Search Results

Due to modern trends in the automotive industry, such as vehicle electrification, light-weighting, reduced NVH (Noise, Vibration and Harshness) packaging space, etc., it is desirable to have a low profile and light-weight acoustic material with multi-functionality. If one single layer of a thin acoustic material can provide comparable absorption and transmission loss to a multilayer treatment, it will benefit the industry by saving weight, packaging space and system cost. Acoustic absorption and sound transmission loss performance of a new dissipative material at reduced weight and thickness is introduced in this paper. The acoustic performance of the material was evaluated by using random incidence absorption and transmission loss as well as in-vehicle experiment. Further potential applications for this material have been identified using the Statistical Energy Analysis (SEA) method with panel leakage considered.

Several methods for evaluating damping material performance are commonly used, such as Oberst beam test, power injection method and the long bar test. Among these test methods, the Oberst beam test method has been widely used in the automotive industry and elsewhere as a standard method, allowing for slight bar dimension differences. However, questions have arisen as to whether Oberst test results reflect real applications. Therefore, the long bar test method has been introduced and used in the aerospace industry for some time. In addition to the larger size bar in the long bar test, there are a few differences between Oberst (cantilever) and long bar test (center-driven) methods. In this paper, the differences between Oberst and long bar test methods were explored both experimentally and numerically using finite element analysis plus an analytical method. Furthermore, guidelines for a long bar test method are provided.