Analysis of Fracture Parameters for Compact-Tension-Shear Specimen of Orthotropic Materials
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
Abstract Treating orthotropic materials as isotropic for strength analysis and design can introduce significant errors, resulting in considerable safety risks. Furthermore, in practical conditions, cracks often exhibit mixed-mode fracture behavior, and the combination of orthotropy mechanics gives rise to an even more complex stress field in the vicinity. In this context, performing Compact-Tension-Shear (CTS) tests is a promising research methodology to determine fracture toughness of orthotropic materials in mixed mode I&II. Therefore, this study conducted a comprehensive two-dimensional finite element analysis (2D FEA) on orthotropic CTS specimens to assess critical parameters in fracture toughness including stress intensity factors (SIF) and crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) compliance. The analysis matrix encompassed a wide range of material orthotropy, crack length ratios, and loading angles. Results showed that the impact of orthotropy varies under different geometries and loading angles, while different fracture parameters exhibit varying degrees of sensitivity to orthotropy. The obtained results would contribute to the development of fracture toughness testing methods for orthotropic materials under mixed-mode loading and provide a reference for standardization in the process.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.009 | 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