HOW TPV OUT-PERFORMS EPDM IN ACOUSTIC PROPERTIES FOR

AUTOMOTIVE SEALING

James T. Browell, Jyco Sealing Technologies, Dexter, MI
Shawn Jyawook, Jyco Sealing Technologies, Dexter, MI

Abstract

A comparative analysis of TPV vs. EPDM with
respect to noise reduction is examined for automotive
weatherstrip body sealing applications. Specifically,
EPDM sponge is compared with JyFlex
TM
, a TPV
compound of equivalent stiffness. The study is performed
using multiple acoustic tests (road and component),
supported by FEA analysis as a diagnostic tool [1].

Introduction
Primary and Auxiliary Body Seals are used to prevent
water, air and noise impingement into the passenger
compartments of automobiles. While the seal design is
critical to prevent leaks and aspiration, the material itself
can influence noise transmission. The automotive industry
currently uses EPDM sponge for body sealing because of
its pliability, thereby being able to accommodate build
variations [2]. JyFlex
TM
TPVs can replace EPDM sponge
and increase acoustic performance, while maintaining
equivalent sealing characteristics at a reduced cost.

It has been shown, using a combination of testing and
finite element analysis, that primary seal acoustic
performance is stiffness controlled at low frequencies (<
1000 Hz) and mass controlled at higher frequencies
(>2000 Hz) [2]. JyFlex
TM
TPVs are typically two to three
times denser than EPDM sponges. Thus for similar
sections, the TPV bulbs should have better acoustic
performance than an EPDM bulb of equivalent cross-
section.

Past studies indicate that primary seal acoustic
performance is controlled by mass at higher frequencies
[2] and the frequencies typically associated with wind
noise [3] 1000 to 5000 Hz. Because JyFlex
TM
TPV is a
denser material than typical production EPDM sponges, it
should follow from mass law [4] that insertion loss
characteristics are better for similar cross-sections in
similar environments. Subsequently, a series of studies
show the extent of the acoustic advantage using higher
density material for weatherstrip primary sealing
applications in automobiles.

Noise Transmission Through Primary Seals
There are many noise sources that can penetrate into
the cabin of an automobile, but only a few that penetrate
through the primary body seals. Sources of noise
transmission through primary body seals are:

1. Wind noise,
2. Far field noise, and
3. Aeroacoustic resonances.

Other noise sources, such as the engine, tires,
structural borne vibrations, and interior cabin resonances
can dominate. However, at higher speeds wind noise tends
to become the major contributor. Noise impinges through
the body seals around the sealing patch (in the worst case,
aspiration), between the carrier and flange (for flange
mounted seals), and by way of direct noise transmission
[Figure 1]. Direct noise transmission can occur through
the seal walls and be accentuated by cavity size and
vibration characteristics of the seal [2].

Most current production automobiles use triple sealed
doors, which comprise of a continuous body mounted
primary seal, a continuous door mounted primary seal and
a series of segmented auxiliary seals around each door.
Observations at the 2006 Detroit Auto Show indicate that
double sealed door apertures are only currently being used
by U.S. manufactured trucks. The body and door mounted
primary seals act as a double barrier to noise transmission
and aspiration, while the auxiliary seals are for air and
water management.

The relative influence of primary sealing on vehicle
interior noise varies from vehicle platform to vehicle
platform. Noise through primary seals may not be
significant if other sources such as engine noise, window
or structural borne vibrations dominate. In fact, even if
wind noise through the primary seals is dominant at high
speeds, when the noise is insulated, other noises may
become audible [see Figure 2]. Thus, care must be taken
when choosing a vehicle to compare sealing designs and
materials.

Initial Indicators of Increased Acoustic
Performance

Page 1 of 7
ANTEC 2007 / 900
During the development cycle of several EPDM to
TPV conversion seal designs, various acoustic tests are
performed in an attempt to verify the advantage of TPV.
To date, all indicate that JyFlex
TM
TPV seals are at least
as good at insulating sound as EPDM sponge, while most
indicate TPV is better.

To compare the relative acoustic performance of the
TPV and EPDM bulb design seals, tests measuring
insertion loss (IL) [3] and road tests measuring sound
pressure level (SPL) are performed. The IL test set-up is
shown in Figure 3 [5] and performed at the Kolano and
Saha Engineers, Inc. test chamber in Waterford, MI. If the
installed bulb shapes are essentially the same, the results
can be considered a direct comparison of the materials.

Initial studies measure insertion loss (IL) on the
component level for TPV and EPDM decklid (trunk) seals
of the same design [Figure 4] [5]. Results indicate the
TPV seal perform slightly better. Although the part
designs are intended to be identical, there is a
manufacturing variation between the two. This variation
results in the TPV part deforming differently than the
EPDM part. When the TPV part is forced to deform the
same as the EPDM, the results indicate the TPV seal
perform even better than the EPDM section.

The initial study shows a comparison of the bulb seals
with seal deflections of 5 mm. Both deflected shapes
result in a sealing width (wet-out) of 5 mm. The
difference in IL is significant between the EPDM and
TPV seals as shown in Figure 4. Even when the EPDM
seal is crushed to a wet-out of 10 mm, the IL of the TPV
seal is still better overall. Furthermore, the results of the
IL test are consistent with those of previous findings [2]
indicating that seal stiffness controls the acoustic
performance at low frequencies (<1,000 Hz), while mass
controls the frequencies at high frequencies (>2,000 Hz).

Another component study of Upper Auxiliary weather
seals indicates that the insertion loss characteristics of
TPV outperform EPDM [Figure 5] [6]. At one frequency,
the EPDM shows better performance. However, this
frequency is coincident with the length top cavity,
indicating the TPV part did not close out completely. This
is a function of the geometry, not the material. The seal
shape was corrected later on during development.

Recently, TPV replaced EPDM sponge in Dodge
Ram truck production vehicles. Internal road and far field
noise tests were performed comparing EPDM and TPV
seals. The results of these tests are only able to indicate
that the TPV seal performs at least as well as the EPDM
seal. In the case of the Dodge Ram, other noise paths are
dominant and override any audible advantages of the TPV
Primary Seal.

Further internal studies are shown here of the 2006
Cadillac Seville primary body seal for road and far field
noise [7]. In this case, the TPV performs better [Figure 6].
However, the test results are at only one speed (70 mph).

Component and limited road noise studies show a
consistent trend, but carrier and geometry effects cloud the
results. A more comprehensive study of a simple primary
seal design is required for quantitative results.

A Comprehensive Acoustic Study

A comprehensive study of TPV and EPDM body
mounted primary weatherseals with identical cross-
sections was completed to show the acoustic performance
advantage of low stiffness JyFlex
TM
TPV. The intent was
to perform component and road tests of EPDM and TPV
door mounted primary seals with identical installed cross-
sections an automobile at high steady state speeds.
Unfortunately, the only TPV sections available at the time
of the road tests were undersized prototypes. Therefore,
the road tests were performed with the intent of validating
the component testing and using that validation as a
relative measure of improvement with a second set of
accurately dimensioned seals.

A 2006 Volkswagon Passat was used as the test
vehicle. The car was a four-door sedan with a 3.6 L, six-
cylinder engine, front-wheel drive with automatic
transmission and radial tires. Tests were conducted under
four different door seal/body seal conditions as follows:

EPDM Door Mounted Seal / EPDM Body Mounted
Seal
TPV Door Mounted Seal/EPDM Body Mounted Seal
TPV Door Mounted Seal/No Body Mounted Seal
No Door Mounted Seal/No Body Mounted Seal

Each set of seals were installed and compressed at
least four times each and left overnight with the doors
closed before each test to allow for the effects of material
set. The vehicle was tested on the smooth asphalt surface
of Milan Dragway in Milan, Michigan at constant speeds
of 80, 120 and 160 kmph (50, 75, and 100 mph,
respectively). For each test run, sound measurements were
made at four microphones placed inside the vehicle at the
front right passenger center-of head, rear right door top of
B-Pillar, rear right door beltline, and rear right bottom of
door. Four each operating condition four runs were made
each along the same stretched of road for 8 seconds. All
data was recorded using a computer-based data acquisition
system located in the trunk of the vehicle. 1/3 octave band
spectrum analyses and various single number metric were
computed [3].
Page 2 of 7
901 / ANTEC 2007
The raw road data indicates the TPV sections are
around 2-3 dB worse within the wind noise frequency
range (1 5 kHz) [Figure 7]. From the road test
measurements, in addition to the 1/3-octave band
spectrum analysis, various single number metrics are
computed to get a better understanding of the test results.
When the road test results are broken down into single
number metrics, both seals have essentially the same
acoustic response [Tables 1, 2, and 3] [3] - less than 1 dB
difference is considered subjectively indistinguishable.
Thus, even for an undersized TPV section the overall
noise perception remains unchanged. The metrics used are
defined as follows [3]:

A-weighted SPL is a better representative of how we
hear than linear SPL. We do not hear low and high
frequencies well, so weighting networks are often used to
better represent the linear SPL that is measured to the SPL
that humans actually hear. Differences of 2 -3 dB are
perceptible by most people. Lower is better.

Loudness is a quantitative measure of the subjective
response to sound. Sones are exponential 2 sones are
twice as loud as 1 sone; 4 sones are twice as loud as 2
sones. Phons are expressed as decibels 20 phons are
twice as loud as 10 phons; 30 phons are twice as loud as
20 phons. A difference of 2 3 phons is perceptible by
most people. Lower is better.

Articulation Index is a measure of a persons ability
to distinguish speech in the presence of noise. A 4
percentage point difference is perceptible by most people,
i.e. most people can distinguish the difference between
92% and 96%. Higher is better.

A FEA study of the digitized TPV section indicates
that the wall thickness of the TPV seal has minimum wall
thickness directly in the noise transfer path. This results in
less noise reduction based on mass, exposed area, and
deformed geometry [Figure 8] [8].

The component IL test indicates the same relative
difference between the EPDM and TPV sections [Figure
9]. A fixture mimicking the seal environment was used in
the Kolano and Saha Engineers, Inc. test chamber [Figure
3] to compare the insertion loss (IL) characteristics of the
seals on a component level. Seal lengths of 400 mm were
used with the ends securely sealed with clay. The effects
of holes were included consistently between specimens.
Outputs were measured from 25 to 10,000 Hz and
presented in 1/3 octaves.

A second set of TPV seals were produced to be
identical to the EPDM when installed. Additional finite
element analysis (FEA) indicate the second series of
digitized TPV seals are essentially identical in the
assembled position as the EPDM production seals [Figure
10], having the same wall thickness in the direct noise
transmission path. The deformed shapes themselves agree
with external observations of the IL test fixture with the
seals installed.

Component IL testing on second set of TPV seals
[Figure 11] indicates better noise reduction performance
for the TPV seal. The results indicate the improvement
will be 4 to 6 dB, and even correlates well with mass law:

The density of JyFlex
TM
TPV is L
TPV
= 9.2e-10 Mg/mm
3
,
while the density of the 2006 VW Passat production door
mounted primary EPDM sponge is measured to be L
EPDM

= 5.6e-10 Mg/mm
3
. Thus,

NIL = 20 log (L
TPV
/ L
EPDM
) = 20 log {(9.2e-10 Mg/mm3)/
(5.6e-10 Mg/mm3)} = 4.3 dB [4]

Conclusions

The results of the road testing was consistent for all
three speeds, indicating the production EPDM seal has an
approximately 2 to 6 dB better un-weighted acoustic
performance than the thin TPV seal from 1000 to 10000
Hz. Test data that is typical of that taken [Figure 7] shows
similar trends to the component insertion loss test data
[Figure 11]. It is expected that road tests performed with
the corrected sized TPV seals would show the same
relative improvement to the IL test data as well. However,
the magnitude of this difference, especially in the 1000 to
2,000 Hz range, is likely to result in a noticeably
subjective improvement in interior vehicle noise at high
speeds for the VW Passat, barring other noise sources that
emerge.

References

1. Browell, James, The Ninth International Conference
on Thermoplastic Elastomers, TPE 2006, Smithers
Rapra Ltd., Munich, Germany, November 8-9, 2006.
2. Park, Junhong, Thomas Siegmund and Luc G.
Mongeau (Purdue University), Society of Automotive
Engineers, Paper No. 2001-01-1411, Sound
Transmission Through Elastomeric Sealing Systems.
3. Saha, Pranob and Richard A. Kolano (Kolano and
Saha Engineers, Inc.), Project No. 2006-170, In-
Vehicle On-Road Door Seal Noise Study on a
Volkswagon Passat.
4. Beranek, Leo L., Noise and Vibration Control,
McGraw Hill, Inc. 1971, p.282.
5. Saha, Pranob and Richard A. Kolano (Kolano and
Saha Engineers, Inc.), Society of Automotive
Page 3 of 7
ANTEC 2007 / 902
Engineers, submitted paper, Acoustical Performance
Testing of Automotive Weatherseals.
6. Saha, Pranob and Richard A. Kolano (Kolano and
Saha Engineers, Inc.), Project No. 2003-084, Results
of Acoustical Performance Evaluation of Two
Different Weatherseal Materials.
7. Saha, Pranob and Richard A. Kolano (Kolano and
Saha Engineers, Inc.), Project No. 2003-083, Results
of Acoustical Performance Evaluation of Two
Different Weatherseal Materials.
8. Browell, James T., CAE Project No. 2006.027-2,
Jyco Sealing Technologies, Dexter, MI

Acknowledgements

Special thanks goes to Ralph Richardson and Mark
Steward of Jyco Sealing Technologies; also to John
Kopko and Pranab Saha of K&S Engineers, Inc.

Figure 1. Noise Transmission Through Automotive Body
Seals

Figure 2. Example of Noise Source Relative Influence

Page 4 of 7
903 / ANTEC 2007
Figure 3. Insertion-Loss Measurement Test Set-up

Figure 4. Insertion-Loss Comparison of a Decklid
(Trunk) Seal Design

Figure 5. Insertion-Loss Comparison of an Upper
Auxiliary Seal Design

Figure 6. Insertion-Loss Comparison of a Body Mounted
Primary Seal Design

Figure 7. Typical Un-weighted Sound Pressure Level
Data During the Road Test of the VW Passat

Page 5 of 7
ANTEC 2007 / 904
Figure 8. Undersized 1
st
Run TPV Seal Compared to
Production EPDM in Insertion Loss Test Set-up

Figure 9. Initial Insertion-Loss Comparison of the Door
Mounted Primary Seals EPDM and TPV

Figure 10. Overlay of 2
nd
Run TPV Seal on Production
EPDM

Figure 11. Insertion-Loss Comparison of Door Mounted
Primary Seals TPV 1
st
Run, TPV 2
nd
Run and EPDM

Page 6 of 7
905 / ANTEC 2007
Table 1. SPL Summary at 80 kmph (50 mph)

Table 2. SPL Summary at 120 kmph (70 mph)

Table 3. SPL Summary at 160 kmph (100 mph)

Key Words: TPV, Insertion Loss.
Page 7 of 7
ANTEC 2007 / 906