MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improved acoustic source localization method for crack identification in structures

2024· article· en· W4399342934 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed Barbosh, Bing Q. Li, Ayan Sadhu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Acoustics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education, LibyaUniversity of Tripoli
KeywordsHilbert–Huang transformAcoustic emissionWaveformStructural engineeringNondestructive testingAcousticsSIGNAL (programming language)Noise (video)Computer scienceFailure mode and effects analysisEngineeringWhite noiseArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• An improved AE crack localization method is proposed. • Empirical mode decomposition is first-ever integrated with a source localization model. • The proposed method is free of the use of bulk AE parameters. • The proposed method is verified using a suite of experimental studies with different damage types. Acoustic Emission (AE) monitoring is considered one of the popular non-destructive testing (NDT) methodologies that have been used to predict and identify the location of damage in critical civil infrastructure. In this paper, an improved AE crack localization method is proposed by integrating the empirical mode decomposition (EMD)-based signal decomposition method with a source localization model. Unlike the conventional AE method, the proposed method is free of the use of bulk AE parameters such as counts, rise time, signal strength, and energy. First, EMD is used to minimize the presence of noise in the recorded AE waveforms and extract the key AE components. Then, key AE events are located using the source localization model to localize the crack in concrete structures. The performance of the proposed method is validated experimentally on small and large-scale concrete beams, where the damage is induced using progressive static load testing. In particular, the large-scale beams are designed for flexural and shear mode failure to evaluate the performance of the proposed method under various types of damage. Finally, the results of the proposed method are compared with the traditional method that uses raw AE waveforms and the method that uses bandpass-filtered AE waveforms. The results show higher crack location accuracy of the proposed method than the other methods, which makes it a suitable approach as a crack localization technology.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied AcousticsSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207