MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Upper Bound Plastic Interaction Relations for Elliptical Hollow Sections

2010· article· en· W1969876996 on OpenAlexaff
Farhood Nowzartash, Magdi Mohareb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Mechanics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorsion (gastropod)Dimensionless quantityFinite element methodPlasticityNonlinear systemWeldingUpper and lower boundsStructural engineeringMathematical analysisMathematicsPhysicsMaterials scienceMechanicsEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A family of interaction expressions are developed for steel elliptical hollow sections (EHSs) subjected to combinations of axial force, biaxial bending moments, torsion, and bimoments. The formulation is based on kinematically admissible strain fields within the context of the upper bound theorem of plasticity. The interaction relations derived successfully capture the effect of confining radial strains present at welded end sections, as well as sections that are free to deform in the radial direction away from end welded sections. The interaction expressions developed consist of a set of elliptical integrals which are cast in a dimensionless form applicable for EHS of general geometries. An iterative solution technique is developed to solve the resulting nonlinear relations. The applicability of the resulting interaction relations for conducting the cross-sectional check is illustrated through examples. A comparison with shell finite-element analysis results illustrates the validity of the interaction relations derived.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering MechanicsSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207