Examination of the Transferability of CTOA From Small-Scale DWTT to Full-Scale Pipe Geometries Using a Cohesive Zone Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, the cohesive zone model (CZM) was used to examine the transferability of the crack tip opening angle (CTOA) from small-scale to full-scale geometries. The pipe steel STPG370 was modeled. A drop-weight tear test (DWTT) model and pipe model were studied using the finite element code ABAQUS 2017x. The cohesive zone model was used to simulate crack propagation in 3D. The CZM parameters were calibrated based on matching the surface CTOA measured from a DWTT finite element model to the surface CTOA measured from the experimental DWTT specimen. The mid-thickness CTOA of the DWTT model was in good agreement with the experimental value determined from E3039 and the University of Tokyo group’s load-displacement data. The CZM parameters were then applied to the pipe model. The internal pressure distribution and decay during the pipe fracture process was modeled using the experimental data and implemented through a user-subroutine (VDLOAD). The mid-thickness CTOA from the DWTT model was similar to the mid-thickness CTOA from the pipe model. The average surface CTOA of the pipe model was in good agreement with the average experimental value. The results give confidence in the transferability of the CTOA between small-scale specimens and full-scale pipe.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".