MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160531437 · doi:10.1115/1.1593080

Calculation of Stress Intensity Factors and Crack Opening Displacements for Cracks Subjected to Complex Stress Fields

2003· article· en· W2160531437 on OpenAlexaff
A. Kiciak, G. Glinka, D. J. Burns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsConestoga CollegeUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStress intensity factorResidual stressAutofrettageWeight functionMaterials scienceStructural engineeringStress fieldCrack closureStress concentrationStress (linguistics)Shot peeningDisplacement (psychology)PeeningMechanicsFracture mechanicsComposite materialFinite element methodMathematicsEngineeringMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fatigue cracks in shot peened and case hardened notched machine components and high-pressure vessels are subjected to the stress fields induced by the external load and the residual stress resulting from the surface treatment or autofrettage. Both stress fields are usually nonuniform and available handbook stress intensity factor solutions are in most cases unavailable for such configurations, especially in the case of two-dimensional surface breaking cracks such as semi-elliptical and quarter-elliptical cracks at notches. The method presented in the paper makes it possible to calculate stress intensity factors for such cracks and complex stress fields by using the generalized weight function technique. It is also shown that the generalized weight functions make it possible to calculate the crack opening displacement field often used in the determination of the critical load or the critical crack size.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations42
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207