Effective Modulus for Crack Size Measurement With SE(T) Specimens using Unloading Compliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Low-constraint toughness tests have been increasingly used in pipeline flaw assessment. A number of protocols have been published using a test employing a clamped single-edge tension (SE(T)) specimen with the distance between the clamps H equal to ten times the specimen width W, and specimen width W equal to thickness B. For this geometry, the constraint over the bulk of the specimen varies between plane stress and plane strain. This affects the elastic compliance, commonly used to estimate crack size. It was the intent of the present work to assess the effects of constraint on the compliance and to identify the best combination of compliance equation and modulus to estimate crack size from CMOD compliance where CMOD is the crack mouth opening displacement. To do this, values of compliance from finite element analyses were provided by the authors of this paper from three separate laboratories. 2D plane strain, 3D plane-sided, and 3D side-grooved specimens were analyzed. The data were used to assess available compliance equations and to propose a new one for the specific geometry of interest in this work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".