MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High‐cycle fatigue mechanisms in 1045 steel under non‐proportional axial‐torsional loading

2007· article· en· W2086191307 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Verreman, He Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueFatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceStructural engineeringAmplitudeStress concentrationCrack closureMicrostructureFatigue testingStress (linguistics)Slip (aerodynamics)Shear (geology)Fracture mechanicsComposite materialEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Detailed microscopic analyses have been made on the high‐cycle mechanisms in 1045 steel under various stress‐controlled axial‐torsional loadings. A special attention has been paid to a critical example of non‐proportional loading, i.e., 90° out‐of‐phase loading with different stress ratios. The replica technique has been used to monitor crack initiation and propagation from the microstructure scale. The orientations of persistent slip bands and Stage I cracks are in good agreement with the critical plane concept. The evolutions of crack length with cycle life as well as the crack aspect ratios depend on the loading condition. However at a given life, the data are consolidated in terms of crack depth versus cycle life. The McDiarmid parameter correlates stress‐life data under proportional loadings. However, it underestimates fatigue lives under out‐of‐phase loading at high stress ratio and it overestimates them in the case where all planes experience the same shear stress amplitude (stress ratio = 0.5). More damaging mechanisms are involved in crack initiation and crack propagation. It is recommended to test the fatigue performance of materials in this last condition that involves the worst damage mechanisms.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations31
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & StructuresSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207