MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integration Methods of Sensors in FRP Components

2015· article· en· W2246556863 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Christof, Lena Müller, Simon Küppers, Paul Hofmann, Elisabeth Giebel, Sabine Frick, Markus Gabler, Götz T. Gresser

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS Technologies
Canadian institutionsBuckland & Taylor (Canada)
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials sciencePultrusionPolyvinylidene fluoridePiezoelectricityComposite materialBendingOptical fiberPiezoelectric sensorFiber optic sensorFiberPolymerOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural health monitoring is an important research topic in the field of fiber reinforced plastics (FRP). An effective way to detect defects or overloads in these FRP has still not been found. One way to monitor the actual state of FRP components is via integrated sensors. Integrating current standard sensors negatively affects the flux of force. Therefore investigations about integration methods of sensors in FRP components have been made. The integration of an optical fiber sensor into FRP profiles via a pultrusion process was investigated. It could be shown that the pultrusion process is suitable method for the integration of fiber optic sensors for strain measurements. Another investigated sensor principle was the integration of piezoelectric polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) fibers via a vacuum assisted process. The PVDF fibers were integrated into 3-point bending specimen and the piezoelectric effect was tested with and without polarization. The investigation showed that it is possible to measure the piezoelectric effect of PVDF fibers integrated into a 3-point bending test specimen. It could also be shown that carbon fibers can be used as textile electrodes for the measurement of the generated charge on the PVDF surface.

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)0.001
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207