MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210804571 · doi:10.1115/1.4053737

Damage Model Prediction of Crack Initiation and Propagation in Five Fracture Geometries for X80 Pipeline Steel

2022· article· en· W4210804571 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce W. Williams, Jia Xue, Su Xu, Dong-Yeob Park, W. R. Tyson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFracture toughnessFracture (geology)Fracture mechanicsTension (geology)Structural engineeringTearingCompact tension specimenBendingThree point flexural testComposite materialDamage mechanicsConstraint (computer-aided design)Finite element methodMechanicsCrack growth resistance curveCrack closureUltimate tensile strengthGeometryEngineeringMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Test specimens used to calibrate damage-mechanics models are designed to produce a range of stress triaxialities and Lode angles to accurately capture the fracture envelope of the metal. Many of these specimens have lower constraint than deeply notched fracture specimens that undergo stable tearing and have high constraint at the crack tip. Often just one or two fracture geometries are used to calibrate the model. In this work, the ability of a damage model to capture variability associated with constraint at a crack tip, particularly for crack initiation, is assessed. A recent round-robin (Wilkowski et al., 2019, “1st Round-Robin for Exploring the Effects of Constraint on Fracture Initiation Toughness for Surface-Cracked Pipe/Fittings,” Panel Session held in Conjunction With ASME PVP2019, San Antonio, TX) study on the initiation toughness of X80 provided data for five fracture specimens in which crack tip constraint varied. As a damage model for X80 was not available, the well-calibrated modified Mohr–Coulomb (MMC) damage models from literature for X65 and X70 were used as a starting point for the model. Experimental data from the single compact tension C(T) specimen were used to slightly modify the X65 and X70 models to capture the X80 fracture response. The MMC damage model was applied in finite element analysis (FEA) to simulate both the crack initiation and propagation responses of single-edge-notched-tension (SENT) and surface-cracked pipe specimens. Except for a low J-integral at initiation predicted for the C(T) specimen, the remaining predicted responses for force, pressure, and initiation were in good agreement with the experimental data provided in the round-robin.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207