Strain energy density and entire fracture surface parameters relationship for LCF life prediction of additively manufactured 18Ni300 steel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the connection between total strain energy density and fracture surface topography is investigated in additively manufactured maraging steel exposed to low-cycle fatigue loading. The specimens were fabricated using laser beam powder bed fusion (LB-PBF) and examined under fully-reversed strain-controlled setup at strain amplitudes scale from 0.3% to 1.0%. The post-mortem fracture surfaces were explored using a non-contact 3D surface topography measuring system and the entire fracture surface method. The focus is on the relationship between fatigue characteristics, expressed by the total strain energy density, and the fracture surface topography features, represented by areal, volume, and fractal dimension factors. A fatigue life prediction model based on total strain energy density and fracture surface topography parameters is proposed. The presented model shows good accordance with fatigue test results and outperforms other existing models based on the strain energy density. This model can be useful for post-failure analysis of engineering elements under low-cycle fatigue, especially for materials produced by additive manufacturing (AM).
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".