MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Robustness of a Structural Health Monitoring System under Drop-weight Impact Loading in Composites

2010· article· en· W2554318111 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre-Claude Ostiguy, Kyle R Mulligan, Patrice Masson, Saïd Elkoun

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Conference of the PHM Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite numberStructural health monitoringRobustness (evolution)Composite materialTransducerDrop (telecommunication)Electrical impedanceAcousticsStructural engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the robustness of a structural health monitoring system is tested on fiber glass composite coupons under impact testing using a drop-weight impact. The composite coupons are fitted with leadzirconate-titanate (PZT) transducers to induce Lamb waves into the specimens. Robustness of the structural health monitoring system is assessed. The electrical admittance defined by the inverse of the impedance is chosen as the robustness metric and is measured using an LCR analyzer prior to, and following an impact event. Detachment of the PZT transducer is monitored through comparison of the measured electrical admittances. An average minimum composite coupon thickness of 7 mm is defined for impacting fiber glass composite coupons with pre-attached PZT transducers. A 1.5 % drop of electrical admittance was observed for that thickness for one impact. The chosen metric is related to the capability of the structural health monitoring system to provide accurate damage detection results following an impact.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Conference of the PHM SocietySame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207