The second Sandia Fracture Challenge : predictions of ductile failure under quasi-static and moderate-rate dynamic loading

International audienceDuctile failure of structural metals is relevant to a wide range of engineering scenarios. Computational methods are employed to anticipate the critical conditions of failure, yet they sometimes provide inaccurate and misleading predictions. Challenge scenarios , such as the one presented in the current work, provide an opportunity to assess the blind, quantitative predictive ability of simulation methods against a previously unseen failure problem. Rather than evaluate the predictions of a single simulation approach, the Sandia Fracture Challenge relies on numerous volunteer teams with expertise in computational mechanics to apply a broad range of computational methods, numerical algorithms, and constitutive models to the challenge. This exercise is intended to evaluate the state of health of technologies available for failure prediction. In the first Sandia Fracture Challenge, a wide range of issues were raised in ductile failure modeling, including a lack of consistency in failure models, the importance of shear calibration data, and difficulties in quantifying the uncertainty of prediction [see Boyce et al. (Int J Fract 186:5–68, 2014) for details of these observations]. This second Sandia Fracture Challenge investigated the ductile rupture of a Ti–6Al–4V sheet under both quasi-static and modest-rate dynamic loading (failure in ∼0.1 s). Like the previous challenge, the sheet had an unusual arrangement of notches and holes that added geometric complexity and fostered a competition between tensile-and shear-dominated failure modes. The teams were asked to predict the fracture path and quantitative far-field failure metrics such as the peak force and displacement to cause crack initiation. Fourteen teams contributed blind predictions, and the experimental outcomes were quantified in three independent test labs. Additional shortcomings were revealed in this second challenge such as inconsistency in the application of appropriate boundary conditions, need for a thermomechanical treatment of the heat generation in the dynamic loading condition, and further difficulties in model calibration based on limited real-world engineering data. As with the prior challenge, this work not only documents the 'state-of-the-art' in computational failure prediction of ductile tearing scenarios , but also provides a detailed dataset for non-blind assessment of alternative methods

A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee

Many clinical trials have evaluated the benefit of long-term use of antiplatelet drugs in reducing the risk of clinical thrombotic events. Aspirin and ticlopidine have been shown to be effective, but both have potentially serious adverse effects. Clopidogrel, a new thienopyridine derivative similar to ticlopidine, is an inhibitor of platelet aggregation induced by adenosine diphosphate. METHODS: CAPRIE was a randomised, blinded, international trial designed to assess the relative efficacy of clopidogrel (75 mg once daily) and aspirin (325 mg once daily) in reducing the risk of a composite outcome cluster of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death; their relative safety was also assessed. The population studied comprised subgroups of patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease manifested as either recent ischaemic stroke, recent myocardial infarction, or symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Patients were followed for 1 to 3 years. FINDINGS: 19,185 patients, with more than 6300 in each of the clinical subgroups, were recruited over 3 years, with a mean follow-up of 1.91 years. There were 1960 first events included in the outcome cluster on which an intention-to-treat analysis showed that patients treated with clopidogrel had an annual 5.32% risk of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death compared with 5.83% with aspirin. These rates reflect a statistically significant (p = 0.043) relative-risk reduction of 8.7% in favour of clopidogrel (95% Cl 0.3-16.5). Corresponding on-treatment analysis yielded a relative-risk reduction of 9.4%. There were no major differences in terms of safety. Reported adverse experiences in the clopidogrel and aspirin groups judged to be severe included rash (0.26% vs 0.10%), diarrhoea (0.23% vs 0.11%), upper gastrointestinal discomfort (0.97% vs 1.22%), intracranial haemorrhage (0.33% vs 0.47%), and gastrointestinal haemorrhage (0.52% vs 0.72%), respectively. There were ten (0.10%) patients in the clopidogrel group with significant reductions in neutrophils (< 1.2 x 10(9)/L) and 16 (0.17%) in the aspirin group. INTERPRETATION: Long-term administration of clopidogrel to patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease is more effective than aspirin in reducing the combined risk of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death. The overall safety profile of clopidogrel is at least as good as that of medium-dose aspirin