MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108812636 · doi:10.1115/pvp2013-97783

Development of an Expert System to Characterize Weld Defects Identified by Ultrasonic Testing

2013· article· en· W2108812636 on OpenAlexaff
D. Shahriari, Abbas Zolfaghari, Mohammad Jahazi, Philippe Bocher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasonic testingWeldingUltrasonic sensorStatistical powerComputer scienceNondestructive testingIdentification (biology)Characterization (materials science)Expert systemReliability engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMaterials scienceAcousticsMechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Welded structures are examined nondestructively, particularly for critical applications where weld failure can be catastrophic, such as in pressure vessels, load-bearing structural members, and power plants. Ultrasonic Testing (UT) is used in the examination of welds in thinner and thicker gauge materials where the size and location of the flaws are important to detect and interpret. Despite the advantages of the ultrasonic technique, the classification of defects based on ultrasonic signals is still frequently questioned, since the analysis and the identification of defect types depend exclusively on the experience and knowledge of the operator. The problem becomes more acute when high inspection rates, high probability of detection, and low number of false results are required. Thus, the correct classification of the type of flaw present in the material reduces measurement errors, increasing the confidence in the test and consequently the safety of the welded structure during service. In the present study, a new algorithm that allows for the detection and measurement of the length and type of weld defects is proposed. The system is based on a coupled dynamic and static patterns in an A-Scan and uses the defects cited in DIN EN 1713 standard as reference for evaluation. The proposed expert system has been evaluated and validated by examining several specimens containing various types of natural (non-artificial) defects identified in the mentioned standard. The results indicate that, the proposed algorithm has a clear potential in automatic defect detection and presents many advantages to the manual method for defect detection and characterization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207