111Equation Chapter 1 Section 1Method for the determination of acoustical properties of

irregular reverberant room based on rectangular sub-cavity discretization: Temporal and

frequency analysis.

Abstract:

Existing methods to compute acoustical properties such as reverberation time and pressure
level distribution and others of irregular form only allows us to deal with small volume forms
in very limited frequency range, and analytical expressions only exists for regular ones;
However, in order to overcome this limitation due to storage capacity and the time of
computation due to already known methods ,an algorithm is presented in this paper to
compute the acoustical properties of the reverberant room whose geometry is irregular
using a discretization approach. The method is based on the discretization of the whole
room into sub-cavities with rectangular shape whose modal basis is known separated by
rectangular virtual plates whose modal basis is also known. In this algorithm, two analyses
were conducted: First the harmonic analysis when the source is on and secondly the
temporal analysis when the source is shut-off. The algorithm was written and ran in python,
the results of the two analyses are in good agreement with experimental results done in the
reverberant chamber, and wish shows the promising results that can be achieved with this
algorithm to different irregular geometries with different volumes.

1 Introduction:

The physical phenomena involved in sound wave propagation inside enclosures are both
numerous and complex, making overall analytical modeling difficult. Analytical expressions
are only available for only simple geometry such as rectangular and cylindrical geometries,
since many applications involve irregular shapes, while the other arbitrary shapes are of big
interest. From the computational point of view, there are three different approaches;
Empirical methods, wave-based methods, and geometrical methods.

Empirical methods belong to the first group of approximations, the Sabine and Eyring
models being the most popular ones. Their methods offer a rough estimation in octave
bands of parameters like sound pressure level and reverberation time. They consider the
existence of a diffuse sound field in the space. In that way, only the size of the room and the
importance of absorption. The Sabine and Eyring theories are still used to predict noise
levels in factories. Practitioners to predict sound fields in rooms of every type use diffuse
field theory, but what is often forgotten is the fact that the theory is based on assumptions,
which limit its applicability. If the theoretical assumptions do not hold in the case of a
particular room, the predictions may not be accurate. For instance, diffuse field theory
cannot be applied in highly absorptive rooms.
Wave-based methods cannot solve the wave equation, but they try to numerically
approximate its solution. These are, FEM (finite element method), BEM (boundary element
method), and FDTD (finite-difference time-domain method) .Basically, they divide the space
into small elements or nodes. The size of these elements has to be much smaller than the
size of the wavelength (at least six nodes) for every particular frequency, and that is a
problem at high frequencies, which means that for practical use, wave models are typically
restricted to low frequencies and small spaces.

The next group of methods follows high frequency approximations based on geometrical
propagation paths. In principle, they consider the propagation of sound through the air in
straight lines; avoid the wave nature of sound, and model in one or other way reflections
from boundaries. It is an underlying assumption in all methods using sound rays that the
wavelength corresponding to the lowest frequency of the sound is small compared with the
dimensions of the room and its surfaces. This assumption, i.e. to neglect the wave nature of
sound, is the reason why experimental studies based on ray tracing have been shown to
predict noise levels and acoustic parameters with good accuracy at high frequencies, while
not so good at low ones.

This work aims to determine all the relevant properties of the irregular shaped geometries
from the pressure level and its variance in space to the reverberant time from low to high
frequency with less computational effort. The method is based on the discretization of the
whole room into sub-cavities with rectangular shape. Since the modal basis of the
rectangular shape is known, the acoustic pressure of the sub-cavity is decomposed over the
modal basis. Making use of the acoustic wave equation of each sub-cavity and the boundary
conditions and the equation vibration of each plate that ensures the continuity, we obtain a
number of equations equivalent to the number of modal unknowns. To compute the
acoustic pressure distribution with the source is ON, we switch to the frequency domain by
Fourier transform, and whereas to compute the reverberation time, when the source is shut-
off we make use of the Newmark scheme. The accuracy of the suggested technique is
justified with experimental results.

2 FORMULATION AND METHODS:

2.1 Harmonic analysis:

After treating the whole domain as a combination of rectangular sub-cavities connected by

plates as illustrated in the image.
Image showing the discretization of an irregular shape by rectangles

The discretization is made using an algorithm that creates several points (that represents the
center of the sub cavities) and retains only the ones inside the geometry wish is in our case
the reverberant room.

Each sub-cavity is surrounded by six faces; West, EST, North, South, Top and Bottom. These
faces can be either virtual flexible plates or absorbent walls of the room as showed in the
next image.

We make use of the familiar acoustic wave equation in each rectangular sub-cavity:
 1 2 p q
2 p    0
c0 t
2 2
t 22\* MERGEFORMAT ()

Here q is the volume velocity per unit volume of interior noise source

In the case of simple harmonic motion, where:

p ( r ,t )=ℜ [ p ω ( r ) e iωt ] And q ( r , t )=ℜ¿]

The preceding equation reduces to the inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation for the steady‐
state sound‐pressure response:
2
 
 p  r     p  r   i0 q  r 
2

 c0  33\* MERGEFORMAT ()

The boundary conditions are summarized as follows:

∂p
=0 , On the rigid wall.
∂n

1 ∂p
=−u̇ , On the flexible wall, where u is the velocity of the wall.
ρ0 ∂ n

1 ∂ p −1 ∂ p
= , On the absorbent wall, where Z is the acoustic impedance of the wall.
ρ0 ∂ n Z ∂ t

Equation (1) has rigid wall normal mode solutionsF n e iωt , n = 0, 1, 2. . . With the following
properties:
2
 
 Fn    n  Fn
2

 c0  44\* MERGEFORMAT ()

Fn
0
n , on the boundaries 55\* MERGEFORMAT ()

The rigid wall normal modes satisfy the orthogonal property in the uncoupled acoustic
system and it is normalized as follows:

F dV V
2
n
v 66\* MERGEFORMAT ()

Where V is the volume of the acoustic cavity.

The sound pressure inside a sub-cavity is decomposed using a modal expansion in terms of
the rigid wall rectangular sub-cavity modes and the acoustic pressure modal amplitude as
follows:
N
p  r    Fn ( r )an ( )
n 1 77\* MERGEFORMAT ()

The wave equation (1) can be transformed into a set of ordinary equations by using Green’s
Theorem in the form:

Fn p ( r )
 ( p (r ) F  Fn 2 p (r ))dV   ( p ( r )  Fn  )dA
2
n
V A
n n
88\*
MERGEFORMAT ()

ωn 2 ω 2 1 ∂p
∫ (
− pω ( r ) ( )
c
F n+ p ω ( r )( )
c ) (
F n + Fn jωq ( x 0 , ω ) =∭ Fn ρ0 u̇+ Fn ρ0
Z ∂t )
Making use of the modal expansion equation (6), the Helmholtz equation (2) and the boundary
conditions and the rigid boundary wall satisfied by the normal modes, we obtain:

0 c0 2  
an ( )  An      Fn (r )q( x0 ,  )dV   Fn  r  u ( y ,  )dS 
V V 
S 99\*
MERGEFORMAT ()

An   
Where the acoustic mode function term is given by:

1
A1 ( ) 
1  i
Ta
, for n=1 1010\* MERGEFORMAT ()

i
An ( ) 
n   2  2i n , for n>1
2
1111\* MERGEFORMAT ()

T
Where a is the time constant of the first mode (Nelson and Elliot, 1992 ), n and
  n are the natural
frequency and modal damping constant of the nth acoustic mode, respectively.

The modal damping constant

n of the nth acoustic mode is given by:

 0c0 2 Fn 2
V A
n  ZA
dA
1212\* MERGEFORMAT ()
Since the whole domain is discretized by series of rectangular sub-cavities, it is obvious that the plate
separating the sub-cavities is of rectangular shape. Hence the displacement is decomposed similarly
to the acoustic sub-cavity over the modal basis as follows:

M
u ( y,  )   m ( y )bm ( )
m 1 1313\* MERGEFORMAT ()

Using the modal expansion for each plate surrounding the considered sub-cavity, we have:

 0c02  k E ,W , S , N ,T , B M k
   k 
an ( ) 
V
An      Fn (r )q( x0 ,  )dV 
V      Fn  r  m ( y )dS bm     
k

 k  m1  S  
1414\* MERGEFORMAT ()

In matrix form:

k  E ,W , S , N ,T , B
0 c0 2  
 a      A       S ( )   C k   b k     
V 
 k  1515\*
MERGEFORMAT ()

Where {a ( ω ) } and {b ( ω ) } are vectors containing modal acoustic and structural amplitudes
respectively , the subscript k denotes the virtual plate , [S ( ω ) ] is a vector containing the contribution
of the source, it drops to zero if the position of the source is outside the sub-cavity of interest term
and the components of the coupling matrix [C] are the coupling coefficients between m th structural
mode and nth acoustic mode and are given by Snyder and Tanaka [3]:

C k    F  r 
k
n m ( y )dS
m,n
Sk
1616\* MERGEFORMAT ()

It is very important to note that whenever one of the surroundings faces is found to be the absorbent
wall of the room, the coupling matrix of that face is reduced to zero and the contribution of that face
is added to the damping via the formula (11).

And the components of the matrix [A(w)]:

 A( ) m,n  An    , if n=m 1717\* MERGEFORMAT ()

 A( ) m,n  0 , if n # m 1818\* MERGEFORMAT ()

Making use of the equation of vibration of the plate two sub-cavities number i and j in the frequency
domain, we deduce:

1 i  
bm     . 2   m ( y ) p ( y )dS   m ( y ) p ( y ) dS 
i j

 s hS m    2i mm  s
2

s 1919\*
MERGEFORMAT ()
Since the mass and stiffness of the virtual plate is supposed to be zero and expanding the pressure
over the modal basis, we obtain:

Ni   i Nj  
   m ( y) Fn  r  dS an ( )     m ( y ) Fn j  r  dS an j ( )  0

n 1  Sk
i
  
 n 1  S k  2020\*
MERGEFORMAT ()

In matrix form:

 a ( )  0
T T
C i , p   ai ( )  C j , p  j
2121\* MERGEFORMAT ()

Replacing equation (14) in equation (20), we have:

k E ,W , S , N ,T , B
   k E ,W ,S ,N ,T , B j ,k 
C   A       S ( ) 
i, p T

C i ,k
 
k   i       k   j   0
b k
( )    C j, p T
  A       C   b k
( )
   
2222\* MERGEFORMAT ()

Applying the same steps for each virtual plate separating the rectangular sub-cavities, we construct a
matrix equation where the unknowns are the complex amplitude displacement.

 Q( )  {b1 ( )}T ...{bi ( )}T .....

T
 {0, 0, 0, 0..... S ( ) ....0}T
T

2323\*
MERGEFORMAT ()

Solving the matrix equation, we obtain the complex displacement amplitude and then we deduce
the complex pressure amplitude via the formula (14) for each frequency and finally the frequency
dependent pressure in each point of the room

As mentioned previously, solving the matrix equation we obtain the temporal displacement
amplitude and then we deduce the modal pressure amplitude via the formula (30) and the pressure
in each point using eq. and also the level of pressure via the following formula.

p2
SPL(dB)  10log10 ( )
p02 2424\* MERGEFORMAT ()

Where p is the sound pressure in Pa and p0 is the reference sound pressure level.

Using the inverse Fourier transform as follows, we compute the time dependent pressure:


1
 P (r )e
it
p (r , t )  d
2  2525\* MERGEFORMAT ()
 We also calculate the variance of the pressure level to estimate the reverberation of the room via
the following formula:

2.2 Temporal analysis:

The aim of this analysis is to compute the reverberation time. The reverberation time T is
defined as the time in seconds required for the level of sound to drop by 60dB or for the
pressure to drop to 1/1000 of its initial value when the source is shut-off. One can similarly
define a modal reverberation time T n as that for which the sound pressure decays in that
mode by 60dB or 1/1000 of its initial value. To compute this last one we proceed by a finite
difference in the time domain.

The acoustic pressure response in a rectangular sub-cavity “I” number is decomposed over a
modal basis as follows:
n
pi ( r ,t )=∑ Pn , i (t) F n (r )
0

Where Pn ,i are time‐varying coefficients corresponding to the modes of the acoustic sub-
cavity “I”.

For flexible and absorbent boundaries described by the boundary condition, and using green
transform by the same way of the first part of the harmonic analysis, we obtain:

  2 P   2 P   0 c0
2
Pn ,i n n ,i n n ,i
V  uF
 (r )
n
2626\* MERGEFORMAT ()

Expanding the acceleration w=u̇of the vibrating virtual panels surrounding the cavity over
the modal basis, we obtain the following equation for each mode:

2 Mp
 (t )  2 P (t )   2 P (t )   0 c0
P  (   ( y ) Fn  r  ) wm (t )
n ,i n n ,i n n ,i m
V m 1 S p
2727\*
MERGEFORMAT ()

Each mode of the sub-cavity is decaying with an oscillating frequency ω n corresponding to

the mode in an exponential rate. To capture the exponential decaying factor which will
determine the envelope of the mode, we assume that:

Pn ,i  t   PnE,i  t  e jnt
2828\* MERGEFORMAT ()
 PnE,i  t 
Where is the function of the envelope of the decaying time pressure of the mode.

Making use of equation (28) in equation (26), we obtain the equation governing the decaying
envelope of each mode.

2 Mp
c
PnE,i  t  e jnt  2( jn   n ) PnE,i  t  e jnt  2 jn n PnE,i  t    0 0
V
 (  
m 1 S p
m ( y ) Fn  r  )wm (t )

2929\* MERGEFORMAT ()

In matrix form:

 P    C   P    K   P   F (t )
i
E
i
E
i
E
3030\* MERGEFORMAT ()

Where
k E ,W , S , N ,T , B
 0 c02
 EN  (  C k   wmk (t ) )
1
F (t )  
V k 3131\*
MERGEFORMAT ()

Where
 EN  is a diagonal matrix having coefficients e jnt , the coefficients of the coupling matrix
[Ck ] are given by equation (15).

For the second order time evolution equation (28) with a general dissipation term, we use
Newmark’s method which is reformulated as follows in the recurrence relation:

 I   C   K   P  t       2I    1  2  C  12 
2
i
E 2 
(1  4  2 ) K   Pi E (t )

 1 
  I    1    C   2 (1  2   2 ) K   Pi E  t       2 F (t   )
 2 
1 1
  2 (1  4  2 ) F  t    2 (1  2  2 ) F  t   
2 2
3232\* MERGEFORMAT ()

1 1
Under the condition β ≥ γ ≥ , the stability condition for Newmark's method is proven
2 4
1
regardless of the time step  [5] .in this algorithm the simple case of β=γ = 2 was used:
Since the past values
 P  t  , P  t   F  t  , F  t  
i
E
i
E
are known, the unknowns in the

equations are
 P  t     and F  t   
i
E
.

Rearranging the equation as follows:

 P  t       I   C   K 
1
i
E 2
 2 F (t   )  Csti
3333\*
MERGEFORMAT ()

Where
Csti is matrix constant containing the past values relative to the sub-cavity “I”.

By the same manner of harmonic analysis, we make use of the equation of vibration of the plate
separating two sub-cavities number” i “and” j” in the time domain, And the fact that the mass and
stiffness of the virtual plate is supposed to be zero and expanding the pressure over the modal basis,
we obtain:

 Pi (t  dt )  C j , p   Pj (t  dt )
T T
C i , p  0
3434\* MERGEFORMAT
()

Converting to the envelope function by using equation (29).

P (t  dt )  EN  i  C j , p  P (t  dt )  EN  j  0
T T
C i , p  i
E
j
E

3535\*
MERGEFORMAT ()

Applying the same steps for each virtual plate separating the rectangular sub-cavities, we construct a
matrix equation where the unknowns are the complex temporal acceleration.

 Q( )   w1 (t   ) T .... wi (t   ) T .....   C

3636\* MERGEFORMAT
()

Once we calculate the acceleration, we can deduce the modal pressure amplitude and estimate the
modal reverberation time by repeating the process every time step  until the value of the pressure
drop 1/1000 of its initial value when the source is shut-off. Since the sampling time step should be
very small compared to the scale of the reverberation time (see Accuracy of the proposed method), it
would require large computational time .To overcome such difficulty, we only run the algorithm for
the 20 times steps or greater and then approximate the decaying envelope by an exponential
function for each mode using the first 10 time steps. Then we compare the values of the exponential
decaying envelope function with later 10-time steps and validate the approximated function of the
envelope of each mode.
Once the envelope function is approximated and since many normal modes of vibration (each with
its own amplitude, phase, resonance frequency, and damping constant) decay simultaneously, the
total RMS (spatial and temporal) sound pressure is obtained as follows:

2 2 2
P (t )  PI  PI 1  ...  PI  N
3737\* MERGEFORMAT ()

Where I is the first mode in the frequency band considered and I N is the last mode in the
decay. In this case, the decay envelope is generally not linear as earlier, even when the modal
reverberation times do not vary greatly from one mode to another.

This process is repeated each time step until the pressure level has decayed with 60 Db of its initial
value, then the reverberation time is found to be the number of iterations in time by the time step.

2.3 Accuracy of the proposed methods:

The convergence of the solution of the eq. (22) in the harmonic analysis depends on three
parameters: the number of sub-cavities and the number of terms in each of the acoustic and plate
series in equations (6) and (12).To determine the influence of each factor, we can start by a small
number of sub-cavities .So to get an idea about the number of modes in the frequency range of
interest, we increase the number of acoustic and structural series until no significant change is
observed. Then we increase the number of sub-cavities until convergence is met. This procedure will
give us the minimal number of sub-cavities and series needed for an accurate solution in the smallest
computational time.

For the temporal analysis, the time step is an added factor that affects the convergence of the
2π
solution of eq. (34), the time step should be in the scale of smallest time period T m= we can
ωm
reduce the time step and run the algorithm until no significant change is observed, then we deduce
the optimal time step with less computational time and best convergence.

3-RESULTS OF THE ALGORITHM:

3.1. Pressure level:

In order to validate the harmonic analysis part of the algorithm, the algorithm was evaluated using
the reverberant room of the university Mohamed 5 as application. The geometry was inputted, the
surface wall impedance was measured by mean of Kundt tube and the volume velocity was taken
equal to 0.0001m/s2

The following table gives the results obtained from the algorithm for different number of sub cavities
and frequencies:

SPL Al 36 SC(dB) SPL Al 81 SPL Al 144

W=500 117.26 X X
W=1000 116.9 115.5 X
W=1400 118.3 118 X
3.2 Reverberation time

The reverberation time was also measured in the reverberant room after shut-off of the source, and
compared to the results of the algorithm.

The following curves shows the decay of the envelope calculated by the algorithm from its initial
value when the source is shut off (by 60 decibels).

Pressure level envelope decay at w =500

 Pressure level envelope decay at w=1000

Pressure level envelope decay at w =1500

 Reverberation time versus frequency

0.161∗V
The best-known formula in room acoustics is :T =
∑ α i S It is due to W.C. Sabine, who
I

derived it first from the results of numerous ingenious experiments, Nowadays, it is still the
standard formula for predicting the reverberation time of a room, although it is obvious that
it fails for high absorption. Using this formula, we plot the reverberation time versus
frequency.
Reverberation time versus frequency (Sabine’s formula)

4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Experimental tests were performed to validate the algorithm on the reverberant room. The sound
pressure was measured by a NDB in different positions. The measured pressure level is compared to
the calculated pressure level in the coordinates (3,4,5) in table.

5 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION:

The reverberation time calculated by the algorithm is in good agreement with one deduced
from Sabine’s formula as showed in the figures. Also, we remark that the reverberation time
decrease as the frequency and that’s due to the fact that sound absorption coefficient of the
material increases with frequency. The proposed method can help us to calculate with
accuracy the acoustical properties of any irregular shape

References

[1] Yuehua Chen A domain decomposition method for analyzing a coupling between multiple
acoustical spaces (L)

[2] J. Missaoui and L. Cheng A combined integral-modal approach for predicting acoustic
properties of irregular-shaped cavities
[3] L. Egab A study on a plate-cavity coupling system induced boom noise and
countermeasures

[4] M. Meissner The discrete Hilbert transform and its application to the analysis of
reverberant decay of modal vibrations in enclosures

[5] CHIBA, F. and KAKO T. Stability and error analyses by energy estimate for Newmark's
method

[6] E. H. DOWELL, G. F. CORMAN AND D.A. SMITH ACOUSTOELASTICITY: GENERAL

THEORY, ACOUSTIC NATURAL. MODES AND FORCED RESPONSE TO SINUSOIDAL EXCITATION,
INCLUDING COMPARISONS WITH EXPERIMENT

[7] A. STEPHEN H. SHUNG J. DONALD Engineering Vibroacoustic analysis Methods and

applications