Acoustics 06 00004
Acoustics 06 00004
Acoustics 06 00004
Article
Experimental Prediction Method of Free-Field Sound Emissions
Using the Boundary Element Method and Laser
Scanning Vibrometry
Andreas Wurzinger 1,∗ , Florian Kraxberger 1 , Paul Maurerlehner 1 , Bernhard Mayr-Mittermüller 2 ,
Peter Rucz 3 , Harald Sima 2 , Manfred Kaltenbacher 1 and Stefan Schoder 1
1 Aeroacoustics and Vibroacoustics Group, Institute of Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical Engineering
(IGTE), Graz University of Technology, A-8010 Graz, Austria; kraxberger@tugraz.at (F.K.);
stefan.schoder@tugraz.at (S.S.)
2 Otto Bock Healthcare Products GmbH, A-1110 Vienna, Austria; harald.sima@ottobock.com (H.S.)
3 Department of Networked Systems and Services, Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Magyar Tudósok Körútja 2, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary; rucz@hit.bme.hu
* Correspondence: andreas.wurzinger@tugraz.at
Abstract: Acoustic emissions play a major role in the usability of many product categories. Therefore,
mitigating the emitted sound directly at the source is paramount to improve usability and customer
satisfaction. To reliably predict acoustic emissions, numerical methods such as the boundary element
method (BEM) are employed, which allow for predicting, e.g., the acoustic emission into the free field.
BEM algorithms need appropriate boundary conditions to couple the sound field with the structural
motion of the vibrating body. In this contribution, firstly, an interpolation scheme is presented, which
allows for appropriate interpolation of arbitrary velocity data to the computational grid of the BEM.
Secondly, the free-field Helmholtz problem is solved with the open-source BEM software framework
NiHu. The forward coupling between the device of interest and BEM is based on the surface normal
velocities (i.e., a Neumann boundary condition). The BEM simulation results are validated using a
Citation: Wurzinger, A.; Kraxberger, F.; previously established aeroacoustic benchmark problem. Furthermore, an application to a medical
Maurerlehner, P.; Mayr-Mittermüller, device (knee prosthesis frame) is presented. Furthermore, the radiated sound power is evaluated and
B.; Rucz, P.; Sima, H.; Kaltenbacher, contextualized with other low-cost approximations. Regarding the validation example, very good
M.; Schoder, S. Experimental agreements are achieved between the measurements and BEM results, with a mean effective pressure
Prediction Method of Free-Field
level error of 0.63 dB averaged across three microphone positions. Applying the workflow to a knee
Sound Emissions Using the
prosthesis frame, the simulation is capable of predicting the acoustic radiation to four microphone
Boundary Element Method and Laser
positions with a mean effective pressure level error of 1.52 dB.
Scanning Vibrometry. Acoustics 2024,
6, 65–82. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Keywords: boundary element method; vibroacoustic coupling; acoustic emissions; experimental
acoustics6010004
sound prediction
Academic Editor: Yat Sze Choy
vibration velocity data can be measured using laser-doppler scanning vibrometry (LSV).
Over the years, BEM has become a standard procedure for computing the acoustic free-field
propagation efficiently [14]. Various improvements have lead to fast simulation prediction
methods in the time and time-harmonic case for the linear acoustic field (e.g., fast multipole
methods [15]) or utilizing model order reduction [16]. Based on these improvements, BEM
has become a standard method for radiating free-field sound into far distances in the
mid-frequency range [17].
In the context of the article, the surface velocity is either computed using an FEM model
in combination with openCFS (https://opencfs.org/(accessed on 23 November 2023)) [18]
or determined experimentally. While FEM simulations capture the mechanical response
of the structure under various loads regarding applied modeling simplifications of joints,
bearings, connections, material, and geometry, the measured velocity captures the real-
world surface velocity response, typically with a comparably low spatial resolution of the
surface velocity signal. Based on the data and the Helmholtz equation, BEM is used to
predict the acoustic emissions at certain microphone locations [19]. The aim of this paper is
to establish a workflow for transforming the surface velocity information into information
about the acoustic sound emissions through BEM simulation, and providing validation for
multiple test cases. The open source BEM software NiHu (https://last.hit.bme.hu/nihu
(accessed on 23 November 2023)) [20] was verified previously by several test cases. In
the first step focusing on the automotive industry, the FEM-BEM method was verified
and compared with an existing acoustic simulation of a confined flow-sound prediction
using the FEM method [21]. This example shows the accuracy of the workflow for a simple,
realistic application. Additionally, the influence of low surface resolution was investigated
systematically by virtual coarsening of the measurement grid to imitate points of missing
surface information.
Regarding this verification example, the method was finally applied to validate the
acoustic emissions of a medical knee prosthesis frame under specific test conditions. Acous-
tic microphone measurements in an anechoic chamber validated the predicted sound
emissions. The numerically obtained sound power was compared to a low-cost sound
power estimate presented in [22]. In conclusion, the results show very promising sound
prediction capabilities, with a mean error of the effective pressure level, as defined in
Section 3.2.3 (averaged across four microphone positions) of 1.52 dB.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the data acquisition using
an LSV and the successive interpolation algorithm are described. Furthermore, BEM and
its implementation in the software framework used are presented. Section 3 describes the
verification and validation of the interpolation scheme and the BEM solver. In Section 4,
an application of the workflow to an industrial use case, i.e., sound radiation of a clinically
applied knee prosthesis, is presented. Finally, Section 5 discusses the main findings.
2. Methods
In most technical applications, sound radiation can be modeled by applying forward
coupling of the structural vibration domain to the acoustic propagation domain, as depicted
in Figure 1. Consequently, any effect of the incident pressure field on the structure is
neglected [2,3]. The forward coupling is achieved by prescribing the normal component
of the acoustic particle velocity vn to the corresponding surface velocity of the structure,
i.e., applying an inhomogeneous Neumann boundary condition for the wave equation (see
Section 2.2). For simple structures, the surface velocity of the structure can be obtained,
e.g., by FE simulation of the structural dynamics. This workflow is described in Section 3.2
using the FE solver openCFS. However, in industrial applications, the high number of
contact points and joints in complex assemblies or the use of compound materials in
light-weight applications can make simulations of the mechanical structure infeasible with
reasonable effort. Therefore, when applying the proposed method to an industrial use case,
measurement data from LSV measurements are used instead as an input for the sound
prediction model, as demonstrated in Section 4.
Acoustics 2024, 6 67
CAD
Closed surface mesh
Geometry
Figure 1. Workflow of the sound radiation simulation based on the surface velocity measurements.
LSV
edges are treated separately). In that case, the projection direction can also be obtained by
averaging the normal vectors of the neighboring elements for each point on Γt . Next, linear
p
shape functions Nj ( x) are evaluated for the projected point xk in the according element e.
In this context, the (linear) shape function evaluation can also be used to check whether
the projected point is inside any element. Finally, the shape function values are used as
transformation coefficients corresponding to the source grid point indices and the index of
the target point.
h i h i
p
Ti = Tj,k = Nj ( xk ) ∀ j ∈ e ∈ Γs ∧ ∀ k ∈ Γt . (1)
Figure 3. Sketch of an arbitrary source (blue) and target mesh (red) with indicated point projection
from the target to the source mesh.
∆p( x) + k2 p( x) = 0 x ∈ Ω ⊂ R3 , (2)
assuming a time harmonic dependency ejωt . Therein, p( x) denotes the scalar, complex-
valued acoustic pressure, k = ω/c is the wave number, ω is the angular frequency, and c is
Acoustics 2024, 6 69
the isentropic speed of sound. The prescribed normal velocity vn on the surface Γ can be
modeled as a Neumann boundary condition
1
vn ( x ) = − ∇ p( x) · n( x) x ∈ Γ ⊂ R2 , (3)
jωρ
with density ρ and inward facing normal vector n. Introducing the Green’s function
G ( x|y) = e−jkr /(4πr ) as the fundamental solution of the Helmholtz equation, representing
the acoustic pressure field at position x due to a unit point source at position y. Therein,
the distance r is defined as r ( x, y) = | x − y|. Transforming the Helmholtz Equation (2)
into its weak form and combining it with the Green’s function, the conventional Kirchhoff–
Helmholtz (boundary) integral equation can be derived
∂G ( x|y) ∂p(y)
Z Z
C ( x) p( x) + p(y)dΓ(y) = G ( x|y) dΓ(y) . (4)
Γ ∂n(y) Γ ∂n(y)
1
Ms ps − Ls qs = ps (6)
2
Mf ps − Lf qs = pf (7)
for the primal BEM problem on the surface Γ is indicated by subscript s and the evaluation
of an arbitrary number of field points in Ω \ Γ is indicated by the subscript f. Therein,
Ls/f and Ms/f denote dense matricesR representing the discretized
R single and double layer
potential integral operators Lu = G udΓ and Mu = ∂G/∂n udΓ, respectively [20].
Furthermore, ps/f denotes the acoustic pressure and qs/f = ∂p/∂n is the normal derivative
of the acoustic pressure. The normal derivative of the acoustic pressure qs can be related to
the acoustic particle velocity v by
qs = −jωρv · n . (8)
Acoustics 2024, 6 70
The arrays ps/f and qs accumulate the coefficients ps/f and qs on the discretized domain
for acoustic pressure and its normal derivative, respectively. Similarly, the discretization of
Equation (5) yields
1
Ns ps − MsT qs = qs , (9)
2
Figure 4. Bottom view of the experimental setup of the pipe with the orifice (all measures in mm),
based on Figure 4.12 of [28]. The boundary Γ used for the BEM simulation is indicated in red.
BEM
in a set of BEM-simulated amplitude spectra | p|BEM k ( f ) with their mean | p| ( f ), where
k = 1, . . . , N BEM , with N BEM being the number of spectral blocks of the BEM simulations.
with reference pressure pref = 20 µPa in the frequency range of interest finterest =[400, 10, 000] Hz.
Table 1 shows the effective pressure levels for the measurement, FEM, and BEM simu-
lations at the three microphone positions defined in Figure 4. The maximum deviation
of the BEM solution to the FEM solution of 0.47 dB indicated a good agreement of the
presented method to the FEM simulation approach used in [28]. The simulated data agreed
reasonably with the measurement data for all of the microphone positions. According
to [28], deviations were caused by inaccuracies of the flow simulation data inside the
pipe, the modeled mounting of the pipe, and the material damping model used, which
all altered the pseudo-measurement and therefore had a similar impact on both FEM and
BEM simulation approaches. Furthermore, using the acoustic free-field assumption rather
than modeling the acoustic chamber introduced discrepancies between the simulation and
the measurements.
Table 1. Comparison of the measured and simulated effective pressure levels in the frequency range
f interest = [400, 10, 000] Hz at the microphone positions according to Figure 4.
Microphone
Lmeas
eff LFEM
eff LBEM
eff Lmeas BEM
eff − Leff
Position
1 36.27 dB 35.95 dB 36.21 dB 0.06 dB
2 35.81 dB 35.82 dB 36.18 dB 0.37 dB
3 35.94 dB 37.87 dB 37.40 dB 1.46 dB
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 7 depicts the acoustic pressure level L p = 20 log( p/pref ), and its deviation from
the reference BEM simulation results. The comparison was two-fold. Firstly, the acoustic
pressure levels were compared as a function of frequency. From this perspective, deviations
to the reference signals were small, and good agreement was also achieved for very poorly
resolved measured surface velocities. Secondly, to evaluate the differences in more detail,
the relative difference to the reference was plotted as a function of frequency. This shows a
Acoustics 2024, 6 74
very clear trend: the deviations between the h-dependent simulated acoustic pressure levels
and the reference simulation results (h = 1) systematically increased with the frequency.
At certain frequencies, 2100 Hz and 4750 Hz, the deviations were large and increased until
a range of 5 dB. At these frequencies, structural anti-resonances mitigated the large-scale
motion, and the measured data did not resolve the remaining motion. The increasing
deviations with frequency were expected and could be attributed to the reduced resolution
per wavelength of the interpolated surface velocity data. The second effect, which was
visible, was that with decreasing resolution (increasing h) of the measured surface velocities,
the deviations became larger, and in general, the radiated sound pressure levels were
underestimated. Again, this can be explained by the reduced resolution of the structural
motion and due to the linear interpolation scheme, which underestimated the movement
of convex curved surfaces. In summary, Figure 7 demonstrates how the acoustic pressure
level deviations in a simulation changed with both the frequency and spatial resolution
of the structural motion. As the structural wavelengths were large compared with the
acoustic wavelength, the surface velocity required less spatial resolution in the presented
benchmark problem.
Figure 7. Comparison of the block-averaged acoustic pressure level at microphone position 1 for
varying grid size of the LSV measurement.
Mic. 1
DUT
Table
Rubber mount
Mic.Figure
1 8. Sketch of the experimental setup for the microphone measurements. Mic. 1, 2, and 3 are
located in the x/z plane. Mic. 4 is at 45° elevation above mic. 2. The coordinate system’s origin is
located in the center of the device under test (DUT), such that the excitation force vector lies inside
the x/z plane.
The microphones were connected to a data acquisition unit (HEAD acoustics SQuadriga
III) handling the analog/digital conversion. The time series measurements of the acoustic
pressure and the input force with a sampling frequency of f S = 48 kHz were buffered
into blocks with a length of Nsamp = 2400 samples and 50% overlap, corresponding to a
target frequency resolution of ∆ f = 20 Hz. A Hann window function was applied on each
block. For each block, the Nsamp -point Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) was performed
as implemented in MATLAB’s stft()-command [29], which resulted in pressure spectra
p̃mic1
i ( f ), p̃mic2
i ( f ), p̃mic3
i ( f ), and p̃mic4
i ( f ) for microphones 1 to 4, respectively, as well as
F̃i ( f ) for the input force spectrum. Thereby, i = 1, . . . , Nblocks , where Nblocks is the number
of blocks, which is equal to the number of spectra after DFT. The transfer function H1u ( f )
from the input force F to a quantity of interest u was computed using
GuF
H1u ( f ) = , (12)
GFF
Acoustics 2024, 6 76
where GuF is the cross power spectral density between the quantity of interest u and the
input force F, and GFF is the auto power density spectrum of the input force F. GuF and
GFF are computed from
Nblocks Nblocks
1 1
GuF =
Nblocks ∑ ui ( f ) F̃i∗ ( f ) , GFF =
Nblocks ∑ F̃i ( f ) F̃i∗ ( f ) , (13)
i =1 i =1
where superscript ∗ denotes the complex conjugate. The quantity of interest ui ( f ) is one of
p
the pressure spectra p̃mic1
i ( f ), p̃mic2
i ( f ), p̃mic3
i ( f ), or p̃mic4
i ( f ), such that H1 ( f ) is the desired
vibroacoustic transfer function. This resulted in one transfer function for each microphone
position and, thus, four transfer functions in total.
LSV Pos. 1
LS
V
Po
s. 2 Impedance head
Stinger LSV Pos. 4 DUT LSV Pos. 3
Impedance head
LSV Pos. 1 Stinger
Shaker
Shaker
DUT
Shaker
Table
Rubber mount
Figure 9. Sketch of the experimental setup with the LSV. The coordinate system’s origin is located in
the center of the device under test (DUT). The LSV is positioned approximately 0.7 m from the DUT.
Figure 10. Discretized surface of the DUT with the indicated positions of scanning points during
LSV measurement. The colors red, purple, green, and orange refer to LSV positions 1, 2, 3, and 4,
respectively.
From the measured surface velocity and the input forces, a transfer function from input
force F to surface velocity v was computed with Equations (12) and (13). Thereby, the quan-
tity of interest u is the velocity spectrum. This form of the H1v ( f ) transfer function is the
Acoustics 2024, 6 77
so-called mobility (p. 52, [30]). The measurement data post-processing was performed using
the software Polytec PSV Software, which directly computed the mobility transfer functions.
comparison yielding a value in the interval [0, 1]. From the measured transfer function
p p
H1,meas and the simulated transfer function H1,sim , CSSF was computed with Equation (2)
of [32], such that
∗
p p
2 H1,meas ( f ) · H1,sim ( f )
CSSF( f ) = ∗ ∗ , (14)
p p p p
H1,meas ( f ) · H1,meas ( f ) + H1,sim ( f ) · H1,sim ( f )
where superscript ∗ denotes the complex conjugate. A CSSF value close to 100% indicates
excellent agreement of the transfer functions. In Figure 11, CSSF is plotted together with
the measured and simulated transfer functions. Therefrom, it is clear that the simulation
was able to predict the transfer function with a high degree of conformity over a large
frequency range.
100 100
10!1 10!1
jH1p j (Pa/N)
jH1p j (Pa/N)
CSSF (%)
CSSF (%)
10!2 100 10!2 100
50 50
10!3 0 10!3 0
simulation (Le, =97.58 dB) simulation (Le, =96.97 dB)
measurement (Le, =97.70 dB) measurement (Le, =99.91 dB)
10!4 10!4
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
f (kHz) f (kHz)
(a) Mic. 1 (b) Mic. 2
100 100
10!1 10!1
jH1p j (Pa/N)
jH1p j (Pa/N)
CSSF (%)
CSSF (%)
50 50
10!3 0 10!3 0
simulation (Le, =98.18 dB) simulation (Le, =96.69 dB)
measurement (Le, =98.09 dB) measurement (Le, =99.61 dB)
10!4 10!4
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
f (kHz) f (kHz)
(c) Mic. 3 (d) Mic. 4
p
Figure 11. H1 transfer functions based on microphone measurements and LSV measurements in
combination with the BEM simulation. The effective pressure level (according to Equation (11), in this
case for a unit force excitation) was evaluated for f interes = [500, 5000] Hz.
Table 2 lists the effective pressure level for a unit force excitation, as defined in (11) in
the frequency range f interes = [500, 5000] Hz. The maximum deviation of the simulation
approach to the acoustic measurement of 2.94 dB indicates a good prediction of the average
vibroacoustic transfer path in the medium- to high-frequency range above 500 Hz. In
general, a slight underestimation of the measured amplitude spectra could be observed in
this frequency range. This behavior could be explained by the simplifications discussed
Acoustics 2024, 6 79
in Section 4.2. Furthermore, the oblique laser direction, which does not coincide with the
normal velocity at every measurement point, could contribute to the deviations. Larger
deviations at certain microphone positions and frequencies, e.g., at the position of Mic. 2 in
the interval [2, 3] kHz, could be due to the imperfect free-field in the experimental setup.
Table 2. Effective pressure level for a unit force excitation in the frequency range f interes =
[500, 5000] Hz at the microphone positions according to Figure 8.
ps qs∗
1
Z
PBEM = < dΓ , (15)
2 Γs −jωρ
using Equation (8). Figure 12 shows the predicted sound power in comparison with the
common low-cost approximations based on the equivalent radiated power (ERP) PERP or
based on the volume velocity PVV , as defined in Equations (10) and (19) of [22], respectively.
The two low-cost approximations can be understood as qualitative upper and lower bounds
for vibroacoustically emitted sound power. ERP uses the far-field approximation, resulting
in a constant radiation efficiency σ = 1 for all surface areas and neglecting local acoustic
effects. Therefore, dipole effects (antiphase vibration of the sources) were not captured,
and the radiated sound power was overestimated in the low-frequency range. Towards
higher frequencies, these effects were less significant, and thus the deviation decreased.
In contrast, the sound power approximation based on the volume velocity assumed an
acoustically compact source, which was only viable in the very low-frequency range. Both
estimates could be evaluated explicitly as simple summations without the need to assemble
a system matrix and thus could be computed in the order of seconds on any state-of-
the-art notebook. In contrast, BEM, as presented in Section 2.2, required an assembly
of system matrices, and resulted in an algebraic system of equations that needed to be
solved. The presented simulation of the prosthesis’ frame required approx. 14 h on a
single CPU-core of the used system, but it scaled well on a multi-core CPU, reducing the
actual computation time to approx. 14 min. The computations were performed on a single
compute node of the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC) equipped with an AMD EPYC 7713
(64 core) CPU, and 512 GB RAM. Consequently, an estimate of where to use the presented
BEM approach was viewed as useful to the authors. The frequency range in which the
radiated sound power based on BEM simulation deviated from both approximations is
given by the Helmholtz number He = λL = kL ≈ 1 with length scale L. Consequently, if the
frequency range of interest intersects with
c
f ≈ , (16)
2πL
the BEM approach has to be used to produce accurate predictions. Choosing L as the main
dimensions of DUT results in He ≈ 1 in the frequency range f ≈ [200, 700] Hz, which
agrees with the results shown in Figure 12.
Acoustics 2024, 6 80
Figure 12. Radiated sound power of DUT computed from the BEM simulation in comparison with
common low-cost approximations equivalent radiated power PERP , and sound power based on
volume velocity PVV .
5. Discussion
This paper presents a simulation approach based on BEM, which utilizes interpolated
surface velocities as the boundary conditions. The interpolation algorithm for the surface
velocities is based on evaluating the finite element basis functions at the target mesh.
A verification of the BEM solver was achieved in a previous study. For validating the
simulation approach, surface velocities simulated by FEM were taken as inputs with
varying mesh sizes. The acoustic propagation results of the validation simulation computed
with BEM were in very good agreement with measurements and the comparison simulation
with FEM, as shown in Table 1. After applying the verified and validated simulation
approach to compute the acoustic radiations of a clinically applied knee prosthesis frame,
very good agreements were found between the simulated and measured effective acoustic
pressure levels, as shown in Table 2.
Acoustic propagation simulations using BEM implies ideal free-field radiation condi-
tions for the whole frequency range. For low frequencies, this can not be easily achieved
in real-world measurement environments, such as anechoic chambers. Therefore, the pre-
sented method allows for the prediction of free-field acoustic emissions based solely on LSV
measurements, which can also be performed under non-ideal acoustic conditions, i.e., a
general room that is not anechoic, provided that no acoustic feedback occurs. In addition,
based on the sound emission simulation results, further acoustic quantities, such as the
free-field radiated acoustic power, can be evaluated. This can be especially useful, if the
frequency of interest is close to He ≈ 1, where other low-cost approximation methods fail
to provide accurate predictions for the radiated acoustic power.
Finally, the fact that the validation example and its application to a real-world prob-
lem exhibit very good agreements between (i) the BEM simulation results, (ii) the FEM
results, and (iii) acoustic pressure measurements suggests that the presented approach may
generalize well to other problems with a similar geometric complexity.
Acoustics 2024, 6 81
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.W. and S.S.; methodology, A.W.; software, A.W. and
P.R.; validation, A.W. and F.K.; formal analysis, A.W.; investigation, A.W., F.K., B.M.-M. and P.M.;
resources, P.M. and H.S.; data curation, A.W. and F.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.W.,
F.K., P.R. and S.S.; writing—review and editing, A.W., F.K., P.M., P.R., B.M.-M., H.S., M.K. and S.S.;
visualization, A.W. and F.K.; supervision, S.S., M.K. and H.S.; project administration, S.S.; fund-
ing acquisition, S.S., A.W. and P.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: The support from the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) under no. 874784 and
from Otto Bock Healthcare Products GmbH are gratefully acknowledged. P.R. acknowledges the
support by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office under contract
No.K̃–143436. Open Access Funding by the Graz University of Technology.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The simulation data presented in this study are available on request
from the corresponding author. The LSV measurement data and the geometry data presented in
Section 4 are not publicly available due to a non-disclosure agreement with Otto Bock Healthcare
Products GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Acknowledgments: The computational results presented have been achieved in part using the
software NiHu [20] and in part using the software openCFS [Nearest-Neighbor Interpolation] [18].
The authors acknowledge computational resources provided by the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
References
1. Christensen, R. Acoustic Modeling of Hearing Aid Components. Ph.D. Thesis, Syddansk Universitet, Odense, Denmark, 2010.
2. Candy, J. Accurate calculation of radiation and diffraction from loudspeaker enclosures at low frequency. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 2013,
61, 356–365.
3. Nuraini, A.; Mohd Ihsan, A.; Nor, M.; Jamaluddin, N. Vibro-acoustic analysis of free piston engine structure using finite element
and boundary element methods. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2012, 26, 2405–2411. [CrossRef]
4. Panda, K.C. Dealing with noise and vibration in automotive industry. Procedia Eng. 2016, 144, 1167–1174. [CrossRef]
5. Oberst, S.; Lai, J.; Marburg, S. Guidelines for numerical vibration and acoustic analysis of disc brake squeal using simple models
of brake systems. J. Sound Vib. 2013, 332, 2284–2299. [CrossRef]
6. Bates, T.P.; Bacon, I.C.; Blotter, J.D.; Sommerfeldt, S.D. Vibration-based sound power measurements of arbitrarily curved panels.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2022, 151, 1171–1179. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Yeh, F.; Chang, X.; Sung, Y. Numerical and Experimental Study on Vibration and Noise of Embedded Rail System. J. Appl. Math.
Phys. 2017, 5, 1629. [CrossRef]
8. Vlahopoulos, N.; Vallance, C.; Stark, R.D., III. Numerical approach for computing noise-induced vibration from launch
environments. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 1998, 35, 355–360. [CrossRef]
9. Rossignol, K.S.; Lummer, M.; Delfs, J. Validation of DLR’s sound shielding prediction tool using a novel sound source. In
Proceedings of the 15th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (30th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), Miami, FL, USA, 11–13
May 2009 ; p. 3329. [CrossRef]
10. Lummer, M.; Akkermans, R.A.; Richter, C.; Pröber, C.; Delfs, J. Validation of a model for open rotor noise predictions and
calculation of shielding effects using a fast BEM. In Proceedings of the 19th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Berlin,
Germany, 27–29 May 2013 ; p. 2096. [CrossRef]
Acoustics 2024, 6 82
11. Kumar, S.; Forster, H.M.; Bailey, P.; Griffiths, T.D. Mapping unpleasantness of sounds to their auditory representation. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 2008, 124, 3810–3817. [CrossRef]
12. Preuss, S.; Gurbuz, C.; Jelich, C.; Baydoun, S.K.; Marburg, S. Recent advances in acoustic boundary element methods. J. Theor.
Comput. Acoust. 2022, 30, 2240002. [CrossRef]
13. Fritze, D.; Marburg, S.; Hardtke, H.J. FEM–BEM-coupling and structural–acoustic sensitivity analysis for shell geometries.
Comput. Struct. 2005, 83, 143–154. [CrossRef]
14. Kirkup, S. The boundary element method in acoustics: A survey. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1642. [CrossRef]
15. Li, Y.; Meyer, J.; Lokki, T.; Cuenca, J.; Atak, O.; Desmet, W. Benchmarking of finite-difference time-domain method and fast
multipole boundary element method for room acoustics. Appl. Acoust. 2022, 191, 108662. [CrossRef]
16. Chen, L.; Lian, H.; Natarajan, S.; Zhao, W.; Chen, X.; Bordas, S. Multi-frequency acoustic topology optimization of sound-
absorption materials with isogeometric boundary element methods accelerated by frequency-decoupling and model order
reduction techniques. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2022, 395, 114997. [CrossRef]
17. Deckers, E.; Atak, O.; Coox, L.; D’Amico, R.; Devriendt, H.; Jonckheere, S.; Koo, K.; Pluymers, B.; Vandepitte, D.; Desmet, W. The
wave based method: An overview of 15 years of research. Wave Motion 2014, 51, 550–565. [CrossRef]
18. Schoder, S.; Roppert, K. openCFS-Data: Data Pre-Post-Processing Tool for openCFS–Aeroacoustics Source Filters. arXiv 2023,
arXiv:2302.03637. [CrossRef]
19. Marburg, S. Boundary Element Method for Time-Harmonic Acoustic Problems. In Computational Acoustics; Kaltenbacher, M., Ed.;
Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 69–158. [CrossRef]
20. Fiala, P.; Rucz, P. NiHu: An open source C++ BEM library. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 75, 101–112. [CrossRef]
21. Maurerlehner, P.; Schoder, S.; Tieber, J.; Freidhager, C.; Steiner, H.; Brenn, G.; Schäfer, K.H.; Ennemoser, A.; Kaltenbacher, M.
Aeroacoustic formulations for confined flows based on incompressible flow data. Acta Acust. 2022, 6, 45.[CrossRef]
22. Fritze, D.; Marburg, S.; Hardtke, H.J. Estimation of radiated sound power: A case study on common approximation methods.
Acta Acust. United Acust. 2009, 95, 833–842. [CrossRef]
23. Rothberg, S.; Allen, M.; Castellini, P.; Di Maio, D.; Dirckx, J.; Ewins, D.; Halkon, B.; Muyshondt, P.; Paone, N.; Ryan, T.; et al. An
international review of laser Doppler vibrometry: Making light work of vibration measurement. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2017, 99, 11–22.
[CrossRef]
24. Burton, A.J.; Miller, G.F. The application of integral equation methods to the numerical solution of some exterior boundary-value
problems. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1971, 323, 201–210. [CrossRef]
25. Marburg, S. The Burton and Miller Method: Unlocking Another Mystery of Its Coupling Parameter. J. Comput. Acoust. 2016,
24, 1550016. [CrossRef]
26. Fiala, P.; Rucz, P. NiHu: A multi-purpose open source fast multipole solver. In Proceedings of the DAGA 2019. German
Acoustical Society (DEGA), Rostock, Germany, 18–21 March 2019; pp. 1262–1265.
27. Schenck, H.A. Improved Integral Formulation for Acoustic Radiation Problems. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1968, 44, 41–58. [CrossRef]
28. Maurerlehner, P. Aero- and Vibroacoustics of Confined Flows. Ph.D. Thesis, TU Graz, Graz, Austria, 2023.
29. Mathworks. Matlab documentation: Stft(), 2023 . Available online: https://de.mathworks.com/help/signal/ref/stft.html
(accessed on 11 October 2023) .
30. Avitabile, P. Modal Testing: A Practitioner’s Guide; John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, UK, 2017. [CrossRef]
31. Neumann, M.N.; Hennings, B.; Lammering, R. Identification and Avoidance of Systematic Measurement Errors in Lamb Wave
Observation With One-Dimensional Scanning Laser Vibrometry. Strain 2013, 49, 95–101. [CrossRef]
32. Dascotte, E.; Strobbe, J. Updating finite element models using FRF correlation functions. In Proceedings of the 17th International
Modal Analysis Conference, Kissimmee, FL, USA, 8–11 February 1999 ; pp. 1169–1174.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.