MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799845553 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2015-0043

STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS OF A SEMI-ELLIPTICAL CRACK IN A HOLLOW CYLINDER

2015· article· en· W2799845553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shiuh-Chuan Her, Hao-Hi Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStress intensity factorWeight functionMaterials scienceFinite element methodCylinderParametric statisticsStress (linguistics)Stress concentrationCrack closureStructural engineeringSurface (topology)Crack tip opening displacementGeometryMechanicsComposite materialMathematicsFracture mechanicsMathematical analysisEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this investigation, the weight function method was employed to calculate stress intensity factors for semi-elliptical surface crack in a hollow cylinder. A uniform stress and a linear stress distribution were used as the two references to determine the weight functions. These two factors were obtained by a three-dimensional finite element method which employed singular elements along the crack front and regular elements elsewhere. The weight functions were then applied to a wide range of semi-elliptical surface crack subjected to non-linear loadings. The results were validated against finite element data and compared with other analyses. In the parametric study, the effects of the ratio of the surface crack depth to length ranged from 0.2 to 1.0 and the ratio of the crack depth to the wall thickness ranged from 0.2 to 0.8 on stress intensity factors were investigated.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.208
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207