MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032784302 · doi:10.1088/0964-1726/21/6/065010

<i>In situ</i>mechanical characterization of isotropic structures using guided wave propagation

2012· article· en· W2032784302 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre-Claude Ostiguy, Nicolas Quaegebeur, Kyle R Mulligan, Patrice Masson, Saïd Elkoun

Bibliographic record

VenueSmart Materials and Structures · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Finite element methodStructural health monitoringIsotropyMaterials scienceAcousticsTransducerRepeatabilityStructural engineeringCharacterization (materials science)Poisson's ratioPoisson distributionEngineeringComposite materialOpticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guided waves are widely used in structural health monitoring (SHM). Their behaviour is highly sensitive to the mechanical properties of a structure. The performance of damage detection strategies based on guided waves therefore relies on an accurate knowledge of the mechanical properties. This paper presents an integrated characterization technique that identifies the mechanical properties of isotropic structures, namely the elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio. The approach is based on a modified version of an imaging algorithm (Excitelet), where mechanical properties, instead of geometrical scattering features, are set as the variables to be identified. The methodology, accuracy, repeatability, and robustness are assessed, first via a finite element model (FEM) and then experimentally for an aluminum plate with attached piezoceramic (PZT) transducers. The plate is instrumented with two PZTs located 15 cm from each other in a pitch–catch configuration, distant enough to ensure proper mode discrimination. The algorithm accuracy and robustness with respect to slight variations in the geometrical inputs (PZT to PZT distance and thickness of the plate) are validated within ± 1% and ± 2%, respectively, with the FEM. Experimental results are validated within ± 1% of supplier properties, demonstrating the ability of this approach to allow accurate characterization of a structure in situ without the need for complex and expensive devices or ASTM testing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmart Materials and StructuresSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207