MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Structure Fatigue Crack Length Estimation and Prediction Using Ultrasonic Wave Data Based on Ensemble Linear Regression and Paris’s Law

2021· article· en· W3137256945 on OpenAlex
Meng Rao, Xingkai Yang, Dongdong Wei, Yuejian Chen, Lijun Meng, Ming J. Zuo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Prognostics and Health Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsAmplitudeKurtosisUltrasonic sensorLinear regressionLogarithmParis' lawRange (aeronautics)Logarithmic scaleMathematicsStructural engineeringStatisticsFracture mechanicsEngineeringAcousticsMathematical analysisCrack closurePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents methods for the 2019 PHM Conference Data Challenge developed by the team named "Angler". This Challenge aims to estimate the fatigue crack length of a type of aluminum structure using ultrasonic signals at the current load cycle and to predict the crack length at multiple future load cycles (multiple-step-ahead prediction) as accurately as possible. For estimating crack length, four crack-sensitive features are extracted from ultrasonic signals, namely, the first peak value, root mean square value, logarithm of kurtosis, and correlation coefficient. An ensemble linear regression model is presented to map these features and their second-order interactions with the crack length. The Best Subset Selection method is employed to select the optimal features. For predicting crack length, variations of the Paris’ law are derived to describe the relationships between the crack length and the number of load cycles. The material parameters and stress range of Paris’ law are learned using the Genetic Algorithm. These parameters will be updated based on the previous-step predicted crack length. After that, the crack length corresponding to a future load cycle number for either the constant amplitude load case or variable amplitude load case is predicted. The presented methods achieved a score of 16.14 based on the score-calculation rule provided by the Data Challenge committees, and was ranked third best among all participating teams.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.323
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