Elastic-Plastic J-Integral Solutions or Surface Cracks in Tension Using an Interpolation Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No closed form solutions exist for the elastic-plastic J-integral for surface cracks due to the nonlinear, three-dimensional nature of the problem. Traditionally, each surface crack must be analyzed with a unique and time-consuming nonlinear finite element analysis. To overcome this shortcoming, the authors have developed and analyzed an array of 600 3D nonlinear finite element models for surface cracks in flat plates under tension loading. The solution space covers a wide range of crack shapes and depths (shape: 0.2 less than or equal to a/c less than or equal to 1, depth: 0.2 less than or equal to a/B less than or equal to 0.8) and material flow properties (elastic modulus-to-yield ratio: 100 less than or equal to E/ys less than or equal to 1,000, and hardening: 3 less than or equal to n less than or equal to 20). The authors have developed a methodology for interpolating between the goemetric and material property variables that allows the user to reliably evaluate the full elastic-plastic J-integral and force versus crack mouth opening displacement solution; thus, a solution can be obtained very rapidly by users without elastic-plastic fracture mechanics modeling experience. Complete solutions for the 600 models and 25 additional benchmark models are provided in tabular format.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".