High sound pressure level sound absorption in acoustic resonant metamaterials: adapting a mass-spring model for nonlinear effects
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
In aerospace, conventional materials as micro-perforated panels backed by cavities are used to absorb sound at high sound pressure levels. These solutions are not optimal at low frequencies compared to resonant acoustic metamaterials, which present an acoustic absorption peak with a wavelength-to-thickness ratio greater than conventional materials, i.e., a ratio>>5. Acoustic resonant metamaterials are mainly studied at low sound pressure levels (<100dB). However, they are sensitive to increasing the amplitude of acoustic excitation. The studied metamaterial is composed of a compact array of thin single-perforation panels spaced by thin cylindrical air cavities. In a previous study, a mass-spring model was developed for low sound pressure levels. The perforations are modeled by equivalent masses, whereas cavities by equivalent springs. In the perforations, high values of the acoustic velocity lead to an increase in the acoustic resistance of the material. This effect is considered by the Forchheimer parameter in the mass-spring model. To determine this parameter and to study how it is impacted by the metamaterial geometry, the computational fluid dynamic method is used. The mass-spring model is adapted with a nonlinear term. The adapted model agrees well with simulations by finite element method at sound pressure levels up to 140dB.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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