MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985197562 · doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0743

Full-Scale Tests of Cold Bend Pipes

2004· article· en· W1985197562 on OpenAlexaff
Millan Sen, Jianwei Cheng, David W. Murray, Jianxin Zhou, Keith Adams, Koji Yoshizaki, Naoki Fukuda, Mario Como, E. Cerelli

Bibliographic record

Venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFull scaleStructural engineeringCold formingPipeline transportInstrumentation (computer programming)Materials scienceBucklingComposite materialEngineeringMechanical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental program sponsored jointly by SNAM Rete Gas, Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd. and TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. was conducted on cold bend pipes under combined loading. These tests were designed to study the local buckling behavior and to develop the critical compressive strain criteria for cold bend pipes under combined loading. The test program includes eight full-scale specimens of NPS24 and NPS30 pipes with pipe thickness up to 14.3 mm. The test parameters include different D/t ratios (44, 69, and 93), material grades (X60, X65, and X80), bend angles (1.0 to 1.5 degree/diameter), and operation pressures (0%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of SMYS). In addition to full-scale tests, initial imperfections and residual strains due to cold bend processes were also measured. This paper describes the test specimens, test setup, instrumentation, and test procedures used in the program. A brief discussion of the test results is also covered in the paper.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3Same topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207