Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
The Impact of Dome-Shape on the Acoustic Performance -A Case
Study of a Mosque in Saudi Arabia
Hany Hossam Eldien* and M. Abdul Mujeebu
Department of Building Engineering, College of Architecture and Planning,
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, 31451Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
*Corresponding Author
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Acoustic performance of worship places has been a focus of extensive research. Mosques are
traditionally featured by domes, but there is lack of adequate scientific studies on the effect of
dome-shape on their acoustic performance. In order to address this issue, the present study has
performed a case study on a typical mosque located at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal university
campus in Saudi Arabia. Simulations were performed with four different dome-shapes namely
Saucer, Drum, Onion and Pointed [1], which represent typical forms and architectural features, by
using ODEON Room Acoustics Program. The results were validated by in-situ measurements
(with DIRAC room acoustic system) and statistical analysis (by Microsoft Excel tools). In each
case, the acoustic characteristics were evaluated, by considering Imam (prayer leader) position as
the sound source. The results establish that selecting the appropriate dome-shape is crucial, as they
can have a direct positive or negative impact on the sound quality inside mosques. According to
the dome-shape, both Saucer and Pointed domes have the optimum acoustic performance, as they
meet the theoretical standards to maintain the acoustical comfort. As the results would vary
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 492 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
according to the size and architectural features of the building, a case-specific analysis is important
at the early design stage.
Keywords: Dome-shape; Mosque; Acoustic Performance; Acoustic Characteristics; ODEON
Program; DIRAC Room Acoustic System.
1. Introduction
Mosques (known as ‘Masjid’ in Arabic) are important public spaces used by millions of Muslims
around the world for a variety of worship activities. Because of their international ubiquity and
various modes of use, their acoustical properties should be well understood and regularly
optimized. Acoustic performance of worship places in general, and of mosques in particular, has
been a topic of extensive research. A brief review of the pertinent litertaure is presented here to
provide a background of the current study.
El-Khateeb and Ismail [2] performed field measurements and simulation to study speech
transmission index (STI) in the main hall of the madrasa and mosque of Sultan Hassan Cairo,
Egypt. Sü and Yilmazer [3] studied the acoustical characteristics of Kocatepe Mosque, in Ankara,
Turkey; they found that the acoustical quality of the mosque was not optimal when it was empty,
but was close to optimal when fully occupied. Ghaffari and Mofidi [4] conducted comparative
analysis of mosques and churches in terms of their acoustic characteristics. Khabiri et al. [5]
presented a method for evaluating acoustic performance in a mosque’s main prayer hall by using
computer simulation. Similar studies were also reported by Inoue et al. [6], Eldien and Al Qahtani
[7], Carvalho and Freitas [8], Al Shimemeri et al. [9], Eldien and Al Qahtani [7], Putra et al.[10],
Gul and Caliskan [11], Din et al. [12], Abdullah and Zulkefli [13], Kassim et al.[14], Elkhateeb
et al.[15], Othman et al. [16], Karaman and Güzel [17], and Suárez et al. [18].
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 493 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Abdou [19] performed in-situ measurements in 21 typical cotemporary mosques of different sizes
and architectural features in order to characterize their acoustical quality and to identify the impact
of air conditioning (AC), ceiling fans, and sound reinforcement systems on their acoustics. It was
found that the reverberation time (RT) of these mosques was close to or within optimal only when
they were fully or partly (two-third) occupied; this was attributed to the relation of RT with the
absorption coefficient of the occupants. In another study [19], he focused on the effect of mosque
geometry (form) on the acoustic performance. Though significant effect was not observed,
performance of the mosque with rectangular shape was comparatively better in terms of STI, while
the octagonal shape showed the least performance. Oldham and Elkhateeb [20] studied the
acoustical characteristics of four historical patterns of mosques in Cairo: semi-closed Rewaq, semi-
closed Iwan, closed Iwan, and closed simple. Iwan is a rectangular hall with three sides walled and
one side entirely open, while Rewaq is an arcade or portico with at least one side open [21]. The
architectural parameters considered were: room area, volume, shape, form, finishing materials,
roof-type, and room aspect ratio. It was shown that the semi-closed Iwan pattern had the best
performance while the semi-closed Rewaq pattern showed the worst. In a study on the effect of
prayer hall geometry and finishing materials on the acoustic performance of mosques, Ismail [22]
reported that prayer halls with large hemispherical domes had low surface area –to- volume ratio,
which caused reduction of total sound absorption of the space. Also, the commonly used finishing
materials in the studied mosques were found to be warranting adequate acoustic treatment. Kavraz
[23] assessed the impact of materials on wall surfaces and density of worshippers on the acoustic
performance of mosque’s prayer hall. It was observed that these factors could influence the
performance especially at low frequencies. In a similar study, Hafizah et al. [24] focused on the
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 494 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
effect of using kenaf fibers and micro perforated panel as sound absorbers, which could effectively
reduce the reverberation time.
Ahmad et al. [25] focused on the acoustic performance of Mihrab (place where the leader of prayer
stands) in Mosques, by conducting case studies on typical mosques in Malaysia. Din et al. [26]
studied the effect of Mihrab geometry on the acoustic performance of mosque, by considering
pyramidal and dome roof-styles. It was found that Mihrab geometry had only little influence on
the performance of speech intelligibility. Harun [27] developed speech intelligibility (SI)
prediction models for rooms with reflective domes, which were validated by case-studies
conducted in 32 mosques with domes in Malaysia. Utami [28] studied the acoustical performance
of a typical mosque in Indonesia with two types (curved and pointed) of hemispherical domes. He
concluded that these domes did not produce significant impact on the speech quality inside the
prayer hall, as the geometrical proportion of the dome was small compared to the larger rectangular
hall. Kassim et al. [29] investigated the effect of angle and height of the dome on the acoustical
parameters, and observed that a pyramidal dome with a steeper angle contributed to poor sound
clarity.
The review of previous studies reveals that the literature on acoustical peformance of mosques
largely dealt with field measurements and computer simulations to identify issues and provide
guidelines for proper acoustic design. Few works focused on the effects of various factors such as
architectural design, size, shape, materials, mihrab-form and roof-geometry. However, a detailed
study on the impact of dome-shape on the acoustic performance of mosque is still lacking. Domes
are often built by consdering the aesthetics and heritages, while the acoustic performnace criteria
are not properly incorporated in the design. Accordingly, the present study examines the impact of
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 495 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
dome-shape by consdiering a typical mosque inside a university campus in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia.
2. Design Features and Functions of Mosque
Mosques have basic common design features as spaces for worship. They typically have a simple
rectangular form, walled enclosure with a roofed prayer-hall. The long side of the rectangle is
always oriented towards the holy mosque in Makkah which is known as ‘Qibla’. The place of
prayer leader (Imam) is known as ‘Miharb’ which is usually built as a projection at the center of
the front wall facing Qibla. The pulpit for preaching is known as ‘Minbar’ which built on the right
side of Mihrab. The preacher who delivers sermons on Fridays is known as ‘Khatib’. Figure 1
illustrates Mihrab, Mimbar, Imam position, Khatib position, prayer rows, and congregation
(worshippers) performing daily individual or group prayers. The wall wainscots are sometimes
covered with marble tiles or wooden boards or panels tongued and grooved to compose a vertical
pattern. The floor area is mostly carpeted, and the ceilings are finished with painted concrete.
Depending on the climatic conditions, mosques are air-conditioned or provided with fans[19].
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 496 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
a)
b)
Figure 1: Illustration of basic worship terminology in a mosque: (a) Mihrab, Mimbar,
Imam position, Khatib position and prayer rows, (b) Congregation performing individual
or group prayers [19] .
3. Dome-shapes and its Acoustic Performance
A dome is a hemispherical architectural structure, which symbolizes the Islamic architectural style
for most mosques. Though the importance of domes in worship buildings has been recognized
since ancient times, their acoustic performance has not been given the deserving research attention.
The dome-geometry is one of the most inconvenient forms in acoustics. Due to the concave form
of the domes, the incident sound energy does not go out without reflecting several times in the
dome. Consequently, the reflected sound energy from the dome reaches back to the room with a
time delay, leading to echoes or noise and reduction on STI. The behavior of sound energy in a
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 497 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
dome in both plan and cross sections is shown in Figure 2. As can be seen, the reflected sound
energy that is increasingly delayed, especially in large domes, is a cause of echoes [22]. The use
of cavity resonators can prevent the reflection of sound energy and reradiate it throughout the
room. Besides getting a diffused field, the sound coming from the dome shortly after the direct
sound creates a divine effect in the atmosphere of worship. In addition to the detrimental effects
of late reflections and echoes, more complicated behavior can be expected due to the coupling of
the dome volume to the rest of the room. Thus, proper understanding of the acoustic behavior of
different types of domes is vital in choosing the appropriate dome-shape for a particular mosque-
design.
Figure 2: Sound propagation in a dome [22].
4. Methodology
4.1 The Mosque and Dome-shapes Description
The mosque under study was a typical mid-size mosque situated inside a university campus in
Saudi Arabia. Figure 3 illustrates the architectural features of the mosque. It has a prayer hall area
of 23 m × 23 m and ceiling height of 4.8 m. The interior surface materials consist of carpet and
marble tiles for the main floor, painted plaster wall, glass with metal frames for windows, and
painted plaster for ceiling. All walls are covered with marble of 1m height. Mihrab wall is covered
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 498 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
with wood. Figure 4 shows the four typical dome-shapes namely (a) Saucer dome, (b) Drum dome,
(c) Onion dome, and (d) Pointed dome, considered for the present study.
Figure 3: Architectural details of the mosque under study.
Saucer Dome Drum Dome Surface Surface Area Area (m2) (m2) 3.30.05m
11..100m R4.0R7 4.05Rm4.07 25.77 1.11.10 m 60.71 5.5.500 m 5.5.500 m 44..800m R5R.10 5.10m Volume 4.48.80 m Volume (m3) (m3)
9.81 74.40
Onion Dome Pointed Dome Surface Surface Area Area (m2) (m2)
55..1177m 122.17 53.41 R3 .238.28m Volume Volume (m3) (m3) 0.90.911m
5.55.050m
4.48.800m 152.85 49.67
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 499 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
4.41.155 m
RR6.1 96.20Rm6.19
5.5.500m
4.48.800 m
Figure 4: Types and dimensions of the studied dome-shapes.
4.2 Modeling and Simulation
A 3D Model of the mosque was built using AUTOCAD, and simulations were carried out by
ODEON (version 11) which is a GA (geometrical acoustics)-based software extensively used for
room acoustics simulations. ODEON uses a hybrid calculation method, which combines image
source method and ray-radiosity method for early reflections, and radiosity method for late
reflections [30]. Different materials were assigned for different sections of the mosque with
different sound absorption coefficients, as summarized in Table 1. ODEON considers the
scattering coefficient as the roughness of the material at mid-frequencies (707 Hz). As
recommended in the software’s user manual, the scattering coefficient for general smooth surfaces
and smooth painted concrete must be within 0.02–0.05 and 0.005–0.02 respectively. In our case,
all materials have smooth surfaces, so a common scattering coefficient of 0.02 was assumed. The
number of rays was estimated as recommended by the software, according to the size and number
of surfaces in the mosque geometry. The minimum number of rays was 220K rays (with saucer
dome), while the maximum was 390K rays (with onion dome) which was chosen for all models.
In all models, the maximum reflection order was set to 20K with transition order equal to 8.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 500 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
After fixing the calculation parameters, the selected receiver surfaces were divided into grids
assigning 0.96 m2 for each worshiper [19]. The standard acoustical characteristics measured were
Reverberation Time (T30), Early Decay Time (EDT), Clarity (C80), Sound Pressure Level (SPL),
Speech Transmission Index (STI), and Center Time (Ts). These characteristics were measured by
assuming the mosque as empty, which is justifiable as the focus of the current study was to study
the influence of dome-shape only.
Table 1: Sound absorption coefficient in octave bands [31], [32].
Surface Material 125Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1kHz 2 kHz 4 kHz
Walls Marble tiles cladding 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
Walls Painted plaster on brick 0.013 0.015 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Mihrab Wall 8mm wood veneer 0.28 0.22 0.17 0.09 0.1 0.11
Ceiling Plasterboard (12mm, 1/2″) 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.08 in suspended ceiling grid)
Dome surface Smooth painted concrete 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.08
Floor Carpet on concrete 0.02 0.06 0.14 0.37 0.60 0.65
Corridors Marble 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
Windows Ordinary glass 0.35 0.25 0.18 0.12 0.07 0.04
The worshippers (hereafter termed as receivers) perform the prayer by listening the loud recitation
of Imam. As presented in Figure 5, there are 82 receiver points that represent the receivers who
are aligned in 9 parallel rows. The receiver points 1-7 make prayer Row 1, and 8-4, 15-24, 25-34,
35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, and 75-82 make Row 2, Row 3, Row 4, Row 5, Row 6, Row 7, Row
8, and Row 9 respectively. For the measurements, 22 receiver points were selected randomly (2 to
3 points from each row) to cover the whole mosque area.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 501 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Figure 5: Sound source, simulated receiver points, and prayer rows (red circles represent the 22
measurement points).
The background noise levels in the mosque was measured using analyzer type B&K 2250, in two
2 minutes interval, which were used for the simulation (Figure 6). The HVAC (heating, ventilation,
and air-conditioning) system is the major source of background noise. The ear height of the
receivers was taken to be 1.65 m from the floor.
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
Banckground Banckground Noise Level (dB) 0 63z 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000 Hz 8000 Hz Octave band
Figure 6: Measured background noise levels in octave bands.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 502 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
4.3 In-Situ Measurements
For the purpose of validating the simulation results, in-situ measurements were performed on the
study mosque. The experimental setup (Figure 7) consisted of DIRAC room acoustics system,
analyzer type 2250, a B&K power amplifier type 2734, a reference Omni Power Sound Source
Types 4292, and ½ inch B&K microphone type 4134. The B&K Echo Speech Source Type 4720
was used for the speech intelligibility measurements. Measurements were carried out in octave
bands for the frequency range from 125Hz to 8 kHz. The loudspeaker source was positioned at
Imam position (at the center of Mihrab) at 1.65m height. Subsequently, the sound level meter was
moved to each measurement position (receiver points). The DIRAC PC-based program instantly
calculates the speech intelligibility and other room acoustics parameters from the sound level
meter’s microphone signal.
Figure 7: In-situ measurement system.
The acoustical parameters to be assessed (T30, EDT, SPL (A), STI, C80, and Ts), the octave bands
used to calculate multi-octave bands average of acoustic parameters, the recommended ranges, and
the corresponding just noticeable differences (JNDs) are presented in Table 2.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 503 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Table 2. Acoustical parameters and allowable limits [33], [34], and [35].
Parameter Recommended range (for given volume) Just noticeable difference (JND)
T30 (for 500–1000 Hz) From 0.9s to 1.9s 5% (lowest value)
EDT (for 500–1000 Hz) From 0.8s and 2.1s 5% (lowest value)
SPL(A) Minimum variations in SPL < 10 dB 2 dB A
STI Greater than 0.45 0.05
C80 (for 500–2000 Hz) Between +4 and −4 dB for speech 1 dB
Between -1 and +3 for choral (our case)
Ts (for 1000 Hz) From 70 ms and 150 ms for speech 10 ms
From 80ms to 130ms for choral
5. Results and Discussion
5.1 Validation
In-situ measurements were conducted inside the study mosque with Saucer dome (base case) for
the 22 selected receiver points. The comparison between the simulated and measured values of
T30, EDT, SPL(A), STI, C80, and Ts are presented in Figure 8. The average, minimum, and
maximum values, and the corresponding correlation coefficients (R2) of the acoustic parameters
(measured and simulated) are given in Table 3. The JNDs were calculated for all parameters
according to the values presented in Table 2. The simulation results could be calibrated when the
difference between simulation and measurement is less than the JND of each acoustical parameter
[30]; thus, the calibration was realized by comparing the simulated values with the measured ones
in real conditions. Table 4 summarizes the differences between simulated and measured values of
all parameters, and comparison with their JNDs, which shows a good match between the simulated
and measured values.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 504 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Table 3: Minimum, maximum, average, and the correlation coefficients, of simulated and measured values
Parameters T30 (s) EDT (s) SPL (dBA) STI C80 (dB) Ts (ms)
S M S M S M S M S M S M
Min 1.88 1.90 1.42 1.30 48 48 0.39 0.40 -7.4 -7 62 65
Max. 2.00 2.00 2.25 2.30 55 53 0.68 0.70 4.2 4 232 228
Average 1.96 1.97 2.03 2.02 50.0 50.5 0.47 0.48 -3.2 -3.3 153 155
Correlation coefficients
(R2) 0.83 0.75 0.81 0.91 0.99 0.99
a) T30
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 505 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
b) EDT
c) SPL (A)
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 506 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
d) STI
e) C80
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 507 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
f) Ts
Figure 8: Comparison of simulated and measured values for selected receiver points.
Table 4: Differences between the simulated and measured values of the acoustic parameters, and their JNDs (differences higher than one JND are highlighted in bold)
Receivers Diff-T30 (s) Diff-EDT (s) Diff-SPL(A) Diff-STI Diff-C80 (dB) Diff-Ts (ms)
1 0.02 0.05 0 0.05 0.3 3
3 0.04 0.1 1.8 0.02 0 7
5 0.04 0.12 1.7 0.02 0.2 3
8 0 0.2 1.4 0.02 0.1 2
9 0 0.11 0.9 0 0 7
11 0.02 0.11 0.4 0.02 0.2 13
15 0.02 0.07 0 0.04 0.3 7
17 0.02 0.05 0 0 0 3
20 0 0.07 1.3 0.02 0.1 9
28 0 0.07 0.2 0.04 0.2 9
32 0.05 0.03 0.4 0.03 0.1 4
39 0 0.05 0.3 0.06 0.2 5
42 0.05 0.05 0.6 0.01 0.4 1
46 0 0.05 1.3 0.03 0.4 4
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 508 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
51 0.05 0.02 0.5 0.03 0.1 2
57 0.02 0.07 0.3 0.01 0.1 4
60 0.02 0.02 0.2 0 0 6
63 0 0.1 0.3 0.01 0.2 7
69 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 5
71 0.05 0 0 0 0.3 8
76 0 0.1 0 0 0 9
79 0.04 0.1 0.3 0.01 0 4
JND 0.1s 0.07s 2 dB A 0.05 1 dB 10 ms
5.2 Reverberation Time (T30)
Figure 9 presents the T30 values with different dome-shapes as a function of source-receiver
distance. Previous studies have established that the optimum T30 for mosques ranges from 0.9s to
1.9s (Abdou, 2003a; Eldien and Al Qahtani, 2012; Imam et al., 2009). T30 was calculated as the
average of T30 at 500Hz and 1000Hz. It can be observed that all receiver points for Saucer and
Pointed domes have T30 near to the optimal value, while for the Onion and Drum shapes it is
greater than optimal (between 2.25s and 2.45s); this is due to the higher volume and surface area
of Onion and Drum domes compared to the other domes. Homogenous T30 values are observed
in all points for both Onion and Drum forms, but with Saucer, T30 increases at points near the
dome and decreases at points located at the sides of prayer rows.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 509 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Figure 9: T30 values at all receiver points with different dome-shapes.
Reflection from the dome-surfaces was visualized by ‘Reflector coverage’ which is one of the
ODEON tools. The 5th order reflector coverage of all dome surfaces is presented in Figure 10. We
can observe that sound reflection of the Onion dome surfaces covers the area around the dome and
near to the Mihrab. Therefore, T30 values increase in the first rows. The impact of the Drum dome
on the back area of the mosque is not strong, so T30 values on the back area of the mosque are
lower than the values on the front area. The effect of Saucer dome appears clearly on the back area
of the mosque, where T30 values increase. The Pointed dome surfaces reflect the sound energy
randomly to cover the whole area of the mosque with a slight increase at the left side of the mosque
hall. For this reason, the majority of receiver points have the same T30 value.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 510 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
0 5 10 15 20 25Onion 30 35 40 metres Drum 0 Reflector5 coverage:10 5. order reflections15 included20 25 30 35 40 metres Reflector coverage: 5. order reflections included
25 metres
20 metres 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
P1 P1 0 0
Saucer Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted versionPointed - research and teaching only! Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 35 5 40 metres10 15 20 25 30 35 40 metres Reflector coverage: 5. order reflections included Reflector coverage: 5. order reflections included
20 metres 20 metres
15 15
10 10
5 5
P1 P1 0 0
Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted versionFigure - research 10: andOdeon©1985-2011 teaching 5th only! order Licensed reflector to: Dammam University, coverage IMT, Saudi Arabiaof all Restricted domes. version - research and teaching only!
The warmth or the bass ratio (BR) is the relation between T30 in the frequency range 125Hz -
250Hz to the frequency range 500Hz -1000Hz, which is expressed as:
푅푇 125퐻푧 + 푅푇 250퐻푧 퐵푅 = 푅푇 500퐻푧 + 푅푇 1000퐻푧
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 511 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
For music, BR should be between 1.0 and 1.3, while it should be between 0.9 and 1.0 for speech
(Ballou, 2008). As known, speech is the main activity in mosques. The spiritual context of the
male Imam’s voice proves different than the normal speech. Hence, we can consider it to have BR
closer to the optimal BR value for music. As shown in Figure 11, mosques with saucer and pointed
domes achieve good BR values while mosques with drum and onion domes have low BR values.
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1 Average (s) Ratio Average Bass 0.95
0.9 Saucer Pointed Drum Onion
Figure 11: Average BR for various domes.
The difference of T30 average values in octave bands between the base case (Saucer dome) and
the other cases are calculated. As evident from Figure 12, with the Drum and Onion domes, T30
increases at medium and high frequencies, and decreases at low frequencies. This explains the
decrease in BR values in these two cases. Adding materials in the space which absorb energy at
high frequencies can increase the warmth. On the other hand, Pointed dome has the same effect as
the Saucer dome where the difference of T30 average values is negligible.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 512 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Saucer - Pointed Saucer - Drum Saucer - Onion 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
T30 Average T30Average (s) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 -0.1
-0.2
-0.3 One Octave Bands (Hz)
Figure 12: Difference of T30 average between the base case and other cases.
The T30 distribution maps of Saucer and Pointed domes for 500 Hz and 1000 Hz are presented in
Figure13. In the base case (Saucer dome), at 500 Hz, the minimum and maximum T30 values are
2.02s and 2.08s respectively, and the corresponding values at 1000 Hz are 1.82s and 1.98s. The
T30 distribution map of Pointed dome shows a great similarity with the Saucer dome. The
maximum T30 value is 2.10s at 500 Hz and 1.98s at 1000 Hz, while the minimum value is 2.04s
at 500 Hz and 1.92s at 1000 Hz. The positive effect of the Saucer shape can be seen at the half left
side of the mosque hall, whereas the positive effect of the Pointed shape appears clearly around
the dome. For the Pointed dome, the maximum T30 values are situated at the left side of the
mosque hall. This is due to the multiple repeating sound reflections between the dome surface and
the Mimbar (located at the left side of Mihrab).
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 513 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 300 333 355 388 4010 43 13 45 15 4818 50 20 53 23 55 25 58 28 60 30met res 33 35 38 40 43 45 48 50 53 55 58 60 metres
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 35 038 5003 40 5Hz43 8 45 10 48 13 50 15 53 18 55 20 58 23 6025metres 28 30 33 35 38 100040 43 Hz45 48 50 53 55 58 60 metres
28 met res 28 metres
T(30) (s) at 1000 Hz >= 1.98 28 metres 28 metres T(3 0 ) (s) at 5 0 0 H z > = 2 .0 8 25 25 T(30) (s) at 500 Hz >= 2.08 T(30) (s) at 1000 Hz >= 1.98 25 25 2 .0 7 1.97 23 23 2.07 1.97 23 23
20 20 20 20
18 18 18 18
1.95 2 .0 5 15 2.05 1.95 15 15 15
13 13 13 13
Saucer 10 10 10 10 2.03 1.93 1.93 2 .0 3 8 8 8 8 0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 0 33 3 35 5 38 8 40 10 43 13 45 15 48 18 50 20 53 23 55 25 58 28 60 metres30 33 35 38 40 43 45 48 50 53 55 58 60 metres
5 5 5 P1 5 P1 <= 2.02 <= 1.92 0 3 5 8 10 13 P115 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 35 38 40 43 45 48 50 53 55<= 1.92 58 60 metres 0 3 5 8 10 13 15P1 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 35 38 40 43 45 48 50 53 55 < = 2 .058 2 60 metres 3 3 3 3 0 28 metres 0 28 metres 0 0 28 metres T(30) (s) at 500 Hz >= 2.10 T(30) (s) at 1000 Hz >= 1.98 28 metres Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! 25 Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed25 to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! T(30) (s) at 1000 Hz >= 1.98 Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! T(30) (s) at 500 Hz >= 2.10 25 O d eo n © 1 9 8 5 -2 0 1 1 L icen sed t o : D ammam U n iv ersit y , I M T, Sau d i Arab ia R est rict ed v ersio n - research an d25 t each in g o n ly ! 2.09 1.97 23 23 1.97 23 2.09 23
20 20 20 20
18 18
18 18 2.07 1.95 1.95 15 15 2.07 15 15
13 13 13 13
Pointed 10 10 10 10 2.05 1.93 2.05 1.93 8 8 8 8
5 5 P1 5 5 P1 <= 2.04 <= 1.92 P1 P1 <= 2.04 3 3 <= 1.92 3 3 0 0
0 0 Figure 13: T30 distributionOdeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam maps University, IMT,for Saudi Arabia Saucer Restricted version -and research and teachingPointed only! domes at 500 Hz and 1000 Hz. Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only!
Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only!
Figure 14 presents the reflection density for both Saucer and Pointed domes at receiver point 16
located at the left side of the mosque hall. We can observe similarity of the early reflection for two
types of domes, while the late reflection produced by the Pointed dome is greater than that
produced by the Saucer dome.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 514 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Figure 14: Reflection density produced by Saucer dome (a) and Pointed dome (b) at receiver
point 16.
The T30 distribution maps for Onion and Drum domes at 500 Hz and 1000 Hz are presented in
Figure 15. In the case of Onion dome, minimum and maximum T30 values at 500 Hz are 2.27s
and 2.30s respectively, while these are 2.38s and 2.41s, at 1000 Hz. The T30 distribution pattern
of Drum dome is almost similar to that of Onion dome, minimum and maximum T30 values 2.20s
and 2.26s respectively at 500 Hz, while these are 2.30s and 2.37s, at 1000 Hz. The negative effect
of Onion shape appears clearly at the back, left , and right areas of the mosque hall, while the Drum
shape caused increase of T30 in the right have area of the mosque hall. The positive effect of both
types can be observed in the front area of the mosque hall and near to Mihrab.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 515 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 0 35 3 38 5 40 8 4310 4513 4815 5018 5320 5523 5825 6028 3063 metres33 35 38 40 43 45 48 50 53 55 58 60 63 metres 0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 0 35 3 38 5005 40 8 43Hz10 45 13 48 15 50 18 53 20 55 23 58 25 60 28 63 metres30 33 35 38 100040 43 Hz45 48 50 53 55 58 60 63 metres
28 metres 28 metres
28 metres 28 metres T(30) (s) at 500 Hz >= 2.30 T(30) (s) at 1000 Hz >= 2.41
25 25 T(30) (s) at 500 Hz >= 2.30 T(30) (s) at 1000 Hz >= 2.41
25 25 2.30 2.40 23 23 2.30 2.40 23 23
20 20 20 20
18 18 18 18
2.29 2.29 2.39 2.39
15 15 15 15
13 13 13 13
Onion
10 10 10 10 2.28 2.38 2.28 2.38 8 8 0 8 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 300 333 8 355 388 4010 4313 4515 4818 5020 5323 5525 5828 6030 6333metres 35 38 40 43 45 48 50 53 55 58 60 63 metres
5 5 0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 0 35 3 38 P15 40 8 43 10 45 13 48 15 50 18 53 20 55 23 58 25 60 28 63 metres30 33 35 38 P1 40 43 45 48 50 53 55 58 60 63 metres 5 5 <= 2.27 <= 2.38 P1 P1 <= 2.27 <= 2.38 3 3 3 3 0 28 metres 28 metres 0
0 T(30) (s) at 500 Hz >= 2.26 T(30) (s) at 1000 Hz >= 2.37 0 28 metres 28 metres
25 Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed25 to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! T(30) (s) at 500 Hz >= 2.26 T(30) (s) at 1000 Hz >= 2.37
25 25 Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! 2.25 2.36 23 23 2.25 2.36 23 23
20 20 20 20
18 18 18
18 2.23 2.34 2.23 2.34 15 15 15 15
13 13 13 13
Drum
10 10 10 10 2.21 2.31 2.21 2.31 8 8 8 8
5 5 P1 P1 5 5 <= 2.20 <= 2.30 P1 P1 <= 2.20 <= 2.30 3 3 3 3
0 0 0 0 Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only!
Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi ArabiaFigure Restricted version 15: - research T30 and teaching distribution only! maps of Onion and Drum domes for 500 Hz and 1000 Hz.
The coefficient of variation (CV) and standard deviation/mean (SD) of RT values, are calculated
for all receiver points. As shown in Figure 16, CV indicates a relatively high variation in the case
of Saucer and Drum domes, while it can be considered low in the case of Pointed and Onion domes.
This means that Pointed and Onion domes achieve good distribution of RT values.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 516 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
0.018 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004
Coefficient Coefficient variation of RT of 0.002 0 Saucer Drum Onion Pointed
Figure 16: Coefficient of variation of RT values.
5.3 Early Decay Time (EDT)
The initial rate of decay of reverberant sound is more important than the total reverberation
time. A rapid initial decay is interpreted by the human ear as a short reverberation time. The
Early Decay Time (EDT) is defined as 6 times the time interval from 0dB to -10dB on the decay
curve after the source has stopped emitting. If we take into consideration the definitions of EDT
and T30, we will realize that they must have the same value. EDT should not be higher than
±10% of T30 for good acoustics (Beranek, 2008); in the present case, it should be between 0.8s
and 2.1s (see recommended values in Table 2). EDT is calculated as the average at 500Hz and
1000Hz. Figure 17 presents the EDT values obtained with different dome-shapes at all receiver
points. Minimum EDT value could be obtained by Saucer and Pointed domes where the EDT
is 1.2s at the 1st row. This short EDT value keeps the early sound strong and clear. This is due
to the reflection effect of the Mihrab wall. EDT value increases with the distance from the sound
source and the maximum EDT (2.2s) is found in the 8th row. On the other hand, the Drum and
Onion shapes show increase of EDT values in all prayer rows where EDT values are longer
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 517 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
(1.9s to 2.6s). It is known that short EDT is an important indicator of speech clarity. In this case,
the early reflected sound rays that reach to human ear within the first 50ms integrate with the
direct sound rays. In general, the best EDT values are obtained by the Saucer and Pointed
domes.
Figure 17: EDT average values at receiver points with different dome-shapes.
The difference of EDT average values in octave bands between the base case (saucer dome) and
the other cases are presented in Figure 18. We can note that Drum and onion domes cause increase
of EDT values in the medium and high frequencies and decrease of EDT values in the low
frequencies. Pointed dome has approximately the same EDT values as the Saucer dome where the
difference of T30 average values is negligible for all frequency ranges. For Saucer and Pointed
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 518 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
domes, the receiver points located at the 1st and the 2nd rows have an optimal value, while for
Drum and Onion domes, the optimal value is obtained only at the 1st row, as shown in Figure 19.
Saucer - Pointed Saucer - Drum Saucer - Onion
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
EDTAverage 0 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 -0.1
-0.2
-0.3 Octave Bands (Hz)
Figure 18: Difference of EDT average between the base case and other cases.
The CV of EDT for all receiver points in all cases are presented in Figure 20, which indicates a
relatively high variation in the case of Saucer and Pointed domes, where both domes have
approximately the same CV value. The low CV values of Drum and Onion domes indicate good
distributions of EDT values. For Saucer and Pointed domes, the receiver points located at the 1st
and the 2nd rows have an optimal value, while for Drum and Onion domes, the optimal value is
obtained only at the 1st row.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 519 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Saucer dome/ 14 points Pointed dome/ 11 points
Drum dome/ 5 points Onion dome/ 5 points
Figure19: Location of receiver points achieved the optimal EDT.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 520 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 Coefficient Coefficient variation of EDTof 0 Saucer Drum Onion Pointed
Figure 20: Coefficient of variation of EDT values
The optimal acoustic performance (short EDT) was obtained in the first and second rows for
Saucer and Pointed domes, and in the first row for Onion and Drum domes. To determine the cause
of variation in EDT, three points (1, 11, and 14) were selected for all the domes and compared at
500Hz and 1000Hz, as presented in Figure 21. The Drum and Onion domes caused EDT to increase
at 500Hz and 1000Hz, which can be explained by the number of reflections per second arrived at
each point. Schroeder (1962) suggested that 1000 echoes per second was sufficient for the sound
to be indistinguishable from diffuse reverberation. In the case of Saucer and Pointed domes, the
maximum EDT values were obtained at point 14 at 500 and 1000 Hz. Thus, point 14 did not
achieve the recommended EDT value.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 521 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2
EDT(s) 2.1 2 1.9 Saucer Drum Onion Pointed
Point 1 Point 11 Point 14
a) EDT at 500 Hz.
2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2
EDT(s) 2.1 2 1.9 Saucer Drum Onion Pointed
Point 1 Point 11 Point 14
b) EDT at 1000 Hz.
Figure 21: EDT at points 1, 11, and 14.
Figure 22 demonstrates the reflection density (RD) at the selected points. It is known that RD is
inversely proportional to the room volume (Schroeder, 1962). Owing to the architectural
proportions, the Onion and Drum domes have greater volumes compared to Saucer and Pointed
domes. Furthermore, the shape of Onion and Drum domes causes multi-reflections inside the
dome, thereby delaying the arrival of reflected sound from the dome surfaces to the receiver points,
as shown in Figure 23. For the previous reasons, Onion and Drum domes caused increase of EDT
and T30.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 522 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
1050 1000 950 900 850
800 Reflections Reflections per second 750 Saucer Drum Onion Pointed Point 1 940 820 800 950 Point 11 1000 800 850 970 Point 14 940 830 810 900 0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 35 38 40 43 45 48 50 53 metres
0 Point3 15 8 10 Point13 1115 18 20 2Point3 25 1428 30 33 35 38 40 43 45 48 50 53 metres
30 metres
30 metres 28 Figure 22: Reflection Density at points 1, 11 and 14.
28 25
25 23
20 23
18 20
15 18
13 15
Receiver level Receiver level 10 13 P1 P1
8 10
5 8 (a) (b) 3 5
0 Figure 23: Reflected3 rays by (a) Onion Dome, (b) Drum Dome.
Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only! 0 5.4.Clarity (C80) Odeon©1985-2011 Licensed to: Dammam University, IMT, Saudi Arabia Restricted version - research and teaching only!
The speech clarity parameter C80 is defined as the logarithmic energy ratio between early and late
arriving sounds of the impulse response [38]. In the case of the mosques acoustics, the clarity of
Quran recitation and the ability to hear the recital of the choral music versions of the Holy Quran
is significant. According to Imam et al. [37], the preferred values of C80 for speech are between
+4 and −4 dB, while it is -1 and +3 for choral (our case). The C80 values for 500Hz, 1000Hz and
2000Hz are averaged and presented in Figure 24. The C80 values between the black center lines
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 523 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
are the preferred values for speech, while those between the red dashed lines are acceptable for
choral music.
Figure 24: C80 average values at receiver points for different dome-shapes as a function of receiver-sound source distance.
The C80 average values obtained by Saucer and Pointed domes range from +6 dB to -9.5 dB, and
it ranges from +4.5 dB to -10 dB for Drum and Onion domes. Table 5 presents the C80 minimum,
maximum, average, and standard deviation values for all types. The maximum positive values can
be obtained by Saucer and Pointed domes, while Onion and Drum domes achieve the minimum
negative values. The negative values of C80 mean reverberant spaces and the positive values
denote small reverberated spaces [39]. Figure 25 shows the relationship between STDEV of C80
and dome volume. We found that Clarity decreases with dome volume. Increasing of dome volume
and surface caused increase of late reflections and therefore decrease of Clarity, where Clarity is
the ratio of early to late sound energy.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 524 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Table 5: Maximum, minimum, and average C80 values obtained by all domes
Saucer Drum Onion Pointed
Maximum 6.7 4.6 4.9 6.6
Minimum -9.9 -10 -10.4 -9.4
Average -1.3 -2.1 -2.0 -1.3
STDEV 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.4
Figure 25: Clarity index as a function of room volume
Figure 26 depicts the CV values of C80 for different domes, where a high variation is shown in
the case of Saucer and Pointed domes, compared to the Drum and Onion domes. Generally, Drum
and Onion domes achieved better distributions of C80 than Saucer and Pointed domes.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 525 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
0 Saucer Drum Onion Pointed -0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5 Coefficient Coefficient variation of C80 of -3
Figure 26: Coefficient of variation of C80 values.
Center time (Ts) is a reference value for spatial impression and clarity. It is the ratio between the
energy components of the arriving sound reflections and the corresponding delay times and the
total energy component [40]. This parameter can be used to describe the balance between clarity
and reverberance. According to Reichardt [41], there is an analytical correlation between C80 and
Ts, as given by:
C80 = 10.83 – 0.95Ts (1)
According to Ballou (2008), the desirable Ts for speech ranges from 60 ms to 80 ms in the octave
bands (500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and 4000 Hz). From Equation (1), the recommended Ts at
octave band of 1000 Hz for the preferred C80 (+4dB to -4dB) is between 70 ms and 150 ms, and
from 80ms to 130ms for choral music (-1db to +3dB).
Figure 27 shows the Ts values at 1kHz as a function of source-receiver distance; the majority of
points in the front half of the main hall provide the recommended Ts with all types of domes. As
presented in Table 6, the best results can be obtained by Saucer and Pointed domes, where 30 and
33 receiver points achieved the recommended Ts. In the case of choral music, 11 receiver points
for both Saucer and Pointed domes achieved the recommended Ts. This presents 13.4% of the total
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 526 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
number of receiver points, which can be considered quite low. Generally, the majority of receiver
points in all types did not achieve the recommended Ts for choral music.
Figure 27: Ts values at receiver points for different dome-shapes as a function of receiver-sound source distance. . Table 6: Number and percentage of receiver points achieved the recommended Ts
Saucer Drum Pointed Onion
Number of points 30 14 33 13 SPEECH Percentage (%) 36.58 17.07 40.24 15.85
Number of points. 11 8 11 9 CHORAL Percentage (%) 13.41 9.75 13.41 10.97
Figure 28 (a-d) shows the C80 values as a function of Ts at 1kHz. We can note that Ts required to
obtain the preferred C80 ranges from 85ms to 190ms for Saucer and Pointed domes, and from
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 527 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
90ms to 200ms for Onion and Drum domes. With regard to choral music, the Ts values for the
preferred C80 are between 100ms and 150ms for Saucer and Pointed domes, while they range from
110ms to 160ms for Saucer and Pointed domes. Lower Ts and higher C80 correspond to a clear
sound, while higher Ts and lower C80 indicate dominance of the late and reverberant energy. In
general, majority of the receiver points at the front half of the mosque’s main hall provide
acceptable C80 and Ts values.
Figure 28a: C80 versus Ts for Saucer dome.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 528 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Figure 28b: C80 versus Ts for Pointed dome.
Figure 28c: C80 versus Ts for Drum dome.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 529 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Figure 28d: C80 versus Ts for Onion dome.
5.6 Sound Pressure Level
The A-weighted sound pressure level values with reference to the distance of receivers from
sound source are presented in Figure 29. It is found that A-weighted SPL decreases with the
distance from the sound source. The Onion and drum domes have approximately the same A-
weighted SPL values, while the Saucer and Pointed domes have similar A-weighted SPL values.
The receiver points close to the sound source and receiver pointes at the back area of the mosque
have approximately the same A-weighted SPL values for all dome-shapes. The impact of dome-
shapes appears clearly at the middle area of the mosque, where there is more than 2dB difference
of A-weighted SPL between Onion and Drum domes, and the other types.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 530 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Figure 29: SPL-A values in relation with the distance of receivers from sound source.
Table 7: SPL-A, Max, Min, and Average values obtained by all domes
Saucer Drum Onion Pointed
Max 56.3 57.1 57.1 56.2
Min 47.8 48.2 48.3 47.6
Average 50.3 51.2 51.1 50.2
The values of SPL-A for the Saucer dome range from 56.3 dB (A) to 47.8 dB (A), and from
56.2 dB (A) to 47.6 dB (A) for the Pointed dome. The Drum and Onion domes share the
maximum value of 57.7 dB (A) (Table 7). Figure 30 demonstrates CV of SPL-A, which
indicates a low variation in the case of Saucer and Pointed domes, and a high variation in the
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 531 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
case of Drum and Onion domes. In general, Saucer and Pointed domes achieve a good
distribution of SPL-A.
0.042 A
- 0.041
0.04
0.039
0.038
0.037 Coefficient SPLvariation of of Coefficient
0.036 Saucer Drum Onion Pointed
Figure 30: Coefficient of variation of SPL-A values.
Figure 31: Lines, A, B, and C
Based on the assumed architecture, only three vertical lines passing through the dome (lines A,
B, and C in Figure 31) were selected to study the extent of variation of SPL when the receiver
point moves away from the sound source. Figures 32, 33, and 34 present the results of A-
weighted SPL on receivers situated on the lines A, B, and C respectively. In general, there is a
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 532 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
steady decrease in A-weighted SPL with increase of distance from the sound source. In the case
of Onion and Drum domes, the A-weighted SPL decreases by 2.16 dB, 3dB, and 2.1dB along
the lines A, B, and C respectively, for every doubling of distance (dd). However, the respective
values for Saucer and Pointed domes are 1.53dB/dd, 2.5 dB/dd, and 1.7 dB/dd. This indicates
that Onion and Drum domes cause a greater increase of sound attenuation than Saucer and
Pointed domes.
Figure 32: A-weighted SPL values at points situated on line A as a function of distance from the
sound source.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 533 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Figure 33: A-weighted SPL values at points situated on line B as a function of distance from the
sound source.
Figure 34: A-weighted SPL values at points situated on line C as a function of distance from the
sound source.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 534 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
5.7 Speech Transmission Index (STI)
STI is a measure of speech transmission quality, which indicates the degree to which a
transmission channel degrades speech intelligibility. It is measured on a 0 to 1 scale; ST1 =1
indicates that when speech is transferred through a channel, it will remain perfectly intelligible
[40]. The closer the STI value approaches zero, the more the information is lost. STI for all
domes as a function of the distance from the source is presented in Figure 35. As shown in
Figure 36, the best values are found at locations at the 1st row and near to sound source. With
regard to the impact of dome-shape on STI, Saucer and Pointed domes show better performance
compared to the other domes, since both of them function exactly in the same manner and
achieve the level above 0.45 for 50 points with only 42 points for the other two types.
Figure 35: STI values in relation with the distance of receivers from sound source.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 535 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Saucer Pointed 0.8 0.8
0.75 0.75
0.7 0.7
D D
O O
O O 0.65 G 0.65 G
0.6 0.6
I I
T 0.55 T 0.55
S S
R R
I I
A A 0.5 F 0.5 F
0.45 0.45
0.4 0.4
R R
O O
O O
0.35 P 0.35 P
0.3 0.3 4 5 2 12 9 1 7 8 18 22 23 29 31 32 24 40 33 26 42 34 43 49 51 52 44 53 60 61 54 45 63 70 71 64 72 73 79 74 77 81 82 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 Receiver Points Receiver Points
Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good
32 points 42 points 8 points 32 points 42 points 8 points
Onion Drum 0.8 0.8
0.75 0.75
0.7 0.7
D D
O O
O O 0.65 G 0.65 G
0.6 0.6
I I
T 0.55 T 0.55
S S
R R
I I
A A 0.5 F 0.5 F
0.45 0.45
0.4 0.4
R R
O O
O O
0.35 P 0.35 P
0.3 0.3 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 Receiver Points Receiver Points
Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good
37 points 40 points 5 points 40 points 37 points 5 points
Figure 36: STI values analysis for all domes.
6. Conclusion
This is the first study on the impact of dome-shape on the acoustic performance of mosques. A
real mosque located in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia has been chosen for the simulation
and in-situ measurements. The simulations were performed using ODEON (version 11s) for
four typical dome-shapes, namely Saucer, Drum, Onion, and Pointed. The acoustic parameters
studied were Reverberation Time (T30), Early Decay Time (EDT), Clarity (C80), Center time
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 536 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
(Ts), Sound Pressure Level (SPL), and Speech Transmission Index (STI). The acoustic
characteristics were measured by considering Imam position as the sound source. The
simulation models were calibrated on the basis of the best match between the simulated and
measured parameter values. The majority of simulated and measured results were found to be
within the acceptable limits of the Just Noticeable Differences (JNDs). The main findings are
summarized as follows:
- Saucer and Pointed domes achieved optimal and homogenous T30 values, while the
other domes yielded T30 values greater than the optimal.
- Saucer and Pointed domes achieved better BR values compared to the other domes.
- Saucer and Pointed domes achieved short EDT values and kept the early sound strong
and clear.
- Saucer and Pointed domes caused C80 values to increase positively (creating large
reverberated spaces), while Onion and Drum domes caused C80 to increase negatively
(creating small reverberated spaces).
- The best choral and speech Ts were obtained by Saucer and Pointed domes.
- For all domes, the majority of points located at the front half of the mosque’s main hall
provided acceptable C80 and Ts.
- For A-weighted SPL, the impact of all dome-shape could be found at the middle area of
the mosque.
- Regarding STI, Saucer and Pointed domes achieved better performance compared to the
other types.
In general, the results indicate that the optimum acoustic performance could be achieved by
Saucer and Pointed domes as they meet the recommended values. The coefficient of variation
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 537 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
was used for comparing the variations between the results and to study their distributions; the
Drum and Onion domes achieve better distributions of all the acoustic parameters.
It could thus be deduced that domes can have a direct positive or negative impact on the acoustic
performance of mosques, which would vary according to the size and architectural features of
the mosque. Therefore, the impact of dome-shape on the acoustical performance should be
studied at the early design stage of a mosque.
The present study has done by considering imam position as the sound source, and the findings
might be different if the Khatib position would be the sound source. Therefore, considering the
Khatib position as the sound source is important if the mosque’s function includes the
congregational Friday prayer, which is being considered in the authors future work.
References
[1] N. Davies, Architect’s Illustrated Pocket Dictionary. 2012.
[2] A. A. El-Khateeb and M. R. Ismail, “Sounds From the Past: The Acoustics of SULTAN
HASSAN MOSQUE and MADRASA,” Build. Acoust., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 109–132, 2007,
doi: 10.1260/135101007781448037.
[3] Z. Sü and S. Yilmazer, “The Acoustical Characteristics of the Kocatepe Mosque in
Ankara, Turkey Zühre,” Archit. Sci. Rev., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 21–30, 2008, doi:
10.3763/asre.200.
[4] A. Ghaffari and S. M. Mofidi, “Comparing Reverberation Time in West Churches and
Mosques of Qajar Era in Tabriz,” Arman. Archit. Urban Dev., vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 13–29,
2014.
[5] O. Khabiri, M. Hamdan, and A. Mohd, “Research Method for Computer Modelling Study
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 538 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
in Mosque Acoustic Design,” J. Basic Appl. Sci. Res., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 227–233, 2013.
[6] S. Inoue, K. Sugino, M. Katou, and H. Imaizumi, “Speech transmission performance and
the effect of acoustical remedies in a dome,” Appl. Acoust., vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 221–230,
2009, doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2007.12.004.
[7] H. H. Eldien and H. Al Qahtani, “The Acoustical Performance of Mosques’ Main Prayer
Hall Geometry in The Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia,” in Acoustics 2012 Nantes
Conference, 23-27 April 2012, Nantes, France, 2012, pp. 949–955.
[8] A. P. Carvalho and C. P. Freitas, “Acoustical characterization of the central mosque of
Lisbon,” in Forum Acusticum 2011, 27June - 1 July, Aalborg, Denmark, 2011, pp. 1423–
1428.
[9] S. Al Shimemeri, C. B. Patel, and A. F. Abdulrahman, “Assessment of noise levels in 200
Mosques in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.,” Avicenna J. Med., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 35–8, 2011, doi:
10.4103/2231-0770.90914.
[10] A. Putra, D. H. Kassim, M. Y. Yaakob, Y. Abdullah, N. S. Muhammad, and R. Jenal,
“Assessment of the Acoustical Performance in Malacca Mosque , Malaysia : A Case
Study on the Sayyidina Abu Bakar Mosque,” in 20th International Congress on Sound &
Vibration (ICSV20), Bangkok, Thailand 7-11 July 2013, 2013.
[11] Z. S. Gul and M. Caliskan, “Acoustical design of Turkish Religious Affairs Mosque,” in
Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, ICA 2013 Montreal Montreal, Canada 2 - 7 June
2013, 2013, vol. 19, pp. 1–9, doi: 10.1121/1.4800903.
[12] N. C. Din, N. A. A. Jalil, Y. Ahmad, R. Othman, and T. Otsuru, “Measurement of the
acoustical performance of traditional vernacular mosques in Malaysia,” Internoise 2013,
15-18 Sept. 2013, Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 1–7, 2013.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 539 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
[13] A. H. Abdullah and Z. A. Zulkefli, “A Study of the Acoustics and Speech Intelligibility
Quality of Mosques in Malaysia,” Appl. Mech. Mater., vol. 564, pp. 129–134, 2014, doi:
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.564.129.
[14] D. H. Kassim, A. Putra, and M. J. M. Nor, “The acoustical characteristics of the Sayyidina
Abu Bakar Mosque, UTeM,” J. Eng. Sci. Technol., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 97–110, 2015.
[15] A. Elkhateeb, A. Adas, M. Attia, and Y. Balila, “Are Our Masjids Suffering Excessive
Reverberation !,” in 23rd International Congress on Sound & Vibration (ICSV23), Athens,
Greece 10-24 July 2016, 2016, pp. 1–8.
[16] A. R. Othman, C. M. Harith, N. Ibrahim, and S. S. Ahmad, “The Importance of Acoustic
Design in the Mosques towards the Worshipers’ Comfort,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci.,
vol. 234, pp. 45–54, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.218.
[17] Ö. Y. Karaman and N. O. Güzel, “Acoustical Properties of Contemporary Mosques: Case
Study of ‘Bedirye Tiryaki Mencik Mosque’, Manisa,” YBL J. Built Environ., vol. 5, no. 1,
pp. 14–30, 2017.
[18] R. Suárez, A. Alonso, and J. J. Sendra, “Virtual acoustic environment reconstruction of
the hypostyle mosque of Cordoba,” Appl. Acoust., vol. 140, no. May, pp. 214–224, 2018,
doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.06.006.
[19] A. A. Abdou, “Measurement of acoustical characteristics of mosques in Saudi Arabia,” J.
Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 1505–1517, 2003, doi: 10.1121/1.1531982.
[20] D. J. Oldham and A. Elkhateeb, “The Architectural Development of the Historic Masjids
in Cairo and its Acoustical Impact,” Build. Acoust., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 197–230, 2008, doi:
10.1260/135101008786348672.
[21] B. Sutarjo, E. Titi, S. Darjosanjoto, and M. Faqih, “The Elements of Local and Non-Local
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 540 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Mosque Architecture for Analysis of Mosque Architecture Changes in Indonesia,” Int. J.
Eng. Sci., vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 8–16, 2018, doi: 10.9790/1813-0712010816.
[22] M. R. Ismail, “A parametric investigation of the acoustical performance of contemporary
mosques,” Front. Archit. Res., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 30–41, 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.foar.2012.11.002.
[23] M. Kavraz, “The acoustic characteristics of the Carsı Mosque in Trabzon, Turkey,” Indoor
Built Environ., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 128–136, 2016, doi: 10.1177/1420326X14541138.
[24] D. H. Hafizah, A. Putra, M. J. Mohd Nor, and A. N. Haznida, “Preliminary Study of
Acoustical Treatment in a Scaled Model Mosque,” Int. Rev. Mech. Eng., vol. 11, no. 4, pp.
222–226, 2017.
[25] Y. Ahmad, N. C. Din, and R. Othman, “Mihrab Design and Its Basic Acoustical
Characteristics of Traditional Vernacular Mosques in Malaysia,” J. Build. Perform., vol.
4, no. 1, pp. 44–51, 2013.
[26] N. C. Din, Z. Adzahan, A. S. Razak, Z. Abdullah, M. Z. Jusoh, and M. N. Dimon,
“Comparison of the acoustical performance of mihrab design in mosques using computer
simulation studies,” in Internoise 2015, 9-12 August, San Francisco, California, USA,
2015.
[27] M. Bin Harun, “Speech Intelligibility Prediction Model in Room with Reflective Dome,”
PhD Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 2005.
[28] S. S. Utami, “An Acoustical Analysis of Domes Coupled to Rooms, with Special
Application to the Darussholah Mosque, in East Java, Indonesia,” MSc Thesis - Brigham
Young University, 2005.
[29] D. H. Kassim, A. Putra, M. J. M. Nor, and N. S. Muhammad, “Effect of Pyramidal Dome
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 541 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
Geometry on the Acoustical Characteristics in a Mosque,” J. Mech. Eng. Sci., vol. 7, pp.
1127–1133, 2014.
[30] L. Shtrepi, A. Astolfi, G. E. Puglisi, and M. C. Masoero, “Effects of the distance from a
diffusive surface on the objective and perceptual evaluation of the sound field in a small
simulated variable-acoustics hall,” Appl. Sci., vol. 7, no. 3, 2017, doi:
10.3390/app7030224.
[31] B.-I. Dalenbäck, “CAAT-Acoustic V8-User’s Manual.” 2005.
[32] H. W. Bobran, Handbuch der Bauphysik. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 1982.
[33] F. Martellotta, E. Cirillo, A. Carbonari, and P. Ricciardi, “Guidelines for acoustical
measurements in churches,” Appl. Acoust., vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 378–388, 2009, doi:
10.1016/j.apacoust.2008.04.004.
[34] L. L. Beranek and D. W. Martin, “ Acoustical Measurements
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 1989, doi: 10.1121/1.398682.
[35] Z. Sü Gül and M. Çalişkan, “Impact of design decisions on acoustical comfort parameters:
Case study of Doǧramacizade Ali Paşa Mosque,” Appl. Acoust., vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 834–
844, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.12.006.
[36] A. A. Abdou, “Measurement of acoustical characteristics of mosques in Saudi Arabia,” J.
Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 1505–1517, 2003, doi: 10.1121/1.1531982.
[37] S. M. N. Imam, N. Ahmed, and D. Takahashi, “An Optimum Reverberation Time for
Mosques in Bangladesh,” Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 163–170, 2009,
doi: 10.3329/bjsir.v44i2.3667.
[38] C. C. J. M. Hak and R. H. C. Wenmaekers, “The impact of sound control room acoustics
on the perceived acoustics of a diffuse field recording,” WSEAS Trans. Signal Process.,
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 542 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Issn No : 1006-7930
vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 175–185, 2010.
[39] N. Toma, M. D. Ţ. Opa, B. S. Kirei, and I. H. O. M. Ă. N. Ă, “Acoustic analysis of a
room,” vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 14–19, 2010.
[40] G. Ballou, Handbook for Sound Engineers. 2015.
[41] W. Reichardt, O. Abdel Alim, and W. Schmidt, “DEFINITION UND
MESSGRUNDLAGE EINES OBJEKTIVEN MASSES ZUR ERMITTLUNG DER
GRENZE ZWISCHEN BRAUCHBARER UND UNBRAUCHBARER
DURCHSICHTIGKEIT BEI MUSIKDARBIETUNG.,” Acustica, 1975.
Volume XII, Issue III, 2020 Page No: 543