MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991946416 · doi:10.1115/icone12-49243

Analytical Modeling of a Bolted Flange Joint Subjected to Creep Relaxation

2004· article· en· W1991946416 on OpenAlexaff
Akli Nechache, Abdel‐Hakim Bouzid, Van Ngan Lê

Bibliographic record

Venue12th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Volume 1 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Structural Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlangeGasketCreepBolted jointStructural engineeringRigidity (electromagnetism)Pressure vesselJoint (building)Materials scienceStress relaxationFinite element methodEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bolted flanged gasketed joints are the weak link between pressure vessel equipments including nuclear reactors. Their leakage tightness behavior is compromised due to the effect of creep of the gasket, the bolts and the flange, which relaxes the bolt load and causes a subsequent loss of the gasket contact stress. This is especially true when the joint is operating under high pressure and high temperature conditions. Apart from an acknowledgement of this affect, the ASME code does not give specific guidelines to help the design engineer in assessing this effect. The objective of this paper is to present an analytical method capable of predicting the bolt load relaxation in a gasketed joint as a result of creep of either the gasket, the bolt and the flange separately or all together. The proposed method is validated by comparison with 3D FE models of different size flanges and experimental data. A strong emphasis will be put on flange rigidity, which is the major controlling parameter of the load relaxation.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue12th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Volume 1Same topicEngineering Structural Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207