MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240454484 · doi:10.1115/1.862ama_ch10

Structural Health Monitoring of Aeroengines Using Transmissibility and Bond Graph Methodology

2021· book-chapter· en· W4240454484 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Ehsan Mir‐Haidari, Kamran Behdinan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural health monitoringTransmissibility (structural dynamics)AerospaceSafety monitoringSystems engineeringEngineeringField (mathematics)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceCondition monitoringStructural integrityConstruction engineeringReliability engineeringStructural engineeringAerospace engineeringVibrationBusinessVibration isolation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, due to increase in demand for structural safety in various engineering disciplines such as aerospace, researchers have focused on developing vibration-based methodologies for monitoring and detecting structural damage in various structures. Safety and performance of an aging structure is a prominent issue, occurring in aircraft, engines, and public infrastructures. There have been significant recent developments in the field of structural health monitoring (SHM) [1–9]. SHM provides a means to monitor structural safety in a continuous manner. The main objective of SHM can be defined as the assessment and monitoring of the structural safety and operational condition to detect any anticipated damage or faults that are beginning to occur or ones that have already propagated and advanced in the structure to prolong the operational lifetime of the structure in a safe manner. This goal is achieved while reducing detection and maintenance costs to significantly enhance and improve on the safety of the structure by a providing an early detection tool to detect structural damage. Moreover, aside from the improved safety and performance, the obtained knowledge from SHM can be utilized to improve on the early designs of the structure. Structural aging is caused by continuous loading conditions (low and high loading forces), leading to fatigue cracks in the structure [10]. The exposure to continuous loading conditions leads to crack growth in the structure, leading to catastrophic failures. This is shown by Figure 10.1.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207