MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1794302911 · doi:10.1520/stp12329s

Predicting Crack Instability Behaviour of Burst Tests from Small Specimens for Irradiated Zr-2.5Nb Pressure Tubes

2009· book-chapter· en· W1794302911 on OpenAlexaff
PH Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueASTM International eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceIrradiationInstabilityComposite materialMechanicsNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A scaling approach, based on the deformation J-integral at maximum load obtained from small specimens, is proposed for predicting the crack instability behaviour of burst tests on irradiated Zr-2.5Nb pressure tubes. An assessment of this approach is carried out by comparison with other toughness criteria such as the modified J-integral and the plastic work dissipation rate approach. The largest discrepancy between the different parameters occurs for materials of intermediate toughness which exhibit the most stable crack growth and tunnelling up to maximum load. A study of one material of intermediate toughness suggests crack-front tunnelling has a significant influence on the results obtained from the 17-mm-wide specimens. It is shown that for a tube of intermediate toughness the different approaches can significantly underpredict the extent of stable crack growth before instability in a burst test even after correcting for tunnelling. The usefulness of a scaling approach in reducing the discrepancy between the small- and large-scale specimen results for this material is demonstrated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASTM International eBooksSame topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207