Sound Transmission Characteristics of Sandwich Panels With A Truss Lattice Core

Sound Transmission Characteristics of Sandwich Panels
with a Truss Lattice Core
by
Ehsan Moosavimehr
BSc. Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, 2012
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
Master of Applied Science

in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL
STUDIES
(Mechanical Engineering)
The University of British Columbia

(Vancouver)
January 2016
c Ehsan Moosavimehr, 2016

Abstract
Sandwich panels are extensively used in constructional, naval and aerospace structures due to their high stiffness and strength-to-weight ratios. In contrast, sound
transmission properties of sandwich panels are adversely influenced by their low
effective mass. Phase velocity matching of structural waves propagating within the
panel and the incident pressure waves from the surrounding fluid medium lead to
coincidence effects (often within the audible range) resulting in reduced impedance
and high sound transmission. Truss-like lattice cores with porous microarchitecture and reduced inter panel connectivity relative to honeycomb cores promise the
potential to satisfy the conflicting structural and vibroacoustic response requirements. This study combines Bloch-wave analysis and the Finite Element Method
(FEM) to understand wave propagation and hence sound transmission in sandwich
panels with a truss lattice core. Three dimensional coupled fluid-structure finite
element simulations are conducted to compare the performance of a representative
set of lattice core topologies. Potential advantages of sandwich structures with a
lattice core over the traditional shear wall panel designs are identified. The significance of partial band gaps is evident in the sound transmission loss characteristics
of the panels studied. This work demonstrates that, even without optimization,
significant enhancements in STL performance can be achieved in truss lattice core
sandwich panels compared to a traditional sandwich panel employing a honeycomb
core under constant mass constraint.
ii
Preface
This dissertation is ultimately based on two analysis methods: Bloch wave analysis
and finite element analysis. The Bloch wave analysis code was written primarily
by A. Srikantha Phani and the author. The finite element analysis was done by the
author using the commercial finite element package Abaqus.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vii
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
viii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xiv
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1
Sources of Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2
The Quest for Light and Stiff Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3
Vibroacoustic Response of a Light and Stiff Design . . . . . . . .
1.4
Improving the STL in Sandwich Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5
Truss-Lattice Core Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
1.6
STL for a Sandwich Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
1.6.1
Experimental Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
1.6.2
Analytical Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
1.6.3
Bloch Wave Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
1.6.4
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Research Objectives and Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
1.7.1
18
1.7
Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
1.7.2
2
Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
Elastic Wave Propagation in Truss-Lattice Panels . . . . . . . . . .
20
2.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
2.2
Bloch Wave Propagation in Periodic Structures . . . . . . . . . .
22
2.3
Sandwich Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
2.4
Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Numerical Simulation of Sound Transmission through Sandwich Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1
Transmission of Sound through Panels: Physics and Governing

Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
3.1.1
Structural Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
3.1.2
Acoustic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
3.1.3
Coupling Structural and Acoustic Models . . . . . . . . .
35
3.1.4
Finite Element Implementation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
FEM Procedure and Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
3.2.1
Validation of Structural Response Modeling . . . . . . . .
36
3.2.2
Validation of Acoustic Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
3.2.3
Structural-Acoustic Modeling in FEA . . . . . . . . . . .
40
3.3
Truss-Lattice Core Sandwich Panel Modeling . . . . . . . . . . .
49
3.4
Static Stiffness Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
3.4.1
51
3.2
3.5
4
32
Why Not Constant Stiffness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results of the FEA Simulatoins of the Sound Transmission Problem 52
Main Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
4.1
A Closer Look at the STL Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
4.2
Sound Transmission Class and Speech Interference Level . . . . .
61
4.3
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
4.4
Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64
4.4.1
Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
4.4.2
Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
A Finite Element Calculation of Effective Stiffness Moduli . . . . . . .
75
B Sound Interference Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
vi
List of Tables
Table 3.1
List of material properties and model specifications used for FEA 48
Table 4.1
The sound transmission class for the panels in Figure 2.2 and
the monolithic panel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 4.2
61
Incremental reductions in preferred-octave speech interference

level (PSIL) and speech interference levels (SIL) calculated from
the STL curves for each geometry using the formulae: PSIL =
ST L500 +ST L1000 +ST L2000
L2000 +ST L4000
and SIL = ST L500 +ST L1000 +ST
.
3
4
L p500 +L p1000 +L p2000
L p500 +L p1000 +L p2000 +L p4000
Note that PSIL =
and SIL =
3
4
where L p is the sound pressure level. All panels have identical

mass. See Appendix B for a more detailed discussion. . . . . .
Table A.1
63
First order estimates of effective moduli of the lattice core topolo a, h, t and l are
gies studied as a function of relative density ().
respectively the radius of the strut, height of the core, thickness
of the wall for a hexagonal honeycomb and the length of the
hexagonal honeycomb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vii
77
List of Figures
Figure 1.1
Schematic of diffuse field sound transmission loss in sandwich panels. At low frequencies structural resonances and
anti-resonances create minima and maxima, respectively. Note
that anti-resonances can yield STL above the mass law. High
frequency wave propagation regime is characterized by coincidence effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 1.2
Schematic of diffuse field sound transmission loss in sandwich panels. At low frequencies structural resonances and
anti-resonances create minima and maxima, respectively. Note
that anti-resonances can yield STL above the mass law in a
narrow frequency region, a fact used in modern acoustic metamaterials [45]. High frequency wave propagation regime is
characterized by coincidence effects. Double wall (mass-springmass) resonance is usually high for incompressible cores with
high through-thickness modulus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
viii
Figure 2.1
The Kagome lattice (b) made by tessellating the unit cell (a)
along x and y. Typical finite element model of the unit cell of a
lattice (kagome core) sandwich panel with partitioned degrees
of freedom labelled. Displacements at nodes labelled as r, l, b
and t respectively correspond to the right, left, bottom, and top
degrees of freedom. Double subscripts such as lb represent the
left-bottom etc. Note that nodes on some edges of the model
are not labelled for the sake of clarity. q is a displacement vector of the partitioned degrees of freedom that are represented
in the subscript. A reference unit cell having a point A, with
position vector p and a displacement vector q(p) is shown in
(b). Another point B, similar to point A in an arbitrary unit cell
has a position vector r and a displacement vector q(r). This
unit cell is identified by the label (n1 , n2 ), which represents n1
unit cell translations along x and n2 translations along y from
the reference unit cell. Using Floquet-bloch theorem, displacements of this arbitrary unit cell can be represented in terms of
displacements of the reference unit cell [8] . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 2.2
27
Selected sandwich panel core designs studied: (a) Kurtze and

Watters panel, (b) Tetrahedral core, (c) Double pyramidal core,
(d) Pyramidal core, (e) Kagome core and (f) Hexagonal Honeycomb core. All panels have identical face sheets, height and
mass. Panel size 1.5 m 1.5 m 0.038 m. Individual struts
of all cores are of circular cross section. Strut dimensions are
chosen to maintain same mass across all cores based on their
respective relative density, see Table A.1. portion of the top
panel is removed to show the core. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
28
Figure 2.3
Dispersion curves of the sandwich panels for different cores

calculated using Bloch theory. Curves associated with four
truss-lattice cores and the hexagonal core are shown above: (a)
Tetrahedral, (b) Double pyramidal, (c) Pyramidal, (d) Kagome
and (e) Hexagonal. The wave vector locus followed in calculating the dispersion curve for each topology is shown in (f)
where the irreducible part of the first Brillouin zone is shown
as a shaded region. The following values for the symmetry
points are used: = (0, 0), X = ( Lx , 0), M = ( Lx , Ly ), where,
Lx and Ly are respectively the length and width of the unit cell.
Note that all cores have identical mass and the differences in
the dispersion behaviour is due to the variations in topology
governed dynamic stiffness. The long wave length asymptotes
near the origin ( point) indicate the group velocities related
to the stiffness. We observe that the steepest dispersion curve
(first branch) associated with hexagonal core in (e) suggest that
it is the stiffest topology in transverse shear. At the other extreme Kagome core in (d) exhibits lowest stiffness for transu
verse shear wave propagation. ry = 2 yrms 2 , where uxrms ,
uzrms +uxrms
uyrms and uzrms are the root mean squared average displacements along the x, y, and z axes with y axis taken as the normal
to the face sheets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3.1
29
A volume V of fluid with surface area S and the normal vectors

as defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
Figure 3.2
El-Rahebs a) arch configuration and b) unit cell for the curve [22] 37
Figure 3.3
Results of El-Rahebs prediction of the steady-state response

of an arch to a harmonic excitation using the transfer matrix
method[22] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3.4
38
Reproduced results of El-Rahebs prediction of the steady-state

response of an arch to a harmonic excitation using FEA in
Abaqus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
Figure 3.5
Velocity intensity (solid line) using the transfer matrix method

for the arch configuration. The two other curves are not discussed in this dissertation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3.6
39
Velocity intensity results from our FEA simulations [22] for

the arch configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
Figure 3.7
Sound transmission suite configuration considered in this study
41
Figure 3.8
Diffuse field interaction implemented in a finite element model.

The incident face of the panel (FE model with nodes shown as
full circles) is imagined to be subjected to excitation from point
sources distributed on a hemispherical surface. The phase of
plane waves emanating from each point source are uncorrelated [16]. Fluid forces due to incident pressure field are directly applied on the nodes of the structural FE model. Fluid
Figure 3.9
loading effects are neglected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
The panel and fluid medium configuration for FEA . . . . . .
44
Figure 3.10 Sound transmissiom loss through a truss-like panel: derived

from transfer matrix method () and experiment (- - -) [23] .
45
Figure 3.11 Mesh convergence and results of the FEA simulations of the
sound transmission loss through the truss-like panel . . . . . .
46
Figure 3.12 The setup and mesh for the Kurtze and Watters panel . . . . .
47
Figure 3.13 Velocity versus frequency found experimentally and core configuration for Kurtze and Watters [40] . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
Figure 3.14 Velocity versus frequency calculated from FEA frequency analysis by knowing the standing wavelengths at natural frequencies 48
Figure 3.15 a) Convergence with respect to mesh size for the Kagome core
lattice. b) Convergence with respect to the number of data
points for the Kagome core lattice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
Figure 3.16 Comparison of relative static stiffness of the panels studied.

The stiffness of each panel is divided by that of the monolithic
panel stiffness, taken as the reference. Stiffness is evaluated
at the central point of each panel when all edges are simply
supported. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xi
52
Figure 3.17 A comparison of third-octave band averaged STL response of

the Kurtze and Watters panel with five other lattice topologies.
Four frequency points in each octave-band are used for the purposes of averaging. The stiffest panel (see Figure 3.16) has
highest STL in the low frequency region governed by static
stiffness. All panels have the same mass. Topology governed
variations in dynamic stiffness and degree of connectivity between face sheets manifest in the STL response. . . . . . . . .
Figure 4.1
53
Sound transmission loss characteristics of a sandwich panel

with a tetrahedral core. Deformation shapes of the panel at
structural resonances (denoted by R) and deformation shapes
of the panel and the pressure field at coincidence frequencies
(denoted by C) are also shown at each significant frequency.
Pressure fields associated with enhanced STL due to partial
wave band gaps in the high frequency region (marked as B
in STL curve) are also shown. Note that the pressures in the
fluid medium on the transmitted side are reduced by 2 orders of
magnitude between C1 and B above. The solid black straight
line corresponds to the mass law line. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 4.2
55

with a double pyramidal core. Deformation shapes of the panel
at structural resonances (denoted by R) and deformation shapes
The solid black straight line corresponds to the mass law line.
xii
56
Figure 4.3

with a pyramidal core. Deformation shapes of the panel at
structural resonances (denoted by R) and deformation shapes
Pressure fields associated with enhanced STL due to partial
wave band gaps in the high frequency region (marked as B
in STL curve) are also shown. Note that the pressures in the
fluid medium on the transmitted side are reduced by 2 orders of
Figure 4.4
57

with a Kagome core. Deformation shapes of the panel at structural resonances (denoted by R) and deformation shapes of the
panel and the pressure field at coincidence frequencies (denoted by C) are also shown at each significant frequency. Pressure fields associated with enhanced STL due to partial wave
band gaps in the high frequency region (marked as B in STL
curve) are also shown. Note that the pressures in the fluid
medium on the transmitted side are reduced by 2 orders of
Figure 4.5
58
STL characteristics of a sandwich panel with a hexagonal core.

Deformation shapes of the panel at structural resonances (denoted by R) and deformation shapes of the panel and the pressure field at coincidence frequency (denoted by C) are also
shown. The solid black straight line corresponds to the mass
law line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xiii
59
Acknowledgments
I would like to thankfully acknowledge my supervisor, Dr. A. Srikantha Phani for
his excellent supervision, generous support and the productive meetings and discussions during the course of this project. He helped me explore different areas of
structural vibrations and acoustics from which emerged the main objectives for this
project. I thank my colleagues in the Dynamic and Applied mechanics Laboratory
(DAL), in particular Behrooz Yousefzadeh, for the healthy discussions and for creating a friendly research atmosphere. I also want to thank Prof. Murray Hodgson
to whom I owe my knowledge of acoustics. This dissertation is dedicated to my
loving parents, Masoudeh Rahimi and Hassan Moosavimehr, for being there with
me at every step of my life. Without these people believing in me, this work would
have never been possible. Financial support from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) is thankfully acknowledged.
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
Sources of Noise
This study focuses on the acoustic and structural performance of sandwich panels
and investigates the potential ways to improve their acoustic performance by altering the conventional core designs. This is especially of importance in aerospace
designs where there are high levels of broadband noise (100 Hz to 6 kHz) [53]
and vibration, and it is crucial to keep the mass of the structure as low as possible. Tewes et al. [64] summarizes the sources present in an aircraft as being: 1) jet
mixing noise, 2) turbo machinery noise, 3) turbulent boundary layer noise, and 4)
noise radiated in the cabin because of the structural vibrations.
1.2
The Quest for Light and Stiff Structures
The constant trend towards material efficiency and ecologically friendly engineering asks for structural designs which are as lightweight as possible without having
to compromise the load bearing capabilities. In the field of aerospace, these characteristics translate into less material and fuel consumption, less air pollution and
lower dynamic loads on joints and connections. Sandwich panels have proven to
be promising alternatives for the conventional structural panel designs. As a case in
point, Palumboa and Klos [55] found that using graphite epoxy honeycomb panels
instead of the conventional stiffened aluminum panels in air-craft sidewall designs
would result in 35% less structural weight and 60% thinner panels.
Sandwich panels comprise three elements: two solid face sheets, separated by
a relatively lighter and softer core. As a result, the effective moment of inertia of
the section highly increases, relative to the case of unseparated face sheets. This
phenomenon, known as the sandwich effect, can significantly enhance the bending
stiffness and strength of the panels and lead to more weight-efficient structures.
The face sheets bear the bending loads while the main functionality of the core is
to act as a spacer between the two face sheets and assure the structural integrity
of the panel by bearing the shear loads. Therefore, it is required that the core
have sufficient compressive and shear stiffness without adding much weight to the
structure.
Nowadays, the sandwich configuration is widely used in everyday-life examples such as corrugated card board boxes, as well as in advanced civil, naval and
aerospace structures. Depending on their application, sandwich panels are made
with different core and face materials. The face sheets bear most of the structural
load on the panel. Therefore, they are often chosen to be much denser and stiffer
than the core material. Depending on the application, the face-sheet material can
range from plasterboard (as in studded walls in buildings) to metals and composite
material (such as glass fiber, carbon fiber and Kevlar) used in airframe designs.
At the same time, there are various configurations available to choose from for the
core material [2, 72]. Static and dynamic characteristics of each configuration need
to be studied before a structural panel is designed.
1.3
Vibroacoustic Response of a Light and Stiff Design
Despite their many structural benefits, the acoustic performance of light and stiff
panels may not be as desirable, primarily because of their lightness which translates
into little mass impedance to dynamic loads. The high bending stiffness to mass
ratio also means that the speed of bending waves in these panels matches the speed
of sound waves in the acoustic medium at frequencies within the audible range (20
Hz to 20 kHz). This phenomenon, known as the acoustic coincidence [13], leads
to increased levels of acoustic radiation, which further deteriorates the acoustic
performance.
As the sandwich panels are increasingly being used as structural elements in

civil, aerospace and naval engineering it is important to understand their sound
transmission behavior. The transmission characteristics of any panel in general can
be quantified using a parameter called the Sound Transmission Loss (STL). The
STL is defined as the ratio of the acoustic power that is incident on the panel to the
power transmitted to the other side of the panel:
ST L = 10 log10 (Wi /Wt ).
(1.1)
Figure 1.1 shows a schematic view of a STL curve for a typical monolithic
panel. It can be seen that the general trend can be roughly estimated with the
two dashed lines. The left one which is due to the static stiffness of the panel
is called the stiffness line and the one that governs the high frequencies is called
the mass law line. In between these two lines, a number of troughs and peaks
are shown which correspond to resonances and anti-resonances of the mounted
panel, respectively. Such resonant behavior is due to the constructive or destructive
interference of the structural waves in the panel that are induced by the acoustic
excitation and the reflections from the panels boundaries. As the frequency gets
many times larger than fundamental frequency of the panel, (the first trough) the
peaks and troughs become less prominent. This feature arises as a result of two
effects which will be explained: (a) high frequency attenuation of the reflections
and (b) modal overlap.
(a) As the frequency increases, the wavelengths get smaller and most of the
energy of the structural waves gets damped before they reach the boundaries. As a
result, the reflections are not as significant [28].
(b) If a system with well-separated natural frequencies is excited at a frequency
close to any of its natural modes, the response would be the sum of a strong resonant response corresponding to that mode plus a smaller contribution from all other
modes. The frequency range around each response peak over which the response
function drops by 3 dB (half the peak value) is called the half-power bandwidth
corresponding to that peak. It is a characteristic of many plate and shell structures
that the half-power bandwidth expands with frequency, and the modal density (the
number of natural modes per unit frequency) increases with frequency. This leads
3
to the modal overlap at frequencies multiple times larger than the fundamental frequency of the panel. It means that the response at each frequency is comprised
of contributions from more than one mode. With the increase of the excitation
frequency, the effect of the modal overlap gets stronger and eventually the system
becomes non-reverberant [27].
The two effects described above result in less prominent peaks and troughs to
the point that the reflections become negligible and the waves start to propagate
freely, as if there are no boundaries to the panel. At this stage, the STL of the
panel is primarily governed by the wave propagation behavior of the panel and
the type and speed of waves that travel through the panel at each frequency. For
the sandwich panels that we studied (Figure 1.2) this transition happens at 1000
Hz, approximately. The transition frequency is subject to change depending on the
stiffness, mass per unit area and material and structural damping of the panel. This
transition frequency is lower for limp panels than light and stiff panels. Here we
discuss three phenomena that can happen after this transition frequency:
1) Acoustic coincidence: It happens when the tracing wavenumber of the acoustic excitation becomes equal to the speed of traveling waves in the structure [13].
As a result, the two waves become phase-matched and strongly coupled, and significantly higher amount of energy will be transmitted through the panel. The
difference between this phenomenon and the conventional resonance effect is that
the former is a wavenumber matching between the fluid and structural domains
while in the latter it is the frequency of excitation that matches one of the structural
resonance frequencies.
2) Bandgaps: can be due to the spacial periodicity of the core or the existence
of local resonators. The first case, generally results in wider bandgaps than the
second one. Bandgaps will be discussed in more detail in Section 1.4.
3) Double-wall resonance: In the case of double-wall partitions, additional
troughs, associated with the natural modes of the air entrapped inside the closedcell cavities, are expected [54]. These modes are referred to as double-wall resonance frequencies. In the first double-wall resonance frequency (also called the
mass-air-mass resonance), the air inside the cavity acts as a spring between the two
face sheets whose deformations are out-of-phase with each other. In this case, the
contribution of the air inside the cavity to the amount of sound transmitted through
4
Wave Propagation
STL (dB)
Resonant
Stiffness Law
(-6 dB/Octave)
Anti-resonances
M
aw
L
s
as
d
(6
)
ve
a
t
c
/O
Coincidence
Resonances
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 1.1: Schematic of diffuse field sound transmission loss in sandwich
panels. At low frequencies structural resonances and anti-resonances
create minima and maxima, respectively. Note that anti-resonances
can yield STL above the mass law. High frequency wave propagation
regime is characterized by coincidence effects.
the panel is called the air-borne sound transmission. Xin and Lu [71] found the
air-borne sound transmission to be negligible for sandwich panels with cellular
cores.
Apart from the annoyance that the audible noise inside the cabin and in the
environment can cause, the corresponding structural-borne vibration can be detrimental from another aspect: it is a known cause of initiation and propagation of
cracks inside the aircraft structure [12]. Part of the noise inside the cabin is generated externally as either vibration or noise, transmitted via a variety of paths, and
then radiated acoustically into the cabin. These are classified as structure-borne
noise. Aircraft noise is primarily a result of the combination of turbulence in the
5
345#)6"78494:;7&
<#=7&4&:
./0)*12-
24&1
D48
5#
4
:
'
BC
2
A)1
.:;GG&#==)04@
*FA)12BC':45#-
E&:;F"#=7&4&'#=
=
?4
*
@)
4
=)0
H7%IJ#F34JJ
<#=7&4&'#
>7;&';1#&'#
<#=7&4&'#=
!"#$%#&'()*+,Figure 1.2: Schematic of diffuse field sound transmission loss in sandwich
panels. At low frequencies structural resonances and anti-resonances
create minima and maxima, respectively. Note that anti-resonances can
yield STL above the mass law in a narrow frequency region, a fact used
in modern acoustic metamaterials [45]. High frequency wave propagation regime is characterized by coincidence effects. Double wall (massspring-mass) resonance is usually high for incompressible cores with
high through-thickness modulus.
boundary layer on the outer surface of the cabin, and engine noise transmitted either through the airframe structure or through the atmosphere and then through
structural radiation. Noise can also be generated acoustically and propagated by
airborne paths such as the noise from airconditioning/pressurization system and
associated ducting [62].
Traditional methods for controlling structure-borne noise include vibration isolation of the sources and the use of tuned vibration absorbers. Airborne noise can
be reduced by absorption [1] or through the use of barrier materials, both of which
will add to the mass of the structure. These approaches, as well as implementing Helmholtz resonators inside the structural panels [48], and choosing microperforated face sheet on the transmission side [32], have been previously studied in
detail. In this study, the effect of the core configuration on structural wave propagation and therefore sound radiation of sandwich panels is studied. This work deals
with sandwich panels with two face sheets and a spatially periodic truss lattice
core. Lattice cores, with an open micro architecture offer many multi-functional
features not available in a sandwich panel made using a regular closed-cell hexagonal honeycomb core [24, 33, 66, 68]. A detailed review of lattice materials can
be found in [29]. Our principal concern here is the acoustic properties, in particular, sound transmission loss (STL) properties of such advanced multi-functional
sandwich panels.
1.4
Improving the STL in Sandwich Panels
In order to improve vibration and noise attenuation a variety of methods exists.

Noise control treatment can be added to the surface of the face sheets to reduce the
noise and vibration transmission. Conventional methods rely on the acoustic mass
law Section 1.3 or the addition of an absorptive layer. The first method, results in
heavy materials, which defeats the purpose of using sandwich panels in the first
place. For example, a crude way to increase the STL of a panel by 6 dB is to double its mass per unit area. The second method, leads typically to thick materials,
since to be efficient, the thickness of the absorptive layer should be in the same
order of magnitude as the acoustic wavelength [64]. Often both methods are unsatisfactory to improve the low-frequency vibro-acoustic response for lightweight
applications. Sound insulation treatments are applied to the structural envelopes
of vehicles such as cars, trains and aircraft. Examples of these treatments include
composite layers of materials such as fibrous mats and plastic foam sheets, covered by very flexible cover sheets. These secondary layers are known by vehicle
manufacturers as trims. Multilayer sandwich constructions, consisting of an impervious sheet of plastic or rubber-based material (in the core) separated from the
face sheets by a layer of fibrous or poroelastic material, are also used to increase
the transmission loss and to decrease the radiation efficiency of the structural shells
in vehicle compartments [28].
In 2005, Tewes [64] proposed and tested a new active trim design for aerospace
partitions in which the trim panel was mounted on the surface of the structure using a set of piezo-electric actuators. Thus, the dynamic response of the trim panel
could be reduced with the correct active acoustic and structural control. For, tonal
and 3rd-octave band averaged1 noise, up to 20 dB and 10 dB increase in STL was
observed respectively.
State of the art on STL properties of sandwich panels has been reviewed in [15].
Early pioneering studies by Lindsay [43] on transmission of obliquely incident
compressional waves in stratified layered media (alternating fluid-solid layers or
alternating layer of two fluids) of infinite extent have revealed the Bragg reflection
mechanism whereby destructive interference leads to selective reflection of waves
of wavelength n = 2l sin where is the angle of incidence measured from the
horizontal plane of the incident face of the medium, and l is the effective distance
between two solid layers and n is an integer. Thompson [65] extended these studies to the general case of a laminated medium of alternating layers of solids using
Snells law. The influence of lamination or spatial periodicity is to introduce acoustic wave filtering effects, particularly in the form of acoustic stop bands (partial or
complete2 .) Such band gaps are expected to be present in a sandwich panel with a
truss lattice core. More recently, acoustic metamaterials [11] using local resonance
concepts have been shown to be acoustically favourable by achieving STL higher
than the conventional mass law. Mass law (see Figure 1.2) states that STL increases
by 6dB for every doubling of the panel mass at a given frequency, or, doubling of
frequency for the same mass [14].
One can approach sandwich panel as a double wall construction with the core
serving as the intervening medium connecting the two walls. Londons theory [46,
47] on transmission of reverberent sound through double walls suggests that honeycomb or other non-absorbent cellular structures having no cell walls in a direc1 This
concept will be explained in Ch.3.

with frequencies falling within a complete band gap are forbidden to travel in all directions of incidence. In a partial band gap waves are forbidden only in certain directions or angles of
incidence.
2 Waves
tion perpendicular to the face sheets do not result in an increased STL. Similarly,
air coupled walls having no solid sound transmitting paths are extremely effective
with a high STL. The orientation of honeycomb cell walls perpendicular to the face
sheets deteriorates their STL performance. Londons theory also suggests that the
insertion of sound absorbing materials is effective only for light walls. In contrast
to honeycomb panels, the connectivity due to a truss lattice core has two noticeable
differences. First, the connection between the struts of the core and the face sheets
is at discrete points as opposed to a line connectivity with a honeycomb core. Second, individual cells are open in a truss lattice core whereas individual hexagonal
cells of a honeycomb are closed by the face sheets, see Figure 2.2. For maximum
bending stiffness the orientation of honeycomb cells is such that the axis of the
prism is along the normal to the face sheets as shown in Figure 2.2(f). Regardless
of the core topology sandwich panels possess double wall resonances, such as the
mass-spring-mass resonance in which the core acts as a spring connecting the two
face sheets (masses), and coincident frequencies associated with the phase velocity
matching of the acoustic waves with structural waves.
Three principal approaches can be observed in the literature on the design of
sandwich panels from the STL perspective. The three resulting panel designs are
referred to as shear panel [40], coincident panel [36, 69], and mode-cancelling
panel [52]. The shear panel design by Kurtze and Watters[40] uses an incompressible core soft in shear, with shear wave speed less than the acoustic wave speed,
in order to favour shear waves rather than bending wave propagation in the panel.
The coincidence frequency is shifted to higher frequencies outside the range of
interest (400-5000 Hz for transmission of intelligible speech, for example), thus
extending the mass law region in Figure 1.2. The sandwich panel deforms in a
global bending mode at low frequencies and with the increasing frequencies this
deformation evolves into a local one involving the bending of single face sheets
as the core is subjected to pure shear. The normal deflections of the face sheet
due to incident pressure waves are transformed into core shear waves in the shear
wall design. In a symmetric sandwich construction, both symmetric (dilatational)
waves and anti-symmetric (flexural) waves can propagate. Core compressibility
governs the coincidence associated with dilatational waves and double wall resonances. By increasing the core stiffness dilatational wave coincidence frequencies
9
are increased but flexural wave coincidence frequencies are lowered [20, 21, 30].
The requirement of an incompressible core soft in shear leads one to consider materials such as rubber and plastics which unfortunately have other disadvantages
such as added weight, fire hazard etc. However, periodic structures in the form of
panels with connecting bridges between the skins have been shown to fulfill this
requirement by Kurtze and Watters [40]. In general, anisotropic cores are advantageous to meet the requirements of high incompressibility and low transverse shear
stiffness in shear wall design.
The coincidence wall design [36, 69] employs a core of high stiffness in compression so that the dilatational coincidence frequency is placed well above the
frequency region of interest. In contrast with the shear wall, the shear stiffness of
the core is also high. Consequently, coincidence associated with anti-symmetric
(flexural wave) motions are excited within the frequency range of interest, but the
motions of the panel are damped using attached layers of damping. Achieving
simultaneously high stiffness and damping, without adding significant mass, is a
challenge with this design.
In the mode-cancelling panel design, the symmetric and anti-symmetric flexural motions of a symmetric sandwich panel are cancelled in a desired frequency
range by placing the double-wall resonance (mass-spring-mass resonance) frequency of the panel below the frequency range of interest by using a relatively
soft core in compression. The anti-symmetric (flexural motion) coincidence lies
at a frequency outside the range of interest. Consequently, within the frequency
range the symmetric and anti-symmetric modes for the sound transmitting face of
the panel cancel out and higher than mass-law STL is anticipated. Typically, the
hexagonal honeycomb is oriented such that the axis of prismatic cells is perpendicular to the normal direction (thickness direction) of face-sheets, so that core is compressible. This orientation leads to low stiffness in transverse (through-thickness)
compression, high shear stiffness for wave propagation along the cells, but low
shear stiffness for wave propagation across the cells. A concern with the modecancelling panel is the sacrifice in stiffness for a gain in STL performance since
the core is made to be soft in compression undermining the sandwich effect which
requires constant face sheet separation.
Sandwich panels with a truss lattice core offer significant potential. They are
10
generalized anisotropic with gradient elasticity effects. Ultralight truss lattice cores
can be fabricated with rapidly advancing manufacturing methods, see [51, 60] for
example. In view of the limitations of the existing panel designs and the potential
offered by truss lattice cores, this work is aimed to address the following questions:
(i) For the same panel mass what is the influence of different lattice core topologies
on the stiffness and STL properties? (ii) Can one achieve a panel with high STL
without sacrificing stiffness and without adding significant mass in the form of
damping or absorption treatment? To address these questions we use here a finite
element model which takes into account the full three dimensional fluid-structure
interaction effects for a systematic comparison of STL characteristics.
In the example described in the beginning of the chapter, Palumboa and Klos
[55] found that by removing parts of the core that supported supersonic waves, the
speed of the bending waves decreased. This reduced the radiation efficiency of the
panel. As a result, the STL of the panel was improved (up to 7 dB improvement)
by making periodic cut-outs inside the core.
In 2013, Claeys et al. investigated the potential of stop bands, created by interference and by local resonances, to suppress wave motion in certain frequency
ranges. Interference stop bands function on the basis of Bragg scattering: destructive interference between the waves transmitting in the structure and the waves
reflected from irregularities in the structure results in low transmission of energy
and attenuated structural response [39]. Applying resonators on the surface of the
structure introduces a stop band at the resonance frequency of the resonator. In
general, the resonance stop band shows stronger attenuation and the frequencies of
the stop band are easier to manipulate; however, the width of the stop bands is limited and can be increased by increasing the damping coefficient of the resonator. In
a later publication, Claeys et al. successfully designed and manufactured an acoustic enclosure using the concept of local resonators. Their experiments showed that
the addition of local resonators had increased the insertion loss of the enclosure at
the frequency ranges that were expected from their Bloch wave analyses [10].
Recently, Song et al. [63] investigated STL improvement by the use of local
resonators for a numerical example of a honey comb sandwich panel. However,
they simplified the problem by homogenizing the properties of the core. It was
found that the addition of local resonators improved the overall performance of the
11
panel.
In conclusion, resonance stop bands show a high potential to improve the vibrational, and by extension vibro-acoustic, behavior of periodic panels. They are
easily tunable to the frequencies of interest, however their application is limited
by two factors: 1) The attenuation frequency bands are narrow in width meaning
they are not efficient for wide-band noise problems such as the case of aircrafts.
2) Because of their complex and nontrivial geometry the manufacturing techniques
are currently limited to rapid prototyping techniques such as metal powder Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), which is currently not applicable in industrial scales.
Therefore, in this thesis only the effect of interference stop bands caused by Bragg
scattering in the periodic truss-lattice panels is considered.
1.5
Truss-Lattice Core Structures
The basic idea behind a sandwich construction is that by removing material from
parts that bear little stress, significant material and weight can be saved. Therefore, cellular materials are good candidates for the core material, thanks to their
lightness.
Evans et al. [24] compared FCC aluminum lattice to aluminium foams of different densities and found that lattice materials have superior moduli compared to
foam materials. In another study, Wallach [67] compared the stiffness and strength
of a particular lattice material (called the Lattice Block) with a range of different
metal foams with different relative density and showed the stiffness and strength
of the lattice were far superior in specific directions and comparable in the others
[67].
In 2001, Deshpande et al. [19] studied the strength and stiffness of the octettruss lattice made from an aluminum casting alloy and found that properties of this
stretch dominated structure compare favorably with the corresponding properties
of metallic foams.
Wicks and Hutchinson [70] compared the optimized truss-lattice cores and optimized honeycomb cores. The comparison showed that the honeycomb sandwich
panels optimized for a specific stiffness were slightly lighter than their truss-lattice
core counterparts. However the truss-lattice core has other advantages that need to
12
be considered. These materials can also be designed to efficiently bear loads and
conduct heat. The open lattice design also allows for passages of fluid to extract
heat. It also adds more space for distributing deformations that will enhance the
energy absorption capability of the lattice [67]. Because of their periodicity, truss
lattice cores have dynamic properties which are of particular importance when it
comes to sound and vibration control. Two of these dynamic characteristics of
periodic structures are bandgaps and partial bandgaps. Bandgaps/partial bandgaps
are frequency ranges through which no/limited wave vectors can propagate. The
physics behind bandgaps and their potential application in quiet sandwich panels
is discussed in Section 1.4.
1.6
STL for a Sandwich Panel
There are a few different parameters defined for quantifying the acoustic performance of sandwich panels. Parameters such as STL, transmission coefficient,
Sound Reduction Index (R), insertion loss and Sound Transmission Class (STC)
are used in different acoustics applications but the STL is the one that is most
widely used and, therefore, is the focus of this thesis. In this section, various forms
of deterministic and probabilistic models and numerical solutions to evaluate STL
are described, together with their merits and weaknesses.
1.6.1
Experimental Measurement
A number of experimental methods exist for measuring the STL of a panel. The
first method involves the use of an impedance tube, however, it is not discussed
here because it can only measure the STL for waves that are normally incident on
the panel and it cannot capture the effects of the boundaries in an actual full size
panel. The most accurate and widely-used way of measuring the STL of a panel
is using a sound transmission suite 3 . Depending on the standard being used, there
are different configurations considerable for the sound transmission suite, but what
all these configurations have in common are two adjacent rooms with an opening
in-between for mounting the panel. Sound waves are generated on one side of the
panel (source room) and the amount of sound energy that is transmitted through
3 Refer
to ASTM E90-9 or ISO 10140-5 standards for more information.
13
the panel to the other side (receiver room) determines the STL for the panel. For
example, in ASTM E90-09 both rooms need to be reverberant and have enough
volume and sufficient area of diffusers to ascertain field diffusivity on both sides
of the panel. However, SAE J1400 also caters for the case of a reverberant source
room adjacent to an anechoic receiver room [7] which we will later use as the
baseline for our Finite Element Method (FEM) modelling.
1.6.2
Analytical Modeling
Mathematical models for simple STL problems such as planar infinite monolithic
single and double partitions [46, 47], as well as, highly idealized sandwich panels
have been around for decades now.
Kurtze and Watters[40] were among the first to study STL through sandwich
panels. By considering the effect of shear waves on the velocity dispersion of
flexural waves in the panel, they were able to model sandwich panels with high
stiffness-through-thickness (negligible dilatational deformations) and showed that
it is possible to increase the coincidence frequency by decreasing the core shear
stiffness. They did not model the sound transmission problem but were able to
confirm the expected increase in coincidence frequency and improved STL, in their
experiments. Moore and Lyon [52] extended this study to flexible cores by simplifying the deformations as a superposition of symmetric and anti-symmetric linear
modes. With these assumptions, they were able to calculate the STL for an infinite
sandwich panel and propose a new panel design known as the mode-cancelling
panel. However, comparison with their experimental results for honeycomb panels
does not show good agreement. Our FEA simulations reveal some of the possible
reasons for this disagreement: 1) their analysis is for infinite panels, however, in
the experiment the panels are baffled and this results in standing-wave resonances
and anti-resonances which change the STL curves; 2) linearly varying deformations are assumed through the thickness of the panel, although, FEA shows this is
not adequate and higher-order functions are needed; 3) they assume homogeneous
(smeared) material properties for the honeycomb core and the validity of smeared
models is restricted to frequencies for which the wavelengths are larger than the
unit cell sizes [28], for the honeycomb panel tested these frequencies are below
14
1000 Hz according to the FEA simulations. This discussion reveals the difficulties in finding an accurate analytical solution to the problem of sound transmission
through sandwich structures.
1.6.3
Bloch Wave Analysis
As described in Section 1.4 sandwich panels with truss-lattice cores are the focus
of this study. These panels can be categorized as periodic structures, meaning that
by repeating a selected unit cell along specific directions the whole structure of the
panel can be constructed. The wave propagation equations in periodic structures
may be simplified by making use of their intrinsic periodicity. Mead [50] used this
technique to identify the high-radiation supersonic wave propagation zone in plates
with regular stiffening. This method is explained in more detail in Chapter 2.
1.6.4
Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
The exact details of the Finite Element Modeling (FEM) carried out in this thesis
will be explained in Chapter 3. Here, only its merits and limitations are discussed
in comparison with other computational techniques.
In principle, it is possible to construct precise, detailed mathematical models
of the sandwich panels coupled with the fluid medium, and to apply FEA to estimate the linear steady-state dynamics response to external harmonic excitation, at
all points at each frequency. This makes FEA a relatively simple, straight-forward
and therefore popular approach for modeling sound transmission through complex
structures. There are two major limitations to this method, however. First being the
computational cost; the size of the finite elements used, needs to be considerably
smaller than the minimum structural wavelength, in any component. As a result,
the model size increases with frequency to a power of three for 3D problems [27].
One way to reduce the required number of elements is by using the Spectral Finite
Element Method [59]. In this method, the shape functions for different elements
are solved for according to the dynamic loads associated with harmonic oscillations at each frequency. Accordingly, the assembled mass and stiffness matrices
will also be frequency-dependent. As a result, in most cases of steady-state dynamic problems further mesh refinement may not be required when the excitation
15
frequency increases.
The second limitation concerns the predictive uncertainty of high-frequency
vibration response. We inevitably lack precision in modeling damping and joint
flexibility. Dynamic properties vary infinitesimally from day to day and with operational conditions. Lower-order mode shapes and natural frequencies are rather
insensitive to small changes in these structural details, which can nevertheless quite
significantly alter the high-frequency modes. Hence, there exists irreducible uncertainty concerning the high-order natural modes and frequencies as a result of the
lack of complete and precise knowledge of the dynamic properties of any modeled
system. In addition, the precise form of the excitation forces is rarely known. In
such cases, it is not appropriate to use FEA. Instead, alternative modeling philosophies and techniques should be used such as the Statistical Energy Analysis.
After a careful consideration of the rate of change of the response of the panel
versus frequency, no signs of a stochastic response could be identified which obviates the need for a statistical approach. In fact, as will be explained in Chapter 3,
the whole behaviour of the panel could be captured using 81 points throughout the
frequency range. As a result, for the range of frequencies and the panels that we
studied FEA proves to be a reliable option.
1.7
Research Objectives and Thesis Outline
Structure-borne sound transmission poses a fundamental challenge to be addressed

in the design of lightweight and stiff structural sandwich panels used in aeronautical, automotive and naval structures. A sandwich panel can be viewed as a multilayered structure comprising two or more thin face sheets of high strength and
stiffness separated by a thick low density core. An ideal core material should have
high out-of-plane stiffness to maintain constant separation between the face sheets
and high transverse shear stiffness of the core to prevent relative in-plane sliding of
the face sheets [2, 72]. This work deals with sandwich panels with two face sheets
and a spatially periodic truss lattice core. Lattice cores, with an open micro architecture offer many multifunctional features not available in a sandwich panel made
using a regular closed-cell hexagonal honeycomb core [24, 33, 66, 68]. A detailed
review of lattice materials can be found in [29]. Our principal concern here is the
16
acoustic properties, in particular, sound transmission loss (STL) properties of such

advanced multi functional sandwich panels.
By virtue of reciprocity principle one observes that a panel that responds poorly
to sound excitation also radiates sound poorly. Hence, panels with high sound
transmission loss (STL) also radiate poorly [14]. When the bending wavelength of
a panel (b ) matches the incident acoustic wavelength ( ) the panel radiates sound
efficiently. This undesirable coincidence phenomenon, a spatial analog of temporal resonance phenomenon familiar in structural vibrations, is a phase matching
condition due to the phase velocity matching between the structural waves propagating within the panel and the acoustic pressure waves incident on (or radiated
from) the panel. The critical frequency of a panel is proportional to the ratio of
mass per unit area and the bending stiffness [14, 28]. Hence, structurally efficient
light and stiff panels with low critical frequencies are acoustically poor [55]. Similarly, a limp and heavy panel is acoustically excellent but structurally useless in
an aircraft. Due to their high stiffness and low mass, sandwich panels have low
critical frequencies compared to a monolithic panel of the same mass, and hence
suffer from acoustic problems [17]. This problem is more acute with composite sandwich panels, requiring acoustic liner treatments and poroelastic material
based acoustic absorbers [1]. The added weight of acoustic treatments can undercut the lightweight advantage of sandwich construction. Recent availability of core
topologies, particularly of truss lattice type, offer the possibility of improving STL
properties of a sandwich panel. Moreover, the ability to fabricate such truss lattice
architectures using composite materials offers the potential to tailor their vibroacoustic properties, structural wave dispersion in particular, without compromising
on the structural requirement of high stiffness to mass ratio.
Despite its many structural benefits, the high stiffness to mass ratio impairs a
sandwich panels ability to reduce noise and vibration. Also, supersonic structural
waves start propagating in the panels at frequencies often within the audible range.
This type of wave radiates noise much more efficiently, which results in even worse
acoustic performance. For sandwich panels with homogeneous cores, there are
only few control parameters that determine the wave propagation behaviour of the
panel. The same control parameters will directly influence and often significantly
deteriorate the static structural performance of the panel. On the other hand, panels
17
with truss lattice cores have several geometrical parameters that can control the
wave propagation, as well as the static stiffness and toughness of the panels. This
study focuses on sandwich panels with truss-lattice cores, establishes a framework
for evaluating their structural and acoustic performance and assesses their benefits
and potential applications.
The conventional computational approach to assess the acoustic performance
of a panel is through numerical modeling of the whole structure, consisting of
thousands of unit cells, and a large volume of fluid surrounding it. Solving such
models would require significant time and computational cost and would take days
to complete. However, in the wave propagation zone, (Figure 1.2), it is possible to
make use of the periodicity of the structure and reduce the model size to a single
unit cell. To the best of the authors knowledge, in 3D this procedure has only been
done for sandwich panels with very simple core geometries, such as orthogonal
rib-stiffeners [63].
1.7.1
Research Objectives
After a review of the literature, two objectives for this thesis are identified:
1. To develop a computationally efficient numerical framework to evaluate the
acoustic and vibrational analysis of 2D periodic sandwich panels
2. To compare the actual performance of these panels with the existing designs
and make suggestions for improvements
1.7.2
Thesis Outline
Chapter 2 develops a versatile framework for studying the propagation of waves

in periodic panels using the Floquet-Bloch theorem and Finite Element Modeling
(FEM) in a semi-computational approach.
In Chapter 3, the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of the sound transmission
problem will be explained in detail. The details of the model constructed in Abaqus
and the governing equations that need to be solved computationally are defined.
Case studies are also presented and the convergence requirements are investigated.
Chapter 4 discusses the results obtained from Chapters 2 and 3, compares the
panels from both acoustic and structural view points and summarizes the findings
18
from this study. The final outcomes are stated and the developed methods are
carefully critiqued. Finally, the future areas of research and the potential extensions
to this project are defined.
19
Chapter 2
Elastic Wave Propagation in

Truss-Lattice Panels
2.1
Introduction
As mentioned in the previous chapter, at high frequencies (multiple times the fundamental resonance frequency of the panel) reflections from the boundaries become negligible and the modal density increases. As a result, traveling waves start
to propagate in the panel. Therefore, the STL of a finite panel at high-frequencies,
primarily depends upon the wave propagation properties of the panel. Finite Element modeling of a sandwich panel with a truss-lattice core requires a significantly
large number of elements, which will result in costly computations that can take
days to finish. However, thanks to the intrinsic periodicity in truss-lattice structures
this model can be reduced to a single unit cell by considering the correct force and
displacement boundary conditions. This will significantly reduce the number of
elements and therefore the computation time. In this chapter we will develop a
framework which combines FEA and Bloch wave analysis to give us a full picture
of the wave propagation characteristics of almost any periodic sandwich structure
infinite in extent. These characteristics will be interpreted to qualitatively evaluate
the structure-borne noise in finite sandwich panels at high frequencies at which
waves start propagating (Section 1.3).
The problem of wave transmission in a monolithic plate was studied decades
20
ago [57]. Three wave types are conceivable in a monolithic plate; the actual vibrations of the plate in the general case can be considered as the sum of these three
waves. The first type of wave, called the longitudinal wave, involves harmonic extension and contraction of the sections in the plane of the plate itself. When thicker
plates are studied the Poisson effects become considerable; as a result, the in-plane
deformations are accompanied by relatively small out-of-plane deformations leading to a quasi-longitudinal type of wave motion [28]. The transverse (shear) waves
are the second possible type of waves in a plate. Just as the name implies, the sections of the plate are displaced transversely and there are no in-plane deformations
involved. The phase velocities of the quasi-longitudinal and shear waves are nondispersive (independent of frequency) with the shear wave speed being about 0.6
of the longitudinal wave speed for most structural materials [28]. The last wave
type is called the bending wave. Unlike the first two wave types, for this one, the
in-plane deformations and transverse deflections are coupled by means of the rotations in the cross-section of the plate. It is worth recalling that in a pure bending
deformation the cross-sectional planes will remain plane before and after the deformation. Solving for the harmonic solution to the wave equation, the bending wave
phase speeds are found to be equal to cb = 1/2 (D/m)1/4 , being the frequency,
D the bending stiffness and m the mass per unit area of the plate. It can be seen that
the bending waves show dispersive behavior with their phase velocity increasing
with frequency. Bending waves are of the greatest significance in the process of
fluid-structure interaction at audio frequencies. This is because they involve substantial transverse displacement which can effectively disturb the fluid region, also
because of the coincidence effects facilitating the energy exchange [28].
When studying the sandwich panels with homogeneous cores (such as foam
and rubber), the discontinuities across the section of the panel require more parameters to be involved in the solution. Kurtze and Watters [40] studied only the wave
type in which the top and bottom faces exhibited in-phase motion; known as antisymmetric modes (flexural waves). Moore and Lyon [52] also included the effect
of out-of-phase motion of the face sheets known as symmetric modes (breathing
waves), but they assumed that the deformations change as a linear function in the
thickness direction which is not accurate considering that the sandwich panels that
they studied had relatively soft core material. Frostig and Baruch [31] introduced
21
a rigorous approach to incorporate higher-order deformations inside the core but

the study was limited only to sandwich beams and not sandwich panels. Recently,
Liu and Bhattacharya [44] conducted a thorough study of the propagation and dispersion of waves in sandwich panels by transforming the wave equations in each
component of the panel to a Hamiltonian system and then solving the system of
equations using a transfer matrix approach. Shorter [61] applied the spectral finite
element method to study the propagation of waves in viscoelastic laminates and
found that several types of wave are in play other than the ones described here for
a monolithic panel.
The problem becomes more complex when we consider periodic cores. The
discontinuities in the core can significantly complicate solving the wave transmission problem inside the sandwich panel; however, there are methods to study this
problem based on the fact that these structures are periodic. El-Raheb [22] studied
this problem for truss-lattice sandwich beams using the transfer matrix method.
The method that we are applying is based on Bloch Wave propagation [5]. Phani
et al. [56] used this technique to study the propagation of waves in two-dimensional
truss-lattice structures. Xin and Lu [71] employed this method to study the transmission of sounds through rib-stiffened sandwich panels. In this chapter we will
apply Bloch Wave propagation to sandwich panels with truss-lattice cores and introduce a platform we developed in MATLAB to simplify this process.
2.2
Bloch Wave Propagation in Periodic Structures
An infinite two dimensional sandwich panel with a truss lattice core can be visualized as a periodic structure obtained by repeating a single unit cell in two directions.
Wave propagation in such lattice structures has been studied in solid state physics
using Bloch theory, see [4] and Chapter 8 in [3] for a formal proof of Blochs theorem. In-plane wave propagation in two dimensional lattice materials using Bloch
theory has been reported in [56] and Bloch theory has been applied to periodic
structures earlier, see [42, 49, 50, 59] for example. Before proceeding to Blochs
theorem, it is worth reviewing relevant concepts from solid state physics. A lattice
can be visualized as a collection of points, called lattice points, and these points are
specified by basis vectors, not necessarily of unit length. Upon selecting a suitable
22
unit cell, the entire direct lattice can be obtained by tessellating the unit cell along
the basis vectors e i , i = 1, 2. In the context of a finite element model of the unit
cell of a sandwich panel, as shown in Figure 2.1, lattice points are the nodes of the
finite element model.
With reference to the chosen unit cell of a two dimensional lattice, such as that
shown in Figure 2.1, let the integer pair (n1 ,n2 ) identify any other cell obtained
by n1 translations along the e 1 direction and n2 translations along the e 2 direction.
The point in the cell (n1 ,n2 ), corresponding to the jth point in the reference unit
cell, is denoted by the vector r = r j + n1 e 1 + n2 e 2 . According to Blochs theorem
the displacement at the jth point in any cell identified by the integer pair (n1 ,n2 ) in
the direct lattice basis of a two dimensional lattice is given by
q(rr ) = q(rr j )ek(rr rr j ) = q(rr j )e(k1 n1 +k2 n2 ) .
(2.1)
Here, k1 = 1 + i1 and k2 = 2 + i2 represent the components of the wavevector

k along the e 1 and e 2 vectors, that is k1 = k e 1 and k2 = k e 2 . The real part and
the imaginary part are called the attenuation and phase constants, respectively.
The real part is a measure of the attenuation of a wave as it progresses from one
unit cell to the next. For waves propagating without attenuation, the real part is
zero and the components of the wave vector reduce to k1 = i1 and k2 = i2 . The
imaginary part or the phase constant is a measure of the phase change across one
unit cell.
It is convenient to define a reciprocal lattice in the wavevector space (k-space)
such that the basis vectors of the direct and reciprocal lattice satisfy:
ei ej = i j
(2.2)
where e i denote the basis vectors of the direct lattice and e j denote the basis of
reciprocal lattice, i j is the Kronecker delta function and the symbol denotes the
scalar or dot product. For a two-dimensional lattice the subscripts i and j take the
integer values 1 and 2.
The wavevectors can be expressed in terms of the reciprocal lattice basis e i .
Since the reciprocal lattice is also periodic, one can restrict the wavevectors to cer-
23
tain regions in the reciprocal lattice called Brillouin Zones [5]. The wavevectors
are restricted to the edges of the irreducible part of the first Brillouin zone to explore band-gaps, since the band extrema almost always occur along the boundaries
of the irreducible zone [3, 39].
The equations of motion for the unit cell of a two dimensional lattice can be
expressed as:
M q + K q = f .
(2.3)
where the matrices M , K denote the mass and stiffness matrix of the unit cell,
respectively. The vectors q , q and f respectively denote the displacements, accelerations and force vectors corresponding to the degrees of freedom of the system.
Having formulated the equations of motion of a unit cell, the propagation of planar
harmonic waves at a radial frequency within the entire lattice can be investigated
by invoking Blochs theorem. The equations of motion in Equation 2.3 follow as,

2 M + K q = f
or
Dq = f ,

D = 2 M + K
(2.4)
where the dynamic stiffness D reduces to the static stiffness at zero frequency.
In order to simplify these equations and solve the wave equation the q matrix
is partitioned into the components corresponding to the boundary nodes (edges
and corners of the unit cell) and the components corresponding to the degrees of
freedom of the internal nodes. The By virtue of Blochs theorem the following
relationships between the displacements, q , and forces, f , are obtained:
q r = ek1 q l ,
q rb = ek1 q lb ,
f r = ek1 f l ,
qt = ek2 q b ,
q rt = ek1 +k2 q lb ,
q lt = ek2 q lb
f t = ek2 f b ,
(2.5)
f rt + ek1 f lt + ek2 f rb + ek1 +k2 f lb = 0.

where the subscripts l, r, b, t and i respectively denote the displacements corresponding to the left, right, bottom, top and internal nodes of a generic unit cell, as
shown in Figure 2.1. The displacements of the corner nodes are denoted by double
subscripts: for example, lb denotes the left bottom corner.
24
Using the above relationships one can define the following transformation:
q = T q ,
I
k1
I e
T =
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I ek2
0
0
0
I ek1
I ek2
0
0
I e(k1 +k2 )
0
,
0
ql

qb
q =
q .
lb
qi
(2.6)
where q denote the displacements of the nodes in the Bloch reduced coordinates.
Now substitute the transformation given by Equation 2.6 into the governing equations of motion in Equation 2.4 and pre-multiply the resulting equation with T H to
enforce force equilibrium [42]. One obtains the following governing equations in
the reduced coordinates:
q = f ,
D
= T H DT ,
D
f = T H f .
(2.7)
where the superscript H denotes the Hermitian transpose. For a plane wave propagating without attenuation in the x y plane, the propagation constants along the x
and y directions are k1 = i1 and k2 = i2 . For free wave motion ( f = 0) the above
equation can be written in the frequency domain to give the following eigenvalue
problem,
(k1 , k2 , )q = 0.
D
(2.8)
Any triad (k1 , k2 , ) obtained by solving the eigenvalue problem in Equation 2.8
represent a plane wave propagating at frequency .
In the characteristic equation of the eigenvalue problem defined by Equation 2.8
there exist three unknowns: the two propagation constants k1 , k2 which are complex in general and the frequency of wave propagation which is real since the
25
matrix D r in the eigenvalue problem is Hermitian. At least two of the three unknowns have to be specified to obtain the third. For wave motion without attenuation the propagation constants are purely imaginary of the form k1 = i1 and
k2 = i2 . In this case one obtains the frequencies of wave propagation as a solution
to the linear algebraic eigenvalue problem defined in Equation 2.8 for each pair of
phase constants (1 ,2 ). The solution is a surface, called the dispersion surface, in
the k1 k2 coordinates. There exist as many surfaces as there are eigenvalues
of the problem in Equation 2.8. If two surfaces do not overlap each other then there
is a gap along the axis in which no wave motion occurs. This gap between dispersion surfaces is called the band-gap in the solid-state physics literature [39] and
the stop band in structural dynamics [49]. For all frequencies on the phase constant
surface, wave motion can occur and hence the frequency range occupied by these
surfaces is a pass band. Furthermore, the normal to the phase constant surface at
any point gives the Poynting vector or group velocity, and this indicates the speed
and direction of energy flow [5].
The procedure described below was followed to compute dispersion curves of
the sandwich panels:
1. Construct the finite element model of a unit cell of the lattice and label the
edge degrees of freedom, as shown in Figure 2.1. ABAQUS[16] finite element package was used to generate the mass and stiffness matrices.
2. The ABAQUS generated matrices are exported into a MATLAB environment to solve the eigenvalue problem in Equation 2.8 for a specified path
X M along the edges of the irreducible part of the first Brillouin
zone portrayed in Figure 2.1(f).
26
lt
lt
t
rt
rt
rb
lb
(a)
rb
lb
b
(b)
Figure 2.1: The Kagome lattice (b) made by tessellating the unit cell (a) along
x and y. Typical finite element model of the unit cell of a lattice (kagome
core) sandwich panel with partitioned degrees of freedom labelled. Displacements at nodes labelled as r, l, b and t respectively correspond to
the right, left, bottom, and top degrees of freedom. Double subscripts
such as lb represent the left-bottom etc. Note that nodes on some edges
of the model are not labelled for the sake of clarity. q is a displacement vector of the partitioned degrees of freedom that are represented
in the subscript. A reference unit cell having a point A, with position
vector p and a displacement vector q(p) is shown in (b). Another point
B, similar to point A in an arbitrary unit cell has a position vector r
and a displacement vector q(r). This unit cell is identified by the label
(n1 , n2 ), which represents n1 unit cell translations along x and n2 translations along y from the reference unit cell. Using Floquet-bloch theorem,
displacements of this arbitrary unit cell can be represented in terms of
displacements of the reference unit cell [8]
27
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 2.2: Selected sandwich panel core designs studied: (a) Kurtze and
Watters panel, (b) Tetrahedral core, (c) Double pyramidal core, (d) Pyramidal core, (e) Kagome core and (f) Hexagonal Honeycomb core. All
panels have identical face sheets, height and mass. Panel size 1.5 m
1.5 m 0.038 m. Individual struts of all cores are of circular cross
section. Strut dimensions are chosen to maintain same mass across all
cores based on their respective relative density, see Table A.1. portion
of the top panel is removed to show the core.
28
(a)
(b)
log(ry)
10
log(ry)
10
2
2
(kHz)
(kHz)
0
1
(c)
(d)
log(r )
y
10
log(ry)
10
(kHz)
(kHz)
2
0
0
5
1
2
(e)
(f)
10
(kHz)
1
0
5
1
2
3
X
Figure 2.3: Dispersion curves of the sandwich panels for different cores calculated using Bloch theory. Curves associated with four truss-lattice
cores and the hexagonal core are shown above: (a) Tetrahedral, (b) Double pyramidal, (c) Pyramidal, (d) Kagome and (e) Hexagonal. The wave
vector locus followed in calculating the dispersion curve for each topology is shown in (f) where the irreducible part of the first Brillouin zone
is shown as a shaded region. The following values for the symmetry
points are used: = (0, 0), X = ( Lx , 0), M = ( Lx , Ly ), where, Lx and Ly
are respectively the length and width of the unit cell. Note that all cores
have identical mass and the differences in the dispersion behaviour is
due to the variations in topology governed dynamic stiffness. The long
wave length asymptotes near the origin ( point) indicate the group velocities related to the stiffness. We observe that the steepest dispersion
curve (first branch) associated with hexagonal core in (e) suggest that it
is the stiffest topology in transverse shear. At the other extreme Kagome
core in (d) exhibits lowest stiffness for transverse shear wave propagau
tion. ry = 2 yrms 2 , where uxrms , uyrms and uzrms are the root mean
uzrms +uxrms
squared average displacements along the x, y, and z axes with y axis

taken as the normal to the face sheets.
29
2.3
Sandwich Panels
The sandwich panels selected for comparison are shown in Figure 2.2. Four truss
lattice core sandwich panels Figure 2.2 are compared with Kurtze and Watters
panel. All panels have solid face sheets made of square steel sheets of length 1.5 m
and thickness 3.8 mm. All panels have the same mass and size. Effective properties
of the core topologies are compared in Table A.1. It can be observed that the traditional hexagonal honeycomb has the highest transverse shear modulus and Youngs
defined as the ratio of the densities of the
modulus for a given relative density ,
porous core to that of the density of the parent material. Further, it may be observed that the tetrahedral core has the highest transverse Youngs modulus among
truss lattices followed by double pyramidal and pyramidal (equal) and Kagome
core. It should be mentioned that the Kagome core as defined in this work does
not contain truss elements on the top and bottom faces to accommodate solid face
sheets. In regards to shear modulus, hexagonal honeycomb has the highest value
and Kagome has the lowest for a given relative density. These marked differences
in effective macroscopic elastic moduli arising from differences in topologies of
the core will manifest later in the static stiffness properties as well as the wave
propagation response.
2.4
Results and Discussion
Dispersion curves for wave propagation are computed for each panel in Figure 2.2
using the procedure described in Section 2.2. For each point along the locus
X M the eigenvalue problem in Equation 2.8 is solved to obtain the
propagating frequencies associated with a propagation direction specified by the
wavevector components along the locus. The results are shown in Figure 2.3 for
frequency up to 10 kHz. For the purposes of sound transmission waves with significant out-of-plane (along the normal to the face sheets of the panel) displacement
components are significant. Thus, it is useful to quantify the contribution of waves
in a given direction, or frequency, along the normal direction to the face sheets. A
parameter ry is introduced to this end and its value is calculated for each point on
u
the dispersion curve and shown as a contour plot. ry = 2 yrms 2 , where uxrms ,
uzrms +uxrms
uyrms and uzrms are the root mean squared average displacements along the x, y, and
30
z axes with y axis taken as the normal to the face sheets. The higher the magnitude
of ry , the higher the out-of-plane displacement magnitude. It can be noticed that
the number of dispersion branches (or modal density) is highest in Figure 2.2(d)
for Kagome core whereas the hexagonal honeycomb in Figure 2.2(e) exhibits near
dispersionless features. This suggests that it is the stiffest structure, but the same is
problematic from a coincidence perspective. Recognizing that the long wavelength
asymptote of the first branch (shear wave) is related to the group velocity, which
for a given mass depends on the transverse shear modulus, we can conclude that
Kagome core has the least slope and hence the coincidence of acoustic waves in the
fluid with the transverse shear waves (first branch) in the panel occurs at a higher
frequency compared to the hexagonal honeycomb. No complete band gaps exist.
However, partial band gaps are evident for the tetrahedral core in Figure 2.2(a)
in the 5 kHZ region and at a much lower frequency region (between 2 kHz and
3.5 kHZ) for the Kagome core in Figure 2.2(d). In contrast, the dispersion curves
for the double pyramidal lattice in Figure 2.2(b) do not show any partial band gaps
within 10 kHz region. As we shall see in Chapter 4, these partial band gaps provide
significant enhancements to the STL.
31
Chapter 3
Numerical Simulation of Sound

Transmission through Sandwich
Panels
In this capter, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of the sound transmission problem
is explained. The governing equations that need to be solved computationally and
the details of the model constructed in Abaqus are defined. A step-by-step development and validation of the modeling procedure for calculating the structural
response and STL of sandwich panels is presented, together with the checks to verify the convergence of the results. The results will be presented for the geometries
shown in Figure 2.2.
3.1
Transmission of Sound through Panels: Physics and

Governing Equations
Transmission of sound involves two types of media; a solid structure which is in

this case a fairly complex sandwich panel, and a medium of fluid which is usually
air. Each region of the fluid or solid medium has its own specific material law, and
needs to be discretized in finite elements with appropriate size and aspect ratio.
Also, the interaction between different regions needs to be defined at the interfaces.
32
n(r)
n(r)
V, S
n(r)
Figure 3.1: A volume V of fluid with surface area S and the normal vectors
as defined
3.1.1
Structural Model
In general, the dynamics of a deformable solid medium is governed by the equations of elasticity. For linear elastic materials, these equations consist of Newtons
second law (Equation 3.1), Hookes law (Equation 3.2) and the strain-displacement
relation (Equation 3.3):
+ F = u
(3.1)
=C :
(3.2)
1
u + (
u )T ]
= [
2
(3.3)
where is the Cauchy stress tensor, is the infinitesimal strain tensor, C is the
stiffness tensor, F is the external force per unit volume (body force) and is the
mass density. Here : is the inner product of the two tensors (summation over repeated indices is implied as in A : B = Ai j Bi j ). These equations can be simplified depending on the dimensionality (shell, beam etc.) of the geometries that are
studied. Refer to Chapter 12 of [58] for more information on how FEA makes it
possible to solve these equations in a complex structure.
3.1.2
Acoustic Model
Considering the conservation of mass for an element inside the fluid volume (Figure 3.1) with pressure P(r,t), particle velocity V(r,t) and density (r,t), leads to
33
the continuity equation:
= .(V)
t
(3.4)
Also, writing Newtons second law for the same volume we obtain:
(PndS) =
dV
dV )
dt
(3.5)
where the left hand side is the resultant external force and the right hand side represents the acceleration of the volumes center of mass. Applying Gausss divergence
theorem to the left hand side of the equation, and linearizing the total differential
on the right hand side (only valid for small oscillations) Eulers equation follows:
V
= P
t
(3.6)
Also, assuming small perturbations in pressure, a linear material law may be used
for the fluid
P = c2 .
(3.7)
where c is the speed of sound. Now, by taking the second derivative of Equation 3.7 with respect to time and applying linearized versions of Equation 3.4 and
Equation 3.6, we find the first-order approximation with respect to the perturbations in pressure, density and particle velocity:
2P
t 2
= c2
V
2
= c2 0 .(
) = c2 2 P.
2
t
t
(3.8)
Hence, we obtain the wave equation:

2P
t
= c2 2 P
(3.9)
Substituting a time-harmonic solution P(r,t) = P0 + p(r) e jt+ we arrive at Helmholtz

equation [37]. (Here P0 represents the atmospheric air pressure, p the amplitude
of the pressure changes, and and are the frequency and phase of the pressure
change in space.)
2 p + k2 p = 0
34
(3.10)
where k =
is the wave number. Since p is the only unknown, solving for the
pressure level amplitude is only a matter of knowing the boundary conditions, for
instance, knowing the pressure levels at all boundary surfaces [16].
3.1.3
Coupling Structural and Acoustic Models
Modeling a fluid-structure interaction problem requires simultaneously solving for

the structural dynamics equations (3.1, 3.2, 3.3), the fluid domain equation (either Equation 3.9 or Equation 3.10) and the following equation which defines the
interaction between the two domains:
P
2 un
= 2 ,
n
t
(3.11)
where un indicates the displacement of the solid surface along the direction n normal to the surface of the structure and P is the pressure acting on the surface of the
panel face sheet on the incident side.
3.1.4
Finite Element Implementation
Partitioning the fluid and solid regions into a finite number of elements makes it
possible to discretize the material law equations and form a system of equations
with degrees of freedom of each element as the unknowns. Solving such system
of equations for a sufficiently large number of elements with appropriate aspect
ratios, will give us the values for the degrees of freedom at each point inside the
domain. For linear solid elements, the displacements of the vertices (nodes) are
defined as the degrees of freedom; the reader is referred to Chapter 12 of [58] for a
more detailed demonstration of this procedure. In the acoustic domain the pressure
amplitude p is taken as the only degree of freedom [26].
As mentioned before, the discretized fluid and solid domain equations are coupled by the interaction Equation 3.11 and need to be solved simultaneously. The
faces of the acoustic elements in contact with the flexible solid medium are bound
to match the deformations in the solid medium. Therefore, the transverse displacements of the plate elements produce volumetric acoustic excitation in the fluid.
Likewise, the sound pressure inside the acoustic elements at the fluid-solid inter-
35
face represents the force excitation acting on the corresponding solid elements.
See [28] or [37] for more details. In this study commercial FE package ABAQUS
is used to accelerate computation of STL calculations. Other techniques, such
as boundary element methods and spectral methods, can also be used. Statistical effects can be significant in high frequency regime [17], however they are not
significant in the present study.
3.2
FEM Procedure and Validation
Two-dimensional realizations of real-world problems are not always realistic but

because of their significantly lower computational cost and ease of visualization
they are studied first. Later in this section we will find that 2D FEM shows promising results for less complex problems such as vibration analysis for a sandwich
beam. However, for the analysis of more complex cases such as the actual sound
transmission through sandwich panels, a 2D model is not adequate and a 3D model
is needed to capture the features of the model that extend in three dimensions. The
purpose of this section is to present validation of the modeling procedure using the
results already available in the literature.
3.2.1
Validation of Structural Response Modeling
El-Raheb (1997) [22] calculated the frequency response of a polycarbonate truss

lattice arch using a transfer matrix method. Figure 3.2 shows a typical arch that
can be studied using this method. The corners of cells at the ends are connected to
ground with springs representing the flexibility of the supports. The lattice is excited at the top members with point forces equivalent to a pressure loading and the
steady-state dynamic response is calculated. Abaqus steady-state dynamics FEA
was used to simulate the results for harmonic excition with the same loading as
was just described. B23 elements (two-dimensional beams with cubic formulation) were used for the structural members.
Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show the steady state response at different frequencies for
El-Raheb [22] and our FEA simulations. We can see that the deformation patterns
are the same for the faces; however, excessive deformations are observed in the
core elements. One possibility is that different deformation scale factors are used
36
Figure 3.2: El-Rahebs a) arch configuration and b) unit cell for the curve [22]
by El-Raheb [22] for face and core elements. To study the dynamic response over
a wide range of frequencies an intensity function is defined:
Irms = 20log10 (vrms /v0 ) , v0 = 5 10(5) mm/s
Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6 present the velocity intensity versus frequency results
for El-Rahebs transfer matrix method, and our FEA simulations, which show good
agreement.
3.2.2
Validation of Acoustic Modeling
In order to make sure that we are modeling the acoustic medium and the fluid
boundaries correctly, we reproduced the results from a case study from Fahy [27].
This is a two-dimensional analysis of the sound field in a reverberation chamber, modeled after the one built at Philips Research Laboratories in Eindhoven.
AC2D8R (two-dimensional reduced-integration acoustic elements with 8 nodes)
elements were used with the walls modeled as being perfectly rigid. The natural
frequencies and mode-shapes from our FEA were compared with the results from
[27]. The relative error for the natural frequencies is about 2% for the first four
modes of the reverberation chamber. The slight difference may be because of the
difference in air density. We have taken air density to be 1.2 kg/m3 ; the value used
in [27] is not mentioned. The pressure distribution patterns are similar to the ones
37
Figure 3.3: Results of El-Rahebs prediction of the steady-state response of

an arch to a harmonic excitation using the transfer matrix method[22]
38
Figure 3.4: Reproduced results of El-Rahebs prediction of the steady-state

response of an arch to a harmonic excitation using FEA in Abaqus
Figure 3.5: Velocity intensity (solid line) using the transfer matrix method for
the arch configuration. The two other curves are not discussed in this
dissertation.
39
Figure 3.6: Velocity intensity results from our FEA simulations [22] for the
arch configuration
in the book.
Thus far, we are able to correctly model the structural and acoustic aspects
of the problem separately. Next, we will analyze the coupled structural acoustic
system. We will compare the results of our simulations with the numerical and
experimental ones that are already available in the literature and discuss the differences.
3.2.3
Structural-Acoustic Modeling in FEA
In this section, the general procedure for Finite Element modeling of the sound
transmission problem is explained and the results for two example cases are compared with the results available in the literature. As mentioned in Chapter 1, there
are different configurations considerable for a sound transmission suite. The one
considered in this study comprises a reverberant chamber (incident field) adjacent
to an anechoic chamber (transmitted field) (Figure 3.7).
The sound transmission problem is simulated in Abaqus as follows:
The diffuse field in the reverberant room is simulated using Abaqus Diffuse
Field interaction property. Figure 3.8 illustrates how this diffuse field load40
Test Panel
Anechoic
Chamber
Reverberation
Chamber
Figure 3.7: Sound transmission suite configuration considered in this study

ing can be created in Abaqus: An equally-spaced N N grid formed on the
loaded surface is projected on an imaginary hemisphere which has the standoff point as its center and the source point on its perimeter. Each node on
this final grid will be considered a source for planar waves with equal intensity vectors directed towards the standoff point and with random phases.
In our applications results for N = 90 for 2D acoustic models and N = 60
for 3D models proved to show divergence with respect to the diffuse field
nodal grid points i.e the results did not change as we increased N. Also, the
net acoustic excitation force on the panel was calculated at different frequencies. It is non-zero at lower frequencies in which the characteristic acoustic
wavelength is comparable to the length of the structure; however, it rapidly
converges to zero as the frequency increases.
The anechoic chamber is modeled using non-reflective interaction property
on the outside surface of the fluid medium.
Surface-to-surface ties are used for implementing the fluid-structure interaction.
The incident power Pi is found from the reference pressure for the diffuse
field interaction. The transmitted power Pt is calculated by integrating the
real part of the intensity vector (active intensity vector) over the external sur41
co
lu
m
ns
Source Point
Standoff Point
Surface to be Loaded
N rows
Figure 3.8: Diffuse field interaction implemented in a finite element model.

The incident face of the panel (FE model with nodes shown as full circles) is imagined to be subjected to excitation from point sources distributed on a hemispherical surface. The phase of plane waves emanating from each point source are uncorrelated [16]. Fluid forces due to
incident pressure field are directly applied on the nodes of the structural
FE model. Fluid loading effects are neglected.
face of the fluid volume S . Equation (3.12) gives the relation for calculating
the T L [7].
p2 A p
Pi
4 C
T L = 10log10 ( ) = 10log10 ( R a a )
Pt
S I.da
(3.12)
Here are some general guidelines about the sizes that need to be set during the
modeling:
At each frequency the structural mesh size in each member should be so fine
that the minimum wavelength in the structure is many times (at least 6 times)
larger than the mesh size.
42
The distance between the non-reflective surface as the surface of the structure should not be much smaller than the acoustic wavelength, 1/2 is a ratio
recommended in Abaqus manual [16]
The surface-to-surface tie between the fluid and structure requires that the
mesh size on the slave surface (fluid boundary) be smaller or equal to the
mesh size on the master surface (structure boundary).
At this point, we consider reproducing the results from two STL case studies
from the literature [23, 40]. The objective is to find under which circumstances
two-dimensional Finite Element models are relevant and whether it is worthwhile
to consider 3D modeling.
El-Raheb and Wagner 1997
Sound transmission through a 2D truss-like partition is calculated with FEA and
compared with the experimental and numerical results from transfer matrix method.
The configuration of the panel and the surrounding fluid is shown in Figure 3.9.
The same elements that were described in sections 3.2.1 3.2.2 are used for structural and fluid media (B23 and AC2D8R). The nodes on the faces of the trusslattice structure are tied to the two semi-circular fluid domains at the interfaces.
Non-reflective boundary conditions are applied at the circular boundaries. A diffuse field excitation is generated at the lower interface with the fluid using the
diffuse field interaction property in Abaqus.
Although they are within the same range and show similar trends (increasing),
it can be seen (Figure 3.11) that our FE model is not in good agreement with ElRahebs transfer matrix results. It is worth noticing that the analytical model in
Figure 3.10 is not in good agreement with the experimental one and fails to capture
some of the features that the FE model can do (e.g., the coincidence dip near 4000
Hz.)
In this example, the results were in agreement with the experiments. Using a
2D model is appropriate here because the panels studied are extrusions of a 2D
truss. As a result, in panels which are much more compliant to bending moments
in the plane of the corrugation than outside the plane of corrugation; hence, the outof-plane deformations become negligible and a 2D approximation may be applied.
43
Figure 3.9: The panel and fluid medium configuration for FEA
However, a 2D model is no more adequate for panels which have similar bending
stiffness in different directions or have features extending in three dimensions.
Removing the fluid region on the incidence side of the panel did not change the
results significantly; therefore, from this point only the fluid region on the transmission side of the panel will be modeled. Also, we knew from [28] that the fluid
loading effects are insignificant unless the fluid is a liquid.
Kurtze and Watters (1959)
Kurtze and Watters [40] introduced the idea of shifting the coincidence to higher
frequencies by designing cores that are much softer in shear than in compression
and tension. This concept is discussed in more detail in Chapter 1. The panels
they tested were made of 1-mm thick steel face sheets. At the core, pieces of
wood fiber-board were arranged in such a way that the stiffness in planes parallel
44
Figure 3.10: Sound transmissiom loss through a truss-like panel: derived

from transfer matrix method () and experiment (- - -) [23]
to the face of the sandwich panels is about 100 times less than their transverse
stiffness. In order to satisfy these requirements, orthogonal material properties
were chosen for the core when setting up the FEA model. S8R (8-node reducedintegration shell element) and C3D20R (20-node reduced integration hexahedral
solid element) elements were used for the shell and core members respectively,
and AC3D20R for the acoustic medium. The core and face sheet nodes were tied
together (Figure 3.12).
A list of the material properties and model specifications used for FEA are
shown in Table 3.1.
Transverse wave speeds vt ( fn ) versus frequency Figure 3.13 can be experimentally determined if we know the natural frequencies fn and the wave length of the
standing waves at each mode n for a finite sandwich beam as follows:
vt ( fn ) = n fn
(3.13)
Using the same procedure for an identical sandwich beam in FEA, the velocity dispersion curves can be derived (Figure 3.14), which show good agreement with the
experimental results (Figure 3.13) verifying the fact that correct material properties
45
Figure 3.11: Mesh convergence and results of the FEA simulations of the
sound transmission loss through the truss-like panel
were assumed for the core material.
The panel tested for sound transmission loss measurements was constructed
such that Figure 3.13.a represents one cross-section and Figure 3.13.b another, perpendicular to the first. As a result, the changes in both directions in the plane of
the panel are equally important and a two-dimensional model cannot satisfy all the
requirements. We will see in Section 3.5 that the results based on a 3D analysis
show good agreement with the experimental results.
46
Figure 3.12: The setup and mesh for the Kurtze and Watters panel
Figure 3.13: Velocity versus frequency found experimentally and core configuration for Kurtze and Watters [40]
47
Figure 3.14: Velocity versus frequency calculated from FEA frequency analysis by knowing the standing wavelengths at natural frequencies
Table 3.1: List of material properties and model specifications used for FEA
Face sheet and core (Steel)
Face sheet dimensions

Core properties
Density
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
Structural damping
Thickness
Length
Width
Height (h)
Relative density ()
48
7800 Kg/m3
200 GPa
0.249
0.02
1 mm
1.5 m
1.5 m
38 mm
0.0568
3.3
Truss-Lattice Core Sandwich Panel Modeling
The same modeling procedure is repeated for the geometries in Figure 2.2. The
only difference is that the core is constructed using B33 (3D beam elements with
cubic formulation) elements. The convergence of all models is studied in two
stages:
1. Convergence with respect to mesh size: first, for a limited number of data
points throughout our frequency range of interest, we model the sound transmission problem using two different cell sizes and we verify that the STL
difference is equal to or less than 2 dB (which is barely noticeable by the
human auditory system [25]) (Figure 3.15.a).
2. The number of data points: in order to make sure that enough points are
chosen throughout our frequency range of interest, we take two different sets
of data points and verify that the STL curves with 3rd octave-band averaging
(3rd O.B.A.) show less than 2 dB difference [25] (Figure 3.15.b).
49
(a)
60
10 mm
15 mm
STLd (dB)
50
40
30
20
10
2
10
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
(b)
60
STLd (dB)
50
81 points
81 points 3rdO.B.A.
41 points
41 points 3rdO.B.A.
40
30
20
10
0
2
10
10
Frequency (Hz)
10
Figure 3.15: a) Convergence with respect to mesh size for the Kagome core
lattice. b) Convergence with respect to the number of data points for
the Kagome core lattice
50
3.4
Static Stiffness Comparison
For the same panels as described in the previous section, the stiffnesses are compared using a criterion used by Moore and Lyon [52]. A uniform pressure is applied
on the top surface of a sandwich panel simply supported at its edges. The deflection
of the center point of the top face is measured. In order to be able to compare their
stiffnesses the panels should share the same surface area. The stiffness associated
with the panel is proportional to the ratio of the applied pressure to the center point
deflections. In Figure 3.16, the stiffnesses of the panels relative to the monolithic
panel are plotted. The monolithic panel has the same mass and planar dimensions;
however, it is a solid sheet of steel and is therefore thinner than the sandwich panels. It shows that the truss-lattice core panels can be up to 26 times stiffer than the
Kurtze and Watters panel and up to 170 times stiffer than a monolithic panel of
the same mass, size and material.
3.4.1
Why Not Constant Stiffness?
Taking into account the significant difference between the static stiffness of different panels, one might question the reason behind taking panels with equal mass. In
an actual application, alternative panel designs should all satisfy a set of structural
requirements including the stiffness; so the question is: why are we not considering
panels sharing the same stiffness with different masses?
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of the core topology on the
STL of a sandwich panel. In order to do so, one needs to isolate all other factors
that influence the sound transmission characteristics of the panel. In the range that
we are discussing, the STL is directly related to the mass of the structure. The mass
law, which gives a rough estimate of the STL, states that by doubling the mass of
a structure its STL will increase by 6 dB approximately. If one wishes to keep the
stiffnesses constant; he also needs to change the mass of the structures for their
stiffnesses to become equal. The result would be panels with significantly different weights. According to the mass law the main factor determining the STL for
these panels would be their mass differences not the difference in their topologies.
Therefore, in this study we chose to keep the mass of these structures the same.
51
101
10
on
Ku
ol
ith
rtz
ic
eW
at
te
Te
rs
tra
D
ou
he
bl
dr
e
al
Py
ra
m
id
al
Py
ra
m
id
al
Ka
go
m
H
e
ex
ag
on
al
Relative Panel Stiffness
10
Figure 3.16: Comparison of relative static stiffness of the panels studied. The
stiffness of each panel is divided by that of the monolithic panel stiffness, taken as the reference. Stiffness is evaluated at the central point
of each panel when all edges are simply supported.
3.5
Results of the FEA Simulatoins of the Sound

Transmission Problem
Results for diffuse-field STL simulations for the four geometries in Figure 2.2 are
plotted in Figure 3.17 along with the results for Kurtze and Watters panel and a
monolithic panel of the same mass and material. All sandwich panels have exactly the same mass, thickness and planar dimensions as the Kurtze and Watters
panel. We can see that the monolithic panel generally follows the mass law line.
The panels with truss-lattice cores exhibit multiple peaks and troughs arising from
structural resonances, coincidence frequencies and partial band gaps. The overall
performance of the panels appears to be very dependent on the geometry used as
52
80
70
STLd (dB)
60
50
40
Kurtze-Watters
Tetrahedral
Double Pyramidal
Pyramidal
Kagome
Monolithic
Hexagonal
30
20
10
0
102
103
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3.17: A comparison of third-octave band averaged STL response of
the Kurtze and Watters panel with five other lattice topologies. Four
frequency points in each octave-band are used for the purposes of averaging. The stiffest panel (see Figure 3.16) has highest STL in the low
frequency region governed by static stiffness. All panels have the same
mass. Topology governed variations in dynamic stiffness and degree of
connectivity between face sheets manifest in the STL response.
the core material. Topology governed variations in dynamic stiffness and degree of
connectivity between face sheets manifest in the STL response. These features will
be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
53
104
Chapter 4
Main Results and Discussion

In Chapter 2, the dispersion curves for the four truss-lattice sandwich panels illustrated in Figure 2.2 were calculated (Figure 2.3) using Bloch Wave analysis.
The dispersion curves indicate the type and wavenumber of the propagating waves
at each frequency. In Chapter 3, the STL curves and stiffness of the panels were
computed using FEA. In this chapter, the results of the two analysis methods are
combined to give a deeper insight into the problem of sound transmission through
sandwich panels. A discussion of the main results is presented, followed by a
conclusion of the contributions of this research and suggestions for future work.
4.1
A Closer Look at the STL Curves
Figure 3.17 shows STL curves computed for the geometries in Figure 2.2 using
the same procedure as described in Chapter 3. Third-octave band averaged STL
is calculated by using four frequency points in each octave-band. All six panels
share the same span (1.5 m 1.5 m), face thickness, mass and height as the Kurtze
and Watters panel. The only difference is the core topology. The STL curve for
a monolithic panel of the same mass, material (stainless steel) and span as the
sandwich panels was also included for comparison.
Consider the STL curves for each lattice panel shown in Figure 4.1 to Figure 4.5. The tetrahedral panel exhibits structural resonances (labelled as R1, R2
etc.) and coincidence (labelled as C1) in Figure 4.1. Significantly, a very high
54
Figure 4.1: Sound transmission loss characteristics of a sandwich panel with

a tetrahedral core. Deformation shapes of the panel at structural resonances (denoted by R) and deformation shapes of the panel and the
pressure field at coincidence frequencies (denoted by C) are also shown
at each significant frequency. Pressure fields associated with enhanced
STL due to partial wave band gaps in the high frequency region (marked
as B in STL curve) are also shown. Note that the pressures in the fluid
medium on the transmitted side are reduced by 2 orders of magnitude
between C1 and B above. The solid black straight line corresponds to
the mass law line.
55

a double pyramidal core. Deformation shapes of the panel at structural
resonances (denoted by R) and deformation shapes of the panel and the
at each significant frequency. The solid black straight line corresponds
to the mass law line.
56

a pyramidal core. Deformation shapes of the panel at structural resonances (denoted by R) and deformation shapes of the panel and the
the mass law line.
57

a Kagome core. Deformation shapes of the panel at structural resonances (denoted by R) and deformation shapes of the panel and the
the mass law line.
58
Figure 4.5: STL characteristics of a sandwich panel with a hexagonal core.

Deformation shapes of the panel at structural resonances (denoted by
R) and deformation shapes of the panel and the pressure field at coincidence frequency (denoted by C) are also shown. The solid black straight
line corresponds to the mass law line.
59
value of STL can be observed around 5 kHz region, as expected from the presence
of a partial band gap in Figure 2.2(a) in the same frequency region. This band gap
phenomena are evident when the pressure field values on the transmitted side are
compared in the figures labelled as C1 and B in Figure 4.1. A reduction in transmitted pressure by two orders of magnitude can be verified. This enhancement in
the STL exceeds the 6 dB/octave improvement expected from mass law. Moreover,
this improvement is a broad band phenomenon in contrast with local resonance in
sonic crystals observed earlier [45].
The panel with a double pyramidal lattice core in Figure 4.2 has only the antisymmetric coincidence (labelled as C1) and shows slightly higher than mass law
towards the end of the frequency range where it has a partial band gap. The double
wall resonance and the symmetric coincidence for this panel happen to be at higher
frequencies than our range of interest. STL curves of the panel with a pyramidal
core in Figure 4.3 show a coincidence and enhanced STL due to a partial band
gap around 4 kHz region. Again, two orders of magnitude reduction in transmitted
pressure can be noted. Kagome core has the least transverse shear stiffness and
hence the coincidence C1 in Figure 4.4 in STL curve is delayed to higher frequencies. Also, this panel exhibits enhanced STL due to a partial band gap around 3
kHZ regions besides structural resonances in the low frequency region, manifesting as a narrow band minima in the STL curve. Finally, the stiffest panel with
hexagonal honeycomb core exhibits coincidence at a low frequency. The shallow
coincidence dip is due to the finite size of the panel compared to the wavelength.
Coincidence is undesirable since transmitted sound power is high within the audible range.
STL curves of all the panels are compared in Figure 3.17. In the high frequency region the tetrahedral core is superior whereas double pyramidal seems
better in low frequency (200 Hz600 Hz) region. Overall, Kagome core seems to
compare or exceed the performance of the shear panel (Kurtze-Watters) and monolithic panel. Pyramidal core is inferior to both shear panel and monolithic panel
in the mid frequency (300 Hz 2kHz) region. The Pyramidal and Tetrahedral
sandwiches follow almost the same pattern. They both have two coincidence frequencies, the first one being anti-symmetric and the second one being symmetric.
They exhibit higher than mass law STL in the range of their respective partial band
60
gaps observed in Figure 2.3.

Overall, we conclude that STL performance higher than the shear panel and
monolithic panel are achievable using truss lattice cores. Note that no optimization
has been performed. With optimization of strut thickness and length for a given
topology and material it is possible to tailor the wave propagation response and
hence STL properties. Other measures such as enhancing damping by filling the
open cell space provided by the truss lattices with a sound absorbing material or
damping enhancement measures can also be considered. It is also possible to have
porous face sheets.
4.2
Sound Transmission Class and Speech Interference

Level
In an actual panel design scenario one needs to consider the external noise spectrum and decide which frequency ranges have higher noise power and are more
important to isolate. Here, we also assess single-number comparison criteria. The
first criterion that is widely known in building acoustics is the sound transmission
class. This number is derived from comparing the measured STL curves with a reference curve. According to this criterion Hexagonal and Tetrahedral panels have
inferior sound transmission characteristics (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: The sound transmission class for the panels in Figure 2.2 and the
monolithic panel.
Panel name
Monolithic
Hexagonal
Kagome
Pyramidal
Double Pyramidal
Tetrahedral
Kurtze and Watters
Sound Transmission Class

34
12
31
30
32
20
34
In the context of aircraft interior noise, speech interference level (SIL) or preferred octave speech interference level (PSIL) are widely used indexes, refer to
61
Appendix B for more information on this topic. One can relate STL values to the
incremental reductions, that is, reduction (in dB) below the incident power, denoted by a prefix . Large incremental reductions indicate low values of SIL or
PSIL, and hence better acoustic performance. Differences on the order of 2dB or
above in SIL or PSIL values are significant. A comparison of different panels in
Table 4.2 indicates that when high frequency response is included, that is SIL is
relied upon, Kagome is the superior core and hexagonal honeycomb and tetrahedral cores have 3 dB lower values compared to Kagome. Once the high frequency
response is excluded, that L p4000 or ST L p4000 values are excluded, then Kagome
is still superior comparable to shear panel. As will be seen shortly, Kagome is
much stiffer than shear panel of Kurtze and Watters or monolithic panel. However,
one must exercise care in using single metrics such as SIL or PSIL, when there is
marked frequency dependent changes in STL. Such single numerical metrics may
be misleading. For example, double pyramidal is superior in the frequency range
200 Hz500 Hz in Figure 3.17.
A concern with acoustically superior panels is their lack of stiffness. Stiffness
obtained by from the central deflection under a uniformly distributed pressure loading applied on each panel under simply supported edge boundary condition on all
four sides is calculated. The results are shown in Figure 3.16 which demonstrate
that the truss-lattice core sandwich panels can be more than six times stiffer than
Kurtze and Watters panel. Clearly, the traditional honeycomb panel is the stiffest
from a static stiffness perspective. However, lattice cores provide an attractive design which balance the structural and acoustic requirements of high stiffness and
high STL.
62
Table 4.2: Incremental reductions in preferred-octave speech interference

level (PSIL) and speech interference levels (SIL) calculated from
the STL curves for each geometry using the formulae: PSIL =
L2000 +ST L4000
ST L500 +ST L1000 +ST L2000
and SIL = ST L500 +ST L1000 +ST
. Note that
3
4
L p500 +L p1000 +L p2000
L p500 +L p1000 +L p2000 +L p4000
PSIL =
and SIL =
where L p is
3
4
the sound pressure level. All panels have identical mass. See Appendix
B for a more detailed discussion.
Sandwich panel core
Monolithic
Kurtze and Watters
Tetrahedral
Double Pyramidal
Pyramidal
Kagome
Hexagonal
4.3
PSIL(dB)
40
42
33
39
36
42
40
SIL (dB)
45
45
43
44
44
46
43
Discussion
The Kagome lattice is not an interconnected network of trusses; hence, the shear
stiffness is negligible in comparison with the three other lattice geometries. Sandwich panels with cores made of the latter geometries will have 5-6 times the stiffness of the existing quiet panel designs. The stiffer we make a panel while maintaining the total mass, the wider will the resonance-dominated zone on the STL
curve become. Softer cores such as the Kagome and Kurtze and Watters result
in none or fewer number of troughs in the range below 1000 Hz. Also, at higher
frequencies (> 1000 Hz) a softer core can prevent coincidence using a mechanism
explained by Kurtze and Watters [40]. If the stiffness of the core in the thickness
direction decreases or the surface area of the face sheets in a unit-cell that is not
supported by lattice struts increases, the face sheets will start to vibrate independent of the core and one another. These vibrations resemble an assembly of tiny
loudspeakers propagating the vibrations of the panel in air. Hence, the closer the
struts are spaced on the surface of the face sheets the stronger the motions of the
different parts on the panel are coupled and the loud-speaker modes can be avoided.
Also, as Moore and Lyon [52] proposed for each type of wave a correspond-
63
ing coincidence frequency is expected. For bending-type waves the stiffer the
panel is in bending, the lower the coincidence frequency would be. For breathingtype waves, the stiffer the core in thickness direction, the higher the double wallresonance frequency and the corresponding coincidence frequency. The intrinsic
directionality in the material properties of lattices gives us much more freedom in
making the a specific direction stiffer or softer.
The partial band gaps involved in this study functioned on the basis of Bragg
scattering. One approach to qualitatively compare the band gap frequencies is by
looking at the length scales. In order for Bragg scattering to happen, the wavelength
of the traveling waves needs to be of the same order of magnitude as separation
distance between adjacent unit cells. Also in general, wavelengths decrease with
frequency increase. Hence, one way to decrease the partial band gap frequency
can be by increasing the separation between adjacent lattice units. This argument
explains why the band gap frequency is lowest for the Kagome lattice and highest
for the Double Pyramidal one.
With proper design, the partial band gaps and directionality in stiffness can
satisfy our acoustics and noise control requirements.
4.4
Concluding Remarks
Sandwich panels of same mass but made from different truss lattice cores have
been systematically compared with traditional sandwich and with hexagonal honeycomb core and shear panels for their stiffness and STL properties. Characteristic
differences in wave propagation response, such as partial band gaps, have lead to
corresponding differences in STL response. This study has demonstrated that, even
without optimization, truss lattice panels offer simultaneously promising stiffness
and acoustic (STL) response properties in comparison with the traditional designs.
Kagome geometry emerges as the stiffest possible geometry with a simultaneously
high STL. Further work can proceed along the analytical model development using
Bloch modes to represent the structural wave response and fabrication, experimental confirmation of the observed differences among the panels, and optimization of
core parameters.
64
4.4.1
Contributions
The quest for material efficiency and ecologically sustainable engineering designs
defies the conventional noise and vibration control solution which was increasing
the mass of the structure. In addition, more restrictive noise and vibration standards
ask for novel solutions in this area. Here are the main contributions of the present
work towards this goal:
1. A versatile method was developed for the analysis of propagation of waves
in infinite truss-lattice sandwich panels and in general any periodic structure
extending in 2D. This semi-analytical method is based on FEM and FloquetBloch theorem which means it is sufficient to model only one unit cell of the
system, which considerably reduces the computational cost. The developed
code is compatible with the node data, and stiffness and mass matrices output
from Abaqus which makes it an even more versatile tool for rapid analysis
of wave propagation in basically any 2D-periodic structure for which the
unit cell can be modeled in Abaqus. By post processing the outputs of this
analysis one can obtain the dispersion curves. These curves indicate at each
wavenumber, the frequencies that can propagate, as well as, the mode shapes
of the corresponding traveling waves. This information is of significance
when it comes to the analyzing the structure-borne sound transmission.
2. Using acoustic FEA it was shown that the results of the wave analysis can
actually be interpreted to give a qualitative view of the high-frequency STL
curves before the significantly more time and computation consuming FEAs
are carried out. From the dispersion curves one can tell the stop-bands and
partial band-gap frequencies as well as the frequencies for supersonic wave
propagation. Also, a color representation of the out-of-plane motion of the
panels reveal which branches are contributing the most to the acoustic radiation. This outcome is of practical importance for designing panels that have
optimum performance at a specific frequency range of interest.
3. A comparison between the structural and acoustic behavior of the example
truss-lattice core panel designs studied and an existing quiet panel design
proved that by proper design truss lattice cores can be up to 6 times stiffer
65
than the existing quiet panel of the same mass and thickness without sacrificing much of the acoustic performance
4.4.2
Future Work
In this stage, the following list can be suggested as the works that have not been
completed so far and the future paths this project can pursue:
1. Although we tried to verify our analysis in different stages with the existing results and findings available in the literature, one important aspect that
could be included in future stages is the experimental verification of these
results. As a first step, the dispersion curves for a test panel can be calculated by performing a modal test and finding the standing wave lengths and
their corresponding resonance frequencies. Next, the actual STL of the panel
can be tested in a sound transmission suite and can be compared to the FE
calculation.
2. One possibility that has not yet been added to the Bloch wave analysis is
calculating the structural response by post processing the Bolch analysis outputs. This has previously been applied to simpler structures with a point load
excitation. It can also be extended to find the panels response to acoustic
excitations [41].
3. The computational efficiency of the FEM-Bloch analysis relative to acoustic
FEM simulations suggests that topology-optimization methods can be implemented with the purpose of designing sandwich panels with optimal acoustic
performance.
4. The FEM-Bloch analysis can also be used as the starting point for a study of
dependence of the dynamic behavior of periodic panels on geometrical and
mechanical parameters in a model. Understanding the effect of parameters
such as the separation distance between the lattices or the ratio of the mass
of the core to the mass of the face sheets can prove helpful in designing a
panel with a more desirable acoustic performance.
66
5. Although this research did not consider surface treatments, the findings are
helpful in designing phononic crystals to be used as treatments on the surface
of the panels.
6. The potential improvements regarding having perforations in the face sheet
on the transmission side of the panels need to be evaluated in conjunction
with lattice-core panels.
7. The acoustic and structural evaluations conducted in this study were for perfect geometries meaning that all cells in a lattice core are perfectly identical.
However, both the manufacturing of these cores and bonding them to the face
sheets are prone to numerous imperfections. In the most extreme cases missing or damaged struts, and soldering or bonding defects are expected. To be
able to apply these findings confidently to an actual engineering design it is
recommended to incorporate the effect of defects in a future model.
67
Bibliography
[1] J. Allard and N. Atalla. Propagation of Sound in Porous Media: Modelling
Sound Absorbing Materials 2e. Wiley, 2009. pages 7, 17
[2] H. G. Allen and B. G. Neal. Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich
Panels: The Commonwealth and International Library: Structures and Solid
Body Mechanics Division. Elsevier Science, 2013. pages 2, 16
[3] N. Ashcroft and N. Mermin. Solid State Physics. HRW international
editions. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976. pages 22, 24
[4] F. Bloch. Uber

die quantenmechanik der elektronen in kristallgittern.
Zeitschrift fur Physik, 52(7-8):555600, 1929. pages 22
[5] L. Brillouin. Wave Propagation in Periodic Structures: Electric Filters and
Crystal Lattices. Dover Publications, New York, 3rd edition, 2003. pages
22, 24, 26
[6] C. Calladine. Buckminster Fullers Tensegrity structures and Clerk
Maxwells rules for the construction of stiff frames. International Journal of
Solids and Structures, 14(2):161172, 1978. pages 75
[7] M. Cassidy, R. Cooper, R. Gault, and J. Wang. Evaluation of standards for
transmission loss tests. Proceedings of Acoustics 08 Paris, pages
16751679, 2008. pages 14, 42
[8] P. Chopra. Effective Mechanical Properties of Lattice Materials. PhD thesis,
2011. pages ix, 27
[9] C. C. Claeys, K. Vergote, P. Sas, and W. Desmet. On the potential of tuned
resonators to obtain low-frequency vibrational stop bands in periodic panels.
Journl of Sound and Vibration, 332:14181436, 2013. pages 11
68
[10] C. C. Claeys, B. Pluymers, P. Sas, and W. Desmet. Design of a resonant

metamaterial based acoustic enclosure. Proceedings of ISMA2014, pages
33513358, 2014. pages 11
[11] C. C. Claeys, P. Sas, and W. Desmet. On the acoustic radiation efficiency of
local resonance based stop band materials. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
333(14):32033213, July 2014. pages 8
[12] B. Clarkson and D. Mead. High frequency vibration of aircraft structures.
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 28(3):487504, 1973. pages 5
[13] L. Cremer and M. Heckl. Structure-borne sound; structural vibrations and
sound radiation at audio frequencies. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1973.
pages 2, 4
[14] L. Cremer, E. E. Ungar, and M. Heckl. Structure-Borne Sound: Structural
Vibrations and Sound Radiation at Audio Frequencies. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 2013. pages 8, 17
[15] V. DAlessandro, G. Petrone, F. Franco, and S. De Rosa. A review of the
vibroacoustics of sandwich panels: Models and experiments. Journal of
Sandwich Structures and Materials, 15(5):541582, 09 2013. pages 8
[16] Dassault Syst`emes. Abaqus 6.12 Online Documentation, 2012. pages xi,
26, 35, 42, 43
[17] E. Davis. Designing Honeycomb Panels for Noise Control. American
Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics, (99-1917):792801, 1999.
pages 17, 36
[18] V. S. Deshpande, M. F. Ashby, and N. A. Fleck. Foam topology: Bending
versus stretching dominated architectures. Acta Materialia, 49(6):
10351040, 2001. pages 75
[19] V. S. Deshpande, N. a. Fleck, and M. F. Ashby. Effective properties of the
octet-truss lattice material. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids,
49:17471769, 2001. pages 12, 75
[20] C. L. Dym and M. A. Lang. Transmission of sound through sandwich
panels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 56(5):15231532,
1974. pages 10
[21] C. L. Dym, C. S. Ventres, and M. A. Lang. Transmission of sound through
sandwich panels: A reconsideration. The Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 59(2):364367, 1976. pages 10
69
[22] M. El-Raheb. Frequency response of a two-dimensional trusslike periodic

panel. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 13(2):11726,
1997. pages x, xi, 22, 36, 37, 38, 40
[23] M. El-Raheb and P. Wagner. Transmission of sound across a trusslike
periodic panel; 2-D analysis. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of . . . ,
102(4):21762183, 1997. pages xi, 43, 45
[24] A. Evans, J. Hutchinson, N. Fleck, M. Ashby, and H. Wadley. The
topological design of multifunctional cellular metals. Progress in Materials
Science, 46(34):309 327, 2001. pages 7, 12, 16
[25] F. A. Everest. Critical Listening Skills for Audio Professionals. Thomson
Course Technology, 2007. ISBN 9781598630237. pages 49
[26] G. C. Everstine. Finite Element Formulatons of Structural Acoustic
Problems. Computers & structures, 65(3):307321, 1997. pages 35
[27] F. Fahy. Advanced Applications in Acoustics, Noise and Vibration. 2004.
pages 4, 15, 37
[28] F. Fahy and P. Gardonio. Sound and Structural Vibration: Radiation
Transmission and Response. Academic Press, Oxford, second edition, 2007.
pages 3, 8, 14, 17, 21, 36, 44
[29] N. A. Fleck, V. S. Deshpande, and M. F. Ashby. Micro-architectured
materials: past, present and future. Proceedings of the Royal Society A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Science, 466(2121):24952516,
2010. pages 7, 16
[30] R. Ford, P. Lord, and A. Walker. Sound transmission through sandwich
constructions. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 5(1):9 21, 1967. pages
10
[31] Y. Frostig and M. Baruch. Free Vibrations Of Sandwich Beams With A
Transversely Flexible Core: A High Order Approach. Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 176(2):195208, Sept. 1994. pages 21
[32] H. V. Fuchs and X. Zha. No Title. Acta acustica united with Acustica, 92:
139146, 2006. pages 7
[33] L. J. Gibson and M. F. Ashby. Cellular solids: structure and properties.
Cambridge: Cambridge university press, second edition, 1997. pages 7,
16
70
[34] L. J. Gibson and M. F. Ashby. Cellular Solids: Structures and Properties.

Cambridge, 1999. pages 75
[35] H.-C. Guo, X.-M. Qiu, and D.-N. Fang. Optimal Design of Two Lattice
Materials and Their Effective Properties, 2006. pages 76
[36] C. Holmer. The coincidence wall: A new design for high transmission loss
or high structural damping. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 46(1A):9191, 1969. pages 9, 10
[37] F. Ihlenburg. Finite Element Analysis of Acoustic Scattering. Applied
Mathematical Sciences. Springer, 1998. pages 34, 36
[38] S. N. Khaderi, V. S. Deshpande, and N. A. Fleck. The stiffness and strength
of the gyroid lattice. Technical report. pages 75
[39] C. Kittel. Elementary solid state physics: a short course. NewYork: John
Wiley & Sons, inc., first edition, 1962. pages 11, 24, 26
[40] G. Kurtze and B. Watters. New wall design for high transmission loss or
high damping. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 31(6):
739748, 1959. pages xi, 9, 10, 14, 21, 43, 44, 47, 63
[41] R. Langley. The Response of Two-Dimensional Periodic Structures to Point
Harmonic Forcing. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 197(4):447469, Oct.
1996. pages 66
[42] R. Langley, N. Bardell, and H. Ruivo. The response of two-dimensional
periodic structures to harmonic point loading: a theoretical and experimental
study of beam grillage. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 207(4):521 535,
1997. pages 22, 25
[43] R. B. Lindsay. Filtration of oblique elastic waves in stratified media. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 11(2):178183, 1939.
pages 8
[44] L. Liu and K. Bhattacharya. Wave propagation in a sandwich structure.
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 46(17):32903300, Aug.
2009. pages 22
[45] Z. Y. Liu, X. X. Zhang, Y. W. Mao, Y. Y. Zhu, Z. Y. Yang, C. T. Chan, and
P. Sheng. Locally resonant sonic crystals. Science, 289(5485):17341736,
2000. pages viii, 6, 60
71
[46] A. London. Transmission of reverberant sound through single walls.

Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 42(June), 1949.
pages 8, 14
[47] A. London. Transmission of Reverberant Sound Through Double Walls.
Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 44(2):7788,
1950. pages 8, 14
[48] J. Mason and F. Fahy. The use of acoustically tuned resonators to improve
the sound transmission loss of double-panel partitions. Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 124(2):367379, June 1988. pages 7
[49] D. Mead. Wave propagation in continuous periodic structures: research
contributions from southampton 1964-1995. Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 190(3):495524, 1996. pages 22, 26
[50] D. J. Mead. Plates with regular stiffening in acoustic media : Vibration and
radiation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(July 1990):
391401, 1990. pages 15, 22
[51] L. R. Meza, S. Das, and J. R. Greer. Strong, lightweight, and recoverable
three-dimensional ceramic nanolattices. Science, 345(6202):13221326,
2014. pages 11
[52] J. Moore and R. Lyon. Sound transmission loss characteristics of sandwich
panel constructions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89
(February 1991):777791, 1991. pages 9, 14, 21, 51, 63
[53] S. R. More. Aircraft Noise Characteristics and Metrics. (July):400, 2011.
pages 1
[54] M. P. Norton and D. G. Karczub. Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration
Analysis for Engineers. Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN
9780521499132. pages 4
[55] D. Palumboa and J. Klos. Quiet Honeycomb Panels. In NOISE-CON, 2010.
pages 1, 11, 17
[56] A. S. Phani, J. Woodhouse, and N. A. Fleck. Wave propagation in
two-dimensional periodic lattices. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 119(4):19952005, 2006. pages 22
[57] R. D. Mindlin. Thickness shear and flexural vibrations of crystal plates.
Journal of applied physics, 22(3):316323, 1951. pages 21
72
[58] S. Rao. Mechanical Vibrations. Mechanical Vibrations. Prentice Hall, Upper

Saddle River, 2006. pages 33, 35
[59] M. Ruzzene. Vibration and sound radiation of sandwich beams with
honeycomb truss core. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 277(4-5):741763,
2004. pages 15, 22
[60] T. A. Schaedler, A. J. Jacobsen, A. Torrents, A. E. Sorensen, J. Lian, J. R.
Greer, L. Valdevit, and W. B. Carter. Ultralight metallic microlattices.
Science, 334(6058):962965, 2011. pages 11
[61] P. J. Shorter. Wave propagation and damping in linear viscoelastic laminates.
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(5):1917, 2004.
pages 22
[62] M. J. T. Smith. Aircraft Noise. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1989. ISBN 9780511584527. pages 6
[63] Y. Song, L. Feng, J. Wen, D. Yu, and X. Wen. Reduction of the sound
transmission of a periodic sandwich plate using the stop band concept.
Composite Structures, 128:428436, Feb. 2015. pages 11, 18
[64] S. Tewes, R. Maier, and A. Peiffer. Active Trim Panel Attachments for
Control of Sound Transmission through Aircraft Structures. Mechatronics,
pages 10 11, 2005. pages 1, 7, 8
[65] W. T. Thomson. Transmission of elastic waves through a stratified solid
medium. Journal of Applied Physics, 21(2):8993, 1950. pages 8
[66] H. N. G. Wadley. Multifunctional periodic cellular metals. Philosophical
transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences,
364(1838):3168, 2006. pages 7, 16
[67] J. C. Wallach. Mechanical Behavior of Truss Materials. PhD thesis, 1998.
pages 12, 13, 75, 76
[68] J. C. Wallach and L. J. Gibson. Mechanical behavior of a three dimensional
truss material. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 38, 2001.
pages 7, 16, 75
[69] G. Warnaka. Sound attenuating wall for blocking transmission of intelligible
speech, Jan. 21 1969. US Patent 3,422,921. pages 9, 10
[70] N. Wicks and J. W. Hutchinson. Optimal truss plates. International Journal
of Solids and Structures, 38(30-31):51655183, 2001. pages 12
73
[71] F. Xin and T. Lu. Analytical modeling of fluid loaded orthogonally

rib-stiffened sandwich structures: Sound transmission. Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 58(9):13741396, 2010. pages 5, 22
[72] D. Zenkert. An Introduction to Sandwich Construction. Engineering
Materials Advisory Services, 1997. pages 2, 16
74
Appendix A
Finite Element Calculation of

Effective Stiffness Moduli
Gibson and Ashby [34] have established scaling laws for the effective material
properties of cellular solids. They showed that the stiffness scales proportional
to the relative density for stretch dominated lattices whereas it scales as 2 for
bending dominated lattices. Deshpande et al. [18] analyzed the criteria for a structure to be strching dominated. A sufficient criterion is given by Calladines [6] 3D
generalization of Maxwells static determinacy theorem in two dimensions:
b3j6 0
Here a FE unit cell analysis approach outlined in [38, 67] is applied to find the
effective stiffness of the lattice cores studied in this thesis and scaling laws are established. A similar approach was applied to study the effective material properties
of regular honeycombs [34], Octet lattice [19] and a fully triangulated truss-lattice
specimen (JAMCORP Lattice Block) [67], and showed good agreement (13% average discrepancy) with the experimental results in [68]. The approach can be
summarized as:
1. A cuboid unit cell of the full lattice with orthogonal basis vectors is taken.
Having a cuboid unit cell significantly simplifies the next step. A beam element model of the structure is created in ABAQUS. Members that are shared
75
between two cells are assigned one-half of their cross section area; members
that are shared between four cells are assigned one-quarter of their crosssection area. 40 B33 elements are created on each member of the unit cell.
2. The unit cell, aligned with the Cartesian axes, is subjected to periodic boundary conditions, such that the rotations of the corresponding nodes on opposite boundary surfaces are equal and the nodes on each boundary plane remain in plane after the deformation. The latter interactions are accessible
in ABAQUS CAE under coupling and linkage modules respectively. For
stretch-dominated deformations the bending stiffness is negligible; therefore, the rotational coupling is not crucial.
3. Displacement boundary conditions corresponding to each stress state are applied to the boundaries of the unit cell. This approach requires an accurate
judgement of the boundary conditions. A detailed example is discussed in
chapter 3 of [67].
4. The stresses and consequently the stiffness moduli can now be calculated
from the resulting reaction forces on each surface boundary.
The results are presented in Table A.1. All the FE results reported are based on
linear small strain approximations. For the Tetrahedral lattice, Gxz and Gzx have
bending-dominated deformations and are not included in this table. The results
for out-of-plane moduli of the pyramidal lattice (Eyy , Gxy , Gzy , Gyx , Gyz ) could be
verified with Guo et al. [35].
76
Lattice geometry
Y
Z
Relative density ()
= 2 2( ah )2
Effective Youngs moduli

Exx
E
=
Eyy
E
Effective shear moduli
Ezz
E
= 0.0247
= 0.4444
Gxy
E
Gyx
E
=
=
Gzy
E
Gyz
E
= 0.0988
= 0.1111
Ezz
E
= 0.1250
= 0.2500
Gxy
E
Gyx
E
Gxz
E
=
=
=
Gzy
E
Gyz
E
Gzx
E
= 0.2500
= 0.1250
= 0.1250
Ezz
E
Gxy
Gzy
E = E =
Gyx
Gyz
E = E = 0.1250
Gxz
Gzx
E = E = 0.0625
= 8 2( ah )2
= 2 2( ah )2
= 2 2( ah )2
2 ( t )
3 l
Exx
E
Exx
E
=
Eyy
E
=
Eyy
E
= 0.0625
= 0.2500
Ezz
Exx
E = E =0
Eyy
E = 0.4444
Eyy
E
Table A.1: First order estimates of effective moduli of the lattice core topolo a, h, t and l are respecgies studied as a function of relative density ().
tively the radius of the strut, height of the core, thickness of the wall for
a hexagonal honeycomb and the length of the hexagonal honeycomb.
77
Gzy
Gxy
E = E =
Gxz
Gzx
E = E =0
Gyx
Gyz
E = E = 0.1111
Gxy
E
Gzy
E
3(1+)
Appendix B
Sound Interference Level

The speech interference level (SIL) was introduced by Beranek for studying the
characteristics of aircraft cabin noise. It represents the level of masking of the
speech by surrounding noise. As a method simpler and faster than Articulation
Index (AI), it is commonly used in situ for assessing the influence of noise on
speech communication. According to ANSI S12.65-2006, the SIL is given by:
SIL =
L p500 + L p1000 + L p2000 + L p4000

4
(B.1)
Here L p s are the octave-band averaged sound pressure levels. Webster introduced
a modified criterion called preferred-octave speech interference level (PSIL) which
is also commonly used for aircraft noise characterization. PSIL does not take into
account the 4 kHz center frequency:
PSIL =
L p500 + L p1000 + L p2000

3
(B.2)
The quantities SIL and PSIL are the absolute value of the changes in the
SIL and PSIL of the incident noise after getting transmitted inside a chamber. For
example, if the exterior noise has SIL = C0 the interior noise is going to have
SIL = C0 SIL as a result of the transmission loss. Next, we will explain how
SIL and PSIL are derived having the STL curves. Let indices i and t indicate the
properties of the incident and transmitted sides. The SIL on the transmitted side
can be written as:
78
L p500,t + L p1000,t + L p2000,t + L p4000,t

=
4
(L p500,i ST L500 ) + (L p1000,i ST L1000 ) + (L p2000,i ST L2000 ) + (L p4000,i ST L4000 )
=
4
ST L500 + ST L1000 + ST L2000 + ST L4000
SILi
4
(B.3)
SILt =
where STL values are interpolated on the STL curves. Therefore, the absolute
value of the change in the SIL of the sound after transmission through a partition
is:
SIL =
ST L500 + ST L1000 + ST L2000 + ST L4000

4
(B.4)
Same procedure can be applied for PSIL to give:

PSIL =
ST L500 + ST L1000 + ST L2000

3
79
(B.5)

Sound Transmission Characteristics of Sandwich Panels With A Truss Lattice Core

Uploaded by

Sound Transmission Characteristics of Sandwich Panels With A Truss Lattice Core

Uploaded by

Sound Transmission Characteristics of Sandwich Panels

with a Truss Lattice Core

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

Master of Applied Science

The University of British Columbia

The Quest for Light and Stiff Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vibroacoustic Response of a Light and Stiff Design . . . . . . . .

Improving the STL in Sandwich Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Truss-Lattice Core Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STL for a Sandwich Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bloch Wave Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Objectives and Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Elastic Wave Propagation in Truss-Lattice Panels . . . . . . . . . .

Bloch Wave Propagation in Periodic Structures . . . . . . . . . .

Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Numerical Simulation of Sound Transmission through Sandwich Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transmission of Sound through Panels: Physics and Governing

Coupling Structural and Acoustic Models . . . . . . . . .

Finite Element Implementation

FEM Procedure and Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Validation of Structural Response Modeling . . . . . . . .

Validation of Acoustic Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Structural-Acoustic Modeling in FEA . . . . . . . . . . .

Truss-Lattice Core Sandwich Panel Modeling . . . . . . . . . . .

Static Stiffness Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Why Not Constant Stiffness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of the FEA Simulatoins of the Sound Transmission Problem 52

Main Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Closer Look at the STL Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sound Transmission Class and Speech Interference Level . . . . .

A Finite Element Calculation of Effective Stiffness Moduli . . . . . . .

B Sound Interference Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of material properties and model specifications used for FEA 48

Incremental reductions in preferred-octave speech interference

where L p is the sound pressure level. All panels have identical

Selected sandwich panel core designs studied: (a) Kurtze and

Dispersion curves of the sandwich panels for different cores

A volume V of fluid with surface area S and the normal vectors

Results of El-Rahebs prediction of the steady-state response

Reproduced results of El-Rahebs prediction of the steady-state

Velocity intensity (solid line) using the transfer matrix method

Velocity intensity results from our FEA simulations [22] for

Sound transmission suite configuration considered in this study

Diffuse field interaction implemented in a finite element model.

loading effects are neglected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The panel and fluid medium configuration for FEA . . . . . .

Figure 3.10 Sound transmissiom loss through a truss-like panel: derived

Figure 3.16 Comparison of relative static stiffness of the panels studied.

Figure 3.17 A comparison of third-octave band averaged STL response of

Sound transmission loss characteristics of a sandwich panel

Sound transmission loss characteristics of a sandwich panel

Sound transmission loss characteristics of a sandwich panel

Sound transmission loss characteristics of a sandwich panel

STL characteristics of a sandwich panel with a hexagonal core.

The Quest for Light and Stiff Structures

Vibroacoustic Response of a Light and Stiff Design

As the sandwich panels are increasingly being used as structural elements in

Improving the STL in Sandwich Panels

In order to improve vibration and noise attenuation a variety of methods exists.

concept will be explained in Ch.3.

Truss-Lattice Core Structures

STL for a Sandwich Panel

to ASTM E90-9 or ISO 10140-5 standards for more information.

Bloch Wave Analysis

Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

Research Objectives and Thesis Outline

Structure-borne sound transmission poses a fundamental challenge to be addressed

acoustic properties, in particular, sound transmission loss (STL) properties of such

Chapter 2 develops a versatile framework for studying the propagation of waves

Elastic Wave Propagation in

a rigorous approach to incorporate higher-order deformations inside the core but

Bloch Wave Propagation in Periodic Structures

Here, k1 = 1 + i1 and k2 = 2 + i2 represent the components of the wavevector

f rt + ek1 f lt + ek2 f rb + ek1 +k2 f lb = 0.

squared average displacements along the x, y, and z axes with y axis