ICSV18, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 10-14 July 2011 1

INFLUENCE OF THE PRESENCE OF LINING MATERI-

ALS IN THE ACOUSTIC BEHAVIOUR OF PERFORATED
PANEL SYSTEMS
Ricardo Patraquim
Castelhano & Ferreira S.A., Av. Colgio Militar, n 24A Benfica, Lisboa, Portugal.
e-mail: patraquim@castelhano-ferreira.pt
Lus Godinho, Antnio Tadeu, Paulo Amado-Mendes
CICC Centro de Investigao em Cincias da Construo, Dep. Eng. Civil da FCTUC da
Universidade de Coimbra, Rua Lus Reis Santos, Plo 2 da FCTUC, 3030-788 Coimbra,
Portugal.
e-mail: lgodinho@dec.uc.pt; tadeu@dec.uc.pt; pamendes@dec.uc.pt
Perforated panels are a common technical solution for the acoustical conditioning of closed
spaces. The most usual solutions of this type make use of a perforated surface, made of plas-
terboard or wood, separated from a rigid structure (wall or slab) by an air cavity with a given
thickness. Within this cavity, porous materials may be included to improve the absorbing ef-
fect of the system. The behaviour of these systems is, thus, complex, combining the effect of
the porous absorber (embedded in the cavity) and of an acoustic resonator (originated by the
combined effect of the panels perforation and of the cavity). In many applications, the back
of the panels is lined with fabric, whose characteristics can strongly influence the acoustic
behaviour of the system. In this work, the authors analyze the influence of this lining in the
absorbing properties of the system, performing experimental tests with different types of fab-
ric and evaluating the acoustic absorption in the presence of different system configurations.
To better understand the obtained results, the tested fabrics are also characterized in what
concerns their density and air-flow resistivity, which are known to be relevant to their acous-
tic behaviour. The results obtained in the experimental tests are also compared with theoreti-
cal predictions, attempting to understand the accuracy of those models for the prediction of
the acoustic absorption of such complex systems.
1. Introduction
In order to enhance the sound absorption area of the room surfaces, ceilings and walls are
usually coated using perforates (perforated panels), with an air cavity defined by the gap between
their surface and the rigid wall. In these systems, the process of sound absorption is caused by the
resonance of the air mass contained in the holes (bottlenecks) in a resonant cavity - as a Helmholtz
resonator.
According to Ingard and Bolt [1], the effect of perforated panels corresponds to an addition of
mass reactance of air in each hole to the normal surface impedance under the perforated facing,
whereas its acoustic resistance is negligible (for perforated panels with holes of large diameter or
extra wide slots, above the viscous boundary layer). So, the back cavity under the perforated panels
18
th
International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 10-14 July 2011


2
should be filled with porous absorbent materials in order to increase the sound absorption of the
system.
In many applications, the back of the perforated panels is lined with fabric (thin acoustic
nonwoven), whose characteristics can strongly influence the acoustic behaviour of the system. In
fact, there are few works studying the influence of this thin acoustic nonwoven on the back of per-
forated panels with a relatively high thickness (12mm) and a low fraction of open area (commonly
between 3% and 15%).
The main reason that triggered this work was the fact that perforated panels were tested in
three different laboratories, and none showed a characteristic behaviour of a resonator Figure 1.
Those panels (designated here as type A, and described in further detail in section 3), included a
nonwoven textile glued on their back. These results indicated that, in the development and imple-
mentation of these systems, it becomes important to assess the factors that can influence their
acoustic performance.

Figure 1. First lab tests no resonance peak, no significant differences

Since the sound absorption of the perforates is strongly dependent on the mounting condi-
tions, an experimental parametric study is performed, in order to evaluate, using a reverberation
room and according to the ISO 354:2003 standard, the dependence of the sound absorption in
wooden panels with circular holes on the following parameters: usage of thin acoustic nonwoven as
a resistive layer; use of mineral wool on the back layer of air; small variation of the open area of the
panels. A theoretical analysis is also performed, following the methodology compiled on [2], based
on the works of Morse, Bolt, Ingard and Crandall [3-6].
Following this introduction, the next section presents the definition of perforation impedance
and some existing formulations for computing the sound absorption of the system; Section 3 de-
scribes the experimental setups and procedures; Section 4 gives the results of sound absorption for
the different tests; in Section 5, a comparison between experimental measurements and theoretical
predictions is presented; finally, the concluding remarks are presented in Section 6.
2. Modelling sound absorption of perforated panels
The methods of modelling the sound absorption of perforated panels are based on the conver-
sion of acoustic impedance of a single hole in an average value corresponding to the open area of
the panel. The perforated panel is considered as a set of short tubes of identical length to the thick-
ness of the panel, and the non-perforated material very dense and rigid, and therefore perfectly re-
flective. It is further assumed that the wavelength of the sound that propagates is sufficiently large
compared with the cross-sectional dimension of the tube (i.e., hole). This method includes the terms
due to viscosity of air, radiation (from a hole in a baffle), interactions between holes and the effects
of reactance of the cavity.
18
th
International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 10-14 July 2011


3
These acoustic systems are studied using the concept of the transfer matrix method, which
determines the acoustic impedance along the normal direction of an interface of a material using the
continuity of particle velocity (on both sides of the interface) and knowing the acoustic properties of
the medium (characteristic impedance,
a
c
Z , and the wavenumber or propagation constant,
a
k ).
When the nonwoven acoustic textile is placed right behind the perforated panels, then the re-
sistance behaves as though it actually occurs in the openings. According to Ingard and Bolt [1] and
to Vr and Beranek [7], acoustic resistance of the absorber is increased to t (where is the
flow resistivity of the nonwoven acoustic textile, t is its thickness and is the fraction of open area
or porosity of the perforated panel).
From the knowledge of the acoustic impedance is possible to determine the sound absorption
coefficient and then estimate its value for diffuse field.
The arrangement of the absorber is shown in Figure 2. We consider the system as locally re-
acting, assuming that the sound in the absorber can propagate only perpendicularly to the plane of
the interface.
x
y
k Z
c
a
,
air space
k
0
Z
0
c
0
, ,
Z
0
s
d
1
3 1
0
Mineral wool
Perforated
Panel
Rigid
Wall
0
D=2r

a a
,
2
t
Thin acoustic
nonwoven

Figure 2. Arrangement of absorber for prediction

At Point 0 the normal surface impedance is infinite ( =
0
s
Z ), since it is considered a rigid
wall. The normal surface impedance at point 1,
( )
1
1
i cot
a
s c a
Z Z k d = (1)
where
a
c
Z is the characteristic impedance of the mineral wool, and
a
k is the wavenumber (or
propagation constant). So, to use this model is necessary to have the mineral wool characterized in
respect of these physical quantities by means of measurement, as reported by Cox and DAntonio
[8], or using an empirical predictions from regression analyses of measured data.
As written above, the normal surface impedance at point 2 is:
( )
2 1
1
i cot
a
s s c a
t t
Z Z Z k d


= + = + (2)
and the surface impedance of the system (point 3) along the normal direction is:

2 3
s s s
Z Z Z
panel
+ = (3)
where the normal surface impedance of a perforated panel corresponds the idea of the impedance of
one hole (tube) is converted into a single averaged value corresponding to the fraction of perforated
open area and is given by:

tube
panel
s
s
Z
Z = (4)
18
th
International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 10-14 July 2011


4
And, according with Crandall [6], the impedance of one hole (tube) is

( )
( ) ( )
1
2
1 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
2 2
i 1 2 2 i
tube
s
s
s s
J k r r
Z l c
k r J k r

| | (
| |
= + + +
|
(
|
|
\
\
(5)
where
0
is the air density, is the angular frequency,
0
l is the thickness of the perforated panel,
r is the radius of the circular hole, is the coefficient of air viscosity, is the wavelength,
n
J is
the n
th
order of Bessel function and
0
i
s
k = is the Stokes wave number.
The second term on the right hand side is the end correction, which also accounts for the in-
teraction between the orifices via the expression (see [7] and [8])

|

\
|
+ =
3
47 . 0 47 . 1 1
3
16

r
(6)
The sound absorption coefficient for a sound incidence angle with respect to the normal of
the surface is given by
( )
2
1 ( ) R = (7)
where ( ) R is the reflection coefficient that can be expressed in terms of the normal surface im-
pedance
3
s
Z of the system:

3
3
0
0
cos
( )
cos
s
s
Z Z
R
Z Z

=
+
(8)
where
0 0 0
Z c = is the acoustic impedance of the air.
To estimate the sound absorption coefficient for random incidence, i.e. diffuse field, the au-
thors follow the proposal Vr and Beranek in [7], which state that there is a very close correlation
between the calculation of ( ) from Eq. (7), for incidence of

45 = and more complex ap-

proaches proposed by other authors for diffuse incidence.
3. Experimental setup and characteristics of the absorbing system
To assess the sound absorption coefficient of the perforated panels under diffuse sound inci-
dence, standardized laboratory tests were performed in a reverberation chamber, following the pro-
cedures specified in the ISO 354:2003 standard. In this section, a brief description of the test condi-
tions is given, together with some details concerning the tested sound absorbing systems.
To perform the sound absorbing tests, a large size reverberant chamber, with a total volume of
203.98m
3
and a floor area of 5.85m x 5.85m, existing in the laboratory infrastructure of ITeCons, at
the University of Coimbra, was used. This reverberant chamber has previously been prepared in
order to fulfil the requirements of the ISO 354 standard, namely in what concerns the creation of a
diffuse field and the limitation of the reverberation times of the empty chamber. A detailed descrip-
tion of the testing conditions within the chamber can be found in [9], and for the purpose of this
work it is enough to just highlight that 15 sound polycarbonate diffusers, with convex and concave
shapes, totalizing 30 m
2
, were used to ensure the correct behaviour of the chamber.
Each test sample had an area of approximately 10.8m
2
, and consisted of perforated wooden
panels over mounted over the floor in a E-50 configuration, incorporating a small resonant cavity
between the panel and the floor. The perforated wooden panels were 12 mm thick, with circular
holes with a diameter of D=8 mm, equally spaced 32 mm along the two orthogonal directions (see
Figure 3). To allow the use of an adequate test area, panels with 600 mm x 600 mm were used,
18
th
International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 10-14 July 2011


5
forming a grid with 6 by 5 individual panels. These panels were supported by a light wooden struc-
ture, mounted over the floor, consisting of an external frame with 4 wooden beams, complemented
by internal beams equally spaced 600 mm, disposed along the smaller dimension.
Two different types of panels were used, designated as A and B, corresponding to different
global perforation areas. In terms of global perforated area, although the hole diameter and spacing
remain constant between all solutions, panel B presents an additional row of holes along each side
of the panel, which originates a slight increase in the perforated area. Thus, in the case of panel A,
this area is approximately 3.57% of the panel area, while in panel type B the perforation corre-
sponds to 4,52% (see Figure 3).
6
0
3
2
60 32
D
=
8
a)
2
8
3
2
28 32
D
=
8
b)
Figure 3. Perforation scheme of the different panels (dimensions in mm): a) type A; b) type B.

The support wooden structure is approximately 40 mm thick, which ensures the presence of a
small air-gap with that thickness bellow the panels. Three different solutions were tested, corre-
sponding to: an air-gap, without any absorbing material; a cavity filled with a mineral wool with a
density of 40 kg/m
3
; a cavity filled with a mineral wool with a density of 70 kg/m
3
.
On the back of the perforated panels, a nonwoven acoustic textile mat was used, which is a
very usual constructive solution in these type of panels, mostly to avoid the emission of small parti-
cles from the mineral wools. For the purpose of this work, three types of textile mats were used,
which will here be designated as M1, M2 and M3. M1 and M2 correspond to nonwoven textile mats
that are of current use on the back of thin micro perforated metal sheets, in order to improve their
sound absorption; M3 is a standard nonwoven textile mat that is commonly used on the back of
wooden or plasterboard perforated panels. Although no precise data could be obtained for these
mats, it was possible to perform a brief laboratory characterisation, evaluating their air-flow resis-
tivity, an essential parameter to incorporate the effect of these mats in the theoretical models of sec-
tion 2. These values were of 79 MKS rayl, 71 MKS rayl and 27 MKS rayl for the M1, M2 and M3
nonwoven, respectively.
4. Experimental results
An experimental parametric study was performed to evaluate the influence of the different
variables identified before in the behaviour of the system. Figure 4a illustrates the sound absorption
obtained for the tested system with panels of type A, and with the cavity filled with mineral wool
(with density of 70 kg/m
3
). Results for the three nonwovens are presented, together with reference
measurements performed without any nonwoven, with and without the mineral wool. For an empty
cavity, and without the nonwoven, the resonant behaviour of the system can, as expected, be ob-
served between 400 Hz and 500 Hz, although with a relatively small absorption coefficient (=0.4).
When mineral wool is used, this resonance lowers to the frequency band of 315 Hz, due to imped-
ance of this material, and the peak becomes notoriously higher (around =1.0). The introduction of
the M3 nonwoven textile produces only a slight variation in this response, with the behaviour of the
system maintaining the same features. In fact, a slight broadening effect occurs, with a small de-
crease in the peak value together with a very slight increase in the absorption observed at low and
high frequencies. This effect is clearly related to the additional resistivity introduced by M3. How-
18
th
International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 10-14 July 2011


6
ever, when this resistivity is higher (nonwovens M1 and M2), the obtained curves show a very dif-
ferent behaviour, even if the remaining parts of the system are kept constant. For those cases, the
resonant behaviour almost disappears, and the corresponding curves exhibit much smaller absorp-
tion along the mid-frequency range (particularly between 200 Hz and 1000 Hz). This is an impor-
tant observation, which shows that the use of such types of nonwovens can dramatically change the
behaviour of the system, decreasing its expected performance. Between M1 and M2, some differ-
ences can still be noted, with the latter exhibiting an even lower absorption coefficient throughout
the analysed frequency range. In Figure 4b, results for the same mineral wool are presented for the
nonwovens M2 and M3, comparing their effects for the two types of panels analysed in this work. It
is clear, in that figure, that for both types of nonwovens the increase in the open area provides a
perceptible improvement of the absorption. Although this variation is much more evident for M2,
even for M3 it can reach =0.15 above the resonance frequency, which can be considered a signifi-
cant gain.
a) b)
Figure 4. Results for the 70 kg/m
3
mineral wool: a) effect of different nonwovens for a given mineral wools
density, using panel type A; b) influence of the nonwoven for panel types A and B.
In Figure 5a, results measured for panel type B using different mineral wool densities and
different nonwovens are presented. In this plot, it can be seen that, when using nonwoven M3, the
increase of wool density produces a very small change in the absorption curve in the mid-frequency
range. Indeed, there is even a small absorption decrease at the resonance peak, which the authors
believe is due to the higher contrast between the two materials when higher density wool is used.


a) b)
Figure 5. Influence of the nonwoven for different mineral wool densities: a) results for panel type A; b)
results for panel type B.
This may indicate that a small coupling effect occurs between the thin layer of the nonwoven,
which lowers the peak efficiency of the system. A small increase of absorption in the high fre-
quency range is also observed in some of the plots, which was not expected and that the authors
18
th
International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 10-14 July 2011


7
believe is only related to the experimental conditions. Figure 5b presents additional results obtained
for panels of type A. A reference curve, obtained without mineral wool nor nonwoven, is added to
allow comparison. When just the M3 nonwoven is introduced, there is a striking gain in the absorp-
tion coefficients throughout the frequency range; this is performance gain can reach =0.25 at the
peak of resonance. The introduction of mineral wool, within the cavity provides a further step up in
performance, with maximum values of =1.0 being reached at the resonance frequency. As in Fig-
ure 5a, no practical differences are observed between the two mineral wools, with the lower density
solution even exhibiting slightly higher peak absorption.
5. Comparison with theoretical predictions
The theoretical model presented in section 2 was used in order to understand the efficiency of
those models in predicting the behaviour of the tested systems. Although several tests were per-
formed for different cases, we here just illustrate a comparison between the theoretical model re-
sults and the experimental results obtained for a reduced number of cases.
In a first set of results, consider the system composed of type A panels, for which case the
perforated area represents 3.57% of the panel, incorporating the nonwoven mat M3 on its back and
with an air gap filled with 40 kg/m
3
mineral wool; an air-flow resistivity of 14152 rayl/m is as-
sumed for this wool, while the nonwoven M3 is characterized by an air-flow resistivity of 27 rayl.
Figure 6a presents a comparison between the theoretical prediction and experimental measurement
for this case. In the plot it becomes apparent that the results match very well, with the peak reso-
nance occurring at the same frequency. In the lower frequency region, the two curves have very
similar trends, and only a small mismatch is visible when the peak absorption is reached at 315 Hz.
At higher frequencies, a larger difference is clear, with an increase in the absorption determined
experimentally that is not predicted by the theoretical model.
A second plot corresponding to the case in which the air-gap is empty and no nonwoven is
used on the back of the panels is presented in Figure 6b. In this case, a much lower absorption coef-
ficient is measured and estimated theoretically, and, again, a reasonable agreement between curves
can be observed up to the resonance frequency. As expected, due to the presence of the mineral
wool, this resonance is now slightly shifted to the right, and occurs at the 400 Hz band. Again, an
unexpected raise in the measured absorption can be observed above 2000 Hz in the experimental
data, which finds no correspondence in the theoretical predictions.


a) b) c)
Figure 6. Comparison between theoretical and experimental results (panel A) for three configurations: a)
nonwoven M3 and mineral wool; b) panels without nonwoven nor wool; c) nonwoven M1 and mineral wool.
A final plot, displayed in Figure 6c, illustrates the behaviour of the system when the non-
woven M1 is used; it is important to note that the flow resistivity is now much higher, with a meas-
ured value of 75 rayl. The theoretical curve now exhibits a much smoother shape, with a pro-
nounced decrease in the peak absorption being registered; the resonant behaviour can still be identi-
fied, although in a less pronounced manner. The effect of the higher resistivity of the nonwoven M1
is thus very visible in the theoretical curve, reducing the peak absorption and broadening the curve
so that better performances are observed at higher frequencies. Comparing to the experimental re-
18
th
International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 10-14 July 2011


8
sult, the behaviour is not as similar as in the previous cases. In the experimental curve, the reso-
nance effect of the panel can hardly be identified, and only a small peak is visible at the frequency
of 200 Hz. It can thus be inferred that for higher values of the air-flow resistivity larger discrepan-
cies between the theoretically expected behaviour and the experimental results were observed.
6. Final remarks
This work analysed the behaviour of perforated wooden panels used to provide sound absorp-
tion in closed spaces. Particularly, the work addressed the effect of using different nonwoven tex-
tiles on the back of the panels together with mineral wools of different densities and different perfo-
rated open areas of the panels. The air-flow resistivity of the nonwoven was found to be a determi-
nant variable, influencing the sound absorption of the system. In fact, when used together with a
cavity filled with mineral wool, a nonwoven with high resistivity clearly hinders the development of
the resonant behaviour of the system, dramatically lowering the absorption provided by the panels
at mid-frequencies. If the nonwoven has a small air-flow resistivity, this behaviour is not observed,
and the resonance peak in the absorption curve is still very pronounced. A comparison with theo-
retical results revealed a good agreement when the nonwoven textile exhibits a small resistivity; for
higher values of this parameter, larger discrepancies between the theoretically expected behaviour
and the experimental results were observed.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Castelhano & Ferreira, S.A. and ITeCons - Instituto de
Investigao e Desenvolvimento Tecnolgico em Cincias da Construo for the support provided
during the preparation of this work.
REFERENCES
1.
K.U. Ingard and R.H. Bolt, Absorption characteristics of acoustic material with perforated
facings, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 23, 533-540 (1951).
2.
R. Patraquim, Perforated wooden panels: design and experimental evaluation of solutions,
Masters Thesis submitted to Instituto Superior Tcnico, Portugal, in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering (2008).
3.
P.M. Morse, R.H. Bolt and R.L. Brown, Acoustic Impedance and sound absorption, Jour-
nal of the Acoustical Society of America 12-2, 217-227 (1940).
4.
R.H. Bolt, On the design of perforated facings for acoustic materials, Journal of the Acous-
tical Society of America 19, 917-921 (1947).
5.
K.U. Ingard, On the theory and design of acoustic resonators, Journal of the Acoustical So-
ciety of America 25, 1037-1062 (1953).
6.
I.B. Crandall, Theory of vibrating systems and sound, Van Nostrand, New York (1926).
7.
I.L. Vr and L.L. Beranek, oise and Vibration Control Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 2
nd

ed., New York (2005).
8.
T.J. Cox and P. DAntonio, Acoustic absorbers and diffusers: theory, design and application,
Spoon Press, 1
st
ed. (2004).
9.
I. Castro, A. Tadeu, J. Antnio, A. Moreira, P. Amado Mendes and L. Godinho, Cmaras
mveis ITeCons para a realizao de ensaios acsticos: parte II preparao e caracterizao
das cmaras horizontais, Proceedings of Acstica 2008, Coimbra, Portugal, October 20-22
(2008).