Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Sound and Vibration

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsvi

A poro-elastic model of sound propagation in granular materials

Zhuang Mo a ,∗, Guochenhao Song a , Tongyang Shi b , J. Stuart Bolton a
a
Ray W. Herrick Laboratories, Purdue University, 177 S. Russell St., West Lafayette, 47906, IN, United States
b
Institute of Acoustics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 21 North 4th Ring Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100190, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The dynamics of granular materials have been studied for many years, however, they have
Granular materials recently drawn attention for their unique response to acoustic excitation, and thus their
Porous media potential applications in acoustics and noise and vibration control. For example, porous granules
Wave mechanics
like zeolite and activated carbon have been applied to enhance the performance of loudspeakers
Hierarchical porosity
at low frequencies. The reliable prediction of the acoustic behavior of these materials requires
accurate characterization, which can be accomplished from a practical point-of-view by making
standing wave tube measurements. But, to help with the interpretation of those types of
measurements, in this article, the Biot poro-elastic theory is applied to describe the sound
propagation in granules stacked in a cylindrical sample holder, as in a standing wave tube. The
originality of the present work is the extension of the Biot model to accommodate materials
like granular activated carbon (GAC) that are porous at multiple levels, and a finite difference
(FD) implementation that incorporates the depth-dependent stiffness of the granular materials
predicted by the Janssen’s model and Hertzian contact theory. The model predictions are
compared with measurements of GAC and light-weight glass bubble stacks, with the simulation
results accurately matching the measured features of material absorption.

1. Introduction

The identification of acoustic treatments that perform well at low frequencies has posed a long-lasting challenge in the field of
noise control, since traditional homogeneous porous materials like fibers and foams require large depths to perform well at low
frequencies, while layered structures tend to perform well only in relatively narrow bands [1,2]. The difficulty in low frequency
sound absorption is rooted in the causality of the responses of traditional materials, and specifically, the lower bound of the thickness
| ∞ |
of an acoustic treatment, 𝑑min , required to achieve a given level of sound absorption is [2]: 𝑑min = 𝐵ef f |∫0 ln [1 − 𝛼(𝜆)]𝑑𝜆| ∕4𝜋 2 ∕𝐵0 ,
| |
where 𝛼(𝜆) is the absorption coefficient at a given wavelength, 𝜆, 𝐵ef f represents the effective bulk modulus of the treatment, and
𝐵0 is the bulk modulus of the ambient medium, here considered to be air. This equation explains the recent interest in research
on porous granular materials like activated carbon that show high sound absorption at low frequencies [3–5], since such materials
create a significant softening effect: i.e., the ability to reduce the local effective bulk modulus, 𝐵ef f . Beyond sound absorption,
this property of porous granular materials also benefits the low frequency performance of small loudspeakers, for example, since
this effect can effectively increase the loudspeaker backing volume. Examples of this type of application can be found that feature
activated carbon [6] and zeolites [7]. Also, beyond acoustic applications, wave propagation in granular materials is also of interest in
various other fields like seismology [8], agriculture [9,10], and where non-destructive characterization of materials is needed [11].
Therefore, it is important to establish a reliable procedure to characterize these materials acoustically and to allow their performance
to be predicted accurately.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mo26@purdue.edu (Z. Mo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2024.118337
Received 8 November 2023; Received in revised form 5 February 2024; Accepted 6 February 2024
Available online 7 February 2024
0022-460X/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Nomenclature

𝐴, 𝑄, 𝑅, 𝑁 stiffness related coefficients in Biot theory

𝑏 Langmuir constant
𝐵0 ambient medium bulk modulus
𝐵𝑒𝑓 𝑓 effective bulk modulus of acoustic treatment
𝐷 container diameter
𝐷𝑐 configurational diffusivity
𝑑min minimum treatment thickness
𝐸 frame Young’s modulus
𝐸0 stiffness coefficient with unit of Pa2∕3
𝑒𝑖 solid phase normal strain
𝐹𝑑 macro-meso scale coupling function
𝐹𝑛𝑚 meso-micro scale coupling function
𝑔 gravitational acceleration
𝐽 force ratio between the axial and the radial directions
𝑘 wavenumber in air
𝐾𝑏 frame bulk modulus
𝐾𝑒𝑞 equivalent bulk modulus from equivalent fluid model
𝐾𝑚 mesoscopic bulk modulus
𝐾𝑛 microscopic bulk modulus
𝐾𝑝 macroscopic bulk modulus
𝐾𝑠 skeleton material bulk modulus
𝐾𝑠𝑝 single porosity material equivalent bulk modulus
𝐾𝑡𝑝 triple porosity material equivalent bulk modulus
𝑘𝑡𝑝 triple porosity material dynamic viscous permeability
𝐿 granule stack thickness
𝑙 air layer thickness
𝑝 sound pressure in fluid phase
𝑝′0 external static load
𝑞 sound pressure in air layer
𝑟 radial direction coordinate
𝑅𝑐 container radius
𝑟𝑚 mesopore radius
𝑟𝑛 micropore radius
𝑟𝑝 particle radius
𝑠 fluid phase load
𝐔 fluid phase displacement vector
𝐮 solid phase displacement vector
𝐮𝑡 material total displacement vector
𝑢𝑟 solid phase radial displacement
𝑢𝑥 solid phase axial displacement
𝑥 axial direction coordinate
𝑧 axial direction coordinate in air layer
𝛼 absorption coefficient
𝛽 Janssen’s coefficient
𝛾𝑘 solid phase shear strain
𝜖 fluid phase dilatation
𝜂 air dynamic viscosity
𝜂𝑒 loss factor
𝜺𝑠 frame strain tensor

2
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

𝜆 wavelength
𝜇 friction coefficient between container wall and granules
𝜈 Poisson’s ratio
𝜌0 saturating fluid density
𝜌̃11 , 𝜌̃12 , 𝜌̃22 density coefficients
𝜌𝑏 material skeleton bulk density
𝜌𝑐 carbon density
𝜌𝑒𝑞 equivalent density from equivalent fluid model
𝜌𝑠𝑝 single porosity material equivalent density
𝜌𝑡𝑝 triple porosity material equivalent density
𝜎𝑖 solid phase normal stress
𝝈̂ 𝑠 in vacuo stress tensor
𝜏𝑖 solid phase shear stress
𝜙 material porosity
𝜙𝑚 mesoscopic porosity
𝜙𝑛 microscopic porosity
𝜙𝑝 interstitial porosity
𝜙𝑡𝑝 triple porosity material total porosity
𝜔 frequency in rad∕s

The first aspect of such a procedure is the means of acoustic measurement. Amongst different measurement techniques, it is
natural to choose the two-microphone standing wave tube test [12] as the method of measuring the acoustic properties of granular
materials, since the circumferential wall of the sample holder together with the rigid backing of the standing wave tube offers
repeatable confinement of the granules. This technique has already been applied in many previous studies of granular materials, such
as granular activated carbon [3–5], glass beads [13], glass bubbles [14], and granular aerogels [15,16]. Given the wide application
and well-established hard- and software systems for this method, it was also used in the present work to obtain the acoustic response
of granular materials.
The second aspect of the characterization procedure is the theoretical modeling of the wave propagation in granular materials.
Given the coupled nature of the motion of the interstitial air and the granules in an acoustical scenario, poroelasticity, i.e., the Biot
theory [17], has been applied to describe the process of wave propagation in several previous studies: e.g. [14–16,18]. At the same
time, the unconsolidated structure of the granular materials considered here brings unique features to the materials, such as the
input level-dependent behaviors reported in [8,19–21]. In the present work, the focus will be placed on the response of granular
materials under relatively low levels of excitation, with the pore geometry and porosity assumed to remain unchanged, and the
contact stiffness assumed to be linearized depending on the pre-compression, which can be determined according to the methods
introduced in previous studies [14,21,22]. In the latter studies, the static stress level in granules stacked in a cylindrical container
has been modeled as depth-dependent because of the combination of gravity and the friction at the container boundary, according
to Janssen’s model [23]. Further, due to the difference in inter-particle contact surface area, the contact stiffness at different
depths will also be different, per the Hertzian contact theory [24]. These mechanisms can be used to determine the solid-phase
material parameters. Thus, the linear constitutive relations of Biot theory can be applied, and the equivalent material properties
and the effect of boundary conditions can be explored as potential explanations of the level-dependent behavior. Also, based on the
uniform solid-phase displacement assumption, the fluid phase properties in the poroelastic medium can be described directly with
the corresponding rigid model representing its equivalent density and bulk modulus [1]. This assumption allows straightforward
application of multi-level porosity models to account for the inner-particle pores.
In this article, a finite difference (FD) scheme based on Biot theory is introduced. This method not only accounts for the unique
solid phase of granular materials by incorporating the Hertzian contact theory and Janssen’s model, but also takes the effect of inner
particle pores into consideration. More importantly, this FD scheme has been built on a 2-D computational domain representing a
radius-axis half cross-section of a cylindrical container with an axisymmetric assumption imposed. The originality in this work is
that this Biot theory-based model with Hertzian contact theory and Janssen’s model incorporated, is implemented on a realistic
computational domain, thus allowing comparisons with impedance tube measurements. This implementation also takes the effect
of multiple levels of inner granule pores into consideration, hence the behavior of materials like granular activated carbon can
be predicted. A hypothesis that the circumferential confining wall boundary condition is a mix of slip and fixed conditions is also
proposed, and with that assumption a good match between the test results and model predictions is obtained.

3
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

2. Poro-elastic model of granular materials

2.1. Biot theory for isotropic material

The Biot theory considers the coupling between the solid and fluid motion by relating the strains of solid and fluid phases to
both solid and fluid stresses. For an isotropic poroelastic material, the stress–strain relation is [17,25]:
⎡𝜎𝑥 ⎤ ⎡2𝑁 + 𝐴 𝐴 𝐴 𝑄⎤ ⎡𝑒𝑥 ⎤
⎢𝜎 ⎥ ⎢ 𝐴 2𝑁 + 𝐴 𝐴 𝑄⎥ ⎢𝑒𝑦 ⎥
⎢ 𝑦⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ 𝜎𝑧 ⎥ ⎢ 𝐴 𝐴 2𝑁 + 𝐴 𝑄⎥ ⎢𝑒𝑧 ⎥
⎢𝜏 ⎥ = ⎢ 𝑁 ⎥ ⎢𝛾 ⎥ , (1)
⎢ 𝑥⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 𝑥⎥
⎢ 𝜏𝑦 ⎥ ⎢ 𝑁 ⎥ ⎢𝛾𝑦 ⎥
⎢ 𝜏𝑧 ⎥ ⎢ 𝑁 ⎥ ⎢ 𝛾𝑧 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎣𝑠⎦ ⎣ 𝑄 𝑄 𝑄 𝑅⎦ ⎣ 𝜖 ⎦
where the 𝜎’s and 𝜏’s are the normal and shear stresses in the solid phase, and 𝑠 denotes the stress in the fluid phase. Correspondingly,
with 𝑢𝑖 denoting the solid phase displacement in the 𝑖-direction, 𝑒𝑖 = 𝜕𝑢𝑖 ∕𝜕𝑥𝑖 represents the normal strain in the solid phase, and
𝛾𝑘 = 𝜕𝑢𝑖 ∕𝜕𝑥𝑗 + 𝜕𝑢𝑗 ∕𝜕𝑥𝑖 represents the shear strains in the solid phase. Also, 𝜖 denotes the fluid phase dilatation. The constants 𝐴,
𝑁, 𝑄, and 𝑅 are stiffness-related, and amongst these coefficients, 𝐴 and 𝑁 are related to the elasticity of the solid phase, with 𝑁
specifically representing the shear modulus of the frame [17,25,26]. The coefficient 𝑅 is related to the fluid bulk modulus, and 𝑄
represents the coupling between the fluid and solid phases.
Further, with the consideration of viscous dissipation, the classic equations of motion were obtained by Biot to describe the wave
propagation within poroelastic media [17,25]. Later, a formulation based on the solid phase displacement and fluid phase pressure,
i.e., a (𝑢, 𝑝) formulation, was presented in frequency domain with oscillatory frequency, 𝜔 [26]: i.e.,

∇ ⋅ 𝝈̂𝑠 + 𝜔2 𝜌𝐮
̃ + 𝛾̃ ∇𝑝 = 0, (2a)
𝜌
̃ 22 𝜌
̃ 22
∇2 𝑝 + 𝜔2 𝑝 − 𝜔2 𝛾̃ ∇ ⋅ 𝐮 = 0, (2b)
𝑅 𝜙2
where the tildes (∼) denote the variables with damping considered, 𝛾̃ = 𝜙(𝜌̃12 ∕𝜌̃22 − 𝑄∕𝑅), 𝜌̃ = 𝜌̃11 − 𝜌̃212 ∕𝜌̃22 , 𝝈̂ 𝑠 is the in vacuo stress
tensor, which can be obtained when the frame bulk modulus, 𝐾𝑏 , frame shear modulus, 𝑁, and the frame strain tensor, 𝜺𝑠 , are
known [26]: i.e.,
( )
2
𝜎̂ 𝑖𝑗𝑠 = 𝐾𝑏 − 𝑁 ∇ ⋅ 𝐮𝛿𝑖𝑗 + 2𝑁𝜺𝑠 . (3)
3
Note that 𝜙 denotes the porosity of the material, and that 𝜺𝑠 = (∇𝐮 + ∇𝐮T )∕2, 𝐾𝑏 = 2𝑁(𝜈 + 1)∕3(1 − 2𝜈), where 𝜈 is the Poisson’s
ratio of the frame.
The density coefficients can be calculated using the complex density, 𝜌𝑒𝑞 , obtained from a rigid equivalent fluid model [1,27]:
i.e.,
𝜌̃22 = 𝜙2 𝜌𝑒𝑞 ,
𝜌̃12 = 𝜙𝜌0 − 𝜌̃22 , (4)
𝜌̃11 = 𝜌𝑏 − 𝜌̃12 ,
where 𝜌0 is the density of the saturating fluid, which is air in the present work, and 𝜌𝑏 denotes the bulk density of the porous
material skeleton. And, given the assumption that the skeleton material is stiff enough, i.e., that its bulk modulus 𝐾𝑠 → ∞, the
stiffness coefficients can be calculated with the complex bulk modulus, 𝐾𝑒𝑞 , from the rigid equivalent fluid model [1,27]:

𝑅 = 𝜙2 𝐾𝑒𝑞 ,
(5)
𝑄 = 𝜙(1 − 𝜙)𝐾𝑒𝑞 .
The fluid phase displacement can be calculated using the fluid phase pressure and the solid phase displacement [26]:
𝜙 𝜌̃
𝐔= ∇𝑝 − 12 𝐮. (6)
𝜌̃22 𝜔2 𝜌̃22

2.2. Equivalent fluid model

For granular activated carbon (GAC), a triple porosity model was proposed by Venegas et al. [5], in which the pores in a stack
of GAC can be categorized into three levels, which are the macro-level pores representing the interstices between granules, and
meso- and micro-level pores representing the inner particle pores. Then, the equivalent bulk modulus and density, 𝐾𝑡𝑝 and 𝜌𝑡𝑝 , can
be calculated according to this model, i.e., [5]:
[ ( )]−1
1 1 1 − 𝜙𝑚
𝐾𝑡𝑝 = + (1 − 𝜙𝑝 )𝐹𝑑 + 𝐹𝑛𝑚 , (7)
𝐾𝑝 𝐾𝑚 𝐾𝑛
𝜂
𝜌𝑡𝑝 = , (8)
𝑗𝜔𝑘𝑡𝑝

4
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

where 𝜂 denotes the air dynamic viscosity; 𝜙𝑝 , 𝜙𝑚 , and 𝜙𝑛 are the porosities on the macro-, meso-, and micro-level; 𝐾𝑝 , 𝐾𝑚 , and
𝐾𝑛 denote the bulk moduli on the corresponding three levels; 𝐹𝑑 and 𝐹𝑛𝑚 are inter-scale coupling functions; and 𝑘𝑡𝑝 is the dynamic
viscous permeability [5]. Note that the porosities are defined in a hierarchical way, so that the total porosity of the GAC stack, 𝜙𝑡𝑝 ,
has the following relation with the porosities at each level [5]:

𝜙𝑡𝑝 = 𝜙𝑝 + (1 − 𝜙𝑝 )𝜙𝑚 + (1 − 𝜙𝑝 )(1 − 𝜙𝑚 )𝜙𝑛 . (9)

Since the macroscopic flow is dominated by the interstitial fluid flow, 𝑘𝑡𝑝 is approximated by the viscous permeability on the
macro-scale [5]. Therefore, the equivalent density is only a function of macroscopic, non-acoustical parameters, differing from the
equivalent bulk modulus, which is a function of non-acoustic parameters on all three levels: i.e.,
( )
𝐾𝑡𝑝 = 𝑓1 𝜙𝑝 , 𝜙𝑚 , 𝜙𝑛 , 𝑟𝑝 , 𝑟𝑚 , 𝑟𝑛 , 𝑏, 𝐷𝑐 , (10)

𝜌𝑡𝑝 = 𝑓2 (𝜙𝑝 , 𝑟𝑝 ), (11)

where 𝑟𝑝 denotes the granule radius, 𝑟𝑚 and 𝑟𝑛 denote the meso- and microscopic pore radii, 𝑏 is the Langmuir constant, and 𝐷𝑐 is
the configurational diffusivity. One can refer to [5] for detailed derivations and presentations of the relations in Eqs. (10) and (11).
It is further assumed in the present work that the fluid in the inner particle pores moves together with the granule skeleton,
i.e., has the same displacement as the solid phase, and that the fluid phase displacement is dominated by that in the interstitial
scale (macro-scale). Therefore, the total displacement of the poroelastic stack of GAC, 𝐮𝑡 , is considered to be:

𝐮𝑡 = 𝐮(1 − 𝜙𝑝 ) + 𝐔𝜙𝑝 . (12)

For the porosity used in Eq. (2), (4), and (5):

𝜙 = 𝜙𝑝 . (13)

The bulk density of the material is therefore:

[ ]
𝜌𝑏 = 𝜌𝑐 (1 − 𝜙𝑡𝑝 ) + 𝜌0 (1 − 𝜙𝑝 ) 𝜙𝑚 + (1 − 𝜙𝑚 )𝜙𝑛 ≈ 𝜌𝑐 (1 − 𝜙𝑡𝑝 ). (14)

Here 𝜌𝑐 is the density of carbon with a value of 2200 kg∕m3 .

For non-porous granular materials such as the glass beads and the glass bubbles also considered here, the equivalent bulk modulus
and density, 𝐾𝑠𝑝 and 𝜌𝑠𝑝 , can be represented by the macro-scale values in the triple porosity model: i.e.,

𝐾𝑠𝑝 = 𝐾𝑝 , (15)

𝜌𝑠𝑝 = 𝜌𝑡𝑝 . (16)

2.3. Depth-dependent frame stiffness

For granules stacked in a cylindrical container, the stress in the granule stack varies with depth as a result of the combination
of the friction at the container wall and the gravity, according to Janssen’s model [23]. Also, when considering Hertzian contact
theory [24], the Young’s modulus, 𝐸, will increase with the depth as a result of the compression caused by the friction and gravity,
which can be expressed as [14,21,22]:
[ ]1∕3
𝜌 𝑔( )
𝐸 = 𝐸0 𝑏 1 − 𝑒−𝛽𝑥 + 𝑝′0 𝑒−𝛽𝑥 , (17)
𝛽
and its derivative with respect to the depth, 𝑥, is:
[ ]−2∕3
𝜕𝐸 1 𝜌 𝑔( )
= 𝐸0 𝑏 1 − 𝑒−𝛽𝑥 + 𝑝′0 𝑒−𝛽𝑥 (𝜌𝑏 𝑔 − 𝛽𝑝′0 )𝑒−𝛽𝑥 , (18)
𝜕𝑥 3 𝛽
where 𝑔 denotes the gravitational acceleration, 𝑝′0 is the external static load applied to the surface of the granule stack, 𝐸0 is a
coefficient with units of Pa2∕3 , and 𝛽 is the Janssen coefficient with units of m−1 , which is related to the container diameter 𝐷, the
ratio of the force in the gravity direction and that in the radial direction, 𝐽 , and the frictional coefficient between the container
wall and the granules 𝜇 [14,21–23]: i.e.,
4𝐽 𝜇
𝛽= . (19)
𝐷
Then, it is assumed that the granules oscillate in small amplitude about this equilibrium position determined by the gravity and
friction. Therefore, the frame Young’s modulus in Eq. (17), 𝐸, can be used to determine its bulk modulus 𝐾𝑏 in Eq. (3) via the
Poisson’s ratio [25]:
𝐸
𝐾𝑏 = . (20)
3(1 − 2𝜈)

5
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Fig. 1. Illustration of the rectangular computational domain. The upper portion in blue color represents the air column above the granular material, which is
represented by the lower portion of the rectangle. The dots represent examples of node locations. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

3. Finite difference implementation

In this section, the implementation of a finite difference (FD) procedure based on the theoretical formulation given in Section 2 is
described. The computational domain of the FD scheme is a rectangle representing half of the axis-radius cross-section of a cylindrical
impedance tube sample holder, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The computational domain is divided into two parts, with the upper part
representing the air above the granular material of interest, and the lower part representing the material itself. The left side of the
rectangle is the axis of the cylindrical container, and the right side represents the circumferential boundary of the container. The
upper bound is the surface of the air column above the granules, where the acoustic excitation is applied in simulations. Finally,
the lower bound of the domain is the bottom of the container, which is a rigid termination in the case of a standing wave tube test.
The circular dots represent a few examples of node locations. The distance between two adjacent nodes in the 𝑟−direction will be
noted as 𝛥𝑟, and that in the 𝑥−direction will be noted as 𝛥𝑥 or 𝛥𝑧, depending on whether the distance is between two nodes in
the material or in the air column, respectively. For the implementation of boundary conditions, ghost nodes outside of the physical
boundary of the computational domain are also used.

3.1. Wave equations

To realize the finite difference (FD) scheme, Eq. (2) is further expanded with explicit consideration of the spatial variation of
the material stiffness. In the axial (𝑥-) direction, Eq. (2a) can be expressed as:
( ) ( 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕 2 𝑢𝑟
)
2 𝑥 1 𝜕𝑢𝑟
0 = 𝐾𝑏 − 𝑁 + +
3 𝜕𝑥2 𝑟 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑟
( ) ( 𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢𝑟 𝑢𝑟
)
𝜕 2 𝑥
+ 𝐾𝑏 − 𝑁 + +
𝜕𝑥 3 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑟 𝑟
[ 2 ( )] (21)
𝜕 𝑢𝑥 𝜕 2 𝑢𝑟 𝜕 2 𝑢𝑥 1 𝜕𝑢𝑥 𝜕𝑢𝑟
+𝑁 2 + + + +
𝜕𝑥2 𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟2 𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑥
( )
𝜕𝑁 𝜕𝑢𝑥 𝜕𝑁 𝜕𝑢𝑟 𝜕𝑢𝑥 𝜕𝑝
+2 + + + 𝜔2 𝜌𝑢
̃ 𝑥 + 𝛾̃ .
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑥

6
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

In the radial (𝑟-) direction, Eq. (2a) can be expressed as:

( ) ( 𝜕2 𝑢 2 )
2 𝑥 1 𝜕𝑢𝑟 𝜕 𝑢𝑟 𝑢𝑟
0 = 𝐾𝑏 − 𝑁 + + −
3 𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑟 𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟 2 𝑟 2
( ) ( 𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢𝑟 𝑢𝑟
)
𝜕 2 𝑥
+ 𝐾𝑏 − 𝑁 + +
𝜕𝑟 3 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑟 𝑟
( 2 2 2 ) (22)
𝜕 𝑢𝑟 𝜕 𝑢𝑟 𝜕 𝑢 𝑥 2 𝜕𝑢𝑟 2𝑢𝑟
+𝑁 2 + + + −
𝜕𝑟2 𝜕𝑥2 𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑟 𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝑟2
( )
𝜕𝑁 𝜕𝑢𝑟 𝜕𝑁 𝜕𝑢𝑟 𝜕𝑢𝑥 𝜕𝑝
+2 + + + 𝜔2 𝜌𝑢
̃ 𝑟 + 𝛾̃ .
𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟
And, the expansion of Eq. (2b) is:
( )
𝜕 2 𝑝 𝜕 2 𝑝 1 𝜕𝑝 𝜌̃ 𝜌̃ 𝜕𝑢𝑥 𝜕𝑢𝑟 𝑢𝑟
0= + + + 𝜔2 22 𝑝 − 𝜔2 22 𝛾̃ + + . (23)
𝜕𝑥2 𝜕𝑟2 𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝑅 𝜙2 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑟 𝑟
Finally, the wave equation in the air column is [28]:
( )
1 𝜕 𝜕𝑞 𝜕2 𝑞
𝑟 + + 𝑘2 𝑞 = 0, (24)
𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑧2
where 𝑘 denotes the wavenumber in the air, and 𝑞 denotes the sound pressure in the air column, respectively. Note that Eq. (21)
to (24) are obtained in cylindrical coordinates, and one can refer to sources such as [29] for the definitions of nabla operators in
cylindrical coordinates.
Then, Eq. (21) to (24) are discretized by using a 2D five point stencil. That is, the derivatives of ℎ(𝑥, 𝑟) at node location (𝑚, 𝑛)
can be approximated as:
𝜕ℎ || ℎ𝑚+1,𝑛 − ℎ𝑚−1,𝑛
≈ , (25a)
𝜕𝑥 ||𝑥𝑚 ,𝑟𝑛 2𝛥𝑥
𝜕ℎ || ℎ𝑚,𝑛+1 − ℎ𝑚,𝑛−1
≈ , (25b)
𝜕𝑟 ||𝑥𝑚 ,𝑟𝑛 2𝛥𝑟
𝜕 2 ℎ || ℎ𝑚+1,𝑛 − 2ℎ𝑚,𝑛 + ℎ𝑚−1,𝑛
≈ , (25c)
𝜕𝑥2 ||𝑥𝑚 ,𝑟𝑛 2𝛥𝑥
𝜕 2 ℎ || ℎ𝑚,𝑛+1 − 2ℎ𝑚,𝑛 + ℎ𝑚,𝑛−1
≈ , (25d)
𝜕𝑟2 ||𝑥𝑚 ,𝑟𝑛 2𝛥𝑟
𝜕 2 ℎ || ℎ𝑚+1,𝑛+1 − ℎ𝑚−1,𝑛+1 − ℎ𝑚+1,𝑛−1 + ℎ𝑚−1,𝑛−1
≈ , (25e)
𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑟 ||𝑥𝑚 ,𝑟𝑛 4𝛥𝑥𝛥𝑟
where 𝑚 and 𝑛 are indices on 𝑥− and 𝑟−axes, and (𝑥𝑚 , 𝑟𝑛 ) denotes the coordinate of node (𝑚, 𝑛). The derivatives in the air column
take the same form as Eq. (25).
After being discretized, the assembled form of the wave equations can be written as:

𝐊𝑖 𝐮𝑥 + 𝐘𝑖 𝐮𝑟 + 𝐙𝑖 𝐩 = 0, 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3 (26a)
𝐙4 𝐪 = 0. (26b)

The elements in coefficient matrices 𝐊, 𝐘, and 𝐙 can be found in Appendix.

3.2. Boundary conditions

The boundary condition at the axis (𝑟 = 0) is set to be axisymmetric. Therefore, the displacement of solid and fluid phases of the
granules, and that of the air above the granular material, should be symmetric around the axis, and there should not be flux across
the axis. When combined with Eq. (6), the boundary conditions can be expressed as:

𝑢𝑟 ||𝑟=0 = 0, (27a)
𝜕𝑢𝑥 ||
= 0, (27b)
𝜕𝑟 ||𝑟=0
𝜕𝑝 ||
= 0, (27c)
𝜕𝑟 ||𝑟=0
𝜕𝑞 ||
= 0. (27d)
𝜕𝑟 ||𝑟=0
At the bottom of the container (𝑥 = 𝐿), it is also assumed that there is no flux across the boundary, and it is further assumed
that there is no solid phase displacement in the radial direction, hence:

𝑢𝑥 ||𝑥=𝐿 = 0, (28a)

7
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Table 1
Non-acoustic parameter of the simulated granular material for
boundary condition effect comparison.
𝑟𝑝 [μm] 30 𝜙 0.373
𝜌𝑏 [kg∕m3 ] 1254 𝐸0 [Pa2∕3 ] 2 × 105 + 4 × 103 𝑗
𝜈 0.35 𝛽 5 [m−1 ]

𝑢𝑟 ||𝑥=𝐿 = 0, (28b)
𝜕𝑝 ||
= 0. (28c)
𝜕𝑥 ||𝑥=𝐿
At the top surface (𝑥 = −𝑙), the planar acoustic load with amplitude 𝑃 is applied to the air column: i.e.,

𝑞|𝑥=−𝑙 = 𝑃 . (29)

At the interface between the air column and the granular material (𝑥 = 0), the sound pressure across the boundary is continuous,
i.e., the interstitial pressure at the granule stack surface is the same as that at the bottom of the air column. Also, the displacement
of the material surface should be equal to that of the bottom of the air column. Together with Eqs. (6) and (12), it can be found
that:

𝑞|𝑥=0 = 𝑝|𝑥=0 , (30a)

( 2𝜌 )
1 𝜕𝑞 || 𝜙2 𝜕𝑝 || 𝜙 0
= | + 𝜔2 1 − 𝑢𝑥 |𝑥=0 . (30b)
𝜌0 𝜕𝑥 ||𝑥=0 𝜌̃22 𝜕𝑥 ||𝑥=0 𝜌̃22
For the solid phase, there is also zero normal and shear in vacuo load conditions at the material surface; these boundary conditions
can be derived from Eq. (3) as:
[( ) 𝜕𝑢 ( ) ( 𝜕𝑢 )]|
4 𝑥 2 𝑟 𝑢 |
0= 𝐾𝑏 + 𝑁 + 𝐾𝑏 − 𝑁 + 𝑟 | , (31a)
3 𝜕𝑥 3 𝜕𝑟 𝑟 |
|𝑥=0
𝜕𝑢𝑥 || 𝜕𝑢𝑟 ||
0= + . (31b)
𝜕𝑟 ||𝑥=0 𝜕𝑥 ||𝑥=0
Note that for the depth-dependent stiffness, 𝐾𝑏 and 𝑁 are calculated with an external load estimated as the weight of one single
layer of the granules in the simulations, i.e., 𝑝′0 = 2𝜌𝑏 𝑟𝑝 𝑔.
At the circumferential wall (𝑟 = 𝑅𝑐 ) of the container, no fluid or solid should move across the boundary. Therefore, the following
boundary conditions can be obtained:

𝑢𝑟 ||𝑟=𝑅 = 0, (32a)
𝑐
𝜕𝑝 | |
= 0, (32b)
𝜕𝑟 ||𝑟=𝑅𝑐
𝜕𝑞 ||
= 0. (32c)
𝜕𝑟 ||𝑟=𝑅𝑐
Furthermore, the effect of edge constraints can be taken into consideration by assigning a fixed boundary condition to the axial
displacement of the solid phase, i.e.:

𝑢𝑥 ||𝑟=𝑅 = 0. (33)
𝑐

This boundary condition will result in a 2D response, while if the slip boundary condition applies, only a 1D response results:
i.e.,
𝜕𝑢𝑥 ||
= 0. (34)
𝜕𝑟 ||𝑟=𝑅𝑐
An illustration of the different effects resulting from the boundary conditions in Eqs. (33) and (34) is shown in Fig. 2. The
simulated layer has a thickness of 2 cm and a radius of 5 cm. The acoustic properties were calculated using Eqs. (15) and (16), with
non-acoustic properties of the material listed in Table 1. The FD simulation results are compared with the prediction made by using
the 1D analytical model, which was implemented according to the method introduced by Dazel et al. [30]. The comparison shows
that the fully slip boundary condition leads to a purely 1D response, which coincides very closely with the analytical model output,
while the fixed boundary condition introduces modes in the radial direction, which causes the absorption feature near 500 Hz to
split, and further creates additional small peaks above 500 Hz. Note that in the FD simulation, the mesh size was approximately 0.5
mm by 0.5 mm, while in the analytical model calculation, the layer was divided into 20 sublayers, each with a thickness of 1 mm.
In the simulations, a mix of two types of boundary conditions for the solid phase was also applied: i.e., the upper portion of
the granules were assigned the slip boundary condition, while the lower portion were assigned fixed boundary conditions. This
boundary condition implementation represents a hypothesis that the input level-dependent behavior of a granule stack results from
the level-dependent change of boundary conditions, where stronger acoustic excitation causes more granules at locations close to
the surface to slide along the container wall.

8
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Fig. 2. Comparison between FD simulation with different solid phase boundary conditions with prediction of 1D analytical model. Solid blue line: 1D analytical
model prediction with the material divided into 20 layers to represent the depth-dependent stiffness. Dashed red line: FD simulation with slip boundary condition
applied to the solid phase. Solid yellow line: FD simulation with fixed boundary condition applied to the solid phase. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Finally, with Eq. (26) to (33) and (34), the equations can be assembled in the form of:

𝐀𝐱 = 𝐲, (35)

where 𝐀 is the assembled matrix with boundary conditions applied, 𝐱 is the variable vector to be solved, which consists of 𝑝, 𝑢𝑥 , and
𝑢𝑟 at all nodes, and 𝐲 represents the load. A breakdown of the elements in these matrices and vectors is included in the Appendix.
With the sound pressure in the air layer solved, the average particle velocity at the top surface of the air layer, 𝑣,
̄ can be obtained.
Together with the uniform sound pressure load, 𝑃 , the incident and reflected sound pressure, 𝑝𝑖 and 𝑝𝑟 , can be calculated: i.e.,
1( )
𝑝𝑖 = ̄ 0 𝑐0 + 𝑃 ,
𝑣𝜌 (36)
2

𝑝𝑟 = 𝑃 − 𝑝𝑖 . (37)

Then, the absorption coefficient, 𝛼, can be obtained:

| 𝑝 |2
𝛼 = 1 − || 𝑟 || . (38)
| 𝑝𝑖 |

4. Measurement setup

Two types of granular materials, granular activated carbon (Kuraray, GW-H 48 × 100) and glass bubbles (3M, K37), were tested
in an impedance tube (Brüel & Kjær, Type 4206) with a diameter of 100 mm, following the standard E1050 [12]. For the GAC, the
numbers 48 and 100 represent the mesh size used to sieve the material, which correspond to approximately 0.32 mm and 0.15 mm,
respectively [31]. For the glass bubbles, an acrylic container with inner diameter of 100 mm was used as the sample holder, and for
both materials the sample holder had a rigid termination. The impedance tube was vertically positioned during the test to contain
the granules within the sample holder. The impedance tube with the original and the acrylic sample holders is shown in Fig. 3.
The input signal generation and frequency response calculation were realized by the software Brüel & Kjær PULSE LabShop. The
computer running the software communicates directly with the data acquisition device (Brüel & Kjær, Type 3560-B). The output
channel of the data acquisition device was connected to the input channel of the power amplifier (Brüel & Kjær, Type 2716-C),
of which the output channel was connected with the loudspeaker of the impedance tube kit. The microphones of the impedance
tube kit were connected to the input channel of the data acquisition device. The schematic illustration of the testing system and the
impedance tube are shown in Fig. 4.
Both of the materials were tested with 8 different thicknesses, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 mm, respectively. For each
thickness, the acoustic measurement was repeated three times, with the granules in the sample holder stirred between repeats. Before
each individual repeat of tests, the granules were loaded into the sample holder and exposed to 5-minutes-long random noise, of
which the signal level was set to 1 Vrms, together with a 12 dB amplifier gain. The frequency span of the signal was set to 100 to
1700 Hz. Then, the frequency responses between two microphones at the original and switched positions were measured with the
random signal set to a level of 0.1 Vrms played with 0 dB amplifier gain. The frequency span of the testing signal was also set to 100
to 1700 Hz. From the measured frequency response, the absorption coefficient can be calculated according to the standard [12]. A
similar test procedure was followed in previous studies related to granular materials reported in Ref. [32].

9
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Fig. 3. (a) The impedance tube with original sample holder; and (b) the impedance tube with acrylic sample holder.

Fig. 4. The schematic illustration of the testing system.

5. Measurement and simulation results

Before calculating the acoustic response of GAC by using the poroelastic model, the rigid model parameters are determined by
fitting the prediction of the triple porosity model [5] to the average measured sound absorption coefficient for each thickness. The
thickness of the granule stack was fitted around the nominal value, and the interstitial porosity was calculated using the measured
sample weight and the fitted thickness, together with the skeleton density of carbon of 2200 kg∕m3 . The fitted parameters and the
corresponding interstitial porosity are listed in Tables 2 and 3. Note that the measurement and model prediction from 100 to 299
Hz were given 10 times the weight of the data at other frequencies to emphasize the low frequency asymptotic behavior and reduce
the influence from resonances at higher frequencies. The comparison between the measurements and the rigid model predictions
are presented in Fig. 5.
With the fitted rigid model parameters, the poroelastic model predictions were made with differing stiffness coefficients, 𝐸0 ,
Poisson’s ratio, 𝜈, and loss factor, 𝜂𝑒 , which indicates the ratio between the imaginary and the real parts of the complex stiffness,
i.e., 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑥 = 𝐸(1 + 𝑗𝜂𝑒 ). The Janssen coefficient, 𝛽, was set to 10 for all the cases for GAC. Also, for all GAC cases, at the container

10
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Fig. 5. Rigid model prediction with fitted parameters compared with average of measurement of sound absorption coefficient for nominal granule thickness of:
(a) 10 mm; (b) 20 mm; (c) 30 mm; (d) 40 mm; (e) 50 mm; (f) 60 mm; (g) 70 mm (h) 80 mm.

11
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Table 2
Fitted granule stack thicknesses and corresponding interstitial porosity.
Nominal thickness [mm] 10 20 30 40
Fitted thickness [mm] 11.39 20.18 31.73 40.92
Interstitial porosity 0.2290 0.2304 0.2311 0.2322
Nominal thickness [mm] 50 60 70 80
Fitted thickness [mm] 52.00 60.21 69.96 79.59
Interstitial porosity 0.2329 0.2331 0.2332 0.2362

Table 3
Fitted rigid model parameters for GAC stacks.
Particle radius 𝑟𝑝 [mm] 0.08756
mesopore radius 𝑟𝑚 [μm] 0.7987
micropore radius 𝑟𝑛 [nm] 0.6972
mesoporosity 𝜙𝑚 0.2940
microporosity 𝜙𝑛 0.6750
Langmuir constant 𝑏 [Pa−1 ] 3.127 × 10−6
configurational diffusivity 𝐷𝑐 [m2 ∕s] 1.745 × 10−9

Table 4
Parameters used in FD simulation of GAC stacks.
Nominal thickness [mm] 10 20 30 40
𝐸0 [Pa2∕3 ] 2.4 × 105 2.1 × 105 2.1 × 105 2.3 × 105
𝜈 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.35
𝜂𝑒 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.06
𝑥𝑏𝑐 [mm] 1.73 1.50 1.56 1.51
Nominal thickness [mm] 50 60 70 80
𝐸0 [Pa2∕3 ] 2.6 × 105 2.6 × 105 2.6 × 105 2.9 × 105
𝜈 0.35 0.37 0.37 0.30
𝜂𝑒 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04
𝑥𝑏𝑐 [mm] 1.53 1.47 1.47 1.46

Table 5
Parameters used in FD simulation of glass bubble stacks.
Nominal thickness [mm] 10 20 30 40
𝜙 0.3964 0.3832 0.3699 0.3471
𝐸0 [Pa2∕3 ] 1.1 × 105 1.5 × 105 1.5 × 105 1.7 × 105
𝜈 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.38
𝜂𝑒 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.04
𝑥𝑏𝑐 [mm] 10.56 (all slip) 8.95 13.97 12.82
Nominal thickness [mm] 50 60 70 80
𝜙 0.3609 0.3742 0.3750 0.3747
𝐸0 [Pa2∕3 ] 1.7 × 105 1.4 × 105 1.5 × 105 1.7 × 105
𝜈 0.38 0.42 0.43 0.40
𝜂𝑒 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04
𝑥𝑏𝑐 [mm] 17.86 21.86 17.75 17.72

boundary, the first 5 rows (including the ghost node above the domain representing the granules) were assigned the slip solid
phase boundary condition, for which the depths of the last row of slip boundary condition, 𝑥𝑏𝑐 , are all approximately 1.5 mm. The
parameters used in the finite difference simulation of GAC stacks are listed in Table 4. Note that these parameters were manually
selected to match the simulations and the measurements. The comparison between the FD predictions and measurements are shown
in Fig. 6.
For the simulation of the glass bubble stacks, nominal thicknesses were used in the FD calculation. The radius of the glass bubbles
was set to the median value of 22.5 μm. The porosity of the stacks, 𝜙, was calculated using the measured sample weight, nominal
thickness, and the typical true density of the material, which is 370 kg∕m3 . The Janssen coefficient was set to 18, which is close
to the value one would obtain from the averaged fitted value of 𝐽 𝜇 = 0.43 provided by Tsuruha et al. [14]. The parameters used
in the simulation are listed in Table 5, which were manually selected to match the simulation results with the measurements. The
comparison between the FD simulations and the measurements is presented in Fig. 7.
The comparison between the FD simulation results and acoustic measurements for both GAC and glass bubble display very good
consistency: i.e., the major features of the resonance peaks in the measured absorption coefficient curves are closely matched by the
model predictions. The comparison results show that by considering the unique properties of granular materials and the realistic

12
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Fig. 6. Poroelastic model predictions obtained with finite difference method for GAC tests with nominal thickness of: (a) 10 mm; (b) 20 mm; (c) 30 mm; (d) 40
mm; (e) 50 mm; (f) 60 mm; (g) 70 mm (h) 80 mm. The blue, red, and yellow curves in the upper plots represent three repeats of the individual measurements,
and the black curve in the lower plots represents the corresponding model prediction. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

13
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Fig. 7. Poroelastic model predictions obtained with finite difference method for glass bubble tests with nominal thickness of: (a) 10 mm; (b) 20 mm; (c) 30
mm; (d) 40 mm; (e) 50 mm; (f) 60 mm; (g) 70 mm (h) 80 mm. The blue, red, and yellow curves in the upper plots represent three repeats of the individual
measurements, and the black curve in the lower plots represents the corresponding model prediction. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

14
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

geometry of the testing equipment, the poroelastic model based FD approach can accurately predict the occurrence of the resonances
of granule stacks that are caused by the axis-radius modes.
Although the FD simulations can capture the main features, i.e., the amplitudes and frequencies of the large resonance peaks,
some of the small features are not represented in the model prediction. This may be caused by the inhomogeneity within the glass
bubble stack and the slight non-flatness at the surface, which introduces variations in the circumferential direction that are not
considered in this 2D model. It can also be observed that the glass bubble measurements show more variation between different
tests under the same nominal thickness and with the same amount of sample, compared with the relatively more consistent GAC
tests, which may result from the change of the inner structure and boundary conditions of the stacks after the sample was stirred
and settled after the previous test.

6. Conclusions

In the present work, a finite difference approach based on Biot theory was developed to describe the acoustic response of granule
stacks to a plane wave excitation in a cylindrical container. The key novelty of the present work is that the unique properties of
granule stacks that differ from traditional continuous materials are considered in the FD implementation of the Biot theory. These
unique properties are predicted by Janssen’s model [23] and the Hertzian contact theory [24], with the former governing the
stress at different depth within the granule stacks and the latter the contact stiffness corresponding to the stress level, and thus the
depth-dependent stiffness. By introducing the second dimension, the motion and the variation of fluid and solid phases in the radial
direction can be captured in the calculation. This numerical approach also provides sufficient flexibility to assign different boundary
conditions at different depths within the granule stacks.
Two types of granular materials were tested in this work, granular activated carbon and glass bubbles. These materials were tested
in eight different thicknesses, and the FD scheme was able to produce accurate predictions that matched the measurement features
in detail, thus validating the proposed numerical approach. The consideration of frame stiffness significantly improved the quality
of model predictions of absorption coefficients of GAC compared with the rigid model, because the proposed poroelastic model was
able to capture the structural resonances. Compared with glass bubbles, the GAC shows better absorption at low frequencies, which
is consistent with previous related studies [4,5].
There are still discrepancies between the model predictions and the measurements, which is more significant for the glass bubbles
than the GAC. This may be caused by the unflat surface and inhomogeneity within the granule stacks, which are not considered
in the current axisymmetric model. Further improvements may be made with regard to this aspect, such as a 3D finite difference
model.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Zhuang Mo: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Software.
Guochenhao Song: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Tongyang Shi: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
J. Stuart Bolton: Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Appendix. Formulation details

Together with the ghost nodes across the boundaries, there are 𝑁 + 1 columns of nodes in the radial direction, with the nodes on
the axis side noted as the first column and the nodes on the wall side the 𝑁 +1th column. There are 𝑄+1 rows of nodes representing
the air column, and 𝑀 + 1 rows of nodes representing the granular material, both counting from top to bottom.
Eq. (35) can be expanded into:
⎡𝐙4 + 𝐁𝑔0 𝐁𝑝0 ⎤⎡ 𝐪 ⎤
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ 𝐁𝑔1 𝐙1 + 𝐁𝑝1 𝐊1 + 𝐁𝑥1 𝐘1 ⎥ ⎢ 𝐩 ⎥ [ ]
= 𝐥 , (A.1)
⎢ 𝐙2 𝐊2 + 𝐁𝑥2 𝐘2 + 𝐁𝑟2 ⎥ ⎢𝐮𝑥 ⎥
⎢ 𝐙3 𝐊3 + 𝐁𝑥3 𝐘3 + 𝐁𝑟3 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 𝐮𝑟 ⎥⎦
⎣
The coefficients in these matrices are listed in Tables A.6–A.24.

15
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Table A.6
Coefficients in 𝐊1 .
𝐾𝑏 + 4𝑁∕3 𝜕(𝐾𝑏 + 4∕3𝑁)∕𝜕𝑥
− 𝑢𝑥
𝛥𝑥2 2𝛥𝑥 𝑚 − 1, 𝑛
𝐾𝑏 + 4𝑁∕3 𝜕(𝐾𝑏 + 4∕3𝑁)∕𝜕𝑥
+ 𝑢𝑥
𝛥𝑥2 2𝛥𝑥 𝑚 + 1, 𝑛
𝐾 + 4𝑁∕3 𝑁 + 𝜔2 𝜌̃
−2 𝑏 − 2 𝑢𝑥𝑚, 𝑛
𝛥𝑥2 𝛥𝑟2
𝜕𝑁∕𝜕𝑟
− 𝑁 + 𝑁2 − 𝑢𝑥
2𝑟𝛥𝑟 𝛥𝑟 2𝛥𝑟 𝑚, 𝑛 − 1
𝑁 + 𝑁 + 𝜕𝑁∕𝜕𝑟 𝑢𝑥
2𝑟𝛥𝑟 𝛥𝑟2 2𝛥𝑟 𝑚, 𝑛 + 1

Table A.7
Coefficients in 𝐘1 .
𝐾 + 𝑁∕3 𝜕𝑁∕𝜕𝑟 𝐾𝑏 + 𝑁∕3
− 𝑏 − 𝑢𝑟 𝑢𝑟
2𝑟𝛥𝑥 2𝛥𝑥 𝑚 − 1, 𝑛 4𝛥𝑥𝛥𝑟 𝑚 − 1, 𝑛 − 1
𝐾𝑏 + 𝑁∕3𝑁 𝜕𝑁∕𝜕𝑟 𝑟 𝐾 + 𝑁∕3
+ 𝑢 − 𝑏 𝑢𝑟
2𝑟𝛥𝑥 2𝛥𝑥 𝑚 + 1, 𝑛 4𝛥𝑥𝛥𝑟 𝑚 + 1, 𝑛 − 1
𝜕(𝐾𝑏 − 2𝑁∕3)∕𝜕𝑥
𝑟 𝑢𝑟𝑚, 𝑛
𝜕(𝐾𝑏 − 2𝑁∕3)∕𝜕𝑥 𝐾𝑏 + 𝑁∕3
− 𝑢𝑟 − 𝑢𝑟
2𝛥𝑟 𝑚, 𝑛 − 1 4𝛥𝑥𝛥𝑟 𝑚 − 1, 𝑛 + 1
𝜕(𝐾𝑏 − 2𝑁∕3)∕𝜕𝑥 𝐾𝑏 + 𝑁∕3
𝑢𝑟 𝑢𝑟
2𝛥𝑟 𝑚, 𝑛 + 1 4𝛥𝑥𝛥𝑟 𝑚 + 1, 𝑛 + 1

Table A.8
Coefficients in 𝐙1 .
𝛾̃
− 𝑝𝑚 − 1, 𝑛
2𝛥𝑥
𝛾̃
𝑝𝑚 + 1, 𝑛
2𝛥𝑥

Table A.9
Coefficients in 𝐊2 .
𝜕(𝐾𝑏 − 2𝑁∕3)∕𝜕𝑟 𝐾𝑏 + 𝑁∕3
− 𝑢𝑥 𝑢𝑥
2𝛥𝑥 𝑚 − 1, 𝑛 4𝛥𝑥𝛥𝑟 𝑚 − 1, 𝑛 − 1
𝜕(𝐾𝑏 − 2𝑁∕3)∕𝜕𝑟 𝐾𝑏 + 𝑁∕3
𝑢𝑥 − 𝑢𝑥
2𝛥𝑥 𝑚 + 1, 𝑛 4𝛥𝑥𝛥𝑟 𝑚 + 1, 𝑛 − 1
𝜕𝑁∕𝜕𝑥 𝐾 + 𝑁∕3
− 𝑢𝑥 − 𝑏 𝑢𝑥
2𝛥𝑟 𝑚, 𝑛 − 1 4𝛥𝑥𝛥𝑟 𝑚 − 1, 𝑛 + 1
𝜕𝑁∕𝜕𝑥 𝐾𝑏 + 𝑁∕3
𝑢𝑥 𝑢𝑥
2𝛥𝑟 𝑚, 𝑛 + 1 4𝛥𝑥𝛥𝑟 𝑚 + 1, 𝑛 + 1

Table A.10
Coefficients in 𝐘2 .
𝑁 − 𝜕𝑁∕𝜕𝑥 𝑢𝑟
𝛥𝑥2 2𝛥𝑥 𝑚 − 1, 𝑛
𝑁 + 𝜕𝑁∕𝜕𝑥 𝑢𝑟
𝛥𝑥2 2𝛥𝑥 𝑚 + 1, 𝑛
𝐾 + 4𝑁∕3 𝐾 + 4𝑁∕3 𝜕(𝐾𝑏 − 2𝑁∕3)∕𝜕𝑟
− 𝑏 2 −2 𝑏 − 2𝑁2 + 𝑟 + 𝜔2 𝜌̃ 𝑢𝑟𝑚, 𝑛
𝑟 𝛥𝑟2 𝛥𝑥
𝐾𝑏 + 4𝑁∕3 𝐾𝑏 + 4𝑁∕3 𝜕(𝐾𝑏 + 4𝑁∕3))∕𝜕𝑟
− + − 𝑢𝑟
2𝑟𝛥𝑟 𝛥𝑟2 2𝛥𝑟 𝑚, 𝑛 − 1
𝐾𝑏 + 4𝑁∕3 𝐾𝑏 + 4𝑁∕3 𝜕(𝐾𝑏 + 4𝑁∕3))∕𝜕𝑟
+ + 𝑢𝑟
2𝑟𝛥𝑟 𝛥𝑟2 2𝛥𝑟 𝑚, 𝑛 + 1

Table A.11
Coefficients in 𝐙2 .
𝛾̃
− 𝑝𝑚, 𝑛 − 1
2𝛥𝑟
𝛾̃
𝑝𝑚, 𝑛 + 1
2𝛥𝑟

16
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Table A.12
Coefficients in 𝐊3 .
𝜔2 𝜌̃22 𝛾̃ ∕𝜙2
𝑢𝑥
2𝛥𝑥 𝑚 − 1, 𝑛
𝜔2 𝜌̃22 𝛾̃ ∕𝜙2
− 𝑢𝑥
2𝛥𝑥 𝑚 + 1, 𝑛

Table A.13
Coefficients in 𝐘3 .
𝜔2 𝜌̃22 𝛾̃ ∕𝜙2
− 𝑟 𝑢𝑟𝑚, 𝑛

𝜔2 𝜌̃22 𝛾̃ ∕𝜙2
𝑢𝑟
2𝛥𝑟 𝑚, 𝑛 − 1
2 2
𝜔 𝜌̃22 𝛾̃ ∕𝜙
− 𝑢𝑟
2𝛥𝑟 𝑚, 𝑛 + 1

Table A.14
Coefficients in 𝐙3 .
1 𝑝𝑚 − 1, 𝑛
𝛥𝑥2
1 𝑝𝑚 + 1, 𝑛
𝛥𝑥2
− 2 2 − 2 2 + 𝜔2 𝜌̃22 ∕𝑅 𝑝𝑚, 𝑛
𝛥𝑥 𝛥𝑟
1 − 1 𝑝𝑚, 𝑛 − 1
2 2𝑟𝛥𝑟
𝛥𝑟
1 + 1 𝑝𝑚, 𝑛 + 1
𝛥𝑟2 2𝑟𝛥𝑟

Table A.15
Coefficients in 𝐙4 .
1 𝑞𝑚 − 1, 𝑛
𝛥𝑧2
1 𝑞𝑚 + 1, 𝑛
𝛥𝑧2
− 2 2 − 2 2 + 𝑘2 𝑞𝑚, 𝑛
𝛥𝑧 𝛥𝑟
1 − 1 𝑞𝑚, 𝑛 − 1
𝛥𝑟2 2𝑟𝛥𝑟
1 + 1 𝑞𝑚, 𝑛 + 1
𝛥𝑟2 2𝑟𝛥𝑟

Table A.16
Coefficients in 𝐁𝑔0 .
1 𝑞𝑄,𝑛 1 𝑞𝑄+1,𝑛

1 𝑞𝑚,1 −1 𝑞𝑚,2

1 𝑞𝑚,𝑁 −1 𝑞𝑚,𝑁+1

1∕2 𝑞1,𝑛 1∕2 𝑞2,𝑛

Table A.17
Coefficients in 𝐁𝑝0 .
−1 𝑝1,𝑛 −1 𝑝2,𝑛

Table A.18
Coefficients in 𝐁𝑔1 .
1
𝜌0 𝛥𝑧
𝑞𝑄,𝑛 − 𝜌 1𝛥𝑧 𝑞𝑄+1,𝑛
0

17
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

Table A.19
Coefficients in 𝐁𝑝1 .
1 𝑝𝑀,𝑛 −1 𝑝𝑀+1,𝑛
1 𝑝𝑚,1 −1 𝑝𝑚,2
1 𝑝𝑚,𝑁 −1 𝑝𝑚,𝑁+1
𝜙2 𝜙2
− 𝑝1,𝑛 𝑝2,𝑛
𝜌̃22 𝛥𝑥 𝜌̃22 𝛥𝑥

Table A.20
Coefficients in 𝐁𝑥1 .
( )
𝜙2 𝜌
𝜔2 1 − 𝜌̃ 0 ∕2 𝑢𝑥
22 1, 𝑛
( )
𝜙2 𝜌
𝜔2 1 − 𝜌̃ 0 ∕2 𝑢𝑥
22 2, 𝑛

Table A.21
Coefficients in 𝐁𝑥2 .
1 𝑢𝑥𝑀,𝑛 1 𝑢𝑥𝑀+1,𝑛
1 𝑢𝑥𝑚,1 −1 𝑢𝑥𝑚,2
1 𝑢𝑥𝑚,𝑁 −1 𝑢𝑥𝑚,𝑁+1 slip
1 𝑢𝑥𝑚,𝑁 1 𝑢𝑥𝑚,𝑁+1 fixed
𝐾𝑏 + 4𝑁∕3 𝐾𝑏 + 4𝑁∕3
− 𝑢𝑥1,𝑛 𝑢𝑥
𝛥𝑥 𝛥𝑥 2, 𝑛

Table A.22
Coefficients in 𝐁𝑟2 .
𝐾 − 2𝑁∕3 𝐾𝑏 − 2𝑁∕3
− 𝑏 𝑢𝑟 𝑢𝑟
4𝛥𝑟 1, 𝑛 − 1 4𝛥𝑟 1, 𝑛 + 1
𝐾𝑏 − 2𝑁∕3 𝐾𝑏 − 2𝑁∕3
− 𝑢𝑟 𝑢𝑟
4𝛥𝑟 2, 𝑛 − 1 4𝛥𝑟 2, 𝑛 + 1
𝐾𝑏 − 2𝑁∕3 𝐾𝑏 − 2𝑁∕3
𝑢𝑟 𝑢𝑟
2𝑟 1, 𝑛 2𝑟 2, 𝑛

Table A.23
Coefficients in 𝐁𝑥3 .
− 1 𝑢𝑥 1 𝑢𝑥
4𝛥𝑟 1, 𝑛 − 1 4𝛥𝑟 1, 𝑛 + 1
− 1 𝑢𝑥 1 𝑢𝑥
4𝛥𝑟 2, 𝑛 − 1 4𝛥𝑟 2, 𝑛 + 1

Table A.24
Coefficients in 𝐁𝑟3 .
1 𝑢𝑟𝑀,𝑛 1 𝑢𝑟𝑀+1,𝑛
1 𝑢𝑟𝑚,1 1 𝑢𝑟𝑚,2
1 𝑢𝑟𝑚,𝑁 1 𝑢𝑟𝑚,𝑁+1

− 1 𝑢𝑟 1 𝑢𝑟
𝛥𝑥 1, 𝑛 𝛥𝑥 2, 𝑛

References

[1] O. Dazel, F.-X. Bécot, L. Jaouen, Biot effects for sound absorbing double porosity materials, Acta Acust. United Acust. 98 (4) (2012) 567–576.
[2] M. Yang, S. Chen, C. Fu, P. Sheng, Optimal sound-absorbing structures, Mater. Horiz. 4 (2017) 673–680.
[3] F. Bechwati, M. Avis, D. Bull, T. Cox, J. Hargreaves, D. Moser, D. Ross, O. Umnova, R. Venegas, Low frequency sound propagation in activated carbon,
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132 (1) (2012) 239–248.
[4] R. Venegas, O. Umnova, Acoustical properties of double porosity granular materials, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130 (5) (2011) 2765–2776, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1121/1.3644915.
[5] R. Venegas, O. Umnova, Influence of sorption on sound propagation in granular activated carbon, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 140 (2) (2016) 755–766.
[6] J.R. Wright, The virtual loudspeaker cabinet, J. Audio Eng. Soc. 51 (4) (2003) 244–247.
[7] Y.-W. Jiang, D.-P. Xu, J.-H. Kwon, Z.-X. Jiang, J.-H. Kim, S.-M. Hwang, Analysis and application of zeolite in microspeaker box, J. Mech. Sci. Technol.
33 (8) (2019).
[8] P.A. Johnson, X. Jia, Nonlinear dynamics, granular media and dynamic earthquake triggering, Nature 437 (7060) (2005) 871–874.
[9] R. Sharma, A. Gupta, Continuous wave acoustic method for determination of moisture content in agricultural soil, Comput. Electron. Agric. 73 (2) (2010)
105–111.
[10] J. Horabik, M. Molenda, Mechanical properties of granular materials and their impact on load distribution in silo: a review, Sci. Agric. Bohemica 45 (4)
(2014) 203–211.

18
Z. Mo et al. Journal of Sound and Vibration 577 (2024) 118337

[11] S. Romero, S. Pamukcu, Characterization of granular systems by digital signal processing of low strain wave response, Transp. Res. Rec. 1548 (1) (1996)
38–45.
[12] Standard test method for impedance and absorption of acoustical materials using a tube, two microphones and a digital frequency analysis system, ASTM
E1050-19, American National Standards Institute, 2019.
[13] K.V. Horoshenkov, M. Swift, The acoustic properties of granular materials with pore size distribution close to log-normal, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110 (5)
(2001) 2371–2378.
[14] T. Tsuruha, Y. Yamada, M. Otani, Y. Takano, Effect of casing on sound absorption characteristics of fine spherical granular material, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
147 (5) (2020) 3418–3428.
[15] H. Begum, Y. Xue, J.S. Bolton, K. Horoshenkov, The acoustical absorption by air-saturated aerogel powders, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 151 (3) (2022) 1502–1515.
[16] Y. Xue, E. Sanchez-Torres, B. Sharma, J.S. Bolton, Tunable sound packages consisting of granular aerogels and fibrous media, Noise Control Eng. J. 70
(5) (2022) 406–415.
[17] M.A. Biot, Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous solid. i. low-frequency range. ii. higher frequency range, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
28 (2) (1956) 168–191.
[18] J.G. Berryman, Elastic wave propagation in fluid-saturated porous media, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 69 (2) (1981) 416–424.
[19] J. Park, Measurements of the frame acoustic properties of porous and granular materials, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118 (6) (2005) 3483–3490.
[20] C. h. Liu, S.R. Nagel, Sound in a granular material: disorder and nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. B 48 (21) (1993) 15646.
[21] T. Tsuruha, M. Otani, Y. Takano, Effect of acoustically-induced elastic softening on sound absorption coefficient of hollow glass beads with inner closed
cavities, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 150 (2) (2021) 841–850.
[22] A.J. Matchett, T. Yanagida, Elastic modulus of powder beds—the effects of wall friction: a model compared to experimental data, Powder Technol. 137
(3) (2003) 148–158, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2003.08.049.
[23] J. Duran, Sands, Powders, and Grains: An Introduction to the Physics of Granular Materials, Springer, 2000.
[24] A. Fischer-Cripps, The Hertzian contact surface, J. Mater. Sci. 34 (1) (1999) 129–137, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004490230078.
[25] J.-F. Allard, N. Atalla, Propagation of Sound in Porous Media: Modelling Sound Absorbing Materials, second ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
[26] N. Atalla, R. Panneton, P. Debergue, A mixed displacement-pressure formulation for poroelastic materials, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104 (3) (1998) 1444–1452.
[27] F.-X. Bécot, L. Jaouen, An alternative Biot’s formulation for dissipative porous media with skeleton deformation, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134 (6) (2013)
4801–4807.
[28] Y.J. Kang, B.K. Gardner, J.S. Bolton, An axisymmetric poroelastic finite element formulation, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106 (2) (1999) 565–574.
[29] G.B. Arfken, H.J. Weber, F.E. Harris, Mathematical Methods for Physicists: A Comprehensive Guide, seventh ed., Elsevier, 2011.
[30] O. Dazel, J.-P. Groby, B. Brouard, C. Potel, A stable method to model the acoustic response of multilayered structures, J. Appl. Phys. 113 (8) (2013)
083506.
[31] Standard specification for woven wire test sieve cloth and test sieves, ASTM E11-22, American National Standards Institute, 2022.
[32] G. Song, Z. Mo, T. Shi, J.S. Bolton, Experimental study of granular particle stacks’ circumferential edge-constraint effect and the level-and time-dependent
acoustical behavior, Powder Technol. 434 (2024) 119291.

19