You are on page 1of 39

Comparison

of Numerical

Simulation

Models and Measured Low-Frequency

Behavior of a Loudspeaker

4722 (P3-3)

Matti Karjalainen Helsinki University of Technology Espoo Finland Antti Jdrvinen Helsinki University of Technology Espoo Finland Lauri Savioja Helsinki University of Technology Espoo Finland JuhaBackman Nokia Mobile Phones Salo Finland

Veijo Ikonen Tampere University of Technology Tampere Finland Panu Maijala Helsinki University of Technology Espoo Finland Antti Suutala Tampere University of Technology Tampere Finland Seppo Pohjolainen Tampere University of Technology Tampere Finland

Presented at the 104th Convention 1998 May 16-19 Amsterdam

AUDIO

®

Thispreprint has been reproducedfrom the author's advance manuscript,withoutediting, corrections or considerationby the Review Board. The AES takesno responsibility for the contents. Additionalpreprintsmay be obtainedby sendingrequestand remittance to the Audio EngineeringSociety, 60 East 42nd St., New York,New York 10165-2520, USA. Al/rights reserved.Reproduction of thispreprint, or any portion thereof, is not permitted withoutdirect permissionfrom the Journalof the Audio Engineering Society.

AN AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY PREPRINT

Comparison of Numerical Simulation Models and Measured Low-Frequency Behavior of a Loudspeaker
Matti Karjalainen 1, Veijo Ikonen 2, Antti J_irvinen l, Panu Maijala l, Lauri Savioja l, Antti Suutala 2, Juha Backman 1,3, and Seppo Pohjolainen 2 1Helsinki University of Technology Espoo, Finland 2 Tampere University of Technology Tampere, Finland 3Nokia Mobile Phones, $alo, Finland
matt i. karj alainen_hut, f i, i77309_cc, tut. f i, antt i. j arvinen_hut, fi f i

panu.maij ala_hut, fi, lauri, savioj a_hut, fi, s 129948_alpha. cc. tut. j uha. backman_nmp, nokia, eom, seppo, pohj olainen©cc, tut. f i http://acoustics, hut .fi/

ABSTRACT
The vibroacoustic behavior below lkHz of a prototype closed-box loudspeaker has been studied in detail by comparing measurements and element model simulations. Sound fields were measured using a microphone array of 90 electret capsules and vibrations using a laser vibrometer and accelerometers. Simulations have been carried out using analytical, finite and boundary element, and finite difference methods. The enclosure conditions were varied from fixed wall case buried in sand to free-standing empty box and to free-standing damped box. Two positions of the driver in the front plate were examined (only the 'rim' position is documented here). The applicability of each modeling technique is discussed 1.
1Special thanks for support are due to'. Kaarina Melkas, Nokia Research Center, Tampere, Finland Jorma Salmi, Gradient Oy, J_rvenpg_&, Finland Aki M&kivirta and Ari Varla, Genelec Oy, Iisalmi, Finland Jukka Linjama, VTT Manufacturing Technology, Espoo, Finland Technology Development Centre Finland (TEKES) 1

INTRODUCTION
The design of a loudspeaker has traditionally been an iterative process based on approximate rules, experience from prior designs, and finally trial and error by constructing and modifying prototypes. Computer-based methods have helped in exploring basic features of driver to enclosure matching and crossover network design. However, not much have been published on the use of more advanced computer-based methods and tools in loudspeaker design. The detailed behavior of a loudspeaker consisting of an enclosure and driver(s) is very complex and escapes analytical mathematical solutions. Approximate (semianalytic) approaches may turn out to be useful, however, especially within a limited frequency range and when the geometry of the system is simple enough, e.g., a shoebox design. At low to mid frequencies, lumped element models may be used both for the electroacoustic and vibroacoustic subsystems. In more complex cases the system should be considered as a complex electro-vibro-acoustic system that is not easily partitioned to any simple submodels. The progress in computer-based numeric simulation of complex spatially distributed systems using various element methods has raised the question of how useful they might be for practical loudspeaker design [1]. These modeling techniques include the finite element method (FEM), the boundary element method (BEM), and the finite difference time domain (FDTD) method. In advanced forms they can be used for simulating any linear and time-invariant (and with limitations nonlinear) vibroacoustic systems at low frequencies. Low frequencies means here that the element size in the model mesh, and thus the number of spatially discrete elements, limits the highest useful frequency of the simulation. Loudspeaker design at low to mid frequencies is in principle a good application for such methods. Several commercial or experimental tools are available for element-based vibroacoustic modeling and simulation, such as SYSNOISE [2], I-DEAS Vibroacoustics [3] and Comet/Acoustics [4]. Other FEM/BEM tools that are not specifically tuned to acoustic problems are ABAQUS [5], ANSYS [6], and MSC/NASTRAN [7]. The problem of using the FEM/BEM programs, at least from the point of view of loudspeaker design, is that they are expensive, need powerful computers to work fast, the construction of the model is tedious, and the availability of material data (acoustic and mechanical parameters) is poor.

such simulation and design tools are not widely used in loudspeaker design. In this study our interest was focused to the applicability of the elementbased simulation and modeling tools to basic loudspeaker design. Thus we specified and constructed a closed box enclosure with a single driver element so that it was simple to vary some interesting parameters such as the driver position. Finally. The acoustical and mechanical parameters of the materials (MDF for construction and fiber wool for damping) were also measured.Experimental programs. and FDTD software tools. The computational models were built first and the measured or estimated material parameters were given to the models. Thus. it is important to be prepared to utilize such tools whenever they turn out to be productive. when actually built. and information on their usefulness as well as comparison of their properties is practically non-existing. The next step of the study was to model the loudspeaker using various FEM. Potentially. Even more ambitiously. the stiffness of the enclosure walls. A laser vibrometer and accelerometers were used to obtain vibration data of the walls and the cone of the driver so that an almost complete picture of the behavior below about 1 kHz was captured in this data. e. the models were hand tuned to match better to the measured data. often lack documentation and continuing support. BEM. As the progress in this field is fast. The results of simulations and measurements are also compared to simpler analytic or semianalytic models of the same loudspeaker. the computer may automatically run through some optimization steps to search for the best match to given specifications and targe t criteria. . This yields new material parameters that work better than the measured ones in modeling similar cases.. yet practical and realistic. Next the actual vibroacoustic behavior of our case was measured extensively with such parametric variations. from academic institutions. and the damping material inside the box.g. The simulation results of the models are shown in this article and compared with the measured behavior. A microphone array with 90 electret capsules was constructed to measure the sound field inside and outside the loudspeaker box as impulse responses of electric excitation of the driver. works closely enough as expected. computer-based design tools promise to make the product development time faster whenever the designer can start from an approximate model and rapidly go through variations and experimentations using software modeling up to a prototype which. We selected a case that is simple enough. but may not be generalizable to very different cases.

The loudspeaker element was a 6. The front panel (facing up in the figure) is removable and is built in two variations. 1. the acoustic loading of cabinet interior on the driver diaphragm movement has an effect on its radiation to the external field. I CASE STUDY: A CLOSED-BOX LOUDSPEAKER To study a problem of reasonably low complexity. making them to vibrate and. The driver element converts its electrical excitation into the movement of the diaphragm. Furthermore. If the walls were rigid. to radiate external sound field in addition to the radiation of the driver diaphragm. The structure of the enclosure is shown in the drawings of Fig. only the driver diaphragm vibration would be of interest. the vibration of enclosure walls is not negligible and should be included in detailed simulation of the system. All these effects influence the magnitude and phase response of the loudspeaker 4 and its directivity . yet interesting from a practical point of view. The enclosure was made of 20 mm MDF. as shown in the top drawing of Fig. due to this vibration. In practice. all panels being rigidly coupled at their edges. Another vibroacoustic coupling of interest is from the interior sound field to the walls of the enclosure. Model of the Loudspeaker Conceptual h'om a vibroacoustic point of view the loudspeaker works as follows. however. In our simulations and measurements the behavior of the box was studied both as buried in sand and as freestanding to allow walls to vibrate. we designed and constructed a closed-box prototype loudspeaker of medium size (600 x 400 x 250 mm 3) and easy enough to modify and measure. 1). This has coupling to the air outside and inside the cabinet. Directions of further studies are shown as well. The driver element has also a direct mechanical coupling to the front panel and through it indirectly to all other panels of the enclosure. one with a driver element symmetrically in the middle and another one with an asymmetric speaker positioning (rim case). transmitting a wave to both parts of the system. 1.5 inch driver of type SEAS P17 REX. In both cases it was studied as an empty box and with damping material 1.After presenting the results we will discuss the usefulness of the models and how they could be improved.1 (Partek mineral wool) on the back wall inside the box (Fig.

point by . Thus the multiplexed microphone array can be used to measure acoustic responses in the spatially distributed mesh positions. we decided to construct a system for extensive vibroacoustic measurements. spaced by 40 mm x 40 mm. Digitally controlled analog multiplexers were used to select one of the column wires and one of the row wires at a time. 3.2 Vibration Measurements For vibration measurements a laser vibrometer (Polytec OFV3001) and acceleration probes were used.pattern.1 of the loudspeaker Array element excitation. Microphone A microphone array of 90 small electret capsules was constructed so that it/ fits to the interior of the loudspeaker cabinet. 2. 2 VIBROACOUSTIC MEASUREMENT SYSTEM results In order to be able to evaluate how realistic the numeric simulation of the loudspeaker case are. 2. activated by current through the load resistor (R). A mesh of 40 mm was measured. 2 and 3. however. is functional at a time to capture the sound pressure field and to transduce it to the microphone preamplifier. A computer system was programmed to collect the sound field and mechanical vibration data in the form of impulse responses 2. A fi'ame of metal tube was used to support row and column wires. Only a single electret capsule. as shown in Fig. At each wire crossing an electret microphone (Hosiden 2823) and a cascaded diode was attached as depicted in Fig. point by point. The lower cutoff frequency of the microphone/amplifier combination was 30 Hz and the response was found flat within 1 dB in the most interesting measurement range 100 Hz .2 kHz of our study so that only the slightly varying gains of individual capsules needed compensation. both inside and outside the box. We have assumed. that the transmission of transversal waves through walls that is important in sound insulation. It consists of an array of miniature microphones to collect acoustic responses and a combination of a laser vibrometer and vibration sensors (accelerometers) to probe the mechanical vibrations of the loudspeaker system. see Figs. is not prominent in loudspeaker enclosures.

B&:K 4393 accelerometer with two B&K 2635 charge amplifiers. 4b.. e. fol' a sand-supported. 3 MEASURED LOUDSPEAKER BEHAVIOR Typical acoustic responses. The impulse response in Fig.g. (a) undamped vs (b) mineral wool damped. The signal-to-noise ratio of acoustic measurements was in all conditions better than 40 dB so that its effect to. Following equipment were used: impact hammer with Brfiel &: Kjeer 8200 force transducer. is only up to 1-2 kHz. as measured inside the enclosure. are shown in Fig. Subplot (c) shows the magnitude responses for the sand-supported and freestanding cases without interior damping. Impulse response measurements were carried out using random phase fiat spectrum (RPFS) excitation signal of typically 8192 samples at a sampling rate of 22050 Hz. This is in practice equivalent to the more commonly used MLS (maximum length sequence) measurements. 4a illustrates a long ringing of interior resonances in the undamped case. from the viewpoint of element-based modeling in this study. enclosure. developed in the Laboratory of Acoustics and Audio Signal Processing. averaged typically over 10 repetitions. Helsinki University of Technology. Point mobility measurements were made by applying impact testing to the walls of the enclosure as well as isolated pieces of MDF plates corresponding to the walls of the enclosure. and subplot (d) the corresponding magnitude responses for the case with 10 cm wool at the back panel. A number of points in the cone of the driver were also registered. magnitude responses is negligible. 4. HP 3565 S analyzer and STAR-software were used for modal damping determination. Subplots (a) and (b) show the impulse response from driver terminals to sound pressure in one mesh point. Further signal analysis of acoustic and vibration data was carried out in MATLAB. The frequency range of interest. see Fig.3 Data Acquisition System and Analysis Tools en- The measurement system was based on the QuickSig signal processing vironment [8]. to obtain the vibration responses of all walls. r14c5 (row 14/column 5). The same data acquisition system was also used in vibration measurements (except in impact testing).point. The same information is presented in 6 . The corresponding ringing is radically shorter in a damped case. 2.

4 ANALYTICAL ELING analytical AND SEMIANALYTICAL MOD- An accurate solution of coupled vibroacoustic equations for a loudspeaker is out of question. Figure 5a illustrates the accelerance (acceleration/force) of an isolated wall panel near corner. The element is modeled as a simple piston with given velocity. 5c). The mode frequencies exhibit strong resonances. The vibration of an enclosure wall is characterized in Fig. Only the lowest mode (200 Hz) has prominent effect to external sound field radiation. The difference between these two curves is surprisingly small. Only minor extra effects are introduced in the free-standing case. 5 based on three different measurements. Yet it is possible to try a simplified and approximate solution. are denoted by c912-. This information can be used to estimate the parameters of MDF for vibroacoustic modeling.2_r/.the frequency domain in subplots 4c and 4d.1 Analytical Modeling Techniques The first approximation of a closed loudspeaker enclosure is obtained when the walls of the enclosure are considered to be rigid. respectively. where 0f22 is the surface of the piston and cO_ 1 refers to the other wall surfaces. The same is true also for the damped case of Fig. 4d except that resonances and antiresonances are effectively smoothed out. especially at relatively low frequencies. Figure 5b shows the corresponding behavior when the side wall (600 mm x 400 mm) is excited at point 260 mm from front panel and 297 mm from top plate. The former one shows the resonances and antiresonances in the undamped enclosure as measured in the sand supported and free-standing case.0_iUc0f_2. such as seen around 200 Hz. In this section we will try this approach since the loudspeaker in our study has a relatively regular shape. The pressure field p(x. the walls of the enclosure. as measured by impact testing. This can be compared further with the velocity of the same point as response to an electric excitation of the driver element (Fig. The volume inside the enclosure is denoted by fL Its boundary. The spatial variable is denoted by x and the frequency f is given as angular frequency w -.w) inside the enclosure as a function of frequency is given by the solution of the 7 . 4.

xo) =_ _N(_)_(x0) l_ × ly x l. This boundary value problem can be solved using Green's function Gw.= _f . -- x & cqf_l x E Of_2 (2) Here k = _c is a wave number. i is the imaginary unit. Chapter 9._n. ky = _-_-_ and k_ . On . po = 1. the Green's function call be expressed as a series [14.2 n_n. which is the solution of the equation [14] v_a_+ k_a_ = _(x. In this case the velocity vn is considered to be constant in 0fl2. the eigenfunctions For a rectangular enclosure with dimensions are of tlle form [14] _n_. that are used to index the eigenfunctions and corresponding eigenvalues k. are · ? y · z non-negative integers. w) is the velocity of the piston in the direction of its surface's normal n.0.-ipowVn.xo) is the Dirac delta function and point x0 is considered as a source point. c = 343 m/s is the speed of sound in air and n is the normal of the boundary pointing away from the fluid· In boundary conditions _ is the directional derivative of pressure in the direction of the normal n.21 kg/m 3 is the density of air in equilibrium state and Vn(X. Using the eigenfunctions _N and eigenvalues kN of the Helmholtz equation (1) with boundary condition _ = 0. The coefficients %.(x)=cos(k_x)cos(kyy)cos(kzz) (6) where k_ = '*/_-.x0) with homogenous boundary conditions OG_ On =0' xeOm (3) (4) Here 5(x .Hehnholtz equation [14. Ill the boundary condition for the piston area. ny and n. (nJ_ =\t _/ 2 (ny_r_ 2 (nz_r_ 2 +k ty] +\_ .4] a_(_. Chapter 6] (1) V2p + k2p = 0 with boundary conditions __ _ On -. creating triplets of numbers. (7) .

The integrations over the elements. The actual numerical computations were made using MATLAB. The dimensions of the studied enclosure were as show in Fig. The transfer function between the piston velocity vn(w) and pressure at some measurement point xm can be computed by dividing computed pressure p(w. Xm) by velocity vn(w). the boundary condition for the Green's function (4) is homogenous and using boundary condition for pressure (2). The chosen measurement point was 120 mm from the back plate and r12c2 in the microphone mesh.xo)dxo + pl( .x0j ]ds0 (8) Since Eq. considered as a flat piston surface. x) =/orb In order to obtain numerical -iwpoGw(x. The circular piston element's centre was at point x_ = 125 mm.xo)a (x. or the piston. 1 is homogenous. The frequency response of the . 9 could be taken inside the summations. The radius of the element was r = 75 mm. xo)dso results from these equations. the integration in Eq. 1. The element. Ye = 125 mm and z = 0 (the 'rim' position). In the case studied here. the frequency dependent part of the velocity can be taken out of the integral in the Eq. 9. was placed on the wall that lies on xy-plane. xo)vn(w. 1 and Eq. (9) the Green's func- tion was approximated by using only a finite number of terms in the summation. The coordinate system was chosen so that the enclosure was in the positive octant of the coordinate space and that the corner of the enclosure was in origin. 2 can be obtained by using the integral equation [14] = f /( . The form used for the Green's function was G (x.The solution of the boundary value problem given by Eq.xo)= E 2 _ 2 Since only a finite number of terms was used in the summation. so the transfer function can be obtained from this equation by setting vn(w) = 1. were computed numerically using MATLABs 'quad8' function. this equation simplifies to the form p(w.

The mechanical vibrations of adjacent panels must be assumed to be strongly coupled. However. which implies the following assumptions about the mechanisms: · The starting points for the calculations are the acoustical modes in a rigid enclosure with locally reacting walls and mechanical modes of an enclosure in a vacuum. · The vibrational properties of the driver (diaphragm mass. mechanical -+ acoustical) is taken into account. 6 in comparison with the corresponding measured response. Other minor deviations could be reduced by adjustments of enclosure interior measures. so only first-order coupling (acoustical ---> mechanical.) 4. losses. · The driving mechanism for the acoustical modes is a volume velocity source corresponding to the driver and for the mechanical modes a point force corresponding to the recoil of the driver. which typically are also the only ones which are of importance when studying the sound radiation by the loudspeaker enclosure [9. as included in the boundary conditions in the discussion above. Here we take as our aim to develop a first-order approximation of the vibration.computed transfer function is represented in Fig. 10]. The overall fit is good except the damping of resonances since in the analytical model the walls were assumed totally rigid. · The coupling between acoustical and mechanical vibrations is assumed to be weak. except at higher frequencies above 700 Hz where for example the piston assumption of driver diaphragm movement is not valid anymore. suspension compliance. etc. · The field outside the enclosure can be ignored for the following reasons: outside sound pressure on the surfaces is at least one order of 10 . some heuristic deductions enable us to achieve a very efficient approximation for the effect of coupling of the lowest modes. (The deviation at very low frequencies is due to the high-pass characteristics of the measurement microphone.2 Weakly Coupled Heuristics A full description of the coupled vibroacoustic problem of an loudspeaker enclosure using a Green's function expansion for both the acoustical wave and the mechanical bending waves is numerically very inefficient due to the large number of terms needed.) can be taken into account as a variation of the impedance of the surface.

the other possible boundary condition. The modes corresponding to the clamped boundary conditions also have significantly higher frequencies than the simply supported modes. where the edge cannot have either rotation or transverse displacement has a significantly higher mechanical impedance. but cannot have transverse displacement. clamped edge. is of the form O2u 69t2 = to the enclosure walls. 7). but this situation arises only at low frequencies where there are no clamped eigenfrequencies. A clamped boundary condition requires that there is something to provide the torque needed to prevent the edge from rotating. thus enabling the rotation of the edge.magnitude smaller than the pressure inside at the eigenfrequencies. The bending wave equation applicable to consist of thin plates. and there is less frequency and place dependence in the field. which is possible only if the adjacent surfaces moves in the same direction (Fig. assumed EK 2 c94u P OX 4 (11) coeffi- where E is the modulus cient. The situation where clamped modes were the most appropriate description would be the one where the enclosure vibration is driven by a homogeneous pressure field or by a purely onedimensional standing wave. For simply supported edges the modal shapes are given by equation = A sin (m + X)_x sin (_ + 1)_y L_ Ly where z is the displacement and Lx and Ly are plate dimensions 11 (12) and m and . The simply supported boundary condition. and there is no torque on the edge. of elasticity and K 2 a geometry-dependent In a finite rectangular plate the boundary condition which is of interest when analysing the acoustically excited vibrations is the simply supported edge which can rotate. which yields the lowest resonance frequency. so neither the mechanical force nor the sound pressure excite these modes as efficiently. In the following discussion we assume the enclosure to be rectangular. the lowest modal frequency of completely clamped plate being about twice that of a simply supported plate [11]. corresponds to a situation where adjacent enclosure surfaces move to opposite directions.

even if the modal shapes of the simply supported plate are similar to those of the acoustical modes of a rectangular cavity. so their inner product with the acoustical modes is non-zero also for unequal modal indices. 12 . Bending modes corresponding to other edge boundary conditions need also hyperbolic functions for their description. as stated earlier. Thus.n non-negative integers. The vibration velocity can be then formally written as their quotient [12]: m Zm The modal impedances can be determined by writing the standing wave as a superposition of travelling waves in opposite directions. The exiting force is given by the sound pressure. thc vibration can be efficiently transmitted from one enclosure surface to another at the edge only if modal indices corresponding to the wave component along the edges are equal. Similar orthogonality is valid also for the coupling of mechanical modes corresponding to the simply supported edges and the acoustical modes. in the first octaves above the lowest mode) is very low as compared to the acoustical mode density.453 cLh [\ L_ / +. although small. so all the modes have some. the practical significance of these modes is small. The assumptions made of the modal shape have implications on the coupling between various modes. However. The plane wave decomposition for the sound field inside the enclosure enables the enclosure surface vibrations to be described as a superposition of vibrations excited by plane waves. To achieve this we must determine the impedance of each mode and the force distribution caused by the incident wave. Ly } L_Ly wave where h is the thickness of plate and cz is the speed of longitudinal in the plate given by equation CL= i p(1-E Y2) (la) where l_ is the Poisson coefficient. coupling.e. the relationships between modal frequencies are fundamentally different.. and using this decomposition to describe the modal impedance as a sum of travelling-wave impedances. and the modal density at low frequencies (i. If losses are small. The eigenfrequencies are defined by equation 0.

accuracy. Acoustic properties of absorbent materials are seldom known precisely. and the finite difference time domain method (FDTD). The coupling strength. These materials are not very homogeneous so that the variation range of parameters should be known. Similar results hold also for systems consisting of coupled acoustical and mechanical standing waves. especially its waveguide mesh formulation. however.The importance of the orthogonality of the coupling is that instead of using the full Green's function expansion for both the acoustical and mechanical modes. not only the values from a single sample measurement. it is necessary to only determine the modal frequencies of the bending wave modes with the modal indices corresponding to the most significant acoustical modes. limitations of computational resources such as finite memory. Although they are becoming more and more relaxed with rapid development of computer hardware. 13 . In this chapter we will present the basic principles of techniques for element-based modeling that have been applied in our study. yet they will remain one of the limiting factors. Another interesting problem. Another and in practice a very important restriction is the accuracy of available material (and structure) parameters. and even less information is available about the dynamic parameters of enclosure construction materials. An analysis of losslessly coupled simple vibrating systems [13] indicates that coupling increases the frequency difference between the two resonators. These methods include the finite element method (FEM). in principle. the boundary element method (BEM). is the effect of the coupling to the modal frequencies. a solution to any problem that can be formulated precisely enough. discussed here only briefly. 5 VIBROACOUSTIC MODELING TECHNIQUES Numerical modeling is. There are. and computation time that restrict the applicability of element-based numerical methods. which determines the amount of change in the resonance frequencies. can be determined from the bandwidths and initial frequency differences of the resonances.

the loudspeaker element can be modeled as a simple piston by means of a velocity boundary condition (18)._v).1 Finite Element Method in Acoustics The finite element method (FEM) is a popular method for solving partial differential equations (PDEs). 16 is derived [15]: both sides of the equation are multiplied with an arbitrary test function w _ V. Z = Z(x. Here p is fluid density.(x.Z(w) p' x _ f x _ Of! x E 092 (16) (17) (18) Bp On -piwv. The internal acoustic field of a loudspeaker box is modeled by using inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation (16).5.. in fact H _(fi) [17]. The MDF walls of the box are acoustically very hard and they have been modeled using an impedance boundary condition (17). Bp -piw On . First the so called weak formulation of Eq. From now on. and then the equation is integrated over _: + After Green's theorem [17] is applied =0 (20) 14 . A PDE is transformed into an integral equation. the solntion domain f is discretized with a mesh and the solution is approximated 5. V2p + k2p = O. of FEM Derivation In this chapter a finite element method for solving the following PDE is presented.1. where V is a suitable function space. Instead of looking for an exact solution of this equation and the associated boundary conditions an approximate solution is searched for. Because the simulation is carried out at low frequencies._v) and v = v. boundary conditions (17) and (18) are combined as Bp -piw con-Z 'ppi_vv' p e Of (19) It should be noted that in this notation both Z and v are functions of place and frequency. Z(w) acoustical impedance and v. normal velocky.1 at the nodes of the mesh by means of element functions.

15 V¢j dig . VN. K = (Kij). 22 is valid for all the test functions v. Substituting the trial Eq. which leads to an fa(-Vp. C = (C/j).. An Ndimensional subspace of V. This means that f_ is divided into finite elements and the geometry of the domain is described with the vertices of the elements. damping and stiffness matrices M = (M/j). Then a basis function _biof subspace VN is chosen for each node xi. j _ i.. i = 1. source vector F = (fi) and pressure vector P = (Pi) respectively as: Kij = fa V4i.2 Matrix representation of FEM (25) Let us define the following acoustic mass. ¢i(xj) = 0.The boundary condition integral equation can now be taken into account.. Because Eq.. 22. N. _i--k2(/_j_i)pjdig "].. The solution for Eq.1. such that _i(xi) = 1. N) is obtained: N j=l Z [fo(-V(pj..fo_l Piceq_JqJiPjdPz ] = fOa2 icevq_i dr 5. a system of linear equations to solve the unknowns pi.)dig] j=l \zpj_j + = and after simplification j_ =l [f_(V_j. 23 and basis functions into Eq. (j = 1.. Vw+k2pw)d_-]oa_-_-p+icov /pice ) wdF=0 (22) The original PDE can now be replaced by its weak formulation. it is also valid for basis functions qbj.. 22 is approximated as N p _ Z pj(ce)_j(x) j=l (23) This is the Galerkin method. is chosen and the weak formulation of PDE is projected into this subspace.j)vi+k2(pj j) .

or collocation method.. As a consequence. 16 in an arbitrary point of region a. Vp* da = . i = 1.. Assuming that the equation has a solution in a.2 Boundary Element Method The boundary element method (BEM) is another approach to solving PDEs. for solving the Hehnholtz equation (16-18) is presented [18]. The PDE is transformed into an integral equation which consists of boundary integrals only.Cij = _al 2_ P i_j dF (26) fi = faa2 v_i dF form (27) N Eq.. c r-fo w w* dx ' da (29) once more results in _o. Applying Green's theorem Opp..1 Derivation of BEM for Acoustic Problem In this chapter a direct boundary element method. on all frequencies of interest using standard linear algebra. the three-dimensional acoustical problem is reduced to a two-dimensional one.j_oap_ n dP +/apV2p 16 . When the problem is discretized.O* (30) _ rja Vp. a system of linear equations is obtained. In addition to boundary nodes.co2MP = ipwF This is a system of linear equations which can be solved for pi. 5. BEM can be used to calculate the solution for Eq. the following integral equation is valid for all functions p* regular enough: fn(V2p+ Applying Green's theorem k2p)p * da = 0 (28) leads to f (v"p + k2p)p * da _-/o k2pda+ .. [19].2. 5. 25 can now be expressed in a matrix NP + iwCP .

At points _ of boundary I' = 09 can Eq. Eq.Based on Eq. Because of the properties of the delta function. 31 can be used to calculate a value for p. Let 0_2 be divided into N disjoint parts: N =Zr. 31 be formulated as: Op* l_p(_) + _P_n dI'= _ _-_PnP d* I' (37) This equation consists only of values of p and its normal derivative at the boundary I'.(POP*_nn Onn pop . and the left side of Eq. This equation is solved in the same way as in FEM: the boundary is approximated with surface elements and the solution is searched at nodes. at any point r/E _h p(v)= - _. Uc(_). i=1 17 (38) . This means that p* is the solution of the PDE V2p * + k2p* = -507 ) (32) in an infinite domain. 31 can be approximated: ffi(Vp*( ) + where k2p*(_) )p(_) df_ _ C(_) (35) ¢(_) = lim_0 Ju_(e)(V2 /" p* (_) + k2p*(_))p(_) d_ (36) If the boundary is smooth enough. For three-dimensional Helmholtz operator the fundamental solution associated with point r/is e-lkll_-xll p. 5 is the Dirac delta function. it can be proved that C(_) = -½p(_).(POP*_nn _nnOpp / *h (33) In the theory of BEM the Green's function is often called the fundamental solution.\) dF of BEM can be (31) operator Next p* is chosen to be the Green's function of the differential V 2 + k2. 29 and Eq.(x) - 4_11 v_ xl[ (34) It can be assumed that p is almost constant in a small neighbourhood of the boundary point _. 30 the basic integral equation written as: fa (V2p* + k2p*)pd_ = _a _.

the boundary condition Q(x..For simplicity.2 Matrix With the notations (i. i _ j fPi N j=l = (Q* + -F piwp.\ ar + 1 p'dF at j (44) fi = E-vk Pi = p(xi) Eq. If constant elements are used. 37 is (39) 12 p(xi) + j_ =l /r J pQ* dF = j_ =l fr.\ dC= j_Ar piWV/r =l =l representation of BEM (43) 5. 40 becomes simpler: N N J Q..dF (41) (19) is substituted into Eq. =l J = l (_pi w and the system of linear equations _p(xi) frjp dr N): J P_ dP (42) is obtained (i = 1...j = 1.piwv N N ).jr N [p(xJ) /r Q: + Piw (_1 p(xj) =l 18 + v_Ofp 'r:dP]f ] (46) . + jY_ N .)/r -/ p. 41: l_p(xi + )j _ p(xj) fr Q? dF = j_ --_-p(xj). 16 can be solved at every inner point r/6 _: P(tl) _-' .) .2.p(xJ) fr J ( Q_ +-_piw pij .. Q..dF= jZ =l l_p(xi) + jZ =lp(xJ)/r Finally.[ respectively.. the following notation is used: ap.. It depends on the selected boundary elements how the On integrals over boundary parts Fi are computed. Eq. Op* At every boundary point xi Eq. 41 can be written in matrix form HP = piwF (45) Using the fundamental solution Pl and the values of P Eq. Hij -Hii N) piw .J Qp* dF (40) Here p* is the fundamental solution associated with node xi and Q* = op .\ fr i (Q* +-_-pij dP.

4 Finite difference schemes --.2p¢.w w M P /fsU 22 M sU = piw -TPF + pw2TTU (47) Ks and /VI_ are the structural stiffness and mass matrices and U is the structural displacement vector. i. 21].e. Here a structural FEM model has been coupled with an acoustical FEM model KP + iwC P -. t) cZ = Ax 2 p(x. When the structural FEM-model is coupled with an acoustical BEM model.At) dt 2At For this purpose the wave equation is presented in the time domain: (49) c2V2= P a 2P After applying the previous discretization technique twice both for space and time. in a one-dimensional into the following form: (50) (shown in Eq. t) + p(x . The main principle in the finite difference methods is that derivatives are replaced by corresponding differences [22]. t .5.Ax. the loudspeaker box and the acoustic field is taken into consideration. t) + pC. 49) case Eq. t + At) -. t) . the following system of matrix equations is obtained: HU P KsU .3 Coupled FEM/BEM When the coupling between the structure. FEM can be used to simulate the vibration of walls under acoustical excitation and this structm'al model can be coupled with acoustical FEM/BEM model.p(t . Here we study its applicability to loudspeaker modeling.at) At 2 19 (51) .piw -TPF + pw2TrU (48) Finite difference time domain (FDTD) methods are found a possible solution for acoustic problems such as room acoustics simulation [20. such that dp(t) _ p(t + At) ..2p¢. There are various techniques available but for the wave equation it is suitable to use the so called centerscheme. 50 results p(x + Ax. the situation becomes more complex. In practice the coupling is described with a coupling matrix T.w2Ms 5.

. the stun of inputs equals the sum of outputs. i. to the left-hand side of Eq. Spatial dimensions mw by separated and discretized individually. A waveguide mesh is a regular army of discrete space digital 1-D waveguides arranged along each perpendicular dimension. Another advantage of time domain calculation of impulse responses is the ability to use the results directly for auralization purposes. The method is computationally efficien_ and with one-dimensional systems. 25]. Two conditions must be satisfied at a lossless junction connecting 2N lines of equal impedance [26]: 1. That causes both dispersion and magnitude error at higher frequencies. even real-time applications are easily possible [24. Traditionally the space discretization has been done such that resulting elements are cube shaped in a rectangular mesh. tinuity of impedance). This scheme call easily be expanded also to higher dimensions.e. Due to that limitation the valid frequency range of the FDTD method is somewhat lower than in the corresponding FEM. the simulation results can be easily listened to. E i=1 = E p. In practice for an FDTD grid at least 10 nodes per wavelength are needed. In practice it means that the sound pressure values for the next time step t + At can be calculated purely from the data of time t and earlier.i=1 (52) (con(50) 2. j 20 . 8 which represents a two-dimensional waveguide mesh. As the finite difference schemes are often calculated in the time domain the results can be visualized easily and the propagation of wavefronts in the space under study are clearly seen. Vi. the signals in each crossing waveguide are equal at the junction. /=2N /=2N (flows add to zero). interconnected at their crossings as illustrated in Fig. Pi = Pi. 5. 51 is explicit.where the sound pressure p is a function of both time and place. Its background is in digital signal processing. There are also drawbacks in the finite difference schemes. The difference scheme in Eq.1 Waveguide Mesh Method The waveguide mesh method is an FDTD scheme. The method was first developed for physical mod-eling of musical instruments [23].4. such as flutes or strings. Thus in a threedimensional case. 51 similar terms are added concerning spatial differences Ay and Az.

.opposin_ (n . Az = 1 . The digital waveguide between two nodes implements a unit delay. 51. k is the of the junction to be calculated and I represents all the neighbors one can see in this formulation the incoming and outgoing signals have been eliminated and only the actual value p of a node is waveguide mesh equation is equivalent to a difference equation from the wave equation by discretizing time and space as shown in The discretization is done such that At = 1 time step. Pi = P+ + Pi (54) Since that value is the same in all waveguides connected to the node this value is also the value of the node p.where p/+ represents the incoming signal in the digital waveguide i and pi is the outgoing signal in the same waveguide.p-) needed.l) - . As (p+. Another choice for setting the boundary conditions is by using 21 . Ax = Ay = grid unit and the wave propagation speed: 1 Ax cThe real update frequency at mesh is: CrealV_ (57) of a three-dimensional A.1) Based on these conditions of an N-dimensional a difference equation mesh: (55) can be derived for the nodes rectangular 1 2N pk( )= where p position of k. such that what goes out from a waveguide gets in to its opposite end at the next time step.dx (5s) where c_. P_ ('_) = P_. This derived Eq.2) (56) represents the sound pressure at a junction at time step n.at represents the speed of sound in the medium and dx is the actual unit distance Ax between two nodes. Boundary conditions are presented as relative impedances to the air such that impedance 1 represents the impedance of air corresponding to an opening. The actual value of a waveguide is the sum of its input and output. That same fi'equency is also the sampling frequency of the resulting impulse response.

A more detailed study on deriving the mesh equations and boundary conditions is presented in [28]. and a 300 MHz DEC Alpha workstation. Figure 11 shows that the simulation is fairly successful with the 5 cm wool case. In the waveguide mesh method the error caused by cube-shaped elements (as described in the previous section) can be reduced. but the stronger damping effect of the 10 cm wool (not 22 .1 FEM and BEM simulations The internal acoustic field of the loudspeaker box has been simulated by using both finite and boundary element methods.. show accurate results in comparison with measured behavior of the loudspeaker. Magnitude responses in a point 120 mm from back plane and mesh position r12c2 (see Fig. Both models use the same mesh but for BEM all internal nodes have been removed. 6. In Fig. 9 and 10. e. 2) are shown. All calculations have been carried out using vibroacoustic software SYSNOISE. rev. FEM models have 702 nodes and BEM models have 394 nodes. In this study we have used cube-shaped elements. which were tuned by hand.digital filters as presented in [27]. 8 the boundaries are filters having a transfer function H(z). Although it is possible to use FEM modeling of absorbent materials in SYSNOISE. It was necessary to use frequency-dependent impedances. Both FEM and BEM simulations of an empty enclosure. it did not yield satisfactory results and instead the damping material has been modeled using impedance boundary condition (Eq. except at frequencies above 600-700 Hz. It is often required that an element mesh should have at least six nodes per wavelength.3. In this case the models used are valid up to 1100 Hz. 17). by using tetrahedral elements [29] or some interpolation technique [30]. When compared to FEM models this is an advantage especially in more complex cases where non-linear or timevariant boundaries are needed. 6 COMPARISON ED BEHAVIOR OF MEASURED AND SIMULAT- In this section we show the results of simulating the behavior of the closed box loudspeaker using element-based numerical modeling tools. Figs. 5.g.

14 the empty loudspeaker was given relative impedance of the walls set to frequency23 . Currently this method is capable of simulating only uncoupled systems. Boundary conditions were varied so that in Fig. The figure presents a two-dimensional slice inside the enclosure 230 mm from the back plate. The simulations were made with a 10 mm spatial discretization resulting in ca. and thus only the inside sound field of the loudspeaker was simulated.1 for FEM and BEM.2 simple support was suggested but our simulations matched best to measurements (see Fig. The simulations were carried out on an SGI Octane workstation. In the figure the primary wavefront is approaching the bottom of the cabin and behind that the first reflections from the side walls can be seen. Three kinds of plate support principles were tried: clamped. simply supported. 12) when the free-edge assumption was applied. In addition to the backplane of the cabin. Figures 14 and 15 show the results of waveguide mesh simulations of the loudspeaker interior in the same point that was used in section 6. In section 4.000 mesh nodes. 13 an example of visualized time-domain simulation is shown.shown here) might need another approach. The coupling effect between structure and fluid was not completely modeled. The vibration of a side plate in an undamped enclosure due to interior sound field was simulated using SYSNOISE. However. it seems possible to use coupled element modeling techniques with these simulations. The damping of structural vibrations was also found inadequate.2 Waveguide mesh simulations The simulations made in this study used a three-dimensional waveguide mesh covering the interior space of the loudspeaker. 65. 6. The excitation has been a Gaussian pulse and the driver element was located at the rim position. The loudspeaker was modeled as a rectangular cabinet and the element was a cylinder acting like a piston sound source. Thus the boundary conditions and the material parameters for the structural FEM model as well as mechanical coupling from the driver element need further attention. and free edges. which is not easily motivated. In Fig. the absorbing boundary condition was used on the side walls to the height of the mineral wool. None of these yielded results accurate enough. Using the FDTD method it is easy to visualize the temporal evolution of the sound field inside and outside the loudspeaker cabinet.

6.vas changed such that it was at the height of the surface mineral wool. The anomalies at higher frequencies may be due to inaccuracies of model parameters. and the fact that the magnet of the driver was not included in the models. confirms general validity of the approach and the measurements. Good agreement of modeled and measured as well as semianalytic results in simple configurations. FEM and BEM based models outperformed the accuracy of the waveguide mesh (difference method) in these simulations. The response curve shows a match with measured response up to about 350 Hz. the relatively small size of FEM/BEM-meshes (5 cm discretization). 7 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The aim of this study has been to apply element-based vibroacoustic simulations to the modeling of a closed-box loudspeaker in order to test the applicability of these methods in loudspeaker design. especially the electret microphone array. the measured magnitude backthickof the of the thick useful When absorption material was added the relative impedance of the plane of the enclosure was changed to be close to 1 depending on the ness of the absorbing material. Figure 15 shows the simulation result when 50 mm mineral wool was at the back wall. The results match response fairly well up to about 550 Hz. At the same time also the location backplane . In principle the waveguide mesh should be as accurate up to frequencies of about 5 kHz. such as in Figs. the non-piston behavior of the driver element. that of a damped enclosure 24 . First the measurement system. 6 and ref. One problem with this method was the regular mesh with 1 cm discretization whereby points of computation (including the point of observation) were discretized to the nearest available point in the mesh. The first observation is that semianalytic and simplified models may yield surprisingly accurate simulation results if the enclosure is simple enough. was found very important for obtaining extensive and reliable data. This data is stored on a CD-ROM for further experiments and analysis work. and 10. [10]. as shown in Fig. 9. The sinmlation of a more realistic case.independent value of 100. The second finding was that all elmnent-based methods yielded accurate enough internal sound field simulations at low frequencies (below 500-600 Hz) for an undamped enclosure. Simulation results are validated by comparing them with measured behavior of a real speaker.

Finally. Although even faster simulation would be wished for fast experimentation. 25 . while the waveguide mesh technique used a simple resistive impedance. the simulations with element-based models in our study have shown that the vibroacoustic behavior of a relatively simple loudspeaker can be simulated precisely and efficiently enough for the sound fields. This problem is important since the wall vibrations at low frequencies are of interest to the overall radiation of the loudspeaker. 11 and 15) were not as accurate. Some of the simulations were encouraging although the results are not accurate enough and the model only partially included the vibroacoustic couplings within the system. The wool was given as an equivalent impedance condition and its placement only on one wall required some hand4uning of the model parameters to obtain a fairly good match to measured sound field. especially the mechanical vibration of walls and tile detailed behavior of the driver cone are not detailed enough to be useful. It can be solved with the element methods if the driver cone behavior as well as wall vibrations are modeled accurately enough. The computational efficiency of the simulations was fairly good: a typical run-time was about 15 minutes for the uncoupled FEM/BEM problems and a few minutes for waveguide methods. and to compute the external sound field based on this knowledge. Yet some crucial behavior.(Figs. The vibration behavior of the enclosure plates due to driver excitation was simulated by the FEM/BEM method in SYSNOISE. The FEM/BEM method yielded better results than the waveguide mesh method since it had a frequency-dependent complex impedance of the damping material. such a speed is certainly tolerable. to extend the modeling to vented box loudspeakers. We did not succeed to use SYSNOISE in a straightforward way of modeling the coupling of the air space and the damping wool. The internal sound field is of less interest in a closed box than in a vented box structure since it can radiate only through walls or due to driver cone loading. only the external sound field is of interest to the listener. In this study we did not try this since the piston model of the driver diaphragm is not accurate enough and the wall vibrations are not known precisely enough. The simulation of the latter effect requires that the acoustic impedance matching of the driver and the enclosure is known. Our next step is to develop these crucial parts further. As a conclusion. Especially the lowest modes should be simulated accurately enough.

1996. 1953. [12] Fahy F.226.. ansys. lmsintl. and W." IEEE ASSP Magazine. London. Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shape.4.hks. J. pp." AES 102nd Convention. Borwick). Princeton versity Press. "Computing the Mechanical and Acoustical Resonances in a Loudspeaker Enclosure. home page: http://www. home page: http ://www. "DSP Software Integration by Object-Oriented ProA Case Study of QuickSig. Munich. Technical Aspects of Sound.. The Finite Element Method Vol.REFERENCES [1] Bank G. 221 ... and Ingard K.. 4. [7] MSC/NASTRAN [8] Karjalainen gramming. 1989. Los Angeles. April [9] Backman J. Academic Press. G. Sound and Structural 1985. [2] SYSNOISE [3] I-DEAS home page: http://www. pp. D. and Taylor R_ L. 258 & 261. [14] Morse P. Uni- [15] Zienkiewicz O.. Amsterdam. preprint n:o 4395 (C-5). New York.. Nov. 3 . 1997.'' AES 101st Convention.25. vol. I. M.. C. corn autoa. "Effect of Panel Damping on Loudspeaker Enclosure Vibration. Focal Press. preprint n:o 4471 (J6). London [13] Richardson E. March 22 .. [11] Blevins R.'ight J. "Loudspeaker Enclosures" in Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook. i: Basic formulation and linear problems. 1979. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. ed.raacsch. U. Theoretical acoustics. USA. (SDRC) home page: http://www. (ed. pp. 1997.11.. Oxford. McGraw-Hill.. sdrc. [10] Backman J. Vibration. M. com. [6] ANSYS home page: http://www. 8 . 26 .. 1990. Elsevier Publishing Company. 1965. corn corn corn corn [4] Comet/Acoustics [5] ABAQUS home page: http://www.

Pacific Grove.. The Music Machine (MIT Press. 1991. Birkh/iuser. F. pp. Roads (ed. R. 27 . London. 1995. [18] Brebbia C. 6. MA. CA. L. 1984. 16. vol. [20] Botteldooren D.. and Taylor R. no.. vol. Trondheim. no. pp.. dynamics and non-linearity.." Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.. 331-353.. 1991. pp.[16] Zienkiewicz O. A.. Acoust.. no. 2: Solid and fluid mechanics. 15th Int. Finite Difference Schemes and Partial Differential Equations. C. Backman J. 7. 56-69. [17] Schatz A. 1989. Zelles J..). and Takala T. and Ciskowsld. 2. 481-49. 1992 Winter. [22] Strikwerda J. H. Berlin.. D.) Boundary Element Methods in Acoustics. pp. L. "Physical modeling of plucked string instruments with application to real-time sound synthesis.. C. 1989). (ed. O.. 637640. "Physical modeling using digital waveguides.. 4. Computational Mechanics Publications. 1990. 3302-3308." Computer Music J.. 98. and Wendland W. [19] Brebbia C. Cambridge. 1983 Summer. Huopaniemi J. [25] Jaffe D. Boundary Element Techniques: Theory and Applications in Engineering. Norway. Karjalainen M. "Waveguide mesh method for low-frequency simulation of room acoustics. 74-87. June 1995. 1996 May. pp. C.. 44. [23] Smith J. "Finite-difference time-domain simulation of lowfrequency room acoustic problems.." in Proc. vol. McGrawHill. 15). Mathematical Theory Bd. ed. and Wrobel L.. The Finite Element Method Vol. Basel.. USA. vol. (DMV Seminar.. Springer Verlag. 5. Computer [24] Viilim/iki V.. Reprinted in C. Congr. and Smith J. no. O. Thom_e V." Music J. [21] Savioja L. A.. 2. vol.. Southampton.. 4. "Extensions of the Karplus-Strong plucked string algorithm." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. J/irvinen A. Wadsworth&Brooks. pp. of Finite and Boundary Element Methods.. and Janosy Z.

Japan. USA. "DSP formulation of a finite difference method for room acoustics simulation. 1993. "Modeling of reflec- tions and air absorption in acoustical spaces -." in Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics. 40-47. O. NY. and Smith J. 1993 Int. Tokyo." in Proc... and Karjalainen M.. Mfinchen. and Takala T. "Improved discrete-time modeling of multi-dimensional wave propagation using the interpolated digital waveguide mesh." in Proceedings of IEEE 1997 Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics_ Mohonk. 1995 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics. pp.. 459-462. and V_limSki V... Speech and Signal Processing. 1996 IEEE Nordic Signal Processing Symp. Sept. "Physical modeling with the 2-d digital waveguide mesh." in Proc. vol. 1. [27] Huopaniemi J.. Oct.. Sept.. Germany. [28] Savioja L. Karjalainen M. pp. O. [30] Savioja L. Computer Music Conf. 1995.. 19-22 1997. Oct. [29] Van Duyne S.. 1996. Finland. pp.[26] Van Duyne S.. Espoo. and Smith J. 455-458.. April 19-24 1997. "The tetrahedral digital waveguide mesh.a digital filter design approach. Savioja L." in Proc. New Paltz. New Paltz_ New York. 28 ..

\_ { \ x 5/ _ speaker 110 speaker (rim case) The inner dimensions of the cabinet are 600mm. the dimensions The material of the plates is 20mm MDF. are according I [ [ _ _ 120./ 1_4t --' _. 29 ..] to next picture. Figure 1: Mounting of the loudspeaker (asymmetric position) and the closed box loudspeaker with microphone array and damping wool inside.The element is centralized on the front plate. 400mm and 250 mm. In the case of rim speaker.

the multiplexer.°_'_ Preamplifier .o -_ -" 1 :2 _ r0c0 _. Electret microphone capsules r ._ distance between microphonesis 40mm a · · _. 2 + Bias _- _ _ _}- _ _-. · a 7 '4 r14c5 metal frame _ single microphone Figure 2: The structure and dimensions of the electret microphone array. and 30 .. : : o "_ \ oo __ _ Digitallycontrolled analog switches Figure 3: Principle of the electret the amplifier circuit.Microphone · o -_ J _ _ grid: ...... microphone array....

enclosure in sand 31 .. 12 cm from back plane for (a) empty enclosure in sand.. in the same position and free standing..05 . 2).3 sec I A I A A 0 I 0.05 _' 0..kl.....05 0 dB _ ...1 I I 0. 0 -0.. (c) magnitude ure in sand for damped in sand and (b) damped enclosure with 10 cm wool..0.1 I 0.3 sec I C) undamped 20 __a -20 I nd_k_ /__/_'__ /__ I I I 100 dB i 200 i sand 300 J 400 i 500 i 600 i 700 i 800 i 900 f/Hz i d)damped 0 -20 20-_ I fr e_ I I I I I I I I 100 Figure 200 300 400 500 inside 600 700 800 (a) and 900 f/Hz (b) impulse 4: Examples of responses the enclosure: responses from the electric excitation of the driver element to sound pressure in microphone mesh point r14c5 (see Fig. a) undamped 0. response in the same position for undamped enclos(d) magnitude response and free standing........2 _l /_\ 0.....05 b) damped 0 -0.2 I 0..

. -20 0 40 200 400 .. 800 top: 1000 accelerance 1200 (accelera- tion/force) of an isolated side plate with impact test at a corner of the plate..... _ 600 I i 800 L 1000 1200 -20 0 Figure 200 5: Results 400 of vibration 600 measurements...........0 200 I 400 600 I 800 I 1000 I 1200 .............. middle: accelerance of the side plate of the freely supported undamped enclosure at point 260 mm from front panel and 297 mm point............ bottom: to electrical excitation side plate veloc!ty at the same of the driver element....... z . from top plate (driver side).. as a response 32 .

I i! II i i 0 1O0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Hz Figure 6: Analytic modeling: magnitude response (diaphragm velocity to sound pressure) in point 120 mm from back plate and r12c2 in the microphone mesh in sand-supported undampedenclosure as measured (solid line) and computed from analytic modeling with rigid walls (dash-dot line).' ' I' ' I '1 I ' . 33 .l ! II ' I ! II ' i I i i ii I i! . I . Figure 7: Lowest vibrational mode corresponding to a clamped (left) and a simply supported (right) boundary condition.

At boundaries there are filters H(z) implementing the reflection characteristics of each surface. t t q Figure 8: A two-dimensional waveguide mesh.H(z_ ! t _.r'--"_ _ . 34 . which consists of onedimensional digital waveguides interconnected at their crossings.

........ o 'A'I. .......... ..I ..\ ..... .....i... ..........o -20 -30 -40._o .^........... : : i '\' I ....... . .. 'ii'_/': ..... :......:_ ... 10: BEM modeling: magnitude response (diaphragm velocity to pressure) in point 120 mm from back plate and r12c2 in the micromesh as measured in sand-supported undamped enclosure as comfrom BEM modeling (solid line) and measured (dash-dot line) re- 35 . ...... [A......._:......!! i. ! ii) ' _' _ i . '6(_(30 200' 360 4()0 500 9()0 HZ Figure 9: FEM modeling: magnitude response (diaphragm velocity to sound pressure) in point 120 mm from back plate and r12c2 in the microphone mesh as measured in sand-supported undamped enclosure as computed from FEM modeling (solid line) and measured (dash-dot line) response. : ........ .... '1" "!! l....... _!1.._..i ........ : ' .........I. -_o -40 : : : !\ .._ ..............i ....... -. :r ! ........ :: : ..... i :........dB ....... _....... ..... dB o ' ...I-........ ! ! '_: /.. ........ i.. .... -20 . ..-_o.... ...._ .....r_/ ..l:.. ....... i.. .. _! _ _ .. .. 600 760 800 _1:i._ . _. r : . i i ! ! j...... i... ........ '. ..... ..^ ............ i ......... -6 _B 0 260 3()0 460 500 ' 600 ' 700 ' 800 ' 900 ' Hz Figure sound phone puted sponse. -" : . .. . .... .I.. ......... ...... i.' ............/il . i.... ' i....-... (!_{' ! ........._. .. ......

...... :..... ii i ! ! ........ ! _................ '.... 600 i i....................... i... i :.... . !i _ ! : i ' ... i_ '"!......./! _ 400 5()0 6()0 7()0 8()0 !¢ 950 HZ Figure 12: Vibration modeling: magnitude response.. : / / / i ' -20 . : ..... ...... i.........!?.......... fi'om FEM modeling (solid line) and measured (dash-dot line) _' :........ '..... 2[)0 i......... ...... : ............. '...... _..... 36 . .... i............ 300 i :..................... 700 i i.' ' i /. ......I .... i.. ! i ......t. : . i/ :'i:" "'1 I' ' : I :i ' .. :'_" I '501 250 3()0 _:'_!.... :.... /::: ...._.. ! ...................dB _ _ _ _ _ _ -10 .. 900 i Hz Figure 11: FEM modeling: magnitude response (diaphragm velocity to sound pressure) in point 120 mm from back plate and r12c2 in the microphone mesh as measured in damped enclosure with 50 mm mineral wool as computed response................ ':"' i .. 400 i / : ....... ' ....... diaphragm velocity to side wall velocity.'_'"¢' i .i'i .^ :.. 500 i i.il ...... 800 i i.............. i ....... :..... i '...... '.. . ' ). at point 260 mm from front plate and 297 mm fi'om top plate (driver side) in undamped enclosure: computed (solid line) and measured (dash-dot line) response... i' .. 1O0 _... i" i i i "....... -40 ... ! -30 ._....... ..... . ' -30Ii.... '....: :. : : : .................. .................. ...... i..

.. ....... :..".. ._ ....'" -0.....: ...''....1 ' " 0...'..::': i......· ..·. -l_J. .. '::............ .. ... _"..........' ..3 '.. . ..' /..." ..'.'.... .2 :..": .i' I ....'_?_ .. .." .:......3 Figure 13: Finite difference time domain simulation of a wavefront inside the enclosure. ....... : i :!.' . .. A two-dimensional slice at the height of 230 mm from back plate is visualized..5 0..... ?: '·""''"... :7_?_:_!4 .'.......0.............'. · ' · '" "'" ...... .......:'... _ ...: ·.' .' .. . "i.. The primary wavefront is approaching the bottom of the enclosure and behind that the first reflections from the sidewalls can be seen..'......i ! ? i i: .' .... 1 ' .. ...' . : '"... '..... ...... ..." ..... ..... .:?'.'. '. . /i·i ./n. /_o .....2 '.!_f_. 37 . :.': ......? '...' : ... ... .:"'.".._' !.... .' oq..." i "' ' '._'/0... ..'!".

. 7 ......_ .....'" . : :: .. ......\ ...:... . .. ....... .... /! !.... i i ! -2o.. .. !".l_.: ._:...... ................ -lo . ..dE .._............_^ ....::_...o ... :1 / -40 ... x : . dB 0 ... :: :__< '_ i .._o ...._ _30 i ..... ..............': / ..... .. ............. : '6hi 0''_0 200 i i 30 i0 ....... ! ! ......... ... !....... : Figure 14: Waveguide mesh modeling: magnitude response (diaphragm velocity to sound pressure) in sand-supported undamped enclosure in point 120 mm from back plate and r12c2 in the microphone mesh as computed from modeling (solid line) and measured (dash-dot line) response.... ................. : ..............v........ . >....... .....' : I/ _: ':I II . /'1 -.....' '.. ... l... :.i_ .... ! . _ ........ .. i ..i¥ X....(....... -:.-. i...... .......... ... :...... ' / ' ! \.... ...._..... f . : / ............ _ .....: :...... ......... ....... -4o .._ _ :::_ ............... > I..._ . . .. .... '5_ O0 200 i 300 i 400 500 i 600 700 800 900 Hz Figure 15: Waveguide mesh modeling: magnitude response (diaphragm velocity to sound pressure) in point 120 mm from back plate and r12c2 in the microphone mesh in damped enclosure with 50 mm mineral wool as computed from modeling (solid line) and measured 38 (dash-dot line) response........ :................ ... i W!. : : ..... .. 40 i0 5()0 600 700 O00 O00 HZ -so...[ .. /% ! ............. :..... v................ ^........ .. i ... i....._l... .: :_'!_ "... ..... !....... : ....... ...........' ....................