Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 50, Issue 9, pp 3495–3503 | Cite as

Sound absorption of porous cement composites: effects of the porosity and the pore size

  • Marius Rutkevičius
  • Zak Austin
  • Benjamin Chalk
  • Georg H. Mehl
  • Qin Qin
  • Philip A. Rubini
  • Simeon D. Stoyanov
  • Vesselin N. Paunov
Original Paper

Abstract

We prepared sound absorbing cement–hydrogel composites using a hydrogel slurry templating technique. We air-dried the wet cement composites containing a varying percentage and size of entrapped hydrogel microbeads to produce a porous cement with a controlled porosity and pore size matching the hydrogel bead distribution. The composites porosity, mass density, compressional strength and sound absorption properties were analysed. SEM analysis showed residual domains from the dried hydrogels beads within the voids created by the hydrogel bead evaporation in the cement samples. The sound absorption coefficient of the composite varied with the templated hydrogel bead size and the overall porosity. The composite samples made with hydrogel beads of average size 0.7 mm showed high absorption coefficients between 0.5 and 0.80 for 500–800 Hz for 50 vol% porosity. Samples produced by templating hydrogels of 1 mm bead size and 70 vol% porosity showed an increased absorption over the sound frequency range 200–2000 Hz. Templating a mixture of the 1.6 and 1.0 mm hydrogel beads slurries with cement slurry did not appear to yield synergistic effect in the sound absorption of the produced porous composites compared to samples made from the separate slurries. The mechanical strength of the obtained porous cement composites decreased with the increase of porosity. Such low fabrication-cost and environmentally friendly composites have a potential to be used as passive sound absorbers by the building and transport industries.

Keywords

Sound Absorption Cement Composite Hydrogel Composite Bead Size Hydrogel Bead 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Nigel Parkin for the preparation of the moulds and Iain Leishman for the assistance with compressional strength measurements. MR appreciates the EPSRC Industrial CASE award and funding from Unilever during his Ph.D studies.

References

  1. 1.
    Passchier-Vermeer W, Passchier WF (2000) Noise exposure and public health. Environ Health Perspect 108:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mead MN (2007) Noise pollution: the sound behind heart effects. Environ Health Perspect 115:A536–A537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Godlee F (1992) Noise: breaking the silence. Brit Med J 304:110–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ma G, Yang M, Xiao S, Yang Z, Sheng P (2014) Acoustic metasurface with hybrid resonances. Nat Mater 13:873–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yilmaz ND, Banks-Lee P, Powell NB, Michielsen S (2011) Effects of porosity, fiber size, and layering sequence on sound absorption performance of needle-punched nonwovens. J Appl Polym Sci 121:3056–3069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sagartzazu X, Hervella-Nieto L (2011) Impedance prediction for several porous layers on a moving plate: application to a plate coupled to an air cavity. J Comput Acoust 19:379–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crocker MJ (2007) Handbook of noise and vibration control. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beranek LL, Vér IL (1992) Noise and vibration control engineering: principles and applications. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cox TJ, D’Antonio P (2004) Acoustic absorbers and diffusers: theory. Design and Application. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fahy FJ (2000) Foundations of engineering acoustics. Elsevier Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arenas JP, Crocker MJ (2010) Recent trends in porous sound-absorbing materials. Sound Vib 44:12–17Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maa D-Y (1998) Potential of microperforated panel absorber. J Acoust Soc Am 104:2861–2866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olny X, Boutin C (2003) Acoustic wave propagation in double porosity media. J Acoust Soc Am 114:73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laukaitis A, Fiks B (2006) Acoustical properties of aerated autoclaved concrete. Appl Acoust 67:284–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Atalla N, Panneton R, Sgard FC, Olny X (2001) Acoustic absorption of macro-perforated porous materials. J Sound Vib 243:659–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glé P, Gourdon E, Arnaud L (2011) Acoustical properties of materials made of vegetable particles with several scales of porosity. Appl Acoust 72:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karabulut S, Caliskan M (2013) Development of an ecological, smooth, unperforated sound absorptive material. Proc Meet Acoust 19:1–7Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cuiyun D, Guang C, Xinbang X, Peisheng L (2012) Sound absorption characteristics of a high-temperature sintering porous ceramic material. Appl Acoust 73:865–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sgard FC, Olny X, Atalla N, Castel F (2005) On the use of perforations to improve the sound absorption of porous materials. Appl Acoust 66:625–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rutkevičius M, Munusami SK, Watson Z et al (2012) Fabrication of novel lightweight composites by a hydrogel templating technique. Mater Res Bull 47:980–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rutkevičius M, Mehl GH, Paunov VN et al (2013) Sound absorption properties of porous composites fabricated by a hydrogel templating technique. J Mater Res 28:2409–2414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Organisation IS (1996) ISO 10534-1:1996: Acoustics—determination of sound absorption coefficient and impedance in impedance tubes. Part 1: method using standing wave ratio. GeenvaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kistler SS (1931) Coherent expanded aerogels and jellies. Nature 127:741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sandberg U (2003) The multi-coincidence peak around 1000 Hz in tyre/road noise spectra. In: Euronoise Naples 2003, paper ID 498, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Charlett AJ, Craig MT (2006) Fundamental building technology. Taylor & Francis, OxonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marius Rutkevičius
    • 1
    • 4
  • Zak Austin
    • 1
  • Benjamin Chalk
    • 1
  • Georg H. Mehl
    • 1
  • Qin Qin
    • 2
  • Philip A. Rubini
    • 2
  • Simeon D. Stoyanov
    • 3
  • Vesselin N. Paunov
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryThe University of HullHullUK
  2. 2.The Acoustics Research Centre, School of EngineeringThe University of HullHullUK
  3. 3.Unilever R&D VlaardingenVlaardingenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Chemical and Biomolecular EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations