MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041257738 · doi:10.1063/1.3362407

LASER INDUCED SHOCK WAVES FOR COMPOSITES ADHESIVE BOND TESTING

2010· article· en· W2041257738 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhuowei Gu, Mathieu Perton, S. E. Kruger, Alain Blouin, Daniel Lévesque, J.‐P. Monchalin, Andrew Johnston, M. Boustie, Laurent Berthe, Michel Arrigoni, Donald O. Thompson, Dale E. Chimenti

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsAdhesiveMaterials scienceLaserShock (circulatory)Shock waveBond strengthComposite materialDelamination (geology)InterferometryEpoxyComposite numberUltrasonic sensorOpticsLayer (electronics)MechanicsAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method based on shock waves produced by a pulsed laser is applied to the evaluation of bond strength of composite plates joined by an adhesive layer. A laser shock wave can cause a delamination when it propagates through the adhesive/plate interface. Different laser pulse energies can be used to evaluate this adhesion strength. A good bond will be unaffected by a certain level of shock wave stress whereas a weaker one will be damaged. The method is made quantitative and in‐situ by optically measuring the sample surface velocity with an interferometer. The signals give a signature of well‐bonded and disbonded interfaces, and are used to obtain an estimate of the bond strength. Results show that the proposed test is able to differentiate bond quality. Also, laser‐ultrasonic measurements made on shocked samples confirmed that weak bonds are revealed by the laser shock wave method.

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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesFrench-language works237,207