MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400147632 · doi:10.58286/29585

SHM to detect and characterize impact events in metallic aircraft structure

2024· article· en· W4400147632 on OpenAlexafffund
Shashank Pant, Jack Wooldridge, Emma Seabrook, Julio J. Valdés, Marc Genest

Bibliographic record

Venuee-Journal of Nondestructive Testing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersMinistère de la Défense Nationale
KeywordsUnexploded ordnanceStructural health monitoringLightning strikeCrewComputer scienceEngineeringReliability engineeringRemote sensingAeronauticsLightning arresterStructural engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aircraft structures are susceptible to foreign object impacts, which may occur during manufacturing, maintenance and in-service. Sizes of these impacted objects especially during in-service can range from a small rock to a large bird. Common ways to detect such impacts are based on flight / ground crew observations and reports leading to close examinations of structures using non-destructive evaluation (NDE) techniques. If undetected these impact damages can grow during service loading and may be detrimental to flight safety. Therefore, timely detection of any signs of impact damages are critical such that proper maintenance actions can be taken. The aim is to develop methodologies using Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) techniques to detect and characterize foreign object impact events. In this experiment, a cut-out of an aluminum panel measuring 31 x 26 inches from an out-of-service aircraft was used. The panel was instrumented with four Lead Zirconate Titanate (PZT) sensors from Acellent Inc., as well as, four Acoustic Emission (AE) sensors from Mistras Inc. Impedance and susceptance measurements were acquired to assess the proper functionality of the PZT sensors before and after the impact events. Both the PZTs and the AE sensors were directly connected to a digital oscilloscope, without any amplification and / or filtering for acquiring raw data during the impact events. An instrumented multi-use tapper was designed and developed to calibrate the system, as well as, to record the impulse (impact force and time) during the impact events. The acquired data were processed using physics-based and machine learning techniques to detect and characterize the impact events.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuee-Journal of Nondestructive TestingSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207