Modes I-II-III stress intensity factors of a semi-elliptical surface crack at a round bar under torsion loading by FEM and DBEM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The corner point singularity of surface cracks by finite element method (FEM) has become a numerical concern decades ago. The literature showed that the stress intensity factors (SIFs) at the corner points were often excluded. Further, most SIFs were reported for larger ratios of the crack depth over cylinder diameter. This paper presents the SIFs (Modes I, II and III) of a semi-elliptical surface crack at a solid round bar under torsion. The tetrahedral and hexahedral elements were used in the finite element modelling. The effects of the loading mode and the crack aspect ratio on the corner point singularity were discussed. The tetrahedral meshing was generally observed to be more suitable for modelling relatively small surface cracks, particularly in respect to the corner point singularity. For all loading modes, the SIFs away from the corner points of using the tetrahedral meshing were found to have fairly good agreement with those by dual boundary element method (DBEM).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".