MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993955704 · doi:10.1520/jai101550

On the quantification of the constraint effect along a three-dimensional crack front

2008· article· en· W1993955704 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ASTM International · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceConstraint (computer-aided design)Front (military)Structural engineeringMechanicsComposite materialGeometryMechanical engineeringMathematicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper we examined the characterization of constraint effects for surface cracked plates under uniaxial and biaxial tension loadings. First, three-dimensional (3D) modified boundary layer analyses were conducted using the finite element method to study the constraint effect at a typical 3D crack front. The analyses were carried out using small geometry change formulation and deformation plasticity material model. Elastic-plastic crack front stress fields at a constant J and various T-stress levels were obtained. Three-dimensional elastic-plastic analyses were performed for semi-circular surface cracks in a finite thickness plate, under remote uniaxial and biaxial tension loading conditions. In topological planes perpendicular to the crack fronts, the crack stress fields were obtained. Then, J-Q and J-T two-parameter approaches are used in characterizing the elastic-plastic crack-tip stress fields along the 3D crack front. It is found that the J-Q characterization provides good estimate for the constraint effect for crack-tip stress fields. Reasonable agreements are achieved between the T-stress based Q-factors and the Q-factors obtained from finite element analysis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ASTM InternationalSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207