A Review of Current Challenges and Case Study toward Optimizing Micro-Computed X-Ray Tomography of Carbon Fabric Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
X-ray computed tomography provides qualitative and quantitative structural and compositional information for a broad range of materials. Yet, its contribution to the field of advanced composites such as carbon fiber reinforced polymers is still limited by factors such as low imaging contrast, due to scarce X-ray attenuation features. This article, through a review of the state of the art, followed by an example case study on Micro-computed tomography (CT) analysis of low X-ray absorptive dry and prepreg carbon woven fabric composites, aims to highlight and address some challenges as well as best practices on performing scans that can capture key features of the material. In the case study, utilizing an Xradia Micro-CT-400, important aspects such as obtaining sufficient contrast, an examination of thin samples, sample size/resolution issues, and image-based modeling are discussed. The outcome of an optimized workflow in Micro-CT of composite fabrics can assist in further research efforts such as the generation of surface or volume meshes for the numerical modeling of underlying deformation mechanisms during their manufacturing processes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".