MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955849464 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13603

Validation of a Computational Model for Predicting Fatigue Life

2019· dissertation· en· W2955849464 on OpenAlexaff
Nilesh Gaonkar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringDissipationHysteresisParis' lawFinite element methodNucleationSequence (biology)Materials scienceEngineeringMechanicsFracture mechanicsPhysicsCrack closureThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new computer model to predict fatigue life based on the evolution of damage in a structure is presented.The experimental data used to validate the model is provided by the SAE Fatigue Design and Failure Committee (FDE).They initiated the total life project with the objective to improve fatigue life prediction and they have been working on the experimental data for around 8 years.Damage in a fatigue test is caused by changes at the microstructural level such as microcracks and pores that usually cannot be observed.Damage scales the elasticity tensor(D).For an isotropic scalar damage field 0 ≤ d(x, t) ≤ 1.0.If d(x, t) = 0 then there is no damage and the elasticity tensor D is unchanged.When damage at a point x increases to d(x, t) = 1.0, then the elasticity tensor D is the zero tensor and the point in the structure is considered to be cracked.The model assumes that damage evolution can be computed as a function of the dissipation of hysteresis loop for a sequence of Ramberg-Osgood equations for a sequence of fatigue load cycles.This model does not use the Paris-Erdogan equation for crack growth.Two model parameters are the coefficients of the Ramberg-Osgood equation.The third model parameter is the total dissipation rate for the damage variable to reach a value of 1.0.Computer iii simulations of fatigue tests with block loading are demonstrated.A high resolution plane strain FEM analysis that resolves the strain field near a stress concentration is shown to be necessary to achieve accurate predictions of fatigue crack nucleation and fatigue crack growth.The predicted fatigue crack nucleation and crack growth rates are in close agreement with the SAE experimental data.I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Professor John A. Goldak, for the continuous support throughout the journey of this work, for his patience, motivation, enthusiasm, guidance and immense knowledge.I have learned many things since I became Dr. Goldak's student.This thesis would not be accomplished without his constant involvement and contribution into my research.His friendly guidance and expert advice have been invaluable throughout all stages of this work.I could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor for my masters study.No words exist to express the role he played in my life.I wish to express my gratitude to Goldak Technologies Inc, especially to Mr. Stanislav Tchernov and Mr. Jianguo Zhou for developing the code and provide support with the software.I would like to thank my colleague Hossein Nimrouzi for generating the FEM Mesh and his guidance with VrSuite analysis.I would also like to

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207