MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319380550 · doi:10.1177/1081286512438875

Speed-dependent tip fields of a moving crack in a hyperelastic material

2012· article· en· W2319380550 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Wu, C. Q. Ru

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics and Mechanics of Solids · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperelastic materialMechanicsMaterials scienceFinite strain theoryPlane stressDeformation (meteorology)Material propertiesCrack growth resistance curveStrain energy density functionFracture mechanicsCrack closureClassical mechanicsStructural engineeringFinite element methodPhysicsComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper gives an asymptotic analysis of plane strain deformation and stress fields near the tip of a steady moving crack in a compressible hyperelastic material. The semi-infinite crack is assumed to be in an infinite homogeneous harmonic material under a constant remote mode-I loading. The crack tip deformation and stress fields are derived up to the third order, which ensures the strict positivity of the Jacobian determinant in the vicinity of the moving crack tip. The derived solutions are applied to a specific hyperelastic material for which some recent experimental data are available in the literature. The comparison with the experimental data showed that the crack-face profile and the energy release rate predicted by the present model are in reasonable agreement with experiments and several recent finite-strain elastic models. In addition, the crack branching angle predicted by the present model also agrees well with some known experimental data. All of these results suggest that the harmonic material model has the potential to capture the main features of finite deformation phenomena in the dynamic fracture of hyperelastic materials.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics and Mechanics of SolidsSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207