Shrinking Designs, Growing Challenges: Measuring Noise Reduction in Small Structures
Trigun Dinesh Maroo – dr.tmaroo@gmail.com
Donaghey College of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72204, United States
Andrew B Wright
Popular version of 5aAA6 – A Small Reverberation Chamber to Measure Sound Transmission Loss in 3D-Printed Structures
Presented at the 190th ASA Meeting
Read the abstract at https://eppro01.ativ.me/web/planner.php?id=ASASPRING2026
–The research described in this Acoustics Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed–
Imagine a team of small robots moving through a warehouse, using sound to sense and communicate. The components that control noise in these systems are often around the size of your hand. Yet testing how well these small parts block sound can require a room-sized setup.
While this may sound excessive, it reflects how sound-blocking performance is commonly measured today. The ability of a material to block sound is quantified using Sound Transmission Loss (STL), which is typically evaluated using standardized methods such as the reverberation room and impedance tube.
The reverberation room method requires a large room (>50 m³) to measure the STL of a large sample (approx. 2.4 m). To illustrate this, consider heating a sandwich using an entire room instead of a microwave. Modern 3D printing technology enables the inexpensive production of many designs, but these structures are typically small (approx. 0.02 m³). For such small samples, the reverberation room method cannot be applied directly. One possible workaround is to combine multiple small samples into a larger one, similar to assembling many small sandwiches into one large sandwich. However, this approach is cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive.
The other impedance tube method can measure the STL of small samples, but only for sound waves that strike the sample perpendicularly. Using the earlier analogy, this is similar to heating a sandwich with a torch from only one direction rather than heating it evenly from all sides.
While both standardized methods are useful, they have limitations when applied to small structures. This research presents the design and validation of a novel small reverberation chamber (0.49 m³, see Figure 1). In the earlier analogy, this chamber functions like a microwave, efficient and suited to the size of the sample.
Figure 1: The Small Reverberation Chamber (left) closed (right) open
In this setup (see Figure 2), the STL offered by the small sample is measured using a sound input and corresponding waveforms recorded through microphones. A customized programming script developed in this research performs mathematical analysis on the waveform, and the STL is calculated.
Figure 2: Experimental Setup Example
The effectiveness of the chamber is validated by comparing the STL of two known materials against values measured using this system. The observed measurement error was low (±2.75 dB). Although this does not meet ASTM standard’s specifications (±2 dB), it is sufficient as an inexpensive solution for rapid STL characterization. Finally, the STL of four 3D-printed specimens was evaluated under different infills (50% and 100%) and material combinations (PLA, ABS, PLA+TPU, ABS+TPU) across various frequencies.
As modern designs continue to shrink, from small robotic systems to everyday devices, the ability to evaluate sound performance at the same scale becomes essential. The proposed small reverberation chamber enables this shift by allowing compact, noise-controlling components to be tested as they are actually used, supporting more effective noise-reducing designs.
Figure 1:
Figure 2: Experimental Setup Example
Figure 1: Satellite image of the Manteo, NC field site alongside a photo of the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) source and receiver setup in the marsh grass field (Receiver height highlighted in red).
Figure 2: All 3D printed samples (left) and a sample mounted within the impedance tube (right)
Figure 3: Absorption coefficient for all configurations, showing the shift in peak absorption with porosity and the difference between blade orientations.
Figure 4: Extrapolated attenuation coefficients for both blade orientations, with the field measured reference value shown for comparison.