Microstructure based model for sound absorption predictions of perforated closed-cell metallic foams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Closed-cell metallic foams are known for their rigidity, lightness, thermal conductivity as well as their low production cost compared to open-cell metallic foams. However, they are also poor sound absorbers. Similarly to a rigid solid, a method to enhance their sound absorption is to perforate them. This method has shown good preliminary results but has not yet been analyzed from a microstructure point of view. The objective of this work is to better understand how perforations interact with closed-cell foam microstructure and how it modifies the sound absorption of the foam. A simple two-dimensional microstructural model of the perforated closed-cell metallic foam is presented and numerically solved. A rough three-dimensional conversion of the two-dimensional results is proposed. The results obtained with the calculation method show that the perforated closed-cell foam behaves similarly to a perforated solid; however, its sound absorption is modulated by the foam microstructure, and most particularly by the diameters of both perforation and pore. A comparison with measurements demonstrates that the proposed calculation method yields realistic trends. Some design guides are also proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it