Simulation

Article
Simulation: Transactions of the Society for
Modeling and Simulation International
2015, Vol. 91(9) 787–808
Integrating acoustic simulation Ó 2015 The Author(s)
DOI: 10.1177/0037549715603480
in architectural design workflows: sim.sagepub.com

the FabPod meeting room prototype

Brady Peters

Abstract
Sound is an important part of our experience of buildings. However, architects design largely using visually based tech-
niques and largely for visual phenomena. Aiming to address this problem, the research presented in this paper proposes
four digital design workflows that integrate acoustic computer simulation into architectural design. These techniques
enable architects to design for both visual and acoustic criteria. The goal is to develop rapid and accessible workflows
for architects that allow acoustic performance to be tuned as geometry and materials are modified at the scale of the
room, and also at the scale of the surface. The discovery and testing of these techniques takes place within the design of
the FabPod, a semi-enclosed meeting room situated within an open-plan working environment. The project builds on
previous research investigating the design principles, the acoustic performance, and the fabrication methods of hyperbo-
loid surface geometry. Four design workflows were developed: two of these investigate the acoustic performance of the
room and use existing acoustic simulation software, and the other two workflows investigate the acoustic performance
of the surface and use custom-written scripts to calculate and visualize sound scattering. This paper presents the back-
ground to the study, outlines the digital workflows, describes how they integrate acoustic simulation, and shows some
of the data produced by these simulations.

Keywords
acoustic simulation, architectural acoustics, architectural design, design workflows, simulation visualization, computer-
aided design, performance-based design

1. Introduction adoption of existing analysis software or the development

The role of the architect is to conceive of a building prior
to, and separate from, the construction of that building. To
do this architects have traditionally used drawing tech-
niques to explore, collect, and communicate their concepts
about how the building should be. In contemporary archi-
tectural practice, digital design processes have replaced the
use of pen and paper and introduced new methods for the
conception and exploration of building form. While draw-
ing on paper and the construction of physical models are
inherently visual processes and therefore do not accommo-
date designing for sound, the digital design environment
can have an aural component.1 Computer simulation tech-
niques have been implemented in acoustic engineering
software that gives feedback on digital models of build-
ings;2 however, there are no architectural design tools that
include sound.3 As architects become more computation-
ally proficient, there is a tendency to introduce perfor-
mance feedback into the design process either through the
of bespoke analysis computer programs.4
The FabPod is a prototype meeting room for the new
Design Hub building at RMIT University in Melbourne,
Australia. The FabPod is a free-standing meeting room
situated in an open-plan working environment. The chal-
lenge was not only how to design the meeting room to
have optimal acoustic performance, but additionally how
to design the structure so it could positively contribute to
the acoustic performance of the open-plan working envi-
ronment in which it was situated. Meeting rooms are
places where decisions are made, creative ideas are
John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design,
University of Toronto, Canada
Corresponding author:
Brady Peters, John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and
Design, University of Toronto, 230 College Street, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Email: brady.peters@daniels.utoronto.ca
788 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 91(9)
constructed, and where listening and communicating are
critically important, and so the acoustic performance of
meeting rooms is an important design criterion.
Unfortunately, the literature surrounding the acoustic
design of successful meeting rooms is not as extensive as
the literature for the acoustic design of concert halls. In
this project, the acoustic criteria for the meeting room
were developed from several sources relating to meeting
rooms, offices, and classrooms. Although open-plan work-
ing environments is an area of on-going study, the litera-
ture is much clearer in terms of criteria that define good
acoustic performance.5
The FabPod project has several research aims. One of
the primary aims is to create a series of flexible digital
workflows that would allow for design decisions to be
deferred until late in the design process. The hypothesis
was that as the complexities involved in the geometry and
fabrication were encoded into the logics of a computa-
tional design system, there would then be more time to
explore design options and develop a better meeting room.
A second aim was to integrate acoustic computer simula-
tion into these design processes. The integration of design,
performance, and fabrication meant that a certain amount
of negotiation between competing parameters was neces-
sary. A third aim was to design and build an acoustically
well-performing meeting room. To do so, the consider-
ation of acoustic performance at the level of the room and
the geometry and materiality is considered. To predict this
performance, four acoustic design workflows were devel-
oped. These workflows are presented and discussed in
relation to digital design and acoustic criteria and some
future directions are proposed. A fourth aim was to extend
previous research on hyperboloid structures.6
The project develops knowledge in terms of the geo-
metric definition of, the development of design tools for,
and the fabrication of hyperboloid structures. Previous
research by the authors has shown hyperboloid geometry
has unique acoustic properties and can be designed to scat-
ter sound in different ways.6 An aggregate structure com-
posed of cells of different materials can further modify the
acoustic performance. Specifically, this paper will present
research into the development of digital design workflows
that incorporate acoustic computer simulation in the design
of a meeting room with hyperboloid geometry that is situ-
ated in an open-plan working environment. These experi-
ments have provided the opportunity to obtain several
types of data. Firstly, they offer findings as to new forms
for meeting spaces from the perspective of acoustic perfor-
mance. Secondly, they give guidance on the benefits of
having an acoustically considered meeting pod situated
within an open-plan work environment. Thirdly, they offer
observations on how acoustic simulation can be integrated
into a digital architectural design workflow, with particular
focus on the early design stage. Fourthly, they offer further
evidence as to the acoustic properties of hyperboloid
geometry. This research project contributes knowledge to
the integration of acoustic simulation in the architectural
design process and the acoustic design of meeting spaces
and of open-plan work environments. While the results of
this research are specific to this application, it is hoped that
the design workflow and simulation procedures, as sum-
marized in this paper, will be applicable to a wide range of
architectural projects involving acoustic simulation.
2. Background
The FabPod is a prototype meeting room. It is designed to
have excellent acoustic performance as a meeting room
and to improve the acoustic performance of the open-plan
working environment in which it is situated. The back-
ground research for the project focuses on the design of
meeting rooms, open-plan working environments, the use
of architectural design methods for sound, and the simula-
tion of sound. The literature review shows that acoustically
well-performing meeting rooms have reduced room reso-
nances, no flutter echoes, appropriate reverberation time,
and a uniform sound field, which is achieved through the
design of the form of the room and its surface geometry
and material specification. The performance of the open-
plan working space is driven by an appropriate reverbera-
tion time, a reduced distraction distance, and a high rate of
spatial decay of sound from one area to another. In terms
of architectural design tools for sound, most traditional
architectural design methods do not allow the prediction of
appropriate acoustic parameters to design for these condi-
tions. The use of computer simulation is necessary to
engage with the phenomenon of sound and to predict the
acoustic performance of the meeting room and its sur-
rounding environment.
2.1. The acoustic performance of meeting rooms
Meeting rooms are communication spaces. Bradley7 writes
that ‘‘the goal of good acoustical design for classrooms
and meeting rooms is to make possible clear, accurate and
relaxed speech communication.’’ Bradley further adds that
good acoustical design of meeting rooms should optimize
room acoustics and minimize unwanted noise so that
effective speech-to-noise ratios are maximized. Bradley
observes that rooms are still designed in terms of rever-
beration time, which only indirectly relates to critical
room acoustic details. Doelle8 and Vorlander1 separately
identify several fundamental requirements in designing
rooms for speech. The sound signal itself should have ade-
quate loudness and there must be a high signal-to-noise
ratio. The background noise levels must be low enough to
not interfere with the listening environment. The rever-
beration characteristics must be appropriate. While some
reflections are detrimental to the acoustic performance,
such as long delayed reflections, flutter echoes, and
Peters
focusing, the temporal structure of the early reflections
can add to speech comprehension. Finally, the resonances
of the room should be reduced as the distribution of room
resonances and the corresponding effect of sound colora-
tion can detrimentally affect acoustic performance.
Many meeting rooms are small, square, or rectangular
in form, and are often only sparsely furnished. These char-
acteristics can lead to poor room acoustic performance.
Small, rectangular rooms with hard surfaces develop reso-
nances between parallel reflecting surfaces, and when the
dimensions along the major axes are similar this acts to
amplify these resonant effects.9 These resonances cause
certain frequencies to be amplified by up to 20 dB and
cause the timbre of voices to be changed due to massive
‘‘coloration’’. These effects are annoying and decrease
speech comprehension.10 Noise in meeting rooms is pre-
dominantly self-generated. The room does not make any
sound itself; however, the room determines how the sound
arrives at the sound receiver. The lack of sound absorption
causes people in these rooms to raise their voices as soon
as necessary communication between them takes place.
This is known as the ‘‘Lombard Effect’’, the phenomenon
in which speakers increase the level of their vocal output
as well as several other vocal changes in the presence of
loud background noise in order to improve the intelligibil-
ity of the speech signal.11
In his study of classrooms, Bradley12 maximized intel-
ligibility as a function of reverberation time. He found that
intelligibility was maximized at a reverberation time that
depends on the signal-to-background-noise ratio in a range
of 0.2–0.8 seconds. A low reverberation time and signal-
to-noise ratio is important to achieve good speech intellig-
ibility.12 More recently it has been found that it is critical
to have strong early reflections of sound as well; simply
striving for a low reverberation time will decrease the
speech intelligibility.13 Human hearing is more sensitive
to reflections arriving from lateral directions (at about 45°)
than those arriving from the front or rear.14 Reflections
from above are masked more effectively by the direct
sound than are lateral reflections. Sound reflections that
reach the listener within 50 ms of the direct sound increase
the intelligibility of speech owing to the ability of the ear
to integrate those sounds. At low levels reflections mani-
fest themselves only by an increase of loudness of the total
sound signal, by a change in timbre, or by an increase of
the apparent size of the sound source.15 The target value
for reverberation time for the meeting room was set at
about 0.6 seconds. This number was developed consider-
ing the research presented by Bradley7 and Bradley and
Yang.13
Another problem that often affects meeting rooms is
the uneven distribution of absorbing materials. Acoustic
absorbing materials, if there are any, are often placed only
on the ceiling. An uneven distribution of absorbing mate-
rial causes the absorbing material to work at much less
789
than optimal performance, and causes an increased rever-
beration time.16 If the sound pressure is equal in all parts
of a room and sound waves are traveling in all directions,
the sound field is said to be ‘‘homogenous’’ or ‘‘diffuse’’.8
Sound diffusion promotes a uniform distribution of sound,
accentuates the natural qualities of music and speech, and
prevents the occurrence of undesirable acoustic defects.
Sound diffusion can be created through the creation of sur-
face irregularities, alternating between sound-reflective
and sound-absorptive surfaces, and the irregular distribu-
tion of differing sound-absorptive surfaces. The overall
dimensions of the surface irregularities or sound-
absorptive materials must be comparable to the wave-
length of sound. Surface irregularities also help to reduce
flutter echoes, which occur when sounds persist locally
due to multiple reflections between hard, parallel wall sur-
faces.9 In the last decade there has been an increased inter-
est in characterization of sound scattering.17 It has been
shown that the correct modeling of sound scattering is nec-
essary for the accuracy of geometric room acoustic mod-
els.18 There has also been increased understanding on how
important sound scattering is for the acoustic performance
of a space. It has been suggested that one of the reasons
that traditional concert halls sound better than modern
halls is because of the greater degree of surface detail that
occurred at a variety of scales to provide sound scattering
across a range of frequencies.19 Therefore, in recent years,
there has been the development of a standard measure for
sound scattering.20
The FabPod project seeks to create better room acoustic
performance for meeting rooms through non-parallel wall
surfaces to reduce flutter echoes, a non-rectangular overall
geometry to reduce room resonances, a complex interior
surface to provide sound scattering, and a balance of mate-
rials that not only helps to tune the reverberation time, but
also aids and controls early reflections.
2.2. The acoustic performance of open-plan
working environments
Two categories of sound should be distinguished. The first
is sound that serves communication or well-being. For
example, speaking and listening, or listening or playing
music. These sound signals should be transmitted in such
a way that a good timbre is achieved and speech is under-
standable; these are the principle tasks of room acoustics.
The second is sound that is a nuisance or that is harmful to
our health.21 This sound could be unwanted sound from
outside the room, unwanted sound from other sound
sources in the room, or distracting sound caused by the
sound source interacting with the room itself. This is
noise. It is often the balance of positive sound and nega-
tive noise that determines the acoustic performance of a
working environment.
790 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 91(9)
The trend in workspace design is towards forms that
promote and support synergies between individuals, teams,
and across group boundaries.22 As new technologies allow
work to be decoupled from space and time, these new
working processes demand new forms and spatial concepts
that promote community, entrepreneurship, contact, and
exchange.22 The notion of workplace is shifting from that
of being a passive setting for work to that of an active set-
ting – a tool for getting work done.23 Open-plan work-
spaces have been shown to have benefits for employers,
including a more efficient use of space, a decrease in
costs, and flexibility in organization. Other benefits for
employees include increased communication and interac-
tion. However, drawbacks of open-plan spaces include
increased noise, distractions, perceived crowding, and
decreased privacy.24 Many of these drawbacks at least par-
tially relate to the room acoustic performance of the space.
In open-plan spaces, occupants are affected by the sounds
of the activities around them. Too much noise leads to dis-
traction and too little a lack of speech privacy.
Traditionally in modern architectural design, absorption
and reverberation time have guided design decisions in
relation to the design of open-plan working environments;
however, there is evidence that other types of measure-
ments are needed to understand, predict, and evaluate the
acoustics of open-plan working environments.25,26 The
Speech Transmission Index (STI) is a physical quantity
representing the transmission quality of speech with
respect to intelligibility. The STI and the spatial distribu-
tion of the STI are important to understand acoustic per-
formance in open-plan offices. A new international
standard describes three key parameters for open-plan
offices: the rate of spatial decay; the distraction distance
(described as the distance from a speaker where the
STI falls below 0.50); and sound level.5 Target values for
an open-plan offices with good acoustic conditions could
be spatial decay rate of speech (D2,S) 5 7 dB;
A-weighted sound pressure level of speech at a distance
of 4 m (Lp,A,S,4m) 4 48 dB; and, distraction distance
(rd) 4 5m.5
The design of the FabPod seeks to modify the room
acoustic performance of the open-plan working environ-
ment in which it is located. The pod geometry and materi-
ality were adjusted in response to different simulations
with the goal to change measured room acoustic criteria.
The experiments were not focused on changing the room’s
internal ambient noise or noise from building services, as
these were considered to be part of the given environment
in which the FabPod was inserted. In terms of the
FabPod’s acoustic performance, firstly, it isolates distract-
ing meetings from the main work space, allowing
extended conversations to occur in a partially acoustically
isolated pod within the main space. Secondly, by placing
the pod in the center of the space it breaks the large space
up into two spaces, thereby increasing the spatial decay of
sound from one side of the pod to the other. Thirdly, the
material composition of the outside of the pod will help to
tune the reverberation time of the open-plan work space.
2.3. Architectural design tools for sound
Sound is an important part of architectural design, both in
terms of achieving its poetic design aims as well as meet-
ing the needs of its programmatic functions, and good
architects are aware of this and consider sound a key
design parameter. For most of last 2500 years architects
have used empirical guidance for designing the sound of
new buildings.27 Wallace Sabine28 introduced the first
design tool that is able to accurately predict the acoustic
performance of new buildings; Sabine’s formula for the
calculation of reverberation time gave architects the ability
to predict acoustic performance prior to construction.
Sabine’s study of sound and the dissemination of his
research sparked the development of the field of architec-
tural acoustics. Modernist architects seeking a functional
justification for everything were quick to seize on the idea
that acoustic principles could be a generator of architec-
tural form.29 A drawing technique that was used was ray-
tracing, where lines were used to visualize and map sound
paths. The invention of electronic recording and measure-
ment devices led to the creation of further acoustic para-
meters.27 The construction of scale models was the first
method by which acoustic performance could be simu-
lated. This technique was first used in the 1930s by both
Spandock and Jordan.27,30 The use of scale models and
scale sound sources and microphones allowed for the first
listening tests to be performed,31 although scale models
often have too limited a dynamic frequency range.32
Developments from the 1930s to 1970s focused on the
refinement of techniques that allowed for the construction
of smaller, and therefore more affordable, models.31 The
main purpose of a physical scale model is the investigation
of acoustic phenomena related to reflection sequences, and
the study of diffusion and diffraction.32 Scale models also
offer the added benefit of offering visualization benefits
for architects and clients.
Prior to the invention of acoustic computer simulation,
it can see that there are several design tools that have been
used by architects: empirical guidance, the calculation of
reverberation time using the Sabine formula, the drawing
of two-dimensional (2D) ray-tracing diagrams, and simu-
lation through the measurement of scale models. There
are, however, limitations to these techniques that inhibit
the prediction of the acoustic performance of new designs.
While the use of empirical guidance and the careful study
of precedent projects has been shown to be a reliable way
to achieve predictable acoustic performance,33 by design-
ing in this way architects are not able to achieve radically
new forms, only repeat designs that have been shown to
work in the past. The calculation of reverberation using
Peters
the Sabine formula is not only slow, but it does not work
for rooms that have odd shapes or unevenly distributed
material,34 and it only calculates a single parameter, rever-
beration time, and does not give a spatial response. The
ray-tracing diagrams so popular in modern architecture
only work in two dimensions and ignore the fact that
sound is a wave phenomenon. The use of scale models
requires very large, very expensive models to be con-
structed and requires the use of specialized equipment and
techniques not part of the architect’s toolkit. None of these
techniques successfully integrated sound into the everyday
design toolkit of the architect.
2.4. Acoustic computer simulation
Since 1995,35 computer acoustic simulations for architec-
tural projects have not only been sufficiently accurate, but
efficient in terms of time and cost.34 Today the computer
simulation of room acoustic performance can be grouped
into two approaches: wave-based and ray-based.36 Wave-
based techniques attempt to solve the wave equation
numerically. Wave-based techniques are more computa-
tionally intensive, as they involve the discretization of
either the space of the room or its bounding surfaces and
model the interactions between all of the resulting ele-
ments. Ray-based techniques assume that sound travels in
a straight line and its reflection from surfaces is computed
using geometrical methods. These two techniques can be
used to study different aspects of architectural acoustic
performance. Recent tests show that the majority of acous-
tic simulation software packages provide valid results.37
While most of these simulation software packages have
limited abilities to actually create geometry, it is usually
possible to export geometry from architectural design soft-
ware to the simulation software.38 The trend in architec-
ture is from the creation of 2D drawings to the creation of
highly accurate three-dimensional (3D) models, digital
models that could be acoustically simulated; however,
there are currently no architectural design tools that incor-
porate acoustic simulation.3,4
To understand the acoustic performance of an interior
space, geometrical acoustic simulation is the currently
accepted method.1 The technique of ray-tracing is com-
monly used in the computer simulation of visual scenes
and forms one of the algorithmic foundations of the digital
design environment. A similar technique can be used to
simulate the acoustic scene of a virtual environment. The
first computer simulation of sound, and the first to use
ray-tracing, was proposed in the late 1960s39 and matured
in the 1990s.31 Using this technique, a large number of
rays are traced from a source point – the sound source.
These rays reflect off surfaces within the room following
the geometrical law of reflection. These rays are traced
until a cut-off point based on a time factor, or decrease in
energy level, is reached. A sound receiver, or receivers, is
791
introduced that detects sound rays and constructs an
energy decay signature. This allows the calculation of dif-
ferent acoustic parameters beyond reverberation time. The
ray-tracing technique combined with the Head Related
Transfer Function (HRTF) to give the Binaural Room
Impulse Response (BRIR), which can be convolved with
anechoic sound recordings to create auralizations.1
Auralizations allow for virtual spaces to be heard before
they are constructed. Ray-tracing is a primary technique in
a general class of computer acoustic simulation methods
called ‘‘geometric methods’’. Other methods include the
image source method,40 which is based on the principle
that a specular (geometrical) reflection can be constructed
by mirroring the sound source in the plane of the reflecting
surface. While this method works well for rectangular
rooms, in rooms of arbitrary geometries this number of
image sources increases exponentially with the reflection
order, therefore making this unsuitable for studying rever-
berant sound decay.31 Most commonly available computer
simulation software programs are based on a hybrid
approach where ray-tracing and image source methods are
combined to maximize the accuracy of calculations while
minimizing the time needed to carry them out. However,
there are some limitations to the acoustic phenomena that
geometric methods can model; a source of uncertainty is
how to model the effects of surface diffusion and
diffraction.17,18
The other type of acoustic simulations includes those
methods that use numerical techniques. These wave-based
methods do not solve the wave equation directly, but they
try to numerically approximate its solution. These numeri-
cal methods are the finite element method (FEM), the
boundary element method (BEM), and the finite-difference
time-domain method (FDTD).17 A fundamental difference
between these methods and the geometric acoustic simula-
tion methods is that they divide the space of the digital
model into small elements or nodes. These elements then
interact with each other according to laws of the wave
movement phenomena. Another difference is that this ele-
ment interaction must be calculated for each element in a
time step sequence. This leads to large calculation times
for large numbers of elements and long durations. As the
size of these elements has to be much smaller than the size
of the wavelength, there is potentially a very large number
of elements. Vorlander1 suggests that there are at least six
nodes per wavelength. For practical use, wave models are
typically restricted to low frequencies and small spaces.
However, there are several benefits to using numerical
methods: firstly, these methods are characterized by their
calculation of very accurate results, especially at single
frequencies; and, secondly, these methods will compute
the wave effects of diffraction and interference. These
simulation techniques much more accurately model sound
waves and are therefore ultimately preferably due to their
accuracy.
792 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 91(9)
The BEM is the most accurate way of studying acoustic
diffusion.17 The disadvantages of this approach are that it
is computationally intensive and slow. Therefore, acoustic
diffusing geometries are generally studied in isolation of
other objects and boundaries. When predicting acoustic
performance in rooms it is more common to use geometric
models. The models used in BEM simulation are prone to
human error in meshing. FDTD is a widely used simula-
tion technique in many different disciplines and is becom-
ing increasingly popular in acoustics.17 Although these
simulations have long computation times, the algorithm is
easy to understand and implement, and it gives a wide fre-
quency range with a single prediction. FDTD simulation
uses a volumetric rather that surface meshing and can give
accurate prediction of scattering.41,42 FDTD was devel-
oped in the 1960s for use in studying the electromagnetic
field but was first applied to acoustics in the 1990s.43 This
technique can be used for low-frequency studies,43 sound
visualizations,44 and for studying the scattering properties
of different geometrical configurations.41
2.5. Background summary
From the background study, it can be seen that there are
several critical performance considerations for meeting
rooms: the reduction of room resonances; the removal of
acoustic defects such as flutter echoes; the tuning of the
room to an appropriate reverberation time; the increase in
speech intelligibility through positive early reflections and
the reduction in background noise; and the creation of an
even or diffuse sound field. Most of these acoustic perfor-
mance considerations can be dealt with through the manip-
ulation of the overall geometry of the room, the detailed
design of the room’s surface geometry, and the specifica-
tion of material. To simulate both the overall room perfor-
mance as well as the performance of the surface, both
geometric and numerical simulation methods must be used.
The acoustic performance of the open-plan working space
is largely driven by parameters that can be simulated using
geometric acoustic methods. As this research project aimed
to develop digital design workflows that incorporated
acoustic computer simulation in the design of a meeting
room incorporating hyperboloid geometry located in an
open-plan office environment, the digital design work-
flows needed to incorporate different types of simulation
to predict the acoustic performance of different aspects of
the design. As no architectural software exists that includes
this functionality, new software and new workflows using
multiple software packages needed to be developed. The
inclusion of simulation into the architectural design work-
flow allowed for design, performance, and fabrication con-
siderations to be explored simultaneously. The work done
in this project on the development of design tools for gen-
erating hyperboloid geometry and the description of that
geometry for fabrication and assembly has been published
separately.45,46 The description of the project in this paper
focuses specifically on the development of digital tools
and workflows that allow for acoustic performance to be
integrated into the architectural design process.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research by design
Architectural research that uses design work itself as part
of the inquiry process can be called ‘‘research through
practitioner action’’.47 Archer47 writes that sometimes
‘‘the best or only way to shed light on a proposition, or
principle, a material, a process or a function is to attempt
to construct something, or to enact something, calculated
to explore, embody or test it’’. This is a ‘‘systematic
enquiry conducted through the medium of practical action;
calculated to devise or test new, or newly imported, infor-
mation, ideas, forms, or procedures and generate commu-
nicable knowledge’’.47 In this category, both quantitative
and qualitative research methods may be appropriate.48 In
practice-based research, methodologies are emergent –
that is, the research strategy grows and unfolds from the
practitioner’s interaction with the research question and
context.49 This project draws on a methodology of natura-
listic inquiry that places the researcher firmly within the
research process. This research project, similar to much
architectural research, uses a hybrid methodology that is
the synthesis of methods and techniques. As the modeling
and simulation is done in a design process, the author is
therefore a participant in the activities that are under
study.
It should be noted that this study of acoustic simulation
workflows were not carried out in a controlled manner, but
done within the design process. While performance objec-
tives were known before the project began, their method of
evaluation was not defined prior to the project commen-
cing. The workflows were developed within the design
process and each software found its role naturally accord-
ing to how useful it was. It was not the intent to objectively
compare software tools, but to develop a spectrum of simu-
lation approaches that could evaluate different acoustic
parameters.
3.2. Digital design and performance
All architecture is now digital architecture in the sense that
the vast majority of drawing, documentation, and commu-
nication is done through the use of digital tools. Digital
design processes support the modeling, parametric trans-
formation, and computational generation of geometric
models. In addition, digital design processes support the
analytical evaluation of environmental performance based
on the computer simulation of physical reality.50 Departing
from previous methods of architectural design where
sketching, drawing, and the construction of physical
Peters
models guided designers to final designs, computational
methods are now used to generate buildings where the final
design emerges as the design is evaluated and the computa-
tional model is modified.51 Aish52 uses the term ‘‘design
computation’’ to define a design method where there is a
distinction between the generative description of a building
and the resulting generated model. Performance-based
design has been defined as an approach in which building
performance becomes the guiding factor in design and this
approach has long been recognized as an important issue
in the use of computers in architecture.53 Using this design
approach, there is an integration of evaluative simulation
processes with digital form generation processes. While it
has been recognized that all architecture results from a
complex combination of different influences, constraints,
and negotiated decisions during the design process, a
performance-based design paradigm is one of ‘‘form find-
ing’’ instead of ‘‘form making’’.
The digital environment provides great potential for
new design tools and for the incorporation of acoustic per-
formance; however, working digitally also creates a poten-
tial for interfacing with digital fabrication machinery. This
changes the relationship of the architect to the drawing, to
construction, and to the building. The architect can now
send fabrication data directly from the computer without
needing to go through the intermediary agent of the crafts-
man. With the wide availability of computer-controlled
fabrication machinery, such as 3D printers, laser cutters,
milling machines, etc., the architect is now able to easily
test and evaluate design propositions through prototyping.
Prototyping and the construction of full-scale demonstra-
tors was used to test acoustic design concepts in a ‘‘real-
world’’ setting. The demonstrator in this experiment is
used not only as way to validate the design objectives and
test the acoustic performance of the designed object, but
also as a design tool itself. Beyond simulation and aurali-
zation, the demonstrator provides a second way in which
architects can experience and explore sound in space.
3.3. Simulation
Simulation is a method related to the question of how
‘‘reality’’ is actually constituted and how we can come to
know it. Simulation and modeling research has the theore-
tical presupposition that knowledge of ‘‘a reality’’ can be
obtained by reproducing that reality in some substitute
medium. In architectural research, computer simulations
are generally used to find that certain aspects of design can
be insignificant, or significant in terms of building perfor-
mance.54 Simulation is now a fundamental aspect of con-
temporary scientific knowledge and discovery.55
Simulations allow for the imitation of a real-world pro-
cesses over time, and can be used to show the eventual real
effects of alternative conditions and courses of action.
Architects are familiar with the use of drawings and
793
models to predict the architectural qualities of a building
prior to construction, and in this way the use of simulation
is a natural extension of the role of the architect. While a
model is an abstract description of a system, a simulation
is the description of the behavior of that system. Unlike a
model, a simulation is not wholly descriptive; when a
simulation is begun, the outcome or result is not necessa-
rily known. There are two general classes of simulations:
continuum methods and particle methods.56 Particle meth-
ods make use of ‘‘Monte Carlo’’ algorithms. Such methods
use random sampling algorithms where the randomness of
the algorithm need not correspond to an underlying inde-
terminism in the system. The acoustic simulation algo-
rithms of geometric acoustics, such as ray-tracing and its
variants, can be considered to be particle methods.
Continuum methods begin by describing their object of
study as a medium described by fields and distributions.
The goal is then to give differential equations that relate to
the rates of change of the values for these fields and distri-
butions, and to use ‘‘discretization’’ techniques to trans-
form these continuous differential equations into algebraic
equations that can be calculated step-by-step by a com-
puter. The acoustic simulation algorithms of numerical
methods such as FDTD techniques can be considered to be
continuum methods.
4. Implementing the algorithms:
four digital design workflows
integrating acoustic simulation
Four workflows were developed within the architectural
design environment that integrate different simulation
methods and simulate different aspects of acoustic perfor-
mance. These workflows are described in this section. The
first two workflows use existing acoustic simulation soft-
ware to predict the acoustic performance of the room.
These acoustic simulation software packages use geo-
metric acoustic algorithms. The last two workflows are
used to predict the acoustic performance of the surface.
The simulations in these workflows use the numerical
modeling algorithms of BEM and FDTD.
4.1. Parallel modeling and simulation
Workflow 1, parallel modeling and simulation, is based on
the accepted workflow that integrates acoustic simulation
into architectural and engineering practice today, see
Figure 1. When compared to architectural design software,
most acoustic simulation software packages have limited
abilities to actually create geometry. In practice, the build-
ing or room geometry is created in an architectural design
software, either by the architect or acoustic engineer, then
exported, and imported into the simulation software.
While a digital model is often created by the architect, this
794 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 91(9)
Figure 1. Workflow 1: parallel modeling and simulation.
digital model is often modified or re-made by the acoustic
engineer to reduce data, layer separate according to mate-
rial, or fix meshing problems. This translation from one
representation – the architectural representation, to another
representation – the acoustic representation, is necessary
because of the nature of the acoustic simulation itself. If
architects are to include simulation as part of their work-
flow, this will impact what architects draw. Odeon, the
simulation software used in this workflow, requires simpli-
fied, watertight geometry, layer-separated by material.57 A
simple custom parametric script was used to triangulate
geometric entities, including complex double-curved sur-
faces. Vorlander1 recommends that the geometry not have
extensive surface detail. As the materiality of the individ-
ual surfaces is critical, it is important to put the geometric
entities on different levels (or layers) according to their
material properties. This makes it easier to assign the cor-
rect material in acoustic simulation software. A surface’s
material determines its absorption characteristics and a
surface’s geometry determines is sound scattering proper-
ties. Both properties are important to determine room
acoustic performance. While the determination of material
type is a design decision, the determination of a surface’s
scattering coefficient is not so straightforward. There is
currently no way to determine the scattering coefficient in
an architectural software and export this data to an acous-
tic simulation software. Scattering coefficients must be
assigned to individual surfaces in the simulation software.
The Odeon manual offers a rough guide as to what these
scattering values should be.57
It should be made clear that the geometric representa-
tion required for simulation is a different representation
than the one used for architectural exploration, but that
once the specific requirements of this representation are
understood, its production can be automated. Once this
process is set up, the generation and analysis of design
options is simple and relatively quick. The time it takes to
run a simulation is much longer than the time it takes to
export the data from the design software and import it into
the simulation software. The simulation and its visualiza-
tion are handled by the simulation software. The novelty
and customizable aspects of this workflow lie in the cre-
ation and export of the correct data to the simulation soft-
ware. The simulation algorithms used by the Odeon
software were used for the simulation of the room acoustic
performance.
4.2. Integrated modeling and simulation
Workflow 2, integrated modeling and simulation, used an
acoustic simulation program that runs internally within the
digital architectural design environment, see Figure 2. The
software used was the Pachyderm software, which runs as
a plug-in to the Rhinoceros CAD software.58 In this work-
flow, both the geometry and its analysis happen simultane-
ously within the same software without the need to
translate the data between systems. This decreases the time
needed to make sure that data is compatible and reduces
errors introduced in the translation process, for example
problems introduced when simplifying complex surfaces
to meshes or the fact that some types of geometric entities
are not supported by analysis software.57 It was not the
aim of this research project to validate or compare these
particular analysis software tools, but to develop new
workflows to integrate sound into the architectural design
process; however, a quick check indicated that the analysis
Peters
Figure 2. Workflow 2: integrated modeling and simulation.
done using Pachyderm was consistent with the results from
Odeon. In this workflow, the simulation is handled by the
acoustic simulation plug-in and virtually no data prepara-
tion is necessary, as the simulation software and the design
software run in the program. This workflow is conceptually
the most integrated of the four workflows in terms of mov-
ing between design and acoustic performance evaluation.
The simulation algorithms used by the Pachyderm software
are based on geometric acoustics.
4.3. Simulating the sound of the complex surface
While the previous two workflows simulate acoustic per-
formance of the room, the next two workflows simulate
the acoustic performance of the acoustic surface. While
many acoustic simulation software packages include the
effects of sound scattering, few actually enable the mea-
surement of the sound scattering properties of complex
geometric surfaces. So, given that the FabPod has a com-
plex geometric surface, and the sound scattering perfor-
mance of this surface is a crucial part of the design, the
sound scattering properties of this surface needed to be
simulated. Previous research has developed a digital/physi-
cal design workflow integrating architectural parametric
modeling with rapid prototyping and laboratory measure-
ments to measure sound scattering coefficients.59 In a fur-
ther experiment, this workflow was then successfully used
to measure the acoustic performance of different
795
hyperboloid structures.6 While these experiments demon-
strated that this workflow works, its disadvantages were
that it takes a considerable time for each iteration (days),
and there were still outstanding issues with the process in
terms of achieving accurate and reliable results.59,60
Therefore, for the FabPod, we looked to develop a purely
digital design workflow to obtain the scattering coefficient
from surface geometries. Unlike Workflows 1 and 2,
which used geometric acoustics and abstracted sound as a
vector, Workflows 3 and 4 model sound waves themselves
and therefore use a numerical modeling algorithm.
Workflow 3, simulating the sound of the complex surface,
used the OpenBEM library,61 an open-source library of
BEM algorithms. A diagram of Workflow 3 is shown in
Figure 3. The workflow involved the creation of the com-
plex geometry in the computer-aided design (CAD) soft-
ware, taking a section through this geometry, translating
the geometry into a text format using a custom computer
script, and finally measuring the scattering coefficient
using a custom script running in MATLAB.
4.4. Visualizing sound
Workflow 4, visualizing sound, used numerical methods to
simulate sound waves (see Figure 4). This workflow was
not used to directly calculate the scattering coefficient, but
was used to create visualizations of sound waves and their
interaction with the complex geometry of the room and
796 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 91(9)

Figure 3. Workflow 3: calculation of sound scattering coefficient using the boundary element method.

Figure 4. Workflow 4: visualization of sound scattering using the finite-difference time-domain method.

surface. This workflow used an implementation of the
FDTD scheme. The algorithm was implemented in the
Processing computer programming language. The algo-
rithm as implemented assumes that all surfaces are reflect-
ing and so does not include absorption properties. The
inclusion of different absorption characteristics applied to
different surfaces in the model would alter the simulation
results, and indeed could increase sound scattering as alter-
nating surface absorption characteristics can cause sound
scattering.17 In this design workflow, the geometry is first
created in the CAD software, then exported as a data file
using a custom computer script. This produces a discre-
tized grid of points that maps the space and geometry of
the surfaces. It does not, however, yet include a mapping
of material properties, but simply what is solid and what is
void. This data file is then used by the Processing software
to produce both a visualization of the sound waves as well
as still images and data of the sound pressure level over
time measured at specific microphone locations. Although
the method has demonstrated that it can calculate the scat-
tering coefficient,41 the current implementation does not
yet do so.
Peters
Figure 5. The FabPod three-dimensional visualization.
5. The experiment: designing,
fabricating, constructing
The FabPod project builds on previous research by the
authors in the creation of digital workflows that includes
performance analysis, design visualization, and the cre-
ation of fabrication data. While acoustic simulation is the
focus of this paper, the digital workflows that generated
the hyperboloid geometry were an important part of this
process, as these provided the architectural configurations
that were evaluated by the acoustic simulation routines.
These workflows needed to consider the data needs of the
different acoustic simulations, and how the calculated per-
formance could then re-inform the geometry and material
Figure 6. The scope of design tools and their interactions with acoustic simulation software.
797
of the FabPod. A visualization of the FabPod is shown in
Figure 5.
5.1. Digital design workflows
The digital design workflows of the FabPod project
required temporal flexibility so that acoustic design goals
and desired fabrication qualities could be considered early
in the design process. The project aimed to create digital
workflows that allowed for design decisions to be deferred
in one area of the project, without halting the work in
other areas. The workflows (see Figure 6) used both stan-
dard software and custom software. The research did not
seek to engage or propose a holistic software environment
in which all aspects of the design exercise could be inte-
grated; instead, the project aimed to create workflows that
connected separate software packages and specialized
tools. The output of each model could be used for acoustic
simulations. A set of parametric models were developed
that allowed the designers to independently address the
overall form, and the surface patterning and material dis-
tribution, for a proposed design. Within these workflows,
it was hoped that the acoustic performance simulation
would inform the design of both the global form of the
meeting pod and the form and distribution of cells for opti-
mal scattering, reflection, absorption of sound; give feed-
back on the sound propagation in and around the pod; and
provide data against which the acoustic testing of the com-
pleted pod in use can be compared.
5.2. Performance goals
The performance goals for the FabPod can be described as
to reduce sound transmission to and from the interior of
the pod to a level that would cut disturbance and distrac-
tion to meeting participants and people working outside
798 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 91(9)

the pod; to accomplish the right level of sound scattering

within the pod for good speech intelligibility without hav-
ing to resort to a level of absorption that will deaden the
space, thereby creating a lively space for meeting and
debate; to provide a barrier to the propagation of sound in
the large open-plan space separating ‘‘loud’’ and ‘‘quiet’’
working areas; and to meet these performance goals with
the design of a meeting pod that is not entirely enclosed,
has an open doorway, is open to the ceiling, and has good
air circulation; in other words, a leaky acoustic space. The
FabPod meeting room needed to fit a large meeting table
and seating for eight people; the approximate interior
dimension of the square room is about 4–5 m by
about 3–3.5 m high, giving a volume of approximately
50–90 m3 (see Figure 7). The FabPod seeks to create an
acoustically better meeting room through three specific
features: a non-rectangular overall geometry and non-
parallel wall surfaces to reduce resonances; a highly
articulated interior surface to provide significant sound
scattering and reduce flutter echoes; and a balance of
materials adjusted to control acoustic absorption, therefore
producing a space without echoes or resonances but that
also does not sound ‘‘dead’’. This set of design criteria led
the team to a scheme for an aggregate structure composed
of different ‘‘cells’’. These cells could then be assigned
different types of material, they would have a complex
geometric profile to create sound scattering, and they Figure 7. The FabPod section and plan.
would be brought together in non-rectangular formation.
be varied, allowing the acoustic performance of the inte-
5.3. Geometry and fabrication constraints rior or exterior of the space to be tuned. The hyperboloid
faces are made from either Plexiglas, spun metal, or stiff,
Several key decisions drove the definition and constraint
acoustic-absorbing felt. The planar faces are made from
of the design space of the project. This investigation was
either Plexiglas or stiff, acoustic-absorbing felt. The acous-
inspired by anecdotal evidence of the sound-diffusing
tic absorption and scattering coefficients of the materials
properties of the surfaces at Antoni Gaudı́’s Sagrada
were necessary for the digital simulations.
Famı́lia.6 These geometries are based on the hyperboloid
of one-sheet, which became a fundamental research driver.
The circular hyperboloid has the known geometric prop-
5.4. The form of the meeting room
erty that the intersection of any two common hyperboloids
results in a planar curve when these hyperboloids are The overall form of the meeting room was determined
oriented equidistant from, and aligned to, a common point; using acoustic simulations primarily using Workflow 2,
in other words, when both hyperboloids are oriented nor- but also Workflow 1. As the form of the room was devel-
mal to and lie on a sphere (see Figure 8). Using these oped using a parametric modeling software, many different
spheres as set out geometry, different overall meeting geometric results could be developed very quickly. Rapid
room geometries could be explored (see Figure 9). This simulation and analysis was important for this part of the
creates overall room shapes that deviate from the regular, design process, and the integrated nature of Workflow 2
square format of meeting rooms, thus reducing the chance worked well. The results showed that, when considering
of resonances and flutter echoes. only room shape, an overall convex form had the lowest
The structure is composed of ‘‘cells’’ where each cell reverberation time (see Figure 11). It was discovered that
contains one hyperboloid that is trimmed by an irregular the calculation times for Workflow 2 took longer than
edge shape defined by a Voronoi pattern. The Voronoi Workflow 1; unfortunately, this meant that speed gained
cells were defined by a timber frame with a hyperboloid through integrating the analysis in the design software was
face on one side and a planar face on the opposite side lost due to an extended calculation time. It is speculated
(see Figure 10). The acoustic importance of this strategy is that one reason for this is that Odeon was developed in
that the materials of both the inside and outside face could such a way that all octaves are handled using a single
Peters 799

Figure 8. Hyperboloid intersections. The geometric rules ensure planar intersection curves between hyperboloids: (a) intersection
curves of spheres on a common sphere; (b) mirroring planes at the transition from one sphere to another.

Figure 9. Overall meeting room form: the two design families in which the geometry of alternate union and difference of sphere
are shown.

Figure 10. Individual hyperboloid cell: the form of the cell is defined by a Voronoi pattern, the overall build-up designed to reduce
sound transmission, and the surface materials defined by results from acoustic simulation.
800 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 91(9)

Figure 11. Comparison of five different room shapes using Pachyderm and their calculated reverberation times.

Figure 12. Spatial distribution of Speech Transmission Index (STI) for the open-plan working environment with and without
meeting room pod.

round of calculation, whereas in Pachyderm, each octave
band is handled by an independent round of ray-tracing
calculation. While this did slow down the overall calcula-
tion, this approach allows the user to specify frequency-
dependent scattering coefficients. A suggestion would be
to build in an option where only one round of ray tracing
is performed to provide a way to calculate fast and effi-
cient sketch solutions. It is further speculated that, as all
surfaces in the 3D CAD models in Rhinoceros are com-
posed of non-uniform rational B-spline (NURBS) geome-
try, the necessary calculation of ray intersections with this
type of geometry may take longer than the calculation of
intersections of rays with triangulated geometry.
5.5. The performance of the room
Workflow 1 was used to do the detailed acoustic analyses
of the meeting room and its surrounding open-plan office
space. While Workflow 2 was useful for quick iterative
studies, and therefore useful for the determination of a
wide variety of room shapes, the detailed analysis of room
acoustic performance was done using Workflow 1, as this
allowed for the calculation of additional acoustic para-
meters such as the STI and the calculation and visualiza-
tion of spatial distributions of acoustic parameters. As an
example, the STI, or degree of intelligibility, was calcu-
lated. This measure needed to be maximized inside of the
meeting room, but minimized in the open-plan working
space. While inside the meeting room speech should be as
clear as possible, outside the meeting room, in the open-
plan working space, speech can often disturb others work-
ing nearby. The distraction distance (rD) is the distance
where the STI falls below 0.50. As can be seen in
Figure 12, the addition of the pod structure creates a
‘‘shadow’’ of low STI values, an area where noise from
the other side of the pod will not be found to be disturbing.
Peters
Table 1. Study of critical parameters for acoustic performance of the open-plan working environment.
Parameter
rD – distraction distance (meters)
rP – privacy distance (meters)
D2,S – rate of spatial decay of SPL(A)
Lp,A,S,4m – nominal SPL(A) at 4 meters
Lp,A,B – background noise level
DL2 (A) – slope of spatial sound distribution (decibels)
SPL(A): A-weighted Sound Pressure Level.
Table 1 summarizes findings from the simulations.
These calculated values were averaged from several simu-
lations. When compared to the previously discussed target
values, the spatial decay of speech (D2,S) was too low with
or without the pod; the A-weighted sound pressure level
of speech at a distance of 4 m (Lp,A,S,4m) 4 was too high
in both cases; and distraction distance (rD) was also too
high in both cases. However, it can be seen that the case
with the pod is better than without, and that the values are
approaching what the ISO5 suggests for good performing
spaces.
Workflow 1, to create geometry in one software and
analyze in another, allows for specialist software to be
used and each simulation gives potentially a great deal of
information about a particular design option. Because of
the accuracy of the simulation process, and the variety of
acoustic parameters that the software is able to calculate,
this was the primary workflow used. Figure 13 illustrates
three different spatial distributions of acoustic performance
parameters. The reverberation time was calculated both
with sound sources inside the meeting pod and outside.
The calculated reverberation time when the sound source
was placed outside of the meeting room was consistent
across the space; however, when the sound source was
placed inside the meeting room the reverberation time
showed significant spatial variation due to volume and
material differences between the inside and outside of the
pod. Sound propagation was approximated using the geo-
metric algorithms of Workflow 1. This spatial distribution
showed how the sound would ‘‘leak’’ out of the open door-
way of the meeting room into the open-plan office.
Despite the advantages of Workflow 1 using an estab-
lished simulation software, this workflow is limited in
terms of feedback into the design process. The results
from the acoustic simulation software cannot be fed into a
computational optimization loop (at least using Odeon).
Through the use of parametric or computational scripting,
geometry modification can be linked to evaluation pro-
cesses to allow for design performance optimization.62,63
The workflow, as it is not fully integrated, is also difficult
to use as a sketch tool; it does not allow for a quick analy-
sis of many different options. Workflow 1 required a
801
No pod With pod
7.65 5.98
28.62 24.62
3.75 4.54
52.24 52.06
37.63 37.63
5.56 6.85
simplification of the complex geometry of the hyperboloid
cells to a triangulated geometry (see Figure 14). As the
simulation algorithms used do not calculate the scattering
coefficient, yet require the scattering coefficient for accu-
racy,18 the acoustic performance of the complex surface
must be calculated using another means.
5.6. The performance of the geometry
Workflows 3 and 4 use numerical simulation algorithms to
simulate the wave nature of sound and calculate the per-
formance of the complex acoustic surface. As mentioned
in the introduction, there are two main approaches to room
acoustic modeling: geometrical acoustics, in which sound
is abstracted as rays; and, numerical methods, in which
sound is modeled as waves.36 Workflows 1 and 2 use
methods of geometrical acoustics. Siltanen et al.36 write
that the use of these methods ‘‘means that all the wave-
based phenomena such as diffraction and interference are
missing’’. However, the analysis software, Odeon, which
is used in Workflow 1, has developed a mathematical
work-around that approximates the some of the effects of
diffraction.18 Workflow 3 calculates the sound scattering
coefficient using the BEM. The hyperboloid geometry was
generated using a computational design script and differ-
ent options of hyperboloid geometry were virtually con-
structed into several test pieces. The variables that were
tested were the size of the hyperboloids, the depth of the
hyperboloids, and variation in depth of the hyperboloid
wells. Multiple 2D sections were taken through each
option and the scattering performance of these was simu-
lated using Workflow 3. It was found that the denser
hyperboloid geometry produced more sound scattering
over the applicable frequency range (see Figure 15). The
density and depth of the hyperboloids were also limited by
fabrication constraints. Although it was hypothesized that
a variation in the depth would positively contribute to the
sound scattering performance, it was found that the varia-
tion in depth of the hyperboloids did not appear to have an
effect on the amount of scattering. The measurements pro-
duced by Workflow 3 have only been validated against
previous results by the author and not against established
802 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 91(9)

Figure 13. Three spatial distributions of acoustic parameters calculated using Workflow 1: (1) reverberation time (T30) with
sound source in the workspace; (2) reverberation time (T30) with sound source in the meeting pod; (3) sound propagation outside
of the meeting pod visualized using sound pressure level.
Peters 803

models. The results from Workflow 3 were useful in two

distinct ways in the design process: firstly, to compare
between options for surface geometries, and secondly, to
use the calculated scattering coefficient in acoustic simula-
tion software to get more accurate results.
Workflow 4 was used to visualize sound waves and
evaluate different surface geometries, and the relation of
surface geometry to overall form. Workflow 4, using the
FDTD, produces sound waves that emanate from a sound
source and reflect around a space affected by the geometry
of the surface (see Figure 16). These animations demon-
strate the effects of sound scattering and of sound diffrac-
tion. This workflow was useful in that it mapped the sound
pressure level over time and recorded levels at particular
microphone positions. The recorded levels were used to
see if flutter echoes were present. Figure 17 illustrates two
conditions, one where flutter echoes are present and the
corresponding sound pressure levels, and one where the
sound is diffused by a complex acoustic surface.

Figure 14. Simplification of hyperboloid surface geometry into
triangular facets.
6. Conclusions
This paper defines four workflows that integrate sound in
an architectural design process: as separate design and
acoustic analysis software; as an integrated analysis plug-
in for design software; as a plug-in or separate software to
calculate the acoustic performance of materials; and as a
tool for the creation of visualizations of acoustic perfor-
mance. A broad conclusion of the paper is that there is a
need for more software that allows architects to simulate
acoustic performance and design for sound. There is an

Figure 15. Boundary element method calculation of scattering coefficients for sparse and dense configurations of hyperboloids,
where the single scattering value (measured at 707 Hz) required by Odeon is noted.
804 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 91(9)
Figure 16. Visualization of sound waves in the FabPod meeting
room.
increasing trend towards performance-driven architecture
and these workflows contribute to this discussion. As
simulation and analysis tools are integrated into design
software, architects are better able to predict their designs
before they are built – this is a fundamental definition of
what it means to be an architect. However, even though
these tools are becoming more available, and more linked
to the design environment, the loop of how the analysis
results inform the design is yet to be worked out. This
project suggests that this distinction is hard to define. The
boundary between architecture and engineering, and
between geometry creation and geometry analysis, is fluid.
It has been observed in practice that computation and its
relation to digital manufacturing are redefining roles in the
building industry.64 The findings of this project suggest
also that simulation allows for the redefinition of roles. As
Yanni Loukissas65 states,
From project to project, architects and engineers are looking
for ways in which they can represent architecture in order to
gain a professional upper hand . it is not enough to simply
talk about these technologies in terms of one person at a
machine, . but understanding the implications of computer
simulations requires a broad view of how they affect systems
of relationships.
The author recognizes that these particular workflows are
still under development and need to be improved; how-
ever, as discussed, in general design workflows are devel-
oped during the design process and must remain flexible.
As typical with architecture projects, the design tools that
were developed had to constantly be updated as new con-
straints were discovered and new design opportunities
were investigated. A classic ‘‘wicked problem’’, these
simulation tools needed to be adapted to new input geome-
tries, and output data. The applicability of the findings
benefitted from being carried out using a research-by-
design methodology. In regards to this point, a conclusion
is that not only do the workflows need to be flexible
between projects, but also within a project, as the design
goals shift and new potentials are found as the design
develops. Specific tools also need to be flexible in terms
of having a variety of inputs and outputs.
In the initial design stages of an architecture project,
sketching rough concepts of form and material are critical,
and it is important that designers are able to gain acoustic
performance feedback on developed options. Workflow 1
has the potential to allow this. In this project, Workflow 1,
the use of separate software for acoustic simulation, pro-
vided the most clear, detailed, and useful results, although
these did not include information on the sound scattering
performance. This was because of the efficient workflow
setup to move geometry from the design software to the
analysis software, coupled with the speed of the analysis
software and its multiple ways of analyzing and outputting
the data.
As computational techniques now allow the exploration
complex geometries and include performance evaluation,
architects are beginning to see the potential for including
acoustic performance as part of the design process. The
FabPod experiment demonstrated that there is an interest
by architects to create spaces and surfaces that can define
sound in a more specific way. However, while there are
now established acoustic simulation software packages for
acoustic engineering, there is no fully featured acoustic
design software for architects. Workflow 2, the integration
Peters
Figure 17. Using finite-difference time-domain method acoustic simulation to test for flutter echoes.
Figure 18. Exterior view of the constructed FabPod (photo
credit: John Gollings).
of acoustic performance analysis in architectural software,
demonstrates a benefit as it allows for the testing of ideas
quickly. However, and perhaps more critically, as this
workflow integrates analysis in the CAD design environ-
ment, this gives the potential to set up iterative optimiza-
tion processes that could be linked to generative processes
and this has been demonstrated in other research.62,63 As
more designers begin using computational methods and
realizing their potentials, this type of workflow will
become more prevalent.
Another observation from this experiment, and of pre-
vious research,59 is that architects are interested in the
design of architectural surfaces that have a complex geo-
metric and material configuration (see Figures 18 and 19).
These surface configurations can be driven by acoustic
805
Figure 19. Interior view of the constructed FabPod (photo
credit: John Gollings).
performance, but there needs to be a way to evaluate
design aspirations, and Workflows 3 and 4 were developed
to evaluate the acoustic performance of specific complex
surface geometries. The findings were that current tools
and workflows available to architects for the evaluation of
the acoustic performance of complex surfaces and differ-
ent material build-ups are lacking. Current approaches do
not include the ability to analyze architectural designs at a
scale relating to surface geometry or material. These eva-
luation routines needed to be constructed almost from first
principles, as there was very little simulation software that
measures the acoustic performance of complex surfaces.
The method of calculating sound scattering by using the
BEM digitally appears to be faster and more inexpensive
than the previously examined process of using rapid
806 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 91(9)
prototype models. The FDTD algorithm provided a fast
and effective way to visualize sound. These visualizations
provided a deeper understanding on how the complex geo-
metry affected the sound waves and complemented the
measurement of the sound scattering coefficient. It would
be of great benefit if the FDTD tool was developed to also
provide some measure of scattering performance.
Architects are used to using abstractions. The discipline
is based on its ability to draw and model and use this to
predict the performance of buildings before they are con-
structed. What was found in this experiment was a curious
tension between rays and waves/vectors and raster that
emerged with the investigation of sound and its relation to
representation and performance. The two approaches (rays
and waves) require different analysis techniques, and dif-
ferent workflows, but also most critically, different ways
of representing and therefore conceptualizing and design-
ing a project. There is a need for the implementation of
numerical modeling techniques to understand wave phe-
nomena of sound for architectural design.
An aspect of the simulated sound field that was found
to be of importance to architectural designers was the spa-
tial distribution of acoustic properties. This was important
in some cases, for example reverberation time of the open-
plan office, for a more uniform value, and in other cases,
for example the STI of the open-plan office, for a field of
different values. While architectural designers were inter-
ested in meeting the target values for acoustic criteria, they
were more interested in new phenomena that could be
investigated and new experiences that could be introduced.
This desire to explore and define new types of acoustic
performance was an important factor in developing flex-
ible workflows and tools.
The FabPod project developed and tested four specific
workflows for integrating acoustic performance into archi-
tectural design. While these are not proposed to be answers
to all design situations, they do point to several general
approaches that could be developed further to provide
sound design tools for architects.
Funding
The author’s research was funded by the Danish Ministry of
Higher Education and Science’s Industrial PhD program. The
FabPod project received funding from the Property Service
Group and The Design Research Institute at RMIT University as
well as The Australian Research Council through its support of
the ARC Discovery Grant Challenging the Inflexibility of the
Flexible Digital Model.
References
1. Vorlander M. Auralization: fundamentals of acoustics, model-
ling, simulation, algorithms and acoustic virtual reality.
Berlin: Springer, 2008.
2. Rindel JH. The use of computer modeling in room acoustics.
J Vibroeng 2000; 4: 41–72.
3. DeBodt K. Digital resonance: sound parameters in architec-
tural design. In: Oosterhuis K and Feireiss L (eds) Game, set,
and match: on computer games, advanced geometries, and
digital technologies. Rotterdam: Episode, 2006.
4. Peters B. Acoustic performance as a design driver: sound
simulation and parametric modeling using Smartgeometry.
Int J Architect Comput 2010; 8: 337–358.
5. ISO. Building acoustics. In: Acoustics—measurement of room
acoustic parameters—part 3: open plan offices. Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization, 2011.
6. Burry J, Davis D, Peters B, et al. Modelling hyperboloid
sound scattering: the challenge of simulating, fabricating and
measuring. In: design modelling symposium, Berlin,
Germany, 10-12 October 2011.
7. Bradley J. Acoustics for speech in classrooms and meeting
rooms. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada (NRC-
CNRC), 2003.
8. Doelle L. Environmental acoustics. New York: McGraw
Hill, 1972.
9. Long M. Architectural acoustics. Burlington, MA: Elsevier,
2006.
10. Fuchs HV, Zha X and Drotleff H. Relevance and treatment
of the low frequency domain for noise control and acoustic
comfort in rooms. Acta Acustica Acustica 2005; 91: 920–927.
11. Junqua J-C. The influence of acoustics on speech production:
a noise induced stress phenomenon known as the Lombard
reflex. Speech Comm 1996; 20: 13–22.
12. Bradley J. Speech intellibility studies in classrooms. J Acoust
Soc Am 1986; 80: 846–854.
13. Bradley J and Yang W. Effects of room acoustics on the
intellibility of speech in classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;
125: 1–12.
14. Burgtorf W and Oehlschlägel HK. Untersuchungen über die
richtungsabhängige wahrnehmbarkeit verzögerter schall-
signale. Acta Acustica Acustica 1964; 14: 254–266.
15. Kuttruff H. Room acoustics. 4th ed. London: Spon Press,
2000.
16. Nagata M. The effects of diffusion on room acoustics. In:
Nagata acoustics newsletter. Tokyo: Nagata Acoustics, 2009.
17. Cox TJ and D’Antonio P. Acoustic absorbers and diffusers: the-
ory, design and application. London: Taylor & Francis, 2009.
18. Christensen CL and Rindel JH. A new scattering method that
combines roughness and diffraction effects. In: forum acusti-
cum 2005, Budapest, 29 August–2 September 2005.
19. Cox TJ and D’Antonio P. Engineering art: the science of
concert hall acoustics. Interdiscipl Sci Rev 2003; 28:
119–129.
20. Vorlander M and Mommertz E. Definition and measurement
of random-incidence scattering coefficients. Appl Acoust
2000; 60: 187–199.
21. Mommertz E. Acoustics and sound insulation. Detail prac-
tice. Basel: Birkhauser, 2009.
22. Kleibrink M. The world of office work in flux—usage strate-
gies and freedom of choice. In: Schittich C (ed.) Work
environments: spatial concepts, usage strategies, communi-
cations. In detail. Basel: Birkhauser, 2011.
Peters
23. Vischer J. Towards an environmental psychology of work-
place: how people are affected by environments for work.
Architect Sci Rev 2008; 51: 97–108.
24. Maher A and von Hippel C. Individual difference in
employee reactions to open-plan offices. J Environ Psychol
2005; 25: 219–229.
25. Petersen CM. Limiting annoying noise in open-plan offices.
In: joint Baltic-Nordic acoustics meeting 2008, Reykjavik,
2008.
26. Nilsson E and Hellstrom B. Acoustic design of open-plan
offices. NT technical report. Taastrup: Nordtest, 2010.
27. Addis B. A brief history of design methods for building
acoustics. In: third international congress on construction
history, University of Technology Cottbus, Germany, 20–24
May 2009.
28. Sabine WC. Collected papers on acoustics. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1922.
29. Jones PB and Kang J. Acoustic form in the modern move-
ment. Architect Res Q 2003; 7: 75–85.
30. Barron M. Auditorium acoustic modelling now. Appl Acoust
1982; 16: 279–290.
31. Rindel JH.Modelling in auditorium acoustics—from ripple
tank and scale model to computer simulations. In: forum
acusticum, Seville, Spain, 2002.
32. Gade AC. Recent experiences using room acoustic scale
models. In: proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics, 2006.
33. Krokstad A. The hundred years cycle in room acoustic
research and design. In: Svensson P (ed.) Reflections on
sound. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, 2008.
34. Rindel JH. Room acoustic prediction modelling. In: XXIII
Encontro Da Sociedade Brasileira De Acustica, Salvador,
Brazil, 18–21 May, 2010.
35. Vorlander M. International round robin on room acoustical
simulations. In: 15th annual congress on acoustics,
Trondheim, Norway, 1995.
36. Siltanen S, Lokki T and Savioja L. Rays or waves?
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of computa-
tional room acoustics modeling techniques. In: proceedings
of the international symposium on room acoustics (ISRA
2010), Melbourne, Australia, 2010.
37. Bork I. Report on the 3rd round robin on room acoustical
computer simulation—part II: calculations. Acta Acustica
Acustica 2005; 91: 753–763.
38. Peters B. Integrating acoustic analysis in the architectural
design process using parametric modeling. In: forum acusti-
cum, Aalborg, Denmark, 2011.
39. Krokstad A, Strom S and Sorsdal S. Calculating the room
acoustical response by the use of a ray tracing technique. J
Sound Vib 1968; 8: 118–125.
40. Allen J and Berkley D. Image method for efficiently simulat-
ing small room acoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 1979; 65: 943–
950.
41. Redondo J, Picó R and Roig B. Time domain simulation of
sound diffusers using finite-difference schemes. Acta
Acustica Acustica 2007; 93: 611–622.
807
42. Redondo J, Picó R, Avis MR, et al. Prediction of the
random-incidence scattering coefficient using a FDTD
scheme. Acta Acustica Acustica 2009; 95: 1040–1047.
43. Botteldooren D. Finite-difference time-domain simulation of
low-frequency room acoustic problems. J Acoust Soc Am
1995; 98: 3302–3308.
44. Yokota T, Sakamoto S and Tachibana H. Visualization of
sound propagation and scattering in rooms. Acoust Sci
Technol 2002; 23: 7.
45. Burry J, Williams N, Cherrey J, et al. Fabpod: universal digi-
tal workflow, local prototype materialization. In: CAAD
futures, Shanghai, China, 3–5 July 2013.
46. Williams N, Cherrey J, Peters B, et al. Hubpod: a prototypi-
cal design system for acoustically diffused enclosures. In:
prototyping architecture, London, 2013.
47. Archer B. The nature of research. Codesign 1995;. January:
6-13.
48. Roth S. The state of design research. Design Issues 1999; 15:
18–26.
49. Gray C and Malins J. Visualizing research. Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2004.
50. Malkawi AM. Performance simulation: research and tools.
In: Kolarevic B and Malkawi AM (eds) Performative archi-
tecture: beyond instrumentality. London: Spon Press, 2005.
51. Kolarevic B. Back to the future: performative architecture.
Int J Architect Comput 2004; 2: 43–50.
52. Aish R. First build your tools. In: Peters B and Peters T (eds)
Inside smartgeometry: expanding the archtiectural possibli-
ties of computational design. Chichester: Wiley, 2013.
53. Oxman R. Performance-based design: current practices and
research issues. Int J Architect Comput 2008; 6: 1–17.
54. Grout L and Wang D. Architectural research methods. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
55. Orrell D. The future of everything: the science of prediction
from weather to chaos and complexity. New York: Thunder
Mouth Press, 2007.
56. Winsberg E. Science in the age of computer simulation.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
57. Christensen CL. Odeon room acoustic program: version 10.0
users manual. Lyngby: Odeon A/S, 2009.
58. van der Harten A. Pachyderm acoustical simulation: towards
open-source sound analysis. Architect Des 2013; 222: 138–
139.
59. Peters B and Olesen T. Integrating sound scattering mea-
surements in the design of complex architectural surfaces:
informing a parametric design strategy with acoustic mea-
surements from rapid prototype scale models. In: eCAADe
2010, Zurich, 2010.
60. Choi Y-J and Jeong D-U. Some issues in measurement of the
random-incidence scattering coefficients in a reverberation
room. Acta Acustica Acustica 2008; 94: 769–773.
61. Juhl P and Henriquez VC. Openbem: open source matlab
codes for the boundary element method, http://www.open-
bem.dk/ (accessed 15 December 2013).
62. Echenagucia TM, Astolfi A and van der Harten A.
Interactive design methods for complex curved reflectors in
808 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 91(9)

concert halls. In: international symposium on room acous- Author biography

tics (ISRA), Toronto, 9–11 June 2013.
Brady Peters is an assistant professor at the John H.
63. Palma M, Sarotto M, Echenagucia TM, et al. Sound strength
Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design
driven parametric design of an acoustic shell in a free field
environment. In: international symposium on room acoustics at the University of Toronto. He is a director of the
(ISRA), Toronto, 2013. Smartgeometry organization, and he was formerly an
64. Knippers J. From model thinking to process design. Architect associate partner at the award-winning architecture firm
Des 2013; 222: 74–81. Foster + Partners.
65. Loukissas Y. Co-designers: cultures of computer simulation
in architecture. New York: Routledge, 2012.