On acoustic emission for damage detection and failure prediction in fiber reinforced polymer rods using pattern recognition analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) rods are used for pre-stressing and reinforcing in civil engineering applications. Damage in FRP rods can lead to sudden brittle failure, therefore, a reliable method that provides indicators of damage progression and potential failure in FRP rods is highly desirable. Acoustic emission (AE) signal analysis has been used for damage detection and monitoring of FRP materials. In this study, a new AE event detection algorithm, utilizing the root mean square envelope of AE signal, is applied to AE data to isolate each AE event separately, even when AE events are nearly coincident. A fuzzy c-means (FCM) clustering algorithm is used to classify these isolated AE events into 3 clusters. Scanning electron microscopy images of FRP rod cross-sections also show 3 types of damage. The hypothesis in this study is that each cluster represents a damage mechanism. The number of events in each cluster is monitored versus the percent of the ultimate load. The ratio of the number of AE events in one of the FCM clusters to the number of AE events in another FCM cluster was useful for providing an indication of when the stress levels have reached the point where the loads may cause the FRP rod to fail. The results of applying this parameter to four FRP rods show a significant slope change (factor of 10) in this ratio at around 40% and 60% of the ultimate load for glass FRP rods and carbon FRP rods, respectively. This method may prove useful in damage progression and failure prediction of the FRP rods in prefabricated structures where pre-stressed FRP is used and in field monitoring of FRP materials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".