MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745440900 · doi:10.1115/gt2017-65189

A Probabilistic Simulation of Grain Size Effect on Small Crack Growth in a Nickel Based Superalloy

2017· article· en· W2745440900 on OpenAlexaff
Dianyin Hu, Jianxing Mao, Rongqiao Wang, Jun Song, Xiyuan Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperalloyMaterials scienceGrain boundaryGrain sizeParis' lawProbabilistic logicMicrostructureMetallurgyFracture mechanicsComposite materialCrack closureStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerable efforts have been conducted on the modeling of fatigue crack growth (FCG), aiming at an accurate prediction of fatigue life. However, due to the influence of microstructure, it is still challenging to describe FCG behavior, especially for small cracks. The FCG exhibits obvious variation at small crack growth procedure. In this regard, a probabilistic model by integrating N-R model is proposed to simulate the FCG process at stage I. The concerned material is nickel based superalloy GH4169. The proposed model involves both macroscopic and microscopic material parameters for the extension of dislocation with the impediment from grain boundary. Random grain size is represented by the fluctuation of FCG rate. Model validation is performed by comparing the simulation results and experimental data. It is revealed that the dependence tends to be less prominent on longer crack length, smaller grain size and higher applied stress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207