MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950000172 · doi:10.3390/acoustics1020026

Wave Mode Identification of Acoustic Emission Signals Using Phase Analysis

2019· article· en· W2950000172 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Barroso-Romero, Daniel Gagar, Shashank Pant, Marcias Martinez

Bibliographic record

VenueAcoustics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAcousticsAttenuationSIGNAL (programming language)Phase velocityHilbert–Huang transformHilbert transformWave propagationAcoustic emissionPhase (matter)Mode (computer interface)Guided wave testingDispersion (optics)Instantaneous phaseComputer sciencePhysicsOpticsTelecommunicationsWhite noise

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acoustic Emission (AE) monitoring can be used to detect and locate structural damage such as growing fatigue cracks. The accuracy of damage location and consequently the inference of its significance for damage assessment is dependent on the wave propagation properties in terms of wave velocity, dispersion, attenuation and wave mode conversion. These behaviors are understood and accounted for in simplistic structures; however, actual structures are geometrically complex, with components comprising of different materials. One of the key challenges in such scenarios is the ability to positively identify wave modes and correctly associate their properties for damage location analysis. In this study, a novel method for wave mode identification is presented based on phase and instantaneous frequency analysis. Finite Element (FE) simulations and experiments on a representative aircraft wing structure were conducted to evaluate the performance of the technique. The results show how a phase analysis obtained from a Hilbert Transform of the wave signal in combination with variations of the instantaneous frequency of the wave signal, can be used to determine the arrival and therefore identification of the different wave modes on a complex structure. The methodology outlined in this paper was proven on an Automatic Sensor Test wave signal, Pencil Lead Breaks and Hanning windows and it was shown that the percentage difference is between 3% and 15% for the A0 and S0 wave speed respectively.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcousticsSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207