Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Optimal design of Multiresonant Layered Acoustic Metamaterials (MLAM)

via a homogenization approach
G. Sal-Anglada a,b , D. Yago a,b , J. Cante a,b , J. Oliver a,c , D. Roca a,b ,∗
a
Centre Internacional de Mètodes Numèrics en Enginyeria (CIMNE), Campus Nord UPC Ed. C1, C/ Gran Capità s/n, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
b
Escola Superior d’Enginyeries Industrial Aeroespacial i Audiovisuals de Terrassa (ESEIAAT), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya - BarcelonaTech
(UPC), Campus Terrassa UPC C/ Colom 11, 08222 Terrassa, Spain
c
Escola Tècnica Superior d’Enginyers de Camins, Canals i Ports de Barcelona (ETSECCPB), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya - BarcelonaTech (UPC), Campus
Nord UPC Ed. C1, C/ Jordi Girona 1, 08034 Barcelona, Spain

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Broadband sound attenuation at low frequency ranges (below 500 Hz) has been a challenge in the acoustics
Acoustic metamaterials field which cannot be solved, via conventional materials, unless impractical amounts of mass are employed.
Coupled resonances Multiresonant Layered Acoustic Metamaterials (MLAM) offer exceptional attenuating properties at lower
MLAM
frequencies, through novel coupled resonances mechanisms, in a layered configuration that make them
Computational homogenization
amenable for large-scale manufacturing. To show the potential capabilities of MLAM, a novel computational
Genetic algorithm optimization
design strategy has been developed to optimize the metamaterials’ performance in terms of their Sound
Transmission Loss (STL). First, a multiscale homogenization framework specifically derived for MLAM allows
an accurate and extremely fast evaluation of their STL response to normal-incidence acoustic waves in the
frequency range of interest. Then, the MLAM design is parameterized into a set of relevant geometric features,
which are optimized by means of an optimization scheme based on standard genetic algorithms combined
with the homogenization model. The results demonstrate how this design strategy is a powerful tool to obtain
optimal MLAM panel designs subject to constraints imposed by the application, for instance, in terms of weight
or thickness of the panel, or the manufacturing process (e.g. geometric tolerances).

1. Motivation of the spectrum (below 1000 Hz), attenuation is typically driven by

Acoustic metamaterials are artificially engineered materials capable
of exhibiting exotic properties that cannot be obtained with naturally
occurring materials. They are of particular interest due to their ability
of altering effective acoustic wave propagation behaviour, which can
translate into achieving huge levels of sound attenuation around certain
frequency ranges (known as band gaps). The cause for these unusual
properties lies in the resonances triggered by internal elements in
the material’s structure. This was first demonstrated in the work of
Liu et al. [1], in which the concept of local resonance was proposed
and related to the ability of acoustic metamaterials to produce fre-
quency band gaps, i.e., ranges in the frequency spectrum where the
metamaterial’s response is that of a material with apparent negative
density. Because these resonances can be triggered at subwavelength
regimes, i.e., with unit cell dimensions much lower than the acoustic
wave’s wavelength [2], the emergent field of locally resonant acoustic
metamaterials has become very popular, in the past two decades, for
sound insulation applications in the low-frequency regime. In this range
the mass-law, which means that with conventional materials, the only
effective way to insulate sound is by employing very thick and/or very
dense materials. In contrast, acoustic metamaterials offer a much more
practical lightweight and/or thin solution to deal with attenuation in
these lower frequency ranges.
The resonance-based acoustic metamaterials technology counts with
a number of different realizations that have been proposed in the
literature throughout the years. The first attempts relied on combin-
ing materials of different properties in composite-like configurations
that granted them the ability to achieve the desired local resonance
effects. Typically, these consist of dense inclusions, surrounded by a
soft coating material, embedded in a polymer matrix [1,3–5]. In 2008,
Yang et al. [6] introduced another family of acoustic metamaterials
based on adding small masses on elastic membranes [7–9]. Despite
their ability to tackle low-frequency resonances (thanks to the weak
elastic moduli of the membranes), they are also susceptible to deform
easily, hence not suitable for most applications. Another common

∗ Correspondence to: Escola Superior d’Enginyeries Industrial Aeroespacial i Audiovisuals de Terrassa (ESEIAAT), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya -
BarcelonaTech (UPC), Campus Terrassa UPC C/ Colom 11, 08222 Terrassa, Spain.
E-mail addresses: david.roca.cazorla@upc.edu, droca@cimne.upc.edu (D. Roca).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116555
Received 17 November 2022; Received in revised form 10 June 2023; Accepted 30 June 2023
Available online 22 July 2023
0141-0296/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
G. Sal-Anglada et al.
acoustic metamaterial configuration consists of attaching resonating
cylindrical structures (typically of a soft material) to a plate [10–
13]. Other works have exploited mechanical features of the resonators
to produce active metamaterials capable of controlling their response
via band gaps tuning [14,15]. More recently, given the advances in
additive manufacturing techniques, 3D-printed acoustic metamaterial
configurations based on purely geometric features have gained popular-
ity [16–20]. In general, while these are suitable to produce prototypes,
the intricate geometries involved, and/or the required tolerances (to
tackle low-frequency ranges) in some design features, present an issue
for scaling-up production, thus limiting their feasibility for practical
applications.
Nowadays, the acoustic metamaterials technology has reached a
level of maturity high enough on paper, but there is still a lack of
feasible solutions that enable its introduction into a large-scale in-
dustrial market. This is due to two main challenges. The first one
is related to manufacturing issues —namely, most of the discussed
realizations are effective in terms of performance for their intended
applications, but their fabrication relies on either complex processes
(for instance, assembling several different material parts into small
unit cells), or additive manufacturing technologies (which are still far
from competing in the mass-production industry due to time and cost
limitations). The second challenge is related to performance. Resonance
phenomena are, intrinsically, localized to narrow frequency bands—
especially in the low-frequency range. Standard mechanisms to increase
these bandwidths using metamaterials typically imply increasing the
resonating masses, which impacts the range of applicability of the
design. This issue has also been tackled by manipulating the stiffness
component instead of the mass, aiming at increasing the frequency
bandwidths without changing the dimensions. In Ref. [21], the stiffness
ratio between two local resonators connected in series on an elastic
plate is exploited to produce wider bandgaps based on negative stiff-
ness. Other works have proposed different mechanisms for tuning such
bandgaps, for instance, by incorporating hollow platelets inside a soft
matrix under a prestress state [22], or by exploiting thermal properties
of the different components inside the metamaterial structure [23].
In an attempt to overcome these two challenges, a Multiresonant
Layered Acoustic Metamaterial (MLAM) solution was proposed in a
previous work [24]. The concept relies on its layered configuration
to make it potentially easy to manufacture through well-established
techniques, for instance, a process involving lamination and die cutting.
Additionally, it introduces a coupling mechanism (derived from the
notion of double-periodicity provided by Gao et al. [25]) that pro-
duces a double-peak response in terms of the Sound Transmission Loss
(STL) of the material. Essentially, this coupling effect allows to join
two local resonance bandwidths in a whole range of uninterrupted
additional attenuation (i.e., with no transmission peaks in-between).
This double-peak STL response has been observed also in a hollow
pillar-hollow plate configuration for sound transmission perpendicular
to the direction of periodicity [26], and the underlying physics of
its formation have been recently explored by Stein et al. [27]. While
the concept of MLAM was already demonstrated in Ref. [24] (both
numerically and experimentally), in the present work, a computational
design strategy is proposed as a tool to obtain optimal MLAM-based
panel configurations for different target performance and application
constraints. First, a specific homogenization model capable of perfectly
capturing the particular MLAM behaviour in terms of the STL response
to normal-incidence acoustic waves is proposed. This simple model
allows extremely fast STL evaluations that are used to build a database
for the effective mass and stiffness properties in terms of a parametriza-
tion of a proposed MLAM panel design. Finally, this database feeds an
optimization algorithm, from which an optimal MLAM panel configu-
ration is obtained, meeting the target properties and constraints. The
computational model is described in Section 2, and the overall design
strategy is detailed in Section 3. An example application of the model
2
Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555
that provides an optimized MLAM panel design is presented in Sec-
tion 4. Results show the potential of MLAM-based panels to improve,
more than 20 dB, the sound attenuation in broadband frequency ranges
below 500 Hz, when compared to conventional (homogeneous) panels
of the same weight.
2. MLAM computational model
2.1. MLAM design concept
The MLAM is configured by a stack of different layers, each one
characterized by (1) a single material, (2) a thickness that remains
constant in the out-of-plane direction, and (3) a pattern repeated pe-
riodically in the in-plane directions (see Fig. 1-b). The specific choice
of these features for each layer gives them different functions within
the whole system. In its core, the MLAM is composed of two resonat-
ing layers joined by a connecting layer in-between. The role of the
resonating layers is to trigger local resonance effects, at two different
frequencies, through the vibration of internal features of the unit cell
geometric design. The connecting layer is responsible for coupling these
resonances, which typically requires a small enough stiffness in the
wave propagation direction. Additionally, in order to provide space for
vibration to the resonating layers, separating layers are also part of the
overall MLAM design. Finally, the MLAM core needs to be attached to a
wall-like structure or, alternatively, be covered by additional skin layers
at both ends (creating a standalone insulation panel).
2.2. STL evaluation
The STL response to normal-incidence acoustic waves is typically
given as a measure of the attenuating capabilities of a material and,
therefore, it will be used to evaluate the performance of MLAM panel
designs. The analysis at oblique angles of incidence is not considered in
this work because the main attenuation features (which are used from
a design point of view) arise in all cases, regardless of the angle [26].
To evaluate the performance of MLAM panel designs, a plane wave
is assumed to propagate through air (with density 𝜌a = 1.25 kg/m3
and velocity 𝑐a = 340 m∕s) in the normal direction to the material’s
incidence surface (𝑥-direction). Part of this wave is reflected back to
the incidence acoustic domain, while the other is transmitted to the
other side of the material (transmission acoustic domain), preserving
the propagation direction (see Fig. 1-a). In this context, because the skin
layers’ surfaces (or, equivalently, the wall-structure where the MLAM
core is attached) are flat, the pressure fields, 𝑝i and 𝑝t , in the acoustic
(air) domains are assumed:
• In the incidence side:
( )
𝑝i (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑃i 𝑒i(−𝜔𝑡+𝜅𝑥) + 𝑅𝑒i(−𝜔𝑡−𝜅𝑥) (1)
where 𝑃i is the wave’s amplitude, 𝑡 refers to the time variable,
𝜔 is the frequency, 𝜅 = 𝜔∕𝑐a is the wavenumber, and 𝑅 is the
reflection coefficient (fraction of the wave’s amplitude that is
reflected back).
• In the transmission side:
𝑝t (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑃i 𝑇 𝑒i(−𝜔𝑡+𝜅𝑥) (2)
where 𝑇 refers to the transmission coefficient (fraction of the
wave’s amplitude which is transmitted through the material).
In the solid domain, the response is driven by the balance of linear
momentum equations:
∇ ⋅ 𝝈 = 𝐩̇ (3)
where 𝝈 denotes the stress tensor, and 𝐩̇ = 𝜌̈𝐮 is the inertial force
density (with 𝜌 being the material density and 𝐮 referring to the
̇ is used to refer to the time derivative
displacement field). Notice that (∙)
of (∙).
G. Sal-Anglada et al.
Fig. 1. (a) Sound transmission loss evaluation set-up. Part of the normal-incidence acoustic waves propagating on the left side of the panel (incidence acoustic domain) is reflected
back, while the other is transmitted through the right side of the panel (transmission acoustic domain). (b) Representation of the MLAM layered structure. The MLAM core is
composed of two distinct resonating layers (layers 3 and 5), joined by a connecting layer (layer 4). Two separating layers (layers 2 and 6) are attached at both ends to allow
space for the resonators out-of-plane vibration, and the whole assembly is enclosed with skin layers (layers 1 and 7) that can be replaced by conventional wall structures.
Defining 𝛤i and 𝛤t as the interfaces between the solid and the in-
cidence and transmission acoustic domains, respectively, compatibility
conditions in terms of displacements and external surface forces in the
𝑥-direction (denoted here by 𝑢 and 𝑓 ), will be imposed, namely
{ counterpart
(𝑒i𝜅𝑥 − 𝑅𝑒−i𝜅𝑥 )𝑒−i𝜔𝑡 , ∀𝐱 ∈ 𝛤i
𝑢(𝐱, 𝑡) = (4)
𝑇 𝑒i𝜅𝑥 𝑒−i𝜔𝑡 , ∀𝐱 ∈ 𝛤t
{
−i𝜌a 𝑐a 𝜔(𝑒i𝜅𝑥 + 𝑅𝑒−i𝜅𝑥 )𝑒−i𝜔𝑡 , ∀𝐱 ∈ 𝛤i
𝑓 (𝐱, 𝑡) = (5)
i𝜌a 𝑐a 𝜔𝑇 𝑒i𝜅𝑥 𝑒−i𝜔𝑡 , ∀𝐱 ∈ 𝛤t
Notice that, for convenience, the value for the pressure waves’ ampli-
tude has been (arbitrarily) chosen 𝑃i = −i𝜌a 𝑐a 𝜔, so that the resulting
system is normalized in terms of the displacements’ amplitude.
Then, the reflection and transmission coefficients, 𝑅 and 𝑇 , can be
obtained, for a given frequency 𝜔, as a solution of Eq. (3) in the fre-
quency domain, upon considering Eqs. (4) as boundary conditions, and
Eqs. (5) as external actions in the system. A more detailed description
of the steps involved to solve the resulting system can be found in
Roca et al. [28]. Eventually, the transmission loss, TL (in dB), can be
evaluated as
TL(𝜔) = −20 log10 |𝑇 (𝜔)|
2.3. Layer-by-layer homogenization
To derive a simplified model capable of evaluating the STL response
of a given MLAM design, the multiscale homogenization framework
proposed in Roca et al. [29] will be used as basis. This model is
built upon the assumption of a separation of scales condition, so it
holds for settings where a lower scale (microscale) can be identified
in the domain, the characteristic size of which, 𝓁𝜇 , is significantly
smaller (at least by an order of magnitude) than the wavelength, 𝜆,
of any wave propagating in the macroscale, i.e. 𝜆 ≫ 𝓁𝜇 . In its general
statement described in Ref. [29], the multiscale model allows to obtain
homogenized properties —in terms of effective constitutive (elastic)
tensor and density— from a given unit cell (see Fig. 2). This is done
by:
Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555
(1) Considering an energetic equivalence —also known as generalized
Hill–Mandel principle— between the total mechanical power of
a point in the macroscale and the volume average value of its
corresponding microscale representative volume element (RVE)
𝐩̇ ⋅ 𝐮̇ + 𝝈 ∶ 𝜺̇ = ⟨𝐩̇ 𝜇 ⋅ 𝐮̇ 𝜇 + 𝝈 𝜇 ∶ 𝜺̇ 𝜇 ⟩𝛺𝜇 (7)
where 𝜺 refers to the strain field. Notice that the subscript (∙)𝜇
is used to refer to the microscale counterparts of the magni-
tude (∙), and the angle brackets are considered to denote the
volume average over the whole RVE domain, 𝛺𝜇 , i.e., ⟨(∙)⟩𝛺𝜇 =
1∕|𝛺𝜇 | ∫𝛺 (∙)d𝛺.
𝜇
(2) Imposing a set of kinematic restrictions that account for the
problem’s dynamic response. In this case
𝐮𝜇 (𝐱′ , 𝑡) = 𝐮(𝐱, 𝑡) + 𝜺(𝐱, 𝑡) ⋅ (𝐱′ − 𝐱0′ ) + 𝐮̃ 𝜇 (𝐱′ , 𝑡) (8)
where 𝐱′ denotes the spatial coordinates in the microscale, 𝐱0′ =
⟨𝐱′ ⟩𝛺𝜇 is the centroid of the RVE, and 𝐮̃ 𝜇 is the microfluctuations
field. For problems involving periodic unit cells, 𝐮̃ 𝜇 satisfies peri-
odic boundary conditions in the periodicity directions. Denoting
(6) 𝛤𝜇(−) and 𝛤𝜇(+) the matching periodic boundaries of the unit cell
(see Fig. 2), then
𝐮̃ 𝜇 |𝐱′ ∈𝛤 (+) = 𝐮̃ 𝜇 |𝐱′ ∈𝛤 (−) (9)
𝜇 𝜇
From Eqs. (7) and (8), one can obtain the following expressions for the
effective macroscopic stress and inertial force density:
𝝈 = ⟨𝝈 𝜇 + 𝐩̇ 𝜇 ⊗S (𝐱′ − 𝐱0′ )⟩𝛺𝜇 (10)
𝐩̇ = ⟨𝐩̇ 𝜇 ⟩𝛺𝜇 (11)
In Eq. (10), the symbol ⊗S
denotes the symmetric outer product,
i.e., 𝐚 ⊗S 𝐛 = (𝐚 ⊗ 𝐛 + 𝐛 ⊗ 𝐚)∕2.
For the problem of STL evaluation in MLAM cases, there is a
fundamental distinction between the in-plane domain (where there is
periodicity of each layer’s unit cells), and the out-plane (thickness) di-
rection (which is the plane-wave propagation direction). Furthermore,
since the coupling mechanism of MLAM is triggered by the distinct
3
G. Sal-Anglada et al. Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555

effective stiffness of the connecting layer [24], in order to be able to

capture the STL response, a homogenization of each layer (separately)
will be considered. Thus, the forthcoming analysis will be focused on
a unit cell for a generic layer —identified with the superscript 𝑗— of
the MLAM assembly. In each layer domain, 𝛺𝜇(𝑗) , the attachment areas
between layers 𝑗 and 𝑗 − 1 (in the rear face) is denoted by 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,r) , and
between layers 𝑗 and 𝑗 + 1 (in the front face) is denoted by 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,f) (see
Fig. 2). Notice that, for the first layer, 𝛤𝜇(1,r) ≡ 𝛤i refers to the whole area
exposed to the incidence acoustic domain, while for the last 𝑛 layer,
𝛤𝜇(𝑛,f) ≡ 𝛤t is the area exposed to the transmission acoustic domain.
Following this notation, the matching periodic boundaries (only in the
in-plane directions) will be identified by 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,−) and 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,+) for each layer
unit cell (see Fig. 2).
It should be noted that, because the unit cell size is small com-
pared to the acoustic wavelength (in virtue of the separation of scales
hypothesis), the bending response of each layer is neglected in the
model. A consequence of this is that the outer frame of the unit cells is
considered stiff. Under the assumption that wave propagation dynamics
occur, predominantly, in the thickness direction (for normal-incidence
plane-waves), the separation of scales condition can be rephrased as
ℎ(𝑗) 𝜔
≪1 (12)
2𝜋𝑐 (𝑗)
where ℎ(𝑗) refers to the 𝑗th layer thickness, 𝜔 is the frequency of the Fig. 2. Layer-by-layer homogenization scheme setting. Each layer in the macroscale
MLAM structure (top-left) is analysed separately via a representative volume element
propagating wave, and 𝑐 (𝑗) is the speed of sound in the layer. These
(RVE) of the layer’s microscale periodic structure (bottom-left). In the RVE, the
specific problem features can also be exploited to further simplify the attachment area with the previous and subsequent layers (in green) is identified by
model, by limiting the macroscale dynamics to 1D-wave propagation. 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,r) and 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,f) , respectively, and the matching periodic boundaries are identified by
Hence, the kinematic relation for the problem becomes 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,−) and 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,+) (red and blue areas, respectively). As a result of the multiscale analysis,
a set of effective properties is obtained, allowing to consider the corresponding layer
⎧ 𝑢(𝑗) ⎫ ⎧1⎫ ⎧𝑥′(𝑗) − 𝑥′(𝑗) ⎫ ⎧ 𝑢̃ (𝑗) ⎫ as a 1D structural element with spring–mass resonators attached (bottom-right). These
⎪ 𝜇(𝑗) ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ (𝑗) ⎪ 0 ⎪ ⎪ 𝜇(𝑗) ⎪ parameters are then used to evaluate the STL of the entire MLAM panel as a 1D
𝐮(𝑗)
𝜇 = ⎨ 𝜇 ⎬ ⎨ ⎬
𝑣 = 0 𝑢
̄ + ⎨ 0 ⎬ 𝜀 (𝑗)
+ ⎨ 𝑣̃𝜇 ⎬ (13) homogenized structure (top-right). (For interpretation of the references to colour in
⎪𝑤(𝑗) ⎪ ⎪0⎪ ⎪ 0 ⎪ ⎪𝑤̃ (𝑗) ⎪
⎩ 𝜇 ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ 𝜇 ⎭ this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

where (𝑢, 𝑣, 𝑤) refer to the displacement field components in the (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧)

directions, respectively, 𝑢̄ (𝑗) is an effective uniform (rigid body) trans-
Appendix A. It is worth noting that, in the frequency domain, Eqs. (16)
lation of the layer in the 𝑥-direction, 𝜀(𝑗) is a uniform stretch of the
and (17) can be simplified into
layer in the 𝑥-direction, and 𝑥′(𝑗)
0
is the middle 𝑥-coordinate of the layer
⎛ 𝑁 (𝑗) ⎞
domain. To guarantee a compatible displacement between layers, in 1 ∑ (𝑗,𝑖) (𝜔̃ (𝑗,𝑖) )2 ⎟ ̈ (𝑗)
addition to the periodic boundary conditions given by Eq. (9) (and 𝑝̇ (𝑗) = ⎜𝜌(𝑗) + 𝑚̃ 𝑢̄ (18)
⎜ eff (𝑗)
|𝛺𝜇 | 𝑖=1 (𝜔̃ ) − 𝜔 ⎟
(𝑗,𝑖) 2 2
applied to the boundaries 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,−) and 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,+) ), the microfluctuation field ⎝ ⎠
√
must vanish in the attachment areas between layers (as long as the where 𝜔̃ (𝑗,𝑖) = 𝑘̃ (𝑗,𝑖) ∕𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) are the resonance frequencies of the internal
interfaces are located in the stiff outer frame of each unit cell), 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,r) resonators.
and 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,f) , hence Inserting Eqs. (15) and (16) into the one-dimensional version of
Eq. (3), and coupling the resulting system with the set of equations
𝐮̃ (𝑗)
𝜇 |𝐱′(𝑗) ∈(𝛤 (𝑗,r) ∪𝛤 (𝑗,f) ) = 𝟎 (14) given by Eq. (17), the STL response of the homogenized MLAM panel
𝜇 𝜇
can be evaluated. Noticeably, upon performing a 1D finite element (FE)
Applying Eq. (13) in the general homogenization framework implies
discretization in which only one element is assigned to each layer, the
that the effective macroscopic stress and inertial force density obtained resulting system of equations will end up with only 𝑛 + 1 degrees of
are also 1D, i.e., they only have relevant components in the 𝑥-direction. freedom (corresponding to the displacements at the interfaces between
In particular layers) plus the additional displacement amplitudes of the relevant
(𝑗) (𝑗) internal resonators. A detailed derivation of this system with the cor-
𝜎 (𝑗) = 𝐸eff 𝜀 (15)
responding element matrices is provided in Appendix B. Following this
(𝑗)
1 ∑
𝑁
scheme, a general 3D MLAM panel design is transformed into a series
𝑝̇ (𝑗) = 𝜌(𝑗)
eff
𝑢̄̈ (𝑗) + 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) 𝑞̈(𝑗,𝑖) (16) of homogenized 1D structural elements with spring–mass resonators
|𝛺𝜇(𝑗) | 𝑖=1
attached (see Fig. 2).
(𝑗)
where 𝐸eff is an effective elastic modulus, 𝜌(𝑗)
eff
is an effective density,
𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) are the equivalent masses for the possible 𝑁 (𝑗) internal resonators 3. MLAM computational design
triggering local resonance effects, with 𝑞 (𝑗,𝑖) being their correspond-
3.1. MLAM parametrization
ing displacement amplitudes. These are obtained from 𝑁 (𝑗) additional
(uncoupled) equations in the system:
As detailed in Section 2.1, the MLAM core is integrated by 5
𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) 𝑞̈(𝑗,𝑖) + 𝑘̃ (𝑗,𝑖) (𝑞 (𝑗,𝑖) − 𝑢̄ (𝑗) ) = 0, 𝑖 = {1, … , 𝑁 (𝑗) } (17) different layers (𝑗 = {2, … , 6}) which can be classified into two different
types according to the topology layout: (a) the seperating layers and the
where 𝑘̃ (𝑗,𝑖) denote the equivalent stiffness for each internal resonator connecting layer, and (b) the resonating layers. These two cell config-
in the layer. The derivation of Eqs. (15) to (17), along with the defi- urations can be easily described by a set of parameters as illustrated in
(𝑗)
nition of the effective properties, 𝐸eff , 𝜌(𝑗)
eff
, 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) and 𝑘̃ (𝑗,𝑖) , are given in Fig. 3, i.e.,

4
G. Sal-Anglada et al. Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555

(1) Separating and connecting layers: these two layers consist of a

frame of side 𝑎, width 𝑤c , and thickness ℎ, thus defining the
chromosome, i.e., the set of parameters, of the (𝑗th) layer as
{ }
𝜳 (𝑗) = 𝑎(𝑗) , 𝑤(𝑗)
c ,ℎ
(𝑗)
, 𝑗 = {2, 4, 6}

It is important to note that these layers are connected to the

previous and subsequent layers by the frame of width 𝑤c in the
propagation direction, while, in the other two directions, periodic
conditions are considered.
(2) Resonating layers: they are composed of an outer frame of side
𝑎 and width 𝑤f , and a central symmetrical resonating element,
which is connected to the corners of the frame via 4 diagonal
attachments. As a result, the resonator can be defined by the
following parameters 𝑤1 , 𝑤2 , 𝑤a , and 𝑑a , as well as the thickness
ℎ of the layer (see Fig. 3-b). In this case, the resultant chromosome
is given by
{ }
𝜳 (𝑗) = 𝑎(𝑗) , 𝑤(𝑗) (𝑗) (𝑗) (𝑗) (𝑗) (𝑗) (𝑗)
c , 𝑤f , 𝑤1 , 𝑤2 , 𝑤a , 𝑑a , ℎ

for 𝑗 = {3, 5}. As in the other layers, the interface to the adjacent
layers is obtained via the outer frame of width 𝑤c .

The MLAM core’s chromosome results from the combination of the

subchromosomes of each layer, considering that the parameters 𝑎 and
𝑤c are constant for all the layers. In terms of design, it is desirable
that parameters 𝑤c , ℎ(2) , and ℎ(6) are as small as possible to minimize
the impact in weight and thickness of the separating layers, which
do not play a major role in the MLAM performance, and help the
connecting layer achieve the required small effective stiffness for the
coupling. Additionally, parameters 𝑤(3) 1
and 𝑤(5)
1
for the resonating
layers can be fixed in order to leave the equivalent resonators’ mass to
be determined mainly by 𝑤(3) 2
and 𝑤(5) 2
. Considering typical tolerances
in terms of manufacturing, all these parameters are set to 1 mm. Finally,
parameters 𝑑a(3) and 𝑑a(5) are also set (proportional to the cell size 𝑎), so
that the equivalent resonators’ stiffness are determined mainly by 𝑤(3) a
and 𝑤(5)
a . As a result, the MLAM topology can be defined as
{ } Fig. 3. Detailed geometrical parameters and structure of (a) the separating/connecting
𝜳 = 𝑤(3) f
, 𝑤(3)
2
, 𝑤(3) (3) (4)
a , ℎ , ℎ , 𝑤(5)
f
, 𝑤(5)
2
, 𝑤 (5) (5)
a , ℎ (19) layers, and (b) the resonating layers. Both separating and connecting layers are made
of an external frame of thickness 𝑤𝑐 , while the resonating layers consist of a central
for a cell size 𝑎, and the corresponding values for 𝑑a(3) and 𝑑a(5) . The set resonant mass connected by 4 attachments to the corners of an external frame of
thickness 𝑤𝑓 . A zoom view of the geometrical parameters of this layer is shown. It
of parameters 𝜳 significantly affects the effective elastic modulus 𝐸eff
is important to mention that all the in-plane designs of each layer are symmetrical,
and density 𝜌eff , as well as the equivalent masses 𝑚̃ and stiffness 𝑘̃ of significantly reducing the number of parameters required to define its topology.
each layer, thus allowing to find the geometrical parameters that result
in some specific target values.

in Eq. (20) promotes optimal solutions with broadband double-peak

3.2. Computational optimization strategy
response, evaluated via the bandwidth between the two coupled res-
According to the MLAM geometrical parametrization detailed in the onance frequencies, 𝑓𝛼 and 𝑓𝛽 , denoted by 𝛥𝑓 = 𝑓𝛽 − 𝑓𝛼 . Here, 𝜁 stands
previous section, a size optimization is now performed to the topology for a penalty factor which is iteratively incremented throughout the
layout of each layer, i.e. an optimization of each of the parameters optimization to further stress its effect. The total area of the target
contemplated in the definition (19), including 𝑤2 , 𝑤a , 𝑤f and ℎ for a
attenuation window, 𝐴∗𝛥TL , and the target frequency interval, 𝛥𝑓 ∗ , are
specific cell length, 𝑎. In this case, the size optimization seeks for an
used to normalize each term, respectively.
optimal topological design of the MLAM structure that, for a given ref-
erence surface density, 𝜇ref (in kg/m2 ), tries to fill the target attenuation From Eq. (20), the corresponding optimization problem can be
window (highlighted by a thick black line in Fig. 4), characterized by mathematically stated as follows
the width of the target frequency interval of interest, 𝛥𝑓 ∗ = 𝑓U − 𝑓L , ( )
𝑓U ( ) 𝑓𝛽 − 𝑓𝛼
and a target level of additional sound attenuation, 𝛥TL, compared to 1 ̃ (𝑓 ) − TL (𝑓 ) d𝑓 − 𝜁 log
min  (𝜳 ) = − TLopt h
the STL achieved by an homogeneous acoustic insulator of the same 𝜳 𝐴∗𝛥TL ∫𝑓L 𝑓U − 𝑓L
reference mass.
To do so, the objective function  , expressed as a maximization, is (21)
formulated as a penalized functional subject to:
( )
𝐴 𝛥𝑓 𝑓L − 𝑓𝛼 ≤ 0 (22)
 = 𝛥TL∗ + 𝜁 log (20)
𝐴𝛥TL 𝛥𝑓 ∗
𝑓𝛽 − 𝑓U ≤ 0 (23)
The first term in Eq. (20) enforces the maximization of the MLAM
𝑓𝛼 − 𝑓𝛽 ≤ 0 (24)
attenuation window area, denoted by 𝐴𝛥TL , and defined as the area ⟨ ⟩
(in dB Hz) of the attenuation window that is delimited by the op-
𝑓𝛽 𝜕 2 TLopt (𝜳 , 𝑓 )
(𝜳 ) = − d𝑓 ≤ 0 (25)
timized MLAM STL curve, as depicted in Fig. 4. The second term ∫𝑓𝛼 𝜕𝑓 2
mc

5
G. Sal-Anglada et al.
Fig. 4. Typical STL response of a MLAM-based panel (solid blue curve) compared
to that of a conventional homogeneous acoustic insulator (dash-dotted green curve).
The target frequency range for the optimization is bounded by 𝑓L and 𝑓U frequencies
(defining the target frequency bandwidth 𝛥𝑓 ∗ ), and the target STL improvement with
respect to the homogeneous panel is indicated by 𝛥TL. The target attenuation window,
with area 𝐴∗𝛥TL , is highlighted with a thick black line, and the blue shaded area
represents the MLAM attenuation window. The double-peak frequency bandwidth is
identified by 𝛥𝑓 , and bounded by the resonance frequencies for the two resonating
layers, 𝑓𝛼 and 𝑓𝛽 . (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
𝑛 ⎛ (𝑗)
⎞ throughout the generations according to
1 ∑ ⎜ (𝑗) (𝑗) ∑
𝑁
𝜌eff |𝛺𝜇 | + 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) ⎟ − 𝜇ref ≤ 0
𝑎 𝑗 ⎜
2 ⎟
⎝ 𝑖 ⎠
∑( )
𝑛
ℎ(𝑗) − ℎref ≤ 0
𝑗
𝜑𝑖,L ≤ 𝜑𝑖 ≤ 𝜑𝑖,U , ∀𝜑𝑖 ∈ 𝜳
where TLh stands for the STL of the homogeneous acoustic insulator,
̃
and TL opt corresponds to the STL of the optimized MLAM structure
capped by the target sound transmission loss, i.e., TL∗ (𝑓 ) = TLh (𝑓 ) +
𝛥TL,
̃ (𝑓 ) = min{TL (𝑓 ), TL∗ (𝑓 )}
TL ∀𝑓 ∈ [𝑓L , 𝑓U ]
opt opt
with TLopt referring to the TL of the optimized MLAM structure.
Notice that the constraint Eqs. (22)–(28) have been included to
the original objective function (20) in order to impose the interval of
interest (22)–(24), guarantee the coupling between the two resonant
peaks (25), enforce an upper bound to the total reference mass of the
MLAM structure (26), set an upper bound to the MLAM core’s thickness
(27), and establish upper and lower bounds for each of the parameters,
defined by 𝜑𝑖,U and 𝜑𝑖,L , respectively, for each parameter 𝜑𝑖 in (28).
In particular, the coupling between the resonant peaks 𝑓𝛼 and 𝑓𝛽 is
enforced by ensuring that the norm of the second derivative of the
transmission loss with respect to the frequency, i.e., the curvature of the
STL —numerically computed using a central finite difference method—
is always positive in this interval. In this norm, the angle brackets
⟨(∙)⟩mc are used to express the macaulay’s function of (∙), i.e., ⟨(∙)⟩mc
is equal to (∙) if it is positive, and 0 otherwise.
The resultant size optimization problem (21) represents a highly
computational expensive problem to be solved via traditional opti-
mization techniques. To overcome this computational issue, a two-step
strategy has been selected: (1) an offline-step to create a database of
(𝑗)
effective parameters (i.e., 𝐸eff , 𝜌(𝑗)
eff
, 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) , and 𝑘̃ (𝑗,𝑖) ) using the layer-
by-layer homogenization model from a set of parameters 𝜳 for each
cell configuration (see Fig. 3), and (2) an online-step to optimize the
design of the MLAM structure using both (a) the database to create
an interpolation function and (b) a genetic algorithm method. In the
Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555
latter step, a set of parameters 𝜳 from the ga optimization are provided
to the interpolation functions, thus obtaining estimated, interpolated
effective values in a fast and accurate way. These values are then used
to compute the corresponding TL, and evaluate the objective function
along with the constraint equations. This two-step strategy, illustrated
schematically in Fig. 5, significantly reduces the computational cost of
the optimization step as the STL evaluation only implies the resolution
of a 1D finite element system with interpolated effective properties
instead of a more time-consuming 3D modal analysis.
Regarding the genetic algorithm technique, the optimization of
the set of parameters 𝜳 is performed using Matlab’s built-in ga func-
tion with standard creation, selection, and mutation functions for ga
optimizations with nonlinear constraints. However, the size of the
population has been increased up to 150, an heuristic crossover with a
ratio of 1.5 has been employed, and the crossover fraction has been
set to 0.6. Additionally, once the ga has converged, a constrained
optimization is performed via Matlab’s built-in fmincon function using a
sequential quadratic programming algorithm (SQP) to actually find the
solution for the local minimum (near the one obtained by ga optimiza-
tion). To prevent the solution from stagnating to a local minimum and
increase diversity of solutions, this optimization procedure is restarted
up to 5 times, in which the optimal solution 𝜳 ∗ of the previous ga
optimization is used to generate the initial population for the next
optimization.
As aforementioned, the objective of the previous optimization prob-
lem (21) is to maximize the additional attenuation while increasing the
band gap between the two coupled resonant frequencies. In order to
increase the weight of the latter term, the penalty factor is increased
(26) (𝑖 −1)
𝜁(𝑖𝑔 ) = 𝜁0 𝐶𝜁 𝑔 (30)
where 𝜁0 , 𝐶𝜁 , and 𝑖𝑔 stand for the initial penalty factor, the penalty
(27)
ratio, and the (𝑖th) generation number. Unless otherwise stated, param-
eters 𝜁0 and 𝐶𝜁 are set to 0.1 and 1.05, respectively.
(28)
4. Results
To illustrate an example implementation of the homogenization
scheme combined with the two-step optimization strategy, a Multireso-
nant Layered Acoustic Metamaterial (MLAM) made of (a) a polyamide
(29)
material for the skin, separating, and resonating layers, and (b) a
rubber-like material for the connecting layer, has been chosen. The
properties of each material are listed in Table 1, specifying the density
value, the Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio.
Regarding the MLAM dimensions, the cell size 𝑎 and the parameter
𝑑a have been set to 60 mm and 25 mm, respectively, in order to
properly operate in the interval of interest, i.e., frequencies in the range
[100, 500] Hz, and be able to maximize the additional attenuation with a
coupled, double-peak sound transmission loss (STL) response. The ref-
erence total panel thickness, ℎref , has been set to 30 mm. Additionally,
each parameter of the chromosome 𝜳 has been accordingly bounded in
the optimization, leaving an extensive margin in the resultant effective
properties to guarantee the coupling between the two resonant peaks
with the specified materials and dimensions. The limits for each of the
parameters are also specified in Table 1.
Based on this set of parameters, a database of effective parameters
of each cell type is computed for the two-step optimization strategy,
as explained in the previous section. The resultant data, including
each tested chromosome and the corresponding effective properties, is
interpolated using Matlab’s built-in griddedInterpolant function, which
provides the linear interpolant for each effective property. This step is
computed only once at the offline-step for each of the cell types, allow-
ing to significantly reduce the computational cost of the optimization.
Consequently, multiple optimizations can be performed with different
bounds of frequencies 𝑓L and 𝑓U , reference surface densities 𝜇ref , total
6
G. Sal-Anglada et al. Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555

Fig. 5. Two-step size optimization strategy: (Offline-step) a database is first created for a set of parameters 𝜳 (listed in Eq. (19)) in the interval of interest using a structured
(𝑗)
hypercube sampling, thus obtaining the corresponding effective properties (i.e., 𝐸eff , 𝜌(𝑗)
eff
, 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) , and 𝑘̃ (𝑗,𝑖) ), and (Online-step) the optimization of the parameters is then performed
using a genetic algorithm in combination with interpolation functions of the effective parameters.

Table 1
Material properties and geometrical parameters considered for the optimization. Each material is assigned to the corresponding layer types indicated in the last column (Layers).
The (upper and lower) bounds of each parameter 𝜑𝑖 (in Eq. (19)) and the corresponding constant spacing are used to generate the interpolation function of each effective property
using Matlab’s built-in griddedInterpolant function at the offline-step.
Materials Density 𝜌 (kg/m3 ) Young’s modulus 𝐸 (MPa) Poisson’s ratio 𝜈 Layers
Polyamide (PA) 1050 1650 0.40 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7
Rubber-like 1060 0.15 0.47 4

𝑤(3)
𝑓
(mm) 𝑤(3)
2
(mm) 𝑤(3)
a (mm) ℎ(3) (mm) ℎ(4) (mm) 𝑤(5)
f
(mm) 𝑤(5)
2
(mm) 𝑤(5)
a (mm) ℎ(5) (mm)
Lower bound 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 1.5 1 1 0.5
Upper bound 5 12 8 10 10 5 12 8 10
Spacing 0.5 0.25 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.25 0.2 0.5

thicknesses ℎref , and penalty factors 𝜁, among others, at a low compu-
tational cost. The online step starts with an initial configuration with
an arbitrarily set of parameters that satisfy the constraint equations.
To simplify the selection of parameters for this initial configuration,
both resonating layers are set equal, with a single resonance frequency
inside the target range. This allows the optimization algorithm to find
solutions in the frequency range of interest.
4.1. MLAM optimization
The results concerning the size optimization of the MLAM core
for 𝛥TL = 20 dB are illustrated in Fig. 6-a, including the STL of
the initial configuration (dotted blue line), the optimized one (solid
blue line). The STL response is also compared with the corresponding
results for the reference homogeneous material of same surface density
of 15 kg/m2 (dash-dotted green line). From the results, it can be
easily noticed that the optimized solution corresponds to a high-band
gap coupled response which attenuates more than 20 dB for almost
300 Hz. Despite starting from the same reference surface density 𝜇ref ,
the surface density of the optimized MLAM structure is smaller than
the one for the homogeneous material while attenuating a significantly
higher quantity in the target frequency range. Consequently, one can
be confident that the ga optimization is performing as expected. In this
context, the optimizer attempts to adjust the second resonant frequency
𝑓𝛽 as high as possible, i.e., near the upper frequency bound 𝑓U , while
pulling the lowest frequency 𝑓𝛼 as far away (towards lower frequen-
cies) as possible maintaining the coupling between both resonances,
hence the double-peak STL response. It is worth noticing that the first
resonant peak corresponds to the resonance of the first resonating
layer (i.e., layer 3) and the second peak is produced by the second
resonating layer (i.e., layer 5). In both cases, the resonating modes are
consistent with the one-dimensional propagation of the wave, as shown
in Fig. 6-b.
The same geometrical parameters (detailed in Table 2) have been
used to assess the performance of the layer-by-layer homogenization,
detailed in Section 2.3. In this sense, the optimized STL response
(obtained via the interpolation step in the optimization scheme) has
been compared with the one obtained from directly applying the 1D
homogenization scheme for the exact optimized parameters. The good
agreement between both curves shown in Fig. 6-b is considered as
a validation of the interpolation step involved in the optimization.
Additionally, both STL responses have been compared with the one ob-
tained from a direct numerical simulation (DNS) of the corresponding
complete 3D MLAM (also in Fig. 6-b). In this case, the results show
an exceptional correlation for frequencies lower than 600 Hz. Above
this value, additional 3D effects neglected in the homogenization model
assumptions perturb the overall behaviour of the MLAM, thus limiting
its applicability at higher frequency ranges. This loss in accuracy is
related to the separation of scales hypothesis, which starts to fail at
higher frequencies. In general, for typical unit cell sizes and material
properties (in the same order of magnitude of the ones considered
here) enough accuracy is achieved for the target frequency range below
500 Hz.

7
G. Sal-Anglada et al. Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555

Table 2
Numerical values used for the initial MLAM configuration and the corresponding values obtained for the optimized one once the ga optimization has been performed, specifying
the surface density and the total thickness of each structure. In this sense, the surface density of the optimized structure decreases from 15 kg/m2 up to 13.65 kg/m2 , while
achieving higher additional attenuation areas with larger frequency bandwidths.
Configuration 𝑤(3)
f
(mm) 𝑤(3)
2
(mm) 𝑤(3)
a (mm) ℎ(3) (mm) ℎ(4) (mm) 𝑤(5)
f
(mm) 𝑤(5)
2
(mm) 𝑤(5)
a (mm) ℎ(5) (mm) 𝜇ref (kg/m2 ) ℎcore (mm)
Initial 1.5 2.1 1 7.3 1 1.5 2.2 1 7.3 15 19.6
Optimized 1.57 1 1.1 4.95 9.98 5 3.72 1.29 8 13.65 26.9

Fig. 6. (a) Sound transmission loss curves obtained for the MLAM panel with a cell
size 𝑎 = 60 mm. The optimized STL response (solid blue line) is compared with the
ones corresponding to the initial configuration (dashed dark blue line) and to the
homogeneous acoustic insulator (dashed–dotted green line). The initial and optimized
MLAM attenuation window areas are shaded in darker and lighter blue, respectively.
The resulting resonating layers topology for the optimized MLAM are also depicted near
the corresponding resonant frequencies 𝑓𝛼 = 263 Hz and 𝑓𝛽 = 495 Hz. (b) Optimized
STL response obtained from the interpolation step (solid blue line) compared to the
one obtained from directly applying the homogenization scheme to the optimal set of
parameters (dashed blue line). The blue circles show the STL response obtained from
the corresponding DNS analysis. The modes corresponding to the resonance peaks are
depicted as well. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
(solid blue line), the homogenized version obtained from applying the
layer-by-layer homogenization directly on the optimal set of parameters
(dashed blue line), and the DNS simulation of the same case (blue
dots). As aforementioned, the length of the attachments, 𝑑a , depends
on the cell size 𝑎, being set to 22.5 mm, 25 mm, 27.5 mm, and 30 mm,
respectively. Regarding the penalized term, the same previously speci-
fied initial penalty factor 𝜁0 and penalty ratio 𝐶𝜁 values are considered
regardless the cell size 𝑎.
At first look, one can observe that the four optimized MLAM config-
urations tend to a similar optimized solution, obtaining almost the same
MLAM attenuation window area 𝐴𝛥TL while showing higher (though
small) discrepancies in the double-peak frequency bandwidth 𝛥𝑓 . In
particular, 𝛥𝑓 presents a concave character with respect to the cell size
𝑎, showing a maximum of 242 Hz for 𝑎 = 70 mm. As already discussed in
the previous section for 𝑎 = 60 mm, the second resonant frequency 𝑓𝛽 is
designed to be near the upper frequency bound 𝑓U = 500 Hz, while the
first one is minimized so that the second term in Eq. (20) is maximized.
This may be due to the fact that higher resonant frequencies are easier
to achieve than lower ones while satisfying all the constraint equations.
In this context, lower frequencies may be much more constrained by
mass and geometrical dimensions, thus making it more difficult for
the optimizer to find alternative coupled solutions at lower frequencies
with better objective function values. Nevertheless, up to a lower cell
size limit for which local resonances in the target range can no longer
be achieved with the material properties considered, similar optimized
solutions can be found regardless of the cell size, thus proving that the
optimizer is properly searching the optimal set of parameters for this
application.
In addition, it is worth to stress out that all optimized solutions
exhibit a lower surface density than the reference homogeneous insu-
lator (of 15 kg/m2 ), in the range between 12.5 and 13.7 kg/m2 for
the different cell sizes. Despite the lower surface density, the optimized
MLAM configurations achieve an additional attenuation of 𝛥TL = 20 dB
for more than 300 Hz, and an attenuation of 𝛥TL = 10 dB for almost
350 Hz. Furthermore, the total thickness of the optimized MLAM panel
also varies with the cell size 𝑎, leading to solutions with a thicknesses
that range from 27 to 30 mm.
This set of optimizations is also used to proof the correlation of the
layer-by-layer homogenization and the interpolation step with the cor-
responding DNS for different cell size values. For the lengths considered
in this work, and frequencies up to 600 Hz, one can be more than
convinced that the homogenization scheme is capturing the double-
peak resonance phenomena without major problems and within a small
margin of error with respect to the DNS computation. Additionally, the
interpolated STL (solid blue line) almost resembles the homogenized
response (dashed blue line) for all these cases, only noting marginal
differences among both curves. These discrepancies are proportional
to the discretization size of the structured hypercube, which has been
thoroughly sampled to minimize the error in the range of interest (read
Section 3.2 for more details).

4.2. Cell size study 4.3. Surface density study

A set of ga optimizations with different cell sizes 𝑎 have been
performed in order to study its effect in the MLAM attenuation window
area 𝐴𝛥TL and the double-peak frequency bandwidth 𝛥𝑓 . The results
can be seen in Fig. 7 for 𝑎 = {50, 60, 70, 80} mm, each one including
the optimized MLAM response obtained from the database interpolation
In a similar manner to the previous study, the mass effect in the
MLAM response has been assessed via a set of optimizations limiting
the maximum reference surface density 𝜇ref . In this case, Eq. (26) has
been rewritten as an equality constraint to impose the exact value of the
target surface density. The results obtained for different 𝜇ref values are

8
G. Sal-Anglada et al. Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555

Fig. 7. STL results obtained for the MLAM structure with different cell size 𝑎 values. In each case, the optimized STL response (solid blue lines) is compared with corresponding
STL curves obtained from applying the 1D homogenization scheme (dashed blue lines) and 3D DNS (blue circles) with the exact set of optimized parameters. The resulting MLAM
attenuation windows (shaded blue areas), double-peak frequency bandwidths 𝛥𝑓 , as well as the surface areas and total thicknesses for each case are indicated. For reference, the
STL response of an homogeneous acoustic insulator (of 𝜇ref = 15 kg/m2 ) is also included in each figure (dash-dotted green lines). Additionally, the resulting optimized topologies
for the resonating layers’ unit cells are included considering the same relative scale for each cell size. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

displayed in Fig. 8. As in the previous study, the optimization approach
tries to adjust the highest resonance frequency 𝑓𝛽 with the upper
frequency bound 𝑓U , while minimizing the first resonant frequency 𝑓𝛼
in order to maximize both terms of Eq. (20). In this context, coupled,
double-peak solutions are achieved for all the optimizations regardless
the target surface density value. Nevertheless, the MLAM attenuation
window area 𝐴𝛥TL (first term in Eq. (20)) monotonically increases with
the target density, as expected (see Fig. 8-b). This tendency, however,
is not observed for the double-peak frequency bandwidth 𝛥𝑓 (second
term in Eq. (20)), which behaves concavely with respect to the surface
density and presents a maximum at 𝜇ref = 12.5 kg/m2 . Despite this,
if one looks at the effective attenuation bandwidth —defined as the
frequency range in the interval on interest with a MLAM STL response
over the target 𝛥TL = 20 dB with respect to the reference homogeneous
insulator case (orange shaded areas in Fig. 8)— it increases also upon
increasing the target surface density, from 200 Hz (for 𝜇ref = 7.5 kg/m2 )
to over 300 Hz (for 𝜇ref = 17.5 kg/m2 ).
To evaluate the overall panel attenuation capacity in the frequency
range of interest per unit of surface density, a performance metric,
defined as the specific panel attenuation, is considered
1 𝑓
𝛥𝑓 ∗
∫𝑓 U TL(𝑓 )d𝑓
L
𝛱= (in dB m2 ∕kg)
𝜇
Fig. 8-c shows that the optimized MLAM panels practically double this
performance metric regardless of the target reference surface density,
when compared to the corresponding case of a homogeneous panel of
the same mass per unit area. Interestingly, it appears that the additional
specific attenuation achieved by the optimized MLAM is higher for
smaller reference surface densities, showing the optimization strategy
is even more efficient in these more challenging cases.
5. Conclusions
Multiresonant Layered Acoustic Metamaterials (MLAM) proposed in
this work can be considered practical solutions with great potential
to effectively attenuate sound at low frequency ranges, in particular
between 100 Hz and 500 Hz. The layer-based design (with two resonat-
ing layers) exploits coupled-resonances phenomena among the different
layers to significantly increase the attenuation in a wide frequency
bandwidth, resulting in higher sound transmission losses (STL) than
those obtained via homogeneous acoustic insulators of the same, or
even higher, surface densities. Such additional attenuation can be
further increased in intensity and frequency range by means of size and
topology optimization techniques.
Although the design of MLAM panel structures could be directly op-
(31) timized with conventional techniques, the computational effort would

9
G. Sal-Anglada et al. Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555

Fig. 8. Effect of the target surface density 𝜇ref on the transmission loss response for a MLAM of cell size 𝑎 = 60 mm. (a) STL response for the 𝜇ref = 12.5 kg/m2 case (solid blue line)
compared with corresponding STL responses of homogeneous acoustic insulators of different surface densities (dash-dotted green lines). The inset shows the different optimized
STL curves for the different target surface density values. (b) On the left axis (blue curve), effective additional attenuation level achieved by the optimized MLAM panels as a
function of the target surface density parameter. On the right axis (orange curve), effective bandwidth for attenuation over target 𝛥TL achieved by the optimized MLAM panel
(shaded region), and location of the double-peak frequencies. (c) Specific panel attenuation performance metric for the optimized MLAM compared to corresponding parameter for
equivalent surface density homogeneous panel. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

be extremely high, requiring several days to complete a single opti-
mization. To overcome this computational cost, a specific layer-by-layer
homogenization technique has been proposed here, allowing to pre-
cisely compute the STL in a matter of seconds. The effective properties
that characterize each layer of the representative unit cell are obtained
through the proposed homogenization technique, along with a set of
attached masses and springs that represent the internal resonators. As a
result, each layer can be represented by an equivalent 1D finite element
model with internal resonators, thus providing an extremely reduced
system of equations that can be solved practically instantaneously
for the desired frequency range. In this context, the results displayed
throughout this work reveal a robust correlation between DNS and
homogenized solutions for MLAM configurations in the frequency range
of interest, up to 600 Hz.
Aiming to maximize the additional attenuation with respect to the
homogeneous acoustic insulator while increasing at the same time the
frequency distance between the two resonant frequencies in a coupled
double-peak STL response, a two-step size optimization strategy has
been proposed in combination with the layer-by-layer homogenization
technique. To this end, the representative unit cell has been char-
acterized by a set of geometrical parameters, which have been then
optimized by a standard genetic algorithm. By using the proposed
homogenization framework to create a database of effective properties
of each layer (offline step), one can afford the high computational cost
of the ga optimization (online step), allowing to perform multiple size
optimizations with different parameters.
In this regard, the proposed methodology provides a tool for de-
signing application-specific RVE cells based on the employed materials,
desired frequency range, target additional attenuation, and geomet-
rical limitations (imposed by the manufacturing procedures or the
application settings), among others, with superior performance to the
one obtained via homogeneous acoustic insulators. As an example,
optimized MLAM panels have been obtained for which additional
attenuation of more than 20 dB have been achieved over a 300 Hz
range, between 200 Hz and 500 Hz, with a surface densities around
13 kg/m2 and thicknesses smaller than 30 mm. This represents a more
than 10 times reduction in weight to achieve these same levels of
attenuation (in this frequency range) via conventional (mass-based)
acoustic insulators (notice the corresponding STL curves in Fig. 8-a).
These results reveal the potential for optimized MLAM-based panels,
along with the proposed design strategy, to become a highly efficient,
customizable and practical solution to sound insulation for several
applications.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
G. Sal-Anglada: Visualization, Software, Validation, Writing – orig-
inal draft. D. Yago: Software, Methodology. J. Cante: Funding acquisi-
tion, Supervision. J. Oliver: Funding acquisition, Supervision. D. Roca:
Software, Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing,
Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the Spanish Ministry of Science and In-
novation, Spain (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033) for supporting
G. Sal-Anglada with the PhD Grant PRE2019-088777 under the FPI
programme, and for funding this research through the ‘‘Severo Ochoa
Programme for Centres of Excellence in R&D’’ (Grant CEX2018-000797-
S-19-1) and the AC-METATECH project (TED2021-129413B-C21). This
research has also been funded by the Ministry of Research and Uni-
versities of the Government of Catalonia, Spain, through the research
grant 2021-PROD-00016 for the project METACOUSTECH.

10
G. Sal-Anglada et al. Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555

( T )T
(𝑗) ̂ ∗(𝑗,𝑖)
Appendix A. Derivation of the homogenized properties 𝛼̈ 𝜇∗(𝑗,𝑖) + 𝜆∗(𝑗,𝑖)
𝜇 𝛼𝜇∗(𝑗,𝑖) = − I(𝑗) M(𝑗)
𝜇 P𝜇 𝝓𝜇 𝑢̄̈ (𝑗) (A.11)

The FE-discretized version of Eq. (13) can be written in terms of where 𝛼𝜇∗(𝑗,𝑖) are the modal amplitudes corresponding to the mass-
normalized modes. To make the units consistent, we will define
𝐮̂ (𝑗) (𝑗) (𝑗)
𝜇 = I 𝑢̄ + X(𝑗) 𝜀(𝑗) + 𝐮̃̂ (𝑗) (A.1)
𝜇 ( T )
∗(𝑗,𝑖) 2
̂ denote the nodal values for the degrees of freedom (∙), and 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) = I(𝑗) M(𝑗) P(𝑗) 𝝓̂ (A.12)
where (∙) 𝜇 𝜇 𝜇

⎧⋮ ⎫ ⎧ ⋮ ⎫ 𝑘̃ (𝑗,𝑖) = 𝜆∗(𝑗,𝑖)
𝜇 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) (A.13)
⎪1⎪ ⎪𝑥̂ ′(𝑗,𝑎) − 𝑥′(𝑗) ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ 0 ⎪ 𝛼𝜇∗(𝑗,𝑖)
I(𝑗) = ⎨0⎬ , X(𝑗) =⎨ 0 ⎬ (A.2) 𝑞 (𝑗,𝑖) = 𝑢̄ (𝑗) + √ (A.14)
⎪0⎪ ⎪ 0 ⎪ 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖)
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎩⋮ ⎭ ⎩ ⋮ ⎭ Note that each 𝑞 (𝑗,𝑖) refers to the total displacement amplitude for
the 𝑖th internal resonator. These definitions allow us to obtain the
with 𝑥̂ ′(𝑗,𝑎) being the 𝑥′ -coordinate of the 𝑎th node. Fixed degrees
following expressions from Eqs. (A.10) and (A.11), after some algebraic
of freedom and periodic boundary conditions are applied on the mi-
manipulation:
crofluctuation field through a matrix P(𝑗)
𝜇 , such that
(𝑗)
∑
𝑁 √
⎧ (𝑗,r) ⎫ 𝐮̂ ∗(𝑗) =
∗(𝑗,𝑖)
𝝓̂ 𝜇 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) (𝑞 (𝑗,𝑖) − 𝑢̄ (𝑗) ) (A.15)
⎪ 𝐮̃̂ 𝜇 ⎪ ⎡𝟎 𝟎⎤ 𝜇
⎪ 𝐮̃̂ (𝑗,f) ⎪ ⎢𝟎 𝟎⎥ { ̂ (𝑗,−) }
𝑖=1
⎪ 𝜇 ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ 𝐮̃ 𝜇 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) 𝑞̈(𝑗,𝑖) + 𝑘̃ (𝑗,𝑖) (𝑞 (𝑗,𝑖) − 𝑢̄ (𝑗) ) = 0
𝐮̃̂ (𝑗) = ⎨𝐮̃̂ 𝜇(𝑗,+) ⎬ = ⎢𝟏 𝟎⎥ = P(𝑗)
𝜇 𝐮𝜇
̂ ∗(𝑗) (A.3) (A.16)
𝜇
⎪𝐮̃̂ (𝑗,−) ⎪ ⎢𝟏 𝐮̃̂ (𝑗,i) √
𝟎⎥ 𝜇
⎪ 𝜇(𝑗,i) ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ Note that Eq. (A.11) has been multiplied by 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) to obtain Eq. (A.16).
⎪ 𝐮̃̂ 𝜇 ⎪ ⎣𝟎 𝟏⎦
Using Eq. (A.10), it is possible to obtain the expression for the effective
⎩ ⎭
inertial force density in terms of 𝑞 (𝑗,𝑖) as
where 𝐮̃̂ 𝜇(𝑗,r) , 𝐮̃̂ (𝑗,f)
𝜇 , 𝐮 ̃̂ (𝑗,+)
𝜇 and 𝐮̃̂ (𝑗,−)
𝜇 are the nodal displacements referred
(𝑗)
to the boundaries 𝛤𝜇 , 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,f) , 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,+) and 𝛤𝜇(𝑗,-) , respectively, 𝐮̃̂ (𝑗,i)
(𝑗,r)
are the 1 ∑
𝑁
𝜇
𝑝̇ (𝑗) = 𝜌(𝑗) 𝑢̄̈ (𝑗) + 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) 𝑞̈(𝑗,𝑖) (A.17)
remaining nodal displacements, and 𝟏 denotes the identity matrix. The eff
|𝛺𝜇(𝑗) | 𝑖=1
unit cell’s system of equations for the 𝑗th layer is given by
⎛ ∑
𝑁 (𝑗)
⎞
1 ⎜I(𝑗) T M(𝑗) I(𝑗) − (𝑗,𝑖) ⎟
M(𝑗) ̂̈ (𝑗) (𝑗) ̂ (𝑗)
𝜇 𝐮𝜇 + K𝜇 𝐮𝜇 = 𝟎 (A.4) 𝜌(𝑗) = 𝑚
̃ (A.18)
|𝛺𝜇(𝑗) | ⎜⎝ ⎟
eff 𝜇
𝑖=1 ⎠
where M𝜇(𝑗) and K𝜇(𝑗) are the mass and stiffness matrices for the cor-
Again, since the only relevant component of the macroscopic dis-
responding layers, respectively. Following the procedure explained in
placement imposed is in the 𝑥-direction, only the 𝑥-component of the
Roca et al. [29], the resolution proceeds by splitting the RVE system
macroscopic inertial force density is obtained.
into a quasi-static and an inertial components.
(a) Quasi-static system:
For the quasi-static subsystem, 𝑢̄ (𝑗) = 0 and the resulting effective Appendix B. STL evaluation for the homogenized MLAM
inertial force density is neglected, i.e., 𝐩̇ ≈ 𝟎. In this context, from sub-
stituting Eq. (A.1) into Eq. (A.4), the solution for the microfluctuation The 1D version of Eq. (3) applied to the 𝑗th layer domain reads
field can be obtained in terms of the macroscopic strain as 𝜕𝜎 (𝑗)
= 𝑝̇ (𝑗) (B1)
T 𝜕𝑥
𝐮̂ 𝜇∗(𝑗) = −(K∗(𝑗) −1 (𝑗) (𝑗) (𝑗) (𝑗)
𝜇 ) P𝜇 K𝜇 X 𝜀 (A.5)
Now, introducing Eqs. (A.6) and (A.17) into Eq. (B1), and coupling it
T with Eqs. (A.16), the following system is obtained
where K∗(𝑗)
𝜇 = P(𝑗) (𝑗) (𝑗)
𝜇 K𝜇 P𝜇 . This allows us to obtain the effective
( )
macroscopic stress as ⎧ (𝑗) (𝑗) 1 ∑𝑁 (𝑗) ̃ (𝑗,𝑖) (𝑗) 𝜕 (𝑗) 𝜕 𝑢̄
(𝑗)
⎪𝜌eff 𝑢̄̈ + 𝑖=1 𝑘 (𝑢̄ − 𝑞 (𝑗,𝑖) ) − 𝐸eff =0
(𝑗) (𝑗)
𝜎 (𝑗) = 𝐸eff 𝜀 (A.6) ⎨ |𝛺𝜇(𝑗) | 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 (B2)
⎪𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) 𝑞̈(𝑗,𝑖) + 𝑘̃ (𝑗,𝑖) (𝑞 (𝑗,𝑖) − 𝑢̄ (𝑗) ) = 0
(𝑗)
=
1 T
X(𝑗) (𝟏 − K𝜇(𝑗) P(𝑗) ∗(𝑗) −1 (𝑗) T (𝑗) (𝑗)
(A.7) ⎩
𝐸eff
|𝛺𝜇 | 𝜇 (K𝜇 ) P𝜇 )K𝜇 X
Upon a standard 1D FEM integration of Eqs. (B2), considering just one
Notice that because we only imposed a macroscopic strain in the 𝑥- element for the whole layer, the resulting system reads
direction, only the 𝑥-component of the macroscopic stress is obtained [ ]{ } [ ]{ } { }
as a result. M(𝑗)
𝑢𝑢 𝟎 𝐮̂̈ (𝑗) K(𝑗)
𝑢𝑢 K(𝑗)
𝑢𝑞 𝐮̂ (𝑗) 𝐟̂ (𝑗)
̈ (𝑗) + K(𝑗) K(𝑗) = (B3)
(b) Inertial system: 𝟎 M(𝑗)
𝑞𝑞 𝐪 ̂ 𝑞𝑢 𝑞𝑞 𝐪̂ (𝑗) 𝟎
For the inertial subsystem, 𝜀(𝑗) = 0 and it is assumed that the with
resulting effective stress can be neglected, i.e. 𝝈 ≈ 𝟎. Therefore, after { }
𝑢𝑗
substituting Eq. (A.1), Eq. (A.4) yields 𝐮̂ (𝑗) = (B4)
𝑢𝑗+1
M𝜇∗(𝑗) 𝐮̂̈ ∗(𝑗) + K∗(𝑗) ̂ ∗(𝑗) = −P(𝑗)
T (𝑗) (𝑗) (𝑗)
̈ (A.8) { }
𝜇 𝜇 𝐮𝜇 𝜇 M𝜇 I 𝑢̄ 𝑓𝑗
𝐟̂ (𝑗) = (B5)
T (𝑗) (𝑗) ∗(𝑗,𝑖) 𝑓𝑗+1
where M∗(𝑗)
𝜇 = P(𝑗)
Denoting 𝜆∗(𝑗,𝑖)
𝜇 M𝜇 P 𝜇 .
𝜇 and the eigenval- 𝝓̂ 𝜇
ues and mass-normalized eigenvectors, respectively, of the following ⎧ ⋮ ⎫
⎪ ⎪
equation ̂ (𝑗)
𝐪 = ⎨𝑞 (𝑗,𝑖) ⎬ (B6)
⎪ ⋮ ⎪
(K𝜇∗(𝑗) − 𝜆∗(𝑗,𝑖)
∗(𝑗,𝑖)
M𝜇∗(𝑗) )𝝓̂ 𝜇 =𝟎 (A.9) ⎩ ⎭
𝜇
(𝑗) (𝑗) [ ] 𝑁 (𝑗) (𝑗,𝑖) [ ]
∗(𝑗,𝑖) 𝐸eff 𝐴 1 −1 ∑ 𝑘̃ 1−𝛽 𝛽
projecting the system given by Eq. (A.8) into the eigenvectors 𝝓̂ 𝜇 K(𝑗)
𝑢𝑢 = + (B7)
ℎ(𝑗) −1 1 2 𝛽 1−𝛽
yields 𝑖=1

(𝑗) ⎡⋱ 0⎤
∑
𝑁
∗(𝑗,𝑖) K(𝑗) ⎢ 𝑘̃ (𝑗,𝑖) ⎥ (B8)
𝐮̂ ∗(𝑗) = 𝝓̂ 𝜇 𝛼𝜇∗(𝑗,𝑖) (A.10) 𝑞𝑞 = ⎢ ⎥
𝜇
𝑖=1 ⎣0 ⋱⎦

11
G. Sal-Anglada et al. Engineering Structures 293 (2023) 116555

⎡ ⋮ ⋮ ⎤ [11] Wu Tsung-Tsong, Huang Zi-Gui, Tsai Tzu-Chin, Wu Tzung-Chen. Evidence of

(𝑗) T 1 ⎢ ̃ (𝑗,𝑖) ̃ (𝑗,𝑖) ⎥
K(𝑗) = K = − 𝑘 𝑘 (B9) complete band gap and resonances in a plate with periodic stubbed surface.
𝑞𝑢 𝑢𝑞 2⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⋮ ⋮ ⎦ Appl Phys Lett 2008;93(11):111902.
[12] Badreddine Assouar M, Senesi Matteo, Oudich Mourad, Ruzzene Massimo,
𝜌(𝑗)
eff
𝐴(𝑗) ℎ(𝑗) [1 − 𝛽 𝛽
]
Hou Zhilin. Broadband plate-type acoustic metamaterial for low-frequency sound
M(𝑗)
𝑢𝑢 = (B10) attenuation. Appl Phys Lett 2012;101(17):173505.
2 𝛽 1−𝛽
[13] Bilal Osama R, Hussein Mahmoud I. Trampoline metamaterial: local resonance
⎡⋱ 0⎤ enhancement by springboards. Appl Phys Lett 2013;103(11):111901.
M(𝑗) ⎢ 𝑚̃ (𝑗,𝑖) ⎥ (B11)
𝑞𝑞 = ⎢
[14] Wang Pai, Casadei Filippo, Shan Sicong, Weaver James C, Bertoldi Katia.
⎥
⎣0 ⋱⎦ Harnessing buckling to design tunable locally resonant acoustic metamaterials.
Phys Rev Lett 2014;113:014301.
where 𝑢𝑗 and 𝑢𝑗+1 are the displacements at the layer’s interfaces, 𝑓𝑗 and [15] Huang Yilan, Li Jian, Chen Weiqiu, Bao Ronghao. Tunable bandgaps
𝑓𝑗+1 correspond to the external forces acting on such interfaces, 𝐴(𝑗) is in soft phononic plates with spring-mass-like resonators. Int J Mech Sci
2019;151:300–13.
the unit cell’s cross-section area, ℎ(𝑗) denotes the layer’s thickness, and 𝛽
[16] Claeys Claus, Deckers Elke, Pluymers Bert, Desmet Wim. A lightweight vibro-
is a matrix lumping parameter (𝛽 = 0 for lumped matrices, and 𝛽 = 1∕3 acoustic metamaterial demonstrator: numerical and experimental investigation.
for consistent matrices). Mech Syst Signal Process 2016;70–71:853–80.
Assembling the matrices for each homogenized layer, the resulting [17] Leblanc Alexandre, Lavie Antoine. Three-dimensional-printed membrane-type
system can be solved, for a given frequency 𝜔, and applying the specific acoustic metamaterial for low frequency sound attenuation. J Acoust Soc Am
2017;141(6):EL538–42.
STL conditions —given by Eqs. (4) and (5)— into the first and last [18] Bilal Osama R, Foehr André, Daraio Chiara. Observation of trampo-
degrees of freedom. The transmission and reflection coefficients can line phenomena in 3d-printed metamaterial plates. Extreme Mech Lett
then be obtained, and the STL is finally computed with Eq. (6). 2017;15:103–7.
[19] McGee Olivia, Jiang Huan, Qian Feng, Jia Zian, Wang Lifeng, Meng Han, et al.
3D printed architected hollow sphere foams with low-frequency phononic band
References
gaps. Addit Manuf 2019;30:100842.
[20] Roca D, Pàmies T, Cante J, Lloberas-Valls O, Oliver J. Experimental and
[1] Liu Z, Zhang X, Mao Y, Zhu Y, Yang Z, Chan CT, et al. Locally resonant sonic numerical assessment of local resonance phenomena in 3D-printed acoustic
materials. Science 2000;289(5485):1734–6. metamaterials. J Vib Acoust 2020;142(2):1–9.
[2] Hussein Mahmoud I, Leamy Michael J, Ruzzene Massimo. Dynamics of phononic [21] Zhang Yong Yan, Gao Nan Sha, Wu Jiu Hui. New mechanism of tunable
materials and structures: historical origins, recent progress, and future outlook. broadband in local resonance structures. Appl Acoust 2020;169:107482.
Appl Mech Rev 2014;66(4). [22] De Maio Umberto, Greco Fabrizio, Luciano Raimondo, Sgambitterra Girolamo,
[3] Sheng Ping, Zhang XX, Liu Zhengyou, Chan CT. Locally resonant sonic materials. Pranno Andrea. Microstructural design for elastic wave attenuation in 3D printed
Physica B 2003;338(1–4):201–5. nacre-like bioinspired metamaterials lightened with hollow platelets. Mech Res
[4] Wester Eric C, Brémaud Xavier, Smith Bryan. Meta-material sound insulation. Commun 2023;128:104045.
Build Acoust 2009;16(1):21–30. [23] Nimmagadda Chaitanya, Matlack Kathryn H. Thermally tunable band gaps in
[5] Calius Emilio P, Bremaud Xavier, Smith Bryan, Hall Andrew. Negative architected metamaterial structures. J Sound Vib 2019;439:29–42.
mass sound shielding structures: early results. Phys Status Solidi (b) [24] Roca D, Cante J, Lloberas-Valls O, Pàmies T, Oliver J. Multiresonant layered
2009;246(9):2089–97. acoustic metamaterial (MLAM) solution for broadband low-frequency noise
[6] Yang Z, Mei Jun, Yang Min, Chan NH, Sheng Ping. Membrane-type acoustic attenuation through double-peak sound transmission loss response. Extreme Mech
metamaterial with negative dynamic mass. Phys Rev Lett 2008;101(20):204301. Lett 2021;47:101368.
[7] Naify Christina J, Chang Chia-Ming, McKnight Geoffrey, Nutt Steven R. Scaling [25] Gao Yuqiang, Wang Lifeng. Ultrawide coupled bandgap in hybrid periodic system
of membrane-type locally resonant acoustic metamaterial arrays. J Acoust Soc with multiple resonators. J Appl Phys 2020;127(20):204901.
Am 2012;132(4):2784–92. [26] Roca David, Hussein Mahmoud I. Broadband and intense sound transmission loss
[8] Khanolkar Amey, Wallen Samuel, Abi Ghanem Maroun, Jenks Jennifer, Vo- by a coupled-resonance acoustic metamaterial. Phys Rev A 2021;16(5):054018.
gel Nicolas, Boechler Nicholas. A self-assembled metamaterial for lamb waves. [27] Stein A, Nouh M, Singh T. Widening, transition and coalescence of local
Appl Phys Lett 2015;107(7):071903. resonance band gaps in multi-resonator acoustic metamaterials: from unit cells
[9] Hiraiwa Morgan, Abi Ghanem M, Wallen SP, Khanolkar Amey, Maznev AA, to finite chains. J Sound Vib 2022;523:116716.
Boechler Nicholas. Complex contact-based dynamics of microsphere monolayers [28] Roca D, Yago D, Cante J, Lloberas-Valls O, Oliver J. Computational design
revealed by resonant attenuation of surface acoustic waves. Phys Rev Lett of locally resonant acoustic metamaterials. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
2016;116(19):198001. 2019;345:161–82.
[10] Pennec Yan, Djafari-Rouhani Bahram, Larabi H, Vasseur JO, Hladky-Hennion AC. [29] Roca D, Lloberas-Valls O, Cante J, Oliver J. A computational multiscale ho-
Low-frequency gaps in a phononic crystal constituted of cylindrical dots mogenization framework accounting for inertial effects: Application to acoustic
deposited on a thin homogeneous plate. Phys Rev B 2008;78(10):104105. metamaterials modelling. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2018;330:415–46.

12