Crack Growth Rate and Crack Path in Adhesively Bonded Joints: Comparison of Creep, Fatigue and Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between crack path and test method was examined by comparing the performance of adhesive-adherend combinations (six) in quasi-static fracture, mixed-mode fatigue, and creep crack growth. Crack paths in creep and quasi-static fracture were similar due to similar crack-tip plastic zone sizes in the epoxy adhesive even though the crack growth rates in creep were much smaller. Under condensed moisture and mixed-mode, creep and threshold fatigue tests produced interfacial failure. Under room-temperature dry environment, near threshold mixed-mode fatigue was interfacial, but was not in creep or quasi-static fracture. Smaller plastic zone size and crack path proximity to the interface that followed increased the sensitivity of near threshold, mixed-mode fatigue to surface properties. Therefore, the interfacial or cohesive failure of an adhesive system, which may judge the quality of the bond, can be a function of the test being conducted and may not be an absolute indicator of joint quality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".