Comparison of the reception plate method and the inverse force method for assessing the power of a dummy vibratory source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple vibratory sources are integrated in the aircraft. The vibrational power of these sources is injected \nto the receiving structure through their connections points resulting in annoying acoustic levels \nin the cabin. This noise, referred to as structure borne noise, could be mitigated if vibrating systems, \nreceiving structures and interfaces between them are well designed. Methods, such as Reception Plate \nMethod (RPM), Inverse Force Method (IFM) or Component-Based Transfer Path Analysis (CB-TPA) \nhave been developed to specify proper design guidelines related to noise mitigation during the design \nphase. This work focuses on the RPM and IFM, which allow for measuring the power from \na vibratory source into a reception plate. Previous works, based on a round-robin evaluation, have \nshown that the RPM is very sensitive to the experimental test setup. The main errors come from the \nplate loss factor measurement and spatially-averaged plate velocity, which contribute directly into the \npower computation. In this work, a similar experimental setup has been developed. The experimental \nloss factor is obtained with the impulse response decay method and several automatic dB-decays \nare considered. The number of accelerometers and their positions are also investigated for assessing \nthe spatially-averaged plate velocity. Both analyses allow for determining the RPM power with \nminimum-maximum deviation curves. The RPM results are compared with the IFM considering one \nand three translational degrees of freedom using a custom-made dummy source with a controlled \ntonal behavior varying from low (100 Hz) to high (1200 Hz) frequencies.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".