Comparison of a piezoceramic transducer and an EMAT for the omnidirectional transduction of SH0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fundamental shear horizontal ultrasonic guided wave mode has unique properties for non-destructive testing as well as structural health monitoring applications. It is the only non-dispersive guided wave mode and it is not attenuated by fluid loading. Moreover, shear horizontal waves do not convert to other guided wave modes when interacting with a boundary or defect parallel to the direction of polarization. In many applications, omnidirectional transduction is preferred so as to maximize the inspection coverage. The omnidirectional transduction of the fundamental shear horizontal ultrasonic guided wave mode is, however, challenging because a torsional surface stress is required. This paper compares the performances of two concepts recently proposed in the literature: 1- a piezoceramic transducer and 2- an electromagnetic-acoustic transducer. The piezoceramic transducer uses 6 trapezoidal shear piezoelectric elements arranged on a discretized circle. The electromagnetic acoustic transducer concept consists of a pair of ring-type permanent magnets and a coil wrapped in the radial direction. In this paper, both transducers were designed to have a 150 kHz centre frequency. Experimental results were performed on a thin aluminum plate using both transducers. A 3D laser Doppler vibrometer was used to verify the omnidirectional nature, the mode selectivity and the frequency response of the transducers. The EMAT has undeniable advantages in terms of omnidirectionality and mode selectivity. However it has a larger footprint than the piezoceramic concept and is only suitable for the inspection of metallic structures.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".