Sound transmission through double wall aircraft structures/mounting effect.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of noise control treatment identification for turbulent boundary layer excitation, the main objective of this work is to assess the impact of mechanical links on the sound transmission loss through a double wall aircraft structure. An assembly of a stiffened panel made of composite fiber reinforced plastic (with a critical frequency around 6000 Hz) and a trim panel with a honeycomb core (with a critical frequency around 3000 Hz) has been considered in the whole study. The transmission loss of this double panel filled with glass wool blankets has been measured under diffuse sound field and point force excitation in the 100–10000 Hz frequency range for a fully decoupled configuration and a totally coupled one (rigid mounting). Extensive simulation using transfer matrix methodology has been conducted on the double panel for different glass wool filling rates, density, sound barriers, and add-on damping patches, for fully decoupled and rigid configuration. The main result is that the rigid mounting decreases significantly (up to 10 dB at 1000 Hz) the double wall transmission loss compared to a fully decoupled mounting and the acoustic efficiency of the passive treatments as well, whatever the excitation field.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".