A Numerical Study on CMOD Compliance for Single-Edge Bending Specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several well-known equations for estimating the crack length in the SE(B) specimens from the normalized CMOD compliance are evaluated based on two- and three-dimensional finite element analyses. Two-dimensional analyses are carried out first to verify the reported accuracy and applicable ranges for each equation based on the plane strain models with six different crack lengths. Three-dimensional analyses are then carried out to estimate the errors of prediction of the equations that evaluate the crack length from the plane stress- and plane strain-based CMOD compliances. Both plain-sided and side-grooved models are included in the three-dimensional analyses and have seven different thickness-to-width ratios. The error of prediction of a given equation is largely impacted by the thickness-to-width ratio, crack length, presence of side grooves, and use of the plane stress- and plane strain-normalized CMOD compliance. Based on the errors of prediction, the relevance of the plane strain and plane stress conditions to the actual state of stress in the ligament of the SE(B) specimens is inferred. Knowledge of the relevance of the plane stress and plane strain conditions can be used to select either plane stress- or plane strain-based CMOD compliance in the crack length-CMOD equations and improve the accuracy of the prediction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".