The influence of a non-aligned semi-elliptical surface crack on a quarter-circle corner crack in an infinitely large plate under uniaxial tension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fitness-for-Service codes require the evaluation of non-aligned multiple cracks in various practical applications. For on-site inspection, decision needs to be made on whether the cracks should be treated as coalesced or separate multiple cracks in case of non-aligned parallel cracks,. In the existing literature, criteria and standards for the adjustment of multiple nonaligned cracks are very source dependent, and those criteria and standards are often derived from on-site service experience without rigorous and systematic verification. Based on this observation, the authors previously reported on the effect between an edge and an embedded parallel crack in 2-D scenarios and, more recently, in 3-D scenarios of circular cracks. Since realistic crack configurations detected using non-destructive methods are generally 3-D in nature, the study of 3-D effect of non-aligned cracks with different shapes is deemed necessary in order to obtain more practical guidance in the usage of rules speculated in Fitness-for-Service codes. In this study, the effect of a semi-elliptic surface crack on a quarter-circle corner crack in an infinitely large plate under uniaxial tension was investigated. To keep this study more focused, the size of the quarter-circle corner crack was kept constant. A detailed analysis was then given to the crack shape effect of the embedded semi-elliptic cracks on the fixed quarter-circle corner crack. The analysis is repeated for various combinations of separation distances S and H between the two cracks. The results from this study are collectively significant to the understanding of the correlation between the criteria and standards in Fitness-for-Service community and the consequence of their usage in engineering practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".