Acoustical methods for the investigation of adhesively bonded structures: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acoustical methods have been widely used for almost 30 years for flaw detection, visualization, and local parameter measurement of different materials. Acoustical techniques are irreplaceable tools for nondestructive evaluation of adhesive-bonded composites and components for the electronics, aeronautics, and automotive industries in the high-technology sector. In the last decade, much progress has been made in the development and improvement of acoustical methods for the investigation of adhesively-bonded structures. These methods allow us to detect voids, delaminations, porosities, cracks, and poor adhesion. In this paper, the most common techniques, such as normal and oblique ultrasonic scans, resonant ultrasonic spectroscopy, and Lamb-wave methods are reviewed. Analysis of the typical defects that can occur in adhesive joints and their causes are presented. The progress of the study of the adhesion mechanism and the role of the interfacial properties and surface conditions in the adhesion process is surveyed. PACS No.: 81.70.Cv
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
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".