MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772815612 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2017.2782799

Low-Frequency Eddy-Current Testing for Detection of Subsurface Cracks in CF-188 Stub Flange

2017· article· en· W2772815612 on OpenAlexaff
Natheer Alatawneh, P. R. Underhill, Thomas W. Krause

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlangeFastenerFuselageStructural engineeringMaterials scienceEddy-current testingConical surfacePerpendicularStub (electronics)AcousticsFinite element methodEddy currentEngineeringComposite materialGeometryElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vertical stub flanges on the CF-188 Hornet fighter aircraft are responsible for linking two vertical stabilizers to the fuselage. Repeated stresses due to dynamic loads on aircraft structure during flight may cause eyebrow cracks on the flange around fastener holes. Prevention of failure of the flange structure involves early detection before cracks grow to a critical length. Low-frequency eddy-current (LFEC) techniques have been applied to inspect thick conducting aircraft structures. However, in the case of the stub flange, LFEC is challenged by component geometry. In particular, the surface containing cracks is not parallel to the surface that is accessible for scanning. The bolts are perpendicular to the face with cracks but are almost at 85° to the scanning surface. A novel conical probe is designed to use the bolt as a core for the excitation (driver) coil, thereby increasing driving flux density, and to constrain probe positioning as it is swept around the bolt. Finite-element simulations are used to investigate influence of different parameters on LFEC impedance plane response. These include slope of the slanted surface, sample thickness, operating frequency, crack size, and edge effect for two different component edge shapes. Experimental measurements carried out at different frequencies on test samples, prepared with the same dimensions as actual flanges, were found to be in good agreement with computational models. Results indicate that LFEC is significantly affected by surrounding geometries, which therefore, need to be taken into account when inspecting for cracks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207