Identification of 'Defects' in Epoxy Matrix Composites and Carbon Fiber by Ultrasound. Interaction of the Ultrasonic Beam with the Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) methods, and especially, ultrasounds have gone from being a mere laboratory curiosity to an indispensable tool in the industry as a primary means of determining the level of quality achieved in its products (ASM, 1989; Barbero, 1999). This study will identify and apply the main physical phenomena of interaction of an ultrasonic wave in a composite material, to see if through this type of waves, you can detect defects of the type of porosity or delaminations in these materials. The percentages of reflected and transmitted waves in real cases of defects in the composite material will also be studied. It will be shown if the frequencies and intensities of the waves are adequate to find this type of defects or imperfections in the material. The theoretical study of the ultrasonic wave seeks to help researchers in the development of equipment that uses the methodology of immersion ultrasound for the inspection of materials in the search for 'defects' and to understand the physics of the test.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".