Acoustic Diffuser Optimization Arqen

University of Victoria
Faculty of Engineering
ELEC 498 - Honours Thesis
THE LEAN OPTIMIZATION OF ACOUSTIC DIFFUSERS:

DESIGN BY ARTIFICIAL EVOLUTION, TIME DOMAIN
SIMULATION AND FRACTALS
Tim Perry
V00213455
Electrical Engineering
[email protected]
Prepared for Peter Driessen
Dec 20, 2011
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ...........................................................................III
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ V
1.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
1.1.
Objective and Scope ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.
Structure....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3.
A brief review of diffusers and diffusion ................................................................................... 2
1.3.1.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 4

2.1.
Maximum length sequence diffusers ........................................................................................... 5
2.1.2.
Quadratic residue diffusers ............................................................................................................ 6
2.1.3.
Primitive root diffusers .................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.4.
Other sequences............................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.5.
Modulation schemes and fractal constructions .......................................................................... 7
2.1.6.
Two-dimensional (hemispherical) diffusers ................................................................................ 9
2.1.7.
Phase optimized Schroeder and stepped diffusers ................................................................. 10
Geometric Diffusers .................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.1.
Curved surfaces............................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2.
Optimized curved surfaces ........................................................................................................... 13
2.2.3.
Fractals .............................................................................................................................................. 15
2.3.
4.
Schroeder Diffusers .................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1.
2.2.
3.
Spatial and temporal Dispersion.................................................................................................... 3
Hybrid Surfaces ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1.
Planar hybrid surfaces .................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.2.
Curved hybrid surfaces.................................................................................................................. 18
THE LEAN DIFFUSER OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM ................................................19

3.1.
Design objectives ...................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.
Feasible approaches to optimal diffuser design .................................................................... 20
3.3.
Practical pitfalls to previous methods of diffuser optimization ............................................ 22
3.4.
Design method .......................................................................................................................... 23
PREDICTION OF SCATTERING USING FINITE DIFFERENCE TIME DOMAIN ............25

4.1.
A finite difference scheme with a Ricker wavelet source ...................................................... 26
4.1.1.
Numerical stability .......................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.2.
Representing a diffusing surface ................................................................................................. 28
4.1.3.
Excitation .......................................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.4.
Receiver Arc ..................................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.5.
Anechoic boundary conditions .................................................................................................... 32
4.2.
5.
6.
7.
A simulation environment built with k-Wave for Matlab ...................................................... 32
4.2.1.
Adapting k-Wave to simulate scattering ..................................................................................... 33
4.2.2.
Flattening the spectral envelope.................................................................................................. 34
MEASURES OF DIFFUSION QUALITY ..............................................................37

5.1.
A diffusion parameter based on the standard error .............................................................. 37
5.2.
The autocorrelation diffusion coefficient ................................................................................ 38
THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF STEPPED DIFFUSERS ........................................40

6.1.
Limitations and considerations for phase grating surfaces .................................................. 41
6.2.
Geometric framework for stepped diffusers........................................................................... 42
OPTIMIZATION ...........................................................................................44
7.1.
Genetic algorithms .................................................................................................................... 44
7.2.
Optimization using an integer genetic algorithm................................................................... 45
7.2.1.
7.3.
Tuning and convergence ............................................................................................................... 46
Optimization results .................................................................................................................. 47
8.
BANDWIDTH EXTENSION VIA FRACTALIZATION ..............................................51
9.
SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DESIGNS ...............................................54

9.1.
Feedback from the specular zone ............................................................................................ 56
9.2.
Performance results .................................................................................................................. 57
9.3.
Analysis of optimized designs at a receiver radius of 5 m .................................................... 58
9.4.
Analysis of fractal designs at a receiver radius of 5 m .......................................................... 62
9.5.
Real-world relevance ................................................................................................................ 67
10. CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................69

10.1.
Enhancements and Future Research ................................................................................... 71
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................73
APPENDIX A
FINITE DIFFERENCE TIME DOMAIN MATLAB CODE .............................76
APPENDIX B
PREDICTION OF SCATTERING MATLAB CODE ....................................77
APPENDIX C
MATLAB SCRIPTS FOR DIFFUSER OPTIMIZATION ..............................78
APPENDIX D
SCATTERED POLAR DISTRIBUTION PLOTS. .......................................79
ii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Prospective Design Approaches.................................................................................. 21

Preliminary Calculations for Phase Grating Diffusers ............................................. 43
Optimization Frameworks .......................................................................................... 47
Optimization Results,.................................................................................................. 48
Framework for Designing Fractal Stepped Diffusers ............................................... 51
Fractal Formations ..................................................................................................... 51
Simulation Frameworks for Full-Scale Analysis ...................................................... 54
Performance of Diffusers at a Receiver Radius of 5m ............................................... 57
FIGURES
Figure 1 The stick room achieves exceptional diffusion, but invites eye injury. ................. 2
Figure 2 Spatial and temporal dispersion generated by a Schroeder diffuser........................ 3
Figure 3 Temporal and frequency response for flat (top) and diffusive (bottom) surfaces..... 3
Figure 4 Scattered pressure from a Schroeder diffuser (left) and plane surface (right). ....... 4
Figure 5 A one-dimensional Schroder diffuser (After Cox and DAntonio [6]). ....................... 5
Figure 6 Cross-section profile through a single period of an N = 7 MLS diffuser. ................. 5
Figure 7 Cross-section profile of an N = 7 QRD (After Cox and DAntonio [1]). .................. 6
Figure 8 A basic aperiodic modulated diffuser. ........................................................................ 8
Figure 9 Effects of periodicity and modulation (After Cox and DAntonio [1]). ...................... 8
Figure 10 The QRD Diffractal by RPG Diffusor Systems. ..................................................... 9
Figure 11 Hemidisk scattering pattern for a one-dimensional QRD (left). ........................... 10
Figure 12 Optimized stepped diffuser for the rear wall of a performance facility................ 12
Figure 13 Process to find an optimal well depth sequence for a phase grating diffuser. ..... 12
Figure 14 Shape optimization process (Source: rpginc.com [3]). ........................................... 14
Figure 15 Fourier synthesis generation of a surface that represents Brownian motion...... 15
Figure 16 Three fractal surfaces generated by Fourier synthesis. ........................................ 15
Figure 17 Fractal generation using randomly displaced step functions. .............................. 16
Figure 18 Assembly of the Binary Amplitude Diffsorber, a planar hybrid surface. ............. 17
Figure 19 Staggered pressure and particle velocity vectors in a FDTD mesh. ..................... 26
Figure 20 Ricker wavelets and their spectra centered on 250 Hz and 2,000 Hz. ................. 29
Figure 21 2D FDTD simulation of an N=17 stepped diffuser excited by a Ricker wavelet. . 30
Figure 22 Simulation domain used for preliminary testing with 180 sensors over 180. .... 31
Figure 23 Near field temporal response to a Ricker wavelet source at normal incidence. .. 31
iii
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
Figure 33
Figure 34
Figure 35
Figure 36
Figure 37
Figure 38
Figure 39
Figure 40
Figure 41
Figure 42
Figure 43
Figure 44
Figure 45
Figure 46
Figure 48
Figure 49
Figure 50
Figure 51
Figure 52
Figure 53
Figure 54
Near field scattering from a randomly generated stepped diffuser...................... 33

Temporal response and spectrum of a diffuser measured at the central sensor. 35
Left: Reference pulse spectrum and response spectrum. ...................................... 36
A genetic algorithms for integer sequence optimization. ...................................... 45
Minimization progress after 1200 scattering predictions for 5 modules .............. 49
Near field FDTD simulation of the optimized array with base shape A1-LF. ..... 49
Standard error (4.5m, 2.5m, ) for an array of optimized base shapes A1-LF. ... 50
Scattered polar distribution for the optimized array with base shape A1-LF. .... 50
Three arrays of N = 7 base shapes with array modulation {1 0 1 1 0}. ................ 52
Three arrays of N = 7 second order fractals with array modulation {1 0 1 1 0}. .. 52
Temporal response and spectrum of A1-Frac, measured at the central sensor. .. 53
Left: Reference pulse spectrum and response spectrum for A1-Frac. .................. 53
Full scale FDTD domain used to simulate the scattering from fractal diffusers. 55
Pressure received at each sensor during simulation of the A1-Frac array. ......... 55
Polar response at 5 m from a reflector the same width as the diffuser array...... 56
Diffusion parameter (10m, 5m, ) for the diffuser array A1-LF. ......................... 59
Diffusion parameter (10m, 5m, ) for the diffuser array B2-LF. ......................... 59
Scattering from the A1-LF periodic array at a receiver radius of 5 m. ................ 59
Scattered polar distribution for the optimized diffuser array A1-LF. .................. 60
Scattered polar distribution for the optimized diffuser array B2-LF. .................. 60
Diffusion coefficient spectra for A1-LF (left) and B2-LF (right). .......................... 61
FDTD simulation of near field scattering from fractal diffusers A1-Frac............ 62
FDTD simulation of near field scattering from fractal diffusers B2-Frac............ 62
....... 63
Scattering from the A1-Frac array. ........................................................................ 64
Scattering from the A1-Frac array (left) and B2-Frac array (right) ..................... 65
Scattered polar distribution for the diffuser array A1-Frac. ................................ 65
Scattered polar distribution for the diffuser array B2-Frac. ................................ 65
Diffusion coefficient spectra for A1-Frac (left) and B2-Frac (right)...................... 66
Diffusion coefficient for L95-Frac (a deep fractal with hazardous barbs). ........... 66
Diffusion coefficient spectra for A1-Frac, B2-Frac, and the RPG Skyline [1]. . 68
iv
ABSTRACT
A simple framework has been developed to optimize acoustic diffusers in reasonable time
without the need for boundary element predictions. The approach combines evolutionary
optimization and time domain simulation to design shallow, profiled surfaces that create a
large amount of diffusion. The lean optimization uses an integer genetic algorithm to find
candidate designs in a low resolution design space. It compares candidates using a finite
difference time domain model to predict diffusion performance. The process has been shown
to produce diffusers that offer an excellent trade-off between performance and compact
geometry. Fractal forms have been generated from these results to extend the bandwidth
over which diffusion occurs. The new optimized and fractal diffusers are compact, modular,
and based on the set of integers between zero and 16. This makes them practical to
simulate with high accuracy using finite difference time domain and simple to construct
using low precision manufacturing.
1. INTRODUCTION
An ideal acoustic diffuser is a surface that causes an incident sound wave from any
direction to be evenly scattered in all directions. Until recently the design of diffusers was
practiced by a few knowledgeable acousticiansyet many enthusiasts and music industry
professionals saw merit in emulating the designs. With the publication of Acoustic
Absorbers and Diffusers (2004), Cox and DAntonio [1] have brought diffuser design
techniques to a larger audience. The result has been an explosion of Schroeder [2] diffusers
in the professional audio marketplace. However, the design of optimized diffusers has
remained the domain of experts; notably, the industrys leading innovator, RPG Diffuser
Systems [3]. It appears that diffuser optimization is avoided by designers and acoustical
engineers because it requires a sophisticated framework. The heart of this framework is a
simulation to predict acoustic scattering. For this a boundary element model is the
naturalbut not always viablechoice.
1.1. Objective and Scope

This work focusses on solving a practical problem that will be called the lean diffuser
optimization problem. The design objective is to answer the following question:
What modular sound diffuser provides an optimal trade-off between uniform scattering and
compact geometry, and how can this surface be discovered without using boundary element
predictions?
Optimal in this context does not mean ideal. It implies that within a given framework,
optimization is used to explore the solution space (the set of candidate solutions) and an
excellent candidate is picked. The quality of the solution will depend on how thoroughly the
optimization process searches the solution space, which will depend on time constraints. In
this work a practical optimization run is generally not expected to find the global optimum.
The design framework will allow a variety of problems to be solved; therefore, the method is
at least as significant as the resulting diffuser designs.
1.2. Structure
Key points from the literature are condensed in Chapter 2. Based on this, the lean
optimization problem and the design method used to solve it are presented in Chapter 3.
1
Chapter 4 covers the implementation of a finite difference time domain model for scattering
prediction, and Chapter 5 presents the measures of diffusion quality used for evaluation.
After preliminary design considerations in Chapter 6, Chapter 7 demonstrates how the
optimization problem was solved using an integer genetic algorithm. The designs are
enhanced in Chapter 8 via the self-symmetry properties of fractals. Finally, in Chapter 9 a
larger scale time domain simulation is used to further assess the optimized designs, and the
results are interpreted to reveal the winning diffuser geometries.
1.3. A brief review of diffusers and diffusion

When designing a room with high quality acoustics, one of the primary goals is to achieve a
diffuse reverberant sound field. Diffusers are used in studios and live music spaces to
prevent specular reflections that would interfere with critical listening (Figure 3), and to
provide a controlled reverberation, or ambience. They are functionally mounted in plain
sight, therefore acousticians are interested in developing designs with various visual
aesthetics to expand the palette of forms available to the end-userperhaps a musician
with a home studio, or an architect who needs a diffuser to blend in with a new building [4].
Forms with a low profile are desired for the lean optimization problem, and forms that pose
obvious hazards to human safety are automatically disqualified. A diffuser shaped like an
array of icicles, for example, would pose an eye hazard when mounted on a wall (Figure 1).
Figure 1 The stick room achieves exceptional diffusion, but invites eye injury.
Most control rooms use significant absorption to create a reflection free zone (RFZ) around
the listener. In contrast, this space at Blackbird Studios uses liberal 2D diffusion to achieve a
level of clarity that may be acceptable for critical listening (depending on ones school of
thought). One-inch square pegs with lengths varying from 6 to 40 inches are used to realize a
design based on the prime number 138,167. (Source: Digizine, 2011) [5]
1.3.1. Spatial and temporal Dispersion

A diffuse reflection is one dispersed in both space (spatial dispersion) and time (temporal
dispersion), as depicted in Figure 2. Diffusers are often designed to have uniform spatial
dispersion, which will conveniently result in temporal dispersion [1]. Temporal variation,
however, does not guarantee uniform spatial dispersion and often introduces colouration to
the frequency spectrum (Figure 3), which may not be desired. An ideal diffuser will generate
both uniform spatial and temporal dispersion over all audible frequencies.
Figure 2 Spatial and temporal dispersion generated by a Schroeder diffuser.

Temporal dispersion (left) can be interpreted from an impulse response plot; spatial
dispersion (right) can be interpreted from a polar plot (After Cox and DAntonio [1]).
Figure 3 Temporal and frequency response for flat (top) and diffusive (bottom) surfaces.
The frequency response is shown for the reflected sound only. The frequency response for the
flat surface is characterized by a high pass filter response, and for the diffuser exhibits peaks
and nulls spaced irregularly with respect to frequency (After Cox and DAntonio [1]).
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter explores existing methods of diffuser design and summarizes their relative
merits. Methods that optimize a surface for uniform scattering are emphasized.
2.1. Schroeder Diffusers

Schroeder diffusers are designed using convenient mathematical principles that allow them
to be constructed as a series of wells separated by thin fins. The wells have equal width and
different depths, with depths determined by a theoretic number sequence. The maximum
well depth and well width are commonly used to define the bandwidth for predictable
dispersionbut in reality, quality diffusion may extend beyond the predicted upper limit
[1].
While commercially successful to date, many acousticians are reluctant to use these designs
as they do not visually complement modern architecture. Additionally, the number
theoretic designs have performance limitations, most notably:
They only achieve optimum dispersion at discrete frequencies.
They are designed based on simplified theory: optimum diffusion means equal
energy in the diffraction lobes [1] . This is not the same as uniform scattered energy
in all directions.
Optimization algorithms can be used to improve the design of Schroeder diffusers, with the
ultimate goal being uniform broadband dispersion.
Figure 4 Scattered pressure from a Schroeder diffuser (left) and plane surface (right).
(After Cox and DAntonio [1])
Figure 5 A one-dimensional Schroder diffuser (After Cox and DAntonio [6]).
2.1.1. Maximum length sequence diffusers

In 1975, Schroeder proposed constructing diffusers based on Maximum Length Sequences
(MLS) [2]. He justified this using a fact from optics theory: the far field scattering can be
approximately predicted by taking the Fourier transform of a surface, thus the power
spectrum and surface scattering are closely related [1]. The MLS was chosen as it has a
flat power spectrum at all frequencies.
One dimensional MLS diffusers consist of strips of material with two different depths,
placed according to an MLS. For example, one period of an N = 7 MLS surface could be
based on the sequence [0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1]. The diffuser shape is represented by a box with
variable admittance on the front surface.
The admittance of the surface is determined from plane wave propagation in the wells,
leading to design equations that relate physical dimensions to dispersion performance.
This makes it straightforward to design a surface that achieves maximum scattering at a
specific frequency.
An octave above the design frequency, MLS diffusers exhibits specular reflection. At this
critical frequency the phase-grating fails because the well depth is half a wavelength,
causing waves to re-radiate with the same phase. To solve this narrow-bandwidth problem,
Schroeder suggested different number sequences, such as the quadratic residue sequence.
Figure 6 Cross-section profile through a single period of an N = 7 MLS diffuser.

2.1.2. Quadratic residue diffusers

Quadratic residue diffusers (QRD) are designed to extend the dispersion characteristics of
MLS diffusers over a wider bandwidth. The QRD achieves optimum scattering at integer
multiples of the design frequency, and generally achieves reasonable dispersion in between
these frequencies [1]. Good dispersion over more frequencies can be achieved by using
orthogonal modulations, resulting in diffusers with two different design frequencies [7,1].
Figure 7 Cross-section profile of an N = 7 QRD (After Cox and DAntonio [1]).
2.1.3. Primitive root diffusers

Primitive root diffusers (PRD) are designed to produce a notch in the scattering response,
with even energy in the other diffraction lobes. Like the QRD, optimum scattering is only
achieved at integer multiples of the design frequency. Unfortunately, the pressure nulls
achieved by the PRD are located elsewhere in the spectrum.
The Cox-DAntonio-modified primitive root diffuser (CDMPRD) is a revised notch diffuser
designed to solve this problem. In effect, the technique introduces a frequency shift: the
reflection coefficients are appropriately aligned around the unit circle at multiples of the
design frequency, resulting in the desired pressure nulls [6,7,1].
It may seem that the PRD is useful in small spaces as a means to minimize the energy
reflected in the specular reflection direction; however, as PRDs only work at discrete
frequencies, they do not make practical notch filters. The PRD does remain useful as a
diffuser, having similar performance to the QRD.
Numerical optimization can be applied to form a broader notch over a wider frequency
range [6]but this is difficult to do. In general, optimization struggles to shape polar
responses, but is successful as a method to achieve uniform dispersion.
Triangles or pyramids can be used to achieve a more broadband notch, but they restrict the
angle of incidence over which for which diffusion is effective [1].
2.1.4. Other sequences

The MLS, quadratic residue and primitive root sequences are not the only suitable
sequences for diffuser design. Other promising sequences include [1]:
Index sequences, which should yield diffusers with similar performance to the PRD,
but with extra absorption.
Short power residue sequences, which under certain conditions can be formed by
undersampling longer primitive root sequences.
The Chu sequence, which will yield similar performance to a QRD.
Optimized sequences.
Promising sequences are those with good autocorrelation properties [1]. If the
autocorrelation function of the reflection coefficients is a delta function, its Fourier
transform will reveal a flat power spectrum. This corresponds to an even scattering
distributionin effect, a good diffuser.
2.1.5. Modulation schemes and fractal constructions

As Schroeder diffusers are periodic, the scattered energy is dominated by grating lobes. A
more even scattering distribution can be achieved by making the diffuser aperiodic or by
increasing the spacing between periods.
Aperiodicity will result from using a long number sequence with good autocorrelation
properties. However, this is rarely a viable design practice because there are few known
large aperiodic polyphase sequences [1]. Moreover, periodicity facilitates modular
manufacturing and cost effective shipping. Aperiodicity does not.
One practical solution is to use a modulation scheme [1,6,7]. Typically, the best choice is to
use a diffuser and its inverse, arranged to achieve aperiodicity (Figure 8).
Figure 8 A basic aperiodic modulated diffuser.

Aperiodic modulation is provided by arranging an optimal binary sequence of the base shape
(binary 1) and flipped shape (binary 0) (After Cox and DAntonio [6]).
Figure 9 Effects of periodicity and modulation (After Cox and DAntonio [1]).
Fractal formations are an elegant solution to periodicity, absorption and bandwidth

problems. High frequency diffusers can be nested within low frequency diffusers, exploiting
the self-symmetry property of fractals to provide full spectrum diffusion within a single
device [8,1].
Figure 10 The QRD Diffractal by RPG Diffusor Systems.

Left: Construction of the Diffractal consists of first and second generation fractals based on
the quadratic residue sequence. Right: Polar scattering response for seven periods of an (a)
QRD and (b) QRD Diffractal at the high design frequency. Simulated using near-field
Kirchhoff diffraction theory (After Cox and DAntonio [9]).
2.1.6. Two-dimensional (hemispherical) diffusers

Thus far only planar devices have been addressed. Planar diffusers scatter incident sound
into a hemi-disc, while two dimensional diffusers disperse sound in a hemispherical pattern
(Figure 11). 2D Schroeder diffusers are constructed using two-planes, each designed for
optimal scattering. One plane scatters in the x-direction, the other scatters in the zdirection, resulting in even lobes in a hemisphere. The device typically takes the form of a
grid, with cavity depths determined by applying the Chinese remainder theorem to fold two
1D sequences into a 2D array [1]. Each 1D sequence should be based on the same prime
number.
As 2D diffusers scatter in two planes they deliver less scattered energy to a receiver than
1D devices, making them less efficient. Additionally, 2D diffusers constructed as a grid
have higher absorption per unit area than their 1D counterparts.
Figure 11 Hemidisk scattering pattern for a one-dimensional QRD (left).

Hemispherical scattering pattern for a two-dimensional QRD (right).
Incident plane wave is at 45 with respect to surface normal (After Cox and DAntonio [9]).
2.1.7. Phase optimized Schroeder and stepped diffusers

Instead of relying on an optimal number sequence with a flat power spectrum, the design of
Schroeder diffusers can be improved by optimizing for uniform scattering directly. This
approach combines multi-dimensional optimization techniques with boundary element
predictions to design phase optimized diffusers (POD) [10].
The first step to optimizing the Schroeder is to remove the fins between the wells, yielding
a simpler, superior design: the stepped diffuser. This simple modification improves
dispersion performance [11] and provides these additional benefits:
Simplified geometry reduces manufacturing costs.
Removal of the resonant wells results in lower absorption.
The optimization process starts by randomly choosing a well depth sequence, then
predicting the scattering and assessing its quality. The goal is to minimize the error
between the predicted scattering and desired scattering. This is done by making
incremental adjustments to the well depth sequence until a figure of merit it satisfied (in
effect, minimizing the error).
To solve the diffuser optimization problem, [1] the following scaffolding must be in place:
1. A model to predict the scattering from a given diffuser design.
2. An error parameter or figure of merit to define the quality of the scattering.
3. An optimization algorithm to change the well depth sequence and search for an
appropriate solution.
10
A boundary element model (BEM) is generally the first choice for scattering prediction in
acoustical design, but there are other options including Fraunhofer models, Fourier models,
finite difference time domain (FDTD) methods and finite element analysis (FEA) [1,12,13].
While a BEM can be slow to compute, the results are accurate. Older studies used
Fraunhofer solutions which offer fast optimization at the expense of solution accuracy
[11,13]. Another approach is to use simple models to narrow in on a solution region, and a
more accurate model to compute the solution.
A single figure of merit for uniform broadband dispersion can be formed from the mean and
standard deviation of the diffusion coefficients across all frequencies. This works as follows
[1]:
The diffusion coefficient at each one-third octave band is computed from the
prediction model [11].
The mean and standard deviation of the diffusion coefficient spectra are calculated.
The standard deviation is subtracted from the mean.
Thus a penalty is applied to the figure of merit, proportional to the unevenness of the
diffusion coefficient spectra. If the predicted diffusion is very uneven across all frequencies,
the standard deviation will be large, and a large penalty will be applied to the figure of
merit.
If the gradient of the figure of merit is known, using it can greatly speed up the
optimization process. In most cases of diffuser optimization the gradient is not available,
therefore suitable optimization algorithms are those that depend only on function values.
Downhill simplex is a natural choice. While slow, it is robust to non-linear
constraints and can be applied to wide range of diffuser optimization problems.
An alternative is to use a genetic algorithm, which requires extra set up as it must
be carefully tuned to a given problem.
Quasi-Newton gradient descent methods are fast, but unreliable when combined
with BEM prediction. These methods rely on approximate gradients, calculated with
finite differences and data retrieved from the prediction model. As a BEM prediction
will exhibit small inaccuracies, there is a high risk of numerical error propagation
that will throw off the gradient.
Minimizing the error between the desired response and the figure of merit involves
searching for the global minimum, or else a suitable local minima in the feasible region (the
11
space of all candidate solutions). As the degrees of freedom increase, the region to search
becomes more complex and the global minimum becomes virtually impossible to findbut
at the same time it becomes less important. Searching for a suitable solution will typically
involve evaluating the scattering a thousand times [1].
Figure 12 Optimized stepped diffuser for the rear wall of a performance facility.
Figure 13 Process to find an optimal well depth sequence for a phase grating diffuser.
12
2.2. Geometric Diffusers

2.2.1. Curved surfaces
Compared with other diffuser designs, curved surfaces have the potential benefit of lower
construction costs and lower absorption. In theory, the cylinder appears to be the perfect
diffuser design [1]; but in practice, a single-cylinder design would be too deep for most
architectural applications.
Convex reflectors based on part of a circlesuch as a semicylinder (ellipse)only disperse
sound well for normal incidence. Better response at oblique incidence can be achieved by
forming an array of semicylinders, or by creating a more complex shape using optimization.
When placed in an array the response from a single cylinder becomes secondary to the
response of the array [1]. For such an array to be effective cylinders must be spaced far
apart, as randomly as possible; otherwise, modulation schemes are required to reduce
periodicity.
2.2.2. Optimized curved surfaces

Curved surfaces can be optimized to meet performance and aesthetic requirements for most
architectural applications. For an optimization algorithm to change the shape of the
surface, the shape is first described as a set of numbers represented by a Fourier series. In
theory, an infinite Fourier series can represent any shapebut for optimization to be
possible, the series must be truncated. 4-6 harmonics are typically used to avoid
unnecessary complexity which would increase manufacturing costs [1].
To achieve an acoustically optimized shape that satisfies physical design specifications,
non-acoustical constraints are typically needed. Three constraint methods are mentioned by
DAntonio and Cox [1]:
Fuzzy constraints check to see if a surface is sufficiently close to constraint points
during optimization. If not, a penalty is applied to the error parameter. Fuzzy
constraints add complexity to the optimization problem, as the error parameter
depends on both scattering quality and shape quality. While this system can be used
to avoid simple physical obstacles, it is inelegant as a means to satisfy a desired
visual aesthetic.
13
A spline construction with linear constraints can be used to simplify the above
problem.
A base shape can be designed from shape variables, and distorted to change the
acoustical performance. The same compression, modulation and warping techniques
used in image processing can be applied to distort the surface while preserving
desired visual characteristics.
The shape optimization process is given in Figure 14. Downhill simplex is typically used as
it is robust to non-linear constraintsbut the resulting search process is slow, and may
require many trials with different starting locations [14].
Figure 14 Shape optimization process (Source: rpginc.com [3]).
All optimized curved diffusers tested by Cox and DAntonio [1] performed at least as good as
tan arcs of a circle. In general, these surfaces have the best dispersion performance of all
diffuser designsprovided that periodicity can be avoided. Periodicity may be dealt with by
using a modulation scheme if diffusers are arranges in arrays, or by constructing a single
large surface.
14
2.2.3. Fractals
High quality dispersion can be achieved by constructing fractal surfaces that simulate
fractional Brownian motion. Fractional Brownian diffusers (FBD) constructed using
Fourier synthesis result in complex surfaces governed by many shape parameters [8]. Such
surfaces may be manufactured using extrusion, but due to the many shape variables it is
not practical to optimize them for best diffusing performance.
Figure 15 Fourier synthesis generation of a surface that represents Brownian motion.

By extrusion, the surface can be manufactured into a fractional Brownian diffuser, or FBD
(After Cox and DAntonio [1]).
Figure 16 Three fractal surfaces generated by Fourier synthesis.

Input noise: (a) Brown noise; (b) Pink noise; (c) White noise (After Cox and DAntonio [1]).
Fractal generation using step function addition

A series of randomly displaced step functions can be used to generate a fractal surface that
simulates Brownian motion. This enables the number of parameters defining the surface to
be reduced, and therefore the use of optimization techniques. True Brownian motion would
require an infinite number of superimposed step functions, each having random amplitude
and a random displacement along the width of the diffuser (the x-axis of Figure 17).
15
Figure 17 Fractal generation using randomly displaced step functions.

(a) 20 step functions. (b) 10 step functions. (c) 1 step function (After Cox and DAntonio [1]).
Tanh Addition Diffusers

Step function addition may generate surfaces that exhibit specular reflection. To avoid this
problem, functions with smoother transitions are typically used. Tanh Addition Diffusers,
also called Random Addition Diffusers (RAD), use the sum of many hyperbolic tangent
functions to form surfaces that can be optimizedwith excellent results [1]. The optimized
fractal surfaces can achieve comparable performance to optimized curved surfaces, and
better performance than the arc of a circle for random incident sound. Surprisingly, under
certain conditions this fractal generation technique will yield a semicircular surface [8].
2.3. Hybrid Surfaces

Hybrid surfaces achieve variable impedance by using patches of absorptive and reflective
material. These diffusers can be designed with excellent dispersion characteristics, but
their applications are limited as they cannot be designed for minimum absorption. In
environments that require simultaneous control of absorption and diffusion, hybrid
surfaces offer attractive benefits:
Manufacturing is simple and cheap.
Hybrid surfaces have a shallow profile compared with other diffusers.
Treatment can be easily hidden to blend in with any environment.
Optimization gives complete control over the reflectivity [15].
2.3.1. Planar hybrid surfaces

The Binary Amplitude Diffsorber (or BAD panel) by RPG is a flat hybrid surface
constructed from a porous absorber faced with a perforated mask (Figure 18). Such panels
16
are often highly absorptive up to about 2 kHz, thus only the dispersion performance over
mid-to-high frequencies needs to be considered [16,1].
One-dimensional sequences
To maximize dispersion in a one-dimensional hybrid diffuser, the surface binary elements
are distributed based on an optimal binary sequence with good autocorrelation properties
[1,17]. Potential sequences include the MLS, 1D optical sequences, 1D ternary and
quadriphase sequences [18,19].
Unfortunately, existing number sequences offer few choices for absorption coverage. For
example, the MLS gives a panel open area of about 50%, which is generally more absorption
coverage than desired. To solve this problem, numerical optimization is typically used to
find a family of discrete sequences with low mutual cross-correlation. These are then
concatenated together to form a longer sequence. Searching for this family of sequences is a
discrete optimization problem, best solved using a genetic algorithm on sequences of length
N < 48, or an exhaustive search when N < 20 [1,15].
Two-dimensional sequences
RPG developed a method to design hemispherical scattering hybrid surfaces by using the
Chinese Remainder Theorem to fold 1D sequences into 2D arrays, while preserving the good
autocorrelation and Fourier properties [16]. It is also possible to construct optimal binary
sequences on a hexagonal array pattern [1].
Figure 18 Assembly of the Binary Amplitude Diffsorber, a planar hybrid surface.

Porous absorber (left), reflective mask (middle), and optional fabric covering (right).
Improving the Binary Amplitude Diffusor

Payne-Johnson, Gehring and Angus suggest that there is an opportunity to improve the
BAD design, proposing an easily manufactured surface using small variable-size square
panels [20]. The size of these panels would be determined using an M-sequence, and they
would be grouped in such a way that diffusion is preserved despite periodic effects. This
17
may be done with modulation techniques [20], similar to those used for arrays of Schroeder
and curved diffusers.
2.3.2. Curved hybrid surfaces

Specular reflections are attenuated, but not eliminated when using flat hybrid surfaces.
Curvature can be incorporated into the design to break up specular reflections, resulting in
a surface with similar absorption to the BAD panel, but greatly improved dispersion.
Curved hybrid surfaces are welcome guests in listening rooms and recording studio control
rooms, as they enable the sweet spot to be spatially expanded [1]. In applications where
moderate absorption is acceptable, they may compete with other diffuser designs: for
example, a curved hybrid surface can be designed with one quarter the depth of a rigid
optimized curved surface, and achieve dispersion of almost the same quality [1].
18
3. THE LEAN DIFFUSER OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM

This work focusses on solving an established problemdiffuser optimizationin a new
practical context: The lean diffuser optimization problem places material and time
constraints on the researcher and requires that the diffuser design method is simple. The
bulk of the work was to implement a lean optimization framework, and with it solve the
problem:
What modular diffuser provides an optimal trade-off between uniform scattering and
compact geometry, and how can such a surface be designed without using boundary element
predictions?
3.1. Design objectives

Specifically, a successful diffuser design must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be shallower than existing profiled diffusers, with comparable or better
broadband diffusion performance.
2. It should be modular, and designed to disperse sound optimally when modules are
arranged an array.
3. It must be economical to manufacture and distribute.
4. The geometry must not pose obvious hazards to human safety.
5. The design method should utilize high quality scattering predictions, but it should not
require a custom boundary element implementation 1.
6. Optimization must produce a suitable design within a reasonable solution time.
7. The design should be suitable for application on the back wall of a small-to-medium
sized recording studio control room, where the purpose is to disperse first reflections
from a hypothetical sound wave arriving at zero degrees incidence 2.
8. The design method should also be applicable to solving a larger problem: optimizing
a surface for uniform scattering of an incident wave from any direction.
1
2
There was a tight time frame on this project, and limited tools were available.
This is a simplifying assumption.
19
3.2. Feasible approaches to optimal diffuser design

Numerous design methods were covered in the literature review, but not all are viable or
worthwhile. Table 1 summarizes the various methods of designing a diffuser using
numerical optimization. For any of the non-hybrid diffuser design methods, the minimum
requirements to design a diffuser optimized for uniform scattering include:
1. A validated model for scattering prediction, such as a BEM or FDTD simulation.
2. A figure of merit or error parameter.
3. An implementation of the optimization problem, typically using downhill simplex to
perform the minimization.
For numeric theory Schroeder diffusers and hybrid diffusers, a discrete optimization
problem can be formed to search for a theoretically optimal number sequence with good
autocorrelation properties. While this is a logical approach for the design of hybrid diffusers
with customized absorption, it may have little merit for Schroeder diffuser design because
optimal number sequences such as the quadratic residue sequence are already available.
Moreover, the above approach is based on an approximate theory: it assumes that a number
sequence with a flat power spectrum will yield optimal scattering. The current work does not
make that assumption; and will instead use a design-by-simulation approach.
Rigid optimized curved surfaces generally have the best performance potential, and hybrid
surfaces are blessed with simplified construction and a neutral aesthetic. However, the
diffusers that most naturally facilitate efficient scattering with minimal absorption are
Fractal Schroeder and stepped diffusers.
Phase optimized stepped diffusers.
Tanh addition diffusers.
The above designs approaches have a common objective: to achieve optimal diffusion by
simulating a rough surface based on many instances of a simple, repeatable unit (e.g., a
step function). Because they are related, these design approaches might use a similar
framework for simulation and optimization.
20
Table 1 Prospective Design Approaches

Diffuser
Optimization Approach
Design
Analysis
Advantages
Disadvantages
Methods
Method
Numeric
Theory
Schroeder
Diffuser
Search for a sequence with

minimum side lobe energy in its
autocorrelation.
BEM,
Thin panel
BEM,
Kirchhoff,
FDTD, FEA.
Elegant design equations.

Optimization can be used
to improve the theoretical
designs, particularly those
with few wells per period.
Fractal construction can
increase bandwidth [21].
Visual appearance may

conflict with room
aesthetics.
Phase
Optimized
Schroeder
or Stepped
Diffuser
Manipulate the well depth series to

minimize the standard deviation of
the polar response. Check progress
with boundary element predictions.
Gradient is typically not available.
Minimization with N degrees of
freedom (e.g. N = 7, 36). Typical
techniques: downhill simplex,
genetic algorithm, quasi-Newton.
BEM,
Kirchhoff,
FDTD, FEA.
Uniform scattering is
optimized directly, resulting
in designs with better
dispersion than numeric
theory diffusers.
Potentially straightforward
to simulate using FDTD.
Computational cost.
Requires boundary element
or FDTD predictions during
optimization [10], [3].
Rigid
Optimized
Curved
Surface
Manipulate the surface design

using either
a) Fuzzy constraints (inelegant).
b) Distortion applied to shape
variables (superior) [1].
Use a standard minimization
technique like downhill simplex,
with many different starting
locations [14].
BEM,
Kirchhoff,
FDTD, FEA.
Simple geometry affords

lower construction costs
and lower absorption.
Best diffusion performance
potential (requires a
modulation scheme, unless
the surface is very large).
Customizable aesthetics.
Much deeper than

comparable performing
curved hybrid surfaces.
predictions during
Fractal:
Enable optimization by using a sum

of tanh functions to reduce the
number of parameters defining the
surface. Alter shape coefficients
using a standard routine like
downhill simplex [8].
BEM,
Kirchhoff,
FDTD, FEA.
For random incident

sound, the fractal performs
better than the arc of a
circle [1].
Performance of an
optimized fractal is
comparable to an
optimized curve [1].
No improvement over
optimized curved
surfacesfractals often
have inferior dispersion.
predictions during
Random
Addition
Diffuser
(RAD)
Hybrid Diffusers
Planar
Hybrid
Surface:
1-D or 2-D
Binary
Amplitude
Diffuser
(BAD)
Improved 2D BAD
using
variable-size
Discrete optimization of an N
length sequence. For N < 20, an
exhaustive search is possible. For
20 < N < 48, a genetic algorithm
can be used. To create longer
sequences, concatenate several
optimized sequences with low
mutual cross-correlation [15,18,1].
BEM (2-D
analysis).
For 3-D
polar
balloons,
must use
thin panel
periodic BEM
[1].
FDTD, FEA.
Low cost.
Shallow profile.
Treatment is hidden.
Optimization gives
complete control over the
reflectivity.
Often highly absorptive up
to about 2kHz, thus only
mid-to-high frequency
dispersion needs
consideration [1].
Optimization is slow, and

not possible for long
sequences.
Optimal design is not
straight forward: requires
deriving a family of
number sequences,
concatenating sequences
into arrays and modulating
to minimize periodicity.
Patented design process.
Further improve the variable

square size panel proposed in [20].
For an N-length number sequence
with M different square sizes to
BEM,
FDTD, FEA.
Fourier
analysis was
Potentially better
performance than existing
BADs.
Optimization is slow, and

not possible for long
sequences.
If N is fixed, adding more
21
square
panels
choose from, there are NM degrees

of freedom. Using modulation
techniques on a family of optimized
number sequences, there is the
potential to position many small
variable sized panels.
used for 3-D

polar plots
in [20], but it
is only valid
for far field
scattering.
Curved
Hybrid
Surface
Potential approaches:
a) Optimize the curvature shape for
low frequency diffusion; use a preoptimized number sequence for the
hybrid surface coverage.
b) Use a simple curvature with
excellent diffusion (e.g., semicylinder) to break up specular
reflection; use custom-optimized
number sequences to control midto-high frequency dispersion.
c) Custom-optimize both shape
and number sequence [15].
BEM,
FDTD, FEA.
square size options results

in exponentially more
degrees of freedom. If the
number of square sizes is
fixed while N is increased,
the degrees of freedom
grow geometrically.
Curve breaks up the
specular reflection found in
flat hybrid surfaces.
Can be designed with one
quarter the depth of a rigid
optimized curved surface,
and achieve dispersion of
almost the same quality
[1].
The use of custom

optimizations greatly
complicates the design
process.
Advanced design
technique with little
literature publically
available.
3.3. Practical pitfalls to previous methods of diffuser optimization

Previous approaches to optimal diffuser design do not address the need for high quality
design using simple to implement tools. Designs based on theoretical optimal sequences are
simple, but less transferable to the real world than designs found via physical modeling. A
superior design approach should optimize for uniform scattering directly using the desired
performance as a figure of merit. This way, form directly follows function.
Phase-optimized diffusers are an example of form following function. However, they can
only be designed when one has access to (or resources to implement) an optimization
framework that includes accurate scattering prediction. A BEM is the standard prediction
method, but it is not simple or quick to implement. Finite difference time domain is
attractive from an implementation perspective, but at the time of this writing it is
computationally unfeasible and will result in enormous solution times when applied to the
standard phase-optimization problem.
The standard diffuser optimization method, as utilized by Cox [11], is to perform a highresolution search of the solution space to find an optimal set of well depths, typically using
downhill simplex. Cox defined solutions using 200 possible well depths with a resolution of
1 mm. If this problem is set up on a simple FDTD domain, with no special considerations
it is computationally ridiculous. This provided partial motivation for the lean optimization
problem.
22
3.4. Design method

Agile prototyping was the strategy: iterative design, frequent testing. Rapid feedback was
needed, thus the lean optimization framework arose out of practical necessity. It started as
an FDTD simulation and evolved into a design system. It uses high resolution scattering
predictions (FDTD) to evaluate candidates, but searches for solutions over a low resolution
domain using an intrinsically parallel search method (the integer genetic algorithm). The
resulting solutions are convenient, low-natural number sequences (e.g., zero to16).
The design process utilizes trial and error feedback where appropriate. Most of this
feedback is handled by numerical optimization; however, the designer must ensure that the
system is working by interpreting visualizations of the available data. Additionally, the
finite difference time domain simulation provides intuitive, real-time visual feedback.
The stepped diffuser: a simple geometric template

Stepped diffusers are simpler in form, and perform better than traditional Schroeder
diffusers [1,11]. While traditional Schroeder diffusers are visually controversial, finless,
optimized stepped diffusers may have more universal appeal because of a well-known
principle: beauty in design stems from purity of function. If the form follows function
principle holds true, a wall that intuitively looks like it is designed to scatter sound will
have greater public acceptance than a strange looking wall without obvious function.
Lastly, the design principle Occams razor can be used to establish bias: of two diffusers
with equal performance, the simpler design is generally the better choiceand easier to
simulate.
A simple geometric template like the stepped diffuser can be placed in a modulated array,
then optimized to design large diffusive surfaces based on smaller units. Additionally,
design based on a common shape is potentially iterative, for example:
Based on test results, optimization constraints can be quickly implemented by the
designer, making the optimization process interactive.
A stepped diffuser can be designed for a specific bandwidth, and then potentially
updated to a fractal formation with expanded bandwidth. This technique combines
optimization with Schroeder diffuser design theory. Optimization can be carried out
on a single level of the fractalor, if the scattering simulation is efficient, the entire
fractal geometry can be simulated while the optimization algorithm manipulates
the base shape of the fractal.
A 1D stepped diffuser can be optimized, then updated to a 2D stepped diffuser using
the Chinese remainder theorem.
23
A finite difference time domain prediction model: practical to implement

For stepped surfaces, a finite difference time domain (FDTD) simulation is practical to code
from scratch and facilitates high quality predictions during the optimization process.
However, FDTD is computationally intensive compared with a BEM. The choice of FDTD is
justified in Chapter 4.
An evolutionary algorithm: intrinsically parallel
Rather than searching for a single optimal diffusing surface, this work is concerned with
generating designs that offer an excellent trade-off between uniform scattering and compact
form factor. The design approach benefits from an intrinsically parallel optimization
algorithm that enables the solution space to be thoroughly explored. It follows that an
evolutionary algorithm is preferred over downhill simplex. Specifically, an integer genetic
algorithm is the logical choice (justified in Chapter 7) due to practical constraints that arise
when using FDTD simulation.
Iterative design-by-simulation: interactive and flexible

The design approach can be described as iterative design-by-simulation applied to an array
of geometric templates. The optimization is constrained such that solutions will be stepped
diffusers (or fractals based on stepped diffusers). However, the overall design approach is
interactive and relies on feedback from a human designer. Design proceeds as follows:
1. Develop and test a finite difference time domain simulation framework.
2. Implement a parameter that measures the quality of diffusion achieved by a
simulated surface. This is the objective function to be optimized.
3. Define preliminary constraints for the diffuser geometry based on a) the simulation
framework and b) the design equations for Schroeder diffusers.
4. Develop, test and tune the optimization framework.
5. Perform optimization on modules in an array.
6.
Feedback. Revise the design framework using an iterative process of cyclic

prototyping. E.g., change the number of variables, number of modules, array
modulation, well width, constraints on the well depths, etc.
7. Generate fractal forms based on the stepped diffusers with the best performance.
The main goal here is to extend the bandwidth over which diffusion occurs.
8. Simulate and assess the results.
9.
Feedback and iterative design.

24
4. PREDICTION OF SCATTERING USING FINITE

DIFFERENCE TIME DOMAIN
For optimization based on uniform scattering to work, a model that predicts the scattering
had to be developed and refined. Because the model needed to communicate with the
optimization routine, it was not viable to rely on standalone acoustical simulation software
for predictions. Instead, the prediction model was implemented as a Matlab function that
can be called during optimization. The two processes are linked to form a design-bysimulation framework.
The typical modern approach to scattering prediction is to employ a boundary element
model (BEM); however, given the time constraints on this work it was not feasible to
develop a BEM from scratch. A finite difference time domain (FDTD) simulation has been
implemented instead, offering practical benefits:
FDTD is straightforward to code from scratch.
FDTD gives accurate results [22], particularly near the specular reflection angle.
Time domain simulation gives real-time visual feedback. At a glance the animated
FDTD mesh can reveal problems such as numerical dispersion, and acoustical
patterns such as grating lobes. This makes both designing surfaces and debugging
code more intuitive.
While frequency domain BEMs compute scattering at discrete frequencies, FDTD
allows a wide frequency range to be excited by a single pulse, resulting in more data
per prediction. Additionally, the temporal response is obtained directly by recording
the scattered pressure at a desired location on the mesh. FDTD may be the most
efficient way to gain reflected impulse responses, making it natural to evaluate the
temporal dispersion 3.
Having only recently become a feasible method of evaluating acoustic scattering,
FDTD has seen limited use compared with BEMs. This trend is expected to change
because FDTD can simulate a largely unexplored class of problems: time variant
systems.
The interpretation of temporal dispersion data is not well established; therefore, this work
evaluates diffuser performance in terms of spatial dispersion. The study of temporal
dispersion using FDTD is a future research opportunity.
25
The main weakness of FDTD is that the entire simulation domain must be meshed, and the
space between mesh nodes limits the geometry of the diffuser and maximum frequency that
can be represented. As the size or resolution of the domain increases, the size of the mesh
increases, and the solution time increases by orders of magnitude. For a square domain of
mesh nodes, it was found that doubling the number of grid points
containing
increased the solution time by a factor of about 20.
If the goal is to simulate the reflected pressure in the far field, the near field to far field
transformation (NFFFT) combined with absorbing boundary conditions can be used to
reduce the computation time of FDTD. This work does not consider far field scattering
therefore the NFFFT was not employed; however, an absorbing boundary condition in this
case perfectly matched layers (PMLs)was crucial. Without PML boundaries a huge FDTD
grid would have been required, and simulation times would inflate by orders of magnitude.
For direct comparison with the BEM predictions of Cox and DAntonio [11,14,1], diffusers
would need to be optimized on a FDTD mesh slightly larger than 5 m x 10 m, with a mesh
spacing of 1 mm. This was not computationally feasible. Instead, the domain size and
resolution were varied depending on the application (see Table 2, Table 3 and Table 7). The
resulting FDTD model can be used to accurately assess scatteringbut only for surfaces
that can be represented as a rigid wall on the finite difference mesh.
4.1. A finite difference scheme with a Ricker wavelet source

This section outlines the two-dimensional FDTD scheme used to simulate acoustic
scattering. The Matlab implementation is given in Appendix A.
Figure 19 Staggered pressure and particle velocity vectors in a FDTD mesh.

26
FDTD is a numerical method that sees widespread use in computational electrodynamics.

The method has been adapted to acoustics based on the conservation of momentum and
continuity equations. FDTD models these using central-difference approximations to the
space and time partial derivatives.
Central differences minimize the significance of higher order terms in the discretized
partial derivatives, making the computation less prone to numerical error and therefore
more robust. The sound pressure and particle velocity are formulated on staggered
spatial grids in a Yee lattice (also known as a leapfrog scheme), resulting in an explicit time
stepping scheme that avoids the need to solve simultaneous equations.
Figure 19 illustrates how the pressure vector component in the Yee lattice is located
midway between a pair of velocity vector components. The mesh for the particle velocity in
the plane is shifted by /2 with respect to the pressure mesh, and the mesh for the
component of the velocity is shifted by /2. Additionally, the particle velocity time meshes
are shifted by /2 with respect to the pressure mesh.
This work utilizes a 2D FDTD scheme as the groundwork for scattering prediction. The
central finite difference approximations to the pressure and particle velocity are
implemented using the following update formulations [1]:
(4.1)
(4.2)
(4.3)
where superscripts denote the time index and subscripts denote the spatial indices,
are the mesh spacing in the and directions,
is the time step between
= 1/
is the bulk modulus of the medium having density .
computations, and
and
27
4.1.1. Numerical stability

Numerical stability requires that the time step be small enough to describe acoustic wave
propagation. This is enforced using the Courant criteria, where the Courant number, , is
defined in 2D as
(4.4)
Additionally, on a mesh with discretization step size , the maximum frequency that can
be accurately simulated is restricted by
/10 [1]. The highest frequency of interest for
predicting room acoustics is typically about 5,500 Hz (the upper end of the 5 kHz one-third
octave band), calling for a mesh spacing of 6mm. In this work, mesh spacing was chosen to
be 10 mm for low frequency design and 2.85 mm for high frequency design 4, therefore the
maximum frequencies that can be simulated are 3440 Hz and 12,070 Hz, respectively. For
these two discretization sizes, the Courant condition (Eq. (4.4)) required that the sampling
frequency be no less than 48.7 kHz and 171 kHz, respectively.
4.1.2. Representing a diffusing surface

The diffusing surface was modeled as a perfectly rigid wall occupying desired coordinates
on the mesh. At those points the particle velocity was set to zero for the duration of the
simulation. Another approach is to use an impedance boundary condition that relates the
pressure to the particle velocity normal to the surface. An acoustic impedance function can
simulate geometries that do not snap directly to the mesh nodes; however, this may be
problematic for complex surfaces as the time-domain acoustic impedance may not be a
causal function [23].
4.1.3. Excitation
Three methods of pulsed excitation were tested on the FDTD domain: Gaussian pulses,
Ricker wavelets and disk displacement initial conditions. In preliminary testing, the Ricker
wavelet (also known as a Mexican hat wavelet) was found to offer the widest bandwidth
Mesh spacing was chosen based on diffuser geometry, discussed in Chapter 6.

28
without causing visible numerical dispersion artefacts on the mesh. Ricker wavelets are
particularly useful because they do not introduce significant frequency components near
DC. Gaussian pulses are acceptable; however, they contain the greatest energy at DC which
can potentially introduce non-physical artefacts. For example, large-amplitude frequency
components near DC might be resonant with the mesh.
The Ricker wavelet is equivalent to the second derivative of the Gaussian function and has
. The basic form of a
spectral content fixed by a single parameter, the central frequency
Ricker wavelet is
(4.5)
This wavelet is not zero for < 0, therefore a transient can be expected at = 0. To reduce
the transient caused by activating the wavelet a temporal delay, , was applied. As can
be any desired amount it was set using trial and error, but for convenience it can be
. This results in a time shifted wavelet like those
expressed as an integer multiple of 1/
shown in Figure 20. The wavelet was implemented in Matlab by applying the following
update to the pressure mesh at a point (xcor,ycor), while incrementing the time step :
p(xcor,ycor) = -sqrt(2)*pi*fcent*((sqrt(2)*pi*fcent*(n-t0)).^2 - 1) ...
*exp(-0.5*(sqrt(2)*pi*fcent*(n-t0)).^2);
Figure 20 Ricker wavelets and their spectra centered on 250 Hz and 2,000 Hz.
The wavelets have been time shifted to reduce transients at t = 0 (after Redondo
. [22]).
29
Figure 21 2D FDTD simulation of an N=17 stepped diffuser excited by a Ricker wavelet.
4.1.4. Receiver Arc

To obtain a polar representation of the scattered pressure, the response over the pressure
mesh is recorded at many points on a semicircle. For a desired receiver radius , the arc is
approximated so that lattice points on the semicircle correspond to nodes on the FDTD
mesh. This allows the array of sensors to be efficiently implemented, but the approximation
must be done carefully so that sensors are evenly distributed. Figure 22 illustrates that
with an arc radius of 250 grid steps, 180 sensors can be placed with nearly equal spacing.
Higher accuracy is achieved when the radius is increased to 500 grid steps. The highest
resolution simulations were those performed on fractalized diffusers, in which sensors were
arranged on an arc with a radius of 1938 grid steps (corresponding to 5 m). The Matlab
function arclattice.m was created to arrange sensors on an arc and is included in Appendix
A.
The pressure is read at each sensor for the duration of the simulation, yielding a collection
of temporal response vectors (Figure 23). This data is then processed using the methods in
Chapter 5 to reveal the quality of diffusion.
30
Figure 22 Simulation domain used for preliminary testing with 180 sensors over 180.
Left: a single period of an N=7 diffuser. Right: An array of N=7 asymmetric diffusers in the
aperiodic modulation [1 0 1 1 0]. The excitation source is depicted as a red point.
Figure 23 Near field temporal response to a Ricker wavelet source at normal incidence.
Sensors are distributed on a 90 receiver arc, such that the incident pulse is first received
by the central sensor (at 0 from the normal), and the reflected response is first received by
the outside sensors (located at 90). The surface is an N = 17 stepped diffuser.
31
4.1.5. Anechoic boundary conditions

An anechoic environment was needed to enable scattering predictions with reasonable
solution times. Without absorbing boundary conditions, propagating waves reflect off the
boundaries of the mesh and interfere with ongoing data collection. Elimination of these
reflected waves called for the use of perfectly matched layers (PMLs), which are regions of
lossy medium that pad the interior of the boundaries.
A PML applies attenuation gradually to minimize the significance of discretization errors.
The attenuation factor is set to zero inside the integration area and increases near the
boundaries according to the expression
(4.6)
When PMLs are necessary the elegance of FDTD is compromised. Consequently it was not
viable to continue building a robust FDTD prediction model from scratch, because the focus
of this work was to design diffusers using lean optimization.
4.2. A simulation environment built with k-Wave for Matlab

The complications of PML prompted the search for an existing Matlab implementation, and
an excellent solution was found: k-Wave, a free Matlab toolbox for the time-domain
simulation of acoustic wave fields [24]. k-Wave places a level of abstraction between the
numerical implementation (in this case FDTD with a PML) and the simulated physical
environment. Using k-Wave as the scaffolding for simulation, an environment has been
built to evaluate acoustic scattering and visualize the process. This prediction model can be
run as a function during optimization (in which case it will display an animation and return
a single-valued broadband diffusion parameter), or as a script when detailed analysis needs
to be performed. Appendix B contains the Matlab code.
32
4.2.1. Adapting k-Wave to simulate scattering

Adapting k-Wave to the scattering problem required special considerations. To define a
diffusing surface, a mask was created over part of the simulation domain with different
material properties than air. k-Wave has a function to set the properties of a propagation
medium, designed to be used for tissue realistic acoustics, ultrasound and photoacoustics.
Realistically, the density of a solid object like a diffuser is much higher than that of air, and
because the particles are closer together, sound propagates through the diffuser faster than
it does through air. If these properties are set literally, the Courant criteria (Eq. (4.4))
requires that the FDTD mesh spacing be tiny, and given the size of the domain (meters) the
resulting simulation becomes computationally unfeasible. Fortunately, propagation of
sound inside the diffuser is of little concern for this work. The density was simply specified
to be that of air throughout the domain, and to make the diffuser mask reflective the speed
of sound at those points was set arbitrarily close to zero (1x10-9 m/s). This is not the same as
setting the particle velocity to zero, as was done in Section 4.1; however, on a macro scale
the resulting scattering was indistinguishable.
The Ricker wavelet pulse was implemented in k-Wave by defining a custom time-varying
source. Without full access to the k-Wave time series, specifying a suitable amplitude pulse
required scaling the Ricker expression. It proved more reliable to produce a short duration
pulsed excitation by setting a point displacement initial condition on the mesh. This was
the excitation method of choice when optimizing diffusers.
Figure 24 Near field scattering from a randomly generated stepped diffuser.

The excitation pulse was created using a point displacement initial condition.
33
4.2.2. Flattening the spectral envelope

At a given sensor, the sound pressure level (SPL) spectrum L p ( f ) can be obtained from the
fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the pressure p(t ) :
where P0 = 20 10- 6 Pa (RMS) is the threshold of human hearing. p(t ) is a time-varying

quantity with positive and negative values, thus the pressure spectrum P ( f ) is divided by
2 to get the quadratic mean (RMS value).
Regardless of the excitation method, the bandwidth of the pulse is limited by the mesh
spacing and the spectrum is not flat. Consequently the temporal response (Figure 25) is not
identical to the impulse response, and the frequency spectrum of the scattered pressure
does not equal the frequency response. While optimization can function without knowing
the true frequency response 5, it is more intuitive to check that the model works when the
visual representation of an even response matches the human expectation of even looking.
A rough correction of the response spectrum was applied to assist visualization. First, an
inverse envelope was created from the SPL spectrum of a reference incident pulse, L p,ref ( f ) .
To isolate the spectral envelope from undesired local fluctuations, pseudo-Gaussian
smoothing was applied to the reference pulse spectrum. This consisted of three passes of a
moving average filter with a width of 10 FFT bins. The reference was also normalized to
have a maximum magnitude of unity. The inverse envelope, H ( f ) , is simply the inverse of
the smoothed normalized pulsed spectrum:
Diffusers are evaluated using the statistical criteria in Chapter 5.

34
For any sensor
on the receiver arc, the SPL spectrum of the scattered response L p (q, f
can be approximately flattened through multiplication with the inverse envelope:
L p (q, f ) = H ( f ) L p (q, f )
This deconvolution yields an approximate frequency response suitable for visualization (
Figure 26), but not for critical analysis. The deconvolution assumes that propagation losses
are equal at all frequencies, which is false. Sound propagating in air experiences
atmospheric effects that causes high frequencies to be absorbed more than low. The amount
of absorption depends on the temperature and humidity, which the FDTD scheme can
model by adjusting the sound speed and density in the medium. Consequently the high
frequencies are undercompensated by the inverse envelope. A more suitable reference
spectrum might be created from a pulse that has propagated the same distance as the
reflected wave front, so that each will have experienced similar attenuation upon reaching
the sensor. Another concern is that the smoothed reference pulse does not perfectly align
with its original spectral envelopeand when the original is multiplied with the inverse
envelope, a small amount of amplitude distortion appears in the flattened spectrum. A less
noise-prone method of flattening the spectrum is Wiener deconvolution, which finds an
optimal compromise between inverse filtering and noise smoothing.
Figure 25 Temporal response and spectrum of a diffuser measured at the central sensor.
35
Figure 26 Left: Reference pulse spectrum and response spectrum.

Top right: inverse envelope. Bottom right: response spectrum flattened by inverse envelope.
36
5. MEASURES OF DIFFUSION QUALITY
5.1. A diffusion parameter based on the standard error

For optimization to be viable the scattering pressure distribution needed to be reduced into
a single merit of diffusion. Cox developed and tested several diffusion parameters based on
the standard errors for all frequencies, source locations and receiver arcs [11,14]. Minor
anomalies arose when the standard error was calculated via intensities, therefore a revised
diffusion parameter evaluates the standard error using sound pressure levels: [14]
85
(rs , r , f )
85
Lp ( r , ) L p ( r , )
n ( n 1)
dB
(5.1)
L p (r , )
where
log
1
n
85
10 Lp ( r ,
85
is the number of reciever angles in 180 and L p (r , ) is the mean value calculated
via intensities.
(rs , r , f ) is the standard error for each receiver arc radius , source position
and frequency . This formula assumes that the sound pressure level is viewed and
heard on a roughly linear perceptual scale. According to equal loudness contours, the
assumption is most valid for high sound pressure levels (>80 dB) between 300 Hz and 1000
Hz.
To ensure that the standard error is dominated by the general envelope rather than local
fluctuations, spatial averaging was applied to the response prior to computing Eq. (5.1).
This was accomplished using a sliding average filter with a width equal to the number of
sensors 6 in 10. An alternative approach is to smooth the frequency spectrum (e.g., by
averaging in one-third-octave bands). When using an FDTD model the FFT can be readily
computed from the temporal response, therefore smoothing the spectrum is a viable
alternative to spatial averaging.
For a receiver radius of 250 grid steps, a dense sensor mask was used with 39 sensors per 10. For
a receiver radius of 500 grid steps it was possible to create a sparse sensor mask with sensors spaced
by roughly 1.
37
The mean diffusion can be obtained by averaging the standard error for all frequencies,
source locations and receiver arcs. However, there may be cases where poor diffusion at a
particular frequency or angle is compensated for by excellent diffusion at another frequency
or angle. To penalize these cases, a standard error of the standard errors is added to the
mean. The result is a single-valued broad-band diffusion parameter, :
2
m(m 1)
m
j 1
w j rs , r , f
rs , r , f
(5.2)
1
m
m
j 1
w j rs , r , f
rs , r , f
where m is the total number of frequencies, incident angle and receiver arcs, each having a
standard error
and a weighting function w j rs , r , f
rs , r , f
[14]. The weighting
functions may be used to assign relative importance to certain source positions, frequency
ranges or receiver arcs.
In this investigation, optimization was performed for a single receiver radius and source
position, with the weighting functions set to unity. Therefore, Eq. (5.2) can be simplified
and represented in terms of n frequencies [11]:
2
n(n 1)
n
i 1
(5.3)
1
n
n
i
j 1
5.2. The autocorrelation diffusion coefficient

There are various statistical approaches to calculating a diffusion coefficient; however,
because these methods involve data reduction they are prone to inaccuracies [1]. The
autocorrelation diffuser coefficient has proven to be the most reliable method to compare
diffusion between devices that were tested under different conditions.
38
While autocorrelation is typically used to reveal self-similarity between a signal and a

delayed version of itself, it is used here to evaluate the spatial similarity of the scattered
energy. High values in the spatial autocorrelation function indicate that a surface scatters
sound uniformly to all receivers; low values indicate that a surface is concentrating
reflected energy in one direction [1]. The autocorrelation diffusion coefficient for a fixed
source position was implemented as
90
10
Lp
/10
90
90
90
10
90
n 1
90
10
Lp
/10
Lp
/10
(5.4)
where are the set of sound pressure levels arriving at each receiver (sensor) in decibels, n
is the number of receivers arranged on a semicircle, and is the angle of incidence. The
above equation requires an equal angular spacing between each receiver. This was
approximated by using a radius of 250+ grid steps, with each receiver location rounded to a
point on the grid that approximately intersects a semicircle.
Eq. (5.4) was evaluated in one-third octave bandwidths which results in a smoothed
coefficient characterized by the spectral envelope 7.
At low frequencies the surface acts like a point source due to the increased prominence of
edge scattering, resulting in a diffusion coefficient that increase as the frequency
approaches zero. As this behavior can cause confusion, a normalized diffusion coefficient
can be used to remove it. The normalized diffusion coefficient was calculated by first
applying Eq. (5.4) to the test surface, yielding , and to a reference flat surface of equal
size, yielding
. From
and
the normalized diffusion coefficient was computed as
dy ,n =
dy - dy ,r
1 - dy ,r
(5.5)
In Chapter 9 the diffusion coefficient spectra is shown for several surfaces.

39
6. THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF STEPPED DIFFUSERS

Meaningful constraints were needed to help formulate the optimization problem. Given a
desired specificationin this case the operational bandwidth and the number of wellsthe
design equations for Schroeder diffusers were used to determine the viable range of well
depths and widths.
Application of this design theory requires that plane wave propagation (propagation in one
dimension) dominates in the wells. Based on this assumption, the upper frequency of
diffusion is conveniently related to the well width:
min
c
2 f max
(6.1)
is the shortest wavelength to avoid cross-modes in the wells,

where is the well width,
is the upper limit of dispersion based on this basic design theory. This limit is used
and
only as a guideline for preliminary design, because in practice diffusion will occur above
[1]. This is especially true for stepped diffusers, as the plane wave propagation theory
is greatly compromised by removing the fins between wells.
The quadratic residue sequence was used to estimate a practical range of depths based on
the desired design frequency. First, the sequence numbers for a QRD were calculated using
sn
n 2 modulo N
(6.2)
where
is the sequence number for the
well and N is a prime number. For an N = 7
= {0, 1, 4, 2, 2, 4, 1}. The objective was to design an optimized stepped diffuser, not
QRD,
a QRD; therefore, only the maximum and minimum sequence numbers were used. Well
depths for a Schroeder diffuser are determined from the sequence numbers using
dn
sn 0
2N
(6.3)
where
is the design wavelength. It follows that a Schroeder diffuser has well depth that
vary between 0 and /2. These limits were exploited as constraints for the optimization
is flexible, the depth of the diffuser was limited to
problem. While the maximum depth
40
an accepted standard for the sake of aesthetics and production feasibility. Additionally, this
depth constraint speeds up the optimization.
The design frequency,
Schroeder diffuser:
, was taken to be the lower limit of controlled diffusion for a
smax c
N 2d max
f0
(6.4)
Quadratic residue diffusers are designed to have optimum diffusion at integer multiples of
; however, the bandwidth is limited because the QRD behaves like a plane reflector at
frequencies
where = 1,2,3 [1]. At these critical frequencies, all well depths are
integer multiples of half the wavelength, thus all wells re-radiate in phase. It follows that
is less than the first critical
to design a QRD, and must be chosen so that
frequency, . This condition can be written as a constraint on :
c
2wf 0
(6.5)
6.1. Limitations and considerations for phase grating surfaces

A practical implication of Eq. (6.5) is that for a given design frequency, the well width can
only be reduced if is increasedbut doing so increases the complexity of the optimization
problem and the geometry. Eq. (6.5) also implies that for a given design frequency there is a
minimum repeat width for one period of the diffuser ( ). If made too narrow, will be
.
governed by the period width instead of by
The design theory relies on grating lobes generated by periodicity in a surface, thus a
Schroeder diffuser must be periodic to exhibit optimal dispersion [1]. Conversely, too many
periods cause narrow grating lobes with large nulls in between, resulting in uneven
scattering. The best design based purely on Schroeders theory will consist of an array of
about five periods [1]. An alternative is to use modulation schemes to form an array, which
is a general technique that is not restricted to Schroeder diffusers.
If the diffuser wells are too narrow the viscous boundary layer becomes significant, causing
the absorption of the device to increase. The minimum practical well width to avoid this is
about 2.5 cm, with 5 cm being a more typical choice [1]. For narrow-welled designs, it is
expected that absorption will be less severe for the typical stepped diffuser. Stepped
41
diffusers lack dividers between wells, and thus present less bounding surface to a plane
wave at normal incidence.
/ . For Schroeder diffusers, the
The low frequency efficiency depends on the ratio of
choice of prime number is limited by low frequency performance, critical frequencies and
manufacturing considerations. For stepped diffuser optimization, the choice of is also
governed by computational constraints. In this case corresponds to the number of wells
and is not required to be a prime number.
6.2. Geometric framework for stepped diffusers

Preliminary geometries to optimize were formulated using Eq. (6.1) - (6.5). Geometries are
named according to their scale:
Module A-LF refers to a single period of a structure to optimize with a low design
frequency (for these purposes, < 800 Hz is considered LF).
Array A-LF refers to multiple periods of Module A-LF in a modulated array.
Module A-HF refers to the second stage of a fractal based on Module A-LF.
A first order structure is any module or array with a LF design frequency.
A fractal refers to a nested structure with both a LF and HF design frequency.
The choices were narrowed as additional practical constraints were introduced:
1. Each discrete unit length or width must be an integer multiple of the FDTD grid
step size; otherwise, the geometry will be rounded to the nearest point on the grid.
Physical dimensions were chosen carefully so that the first generation module and a
second generation fractal may be placed on a common grid and simulated within a
reasonable time frame.
2. The number of wells must be sufficiently small to allow fractal formations in a
small form factor. This will enable a simple, compact diffuser with a wide
bandwidth.
42
Table 2 Preliminary Calculations for Phase Grating Diffusers 8

Identifier for
No.
Well
Max
Round to
Design
Max
Module
Total
Total
single period
wells
width
depth
grid step
freq.
freq.
width
depth
bandwidth
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(Hz)
(Hz)
(mm)
(mm)
(Hz)
60
160
10
614
2867
420
205.6
~19450
180
~19370
240
~16700
220
~7850
of geometry
Module A-LF
Base Struct.
Module A-HF
2nd Stg. of
Fractal
Module B-LF
Base Struct.
8.57
45.6
2.85
2155
20067
60
60
140
10
702
2867
420
Module B-HF
2nd Stg. of
Fractal
8.57
40
2.85
2457
20067
60
Module C-LF
Base Struct.
70
200
10
491
2457
490
Module C-HF
2nd Stg. of
Fractal
10
40
2457
17200
70
Module B-LF
Base Struct.
140
140
10
702
1229
980
Module B-HF
2nd Stg. of
Fractal
20
70
1229
8600
140
This work focussed on the framework shown in bold. The other frameworks were used for
preliminary testing.
43
7. OPTIMIZATION
Optimization was performed using five modules in an array with aperiodic modulation. As
there is a trade-off between the pitfalls of periodicity (nulls in the polar response) and the
benefits (symmetrical scattering), the optimization problem has been set up to determine
whether the best array is periodic with a symmetrical base shape or aperiodic with an
asymmetrical base shape. The aperiodic modulation {1 0 1 1 0} was used where 1 denotes
the base shape and 0 denotes a flipped version. For symmetrical modules the array
naturally becomes periodic with modulation {1 1 1 1 1}. If the best base shape is known to
be symmetrical, the optimization can be greatly sped up by exploiting symmetry to reduce
the number of variables.
With only 16 discrete well depths to choose from the optimization problem called for mixed
integer programming, therefore downhill simplex and gradient descent methods were not
suitable. The mixed integer programming problem is non-deterministic polynomial-time
hard (NP-hard), which implies that there is no efficient algorithm known to solve it. In this
work the objective function is the (nonlinear) scattering prediction model, while the solution
space is the set of all possible well depth combinations. N = 7 yields a solution space of 16
= 268,435,456 candidate solutions; consequently, converging to a solution within reasonable
time required a minimization algorithm that could be tuned to this particular nonlinear,
mixed integer problem. The integer genetic algorithm (GA) was the natural choice.
7.1. Genetic algorithms

Genetic algorithms are based on natural selection. They modify a population of individuals
(solutions) through multiple generations. To create each new generation the algorithm
randomly selects individuals from the current population to breed, producing the children
for the next generation. Given multiple generations the population evolves toward an
optimal solution. Figure 27 describes the optimization processes for a genetic algorithm
adapted to mixed integer programming.
Three operators are used to create the next generation from the current population at each
step:
Selection chooses which parents will survive and contribute to the next generation.
Crossover represents mating; it derives children from parents.
44
Mutation applies random modifications to individual parents to create children.

Genetic algorithms are intrinsically parallel: they have multiple offspring that can search
the feasible region (design space) in multiple directions simultaneously, such that a feasible
region can be explored with a reasonable chance of finding the global optimum. If a dead
end is found, genetic algorithms can eliminate it and continue exploring. In contrast, most
minimization algorithms are serial and only traverse the design space in one direction at a
time, stopping when they find an apparent solution or hit a dead end.
Figure 27 A genetic algorithms for integer sequence optimization.

(Modified after Cox and DAntonio [1])
7.2. Optimization using an integer genetic algorithm

Optimization was performed across a range of frequencies that roughly span the 10dBbandwidth of the excitation pulse. This will be called the diffusion band. 12 discrete
frequencies were chosen for optimization, distributed quasi-randomly in the diffusion band.
The response spectrum was characterized by a 4096 point FFT, and the optimization
frequencies were the FFT bins centered on {102, 250, 449, 574, 700, 824, 949, 1102, 1250,
1450, 1700 and 1950 Hz}. This sparse set of FFT bins was chosen in an effort to clearly
define the optimization objective, aid in visualizing progress and perhaps speed up
45
convergence 9. When the goal is to optimize for twelve specific frequencies (rather than all
frequencies), the disparity between good solutions and average solutions is higher and
results can be compared more meaningfully. Moreover, Cox found that optimization at
seven frequencies [11] was sufficient to achieve good dispersion over the entire bandwidth.
To emphasize the importance of the lower-mid frequencies, the range 400-1250 Hz received
the highest density of optimization frequencies. Another option is to optimize across all FFT
bins in the diffusion band, assigning relative weights to each bin when solving Eq. (5.2).
7.2.1. Tuning and convergence

Tuning genetic algorithms to find an appropriate population size and mutation rate was
time consuming. On a 512 x 512 FDTD mesh, each scattering prediction took about 2
minutes on an i7 2600K desktop processor. A typical optimization run took about 40 hours
during which the scattering was evaluated 1200 times with the goal of minimizing the
single-valued broadband diffusion parameter . Given that the solution space contained
over 260 million candidates, the algorithm was considered to be well tuned if it made
process toward an apparent local minimum while maintaining a diverse population.
When the population size was too small (e.g., 20) the genetic pool would quickly become
dominated by a few individuals and the algorithm would converge prematurely to a local
minimatypically resulting in a poor quality solution. With a large population size the
solution space was explored more thoroughly; however, progress toward a minima was
slower. A suitable balance was found by setting the population size to 40, resulting in 30
generations per 1200 function evaluations (Figure 28). For the integer GA, a thorough
search of the solution space would require a larger population size and number of
generations, say, 100 and 300 respectively. This is possible, but the optimization would take
over a month with the given set up.
Test runs provided insight on what additional constraints might assist convergence. In
early testing all well depths were constrained to integer multiples of the mesh spacing,
denotes the maximum integer value (typically 16). The two outside well depths
where s
were later constrained to integers between s
/2 and s
. This prevents the algorithm
from searching undesired forms that were expected to exhibit particularly poor scattering
It was hypothesized that convergence might be fastest for a problem with narrow criteria;
however, this was not confirmed.
46
and a deep profile. One intention was to avoid concave forms which have a focussing rather
than a dispersing effect.
Table 3 Optimization Frameworks

Framework
No.
Well
No.
Minimization
FDTD model
name
wells
width
depths
algorithm
parameters
(mm)
Frequencies
optimized
parameters
Preliminary
Tuning
Setup
7+
(solo
module)
60
20
Design
Setup
Op250M
7
(solo
module)
60
14
7
(x5 in
array
60
16
Design
Setup
Op250
Sensors
[10110])
Meta-heuristic
GA, DE, PSO 10
Population: 20+
Grid xDim: 256

Grid zDim: 256
Grid step: 10 mm
Source: 2.2 m, 0
Radius: 1.25 m
Angle: 85
Quantity: 335
All FFT bins

between
100-1950 Hz
Integer GA
Population: 40
Tol Function:
1e-3
Grid xDim: 512

Grid zDim: 512
Grid step: 10 mm
Source: 4.5 m, 0
Radius: 2.5 m
Angle: 85
Quantity: 667
12 FFT bins
between
100-1950 Hz
Integer GA
Population: 40
Tol Function:
1e-4
Grid xDim: 512

Grid zDim: 512
Grid step: 10 mm
Source: 4.5 m, 0
Radius: 2.5 m
Angle: 85
Quantity: 667
12 FFT bins
between
100-1950 Hz
7.3. Optimization results

Optimization results were collected over three weeks, which involved numerous runs of the
integer GA using design frameworks Op250M and Op250 (frameworks are outlined in
Table 3). The default optimization run relied on about 1200 scattering predictions; however,
early runs using framework Op250M were limited to 800 scattering predictions. Diffusers
were optimized at a receiver radius of 2.5 m using a pulsed excitation at 4.5 m and normal
incidence. The best performing shapes were also tested using a full-scale scattering
simulation (see Chapter 9) to ensure excellent scattering at a radius of 5 m with a source at
10 m 11. Due to the large number of runs, only the best results are presented in Table 4.
Before utilizing the integer GA, tuning was performed on a meta-heuristic global optimizer that
combines the GA, differential evolution (DE) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) to increase the
likelihood of finding the global optimum [34]. This optimizer, when modified for use with integers,
had comparable performance to the integer genetic algorithm. While the meta-heuristic optimizer is
expected to outperform the GA for problems with larger populations [34], the integer GA was
preferred for this work due to its relative simplicity.
10
In the literature, diffusers performance is typically assessed at a receiver radius of 5 m with a

source at 10 m [1].
11
47
The best result found using array-based optimization is the symmetrical base shape named
A1-LF, having well depths of {13 9 8 10 8 9 13} cm. Figure 28 shows the progress toward
this optima, where the goal was to minimize the penalty value . The mean penalty for the
population did not converge to the best penalty value, indicating that the integer GA
maintained a diverse population throughout the 30 generations. While true convergence
was not achieved, Figure 28 shows significant minimization progress followed by a plateau
in both the best value and mean value of . This was the preferred method of finding a
solution using only 1200 scattering evaluations. A better solution might be found by letting
the optimization process run much longer until it converges.
Table 4 Optimization Results 12,13

Result
Framework
No.
Well
Effective
name
used to
wells
width
array
obtain result
A1-LF
Design Setup
Op250
(integer GA)
(cm)
7
Depths and
Diffusion
resulting heights 14
param.
Significance of this result
(cm)
11111
13 9 8 10 8 9 13
9.7553
(in array)
Best symmetrical base shape

found via optimization in the
array [1 0 1 1 0].
9.7707
(in array)
Best asymmetrical base shape

found via optimization in the
array [1 0 1 1 0].
0453540
A2-LF
Design Setup
Op250
(integer GA)
B1-LF
Design Setup
Op250M
(integer GA)
10110
13 12 7 4 6 11 12
0169721
1 (solo)
10 6 3 4 3 5 10
9.4861
(solo)
0476740
B2-LF
Analysis
Setup 15
Sim250
10110
10 6 3 4 2 5 9
0476851
N/A 16
Of the top ten base shapes

found via solo optimization (no
array), this shape maintained the
best performance when later
placed in the array 1 0 1 1 0.
The above shape was mutated
into several asymmetric shapes
via input from a human
designer. Each candidate was
tested in the array 1 0 1 1 0,
and the winner was selected.
Depth sequences shown in bold represent the best designs, particularly when converted to fractal
formations. These designs are fractalized in Chapter 8 and further analyzed in Chapter 9.
12
The diffusion parameter depends on the scattering prediction model set up, and can only be used
to compare results that have an identical simulation set up. Side-by-side test results and a universal
comparison using the autocorrelation diffusion coefficient are given in Chapter 9.
13
14
To minimize the depth, heights are offset such that lowest step is flush with the diffuser base.
15
See Table 7 for details on the FDTD simulation framework used for full-scale analysis.
This result was obtained using the full scale FDTD simulation framework Sim1 from Table 7,
therefore the diffusion parameter is not directly comparable to the others in Table 4.
16
48
Figure 28 Minimization progress after 1200 scattering predictions for 5 modules

in an array with modulation [1 0 1 1 0]. The goal was to minimize the penalty value, .
Figure 29 Near field FDTD simulation of the optimized array with base shape A1-LF.
The solution A1-LF is of special significance because it has a much shallower form factor
than previously optimized stepped diffusers. An N=7 stepped diffuser optimized by Cox had
well depths spanning a 15 cm range [11]; A1-LF has an operational depth of 5 cm. The low
value of , computed using Eq. (5.3), can be visually understood by examining Figure 30.
The standard error at a 2.5 m receiver radius for a source at 4.5 m
is denoted as
(4.5m, 2.5m, ), or shorthand as ( ). Figure 30 shows that the standard error, when scaled
with the inverse envelope, has a relatively flat spectrum. Additionally, the local
fluctuations in ( ) are not severe, therefore the variance in ( ) is acceptably low.
Moreover the mean value of ( ) is small compared with other diffusers. Since the mean
and variance of ( ) are both small, the single-value broadband diffusion parameter is
small.
49
It follows that because is small, the scattered response is relatively uniform throughout
the diffusion band. Figure 31 confirms this; however, because the A1-LF array is periodic
grating lobes contribute peaks and nulls to the scattered polar distribution. This effect is
further analyzed in Chapter 9.
Figure 30 Standard error (4.5m, 2.5m, ) for an array of optimized base shapes A1-LF.
has been scaled by the inverse envelope, and is shown at each FFT bin (red line).
Optimization frequencies are indicated with an o.
Figure 31 Scattered polar distribution for the optimized array with base shape A1-LF.
The scattering is shown at one optimization frequency (1250 Hz) and five others. Results
were obtained via FDTD prediction with a 2.5 m receiver radius and a source at 4.5 m, 0.
50
8. BANDWIDTH EXTENSION VIA FRACTALIZATION

Fractal formations have been used as an elegant way to extend the bandwidth of the
optimized diffusers. This required a higher resolution FDTD mesh, which in turn expanded
the bandwidth of the excitation pulse (Figure 35). Based on the pulse spectrum, the
diffusion band spans 100-5100 Hz. Diffusion throughout the band is assessed in Chapter 9.
The top performing base shapes have been converted to fractal form according to the
specifications in Table 5. In addition, a fractal formation was created from a stepped
diffuser that was optimized by Cox [11]. This diffuser from the literature will be named
L95. L95 was not precisely reproduced on the limited-resolution FDTD mesh; therefore,
quantitative performance comparisons with L95 are avoided. L95 has been useful as an
intuitive reference when comparing animated FDTD simulations. Here, it is simply a
geometric reference.
Table 5 Framework for Designing Fractal Stepped Diffusers

Type of geometry
No.
Well width
Round to grid
Max freq.
Module width
wells
(mm)
step (mm)
(Hz)
(mm)
Base Shape
60
10
2867
420
2nd Stage of Fractal
8.57
2.85
20067
60
Table 6 Fractal Formations
17
Fractal
Base
Base shape depths and
2nd stg step
HF dsgn
Base shape
name
shape
heights 17 (mm)
heights (mm)
freq. (Hz) 18
depth (mm) 19
(mm)
A1Frac
A1-LF
B2Frac
B2-LF
L95Frac
L95
[11]
130 90 80 100 80 90 130
Tot. depth
0 11.4 14.25 8.55

14.25 11.4 0
6897
60
61.25
0 11.4 19.95 17.1

22.8 14.25 2.85
4311
90
112.80
2299
158
200.75
0 40 50 30 50 40 0
100 60 30 40 20 50 90
0 40 70 60 80 50 10
168 20 55 48 55 20 168
0 42.75 31.35 34.2

31.35 42.75 0
0 148 113 120 113 148 0
To minimize the depth, heights are offset such that lowest step is flush with the diffuser base.
The resulting design frequency for the second stage of the fractal has been calculated using Eq.
(6.4). This quantity was not used in design; it is simply a predictor of gaps in the diffusion spectra.
18
19
The base shape depth includes a 10 mm deep base to enable mounting on a wall or ceiling.
51
Figure 32 Three arrays of N = 7 base shapes with array modulation {1 0 1 1 0}.

Base shapes A1-LF (top), B2-LD (middle) and L95 (bottom). L95 is a close approximation of a
stepped diffuser optimized by Cox [11].
Figure 33 Three arrays of N = 7 second order fractals with array modulation {1 0 1 1 0}.
Fractal formations A1-Frac (top), B2-Frac (middle) and L95-Frac (bottom).
The geometry of each fractal reveals whether or not the design is appropriate for practical
use. L95 is clearly not suitable as a base shape for a fractal. It looks particularly jagged
because the fractal framework with a 2.85 mm grid step (designed in Chapter 6) creates an
elongated second stage. The framework has been designed to facilitate FDTD simulation
not to preserve the height-to-width ratio of the base shape. The resulting formation, L95Frac, would protrude 200 mm out of the wall, exposing long barbs that could seriously
52
injure a person upon collision. Additionally, the deep, narrow wells increase the significance
of the viscous boundary layer, making the fractal subject to higher absorption at high
frequencies. Conversely, it is the depth of these wells that gives L95-Frac a suitable HF
design frequency (2299 Hz), theoretically suggesting a smooth transition between the LF
and HF diffusion bands (Chapter 9 refutes this). The other fractal diffusers are safer, lower
profile and easier to manufacture; however, as they have a high HF design frequency (Table
6) they may introduce gaps between the LF and HF diffusion bands.
Figure 34 Temporal response and spectrum of A1-Frac, measured at the central sensor.
Figure 35 Left: Reference pulse spectrum and response spectrum for A1-Frac.
Top right: inverse envelope. Bottom right: response spectrum flattened by inverse envelope.
53
9. SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DESIGNS

A compact simulation domain with a receiver radius of 2.5 m was used during optimization.
This was based on the assumption that the diffuser would typically be used in a small-tomedium sized recording studio control room. However, Eq. (5.1) (used to calculate )
requires that the receiver radius is significantly larger than the diffuser width [14].
In the literature diffusion is typically measured at a receiver radius of 5 m with an
excitation source at 10 m. This is the setup called for by the diffusion coefficient standard,
AES-4id-2001 [25]. For real-world measurement, AES-4id recommends 36 microphones
spaced 5 apart over a 90 arc. For predictions using a BEM, Cox [14] used 54 sensors per
receiver arc, distributed over 85.
Table 7 Simulation Frameworks for Full-Scale Analysis

Framework
FDTD mesh
Excitation
Name
parameters
Pulse
Sensors 20
Frequencies
Solution time using
tested
i7 2600K processor
5m
85
1337
90
180
All FFT bins

between
100-1950 Hz
20 min
Sim500
based on
AES-4id2001 [25]
xDim: 1100
zDim: 1024
dx,dz: 10mm
Distance: 10 m
Angle: 0
Magnitude: 1
Radius:
AngleA:
NumSensorsA:
AngleB:
NumSensorsB:
SimF250
Fractal forms
near field
testing
xDim: 1796
zDim: 1796
dx,dz: 2.85mm
Distance: 4.5 m
Angle: 0
Magnitude: 1
Radius:
AngleA:
NumSensorsA:
AngleB:
NumSensorsB:
2.5 m
85
2343
90
180
All FFT bins

between
100-5100 Hz
2 hr 45 min
xDim: 4098
zDim: 4098
dx,dz: 2.85mm
Distance: 10 m
Angle: 0
Magnitude: 1
Radius:
AngleA:
NumSensorsA:
AngleB:
NumSensorsB:
5m
85
4685
90
180
All FFT bins

between
100-5100 Hz
22 hr
SimF500
Fractal forms
analysis
based on
AES-4id [25]
In this work a 10 m x 11 m FDTD domain has been used to analyze the performance of the
most promising designs. The new simulation frameworks, Sim500 and SimF500 (Table 7),
are based on AES-4id-2001 [25]. Sensors on the FDTD mesh cost next to nothing, therefore
at least 180 receivers were used for all simulations. However, a side effect of fitting the
receiver arc to a rectangular grid is that as more sensors are added, they become less evenly
spaced. To ensure uniform spacing, only 180 sensors were used when measuring the
For generating polar plots, the sensor arc consisted of NumSensorsA receivers over the angular
range AngleA. For computing the autocorrelation diffusion coefficient, NumSensorsB evenly spaced
receivers were used over the angular range AngleB.
20
54
autocorrelation diffusion coefficient. In contrast, the polar plots were produced using the
detailed scattered response captured from a dense array of sensors.
Figure 36 Full scale FDTD domain used to simulate the scattering from fractal diffusers.
Figure 37 Pressure received at each sensor during simulation of the A1-Frac array.
55
9.1. Feedback from the specular zone

Figure 38 shows the scattering from a plane reflector the same width as the diffuser array.
When the receiver radius is 5 m, geometric reflection is received between 15. This is the
specular zone. As the receiver arc shrinks, the specular zone widens, and Eq. (5.1) becomes
less valid as a means to measure the standard error,
(rs , r , f ) . For large surfaces (e.g., a
wall) the specular zone can be as much as 90, and a different diffusion parameter is
necessary [14]. AES-4id-2001 recommends that 80 percent of receivers are outside the
specular zone [25,1].
A good polar response can be recognized by understanding that a diffuser should disperse
energy from the specular zone to other positions. When compared to diffusers, the plane
reflector has a poor polar response on the Sim500 domain. This suggests that Eq. (5.1) is
valid at the 5 m receiver radius: its use can be justified because the 15 specular zone is
small compared to the 85 receiver arc. Specifically, 82.4 percent of receivers are outside
the specular zone, which complies with AES-4id-2001. Finally, this knowledge can be used
as feedback to assess the design method: If diffusers tested at a 2.5 m receiver radius retain
their relative performance ranking at the 5 m radius, then it supports the case that
1.
Eq. (5.1) was valid during optimization.
2.
Diffusion at a 2.5 m receiver radius may function as a rough predictor of

performance at the 5 m radius.
The results in Table 4 and Table 8 are consistent with these arguments. Likewise, all other
diffusers that were compared retained their relative performance ranking at the 2.5 m and
5 m radius. While the results support the above arguments, the sample size was too small
to confirm a strong trend.
Figure 38 Polar response at 5 m from a reflector the same width as the diffuser array.
56
9.2. Performance results

Table 8 compares the performance of selected diffusers that were tested using a 5 m
receiver radius. The best diffuser should have the smallest single-value broadband diffusion
parameter, . This is the same parameter that optimization sought to minimize at a 2.5 m
receiver radius. The mean autocorrelation diffusion coefficient for a 0 incident source is
denoted . A good diffuser should have a larger value for .; however, this is not a reliable
pays no attention to the evenness of the diffusion spectrum (this will
metric. Unlike ,
be shown shortly).
Table 8 Performance of Diffusers at a Receiver Radius of 5m 21

Diffuser
Simulation
Array
Framework
Well depths
Diffusion
Mean
Significance of this
based on the
param at
diffusion
diffuser
5m,
coeff,
sequence
A1-LF
11111
13 9 8 10 8 9 13
4.9786
0.4716
B2-LF
Sim500
10110
10 6 3 4 2 5 9
4.9873
0.5107
L95
Sim500
11111
17 2 6 5 6 2 17
5.1029
0.4039
Stepped
QRD
Sim500
11111
10110
0 4 16 8 8 16 4
5.0970
5.2207
0.4810
0.4466
QRD diffusers typically

have fins between the
wells. This one is finless.
A1-Frac
SimF500
72
11111
13 9 8 10 8 9 13
2.3238
0.5728
Fractal form of A1-LF.
B2-Frac
SimF500
72
10110
10 6 3 4 2 5 9
2.3038
0.6331
Fractal form of B2-LF.
SimF500
L95-Frac
21
Best symmetrical base

shape found via
optimization in the array
[1 0 1 1 0].
Sim500
11111
Good diffusion is expected when
16.8 2 5.5 4.8

5.5 2 16.8
2.4171
0.5016
Best asymmetrical base

shape found via
optimization and input
from a human designer.
Loosely based on a
stepped diffuser
optimized by Cox [11].
22
1st stage of this fractal

closely approximates a
stepped diffuser
optimized by Cox [11].
is minimized and d0 is maximized.
22
L95 is not identical to the stepped diffuser optimized by Cox [10], thus it should be viewed as a
generic diffusive surface, not as an optimized diffuser. Likewise, the stepped QRD results do not
represent the performance of a typical QRD (QRDs are typically designed with fins).
57
Included in Table 8 is a stepped diffuser based on the N = 7 quadratic residue sequence.

There are no dividers between the wells of the stepped QRD, thus it does not recreate the
performance of the equivalent finned QRD. The scattered polar distribution for this diffuser
in both periodic and aperiodic arrays is featured in Appendix D.
9.3. Analysis of optimized designs at a receiver radius of 5 m

The diffusion parameter for the A1-LF array is reasonably uniform throughout the
diffusion band (Figure 39), particularly above 1000 Hz. The plot of (10m, 5m, ) dips
between 200-1100 Hz. This is where the best diffusion is achieved. This range also contains
the highest density of optimization frequencies, thus the achievements on the Sim500
domain appear to be correlated with optimization on the Op250 domain. Regardless, the
equivalent plot for Op250 (Figure 30) showed a more uniform diffusion parameter,
demonstrating that optimal design at one radius does not equal optimal design at another
radius.
Based on the broadband diffusion parameter , the A1-LF array was the top performer at
both the 2.5 m and 5 m radius (Table 8). A1-LF is also the most compact design, having a
total depth of just 6 cm. One pitfall of the design is that that periodicity lobes cause an
uneven polar response at certain frequencies. For example, Figure 41 depicts significant
peaks and nulls in the scattered polar distribution at 750 Hz. This was an expected side
effect of placing modules in a periodic arrayand to circumvent this, B2-LF was designed
using aperiodic modulation. Another shortcoming of the shallow A1-LF design is that it is
expected to exhibit less temporal dispersion than a deeper diffuser. This is not a major
concern because uniform spatial dispersion produces temporal variation as a side effect [1].
The B2-LF array has slightly inferior diffusion when compared with A1-LF. Figure 40
reveals that ( ) has significant variance, therefore will accumulate a significant
penalty 23. Spectral variance in ( ) exists because the standard error of the polar response
varies with frequency. At each frequency, the polar response is effected by geometry, and it
follows that the asymmetry in B2-LF has contributed to a less-than-uniform scattered
distribution. This is depicted in Figure 43 and the supplemental plots in Appendix D. Even
though the aperiodic modulation thwarts the effects of periodicity, the resulting design is
inferior to A1-LF. B2-LF has worse performance, more complicated geometry and a deeper
form factor. However, at 9 cm deep B2-LF remains shallower than most commercial
diffusers.
23
Recall that
depends on both the mean value and standard error of ( ).

58
Figure 39 Diffusion parameter (10m, 5m, ) for the diffuser array A1-LF.
Figure 40 Diffusion parameter (10m, 5m, ) for the diffuser array B2-LF.
Figure 41 Scattering from the A1-LF periodic array at a receiver radius of 5 m.

The local peaks and nulls at 750 Hz are caused by periodicity.
59
Figure 42 Scattered polar distribution for the optimized diffuser array A1-LF.
Figure 43 Scattered polar distribution for the optimized diffuser array B2-LF.
60
Figure 44 shows the autocorrelation diffusion coefficient for the two optimized diffusers.
The diffusion coefficient for a 0 incident source, , was calculated using Eq. (5.4). Eq.
. A reference for the
(5.5) was used to obtain the normalized diffusion coefficient,
normalization was created by simulating a plane reflector the same width as the diffuser.
This is labeled as the mean flat reflector in the top plots of Figure 44.
While A1-LF achieved the best of the non-fractal diffusers, B2-LF reports a larger value
for . Figure 44 reveals why: the diffusion spectrum for B2-LF is uneven, which was
accounted for when computing
, but not . The spectrum resembles a mountain with a
staying
peak of about 0.8 at 400 Hz, yet a better spectrum would be a plateau with
between 0.6 and 0.7. While A1-LF achieves a more even diffusion spectrum, both designs
appear to have less-than-excellent diffusion above 800 Hz. However, in terms of uniform
broadband diffusion and compact geometry, these designs outperform everything else that
was tested on the Sim500 domain.
Figure 44 Diffusion coefficient spectra for A1-LF (left) and B2-LF (right).
61
9.4. Analysis of fractal designs at a receiver radius of 5 m

Fractalization has resulted in vast performance gains. The results show that while A1-LF
has superior performance as a base shape, B2-Frac is the better fractal sound diffuser. B2Frac dominates Table 8 with a broadband diffusion parameter of 2.3038 and a mean
autocorrelation diffusion coefficient of 0.6331. The diffusion coefficient can only be
compared between designs that were simulated on the same FDTD domain, in this case
SimF500. Given that a different simulation framework was used in Section 9.3, verifying
the performance gains will require simulating all diffusers on the SimF500 framework.
This is not a quick task, as it takes about 22 hours to compute a single SimF500 FDTD
prediction on an i7 2600K processor.
Figure 45 FDTD simulation of near field scattering from fractal diffusers A1-Frac.
Figure 46 FDTD simulation of near field scattering from fractal diffusers B2-Frac.
62
Figure 47 shows that for A1-Frac and B2-Frac, the diffusion parameter spectral envelope is
reasonably 24 uniform between 200-5000 Hz (ignoring local fluctuations). The diffusers
achieve an of 2.3238 and 2.3038 respectively, which is substantially lower than the of
2.4171 achieved by L95-Frac.
Figure 47
Top: A1-Frac periodic array. Bottom: B2-Frac aperiodic array with modulation {1 0 1 1 0}.
Qualitative observations such as reasonably uniform are based on comparisons to other surfaces.
In this chapter, it means noticeably better than the equivalent result of L95-Frac.
24
63
The scattered polar distributions give a more intuitive indication of the scattering quality;
however, this is not a reliable way to critically assess diffusers. Here is why: the scattered
pressure level from A1-Frac looks highly uniform for all three frequencies shown in Figure
48. In Figure 50 the frequency 1250 Hz was swapped for the 750 Hz and the dB range of
the polar plot was changed. The resulting plot tells a completely different story about this
diffuser. The response at 750 Hz much less uniform than at 1250 Hz, and the rescaling of
the plot reveals two narrow nulls in the polar distribution at 500 Hz.
Figure 50 shows that A1-Frac exhibits the same periodicity lobes as A1-LF at 750 Hz. This
confirms that the mid-frequency characteristics of the original optimized form, A1-LF, have
been preserved in the fractal form. B2-Frac, however, has undergone a more notable change
during fractalizationand it shows in the polar response. Figure 50 clearly illustrates the
superior uniform dispersion achieved by B2-Frac below 800 Hz. Figure 51 shows that B2Frac produces an asymmetrical response that tends to approximate scattering. The
asymmetry is fundamentally due to the asymmetrical base shape. Fortunately, the
aperiodic modulation {1 0 1 1 0} has a secondary purpose: it creates symmetrical forms with
four of the modules in the B2-Frac array (Figure 46). Thanks to this sequence, asymmetry
in the polar response is mild, and periodicity is avoided.
Figure 48 Scattering from the A1-Frac array.

Fluctuations are under-exaggerated because the
0 dB contour is not at the center of the plot.
64
Figure 49 Scattering from the A1-Frac array (left) and B2-Frac array (right)
Figure 50 Scattered polar distribution for the diffuser array A1-Frac.
Figure 51 Scattered polar distribution for the diffuser array B2-Frac.
65
Figure 52 Diffusion coefficient spectra for A1-Frac (left) and B2-Frac (right).
The autocorrelation diffusion coefficient was averaged in one-third octave bands
between 100-5100Hz.
Figure 53 Diffusion coefficient for L95-Frac (a deep fractal with hazardous barbs).
66
The superior fractal diffuser is obvious when viewing the autocorrelation diffusion spectra:
B2-Frac wins because it has the more even response and larger mean. For both fractals,
Figure 52 shows a huge improvement in the high frequency diffusion when compared to the
base shapes. Also, both designs have a much more uniform diffusion coefficient than the
deep, hazardous fractal known as L95-Frac (Figure 53). Diffusion contributions from the
second stage of the fractal become visible at about 500 Hz, become significant by 700 Hz,
and appear to dominate the response over 2000 Hz. However, the base shapes were only
simulated independent of the fractal for frequencies up to about 2000 Hz. Based on the
early design work in Section 6 (which is hardly numerically relevant for the current
designs), it is expected that the base shapes still contribute to diffusion above 2000 Hz.
Below 1800 Hz the diffusion spectra for A1-Frac closely resembles that of A1-LF. However,
after rolling off between 800 and 1800 Hz, it shoots up steeply before peaking in the 2500
Hz one-third octave band. If the second stage of the fractal is responsible for this peak (i.e.,
if this peak represents the HF design frequency), then the predictions in Chapter 8 are
invalid for stepped diffusers. If the Chapter 8 predictions are correct, the A1-Frac design
frequency would be located above 5000 Hz and there would be a large gap between the
bandwidths of the first and second stage of the fractal. Fortunately, these predictions
appear to be false. In fact, if A2-Frac can be modified to remove the diffusion dip between
1000-2000 Hz, an excellent design might result: a shallow, modular broadband diffuser.
9.5. Real-world relevance

Figure 54 compares the diffusion coefficient spectra of the fractal designs. Also included for
conceptual reference is the RPG Skyline [1]. The Skyline is an optimized 2D primitive
root diffuser with 13 wells in one dimension, 12 in the other, a total depth of 17.8 cm and a
maximum well depth of 15.2 cm. It is shown in place of a simulated reference because a) the
simulated references do not correspond to real-world optimized diffusers and b) B2-Frac is a
performance league above all the reference surfaces that were tested using FDTD
simulation, including L95, L95-Frac and the stepped QRD.
67
Figure 54 Diffusion coefficient spectra for A1-Frac, B2-Frac, and the RPG Skyline [1].
* At all frequencies, the reference reflector for the Skyline has a higher diffusion coefficient
than the reference reflector used in this work. It follows that that A1-Frac and B2-Frac are
under emphasized and not directly comparable with the Skyline. Also note that the Skyline
was evaluated in an anechoic chamber for 37 different source positions, while B2-Frac was
only evaluated for a source at 0.
The Skyline is finless, making it a more relevant reference diffuser than a typical QRD.
However, the Skyline is not valid as a direct reference. Figure 54 shows that at all
frequencies, the reference reflector for the Skyline has a higher diffusion coefficient than
the reference reflector used in this work. It follows that that A1-Frac and B2-Frac are
under emphasized and not directly comparable with the Skyline. Additionally, the Skyline
was evaluated in an anechoic chamber for 37 different source positions, while B2-Frac was
only evaluated for a single source at 0.
While a valid comparison with the Skyline is not possible with the given data, the data can
be used to assess the experimental design: The fact that the simulation of B2-Frac reported
diffusion in the same league as a top performing commercial diffuser supports the case that
the FDTD prediction model works. However, the prediction model needs to be validated by
simulating a surface for which measured real-world diffusion is known. As known surfaces
will require a large FDTD mesh to accurately simulate, this computation has been deferred
for future work.
68
10. CONCLUSIONS
The objective was to design a modular diffuser that provides an optimal trade-off between
uniform scattering and compact geometry, and to design it without using boundary element
predictions. The approach involved leveraging the strengths of finite difference time domain
simulation, while accommodating the weaknesses. Success relied on cyclic prototyping and
the intrinsically parallel property of evolutionary algorithms.
The following conclusions were drawn from this work:
1. A suitable solution to the design problem in Chapter 3 has been found. As shown in
Sections 7.3 and 9.3, constrained optimization using seven variables produced a low
profile modular stepped diffuser, A1-LF. A1-LF consists of five periods of a module with
step heights of {0 4 5 3 5 4 0} cm. Of all candidate solutions evaluated, this optimum
design had the most uniform dispersion, which it accomplished with a structural depth
of just 6 cmone third the depth of typical stepped diffusers [11,1].
2. A diffuser with more uniform broadband scattering (better performance) was found by
simulating fractal formations based on optimized diffusers. When arranged in an
aperiodic array, the fractal form of the best 25 asymmetrical candidate outperformed the
fractal form of the optimum symmetrical diffuser. The top-performing result, B2-Frac,
consists of five modules in an array with aperiodic modulation {1 0 1 1 0}. Each module
is a second-order fractal with step heights based on the sequence {0 4 7 6 8 5 1}.
3. While computationally intensive, finite difference time domain can be used as a

practical prediction model for diffuser optimization. Special accommodations were
necessary to make optimization feasible on the discrete FDTD mesh. Namely, mixed
integer programming was necessary because the solution space was constrained to
discrete points. This was justified as an avenue worth exploring because it allowed a
simple FDTD prediction model to be used, with no need for a well-depth impedance
function. The resulting lean optimization framework chooses designs using lowresolution parallel search optimization, and simulates them with accuracy comparable
to a BEM. For 1200 scattering evaluations the solution time was reasonable (about 40
hours). Additionally, FDTD was worth exploring because it gives direct access to the
The best asymmetrical was based on a runner-up solution found during optimization. It is not
expected to be the global optimum asymmetrical diffuser.
25
69
temporal response, which may be used in future work to evaluate the temporal
dispersion.
4. Optimization using an intrinsically parallel method that includes an element of
randomness, like the integer genetic algorithm, is fruitful for finding designs with
comparable performance but very different geometries.
5. Seven-well diffusers based purely on the set of natural numbers up to 16 can achieve
very good performance. Traditional diffuser design has relied on a few known optimal
number sequences (e.g., quadratic residue and primitive root sequences). In contrast,
Cox [11] defined optimized stepped diffusers using high precision (e.g., the set of natural
numbers up to 200). The current work executed a broader search of the solution space
using low precision, such that solutions are based on simple number sequences. The
results confirm that when designing a stepped diffuser with uniform broadband
dispersion, there are numerous low-integer sequences that are superior to the quadratic
residue sequence.
6. The designs are simple to implement. The optimization framework produces sequences
of low natural numbers, useful for designers who need to work in low precision. The
resulting designs can be constructed by carpenters or hobbyists, on-site, out of any
suitable material that has a low absorption coefficient. Additionally, these low-natural
number sequences reduce the cost of manufacturing and simulating fractal formations
because they enable high accuracy with low precision.
7. Results support the hypothesis that diffusers optimized for uniform scattering over a 2.5
m receiver radius tend to exhibit as good or better diffusion at a 5 m receiver radius.
Conversely, diffuser design standards focus on the 5 m receiver radius, which does not
guarantee good performance at a smaller radius. In home studios and compact control
rooms with suboptimal dimensions the 2.5 m receiver radius may be more realistic 26.
This assumes that the diffuser array is placed with the intention of dispersing first
reflections from either the back wall or a lofted ceiling.
26
70
10.1. Enhancements and Future Research

The optimization is designed to be functional, but not efficient. Future investigations might
address the following:
1. If the near field to far field transformation (NFFFT) is utilized, FDTD scattering
predictions will be computationally feasible at a much larger radius.
2. It is expected that the FDTD computation can be sped up by orders of magnitude if it is
run on graphics processing units instead of a CPU.
3. To search the solution space more efficiently, multiple evolutionary algorithms can be
run in parallel with the Matlab parallel computing toolbox. An alternative that was
explored during testing is to use a meta-heuristic global optimizer that combines
multiple optimization methods to increase the likelihood of finding the global optimum
[26].
4. The computation can be greatly sped up if a boundary element model is used. The
solution space will no longer be restricted to integers, but it may still be desirable to
perform a low resolution global search of the design space to reveal unexpected regions
that meet the design criteria. When a desired region is found, a continuous optimization
method can be used to fine tune the well depths to achieve optimal diffusion.
5. An impedance model can be used to define diffusers instead of setting the particle
velocity to zero at selected mesh nodes. This will enable optimization over a higher
resolution solution space without the requirement for a tiny FDTD mesh spacing. With
a high resolution design space, continuous optimization techniques will be able to
establish clear trends and the computational complexity of finding the global optimum
will be reduced.
6. Fractal forms may be optimized directly if one of the above approaches is used to either
a) increase the efficiency of the scattering prediction or b) increase the resolution of the
design space. The optimization algorithm could search for a solution over N degrees of
freedom and by doing so optimize a 2nd order fractal module with N 2 wells (i.e., steps).
Alternatively, N low frequency wells and N high frequency wells might be optimized
independently and nested to form a quasi-fractal with N 2 wells.
71
7. A two-dimensional diffuser can be formed by using the Chinese remainder theorem to

fold an optimized 1D design sequence into a 2D array [1].
8. Currently, optimization does not utilize all available data because it is performed at
discrete frequencies. Instead, optimization can be applied across all FFT bins, using
relative weighting to place greater importance on selected frequencies.
9. The prediction model needs to be validated by comparing simulation results to real
world measured results. The simplest approach is to precisely implement and simulate
a design that has already been validated, such as those outlined by Cox [11,1] and
DAntonio [3,1].
10. Data to analyze temporal dispersion is readily available from the FDTD simulation.
Future research might focus on interpreting this data [22,1].
72
REFERENCES
[1] T.J. Cox and P. D'Antonio, Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers, 2nd ed. Abington,
Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis, 2009.
[2] M.R. Schroeder, "Diffuse sound reflection by maximum-length sequences," J. Acoust.
Soc. Am., vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 958-63, 1975.
[3] RPG Diffusor Systems, Inc. (2000) CHAOS: The Collaborative Holistic Acoustical
Optimization System. [Online]. http://www.rpginc.com/products/chaos/index.htm
[4] T.J. Cox, "Acoustic diffusers: the good, the bad and the ugly," in Proc. Inst. Acoust.
Reproduced Sound 20th Conf., Oxford, 2004.
[5] Digizine. (2011, Oct.) George Massenburg builds a blackbird room. Image. [Online].
http://www2.digidesign.com/digizine/dz_main.cfm?edition_id=101&navid=907
[6] T.J. Cox and P. D'Antonio, "Acoustic phase gratings for reduced specular reflection ,"
Applied Acoustics, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 167-86, 2000.
[7] J.A.S. Angus, "Using grating modulation to achieve wideband large area diffusers ,"
Applied Acoustics, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 143-65, 2000.
[8] T.J. Cox and P. D'Antonio, "Fractal Sound Diffusers," in Proc. Audio Eng. Soc. 103rd
Conv., New York, 1997, p. 4578.
[9] P. D'Antonio and J. Konnert, "The QRD Diffractal: A New One- or Two-Dimensional
Fractal Sound Diffusor*," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 117-129, March 1992.
[10] RPG Diffusor Systems, Inc. (2000) New Diffusion Paradigm. [Online].
http://www.rpginc.com/research/ndp.htm
[11] T.J. Cox, "The optimization of profiled diffusers," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 97, no. 5, pp.
2928-36, 1995.
[12] P. D'Antonio and T.J. Cox, "Two Decades of Sound Diffusor Design and Development,
Part 1: Applications and Design," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 955-976,
November 1998.
[13] P. D'Antonio and T.J. Cox, "Two Decades of Sound Diffusor Design and Development,
Part 2: Prediction, Measurement, and Characterization," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 46,
no. 12, pp. 1075-1091, December 1998.
[14] T.J. Cox, "Designing Curved Diffusers for Performance Spaces," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol.
44, no. 5, pp. 354-364, May 1998.
[15] T.J. Cox and P. D'Antonio, "Optimized Planar and Curved Diffsorbors," in Proc. Audio
Eng. Soc. 107th Conv., New York, 1999, p. 5062.
[16] J.A.S. Angus and P. D'Antonio, "Two Dimensional Binary Amplitude Diffusers," in
Proc. Audio Eng. Soc. 107th Conv., New York, 1999, p. 5061.
[17] P. D'Antonio, "Technical Bulletin on the Evaluation of the Kinetics Tuned
73
Absorber/Diffuser Panel," RPG Diffusor Systems, Inc., Upper Marlboro, 2005.

[18] H.D. Luke, H.D. Schotten, and H. Hadinejad-Mahram, "Binary and quadriphase
sequences with optimal autocorrelation properties: a survey," IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 3271-3282, December 2003.
[19] T.J. Cox, J.A.S. Angus, and P. D'Antonio, "Ternary and quadriphase sequence
diffusers," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 310-9, 2006.
[20] E.C. Payne-Johnson, G.A. Gehring, and J.A.S. Angus, "Improvements to Binary
Amplitude Diffusers," in Proc. Audio Eng. Soc. 122nd Conv., Vienna, Austria, 2007, p.
7143.
[21] T.J. Cox and P. D'Antonio, "Thirty years since "diffuse sound reflection by maximum
length sequences": Where are we now?," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 118, no. 3, pp. 20162016, 2005.
[22] J. Redondo, B. Pico, B. Roig, and M.R. Avis, "Time domain simulation of sound
diffusers using finite-difference schemes," Acta Acustica uw Acustica, vol. 93, no. 4, pp.
611-22, 2007.
[23] C.K.W. Tam and T. Auriault, "Time-Domain impedance boundary conditions for
computational aeroacoustics," AIAA Journal, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 917-23, 1996.
[24] B.D. Treebly and B.T. Cox, "k-Wave: Matlab toolbox for the simulation and
reconstruction of photoacoustic wave-fields," J. Biomed. Opt., vol. 15, no. 2, p. 021314,
2010.
[25] AES-4id-2001, "AES Information document for room acoustics and sound
reinforcement systems - characterisation and measurement of surface scattering
uniformity," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 149-65, 2001.
[26] R. Oldenheis and J. Vandekerckhove. (2009, August) Global Optimum Determination
by Linking and Interchanging Kindred Evaluators. Matlab code. [Online].
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/24838
[27] M. Long, "Design of Studios and Listening Rooms," in Architectural Acoustics.
Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2006, ch. 21, pp. 741-779.
[28] M. Noble, D. Kennedy. (2008, July) "Acoustic Design Performance in Green Buildings",
Sustainable Architecture & Building Magazine (SABMag). [Online].
http://www.sabmagazine.com/blog/2008/07/21/acoustic-design/
[29] P.R. Newell, Recording Studio Design, 2nd ed. New York: Focal Press, 2007.
[30] M. Monks, B.M. Oh, and J. Dorsey, "Audioptimization: Goal-Based Acoustic Design,"
IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 76-91, June 2000.
[31] R. Bolejko and P. Pruchnicki, "Sound Diffusers Based on Number Theory with Random
Variations of Surface Acoustic Impedance," in Proc. Audio Eng. Soc. 104th Conv.,
Amsterdam, 1998, p. 4711.
74
[32] L. Rizzi et al., "Scattering uniformity measurements and first relection analysis in a
large non-anechoic environment.," in Proc. Audio Eng. Soc. 123rd Conv., New York,
2007, p. 7241.
[33] M. Rocha and J. Neves, "Preventing premature convergence to local optima in genetic
algorithms via random offspring generation," in Proc. IEA/AIE 12th Int. Conf.,
Secaucus, 1999, pp. 127-36.
[34] T. Perry, "Acoustic diffuser design by optimization: I. Literature review.," University of
Victoria, Prelude to Honours Thesis 2011.
75
Appendix A
Finite Difference Time Domain Matlab

Code
%=====================================================================================
% dfsrFDTD_lean.m
Author:
Tim Perry
% Elec498: Diffuser Design by Optimization
Started: 2011-10-20
%
% Finite difference time domain (FDTD) simulation of a rigid-wall acoustic diffuser.
% Excitation source is a Ricker wavelet or a Gaussian pulse.
% Boundary conditions have not been implemented.
%
% REFERENCES:
% [1] Tiny_FDTD_v1.m by Nick Clark, 2007
% [2] T.J Cox, "Designing Curved Diffusers for Performance Spaces", 1996
% [3] T.J Cox and P. D'Antonio, Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers, 2009
%=====================================================================================
Code available upon request. Visit http://arqen.com for contact info.
76
Appendix B
Prediction of scattering Matlab code
%=====================================================================================
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
diffuserFDTD.m
Elec498: Diffuser Design by Optimization
Author:
Started:
Tim Perry
2011-10-20
FDTD prediction model used to evaluate the scattering from a stepped

diffuser. Can be used as an objective function to be minimized by an
optimization algorithm. Due to the FDTD mesh spacing, optimization is
most naturally carried out using an when using an integer genetic algorithm.
INPUT
depths0
the well depths of a potential diffuser design.

e.g. [17 2 6 5 6 2 17]. Well depths will be rounded to the
nearest grid step. Grid spacing depends on the boolean
makeFractal. If makeFracal == true, the grid step is
smaller and a fractal formation will be created.
OUTPUT
eps1_prime
a single value broadband diffuser parameter to be minimized

by an optimization algorithm.
eps1_prime = eps1_ave + eps1_error, defined in [2]
eps1_ave
the average diffusion parameter at the frequencies of interest

specified in the vector freqs2opt
eps1
the spatial-averaged diffusion parameter prior to

frequency averaging (a vector in terms of frequency)
REFERENCES
[1] B. Treeby and B.T. Cox, 2011. k-Wave Toolbox (http://www.k-wave.org)

[2] T.J Cox, "Designing Curved Diffusers for Performance Spaces", 1996.
[3] T.J Cox and P. D'Antonio, Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers, 2009.
%=====================================================================================
77
Appendix C
Matlab Scripts for Diffuser Optimization
%==========================================================================
% Diffuser_Opti_Driver.m
Author:
Tim Perry
% Elec498: Diffuser Design by Optimization
Started: 2011-11-16
%
%
% REFERENCES:
% [1] B. Treeby and B.T. Cox, 2011. k-Wave Toolbox (http://www.k-wave.org)
% [2] T.J Cox, "Designing Curved Diffusers for Performance Spaces", 1996
% [3] R. Oldenhuis, 2009 J. Vandekerckhove, 2006
%
GODLIKE - A robust single-& multi-objective optimizer
%
(http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/24838)
%==========================================================================
78
Appendix D
Scattered polar distribution plots.
In the following plots, the scattered pressure level was obtained using the finite difference
time domain simulation framework Sim1 (see Chapter 9 for details). Units are dB SPL.
Scattered polar distribution for the optimized diffuser array A1-LF.
Optimized diffuser array B2-LF.
79
Optimized diffuser array A3-LF. This aperiodic design was optimized for diffusion below1250 Hz.
Five periods of an N = 7 stepped QRD.
N = 7 stepped QRDs in the aperiodic array {1 0 1 1 0}.
80

Acoustic Diffuser Optimization Arqen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acoustic Diffuser Optimization Arqen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acoustic Diffuser Optimization Arqen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Victoria

ELEC 498 - Honours Thesis

THE LEAN OPTIMIZATION OF ACOUSTIC DIFFUSERS:

Prepared for Peter Driessen

Dec 20, 2011

Objective and Scope ................................................................................................................... 1

A brief review of diffusers and diffusion ................................................................................... 2

LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 4

Maximum length sequence diffusers ........................................................................................... 5

Quadratic residue diffusers ............................................................................................................ 6

Primitive root diffusers .................................................................................................................... 6

Modulation schemes and fractal constructions .......................................................................... 7

Two-dimensional (hemispherical) diffusers ................................................................................ 9

Phase optimized Schroeder and stepped diffusers ................................................................. 10

Geometric Diffusers .................................................................................................................. 13

Optimized curved surfaces ........................................................................................................... 13

Schroeder Diffusers .................................................................................................................... 4

Spatial and temporal Dispersion.................................................................................................... 3

Hybrid Surfaces ......................................................................................................................... 16

Planar hybrid surfaces .................................................................................................................... 16

Curved hybrid surfaces.................................................................................................................. 18

THE LEAN DIFFUSER OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM ................................................19

Design objectives ...................................................................................................................... 19

Feasible approaches to optimal diffuser design .................................................................... 20

Practical pitfalls to previous methods of diffuser optimization ............................................ 22

Design method .......................................................................................................................... 23

PREDICTION OF SCATTERING USING FINITE DIFFERENCE TIME DOMAIN ............25

A finite difference scheme with a Ricker wavelet source ...................................................... 26

Numerical stability .......................................................................................................................... 28

Representing a diffusing surface ................................................................................................. 28

Receiver Arc ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Anechoic boundary conditions .................................................................................................... 32

A simulation environment built with k-Wave for Matlab ...................................................... 32

Adapting k-Wave to simulate scattering ..................................................................................... 33

Flattening the spectral envelope.................................................................................................. 34

MEASURES OF DIFFUSION QUALITY ..............................................................37

A diffusion parameter based on the standard error .............................................................. 37

The autocorrelation diffusion coefficient ................................................................................ 38

THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF STEPPED DIFFUSERS ........................................40

Limitations and considerations for phase grating surfaces .................................................. 41

Geometric framework for stepped diffusers........................................................................... 42

Genetic algorithms .................................................................................................................... 44

Optimization using an integer genetic algorithm................................................................... 45

Tuning and convergence ............................................................................................................... 46

Optimization results .................................................................................................................. 47

BANDWIDTH EXTENSION VIA FRACTALIZATION ..............................................51

SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DESIGNS ...............................................54

Feedback from the specular zone ............................................................................................ 56

Performance results .................................................................................................................. 57

Analysis of optimized designs at a receiver radius of 5 m .................................................... 58

Analysis of fractal designs at a receiver radius of 5 m .......................................................... 62

Real-world relevance ................................................................................................................ 67

10. CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................69

Enhancements and Future Research ................................................................................... 71

FINITE DIFFERENCE TIME DOMAIN MATLAB CODE .............................76

PREDICTION OF SCATTERING MATLAB CODE ....................................77

MATLAB SCRIPTS FOR DIFFUSER OPTIMIZATION ..............................78

SCATTERED POLAR DISTRIBUTION PLOTS. .......................................79

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES