MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068776418 · doi:10.4271/2013-01-1004

A Practical Procedure to Predict AIS Inlet Noise Using CAE Simulation Tools

2013· article· en· W2068776418 on OpenAlexaff
Weiguo Zhang, Brian Butler, Mark Likich, Mac Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Noise and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInletNoise (video)EngineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The air induction system (AIS), which provides clean air to the engine for combustion, is very important for engine acoustics. A practical CAE procedure to predict AIS inlet noise is presented in this paper. GT-Power, a commercially available software program can be used to simulate the engine performance and predict air induction noise. The accuracy of GT-Power is dependent on many variables, such as: proper duct discretization size, proper number of flow splits to model the air box and the capturing of the correct resonator geometry for tuning frequency. Since GT-Power is based on a 1D assumption, several iterations need be performed to model the complex AIS components, such as, irregular shaped air box, resonator volume, porous ducts and perforated pipes. Because of this, the GT-Power AIS model needs to be correlated to test data using transmission loss data. But in the case when test data is not available for correlation, especially in early design stage when no test parts are available, a virtual ‘test’ method needs to be utilized. As an alternative, a 3D Finite Element Method (FEM) or Boundary Element Method (BEM), can be utilized as a virtual ‘test’ TL bench for GT-Power model correlation. In this paper, SYSNOISE, which has both a FEM and BEM solver, is utilized to compute the TL of an Air Induction System. The procedure is described as follows. First, a preliminary AIS GT-Power model is built based on the design geometry. Second, the corresponding SYSNOISE model for the same geometry is built and the TL is computed. Then, iterations are taken to update the GT-Power model in order to correlate the TL data with SYSNOISE TL results. Finally, the correlated GT-Power AIS model is attached to the full system GT-Power model and then the software computations are run yielding a predictive inlet noise curve. Several case studies are shown that demonstrate the validity of the proposed procedure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicVehicle Noise and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207