This paper considers acoustic treatment of honeycomb sandwich panels in close-fitting enclosures. Honeycomb sandwich panels are efficient radiators of sound because they are generally optimized for high stiffness and low weight. Results confirm that adding absorption at the mass-spring-mass resonance of a honeycomb panel with a thin plate has practical benefit. The absorption minimizes the effect of the ‘mass-air-mass’ resonance which usually reduces the low-frequency transmission loss, and offers increased performance at higher frequencies. The potential of composite honeycomb sandwich panels for reducing noise below 500 Hz is also demonstrated.
WennhageP. (2001). Weight optimization of sandwich panels with acoustic and mechanical constraints. Journal Sandwich Structures and Materials, 3, 22–49.
2.
WennhageP. (2003) Weight optimization of large scale sandwich panels with acoustic and mechanical constraints. Journal Sandwich Structures and Materials, 5, 253–266.
3.
RennisonD.C., and WilbyJ.F. (1978) A review of analytical models for sound transmission through fuselage sidewalls with application to general aviation Aircraft NASA Control No. NASI-14611, 7–58.
4.
LyleK.H., and MixsonJ.S. (1987) Laboratory study of sidewall noise transmission and treatment for a light aircraft fuselage, Journal of Aircraft, 24(9), 660–665.
5.
TangW.C., and NgC.F. (1997) Effect of honeycomb panel for duct noise reduction at low frequency, Proceedings of Inter-Noise, 1, 465–468.
6.
HuangW.C.NgC.F., and TangW.C. (1997) Sound insulation using honeycomb sandwich panels, Asian Industrial and Technology Congress 97’, 2, 86–89.
7.
ThomasD.R.NelsonP.A.ElliottS.J., and PinningtonR.J. (1993) Experimental investigation into the active control of sound transmission through stiff light composite panels, Noise Control Engineering, 273–279.
8.
LyleK.H., and SilcoxR.J. (1995) Active trim panels for aircraft interior noise reduction, Aerospace Engineering, 15, 21–25.
9.
TranB.N., and MathurG.P. (1996) Aircraft interior noise reduction tests using active trim panels, Proceedings of the 1996 National Conference on Noise Control Engineering, 1, 395–400.
10.
LyleK.H., and SilcoxR.J. (1996) A study of active trim panels for aircraft interior noise reduction in an aircraft fuselage, A. E. Transactions, 104, 180–190.
11.
PaolozziA., and PeroniI. (1996) Response of aeroplane sandwich panels to launch acoustics environment, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 196(1), 1–18.
12.
HirschS.M.MeyerN.E.WesterveltM.A.KingP.LiF.J.PetrovaM.V., and SunJ.Q. (2000) Experimental study of smart segmented trim panels for aircraft interior noise control, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 231(4), 1023–1037.
13.
ShankarR.WangTongan, and StevenN. (2006) Sound Transmission loss of honeycomb sandwich panels, Noise Control Engineering Journal, 54(2), 106–115.
14.
MasahiroT.MikitoT., and DaijiT. (2007) Reduction of acoustic radiation by perforated board and honeycomb layer systems, Journal of Applied Acoustics, 68(1), 71–85.
15.
MooreJ.A., and LyonR.H. (1991) Sound transmission loss characteristics of sandwich panel constructions, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 89(2), 777–791.
16.
ISO 354, Measurement of sound absorption in a reverberant room, (International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland).
17.
PanJ., and BiesD.A. (1990) The Effect of Fluid-Structural Coupling on Sound Waves in an Enclosures—Theoretical Part, Journal of Acoustical Society of American, 87(2), 691–707.
18.
SharpB.H. (1978) Prediction methods for the sound reduction of building elements, Noise Control Engineering Journal, 11(2), 53–63.
19.
BiesD.A., and HansenC.H. (1988) Engineering Noise Control, Unwin Hyman, London.
