MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114796505 · doi:10.5267/j.esm.2025.8.005

Application of fuzzy logic (FL) method for crack detection in carbon/epoxy beams using buckling responses

2025· article· W7114796505 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Solid Mechanics · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBucklingFuzzy logicFinite element methodMATLABProcess (computing)Feature (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study follows the identification of crack orientations in industry-driven carbon/epoxy laminated composite beams (LCB) using buckling data through fuzzy logic application. The study proposed a novel buckling-based crack detection with fuzzy logic aid towards the assessment of health and functionality of LCBs. The critical buckling loads are numerically computed on ABAQUS finite element (FE) simulation software. Towards crack detection, an efficient hybrid Mamdani fuzzy inference system (FIS) is developed in the MATLAB platform. The hybrid FIS is formed by fusing three standalone membership functions (Gaussian, Trapezoidal and Triangular). The numerically computed first four modes of buckling loads are provided as input values to the hybrid Mamdani FIS and after defuzzification, the output is read as crack orientations. The output results are validated with the critical buckling loads experimentally arrived through INSTRON 8862 Universal Testing Machine (UTM). Furthermore, the present developed FIS is compared with other standalone methods (triangular, trapezoidal and Gaussian) and the analysis results highlight the superiority of the developed FIS in crack detection as it bears the closest resemblance to the experimental results. Besides, the approach reveals the process of feature learning and the crack detection in the buckling domain.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Solid MechanicsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207