MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977420704 · doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0663

Analytical Modeling of Bolted Flange Joints With Full Face Gaskets

2004· article· en· W1977420704 on OpenAlexaff
Hichem Galai, Abdel‐Hakim Bouzid

Bibliographic record

Venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Structural Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGasketFlangeStructural engineeringFinite element methodEngineeringFace (sociological concept)Flexibility (engineering)Mechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the low leakage performance of flat face flanges, neither Appendix 2 nor Appendix Y of the ASME code which describes the design rules of flanges, are reliable to assess load changes when full face gaskets are used. The prediction of the tightness of these connections relies very much on the level of precision of the gasket contact stress during operation. However, determining this stress is complex, due to the many geometric and material parameters involved. This paper analyses the behaviour of bolted joints with full face gaskets. It presents an analytical approach to evaluate the operating flange rotation, gasket load and contact stress that may be used for leak prediction. The method is based on the gasket-bolt-flange elastic interaction, including flange rotational flexibility. The proposed model is supported by comparison with numerical FEA of different size flanges.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3Same topicEngineering Structural Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207