4.7 Article

A numerical study of double-leaf microperforated panel absorbers

期刊

APPLIED ACOUSTICS
卷 67, 期 7, 页码 609-619

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2005.11.001

关键词

sound absorption; microperforated panel; double-leaf structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microperforated panel (MPP) absorbers are promising as a basis for the next-generation of sound absorbing materials. Typically, they are backed by an air-cavity in front of a rigid wall such as a ceiling or another interior surface of a room. Indeed, to be effective, MPP absorbers require the Helmholtz-type resonance formed with the backing cavity. Towards the creation of an efficient sound-absorbing structure with MPPs alone, the acoustical properties of a structure composed of two parallel MPPs with an air-cavity between them and no rigid backing is studied numerically. In this double-leaf MPP (DLMPP) structure, the rear leaf (i.e., the MPP remote from the incident sound) plays the role of the backing wall in the conventional setting and causes resonance-type absorption. Moreover, since a DLMPP can work efficiently as an absorber for sound incidence from both sides, it can be used efficiently as a space absorber, e.g., as a suspended absorber or as a sound absorbing panel. The sound absorption characteristics of the double-leaf MPP are analysed theoretically for a normally incident plane wave. The effects of various control parameters are discussed through a numerical parametric study. The absorption mechanisms and a possible design principle are discussed also. It is predicted that: (1) that a resonance absorption, similar to that in conventional type MPP absorbers, appears at medium-to-high frequencies and (2) that considerable additional absorption can be obtained at low frequencies. This low-frequency absorption is similar to that of a double-leaf permeable membrane and can be an advantage compared with the conventional type of MPP arrangement. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据