Vibroacoustic response of panels under diffuse acoustic field excitation from sensitivity functions and reciprocity principles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims at developing an experimental method to characterize the vibroacoustic response of a panel to a diffuse acoustic field (DAF) excitation with a different laboratory setup than those used in standards (i.e., coupled rooms). The proposed methodology is based on a theoretical model of the DAF and on the measurement of the panel's sensitivity functions, which characterize its vibroacoustic response to wall plane waves. These functions can be estimated experimentally using variations of the reciprocity principle, which are described in the present paper. These principles can either be applied for characterizing the structural response by exciting the panel with a normal force at the point of interest or for characterizing the acoustic response (radiated pressure, acoustic intensity) by exciting the panel with a monopole and a dipole source. For both applications, the validity of the proposed approach is numerically and experimentally verified on a test case composed of a baffled simply supported plate. An implementation for estimating the sound transmission loss of the plate is finally proposed. The results are discussed and compared with measurements performed in a coupled anechoic-reverberant room facility following standards.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".