Optimization of an aircraft fuselage assembly to minimize radiated sound power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the structural design of an aircraft fuselage, the acoustic performance is generally not considered. However, vibrations transmitted through the fuselage generate noise leading to passenger discomfort. Currently, the main source of noise reduction comes from the addition of damping material to the fuselage. This work investigates the use of various design optimization techniques to reduce radiated sound power by changing the fuselage structure’s geometry which consists of a skin panel, frames, and stringers. Design optimization tools, such as topology, size, and shape optimization were used to determine an optimal design for each design variable that minimized radiated sound power in the fuselage assembly. The design variables that were studied included skin panel thickness and design, frame and stringer spacing, and frame and stringer cross section. Equivalent radiated power was used as an objective function for numerical optimizations within Altair OptiStruct as an indirect method for minimizing radiated sound power numerically. To understand the source of the sound power improvements, a physics analysis was conducted for each design variable that compared sound power, equivalent radiated power, and radiation efficiency.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".