MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160474406 · doi:10.18280/rcma.310202

Eddy Current Non-Destructive Characterization of Carbon Fiber Reinforcement Composites Considering Capacitive Effect

2021· article· en· W3160474406 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samir Bensaid, Omar Adib Safer, Didier Trichet, Guillaume Wasselynck, Gérard Berthiau, J. Fouladgar

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des composites et des matériaux avancés · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEddy currentEquivalent circuitElectromagnetic coilMaterials scienceRLC circuitElectrical impedanceEquivalent series inductanceElectrical conductorInductanceCapacitorComposite materialTransformerEquivalent series resistanceLCR meterAcousticsElectrical engineeringPhysicsEngineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a modelling procedure to take into account the capacitive effect at high frequencies, in Eddy Current Non-Destructive Characterization (EC-NDC) of Unidirectional Carbon Fiber Reinforcement Composite (UD-CFRC) rods. To simulate the complete EC-NDC systems, first, the multilayer circular air coil is physically modeled by a finite element (FE) axisymmetric eddy current model coupled to equivalent RL circuit. Each layer of the coil is represented by an equivalent resistance (R) in series with the equivalent inductance (L). Secondly, R and L of the coil layers are computed for several frequencies up to 5Mhz, and then introduced into the equivalent RLC circuit with considering inter-turn and interlayer capacitances. Then the inversion problem is solved in order to identify all inner capacitances of the coil. Finally, the UD-CFRC rod is introduced into the FE eddy current axisymmetric model coupled to an equivalent RLC circuit, as a homogenized conductive material with an equivalent transverse conductivity. The coil with the presence of the homogenized UD-CFRC rod is then modeled as a transformer with a secondary connected to a capacitor in parallel with a resistance in order to evaluate the inner capacitor of the UD-CFRC. All evaluated parameters are then introduced in the last model. The comparison between the computed impedance parts and the measured ones shows a mean error less than 2% and a maximum one of 5% according to the frequency.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des composites et des matériaux avancésSame topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207