MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333314450 · doi:10.1115/pvp2004-2751

Weight Functions for T-Stress for Edge Cracks in Thick-Walled Cylinders

2004· article· en· W2333314450 on OpenAlexaff
J. Li, Chee Leong Tan, Xin Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeight functionCylinderStress (linguistics)Materials scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionInternal pressureRADIUSBoundary element methodFinite element methodPolynomialStructural engineeringStress intensity factorGeometryMechanicsComposite materialMathematicsMathematical analysisFracture mechanicsPhysicsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents T-stress solutions for an internal edge crack in thick-walled cylinders under complex stress distributions. First, the background of the weight function method for the calculation of T-stress is discussed. Then the T-stress results for edge-cracked cylinders obtained from extensive boundary element analyses are summarized. The crack geometries analyzed cover a wide range of radius ratios and relative crack lengths. The loading cases considered in the BEM analysis for the cracked cylinder are: i) crack face pressures with polynomial stress distributions acting on the crack face and ii) internal pressure or steady state thermal loading in the cylinder. Then, the T-stress results for uniform and linearly varying crack face pressure cases are used as the reference solutions to derive weight functions for T-stress. Boundary element results of T-stress for other nonlinear stress distributions are used to validate the derived T-stress weight functions. Excellent accuracy has been achieved. The weight functions derived are suitable for obtaining T-stress solutions for thick-walled cylinders with an internal edge crack under any complex stress fields.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207