4.3 Article

Sound absorption coefficient measurement and analysis of bio-composite micro perforated panel (BC-MPP)

Journal

JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 7, Pages 3327-3334

Publisher

KOREAN SOC MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s12206-023-2211-x

Keywords

Bio-composite micro-perforated panel (BC-MPP); Impedance tube; Natural fiber filler; Polypropylene matrix; Sound absorption coefficient (SAC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents the sound absorption performance of bio-composite micro-perforated panels (BC-MPP) made from composite polypropylene filled with rice husk (PP/RH) and coconut coir (PP/CC). The sound absorption coefficient (SAC) of BC-MPP was obtained using the impedance tube two-microphone method, and the investigation focused on fillers, filler compositions, perforation ratio, and air gap size. It was found that BC-MPP PP/RH had a higher SAC value than BC-MPP PP/CC. Additionally, the SAC peak shifted to lower frequency spectrum with an increase in filler content, perforation distance, and air gap size. The simulated SAC values also showed good agreement with experimental results.
The sound absorption performance of bio-composite micro-perforated panel (BC-MPP) made from composite polypropylene (PP) filled rice husk (PP/RH), and coconut coir (PP/CC) is presented. The sound absorption coefficient (SAC) of BC-MPP was obtained via the impedance tube two-microphone method, and the investigation was according to types of fillers, filler compositions, perforation ratio, and the air gap size. It was found that the SAC of BC-MPP PP/RH provides a higher SAC value than BC-MPP PP/CC. Furthermore, the SAC peak was observed to shift to the lower frequency spectrum when there was an increment in filler content, the distance between the perforation, and the air gap size. The SAC value from the simulation also shows a good agreement with the experimental result.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available