MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809096573 · doi:10.1111/ffe.12865

A modification of UniGrow 2‐parameter driving force model for short fatigue crack growth

2018· article· en· W2809096573 on OpenAlexaff
D.J. Bang, Ayhan Ince, Lanqing Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueFatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceParis' lawCrack closureStructural engineeringFracture mechanicsStress concentrationFatigue testingAluminiumCrack growth resistance curveStress intensity factorTitanium alloyStress (linguistics)Composite materialAlloyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, a modification of the UniGrow model is proposed to predict total fatigue life with the presence of a short fatigue crack by incorporating short crack propagation into the UniGrow crack growth model. The UniGrow model is modified by 2 different methods, namely the “short crack stress intensity correction method” and the “short crack data‐fitting method” to estimate the total fatigue life including both short and long fatigue crack propagations. Predicted fatigue lives obtained from these 2 methods were compared with experimental data sets of 2024‐T3, 7075‐T56 aluminium alloys, and Ti‐6Al‐4V titanium alloy. Two proposed methods have shown good fatigue life predictions at relatively high maximum stresses; however, they provide conservative fatigue life predictions at lower stresses corresponding high cycle fatigue lives where short crack behaviour dominates total fatigue life at lower stress levels.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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