Applied Mechanics and Materials Online: 2012-04-20

ISSN: 1662-7482, Vol. 165, pp 242-246

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.165.242
© 2012 Trans Tech Publications Ltd, Switzerland

A Comparative Study on the Effect of Air Gap on Sound Transmission

Loss Provided by Double Glazed Panels
Zambri Harun1,3,a , Elwaleed Awad2,b, Mohd Jailani Mohd Nor1,c
and Muhamad Razi1,d
1
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built
Environment, UKM, Bangi
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Khartoum,
Khartoum, Sudan
3
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University
of Melbourne, Melbourne
a
zambriharun@yahoo.com, belwaleeds1@yahoo.com, cjailani@eng.ukm.my,
d
muhamad_razi85@yahoo.com

Keywords: transmission loss, double panel, weighted sound reduction index.

Abstract. This paper presents an assessment for the airborne sound insulation provided by double
glazed panels. The glazed panels were glass, acrylic and polycarbonate with a thickness of 4 mm.
The panels were tested for 10 mm, 20 mm and 30 mm air gap thicknesses. The experiments were
conducted in a transmission loss facility consisting of semi anechoic and reverberation chambers
complying with International Standards ISO 140-1 and ISO 140-3. The panels were subjected to
airborne sound. Glass, acrylic and polycarbonate panel absorb noise most effectively above 500 Hz
with the absorption peaks at 1000 Hz. The single number sound reduction index (RW) for glass,
acrylic and polycarbonate as double layers with air gap were evaluated. The results showed that the
glass has higher RW for all air gaps and the results were 40.5 dB, 37.7 dB and 37.4 dB, respectively.
This could be attributed mainly to the material density which is higher for the glass.

Introduction
The double wall partitions, which provide good sound insulation, are increasingly used in various
engineering applications such as aircraft fuselages, car doors as well as windows and lightweight
partitions walls in buildings [1]. Extensive researches have been conducted to study the capacity of
these construction elements for acoustic insulation or for protecting people against extraneous
airborne. Glass façades for commercial and even government complexes are of common trend as
compared to other non-transparent material. Window and glazed façade is often the main noise path
for exterior disturbing noise towards the interior. As buildings with this type of façade are often
located near noisy plants and crowded area, noise treatment is of interest. The two main types of
passive means for improving STL presently utilized are laminated glass technology and double
glazing [2].
The transmission of airborne sound energy through a single separation element depends on
several variables, such as the frequency of sound incident on the element, the physical properties of
the panel (mass, internal damping, modulus of elasticity, Poisson’s ratio, the connections with the
surrounding structure and the vibration eigenmodes of the element [3]. The sound transmission for a
given material is controlled by different mechanisms in different frequency ranges [4]; the stiffness
and damping range, the mass control range and the coincidence effect range. The aim of this study
is to evaluate the effect of air gap on sound transmission loss for double glazed panels. Three
different panels made of glass, acrylic and polycarbonate, were compared.

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications Ltd, www.scientific.net. (#614522969, University of Toronto Library, Toronto, Canada-31/03/23,11:54:01)
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 165 243

Experimental Set-up
The experiments were conducted in a suite consisting of two rooms at the Acoustic Laboratory in
the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. The sending (source) room where the noise source is, and the
receiving room where the observer is. The set-up is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The sending
room is a reverberation room and the receiving room is a semi anechoic room. The volume of the
reverberation room is 171 m3 and the volume of the semi anechoic room is 121 m3. The opening
between the two rooms, in which the panel is installed, is 930 mm x 930 mm, however the glazed
area of a panel is 860 mm x 860 mm due to the area required for holding and other accessories. The
glazed panels used are glass, acrylic and polycarbonate with a thickness of 4 mm. Each sample
material was tested for air gaps of 10 mm, 20 mm and 30 mm. The panels were mounted in a
wooden frame. All the joints between the panel and the cavities were sealed by rubber and silicone
sealant to prevent acoustic leakage.
The measuring system used comprises a dual channel Symphonie (01 dB model) real time
acquisition unit that transfers the data in real-time to a computer, a speaker, an amplifier of ACLAN
GDB95 model, and two microphones of models 40AE-121 and 40AP-121. A dbBATI32 software
was used as data analyzer. Before starting the experiments, the microphones were calibrated using
the BAC21 Calibrator. The double glazed sample was mounted on panel. The sound pressure level
was measured using a third octave band real time analyzer. Fig. 2 shows the set up for the double
panel.
Glazed panel/ separation
Microphone Microphone
Source
Signal Analyzer

Fig. 1 Schematic of Experimental Set-up

Semi Anechoic Room Reverberation Room

Air Gap Sample

Adjustable Rubber
Support
Permanent
Support

Fig. 2 Experimental set-up of double glazed panels

Results and Discussion

The transmission loss results of the experiment for the double glazed panels are shown in Fig. 3,
4 and 5 for glass, acrylic and polycarbonate panels, respectively. From the figures, it can be
observed that all sound transmission losses of the three panels increase with the frequency up to
1000 Hz and then decrease regardless of the type of the panel. For all figures, as the frequency
increased, the transmission loss curve enters a region where the transmission loss is controlled by
the various resonant frequencies of the wall. Transmission loss in this region is limited by the
damping of the wall. At frequencies above the resonant frequencies, the transmission loss is
controlled by the mass of the wall [5].
244 Trends in Automotive Research

Above the mass-controlled region, lies the coincidence-controlled region. The coincidence effect
arises from the fact that for all frequencies above the critical frequency, there is a certain angle of
incidence, at which a plane wave may excite the wall such that the sound wave will be transmitted
through it with a reduced loss. This is possible that above the critical frequency, the wavelength of
the bending wave in the wall may become equal to the projection of the wavelength in air upon the
wall. The coincidence effect is normally exhibited by a dip in insulation. From Fig. 3, 4 and 5, it is
obvious that the dip for the acrylic and polycarbonate occurs at around 3000 Hz. According to
Tadeu et. al. [6] the transmission loss dip for glass occurred at 3000Hz. However in their
experiment, the size of the panel is different although a double glazing with an air gap was used.
Moreover, in Malaysia where the facility is located and where the experiments were performed, the
humidity is high compared with other countries.
The weighted sound reduction index (RW) is obtained according to the international evaluation
criterion of sound insulation material, to compare the performance of the glass, acrylic and
polycarbonate. The RW is a single-number quantity for airborne sound insulation rating.
From the RW values listed in Table 1, it is evident that the RW increases as the air gap thickness
increases for both glass and polycarbonate. However, there is no significant effect for increasing the
air gap thickness for polycarbonate (Fig. 6). This may be attributed to the density effect and hence
the mass/surface area ratio which is higher for the glass as shown in Table 2. Moreover, for higher
air gap, the stiffness might affect the transmission loss as acrylic has a higher modulus of elasticity
compared with polycarbonate.

50

45
Transmission Loss (dB)

40

35

30
Glass-10-Glass
Glass-20-Glass
25 Glass-30-Glass

20

15
100 1000 10000
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 3 Sound Transmission loss (dB) for glass

50
45
40
Transmission Loss (dB)

35
30
25
20 Acrylic-10-Acrylic
15 Acrylic-20-Acrylic
10 Acrylic-30-Acrylic
5
0
100 1000 10000
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 4 Sound Transmission loss (dB) for acrylic

 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 165 245

50

45

Transmission Loss (dB)

40

35

30
Poly-10-Poly
25
Poly-20-Poly
20 Poly-30-Poly

15
100 1000 10000
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 5 Sound Transmission loss (dB) for polycarbonate

Table 1 RW for glass, acrylic and polycarbonate for different air gap thicknesses

Sample 10mm 20mm 30mm

Glass 38.1 39.6 41.8
Acrylic 38.0 37.2 37.7
Polycarbonate 37.0 38.2 38.7

Table 2 Properties of the used materials

Material Density (kg/m3) Modulus of Thickness

Elasticity (GPa) (mm)
Glass 2440 72.00 4
Acrylic 1160 2.65 4
Polycarbonate 1200 2.20 4

43
42
41
40
Rw (dB)

39
38
37
Glass
36
Acrylic
35 Polycarbonate
34
0 10 20 30 40
Air Gap (mm)

Fig. 6 Weighted Sound Transmission loss (dB) for glass acrylic and polycarbonate at different air
gaps
246 Trends in Automotive Research

Conclusion
In this work the sound transmission through double glazing panels of glass, acrylic and
polycarbonate has been demonstrated. The panels were tested for different air gap thicknesses. The
glass shows higher weighted sound reduction index compared with acrylic and polycarbonate for all
air gap thicknesses. The results show that the weighted sound reduction index increases as the air
gap thickness increases for both glass and polycarbonate. However, there is no significant effect for
increasing the air gap thickness for polycarbonate. This may be attributed to the density effect and
hence the mass/surface area ratio which is higher for the glass.

References
[1] Q. Mao and S. Pietrzko: Applied Acoustics Vol. 71 (2010), p. 32.
[2] B. Naticchia and A. Carbonari: Building and Environment Vol. 42 (2007), p. 2785.
[3] A. Tadeu, A. Pereira., L. Godinho and J. Antonio: Applied Acoustics Vol. 68 (2007), p. 17.
[4] H. Yu, G. Yao, X. Wang, B. Li, Y. Yin and K. Liu: Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society
of China Vol. 17 (2007), p. 93.
[5] J.D. Irwin and E.R. Graf: Industrial Noise and Vibration Control (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
1979).
[6] A. Tadeu, J. Antonio and D. Mateus: Applied Acoustics Vol. 65 (2004), p. 15.