): 317–347.
41.
HoKNYangZZhangXX, et al.Measurements of sound transmission through panels of locally resonant materials between impedance tubes. Appl Acoust2005; 66: 751–765.
42.
ZaiBASamiSAliR. Determination of acoustic characteristics of melamine foam with experimental validation. J Appl Mech Eng2021; 10(5). 366.
43.
RyuY. The acoustic impedance measurement system using two microphones. Copenhagen, Denmark: Bruel & Kjaer Sound & Vibration Measurement a/s, 2000.
