Effect of Side Grooves on Compliance, J-Integral and Constraint of a Clamped SE(T) Specimen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of side grooves on crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) compliance, distribution of J-integral and crack-tip constraint parameters Q and A2 along the thickness of a clamped single-edge-notched tension (SE(T)) specimen were studied by finite element analysis (FEA). Focus was on the effect of depth of side grooves on J-integral and constraint parameters Q and A2 for shallow and deep cracks. The 3-D results were compared with those of SE(T) specimens in plane strain. The results show that the effective thickness equation used in ASTM E 1820 to evaluate compliance of side-grooved SE(B) and C(T) specimens can be used for clamped SE(T) specimens with reasonable accuracy. The results also suggest that the depth of the side grooves affects the distribution of the J-integral: the highest J-integral is at the center of the thickness for a SE(T) specimen with side grooves equal to or less than 10% of total thickness, and near the root of the side grooves for side grooves greater than 10% for a deeply-cracked specimen when the applied load P≥PY. The FEA results also show that the depth of side grooves affects the distribution of the constraint parameters: the crack-tip constraint is highest at the center of the thickness for a specimen with 0% side grooves (plain-sided), and near the root of the side grooves for side grooves equal to or greater than 10%. It was also found from FEA that the crack-tip constraint of a SE(T) specimen with 20% side grooves with shallow (a/W = 0.2) or deep (a/W = 0.5) crack is higher than that of a SE(T) specimen with the same crack depth in plane strain. As a result, the J-resistance of a SE(T) specimen with 20% side grooves may be lower than that of the same specimen in plane strain.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".