Acoustic contributions of a sound absorbing blanket placed in a double panel structure: Absorption versus transmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to propose a simple tool to estimate the absorption vs. transmission loss contributions of a multilayered blanket unbounded in a double panel structure and thus guide its optimization. The normal incidence airborne sound transmission loss of the double panel structure, without structure-borne connections, is written in terms of three main contributions; (i) sound transmission loss of the panels, (ii) sound transmission loss of the blanket and (iii) sound absorption due to multiple reflections inside the cavity. The method is applied to four different blankets frequently used in automotive and aeronautic applications: a non-symmetric multilayer made of a screen in sandwich between two porous layers and three symmetric porous layers having different pore geometries. It is shown that the absorption behavior of the blanket controls the acoustic behavior of the treatment at low and medium frequencies and its transmission loss at high frequencies. Acoustic treatment having poor sound absorption behavior can affect the performance of the double panel structure.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".