A comparative investigation for the nondestructive testing of honeycomb structures by holographic interferometry and infrared thermography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nondestructive testing (NDT) of honeycomb sandwich structures has been the subject of several studies. Classical techniques such as ultrasound testing and x-rays are commonly used to inspect these structures. Holographic interferometry (HI) and infrared thermography (IT) have shown to be interesting alternatives. Holography has been successfully used to detect debonding between the skin and the honeycomb core on honeycomb panels under a controlled environment. Active thermography has proven to effectively identify the most common types of defects (water ingress, debonding, crushed core, surface impacts) normally present in aeronautical honeycomb parts while inspecting large surfaces in a fast manner. This is very attractive for both the inspection during the manufacturing process and for in situ regular NDT assessment. A comparative experimental investigation is discussed herein to evaluate the performance of HI and IT for the NDT on a honeycomb panel with fabricated defects. The main advantages and limitations of both techniques are enumerated and discussed. © 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".