MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205128114 · doi:10.4271/05-15-02-0010

Full-Range Fatigue Life Prediction of Metallic Materials Using Tanaka-Mura-Wu Model

2021· article· en· W4205128114 on OpenAlexaff
Siqi Li, Xijia Wu, Rong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMuraRange (aeronautics)Materials scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringComposite materialOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div>In this research, the recently developed Tanaka-Mura-Wu (TMW) model is applied to common engineering materials including Ni-base superalloys Haynes 282 and Inconel 617, aluminum alloys 7075-T6 and 2024-T3, alloy steels SAE 4340 and SAE 1020, and titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V, as well as a high-entropy alloy (HEA) CoCrFeMnNi over the full fatigue range comprised of low-cycle fatigue (LCF) and high-cycle fatigue (HCF). Through the analysis, it is shown that the TMW model is able to provide class A prediction for LCF (forecast before the event occurs) without resorting to fatigue testing; and with calibration at one stress level, it can be extended to the HCF regime. A relationship of fatigue life versus the total strain is established with the use of the Ramberg-Osgood equation. The TMW model predictions agree well with the experimental data and/or the Coffin-Manson-Basquin relation for the above materials. The TMW model describes the full-range fatigue life in terms of material’s elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio, surface energy, and the Burgers vector. Thus it establishes a physics-based baseline for characterizing the effects of other contributing factors such as microstructure and surface roughness, which contribute to the uncertainty in the fatigue scatter.</div>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Materials and ManufacturingSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207