A validation of some recent BEM and FEM techniques for predicting exterior acoustic transfer functions for a mockup of an engine installed in the engine bay
G. Miccoli1, K. Vansant
2, C. Bertolini
3
1 IMAMOTER Institute, Italian National Research Council (C.N.R.)
Cassana (FE), Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
2 Siemens PLM Software
Leuven, Belgium
3 Autoneum Management AG
Winterthur, Switzerland
Abstract As legislation for exterior automotive noise has recently become more challenging, the industry is looking into further optimizing engine and engine bay design. Together with the new legal evolutions, also the
engine downsizing trend and therewith the increased use of for instance direct injection and air loading
systems requires re-evaluation of the current design guidelines and dedicated studies to reach the quietest design. Simulation provides a relatively inexpensive approach to accomplish this: many design
alternatives can be tested before any prototype is actually tested. In order for the simulation path to be
successful, it is paramount that the approaches are sufficiently fast and accurate. This paper discusses
some of the more recent evolutions in Finite and Boundary Element Methods and their solver technologies. The case study concerns prediction of acoustic transfer functions for an engine bay mockup
model. Results are overlaid with measurements and the time and memory performance of each method is
compared.
1 Introduction
Until several years ago, automotive engineers ensured that exterior engine noise remained within limits by
relying on their experience for designing engines and engine bays with appropriate acoustic treatments. A
real need to make several designs and find an acoustically optimal design was not that imminent as today. The evolutions in legislation, for instance for Pass By Noise (PBN) (now 70 dB(A)), and downsized
engine and accessories noise sources, now call for more efforts and dedicated studies. It is clear that
engineering insight in the acoustic optimization task is crucial already in the early design stages. This explains the regained interest in using simulation models first before any costly prototype is made. A
further reason supporting a simulation approach are the recent advances made in modeling and solver
technologies. These serve not only the prediction of engine radiated noise in free condition but also in
installed condition, i.e. the engine in the engine bay. The latter case requires advanced methods to obtain results in a reasonable amount of time, thus allowing for examining multiple sound proofing design
layouts. The challenge is that the models for such applications are quite large, as they need to represent the
engine bay part of the vehicle or even the full vehicle. Moreover they should allow to cover a broad frequency range up to 4 or 5 kHz (for PBN) and results are typically required in narrowband.
This paper gives an outline of the extensive benchmarking activity carried out by the authors since a few
years on the assessment of the computational accuracy and performance of acoustic simulation approaches available in LMS Virtual.Lab and other acoustic methodologies. Subject of the analyses is the prediction
2315
of the powertrain exterior Acoustic Transfer Functions (ATFs) for a mockup model of an engine in the
engine bay. The accuracy of the ATFs obtained by the different methodologies is compared with
experimental results and the simulations’ computing performance, in terms of time and required hardware memory, is compared between each other.
2 Experimental activity
A car engine bay mockup was built using stiff plywood (figure 1 and figure 2), trying to keep the
dimensions and the shape of the mockup close to those of a real engine bay. The presence of the engine was taken into account by putting another stiff plywood structure inside the engine-bay mockup (figure 2).
A few apertures were made on the external walls of the engine bay mockup, in order to simulate those
normally present on the boundary of a real vehicle engine bay: one front aperture (radiator), one rear aperture (driving shaft), two apertures on the bottom surface (apertures normally present in the under-
engine shield for ventilation purposes) and two side apertures (wheel-house apertures for wheel axles). Six
flat microphones were applied approximately at the center of the six engine mockup walls (figure 3) and a
volume velocity calibrated monopole acoustic source was placed outside of the engine bay mockup at two fixed positions, frontal (1500 mm far from the mockup frontal face and 1700 mm high above the floor)
and lateral (1700 mm far from the mockup lateral face and 1700 mm high above the floor, figure 1).
Lastly, an acoustic treatment consisting in a 20 mm thick single layer felt, was applied inside the car engine bay mockup on 3 different walls: under the hood, under the engine and on the back wall, i.e. the
wall simulating the firewall panel (figure 2).
Figure 1: Car engine bay mockup and lateral source Figure 2: Microphones placement
Figure 3: Arrangement of microphones positions around the engine block mockup
2316 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2014 INCLUDING USD2014
The Acoustic Transfer Functions (ATFs) were measured for the two different positions of the acoustic
source and for different configurations of the acoustic treatment applied on each single internal wall
(present or not) and of the apertures (open or closed). In total, 54 different configurations were measured. Table 1 reports four of these configurations, which were selected to be replicated with numerical
simulations. In [1] and [2], extensive information and details can be found about the experimental
measurement campaign and the results obtained for the different engine bay mockup
configurations considered.
Configuration Apertures Treatments Source
01 all open None both frontal and lateral
03 wheelhouse open only None both frontal and lateral
07 all open All both frontal and lateral
11 wheelhouse open only All both frontal and lateral
Table 1: Some car engine bay mockup configurations simulated
3 CAE analyses
As far as analysis and simulation methods are concerned, here a list follows of all the simulation
technologies tested and compared in order to compute the vehicle engine bay mockup exterior ATFs in the
analysis frequency range up to 3.5 kHz:
• Indirect BEM
• Fast Multipole BEM (FMBEM)
• Patch Transfer Function (PTF) Method
• Wave Based Technique (WBT) Method
• Infinite FEM (IFEM)
• FEM Perfectly Matched Layer (PLM) & Automatically Matched Layer (AML)
• H-Matrix BEM
• FEM AML Adaptive Order (FEM AO)
The underlined methodologies refer to those mainly tested at IMAMOTER Institute which gave very
interesting results.
The first part of this section briefly describes analyses and some results obtained by the authors on the
assessment of the computational accuracy and performance of BEM and FEM methodologies available in
LMS Virtual.Lab. All the results reported in this section were already published and are recalled here just for sake of completeness. References [1] to [3] are only an example taking into consideration also other
simulation methods not directly tested by us (e.g. IFEM).
In the second part some particular attention has been dedicated to the latest innovative approaches developed in LMS Virtual.Lab R12 code, i.e. H-Matrix BEM and FEM AML Adaptive Order (FEM AO)
[4].
3.1 BEM and Fast Multipole BEM analyses
The analysis frequency range (200 Hz to 3500 Hz) was subdivided into 3 frequency sub-ranges: 200 Hz to 1250 Hz, 1250 Hz to 2500 Hz and 2500 Hz to 3500 Hz. For each frequency range, an independent BE
model was developed, using the λ/7 meshing rule. The resulting number of nodes was 4432 for the low-
MEDIUM AND HIGH FREQUENCY TECHNIQUES 2317
frequency model, 17162 for the medium-frequency model and 33529 for the high-frequency model [2].
Figure 4 shows, as an example, the BE model used for the low-frequency range (red areas represent the
acoustic treatments) and figure 5 details some model’s features, including a symmetry plane to mimic the reflecting floor, and the positions of the source and microphone receiver points.
Figure 4: Car engine bay mockup BE model Figure 5: Microphones, rigid plane, frontal source
Given that the model included a closed cavity (the engine-block mockup), the usual counter-measures to
avoid issues related to irregular frequencies were applied. The impedance of the acoustic treatments was
measured in a standard Kundt tube and used in the model as boundary condition in the regions covered by
the treatments themselves [2]. Figure 6 shows a detail of the materials used for the trim parts applied and the treatment absorption coefficient plot. A little absorption was introduced also for the surfaces made
with plywood. Being not possible to measure plywood absorption in a Kundt tube, some literature data
have been used: the absorption coefficient was set as linearly increasing from 0.5% at 200 Hz to 2% at 1250 Hz and then kept constant for higher frequencies.
Figure 6: Trim parts details (left) and Normal Incidence Absorption Coefficient
of the acoustical treatments (right)
Six field points were defined corresponding to the microphones positions (figure 3) in order to compute
the ATFs. Only 4 configurations were simulated (table 1), in order to limit the computation effort.
As far as the BEM analysis is concerned, the Fast Multipole method (FMBEM) implemented in LMS Virtual.Lab was used only above 1250 Hz (table 2). The recently developed FMBEM approach differs
from conventional BEM in two ways. The most remarkable difference is that it uses an approximate
formulation to express the interactions between nodes which lie far away from each other on the acoustic
model. The second difference is that the BEM problem is solved in an iterative way. In particular, FMBEM is based on a classical evaluation of the BEM operator in the near field, whereas a clustering of
boundary elements is formed in the far field. The solution is evaluated through a multipole expansion
2318 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2014 INCLUDING USD2014
which allows one to group sources that lie close together and treat them as if they are a single source as
illustrated in figure 7. The superiority of the method is that interaction between well separated sets of
nodes can be treated in one time. Thanks to this property, the FMBEM iterative solver does not require the corresponding matrix elements to be explicitly computed and stored. This leads to considerably less
memory and less CPU time requirements. The computational cost is thus reduced from O(n3) for a
standard BEM analysis to almost O(n*(log10(n))2) with FMBEM, where n is the number of unknown
variables.
Figure 7: Interaction between far nodes in standard BEM and FMBEM
Table 2 shows computation times per calculation frequency, ∆f being the frequency step and all analyses carried out on a 8 node Linux Xeon server. It can be observed how the acoustic treatments application
reduces computational time from about 91 hours to 74 hours. This illustrates the effect of introducing
damping into the model on the convergence speed of the iterative solver used by FMBEM.
3.2 FEM AML analysis
In the FEM AML model, the engine bay volume was meshed with volume elements. The meshed volume
was then extended also to the exterior space, up to a distance of about 5-10 cm from the external plywood
surfaces of the engine-bay mockup (figure 8, left). The external shape of the meshed volume is that of a
rectangular prism with rounded lateral edges (the solver converges faster for this kind of shapes). Acoustical treatments were introduced in a way similar to that described for the BE analyses, i.e. by
imposing the proper impedance on the surfaces covered by the treatments themselves (figure 8, right). On
the external faces of the meshed region, a Perfectly Matched Layer (i.e. a domain with high dissipation, in which the acoustic waves are attenuated) is automatically built at every frequency (from here the name
‘Automatically Matched Layer’) and it is this type of numerical trick that basically manages the
simulation of the open environment.
Figure 8: Engine bay mockup FEM AML model (left); FEM AML model interior skin with highlighted acoustic treatment areas (right)
MEDIUM AND HIGH FREQUENCY TECHNIQUES 2319
It makes sure no outwards propagating waves are reflected on the outer boundary of the FEM model. This
to satisfy the Sommerfeld radiation condition and to obtain therefore accurate results within the FEM
domain. From these results, a subset of pressure and pressure gradient results is chosen on a surface to afterwards compute the pressure at any location in space using a Kirchhoff-Helmholtz integral with
appropriate Green’s functions on that surface.
The FEM AML analyses using the LMS Virtual.Lab code were carried out for the 4 configurations in table 1 using the model shown in figure 8 (about 720000 nodes and 4 million tetrahedron elements) in the
200 Hz to 3500 Hz frequency range with step 2 Hz. Computational times of 25 to 35 hours were necessary
for the whole analysis making use of the iterative solver and of the same 8 node Linux Xeon server, 32
GB RAM as for the BEM analyses. Thus, FEM AML simulations are much faster than BEM simulations. Furthermore, with the FEM AML method the whole frequency range could be covered with a single
model and with a fixed frequency step (2 Hz), something that was not feasible with the BE method (3
different models necessary and analysis step from 2 Hz to 10 Hz, table 2).
Table 2 shows the comparison between the computational resources needed to run the BE/FMBEM and
the FEM AML simulations, all carried out on a Linux server with 8 CPUs [1].
Table 2: BEM and FEM AML models computation performance comparison
3.3 Results
The analysis of the experimentally acquired test data allows evaluating the effect on the ATFs of the different apertures and of the acoustic treatments applied. As an example, figure 9 illustrates the
comparison between the experimental ATFs measured in configurations 1 and 7 (table 1) for microphone
6 and front source position. The strong effect of the acoustical treatment is quite apparent.
Figure 9: Experimental ATFs, Configs. 1 & 7, frontal source
2320 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2014 INCLUDING USD2014
Only a few results are here reported about the comparison between experimental ATFs and BEM/FEM
AML simulations, many others can be found in References [1] to [3].
Figure 10 and figure 11 show the measured and computed ATFs for configurations 1 and 3, frontal acoustic source position and microphone 4 (i.e. the microphone located on the right face of the engine,
figure 3). In general the correlation is quite good and both simulation models are able to properly represent
the ATFs acoustic field reduction when passing from configuration 1 to configuration 3, i.e. when closing some apertures around the engine bay mockup.
Figure 10: ATFs, Config. 1, FS, Mic. 04 Figure 11: ATFs, Config. 3, FS, Mic. 04
Figure 12 and figure 13 show similar ATFs results for configurations 1 and 7, frontal acoustic source position and microphone 5 (i.e. the microphone located on the frontal face of the engine). Both
simulations are able to represent the acoustic field reduction effect due to the acoustic treatments
application even in the case of a microphone positioned acoustically far away from the acoustic source.
Figure 12: ATFs, Config. 1, FS, Mic. 05 Figure 13: ATFs, Config. 7, FS, Mic. 05
The above comparisons have illustrated that both BE and FEM AML methods are able to capture
accurately the effect of both acoustic trim parts and apertures located in the vicinity of the engine bay.
Moreover some general conclusions and remarks can be drawn from the benchmarking activity carried
out:
• Analyses results indicate that both BE and FEM AML methods correlate quite well with testing,
up to 3.5 kHz. Both are able to reproduce not only the absolute values of the ATFs but also their
variation when a certain aperture is open/closed or a certain acoustical treatment is applied/removed;
MEDIUM AND HIGH FREQUENCY TECHNIQUES 2321
• In general, both for BE simulations and for FEM AML simulations, the computation times for the
configurations without treatments (i.e. configurations 1 and 3) turned out to be substantially longer
than those for the configurations with treatments (i.e. configurations 7 and 11). It seems then that
the presence of acoustical treatments favors the solution’s convergence;
• BE analysis required developing three independent BE models for three different frequency sub-
ranges. The Fast Multipole accelerator available in LMS Virtual.Lab code was indicated to speed
up solution time for the two higher frequency ranges. FEM AML simulations required one single
model only over all the analyzed frequency range and with a constant frequency step;
• FEM AML simulations are in any case much faster than BE simulations, in spite of the fact that
the model is bigger and the number of calculation frequencies is almost double.
CAE innovative approaches
3.4 H-MATRIX BEM
The use of standard BEM techniques limits either the upper frequency or geometric size of the analysis as six elements per wavelength are required in order to achieve good result accuracy. This rapidly increases
the size of the system with respect to frequency [5]. The H-Matrix Boundary Elements Method (H-Matrix
BEM) computes acoustic radiation using a state-of-the-art Hierarchical Matrix BEM solver. It uses recursive matrix storage and compression, based on the low rank approximation.
Figure 14: The benefits of low rank approximation in H-Matrix BEM
Figure 14 illustrates the advantages of using a low rank approximation. It also explains why H-Matrix
BEM efficiently handles medium to large models, with as key benefits:
• Speed: faster computation as it uses matrix compression technology;
• Efficiency: reduces the memory requirements as it uses hierarchical matrix storage and
compression;
• Scalability: multi-load cases handled efficiently with direct solver approach.
In order to define the (column) rank of the approximations, an octree structure is made in which model is
divided in parts/zones by using boxes with the size depending on the acoustic wavelength for each
frequency. This allows to judge which nodes are lying close to each other (this part of the full system matrix allows for fewer reduction) and which sets of nodes can be seen as lying far away from each other
(the part of the full system matrix capturing the influences between these nodes can be more reduced).
2322 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2014 INCLUDING USD2014
The computational effort is reduced from O(n3) with conventional IBEM to O(n*(log2(n))
2) for H-Matrix
BEM where n is the number of unknown variables as can be seen from the graph below (figure 15). The
FMBEM is still a very competitive solver for very large problems [2].
Figure 15: Comparison between conventional BEM, H-Matrix BEM and FMBEM methods
However, H-Matrix BEM seems to be the optimal solver for the mid-sized acoustic models and frequency
range. In the framework of the current paper, this new H-Matrix BEM approach was not yet tested. This
can be part of future work on the engine mockup case.
3.5 FEM Adaptive Order (FEM AO)
A truly breakthrough FEM solver technology is the Adaptive Order (FEM AO) method [6] implemented in LMS Virtual.Lab R12 [5]. FEM AO sets the order of each element in a FEM model and at each
frequency to ensure accuracy. Higher order hierarchical shape functions are used to represent the pressure
inside each element. At order 10, an element can span more than two acoustic wavelengths. As the solver
increases element order, and therefore also the model’s total DOFs number, with frequency, the key benefits are:
• Important savings on time and memory in lower frequencies;
• Models can be built using coarser elements leading to smaller models which are easy and
fast to pre-processor in LMS Virtual.Lab;
• Discretization only needs refinement in order to capture accurately the geometry and
boundary conditions.
Essentially, higher orders are used at high frequencies and/or for large elements and low orders will be
employed at low frequencies and/or for small elements. A conformity rule is applied at the interface
between two FEM AO elements in order to guarantee a variable field continuity through the mesh.
The FEM AO method allows different possible ‘accuracy settings’ in order to control the speed of
incrementing elements order versus frequency. A more accurate result is obtained by a faster increment
even if the additional DOFs make the model slower in the solution phase. The ‘standard’ and ‘coarse’ settings have been considered in this analysis.
The FEM AO method has been applied to the FEM AML model above described (figure 8) and a first
comparative study was carried out for different FEM models created to simulate test configurations 1 and 7 (table 1) with a source in front of the engine bay mockup [4]. A first goal was to see if the computation
time could be further optimized by reducing the meshed fluid volume, the second objective was to find
how much improvement in performance can be obtained by applying the FEM AO method.
MEDIUM AND HIGH FREQUENCY TECHNIQUES 2323
All computations referred to FEM AO were setup in LMS Virtual.Lab Acoustics R12 and carried out on a
Windows 7 Desktop, having 16 cores (2 Intel Xeon processors, 3.1 GHz with each 8 cores) and 256 GB
RAM in total.
3.5.1 Conventional FEM AML models comparison
Figure 16 shows the two meshed volumes used. A first volume is identical to the one used in the FEM
AML models tested for comparison with BEM models, the second one follows the mockup surface more closely in order to minimize the meshed volume and hence reduce the model size. Also note the positions
of the microphones in Figure 16, presented by highlighted yellow dots.
Figure 16: Same FEM AML model as in figure 8 and compared to BEM model (left) ;
FEM AML mesh with smaller optimized volume (right)
Table 3 presents the quantitative overview of the two FEM AML models (left) and computation
performance (right) to be referred to the analyses carried out. We learn from table 3 that optimizing the
FEM AML meshed volume yields 20 GB RAM reduction in memory and shaves off about 20% of the
required computation time. Moreover, no significant loss of accuracy can be noted in the analysis results for the smaller optimized model. As can be seen indeed from figure 17 the deviations from the reference
model results remain within limits (max 3 dB on the peaks) for the full frequency range.
Table 3: Model sizes of the two conventional FEM AML models (left) and computation performance (right)
FEM AML Reference
FEM AML Optimized Volume
Solver Direct Solver Direct Solver
# processes 4 4
# threads/process 4 4
# load cases 1 1
# freqs 1651 (2 Hz � 3500 Hz)
1651 (2 Hz � 3500 Hz)
Peak Memory (Mb all procs)
56800 34600
Time (h) 24.09 18.89
FEM AML (1st order)
16 mm ref. model FEM AML (1
st order)
16 mm smaller volume
# nodes (excl AML) 721589 543920
# elements 4002490 3045251
# field points 6 6
# nr DOFs total 934079 684315
2324 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2014 INCLUDING USD2014
Figure 17: ATFs comparison between reference and smaller optimized FEM AML models
3.5.2 Conventional FEM AML and FEM AO models comparison
Table 4, left lists the sizes of the three FEM AML AO models which were compared in search of a right
balance between reduced computation time and maintained accuracy. For all FEM AO models, the same volume was meshed, albeit each time with a different discretisation. Table 4 mentions the edge sizes
chosen as boundary conditions for a tetrahedron filler meshing algorithm. ‘FEM AO, 35 mm inner, 48 mm
outer’ for instance means that the surfaces representing the mockup, including engine and engine bay
surfaces, have an edge size of 35 mm and the AML and ground surface use a 48 mm edge size.
Table 4: Three FEM AO models characteristics (left) and computation performance (right)
First order elements were used for the meshing and as can be seen from table 4, left the FEM AO models are small in number of nodes used for discretization. Note however that this does not provide information
on the actual number of DOFs used at each frequency. Indeed, FEM Adaptive Order will adjust per
frequency the order of each element to guarantee a given accuracy. This will define the total number of DOFs used for each frequency. Table 4, left lists the maximum model size in its last row when using a
‘standard’ setting for FEM AO accuracy. All models show a maximum number of DOFs higher than that
of the conventional FEM AML model (about 685k DOFs). Note however that this maximum is only reached at the highest frequency. At lower frequencies the FEM AO model will have a lot less DOFs
compared to the conventional FEM AML model. This way we expect most gains in performance.
Table 4, right provides the computational performance for the engine bay mockup configuration 1 (table 1). The time required to cover the full frequency range with FEM AO is about half of the time needed with
conventional FEM AML. The peak memory required to run in-core is significantly higher, but note that
FEM AO 16 mm inner, 48 mm outer
FEM AO 35 mm inner, 48 mm outer
FEM AO 20 mm eng, 40 mm bay, 70 mm outer
# nodes (no AML) 142182 32259 22943
# elements 702753 152516 104098
# field points 6 6 6
# nr DOFs total Max 1581712 Max 940051 Max 743155
Solver FEM AML FEM AO (32k) Standard
FEM AO (32k) Coarse
# procs 4 4 4
# threads/procs 4 4 4
# load cases 1 1 1
# freqs 1651 (2 Hz � 3500 Hz)
1651 (2 Hz � 3500 Hz)
1651 (2 Hz � 3500 Hz)
Peak Memory (Mb all procs)
34600 66000 29200
Time (h) 18.89 9.47 2.39
MEDIUM AND HIGH FREQUENCY TECHNIQUES 2325
this memory requirement is dependent on the number of DOFs and therefore frequency dependent for
FEM AO. In other words, this memory is only required at the highest frequencies.
As far as method accuracy is concerned, test and simulations results are again overlaid in figure 18, showing the results for microphone 3 in configuration 1. The FEM AO model reported is the one
containing 32259 nodes for its mesh (table 3, left & right). This model turned out to bring the right
balance between computational performance gains and accuracy. The match between FEM AO and FEM AML results is prominent. Only in few frequency bands there is a small 2 to 3 dB difference. Also the
match with test results is clearly present for both approaches.
Figure 18: ATFs comparison, FEM AML and FEM AO ‘standard’ models with measurements,
microphone 3 in configuration 1 (left); FEM AO ‘standard’ model considered (right)
Analogous results have been obtained referring to the engine bay mockup configuration 7, being the case
with all the acoustic treatments applied (table 1). Figure 19 presents the results for the same microphone
and source but for this configuration. The results allow drawing similar conclusions as for configuration 1.
Here the model with the mesh containing 32259 nodes was again used.
Figure 19: ATFs comparison, FEM AML and FEM AO ‘standard’ models with measurements,
microphone 3 in configuration 7
For the same mesh, again in order to reduce computation time, another ‘coarser’ setting was used as far as
FEM AO model accuracy is concerned. As the accuracy now needs to be relatively less, the order of each
element will be increased at higher frequencies only compared to the ‘standard’ accuracy setting, meaning
that the FEM AO model will have even less DOFs at all frequencies and will be even faster. The results can be seen in figure 20. Up to 1.25 kHz a very good match is kept with the FEM AO ‘standard’
2326 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2014 INCLUDING USD2014
(accuracy) results, but afterwards deviations were judged to be too large to justify the use of the ‘coarse’
setting for this specific engine mockup scenario.
Figure 20: ATFs comparison, FEM AO ‘coarse’ and FEM AO ‘standard’ models with measurements,
microphone 3 in configuration 7
Table 5 reports the computation performance between FEM AML model and the two FEM AO models for
configuration 7 to be compared with table 4, right and configuration 1. As can be seen, the memory
requirements were of course the same. The gains in computational performance are also clearly there, yet
a bit less prominent compared to configuration 1. Why this seems to be the case can represent a subject of further investigation. The ‘coarse’ accuracy setting even divides the computation time needed with a
factor 4, but as discussed above, this FEM AO model yielded accurate enough results up to 1.25 kHz only.
Solver FEM AML FEM AML AO (32k) Standard
FEM AML AO (32k) Coarse
# processes 4 4 4
# threads/process 4 4 4
# load cases 1 1 1
# freqs 1651 (2 Hz � 3500 Hz)
1651 (2 Hz � 3500 Hz)
1651 (2 Hz � 3500 Hz)
Peak Memory (Mb all procs)
34600 66000 29200
Time (h) 18.95 13.75 3.02
Table 5: Computation performance for FEM AML optimized volume model vs two FEM AO models
with different accuracy, configuration 7
The conclusion clearly still holds, that FEM AO approach reduces simulation time significantly.
3.5.3 Some considerations about FEM direct and iterative solvers
The iterative and direct solver results are overlaid for microphone 3 in configuration 1 in figure 21 for
using a conventional (no adaptive order) FEM approach. At most frequencies a very good match is obtained. It should be noted that the iterative solution did not converge for quite some frequencies. This of
course depends on the convergence criterion used and, as the results between direct and iterative
approaches are very close, we can state that at almost all frequencies the results were close to being
MEDIUM AND HIGH FREQUENCY TECHNIQUES 2327
converged. But this call can only be made by having the comparison with the direct results available or by
monitoring the stabilisation of results for different values of the residue error used in the convergence
criterion.
Figure 21: ATFs comparison between Iterative and Direct solvers, same reference FEM AML model,
front source and microphone 3
On this purpose, one further point that it is worth mentioning here and that, for brevity reasons, could not be detailed in the paper is the importance of the choice of the proper solver, in particular for the FEM
AML simulations. There are several boundary conditions to be considered which will influence the choice
for the right solver:
• One important constraint can come from the hardware available for running the solver. LMS
Virual.Lab SYSNOISE solvers support solving on multiple cores in parallel. In case a run for a
single frequency requires only a limited amount of memory, this means the total simulation time
can be decreased by in parallel solving other frequencies, as many as the number of cores available. With this respect it should be noted that a direct solver requires typically much more
memory compared to an iterative solver, as the direct solvers will factorize the sparsely populated
acoustic system matrix to compute its inverse which is much more populated. This constraint can
favor using an iterative approach when the hardware available has relatively limited in-core memory;
• On the other hand, the number of load cases should be considered as well. In the abovementioned
examples, only one source at a time was used. However, for some applications, like Pass-By Noise for instance, the ATFs need to be computed typically for a number of source or microphone
positions, resulting in a multi load case problem. Whereas an iterative solver will have to restart
for every new load case, a direct solver needs to compute the acoustic system matrix inverse only
once. Therefore an increase in number of loadcases will deteriorate the performance of an iterative solver much more than that of a direct solver.
For now, FEM AO is only available in combination with a direct solver. From above explained reasons it
may be clear an interesting extension for the FEM AO approach would be to enable using an iterative solver. This is currently being investigated.
2328 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2014 INCLUDING USD2014
4 Conclusions
Topic of the present paper consisted, on the one hand on giving an overview of the benchmarking activity carried out between commercially available and validated deterministic simulation methods, namely BEM
and FEM and their implementation, on the other hand on informing the reader about the latest
improvements available in LMS Virtual.Lab R12 code, i.e. H-Matrix BEM and FEM AML Adaptive
Order (FEM AO). All these methods were compared in terms of results accuracy and computation performance and used to simulate the exterior ATFs measured on an engine bay mockup. Such mockup,
while being simple in its external shape, presents all features that generally challenge deterministic
simulation methods and that can be summarized in the coupling between a rather complicated bounded acoustical environment (with small air-gaps and discontinuous acoustical treatments) and an external
unbounded acoustical environment through localized apertures. On top of this, a further complication is
given by the width of the frequency range to be addressed (up to 3.5 kHz).
Results indicate that both the FEM AML method and the BE method correlate quite well with test results,
up to 3.5 kHz. Both are able to reproduce not only the absolute values of the ATFs, but also their variation
when a certain aperture is open/closed or a certain acoustical treatment is applied/removed. Moreover, the methods computational efficiency has been evaluated and compared in detail, mainly for
what concerns result quality, experimental data correlation and run time in order to single out the best
analysis and simulation tool.
Overall, one can conclude that for the simulation of external ATFs the FEM AML method looks more
attractive than the BE method: similar accuracy and much better computational efficiency. In particular,
the very last approach FEM Adaptive Order (FEM AO) developed in LMS Virtual.Lab R12 code shows
very promising results and proves itself to be the best balance between computational performance gains and accuracy. Further investigations can concern testing the promising H-Matrix BEM on the engine
mockup model, as well as an iterative solver with the FEM AO method, whenever it will become
available.
As a final important conclusion we can say that we can rely on the computational methods as being
valuable and efficient tools in the automotive industry in order to face the more challenging targets for
PBN tests and/or optimize power-train exterior acoustic field reduction.
References
[1] A. Bihhadi, C. Bertolini, G. Miccoli, Simulation of exterior powertrain Acoustic Transfer Functions
using IFEM and other deterministic simulation methods, ATZ Automotive Acoustics Conference, Zurigo (2013).
[2] G. Miccoli, G. Parise, C. Bertolini, F. Tinti, Vehicle Exterior Noise Field Analysis Methods &
Simulation Models, ICSV18, Rio de Janeiro (2011).
[3] G. Miccoli, C. Bertolini, A. Bihhadi, Comparative analysis of different deterministic methods for the
simulation of exterior noise acoustic transfer functions, AIA-DAGA Conference, Merano (2013).
[4] K. Vansant, H. Bériot, G. Miccoli, C. Bertolini, An Update and Comparative Study of Acoustic
Modeling and Solver Technologies in View of Pass-By Noise Simulation, 8th ISNVH Conference,
Graz, (2014).
[5] LMS Virtual.Lab R12 User’s Manual (2014).
[6] H. Bériot, A. Prinn, G. Gabard, On the performance of high-order FEM for solving large scale
industrial acoustic problems, ICSV20, Bangkok (2013).
MEDIUM AND HIGH FREQUENCY TECHNIQUES 2329
2330 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2014 INCLUDING USD2014