Report on

Enclosure Insertion Loss
Measurements
Undertaken at
Leeds Metropolitan University,
Portland Crescent,
Leeds,
West Yorkshire,
LS1 3HB

Wednesday16th October 2013

Student Number: 77144104

IOA Diploma 2013-14

Student Number: 77144104

Summary

i

IOA Diploma 2013-14

Student Number: 77144104

Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................ii
Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................ iv
1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

2.

Instrumentation ................................................................................................................... 2

3.

4.

2.1.

Sound level meter ........................................................................................................ 2

2.2.

Calibrator ..................................................................................................................... 2

2.3.

Accelerometers .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.4.

Equipment ................................................................................................................... 2

Measurements ..................................................................................................................... 4
3.1.

Measurement layout .................................................................................................... 4

3.2.

Measurement procedure .............................................................................................. 4

Measurement Results .......................................................................................................... 6
4.1.

5.

Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 7
5.1.

6.

Sound Pressure Level measurements .......................................................................... 6
Comparison models ..................................................................................................... 7

5.1.1.

Smith et al and Roberts and Shield Models ............................................................. 7

5.1.2.

Ver Model ................................................................................................................ 9

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 11
6.1.

Insertion loss (Door 1)............................................................................................... 11

6.2.

Insertion loss (Door 2)............................................................................................... 14

6.3.

Measurement inaccuracies ........................................................................................ 17

6.3.1.

Eliminate the process ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.4.

Observations .............................................................................................................. 17

6.5.

Further Work ............................................................................................................. 18

References ................................................................................................................................ 19
Appendix A:Measurement setup pictures ..............................................................................A-1
Appendix B:Tabulated Insertion Loss Measurements ........................................................... B-1

i

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... dB ... 15 Figure 7-5 .............. 13 Figure 7-3– Measured Insertion Losses (Door 2)..................................................................A-3 Figure A-4 .................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 7-1 – Measured Insertion Losses (Door 1).............Transmission Loss through a Circular aperture .............. dB .............. dB .........IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 List of Figures Figure 4-1 – Insertion Loss Measurements.......................................A-5 Figure A-6 ................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 7-2 – Enclosure Layout (with no pad or absorption) ........................................A-6 i ...A-2 Figure A-3 .................................................. 14 Figure 7-4..........................................Measured Insertion Losses for all configurations . 16 Figure A-1 ..................................A-1 Figure A-2 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................A-4 Figure A-5 .

............................................. dB .......................... 8 Table 5-1 – Calculated Insertion Losses (Smith et al model).................................. B-1 Table B-3 – Insertion Loss with no pad with absorption (Door 1) ......................................... 14 Table B-1 – Insertion Loss with no pad with no absorption (Door 1) ...................... B-1 Table B-5 – Insertion Loss with no pad with no absorption (Door 2) ................................... B-1 Table B-2 – Insertion Loss with pad with no absorption (Door 1) ........ B-1 Table B-4 – Insertion Loss with pad with absorption (Door 1) ....................... B-2 Table B-7 –no pad with absorption (Door 2) ................................................................................................... B-2 Table B-6 – Insertion Loss with pad with no absorption (Door 2) ......IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 List of Tables Table 5-1 – Calculated Insertion Losses (Roberts and Shield model)............................ 8 Table 6-1 – Standing Wave resonance mode distances............................ B-2 Table B-8 – Insertion Loss with pad with absorption (Door 2) .................. m (n=4) ................................ B-2 ii .............. dB ...................

IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Nomenclature iv .

IOA Diploma 2013-14 1. Student Number: 77144104 Introduction 1 .

Student Number: 77144104 Equipment Manufacturer Wharfedale Speaker (Pink Noise Source Speaker) Model 30D 6 Serial Number 121118 Calibration due Not specified Manufacturer NTI Minarator (Signal Generator) Model MR Pro Serial Number Not specified Calibration due Not specified 2 . Sound level meter Manufacturer Norsonic Model 140 Class type 1 Serial Number 1404470 Calibration due Not specified 2.1. Microphone Manufacturer Norsonic Model 1209 Serial Number 12908 Calibration due Not specified 2. Instrumentation & equipment 2.4.3.IOA Diploma 2013-14 2. Calibrator Manufacturer Norsonic Model 4231 Serial Number 2389088 Calibration due Not specified 2.2.

Materials Material 1 4 sided enclosure comprising of 9mm plywood Material 2 25mm upholstery absorption Material 3 Anti-Vibration pad 3 .5.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Manufacturer Bruel & Kjaer Power Amplifier Model 2706 Serial Number 391922 Calibration due Not specified 2.

1. Photos of the layouts (including photos of doors 1 and 2) can also be found within Appendix A:. Measurement layout Student Number: 77144104 Both Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 illustrate the insertion loss measurement layouts.IOA Diploma 2013-14 3. Measurement Position Noise Source SPL0 9mm plywood enclosure panels SPLE Figure 3-1 – Insertion loss measurement setup (without pad and absorption) Anti-Vibration Pad SPL0 SPLE 25mm absorption Figure 3-2 – Insertion loss measurement setup (with pad and absorption) 4 . Measurements 3.

1 was undertaken using the calibrator (referred to in Section 2. Student Number: 77144104 Measurement procedure Sound pressure level measurements of various enclosure configurations (referred to within Table 3-1) were undertaken within the reverberation room at Leeds Metropolitan University.2). No note was taken of noise source directionality. Measurements were made at 1m from the edge of the enclosure at a height of 1.2. West Yorkshire. The calibrator level was measured correctly at 114 dB(A) The calibration of the SLM was re-checked successfully on completion of the measurements 1 (sound pressure level before introduction of enclosure – sound pressure level with enclosure installed) 5 . From these measurements an insertion loss1 for each configuration was then computed Table 3-1 – Measurement Descriptions Measurement Number Measurement description 1 No pad and no absorption 2 Pad and no absorption 3 No pad with absorption 4 Pad with absorption The supplied noise signal was that of pink noise which was amplified via a power amplifier and relayed through a loudspeaker.IOA Diploma 2013-14 3. LS1 3HB. For ease of measurements it was assumed that the enclosure with one panel removed (door 1 &2) was the same as if the enclosure was not installed. Portland Crescent. the calibration of the SLM described in Section 2. The SLM was mounted upon a tripod and was not moved throughout the measurement process.3m from the ground. All equipment was inspected prior to and after measurements. Prior to the commencing measurements. Leeds.

From this the insertion loss was computed by subtracting the measured sound pressure levels (for doors 1 & 2) when installed from the sound pressure levels measured with the doors not present.IOA Diploma 2013-14 4.1. dB 6 . Student Number: 77144104 Measurement Results Figure 4-1 is a plot of all sound pressure level measurements (for both Door 1 and 2) in dB. Sound Pressure Level measurements Figure 4-1 – Insertion Loss Measurements. These results are also presented in tabular form within Appendix B: 4.

n. 5.1. 7 . 1996) outline the same insertion loss model albeit with a slightly different formulations.at the relevant frequency.. n.10log10   α (3. Hz and  is the total average sound absorption coefficients of all inside surfaces of the enclosure at the relevant frequency. dB. (Smith et al. Hz. R and absorption coefficients (α) were extracted from Appendix B of (Barron.L = R . Values of sound reduction index.IOA Diploma 2013-14 5.1) where R is the sound reduction index of the panels of the enclosure.1. The computed frequency range was 125Hz to 4000Hz. n. Comparison models Student Number: 77144104 To understand if empirical insertion loss prediction models such as (Roberts and Shield. 1996) and (Ver. Smith et al and Roberts and Shield Models (Roberts and Shield.d) and (Smith et al. 2006) are accurate and/or usable a series of simple calculations was undertaken.1.1). The (Roberts and Shield.d) model states that the reduction in sound pressure within the receiving room can be predicted from Equation (5. For ease of calculation all models were computed within a spreadsheet and only one configuration (Door 1 with pad and absorption) was chosen. Analysis 5..d). 1 I. 2003).

.238 0.4 3. m Calculated Insertion Loss. dB Octave Band.2 15.14 1. dB 0. dB Measured Insertion Loss.1 5.28 0.1 0.L=R -10log10 S +10log10  A  (3.22 0.36 0.3 59.4 1.7 13.153 6.8 3.54 0. dB 2 Whereas (Smith et al. dB SRI (Plywood).5 28 0.2 15.22 0.4 0.4 49.6 56.22 1.9 24 0. Hz Measured Open.1869 12.18 0.536 0.L as: I.488 0.2 1000 75.1 500 78.17 0.1685 9.4 49.392 0. dB Delta.9 24 0.14 1.598 0.2 17 0.6 4000 69.3 2000 74.7 0.4 1. S is the total area of the enclosure (four walls plus roof). m2 0.6 4000 69.9 65.09 0.7 0.2) where R is the sound reduction index of the panels of the enclosure. dB Delta.4 0.5 28 0.08 0.5 19.08 250 85 81.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Table 5-1 – Calculated Insertion Losses (Roberts and Shield model).8 18.126 0.28 0.8 1.9 4. m2 0.674 Total. dB.5 19.5 27 0. dB Measured Door 1.14 1.4 0.9 65. m2 Average absorption coefficient.5 20 0.674 0.7 1.308 0. dB SRI (Plywood).1 5.8 0.488 6.14 1.8 1.1 500 78.814 24.8 18.17 0. Hz Measured Open.4 -0.93 Plywood m2 foam. dB Absorption coefficient (plywood) Absorption coefficient (foam) 125 90 82.238 0. Table 5-2 – Calculated Insertion Losses (Smith et al model).6 56.6 8 .08 250 85 81.08 0.7 13.666 1.2 7.814 0.126 0.4 -0.5669 24.3813 23. Hz.666 17.at the relevant frequency.1 0.36 0. dB Measured Door 1.54 0.4 3.144 0.4 0.09 0.2 1000 75.18 0.1 0. dB Absorption coefficient (plywood) Absorption coefficient (foam) 125 90 82. 1996) gives I.3 2000 74.598 12.2081 17.5 27 0.6 15 0.392 0. m2 Calculated Insertion Loss.9 4.7 0.5 20 0.6 15 0.1 0.308 0. dB Measured Insertion Loss.3 59.22 23.2 17 0. m2and A is the absorption area of the inside surfaces of the enclosure at the relevant frequency.536 9.8 1.2 7.8 3.6 Total.93 Plywood m2 foam. Hz.144 0. dB Octave Band.

.d) and (Smith et al.L 10log10  R gj 10 R wi 10  Swi ×10 + S ×10  Gj      (3.. therefore Swi = Sw .IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 5.2.1. Hz. dB. Within this example the leak factor was assumed to be 1/100th of the total enclosure surface area. n. 1996) models in that it includes a leak factor SGj. Ver Model The (Ver. m2.  is the average sound absorption coefficients of the inside surfaces of the enclosure at the relevant frequency.3) Where SW is the total area of the enclosure (four walls plus roof). 2006) model is slightly more complex than (Roberts and Shield. at the relevant frequency.  Sw α I. R wi and R gj are the S sound reduction index of the panels of the enclosure. 9 .

gi/10))] Sw *  / [(Swi * 10(Rwi.gi/10))] 0.22 0.2m2) Leak Factor  (1/100th of surface area)  * 10(Rwi.8 24.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Table 5-3 – Calculated Insertion Losses (Ver model).4 49.6 4000 69.39 9.gi/10) +  * 10(Rwi.8 5. m2 0.0100 0.7 1.5 20 0.4 15.1 6.2 1000 75.3 59.666 1.9 3.gi/10) +  * 10(Rwi.09 0.7 17.8 12.169 0.006 0.488 0.54 0.0200 0.063 8.674 Total.6 15 0.1 0.82 18.2m ) 10(Rwi.126 0.238 0.001 0.2 7.93 Plywood m2 foam.814 0.2 23.18 0.gi/10) [(Swi * 10(Rwi.001 0.14 1.6 56.0016 0.7 17.36 0.005 0.gi/10) Swi * 10(Rwi.032 0.666 1.0040 0. m2 0.gi/10) +  * 10(Rwi.012 0. dB Measured Door 1.28 0.22 1. Hz Measured Open.392 0.3 2000 74. dB 10 .001 0.5 28 0.4 13.208 0.28 240.8 12.1 19.2 17 0.8 24.1 500 78.032 0.101 0.6 2 Calculated Insertion Loss.5 6. dB SRI (Plywood).144 0.308 0.381 0. dB Absorption Coefficient (plywood) Absorption coefficient (foam) 125 90 82.536 0.2 9.1 0.187 0.006 4.08 0.69 52. dB Measured Insertion Loss.2 23.5 284.9 24 0. m2 0.5 27 0.gi/10))] 10log10 [(Sw *  / [(Swi * 10(Rwi.814 Average absorption coefficient.001 0.17 0.153 0.101 0.0020 0.4 0.0316 0.14 1.064 0.598 0.536 0.gi/10) (Swi= 3.488 0.013 0.567 Sw *  (Sw= 3.598 0. dB Octave Band.005 0.5 3.9 65.4 18.001 3E-06 1E-06 4E-07 1E-07 2E-07 0.4 -0.22 1.001 2E-05 0.7 4. dB Delta.08 250 85 81.8 1.

It is also apparent that the introduction of absorption increases I. Figure 6-1–Measured Insertion Losses (Door 1).L at higher frequencies (>500 Hz). dB 11 . If we look at the enclosure with the pad installed and with and without absorption (plot 2) one can ascertain that I.1. This may be due to its inherent damping properties i. Conclusions 6. Further to this there is also a decrease in performance at frequencies approximately below 250 Hz. Insertion loss (Door 1) Student Number: 77144104 One can see from the first plot in Figure 6-1 that with no pad and with and without absorption that the introduction of absorption increases I.L is not dramatically improved at higher frequencies with the introduction of the pad. it is fairly stiff.e.IOA Diploma 2013-14 6.L at relatively higher frequencies (>500 Hz). This was expected given that the absorption coefficients of both the absorption material (upholstery foam) and plywood panels are substantially reduced at lower frequencies.

L is reduced at frequencies below 500Hz.5Hz then the minimum distance between the noise source and the absorption outer surface would be 1.4m and 5. Acoustic coupling.L is only marginally improved by the introduction of the pad Plot 4 confirms that when the pad is and is not installed and with absorption that the higher frequencies confirms absorption increases I.  fn     n 2 Where n is 1.e.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Plot 3 illustrates the differences when the pad is and is not installed and with no absorption.8m wide this has not been achieved.1) .L at higher frequencies There is also a clear dip in I. 2006. Again this confirms that I.d.  4m. n. p. p.2.1). Standing wave resonances As (Miller and Montone. There appears to be no set rule on wavelength distance but to alleviate acoustic coupling (Ver. 1978. Given this one would have to assume that acoustic coupling is present.4 etc and λ is the wavelength in m 12 (4.549) says this distance should be at least 1 8  whereas (Roberts and Shield. 2. This may also be the reason that I.3.95) explains insertion losses can be reduced at frequencies associated with ‘standing wave resonances’(only at surfaces parallel to another). This may be due to: 1.151) states that this distance should be 1 2  . Given the enclosure is only 0.Applying these rules to this scenario if we assume that the speed of sound is 343m/s and that the lowest frequency interest is 31. p. This effect occurs when the wavelength (at the lowest frequency of interest) between the noise source and the enclosure panels is not large enough.L (within every configuration) around the 250 Hz octave band.4m respectively. These resonances can be easily calculated from Equation (6. It is worth noting that there is a wide range in what is deemed acceptable i.

4  fn     n    ×1    × 1  0.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 As an example if we assume the speed of sound to be 343 m/s the first resonance at a frequency of 250Hz (worst I. This is very close to the calculated resonance distance.L) is approximately:   343 2   1.  0.65m.65m Figure 6-2 – Enclosure Layout (with no pad or absorption) 13 .7m 2  2   2  This is an interesting result because if we look at Figure 6-2 the approximate distance from the top of the noise source to the underside of the top panel is 0.

8 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 2.7 0.0 5. m 4th mode.m 2nd mode.7 1.3 0.4 2. 31. m (n=4) Octave Band. Figure 6-3– Measured Insertion Losses (Door 2).3 0.2 4.0 0.9 16.5 2.4 0.1 10.7 1.4 0.2 0. Hz 1st mode. The 250Hz I.L dip is also present which confirms that ‘acoustic coupling’ and/or standing wave resonances are occurring within the cavity.0 0.1 0.1 2.2.2 0.4 10.1 0.7 0.7 0. Table 6-1 – Standing Wave resonance mode distances.3 21. m 3rd mode.2 0.1 Insertion loss (Door 2) From Figure 6-1 there are similarities between door 1 and door 2 in that the introduction of absorption increases I.5 0.3 0.L performance.1 1.4 0.7 1.5 5.L (at higher frequencies).3 0.1 0.0 8. m 6. Once again the introduction of the pad does not have a significant effect on I.9 5. dB 14 .IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Table 6-1 details other possible resonance distances in metres.

055m. 2006. higher frequencies break through the aperture. This gives an open-open first tube resonance of approximately 15Hz.L performance at higher frequencies (>400Hz) i.2) where c is the speed of sound (343 m/s) and L is the depth of the enclosure panels (0.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 If we compare all configurations (Figure 6-4) it is clear to see that when introducing the circular aperture into the enclosure there is a clear loss in I.09m).348) Figure 6-4. All of these features are clearly identifiable within Figure 6-5 which was plotted from an expression given within (Long.Measured Insertion Losses for all configurations For example the first open-open tube resonance is calculated from: fn  c 2L (4. p.e. For the measured enclosure the sound reduction or transmission loss starts at approximately 3dB which then starts to drops off around the first open-open tube resonance this gradually goes to zero at the wavelength approaching the aperture diameter of 0. 15 .

055m is 6250Hz.Transmission loss through a circular aperture 16 .3) By iteration the frequency at which λ equals 0.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 The wavelength is easily calculated from:  c f (4. From Figure 6-5 we can see that at this frequency the sound reduction is 0dB. Figure 6-5 .

increased mass which would increase the insertion loss (not dramatically 17 . Student Number: 77144104 Prediction model conclusions All model the same insertion loss! Figure 6-6 – Comparison of measured I.L Vs Calculated Models (with error bars) 6.3.5.IOA Diploma 2013-14 6. Observations Get rid of standing waves acoustic coupling by adding absorption and damping and changing dimension of enclosure It was noted before measurement that some of the equipment was positioned upon the top of the enclosure this may have affected the damping/insulation properties of this panel i.e. Measurement inaccuracies 6.4.

6. Student Number: 77144104 Further Work More tests on acoustic coupling models Directionality of noise source Damping of panels Enlarge density of panels 18 .IOA Diploma 2013-14 6.

IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 References 19 .

IOA Diploma 2013-14 Appendix A: Student Number: 77144104 Measurement setup pictures Figure A-1 A-1 .

IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Figure A-2 A-2 .

IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 FigureA-3 A-3 .

IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 Figure A-4 A-4 .

IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 FigureA-5 A-5 .

IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 FigureA-6 A-6 .

2 82.8 125 90.3 20.9 12.5 19.5 67.9 10.3 58. Hz Measured Open Measured Door 1 I.3 8000 81 60.3 45 23.L.3 73.1 71.L.7 86.3 16. Hz Measured Open Measured Door 1 I.6 19.8 66.6 80.6 13.1 4000 78.5 4000 78.1 56 1.8 58.9 81.1 8.8 22.3 63 84. dB 31.L 31.7 11.2 no pad with absorption 250 500 1000 2000 86.9 8000 68.8 7.6 82.9 60.1 TableB-2–Insertion Loss with pad with no absorption (Door 1) Octave Band.2 8.1 4.4 8000 66.3 81.8 14 14.8 12.8 84.L.3 11.6 5. Hz Measured Open Measured Door 1 I.6 65.7 6.5 66 59.6 63 85. Hz Measured Open Measured Door 1 I.1 43.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Appendix B: Student Number: 77144104 Tabulated Insertion Loss Measurements Table B-1–Insertion Loss with no pad with no absorption (Door 1) Octave Band.7 TableB-3–Insertion Loss with no pad with absorption (Door 1) Octave Band.3 TableB-4–Insertion Loss with pad with absorption (Door 1) Octave Band.6 2.9 20.5 66.1 83.9 75.3 80.9 80. dB 31.5 18.4 70 68.8 80.2 7.5 59.3 82.1 .8 pad with absorption 250 500 1000 85 78.6 56.4 72.5 63 84.4 15.4 13.8 8000 79 58.3 89.3 72.7 89 84.5 66.4 49.1 8.4 14.2 63. dB 31.9 65.2 86 81.2 87.3 79.4 6.9 83.5 75.9 3.1 60.3 4000 69.5 4.9 12.9 63 85.7 72.8 5 pad with no absorption 125 250 500 1000 2000 90.4 B-1 2000 74.2 6.9 4 no pad with no absorption 125 250 500 1000 2000 91.2 125 90 82.8 4000 68 48.

L.7 9.4 59 57. absorption) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 84.3 74.1 11.5 11.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 TableB-5–Insertion Loss with no pad with no absorption (Door 2) Octave Band.1 50 16.4 83.6 4.5 4000 78.6 4.3 2.2 86 81.1 15.2 5 7.9 5.7 12 8000 79 64.3 50.4 8000 66.6 74.6 Foam Absorption ( mounted.3 89.2 80.9 75.1 13. dB 31.4 17.6 No Foam Absorption ( mounted.8 59. Hz Measured Open Measured Door 2 I.3 72.6 80.8 14. Hz Measured Open Measured Door 2 I.4 72.2 63 85.1 5.9 51.L. absorption) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 84.8 90.2 82.5 66.3 7.9 15. dB 31.4 79.5 9.1 70.1 71.6 69.1 58.5 66.5 14.5 66 58.7 82.5 66.6 82.9 82.9 58.9 16.5 TableB-7–no pad with absorption (Door 2) Octave Band.L.3 B-2 8000 68.8 68 80 82.9 13.1 TableB-6–Insertion Loss with pad with no absorption (Door 2) Octave Band.L.2 52.9 8.4 14.2 7.7 Foam Absorption ( not mounted .9 80.4 3. Hz Measured Open Measured Door 2 I.9 67.8 13.2 18.6 11.2 82.3 72. Hz Measured Open Measured Door 2 I.2 66.7 77.1 8.9 78.3 90.3 86.3 90 85 78. dB 31.8 10.3 7.8 83 82 74.5 67.1 .7 7 10. dB 31.4 8000 81 65.2 65.7 82.1 TableB-8–Insertion Loss with pad with absorption (Door 2) Octave Band.1 61.1 7.3 8.7 89 84.2 87.2 59. no absorption) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 85.5 no pad with no absorption 125 250 500 1000 2000 91.

R. 2nd ed. Ver. K. In: Berenek.149. In: Roberts. Handbook of Acoustical Enclosures and Barriers. and Shield. Long. (1996).W. V. p. Noise Control in the Built Environment. D. 1st ed. Roberts. Acoustics and Noise Control.IOA Diploma 2013-14 Student Number: 77144104 References Barron. eds. and Fairhall. Cabins and Wrappings. (2006). eds. D. (1978). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.551. M. p. J. and Montone. Noise Control within the Industrial Environment. 1st ed. (2003). Industrial Noise Control and Acoustics.L.I. United States of America: Fairmount Press. Aldershot: Gower Technical. F. (2006).d). United States of America: Elsevier Academic Press. Smith. Enclosures. B-1 . (n. Noise and Vibration Control Engineering: Principles and Applications. L. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc. L. et al. Miller. and Ver. Architectural Acoustics (Applications of Modern Acoustics).I. L.R. D. B. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.B. 3rd ed.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful