MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dual-Band Frequency Selective Surface Sensor for Detection and Mapping of Coating Wear

2025· article· en· W4410582505 on OpenAlexaff
Vishal Balasubramanian, Mohammad H. Zarifi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Roughness and Optical Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoatingMaterials scienceMulti-band deviceTunable metamaterialsDual (grammatical number)OptoelectronicsAcousticsComputer scienceComposite materialTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coating degradation on aircraft surfaces poses a critical challenge to structural integrity and operational safety, requiring precise detection of damages over large surface areas. Current non-destructive testing methods either lack the sensitivity to detect early-stage damage or are limited by slow, area-wise inspections that affect faster inspections. This work presents a multi-resonant frequency selective surface (FSS) sensor capable of localizing coating wear by correlating resonant frequency shifts with changes in coating thickness. The FSS consists of two regions with 10x10 arrays of nested square patch resonators, designed to resonate at 4.5 GHz and 5 GHz, respectively. Each region responds independently, with minimal interference, enabling precise identification of localized wear. The developed FSS is tested by the erosive wear of a 225 µm PVC coating layer by layer, resulting in resonant frequency shifts of up to 198 MHz in Region A and 231 MHz in Region B, with an average shift of 70 MHz per 75 µm of wear. With its high sensitivity, and precise localization capabilities, the developed FSS sensor system promises non-contact structural health monitoring across aerospace, automotive, and civil infrastructure applications.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSurface Roughness and Optical MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207