Energy-Based Approach for Fatigue Life Prediction of Additively Manufactured ABS/GNP Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the effectiveness of energy-based models for fatigue life prediction of additively manufactured acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)/graphene nanoplatelet (GNP) composites. The effects of varying GNP weight percentages and filament raster orientations on the fatigue life of the samples were investigated theoretically. The required stress and strain values for use in energy-based models were obtained by solving two sets of Neuber and Ramberg-Osgood equations, utilizing the available values of notch strength reduction factors at each load level and the average Young modulus for each composite material. Results revealed that none of the studied energy-based models could accurately predict the fatigue life of the samples across the entire high- and low-cycle fatigue regimes, with strong dependence on the stress ratio (R). Instead, a novel fatigue life prediction model was developed by combining two existing energy-based models, incorporating stress ratio dependence for cases with negative mean stress. This model was tested for R values roughly between -0.22 and 0. Results showed that, for all samples at each raster orientation, most of the predicted fatigue lives fell within the upper and lower bounds, with a factor of ±2 across the entire range of load levels. These findings highlight the reliability of the proposed model for a wide range of R values when mean stress is negative.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".