MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007150560 · doi:10.3390/app10051588

Mechanical Strength Evaluation of Elastic Materials by Multiphysical Nondestructive Methods: A Review

2020· review· en· W3007150560 on OpenAlexafffund
Huiting Huan, Lixian Liu, Andreas Mandelis, Cuiling Peng, Xiaolong Chen, Jinsong Zhan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNondestructive testingMaterials scienceStructural materialDestructive testingResidual stressUltimate tensile strengthStress–strain curveStructural engineeringStress (linguistics)Compressive strengthComposite materialDeformation (meteorology)Materials testingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of industrial nondestructive testing (NDT) is to diagnose the stability, reliability and failure probability of materials, components and structures. Industrial component mechanical strength is one of the most important properties NDT is used to characterize. Subtle but perceptible changes in stress-strain behavior can be reliable indicators of defect formation. A detailed review on the state-of-the-art NDT methods using optical-radiation, photoacoustic, and photothermal techniques for mechanical strength evaluation and defect pre-diagnosis is presented in this article. Mechanical strength is analyzed in terms of the deformation/strain field, the stress-strain relation, and the residual stress in an elastic material subjected to tensile or compressive loading, or impact. By introducing typical NDT experiments, the history and features of each methodology are revisited and typical applications are discussed. This review also aims to be used as a reference toward further research and development of NDT technologies characterizing mechanical strength of materials and components.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesFrench-language works237,207