HIGH STRAIN RATE TENSILE FRAGMENTATION PROCESS OF DUCTILE MATERIALS AND THE EFFECTS OF MATERIAL PARAMETERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By introducing a cohesive fracture model into the Mott[1] momentum diffusion analysis,Grady and Kipp[2] deduced a formula for predicting the average size of the fragments during a ductile fragmentation process.To quantitatively evaluate the accuracy of the Grady-Kipp formula,in this paper,we numerically simulated the fragmentation processes of an elastic-plastic bar undergoing initially uniform high strain rate tensile deformation.The key material parameters,including the fracture energy Gc,the material density ρ,yield stress A and the strain-rate sensitivity C,were varied intentionally for evaluating their effects on the fragmentation process.The average fragment sizes were calculated for a wide range of the prescribed strain rates and the material parameters.It was concluded that the Grady-Kipp model provides reasonably close predictions of the lower limit of the ductile fragment sizes,though slight deviations exist in the cases when the fundamental assumptions in the Grady-Kipp analysis do not apply.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".