Properties of transparent sound-absorbing panels

for use in noise barriers

Francesco Asdrubalia兲
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Perugia, via G. Duranti 67, 06125 Perugia, Italy

Giulio Pispolab兲
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Perugia, via G. Duranti 67, 06125 Perugia, Italy
共Received 7 June 2006; revised 20 October 2006; accepted 20 October 2006兲
Sound absorption and optical transparency are among the most useful properties of noise barriers.
While the latter is required to reduce visual impact and for aesthetical reasons, the former is required
whenever conditions of multiple reflections and presence of close, high receivers occur. The
technical feasibility of a transparent, sound-absorbing panel for outdoor antinoise devices is
investigated in this paper. An analysis of acoustical performance of multiple perforated plates is
performed employing an existing theory for microperforated absorbers under normal incidence and
diffused sound field. An optimization of the geometrical parameters is carried out on the basis of the
European classification criteria of noise barriers for roadways. An optimized three-layer
configuration can achieve sound-absorption properties similar to nontransparent products with only
a limited loss of visual transparency and appropriate mechanical strength. Experimental data
obtained with an impedance tube on small test samples made of transparent polycarbonate and in a
reverberation room on full-scale prototypes are reported, showing a rather good agreement with the
theoretical predictions. The optical performance of a multilayered configuration is evaluated also.
© 2007 Acoustical Society of America. 关DOI: 10.1121/1.2395916兴
PACS number共s兲: 43.50.Gf, 43.55.Ev, 43.20.Mv 关KA兴 Pages: 214–221

I. INTRODUCTION panels can result in a poor durability of the acoustic perfor-

mance due to weathering and fiber quality deterioration.
Poroelastic materials are widely used in noise barriers, This paper investigates the application of multiple per-
since they fulfill many requirements in terms of both acoustic forated transparent panels to noise barriers, both from theo-
and nonacoustic performances. However, they are not suit- retical and experimental points of view. The model originally
able when properties of light transparency are also requested. adopted by Maa4 for the acoustic surface impedance of a
The possibility to integrate sound absorption and light trans- microperforated panel 共MPP兲 is employed here for the opti-
parency was originally proposed for indoor applications by mization of the geometrical parameters of the perforations,
Fuchs and Zha,1 who designed perforated acrylic glazing to with particular concern to traffic noise abatement. The
be mounted in front of windows in the German Parliament in adopted values of some of the geometrical parameters de-
Bonn. More recently, Kang and Brocklesby2 explored the use pend on the specific application and represent constraints for
of microperforated plates in silencers for ventilating window the design optimization: e.g., layer thickness cannot be too
systems. However, there is no published evidence of previ- small, in order to guarantee a reasonable mechanical strength
for the whole panel. The use of multiple resonators was ex-
ous investigations concerning outdoor noise barriers. In re-
plored to achieve a good absorption performance in a broad
cent years, an increasing demand for multifunctionality in
frequency range. The absence of porous materials within the
the design of noise barriers has been noticed: among the
cavities can also help to enhance the robustness of sound-
major requirements there are visual impact, sound absorption
absorption properties.
on the receiver side, and durability. The former is usually Section II briefly introduces the well-known theory of
tackled employing transparent materials 共e.g., polycarbonate, sound propagation in small tubes and perforated panels. In
polymethylmethacrylate, stratified glasses兲 both for aestheti- Sec. III the sound-absorption performance of single and mul-
cal and safety reasons. The use of sound-reflective surfaces tiple perforated panels is discussed. In Sec. IV the authors
can however deteriorate the overall acoustic performance of report comparisons between numerical and experimental
noise barriers in certain conditions,3 e.g., parallel barriers data for several optimized configurations suitable for outdoor
and presence of close, high receivers on the roadside. Such applications. Finally, Sec. V is devoted to the experimental
conditions are likely to coexist in high-density urban areas evaluation of the optical performance of a configuration with
where also visual impact often has to be taken into account. multiple layers.
Furthermore, the use of fibrous materials within the barrier
II. THEORETICAL REMARKS
a兲
Electronic mail: [email protected] The thermo-viscous effect constitutes the basic principle
b兲
Electronic mail: [email protected] of a microperforated panel 共MPP兲.4 When a sound wave

214 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121 共1兲, January 2007 0001-4966/2007/121共1兲/214/8/$23.00 © 2007 Acoustical Society of America

Downloaded 28 Mar 2013 to 132.206.27.25. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/terms
strikes a hole in the micro perforated panel, the velocity dis-
tribution of the oscillatory flow across the hole cross section
is not uniform. A distinct velocity gradient in the radial di-
rection is present and is associated with shear stresses which
result in energy dissipation into heat. Such phenomenon is
not entirely adiabatic as part of this heat is transmitted to the
panel itself, depending on the viscous and thermal properties
of the filling fluid and on the thermal conductivity of the
panel.
In the case of an MPP constituted by a lattice of cylin-
drical tubes, with radius r0 and length t both much smaller
than the wavelength of the incident sound, the normalized
surface impedance, zMPP, can be expressed in terms of the
wave number in air, k, the tube length t, the porosity, p, i.e.,
the ratio of the perforated area to the overall area of the
panel, and the perforation constant, ␬, proportional to the
ratio of the hole radius and the viscous boundary layer
thickness,4,5

␬ = r0 冑 ␳ 0␻
␮
, 共1兲

zMPP = r + j␻m =
jkt
冋1
+
16 r0 1
p ⌰共␬⬘兲 3␲ t ⌰共␬兲␺共p兲
, 册 共2兲

2 J1共x冑− j兲
⌰共x兲 = 1 − , 共3兲 FIG. 1. Schematic drawing 共a兲 and electro-acoustic equivalent circuit 共b兲 of
x冑− j J0共x冑− j兲 a perforated panel with an air gap 共MPPA兲.

where ␳0 is the static fluid density, ␮ the dynamic viscosity,

␻ the angular frequency, r the acoustic resistance, m the the incidence angle and corresponds to the normal incidence
mass reactance, and J0 and J1 are the Bessel functions of the case 共␪ = 0兲.
first kind and zeroth- and first order, respectively. All the As pointed out by Kang et al.,8 Eq. 共4兲 should also take
quantities used in Eqs. 共1兲–共3兲 and following should be pro- into account the impedance of the panel itself, regarded as a
vided in SI units. The semiempirical polynomial correction membrane acting in parallel with the MPP impedance. How-
function, ␺, dependent on the parameter p, has been here ever, the model adopted here does not include this effect,
adopted, following Melling,5 to take into account interfer- considering the relatively high surface density of the em-
ence phenomena between neighboring holes. In addition, the ployed panels 共⬎2.4 kg/ m2; see Sec. IV兲. On the other hand,
model by Sivian6 has been employed for the end corrections the fluid-structural modal coupling phenomenon studied by
of the resistance and the mass reactance. The heat transfer Lee et al.9 can be observed at some frequencies from the
from the fluid to the tube walls is accounted for by employ- experimental data obtained in the impedance tube 共see Sec.
ing a fictitious value for the air viscosity4,5 共␮⬘ ⬇ 2␮兲 and IV兲: such effect is not taken into account by the described
therefore for the perforation constant, ␬⬘, in Eq. 共2兲. model, as it is strictly dependent on the measurement tech-
nique and is likely not to be significant in full-scale systems.
Equation 共4兲 can be used to compute the random 共dif-
III. SOUND ABSORPTION OF PERFORATED PANELS
fuse兲 incidence absorption coefficient, ␣r, with the assump-
Employing Eq. 共2兲 and the electro-acoustic analogy, it is tion that sound incidence follows the cosine law,
straightforward to predict the surface impedance, zMPPA,␪ of a
4 Re共zMPPA,␪兲cos ␪
MPP mounted at distance D from a rigid surface 共MPPA, ␣␪ = , 共5兲
microperforated panel with an air gap; see Fig. 1兲. In the case 关1 + Re共zMPPA,␪兲cos ␪兴2 + 关Im共zMPPA,␪兲cos ␪兴2
of a plane wave striking at an angle ␪ with respect to the
surface normal,4
␣r = 2 冕 ␲/2
␣␪ cos ␪ sin ␪d␪ .
冉 冊
共6兲
cot共kD cos ␪兲 0
zMPPA,␪ = zMPP + zD = r + j ␻m − . 共4兲
cos ␪
The above expression can be used to compute the diffuse
Equation 共4兲 regards the MPP as a locally reacting element incidence absorption coefficient in the 18 third-octave bands
and the air cavity as a nonlocally reacting one. Wu7 sug- between 100 and 5000 Hz, ␣r,i, so that a single-number
gested to employ a local reaction assumption also for the rating absorption performance of a noise barrier, DL␣, can
cavity when the perforated panels are partitioned, and in this be determined according to the European standard EN
case the cavity impedance, zD, in Eq. 共4兲 does not depend on 1793-1,10

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 121, No. 1, January 2007 F. Asdrubali and G. Pispola: Transparent sound-absorbing noise barriers 215

Downloaded 28 Mar 2013 to 132.206.27.25. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/terms
 TABLE I. Geometrical characteristics of the single perforated layer
samples.

Sample code r0 关mm兴 t 关mm兴 p 关%兴

MPP1 0.5 2 5.1

MPP2 0.5 2 2.1
MPP3 0.5 2 0.8

FIG. 2. Electro-acoustic equivalent circuit of a multiple system with n per- zc,n−1 cosh共jkDn兲 + sinh共jkDn兲
forated panels 共n-MPPA兲. zn−MPPA = zMPP,n + ,
zc,n−1 sinh共jkDn兲 + cosh共jkDn兲

冨 冨
18
¯
兺
i=1
␣r,i100.1L i
共9兲
DL␣ = − 10 log10 1 − 18 . 共7兲 zc,1 cosh共jkD2兲 + sinh共jkD2兲
zc,2 = zMPP,2 + ,
兺
i=1
100.1L i zc,1 sinh共jkD2兲 + cosh共jkD2兲

zc,1 = zMPP,1 + zD,1 .

The above quantity represents the difference between the in-
cident and reflected sound-pressure levels, in decibels, for Equation 共9兲 assumes the continuity of particle velocity
the normalized traffic noise source with spectrum Li, as de- through the perforated layers:11 this can be considered rea-
fined by EN 1793-3.10 The single-number rating was em- sonably accurate when the thickness is much smaller than the
ployed here to optimize the geometrical parameters, as it is wavelength, as in the present case. Obviously, the two meth-
used in Europe as a criterion to classify the acoustical per- ods provide equivalent results for a single-layer configura-
formance, according to the standards concerning noise barri- tion. In the case of an oblique incidence wave the surface
ers to be installed along transport infrastructures. acoustic impedances of the cavities in Eqs. 共8兲 and 共9兲 have
The effective absorption range of a resonant system with to be modified accordingly to the adopted propagation as-
one perforated layer is still too narrow to be suitable against sumption in the cavity, local or nonlocal 共extended兲 reaction.
broadband noise sources 共e.g., road and railway traffic兲. In All the predictions for multiple layer configurations reported
order to enhance the acoustic absorption of the MPP, Maa4 in Sec. IV are performed by the acoustic transmission analy-
introduced the concept of the double resonator: two perfo- sis. A multiple resonator solution is able to widen the effec-
rated layers are mounted with an air gap in between, while tive absorption frequency range mainly towards the lower
the inner layer is in front of an acoustically rigid surface. frequencies but also to the higher one. The acoustic designer
This can be extended to an arbitrary number of perforated has to look for the best compromise between the increased
layers, n, separated by air gaps and with a rigid surface at acoustic performance of a multiple system and the rise of
one side 共n-MPPA, Fig. 2兲. The surface acoustic impedance costs and complexity. Moreover, it has to be considered that
for such a system, zn-MPPA, is calculated with the following multiple transparent layers undoubtedly reduce the overall
recursive formula: optical characteristics of the panel 共see Sec. V兲.

zn−MPPA = zMPP,n + 冉 1
zD,n
+
zn−1
1
冊 −1
, IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR NORMAL AND
DIFFUSE INCIDENCE

¯ Several specimens of perforated panels manufactured

共8兲 from polycarbonate sheets 关density 1200 kg/ m3, thermal

z2 = zMPP,2 + 冉 1
zD,2
+
1
z1
冊 −1
,
conductivity 0.20 W / 共m K兲兴 were tested. The choice of such
polymeric material is justified by its good mechanical and
optical properties, chemical stability, and its commercial
availability. Table I reports the main characteristics of the
z1 = zMPP,1 + zD,1 ,
samples. The hole radius was kept constant 共0.5 mm兲, being
where zMPP,i is the surface impedance of the ith perforated constrained by the employed manufacturing method 共punch-
layer, computed by Eq. 共2兲, and zD,i is the cavity reactance of ing兲. While, according to Maa’s theory,4 the optimum design
the ith air cavity with width Di. The electro-acoustic analogy of an MPP is achieved with a thickness of the order of the
used here is not fully correct to calculate the impedance of a hole diameter, in this study the layer thickness could not be
multiple-layer absorber, as it assumes that each air cavity is too small to assure a good mechanical strength to the panel
loaded by a rigid surface impedance.11 Such a limitation can 共for common panel dimensions and without internal parti-
be overcome by using the acoustic transmission analysis tions, a minimum thickness of 2 mm was estimated for the
共ATA兲 described by Lee et al.,11 which takes into account the employed material兲.
effective loading impedance, zc,i, of each air gap. The Measurements were initially performed using the trans-
equivalent formula of Eq. 共8兲 developed by the ATA ap- fer function method described in ISO 10534-2.12 The experi-
proach is the following: mental apparatus was a B&K type 4206 standing wave tube.

216 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 121, No. 1, January 2007 F. Asdrubali and G. Pispola: Transparent sound-absorbing noise barriers

Downloaded 28 Mar 2013 to 132.206.27.25. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/terms
FIG. 3. Normal incidence absorption coefficient 共a兲 and normalized surface FIG. 4. Normal incidence absorption coefficient 共a兲 and normalized surface
impedance 共b兲 for sample MPP1 共see Table I兲 mounted at different distances impedance 共b兲 for sample MPP2 共see Table I兲 mounted at different distances
from a rigid surface: comparison between theoretical prediction and imped- from a rigid surface: comparison between theoretical prediction and imped-
ance tube experimental data. ance tube experimental data.

The measurement setup included a multichannel acquisition tube, avoiding any side gaps and having the mechanical
system B&K PULSE type 3560, two B&K type 4939 1 / 4 in. boundary conditions at the edges close to clamped.
condenser microphones with type 2670 preamplifier, B&K The measured and predicted data for the imaginary part
type 7206 signal amplifier, and a PC equipped with a spe- of the surface impedance show very good agreement 共e.g.,
cifically designed software. Considering the tube internal di- see Fig. 3兲. The imaginary part in the surface impedance is
ameter 共29 mm兲 and the microphone spacing 共20 mm兲, the mainly controlled by the size of the air gap and this effect is
expected working frequency range of the apparatus was be- accurately captured by the presented model. On the other
tween 200 and 6400 Hz. Throughout the measurements, hand, the real part of the impedance is mainly linked to
sound-pressure levels within the tube were kept sufficiently visco-thermal effects in the perforations and its behavior is
low 共below 100 dB兲 to avoid nonlinear effects. better captured in the case of samples with lower values of
Figures 3–5 present the comparisons among numerical porosity 共e.g., see Fig. 3 in comparison with Fig. 5兲. This
and experimental data in terms of the normalized surface may be due to the interference between neighboring holes
impedance and normal incidence absorption coefficient. The which may become pronounced particularly in the low-
obtained agreements in terms of absorption coefficient ap- frequency regime. Some significant discrepancies can be no-
pear satisfying for the range of air gaps considered in this ticed at high frequencies 共e.g., see Fig. 5兲, where the me-
work. The data suggest that the discrepancy between mea- chanical impedance of the layer become comparable with the
surements and predictions noticeable around 4 kHz could be acoustical impedance because of the coupling effect; this ef-
explained by the fluid-structural coupling between the speci- fect also depends on the value of the acoustical impedance
men and the backing cylindrical cavity in the impedance itself.9
tube.9 All the samples were cut using the same rotating blade Figure 6 shows a comparison between theoretical pre-
and had the diameter slightly larger than the sample holder. diction and experimental data for a system with three perfo-
This guaranteed that the samples were mounted firmly in the rated panels 共sample TMPP1, see Table II for geometrical

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 121, No. 1, January 2007 F. Asdrubali and G. Pispola: Transparent sound-absorbing noise barriers 217

Downloaded 28 Mar 2013 to 132.206.27.25. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/terms
FIG. 5. Normal incidence absorption coefficient 共a兲 and normalized surface
impedance 共b兲 for sample MPP3 共see Table I兲 mounted at different distances FIG. 6. Normal incidence absorption coefficient for sample TMPP1 共see
from a rigid surface: comparison between theoretical prediction and imped- Table II兲: comparison between theoretical predictions and impedance tube
ance tube experimental data. experimental data.

similar porosities 共Fig. 7兲 demonstrates that the single-

parameters兲, proving that as expected the ATA model can be
number rating is only slightly changing over a rather large
considered more reliable than the electro-acoustic analogy
range of widths. Similar results have been observed for
for multilayered configurations. It has also been noticed that,
three-layer systems. Therefore, it has been predicted that,
through an optimization of the geometrical parameters, it is
with the mentioned geometrical parameters, a three-layer
possible to extend the effective absorption frequency range
configuration with decreasing porosities can be able to
to three octaves and place it within the most interesting fre-
achieve top-range performance, without excessive mounting
quency regime 共between 400 and 2500 Hz for the normal-
complications.
ized road traffic noise10兲 to achieve the maximum value of
Full-scale prototypes of transparent sound-absorbing
the single-number rating, DL␣,.
panels were then designed, on the basis of the modeling pro-
In the present study, the hole radius and the layer thick-
cedure described in Sec. III, and manufactured in order to
ness were fixed for the mentioned technological reasons;
therefore, the investigation was carried out on the effects of
the remaining parameters, i.e., number of layers, porosities, TABLE II. Geometrical characteristics of the perforated layers in multiple
layer samples 共layers are numbered from receiver to source side兲.
and air gap widths. It was noticed that a decreasing porosity
of the perforated panels from the source side to the rigid Sample code Layer no. r0 关mm兴 t 关mm兴 p 关%兴
backing can considerably increase the acoustic performance.
This can be expected because of the positive gradient of the TMPP1 1 0.5 2 0.8
2 0.5 2 2.1
material’s flow resistance.11 The width of air gaps has strong
3 0.5 2 5.1
influence on the positions of the resonance peaks, which im-
TMPP2 1 0.5 3 0.8
plies that the single-number rating of sound absorption DL␣ 2 0.5 3 2.1
shows a local maximum depending on the air gap widths. 3 0.5 3 5.1
Anyway, the analysis performed on a two-layer system with

218 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 121, No. 1, January 2007 F. Asdrubali and G. Pispola: Transparent sound-absorbing noise barriers

Downloaded 28 Mar 2013 to 132.206.27.25. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/terms
FIG. 7. Calculated dependence of the single-number rating, DL␣关dB兴 on the FIG. 9. One-third-octave band diffuse incidence absorption coefficients for
air gap widths for a system with two perforated layers. Geometrical param- sample TMPP2 共see Table II, D1 = D2 = D3 = 40 mm兲. Comparison between
eters: r1 = 0.5 mm, t1 = 3 mm, p1 = 2.1%, r2 = 0.5 mm, t2 = 3 mm, p2 = 5.1%. theoretical prediction 共nonlocally reacting cavity兲 and reverberation room
experimental data.

achieve the acoustical performance comparable with that ob-

served in the case of standard, nontransparent products. Fig- measurement procedure follows the interrupted noise method
ure 8 shows a prototype of a noise barrier panel constituted described by the standard ISO 35413 even though the volume
by three 3-mm-thick perforated layers and one 5 mm-thick of the employed reverberation room 共120 m3兲 is below the
solid layer, all made up of polycarbonate 共sample TMPP2; standard limit. Measures have been taken to guarantee a suf-
see Table II兲. ficient accuracy: the floor surface area covered by the test
The prototypes were tested in the reverberation room of specimens 共6.4 m2兲兲 and the sound-diffusing treatment of the
the Acoustics Laboratory of the University of Perugia. The room 共4.2 m2 of suspended gypsum-board plane diffusers兲
were chosen accordingly. A two-channel data acquisition sys-
tem was used to record the sound-pressure decays and to
drive an omnidirectional 共dodecahedral兲 source with random
noise. Four source positions were chosen; for each source
position, four microphone positions were employed and the
acquisition repeated four times, resulting in 64 measure-
ments per session as an outcome. The decay curves recorded
in each single source-microphone position were averaged;
then, the reverberation times in one-third-octave bands were
estimated with a PC-controlled interpolation procedure from
the averaged decay curve 共starting decay level: −5 dB, dy-
namic range: 20 dB兲. The reverberation times computed for
the different positions were finally averaged. Through sev-
eral repetitions of the measurements the relative standard un-
certainty on the absorption coefficient within the frequency
range 315-3150 Hz was estimated below 10%.
Figure 9 reports a comparison between the experimental
data and the theoretical prediction for sample TMPP2 共Table
II兲; three panels 共each of size 1.04⫻ 2.05 m兲 were manufac-
tured with sound-reflecting edges. Prediction was calculated
by the acoustic transmission analysis and assuming a nonlo-
cally reacting air cavity. A slight underestimation of the cal-
culated data occurs below 800 Hz, probably due to the par-
titioning effect of the boundary edges of the panel.
Nonetheless, a rather good agreement can be noticed: an av-
erage single-number rating of 3.9共±0.6兲 dB was experimen-
tally observed, with a discrepancy from the prediction of
about 0.1 dB.
Partitioning the air cavities and increasing the sound-
absorption properties of the edges may significantly affect
FIG. 8. Prototype of the transparent sound-absorbing panel employed for the performance and also contribute to enhance the overall
the reverberation room tests. Panel dimensions are 1.04⫻ 2.05 m. panel absorption. Figure 10 theoretically demonstrates such a

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 121, No. 1, January 2007 F. Asdrubali and G. Pispola: Transparent sound-absorbing noise barriers 219

Downloaded 28 Mar 2013 to 132.206.27.25. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/terms
 FIG. 11. Optical transmittance in the visible range vs wavelength of sample
TMPP1 共see Table II兲, compared with a single 5-mm nonperforated layer.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
FIG. 10. Comparison between theoretical predictions for diffuse incidence
sound absorption employing the assumptions of locally and nonlocally re-
acting cavity. Geometrical parameters are those of Fig. 9. There is an increasing demand for multifunctional de-
sign solutions for noise barriers, especially for barriers along
possibility for a three-layer configuration corresponding to transport infrastructures: sound absorption, optical transpar-
that of sample TMPP2: the single-number rating shows an ency, durability, and lightness are among those. The use of
increase of 0.5 dB in the presence of a partitioned cavity. transparent materials is very common whenever aesthetical
This is also confirmed by the experimental results recently and visual impact issues are of concern. While ensuring good
reported by Yairi et al. on a MPP backed by a paper honey- sound-insulating performances, transparent panels are of
comb panel.14 This has to be taken into account for the de- little help when sound-absorbing properties are also re-
sign stage of a full barrier. quested; this is not uncommon for noise barriers to be in-
stalled along both sides of roads and railways, close to high
V. EVALUATION OF THE OPTICAL PROPERTIES buildings.
The paper demonstrates the technical feasibility of
A separate experimental campaign aimed at evaluating manufacturing noise barrier panels using perforated transpar-
the optical performance, namely the transmittance and reflec- ent layers in a multiple resonator configuration without po-
tance in the visible range, was carried out on a three-layer rous materials, in order to achieve acoustical sound-
configuration 共sample TMPP1; see Table II兲 to verify the absorbing performance similar to those of commercial
feasibility of achieving acceptable acoustical and optical nontransparent products, together with rather good optical
properties at the same time. characteristics. The well-established theory of microperfo-
A calibrated spectrophotometer Varian model Cary 2300 rated absorbers—along with the electro-acoustic analogy and
was used together with an integrating sphere in the wave- the acoustic transmission analysis—was adopted to design
length range 300– 800 nm, with a 10-nm wavelength step.15 panels with optimized sound-absorbing properties with re-
For each sample, the measure was repeated in three different
spect to traffic noise, in terms of the single-number rating
positions and the average over the three series of data calcu-
DL␣ used in the European countries for noise barrier quality
lated.
assessment. The optimization was carried out taking into ac-
Figure 11 reports a comparison between the normal in-
count the technological constraints of mechanical strength of
cidence optical transmittance measured on the multiple layer
the panels, which has the main effect of limiting the mini-
configuration and on a single 5-mm nonperforated polycar-
bonate layer. The triple MPP shows the expected effect of mum thickness.
lowering the optical transparency with respect to the single A series of experiments was carried out, both in an im-
layer. However, the transmittance factor, ␶v, in the visible pedance tube and in a reverberation room, on single and
range,16 which is an average of the measured transmittance, multiple perforated layer systems made of perforated poly-
␶v共␭兲, weighted by the variation of human sensitivity within carbonate sheets. The results were compared with theoretical
the 380– 780-nm range of light wavelengths, can still be con- predictions, achieving good agreement, at least for engineer-
sidered adequate 共a value of 0.52 has been measured兲, at ing purposes. The predictions showed the potential of a
least in terms of visual impact of the panel. No significant three-layer configuration with layers of decreasing porosity
deviation was observed between data acquired in different 共starting from the source side兲 and evidenced the limited ef-
positions, showing the small influence of perforations on the fect of the air gap widths on the single-number rating.
normal incidence transparency. The measured reflectance for The measured absorption performance of an optimized
the multiple layer configuration was very low 共below 8% in configuration with three 3-mm perforated layers 共4 dB for
the whole range兲, avoiding any possible glaring phenomena. DL␣兲 is comparable with that of standard commercial non-

220 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 121, No. 1, January 2007 F. Asdrubali and G. Pispola: Transparent sound-absorbing noise barriers

Downloaded 28 Mar 2013 to 132.206.27.25. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/terms
transparent panels of similar thickness 共13 cm兲. At the same Eng. J. 45, 69–77 共1997兲.
8
J. Kang and H. V. Fuchs, “Predicting the absorption of open weave textiles
time, adequate optical characteristics as far as light transpar-
and micro-perforated membranes backed by an air space,” J. Sound Vib.
ency can still be observed. 220共5兲, 905–920 共1999兲.
9
Y. Y. Lee, E. W. M. Lee, and C. F. Ng, “Sound absorption of a finite
ACKNOWLDGMENTS flexible micro-perforated panel backed by an air cavity,” J. Sound Vib.
287共1–2兲, 227–243 共2005兲.
The authors are indebted to Vincenzo Tognaccini and 10
EN 1793, “Road traffic noise reducing devices—Test method for deter-
Roberto Pignattini for sample manufacturing, and all the mining the acoustic performance,” Parts 1 and 3, European Committee for
team at the Laboratory of Acoustics of the University of Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 1997.
11
F.-C. Lee and W.-H. Chen, “Acoustic transmission analysis of multi-layer
Perugia for the support provided during the measurements in absorbers,” J. Sound Vib. 248共4兲, 621–634 共2001兲.
the reverberation room. The spectrophotometer data were 12
ISO 10534-2, “Acoustics—Determination of sound absorption coefficient
kindly provided by Giorgio Baldinelli. and impedance in impedance tubes—Part 2: Transfer-function method,”
International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland, 1998.
13
1
H. V. Fuchs and X. Zha, “Acrylic-glass sound absorbers in the plenum of ISO 354, “Acoustics—Measurement of sound absorption in a reverbera-
the Deutscher Bundestag,” Appl. Acoust. 51共2兲, 211–217 共1997兲. tion room,” International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, Swit-
2
J. Kang and M. W. Brocklesby, “Feasibility of applying micro-perforated zerland, 2003.
14
absorbers in acoustic window systems,” Appl. Acoust. 66共6兲, 669–689 M. Yairi, K. Sakagami, M. Morimoto, and A. Minemura, “Acoustical
共2005兲. properties of microperforated panel absorbers with various configurations
3 of the back cavity,” on the CD-ROM: The 12th International Congress on
G. R. Watts and N. S. Godfrey, “Effects on roadside noise levels of sound
absorptive materials in noise barriers,” Appl. Acoust. 58共4兲, 385–402 Sound and Vibration (ICSV12), 11–14 July 2005, Lisbon, Portugal, avail-
共1999兲. able from the Instituto Superior Técnico 共IST兲.
4 15
D.-Y. Maa, “Theory and design of microperforated-panel sound-absorbing F. Asdrubali, G. Baldinelli, L. Frezzini, “Evaluation of the energy and
construction,” Sci. Sin. 18, 55–71 共1975兲. lighting performances of innovative transparent materials in buildings,” on
5
T. H. Melling, “The acoustic impedance of perforates at medium and high the CD-ROM: The 10th European Lighting Conference Lux Europa 2005,
sound pressure levels,” J. Sound Vib. 29共1兲, 1–65 共1973兲. Berlin, Germany, 2005.
6 16
L. J. Sivian, “Acoustic impedance of small orifices,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. EN 410, “Glass in building—Determination of luminous and solar char-
7共2兲, 94–101 共1935兲. acteristics of glazing,” European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
7
M. Q. Wu, “Micro-perforated panels for duct silencing,” Noise Control Belgium, 1998.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 121, No. 1, January 2007 F. Asdrubali and G. Pispola: Transparent sound-absorbing noise barriers 221

Downloaded 28 Mar 2013 to 132.206.27.25. Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://asadl.org/terms