MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319460255 · doi:10.1007/s10704-016-0089-7

The second Sandia Fracture Challenge: predictions of ductile failure under quasi-static and moderate-rate dynamic loading

2016· article· en· W2319460255 on OpenAlexaff
Brad Boyce, Sharlotte Kramer, Thomas Bosiljevac, Edmundo Corona, J. Moore, Khalil I. Elkhodary, C. Hari Manoj Simha, Bruce W. Williams, Albert Cerrone, Aida Nonn, Jacob Hochhalter, Geoffrey Bomarito, James E. Warner, B.J. Carter, D.H. Warner, Anthony R. Ingraffea, T. Zhang, Xiangfan Fang, Jim Lua, Vincent Chiaruttini, Matthieu Mazière, Sylvia Feld‐Payet, Vladislav A. Yastrebov, Jacques Besson, J.L. Chaboche, Junhe Lian, Y. Di, Bo Wu, Denis Novokshanov, Napat Vajragupta, Pawel Kucharczyk, Victoria Brinnel, Benedikt Döbereiner, Sebastian Münstermann, Michael K. Neilsen, Kristin Dion, Kyle N. Karlson, James W. Foulk, Arthur A. Brown, Michael Veilleux, Jonathan Bignell, Scott Edward Sanborn, Christopher Jones, Patrick D. Mattie, Keunhwan Pack, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Sheng‐Wei Chi, S.-P. Lin, Ashkan Mahdavi, Jožef Predan, Jožef Zadravec, Andrew J. Gross, K. Ravi‐Chandar, Liang Xue

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Fracture · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNational Nuclear Security Administration
KeywordsFracture (geology)Consistency (knowledge bases)Structural engineeringFailure assessmentShear (geology)Fracture mechanicsRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceEngineeringForensic engineeringMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringArtificial intelligenceComposite materialAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ductile failure of structural metals is relevant to a wide range of engineering scenarios. Computational methods are employed to anticipate the critical conditions of failure, yet they sometimes provide inaccurate and misleading predictions. Challenge scenarios, such as the one presented in the current work, provide an opportunity to assess the blind, quantitative predictive ability of simulation methods against a previously unseen failure problem. Rather than evaluate the predictions of a single simulation approach, the Sandia Fracture Challenge relies on numerous volunteer teams with expertise in computational mechanics to apply a broad range of computational methods, numerical algorithms, and constitutive models to the challenge. This exercise is intended to evaluate the state of health of technologies available for failure prediction. In the first Sandia Fracture Challenge, a wide range of issues were raised in ductile failure modeling, including a lack of consistency in failure models, the importance of shear calibration data, and difficulties in quantifying the uncertainty of prediction [see Boyce et al. (Int J Fract 186:5–68, 2014) for details of these observations]. This second Sandia Fracture Challenge investigated the ductile rupture of a Ti–6Al–4V sheet under both quasi-static and modest-rate dynamic loading (failure in $$\sim $$ 0.1 s). Like the previous challenge, the sheet had an unusual arrangement of notches and holes that added geometric complexity and fostered a competition between tensile- and shear-dominated failure modes. The teams were asked to predict the fracture path and quantitative far-field failure metrics such as the peak force and displacement to cause crack initiation. Fourteen teams contributed blind predictions, and the experimental outcomes were quantified in three independent test labs. Additional shortcomings were revealed in this second challenge such as inconsistency in the application of appropriate boundary conditions, need for a thermomechanical treatment of the heat generation in the dynamic loading condition, and further difficulties in model calibration based on limited real-world engineering data. As with the prior challenge, this work not only documents the ‘state-of-the-art’ in computational failure prediction of ductile tearing scenarios, but also provides a detailed dataset for non-blind assessment of alternative methods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations95
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of FractureSame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207