Transfer matrix method applied to the parallel assembly of sound absorbing materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transfer matrix method (TMM) is used conventionally to predict the acoustic properties of laterally infinite homogeneous layers assembled in series to form a multilayer. In this work, a parallel assembly process of transfer matrices is used to model heterogeneous materials such as patchworks, acoustic mosaics, or a collection of acoustic elements in parallel. In this method, it is assumed that each parallel element can be modeled by a 2 × 2 transfer matrix, and no diffusion exists between elements. The resulting transfer matrix of the parallel assembly is also a 2 × 2 matrix that can be assembled in series with the classical TMM. The method is validated by comparison with finite element (FE) simulations and acoustical tube measurements on different parallel/series configurations at normal and oblique incidence. The comparisons are in terms of sound absorption coefficient and transmission loss on experimental and simulated data and published data, notably published data on a parallel array of resonators. From these comparisons, the limitations of the method are discussed. Finally, applications to three-dimensional geometries are studied, where the geometries are discretized as in a FE concept. Compared to FE simulations, the extended TMM yields similar results with a trivial computation time.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".