Issue 
Acta Acust.
Volume 8, 2024



Article Number  42  
Number of page(s)  21  
Section  Structural Acoustics  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/aacus/2024049  
Published online  02 October 2024 
Scientific Article
Energy harvesting and interfloor impact noise control using an optimally tuned hybrid damping system
^{1}
Acoustics Research Laboratory, Center of Excellence in Experimental Solid Mechanics and Dynamics, School of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran 1684613114, Iran
^{2}
Signal Processing Laboratory LTS2, EPFL, Lausanne 1015, Switzerland
^{*} Corresponding author: herve.lissek@epfl.ch
Received:
5
September
2023
Accepted:
5
August
2024
Impactloaded floor structures radiate undesired sound waves into adjacent rooms, compromising the acoustic comfort. On the other hand, substantial structural vibrations caused by the impact loading offer a promising energy source for harvesting. Nevertheless, a systematic analytical or numerical investigation of simultaneous interfloor impact sound transmission control and energy harvesting appears to be missing. Current study describes the conceptual development of a fully coupled 3D analytical model of a dualfunctional doubleplate floor structure optimized for hybrid regenerative control of interfloor impact sound transmission. Leveraging multimode shunted piezoelectric and Electromagnetic Damper (EMD) energy transduction mechanisms, the model structure is composed of two PZT sandwich plates, which are interlinked through a Nonlinear Vibration Absorber (NVA)based EMD. The finite Fourier cosine transform and standard normal mode approach are employed to treat the governing acoustoelastic equations. Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II is applied to tune the system parameters along Pareto frontiers to target maximum pressure mitigation, maximum energy harvesting, or dualobjective optimization, which hires advantageous features from both configurations for an optimal tradeoff between them. Simulations reveal that elastoacoustic response suppression and energy extraction of the employed standalone PZTbased conversion mechanism can be remarkably improved with the adopted optimized hybrid PZT/NVA/EMDequipped system.
Key words: Doublewall structure / Impact sound isolation / NSGAII / Nonlinear vibration absorber / Hybrid energy harvesting floor / Multiresonant shunt damping
© The Author(s), Published by EDP Sciences, 2024
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1 Introduction
Noise emission from modern industrial activities has turned into an important socioenvironmental issue in our increasingly noisepolluted communities. In particular, the periodic mechanical operation of impactive production machines in industrial building constructions and machine halls [1–5] can generate repetitive transient radiated noise levels that often exceed the ever more restrictive legal regulations on noise exposure [6, 7]. Furthermore, the alternating stresses and residual vibrations caused by the collaborative action of the inertial forces of moving parts, the working forces of periodic impacts, and the dynamic interaction forces between the surrounding medium and machine base, can result in malfunctions or instantaneous failures of these machines and/or building structural damages. Therefore, effective energyefficient control methods should be pursued for proper protection against the resultant noise and vibration [8–13].
Doublewall structures have frequently been employed in many noise control engineering applications due to their undisputable advantage over singleleaf structures in producing superior noise insulation in modern buildings, automotive vehicles, passenger trains, as well as aerospace and marine structures. Therefore, doublewall partitions sound proofing has attracted a great deal of attention recently [13–19]. Many practical predictive models have been developed and a wide variety of passive, semiactive, fully active, and hybrid control methods have been implemented. They include but are not limited to use of viscoelastically damped or stiffened floating floors, Tuned Mass Dampers (TMD), NVA, and multifunctional electromagnetic, electrostatic, piezoelectric, and triboelectric actuating systems. Numerous investigations have been reported. For example, Oyelade proposed a mathematical model based on the weighted residual Galerkin method for the vibroacoustic problem of sound transmission across a rectangular doublewall panel with an integrated magnetic stiffening connection that functions based on the interaction energy between two rectangular magnets attached to the clamped plates [20]. Shao et al. presented an overview of the nonlinear characteristics and prospects on the future research of the NVA, and application of the NVA for lowfrequency noise control within three dimensional acoustic cavities such as vehicle interior cabin [21]. Mao used a shunted EMD connected between incident and radiating plate to enhance sound transmission loss through a doubleplate structure in the low frequency region [22]. Wrona et al. proposed a semiactive control approach for doublepanel low frequency noise barriers based on action of bistable links mounted between the incident and the radiating panels that can structurally couple or decouple [14]. Hasheminejad and Vesal presented an idealized two dimensional transient vibroacoustic model for hybrid active/semiactive impact sound transmission dampening through a smart intercoupled ElectroRheological/Piezoelectric (ERF/PZT) doublebeam floor structure [13]. Also, in a series of papers, Hasheminejad and Jamalpoor investigated the 3D steadystate vibroacoustic control of hybrid doublewall composite structures subjected to external acoustic excitations [17–19].
With rapid irreversible depletion of nonrenewable resources, it is necessary to look for alternative sustainable and environmentfriendly sources of energy that are compatible with the requirements of our modern society. Such systems can be used for powering a wide variety of modern applications, including MicroelectroMechanical Systems (MEMS), smart buildings, autonomous Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN), Internet of Things (IoT), Global Positioning Systems (GPS), portable/wearable electronic devices/instruments, and remote environmental (structural) condition (health) monitoring sensors [23–26]. In this context, affordable Vibration Energy Harvesting (VEH) systems have widely been employed in intelligent living and industrial applications for converting ambient environmental kinetic energies into electrical energy using various energy conversion mechanisms [27–29]. In particular, simple and robust VEH floors or pavement slabs based on various transduction principles have been designed and tested for high power density kinetictoelectrical energy conversion [30–34]. For example, Muñoz et al. built and tested a lowcost energy harvesting floor based on macro fiber composites and PZT disc transducers [35]. More recently, Wang et al. proposed a freevibrationtype piezoelectric beam energy harvesting floor structure using an impacting force amplification mechanism [36]. Also, Zhong et al. experimentally examined an energy harvesting floor system based on multiple layers (arrays) of clampedclamped piezoelectric beam structures. Experiments were performed to find out the optimal external load resistance for maximum output power [37].
Dualfunctional vibration damping and energy harvesting systems are capable of concurrent mitigation of structural motion and conversion of a portion of the absorbed energy into electrical power. Numerous dualpurpose controllable vibration suppression and energy regenerating systems have recently been developed [38–41]. TMDs coupled with electromagnetic energy harvesters have been employed for achieving simultaneous vibration control and energy regeneration, as demonstrated in previous studies [42–45]. Replacing linear TMDs with NVAs has proved to effectively enhance their ability to dampen vibrations and broaden the frequency range of vibration attenuation with lighter auxiliary mass [46]. NVAs with essential nonlinear stiffness, known as Nonlinear Energy Sinks (NES) in academic literature, have also garnered significant attention across various engineering applications [47]. Several studies have delved into the effectiveness of the NESs in vibration mitigation and kinetic energy absorption across various oscillatory systems, including single or multidegree of freedom setups, as well as continuous configurations [48–53]. Additionally, a series of research endeavors have explored the energy harvesting capabilities of NESs. Remik et al., for example, coupled primary linear oscillators with lightweight NESs to improve energy harvesting efficiency under impulsive excitation [54, 55]. Integration of NVAs can serve as a dual purpose mechanism to simultaneously enhance the vibration suppression performance and improve energy harvesting capabilities [56–58]. In a numerical investigation, Blanchard et al. outfitted a 3D model of a submerged structure coupled with a NES. Their findings revealed that integrating the NES not only effectively dampens vortexinduced oscillations of the system but also enables the extraction of a substantial amount of kinetic energy from the structure’s motion [59].
Doublefloor structures radiate undesirable sound waves that propagate into the adjacent rooms when subjected to impact loading. According to the above brief overview of recent literature, there is a large body of investigations that utilize a wide range of purely passive, semiactive, or entirely active techniques for effective mitigation of interfloor impact sound transmission. Despite the acoustic discomfort, substantial vibrations observed in floor structures under impact loading offer a promising energy source for harvesting. Nevertheless, there exists a notable research gap in systematic analytical or numerical investigation concerning simultaneous interfloor impact sound transmission control and energy harvesting. The major aim of current work is to fill this important breach in the literature. To do this, current study describes the conceptual development of an analytical model of a dualfunctional double plate floor structure optimally designed for hybrid regenerative control of interfloor impact sound transmission. Accordingly, the 3D transient acoustoelastic model of a cavitycoupled impactdriven piezosandwich doublefloor structure that is mechanically interconnected through a NVAbased multiresonant shunted electromagnetic vibration absorber is first formulated. Subsequently, the complete set of NVA and shunt circuit parameters for the composite system are simultaneously optimized through an efficient multiobjective optimization scheme based on a quadratic performance criterion with RMS value of the source room centerpoint pressure and harvested energy serving as the competing cost functions. The suggested methodology allows the noise control and architectural engineers to concurrently profit from advantageous features of Genetic Algorithm (GA)optimized hybrid energy harvesting and acoustic suppression systems in a single platform. It can particularly assist in development of modern innovative VEH floor systems with increased energy productivity and superior broadband impact noise control characteristics [30–32, 37]. Finally, the disclosed wide range of time response simulation data can provide a reliable benchmark for assessment of stringently numerical and/or approximate procedures and also supplement the future experimental studies.
2 Problem description
Consider a simplysupported flexible piezosandwich double plate structure of dimension a × b that is coupled to three parallelepiped cavities of heights h_{η} (η = 1, 2, 3) with acoustically rigid flat boundaries without any prevailing scattering objects. The specifics of proposed configuration and the implemented coordinate systems (x, y, z_{η}; η = 1, 2, 3) are illustrated in Figure 1, with (ρ_{0}, c_{0}) respectively denoting the medium density (air) and speed of sound. The sandwich plates are assumed to be fabricated from an elastic supporting base panel symmetrically joined with two fullyelectroded uniform piezoelectric layers that are themselves connected to multiresonant RLC shunt circuits in parallel configuration. The multiresonant shunts are wellknown to be more effective in both energy harvesting and vibration damping compared to the customary single resonant shunts [40, 60, 61]. In particular, for a given stiffness ratio, the parallel shunt mechanism has been proven to outperform the series circuit in addition to increased robustness and lower sensitivity with regard to system parameter changes [40]. Similarly, the doublefloor assembly, which essentially differentiates the source and receiving cavities, is assumed to be intercoupled at an arbitrary location (x_{0}, y_{0}) with a lightweight NVA of mass m, damping c, and linear & nonlinear stiffness constants (k_{L}, k_{NL}). A multiresonant electromagnetic RLC shunt damper is installed in parallel to the NVA damper, while the upper piezoelectricbased plate (plate 1) is excited by a transient transverse impact force F(x, y, t).
Figure 1 Problem configuration. 
2.1 Basic governing equations
Following the conventional methodology in modeling general structure/fluid interaction problems [19, 62], one begins with the standard three dimensional wave equation to model the transient pressure wave fields within the top/gap/lower enclosure fluids (see Fig. 1):
$$\frac{{\partial}^{2}{p}_{\eta}}{\partial {x}^{2}}+\frac{{\partial}^{2}{p}_{\eta}}{\partial {y}^{2}}+\frac{{\partial}^{2}{p}_{\eta}}{\partial {z}_{\eta}^{2}}=\frac{1}{{c}_{0}^{2}}\frac{{\partial}^{2}{p}_{\eta}}{\partial {t}^{2}},$$(1)
where 0 ≤ z_{η} ≤ h_{η} denotes the local vertical coordinate, and p_{η} (x, y, z_{η}, t) (η = 1, 2, 3) respectively signify the sound pressure within the source, gap, and receiving enclosures. Next, by using the classical Hamilton’s variational principle, Maxwell’s electrodynamics equations, along with Kirchhoff thin plate model (see Appendix A), the main governing equations for the piezosandwich plates may be formulated in the compact form:
$$\begin{array}{c}({Q}_{11}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{Q}_{11}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}})\frac{{\mathrm{\partial}}^{4}{w}_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}{x}^{4}}+({Q}_{22}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{Q}_{22}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}})\frac{{\mathrm{\partial}}^{4}{w}_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}{y}^{4}}+2({Q}_{12}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{Q}_{12}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}+2{Q}_{66}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+4{Q}_{66}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}})\frac{{\mathrm{\partial}}^{4}{w}_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}{x}^{2}\mathrm{\partial}{y}^{2}}+({\rho}_{\mathrm{h}}{t}_{\mathrm{h}}+2{\rho}_{\mathrm{p}}{t}_{\mathrm{p}}){\ddot{w}}_{i}\\ ({\rho}_{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{\rho}_{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}})(\frac{{\mathrm{\partial}}^{2}{\ddot{w}}_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}{x}^{2}}+\frac{{\mathrm{\partial}}^{2}{\ddot{w}}_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}{y}^{2}})2{e}_{31}{I}_{2}^{\mathrm{p}}\frac{{\mathrm{\partial}}^{2}{\psi}_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}{x}^{2}}2{e}_{32}{I}_{2}^{\mathrm{p}}\frac{{\mathrm{\partial}}^{2}{\psi}_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}{y}^{2}}({t}_{\mathrm{h}}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}})\{{e}_{31}[{\delta}^{\mathrm{\prime}}(x){\delta}^{\mathrm{\prime}}(xa)][H(y)H(yb)]\\ +{e}_{32}[H(x)H(xa)][{\delta}^{\mathrm{\prime}}(y){\delta}^{\mathrm{\prime}}(yb)]\}{V}_{\mathrm{P}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{T}}^{(i)}={f}_{i}^{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}}(x,y,t),\\ \begin{array}{c}{\xi}_{11}{I}_{3}^{\mathrm{p}}\frac{{\mathrm{\partial}}^{2}{\psi}_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}{x}^{2}}+{\xi}_{22}{I}_{3}^{\mathrm{p}}\frac{{\mathrm{\partial}}^{2}{\psi}_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}{y}^{2}}{\xi}_{33}\frac{{\pi}^{2}}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}}{I}_{4}^{\mathrm{p}}{\psi}_{i}={e}_{31}\frac{\pi {I}_{2}^{\mathrm{p}}}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}\frac{{\mathrm{\partial}}^{2}{w}_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}{x}^{2}}+{e}_{32}\frac{\pi {I}_{2}^{\mathrm{p}}}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}\frac{{\mathrm{\partial}}^{2}{w}_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}{y}^{2}},\end{array}\end{array}$$(2)
where δ'(·) is the first derivative of Dirac delta function, H(·) is the Heaviside function, w_{i}(x, y, t) (i = 1, 2) denote the transverse displacements of top and bottom PZTincorporated plates, and ψ_{i}(x, y, t) (i = 1, 2), signify the internal electric potential induced in piezoelectric layers of each plate, respectively. Also, ${V}_{\mathrm{PZT}}^{\left(i\right)}(i=\mathrm{1,2})$ is the total electric voltage generated in the top and bottom piezosandwich panels, (ρ, t) refer to the layer density and thickness, and (Q, e, ξ) are the corresponding elastic, piezoelectric and dielectric parameters, while the subscripts (p, h) stand for the piezoelectric and elastic base layers, respectively. Furthermore, the coefficients ${I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}$ and ${I}_{\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4}}^{\mathrm{p}}$ are defined in Appendix A, and ${f}_{\mathrm{1,2}}^{\mathrm{net}}\left(x,y,t\right)$ are the net external force applied on the corresponding piezosandwich panel that will be stated later.
Now, utilizing the relevant Kirchhoff’s current and voltage laws, the dynamic equations governing the multimode shunt circuits in top/bottom PZT plates and the interconnected EM damper can respectively be derived in the form [40, 60, 61] (see Fig. 1):
Shunted circuits (piezoplates):
$$\begin{array}{c}{I}_{i1}+{I}_{i2}+2{C}_{\mathrm{p}}{\stackrel{\u0307}{V}}_{\mathrm{PZT}}^{\left(i\right)}={I}_{\mathrm{PZT}}^{\left(i\right)},\\ {V}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{L}_{\mathrm{ij}}{\stackrel{\u0307}{I}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{R}_{\mathrm{ij}}{I}_{\mathrm{ij}}={V}_{\mathrm{PZT}}^{\left(i\right)},\\ {C}_{\mathrm{ij}}{\stackrel{\u0307}{V}}_{\mathrm{ij}}={I}_{\mathrm{ij}},\left(i=\mathrm{1,2},j=\mathrm{1,2}\right),\end{array}$$(3a)
Shunted circuits (EM damper):
$$\begin{array}{c}\left({L}_{31}+{L}_{\mathrm{m}}\right){\stackrel{\u0307}{I}}_{31}+{L}_{\mathrm{m}}{\stackrel{\u0307}{I}}_{32}+{{R}_{31}{I}_{31}+{R}_{\mathrm{m}}\left({I}_{31}+{I}_{32}\right)+{V}_{31}=V}_{\mathrm{EM}},\\ {L}_{\mathrm{m}}{\stackrel{\u0307}{I}}_{31}+\left({L}_{32}+{L}_{\mathrm{m}}\right){\stackrel{\u0307}{I}}_{32}+{{R}_{32}{I}_{32}+{R}_{\mathrm{m}}\left({I}_{31}+{I}_{32}\right)+{V}_{32}=V}_{\mathrm{EM}},\\ {C}_{3j}{\stackrel{\u0307}{V}}_{3j}={I}_{3j},\hspace{1em}(j=\mathrm{1,2}),\end{array}$$(3b)
where V_{i1}, V_{i2}, I_{i1}, I_{i2} (i = 1,2,3) are the voltages and electric currents induced in the associated capacitors and shunt circuit branches, and the general (R, C, L) parameters refer to the relevant electric circuits resistor, capacitor, and inductor, respectively. Also, (R_{m}, L_{m}) signify the internal resistance and inductance of the electromagnetic transducer, while V_{EM} is the induced electric voltage. Moreover, C_{p} = ξ_{33}ab/t_{p} denotes the equivalent electric capacitance of a single PZT layer, and ${I}_{\mathrm{PZT}}^{\left(\mathrm{1,2}\right)}$ are the electric current generated in the top and bottom PZT panels, which may be defined as the time derivative of accumulated electric charge as [63–66]:
$${I}_{\mathrm{PZT}}^{\left(i\right)}=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left(\underset{{A}_{\mathrm{t}}}{\overset{}{\int}}{\mathbf{D}}^{\left(i\right)}.\mathbf{n}\mathrm{d}A+\underset{{A}_{\mathrm{b}}}{\overset{}{\int}}{\mathbf{D}}^{\left(i\right)}.\mathbf{n}\mathrm{d}A\right),(i=\mathrm{1,2}),$$(4)
where D^{(i)}, (i = 1, 2) is the electric charge density vector of each plate, which is defined in equation (A6) in Appendix A. (A_{t}, A_{b}) refer to the surface area of the top and bottom electrode surfaces of PZTbased panels, and n is the corresponding surface normal vector. Moreover, the electric voltage and the mechanical force produced by the electromagnetic transducer can be defined as [40]:
$$\begin{array}{c}{V}_{\mathrm{EM}}={K}_{\mathrm{v}}\left[{\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{1}\left({x}_{0},{y}_{0},t\right){\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{2}\left({x}_{0},{y}_{0},t\right)\right],\\ {f}_{\mathrm{EM}}={K}_{\mathrm{f}}\left({I}_{31}+{I}_{32}\right),\end{array}$$(5)
where (K_{v}, K_{f}) are the voltage and force constants of electromagnetic transducer, respectively.
Next, the net exterior loads on the top and bottom piezosandwich panels can respectively be expressed in the form (see Fig. 1):
$$\begin{array}{c}{f}_{1}^{\mathrm{net}}\left(x,y,t\right)=F\left(x,y,t\right)+\delta \left(x{x}_{0}\right)\delta \left(y{y}_{0}\right)\left[{f}_{\mathrm{a}}^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right){f}_{\mathrm{EM}}\right]\left({{p}_{1}}_{{z}_{1}=0}{{p}_{2}}_{{z}_{2}={h}_{2}}\right),\\ {f}_{2}^{\mathrm{net}}\left(x,y,t\right)=\delta \left(x{x}_{0}\right)\delta \left(y{y}_{0}\right)\left[{f}_{\mathrm{a}}^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)+{f}_{\mathrm{EM}}\right]\left({{p}_{2}}_{{z}_{2}=0}{{p}_{3}}_{{z}_{3}={h}_{3}}\right),\end{array}$$(6)
where the actual point loads transmitted to the upper and lower piezosandwich plates through the NVA assembly, (${f}_{\mathrm{a}}^{\left(1\right)},{f}_{\mathrm{a}}^{\left(2\right)})$, are [67]:
$$\begin{array}{c}{f}_{\mathrm{a}}^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)={k}_{\mathrm{L}}\u2206{w}_{1}+{k}_{\mathrm{NL}}\u2206{w}_{1}^{3}+c\u2206{\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{1},\\ {f}_{\mathrm{a}}^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)={k}_{\mathrm{L}}\u2206{w}_{2}+{k}_{\mathrm{NL}}\u2206{w}_{2}^{3}+c\u2206{\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{2},\end{array}$$(7)
where ∆w_{i} = q(t) − w_{i} (x_{0}, y_{0}, t) (i = 1, 2), while the transverse motion of the NVA mass, q(t), follows:
$$m\stackrel{\u0308}{q}\left(t\right)+{f}_{\mathrm{a}}^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)+{f}_{\mathrm{a}}^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)=0.$$(8)
2.2 Fluidstructure compatibility and modal equations of motion
Supposing completely rigid acoustical boundaries for the internal/external surfaces of the source, gap, and receiving cavities shown in Figure 1 (i.e. at x = 0, a; 0 ≤ y ≤ b, 0 ≤ z_{η} ≤ h_{η} (η = 1, 2, 3), y = 0, b; 0 ≤ x ≤ a, 0 ≤ z_{η} ≤ h_{η} (η = 1, 2, 3); and z_{1} = h_{1}, z_{3} = 0; 0 ≤ x ≤ a, 0 ≤ y ≤ b), while enforcing the compatibility of normal accelerations at the pertinent interfaces of each piezosandwich panel with the neighboring acoustic fluids (i.e. at z_{1} = 0, z_{2} = , h_{2}, z_{3} = h_{3}; 0 ≤ x ≤ a, 0 ≤ y ≤ b), one has [68]:
$$\begin{array}{c}{\frac{\partial {p}_{1}}{\partial x}}_{x=0}={\frac{\partial {p}_{1}}{\partial x}}_{x=a}={\frac{\partial {p}_{1}}{\partial y}}_{y=0}={\frac{\partial {p}_{1}}{\partial y}}_{y=b}={\frac{\partial {p}_{1}}{\partial {z}_{1}}}_{{z}_{1}={h}_{1}}=0,\\ {\frac{\partial {p}_{2}}{\partial x}}_{x=0}={\frac{\partial {p}_{2}}{\partial x}}_{x=a}={\frac{\partial {p}_{2}}{\partial y}}_{y=0}={\frac{\partial {p}_{2}}{\partial y}}_{y=b}=0,\\ {\frac{\partial {p}_{3}}{\partial x}}_{x=0}={\frac{\partial {p}_{3}}{\partial x}}_{x=a}={\frac{\partial {p}_{3}}{\partial y}}_{y=0}={\frac{\partial {p}_{3}}{\partial y}}_{y=b}={\frac{\partial {p}_{3}}{\partial {z}_{3}}}_{{z}_{3}=0}=0,\\ {\frac{\partial {p}_{1}}{\partial {z}_{1}}}_{{z}_{1}=0}={\frac{\partial {p}_{2}}{\partial {z}_{2}}}_{{z}_{2}={h}_{2}}={\rho}_{0}{\stackrel{\u0308}{w}}_{1}\left(x,t\right),{\frac{\partial {p}_{2}}{\partial {z}_{2}}}_{{z}_{2}=0}={\frac{\partial {p}_{3}}{\partial {z}_{3}}}_{{z}_{3}={h}_{3}}={\rho}_{0}{\stackrel{\u0308}{w}}_{2}\left(x,t\right).\end{array}$$(9)
Furthermore, assuming simply support boundaries for the piezosandwich panels, the pertinent electric potentials and displacements may advantageously be written as functions of relevant modal components in the usual normal form:
$$\begin{array}{c}{w}_{i}\left(x,y,t\right)=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty}\sum _{m=1}^{\infty}{W}_{i,\mathrm{nm}}\left(t\right)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{n\pi}x/a)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{m\pi}y/b),\\ {\psi}_{i}\left(x,y,t\right)=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty}\sum _{m=1}^{\infty}{\Psi}_{i,\mathrm{nm}}\left(t\right)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{n\pi}x/a)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{m\pi}y/b),(i=1,2),\end{array}$$(10)
where W_{i,nm}(t), Ψ_{i,nm}(t), (i = 1, 2) are unknown timedependent modal coefficients.
At this point, noting the special form of the pressure boundary conditions in equation (9), the (triple) finite Fourier cosine transform can advantageously be applied to the threedimensional acoustic pressure fields of the cavities, p_{η}(x, y, z_{η}, t), (η = 1, 2, 3), to obtain:
$$\begin{array}{c}{\mathcal{F}}_{c}\left\{{p}_{\eta}\left(x,y,{z}_{\eta},t\right)\right\}={P}_{\eta}\left(i,j,k,t\right)=\frac{8}{\mathrm{ab}{h}_{\eta}}\underset{0}{\overset{{h}_{\eta}}{\int}}{\int}_{0}^{b}\underset{0}{\overset{a}{\int}}{p}_{\eta}\left(x,y,{z}_{\eta},t\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i\pi}x}{a}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{j\pi}y}{b}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{k\pi}{z}_{\eta}}{{h}_{\eta}}\right)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}{z}_{\eta},\\ {\mathcal{F}}_{c}^{1}\left\{{P}_{\eta}\left(i,j,k,t\right)\right\}={p}_{\eta}\left(x,y,{z}_{\eta},t\right)=\frac{{P}_{\eta}\left(\mathrm{0,0},0,t\right)}{8}+\frac{1}{4}\sum _{i=1}^{\infty}{P}_{\eta}\left(i,\mathrm{0,0},t\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i\pi}}{a}x\right)+\frac{1}{4}\sum _{j=1}^{\infty}{P}_{\eta}\left(0,j,0,t\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{j\pi}}{b}y\right)\\ +\frac{1}{4}\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}{P}_{\eta}\left(\mathrm{0,0},k,t\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{k\pi}}{{h}_{\eta}}{z}_{\eta}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\sum _{i=1}^{\infty}\sum _{j=1}^{\infty}{P}_{\eta}\left(i,j,0,t\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i\pi}}{a}x\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{j\pi}}{b}y\right)+\frac{1}{2}\sum _{j=1}^{\infty}\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}{P}_{\eta}\left(0,j,k,t\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{j\pi}}{b}y\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{k\pi}}{{h}_{\eta}}{z}_{\eta}\right)\\ +\frac{1}{2}\sum _{i=1}^{\infty}\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}{P}_{\eta}\left(i,0,k,t\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i\pi}}{a}x\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{k\pi}}{{h}_{\eta}}{z}_{\eta}\right)+\sum _{i=1}^{\infty}\sum _{j=1}^{\infty}\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}{P}_{\eta}\left(i,j,k,t\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i\pi}}{a}x\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{j\pi}}{b}y\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{k\pi}}{{h}_{\eta}}{z}_{\eta}\right),\end{array}$$(11)
where ${\mathcal{F}}_{c}^{1}$ signifies the classical Fourier cosine inverse transform. Furthermore, using the customary Galerkin approach, one may expediently utilize equations (6) and (10) in equation (2) in order to obtain the modal form of governing equations for the piezosandwich plates. Consequently, by using the relevant mode shape orthogonality relations, and after some basic manipulations, one arrives at the key system of ODEs for the top and bottom piezosandwich plates in the form:
$$\begin{array}{c}{\alpha}_{\mathrm{nm}}{W}_{1,\mathrm{nm}}+{\beta}_{\mathrm{nm}}{\stackrel{\u0308}{W}}_{1,\mathrm{nm}}=\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\mathrm{n\pi}{x}_{0}}{a}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\mathrm{m\pi}{y}_{0}}{b}\right)\left[{k}_{\mathrm{L}}\u2206{w}_{1}+{k}_{\mathrm{NL}}\u2206{w}_{1}^{3}+c\u2206{\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{1}{k}_{f}\left({I}_{31}+{I}_{32}\right)\right]{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{\mathrm{mn}}^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)\\ +\left({t}_{\mathrm{h}}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}}\right)\left({e}_{31}\frac{\mathrm{nb}}{\mathrm{ma}}+{e}_{32}\frac{\mathrm{ma}}{\mathrm{nb}}\right)\left[1{\left(1\right)}^{n}\right]\left[1{\left(1\right)}^{m}\right]{V}_{\mathrm{PZT}}^{\left(1\right)}+{\int}_{0}^{b}{\int}_{0}^{a}F\left(x,y,t\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\mathrm{n\pi}}{a}x\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\mathrm{m\pi}}{b}y\right)\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{dy},\\ {\alpha}_{\mathrm{nm}}{W}_{2,\mathrm{nm}}+{\beta}_{\mathrm{nm}}{\stackrel{\u0308}{W}}_{2,\mathrm{nm}}=\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\mathrm{n\pi}{x}_{0}}{a}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\mathrm{m\pi}{y}_{0}}{b}\right)\left[{k}_{\mathrm{L}}\u2206{w}_{2}+{k}_{\mathrm{NL}}\u2206{w}_{2}^{3}+c\u2206{\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{2}+{k}_{f}\left({I}_{31}+{I}_{32}\right)\right]{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{\mathrm{mn}}^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)\\ +\left({t}_{\mathrm{h}}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}}\right)\left({e}_{31}\frac{\mathrm{nb}}{\mathrm{ma}}+{e}_{32}\frac{\mathrm{ma}}{\mathrm{nb}}\right)\left[1{\left(1\right)}^{n}\right]\left[1{\left(1\right)}^{m}\right]{V}_{\mathrm{PZT}}^{\left(2\right)},\end{array}$$(12)
where the expressions for coefficients (α_{nm}, β_{nm}) along with the timedependent terms ${\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{\mathrm{mn}}^{\left(\mathrm{1,2}\right)}\left(t\right)$ are provided in Appendix B. Successive use of Fourier cosine transform for the sound pressure in equation (1), and applying the compatibility relations (9) as well as the modal expansions (10), gives:
$$\begin{array}{c}{\stackrel{\u0308}{P}}_{1}\left(i,j,k,t\right)+{\Omega}_{1\mathrm{ijk}}^{2}{P}_{1}\left(i,j,k,t\right)=\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}\frac{16{\rho}_{0}{c}_{0}^{2}}{\mathrm{ab}{h}_{1}}{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}{\stackrel{\u0308}{W}}_{1,\mathrm{nm}}\left(t\right),\\ {\stackrel{\u0308}{P}}_{2}\left(i,j,k,t\right)+{\Omega}_{2\mathrm{ijk}}^{2}{P}_{2}\left(i,j,k,t\right)=\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}\frac{16{\rho}_{0}{c}_{0}^{2}{\left(1\right)}^{k+1}}{\mathrm{ab}{h}_{2}}{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}{\stackrel{\u0308}{W}}_{1,\mathrm{nm}}\left(t\right)+\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}\frac{16{\rho}_{0}{c}_{0}^{2}}{\mathrm{ab}{h}_{2}}{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}{\stackrel{\u0308}{W}}_{2,\mathrm{nm}}\left(t\right),\\ {\stackrel{\u0308}{P}}_{3}\left(i,j,k,t\right)+{\Omega}_{3\mathrm{ijk}}^{2}{P}_{3}\left(i,j,k,t\right)=\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}\frac{16{\rho}_{0}{c}_{0}^{2}{\left(1\right)}^{k+1}}{\mathrm{ab}{h}_{3}}{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}{\stackrel{\u0308}{W}}_{2,\mathrm{nm}}\left(t\right),\end{array}$$(13)
where the coefficients Λ_{nmij} and ${\Omega}_{\eta \mathrm{ijk}}^{2},(\eta =\mathrm{1,2},3)$ are defined in Appendix B. Finally, the key unknown modal coefficients {W_{i,nm}(t), P_{η}(i, j, k, t} along with NVA displacement, q(t), can be determined through simultaneous solution of system of coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations (8), (12), and (13). Subsequently, the transverse displacement of each plate and acoustic pressure at any desired location can readily be obtained by using the series expansions (8)and 2nd of equations (11), respectively.
3 Optimization algorithm
In the present work, the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGAII) that iteratively pursues a set of acceptable tradeoffs of two conflicting objectives [69, 70], is numerically implemented for simultaneous optimization of all system parameters. Total harvested energy, as one of the competing objectives, is determined by integrating the harvesting power over time, while the instantaneous power extracted by the transduction mechanism is often represented by the energy dissipated across an equivalent resistive element in the coupled circuit [42, 71–73]. The purpose of the optimization procedure is to find optimized values for the target variables $\overline{\mathbf{X}}$ = [m, k_{L}, k_{NL}, c, R_{ij}, C_{ij}, L_{ij}] (i = 1,2,3, j = 1,2) in order to maximize the total harvested energy, ${J}_{\mathrm{E}}\left(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\right),$ and minimize the root mean square of receiving room centerpoint sound pressure level (SPL), ${J}_{\mathrm{P}}\left(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\right),$ as mathematically described by the following cost functions:
$$\begin{array}{c}{J}_{\mathrm{E}}\left(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\right)={\int}_{0}^{T}\sum _{i=1}^{3}\sum _{j=1}^{2}{R}_{\mathrm{ij}}{I}_{\mathrm{ij}}^{2}\mathrm{d}t,\\ {J}_{\mathrm{P}}\left(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\right)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{T}{\int}_{0}^{T}{p}_{3}^{2}(\frac{a}{2},\frac{b}{2},\frac{{h}_{3}}{2},t)\mathrm{d}t},\end{array}$$(14)
Here, the choice of minimizing the receiving room centerpoint SPL as an optimization target is welljustified due to its critical role as a representative location that captures the symmetrical sound distribution, offers valuable initial insights into overall sound trends, and, when effectively optimized, potentially yields noticeable enhancements in the whole receiving room’s average SPL. Following the standard procedure [69, 70], the main concept of NSGAII is to find a nondominated set of potential candidates for the target variables (Pareto front), and make improvements at each iteration step until the termination condition is met. Once the optimized values are obtained, they will be used as the input parameters for the main simulation results. The main steps of the optimization procedure are summarized in the flowchart of Figure 2. Also, the input parameters of optimization algorithm are given in Table 1. Lastly, the implemented optimization routes include: Maximum Pressure MitigationOpen Circuit (MPMO), Maximum Pressure MitigationShunted (MPMS), Maximum Energy HarvestingShunted (MEHS), and DualObjective Optimization System (DOOS).
Figure 2 Flowchart of the main steps in the NSGAII optimization procedure. 
Input parameters of optimization algorithm.
4 Numerical results
Having noted the relatively wide variety of physical parameters employed in the above presented relatively complex acoustoelastic formulation, while realizing our computational power restrictions, we should confine our attention to some specific numerical examples. The material and geometrical parameters of the proposed double piezosandwich platecavity system used for the main numerical simulations are listed in Table 2. A dedicated code is developed in order to numerically solve the coupled nonlinear ODE equations (8), (12), and (13). Convergence of numerical results was assured in a simple trial and error fashion, i.e., by gradually increasing the truncation constants and seeking for numerical consistency of the calculated solutions. Taking up to 10 acoustics and structural modes (n, m = 1, 2, 3, …, N_{max} = 10; i, j, k = 0, 1, 2, …, M_{max} = 9) (i.e., a maximum of 1000 acoustic modes along with 100 structural modes) were seen to produce accurate results (the convergence plots are omitted for briefness). The NVA/EMDattachment point is a critical factor for its vibration mitigation performance. Evidently, as one gets closer to the midplate location (i.e., x_{0} = 0.5a, y_{0} = 0.5b), the more pronounced will be the vibration reduction effects.
Geometrical and material properties of the double platecavity system.
Before presenting the key simulation results, the overall accuracy of the formulation is rigorously verified through finite element simulation. Accordingly, the time response evolution of centerpoint acoustic pressures in the source/receiving rooms and the centerpoint transverse plate displacements as well as that of the NVA are calculated for the open circuit configuration of the system with the following input parameters: The elastic host layer is composed of aluminum, while PZT4 is employed for the PZT sandwich layers, the plane stress properties of which are detailed in [74]. In addition, a = 0.8 m, b = 0.5 m, h_{1} = h_{3} = 1 m, h_{2} = 0.4 m; x_{0} = 0.5 m, y_{0} = 0.3 m, m = 1 kg, c = 0.2 Ns/m, K_{v} = K_{f} = 0, k_{L} = 2 kN/m and k_{NL} = 7 kN/m^{3}, with the remaining properties as listed in Table 2. Here, a concentrated impulsive force on the top plate is applied at (x_{1} = 0.6 m, y_{1} = 0.2 m) with the mathematical form:
$$F\left(x,y,t\right)=\delta \left(x{x}_{1}\right)\delta \left(y{y}_{1}\right)f\left(t\right)=\delta \left(x{x}_{1}\right)\delta \left(y{y}_{1}\right)\{\begin{array}{c}\left(3.3\times {10}^{4}\right)\mathrm{N}\hspace{0.5em}t\le {t}_{0}\\ 0{t}_{0}t\end{array}$$(15)
where t_{0} = 0.15 ms. In the FEM model, the physics modules of “Solid Mechanics,” “Pressure Acoustics, Transient” and “Electrostatics” are adopted as the main components of the numerical simulation. The realtime multiphysics interactions are realized by coupling the “Piezoelectric Effect” and “AcousticStructure Boundary” modules. The general geometry is composed of nine domains (i.e., three acoustic cavities, two elastic host layers of the plates, and four piezoelectric layer domains in the top/bottom plates). The attachment of the NVA to the double plate structure is arranged with a concentrated loading of an equivalent magnitude on each panel at the connection point based on equation (7), where the nonlinear dynamics of the NVA mass is coupled to the system governing equations through an “ODE Interface”. To perform the meshing, a web of rectangles is mapped on one face of the model, which is then swept through the whole body to yield 69120 cuboid elements with 2189821 degrees of freedom, as depicted in Figure 3. Lastly, the “Time Dependent Study” is conducted to obtain the numerical solution of the problem. Here, it should be noted that the FEM model employs a 3D elasticity methodology, which is different from the Kirchhoff thin plate assumption of the developed mathematical model. However, similar results are anticipated from the two approaches due to the thinness of the plates. The results, as shown in Figure 4, demonstrate good harmony with those calculated via the 3DFEM methodology constructed in COMSOL Multiphysics (version 6.1) package [75].
Figure 3 3D finite element model developed in COMSOL Multiphysics software. 
Figure 4 Time histories of centerpoint acoustic pressures in the source and receiving rooms and the centerpoint transverse plate & NVA displacements for a concentrated impulsive force applied on the top floor panel. 
Figure 5 depicts the collection of Pareto optimum points in the objectivespace [${J}_{\mathrm{P}}\left(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\right),{J}_{\mathrm{E}}\left(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\right)]$ based on the NSGAII algorithm for the shunted bare system (i.e., the shunted double PZTincorporated plates in absence of NVA and/or EM damper), shunted NVAequipped system, and shunted hybrid NVA/EMDequipped system under a single central point impulsive force acting on the top plate at t = 0 for 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.2 s. Here, it is clear that all acquired nondominated solutions are consistently distributed and converge to the Paretooptimal frontiers of the problem. Also, in each configuration, the “Green” circular marker completely dominates the other Pareto solutions for MPMS, while the “Red” marker dominates for MEHS. The “yellow” marker is roughly selected in order to represent a DOOS system that can achieve a reasonable tradeoff between maximum pressure mitigation and maximum energy harvesting. Furthermore, the last three main columns in Table 3 presents the numerical values of the design parameters associated with the selected Pareto optimal solutions that were marked by the green (MPMS), red (MEHS), and yellow (DOOS) circular markers in Figure 5, respectively. The numerical values listed in the first main column of Table 3 are associated with the optimal MPMO systems. Lastly, the superior performance of the shunted hybrid NVA/EMDequipped system in comparison to the other two configurations (in view of both maximum pressure mitigation and maximum energy harvesting) is apparent in the last row subplot of Figure 5. Here, a considerably more widely distributed Pareto solutions is observed in comparison to the sharper first row Pareto subplot associated with the bare system which is less sensitive to energy harvesting and/or pressure mitigation.
Figure 5 Pareto optimum points in the [${J}_{\mathrm{P}}\left(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\right),{J}_{\mathrm{E}}\left(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\right)]$ objectivespace for the shunted bare, shunted NVAequipped, and shunted hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configurations. 
Numerical values of the design parameters associated with the selected Pareto optimal solutions.
Figure 6 presents the time evolutions of different energy components in the optimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems for a train of five central point impulsive forces acting on the top plate at t = 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 s (see equation (15)), based on the optimal input parameters listed in Table 3. Here, ${J}_{\mathrm{E}}\left(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\right)$ is the harvested energy (green lines), the input energy (black lines) refer to the mechanical energy injected into the system by the applied train of centerpoint impulsive loads, the absorbed energy (purple lines) denotes the total amount of energy absorbed/stored eighter in the massspringdamper or in the internal resistance and inductance of the EMD, and the residual energy (red lines) is the energy remaining in the coupled vibroacoustic system (i.e., the input energy minus the absorbed and harvested energies). According to the open circuit case results illustrated in Figure 6, the residual energy matches the input energy for the bare system configuration in the absence of any harvesting or absorbing mechanism. Introducing an optimized NVA results in energy absorption in the system, which manifests in the form of kinetic energy of the mass, potential energy stored in the spring, or dissipated energy in the damper. Further incorporation of an EMD into the system facilitates additional energy absorption, either stored in the inductance or dissipated as heat in the resistance, leading to a slight increase in absorbed energy.
Figure 6 Time evolutions of various energy components in the NSGAoptimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems based on the calculated optimal target parameter values. 
Table 4 presents the numerical values of total harvested energy, absorbed energy, and residual energy associated with the optimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems for the bare, NVAequipped, and hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configurations as calculated at t = 0.2, 0.6 and 1.0 s. It is worthwhile to further discuss some key points here. In MPMS system for example, which prioritizes acoustic pressure mitigation rather than emphasizing energy absorption or harvesting, introduction of an NVA naturally increases the absorbed energy, as expected. However, its direct impact on harvested energy is not as straightforward to assess. As indicated in Table 4, the presence of the NVA slightly decreases harvested energy. This can be attributed to the energy absorbed by the NVA, leaving less kinetic energy in the system available for harvesting. On the other hand, while the presence of the EMD does not substantially impact the absorbed energy, it increases the harvested energy by introducing an additional harvesting shunt circuit. This effect can be better observed in Table 4, where, for example at t = 0.2, integrating the EMD into the NVAequipped system boosts the harvested energy from 8.8 to 12.0 mJ (~36% increase). In contrast, the primary objective in the MEHS scenario is to maximize the harvested energy without addressing sound pressure mitigation or vibration suppression. Unlike its role in MPMO and MPMS cases, the NVA no longer aims to increase the absorbed energy in this scenario. Instead, it functions as an additional degree of freedom attached to the system, the parameters of which are specifically tailored to enhance the harvested energy. The impact of NVA on energy harvesting becomes more apparent when it is integrated into the bare system in order to maximize the harvested energy. In this configuration, the influence of the optimized NVA induces a shift in system dynamics and provides a notable boost in harvested energy, increasing from 10.2 to 13.3 mJ at 0.2 s according to Table 4 (~30% increase).
Numerical values of total absorbed energy, harvested energy, and residual energy associated with the optimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems for the bare, NVAequipped, and hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configurations.
Furthermore, the barchart presented in Figure 7, which is constructed based on the data presented in Table 4, clearly illustrates the notable energy harvesting performance advantages of the MEHSand DOOSbased systems, particularly for the hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configuration in comparison to the MPMS system (i.e., up to 69% improvement in the total harvested energy for the hybrid MEHS system compared to the bare MPMS system at t = 1.0 s). Here, it should be mentioned that the objective in MPMS case is to minimize the acoustic pressure, and the parameters of the system are optimized to achieve this goal through absorbing or harvesting the energy. When the NVA is added to the structure of the bare system, although the amount of harvested energy slightly decreases (e.g. from 38.9 to 36.7 mJ at 0.6 s) but it also results in a notable amount of energy that is absorbed in the NVA. Therefore, addition of the NVA effectively assists in reducing the residual energy of the system (e.g. from 74.8 to 56.8 mJ at 0.6 s) and approach the objective of the optimization.
Figure 7 Barchart plot associated with the total harvested energy with different configurations. 
Finally, Figure 8 compares the time evolutions of centerpoint SPL in the source/receiving rooms for the optimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems associated with the bare, NVAequipped, and hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configurations. The proposed dualfunctional strategy is adapted to efficiently mitigate acoustic pressure while concurrently harvesting energy, as evidenced by Figures 6 and 8. It is worthwhile to note that conventional active damping methods rely on external energy resources to mitigate acoustic pressure through reducing vibrations. Hence, the energy harvesting capability of the suggested approach makes it particularly appealing for applications, where access to energy resources is limited. Table 5 presents the RMS values of centerpoint acoustic pressure in the receiving room for the optimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems associated with the bare, NVAequipped, and hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configurations as calculated at t = 0.2, 0.6 and 1.0 s. Moreover, the barchart presented in Figure 9, which is constructed using the data listed in Table 5, visibly illustrates the superior pressure mitigation performance advantages of the MPMS and DOOS systems, particularly for the hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configuration, in comparison to the other two (MEHS, and MPMO) systems (i.e., up to 96% reduction in the SPL for the hybrid MPMS system compared to the bare MPMO system).
Figure 8 Time evolutions of centerpoint acoustic pressures in the source and receiving rooms for the NSGAoptimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems associated with the bare, NVAequipped, and hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configurations. 
Figure 9 Barchart plot associated with RMS value of acoustic pressure for different configurations. 
RMS values of centerpoint acoustic pressure in the receiving room for the optimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems associated with the bare, NVAequipped, and hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configurations.
5 Conclusions
This study describes the conceptual development and analytical modeling of a novel highperformance vibrationbased hybrid synergetic electromagnetic/piezoelectric double plate floor structure for concurrent energy harvesting and interfloor impact sound transmission control. An efficient multiobjective evolutionary algorithm (NSGAII), which iteratively pursues a set of acceptable Paretooptimal solutions, is implemented to balance an optimal tradeoff between maximum total harvested energy and minimum receiving room centerpoint RMS acoustic pressure as two key competing objectives. Intensive numerical simulations reveal that the dualfunctional elastoacoustic response suppression and energy extraction performance can be substantially improved with the NSGAoptimized multimode shunted hybrid PZT/NVA/EMDequipped energy transduction mechanism as compared to the standalone (single element) piezoelectric conversion devices. In particular, the sonamed MPMS system is observed to decisively outperform the other Pareto solutions when the impact noise transmission control is of main concern. Also, the MEHS system is seen to dominate when the highest total energy extraction is desired. On the other hand, the DOOS system, which benefits from advantageous features of both systems, may intuitively be selected to achieve a reasonable tradeoff between maximum pressure mitigation and maximum energy harvesting. Furthermore, the notable energy harvesting performance advantages of the MEHSand DOOSbased systems, particularly for the hybrid PZT/NVA/EMDequipped configuration in comparison to the MPMS system are observed (i.e., up to (69%, 58%) improvements in the total harvested energy for the hybrid (MEHS, DOOS) systems compared to the bare MPMS system). Moreover, the superior pressure mitigation performance benefits of the MPMS and DOOS systems, especially for the hybrid PZT/NVA/EMDequipped configuration, in comparison to the other two (MEHS, and MPMO) systems are noted (i.e., about (96%, 93%) reductions in the SPL for the hybrid (MPMS, DOOS) systems compared to the bare MPMO system). In conclusion, the obtained results are very promising as the proposed hybrid NVAcoupled piezoelectricelectromagnetic transduction mechanisms are established to provide a novel approach for effective dualfunctional impact sound transmission control and vibration energy harvesting with particular applications in marine and heavy industrial building installations. Future research may include incorporation of the proposed procedure in design of smart structures with sophisticated controllers as well as further optimization of the structural and controller design parameters in order to achieve higher power extraction and lower SPLs.
Conflicts of interest
Authors declare no conflict of interests.
Data availability statement
Data are available on request from the authors.
Appendix A
In this appendix, the governing equations of motion for the threelayer sandwich PZTplate are derived. Accordingly, the local vertical coordinates for the piezosandwich plate layers are fixed with respect to their respective midplanes as follows (see Fig. 1):
$${\overline{z}}_{1}=z\frac{1}{2}\left({t}_{\mathrm{h}}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}}\right),{\overline{z}}_{2}=z,{\overline{z}}_{3}=z+\frac{1}{2}\left({t}_{\mathrm{h}}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}}\right),$$(A1)
where the subscripts (1, 2, 3) signify the upper piezoelectric, elastic base and lower piezoelectric layers, respectively. Next, using the KirchhoffLove assumptions for thin plates, the respective layer displacement components can be stated in the form [76]:
$$\begin{array}{c}{u}_{\mathrm{i}}\left(x,y,{\overline{z}}_{i},t\right)={\overline{z}}_{i}\frac{\partial {w}_{1}\left(x,y,t\right)}{\partial x},\\ {v}_{\mathrm{i}}\left(x,y,{\overline{z}}_{i},t\right)={\overline{z}}_{i}\frac{\partial {w}_{1}\left(x,y,t\right)}{\partial y},\\ {w}_{\mathrm{i}}\left(x,y,{\overline{z}}_{i},t\right)={w}_{1}\left(x,y,t\right),\end{array}$$(A2)
where i = 1, 2, 3; and w(x, y, t) is the vertical plate displacement, and with presumption of plane stress, while utilizing equations (A1), (A2), the relevant stressstrain relationships for each layer can be expressed in the form [77, 78]:
$$\begin{array}{c}{\epsilon}_{\mathrm{xx}}^{\left(i\right)}=\frac{\partial {u}_{i}}{\partial x}={\overline{z}}_{i}\frac{{\partial}^{2}{w}_{1}}{\partial {x}^{2}},{\sigma}_{\mathrm{xx}}^{\left(i\right)}={Q}_{11}^{\left(i\right)}{\epsilon}_{\mathrm{xx}}^{\left(i\right)}{e}_{31}^{\left(i\right)}{E}_{z}^{\left(i\right)},\\ {\epsilon}_{\mathrm{yy}}^{\left(i\right)}=\frac{\partial {v}_{i}}{\partial y}={\overline{z}}_{i}\frac{{\partial}^{2}{w}_{1}}{\partial {y}^{2}},{\sigma}_{\mathrm{yy}}^{\left(i\right)}={Q}_{22}^{\left(i\right)}{\epsilon}_{\mathrm{yy}}^{\left(i\right)}{e}_{32}^{\left(i\right)}{E}_{z}^{\left(i\right)},\\ {\gamma}_{\mathrm{xy}}^{\left(i\right)}=\frac{\partial {u}_{i}}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial {v}_{i}}{\partial x}=2{\overline{z}}_{i}\frac{{\partial}^{2}{w}_{1}}{\partial \mathrm{x\partial}y},{\tau}_{\mathrm{xy}}^{\left(i\right)}={Q}_{66}^{\left(i\right)}{\gamma}_{\mathrm{xy}}^{\left(i\right)},\end{array}$$(A3)
where i = 1, 2, 3; and (Q, e) refer to the pertinent elastic/piezoelectric parameters. Moreover, the electric field intensity E components in the piezoskin layers may be stated in the usual gradientpotential form [79, 80]:
$$\begin{array}{c}{E}_{x}^{\left(i\right)}=\frac{\partial {\phi}_{\mathrm{i}}}{\partial x},\\ {E}_{y}^{\left(i\right)}=\frac{\partial {\phi}_{\mathrm{i}}}{\partial y},\\ {E}_{z}^{\left(i\right)}=\frac{\partial {\phi}_{\mathrm{i}}}{\partial {\overline{z}}_{i}},\end{array}$$(A4)
where i = 1, 3. With subsequent use of Maxwell’s electrodynamics equations, the electric potential in the piezosandwich panel may be defined with a cosine variation in the thickness direction as [81,82]:
$${\phi}_{\mathrm{i}}\left(x,y,{\overline{z}}_{i},t\right)=\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi {\overline{z}}_{i}/{t}_{\mathrm{p}}\right){\psi}_{i}\left(x,y,t\right)+\frac{1}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}{\overline{z}}_{i}{V}_{\mathrm{PZT}}^{\left(1\right)},$$(A5)
Furthermore, the electric displacement components of the piezoelectric skins may correspondingly be stated as:
$$\begin{array}{c}{D}_{x}^{\left(i\right)}={\xi}_{11}{E}_{x}^{\left(i\right)},\\ {D}_{y}^{\left(i\right)}={\xi}_{22}{E}_{y}^{\left(i\right)},\\ {D}_{z}^{\left(i\right)}={e}_{31}^{\left(i\right)}{\epsilon}_{\mathrm{xx}}^{\left(i\right)}+{e}_{32}^{\left(i\right)}{\epsilon}_{\mathrm{yy}}^{\left(i\right)}+{\xi}_{33}{E}_{z}^{\left(i\right)},\end{array}$$(A6)
where ξ refer to the dielectric parameter.
Now, one can enforce the wellknown Hamilton’s variational principle to derive the dynamic model for the piezosandwich plates [76]:
$$\underset{{t}_{1}}{\overset{{t}_{2}}{\int}}\delta (T+WU)\mathrm{d}t=0,$$(A7)
where the variations of kinetic & strain energies, and the external work are respectively written as:
$$\begin{array}{c}\delta T=\underset{A}{\overset{}{\iint}}{\int}_{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}^{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}{\rho}_{\mathrm{p}}\left({\stackrel{\u0307}{u}}_{1}\delta {\stackrel{\u0307}{u}}_{1}+{\stackrel{\u0307}{v}}_{1}\delta {\stackrel{\u0307}{v}}_{1}+{\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{1}\delta {\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{1}\right)\mathrm{d}z\mathrm{d}A+\underset{A}{\overset{}{\iint}}{\int}_{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}^{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}{\rho}_{\mathrm{h}}\left({\stackrel{\u0307}{u}}_{2}\delta {\stackrel{\u0307}{u}}_{2}+{\stackrel{\u0307}{v}}_{2}\delta {\stackrel{\u0307}{v}}_{2}+{\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{2}\delta {\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{2}\right)\mathrm{d}z\mathrm{d}A\\ +\underset{A}{\overset{}{\iint}}{\int}_{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}^{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}{\rho}_{\mathrm{p}}\left({\stackrel{\u0307}{u}}_{3}\delta {\stackrel{\u0307}{u}}_{3}+{\stackrel{\u0307}{v}}_{3}\delta {\stackrel{\u0307}{v}}_{3}+{\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{3}\delta {\stackrel{\u0307}{w}}_{3}\right)\mathrm{d}z\mathrm{d}A,\\ \delta U=\underset{A}{\overset{a}{\iint}}\left\{{\int}_{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}^{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}\left[{\sigma}_{\mathrm{xx}}^{\left(1\right)}\delta {\epsilon}_{\mathrm{xx}}^{\left(1\right)}+{\sigma}_{\mathrm{yy}}^{\left(1\right)}\delta {\epsilon}_{\mathrm{yy}}^{\left(1\right)}+{\tau}_{\mathrm{xy}}^{\left(1\right)}\delta {\gamma}_{\mathrm{xy}}^{\left(1\right)}{D}_{x}^{\left(1\right)}\delta {E}_{x}^{\left(1\right)}{D}_{y}^{\left(1\right)}\delta {E}_{y}^{\left(1\right)}{D}_{z}^{\left(1\right)}\delta {E}_{z}^{\left(1\right)}\right]\mathrm{d}z+{\int}_{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}^{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}\left[{\sigma}_{\mathrm{xx}}^{\left(2\right)}\delta {\epsilon}_{\mathrm{xx}}^{\left(2\right)}+{\sigma}_{\mathrm{yy}}^{\left(2\right)}\delta {\epsilon}_{\mathrm{yy}}^{\left(2\right)}+{\tau}_{\mathrm{xy}}^{\left(2\right)}\delta {\gamma}_{\mathrm{xy}}^{\left(2\right)}\right]\mathrm{d}z+{\int}_{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}^{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}\left[{\sigma}_{\mathrm{xx}}^{\left(3\right)}\delta {\epsilon}_{\mathrm{xx}}^{\left(3\right)}+{\sigma}_{\mathrm{yy}}^{\left(3\right)}\delta {\epsilon}_{\mathrm{yy}}^{\left(3\right)}+{\tau}_{\mathrm{xy}}^{\left(3\right)}\delta {\gamma}_{\mathrm{xy}}^{\left(3\right)}{D}_{x}^{\left(3\right)}\delta {E}_{x}^{\left(3\right)}{D}_{y}^{\left(3\right)}\delta {E}_{y}^{\left(3\right)}{D}_{z}^{\left(3\right)}\delta {E}_{z}^{\left(3\right)}\right]\mathrm{d}z\right\}\mathrm{d}A,\\ \delta W=\underset{A}{\overset{a}{\iint}}{f}_{1}^{\mathrm{net}}\delta {w}_{1}\mathrm{d}A,\end{array}$$(A8)
in which ${f}_{1}^{\mathrm{net}}$ signifies the net external load acting on the top piezosandwich plate. After direct substitution of equations (A3) to (A6) into equation (A8) and the subsequent outcome into equation (A7), and going through the necessary integration by parts, the dynamic equations of motion for the top piezosandwich plate (plate 1) is determined as [63, 64]:
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathit{\delta}{\mathit{w}}_{\mathbf{1}}:\left({Q}_{11}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{Q}_{11}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}\right)\frac{{\partial}^{4}{w}_{1}}{\partial {x}^{4}}+\left({Q}_{22}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{Q}_{22}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}\right)\frac{{\partial}^{4}{w}_{1}}{\partial {y}^{4}}+2\left({Q}_{12}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{Q}_{12}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}+2{Q}_{66}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+4{Q}_{66}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}\right)\frac{{\partial}^{4}{w}_{1}}{\partial {x}^{2}\partial {y}^{2}}+\left({\rho}_{\mathrm{h}}{t}_{\mathrm{h}}+2{\rho}_{\mathrm{p}}{t}_{\mathrm{p}}\right){\stackrel{\u0308}{w}}_{1}\left({\rho}_{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{\rho}_{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}\right)\left(\frac{{\partial}^{2}{\stackrel{\u0308}{w}}_{1}}{\partial {x}^{2}}+\frac{{\partial}^{2}{\stackrel{\u0308}{w}}_{1}}{\partial {y}^{2}}\right)2{e}_{31}{I}_{2}^{\mathrm{p}}\frac{{\partial}^{2}{\psi}_{1}}{\partial {x}^{2}}2{e}_{32}{I}_{2}^{\mathrm{p}}\frac{{\partial}^{2}{\psi}_{1}}{\partial {y}^{2}}\left({t}_{\mathrm{h}}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}}\right)\left\{{e}_{31}\left[{\delta}^{\text{'}}\left(x\right){\delta}^{\text{'}}\left(xa\right)\right]\left[H\left(y\right)H\left(yb\right)\right]+{e}_{32}\left[H\left(x\right)H\left(xa\right)\right]\left[{\delta}^{\text{'}}\left(y\right){\delta}^{\text{'}}\left(yb\right)\right]\right\}{V}_{\mathrm{PZT}}^{\left(1\right)}={f}_{1}^{\mathrm{net}}\left(x,y,t\right),\\ \mathit{\delta}{\mathit{\psi}}_{\mathbf{1}}:{\xi}_{11}{I}_{3}^{\mathrm{p}}\frac{{\partial}^{2}{\psi}_{1}}{\partial {x}^{2}}+{\xi}_{22}{I}_{3}^{\mathrm{p}}\frac{{\partial}^{2}{\psi}_{1}}{\partial {y}^{2}}{\xi}_{33}\frac{{\pi}^{2}}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}}{I}_{4}^{\mathrm{p}}{\psi}_{1}={e}_{31}\frac{\pi {I}_{2}^{\mathrm{p}}}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}\frac{{\partial}^{2}{w}_{1}}{\partial {x}^{2}}+{e}_{32}\frac{\pi {I}_{2}^{\mathrm{p}}}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}\frac{{\partial}^{2}{w}_{1}}{\partial {y}^{2}},\end{array}$$(A9)
where the coefficients, ${I}_{\mathrm{1,2},\mathrm{3,4}}^{\mathrm{p}}$ and ${I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}$ are given as:
$$\begin{array}{c}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}={\int}_{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}^{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}{z}^{2}\mathrm{d}z,{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}={\int}_{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}^{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}{z}^{2}\mathrm{d}z,{I}_{2}^{\mathrm{p}}={\int}_{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}^{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}z\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}{\overline{z}}_{1}\right)\mathrm{d}z,\\ {I}_{3}^{\mathrm{p}}={\int}_{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}^{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathrm{cos}}^{2}\left(\frac{\pi}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}{\overline{z}}_{1}\right)\mathrm{d}z,{I}_{4}^{\mathrm{p}}={\int}_{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}}^{\frac{{t}_{\mathrm{h}}}{2}+{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathrm{sin}}^{2}\left(\frac{\pi}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}{\overline{z}}_{1}\right)\mathrm{d}z.\end{array}$$
The explicit expressions for dynamic equations of motion of the lower piezosandwich plate (plate 2) clearly follows exactly the same general format as in equation (A9), and is thus omitted for the sake of briefness.
Appendix B
$$\begin{array}{c}{\alpha}_{\mathrm{nm}}=\frac{\mathrm{ab}}{4}\left[\left({Q}_{11}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{Q}_{11}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}\right)\frac{{n}^{4}{\pi}^{4}}{{a}^{4}}+\left({Q}_{22}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{Q}_{22}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}\right)\frac{{m}^{4}{\pi}^{4}}{{b}^{4}}+2\left({Q}_{12}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{Q}_{12}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}+2{Q}_{66}^{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+4{Q}_{66}^{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}\right)\frac{{n}^{2}{m}^{2}{\pi}^{4}}{{a}^{2}{b}^{2}}\right]+\frac{\mathrm{ab}{I}_{2}^{\mathrm{p}}}{2}\left({e}_{31}\frac{{n}^{2}{\pi}^{2}}{{a}^{2}}+{e}_{32}\frac{{m}^{2}{\pi}^{2}}{{b}^{2}}\right)\frac{{e}_{31}{n}^{2}{b}^{2}\pi {I}_{2}^{\left(\mathrm{P}\right)}{t}_{\mathrm{p}}+{e}_{32}{m}^{2}{a}^{2}\pi {I}_{2}^{\left(\mathrm{P}\right)}{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}{{\xi}_{11}{I}_{3}^{\left(\mathrm{P}\right)}{n}^{2}{b}^{2}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}^{2}+{\xi}_{22}{I}_{3}^{\left(\mathrm{P}\right)}{m}^{2}{a}^{2}{{t}_{\mathrm{p}}}^{2}+{\xi}_{33}{a}^{2}{b}^{2}{I}_{4}^{\left(\mathrm{P}\right)}}\\ {\beta}_{\mathrm{nm}}=\frac{\mathrm{ab}}{4}\left[{\rho}_{\mathrm{h}}{t}_{\mathrm{h}}+2{\rho}_{\mathrm{p}}{t}_{\mathrm{p}}+\left({\rho}_{\mathrm{h}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{h}}+2{\rho}_{\mathrm{p}}{I}_{1}^{\mathrm{p}}\right)\left(\frac{{n}^{2}{\pi}^{2}}{{a}^{2}}+\frac{{m}^{2}{\pi}^{2}}{{b}^{2}}\right)\right],\\ {\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{\mathrm{mn}}^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)=\left[{\Xi}_{\mathrm{nm}}{P}_{1}\left(\mathrm{0,0},0,t\right)\hspace{1em}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{nmi}}{P}_{1}\left(i,\mathrm{0,0},t\right)\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{mnj}}{P}_{1}\left(0,j,0,t\right)+\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}2{\Xi}_{\mathrm{nm}}{P}_{1}\left(\mathrm{0,0},k,t\right)+\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}{P}_{1}\left(i,j,0,t\right)\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}2{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{nmi}}{P}_{1}\left(i,0,k,t\right)\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}2{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{mnj}}{P}_{1}\left(0,j,k,t\right)+\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}2{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}{P}_{1}\left(i,j,k,t\right)\right]\left[{\Xi}_{\mathrm{nm}}{P}_{2}\left(\mathrm{0,0},0,t\right)\hspace{1em}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{nmi}}{P}_{2}\left(i,\mathrm{0,0},t\right)\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{mnj}}{P}_{2}\left(0,j,0,t\right)+\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}{2\left(1\right)}^{k}{\Xi}_{\mathrm{nm}}{P}_{2}\left(\mathrm{0,0},k,t\right)+\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}{P}_{2}\left(i,j,0,t\right)\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}2{\left(1\right)}^{k}{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{nmi}}{P}_{2}\left(i,0,k,t\right)\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}2{\left(1\right)}^{k}{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{mnj}}{P}_{2}\left(0,j,k,t\right)+\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}2{\left(1\right)}^{k}{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}{P}_{2}\left(i,j,k,t\right)\right],\\ {\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_{\mathrm{mn}}^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)=\left[{\Xi}_{\mathrm{nm}}{P}_{2}\left(\mathrm{0,0},0,t\right)\hspace{1em}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{nmi}}{P}_{2}\left(i,\mathrm{0,0},t\right)\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{mnj}}{P}_{2}\left(0,j,0,t\right)+\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}2{\Xi}_{\mathrm{nm}}{P}_{2}\left(\mathrm{0,0},k,t\right)+\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}{P}_{2}\left(i,j,0,t\right)\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}2{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{nmi}}{P}_{2}\left(i,0,k,t\right)\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}2{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{mnj}}{P}_{2}\left(0,j,k,t\right)+\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}2{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}{P}_{2}\left(i,j,k,t\right)\right]\left\{{\Xi}_{\mathrm{nm}}{P}_{3}\left(\mathrm{0,0},0,t\right)\hspace{1em}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{nmi}}{P}_{3}\left(i,\mathrm{0,0},t\right)\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{mnj}}{P}_{3}\left(0,j,0,t\right)+\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}2{\left(1\right)}^{k}{\Xi}_{\mathrm{nm}}{P}_{3}\left(\mathrm{0,0},k,t\right)+\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}{P}_{3}\left(i,j,0,t\right)\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}2{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{nmi}}{P}_{3}\left(i,0,k,t\right)\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}2{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{mnj}}{P}_{3}\left(0,j,k,t\right)+\sum _{k=1}^{\infty}\sum _{j=1,j\ne m}^{\infty}\sum _{i=1,i\ne n}^{\infty}\frac{\mathrm{nmab}{\left(1\right)}^{k}}{{\pi}^{2}\left({n}^{2}{i}^{2}\right)\left({m}^{2}{j}^{2}\right)}\left[{\left(1\right)}^{n+i}1\right]\left[{\left(1\right)}^{m+j}1\right]{P}_{3}\left(i,j,k,t\right)\right\},\end{array}$$
where
$$\begin{array}{c}{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{nmi}}=\frac{\mathrm{nab}}{4{\mathrm{m\pi}}^{2}\left({n}^{2}{i}^{2}\right)}\left[{\left(1\right)}^{n+i}1\right]\left[1+{\left(1\right)}^{m+1}\right],\\ {\Xi}_{\mathrm{nm}}=\frac{\mathrm{ab}}{8\mathrm{nm}{\pi}^{2}}\left[1+{\left(1\right)}^{n+1}\right]\left[1+{\left(1\right)}^{m+1}\right],\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{c}{\Lambda}_{\mathrm{nmij}}=\frac{\mathrm{nmab}}{2{\pi}^{2}\left({n}^{2}{i}^{2}\right)\left({m}^{2}{j}^{2}\right)}\left[{\left(1\right)}^{n+i}1\right]\left[{\left(1\right)}^{m+j}1\right],\\ {\Omega}_{\mathrm{rijk}}^{2}={{c}_{0}}^{2}{\pi}^{2}\left[{\left(\frac{i}{a}\right)}^{2}+{\left(\frac{j}{b}\right)}^{2}+{\left(\frac{k}{{h}_{r}}\right)}^{2}\right].\end{array}$$
References
 U.P. Yadav: Impulsive noise generated in impact forming machinery. Applied Acoustics 7 (1974) 295–310. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S. Vajpayee: Acoustic characterisation of an impact forming machine. Applied Acoustics 20 (1987) 3–13. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Y. Asahi, W.H. Cho, A. Arimitsu, T. Toi: Modification of impact sound by adjusting the excitation input for comfortable design of punch press machine sound. Noise Control Engineering Journal 63 (2015) 598–607. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 P. Gning, V. Lanfranchi, N. Dauchez: Influence of the multicomponent electrical feed of aircore industrial reactors on their sound radiation. Acta Acustica 4 (2020) 14. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 M.S. Mosharrof, J. Brunskog, F. Ljunggren, A. Agren: An improved prediction model for the impact sound level of lightweight floors: introducing decoupled floorceiling and beamplate moment. Acta Acustica United with Acustica 97 (2011) 254–265. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 D.I. McBride: Evidence updates on risk factors for occupational noiseinduced hearing loss (ONIHL) Update 2: review of impact and impulse noise evidence. ACC (2018) 1–29. Available at https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/research/69aa104638/ONIHLevidenceimpactimpulse.pdf. [Google Scholar]
 C.L. Themann, E.A. Masterson: Occupational noise exposure: a review of its effects, epidemiology, and impact with recommendations for reducing its burden. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 146 (2019) 3879–3905. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 S. Sergeev, T. Humbert, H. Lissek, Y. Aurégan: Corona discharge actuator as an active sound absorber under normal and oblique incidence. Acta Acustica 6 (2022) 5. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 J.A. Gripp, D.A. Rade: Vibration and noise control using shunted piezoelectric transducers: a review. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 112 (2018) 359–383. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M. Volery, X. Guo, H. Lissek: Robust direct acoustic impedance control using two microphones for mixed feedforwardfeedback controller. Acta Acustica 7 (2023) 2. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 P. Shivashankar, S.J. Gopalakrishnan: Review on the use of piezoelectric materials for active vibration, noise, and flow control. Smart Materials and Structures 29 (2020) 053001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Y. Tao, M. Ren, H. Zhang, T. Peijs: Recent progress in acoustic materials and noise control strategies – a review. Applied Materials Today 24 (2021) 101141. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S.M. Hasheminejad, R. Vesal: Numerical simulation of impact sound transmission control across a smart hybrid double floor system equipped with a geneticallyoptimized NES absorber. Applied Acoustics 182 (2021) 108179. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S. Wrona, M. Pawelczyk, L. Cheng: Semiactive links in doublepanel noise barriers. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 154 (2021) 107542. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A. Dijckmans: Wave based modeling of the sound insulation of double walls with structural connections. Acta Acustica United with Acustica 103 (2017) 465–479. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 J. Li, P. Yang, S. Li: Reduction of sound transmission through finite clamped metamaterialbased doublewall sandwich plates with poroelastic cores. Acta Acustica United with Acustica 105 (2019) 850–868. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S.M. Hasheminejad, A. Jamalpoor: Sound transmission control through a hybrid smart double sandwich plate structure. Journal of Sandwich Structures & Materials 23 (2021) 2443–2483. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S.M. Hasheminejad, A. Jamalpoor: Cancelation of acoustic scattering from a smart hybrid ERF/PZTbased doublewall composite spherical shell structure. Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures 29 (2022) 7294–7315. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S.M. Hasheminejad, A. Jamalpoor: Control of sound transmission into a hybrid doublewall sandwich cylindrical shell. Journal of Vibration and Control 28 (2022) 689–706. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.O. Oyelade: Analytical modelling of sound transmission through finite clamped doublewall panels with magneticlinked stiffness. Acoustics Australia 47 (2019) 153–163. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 J. Shao, J. Yang, X. Wu, T. Zeng: Nonlinear energy sink applied for lowfrequency noise control inside acoustic cavities: a review. Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 40 (2021) 1453–1472. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Q. Mao: Improvement on sound transmission loss through a doubleplate structure by using electromagnetic shunt damper. Applied Acoustics 158 (2020) 107075. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S. Ulukus, A. Yener, E. Erkip, O. Simeone, M. Zorzi, P. Grover, K. Huang: Energy harvesting wireless communications: a review of recent advances. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 33 (2015) 360–381. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 D. Diab, N. Smagin, F. Lefebvre, G. Nassar, S. Isber, F. El Omar, A. Naja: Broadband vibrational energy harvesting with a spherical piezoelectric transducer devoted to underwater wireless sensor networks. Acta Acustica United with Acustica 105 (2019) 616–629. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.A. Babayo, M.H. Anisi, I. Ali: A review on energy management schemes in energy harvesting wireless sensor networks. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1176–1184. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.E. AkinPonnle, N.B. Carvalho: Energy harvesting mechanisms in a smart city—a review. Smart Cities 4 (2021) 476–498. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 H. Pan, L. Qi, Z. Zhang, J. Yan: Kinetic energy harvesting technologies for applications in land transportation: a comprehensive review. Applied Energy 286 (2021) 116518. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 H. Zhu, T. Tang, H. Yang, J. Wang, J. Song, G. Peng: The stateoftheart brief review on piezoelectric energy harvesting from flowinduced vibration. Shock and Vibration 2021 (2021) 8861821. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 K.T. Prajwal, K. Manickavasagam, R. Suresh: A review on vibration energy harvesting technologies: analysis and technologies. The European Physical Journal Special Topics 231 (2022) 1359–1371. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.F. Ahmad, A.R. Razali, F.R. Romlay, I.S. Razelan: Energy harvesting on pavement a review. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research 11 (2021) 1250–1266. [Google Scholar]
 S. Sharma, R. Kiran, P. Azad, R. Vaish: A review of piezoelectric energy harvesting tiles: available designs and future perspective. Energy Conversion and Management 254 (2022) 115272. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 P. Visconti, L. Bagordo, R. Velázquez, D. Cafagna, R. De Fazio: Available technologies and commercial devices to harvest energy by human trampling in smart flooring systems: a review. Energies 15 (2022) 432. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S.U. Ahmed, A. Sabir, T. Ashraf, M.A. Haider, F. Perveen, Z. Farooqui, R. Uddin: Energy harvesting through floor tiles, in: International Conference on Innovative Computing, IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIC48496.2019.8966706. ISBN: 9781728146829. [Google Scholar]
 T. Jintanawan, G. Phanomchoeng, S. Suwankawin, P. Kreepoke, P. Chetchatree, C. Uviengchai: Design of kineticenergy harvesting floors. Energies 13 (2020) 5419. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 C.Q. Gómez Muñoz, G. Zamacola Alcalde, F.P. García Márquez: Analysis and comparison of macro fiber composites and lead zirconate titanate (PZT) discs for an energy harvesting floor. Applied Sciences 10 (2020) 5951. [Google Scholar]
 S.H. Wang, M.C. Tsai, T.H. Wu: The analysis and design of a high efficiency piezoelectric harvesting floor with impacting force mechanism. Crystals 11 (2021) 380. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 X. Zhong, S. Wang, J. Chen, X. Liu, M. Guan, L. Chen: Energy harvesting from a floor structure based on multiple piezoelectric transducer beams. Ferroelectrics 577 (2021) 181–191. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 T. Yang, S. Zhou, S. Fang, W. Qin, D.J. Inman: Nonlinear vibration energy harvesting and vibration suppression technologies: Designs, analysis, and applications. Applied Physics Reviews 8 (2021) 31317. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Q. Cai, S. Zhu: The nexus between vibrationbased energy harvesting and structural vibration control: a comprehensive review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 155 (2022) 111920. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Y. Pei, Y. Liu, L. Zuo: Multiresonant electromagnetic shunt in base isolation for vibration damping and energy harvesting. Journal of Sound and Vibration 423 (2018) 1–17. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M. Alshaqaq, A. Erturk: Graded multifunctional piezoelectric metastructures for wideband vibration attenuation and energy harvesting. Smart Materials and Structures 30 (2020) 015029. [Google Scholar]
 L. Zuo, W. Cui: Dualfunctional energyharvesting and vibration control: electromagnetic resonant shunt series tuned mass dampers. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 135 (2013) 051018. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S.F. Ali, S. Adhikari: Energy harvesting dynamic vibration absorbers. Journal of Applied Mechanics 80 (2013) 041004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M.J. Brennan, B. Tang, G.P. Melo, V. Lopes Jr: An investigation into the simultaneous use of a resonator as an energy harvester and a vibration absorber. Journal of Sound and Vibration 333 (2014) 1331–1343. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Y. Luo, H. Sun, X. Wang, L. Zuo, N. Chen: Wind induced vibration control and energy harvesting of electromagnetic resonant shunt tuned massdamperinerter for building structures. Shock and Vibration 2017 (2017) 4180134. [Google Scholar]
 Z. Lu, Z. Wang, Y. Zhou, X. Lu: Nonlinear dissipative devices in structural vibration control: a review. Journal of Sound and Vibration 423 (2018) 18–49. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 H. Ding, L.Q. Chen: Designs, analysis, and applications of nonlinear energy sinks. Nonlinear Dynamics 100 (2020) 3061–3107. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 G. Zhao, G. Raze, A. Paknejad, A. Deraemaeker, G. Kerschen, C. Collette: Active nonlinear energy sink using force feedback under transient regime. Nonlinear Dynamics 102 (2020) 1319–1336. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.F. Vakakis, D.M. McFarland, L. Bergman, L.I. Manevitch, O. Gendelman: Isolated resonance captures and resonance capture cascades leading to singleor multimode passive energy pumping in damped coupled oscillators. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 126 (2004) 235–244. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.F. Vakakis, O.V. Gendelman, L.A. Bergman, A. Mojahed, M. Gzal: Nonlinear targeted energy transfer: state of the art and new perspectives. Nonlinear Dynamics 108 (2022) 711–741. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.F. Vakakis: Nonlinear targeted energy transfer and its application to vibration mitigation, Springer, Vienna, Austria, 2010, pp. 271–300. [Google Scholar]
 B. Fang, T. Theurich, M. Krack, L.A. Bergman, A.F. Vakakis: Vibration suppression and modal energy transfers in a linear beam with attached vibroimpact nonlinear energy sinks. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 91 (2020) 105415. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 T. Theurich, A.F. Vakakis, M. Krack: Predictive design of impact absorbers for mitigating resonances of flexible structures using a semianalytical approach. Journal of Sound and Vibration 516 (2022) 116527. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 K. Remick, D.D. Quinn, D.M. McFarland, L. Bergman, A. Vakakis: Highfrequency vibration energy harvesting from repeated impulsive forcing utilizing intentional dynamic instability caused by strong nonlinearity. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 28 (2017) 468–487. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 K. Remick, D.D. Quinn, D.M. McFarland, L. Bergman, A. Vakakis: Highfrequency vibration energy harvesting from impulsive excitation utilizing intentional dynamic instability caused by strong nonlinearity. Journal of Sound and Vibration 370 (2016) 259–279. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 W. Tian, Y. Li, Z. Yang, P. Li, T. Zhao: Suppression of nonlinear aeroelastic responses for a cantilevered trapezoidal plate in hypersonic airflow using an energy harvester enhanced nonlinear energy sink. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 172 (2020) 105417. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 P. Kakou, O. Barry: Simultaneous vibration reduction and energy harvesting of a nonlinear oscillator using a nonlinear electromagnetic vibration absorberinerter. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 156 (2021) 107607. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 X. Li, K. Liu, L. Xiong, L. Tang: Development and validation of a piecewise linear nonlinear energy sink for vibration suppression and energy harvesting. Journal of Sound and Vibration 503 (2021) 116104. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A. Blanchard, L.A. Bergman, A.F. Vakakis: Vortexinduced vibration of a linearly sprung cylinder with an internal rotational nonlinear energy sink in turbulent flow. Nonlinear Dynamics 99 (2020) 593–609. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Y. Pei, Y. Liu, L. Zuo: Regenerative base isolation with multiresonant electromagnetic shunt dampers. Dynamic Systems and Control Conference – American Society of Mechanical Engineers 58295 (2017) V003T32A001. [Google Scholar]
 J.Y. Li, S. Zhu: Advanced vibration isolation technique using versatile electromagnetic shunt damper with tunable behavior. Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112503. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 K. Nusser, S. Becker: Numerical investigation of the fluid structure acoustics interaction on a simplified car model. Acta Acustica 5 (2021) 22. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 A. Erturk, D.J. Inman: A distributed parameter electromechanical model for cantilevered piezoelectric energy harvesters. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 130 (2008) 041002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A. Erturk, D.J. Inman: An experimentally validated bimorph cantilever model for piezoelectric energy harvesting from base excitations. Smart Materials and Structures 18 (2009) 025009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A. Abdelkefi, F. Najar, A.H. Nayfeh, S.B. Ayed: An energy harvester using piezoelectric cantilever beams undergoing coupled bending–torsion vibrations. Smart Materials and Structures 20 (2011) 115007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 H. Shorakaei, A. Shooshtari: Analytical solution and energy harvesting from nonlinear vibration of an asymmetric bimorph piezoelectric plate and optimizing the plate parameters by genetic algorithm. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 29 (2018) 1120–1138. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M. Rezaee, R. Vesal: Perturbation analysis of resonant and nonresonant excitations of a beam equipped with a nonlinear vibration absorber. Iranian Journal of Mechanical Engineering 20 (2018) 109–132. [Google Scholar]
 F.J. Fahy, P. Gardonio: Sound and structural vibration: radiation, transmission and response, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
 K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T.A. Meyarivan: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGAII. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6 (2002) 182–197. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 O. Kramer: Genetic algorithms, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
 D.D. Quinn, A.L. Triplett, L.A. Bergman, A.F. Vakakis: Comparing linear and essentially nonlinear vibrationbased energy harvesting. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 133 (2011) 011001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 X. Huang, Z. Huang, X. Hua, Z. Chen: Investigation on vibration mitigation methodology with synergistic friction and electromagnetic damping energy dissipation. Nonlinear Dynamics 111 (2023) 18885–18910. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 X. Huang, B. Yang: Improving energy harvesting from impulsive excitations by a nonlinear tunable bistable energy harvester. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 158 (2021) 107797. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 J.S. Kim, J.R. Hill, K.W. Wang: An asymptotic approach for the analysis of piezoelectric fiber composite beams. Smart Materials and Structures 20 (2011) 25023. [Google Scholar]
 COMSOL Multiphysics 6.1, COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden, www.comsol.com n.d. [Google Scholar]
 S.S. Rao: Vibration of continuous systems, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M. Bodaghi, A.R. Damanpack, M.M. Aghdam, M. Shakeri: Nonlinear active control of FG beams in thermal environments subjected to blast loads with integrated FGP sensor/actuator layers. Composite Structures 94 (2012) 3612–3623. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 J. Yang, H.J. Xiang: Thermoelectromechanical characteristics of functionally graded piezoelectric actuators. Smart Materials and Structures 16 (2007) 784. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A. Masoumi, A. Amiri, R. Vesal, G. Rezazadeh: Nonlinear static pullin instability analysis of smart nanoswitch considering flexoelectric and surface effects via DQM. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 235, 2021 (2021) 7821–7835. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A. Amiri, R. Vesal, R. Talebitooti: Flexoelectric and surface effects on sizedependent flowinduced vibration and instability analysis of fluidconveying nanotubes based on flexoelectricity beam model. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 156 (2019) 474–485. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 H.R. Foruzande, A. Hajnayeb, A. Yaghootian: Nanoscale piezoelectric vibration energy harvester design. AIP Advances 7 (2017) 95122. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Q. Wang: On buckling of column structures with a pair of piezoelectric layers. Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 199–205. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cite this article as: Hasheminejad SM. Lissek H. & Vesal R. 2024. Energy harvesting and interfloor impact noise control using an optimally tuned hybrid damping system. Acta Acustica, 8, 42.
All Tables
Numerical values of the design parameters associated with the selected Pareto optimal solutions.
Numerical values of total absorbed energy, harvested energy, and residual energy associated with the optimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems for the bare, NVAequipped, and hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configurations.
RMS values of centerpoint acoustic pressure in the receiving room for the optimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems associated with the bare, NVAequipped, and hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configurations.
All Figures
Figure 1 Problem configuration. 

In the text 
Figure 2 Flowchart of the main steps in the NSGAII optimization procedure. 

In the text 
Figure 3 3D finite element model developed in COMSOL Multiphysics software. 

In the text 
Figure 4 Time histories of centerpoint acoustic pressures in the source and receiving rooms and the centerpoint transverse plate & NVA displacements for a concentrated impulsive force applied on the top floor panel. 

In the text 
Figure 5 Pareto optimum points in the [${J}_{\mathrm{P}}\left(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\right),{J}_{\mathrm{E}}\left(\overline{\mathbf{X}}\right)]$ objectivespace for the shunted bare, shunted NVAequipped, and shunted hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configurations. 

In the text 
Figure 6 Time evolutions of various energy components in the NSGAoptimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems based on the calculated optimal target parameter values. 

In the text 
Figure 7 Barchart plot associated with the total harvested energy with different configurations. 

In the text 
Figure 8 Time evolutions of centerpoint acoustic pressures in the source and receiving rooms for the NSGAoptimized MPMO, MPMS, MEHS, and DOOS systems associated with the bare, NVAequipped, and hybrid NVA/EMDequipped configurations. 

In the text 
Figure 9 Barchart plot associated with RMS value of acoustic pressure for different configurations. 

In the text 
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.