MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399660011 · doi:10.1115/jrc2024-124371

Evaluating the Use of Surface Wave Ultrasonics for Near-Surface Rolling Contact Fatigue Depth Characterization

2024· article· en· W4399660011 on OpenAlexaff
Zhen Li, Kevin Oldknow, Henry Brunskill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)Surface (topology)Materials scienceSurface waveAcousticsOpticsNanotechnologyPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Identifying and accurately characterizing shallow-depth rolling contact fatigue (RCF) in railway systems remains challenging with existing measurement technologies in widespread use such as bulk wave ultrasonics, eddy current, and magnetic flux leakage. The ability to accurately estimate RCF depth is important, for example for determining the risk of the damage feature, and for optimizing metal removal for rail reprofiling operations such as grinding and milling. Recently, surface wave ultrasonic inspection has demonstrated good potential for shallow depth RCF damage characterization based on low attenuation, long detection distances, high sensitivity to surface defects, and low susceptibility to changes in surface conditions. This paper reports proof of concept testing to further evaluate the potential use of surface wave ultrasonic measurement for shallow depth RCF characterization. A prototype benchtop system developed by Peak to Peak Measurement Solutions is used to conduct fundamental tests with a range of transducer frequencies and geometric arrangements on a steel test block with machined features intended to represent surface damage at suitable depths. The basic feasibility, sensitivity, and correlation of measured signals is reported and analyzed to assess the technology at a proof of concept level, setting the stage for future testing and practical evaluation.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface InteractionsFrench-language works237,207