Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37960583›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Quantification of Construction Materials Quality via Frequency Response Measurements: A Mobile Testing Station.

Lukasz Scislo, Nina Szczepanik-Scislo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lukasz ScisloFaculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cracow University of Technology, Warszawska 24, 31-155 Cracow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-7365-8888
Nina Szczepanik-ScisloFaculty of Environmental Engineering and Energy, Cracow University of Technology, Warszawska 24, 31-155 Cracow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-1473-406X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In construction, ensuring the quality and compliance of materials with specified requirements is often challenging, especially at construction sites. Conventionally, this process necessitates transporting samples to well-equipped laboratories, incurring significant time and financial costs. This article proposes a novel approach through a cost-effective mobile test station, enabling on-site measurements and immediate evaluation results, regardless of the testing conditions. The foundation of our testing methodology lies in the Impulse Excitation Technique (IET), which capitalises on measuring the frequency response of samples while considering their mass and dimensions. By applying this technique, we can effectively determine crucial elastic properties, such as the Young Modulus and Poisson Ratio. These obtained values can then be cross-referenced with established material tables to verify the material's compliance with the specified order. In this study, the developed universal and mobile test station demonstrated versatility by successfully evaluating three samples of typical construction materials, showing the method's reliability on some real case measurements. The results substantiate its potential as a reliable mobile quality assurance station. Moreover, the station's adaptability empowers its use on site, in laboratory settings, or even during material transportation when necessary. This innovation promises to revolutionise material quality assessment, streamlining the construction process and expediting decision making.

Indexed as

frequency responseimpulse excitation techniquematerial testingmechanical propertiesvibration measurements

Identifiers

PMID37960583
PMCPMC10650393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.