MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989637969 · doi:10.1002/mdp2.120

Development of an ultrasonic fatigue testing system for gigacycle fatigue

2019· article· en· W2989637969 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Ilie, Xavier Lesperance, Ayhan Ince

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterial Design & Processing Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasonic sensorAerospaceStructural engineeringUltrasonic testingFatigue testingEngineeringFrench hornActuatorAutomotive industryMechanical engineeringAcousticsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High cycle fatigue (HCF) in the range of 106 to 108 cycles and very high cycle fatigue (VHCF) in the range of 108 to 1010 cycles are key design criteria for aerospace, automotive, military, transportation, and other industries. However, data gathering in the HCF and VHCF ranges is inefficient with traditional 50- to 100-Hz servo-hydraulic testing machines. The development of high power piezoceramic actuators makes it possible to reliably conduct HCF and VHCF tests within a very short time frame at high frequency on the basis of the ultrasonic fatigue testing approach. An ultrasonic fatigue test machine operating in an axial mode shape of test specimens at 20 kHz was designed and built to investigate VHCF characterization of lightweight metal alloys. The experimental setup went through several stages of design and validation. Finite element analysis was employed to design three versions of an acoustical horn, a single half wavelength booster, and three types of nonferromagnetic samples. The developed ultrasonic fatigue machine was used to conduct fatigue testing of specimens made from 2024-T351 and 7075-T6 aluminum alloys to generate representative HCF and VHCF data. HCF and VHCF data for these alloys were found to be in good agreement with experimental fatigue data from the literature.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterial Design & Processing CommunicationsSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207