MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077499091 · doi:10.1115/pvp2007-26812

Numerical Simulation of Ductile Crack Growth in Pipeline Steels

2007· article· en· W2077499091 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Wang, G. Roy, Su Xu, W. R. Tyson

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 2: Computer Applications/Technology and Bolted Joints · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceToughnessTearingComposite materialDilatantStructural engineeringCharpy impact testEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents numerical studies on stable crack extension of high toughness gas pipeline steels (X80) using the 2D and 3D computational cell approach. The Gurson-Tvergaard dilatant plasticity model for voided materials is used to describe the degradation of material stress capacity. Fixed-size, computational cell elements defined over a thin layer at the crack plane provide an explicit length scale for the continuum damage process. Outside this layer, the material is modeled as undamaged by void growth. The key micro-mechanics parameters are D, the thickness of the computational cell layer, and ƒ0, the initial cell porosity. Calibration of these parameters is conducted using analysis of ductile tearing from testing of Charpy-sized bending specimens. The resulting computational model enables the study of effects on crack growth of specimen size, geometry and loading mode. Computational and experimental studies are described for shallow and deep DWTT (drop weight tear test) specimens under quasi-static loading conditions.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 2: Computer Applications/Technology and Bolted JointsSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207