MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Approximate expressions for the reflection coefficient of ducts terminated by circular flanges

2012· article· en· W1995061818 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrey R. da Silva, Paulo Henrique Mareze, Arcanjo Lenzi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMcGill University
KeywordsFlangeMathematical analysisHelmholtz free energyReflection coefficientPolynomialBoundary value problemReflection (computer programming)MathematicsBoundary (topology)Finite element methodGeometryPlane (geometry)PhysicsOpticsStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating the magnitude of the pressure reflection coefficient |R| and the end correction l at the open end of ducts is a critical procedure when designing or predicting the acoustic behavior of acoustical systems, such as exhausts, tailpipes, mufflers, loudspeaker enclosures and so on. For cylindrical ducts and plane waves, exact intricate solutions exist for two distinct open-end boundary conditions, namely for a thin-walled unflanged pipe and for a pipe terminated by an infinite flange. This work provides simple approximate expressions for |R| and l of cylindrical pipes terminated by circular flanges with finite radii. The expressions are obtained from a polynomial fit performed over the numerical results provided by a Boundary Element model, and is valid for Helmholtz numbers in the range 0 < ka < 3.0, as well as for 0 < a/b < 1, where a and b are the pipe and flange radii, respectively. When compared with the exact solutions for both the unflanged and the infinite-flanged pipe, the approximate formulae provide a maximum error of ~2% at the upper frequency limit (ka →3.0).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and EngineeringSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207