MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100648991 · doi:10.5267/j.esm.2013.08.002

Wide range brittle fracture curves for U-notched components based on UMTS model

2013· article· en· W2100648991 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A.R. Torabi

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Solid Mechanics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFracture (geology)BrittlenessRange (aeronautics)Brittle fractureComposite materialStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive brittle fracture curves are presented in the present paper for engineering components weakened by a U-shaped notch under different in-plane loading conditions from pure mode I to pure mode II. The curves were obtained in a computational manner on the basis of an appropriate brittle fracture model, namely the U-notched maximum tangential stress (UMTS) criterion, suggested and employed several times in the past by the author and his co-researchers to assess mixed mode fracture in numerous U-notched samples. Eight different notch tip radii were considered in the computations. Extensive brittle materials were also taken into consideration by using different values of the material critical distance in the calculations. By estimating theoretically the load-carrying capacity and the fracture initiation angle using solely the two basic material properties, namely the ultimate tensile strength and the plane-strain fracture toughness, engineers can design conveniently the U-notched brittle components and structures aiming to avoid abrupt fracture. }}

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Solid MechanicsSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207