The sound transmission loss of conventional means of passive acoustic treatment in the low-frequency range is governed by two physical mechanisms: the inertia, as stated by the mass density law, and the local resonances of the structure. Since usual partitions are flexible and lightweight, their acoustic performance is poor, especially below 300 Hz. Although conventional acoustic meta-materials can offer excellent acoustic properties, they also perform poorly in this range. Therefore, novel meta-structures are required to overcome these limitations. This proposed novel absorber optimally combines the concepts of KDamper (KD) and inertial amplification mechanisms (IAMs). The novelty of the KD-IAM absorber lies in the generation of equally deep but significantly wider attenuation bands surpassing the mass density law while requiring only a small fraction of additional mass. The absorber is implemented and demonstrated as an elastic mount for retrofitting existing panels, essentially manipulating the resonant response of the structure by controlling the panel’s boundary conditions. It is also shown that increasing the panel’s rigidity and, consequently, its fundamental eigenfrequency utilizing stiffeners results in further improvements in the bandwidth and depth of noise attenuation. A wide and deep attenuation band is demonstrated in the resonance region below 120 Hz, up to 13 dB above the reference level. An indicative design and implementation for a case study are presented. It is further demonstrated that the same concept can be utilized for the formation of meta-structures by periodic repetition of KD-IAM unit cells, leading to significant additional attenuation of the lowest vibration modes.

Designing lightweight structures with low vibration and sound radiation has always been technically demanding and practically important. Hence, the need for low-cost and low-mass vibration isolation within the modern aerospace, automotive, and building industries has recently motivated research groups at a worldwide level to develop a number of novel vibration isolation concepts. However, investigation of the acoustic performance of common means of acoustic treatment, such as plasterboard panels, is most often focused in middle to high frequency regions and, particularly, in the coincidence region of sound transmission. Meanwhile, the sound transmission in the critical frequency range of 0–200 Hz has only recently begun to be addressed frequently. Generally, since the “mass law” that governs the mid-frequency range above the fundamental frequency states that the level of sound transmission loss (STL) can be improved only by increasing the mass density of the panel, this leaves only the mitigation of the fundamental panel resonance region, as in Fig. 1, especially when the addition of extra mass needs to be avoided.

FIG. 1.

Typical STL profile of a panel.

FIG. 1.

Typical STL profile of a panel.

Close modal

Sandwich panels1 are considered the most common solution, yet their effectiveness in low-frequency isolation has not been extensively documented, even in cases where novel composite honeycomb arrangements2 with negative stiffness element inclusions3 are considered. On the other hand, acoustic meta-materials4 lead the way toward feasible designs that can be implemented in a wide range of applications. Structural designs based on the so-called acoustic black hole (ABH) phenomenon5–7 offer remarkable possibilities to manipulate bending waves inside lightweight structures. However, the effective frequency range of conventional ABH structures is limited by the characteristic cut-on frequency, hampering practical applications. Membrane-type acoustic meta-materials,8–12 usually comprising of resonating masses, have also indicated encouraging results, mainly due to their slender dimensions and isolation properties in low frequencies. Nonetheless, conventional locally resonant meta-materials usually require relatively heavy, additional, internally moving masses, as well as amplitude constraints of these locally resonating structures, which may prohibit their practical implementation. Indicatively, current applications of locally resonant meta-materials in acoustics13,14 often address frequencies well above 500 Hz.

The application of the KDamper (KD) concept toward the design of highly dissipative low-frequency elastic/acoustic meta-materials15,16 shows promise in addressing this issue to a certain extent. The KDamper17,18 is a novel passive vibration isolation and damping concept based essentially on the optimal combination of appropriate stiffness elements, which includes a negative stiffness element. The initial form of the KDamper was optimized to minimize the displacement of the seismic mass under harmonic excitation and was geared more toward applications for machine mounting.

Acknowledging the manufacturing difficulties of meta-materials, especially in conventional structures where the cost is the main limitation, the KD concept has also been investigated for the design of mounting systems suitable for conventional panels.19,20 These initial investigations indicated the potential of the proposed system in effectively mitigating sound transmission at the fundamental resonance region for target frequencies below 100 Hz.

The concept of inertial amplification goes back many decades. An initial design was based on a vibration isolator consisting of a levered mass in parallel with a spring21 amplifying the motion of the added mass by generating large inertial forces and increasing the overall inertia of the system. Inspired by the successful application of inerters in engineering applications, several works expanded the similar concept of inertial amplification mechanisms (IAMs) for formation of finite periodic structures and bandgap generation. The fundamental theory regarding the generation of phononic gaps utilizing IAMs22 was later tested by a first design with flexural hinges and experimentally validated.23 Further developments included the experimental validation of a 2D periodic structure using shape-optimized IAMs with flexural hinges,24 obtaining wide and deep bandgaps at low frequencies. Recently, a coupled IAM-Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) system25 was proposed for earthquake engineering applications.

The effectiveness and characteristics of the IAM concept can also be utilized in low-frequency noise insulation. As proposed in this work, in combination with the properties of the KDamper, the width and depth of the generated low-frequency attenuation band can be further improved. An extended KDamper framework that incorporates an IAM is thus presented. This coupled absorber is applied in a novel mounting system for flexible acoustic panels, resulting in a wide and deep frequency band of improved vibration and noise attenuation.

The methodology employed in this work is based on a lumped parameter model (LPM) utilizing a first mode approximation for the STL of a simply supported panel, and an optimization procedure is formulated for the selection of the KD-IAM parameters. One of the new developments presented in this work is the refinement of the initial optimization procedure of the KDamper,20 aiming at minimizing the STL in the vicinity of the fundamental resonance. The theoretical framework has been expanded for improved modeling of the fluid–structure interaction of the panel and subsequent representation in terms of a dynamic system with discrete degrees of freedom (DoFs).

Although extensive work has been done in modeling and evaluating the acoustic behavior of structural elements in the low-frequency range, often the methods employed are either complicated theoretical procedures26,27 or straightforward finite element (FE) analyses, especially regarding the effects of boundary conditions of such structural elements. One of the goals of this work is to highlight as rudimentarily as possible the physical mechanisms affecting the acoustic performance of radiating surfaces in the low- to mid-frequency regions and mainly around the fundamental resonance region. Furthermore, the LPM is a convenient and fast approximative method to evaluate the STL in this region based on a couple of transfer functions, especially in cases of complex boundary conditions and/or periodic structures with multiple degrees of freedom, where distinction needs to be made between localized masses and masses corresponding to radiating surfaces.

The Free Finite Rigid (FFR) panel approximation presented in Subsection II C is essentially a modification of the mass density law, extended to cover also the fundamental resonance region in order to note its detrimental effect on STL. Additionally, it is used to highlight the limitation of the conventional acoustic treatment, in the way that it acts as an upper limit of the achievable STL. This approximation in combination with the LPM aims to show how this limit can only be surpassed with some kind of “meta-structure” exhibiting properties that conventional materials do not possess. Hence, this is the concept proposed in this manuscript.

Investigation also shows that increasing the rigidity of the panel improves the attenuation band. Based on this consequence, an indicative implementation for an initial case study of a stiffened plasterboard panel is demonstrated together with an indicative design and realization of the KD-IAM mounts.

This case study of a simplified, more stripped down application aims to demonstrate the capability of this advanced negative stiffness absorber in the area of low-frequency noise mitigation. Additionally, the basic analytical framework laid here is intended to serve as a basis for future more detailed investigations and designs verified by Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and experimental testing.

Section V contains a brief presentation of a possible meta-structure based on the periodic repetition of KD-IAM unit cells. The results show further improvements, mainly regarding the damping capabilities of low vibrational modes for increasing number of unit cells, indicating the potential of its utilization in the formation of acoustic meta-materials.

By defining the transmission coefficient as

τ=ΠtΠi,
(1)

where Πi is the incident and Πt is the transmitted (radiated) sound power, the STL is expressed as

STL=10log101τ.
(2)

Figure 1 shows a typical form of the STL curve for sound propagation through a thin panel.28 In the “mass law” region, the STL is controlled by the mass per unit area of the panel. Specifically, for a thin panel, neglecting stiffness and damping (limp wall),

STL=10log10Ω2m̄24(ρ0c0)2/cos2θi,
(3)

where Ω is the angular frequency of the propagated incident sound waves, θi is the angle of incidence, c0 is the speed of sound in air, ρ0 is the air density, and m̄ (kg m−2) is the mass per unit area of the panel. Although the mass law is very simple and compact, it is only valid for large simple panels because it is derived from the infinite and rigid panel assumption. Therefore, attention should be paid when utilized for STL predictions of general finite panels.

The fluid domain is assumed homogeneous and compressible, while an infinitely large acoustic rigid baffle divides the space into two domains. The mass density of air and sound speed are denoted as ρ0 and c0, respectively. The panel is subjected to incident pressure pi at incidence angle θi and azimuth angle ϕi. Therefore, the excitation domain consists in the incident pressure pi, the reflected pressure pr, and the re-radiated pressure prad due to the motion of the finite panel. The receiver domain consists in only the transmitted pressure pt, namely, the radiated pressure due to the motion of the panel prad+. Assuming that the incident sound pressure pi is a harmonic function, we can express it as

pi(x,y,z,t)=Piej(κxx+κyy+κzz)ejΩt=p̃i(x,y,z)ejΩt,
(4)

where p̃i(x,y,z) is the time invariable complex amplitude and κ = Ω/c0 is the wavenumber with

κx=κsinθcosϕ,κy=κsinθsinϕ,κz=κcosθ.
(5)

The transmitted pressure ptr,t is calculated using Rayleigh’s integral29 in terms of the structural velocity of the panel. Applying the far-field approximation, the transmitted intensity It is calculated as

It(r,θ,ϕ)=|pt(r,θ,ϕ)|22ρ0c0.
(6)

Then, the transmitted power Πt is determined by integrating the transmitted acoustic intensity on a hemisphere in the far field enclosing the panel, assuming a weak coupling between the vibrating structure and the radiated sound field,

Πt=02π0π/2Itr2sinθdθdϕ,
(7)

while the incident power on the panel is defined as

Πi=|pi|2lxlycosθ2ρ0c0.
(8)

With reference to Fig. 2, the finite-sized flat panel partition is assumed to be rectangular and baffled, with lengths lx and ly along the x and y axes, respectively. The panel of thickness h is considered homogeneous and isotropic and is modeled as a classical thin plate, implying that the effects of both the rotary inertia and transverse shear deformation can be neglected. The equation of motion governing the bending vibration of the plate is given by29,30

D4w(ξ,η,t)ξ4+24w(ξ,η,t)ξ2η2+4w(ξ,η,t)η4+ρh2w(ξ,η,t)t2=2pi(ξ,η,t)2pt(ξ,η,t),
(9)

where D=Ẽh3/12(1ν2) is the bending stiffness of the plate and E, h, ρ, and ν are the Young’s modulus, thickness, mass density, and Poisson’s ratio of the plate, respectively, while w(ξ, η, t) is the instantaneous transverse displacement. In order to account for energy dissipation due to structural damping, a complex modulus of elasticity is introduced, Ẽ=E(1+jn), where n is the loss factor.

FIG. 2.

Coordinate systems and transmission geometry of a rectangular plate in an infinite rigid baffle.

FIG. 2.

Coordinate systems and transmission geometry of a rectangular plate in an infinite rigid baffle.

Close modal

The so-called “blocked pressure”30pb = 2pi is also defined, which is the pressure when the incident wave meets a rigid wall. For simplification, the term 2pt(ξ, η, t) on the right-hand side can be neglected without significant loss of accuracy for the purpose of this analysis.31 Therefore, the blocked pressure pb is considered as the exciting pressure in the following models.

Considering simply supported boundary conditions along the peripheral edges of the panel, the natural frequency of the first mode results from the homogeneous form of Eq. (9),

ω12=Dπ4ρh1lx2+1ly22.
(10)

Analytic solutions for the STL can be found via modal superposition methods, for example, that formulated by Roussos.31 However, since the low-frequency range of interest in the present examination is the range near the fundamental resonance of the panel, an approximation is formulated in this section, considering only the first vibrational mode of the simply supported panel.

Expressing the dynamic behavior of the continuous system of the simply supported panel approximated by the first mode, as a single degree of freedom (SDoF) lumped parameter model (LPM) and assuming normal incident waves (θi = 0), the transmission coefficient τ becomes

τLPM=lxly4Ω2ρ0π321m1|ω12Ω2|2Iθϕ,
(11)

where ω1 is the natural frequency of the first mode and m1 is the generalized mass calculated as

m1=ρhlxly4=m̄lxly4=m4.
(12)

The term Iθϕ is the double integral over a hemispheric surface in the receiver domain, given by

Iθϕ=02π0π/2|Iξη|2sinθdθdϕ,
(13)

where Iξη is a surface integral calculated as

Iξη=4π2lxlycos(σx)(lxκsinθcosϕ)2π2cos(σy)(lyκsinθsinϕ)2π2,
(14)

where σx and σy are

σx(θ,ϕ)=κlx2sinθcosϕ,
(15)
σy(θ,ϕ)=κly2sinθsinϕ.
(16)

The objective of the simplified models is to provide a more straightforward and fast prediction of the acoustic performance of the panel along with the ability to extract intuitive and revealing expressions of the main dynamic parameters that govern its frequency response. With that in mind, the approximation using only the first mode is considered appropriate in order to study this low-frequency region and, subsequently, the optimization and effect of the elastic mounting.

In order to replace the infinite panel approximation (limp wall) with a more appropriate reference curve for finite panels, the free finite rigid (FFR) panel approximation is formulated. In this case, it is assumed that the panel is rigid, consisting only of mass and oscillating freely in an infinite rigid baffle but instead with finite dimensions.

Since the panel is considered rigid, the spatial derivatives of Eq. (9) are eliminated. Considering only the blocked pressure pb = 2pi as the forcing pressure and that pi are normal incident plane waves, the resulting transmission coefficient is

τFFR=1lxlyρ0π21m̄2Iθϕ,
(17)

where m̄=ρh is the mass density (mass per surface area) of the panel and Iθϕ is defined as in Eq. (13), where the surface integral in this case is

Iξη=8sin(σx)sin(σy)k2sin2θsin2ϕ,
(18)

where σx and σy are the same as in Eq. (15).

The mathematical model described in this section is an extension of previous work.19,32 The exact theoretical calculation of how the bending stiffness of the panel combines with the stiffness of the supporting elastic mounts is a cumbersome and complicated procedure.26,27 The goal here is to formulate a straightforward method to approximate this coupling. This facilitates the following optimization procedure and the investigation of the resulting acoustic performance. In order to do that, the main assumption is that the bending stiffness of the deformable plate k1=ω12m1 is in a way in series with the stiffness of the mounting. Therefore, the resulting stiffness is

ktot=k1k0k1+k0.
(19)

When the mounting is very stiff (k0k1), it leads to ktot = k1, namely, the case of the simply supported plate is approached. When k0 → 0, the plate is essentially free floating. In the case that the mounting stiffness k0 is of comparative order of magnitude with k1, there is some deviation between the resulting eigenfrequency of the model and the actual eigenfrequency. However, in cases when k0k1 or k0k1, the deviation is nullified.

The inclusion of stiffeners as in Sec. IV A for increasing the panel’s rigidity, and hence its fundamental eigenfrequency, helps reinforce this “in-series” approximation. Namely, with the lumped parameter models, it is essentially assumed that the panel is rigid in terms of that the response is uniform along the surface of the panel. Therefore, increasing the rigidity is an attempt to approximate the rigid assumption regarding the displacement/velocity amplitude distribution. Thus, the model can be used for estimation of the required stiffness level and guidance in designing the mounts.

Figure 3(a) shows the equivalent dynamic SDOF model of the deformable thin panel when it is supported on elastic mounts according to the “in-series” assumption. This is achieved by utilizing the generalized values of the structure, namely, the generalized mass and the corresponding generalized stiffness for the first mode of the simply supported panel.

FIG. 3.

Modeling of a deformable panel supported on elastic mounts. (a) “In-series approximation” model. (b) KD-IAM elastic mount. (c) Equivalent KD-IAM model considering the IAM’s effective mass.

FIG. 3.

Modeling of a deformable panel supported on elastic mounts. (a) “In-series approximation” model. (b) KD-IAM elastic mount. (c) Equivalent KD-IAM model considering the IAM’s effective mass.

Close modal

Following the logic of classic vibration isolation, the fundamental eigenfrequency of the panel may be reduced utilizing elastic mounts so that it can be moved outside the frequency range of interest, e.g., above 20 Hz. However, significantly decreasing this frequency can have certain implications. On one hand, it leads to slightly reduced STL frequency response, and on the other hand, it may present practical problems including excessive vibration magnitude; possible resonances with other supportive structural elements, such as bolts or the frame; or even inadequate rigidity for impact loads.

Additionally, the positions of the mounts have a significant role in their damping effectiveness, especially considering that the displacement and velocity amplitudes are maximum at the center of the panel and minimum along the edges. Therefore, a mount positioned at the center would most effectively dampen the fundamental resonance. However, this case would change the dynamic behavior of the panel and would also require an additional supporting frame along the middle of the panel, for example, which is something that is preferably avoided.

The KDamper vibration absorption and damping concept17,18 is proposed as an alternative realization of elastic mounts. The KDamper is essentially an extension of the traditional Tuned Mass Damper (TMD), with the inclusion of a negative stiffness element. This way, the inertial force of the additional mass of the TMD is supplemented by the force of this negative stiffness element that connects the additional mass with the ground. The overall static stiffness of the oscillator is maintained while the individual stiffness elements are optimally selected. This is important, particularly, when considering the static load bearing capacity of the mount. The KDamper exhibits significantly higher modal damping than the TMD and achieves greater attenuation in a wider frequency band while utilizing significantly lower additional mass.

The static stiffness k0 of the KDamper is defined as

k0=(2πf0)2m1=kPkNkP+kN+kS,
(20)

where f0 can be seen as a central or design frequency of the KDamper. Normally, in previous vibration absorption applications of the KDamper,17–20,33f0 corresponded to the operational excitation frequency of the system in question, around which the attenuation band would be centered. However, in this investigation, f0 is set as one of the optimization variables for maximization of the STL of the mounted panel.

The stiffness parameters of the KDamper are selected according to Eq. (20) in order to maintain the total stiffness of the system. However, an increase in the absolute value of kN, or reduction in the absolute value of kP or kS, may endanger the static stability of the system. These parameters may present fluctuations due to material fatigue, manufacturing tolerances, non-linear behavior of structural elements, and temperature variations, among others.

In order to ensure that the potential loss of the static stability is prevented, the possible variations of kN, kP, and kS are taken into account during the optimization procedure of the KDamper parameters,34 contrary to the classic KDamper design, which foresees variation only in the negative stiffness element kN. In that, these static stability margins are imposed via the introduction of the tolerances ϵN, ϵP, and ϵS, respectively, as

ϵN=kNlimkNkN,
(21)
ϵP=kPlimkPkP,
(22)
ϵS=kSlimkSkS
(23)

so that the limiting values of the stiffness elements are expressed as

kNlim=(1+ϵN)kN,
(24)
kPlim=(1ϵP)kP,
(25)
kSlim=(1ϵS)kS.
(26)

Defining the parameters

rS=1ϵS,
(27)
rP=1ϵP,
(28)
rN=1ϵN,
(29)

the neutral point for static stability corresponds to

(rPkP)(rNkN)rPkP+rNkN+rS=0.
(30)

Consequently, for an assumed value of the non-dimensional parameter κN = kN/k0—or the absolute value of the negative stiffness element kN—and selected tolerances, the rest of the stiffness elements result as follows:

κS=bΔ2a,
(31)

where κS is the non-dimensional parameter of the kS stiffness element and

Δ=b24ac,
(32)
a=rS(rPrN),
(33)
b=κNrN(rPrS)+rS(rNrP),
(34)
c=rPrNκN,
(35)

while the non-dimensional κP is

κP=κN(1κS)κS+κN1.
(36)

Then, the stiffness elements are calculated as

kN=κNk0,
(37)
kP=κPk0,
(38)
kS=κSk0.
(39)

The non-dimensional parameter ρ of the KDamper is also defined as

ρ=ωDω0=(kP+kN)/mDk0/m1,
(40)

where mD = μ m1. The parameter ρ essentially represents the “distance” between the two eigenfrequencies of the KDamper, which is a marker of the absorption frequency band of the oscillator.

Since the loss factor (n) can represent more accurately the dynamic response of nonlinear systems compared with the damping ratio, which is defined on the grounds of the linear single degree of freedom (SDOF) viscous model,35,36 hysteretic damping is introduced indirectly considering complex stiffness elements as

kS=kS(1+jn),
(41)
kP=kP(1+jn).
(42)

The KDamper theoretical framework17–19 is extended to include the case where the rigid mass is replaced by a deformable plate. Figure 3(b) shows the corresponding model when the equivalent elastic mount is realized based on the KDamper with the inclusion of the inertial amplifier (IAM), where mj is the connecting mass, which is assumed to be negligible in order to act just as a connector, namely, an additional DOF. Figure 3(c) shows an equivalent model to Fig. 3(b), considering that the effective mass of the IAM configuration is superimposed to the connecting mass and, in total, denoted as mB.

The aim is the selection of optimal values for the KDamper and IAM elements in order to obtain the maximum possible STL performance, especially in the resonance region of the system in comparison to the initial case where the plate is simply supported on its edges.

The effective mass of the IAM is calculated as25 

mB=ma2(cot2θ+1).
(43)

The equations of motion resulting from the model of the panel mounted on KDamper mounts, as illustrated in Fig. 3(c), are

m1q̈1+k1(q1q2)=8Pilxlyπ2ejΩt,
(44)
mBq̈2k1q1+(k1+kP+kS)q2kPq3=0,
(45)
mDq̈3+(kP+kS)q3kPq2=0,
(46)

where the generalized degrees of freedom are defined as

qi(t)=CiejΩt,
(47)

where Ci is the corresponding amplitude of motion.

The relevant transfer functions of the model in Fig. 3(c) are

TF21=C2C1=k1Ω2mB+k1+kS+kP(1TF32),
(48)
TF32=C3C2=kPΩ2mD+kP+kN.
(49)

The STL of the KDamper model is then calculated as STLKD=10log101τKD, where the transmission coefficient τKD is given as

τKD=lxly4Ω2ρ0π321|Ω2m1+k1(1TF21)|2Iθϕ.
(50)

For optimization, the “fmincon” function of the MATLAB software for local minimization of non-linear functions and constraints is utilized. The vector x contains the optimization variables, and f(x) is the objective function to be minimized. In this case, the vector x is

x=κNf0mBT.
(51)

The minimum value of the STL of the model in Fig. 3(b) is considered as the objective function, the algorithm of which is set to maximize, namely,

f(x)=min(STLKD).
(52)

Therefore, the optimization problem becomes

minxf(x)s.t.ϵN=10%ϵP=5%ϵS=5%lbxub,
(53)

with the optimization variables between the lower bounds lb = {−0.8 10 0}T and the upper bounds ub = {0 120 10}T.

Some of the choices regarding the constraints and the bounds of the optimization variables result from past investigations of the KDamper and relate closely to considerations regarding possible practical implementations,15,19 which are beyond the scope of the present contribution.

In this section, an examination of the KD-IAM concept is presented, considering the low-frequency acoustic performance of a stiffened panel. During this approach toward increasing low-frequency noise insulation, instead of lowering the fundamental resonance of the structure and taking advantage of the STL region governed by the mass law, the aim is to lift the panel’s fundamental resonance and take advantage of the absorption properties of the mounts in the resonance region. A common practice to enhance the rigidity of a panel involves incorporating a grid of stiffeners, where the density and shape of these ribs define the enhanced stiffness of the system.

The panel under investigation is assumed to comprise a conventional plasterboard enhanced by stiffeners to improve the panel’s rigidity and manipulate the value of its fundamental eigenfrequency. The relevant properties of the plasterboard are summarized in Table I.

TABLE I.

Plasterboard properties.

ρp (kg/m3)lx (m)ly (m)hp (mm)Ep (MPa)νpηp
668 1.2 2.4 12.5 2900 0.31 0.01 
ρp (kg/m3)lx (m)ly (m)hp (mm)Ep (MPa)νpηp
668 1.2 2.4 12.5 2900 0.31 0.01 

In order to investigate the effect of the panel rigidity on the STL frequency response, the KD-IAM model is employed assuming four different arrangements. The first case corresponds to a non-enhanced plasterboard with a fundamental eigenfrequency of 10.8 Hz, while the next three cases correspond to stiffened panels with fundamental eigenfrequencies of 30, 50, and 100 Hz, assuming initially simply supported boundary conditions for the panel and consequent calculation of its generalized values to be used in the optimization procedure.

The red dashed line represents the FFR panel approximation as given by Eq. (17). Intuitively, this approximation should constitute the ideal case regarding the STL of a panel with finite dimensions and may act as a reference curve for various comparisons instead of the infinite panel approximation, which is invalid in the lower frequency range that is being examined. The analysis is conducted for both KDamper mounts without the inclusion of the IAM (mB = 0) [see Fig. 4(a)] and KD-IAM mounts [see Fig. 4(b)] mounts in order to highlight additional effects. The results for each case obtained after the optimization procedure are given in Tables II and III.

FIG. 4.

Correlation of the panel rigidity and STL of the mounted panel for increasing rigidity of the panel utilizing (a) KDamper mounts and (b) KD-IAM mounts.

FIG. 4.

Correlation of the panel rigidity and STL of the mounted panel for increasing rigidity of the panel utilizing (a) KDamper mounts and (b) KD-IAM mounts.

Close modal
TABLE II.

Values of the optimized KD parameters.

Casef1 (Hz)f0 (Hz)κNSTLmax (dB)
10.8 10.67 −0.800 17.7 
30.0 11.30 −0.511 18.6 
50.0 13.80 −0.771 19.0 
100.0 26.80 −0.679 19.1 
Casef1 (Hz)f0 (Hz)κNSTLmax (dB)
10.8 10.67 −0.800 17.7 
30.0 11.30 −0.511 18.6 
50.0 13.80 −0.771 19.0 
100.0 26.80 −0.679 19.1 
TABLE III.

Values of the optimized KD-IAM parameters.

Casef1 (Hz)f0 (Hz)κNmB (kg)BW (Hz)STLmax (dB)
10.8 10.8 −0.786 5.52 14.3 18.6 
30.0 11.3 −0.511 2.70 41.9 25.5 
50.0 13.8 −0.771 2.40 75.2 27.6 
100.0 26.8 −0.679 3.49 119.7 32.6 
Casef1 (Hz)f0 (Hz)κNmB (kg)BW (Hz)STLmax (dB)
10.8 10.8 −0.786 5.52 14.3 18.6 
30.0 11.3 −0.511 2.70 41.9 25.5 
50.0 13.8 −0.771 2.40 75.2 27.6 
100.0 26.8 −0.679 3.49 119.7 32.6 

The results of Fig. 4(a) indicate that the KD mounted panel is effectively dampened in the resonance region so that the STL level is improved compared to the FFR panel. As expected, all curves coincide for higher frequencies as the mass law prevails. The capabilities of the KD mounts are displayed, especially in the case of f1 = 100 Hz where the resonance effect on the STL is almost eliminated and, at the same time, an increased attenuation band is formed in the region. Resonances of higher modes that would appear while using a more extensive modeling approach are also mitigated without a significant amount of damping, especially compared to the fundamental resonance.

Considering the case where the mounts are positioned along the edges of the real panel, the displacement amplitude at the edges is lower than the mean amplitude of the panel due to the shape function of the first mode. Thus, the damping will be less effective in reality. For this reason, the considered loss factor in the model is just η = 0.1 in order to avoid presenting a misleading frequency response. However, in the cases of the stiffened panel, the displacement/velocity amplitudes are more uniformly distributed between that at the edges and the mean amplitudes of the panel. As a result, the validity of the modeling assumptions is reinforced.

The inclusion of the inertial amplifier on the KD mounting system substantially improves the acoustic performance of the system. Figure 4(b) displays that the presence of the added mass further increases the damping capabilities of the panel and establishes a wider and deeper bandgap in the first resonance region. For the sake of comparison, the effect of the panel rigidity is again described for the four aforementioned cases. Similar to the previous comparison, the optimized KD parameters were utilized for each case, but here the IAM mass was included in the optimization process. It is observed that for the non-enhanced panel, the effect of the IAM is barely noticeable, yet even for a small increase in panel stiffness, this effect is evident. The STL curve is shifted toward lower frequencies, while the anti-resonance compensates the detrimental effect of the natural resonance of the simply supported panel.

However, as expected, a slight drawback of this extreme improvement in the resonance region is the following narrow band of reduced attenuation, which is mitigated slightly due to the resonance effect of the internal mass mD. Another important observation is that the attenuation band increases with increasing rigidity, while this increase is not proportional to the size of the IAM mass. Namely, the optimized mass for the case of f1 = 10.8 Hz is mB = 7.6 kg and, at the same time, the width of the attenuated band is almost invisible, while for f1 = 100 Hz, the IAM mass is mB = 3.5 kg where a significantly wide attenuated frequency band is observed. Comparing the STL curves of the panels with eigenfrequencies f1 = 50 and 100 Hz, we see that the latter has an outstanding performance below 140 Hz; nonetheless, above 140 Hz, the former prevails and has a more flattened/uniform response without a large deviation from the FFR panel.

Based on the investigation on the effect of the panel rigidity on the STL, an indicative scenario is studied to show the advantages of the proposed system.

One simple way to increase the panel’s rigidity is by utilizing a grid of box-type section stiffeners, as shown in Fig. 5(a). The width corresponds to the horizontal distance between the upright supporting beams providing the stable frame of the plasterboard.

FIG. 5.

Depiction of the stiffened panel simply supported on its peripheral edges. (a) Positioning and geometry of the stiffeners. (b) Fundamental mode of vibration of the stiffened panel at f1 = 90.1 Hz.

FIG. 5.

Depiction of the stiffened panel simply supported on its peripheral edges. (a) Positioning and geometry of the stiffeners. (b) Fundamental mode of vibration of the stiffened panel at f1 = 90.1 Hz.

Close modal

The selected setup is presented only as an example of a stiffened panel, while other configurations with stiffeners in a cross or “X” layout or utilizing tensegrity structures/mechanisms could prove effective alternatives. In real-life masonry applications, it is a common practice to support the drywall in stable frames, which can further increase the rigidity of the panel. However, this investigation falls out of the scope of the current contribution, the purpose of which is to demonstrate the capabilities of the KD-IAM concept in low-frequency acoustic problems. This is the reason that the added mass of the stiffeners is not taken into account in the STL performance; rather, the stiffeners are seen as just a means of increasing the fundamental eigenfrequency of the panel due to their geometric configuration.

The fundamental eigenfrequency of the panel is derived via modal analysis employing ABAQUS® assuming simply supported boundary conditions. The panel is discretized by 20-node quadratic solid hexahedral elements, and the stiffeners are discretized by 8-node quadratic doubly curved thick shell elements. The fundamental mode of the panel is depicted in Fig. 5(b) and occurs at f0 = 90.1 Hz, while the properties of the stiffeners are summarized in Table IV.

TABLE IV.

Properties of stiffeners.

ρs (kg m−3)as (mm)bs (mm)hs (mm)wx (m)wy (m)Es (GPa)νp
7800 50 50 0.375 0.575 210 0.3 
ρs (kg m−3)as (mm)bs (mm)hs (mm)wx (m)wy (m)Es (GPa)νp
7800 50 50 0.375 0.575 210 0.3 

It is noted that the FE model has been used only as a means to define the natural frequency of the panel, while the generalized mass and, consequently, stiffness in the analysis are accounted via the assumptions of the LPM. The optimal properties of the KD-IAM are defined by utilizing the optimization algorithm and by assuming hysteretic damping. A conservative loss factor of η = 0.1 has been used; nonetheless, nowadays, someone can easily find industrially produced rubber materials with loss factors up to 0.4.36 The optimized parameters of the KD-IAM mounts are summarized in Table V.

TABLE V.

Values of the optimized KD-IAM parameters.

f1 (Hz)f0 (Hz)k0 (N m−1)kS (N m−1)kP (N m−1)kN (N m−1)μηκNmB (kg)
90.1 25.1 1.405 × 105 3.613 × 105 1.386 × 105 −8.654 × 104 0.01 0.10 −0.660 3.35 
f1 (Hz)f0 (Hz)k0 (N m−1)kS (N m−1)kP (N m−1)kN (N m−1)μηκNmB (kg)
90.1 25.1 1.405 × 105 3.613 × 105 1.386 × 105 −8.654 × 104 0.01 0.10 −0.660 3.35 

Figure 6 presents the enhanced acoustic performance of the KD-IAM mounted panel, with the black dotted line corresponding to the lumped parameter model as derived from the first mode approximation of the simply supported panel. Comparing the STL curves of the KD-IAM mounted panel with those of the simply supported panel, the mounted panel shows a 110 Hz wide absorption band between 25 and 135 Hz, which corresponds to the resonance region of the simply supported case. Additionally, a maximum STL gain of 32 dB occurs, which, compared to the FFR panel, is a 13 dB increase in STL.

FIG. 6.

STL for the case study of the KD-IAM mounted panel in comparison to the simply supported panel.

FIG. 6.

STL for the case study of the KD-IAM mounted panel in comparison to the simply supported panel.

Close modal

1. IAM

As given in Eq. (43), the mass ma of the IAM has an amplification factor (cot2θ + 1), which is plotted in Fig. 7 as a function of angle θ. Therefore, for realization of the IAM considering four inertial amplification mechanisms positioned under the panel, a combination of (ma, θ) needs to be selected in order to provide the desired mB resulting from the optimization procedure of the KD-IAM model divided in four.

FIG. 7.

Amplification factor of the inertial amplifier as a function of angle θ.

FIG. 7.

Amplification factor of the inertial amplifier as a function of angle θ.

Close modal

For this particular design, assuming structural steel (ρ=7800 kg m−3) for the material of the masses ma with general dimensions 10 × 30 × 35 mm3, the relevant parameters for the IAM mechanism are summarized in Table VI.

TABLE VI.

IAM mechanism parameters.

mB/4 (kg)(cot2θ + 1)θ (deg)ma (kg)l (m)
0.838 33.163 10 0.051 0.020 
mB/4 (kg)(cot2θ + 1)θ (deg)ma (kg)l (m)
0.838 33.163 10 0.051 0.020 

2. KD mount with Belleville springs

Considering four KDamper mounts at each corner of the panel that act in parallel, the optimized parameters given in Table V are divided in four.

In this implementation, the negative stiffness element of the oscillator is realized utilizing disk (Belleville) springs. The exerted force and the equivalent stiffness of this type of springs are non-linear functions of the vertical displacement s of the inner diameter Di. The height of the spring is denoted by l0, De is the external diameter, and h0l0t, where t is the thickness. The ratio of the outer to the inner diameter of the disk is defined by δ = De/Di. More specific information about disk springs is provided by manufacturers.37 

Standard disk springs dimensioned in accordance with DIN 2093 have ratios of h0/t up to 1.3. However, in order for such a disk to demonstrate negative stiffness behavior, this ratio needs to be h0/t>2, which is categorized as non-standard.

The range of the vertical displacement s where the disk exhibits the desired negative stiffness characteristics is centered around the flat position of the disk where the exerted force is Fc and the stiffness attains its maximum negative value. This, of course, translates to the application of a certain pre-stress condition on the spring in order to be compressed to its flat position at the equilibrium state of the mount. The height h0 of the disk spring has to be such that the displacement amplitude C3 of the internal mass mD is covered by the resulting range of s corresponding to the negative stiffness values near the maximum within an appropriate margin.

Relevant geometrical parameters are gathered in Table VII. The material properties of the specific disk spring made of ABS plastic are presented in Table VIII.

TABLE VII.

Belleville spring geometrical parameters.

t (mm)δDe/th0/tFc (N)kN,max (N/m)
1.3 2.5 32 1.64 31.797 −3.570 × 103 
t (mm)δDe/th0/tFc (N)kN,max (N/m)
1.3 2.5 32 1.64 31.797 −3.570 × 103 
TABLE VIII.

Material properties of the disk spring.

ρ (kg/m3)σyield (MPa)E (MPa)ν
1020 48 2206.3 0.3 
ρ (kg/m3)σyield (MPa)E (MPa)ν
1020 48 2206.3 0.3 

In order to achieve the required negative stiffness value, kN/4=2.193×104 (N m−1), with the geometrical properties presented in Table VII, a total number of six such disk springs have to be configured in parallel. The resulting stiffness in this case is demonstrated in Fig. 8(a) in comparison with the single spring curve. The bold dashed line indicates the maximum negative stiffness value of kN, which corresponds to the kN/4 value from the optimized model.

FIG. 8.

Resulting stiffness and stress during deformation of disk springs. (a) Equivalent stiffness of a single spring and six disk springs in a parallel configuration. (b) Development of stress in each disk spring.

FIG. 8.

Resulting stiffness and stress during deformation of disk springs. (a) Equivalent stiffness of a single spring and six disk springs in a parallel configuration. (b) Development of stress in each disk spring.

Close modal

Figure 8(b) shows the stresses as a function of deformation s at five characteristic points of the spring. Stresses σI, σII, σIII, and σIV correspond to the points at the four corners of the cross section of the disk, while σOM is the equivalent Von Mises stress at the center of the cross section. The value of the resulting stress σOM must be between certain limits, which, especially in dynamic applications, defines a nominal number of cycles of operation for the disk spring provided via endurance and fatigue strength diagrams.

The realization of the negative stiffness element via six parallel disks is reconfigured into two stacks of three positioned on a fixed base as demonstrated in Fig. 9 and held together by a bolt and two washers at their flat position. This way, the two stacks still act as two parallel springs, resulting in the desired kN value; however, the exerted forces of each stack have the same magnitude but opposite directions, meaning that they cancel each other out and the equilibrium position is neutrally stable. The outer and inner diameters of the springs are free to slide on the fixed base and the washers, respectively, while the disks between them can also slide.

FIG. 9.

Indicative realization of the mounted panel. (a) Indicative mounting of the panel. (b) IAM. (c) KDamper mounts with Belleville springs.

FIG. 9.

Indicative realization of the mounted panel. (a) Indicative mounting of the panel. (b) IAM. (c) KDamper mounts with Belleville springs.

Close modal

The selected material for realization of the positive stiffness elements of the mount kS/4 and kP/4 is CR07 (chloroprene rubber with 7% carbon black) in the form of rubber pads. Common rubber materials, such as chloroprene rubbers with carbon black additives, demonstrate the desired damping effects due to internal friction. Typical values range from η = 0.05 up to η = 0.7 depending on the composition and quality of the material. The stiffness of the rubber pads depends on their dimensions.

An indicator of the compressive stiffness of a rubber pad is the shape factor S, which is defined as the ratio of the one loaded surface area A to the area that is free to bulge. Specifically, for hollow cylindrical rubber pads, the shape factor is calculated as

S=(D2d2)4(D+d)h,
(54)

where D and d are the outer and inner diameters, respectively, and t is the thickness of the pad. The compressive stiffness of the rubber pad is calculated as

kcomp=EcorrAh,
(55)

where

Ecorr=E0(1+S2)
(56)

is the corrected Young’s modulus of the material obtained using the calculated shape factor. Obviously, this requires the knowledge of the initial E0, which can be provided by relevant stress–strain tests of the material in question. For the purpose of this indicative design, the hyperelastic properties of rubber are neglected; consequently, the calculated value from Eq. (55) is an approximation that can be used as a starting point of the detailed dimensioning of the rubber pads. The dimensions of the rubber pads are summarized in Table IX.

TABLE IX.

Dimensions of rubber pads (chloroprene rubber, 7% carbon black, CR07).

D (mm)d (mm)h (mm)
kP/4 34 10 38.9 
kS/4 78 52 47 
D (mm)d (mm)h (mm)
kP/4 34 10 38.9 
kS/4 78 52 47 

Figure 10 shows the model of a KD-IAM unit cell for the simplest case of a meta-structure based on the periodic repetition of such unit cells. The periodicity is considered one dimensional, and the IAMs are grounded on one end to present continuity with the previous part of the analysis as in the KD-IAM mount. However, a 2D perfectly symmetrical lattice would have the same propagation characteristics in both dimensions.

FIG. 10.

KD-IAM unit cell.

FIG. 10.

KD-IAM unit cell.

Close modal

The displacement of a DoF at a certain position 2p of the lattice may be expressed in a complex notation as

u2p=ũ2peσt=U(2pκL)ej2pκL,
(57)

with κ being the wavenumber and L being the length of the unit cell.

In the time part of the solution, the parameter σ is defined as σ = ±jΩ, or in the case where the attenuation between the unit cells is considered, σ=ζ(κ)Ω(κ)±jωn1ζ2(κ), where ζ is the damping ratio.

Utilizing Bloch’s theory, the propagation of elastic waves between unit cells can be described by considering the interaction of displacements and forces. Considering the spatial part of the solution, this is expressed as

u2p=Uej2pκL,
(58)
u2p2=u2pej2κL,
(59)
u2p+2=u2pej2κL,
(60)
u2p1=UDej2pκLejκL,
(61)
u2p+1=u2p1ej2κL.
(62)

Assuming the case without damping, substitution into the equations of motion of the unit cell leads to

mBmDΩ4[mBkD+(γkS+kD)mD]Ω2+γ(kSkD+kPkN)=0,
(63)

where γ = 2(1 − cos q) for q = 2κL and kD = kP + kN. Setting λ = Ω2, Eq. (63) can be written as

Aλ2+Bλ+C=0,
(64)

where

A=1,B=[(1+μB)ωD2+γωS,B2],C=γωB2ωD2,
(65)

having defined the following characteristic frequencies and parameters:

ωB=k0mB,ωS,B=kSmB,μB=mDmB.
(66)

Then, the dispersion relations are given by the two solutions λ1, λ2 of Eq. (64), resulting in the upper ω+(q)=λ1 and lower ω(q)=λ2 branches, respectively.

The dispersion relations are 2π/L-periodic in the wavenumber space; therefore, ω(q) = ω(q + 2π). Furthermore, considering the irreducible Brillouin zone, the two characteristic high (ωH) and low (ωL) frequencies of the generated bandgap can be calculated as

ωH=ω+(q=0)=ωD1+μB=ωBρB1+μB,
(67)
ωL=ω(q=π)=124ωS,B2+ωH2(4ωS,B2+ωH2)2(4ωBωD)2,
(68)

where ρB=ωDωB. Additionally, the “central” frequency of the bandgap, in the case where without damping wave propagation is completely prohibited, is calculated as

ω=ωBρB1κNκD1+κNκDμBρB2,
(69)

where κD = kD/k0. The above frequencies can be used for tuning of the meta-structure for a specific application and for the definition of the normalized bandgap width in the form bw = (ωHωL)/ωL.

Using the same parameter values as calculated for the previous case of the KD-IAM mounts, the bandgap frequencies, shown in Fig. 11(a), of the irreducible Brillouin zone are obtained as fH = 163.32 Hz and fL = 56.67 Hz, corresponding to a normalized bandgap width bw = 1.89.

FIG. 11.

Performance of the KD-IAM periodic structure. (a) Dispersion curves: irreducible Brillouin zone. (b) STL for various numbers M of unit cells.

FIG. 11.

Performance of the KD-IAM periodic structure. (a) Dispersion curves: irreducible Brillouin zone. (b) STL for various numbers M of unit cells.

Close modal

Figure 11(b) demonstrates the acoustic performance of a corresponding acoustic panel based on the periodic repetition of KD-IAM unit cells in comparison to the indicative implementation of Sec. IV. For the purpose of this comparison, the previously defined modal mass m1 is divided in two masses enclosing the periodic chain in both ends. This modeling technique is required to simulate the effect of the radiating surface and the consequent calculation of the STL. The acoustic performance is then evaluated for various numbers of unit cells.

The comparison shows that on increasing the number of unit cells while maintaining the mass of the radiating surfaces, the meta-structure provides improved damping, especially in the region of the lower resonances. It should be noted that for this simulation of the meta-structure, the loss factor of the stiffness elements (kS′, kP′) has been chosen as η = 0.02, which is five times lower than in the case of KD-IAM mounts. The depth and width of the attenuation band are not significantly affected as far as the STL performance is concerned. However, despite the choice of lower loss factor, the emergence of meta-damping improves the response around the characteristic frequency f0, which can be very important for certain applications. However, in the context of the present investigation, it is demonstrated that the physical mechanisms of the KD-IAM concept providing this extreme attenuation band are present even for a single unit cell, meaning that, at least in this specific case, the added manufacturing complexity for multiple unit cells could be deemed unnecessary.

Figure 12 shows a feasible conceptual design for such a meta-structure for M = 1 number of unit cells according to the convention used in this section. Naturally, the various parallel KD-IAM elements can be divided according to the number of positions and such unit cells are chosen to be positioned on the surfaces of the panels. In addition, such a structure would be required to be in a pre-stressed state. Namely, in this indicative design where the negative stiffness elements are realized with curved bistable beams, the pre-stress is needed to drive the beams in their post-buckling state. This also means that the total thickness of the meta-structure will be reduced due to the consequent compression of the internal elements.

FIG. 12.

KD-IAM metastructure conceptual design.

FIG. 12.

KD-IAM metastructure conceptual design.

Close modal

The performance of widely used structural elements for passive solutions of acoustic treatment such as plasterboard panels, regarding the mitigation of low-frequency noise, relies largely on the attenuation of the fundamental resonance region dynamic response.

Since the boundary conditions of a vibrating panel affect its dynamic response, the sound transmission loss (STL) in this frequency range can be manipulated by supporting the panel on elastic mounts. The presented implementation utilizing the proposed KD-IAM advanced absorber for the mounting of the panel shows a resulting wide and deep frequency band of improved vibration and noise attenuation in terms of STL in the resonance region and at frequencies of ∼20–150 Hz.

The optimization procedure for selection of the absorber’s parameters based on the described modeling approximations demonstrated the relation between the rigidity and the STL performance of the mounted panel. Utilizing stiffeners to increase the rigidity and, consequently, the fundamental frequency of the panel, the resulting optimized mounts based on the KD-IAM achieve a wider and deeper frequency band of improved STL in the resonance region of the system.

Next, an indicative realization of the KD-IAM based mounting system is presented utilizing Belleville springs for the negative stiffness element of the KDamper and other common elements, such as rubber pads and simple linkages.

Finally, a meta-structure based on the periodic repetition of KD-IAM unit cells demonstrates an improvement in the damping capacity, especially at low-frequency resonances for increasing number of unit cells. However, the results also indicate that the general improvements in STL performance are not proportional to the number of unit cells. Thus, the KD-IAM is deemed extremely capable for low frequency acoustic insulation without the requirement of many unit cells and the added complexity that could be entailed in a practical implementation.

M.K. has been financed by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant (Grant Agreement No. INSPIRE-813424, “INSPIRE—Innovative Ground Interface Concepts for Structure Protection”).

The data that support the findings of this study are available within the article and from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

1.
N. G. R.
de Melo Filho
,
L.
Van Belle
,
C. C.
Claeys
 et al, “
Dynamic mass based sound transmission loss prediction of vibro-acoustic metamaterial double panels applied to the mass-air-mass resonance
,”
J. Sound Vib.
442
,
28
44
(
2019
).
2.
J. A.
Moore
and
R. H.
Lyon
, “
Sound transmission loss characteristics of sandwich panel constructions
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
89
(
2
),
777
791
(
1991
).
3.
D.
Chronopoulos
,
I.
Antoniadis
, and
T.
Ampatzidis
, “
Enhanced acoustic insulation properties of composite metamaterials having embedded negative stiffness inclusions
,”
Extreme Mech. Lett.
12
,
48
54
(
2017
), part of special issue: Frontiers in Mechanical Metamaterials.
4.
Z.
Yang
,
H. M.
Dai
,
N. H.
Chan
 et al, “
Acoustic metamaterial panels for sound attenuation in the 50–1000 Hz regime
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
96
(
4
),
041906
(
2010
).
5.
G.
Ma
and
P.
Sheng
, “
Acoustic metamaterials: From local resonances to broad horizons
,”
Sci. Adv.
2
(
2
),
e1501595
(
2016
).
6.
L.
Tang
and
L.
Cheng
, “
Impaired sound radiation in plates with periodic tunneled acoustic black holes
,”
Mech. Syst. Signal Process.
135
,
106410
(
2020
).
7.
A.
Pelat
,
F.
Gautier
,
S. C.
Conlon
 et al, “
The acoustic black hole: A review of theory and applications
,”
J. Sound Vib.
476
,
115316
(
2020
).
8.
Y.
Chen
,
G.
Huang
,
X.
Zhou
 et al, “
Analytical coupled vibroacoustic modeling of membrane-type acoustic metamaterials: Plate model
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
136
(
6
),
2926
2934
(
2014
).
9.
F.
Ma
,
J. H.
Wu
,
M.
Huang
 et al, “
A purely flexible lightweight membrane-type acoustic metamaterial
,”
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
48
(
17
),
175105
(
2015
).
10.
T.-Y.
Huang
,
C.
Shen
, and
Y.
Jing
, “
Membrane- and plate-type acoustic metamaterials
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
139
(
6
),
3240
3250
(
2016
).
11.
K.
Lu
,
J. H.
Wu
,
D.
Guan
 et al, “
A lightweight low-frequency sound insulation membrane-type acoustic metamaterial
,”
AIP Adv.
6
(
2
),
025116
(
2016
).
12.
X.
Wang
,
H.
Zhao
,
X.
Luo
 et al, “
Membrane-constrained acoustic metamaterials for low frequency sound insulation
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
108
(
4
),
041905
(
2016
).
13.
J.-P.
Groby
,
C.
Lagarrigue
,
B.
Brouard
 et al, “
Using simple shape three-dimensional rigid inclusions to enhance porous layer absorption
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
136
(
3
),
1139
1148
(
2014
).
14.
T.
Weisser
,
L.
Schwan
,
J. P.
Groby
 et al,
Poroelastic Subwavelength Absorber with Both Elastic and Acoustic Embedded Resonator
(
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
,
2016
), pp.
2127
2136
, ISBN 9789073802940.
15.
I. A.
Antoniadis
and
A.
Paradeisiotis
, “
Acoustic meta-materials incorporating the KDamper concept for low frequency acoustic isolation
,”
Acta Acust. Acust.
104
(
4
),
636
646
(
2018
).
16.
I.
Antoniadis
and
A.
Paradeisiotis
, “
A periodic acoustic meta-material concept incorporating negative stiffness elements for low-frequency acoustic insulation/absorption
,” in
Proceedings of ISMA 2018—International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering and USD 2018—International Conference on Uncertainty in Structural Dynamics
(
ISMA
,
2018
), pp.
1179
1193
.
17.
I. A.
Antoniadis
,
D.
Chronopoulos
,
V.
Spitas
 et al, “
Hyper-damping properties of a stable linear oscillator with a negative stiffness element
,”
J. Sound Vib.
346
,
37
52
(
2015
).
18.
I. A.
Antoniadis
,
S. A.
Kanarachos
,
K.
Gryllias
 et al, “
KDamping: A stiffness based vibration absorption concept
,”
J. Vib. Control
24
(
3
),
588
606
(
2016
).
19.
A.
Paradeisiotis
, “
Applications of oscillators in energy conversion
,” Ph.D. dissertation (
School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens
,
2019
).
20.
A.
Paradeisiotis
,
M.
Kalderon
,
I.
Antoniadis
 et al, “
Acoustic performance evaluation of a panel utilizing negative stiffness mounting for low frequency noise control
,” in
Proceedings of EURODYN 2020, Athens, Greece, 23–26 November
(
EASD Procedia
,
2020
), pp.
4093
4110
.
21.
W. G.
Flannelly
,
Best invention ever
, U.S.patent US3,441,238 (
30 May 1967
).
22.
C.
Yilmaz
and
G. M.
Hulbert
, “
Theory of phononic gaps induced by inertial amplification in finite structures
,”
Phys. Lett. A
374
(
34
),
3576
3584
(
2010
).
23.
G.
Acar
and
C.
Yilmaz
, “
Experimental and numerical evidence for the existence of wide and deep phononic gaps induced by inertial amplification in two-dimensional solid structures
,”
J. Sound Vib.
332
(
24
),
6389
6404
(
2013
).
24.
O.
Yuksel
and
C.
Yilmaz
, “
Shape optimization of phononic band gap structures incorporating inertial amplification mechanisms
,”
J. Sound Vib.
355
,
232
245
(
2015
).
25.
Z.
Cheng
,
A.
Palermo
,
Z.
Shi
 et al, “
Enhanced tuned mass damper using an inertial amplification mechanism
,”
J. Sound Vib.
475
,
115267
(
2020
).
26.
X.
Zhang
and
W. L.
Li
, “
A unified approach for predicting sound radiation from baffled rectangular plates with arbitrary boundary conditions
,”
J. Sound Vib.
329
(
25
),
5307
5320
(
2010
).
27.
J. T.
Du
,
W. L.
Li
,
H. A.
Xu
 et al, “
Vibro-acoustic analysis of a rectangular cavity bounded by a flexible panel with elastically restrained edges
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
131
(
4
),
2799
2810
(
2012
).
28.
A. J.
Cowan
, “
Sound transmission loss of composite sandwich panels
,” Ph.D. thesis,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury
,
2013
.
29.
J. W. S. B.
Rayleigh
,
The Theory of Sound
(
Macmillan
,
1894–1896
), Vol. 1.
30.
Y. H.
Kim
,
Sound Propagation: An Impedance Based Approach
(
John Wiley & Sons
,
2010
).
31.
L.
Roussos
, “
Noise transmission loss of a rectangular plate in an infinite baffle
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
75
,
S2
S3
(
1985
).
32.
A.
Paradeisiotis
and
I.
Antoniadis
, “
Implementation of a low frequency acoustic isolation panel incorporating KDamper based mounts
,” in
Proceedings of ICOVP 2019
,
Crete, Greece
,
2019
.
33.
A.
Paradeisiotis
,
K.
Tsioumanis
,
I.
Antoniadis
 et al, “
A machine based mount based on the KDamper for vibration absorption at low frequencies
,” in
Proceedings of EURODYN 2020, Athens, Greece, 23–26 November 2020
(
EASD Procedia
,
2020
), pp.
4111
4124
.
34.
I. A
Antoniadis
,
K. A.
Kapasakalis
, and
E. J.
Sapountzakis
, “
Advanced negative stiffness absorbers for the seismic protection of structures
,”
AIP Conf. Proc.
2146
,
020017
(
2019
).
35.
D.
Koblar
and
M.
Boltežar
, “
Evaluation of the frequency-dependent Young’s modulus and damping factor of rubber from experiment and their implementation in a finite-element analysis
,”
Exp. Tech.
40
,
235
244
(
2016
).
36.
M.
Carfagni
,
E.
Lenzi
, and
M.
Pierini
, “
The loss factor as a measure of mechanical damping
,”
Proc. SPIE
3243
,
580
(
1998
), available at https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16989531.
37.
C.
Bauer
, “
Disc springs-theory and practice
,” Welzheim: Christian Bauer GmbH + CO. KG (
1999
), available at www.christianbauer.com/downloads.