2006
DOI: 10.1063/1.2184744
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ultrasonic Benchmarking Study: Overview Up to Year 2005

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
2

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This can avoid frequency dependent assumptions in simpler models such as the Kirchhoff approximation. The output is a time domain waveform, which has been shown to compare well with experiment in a variety of validations [5,7]. Two examples will be given to illustrate applications of the small flaw model.…”
Section: Small Flaw Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This can avoid frequency dependent assumptions in simpler models such as the Kirchhoff approximation. The output is a time domain waveform, which has been shown to compare well with experiment in a variety of validations [5,7]. Two examples will be given to illustrate applications of the small flaw model.…”
Section: Small Flaw Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ordinary least-square fitting techniques can provide clear empirical formulas for linking ultrasonic characteristics to microstructure parameters, and their connection can even be non-causal, as principal components analysis or specialized signal analysis methodologies are used (Lyapunov exponent, fractal dimension, recurrence analysis, etc.). The resultant models, however, are oversimplified due to the omission of many uncertainties [16][17][18], and the impacts of coupling factors or multi-variable factors on ultrasonic characteristics cannot be eliminated [19]. Machine learning methods are data-driven, which reduces the need for artificial selection of ultrasonic characteristics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%