Designing spaces and soundscapes. Integrating sonic previewsin architectural modelling applications
Alessia Milo(1) , Joshua D. Reiss(2)(1) Media and Arts Technology CdT, EECS, QMUL, UK, a.milo@qmul.ac.uk(2) Centre for Digital Music, EECS, QMUL, UK, joshua.reiss@qmul.ac.uk

Abstract
Acoustics and architects are often engaged in design dialogues. While architects work on the definition of
the spaces, acousticians deal with understanding in advance how these spaces will be sonically perceived by the
future inhabitants. Sometimes, communication might be difficult, lacking a common vocabulary based on soundenergy descriptors, frequency distribution, and perceptual dimensions. In this paper, we present the results of an
online questionnaire answered by 15 professional architects asked to consider the possible integration of sonicanticipations in their design practice. The totality of the participants declared to be interested in working with asoftware environment enabling them to listen to (i) how changes in the geometry would affect the diffusion ofsound, (ii) how changes in the materials would affect the diffusion of sound, (iii) simulate sound sources which
are likely to be present in the space to be designed. Some of this percentage expressed the need to be further
guided for such activity. A third of the respondents also completed an optional section which required them totest three interactive online examples, Playsound.space, Tranquil City pavement, and a javascript spatial sounddemo. In discussing the results, we provide our design suggestions for the scenario depicted.
Keywords: Acoustic Education, Design Integration, Soundscapes, Real Time Auralization , Architecture

1

INTRODUCTION

In our daily activities, a comfortable sonic environment allows us to be productive and relax from stress whenneeded, improving our quality of life. However, sometimes this is not possible for a lack of design attention
towards sonic matters, with the misconception that acoustic solutions might be expensive or too difficult toplan ahead. In urban design practices, it can be even harder to individuate design responsibilities and solutions,albeit steps have been recently taken to include modelling approaches deriving from virtual acoustics [3] among
the strategies to identify and solve these problems in the urban fabric. Soundwalking has been largely used
to investigate urban soundscapes to inform urban policies [1] or provide experiences and material to create
artworks to be conveyed through sound and music [5]. Our previous research has shown how people reflect onsoundscapes in situ through graphical templates [8, 7], highlighting how certain qualities of the spaces might notappear through other conventional procedures, thoroughly reviewed in [6]. Although promising results to bridge
soundscape research and architectural practice have been brought forward by the field of Indoor Soundscaping[17], it seems that there is still a gap between research on soundscapes and architectural education [2], which
this paper would like to address presenting the results from an online survey conducted with 15 architecture
professionals.

2

AURALIZING ARCHITECTURAL MODELS

Auralization, "the creation of audible acoustic sceneries from computer-generated data" [14], has helped in the
recent year to audition acoustic design solutions for architectural spaces and evaluate perceptually their acoustic
signature, represented by a Room Impulse Response (RIR). A RIR corresponds to the response of the room tothe excitation of a given signal, emitted by a source with a given set of coordinates, as recorded by a receiverplaced in a different position. Acoustic simulation software has helped through years calculating, and recently
hearing, how spaces might sound like, according to their volume, geometry, and materials. Acoustic simula-4138

tion methods can be split in two families, Geometrical Acoustics (GA) methods and Wave Models (WM) [15].
The latter can be exemplified by methods acting in the frequency domain, comprising of Boundary Elements
Methods (BEM) and Finite Elements Methods (FEM), and those acting in the time domain, Finite Difference
Time-Domain methods (FTDT), which might be considered similar to Digital Waveguide Mesh (DWM). GA
methods include ray, cone, and pyramid tracing, Image Source (IS), and also all those hybrid models blending
together these two techniques. These methods have been extensively discussed in literature and there are many
software packages which adopt proprietary algorithms designed to solve specific conditions, such as CATT,
EASE, ODEON, Ramsete, CadnaA, COMSOL, etc. In addition to these established packages, few more simulation frameworks recently arose seeking to answer the desire to walk around in a space and hear how it
would sound like. We review next three of these frameworks (RAVEN, EVERTims, and Project Acoustics)
whose potential could be further explored in educational settings, explaining briefly their underlying technicalinfrastructure.
RAVEN [11, 9] (Room Acoustics for Virtual Environments) is a real-time auralization tool based on a C++
library, designed as a plug-in for SketchUp. It comprises (i) the SketchUp plug-in, acting as a TCP/IP server
for the simulation clients, (ii) the SketchUp Auralisation (SUA), Visualisation (SUV), and Controller (SUC)
clients; (iii) the real-time convolution module. Changes in the SketchUp model are sent to the SUV and SUA,
which updates the calculation only if needed. Since the SUA renders only one receiver at a time, it is possible
to perform walkthroughs in the space interpolating between positions and operate modifications upon need. To
calculate the sound propagation paths and detect changes to render, RAVEN adopts a hybrid combination of
Spatial Hashing (SH) and Binary Space Partitioning (BSP), depending on the kind of recalculation needed.
The RIR, calculated by composing direct sound, early reflections, and late reverberation, is auralised starting
streaming the direct sound and immediately after the early reflections, the most important components to achievea sense of space, leaving the calculation of the late reverberation at a lower priority. In SketchUp it is possible
to assign material acoustic properties such as absorption and scattering, and position audience areas on which
project the results of the simulation, which employs a combination of IS and RT.
EVERTims [10] 1 is an open-source tool for real-time auralisation, based on a C++ library which connects toa python add-on for Blender, an open-source 3D modelling tool. After receiving the room geometry and thelistener and source positions, the room modeler unit, which differently from RAVEN works also with open geometries, constructs a beam tree for the current geometry. The highest simulated reflection order can be set in
the controller and is passed as a parameter to the modeler. A list of computed image sources is generated andsent to the auralization unit which, through a Feedback Delay Netwok (FDN), computes the late reverberation
and adds it to the IS and direct sound calculation, rendered as a binaural output. The auralisation module employs JUCE 2 , a framework supporting the design of Digital Signal Processing (DSP) chains and User Interfaces(UIs), and allows to import specific Spatially Oriented Format for Acoustics (SOFA) files for source directivity
or Head Related Impulse Responses (HRIR). The software is currently optimised to update the source and listener position without high computational load and potentially could support multi-sources and multi-listeners.
Notably, it can auralise live sound on-the fly as if it was in the modeled space and export Ambisonics RIR.
Updates on the geometry can be performed live within a short recalculation time.
Project Acoustics by Microsoft [4] 3 , designed to achieve realistic and aesthetically pleasing auditory scenes
in gaming environments, employs a two-steps approach. The first step consists of a precomputation (baking)which can be requested through a subscription system and received after running on a cloud computing systems,
or alternatively run on high-performance local machines. This step generates a set of probe locations acting
as both sources and receivers above the scene’s navigation mesh. After adaptively pruning proble samples,
depending on space characteristics, the system performs a 3D numerical wave simulation at each probe locationand encodes impulse responses between source and listener locations in terms of four perceptual parameters.
These are (i) the direct sound loudness (dB) of initial energy which arrives at the listener during the first 10ms;
1 http://evertims.github.io/
2 https://juce.com/
3 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cognitive-services/acoustics/what-is-acoustics

4139

(ii) the loudness of early reflections in the following 200ms; (iii) the decay time of reflections; (iv) the decay
time of late reverberation. These represent 3D emitter fields sub-sampled uniformly at a spacing of around
1m and compressed by the encoder, with an optimal probe layout at 3-4 m. This precomputation (the bake),
is unique for the model and its materials (which need to be assigned beforehand), allowing for the sources
and the listeners to take any space in the navigation mesh. The real time listening experience is currently
implemented in Unity (and Unreal), where the user just needs to import the software package as a plugin
and the precomputed data before experiencing the auralised environment. At runtime an interpolation based on
the reachable probes is applied to the decoded parameters to filter each source sound, achieving “smooth andrealistic audio as sources and listeners move through the scene” [4]. With respect to other GA frameworks,
this system may simulate diffraction more realistically and therefore provide innovative yet important perceptual
aspects such as occlusion and portaling, once only domain of WM simulations, typically uncommon in the
acoustic analysis of large and complex architectural models.
These three platforms all seem to offer huge potential in support of design practices, in educational as wellas professional settings. We imagine that introducing these tools as coursework resources would be the best
strategy to see how they fit in the pedagogical development of the architect. It was noticed that although
Building Information Modelling (BIM) approaches recently flourished, no plugins for acoustic simulation andauralisation were made available for REVIT or other platform. To our knowledge, there are only two attempts tointegrate acoustic simulation in BIM practices [13, 16]. The survey we conducted, presented in the next section,
aimed at capturing a general overview on how architects would receive the possibility of using software which
would allow them to hear the effects of their design.

3

SURVEYING ARCHITECTURE PROFESSIONALS

We have previously investigated using graphic notation systems the perception of sonic environments and theconceptualisation related to design choices [7]. Nevertheless, we could not succeed in including architects orarchitecture students among our participants. Since the broader scope of this research was to investigate how
Aural Design practices (including both Acoustic Ecology and Architectural Acoustics) could be integrated inarchitectural training, we took few further steps. A survey was launched in May 2018 to address how those
involved in Aural and Acoustic Design practices, such as academics and professionals, would elaborate on aseries of example teaching strategies, presented on a web page4 . We received 14 responses and analysed theresults. In a nutshell, respondents would encourage the teaching of acoustic subjects in architecture schools as
part of design modules or technical modules and would encourage either listening experiences in situ as well as
exercises employing simulation tools. The online survey5 object of this article, targeting architecture professionals, was launched in December 2018 and advertised through social media platforms, with the result of being
forwarded within few practices in London. The respondents could choose whether to answer the full survey
lasting about 10 minutes, which involved a listening session6 , or a shorter version without this part, lasting lessthan 5 minutes. After the listening section, or directly after the introductory section, the respondents were asked
to answer questions including in order: role in the practice, management of acoustic design within the practice,size of the practice, software mostly used, interest in workflow integration of sonic preview features, acoustic
comfort in daily life, training on acoustic topics, use of virtual and augmented reality applications, age, gender
identification, years of professional experience, musical listening habits, and answering platform. Differently
from the other survey, we did not show demonstrative material related to existing auralisation platforms, but werather aimed to provide coverage of the existing interest and education in sonic practices, to better understandthe network of relationships among architects and acousticians. We further detailed this topic through a set ofsemi-structured interviews, discussed in another publication 7 .
4 http://eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~am320/resources/
5 https://tinyurl.com/icasubmission
6 We advised to avoid the mobile in this case for compatibility issues.
7 Details of the Journal to be provided upon acceptance.

4140

Figure 1. Playsound.space (left), Tranquil Pavement (middle) and spatialised demo (right)
3.1 Listening section: Results
One third of the respondents (5 on 15) took part in the listening activities, which involved using briefly threeinteractive online platforms which offered the possibility to experiment and reflect on soundscapes and architectural design in a light and effortless way. The first, employing the online platform Playsound.space [12] (leftin Fig 1), required respondents to imagine an office space and select sounds to play accordingly, pasting theresulting link in the survey. All 5 respondents provided links similar to this sample result 8 (M n. of sounds:
6.4, STD: 2.3) and mostly clicked on what was available on the first page results after querying the word "office". The second question required to explore Tranquil Pavement 9 , a crowdsourced platform which displays
on a map of London, detailed with pollution and environmental noise data, images posted on Instragram withthe hashtag #TranquilCity. Respondents were asked to find a tranquil route in London and then paste a link.
We received 4 links showing some locations in London. In the third, a demo 10 employing the Web Audio
library Resonance Audio by Google 11 , an office space was simulated where the room width could be changed
in a drop-down menu, sound sources and listener position could be moved around and mixed together using aslider. The question asked to "find your favourite combination of room width and sound sources positions".

Figure 2. Listening section. Results for N = 5
After every experience, the respondents were asked to input on a 5 points Likert scale how difficult (verydifficult to very easy) the tasks were and how pleasant the experience with the app was (very unpleasant to very
pleasant). Results show how the most pleasant app to use was Tranquil Pavement and none of the exercises wasfound difficult (Fig. 2 left). Finally, and before going to the other part of the questionnaire, shared among all
the respondents, participants were asked "Which of these features would you consider relevant for your design
profession?" with three multiple choice options plus the open input "Other". On the right of Fig. 2 we see how
4 on the 5 respondents considered "Simulate placement of sound sources in a space with different materials and
8 http://www.playsound.space/sounds=334980,168805,168596,414819,360496,149474
9 https://tranquilpavement.com/
10 http://eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~am320/demo/
11 https://resonance-audio.github.io/resonance-audio/

4141

sizes" the most relevant feature for their profession, followed by "Being able to listen to sounds from a map"(3), and "Compose sounds together to simulate a sonic environment" (2).
3.2 Shared questions: Results
Among the 15 respondents 60% identified as females, 40% as males; 80% aged 25-34, 13.3% aged 35-44, and6.7% aged 18-24. 46.7% answered the survey from their phone, 40% from their desktop, 13.3% from theirlaptop. 40% of the respondents declared to listen to music more often at work, 26.7% at home, 26.7% while
travelling, 6.7% as background; "at dancing events", "at live music events", "when making or playing music"
were not selected. 60% of the participants had more than 5 years of professional experience as architects,
40% between 1 and 5 years; none selected "still studying", since the survey was targeting professionals. In thepractice 60% of the respondents held the role of Project team / assistant, 40% of Project lead and 1 (6.7%)
used the box "Other" to input "Architect". 80% of the participants worked in practices with more than 50
employees, 20% in practices with less than 10 employees. 86.7% declared that an external agency takes care of
the acoustic comfort requirements of the project, while for 13.3% this is managed within their practice. In thislast group, only one respondent worked in a 50+ employee practice, showing how relying on external acoustic
consultants is the norm in large practices. In their design practice 73.3% uses mostly Autodesk Revit, which is a
BIM based software, while 60% uses mostly Microstation, which is a Computer Aided Design (CAD) software.
AutoCAD is mostly used by 26.7%, 3Dstudio Max and Rhinoceros3D by 20%, ArchiCAD (also based on BIM)
by 6.7%. Unfortunately we did not include SketchUp among the options at this stage, although there was anadditional field to add entries. Informal discussions held afterward with few architects suggest that SketchUp isin fact used in the practice but possibly not the one used mostly.

Figure 3. Results for the scenario question (N=15)
The following three questions presented a scenario starting with: "Imagine that in your favourite software environment you could " and then followed by these three cases: (A) "listen to how changes in the geometry
would affect the diffusion of sound." ; (B) "listen to how changes in the materials would affect the diffusionof sound. "; (C) "simulate sound sources which are likely to be present in the space you are designing.". After every scenario, the final question was "How likely would you be interested in using such feature?". The
answers to this question, presented in Fig, 3 show how all respondents (100% of the 15) were interested inthese possibilities, although some think they might need further guidance. This perceived need for guidanceis higher for sound sources simulation (33.34%), followed by changes in the materials (26.67%) and changes
in the geometry (20%). A generic comment box was made available but no further observations were added.
The next question was "In your daily life, in which context do you usually pay attention to acoustics?" with amultiple answer option. The results yielded in order working/productivity (66.7%), followed by conversation/communication, reading/focused, and walking/travelling (all 60%), relaxation/leisure (53.3%), listening to live
music and playing music (46.7%), spiritual/collected (26.7%), healing/restoration (13.3%). Then, it was asked"In your daily life, have you wished you could improve the acoustic comfort of a space?" yielding a 73.3%
answering "Often", 13.3% answering "Rarely", 6.7% "Very Frequently", and 6.7% "Never". Until this ques-

4142

Figure 4. Problems and design solutions N=11. In italic the responses of those who answered also the listening
sectiontion, all the respondents answered the questions proposed. The next three questions wanted to detail in whichsituations acoustic comfort was found to be problematic, which for one was not the case. The most criticalactivity was found to be working/productivity with an almost unanimous response of 92.9% on 14 respondents,
followed by 71.4% for conversation/communication, 50% reading/focused, 35.7% relaxation/leisure, 28.6% forlistening to live music and walking/travelling, 14.3% for playing music, and 7.1% for spiritual collected. The
respondents were further invited to provide answers to: "If yes, could you provide at least one example of the
problem with the acoustic comfort?" and "If yes, have you ever thought of specific design solutions to mitigate
the problem?". 11 respondents answered as shown in Fig. 4 with recurrent problems such as conversations atwork, worsened by open spaces (4 mentions) causing distraction and having impact on concentration, loudness(2), lack of appropriate insulation (2). Single mentions reported acoustic frustration from converted cinemas,
reduce reverberation, acoustics affecting conversations, "too noisy". The suggested recurrent solutions included
insulation (3), materials (2), spatial planning (2), with single mentions of: more attention to acoustics/soundwhen designing; new software solutions; acoustic panels or baffles.

Figure 5. Training during architectural studies (left), architectural practice (middle), and interest (right)
The next two questions asked whether the participants received training on certain topics during their architectural studies and practice, providing multiple choices options. The results highlight first that not everyone
answered, suggesting that for some these topics were never treated. During the architectural studies of 10 respondents, 60% received training on room acoustics, 50% on sound insulation properties of materials, 50% on
acoustic properties of materials, 40% on noise regulations, none on urban sound planning nor acoustic ecology(Fig. 5 left). During their architectural practice, out of 8 respondents (Fig. 5 middle), 50% received training
on noise regulations, 37.5% on sound insulation properties of materials, 12.5% on room acoustics, urban soundplanning, and acoustic ecology, none on acoustic properties of materials. Finally, when asked "If you neverreceived training on any of the previous topics, would you be interested in knowing more about these topics?",out of 14, 64.3% selected acoustic properties of materials, 50% room acoustics, urban sound planning, sound4143

insulation properties of materials, 42.9% acoustic ecology, 28.6% noise regulations (Fig. 5 right).
Finally, we investigated the participants’ experience with immersive media platforms, since they can be used torender sonic scenes in a compelling way. Out of 15 respondents, 60% never tried augmented reality applications,
26.7% used these outside work, 13.3% used them at work, with content made by others. 33.3% never usedvirtual reality applications, 33.3% used them at work, with content made by others, 26.7% used them outside
work, 6.7% (1 person), used them with self-made content.

4

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK

We are aware that the sample is small and we should extend the inquiry forwarded to a larger number ofpractice, if we aim to generalise the scenario depicted. From the small sample presented here, it emerged how
large studios rely mainly on external consultants to take care of the acoustic requirements of the project. Thissuggests that it is not up to the architect to deal with acoustic requirements in the practice. However, fromthe interviews we recently conducted, it seems that the acoustic consultant provides the requirements and thearchitect designs accordingly, in a responsibility model which we can assume to be shared. The results obtainedin this study show that the idea of integrating into typical design tools the possibility of listening to how spaces
propagate sound is generally welcomed. Either in the listening section and in the rest of the survey, changes
in the geometry of the spaces and the materials appear more relevant to the architect than the positioning of
the sound sources. In fact, the design and analysis of potential sound sources in spaces often takes a back seatin the architectural project, with a deeper focus on the response of the space to sound than on sound sources
themselves. We believe that if we want to improve the acoustic comfort of spaces this sonic imagination should
be further researched. From a broad educational point of view, our suggestion is to strengthen the presence ofdisciplines related to acoustic design in architecture schools. Upon the results obtained, these could include andcombine: (i) the study of simulation techniques, requiring some understanding of physics and the application ofproblem modelling and solving skills to practical architectural examples; (ii) the study of the social and culturaldimension of the soundscape, supported by on site measuring and surveying practices which could also help
inform students on noise regulation policies and mediation strategies. From a purely technical point of view(or listening), we note that the platforms reviewed in 2 seem to not fully exploit the potential offered by the
BIM system. This system, which includes all the essential information to communicate the project in a single
model, allows the insertion of materials and technical solutions with precise acoustic information previously
measured, necessary for a good simulation. On the other hand, the integration of RAVEN with SketchUP makes
it a tool suitable to teach how sound propagates in different geometries with acoustically different materials.
EVERTims, modular and open-source, may flourish at best projects employing immersive media technologies.
Project acoustics is a large step towards the possibility to export models with high level of detail, including
exteriors, filter spaces, corridors, as geometries with many different acoustic properties, encouraging to study
and have audible experience of places previously considered not important enough to require a simulation. We
hope for it to better integrate with software packages currently used in design practices, first of all REVIT,
whose functionalities are already extended with plugins that can be written in C#. Among these, DYNAMO 12
employs visual programming and allows to connect through generative algorithms series of operations on theelements of the model, therefore offering valuable design potential to explore acoustic properties of spaces. To
our knowledge, not many publications cover the response from architecture students to the auralization platforms
described in 2. Future research should therefore look on the one hand at integrating auralisation platforms into
widely adopted BIM packages such as REVIT, without diminishing the importance of specialized figures such as
acoustic consultants. On the other hand, it should look at the use of non-commercial products within educational
contexts and at their value as tools for acoustic exploration and design, as the idea of listening to the effects ofdesign choices seems to be welcome by the architecture professionals we surveyed.
12 https://dynamobim.org/

4144

5

CONCLUSIONS

The work shows a first step towards engaging architects in a positive dialogue on acoustic design practices
through future software products which may leverage their creativity and help them imagining how future spaces
may sound like, supporting their collaborative design partnership with acoustic consultants. It was also noticed
a possibly uneven breadth of training on acoustic design topics and the desire to know more. As two thirds ofthe respondents often wished to improve the acoustic comfort of spaces, there seems worthwhile to strengthen
education in architectural acoustics and soundscape surveying practices among architecture schools.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
AM is grateful to EPSRC (EP/G03723X/1) for supporting her doctoral research.

REFERENCES[1] M. D. Adams, N. S. Bruce, W. J. Davies, R. Cain, P. Jennings, A. Carlyle, P. Cusack, K. Hume, C. Plack,
et al. Soundwalking as a methodology for understanding soundscapes. 2008.
[2] F. Aletta and J. Xiao. What are the current priorities and challenges for (urban) soundscape research?
Challenges, 9(1):16, 2018.
[3] C. Calleri, L. Shtrepi, A. Armando, and A. Astolfi. Evaluation of the influence of building façade designon the acoustic characteristics and auditory perception of urban spaces. Building Acoustics, 25(1):77–95,
2018.
[4] C. R. A. Chaitanya, J. Snyder, K. Godin, D. Nowrouzezahrai, and N. Raghuvanshi. Adaptive sampling forsound propagation. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(5):1846–1854, May 2019.
[5] J. L. Drever. Soundwalking: aural excursions into the everyday. In The Ashgate research companion toexperimental music, pages 181–210. Routledge, 2017.
[6] M. S. Engel, A. Fiebig, C. Pfaffenbach, and J. Fels. A review of socio-acoustic surveys for soundscapestudies. Current Pollution Reports, 4(3):220–239, 2018.
[7] A. Milo, N. Bryan-Kinns, and J. D. Reiss. Graphical research tools for acoustic design training: Capturing
perception in architectural settings. In Handbook of Research on Perception-Driven Approaches to Urban
Assessment and Design, pages 397–434. IGI Global, 2018.
[8] A. Milo, A. Hill, C. Wood, J. Reiss, and N. Bryan-Kinns. Expanding sonic imagination in design practices
with architectural soundwalks. 22nd Intl. Cong. Acoustics (ICA), pages 1–10, 2016.
[9] S. Pelzer, L. Aspöck, D. Schröder, and M. Vorländer. Integrating real-time room acoustics simulation intoa cad modeling software to enhance the architectural design process. Buildings, 4(2):113–138, 2014.
[10] D. Poirier-Quinot, B. Katz, and M. Noisternig. Evertims: Open source framework for real-time auralizationin architectural acoustics and virtual reality. In 20th Intern. Conf. on Digital Audio Effects (DAFx-17), 2017.
[11] D. Schröder and M. Vorländer. Raven: A real-time framework for the auralization of interactive virtualenvironments. In Forum Acusticum, pages 1541–1546. Aalborg Denmark, 2011.
[12] A. Stolfi, A. Milo, M. Ceriani, and M. Barthet. Participatory musical improvisations with playsound. space.
In Proceedings of the Web Audio Conf., 2018.
[13] Y. Tan, Y. Fang, T. Zhou, Q. Wang, and J. Cheng. Improve indoor acoustics performance by using building
information modeling. In ISARC. Proc. of the Intern. Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction,
volume 34. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Department of Construction Economics, 2017.
[14] M. Vorländer. Auralization: fundamentals of acoustics, modelling, simulation, algorithms and acoustic virtual
reality. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
[15] M. Vorländer. Computer simulations in room acoustics: Concepts and uncertainties. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 133(3):1203–1213, 2013.
[16] C. Wu and M. Clayton. Bim-based acoustic simulation framework’. In 30th CIB W78 Int. Conf., pages
99–108, 2013.
[17] P. N. D. Yorukoglu and J. Kang. Analysing sound environment and architectural characteristics of libraries
through indoor soundscape framework. Archives of acoustics, 41(2):203–212, 2016.

4145