Numerical and experimental characterization of the transmission loss of complex composite panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The noise reduction in aircrafts is one of the top priorities for the aerospace industry. In this paper, a thorough investigation is done on the reliability of numerical FEM/BEM methods to predict the sound transmission loss of aircraft-type panels. The investigation is based on the comparison between numerical predictions, using commercial and in-house software, and measurements for different configurations of panels: single plate, double plate with air cavity, and double plate with cavity absorption. Clamped boundary conditions are used for both the simulation and experiments. The porous material is modeled following Biot theory and the diffuse sound field is simulated as a superposition of plane waves at various directions. For the experimental part, the transmission loss is obtained by setting the panel between a reverberant and an anechoic room. The transmitted power is measured with an intensity probe allowing fine characterization of the effects of complexities such as the boundary conditions and leaks. Furthermore, the quadratic velocity is measured as a means of validation for the mode shapes. Discussions on the numerical procedure to follow for providing reliable transmission loss predictions and a discussion on the discrepancies between the experiments and the numerical simulations will be done.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".