Open Advanced Search
Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day.
Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.
Learn More →
Plate-Type Acoustic Metamaterials: Experimental Evaluation of a Modular Large-Scale Design for Low-Frequency Noise Control
Plate-Type Acoustic Metamaterials: Experimental Evaluation of a Modular Large-Scale Design for...
Ang, Linus Yinn Leng;Koh, Yong Khiang;Lee, Heow Pueh
acoustics Article Plate-Type Acoustic Metamaterials: Experimental Evaluation of a Modular Large-Scale Design for Low-Frequency Noise Control 1,2, 2 1 Linus Yinn Leng Ang * , Yong Khiang Koh and Heow Pueh Lee Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117575, Singapore; firstname.lastname@example.org Kinetics Design and Manufacturing, ST Engineering Land Systems Ltd., 249 Jalan Boon Lay, Singapore 619523, Singapore; email@example.com * Correspondence: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com Received: 8 February 2019; Accepted: 22 March 2019; Published: 1 April 2019 Abstract: For industrial applications, the scalability of a ﬁnalised design is an important factor to consider. The scaling process of typical membrane-type acoustic metamaterials may pose manufacturing challenges such as stress uniformity of the membrane and spatial consistency of the platelet. These challenges could be addressed by plate-type acoustic metamaterials with an internal tonraum resonator. By adopting the concept of modularity in a large-scale design (or meta-panel), the acoustical performance of different specimen conﬁgurations could be scaled and modularly combined. This study justiﬁes the viability of two meta-panel conﬁgurations for low-frequency (80–500 Hz) noise control. The meta-panels were shown to be superior to two commercially available noise barriers at 80–500 Hz. This superiority was substantiated when the sound transmission class (STC) and the outdoor-indoor transmission class (OITC) were compared. The meta-panels were also shown to provide an average noise reduction of 22.7–27.4 dB at 80–400 Hz when evaluated in different noise environments—trafﬁc noise, aircraft ﬂyby noise, and construction noise. Consequently, the meta-panel may be further developed and optimised to obtain a design that is lightweight and yet has good acoustical performance at below 500 Hz, which is the frequency content of most problematic noises. Keywords: large-scale; plate-type acoustic metamaterial; resonator; modular; noise control; sound transmission loss; noise reduction; environmental noise 1. Introduction Membrane-type acoustic metamaterials have been studied extensively over the past decade [1–12] because they could exhibit good acoustical performance at below 1 kHz while being compact and lightweight. To date, the literature provides many different designs—ranging from simple to complex constructions—that may be considered as a benchmark for further development. This class of acoustic metamaterial is usually realised by adhering the edges of a pretensioned membrane to a rigid frame. To pretension the membrane, a mechanism could be designed to stretch the membrane edges uniformly over a prescribed distance . Alternatively, epoxy could be applied along the membrane edges in which stretching is achieved by thermal curing . Evidently, to produce the specimen in large quantities, the assembly process would likely require a huge amount of time and effort. This issue may be addressed by considering either a honeycomb panel  or a perforated panel  as the frame. The acoustical performance is characterised solely by the resonant behaviour of the membrane in which the frequency bandwidths of good acoustical performance are achieved at around the anti-resonance frequencies, while the frequency bandwidths of poor acoustical performance are obtained at around Acoustics 2019, 1, 354–368; doi:10.3390/acoustics1020019 www.mdpi.com/journal/acoustics Acoustics 2019, 1 355 the resonance frequencies. By varying the dimensions, the material properties, and the pretension of the membrane, the frequency bandwidths of good acoustical performance could be adjusted to coincide with the frequency range of the unwanted noise. Consequently, noise control is achieved. The membrane could also be attached with a highly dense platelet to introduce additional tuning parameters. The list of tuning parameters may be extended. For example, an additional support structure could be implemented to suppress speciﬁc eigenmodes of the membrane , or a perforated membrane could be considered to introduce the effect of a Helmholtz resonator . Knowing that membrane-type acoustic metamaterials could potentially be considered in the industry for noise control, it is imperative that the ﬁnalised small-scale designs are extendable. Of course, it would be ideal if the large-scale design could exhibit the same acoustical performance achieved during the small-scale study. Considering how typical designs are realised, manufacturing challenges may be faced during the scaling process. These challenges, for example, include stress relaxation and stress uniformity of the membrane, and spatial consistency of the platelet on the membrane. Moreover, if numerous platelets were considered, the scaling process would be laborious. Huang et al.  reported that the challenges could be faced even for small-scale designs. Hence, avenues should be explored to address the challenges and improve the scalability of membrane-type acoustic metamaterials. Recently, numerous works [16–20] have shown that a plastic ﬁlm can be considered in place of the elastic membrane to eliminate the challenges pertaining to stress relaxation and stress uniformity. Since there is negligible pretension in the ﬁlm, the membrane-type acoustic metamaterial is transformed into another class of acoustic metamaterial known as the plate-type acoustic metamaterial. Despite this transformation, the acoustical performance is still characterised solely by the resonant behaviour of the ﬁlm. Again, if a platelet was considered to modify the resonant behaviour, the challenge relating to spatial consistency would remain unresolved. To address this challenge, Ang et al. [21,22] proposed that the design could adopt a double-leaf conﬁguration with an internal tonraum resonator (i.e., two cavities connected via an oriﬁce) so that the objective of having more tuning parameters could still be met without attaching platelets. Over the past ﬁve years, researchers [1,23,24] have shown growing interest in large-scale membrane-type acoustic metamaterials despite the aforementioned challenges. However, large-scale plate-type acoustic metamaterials have yet to be studied extensively, evident from the literature in which limited works [20,25,26] can be found. Varanasi et al. [20,25] proposed a large-scale design (1.22 1.22 m ) that had close resemblance to a plate-type acoustic metamaterial. The design was fabricated from a continuous acrylic panel in which the unit cells were realised by varying the thickness at different regions of the panel. Although numerous conﬁgurations were considered, none had dissimilar unit cells on the same panel to study whether they could collectively contribute to the acoustical performance of the panel. Ang et al.  ﬁlled in the research gap with a large-scale design (994 994 mm ) that adopted the concept of modularity for customisable acoustical performance. The proof-of-concept design—also referred to as the meta-panel—was realised by slotting specimens with two different conﬁgurations (without and with resonator) into the periodic cutouts on a host structure. By varying the distribution percentage of the specimens on the host structure, the acoustical performance of the meta-panel was shown to be collectively contributed by the acoustical performance of each specimen conﬁguration. Additionally, the acoustical performance of the meta-panel was found to be insensitive to how the specimens were oriented or arranged on the host structure. The ﬁndings suggest that the meta-panel could potentially be considered in the industry for noise control. This study aims to justify whether the meta-panel could indeed be viable for noise control in the industry by investigating two selected meta-panel conﬁgurations reported previously  in greater detail. This investigation compares the acoustical performance with that of two commercially available noise barriers and evaluates the acoustical performance in three different noise environments—trafﬁc noise, aircraft ﬂyby noise, and construction noise. Section 2 presents the design details of the two meta-panel conﬁgurations and the experimental methods. Section 3 presents the results. Section 4 Acoustics 2019, 1 356 discusses how the ﬁndings could provide avenues for future research. Section 5 concludes the study based on the observations. 2. Materials and Methods This section ﬁrst presents the two selected meta-panel conﬁgurations (Section 2.1) before moving on to discuss the experimental methods (Section 2.2). To minimise repetition, only the differences between this study and the previous work  are discussed. Nonetheless, crucial information is still provided. 2.1. Meta-Panel Conﬁgurations The two meta-panel conﬁgurations were selected because they exhibited the widest frequency bandwidth of good acoustical performance at low frequencies (<500 Hz) compared to that of the other conﬁgurations . Both conﬁgurations were solely occupied by specimens with resonator (Figure 1a), which were previously investigated in a small-scale study [21,22]. The difference between the two conﬁgurations is the material of the host structure in which one was made of aluminium and the other was made of plywood. The host structure consisted of an inner panel and two outer skins (Figure 1b). The former was designed with 10 10 cutouts (22 mm apart) that were used to house the specimens, while the latter served as a ﬂange to constrain the specimens from falling out of the cutouts. To achieve the ﬂange, the 10 10 cutouts on the outer skins were 32 mm apart. The inner panel had a thickness (20 mm) that matched that of the specimens, while the outer skins were speciﬁed with a thickness (3 mm) so that they would not be too ﬂimsy especially for the case of plywood. Fasteners were used to assemble the inner panel and the outer skins at 32 points. This number of points is inclusive of the eight points used by the handles, which were replaced by countersunk screws during the measurements. Each specimen was assembled from two Mylar ﬁlms (127 μm thick) and three printed components. The printed components—two outer frames and one inner frame (Figure 1a)—were produced from polylactide ﬁlament via fused deposition modelling (MOMENT Moment S). To assemble the specimen, a layer of adhesive tape (Nitto Denko No. 500) was ﬁrst applied on each side of the inner frame. The width of the tape (70 mm) was specially customised to be larger than the lengths of the inner frame (60 mm) to avoid discontinuity, which could result in air leakages from the cavities. Each side of the inner frame was then adhered with a ﬁlm that was simply laid ﬂat on a tabletop. This approach minimised the presence of pretension—an essential attribute of plate-type acoustic metamaterials. The excess tapes and ﬁlms were then removed by cutting. Finally, one outer frame (applied with a layer of adhesive tape on one side) was adhered to each ﬁlm to emulate a pinned boundary condition along the ﬁlm edges. The oriﬁce was speciﬁed at the centre of the partition for ease of numerical modelling and realisation. The oriﬁce diameter (5 mm) was speciﬁed such that the inﬂuence of the viscous boundary layer would be minimal as shown in the previous work . 2.2. Experimental Methods This section ﬁrst presents how the sound transmission class (STC) and the outdoor-indoor transmission class (OITC) of the meta-panels were determined for comparison with that of two commercially available noise barriers (Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, respectively). Next, this section discusses how the meta-panels were evaluated to determine the noise reduction in three different noise environments (Sections 2.2.3). Acoustics 2019, 1 357 Figure 1. (a) Technical drawing (front and bottom views) and three-dimensional rendering of the specimen with resonator. (b) Technical drawing (front and side views) of the host structure. Hidden lines indicate the cutouts on the inner panel. All dimensions are in millimetres. 2.2.1. Sound Transmission Class The sound transmission loss (STL) of the meta-panels was ﬁrst determined to obtain the STC through post-processing. The measurements were conducted according to ASTM E90  in two reverberation chambers. The source and the receiver chambers had a volume of 65.5 and 81.1 m , respectively, and a surface area of 97.2 and 109.5 m , respectively. The chambers were separated by a commercial acoustic wall, which was designed with an opening to mount the meta-panel from the receiver chamber. The opening had a surface area of 1 m and a depth of 10 cm. Three toggle clamps were used to secure each edge of the meta-panel. As the meta-panel was 2.6 cm thick (Figure 1b), a wooden frame with a cross-sectional area of 8 2.5 cm was required to transfer the clamping forces onto the edges of the meta-panel. A ﬂange was designed around the opening to prevent further translation of the meta-panel towards the source chamber. Gasket strips were adhered along the ﬂange to minimise sound leakages. Figure 2 shows the described set-up when viewed from each chamber. Acoustics 2019, 1 358 Figure 2. View of the test set-up in the (a) source and the (b) receiver chambers. Pink noise was produced by a noise generator (Brüel & Kjær Type 2734) and transmitted into the source chamber by a pair of loudspeakers (Yamaha DXR15). Each loudspeaker was positioned at the trihedral corner furthest away from the panel holder. The noise signal was ensured to be loud enough such that the sound pressure level (SPL) at each one-third octave band frequency (80 Hz to 5 kHz) was more than 10 dB above the background noise in the receiver chamber. Consequently, background noise correction was not required. The SPL in each chamber was measured by a microphone boom (Norsonic Nor265). As recommended in ASTM E90 , at least six measurements (30 s each) were collected for averaging. Subsequently, the measurements were post-processed to calculate the STL by  ST L = L L + 10 log (1) s r where L and L denote the average SPL in the source and the receiver chambers, respectively; s r S denotes the surface area of the meta-panel; and A denotes the measured absorption area of the receiver chamber, which is given by  A = 55.26 (2) T c 60 0 where V denotes the volume of the receiver chamber (81.1 m ); T denotes the average reverberation r 60 time; and c denotes the speed of sound in air at 24.7 °C, which was the average temperature of the receiver chamber. In Equations (1) and (2), all variables are frequency-dependent except for S, V , and c . From Equation (1), the STC was then determined based on the requirements and the reference curve given in ASTM E413 . The requirements include (1) the deﬁciency at each one-third octave band frequency from 125 Hz to 4 kHz must not exceed 8 dB and (2) the sum of all deﬁciencies must be less than or equal to 32 dB. A deﬁciency is a point in which the measured STL is less than that of the reference curve. If both requirements are met, the STC will be equal to the STL of the reference curve at 500 Hz. To include experimental uncertainty, the results are presented alongside the 95% conﬁdence intervals DX calculated by  DX = Cs (3) where C denotes the constant corresponding to N measurements (C = 1.05 for N = 6 ) and s denotes the standard deviation of the variable X. For instance, X can be substituted with A to obtain the 95% conﬁdence intervals for Equation (2). Only s is frequency-dependent. For Equation (1), the 95% conﬁdence intervals DST L were calculated by  h i 0.5 2 2 2 DST L = DL + DL + 18.9(D A / A ) (4) r r s r Acoustics 2019, 1 359 where DL and DL denote the 95% conﬁdence intervals of the SPL in the source and the receiver s r chambers, respectively. 2.2.2. Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class Since 1955, the STC has been used to classify building elements that could be treated as some sort of noise barrier with a single-value rating based on the overall acoustical performance from 125 Hz to 4 kHz . Typical building elements include exterior/interior walls, doors, and windows, not to mention soundprooﬁng canvases. Developed in 1990, the OITC classiﬁes the same group of building elements in a similar way as the STC but places more emphasis on the low-frequency range (80 Hz to 4 kHz) . The classiﬁcation considers down to 80 Hz instead of 125 Hz, which is the case for the STC. The upper frequency limit remains the same at 4 kHz. According to ASTM E1332 , the OITC was designed to evaluate how effective the partition could mitigate outdoor ground and air transportation noises that are predominantly low-frequency (<500 Hz). To obtain a reliable OITC, the noise source should exhibit a frequency spectrum that follows the trend of the reference curve given in ASTM E1332 . The reference curve was derived by averaging the frequency spectra of aircraft takeoff noise, train passing noise, and trafﬁc noise. In this study, the pink noise was considered as the noise source because its frequency spectrum could follow closely to the trend of the reference curve (Figure 3). As opposed to the reference curve used to determine the STC, adjustment of the curve to ﬁt the measured STL curve based on deﬁciencies is not required. The OITC is mathematically expressed by  (L +L ST L )/10 re f , f A, f f O I TC = 100.13 10 log 10 (5) f =80 where L denotes the SPL of the reference curve; L denotes the A-weighting correction factors; re f A ST L denotes the values obtained from Equation (1); and the subscript f denotes that the variable is dependent on the one-third octave band frequency from 80 Hz to 4 kHz. Figure 3. Comparison between the reference curve given in ASTM E1332  and the measured SPL curve of the pink noise in the source chamber. Shaded region denotes the limits of the experimental uncertainty at a conﬁdence level of 95%. 2.2.3. Noise Reduction As mentioned at the end of Section 1, three different noise environments were considered—trafﬁc noise, aircraft ﬂyby noise, and construction noise. The ﬁrst two noises were on-site recordings in Singapore, while the latter was downloaded from the Internet. These noises were considered because they are commonly experienced in Singapore. The test set-up was identical to that shown in Figure 2. Imagine the receiver chamber as an ofﬁce room or a residential unit and the source chamber as the exterior environment polluted by each considered noise. The meta-panel can be imagined as the Acoustics 2019, 1 360 building element—a see-through panel, for example—separating the two domains. Based on this set-up, it is valid to determine how well the meta-panel would perform in terms of noise reduction L nr as given by L = L L (6) nr s r As deﬁned in Equation (1), L and L denote the average SPL in the source and the receiver chambers, s r respectively, and are frequency-dependent. 3. Results This section ﬁrst presents the results based on the comparison between the meta-panels and the two commercially available noise barriers (Section 3.1). Next, the acoustical performance of the meta-panels in three different noise environments is discussed (Section 3.2). The detailed analysis of the specimen’s characteristic was performed and can be found in the previous works [21,22,26]. 3.1. Comparison with Commercially Available Noise Barriers The scope of this comparative study is limited to the consideration of commercially available noise barriers found in Singapore—ANB 80 Steel and PEB Super Galum Steel (Figure 4). To allow a fair comparison, it is crucial to be aware of the thickness and the surface density of the meta-panels and the noise barriers (Table 1). This section ﬁrst compares the measured STL curves (Section 3.1.1) before moving on to compare the STC and the OITC (Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, respectively). Figure 4. Commercially available noise barriers found in Singapore—(a) ANB 80 Steel and (b) PEB Super Galum Steel. Retrieved from the respective manufacturer ’s brochures. Table 1. Thickness and surface density of the meta-panels—aluminium and wooden—and the noise barriers—ANB 80 Steel and PEB Super Galum Steel. Product Name Thickness (mm) Surface Density (kg/m ) Aluminium Meta-Panel 26 51.1 Wooden Meta-Panel 26 16.4 ANB 80 Steel * 80 20.0 PEB Super Galum Steel * 30 10.1 * From manufacturer ’s brochure. 3.1.1. Sound Transmission Loss To facilitate the analysis, the difference in STL was calculated by subtracting the STL curves of the noise barriers from that of each meta-panel (Figure 5). A positive difference indicates superiority of each meta-panel; a negative difference indicates inferiority of each meta-panel. The measured STL curves of the noise barriers are provided in Figure A1 in Appendix A to supplement this discussion. Acoustics 2019, 1 361 At 80–500 Hz, both meta-panels were superior to the noise barriers. The aluminium meta-panel performed better than the ANB 80 Steel and the PEB Super Galum Steel by up to 18.4 dB at 200 Hz and up to 25.4 dB at 315 Hz, respectively (Figure 5a). For the wooden meta-panel, it performed better than the ANB 80 Steel and the PEB Super Galum Steel by up to 10.4 dB at 400 Hz and up to 19.1 dB at 125 Hz, respectively (Figure 5b). At this frequency range, the superiority of the meta-panels to the noise barriers was attributed to the stiffness region of the ﬁlms, preventing the fundamental frequency of the entire structure from adversely affecting the acoustical performance. This phenomenon was justiﬁed in the previous work . For the noise barriers, there was no additional feature to minimise the impact of the structural resonance, providing a possible explanation to the poorer acoustical performance. Figure 5. Difference in STL between the meta-panels—(a) aluminium and (b) wooden—and the noise barriers—PEB Super Galum Steel and ANB 80 Steel. Shaded region denotes the limits of the experimental uncertainty at a conﬁdence level of 95%. The superiority of both meta-panels extended further from 500 to 1250 Hz when compared against the PEB Super Galum Steel. The aluminium and the wooden meta-panels performed better by up to 9.7 dB at 1 kHz and up to 5.1 dB at 1 kHz, respectively. The maximum difference in STL at 1 kHz was contributed by one of the “noise shield” effects of the ﬁlms. The “noise shield” effect refers to a phenomenon in which the displacement proﬁle of the second ﬁlm was nearly motionless relative to the ﬁrst ﬁlm. As such, the second ﬁlm functioned like a “noise shield”, minimising sound transmission. Again, this phenomenon was justiﬁed in the previous work . Conversely, at the same frequency range (500–1250 Hz), the acoustical performance of each meta-panel was comparable to that of the ANB 80 Steel. The aluminium meta-panel performed better by only 0.1–0.9 dB except at 1 kHz (4.2 dB), while the wooden meta-panel fared poorer by 0.4–2.2 dB. Unfortunately, the superiority of the meta-panels did not extend further into the high-frequency range (1.25–4 kHz), indicating that the meta-panels would not be ideal for high-frequency noise control. The wooden meta-panel performed poorer than the ANB 80 Steel and the PEB Super Galum Steel by up to 7.2 dB at 1.6 kHz and up to 7.1 dB at 3.15 kHz, respectively (Figure 5b). For the aluminium meta-panel, it performed poorer than the ANB 80 Steel and the PEB Super Galum Steel by up to Acoustics 2019, 1 362 6.3 dB at 1.6 kHz and up to 5.7 dB at 3.15 kHz, respectively (Figure 5a). Despite the poorer acoustical performance at high frequencies, an improvement in STL was observed at 2 kHz due to the “noise shield” effect of the ﬁlms. In particular, this effect provided the aluminium meta-panel with a positive difference in STL over the noise barriers at the same frequency. In this case, the aluminium meta-panel performed better than the ANB 80 Steel and the PEB Super Galum Steel by up to 3.7 and 5.9 dB, respectively. Despite the acoustical drawback at high frequencies, it may not pose any concern because most problematic noises fall at around and/or below 1 kHz. From the above analysis, it is justiﬁable that the meta-panels may provide acoustical advantage over the noise barriers if the primary aim is to mitigate low-frequency noise (<500 Hz). Depending on the conﬁguration, the meta-panels could also mitigate mid-frequency noise (0.5–1 kHz). Of course, it can be argued that the signiﬁcant difference in STL between the aluminium meta-panel and the noise barriers could also be contributed by its high surface density (Table 1), which was 2.46 and 4.87 times higher than that of the ANB 80 Steel and the PEB Super Galum Steel, respectively. To refute this argument, it may be more convincing to compare the products that were of similar surface density. Based on the surface densities given in Table 1, the wooden meta-panel and the ANB 80 Steel—16.4 and 20.0 kg/m , respectively—may provide a fairer comparison. In fact, the surface density of the latter was higher than the former by 7.0%, giving it acoustical advantage over the wooden meta-panel based on the concept of the mass law . This advantage is indeed the case in which the ANB 80 Steel performed better than the wooden meta-panel at 0.5–4 kHz (Figure 5b). According to the mass law , the higher the surface density, the higher the STL at a given frequency. However, at 80–500 Hz, the same noise barrier (ANB 80 Steel) performed poorer than the wooden meta-panel despite its higher surface density. At this frequency range, the wooden meta-panel beneﬁted from the dynamic response of the specimens slotted within it. This comparison implies that the meta-panel, regardless of material, could still be superior to the noise barriers even with comparable surface densities. 3.1.2. Sound Transmission Class At this juncture, the comparison of the measured STL curves showed that the meta-panels could perform better than the noise barriers especially if the primary focus is to mitigate low-frequency noise (<500 Hz). In the industry, the STC is often preferred to rate how effective the product is in noise mitigation. Therefore, to be more comprehensive, this section extends the previous section to compare the STC of the meta-panels and the noise barriers (Table 2). Table 2. STC of the meta-panels—aluminium and wooden—and the noise barriers—ANB 80 Steel and PEB Super Galum Steel. Product Name STC Aluminium Meta-Panel 36 Wooden Meta-Panel 33 ANB 80 Steel 33 PEB Super Galum Steel 25 Expectedly, the aluminium meta-panel was superior to the noise barriers with a STC of 36—3 and 11 points higher than that of the ANB 80 Steel (STC of 33) and the PEB Super Galum Steel (STC of 25), respectively. For the wooden meta-panel, it fared slightly poorer than the aluminium meta-panel by 3 points with a STC of 33. This rating was 8 points higher than that of the PEB Super Galum Steel. Recall the comparison in the previous section between the wooden meta-panel and the ANB 80 Steel. Even though the latter performed better than the former across a wider frequency range (0.5–4 kHz as opposed to 80–500 Hz), the STC showed that both products were in fact comparable in acoustical performance. The reason is because the STC emphasises more on the low-frequency range, which is the frequency content of most problematic noises . Knowing that both products were identical in STC, it may be preferable to consider the wooden meta-panel over the ANB 80 Steel because of its higher Acoustics 2019, 1 363 STL at 80–500 Hz, not to mention its lower surface density (Table 1). Moreover, the present design of the meta-panels is only a proof-of-concept and has yet to undergo design optimisation. Consequently, the decision-making process should be easier. 3.1.3. Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class To justify that the meta-panels had acoustical advantage over the noise barriers especially at low frequencies (80–500 Hz), this section compares their OITC with that of the noise barriers (Table 3). Table 3. OITC of the meta-panels—aluminium and wooden—and the noise barriers—ANB 80 Steel and PEB Super Galum Steel. Product Name OITC Aluminium Meta-Panel 34 Wooden Meta-Panel 31 ANB 80 Steel 26 PEB Super Galum Steel 18 When evaluated based on the OITC instead of the STC, the ANB 80 Steel and the PEB Super Galum Steel performed even poorer by 7 points. The former dropped from a STC of 33 to an OITC of 26; the latter dropped from a STC of 25 to an OITC of 18. This drop in rating suggests that both noise barriers were inherently poorer in acoustical performance at low frequencies (80–500 Hz)—a shortcoming that was ampliﬁed when the OITC was considered. As such, the aluminium meta-panel became even more superior to the noise barriers with an OITC of 34—12 and 16 points higher than that of the ANB 80 Steel and the PEB Super Galum Steel, respectively. The signiﬁcant drop in rating difference from 3 (STC) to 12 (OITC) showed by the ANB 80 Steel suggests that it would not be ideal in low-frequency noise environments (<500 Hz). For the wooden meta-panel, it performed poorer than the aluminium meta-panel by 3 points—the same number of points when comparing between the STC. In Section 3.1.2, the comparison between the wooden meta-panel and the ANB 80 Steel showed that they were comparable in acoustical performance based on the STC even though the latter performed better than the former across a wider frequency range (0.5–4 kHz in contrast to 80–500 Hz). However, when evaluated based on the OITC instead of the STC, the acoustical advantage of the wooden meta-panel at low frequencies (80–500 Hz) was clearly demonstrated in which it performed better than the ANB 80 Steel by 5 points with an OITC of 31. This comparison substantiates the recommendation in the last paragraph of Section 3.1.2 stating that it may be preferable to consider the wooden meta-panel over the ANB 80 Steel because of its higher STL at 80–500 Hz and its lower surface density (Table 1). 3.2. Acoustical Performance in Different Noise Environments Having shown the acoustical advantage of the meta-panels at low frequencies (80–500 Hz), it was of interest to evaluate their acoustical performance in three different noise environments—trafﬁc noise, aircraft ﬂyby noise, and construction noise—as shown in Figure 6. The measured SPL curves of the noise environments are provided in Figure A2 in Appendix B to supplement this discussion. Both meta-panels exhibited consistent acoustical performance in the three different noise environments. The noise reduction curves followed closely to the overall trend of the STL curves that were reported previously for the same conﬁguration (i.e., solely occupied by specimens with resonator) . Focusing on the low-frequency range (80–400 Hz), the aluminium meta-panel provided a noise reduction of 18.4–30.9 dB depending on the noise environment (Figure 6a). For the wooden meta-panel, it achieved a noise reduction of 18.3–26.9 dB depending on the noise environment (Figure 6b). Averaging over the same frequency range, the aluminium and the wooden meta-panels provided a noise reduction of 27.4 and 22.7 dB, respectively. This observation suggests that the meta-panel, regardless of material, could signiﬁcantly reduce the noise exposure of the occupants. Acoustics 2019, 1 364 Figure 6. Noise reduction L curves of the meta-panels—(a) aluminium and (b) wooden—due to nr trafﬁc noise, aircraft ﬂyby noise, and construction noise. Shaded region denotes the limits of the experimental uncertainty at a conﬁdence level of 95%. 4. Discussion Naturally, being a proof-of-concept, it is no doubt that further development and optimisation are necessary to arrive at a meta-panel design suitable for the noise environment of interest. This section discusses some of the avenues for future research. The inﬂuence of different weather conditions on the meta-panel has yet to be considered. In Singapore, the weather conditions include heavy rain, strong wind, and hot sun. If the meta-panel is considered for outdoor applications—as a noise barrier, for example—the specimens and the host structure must be designed with adequate structural integrity. A protective feature may be required to prevent the ﬁlms from excessive deﬂection, which could alter the resonant behaviour of the ﬁlms and inﬂuence the characteristic of the meta-panel. For example, the protective feature could simply be a continuous panel fastened to each side of the meta-panel to enclose the specimens. Consequently, the overall acoustical performance of the meta-panel may also be improved based on the understanding of the mass law. The protective feature could also serve to prevent surface damage of the ﬁlms and dust accumulation on the ﬁlms. In actual environments, the former could be caused by foreign objects, while the latter is inevitable. If both factors are not considered, the durability of the meta-panel will be affected, not to mention its reliability in noise mitigation. The concept of modularity could provide the meta-panel with versatility and aesthetics. By having a library of uniquely designed specimens, the meta-panel could be configured such that its acoustical performance would be optimised for the noise environment of interest. The specimens could also be colour-coded to categorise them according to their acoustical performance. Since the acoustical performance of the meta-panel was previously shown  to be insensitive to the distribution and the arrangement of the specimens, both factors could be varied to form a pixel art, providing aesthetics to the meta-panel. Acoustics 2019, 1 365 Being a design that is highly customisable for different noise environments is no doubt advantageous especially in terms of implementation cost. As the host structure does not need to be replaced during the change in conﬁguration, the cost incurred from the customisation should only be dependent on the cost of producing new specimens. In this study, the production cost of each specimen was approximately S$4. This amount may be reduced further if the specimens are produced in large quantities via conventional manufacturing techniques. Lastly, as the scope of this study was limited to experimental evaluation, it is essential to develop a numerical model of the meta-panel so that the desired acoustical performance could be predicted prior to fabrication. Consequently, high computational power will be expected. 5. Conclusions To reiterate, the purpose of this study was to justify whether the aluminium and the wooden meta-panels solely occupied by specimens with resonator could indeed be viable for noise control in the industry. By comparing the STL with that of two commercially available noise barriers, the meta-panels were shown to be superior at low frequencies (80–500 Hz). This superiority was substantiated when the STC and the OITC were compared. The meta-panels were then evaluated in three different noise environments, showing that they could provide an average noise reduction of 27.4 and 22.7 dB, respectively, at 80–400 Hz. In conclusion, the meta-panels were justiﬁed to be viable for low-frequency (80–500 Hz) noise control in the industry. Being a proof-of-concept design, there is a large room for improvement to obtain a meta-panel that is lightweight and yet has good acoustical performance at low-frequency range (<500 Hz), which is the frequency content of most problematic noises. Author Contributions: L.Y.L.A. conceived the idea, designed the methodology, fabricated the specimens, performed the measurements/simulations, analysed the data, and wrote/revised the manuscript. Y.K.K. and H.P.L. provided feedback and edited/approved the manuscript for submission. Funding: This research was funded by the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) and ST Engineering Land Systems Ltd. under the EDB Industrial Postgraduate Program (EDB-IPP) (Grant No. COY-15-IPP/120005). Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the advice from Samuel Lee and the support from Kok Seng Cheng during the design and the experimental phases of this research, respectively. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: STC Sound Transmission Class OITC Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class STL Sound Transmission Loss SPL Sound Pressure Level Appendix A. Measured STL Curves of the Noise Barriers Figure A1 compares the measured STL curves of the aluminium and the wooden meta-panels to that of the noise barriers. The measured STL curves of both noise barriers were extracted from the respective manufacturer ’s brochures. As the STL at 80 Hz was not available for both noise barriers, it was taken as the same STL at 100 Hz. The STL curves were used to calculate the difference in STL between the meta-panels and the noise barriers (Figure 5). Acoustics 2019, 1 366 Figure A1. Measured STL curves of the aluminium and the wooden meta-panels compared to that of the noise barriers—ANB 80 Steel and PEB Super Galum Steel. Shaded region denotes the limits of the experimental uncertainty at a conﬁdence level of 95%. Appendix B. Measured SPL Curves of the Noise Environments Figure A2 shows the measured SPL curves of the noise environments in the source chamber. The values of the SPL curves were used to calculate the noise reduction L curves (Figure 6). nr Figure A2. Measured SPL curves of the three different noise environments—trafﬁc noise, aircraft ﬂyby noise, and construction noise—in the source chamber. Shaded region denotes the limits of the experimental uncertainty at a conﬁdence level of 95%. References 1. Ang, L.Y.L.; Koh, Y.K.; Lee, H.P. Broadband sound transmission loss of a large-scale membrane-type acoustic metamaterial for low-frequency noise control. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2017, 111, 041903. [CrossRef] 2. Langfeldt, F.; Kemsies, H.; Gleine, W.; von Estorff, O. Perforated membrane-type acoustic metamaterials. Phys. Lett. A 2017, 381, 1457–1462. [CrossRef] 3. Mei, J.; Ma, G.; Yang, M.; Yang, Z.; Wen, W.; Sheng, P. Dark acoustic metamaterials as super absorbers for low-frequency sound. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 756. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Naify, C.J.; Chang, C.M.; McKnight, G.; Nutt, S.R. Transmission loss and dynamic response of membrane-type locally resonant acoustic metamaterials. J. Appl. Phys. 2010, 108, 114905. [CrossRef] 5. Naify, C.J.; Chang, C.M.; McKnight, G.; Scheulen, F.; Nutt, S.R. Membrane-type metamaterials: Transmission loss of multi-celled arrays. J. Appl. Phys. 2011, 109, 104902. [CrossRef] 6. Naify, C.J.; Chang, C.M.; McKnight, G.; Nutt, S.R. Transmission loss of membrane-type acoustic metamaterials with coaxial ring masses. J. Appl. Phys. 2011, 110, 124903. [CrossRef] 7. Naify, C.J.; Chang, C.M.; McKnight, G.; Nutt, S.R. Scaling of membrane-type locally resonant acoustic metamaterial arrays. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2012, 132, 2784–2792. [CrossRef] Acoustics 2019, 1 367 8. Wang, X.; Zhao, H.; Luo, X.; Huang, Z. Membrane-constrained acoustic metamaterials for low-frequency sound insulation. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2016, 108, 041905. [CrossRef] 9. Wang, X.; Luo, X.; Zhao, H.; Huang, Z. Acoustic perfect absorption and broadband insulation achieved by double-zero metamaterials. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2018, 112, 021901. [CrossRef] 10. Yang, Z.; Mei, J.; Yang, M.; Chan, N.H.; Sheng, P. Membrane-type acoustic metamaterial with negative dynamic mass. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 101, 204301. [CrossRef] 11. Yang, Z.; Dai, H.M.; Chan, N.H.; Ma, G.; Sheng, P. Acoustic metamaterial panels for sound attenuation in the 50–1000 Hz regime. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2010, 96, 041906. [CrossRef] 12. Yang, M.; Ma, G.; Yang, Z.; Sheng, P. Coupled membranes with doubly negative mass density and bulk modulus. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 110, 134301. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13. Sui, N.; Yan, X.; Huang, T.Y.; Xu, J.; Yuan, F.G.; Jing, Y. A lightweight yet sound-proof honeycomb acoustic metamaterial. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2015, 106, 171905. [CrossRef] 14. Li, S.; Mao, D.; Huang, S.; Wang, X. Enhanced transmission loss in acoustic materials with micro-membranes. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 130, 92–98. [CrossRef] 15. Huang, T.Y.; Shen, C.; Jing, Y. Membrane- and plate-type acoustic metamaterials. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2016, 139, 3240–3250. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Ma, F.; Huang, M.; Wu, J. Ultrathin lightweight plate-type acoustic metamaterials with positive lumped coupling resonant. J. Appl. Phys. 2017, 121, 015102. [CrossRef] 17. Ma, F.; Huang, M.; Wu, J. Acoustic metamaterials with synergetic coupling. J. Appl. Phys. 2017, 122, 215102. [CrossRef] 18. Ma, F.; Huang, M.; Xu, Y.; Wu, J. Bilayer synergetic coupling double negative acoustic metasurface and cloak. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5906. [CrossRef] 19. Ma, F.; Huang, M.; Xu, Y.; Wu, J. Bilayer plate-type acoustic metamaterials with Willis coupling. J. Appl. Phys. 2018, 123, 035104. [CrossRef] 20. Varanasi, S.; Bolton, J.S.; Siegmund, T.H. Experiments on the low-frequency barrier characteristics of cellular metamaterial panels in a diffuse sound ﬁeld. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2017, 141, 602–610. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 21. Ang, L.Y.L.; Koh, Y.K.; Lee, H.P. Plate-type acoustic metamaterial with cavities coupled via an oriﬁce for enhanced sound transmission loss. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2018, 112, 051903. [CrossRef] 22. Ang, L.Y.L.; Koh, Y.K.; Lee, H.P. A note on the viscous boundary layer in plate-type acoustic metamaterials with an internal tonraum resonator. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 140, 160–166. [CrossRef] 23. Langfeldt, F.; Wolfgang, G.; von Estorff, O. Enhancing the low-frequency noise reduction of a double wall with membrane-type acoustic metamaterials. In Proceedings of the 45th International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering (INTER-NOISE 2016), Hamburg, Germany, 21–24 August 2016; Kropp, W., Ed.; Deutsche Gesellschaft Fuer Akustik: Hamburg, Germany, 2016; pp. 3413–3424. 24. Ma, G.; Fan, X.; Sheng, P.; Fink, M. Shaping reverberating sound ﬁelds with an actively tunable metasurface. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 6638–6643. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 25. Varanasi, S.; Bolton, J.S.; Siegmund, T.H.; Cipra, R.J. The low-frequency performance of metamaterial barriers based on cellular structures. Appl. Acoust. 2013, 74, 485–495. [CrossRef] 26. Ang, L.Y.L.; Koh, Y.K.; Lee, H.P. Plate-type acoustic metamaterials: Evaluation of a large-scale design adopting modularity for customisable acoustical performance. Appl. Acoust. 2019, 149, 156–170. [CrossRef] 27. ASTM. ASTM E90-09: Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions and Elements; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2009. [CrossRef] 28. ASTM. ASTM E2235-04: Standard Test Method for Determination of Decay Rates for Use in Sound Insulation Test Methods; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012. [CrossRef] 29. ASTM. ASTM E413-10: Classiﬁcation for Rating Sound Insulation; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010. [CrossRef] Acoustics 2019, 1 368 30. ASTM. ASTM E1332-16: Standard Classiﬁcation for Rating Outdoor-Indoor Sound Attenuation; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016. [CrossRef] 31. Fahy, F.J.; Gardonio, P. Transmission of Sound Through Partitions. In Sound and Structural Vibration: Radiation, Transmission, and Response, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007; Chapter 5, pp. 277–373. © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Plate-Type Acoustic Metamaterials: Experimental Evaluation of a Modular Large-Scale Design for Low-Frequency Noise Control
Ang, Linus Yinn Leng
Koh, Yong Khiang
Lee, Heow Pueh
, Volume 1 (2) –
Apr 1, 2019
Share Full Text for Free
Add to Folder
Web of Science