MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790631114 · doi:10.1111/ffe.12798

Fatigue life assessment of steel samples under various multiaxial loading spectra by means of Smith‐Watson‐Topper type damage descriptions

2018· article· en· W2790631114 on OpenAlexafffund
G.R. Ahmadzadeh, A. Varvani‐Farahani

Bibliographic record

VenueFatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringMaterials scienceHysteresisStress (linguistics)Shear (geology)Shear stressFatigue testingComposite materialEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fatigue damage and life of SS304, S45C, and SNCM630 steel samples tested at various irregular axial‐torsional loading spectra were evaluated by means of 7 Smith‐Watson‐Topper (SWT) type damage descriptions. The overall damage was calculated over peak‐valley events of counted cycles by means of the product of stress and strain corresponding to the areas within stress‐strain hysteresis loops. Fatigue lives of 304 steel samples predicted by the SWT, Lorenzo‐Laird, Szolwinski‐Farris, and Chen‐Xu‐Huang models were found noticeably larger than those of experimentally obtained at various loading spectra. Predicted lives by these descriptions were found moderately in agreement with experimental data of S45C and SNCM630 steel samples. The predicted lives of steel samples by Socie, Lv et al, and the one presented in this study were closely agreed with experimental data due to their different descriptions. The modified SWT model further included the product of maximum shear stress and shear strain amplitude and related the overall damage to fatigue life through Coffin‐Manson equation. The choice of model descriptions for damage assessment was discussed based on their terms, areas underneath of hysteresis loops, and material damage mechanism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & StructuresSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207