MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914763012 · doi:10.3390/s19030735

3D SSY Estimate of EPFM Constraint Parameter under Biaxial Loading for Sensor Structure Design

2019· article· en· W2914763012 on OpenAlexaff
Ping Ding, Xin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceStrain hardening exponentStress (linguistics)Fracture (geology)Range (aeronautics)Sensitivity (control systems)Engineering design processEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionFracture mechanicsProcess (computing)Computer scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringComposite materialElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional sensor structure design and related fracture mechanics analysis are based on the single J-integral parameter approach of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM). Under low crack constraint cases, the EPFM one-parameter approach generally gives a stress overestimate, which results in a great cost waste of labor and sensor components. The J-A two-parameter approach overcomes this limitation. To enable the extensive application of the J-A approach on theoretical research and sensor engineering problem, under small scale yielding (SSY) conditions, the authors developed an estimate method to conveniently and quickly obtain the constraint (second) parameter A values directly from T-stress. Practical engineering application of sensor structure analysis and design focuses on three-dimensional (3D) structures with biaxial external loading, while the estimate method was developed based on two-dimensional (2D) plain strain condition with uniaxial loading. In the current work, the estimate method was successfully extended to a 3D structure with biaxial loading cases, which is appropriate for practical sensor design. The estimate method extension and validation process was implemented through a thin 3D single edge cracked plate (SECP) specimen. The process implementation was completed in two specified planes of 3D SECP along model thickness. A wide range of material and geometrical properties were applied for the extension and validation process, with material hardening exponent value 3, 5 and 10, and crack length ratio 0.1, 0.3 and 0.7.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207