Effect of variability in micro-geometry of polyurethane foams on the double wall transmission loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The numerical formulations used for the modeling and design of sound absorbing materials are constructed based on a set of physical parameters, known as the Biot's parameters (for isotropic materials these are comprised of 5 non-acoustical parameters and 4 mechanical parameters). These parameters are inter-correlated and are microstructure-dependent. There is in consequence a need for the development of links between the cellular structure of the foams and the Biot's parameters before realistically using these models for material-level optimization. In this sense, a microstructure-based model has been developed by Doutres et al. [J. Appl. Phys. 110, 064901 (2011)] to link the microstructure (thickness and length of struts and the closed windows content) of polyurethane (PU) foams to their non-acoustical parameters. In this study, a global sensitivity analysis using Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test (FAST) is performed to investigate the impact of the variability, associated with the irregularities in microstructure, on the TL of double wall system.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".