The Derivation of an Empirical Model to Estimate the Power Spectral Density of Turbulent Boundary Layer Wall Pressure in Aircraft Using Machine Learning Regression Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aircraft cabin noise poses a health risk for regular passengers and crew, being connected to a heightened risk of cardiovascular disease, hearing loss, and sleep deprivation. At cruise conditions, its most significant cause is random pressure fluctuations in the turbulent boundary layer of aircraft, and as such the derivation of an accurate model to predict the power spectral density of these fluctuations remains an important ongoing research topic. Early models (such as those by Lowson and Robertson) were derived by simplifying the governing equations, the Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes equations, and solving for fluctuating pressure. Most subsequent equations were derived either by applying statistical and mathematical techniques to simplify the Robertson and Lowson models or by making modifications to address apparent shortcomings. Overall, these models have had varying success—most are accurate near the Mach and Reynolds numbers they were designed for, but less accurate under other conditions. In response to this shortcoming, Dominique demonstrated that a novel technique (machine learning, specifically artificial neural networking) could produce a model that is accurate under most flight conditions. This paper extends this research further by applying a different machine learning technique (nonlinear least squares regression analysis) and dimensional analysis to produce a new model. The resulting equation proved accurate under its design conditions of low airspeed (approximately 11 m/s) and low turbulent Reynolds number (approximately 850,000). However, a larger dataset with more diverse flight conditions would be required to make the model more generally applicable.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".