MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091056744 · doi:10.1177/1077546320964010

Multi-crack detection in general cross-section swept wings based on natural frequency changes

2020· article· en· W3091056744 on OpenAlexaff
Fatemeh Barzegar, S.R. Mohebpour, Hekmat Alighanbari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vibration and Control · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilStructural engineeringVibrationNormal modeNatural frequencyRayleigh–Ritz methodFinite element methodCross section (physics)BendingModal analysisModalEngineeringAcousticsMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, a multi-crack detection method, which is based on natural frequency changes and the concept of modal strain energy, is for the first time developed for the general cross-section swept tapered wings under coupled bending-torsional vibration and applied to the solid and thin-walled airfoil cross-section wings. The presented method is able to handle the problems with an unknown number of cracks and predicts the number of existent cracks, their locations and depths by optimization of an appropriate objective function. The stress intensity factors of airfoil-shaped crack surfaces are obtained using an approximation method. Inputs of the detection method are natural frequencies of uncracked and cracked wings which are calculated by using a mathematical model and finite element method software ANSYS, respectively, and validated by comparison with former research studies. In the mathematical model, the Rayleigh–Ritz method is used to calculate the coupled bending-torsional mode shapes of the uncracked wing and their corresponding natural frequencies. Results demonstrate that the proposed method has precisely predicted the number, locations and depths of cracks in all case studies.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vibration and ControlSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207