Comparison of different noise sources for the simulative cabin noise assessment of an electrically propelled regional aircraft
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rising number of passengers transported by aircraft leads to more flight traffic, further increasing the environmental impact of the aviation sector. In order to combat the growing environmental impact, the Cluster of Excellence Sustainable and Energy Efficient Aviation of TU Braunschweig aims to advance research towards a climate neutral aviation industry, especially with the design of an electrically propelled short-range regional aircraft, among others. In the conscience of passengers, the focus is also shifted towards a healthy and comfortable travel experience. One of the main factors influencing these aspects is noise inside the aircraft cabin. A lower noise impact can help increase the technology acceptance and further push towards more sustainable airborne transport solutions. This contribution aims to simulatively assess and compare the sound pressure levels inside the passenger cabin of an electric propeller aircraft. The focus is laid on two of the most important noise sources: the tonal propeller excitation as well as the sound field beneath the turbulent boundary layer. The paper presents a wave-resolving FE model considering both sources and shows, which sound pressure levels can be expected, while also comparing the frequency spectra separately, therefore enabling early design changes to help reduce the cabin noise.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it