ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Damage Monitoring of Steel Bars Based on Torsional Guided Waves.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasonic guided waves represent a new development in the field of non-destructive testing. Longitudinal guided waves are mostly used to monitor the damage of steel bars, but the received signal is usually degraded and noisy owing to its dispersive propagation and multimodal behavior, making its implementation and location challenging. The torsional mode of T (0, 1) is not dispersive in the propagation of a steel bar and only produces circumferential displacement. It was chosen, in this study, to conduct guided wave-based damage monitoring on steel bars to reduce the signal processing complexity. The defects of steel bars, including circular surface defects, internal defects, and uniform damage defects, were thoroughly investigated, respectively, using numerical simulation. The waves were excited and received using the pitch-and-catch technique and the collected monitoring signals were processed using Hilbert transformation to highlight the amplitude and time-of-flight values of the wave signals, which were used for defect identification. In this paper, the reflectivity of guided waves is compared between torsional waves and longitudinal waves, in each case. The impact of defect size changes on damage monitoring is studied and the sensitivity of both the wave frequency and the wave mode (L and T) is also discussed. The results show that the monitoring method based on the torsional wave T (0, 1) is more sensitive to surface defects than the conventional method based on longitudinal waves. The reflectivity of the torsional wave T (0, 1) can be twice that of the longitudinal wave L (0, 1) when the depth of the defect in the circumferential grooves is less than 50% of the diameter of the steel bar. It is more sensitive to shallow surface defects within half of the bar's radius, and it can also effectively identify defects under the conditions of the uniform damage defects of steel bars, even when the measurements are heavily noise-polluted. This proves the superiority of the torsional guided wave T (0, 1) in defect monitoring and provides a theoretical basis for the application of the torsional guided wave T (0, 1) in actual monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.