Journal of Sound and Vibration (1998) 217(2), 239260

Article No. sv981748

SOUND INSERTION LOSS OF STIFFENED

ENCLOSURE PLATES USING THE FINITE
ELEMENT METHOD AND THE CLASSICAL
APPROACH
Y.-Y. L
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk,
VA 23529-0247 U.S.A.

C. F. N
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

(Received 14 January 1998, and in final form 28 April 1998)

This paper reports a theoretical and experimental study of insertion loss of

stiffened enclosure plates which are used for noise control in industrial machines,
automobiles, trains and aircrafts. The theoretical analysis is based on the finite
element method in [1] for the structural part, and the classical solution suggested
in [2, 3] for the acoustic part. The effects of boundary conditions, acoustic
resonance and structural resonance on the insertion loss are studied. The
theoretical results agree reasonably well with the experimental results. Both
numerical and experimental results point to two important findings: 1) the
coupling effect between the (1, 0) acoustical mode and the (2, 1) structural mode
is an important factor which can cause deterioration of the insertion loss of an
enclosure plate; and 2) stiffeners can be used to enhance the insertion loss ability
of an enclosure plate at the frequencies below the fundamental resonance.
However, at other frequencies, the enclosure plate could give worse insertion loss
performance.
7 1998 Academic Press

1. INTRODUCTION
This paper reports a theoretical and experimental study of insertion loss of
stiffened enclosure plates which are used for noise control in industrial machines,
automobiles, trains and aircrafts. Lee [26], Lyon [7], Pretlove [8], Jackson [9], Guy
[10], Dowell [11], Narayanan [12] and Oldham [13, 14] have investigated the
vibration and sound coupling characteristics of enclosure panels using the modal
analysis or Fourier transform methods to model the structuralacoustic coupling
enclosure models. So far, they have mainly considered modal analysis techniques
for solving the problem of sound and vibration with analytical relationships
between various parameters.

0022460X/98/420239 + 22 $30.00/0 7 1998 Academic Press

240 .-. . .
The models of Lyon [7], Pretlove [8], Guy [10], Dowell [11] and Narayanan [12]
consisted of only one flexible plate which was used to simulate an enclosure panel
and driven by external sound pressure, and five rigid walls. Thus, their models were
presented only for predicting the sound pressure transmission from the outside to
the inside of the enclosure model. Usually, the most significant measure for
acoustic performance of an enclosure is the sound insertion loss, produced by the
difference between the measured sound pressure level outside the enclosure at a
specific point with and without the enclosure fitted to a noise source. The sound
insertion loss is more preferable than other parameters for enclosure design and
analysis as most enclosures are designed to reduce noise level at some particular
location or specified region. At the same time, evaluation of insertion loss pertains
only to measurements in sound pressure levels external to the enclosure that can
be obtained without difficulties. Therefore, this is an important reason why the
models should be further improved so as to be more realistic and practical. The
enclosure models of Jackson [9] and Oldham [13], which were used for predicting
the insertion loss, cannot handle any estimation of the effects of the cavity
resonance in a direction parallel to the source plate. Besides, as mentioned in their
paper, Oldhams formula is valid only in the case of the source plate vibrating in
symmetric mode shapes; and Jacksons formula cannot predict the effect of the
vibration mode shape of the noise source.
In references [25, 714], the authors adopted the classical plate theory for the
structural parts in their structuralacoustic analysis. Reddy [15] reviewed the
application of finite element methods to plate problems. The finite element method
is more powerful and versatile for structural problems of complex geometries,
boundary conditions, and loadings, when compared with classical solutions. Most
of the classical continuum solutions of plates have been limited to a single mode
approximation. This is due to the difficulties in obtaining the general multiple
mode governing equations using the Galerkin approach, especially for plates with
complex boundary conditions or stiffeners. Thus, in this paper, the theoretical
analysis is based on the finite element method in reference [1] for the structural
part, and the classical solution suggested in reference [3] for the acoustic part. The
effects of stiffeners, boundary conditions, acoustic resonance and structural
resonance on the insertion loss, are studied. The comparison between numerical
and experimental results shows the validity of the theoretical model.

2. ISOPARAMETRIC PLATE ELEMENT

The in-vacuo mode shapes of the source plate and the enclosure plate in Figure
1 are found by using the finite element. The four-node C1 conforming rectangular
plate element in reference [16] is chosen in the finite element model. The element
has a total of 24 degrees of freedom (16 bending and 8 membrane). The
displacements within the element can be expressed as

67 $ %
u 6Hu 7
u = b1 + b2 x + b3 y + b4 xy, v = b5 + b6 x + b7 y + b8 xyc = {b};
v 6Hv 7
(1a)
 241

w = a1 + a2 x + a3 y + a4 x 2 + a5 xy + a6 y 2 + a7 x3

+ a8 x2y + a9 xy 2 + a10 y 3

+ a11 x3y + a12 xy 3 + a13 x2y 2 + a14 x 3y2

+ a15 x2y 3 + a16 x3y 3

cw = 6Hw 7{a}, (1b)

where w, u and v are the transverse and membrane displacements. Combining

equations (1a) and (1b) gives

$ %
89 &
Hu (x, y)

'6 7
u [Tm ]
Hv (x, y) [0] wm
v = , (2)
wb
w [0] [Hw (x, y)][Tb ]

where

{b} = [Tm ]{wm }, {a} = [Tb ]{wb },

{wm } = membrane displacements at the four nodal points

= 6u1 v1 u2 v2 u3 v3 uv v4 7T

{wb } = bending displacements at the four nodal points

= 6w1 w2 w3 w4 w1,x w2,x w3,x w4,x

w1,y w2,y w3,y w4,y w1,xy w2,xy w3,xy w4,xy 7T

The subscripts m and b represent membrane and bending respectively. Details of

[Tm ] and [Tb ] can be found in the appendix.

Enclosure plate

Rigid wall Rigid wall

Cavity depth c
z

Source plate

x
Figure 1. Side view of rectangular enclosure model.
242 .-. . .
From the above equations, the stiffness matrix for the plate element can be
formulated in the form

gg $ %$ %$ %
T
[Cm ][Tm ] [0] [Ap ] 0 [Cm ][Tm ] [0]
[kp ] = dx dy,
[0] [Cb ][Tb ] 0 [Dp ] [0] [Cb ][Tb ]
Areap
(3)
where
E p hp 1 np
Ap 11 = Ap 22 = , Ap 12 = Ap 21 = np Ap 11 , Ap 33 = Ap 11 ,
(1 np2 ) 2
Ep hp3 1 np
Dp 11 = Dp 22 = , Dp 12 = Dp 21 = np Dp 11 , Dp 33 = Dp 11 ,
12(1 np2 ) 2

& ' & '

1[Hu (x, y)]/1x 12[Hw (x, y)]/1x 2
[Cm ] = 1[Hn (x, y)]/1y , [Cb ]k = 1 2[Hw (x, y)]/1y 2 .
1[Hu (x, y)]/1y + 1[Hn (x, y)]/1x 21 2[Hw (x, y)]/1x 1y

Ep is the Youngs Modulus of the plate, hp is the thickness of the plate, np is the
Poissons ratio of the plate, Areap is the area of the plate element. The subscript
p represents plate.
The mass matrix for the plate element can be derived in the same manner. Like
the displacement, the acceleration at any point within the element can be related
to the nodal accelerations by using the interpolation functions in equation (1). The
mass matrix for the plate element can be formulated in the form

gg $ % $ %
T
[Fm ][Tm ] [0] [Fm ][Tm ] [0]
[mp ] = rp dy dx, (4)
Areap
[0] [Fb ][Tb ] [0] [Fb ][Tb ]

where

& '
Hw (x, y)
$ %
Hu (x, y)
[Fm ] , [Fb ] = 1Hw (x, y)/1x .
Hv (x, y)
1Hw (x, y)/1y

rp is the density of the plate.

3. STIFFENER ELEMENT FORMULATION

The stiffener element introduced in this section is based on the method described
in Reference [1]. The stiffness and mass element matrices for a stiffener not aligned
to the nodal lines are derived here (see Figure 2). The straindisplacement relation
of the stiffener is given by

89 8 9 8 9
et 1u'/1t 12w/1t 2
en = 1v'/1n + z 1 2w/1n2 , (5)
gtn 1u'/1n + 1v'/1t 21 2w/1t 1n
 243
Stiffener

z = (hp /2 + hs)

z = hp /2
y
n t z=0
z = hp /2

x
Plate

Figure 2. Description of arbitrarily oriented stiffener.

where u' is the axial extension along the stiffener, v' is the extension perpendicular
to the stiffener, n is the direction perpendicular to the stiffener and t is the direction
parallel to the stiffener. The inplane forces and bending moments in n, t
co-ordinates are given by

F
G Nt JG F
G 1u'/1t J
G
G Nn G G 1v'/1n G
G Ntn G [AS ] [BS ] G1u'/1n + 1v'/1t G
g h= g 2 2
h, (6)
G Mt G [BS ] [DS ] G 1 w/1t G
G Mn G G 12w/1n2 G
G
f Mtn G
j G
f 21 w/1t 1n G
2
j

where

As 11 = As 22 = Es hs /(1 ns2 ), As 12 = As 21 = ns As 11 , As 33 = (1 ns /2)As 11 ,

60 1 0 1 7>
2 2
hp h
Bs 11 = Bs 22 = Es + hs p 2(1 ns2 ), Bs 12 = B221 = nBs 11 ,
2 2

60 1 0 1 7>
3 3
hp hp
Bs 33 = (1 ns )/2Bs 11 , Ds 11 = Ds 22 = Es + hs 3(1 ns2 ),
2 2

Ds 12 = D221 = ns Ds 11 , Ds 33 = (1 ns )/2Ds 11 .

Es is the Youngs modulus of the stiffener, hs is the thickness of the stiffener. The
subscript s represents stiffener.
244 .-. . .
Because the stiffener is considered as a beam, it can be assumed
Nn = Ntn = Mn = 1v'/1n = 1u'/1n + 1v'/1t = 0. Using this assumption, equation
(6) can be reduced to

89 %8 9
Nt 1u'/1t
$
[A
s ] [B
s ]
Mt = 1 2w/1t 2 , (7)
[B
s ] [D
s ]
Mtn 21 2w/1t 1n

where

& '
As 11 Bs 12 (Bs 12 /Ds 22 ) Bs 11 Bs 12 (Ds 21 /Ds 22 ) Bs 16 Bs 12 Ds 26 /Ds 22
$ %
[A
s ] [B
s ]
= Bs 11 Ds 12 (Bs 12 /Ds 22 ) Ds 11 Ds 12 (Ds 21 /Ds 22 ) Ds 16 Ds 12 Ds 26 /Ds 22 .
[B
s ] [D
s ]
Bs 16 Ds 26 (Bs 12 /Ds 22 ) Ds 16 Ds 26 (Ds 21 /Ds 22 ) Ds 66 Ds 26 Ds 26 /Ds 22

The strains can be expressed in the x-y co-ordinates as

1u'/1t = (1u'/1x)1x/1t + (1u'/1y)1y/1t, (8)
where
u' = u cos u + n sin u, 1x/1t = cos u, 1y/1t = sin u.
The displacement in equation (8) may be expresed in terms of the x and y
co-ordinates as
1u'/1t = 1u/1x cos2 u + (1v/1y) sin2 u + 12 (1u/1y + 1v/1x) sin 2u. (9)
Similarly,
12w/1t2 = (1 2w/1x 2) cos2 u + (12w/1y 2) sin2 u + (12w/1x 1y) sin 2u, (10)
and
1 2w/1t 1n = 12 (12w/1x 2 + 12w/1y 2) sin 2u + (12w/1x 1y)(sin2 u + cos2 u). (11)
Rearranging equations (9)(11) gives

F 1u J
G 1x G
G 1v G
G 1y G
G 1u 1v G
1u'/1t G 1y + 1x G
6 1 2w/1t 2
21 2w/1t 1n 7
= [Cu] g
G
1 2w h
1x2 G
. (12)

G 1 2w G
G 1y2 G
G 1 2w G
G 1x 1y G
2
f j
 245
where

& '
cos2 u sin2 u 1/2 sin 2u 0 0 0
[Cu] =
0 0 0 cos2 u sin2 u (1/2) sin 2u
0 0 0 sin 2u sin 2u sin2 u cos2 u

The element stiffness matrix of the stiffener, like the element stiffness matrix of the
plate, can be given by
[ks ] =

gg $ % $ % $ %
T
[Cm ][Tm ] [0] [A
s ] [B
s ] [Cm ][Tm ] [0]
[Cu]T [Cu] dx dy.
[0] [Cb ][Tb ] [B
s ] [D
s ] [0] [Cb ][Tb ]
Areas

(13)
The displacement field at any point within the element in terms of nodal
displacement is given by
F u' J
Fu J F u' z 1w'/1tJ G v' G
gv h=g z 1w'/1n h= [G] g w' h, (14)
f js f
w w' j G 1w'/1tG
f1w'/1nj

where

& '
1 0 0 z 0
[G] = 0 0 0 0 z
0 0 1 0 0

and Areas = area of the stiffener element

As with equation (12), the displacement vector in equation (14) can be expressed
in x-y co-ordinates as

F u J
F uJ G v G
g vh = [G] [Fu] g w h
fwjs G1w/1x G
f1w/1y j

where
K
G cos u sin u 0 0 0 L
G
G sin u cos u 0 0 0 G
[Fu] = G 0 0 1 0 0 G.
G 0 0 0 cos u sin u G
G
k 0 0 0 sin u cos u
G
l
246 .-. . .
From the above equations the mass matrix can be written as

gg $ % $ %
T
[Cm ][Tm ] [0] [Cm ][Tm ] [0]
[ms ] = [Fu]Trs [G]T[G][Fu] dx dy,
[0] [Cb ][Tb ] [0] [Cb ][Tb ]
Areas

(16)
where rs is the density of the stiffener. By summing up the contributions from all
of the plate and stiffener elements derived in equations (3), (4), (13) and (16), and
taking account of the kinematic boundary conditions, the natural frequencies and
mode shapes of the stiffened enclosure plate can be given by the following
eigenvalue problem,
vPQ
2
[M]{FPQ} = [K]{FPQ} (17)
where {FPQ} is the (P, Q) mode shape vector of the enclosure plate (normalized
with the maximum transverse displacement to unity), vPQ is the corresponding
resonant frequency; [M] and [K] are the system mass and stiffness matrices of an
enclosure plate with stiffeners.

4. ACOUSTIC VELOCITY POTENTIAL

An enclosure system similar to that of reference [14] is shown in Figure 1. The
boundaries at z = 0, z = c are flexible so that they can vibrate in typical mode
shapes while the other walls are acoustically rigid. The acoustic velocity potential
within the rectangular cavity is given by the following homogeneous wave
equation [17],
92f (1/Ca2 )(12f/1t 2) = 0 (18)
where f is the velocity potential function and Ca is the speed of sound.
The vibration velocities in the x, y and z directions and pressures within the air
cavity can be derived from the following equations,
X = 1f/1x, Y = 1f/1y, Z = 1f/1z, P = ra 1f/1t. (19)
where ra is the density of air.
The boundary conditions of the rectangular cavity to be satisfied are (i) at x = 0
and x = a, X = 1f/1x = 0; (ii) at y = 0 and y = b, Y = 1f/1y = 0; (iii) at z = 0,
Z = 1f/1z = wsou (x, y, t); (iv) at z = c, Z = 1f/1z = wenc (x, y, t).
Here wsou (x, y, t) and wenc (x, y, t) are the displacements of the source plate and
the enclosure plate, so their velocities are marked with an overdot. The subscripts
enc and sou represent the enclosure and source plates respectively.
By applying boundary conditions (i) and (ii), the solution of equation (17) is
expressed [2, 3] as

0 1 0 1$ %

U 
W
Upx Wpy
f= s s cos cos L UW cosh (m UWz) + N UW sinh (m UWz) eivt, (20)
U=0 W=0 a b
 247
where
m UW = zCa2 ((Up/a)2 + (Wp/b)2) v 2/Ca .
 and W
a and b are the length and width of the enclosure plate, respectively; U  are the
numbers of the acoustic modes in the x and y directions; LUW and N UW are coefficients
which depend on the boundary conditions at z = 0 and z = c.

5. ACOUSTICSTRUCTURAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

In this section, the two variables, L UW and N UW in equation (19) are rewritten
in terms of wST PQ
sou and wenc , the modal amplitudes of the source plate and the
enclosure plate. Then, the velocity potential and the pressure within the air cavity
can also be in terms of them. It is assumed that (P, Q) is the dominant mode shape
of the enclosure plate and the source plate is forced to vibrate in the (S, T) mode
shape with constant velocity. The profiles of the displacements of the source plate
and the enclosure plate are given by
sou c (x, y) e , enc 8 (x, y) e ,
ST
wsou (x, y, t) = wST ST ivt PQ
wenc (x, y, t) = wPQ PQ ivt
(21, 22)
where c (x, y) and 8 (x, y) are the (S, T) mode shape of the source plate and
ST PQ

(P, Q) mode shape of the enclosure plate respectively; wST PQ

sou and wenc are the modal
amplitudes of the (S, T) mode of the source plate and (P, Q) mode of the enclosure
plate, respectively.
The in-vacuo mode shapes of the source plate and the enclosure plate are found
by using the finite element method introduced in the previous section. In other
words, c ST(x, y) and 8PQ(x, y) are not analytical and derived from the
interpolation of the transverse displacements in the (P, Q) mode shape vector
{FPQ}. By substituting equations (20, 22) into the boundary conditions (iii), (iv),
the two variables, LUW and NUW can be rewritten in terms of WST PQ
sou and Wenc . The
velocity potential in equation (20) within the rectangular air cavity can be
expressed in terms of the modal displacement amplitudes of the source and
enclosure plates. WST PQ
sou and Wenc .

0 1 0 1

U 
W
Upx Wpy
f = iv eivt s s cos cos
U=0 W=0
a b

$ enc a
(B PQ,UWWPQ ST,UW
WST
sou cosh (m
UW
c))
cosh (m UWz)
m sinh (m c)
UW UW

%
aUW
ST
WST
sou
+ sinh (m UWz) , (23)
mUW

where

gg 0 1 0 1
a b
Upx Wpx
aST,UW = cST(x, y) cos cos dx dy
0 0
a b
248 .-. . .

>g g 0 1 0 1
a b 2 2
Upx Wpx
cos cos dx dy,
0 0
a b

gg 0 1 0 1
a b
Upx Wpx
b PQ,UW = 8PQ(x, y) cos cos dx dy
0 0
a b

>g g 0 1 0 1
a b 2 2
Upx Wpx
cos cos dx dy.
0 0
a b

Using equations (19) and (23), the pressure at the z = c is given by

0 1 0 1

U 
W
Upx Wpy
enc Lenc
Pc = eivt s s (WPQ sou Lsou
PQ,UW
WPQ ST,UW
) cos cos , (24)
U=0 W=0
a b

where
Lenc
PQ,UW
= ra v2bPQ,UW cosh (m UWc)/mUW sinh (mUWc),
Lsou
ST,UW
= ra v2a ST,UW/mUW sinh (mUWc).

6. RESPONSE OF STRUCTURAL VIBRATION

Consider the air pressure at the surface z = c, which is induced by the constant
vibration motion of the source plate. The parameters of the enclosure plate, such
as stiffness and mass etc., are used for evaluating the vibration displacement
amplitudes of the source plate and the enclosure plate, wST PQ
sou and wenc . Then, the
modal equation of the forced motion of the enclosure plate due to the acoustical
pressure at z = c is

6 7
Fm = 0
([K] v2[M]){FPQ}WPQ
enc = {F} = (25)
Fb

where {Fm } is the external membrane force vector and equal to zero because the
only external force is the sound pressure at z = c which is perpendicular to the
enclosure plate; and {Fb } is the external bending force vector due to the sound
pressure at z = c.
By using equations (1), (2) and (24), the bending force vector can be expressed
in terms of wST PQ
sou and wenc as the following

g
NE
{Fb } = s [Tb ]T[Hw (x, y)]TPc dA
Areai

 W=W
U=U 
eivt s enc Lenc
s (wPQ sou Lsou cos },
PQ,UW
wST ST,UW
){FUW (26)
U=0 W=0
 249
where

g 0 1 0 1
NE
Upx Wpy
{FUW
cos } = s [Tb ]T[Hw (x, y)]T cos cos dA.
Areai
a b

Areai is the area of the ith finite element on the enclosure plate; NE is the number
of the finite elements of the mesh, and here the summation sign represents the
assembly procedure to sum up the contributions from all element force vectors.
The subscript cos represents pressure force of the double cosine distribution in
equation (24).
The total force vector may also be expressed in terms of wST PQ
sou and wenc as the
following

67 6 7
U=U W=W

0 0
{F} = = eivt s s (WPQenc Lenc
PQ,UW
enc Lsou
WPQ ST,UW
) UW . (27)
Fb U=0 W=0
Fcos

In the above formulation, WPQenc can be seen as the modal co-ordinate. To perform
modal reduction, the ratio of WPQ ST
enc to Wsou can be found by substituting equation
(27) into equation (25) and multiplying 6FPQ7 on both sides and is given by

0 1>0 1

U 
W 
U 
W
WPQ
enc
= s s Zsou
ST,PQ,UW PQ
Zenc + s s Zcav
PQ,UW
, (28)
WST
sou U=0 W=0 U=0 W=0

where

6 7
0
PQ
Zenc  PQ v 2M
= (K  PQ) + iC
 PQ, PQ,UW
Zcav = Lenc
PQ,UW
6FPQ7 ,
FUW
cos

6 7
0
ST,PQ,UW
Zsou = Lsou
ST,UW
6FPQ7 ,  PQ, M
(K  PQ) = 6FPQ7([K] [M]){FPQ}.
FUW
cos

 PQ is the modal damping which has been added into equation (28) and equal to
C
2zK  PQM PQj PQ, j PQ is the modal damping ratio of the (P, Q) mode of the enclosure
plate; the subscript cav represents the enclosure cavity.
Using the relation between acoustic and vibration by the well-known Rayleighs
formula [18], one knows that
S.E. = s V.E. (29)
where S.E. is measured. The far field sound energy, V.E. is vibration energy, and
s is the radiation efficiency of the vibration source.
Using equations (28) and (29), the sound insertion loss is defined by
enc /Wsou = s /s )
IL = 10 log (S.E.enc /S.E.sou ) = 10 log (=WPQ ST 2 PQ ST

0b0 1>0 1b 1
   
sPQ
U W U W 2

10 log s s Zsou
ST,PQ,UW PQ
Zenc + s s Zcav
PQ,UW
, (30)
U=0 W=0 U=0 W=0
sST
250 .-. . .
where S.E.sou and S.E.enc are the sound energies radiated by the enclosed source and
enclosure plates, respectively; and sPQ is the radiation efficiency of the (P, Q) mode
and is given in reference [18].
Neglecting the cross-coupling effects between the structural modes of the
enclosure plate, equation (30) can be rewritten into a more general form as
reference [8]

6 0b b 17
enc s

P 
Q 2
WPQ PQ
IL = 10 log s s , (31)
P=1 Q=1
Wsou s ST
ST

 and Q
where P  are the structural mode numbers of the enclosure plate.

7. THEORETICAL RESULTS
Mukherjee [1] investigated the free vibration of stiffened plates. They considered
a square plate with a central stiffener (see Figure 3) and solved for natural
frequencies using an eight-node isoparametric quadratic plate element with 40
degrees of freedom. In Table 1, the natural frequencies obtained by the four-node
C1 conforming rectangular plate element are presented and compared with those
results from Mukherjee [1]. The analysis is performed employing symmetry and
antisymmetry conditions along the centerlines. A quarter of the plate is modelled
using a 5 5 mesh. It can be seen that good correlation exists among the results.
In Table 2, the symmetric mode natural frequencies are plotted against different
mesh sizes. It can be seen that the 8 8 mesh natural frequencies have a maximum
difference of 2% when compared with the 10 10 mesh result. In the following
cases, the mesh size of 8 8 for a quarter of the plate is chosen.
The insertion losses of an aluminium enclosure plate with different cavity depths
are shown in Figure 4. The material properties of the aluminium plate are as
follows: Youngs modulus = 71 1010 Pa, density = 2700 kg/m3, Poissons
ratio = 03, modal damping ratio = 002. The predictions are based on the source
plate vibrating in the (1, 1) mode and the enclosure plate vibrating in symmetric

Clamped support
Clamped support

Clamped support

Aluminium stiffener
Clamped support
Figure 3. Clamped support aluminium plate with a stiffener: plate dimensions
0203 m 0203 m 000137 m; aluminium stiffener 000635 m 001133 m 0203 m.
 251
T 1
Frequencies (Hz) for the centrally stiffened clamped plate
Mode Mukherjee [1] Present Difference (%)
1 7118 7272 212
2 7682 7682 003
3 10165 10144 021
4 10319 10299 019
5 14652 14484 116
6 14765 14547 150
7 17438 16649 474
8 18663 18788 067
9 21091 20598 239
10 21172 20634 260
11 22641 22505 060
12 22963 22778 081
13 25058 24621 177
14 27799 26855 353
15 28209 27086 415
16 29333 28487 297

mode shapes. Smaller cavity depth can also make the structural resonance
frequency higher. On the other hand, cavity depth is an important factor which
can largely affect insertion loss at low frequencies. It can be seen that at the

T 2
Mesh convergence study of symmetric mode resonant frequencies (Hz) for the
centrally stiffened clamped plate
Mesh size
Symmetric ZXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCXXXXXXXXXXXXXXV
Mode 33 44 55 66 77 88 9 9 10 10
1 7727 7694 7682 7676 7673 7671 7669 7669
2 14648 14570 14547 14537 14533 14531 14529 14529
3 17125 16786 16649 16580 16540 16514 16497 16485
4 25080 24799 24621 24541 24500 24476 24461 24450
5 27632 27225 27086 27031 27006 26992 26984 26979
6 29032 28700 28511 28437 28404 28388 28378 28373
7 41508 40694 40395 40281 40230 40204 40189 40180
8 50343 43080 42896 42623 42490 42421 42384 42362
9 53691 46915 46407 46112 45971 45899 45857 45832
10 57112 50005 49730 49344 49159 49066 49015 48985
11 66815 60392 59643 59296 59139 59060 59016 58990
12 68259 61619 60168 60649 60453 60353 60298 60266
13 91281 78394 69007 68872 68401 68133 67981 67892
14 96097 80338 72000 71343 70813 70517 70345 70238
15 97330 81074 77622 77528 76895 76543 76345 76229
16 104232 86456 79877 79240 78949 78803 78722 78675
252 .-. . .
(a)
40

40
Insertion loss (dB)

(b)

40

(c)
40

0 400 800 1200 1600

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4. Simply supported aluminium plate (0203 m 0203 m 000137 m): source plate mode
shape, (1, 1) mode. Cavity depths: (a) 005 m; (b) 02 m and (c) 025 m. Key: W, (1, 1) or (3, 1)
structural mode resonance; T, acoustic resonance in the z direction; (2, 0) or (0, 2) acoustic
resonance in the x-y plane.

frequencies below the structural resonance, it is noted that greater cavity depth
results in higher insertion loss. In the frequencies ranging from 800900 Hz, the
structural resonance of the (1, 3) mode of the enclosure plate in the second figure
in Figure 4 is close to the acoustical resonance. This makes the two resonances
form a wider and deeper dip. In each case, the acoustic resonance parallel to
the source plate is unchanged being independent of the cavity depth and the
stiffness of the enclosure plate. Among the three cases, the case with shorter depth
has higher frequency resonance in the z direction.
In Figure 5, the predictions are based on the source plate vibrating in the (2, 1)
mode and the enclosure plate vibrating in anti-symmetrical modes. Unlike the
acoustic (2, 0) mode in Figure 4, the (0, 1) acoustic mode in Figure 5 imposes
greater effect on insertion loss than the structural mode.
 253
In Figure 6, the effect of the boundary conditions of the enclosure plate on the
insertion loss is presented. The insertion loss above the fundamental resonant
frequency of the clamped case is slightly lower than that of the simply supported
case. Below this frequency, boundary conditions appear to have a considerable
effect on the insertion loss in that the insertion loss of the clamped plate is higher
than that of the simply supported plate. The enclosure plate with a stiffener has
a higher fundamental resonant frequency, when compared with the plates without
any stiffener (the location and dimensions of the stiffener is the same as that of
the one shown in Figure 3). At the frequencies below the fundamental resonance,
the stiffener of the enclosure plate makes the insertion loss much higher than those
of the other two enclosure plates. Above this frequency however, the coupling
effect between the structural and acoustic modes has a significant effect, resulting
in a lower insertion loss.

(a)
40

(b)
Insertion loss (dB)

40

(c)
40

0 400 800 1200 1600

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 5. Simply supported aluminium plate (0203 m 0203 m 000137 m): source plate mode
shape, (2, 1) mode. Cavity depths: (a) 005 m; (b) 02 m and (c) 025 m. Key: W, (2, 1) structural mode
resonance; T, acoustic resonance in the z direction; R, (1, 0) or (0, 1) acoustic resonance in the x-y
plane.
254 .-. . .
40
(a)

40

40
(b)
Insertion loss (dB)

40

(c)

40

40
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 6. Aluminium plate (0203 m 0203 m 000137 m): source plate mode shape (1, 1)
mode, cavity depth 02 m. (a) Simply supported without stiffener; (b) clamped without stiffener and
(c) clamped with stiffener. Key: W, (1, 1) structural mode resonance; T, acoustic resonance in the
z direction.

8. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In Figures 7a and 7b, the theoretical insertion loss predictions of the 1 mm steel
panel, and the 3 mm aluminium plate with a stiffener which measures
2 cm 3 cm 70 cm, are confirmed experimentally over the frequency range. The
location of the stiffener is bonded along the center line of the 3 mm aluminium
plate. The material properties of the aluminium plate are as follows: Youngs
modulus = 71 1010 Pa, density = 2700 kg/m3, Poissons ratio = 03, modal
damping ratio = 002. The material properties of the steel plate are as follows:
Youngs modulus = 20 1010 Pa, density = 7800 kg/m3, Poissons ratio = 03,
modal damping ratio = 002. The boundary conditions are assumed to be simply
supported in the theoretical prediction. The resonance frequencies of the two
enclosure panels are somewhat different from the predicted values because of the
uncertainties in the boundary conditions and the bonding between the stiffener and
aluminium plate. This would not make a large difference between the prediction
 255
and measurement because the experimental data were measured with one-third
octave filtered white noise (i.e., the average insertion loss over each frequency band
is given). Since the main uncertainty remains in the damping ratio of the model,
poor insertion loss predictions occur at the resonant frequencies. Overall, the
trends of the theoretical predictions in the two cases agree reasonably well with
the experimental results. It can be seen in both cases that the coupling effect
between the (1, 0) acoustical mode and the (2, 1) structural mode is an important
factor which can cause deterioration of the insertion loss performance of an
enclosure plate (see the dip in Figure 7a around 500 Hz and the other dip in Figure
7b around 250 Hz).
In Figure 8, the effect of the stiffener on the insertion loss performance of the
3 mm aluminium plate is shown and compared with mass law. It is not surprising
according to the numerical results on Figure 6a that a higher insertion loss results
from the application of the stiffener. In other frequencies, the stiffener cannot
act as an efficient method of enhancing the insertion loss ability of the
aluminium enclosure plate and the insertion loss can be less than predicted by mass
law.

50
(a)

30

10
Insertion loss (dB)

10
100 160 250 400 630 1000

50

(b)
30

10

10

31.5 50 80 125 200 315 500 800

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 7. Comparison of measured and predicted of insertion loss of (a) the 1 mm steel plate;
dimensions of the enclosure plate 037 m 037 m; cavity depth 021 m, (b) the 3 mm aluminium
plate with a stiffener; dimensions of the enclosure plate 072 m 072 m; cavity depth 016 m. Key:
W, measured data; , numerical data using symmetrical structural modes; - - - - - , numerical
prediction using antisymmetrical structural modes.
256 .-. . .
35

25

Insertion loss (dB)

15

5
40 63 100 160 250 400 630
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 8. Comparison of measured insertion loss of the two enclosure plates with dimensions
072 m 072 m; cavity depth 016 m. Key: Q, 3 mm aluminium plate with stiffener; W ,
3 mm aluminium plate without stiffener; , mass law.

9. CONCLUSION
A model for predicting the insertion loss of a stiffened enclosure panel has been
presented. The results of the measurements made to test the validity of the model
suggest it can give a reasonable prediction. From both the theoretical and
experimental data, it can be concluded that; 1) the couping effect between the (1, 0)
acoustical mode and the (2, 1) structural mode is an important factor which can
cause deterioration of the insertion loss of an enclosure plate; 2) stiffeners can be
used to enhance the insertion loss ability of an enclosure plate at the frequencies
below the fundamental resonance. However, at other frequencies, the enclosure
plate could give worse insertion loss performance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research was sponsored by PolyV Grant No. 351/233.

REFERENCES
1. A. M and M. M 1988 Computers and Structures 30,
13031317. Finite element free vibration of eccentrically stiffened plates.
2. Y. Y. L and C. F. N 1994 The Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances
in Structural Dynamics, ISVR, UK, July, 10231032. The prediction of the effects of
stiffness and damping on noise reduction of small enclosures.
3. Y. Y. L 1995 M.Phil. Thesis, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Structuralacoustic analysis of close-fitting
enclosures.
4. Y. Y. L and C. F. N 1995 Proceeding of The International Conference on Structural
Dynamics, Vibration, Noise and Control, Hong Kong, Dec. 12011206. The noise and
vibration reduction of close fitting curved enclosure panels.
5. Y. Y. L and C. F. N 1997 Journal of Building Acoustics 2, 549567. The effects
of coupled source/cavity modes on the acoustic insertion loss of close-fitting
enclosures.
 257
6. Y. Y. L and C. F. N 1997 The Sixth International Conference on Recent Advances
in Structural Dynamics, ISVR, UK, July, 553562. Insertion loss of stiffened
enclosures.
7. R. H. L 1963 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35, 17911797. Noise
reduction of rectangular enclosures with one flexible wall.
8. A. J. P 1965 Journal of Sound and Vibration 2, 197209. Free vibrations of
a rectangular plate backed by a closed rectangular cavity.
9. R. S. J 1966 Journal of Sound and Vibration 3, 8294. Some aspects of the
performance of acoustic hoods.
10. R. W. G 1973 Journal of Sound Vibration 27, 207223. The transmission of sound
through a cavity-backed finite plate.
11. E. H. D, G. F. G and D. A. S 1977 Journal of sound and Vibration
52, 519242. Acoustoelasticity: general theory, acoustical natural modes and forced
response to sinusoidal excitation, including comparisons with experiment.
12. S. N and R. L. S 1988 Journal of Sound and Vibration 150,
251270. Sound transmission through elastically supported sandwich panels into a
rectangular enclosure.
13. D. J. O and S. N. H 1991 Journal of Sound and Vibration 150,
261281. The acoustical performance of small close fitting enclosures, part 1:
theoretical models.
14. D. J. O and S. N. H 1991 Journal of Sound and Vibration 150, 283300.
The acoustical performance of small close fitting enclosures, part 2: experimental
investigation.
15. J. N. R 1985 Shock and Vibration Digest 17, 38. A review of the literature on
finite element modeling of laminated composite plates.
16. K. C. R, H. R. E, D. W. G, D. A. N 1983 The Finite
element Method. Granada Publishing.
17. G. F. C 1988 Partial Differential Equations, Theory and Technique, New York:
Academic Press; second edition.
18. C. E. W 1972 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 946952.
Radiation Resistance of a Rectangular Panel.

APPENDIX
The element used in the finite element model is a rectangular element consisting
of twenty-four structural degrees of freedom, accounting for bending and
membrane displacements. The rectangular element consists of four corner nodes
with displacements w, u, v and their derivatives w,x , w,y , w,xy . Co-ordinate
transformations are required to relate the local element co-ordinates to the global
structural co-ordinates. The membrane nodal displacements are given by

{wm } = 6u1 u2 u3 u4 v1 v2 v3 v4 7T (A1)

The nodal membrane displacements can be obtained by substituting the element

nodal co-ordinates into appropriate approximation functions. Thus the membrane
nodal displacements become

u(0, 0, t) = u1 = b1 , u(ae , 0, t) = u2 = b1 + b2 ae , (A2, A3)

u(ae , be , t) = u3 = b1 + b2 ae + b3 be + b4 ae be , (A4)
258 .-. . .
u(0, be , t) = u4 = b1 + b3 be , v(0, 0, t) = v1 = b5 , v(ae , 0, t) = v2 = b5 + b6 ae ,

(A5A7)
v(ae , be , t) = v3 = b5 + b6 ae + b7 be + b8 ae be ,

v(0, be , t) = v4 = b5 + b7 be , (A8, A9)

where the element length and width are ae and be , respectively, and the generalized
co-ordinates are represented by the b coefficients. The membrane displacements
equations (A2)(A9) may be written in matrix notation as {wm } = [Tm ]1{b} which
is expressed as follows

F
G u1 J
G K G1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LG F
Gb1 J
G
G u2 G G1 ae 0 0 0 0 0 0 G Gb2 G
G u3 G G1 ae be ae be 0 0 0 0 G Gb3 G
G G G G G G
g u4 h = G0 0 be 0 0 0 0 0
G gb4 h . (A10)
G v1 G G0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 G Gb5 G
G v2 G G0 0 0 0 1 ae 0 0 G Gb6 G
G v3 G G0 0 0 0 1 ae ae be beG Gb7 G
G
f v4 G
j G k0 G G G
0 0 0 1 0 be 0 l fb8 j

Similarly the bending transformation is determined using the sixteen degrees of

freedom. Thus the sixteen bending nodal displacements are

{wb } = 6w1 w2 w3 w4 w1,x w2,x w3,x w4,x

w1,y w2,y w3,y w4,y w1,xy w2,xy w3,xy w4,xy 7T. (A11)

The displacements are approximated using the cubic polynomial. The derivative
expressions are given by

w,x = a2 + 2a4 + a5 y + 3a7 x2 + 2a8 xy + a9 y2 + 3a11 x2y

+2a12 xy2 + a13 y3 + 3a14 x2y 2 + 2a15 xy3 + 3a16 x2y 3, (A12)

w,y = a3 + a5 x + 2a6 y + a8 x 2 + 2a9 xy + 3a10 y 2 + a11 x3

+2a12 x2y + 3a13 xy2 + 2a14 x 3y + 3a15 x 2y2 + 3a16 x 3y 2, (A13)

w,xy = a5 + 2a8 x + 2a9 y + 3a11 x2 + 4a12 xy

+3a13 y 2 + 6a14 x 2y + 6a15 xy2 + 9a16 x2y 2. (A14)

 259
The nodal bending displacements are obtained by substituting the nodal
co-ordinates into equation (3.4) and equations (A12)(A14). Thus the transverse
displacements are given as

w(0, 0, t) = w1 = a1 , w(ae , 0, t) = w2 = a1 + a2 ae + a4 ae2 + a7 ae3 , (A15, A16)

w(ae , be , t) = w3 = a1 + a2 ae + a3 be + a4 ae2 + a5 ae be + a6 be2

+a7 ae3 + a8 ae2 be + a9 ae be2 + a10 be3 + a11 ae3 be

+a12 ae2 be2 + a13 ae be3 + a14 ae3 be2 + a15 ae2 be3 + a16 ae3 be3 , (A17)

w(0, be , t) = w4 = a1 + a3 be + a6 be2 + a10 be3 . (A18)

Likewise, the slopes with respect to the x-axis are

w ,x (0, 0, t) = w ,x1 = a2 , w ,x (ae , 0, t) = w ,x2 = a2 + 2a4 ae + 3a7 ae2 ,

(A19, A20)

w,x (ae , be , t) = w,x3 = a2 + 2a4 ae + a5 be + 3a7 ae2 + 2a8 ae be + a9 be2

+3a11 ae2 be + 2a12 ae be2 + a13 be3 + 3a14 ae2 be2 + 2a15 ae be3 + a16 ae2 be3 ,
(A21)

w,x (0, be , t) = w ,x4 = a2 + a5 be + a9 be2 + a13 be3 . (A22)

The slopes with respect to the y-axis are

w,y (0, 0, t) = w,y1 = a3 , w,y (ae , 0, t) = w,y2 = a3 + a5 ae + a8 ae2 + a11 ae3 ,

(A23, A24)

w ,y (ae , be , t) = w ,y3 = a3 + a5 ae + 2a6 be + a8 ae2 + 2a9 ae be + 3a10 be2

+a11 ae3 + 2a12 ae2 be + 3a13 ae be2 + 2a14 ae3 be + 3a15 ae2 be2 + 3a16 ae3 be2 ,
(A25)

w,y (0, be , t) = w ,y4 = a3 + 2a6 be + 3a10 be2 . (A26)

The cross derivatives about the z-axis are

w,xy (0, 0, t) = w,xy1 = a5 , w,xy (ae , 0, t) = w,xy2 = a5 + 2a8 ae + 3a11 ae2 ,

(A27, A28)

w,y (ae , be , t) = w,y3 = a5 + 2a8 ae + 2a9 be + 3a11 ae2 + 4a12 ae be

+3a13 be2 + 6a14 ae2 be + 6a15 ae be2 + 9a16 ae2 be2 , (A29)

w,y (0, be , t) = w,y4 = a5 + 2a9 be + 3a13 be2 . (A30)

 260

Equations (A15)(A30) may be expressed in matrix notation as {wb } = [Tb ]1{a} where [Tb ]1 is defined as

K1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L
G G
ae 0 ae2 0 0 ae3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G1 G
G1 ae be ae2 ae be be2 ae3 ae2 be ae be2 be3 ae3 be ae2 be2 ae be3 ae3 be2 ae2 be3 ae3 be3
G
G1 0 be 0 0 be2 0 0 0 be3 0 0 0 0 0 0 G
G0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G
G 3 G
G0 1 0 2ae 0 0 3a e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G
G0 1 0 2ae be 0 3ae3 2ae b be2 0 3ae2be 2ae be2 be3 3ae2 be2 2ae be3 3ae2 be3 G
G0 1 0 0 be 0 0 0 be2 0 0 0 be3 0 0 0 G
[Tb ]1 = G (A31)
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G.
G G
G0 0 1 0 ae 0 0 ae2 0 0 ae2 0 0 0 0 0
G
G0 0 1 0 ae 2be 0 ae2 2ae be 3be2 ae3 2ae2 be 3ae be2 2ae3 be 3ae2 be2 3ae3 be2 G
.-. . .

G0 0 1 0 0 2be 0 0 0 3be2 0 0 0 0 0 0 G
G0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G
G 2 G
G0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2ae 0 0 3a e 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2
G
G0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2ae 2be 0 3a e 4ae be 3b e 6a be
e 6ae b e 9ae2 be2 G
k0 2
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2be 0 0 0 3b e 0 0 0 l

The bending transformation matrix [Tb ] therefore is obtained by inverting the matrix equation (A31).