Weight Function Method With Segment-Wise Polynomial Interpolation to Calculate Stress Intensity Factors for Complicated Stress Distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many solutions of the stress intensity factor have been proposed in recent years. However, most of them take only third or fourth-order polynomial stress distributions into account. For complicated stress distributions which are difficult to be represented as third or fourth-order polynomial equations over the stress distribution area such as residual stress distributions or thermal stress distributions in dissimilar materials, it is important to further improve the accuracy of the stress intensity factor. In this study, a weight function method with segment-wise polynomial interpolation is proposed to calculate solutions of the stress intensity factor for complicated stress distributions. By using this method, solutions of the stress intensity factor can be obtained without employing finite element analysis or difficult calculations. It is therefore easy to use in engineering applications. In this method, the stress distribution area is firstly divided into several segments and the stress distribution in each segment is curve fitted to segment-wise polynomial equation. The stress intensity factor is then calculated based on the weight function method and the fitted stress distribution in each segment. Some example solutions for both infinite length cracks and semi-elliptical cracks are compared with the results from finite element analysis. In conclusion, it is confirmed that this method is applicable with high accuracy to the calculation of the stress intensity factor taking actual complicated stress distributions into consideration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".