A Comparison of Vibroacoustic Response of Isotropic Plate with Attached Discrete Patches and Point Masses Having Different Thickness Variation with Different Taper Ratios

<div>Comparison of radiation efficiency of plate with taper (<svg height="11.8174pt" id="M134" style="vertical-align:-3.1815pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.6359 48.1964 11.8174" width="48.1964pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M828 650H570L564 622C646 614 650 609 634 524L604 366H253L281 524C296 608 308 615 382 622L388 650H132L126 622C211 615 214 609 198 524L121 122C106 42 102 35 23 28L17 0H276L282 28C196 35 191 40 206 122L243 324H597L559 123C544 42 537 35 452 28L446 0H710L716 28C632 35 628 43 643 122L719 524C735 610 741 615 822 622L828 650Z" id="g113-73"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="840" vert-adv-y="840"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,10.075,3.132)"><path d="M782 650H541L536 618L564 614C597 609 604 600 584 574C535 508 486 451 437 395C394 473 361 533 343 575C331 605 335 610 375 615L400 618L407 650H156L147 618C222 612 230 608 267 537L375 330C277 214 186 117 163 96C108 43 97 38 27 32L18 0H265L274 32L251 35C204 41 202 47 224 80C264 138 327 213 397 293L504 80C520 48 516 42 472 36L440 32L433 0H707L716 32C627 38 622 43 581 121L455 361L629 548C685 606 696 610 775 618L782 650Z" id="g50-89"></path><glyph.data ascent="3443" descent="-2856" horiz-adv-x="800" vert-adv-y="800"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,21.266,0)"><path d="M535 323V373H52V323H535ZM535 138V188H52V138H535Z" id="g117-34"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="587" vert-adv-y="587"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.528,0)"><path d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z" id="g113-49"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="480" vert-adv-y="480"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.768,0)"><path d="M113 -12C146 -12 170 11 170 46C170 78 146 103 114 103S58 78 58 46C58 11 82 -12 113 -12Z" id="g113-47"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="228" vert-adv-y="228"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,41.732,0)"><path d="M137 343C167 482 260 545 321 574C357 591 397 603 429 609L423 641C382 634 335 622 295 608C189 570 37 457 37 238C37 84 125 -12 242 -12C362 -12 447 89 447 209C447 311 374 393 267 393C247 393 226 386 204 376L137 343ZM227 337C318 337 361 256 361 173C361 105 336 22 258 22C176 22 126 120 126 240C126 266 127 291 132 310C155 323 189 337 227 337Z" id="g113-55"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="480" vert-adv-y="480"></glyph.data></g></svg>) with attached one point mass, two point masses, and four point masses for case 4.</div>

Shock and Vibration

fig16

Figure 16

Figure 16: A Comparison of Vibroacoustic Response of Isotropic Plate with Attached Discrete Patches and Point Masses Having Different Thickness Variation with Different Taper Ratios 

Figure 16 | A Comparison of Vibroacoustic Response of Isotropic Plate with Attached Discrete Patches and Point Masses Having Different Thickness Variation with Different Taper Ratios 