MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Residual Strain Distribution around a Fatigue-Crack Tip Determined by Neutron Diffraction

2012· article· en· W2060020031 on OpenAlexaff
E‐Wen Huang, Kuan Wei Li, Soo Yeol Lee, Wanchuck Woo, Yi Shiun Ding, Leu Wen Tsay, Chung‐Hao Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Science Council
KeywordsMaterials scienceCrack closureResidual stressCrack tip opening displacementNeutron diffractionComposite materialTension (geology)Crack growth resistance curveDiffractionPlasticityParis' lawStructural engineeringFracture mechanicsCompression (physics)Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analysis of residual stress, one of the contributory factors to the crack tip driving force, is extremely important to probe the fatigue crack growth mechanism and to further develop the life prediction methodology. Since fatigue crack growth is governed by crack-tip plasticity and crack closure in the wake of the crack tip, the investigation of residual stain/stress field in both behind and in front of the crack tip is crucial. In the current work, a 304L stainless steel compact-tension specimen is pre-cracked under constant-amplitude cyclic loading. Neutron diffraction is employed to directly measure the three orthogonal residual strain fields with 1-mm spatial resolution as a function of distance from the crack tip. The mapping results show that the three orthogonal residual-strain distributions around the crack tip depend on the stress multiaxiality, not following a single Poisson relationship to each axis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207