Crack Size Evaluation Using Unloading Compliance in Single-Specimen Single-Edge-Notched Tension Fracture Toughness Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Crack-mouth-opening displacement (CMOD) unloading compliances of single-edge-notched tension (SE(T)) specimens, both pin-loaded and clamped, have been evaluated by finite element analysis (FEA), including evaluation of the effect of rotation during testing on compliance. For pin-loaded specimens, FEA results are compared with compliance correction equations based on a rigid-body rotation model recommended by Joyce and Link. The results agree reasonably well when the load line is far from the midsection of the ligament. However, the discrepancy increases when the load line approaches the midsection of the ligament where the bending load becomes small or negligible compared with the tension component and the rigid-rotation model breaks down. For clamped SE(T) specimens, factors affecting specimen rotation, such as the ratio H/W of span between load points H to width of the specimen W, normalized crack size, a/W, and material strain hardening coefficient, N, were investigated. This work was performed for specific application to surface circumferential cracks in pipes, for which the best constraint matching has been found to occur for clamped specimens with H/W = 10. For this geometry, an equation is proposed to correct compliance for rotation and to estimate crack size from rotation-corrected CMOD compliance. Crack sizes evaluated using this equation are compared with measurements on broken specimens. Excellent agreement has been achieved for initial and final crack sizes of both plain-sided and side-grooved SE(T) specimens.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".