Effect of Grain Orientation and Local Strains on Void Growth and\n Coalescence in Titanium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ductile fracture has been extensively studied in metals with weak mechanical\nanisotropy such as copper and aluminum. The fracture of more anisotropic\nmetals, especially those with a hexagonal crystal structure (e.g. titanium),\nremains far less understood. This paper investigates the ductile fracture\nprocess in commercially pure titanium (CP-Ti) with particular emphasis on the\ninfluence of grain orientation and local state of strain on void growth. An\nexperimental approach was developed to directly relate the growth of a void in\nthree dimensions to its underlying grain orientation. Grain orientation was\nobtained by electron back scattered diffraction on void-containing CP-Ti sheets\nprior to their diffusion bonding. Changes in void dimensions were measured\nduring in-situ straining within an x-ray tomography system. The strong\ninfluence of the embedded grain orientation and that of its neighbors on void\ngrowth rate and coalescence has been experimentally quantified. Finite element\ncrystal plasticity simulations that take into account both grain orientation\nand the local strain state were found to predict the experimental void growth.\nGrains where basal slip dominates show the largest void growth rates because\nthey are closer to a plane strain condition that favors void growth and\ncoalescence.\n
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".