MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069090466 · doi:10.1115/1.4025816

Weight Function Method With Segment-Wise Polynomial Interpolation to Calculate Stress Intensity Factors for Complicated Stress Distributions

2013· article· en· W2069090466 on OpenAlexaff
Yinsheng Li, Kunio Hasegawa, Steven X. Xu, Douglas A. Scarth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStress intensity factorWeight functionFinite element methodStress (linguistics)MathematicsPolynomialInterpolation (computer graphics)Function (biology)Mathematical analysisResidual stressIntensity (physics)Polynomial interpolationApplied mathematicsLinear interpolationGeometryStructural engineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsOpticsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many solutions of the stress intensity factor have been proposed in recent years. However, most of them take only third or fourth-order polynomial stress distributions into account. For complicated stress distributions which are difficult to be represented as third or fourth-order polynomial equations over the stress distribution area such as residual stress distributions or thermal stress distributions in dissimilar materials, it is important to further improve the accuracy of the stress intensity factor. In this study, a weight function method with segment-wise polynomial interpolation is proposed to calculate solutions of the stress intensity factor for complicated stress distributions. By using this method, solutions of the stress intensity factor can be obtained without employing finite element analysis or difficult calculations. It is therefore easy to use in engineering applications. In this method, the stress distribution area is firstly divided into several segments and the stress distribution in each segment is curve fitted to segment-wise polynomial equation. The stress intensity factor is then calculated based on the weight function method and the fitted stress distribution in each segment. Some example solutions for both infinite length cracks and semi-elliptical cracks are compared with the results from finite element analysis. In conclusion, it is confirmed that this method is applicable with high accuracy to the calculation of the stress intensity factor taking actual complicated stress distributions into consideration.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207