A comparative quality assessment of textile composite using NDT and geometrical inspection techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major challenges in textile composites is the verification of their manufacturing quality, which has large influence on the mechanical properties. Quality assessment of these composites needs to have sufficient knowledge about the various types of nondestructive techniques and their inspection. The aim of this article is to evaluate the potential of three inspection techniques named ultrasounds, vibrations, dimensional measurement for detecting textile reinforcement defects in composites. The research work was focused on two types of defects, namely fiber/yarn breakage and ply misorientation, applied to woven textiles composite produced by vacuum assistant resin transfer molding. Fabric misorientation appeared to have an influence on the dynamic behavior of the textile composite samples. Potential solutions have also been identified to solve the issue of signal attenuation caused by the fabric observed during conventional and polar ultrasonic C‐scanning. A closer look at plates surface around eliminated unit cells by coordinate measuring machine at mesoscale did not appear any specific abnormality on due to artificially induced defect. POLYM. COMPOS., 35:1818–1825, 2014. © 2014 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".