Journal of Space Safety Engineering 10 (2023) 133–143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Space Safety Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsse

New designs of sandwich panels to mitigate high-frequency noise

inside space vehicles
Md Zahid Hasan
Bangladesh Air Force Academy, Bangladesh Air Force Base Matiur Rahman, BAF Academy Road, 7404 Jessore, Khulna, Bangladesh

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Radiation of noise to the interior of a space vehicle during liftoff and transonic climb is a long-standing
Received 20 October 2022 problem. To attenuate noise inside the crew compartment during launch and in-space operation, sand-
Received in revised form 31 January 2023
wich panels have been employed in the pressurized outer shell to passively reduce the exterior noise
Accepted 2 February 2023
transmission. However, the layouts and the sound transmission loss of the implemented sandwich pan-
Available online 16 February 2023
els have not been made available for public release. Against this idiosyncratic practice, this study en-
Keywords: visioned disseminating the know-how on the sound attenuation ability of dissimilar sandwich panels.
Sandwich panels To efficiently absorb and dampen the acoustic energy, the sandwich panels were specifically configured
Anti-symmetric coincidence
using a honeycomb core, felts and a closed cell aluminum-foam in the material lay-up. The face sheets
Resonance
of the sandwich panels consisted of either glass fiber-reinforced epoxy or carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy
Mass effect
Sound transmission loss composites. The sandwich panels were tested as acoustic barriers to a diffuse sound field in a sound
transmission suite. As found, an increase in the panel thickness brought a decrease in the anti-symmetric
coincidence frequency of sandwich panels. A rubber damping layer in the material lay-up added limp
mass to a sandwich panel and reduced the panel vibration at excitation frequencies beyond 500 Hz.
Multiple felts reinforced the sound transmission loss of a sandwich panel by dissipating the acoustic en-
ergy into thermal energy at the felt interstices in the frequency regime beyond 315 Hz. In conclusion,
this study proposed optimized sandwich configurations considering the constitutive materials, number of
material layers, material layer thickness and stacking sequence. The optimized sandwich configurations
could fairly deliver the demanded sound transmission loss in the high-frequency regime.
© 2023 International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Intense acoustic noise is a by-product of spacecraft launch. On
a launch pad, the firing of a spacecraft rocket engine induces noise
in the form of airborne acoustics and structural vibration. The
rocket engine noise can be hostile for the spacecraft itself and
for the avionics and payloads aboard. A rocket engine produces
noise within a broad frequency range. However, the high-frequency
noise is particularly intense and of concern since it causes a large
number of stress reversals in space vehicle structures, payloads
and electronic packages. These stress reversals lead to fatigue fail-
ure. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to mitigate the high-
frequency noise inside space vehicles. To do so, this study adopted
a passive approach and in correspondence, offered new sandwich
configurations for space vehicle structures. These sandwich config-
urations should reinforce the sound transmission loss (STL) in the
high-frequency regime.
E-mail address: md.zahidhasan83@yahoo.de
Since the early 1960s, passive damping has been applied
to mitigate low-frequency noise inside aircraft [1]. The sound
absorption at low frequencies greatly depends on the thickness
of damping layers [2]. As seen, the sound absorption coefficient
of thinner acoustic blankets drops rapidly at frequencies below
100 Hz [2]. To attenuate the incoming noise, a visco-elastic core
can be used in a sandwich structure [3]. The visco-elastic core
experiences little shear in low-order deformation modes, if the
base structure is not appreciably curved. A spacer layer beneath
a visco-elastic core acts as a kinematic amplifier to increase the
shear deformation, which reinforces the noise damping capability
of a passive treatment [1]. A soft core significantly affects the STL
and peak/valley frequencies of a composite sandwich panel [4].
Grosveld and Mixson concluded that a honeycomb (HC) core
reinforces the STL of a sandwich panel, although, damping tapes
in a sandwich panel do not provide additional benefits [5]. A
double-layer HC core sandwich panel offers a better STL than a
single-layer HC core sandwich panel [6]. A two-layered pyramidal
core filled with fibrous materials reinforces the STL at low frequen-
cies [7]. Micro-perforated sandwich panels stuffed with fiberglass

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2023.02.001
2468-8967/© 2023 International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.Z. Hasan
materials provide a wide low-frequency absorption bandwidth and
a surplus interior noise reduction [8]. Micro-perforated sandwich
panels with a large perforation diameter (about 1.0 mm) are poor
sound absorbers at a low incident sound pressure, though, can be
useful sound barriers at a high incident sound pressure [9]. An
investigation on the sound absorption performance of a micro-
perforated sandwich panel, built with a perforated HC-corrugation
hybrid core, has depicted that the face sheets play the key role
in sound absorption, while the effect of corrugation on sound
absorption is less significant [10]. A better acoustic comfort can be
obtained by reducing the core height and increasing the face sheet
thickness of a sandwich panel [11]. Though, the acoustic response
is not sensitive to the cell size of a HC core [11].
Partially reticulated polyurethane foam (the so-called smart
foam) effectively dampens the vibration of sandwich structures
[12]. To attenuate noise inside a crew cabin, Liu et al. preferred
porous sound absorbing materials for fuselage sidewalls [13]. It
has been found that an impervious screen on a foam assembly in-
creases the normal impedance sound absorption coefficient [14].
The resonant amplitudes of vibro-acoustic responses can be sig-
nificantly reduced by filling the empty space of a truss core with
polyurethane foam [15]. Foam filling also reduces the overall trans-
mitted sound power level [15]. Particles of fir sawdust or fibers of
beech sawdust, used as reinforcing materials inside polyurethane
foam, ensure a good sound absorption [16]. Sandwich panels, con-
stituted by two aluminum (Al) face sheets and a foamed Al-core,
guarantee a high acoustical insulation and an appreciable vibration
damping [17].
Arunkumar et al. found that the high stiffness and the inherent
material damping of fiber-reinforced plastic face sheets enhance
the STL of a sandwich panel [18]. The STL experiments conducted
by Chao and Fai showed that the replacement of glass-reinforced
silicon-calcium face sheets with glass-reinforced concrete face
sheets leverages a better STL in the low-frequency regime [6].
Thicker face sheets shift the resonances of a sandwich panel to
higher frequencies, while a thicker core filled with a magnetorheo-
logical fluid brings down the resonances to lower frequencies [19].
Wood-waste tire rubber composite face sheets offer better sound
insulation properties [20].
Stiffeners on composite face sheets of a sandwich panel atten-
uate the sound radiation [21]. Visco-elastic patches bonded to a
structure decrease the radiated noise with the aid of mass and lo-
cal damping effects [22]. Metamaterial sandwich panels with at-
tached resonators can reduce the sound- transmission and radia-
tion [23]. Nanofibrous materials in a sandwich panel have good po-
tential of low-frequency noise reduction [24]. Synthetic fibers with
circular, hollow and triangular cross-sections improve acoustic ab-
sorption properties [24].
The open literature has exhibited an array of experimental stud-
ies on the attenuation of low-frequency noise with the help of
sandwich panels. Yet, as far as the author’s knowledge is con-
cerned, none of those sandwich panels has been conceptualized
to mitigate the high-frequency noise. Even if some sandwich pan-
els were configured to do so, those sandwich configurations have
been confined to company brochures and not been disseminated in
academic and archival literature. Against this backdrop, this study
aimed at developing a series of HC sandwich panels with different
configurations. The sandwich panels were supposed to passively
reduce the sound transmission in the high-frequency regime while
maintaining their mechanical strength. Finally, this study evaluated
the acoustic performance of these developed heterogeneous sand-
wich panels in terms of STL.
To elaborate on the particulars of the conducted STL experi-
ments, the upcoming content of this article is divided into three
sections. First, the ISO-standard procedure of the STL experiments
has been described. Second, the significant outcomes of the STL ex-
134
Journal of Space Safety Engineering 10 (2023) 133–143
periments have been analyzed, and the implications of these out-
comes have been discussed. Third, based on the STL performance,
the optimized sandwich configurations have been proposed. Fi-
nally, conclusions have been outlined.
2. Methodology
The STL experiments had been conducted according to the stan-
dard test method ISO 10140-2. The upcoming discourse delineates
the particulars of the performed STL experiments.
2.1. Test specimens
For the experimental campaign, nineteen sandwich panels with
dissimilar materials, thicknesses and stacking sequences were cho-
sen. Table 1 shows the distinct features of the selected sandwich
panels.
2.2. Material properties
Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate the mechanical properties and the
thickness of material layers of the sandwich panels.
2.3. Manufacturing and mounting the test panels
The material layers of the sandwich panels were stacked in
the required sequence manually and cured in an autoclave for
3 h at a curing temperature of 120 °C under 6 bar pressure.
Rectangular panels were cut afterward using a diamond saw.
Next, aging of the cured sandwich panels was conducted at an
ambient temperature of 24 °C and a relative humidity of 60%
for 3 days to relieve the residual stress of the cured sandwich
panels. Visual inspections revealed no aging-related distortion, and
C-scan exhibited no cracks or cutting-induced delamination inside
the sandwich panels. Even though the outer shell of pressurized
spacecraft compartments has curvilinear shapes, the test panels of
this study were flat for the sake of an uncomplicated panel instal-
lation in the sound transmission suite. The panels were cut into
two sizes: 1540 mm (length) × 1043 mm (cabin height direction),
and 1500 mm (length) × 1051 mm (cabin height direction), and
clamped around their perimeter in a thick rigid mounting frame
made of high-density fiberboard (see Fig. 1). The panel edges were
intended to be fully constrained. Therefore, the sandwich panels
were screwed to the mounting frame to avoid any displacement
or rotation at the panel edges. The mounting frame reduced the
test dimension of the sandwich panels by 5 cm along the panel
perimeter. It is to be noted that all the treatment masses were
applied away from the spatial plane, in which a sandwich panel
was screwed to the supporting frame.
2.4. Dimension of reverberation rooms
The sound transmission suite consisted of two adjacent rever-
beration rooms, which were identified as the sound source- and
the sound receiving room. The two reverberation rooms were sep-
arated from each other by a sandwich panel in-between. Fig. 2
demonstrates the sketch of the sound transmission suite. Room-A
acted as the sound source room, while sound transmitted through
a sandwich panel toward Room-B, the sound receiving room. Two
dimensions of this pair of rooms were not the same or in the ratio
of small whole numbers. The two rooms were so constructed and
arranged that the sandwich panel offered the only sound transmis-
sion path between them. As recommended by the selected ISO test
standard, the volume of the sound source room differed by more
than 10% from that of the sound receiving room.
M.Z. Hasan Journal of Space Safety Engineering 10 (2023) 133–143

Table 1
Stacking sequence, dimension, and mass of the tested sandwich panels.

Panel Stacking sequence Panel Panel dimension Surface mass Panel mass
identifier thickness (in-plane) density [gm/m2 ] [kg]
[mm] [mm × mm]

Sandwich-1 2 × GFRP-6/HC_3 mm/ 2 × GFRP-6/Felt-1/GFRP-6 7.38 1500 × 1051 3794 6.05

Sandwich-2 GFRP-6/HC_3 mm/ 2 × GFRP-6/Felt-1/GFRP-6 7.13 1500 × 1051 3304 5.21
Sandwich-3 GFRP-6/HC_3.6 mm/ 2 × GFRP-2/Felt-1/GFRP-6 7.49 1500 × 1051 2812 4.44
Sandwich-4 GFRP-6/HC_6 mm/GFRP-6 6.50 1500 × 1051 1268 2.0
Sandwich-5 GFRP-4/HC_6 mm/GFRP-4 6.40 1500 × 1051 988 1.56
Sandwich-6 CFRP/HC_3 mm/ CFRP 3.40 1500 × 1051 538 0.85
Sandwich-7 2 × GFRP-6/HC_12.7 mm/ 2 × GFRP-6 13.70 1540 × 1043 2569 4.13
Sandwich-8 2 × GFRP-6/HC_12.7 mm/ 2 × GFRP-6 13.70 1540 × 1043 2569 4.13
Sandwich-9 2 × GFRP-6/HC_12.7 mm/ 2 × GFRP-6 13.70 1540 × 1043 2569 4.13
Sandwich-10 2 × GFRP-6/HC_12.7 mm/ 2 × GFRP-6/LASR 15.34 1540 × 1043 4629 7.43
Sandwich-11 2 × GFRP-6/HC_12.7 mm/ 2 × GFRP-6/LASR 15.34 1540 × 1043 4629 7.43
Sandwich-12 Ultraleather/Al-FOAM/2 × GFRP-6/HC_3 mm/ 11.38 1540 × 1043 5050 8.11
2 × GFRP-6/Felt-1/GFRP-6
Sandwich-13 Ultraleather/Al-FOAM/2 × GFRP-6/HC_3 mm/ 11.38 1540 × 1043 5050 8.11
2 × GFRP-6/Felt-1/GFRP-6
Sandwich-14 Ultraleather/Al-FOAM/2 × GFRP-3/HC_3 mm/ 10.98 1540 × 1043 4175 6.71
2 × GFRP-3/Felt-1/GFRP-3
Sandwich-15 Ultraleather/Al-FOAM/2 × GFRP-3/HC_3 mm/ 10.98 1540 × 1043 4175 6.71
2 × GFRP-3/Felt-1/GFRP-3
Sandwich-16 Ultraleather/Al-FOAM/2 × GFRP-4/HC_3 mm/ 11.13 1540 × 1043 4350 7.0
2 × GFRP-4/Felt-1/GFRP-4
Sandwich-17 Ultraleather /Al-FOAM/2 × GFRP-4/HC_3 mm/ 11.13 1540 × 1043 4350 7.0
2 × GFRP-4/Felt-1/GFRP-4
Sandwich-18 Ultraleather/Al-FOAM/4 × GFRP-6/HC_3 mm/2 × GFRP-6/Felt-1/ 19.7 1540 × 1043 7739 12.43
GFRP-1/Felt-2/damping
Sandwich-19 Ultraleather/Al-FOAM/3 × GFRP-6/HC_3 mm/3 × GFRP-6/Felt-3/ 24.4 1540 × 1043 7006 11.25
GFRP-1

Table 2
Properties and thickness of material layers.

Material Type Thickness Density Compressive Tensile strength Surface mass

identifier [mm] [kg/m3 ] strength (avg.) (avg.) [MPa] density
[MPa] [gm/m²]

HC_3mm Honeycomb (3.175 mm hexagonal cell core) 3 48 Bare: 348.83 144

HC_3.6mm Honeycomb (3.175 mm hexagonal cell core) 3.60 48 Bare: 348.83 172
HC_6mm Honeycomb (3.175 mm hexagonal cell core) 6.00 48 Bare: 348.83 288
HC_12.7mm Honeycomb (3.175 mm hexagonal cell core) 12.70 48 Bare: 348.83 609
GFRP-1 Prepreg (glass fiber-reinforced epoxy) 0.10 1800 180
GFRP-2 Prepreg 0.13 1800 Warp: 394.67 Warp: 258.63 230
Weft: 272.75 Weft: 239.26
GFRP-3 Prepreg 0.17 1800 Warp: 485.07 Warp: 495.79 315
Weft: 427.27 Weft: 481.15
GFRP-4 Prepreg 0.20 1800 350
GFRP-5 Prepreg 0.25 1800 Warp: 500 Warp: 344 490
Weft: 394 Weft: 329
GFRP-6 Prepreg 0.25 1800 Warp: 565.44 Warp: 389.27 490
Weft: 382.56 Weft: 326.02
CFRP Prepreg (carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy) 0.20 1200 Warp: 720 Warp: 976.8 197
Weft: 672 Weft: 919.3
LASR Silicone rubber 1.64 1100 2060
Al-FOAM Closed cells - soft foam 3.00 152.19 0.48 456
Felt-1 Acoustic felt (6 mm compressed to 3.13 mm) 3.13 200 Length: 920 N 1200
Cross: 440 N
Felt-2 Acoustic felt 6.40 90 575
Felt-3 Acoustic felt 15.80 160 2486
Ultraleather Decorative material 1.00 N/A Warp: 99.7 (max) 800
Fill: 84.3 (max)
Damping ISODAMP C-1002 rubber 1.57 920 1.33 9 1444

2.5. Microphone arrangement
The average sound pressure level (SPL) was measured at
twenty-one locations inside each reverberation room. Corre-
spondingly, twenty-one microphones were placed in the sound
source room, while the sound receiving room accommodated also
an identical number of microphones. Twenty-one microphones
occupied three spatial planes normal to the test panel surface.
Seven microphones were allotted per spatial plane accordingly
(see Fig. 3). All microphones were of 13 mm random incidence
pressure field condenser type. The small size microphones did
not distort the diffuse sound field. Pressure field microphones
were chosen instead of free field microphones, since pressure field
microphones do not underestimate the true SPL of a diffuse sound
field and do have comparable sensitivity to any sound incidence
angle. Stationary microphones were at least 1.5 m apart from each
other. Microphone positions were mutually far enough to enable
independent sampling of the diffuse sound field.

135
M.Z. Hasan Journal of Space Safety Engineering 10 (2023) 133–143

Table 3
Mechanical properties of materials.

Material identifier Flexural 45° In-plane shear modulus [MPa] Young’s Young’s Young’s Poisson’s
strength [MPa] modulus, modulus, modulus, ratio
E11 [MPa] E22 [MPa] E33 [MPa]

HC_3mm L-direction (avg.): 42.398 1 1 N/A 0.33

W-direction (avg.): 26.86
HC_3.6mm 1 1 N/A 0.33
HC_6mm 1 1 N/A 0.33
HC_12.7mm 1 1 N/A 0.33
GFRP-1 24,000 6780 N/A
υ 12 = 0.135
GFRP-2 3130 18,000 5080 12,000 υ 12 = 0.10
GFRP-3 Warp: 654.83 4890 25,500 7200 N/A υ 12 = 0.14
GFRP-4 23,000 6500 N/A υ 12 = 0.13
GFRP-5 Warp: 630 4519 25,000 7060 N/A υ 12 = 0.14
GFRP-6 5500 25,000 7060 N/A υ 12 = 0.14
CFRP 5000 50,000 7020 N/A υ 12 = 0.28
Felt-1 0.052707

Fig. 1. A test panel as viewed from the sound source room; 1, 2, and 3 stands for the sandwich panel, the supporting frame, and the baffle, respectively.

In the sound source room, the microphones were more than
2 m away from the sound power sources. The shortest distance
from a microphone to a major extended surface was beyond 1 m.
In the sound receiving room, the microphones were at least 1.5 m
apart from the test panel. In both rooms, two microphones did
not have the same height above the floor. Dissimilar heights of
the microphones allowed sampling the diffuse sound field in as
much of the room volume as possible. Sufficient time for averaging
the sound pressure at each microphone yielded a time-averaged
SPL with an accuracy of ±0.5 dB. Longer averaging times were
needed for low-frequency sounds than for high-frequency ones.
As found, the minimum averaging time was 9.9 s for sounds at
the 125 Hz one-third octave band center frequency (f1/3 ) to reach
the confidence limit of ± 0.5 dB. Keeping the confidence limit,
the minimum averaging time increased to 12.4 s for sounds at
f1/3 = 100 Hz. Prior to the STL experiments, the microphones were
calibrated using an acoustic calibrator, which generated a pre-
defined SPL at a specific frequency at microphone diaphragms.
2.6. Selection of sound sources
high-frequency sounds. Projecting the loudspeakers to the corners
of the sound source room prevented a direct blow of sound pres-
sure on microphone diaphragms. Independent random noise gener-
ators and amplifiers electronically controlled the loudspeaker func-
tion. It is worth noting that a change in the projected direction and
the position of sound power sources may alter the measured val-
ues of STL in the low-frequency regime. As registered by the micro-
phones, the loudspeakers generated a SPL of 103 dB in the sound
source room. The average temperature and relative humidity inside
the sound source- and the sound receiving room were, respectively,
22 ± 2 °C and approximately 30% in the course of STL experiments.
2.7. Calculation
The frequency analysis bandwidth of the STL measurements
chosen was one-third octave. The STL at a specific f1/3 was deter-
mined from:
 
ST Lsavg, f1/3 = SP Lsavg,S, f1/3 − SP Lsavg,R, f1/3 + 10log10 S/AR, f1/3 (1)
where,

In the sound source room, two loudspeakers acted as two refer- ST Lsavg, f1/3 = space-averaged sound transmission loss (in [dB]) at
ence sound power sources, which generated a diffuse sound field a specific f1/3 ;
and unleashed random noise at one-third octave bands over a wide SP Lsavg,S, f1/3 = space-averaged sound pressure level (in [dB]) in
frequency range. Separate loudspeakers were assigned to low- and the sound source room at a specific f1/3 ;

136
M.Z. Hasan Journal of Space Safety Engineering 10 (2023) 133–143

and
 
1  SPLtavg,i(R), f1/3 /10
n
SP Lsavg,R, f1/3 = 10log10 10 (3)
n
i=1

where, SP Ltavg,i(S ), f1/3 and SP Ltavg,i(R ), f1/3 were the time-averaged

SPL (in [dB]) at microphone (i) of the sound source- and the sound
receiving room, respectively, at a specific f1/3 ; n denoted the total
number of microphones.
AR, f1/3 was kept as small as possible to ensure an ideal diffuse
sound field and to minimize the room surface area directly im-
pacted by the sound field transmitted through the sandwich panel.
For the frequency envelope between 20 0 0/V1/3 Hz and 20 0 0 Hz,
AR, f1/3 did not surpass:

AR, f1/3 = V 2/3 /3 (4)

where, V = volume (in [m3 ])
of the sound receiving room.
For f1/3 > 20 0 0 Hz, AR, f1/3 could not be greater than 1.5 times
the value deduced from Eq. (4).
Of note, the STL was measured at one-third octave band cen-
ter frequencies shown in Tables 4 and 5. For countable STL experi-
ments, the highest cut-off f1/3 was 5 kHz. Because, occasionally at
f1/3 > 5 kHz, the spurious white noise amplitude in the output sig-
nal was many times higher than the actual sound wave fluctuation
about the average sound pressure.
For complete rebuilds of the test panels, the repeatability stan-
dard deviation of SPL measurements ranged from 1.5 dB to 3.5 dB
Fig. 2. Sketch of the sound source- and the sound receiving room; the room di-
mension is in mm. in the frequency regime from 100 Hz to 10 kHz for a continuous
time frame without major changes in the temperature of the sound
transmission suite. This repeatability standard deviation considered
SP Lsavg,R, f1/3 = space-averaged sound pressure level (in [dB]) in usual variations in the material properties of comparable sandwich
the sound receiving room at a specific f1/3 ; panels, but minimal changes in the panel construction and assem-
S = area (in [m2 ]) of the test panel exposed to the sound field bly. Also, take notice that the sound diffraction because of the fi-
pressure of the sound receiving room, and nite size of the baffle had a negligible impact on the SPL, as de-
AR, f1/3 = sound absorption area (in [m2 ]) of the sound receiving picted by an increase of approximately 3 dB in the SPL close to the
baffle surface on the sound source side.
room at a specific f1/3 , with the test panel mounted on the
Of note, the Schroeder cut-off frequency of the sound source-
rigid frame.
and the sound receiving room was 619 Hz and 657 Hz, respectively.
These Schroeder frequency bands were within the selected fre-
SP Lsavg,S, f1/3 and SP Lsavg,R, f1/3 at a specific f1/3 were inferred
quency range of interest shown in Tables 4 and 5. Normal modes
from: (resonances) of the sound transmission suite should have appeared
  at frequencies below 657 Hz and as a result, a purely reverberant
1  SPLtavg,i(S), f1/3 /10
n
SP Lsavg,S, f1/3 = 10log10 10 (2) diffusive sound field should have merely been possible at frequen-
n cies below the Schroeder ones. It needs, however, to be mentioned
i=1

Fig. 3. Location of the microphones and loudspeakers in the sound transmission suite.

137
M.Z. Hasan
Table 4
One-third octave band center frequencies.
f1/3 [Hz] 100 125 160
log10 (f1/3 ) 2 2.09 2.20
Table 5
The next standing one-third octave band center frequencies.
f1/3 [Hz] 1250 1600 2000
log10 (f1/3 ) 3.09 3.20 3.30
that the ratio of the largest to the smallest dimension of the sound
reverberation rooms was less than two to avoid room resonances
in the low-frequency regime. Uncorrelated noise signals were pre-
ferred for the two loudspeakers to reduce the spatial gradient of
SPL in the sound source room. In addition, the sound absoption
area of the sound receiving room was kept as small as possible
to ensure an ideal diffuse sound field and to minimize the surface
area directly impacted by the sound field transmitted through the
sandwich panel. The sound field generated in the low-frequency
regime, therefore, was diffusion-dominated, not room resonance-
dominated.
3. Results and discussion
High stiffness-to-mass ratio materials force the resonance fre-
quencies of a sandwich panel to two to four times the original res-
onance frequencies based on the material properties and the panel
dimension. Subsequently, the upward shifted resonance frequen-
cies do not coincide with the frequencies of the strongest harmon-
ics in the low-frequency regime. In spite of the detrimental impact
of the strongest harmonics on sound radiation, conventional noise
attenuation treatments, such as acoustic blankets, can effectively
dissipate the sound energy into thermal energy.
To exhibit this positive effect of passive treatments on sound
attenuation, Sections 3.1–3.6 exemplify the STL of dissimilar sand-
wich configurations as a function of f1/3 .
3.1. STL at structural resonance and anti-symmetric coincidence
Fig. 4 demonstrates the STL performance of sandwich panels
(1–3). As seen, first, the STL of sandwich panel-1 increased to ap-
proximately 12.5 dB at f1/3 = 160 Hz. Next, the STL experienced
a sudden drop to about 11.7 dB at f1/3 = 200 Hz, which corre-
sponded to the first structural resonance frequency of sandwich
panel-1. The resonance-committed bump in the STL implies that
Fig. 4. Sound transmission loss of sandwich panels (1–3).
Journal of Space Safety Engineering 10 (2023) 133–143
200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1000
2.30 2.39 2.49 2.60 2.69 2.79 2.90 3
2500 3150 4000 5000 6300 8000 10,000
3.39 3.49 3.60 3.69 3.79 3.90 4
the acoustic excitation-induced structural waves constructively in-
terfered with the waves reflected from the panel boundaries. In
correspondence, the sandwich panel was nearly transparent to
sound at the resonance frequency. After the resonance-committed
STL dip, the STL steadily increased with the increasing frequency
(up to f1/3 = 5 kHz), manifesting into an extended mass law-
controlled region. For f1/3 > 5 kHz, the STL of sandwich panel-1
tended to decrease.
In an identical trend, a decline in the STL of sandwich pan-
els (2–3) appeared at their first structural resonance frequency of
200 Hz. After the resonant effect, sandwich panels (2–3) rapidly
returned to the mass law behavior (between 250 Hz and 4 kHz).
Finally, another resonant-like effect, the so-called anti-symmetric
(flexural) coincidence, made itself felt at f1/3 = 6.3 kHz. This co-
incidence was coined as anti-symmetric attributed to the anti-
symmetric flexural motion of composite face sheets (the later mo-
tion of composite face sheets was in phase) with respect to the
middle plane of the sandwich panel. The anti-symmetric coinci-
dence induced a stronger dip in the STL to 21.3 dB at f1/3 = 6.3 kHz
compared to the STL of 26.9 dB at f1/3 = 4 kHz, due to the fact that
at f1/3 = 6.3 kHz, the acoustic wavenumber matched the flexural
wavenumber, and the velocity of bending waves in the sandwich
panels was sonic [25–27].
It is worth pointing out that the mass of sandwich panels (2–3)
was lower than that of sandwich panel-1 (see Table 1). The lower
mass translated into a reduced mass impedance to dynamic loads.
As a result, the STL performance of sandwich panels (2–3) was
inferior to that of sandwich panel-1 in the mass law-controlled
region. These experimental outcomes suggest that sandwich pan-
els (2–3) were not the suitable candidates to attenuate the sound
transmission at frequencies beyond 3.15 kHz.
3.2. Effect of HC core thickness on coincidence frequency and STL
Similar to the STL of sandwich panels (1–3), the STL of sand-
wich panels (4–6) increased from about 4.8 dB to 6.85 dB with fre-
quency from 100 Hz to 160 Hz (see Fig. 5), due to the HC stiffening
of the sandwich panels. The STL of sandwich panels (4–6) suffered
a drop to about 4.6 dB at the first structural resonance frequency
of 200 Hz. At f1/3 = 400 Hz, the second structural resonance ap-
peared. The shallow STL dip at the second structural resonance
frequency was due to the finite size of the sandwich panels com-
pared to the wavelength of structural waves. The shallow STL dip
also suggests that the primary structural wavenumber component
and the panel deformation modes were insufficient at the second
structural resonance. Beyond the resonance controlled region, the
STL entered the mass law-controlled region between 250 Hz and
1.6 kHz, wherein the STL increased at a rate of 4 dB per doubling
the f1/3 . For f1/3 > 1.6 kHz, the STL of sandwich panels (4–5) de-
creased below the STL of the mass law-controlled region ascribed
to flexural coincidence.
If compared with the STL of sandwich panels (4–5), sandwich
panel-6 retained a STL of 13.35 dB at f1/3 = 1 kHz. When f1/3 in-
creased from 1.25 kHz to 3.15 kHz, the STL of sandwich panel-6
138
M.Z. Hasan
Fig. 5. Sound transmission loss of sandwich panels (4–6).
suffered a drop from 12.98 dB to 10.68 dB. For f1/3 > 4 kHz, the STL
of sandwich panel-6 increased steadily, surpassed the STL of the
mass law-controlled region, and reached 17.4 dB at f1/3 = 10 kHz.
Wave filtering effects provided such enhancements to the STL per-
formance of sandwich panel-6 in the high-frequency regime. Wave
filtering surfaced in the form of partial acoustic band gaps courtesy
of the spatial periodicity of hexagonal unit cells of the HC core.
The partial band gaps invoked a reduction (typically by 41%) in the
transmitted sound pressure, since acoustic waves with frequencies
falling within these partial band gaps were forbidden to travel in
certain directions. Consequently, the STL of sandwich panel-6 in-
creased by 6.3 dB, as f1/3 increased from 4 kHz to 10 kHz. It needs
to be mentioned that the human auditory system can easily notice
a more than 2 dB STL variation.
It is worthy to mention here that the HC core of sandwich pan-
els (4–5) was 3 mm thicker than the HC core of sandwich pan-
els (2–3). The 3 mm thicker HC core-induced higher bending stiff-
ness pushed down the anti-symmetric coincidence frequency from
6.3 kHz (of sandwich panels (2–3)) to 5 kHz (of sandwich panels
(4–5)), which also adversely affected the STL of sandwich panels
(4–5) (as exhibited by the STL of about 12.95 dB of sandwich pan-
els (4–5) at 5 kHz compared to the STL of approximately 21.28 dB
of sandwich panels (2–3) at 6.3 kHz). In addition, the approxi-
mately 2.7 times lower mass of sandwich panels (4–5) (compared
to that of sandwich panels (2–3)) promoted a strong panel excita-
tion at f1/3 = 5 kHz.
It is of interest to note that the mass law-dominated frequency
bandwidth of sandwich panels (4–6) was relatively narrow com-
pared to that of sandwich panels (1–3), since the mass of sandwich
panels (4–6) was approximately 0.3 times the mass of sandwich
panels (1–3). Attributed to the comparatively lower mass, the STL
of sandwich panels (4–6) degraded below that of sandwich panels
(1–3) in the mass law-controlled region. However, the mass law-
dominated STL of sandwich panels (4–6) can be improved using
air cavities or noise absorbing materials.
Apart from that, the STL of sandwich panels (4–5) was on an av-
erage 8.2 dB lower than the STL of sandwich panels (2–3). Looking
at the material lay-out, the 3 mm thick HC core of sandwich pan-
els (2–3) was inserted between a 3.13 mm thick felt and 0.25 mm
thick glass fiber-reinforced epoxy (GFRP) face sheets. In sandwich
panels (4–5), no felt was used, while the 0.2 mm to 0.25 mm thick
GFRP face sheets enclosed the hexagonal unit cells of the 6 mm
thick HC core. The absence of felts in sandwich panels (4–5) did
not lead to an increase, but to a decline in the STL, since sound
reflections on the felt surface and the viscous loss in the felt in-
terstices were missing for sandwich panels (4–5). Furthermore, the
comparatively 6.6 times higher bending stiffness-to-mass ratio of
sandwich panels (4–5) caused overlapping of the velocity of bend-
139
Journal of Space Safety Engineering 10 (2023) 133–143
Fig. 6. Sound transmission loss of sandwich panels (7–9).
ing waves in the panels with the velocity of acoustic waves in air
medium within the frequency range of interest. As follows, higher
levels of transmitted sound pressure were measured in the sound
receiving room for sound barriers like sandwich panels (4–5).
3.3. Effect of panel- mass and symmetry on STL
The approximately 2.8 times larger mass of sandwich panels (8–
9), in comparison to the mass of sandwich panels (4–6), shifted
down the first structural resonance frequency of sandwich panels
(8–9) to about 125 Hz (compared to the first structural resonance
frequency of 200 Hz of sandwich panels (4–6)). On top of that, for
sandwich panel-9, a sharp decline in the STL to 9.75 dB centered at
the first resonance frequency of 125 Hz (see Fig. 6). Next, the STL
of sandwich panel-9 ascended to 13.7 dB at f1/3 = 200 Hz courtesy
of the anti-resonant phenomenon, before embracing a weak dip to
12.43 dB at the second structural resonance frequency of 250 Hz.
Below the first structural resonance frequency, sandwich panel-9
was in the stiffness controlled region.
In the mass law-controlled region from 315 Hz to 1 kHz, the STL
of sandwich panel-9 increased near steadily and reached 18.65 dB
at f1/3 = 1 kHz. In the critical frequency region from 1 kHz to
2.5 kHz, the STL degraded below the STL of the mass law-controlled
region. As found, the STL of sandwich panel-9 drastically reduced
from 18.65 dB at f1/3 = 1 kHz to 15.85 dB at f1/3 = 2.5 kHz (the
flexural coincidence frequency), curving into a strong wide STL dip.
For f1/3 > 2.5 kHz, the STL of sandwich panel-9 steeply increased
attributed to the inter-laminar shear and the partial band gaps in
the frequency region between 3.15 kHz and 5 kHz.
The STL history of sandwich panel-8 assimilated the STL his-
tory of sandwich panel-9 within the frequency range of interest.
It was seen for sandwich panel-8 that following the STL peak of
approximately 18.65 dB at f1/3 = 100 Hz, the first narrow STL dip
to 12.27 dB appeared at the first structural resonance frequency of
125 Hz. Next, a distinct increase in the STL to 14.71 dB was ap-
parent at f1/3 = 200 Hz. This increase in the STL achieved by the
action of the anti-resonant effect was reduced by the weak dip in
the STL to approximately 13.72 dB at the second structural reso-
nance frequency of 250 Hz. Similar to the STL of sandwich panel-9,
an increase in the STL of sandwich panel-8 was noticeable in the
mass law-controlled region between 315 Hz and 1 kHz. As found,
at f1/3 = 1 kHz, the STL of sandwich panel-8 reached the second
peak of 17.76 dB. Thereafter, in the critical frequency regime from
1.25 kHz to 2.5 kHz, a nonlinear decrease in the STL of sandwich
panel-8 had been visibly distinct. The anti-symmetric coincidence
at f1/3 = 2.5 kHz brought down the STL of sandwich panel-8 to
14.73 dB. From 2.5 kHz onward, the STL of sandwich panel-8 ex-
M.Z. Hasan
perienced a steep increase, similar to the STL increase of sandwich
panel-9.
Considering the STL-frequency relationship of sandwich panels
(8–9), no signs of a stochastic response had been identified, and
the acoustic response of sandwich panel-8 articulated the acoustic
response of sandwich panel-9. In comparison, the STL of sandwich
panel-7 traversed through multiple peaks and troughs courtesy of
structural resonances (the first resonance at 250 Hz and the second
resonance at 630 Hz), mode concentration (at f1/3 = 1 kHz), partial
band gaps (between 2.5 kHz and 4 kHz), anti-symmetric (flexu-
ral) coincidence (at f1/3 = 2 kHz), and symmetric (dilatational) co-
incidence (at f1/3 = 8 kHz, when the lateral motion of composite
face sheets was in anti-phase). At the anti-symmetric coincidence,
an appreciable transmission of acoustic energy took place. Subse-
quent coincidences at frequencies above the anti-symmetric coin-
cidence frequency occurred with a gradually reduced transmission
of acoustic energy, which were synonymous with the symmetric
coincidence [25].
Since a perfect symmetry of sandwich panel-7 with respect to
its middle plane could merely be ensured, the symmetric- and the
anti-symmetric deformation mode were coupled to each other. The
symmetric deformation mode included stretching and compres-
sion of the sandwich core due to the out-of-phase flexural mo-
tion of composite face sheets, while the anti-symmetric deforma-
tion mode had been a core flexural mode attributed to the in-
phase flexural motion of composite face sheets. It is also necessary
to emphasize that the 12.7 mm thick HC core reinforced the out-
of-plane bending stiffness of sandwich panels (7–9), introduced a
wider gap between the composite face sheets, and housed a large
volume of air inside the enclosed hexagonal unit cells. In rela-
tion, a stronger standing acoustic wave was generated inside the
entrapped air medium, which induced sharper dips in the STL of
sandwich panels (7–9) at the resonance and coincidence frequen-
cies compared to the STL dips at the corresponding frequencies of
other sandwich configurations.
Most noticeably, the acoustic response of sandwich panel-7 de-
viated strongly from that of sandwich panels (8–9), although, sand-
wich panels (7–9) were mutually identical in configuration and
boundary condition at the time of the STL experiments. Despite
these selfsame features, the STL curves of sandwich panels (7–9)
did not collapse on the same line. This outcome implies that the
autoclave manufacturing process imparted some sort of randomic-
ity to the dynamic stiffness, areal mass density and inter-laminar
connectivity of sandwich panels (7–9), ultimately stalling the re-
production of the STL of these sandwich panels.
The previous discussion has emphasized that symmetric and
anti-symmetric coincidences within the audible frequency range
are troublesome, as they reinforce the sound transmission. The co-
incidence phenomenon depends on the incompressibility and the
transverse shear stiffness of a sandwich core. A sandwich core
with a high compressive stiffness places the symmetric coinci-
dence frequency of a sandwich panel well above the chosen fre-
quency range of interest, while a sandwich core with a high trans-
verse shear stiffness helps the anti-symmetric flexural motion of
composite face sheets to excite within the contemplated frequency
range of interest. The anti-symmetric flexural motion of compos-
ite face sheets can be tapered off using high frictional damping or
attached layers of external damping, which will smoothen out the
coincidence-induced STL dip. Unfortunately, the salutary effect of
attached damping layers on the attenuation of radiated noise car-
ries with it the penalty of a higher areal mass density of a sand-
wich panel.
By contrast, a sandwich core soft under compression cancels
out the symmetric- and the anti-symmetric deformation mode of a
sandwich panel from a frequency range by placing the double-wall
resonance below the frequency range of interest. A reduction in the
140
Journal of Space Safety Engineering 10 (2023) 133–143
Fig. 7. Sound transmission loss of sandwich panels (10–11).
core compressive stiffness, nonetheless, undermines the sandwich
effect that demands a constant face sheet separation.
3.4. Effect of a silicone rubber layer on STL
Fig. 7 shows that the STL of sandwich panels (10–11) increased
to the first peak of approximately 18.7 dB at f1/3 = 100 Hz, fol-
lowed by an immediate drop to approximately 14.3 dB at the first
structural resonance frequency of 125 Hz. Next, at f1/3 = 160 Hz,
the STL of sandwich panels (10–11) increased to about 17.8 dB due
to the anti-resonant effect. Afterward, the STL experienced a shal-
low dip to approximately 16.6 dB at the second structural reso-
nance frequency of about 200 Hz.
It needs to be mentioned that at structural resonances of the
sandwich panels, the wavelength of structural waves became of
the order of the hexagonal unit cell dimension of the HC core, the
intra-cell resonance of the HC core contributed to the STL dips,
and the composite face sheets were in the bending mode while
the core remained almost undeformed. By comparison, at the anti-
resonance frequency, deformations were mostly localized in the
core, as corroborated by the narrow STL peak.
The degradation of the STL in the resonance region was recov-
ered by a steady increase in the STL over the mass law-controlled
region confined between 250 Hz and 1.25 kHz. At f1/3 = 1.25 kHz,
the STL of sandwich panels (10–11) peaked at about 27.8 dB. In
the critical frequency regime between 1.6 kHz and 2.5 kHz, the
unfavorable impact of anti-symmetric coincidence on the STL of
sandwich panels (10–11) was discernible. Yet, the STL dip of sand-
wich panels (10–11) was not as striking as the STL dip of sand-
wich panels (7–9) at the anti-symmetric coincidence frequency of
2.5 kHz. Sandwich panel-10 leveraged a higher than the mass law-
dominated STL in the high-frequency regime, as noticeable by an
appreciable STL of 34.7 dB at f1/3 = 10 kHz.
The symmetric coincidence and the double-wall resonance of
sandwich panels (10–11) happened to be at frequencies higher
than the contemplated highest frequency limit of interest. The pos-
sible explanation for that is, the HC core of these panels was
highly stiff under out-of-plane compression. Nonetheless, the sil-
icone rubber layer in the material lay-up simultaneously made
sandwich panels (10–11) soft under transverse shear. The shear
wave velocity in sandwich panels (10–11), thus, was relatively
lower than the velocity of acoustic waves in air medium. Sandwich
panels (10–11), correspondingly, favored shear waves rather than
dilatational waves. Concomitant with the sub-sonic shear wave ve-
locity, the high out-of-plane compressive stiffness of these sand-
wich panels delayed the onset of symmetric coincidence to higher
frequencies and extended the mass law-controlled region.
M.Z. Hasan
Fig. 8. Sound transmission loss of sandwich panels (12–17).
Considering the acoustic performance over the entire frequency
regime, an average increase of 9.1 dB in the STL could be achieved
by using sandwich panels (10–11) in place of sandwich panels (7–
9). It is of interest to point out that sandwich panels (10–11) were
comparable to each other in terms of their STL performance. The
comparable STL performance suggests that the autoclave manu-
facturing process did not induce odd spatial variations in the dy-
namic stiffness, areal mass density and inter-laminar connectivity
of sandwich panels (10–11), opposite to what had been observed
for sandwich panels (7–9). On top of that readers are requested
to note that sandwich panels (10–11) had a 1.64 mm thick silicone
rubber layer in the material lay-up, despite being identical to sand-
wich panels (7–9) in all other aspects. The silicone rubber layer
added limp mass and visco-elasticity to the stiff sandwich panels
(10–11). The visco-elastic silicone membrane enriched and broad-
ened the STL values in the proximity of structural resonances and
anti-symmetric coincidence.
3.5. Effect of GFRP ply thickness on STL
The sound attenuation performance of sandwich panels (12–
17) showed that the STL degraded to approximately 11.9 dB at
the first structural resonance frequency of 125 Hz, before non-
linearly increasing to about 31.5 dB at f1/3 = 2.5 kHz (see Fig. 8).
For f1/3 > 2.5 kHz, the STL approached toward an asymptote. It
is of note that sandwich panels (12–13) had GFRP face sheets of
0.25 mm ply thickness. By contrast, the GFRP face sheets of sand-
wich panels (14–15) and (16–17) had 0.17 mm and 0.2 mm thick
plies, respectively. The change in GFRP ply thickness, however, did
not inscribe an appreciable variation in the STL of these sandwich
panels.
It is to be highlighted that sandwich panels (12–17) had three
sound absorbing layers, i.e., a closed cell Al-foam (3 mm thick),
a HC core (3 mm thick), and a felt (3.13 mm thick). Besides, a
decorative 1 mm thick ultra-leather skin was used to wrap the
sound transmitting surface of these sandwich panels. As a result,
sandwich panels (12–17) retained a substantial STL in the high-
frequency regime (approximately 32.3 dB at f1/3 = 5 kHz). The
peaks and troughs in the STL curves of sandwich panels (12–17)
were also relatively less than what had been observed in the STL
histories of other sandwich panels. The near uninterrupted upsurge
of the STL of sandwich panels (12–17) with the increasing fre-
quency implies that the wavelength of structural waves got smaller
as the frequency increased, and most of the energy of structural
waves was damped by the inserted sound absorbing layers before
these waves reached the panel boundaries. As a consequence, the
wave reflections became less significant with the increase in ex-
citation frequency. The sandwich panels eventually became non-
141
Journal of Space Safety Engineering 10 (2023) 133–143
Fig. 9. Sound transmission loss of sandwich panels (18–19).
reverberant, and the peaks and troughs in the STL history emerged
to be less prominent and barely discernible at higher frequencies.
It is of particular interest to note that the modal density (the
number of natural modes per unit frequency) and the modal over-
lap increase with the increasing frequency. As well known, modal
overlaps adversely affect the STL. Since no abrupt decline in the
STL of sandwich panels (12–17) appeared within the selected fre-
quency regime, modal overlaps for sandwich panels (12–17) were
supposed to occur at frequencies higher than 5 kHz.
3.6. Effect of thick felts and a closed cell Al-foam on STL
Since the mass-saving composite laminates of the outer shell
promote higher levels of noise inside spacecraft, sandwich panel-
18 had an additional 6.4 mm thick felt and a 1.57 mm thick rub-
ber damping in the material lay-up compared to the material lay-
ers of sandwich panels (12–17). The purpose of applying a rub-
ber damping layer was to add idle mass to the sandwich panels
and to taper off the panel vibration, which enhanced the STL in
the mass law-controlled region between 500 Hz and 1.6 kHz (see
Fig. 9). In addition, the thick felt converted the acoustic energy that
penetrated the material into thermal energy by virtue of viscous
shear at fiber-air interfaces when the frequency of sound reached
500 Hz or beyond. As a result, the STL succumbed to an increase
of 13.96 dB for the shift of f1/3 from 500 Hz to 1.6 kHz. Finally, the
STL reached 51.6 dB at f1/3 = 5 kHz.
To mention, the STL of sandwich panel-18 suffered a decline of
5.05 dB at the first structural resonance frequency of 250 Hz, in
comparison to the STL of 30.9 dB at f1/3 = 160 Hz. Next, the second
structural resonance frequency of 400 Hz induced a sharp dip in
the STL to 19.9 dB. The third shallow STL dip to 36.2 dB was notice-
able at the transition frequency of 1 kHz, followed by the fourth
palpable STL dip to 38.5 dB at the flexural coincidence frequency
of 2 kHz. For f1/3 > 2 kHz, the STL insisted on a steady increase
courtesy of the inter-laminar shear of material layers, dampening
and absorption of acoustic energy by the closed cell Al-foam and
the rubber damping layer, and the viscous loss of acoustic energy
inside the felt.
It is required to accentuate that attributed to the pass- and stop
band characteristics of elastic wave transmission, mode concentra-
tion was expected at the transition from global to local modes of
panel deformation. The panel response at the transition frequency,
as a result, encompassed contributions from more than one defor-
mation mode. In this context, mode concentration might have been
responsible for the STL dip at the transition frequency.
Compared to sandwich panel-18, sandwich panel-19 had no
rubber damping, but accommodated the thickest (15.8 mm thick)
M.Z. Hasan
felt, which was 6.27 mm thicker than the 9.53 mm thick two-
layered felt of sandwich panel-18. In both sandwich panels, the
GFRP laminates occupied 1.6 mm of the panel thickness. The thick-
est felt in sandwich panel-19 reinforced the STL to 34.0, 44.9 and
60.55 dB at the 2, 5 and 10 kHz one-third octave band center fre-
quencies, respectively. Yet, the average STL of sandwich panel-19
was 7.0 dB lower than that of sandwich panel-18, hinting at the
missing contribution of the rubber damping layer to the STL of
sandwich panel-19.
Fig. 9 also demonstrates the required STL, which the sandwich
panels were designed to leverage. It can be seen that sandwich
panel-18 delivered the STL demanded in the low-frequency regime
between 100 Hz and 1 kHz. Beyond 1 kHz, sandwich panel-18
leveraged a STL that tended toward the required STL. Yet, the STL
of sandwich panel-18 was not satisfactory in the high-frequency
regime beyond 1.6 kHz. By contrast, the STL performance of sand-
wich panel-19 satisfied the criteria up to the frequency band of
630 Hz. However, the STL of sandwich-19 was far below the re-
quired STL at frequencies beyond 630 Hz.
Now if compared to the acoustic performance of other sand-
wich configurations, a better STL within the selected frequency
range of interest and the highest STL at frequencies beyond 2 kHz
could be achieved using sandwich panels (18–19). Since sandwich
panels (18–19) were asymmetric in stacking sequence, their bend-
ing stiffness did not decline rapidly with the increasing frequency,
which was opposite to the drastic decrease in the bending stiff-
ness of symmetric sandwich panels (i.e., sandwich panels (4–9)) in
the high-frequency regime. Thus, the velocity level differences be-
tween the GFRP laminates of sandwich panels (18–19) increased
the STL at frequencies beyond 2 kHz. In addition, as sandwich pan-
els (18–19) had a relatively thicker core, the lateral motion of the
entire panels was influenced by the shear and rotation of the core.
This additional deformation of the core augmented the total loss
factor of the sandwich panels and in relation, reinforced the STL
in the high-frequency regime. These findings of this study were in
line with the observation of Nilsson [26]. Since sandwich panels
(18–19) attenuated the sound transmission within a broad band-
width of frequency, these sandwich panels will be the right can-
didates for the outer structure of crew compartments and pay-
load modules to ensure crew comfort and integrity of embarked
payloads.
4. Conclusion
Launch of a space vehicle has to consider the noise effect,
which can impact the success of a space mission. To mitigate
the noise transmission, this study favored the sandwich acoustic
barrier concept and highlighted the major design variables of a
sandwich panel that influence the STL. A standard experimental
method involving a diffuse sound field was employed to assess
the STL performance of dissimilar sandwich panels. It is worth
noting that, in a “real-world” environment, the spatio-temporal
distribution of sound pressure may not be uniform. Hundreds of
measurements (acoustics and vibrations) need to be performed
on the launch pad and during ascent and descent to map a
statistically reliable sound pressure distribution, and this mapped
sound pressure distribution needs to be used as a sound source
to interrogate the real STL of a sandwich panel. Considering these
matters, the experimental approach of this study seems simplified.
Yet, the outcomes of this study will aid in setting up design guide-
lines for the successful development of sandwich panels able to
mitigate noise both in the low-frequency- and the high-frequency
regime.
It is also worth mentioning that the STL plots of thin compos-
ite sandwich panels of this study did not emulate the classical
STL plots of metallic sandwich panels. Besides, the coincidence
142
Journal of Space Safety Engineering 10 (2023) 133–143
frequency of composite sandwich panels differed from that of
metallic sandwich panels for a comparable panel thickness. Taking
these into consideration, analyzing the STL of the enlisted compos-
ite sandwich panels with the help of classical theories of acoustics
can yield counterintuitive observations, since classical theories to
date have been validated using benchmark STL studies on metallic
panels. It is, therefore, commendable to bring more variations in
the design of composite sandwich panels and to conduct further
STL experiments in order to complement and compliment the
findings of this study.
Funding information
This study was funded by the Bangladesh Air Force (BAF)
Academy, BAF, Bangladesh.
Declarations of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interests.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Md Zahid Hasan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Investigation, Valida-
tion, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in
this published article.
Acknowledgments
The author sincerely acknowledges the critical and stimulat-
ing discussions with his colleagues. The author is also grateful to
the anonymous reviewers for their interest and helpful suggestions
that helped uplift the quality of this manuscript.
References
[1] M.D. Rao, Recent applications of vibroelastic damping for noise control in
automobiles and commercial airplanes, J. Sound Vib. 262 (2003) 457–474,
doi:10.1016/S0 022-460X(03)0 0106-8.
[2] K. Idrisi, et al., A study on the characteristics behavior of mass inclusions
added to a poro-elastic layer, J. Sound Vib. 329 (2010) 4136–4148, doi:10.1016/
j.jsv.2010.04.001.
[3] B. Claude, et al., Study of damped vibrations of a vibroacoustic interior prob-
lem with vibroelastic sandwich structure using high order Newton solver, J.
Sound Vib. 462 (2019) 114947, doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2019.114947.
[4] R. Ye, et al., Sound transmission characteristics of a composite sandwich panel
using multi-layer first-order zigzag theory, Thin Walled Struct. 179 (2022)
109607, doi:10.1016/j.tws.2022.109607.
[5] F.W. Grosveld, J.S. Mixson, Noise transmission through an acoustically treated
and honeycomb-stiffened aircraft sidewall, J. Aircraft 22 (5) (1985) 434–440,
doi:10.2514/3.45143.
[6] H.W. Chao, N.C. Fai, Sound insulation improvement using honeycomb sandwich
panels, Appl. Acoust. 53 (1–3) (1998) 163–177, doi:10.1016/S0 0 03-682X(97)
0 0 033-9.
[7] D.W. Wang, L. Ma, Z.H. Wen, Sound transmission through a sandwich struc-
ture with two-layered pyramidal core and cavity absorption, J. Sound Vib. 459
(2019) 114853, doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2019.114853.
[8] T. Bravo, C. Maury, C. Pinhede, Optimising the absorption and transmission
properties of aircraft microperforated panels, Applied Acoustics 79 (2014) 47–
57, doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2013.12.009.
[9] A.H. Park, A design method of micro-perforated panel absorber at high sound
pressure environment in launcher fairings, J. Sound Vib. 332 (2013) 521–535,
doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2012.09.015.
[10] Y. Tang, et al., Sound absorption of micro-perforated sandwich panel with hon-
eycomb corrugation hybrid core at high temperatures, Compos. Struct. 226
(2019) 111285, doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111285.
[11] M.P. Arunkumar, et al., Influence of nature of core on vibro acoustic behav-
ior of sandwich aerospace structures, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 56 (2016) 155–167,
doi:10.1016/j.ast.2016.07.009.
M.Z. Hasan
[12] C. Guigou, C.R. Fuller, Control of aircraft interior broadband noise with foam-
PVDF smart skin, J. Sound Vib. 220 (3) (1999) 541–557, doi:10.1006/jsvi.1998.
1972.
[13] Z. Liu, M. Fard, J.L. Davy, Prediction of the acoustic effect of an interior trim
porous material inside a rigid-walled car air cavity model, Appl. Acoust. 165
(2020) 107325, doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2020.107325.
[14] N. Atalla, F. Sgard, Modeling of perforated plates and screens using rigid frame
porous models, J. Sound Vib. 303 (2007) 195–208, doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2007.01.012.
[15] M.P. Arunkumar, et al., Vibro-acoustic response and sound transmission loss
characteristics of truss core sandwich panel filled with foam, Aerosp. Sci. Tech-
nol. 78 (2018) 1–11, doi:10.1016/j.ast.2018.03.029.
[16] A.E. Tiuc, et al., New sound absorbent composite materials based on sawdust
and polyurethane foam, Compos. Part B: Eng. 165 (2019) 120–130, doi:10.1016/
j.compositesb.2018.11.103.
[17] G. Petrone, et al., Numerical and experimental investigations on the acous-
tic power radiated by aluminum foam sandwich panels, Compos. Struct. 118
(2014) 170–177, doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.07.031.
[18] M.P. Arunkumar, et al., Sound radiation and transmission loss characteristics of
a honeycomb sandwich panel with composite facings: effect of inherent mate-
rial damping, J. Sound Vib. 383 (2016) 221–232, doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2016.07.028.
[19] M. Hemmatian, R. Sedaghati, Sound transmission analysis of MR fluid based-
circular sandwich panels: experimental and finite element analysis, J. Sound
Vib. 408 (2017) 43–59, doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2017.07.009.
143
Journal of Space Safety Engineering 10 (2023) 133–143
[20] J. Zhao, et al., Sound insulation property of wood-waste tire rubber compos-
ite, Compos. Sci. Technol. 70 (14) (2010) 2033–2038, doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.
2010.03.015.
[21] M. Ruzzene, et al., Finite element modeling of vibration and sound radiation
from fluid-loaded damped shells, Thin Walled Struct. 36 (20 0 0) 21–46, doi:10.
1016/S0263-8231(99)0 0 035-X.
[22] J. Caillet, et al., Comprehensive approach for noise reduction in helicopter cab-
ins, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 17–25, doi:10.1016/j.ast.2012.03.004.
[23] Y. Song, et al., Vibration and sound properties of metamaterial sandwich pan-
els with periodically attached resonators: simulation and experiment study, J.
Sound Vib. 489 (2020) 115644, doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115644.
[24] X. Tang, et al., Acoustic energy absorption properties of fibrous materials: a
review, Composites, Part A 101 (2017) 360–380, doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2017.
07.002.
[25] M.C. Bhattacharya et al., Coincidence effect with sound waves in a finite plate,
J. Sound Vib., 18(2) (1971) 157–169. 10.1016/0022-460X(71)90342-7
[26] A.C. Nilsson, Wave propagation in and sound propagation though sandwich
plates, J. Sound Vib. 138 (1) (1990) 73–94, doi:10.1016/0022- 460X(90)90705- 5.
[27] S.H. Moosavimehr, A.S. Phani, Sound transmission loss characteristics of sand-
wich panels with a truss lattice core, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141 (2017) 2921–2932,
doi:10.1121/1.4979934.