Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42590286›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Sound Absorption Modeling in Porous Materials: A Critical Review of Empirical, Equivalent-Fluid, Poroelastic, Resonant, and Numerical Methods.

Marek Nikodym, Martin Vasina

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marek NikodymFaculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, 17. listopadu 2172/15, 708 00 Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic.
Martin VasinaFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, 17. listopadu 2172/15, 708 00 Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-8506-098X

Funding

European Union CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004631
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the main empirical, equivalent-fluid, poroelastic, resonant, and numerical models used to describe sound absorption in porous materials. Each model is described in detail with regard to its theoretical basis, governing equations, and key physical parameters. Special attention is devoted to the assumptions underlying each model, such as whether the frame is rigid or flexible, the applicable frequency range, and the types of porous media they most accurately represent. The advantages and limitations of the different approaches are critically assessed in terms of prediction accuracy, computational complexity, physical interpretability, and experimental requirements. In addition, this paper summarizes and critically discusses published model-experiment comparisons for representative porous and resonant acoustic materials. These comparisons highlight the strengths and weaknesses of different modeling strategies in various acoustic applications and provide guidance for selecting the most suitable model according to the material properties and target frequency range. The review shows that equivalent-fluid models generally provide the best compromise between prediction accuracy and computational efficiency for rigid-frame porous materials, whereas Biot-type poroelastic models are more suitable when frame motion cannot be neglected.

Indexed as

acoustic modelingBiot theoryempirical modelsequivalent-fluid modelsJohnson–Champoux–Allard modelporoelastic modelsporous materialssound absorption

Identifiers

PMID42590286
PMCPMC13467543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.