MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977101977 · doi:10.1115/pvp2005-71038

Creep Effect of Attached Structures on Bolted Flanged Joint Relaxation

2005· article· en· W1977101977 on OpenAlexaff
Akli Nechache, Abdel‐Hakim Bouzid

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Structural Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepFlangeBolted jointGasketStructural engineeringMaterials scienceJoint (building)Stress relaxationFastenerRelaxation (psychology)EngineeringComposite materialFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The leakage tightness behavior of bolted flange joints is compromised due to high temperature effects and in particular when creep of the materials of the different components of the bolted flanged joint take place. The relaxation of bolted flanged joints is often estimated from the creep of the gasket and the bolts. The creep behavior of the flange ring and the attached structures such as the shell and the hub is often neglected. Apart from an acknowledgement of relaxation due to creep, the designer has no specific tools to accurately assess this effect on the bolt load relaxation. The objective of this paper is to present an analytical approach capable of predicting the bolt load relaxation due to creep of the attached structures. The proposed approach is validated by comparison with 3D FE models of different size flanges. An emphasis will be put towards the importance of including creep of the attached structures in high temperature flange designs.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Structural Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207