MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403982093 · doi:10.1121/10.0034228

Prediction of the sound transmission loss of shape-varied sonic crystals: A transfer matrix approach

2024· article· en· W4403982093 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Plé, Tenon Charly Kone, Alla Eddine Benchikh Le Hocine, Raymond Panneton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmission lossDiscretizationAcousticsSound transmission classFinite element methodNoise (video)Transfer-matrix method (optics)AirfoilTransfer matrixStructural acousticsAirflowTortuosityMatrix (chemical analysis)Transmission (telecommunications)GeometryMaterials scienceMechanicsPhysicsOpticsMathematicsMathematical analysisComputer scienceVibrationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a transfer matrix method (TMM) for modeling sonic crystals to predict the transmission loss of noise exiting an air extraction system. Because the crystals may be of different shapes (e.g., square, circular, or standardized airfoil profile to minimize airflow resistance) and must account for thermo-viscous losses, a discrete version of the TMM is used. Similar to the finite element method, a discretization of the geometry is first performed. Each element is modeled with a transfer matrix (TM) that includes the local thermo-viscous losses which attenuate the sound wave. For each element in parallel, the parallel TMM is employed. For the subsequently created elements in series, the classic TMM is used. This generates a global TM from which the sound transmission loss of the crystal network is deduced. The predictions obtained by the proposed method are compared to measurements in an acoustic tube for three different shapes of sonic crystals. The results show that a geometric tortuosity correction is necessary for the predicted bandgap center frequency to match the measurement. A correction is proposed, but this requires a possible refinement for more complicated profiles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207