Analysis of Crack‐Tip Field in Orthotropic Compact Tension Shear Specimens: The Role of Elastic Mode Mixity and <i>T</i> ‐Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The analysis of mixed‐mode crack propagation mechanisms in anisotropic materials remains a pivotal research focus. Although the compact tension shear (CTS) test is a recommended laboratory method, the lack of solutions for anisotropic crack‐tip field parameters hinders accurate assessment of stress states and deformations during crack propagation. To address this gap, this study conducted a systematic finite element analysis (FEA) to compute the elastic mode mixity and T ‐stress results. It is found that by adjusting the loading angle along with the initial crack length, CTS tests on orthotropic specimens can similarly achieve a broad spectrum of M e at the crack‐tip. Statistical analysis indicates that applying isotropic solutions to estimate orthotropic T ‐stress can lead to average errors of 234.1%. Subsequently, crack‐tip fields were analyzed, with crack initiation angles predicted using the maximum tangential stress (MTS) criterion and plastic zone profiles determined based on Hill's yield criterion. Larger fracture process zones enhance T ‐stress correction effects on crack initiation angles, with positive T intensifying crack deflection, while negative T reduces it. Additionally, T also significantly affects the plastic zone's shape and size, with patterns varying according to material orthotropy. A detailed multiparameter characterization of crack‐tip fields will enhance the use of the CTS test for assessing multiaxial strength and mixed‐mode fracture mechanisms in anisotropic materials.
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 | 0.000 | 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".