Some recent criteria for brittle fracture assessment under mode II loading
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different criteria are available in the literature to assess the fracture behaviour of sharp Vnotches. A typical and well-known criterion is based on the application of the notch stress intensity factors (NSIFs), which are able to quantify the intensity of the stress fields ahead of the notch tip. This work considers two recent energy-based criteria applied here to sharp Vnotches. The first criterion is based on the averaged value of the strain energy density (SED), while the second one called Finite Fracture Mechanics (FFM) criterion is available under two different formulations: that by Leguillon et al. and that by Carpinteri et al. Considering the averaged SED criterion, a new expression for estimating the control radius Rc under pure Mode II loading is proposed and compared with the sound expression valid under pure Mode I loading. With reference to pure Mode II loading the critical NSIF at failure can be expressed as a function of the V-notch opening angle. By adopting the three criteria considered here the expressions for the NSIFs are derived and compared. After all, the approaches are employed considering sharp V-notched brittle components under in-plane shear loading, in order to investigate the capability of each approach for the fracture assessment. With this aim a bulk of experimental data taken from the literature is used for the comparison.
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.
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 it