4.7 Article

Experimental study on a compact lined circular duct for small-scale propeller noise reduction

Journal

APPLIED ACOUSTICS
Volume 179, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108062

Keywords

Helmholtz resonator with an extended neck; Lined circular duct; Propeller noise attenuation

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11972029]
  2. Hong Kong Research Grants Council General Research Fund [16202519]
  3. Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission (ITC) [ITS/354/18FP]
  4. ITC Project [ITS/387/17FP]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The authors designed an optimal sound absorber with multiple inhomogeneous Helmholtz resonators for effective sound absorption in a prescribed frequency range. Experimental results show that the absorber can significantly reduce noise in the target frequency range.
In a recent work by the authors, an optimal sound absorber with a compact scale consisting of multiple inhomogeneous Helmholtz resonators with extended necks (HRENs) was designed and demonstrated for effective sound absorption in a prescribed frequency range. The development of HREN-based absorber provides a promising potential for sound absorption in a compact dimension. The present study aims to line the compact optimal absorber in a circular duct for noise attenuation. A rigid duct with the same configuration is fabricated for comparison. The acoustic performances of the lined duct and the rigid duct are experimentally evaluated by using two linear microphone arrays in an anechoic chamber. Two types of noise sources are considered: a point sound source and a rotating propeller. The experimental results reveal that a significant noise reduction is achieved by the lined duct for both the point source and the propeller noise source in the target frequency range when comparing to the rigid duct. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available