MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800517760 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2000-0001

ON DETECTION OF DEFECTS IN BEAMS AND TRUSSES FROM DYNAMIC RESPONSES

2000· article· en· W2800517760 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stanisław Łukasiewicz, K. Pałka

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrussStructural engineeringFinite element methodBendingStiffnessIdentification (biology)Closing (real estate)Bending stiffnessProcess (computing)Representation (politics)Computer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an identification method to detect cracks and corroded members in vibrating structures. The mathematical identification procedure based on the least square technique uses the measured dynamic response of a structure as the source of information. The application of the Finite Element Method (FEM) for the representation of all constraints and model equations allows presentation of the identification process in a simple and very efficient mathematical form. Propagation of cracks and other failures of the members cause changes in the bending and axial stiffness of the members. One can detect the crack by observing the change in the bending stiffness caused by the closing and opening of the crack in two different configurations. The proposed identification method provides highly precise calculated results which allows detection of small changes in the bending stiffness of the members resulting from cracks and corrosion. The method was tested on simulated experimental data.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207