Derivation of Effective Strain-Life Data, Crack Closure Parameters and Effective Crack Growth Data from Smooth Specimen Fatigue Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Small crack growth from notches under variable amplitude loading requires that crack opening stress be followed on a cycle by cycle basis and taken into account in making fatigue life predictions. The use of constant amplitude fatigue life data that ignores changes in crack opening stress due to high stress overloads in variable amplitude fatigue leads to non-conservative fatigue life predictions. Similarly fatigue life predictions based on small crack growth calculations for cracks growing from flaws in notches are non-conservative when constant amplitude crack growth data are used. These non-conservative predictions have, in both cases, been shown to be due to severe reductions in fatigue crack closure arising from large (overload or underload) cycles in a typical service load history. The work in this paper is concerned with the derivation of crack closure constants for use in two models; the effective strain-life fatigue model that can be applied to predict fatigue lives for smooth and blunt notched specimens under constant and variable amplitude loading and the effective fatigue crack growth model that can be used to predict fatigue lives of short cracks growing out of notches or flaws under constant and variable amplitude loading. Fatigue life calculations based on equations using crack opening stress are shown to give accurate fatigue life predictions for smooth and notched specimens subjected to variable amplitude service load histories. The influence of metal hardness on crack opening stress behaviour is deduced by comparing data for the three metal hardness levels used in this investigation.</div></div>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".