Analytical estimation of cohesive parameters for a bilinear traction-separation law in DCB mode I loading
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, analytical solutions for estimating two cohesive parameters, stiffness and strength in a bilinear traction law, were developed in conjunction with the ASTM double-cantilever beam (DCB) mode I testing. A zero-thickness elastic foundation zone containing two layers in series was assumed in the analytical derivation: a cohesive zone located underneath a beam elastic zone that is adjacent to the beam bottom surface, for accurately identifying the DCB opening displacements at both loading point and crack tip. The total deflection was comprised of three contributions: bending, lateral shearing, and beam thickness deformation. The analytical analysis eliminates drawbacks caused by rigid thickness in the classical beam theory. Consequently, good agreement in the beam deflections at both the loading point and the crack tip was obtained between the proposed analytical solution and an evaluation of numerical study results. This good agreement ensured that accurate cohesive parameters were derived analytically. Results showed that the proposed method explains why different cohesive parameters can lead to similar load-displacement results. Discussion on the application of the proposed analytical methodology and the associated cohesive values is presented.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it