MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992693626 · doi:10.1115/pvp2004-2753

Analytical Limit Loads for Tube Sections With Circumferential Degradation

2004· article· en· W1992693626 on OpenAlexaff
Wolf Reinhardt, Xin Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimit loadTube (container)Limit (mathematics)Rotational symmetryMechanicsStructural engineeringBending momentMoment (physics)Limit analysisMaterials scienceEngineeringMathematicsPhysicsFinite element methodComposite materialMathematical analysisClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fracture mechanics evaluation of tubes and pipes with circumferential degradation typically requires that the plastic limit load capacity be evaluated under a combination of axial force and bending moment loading. Most available analytical solutions are thin-wall approximations and may not work well for heavy-wall applications. The present paper derives an analytical limit load for a cylindrical pipe or tube with a partial circumferential, partial through-wall flaw and its bounding cases (through wall partial circumferential and uniform circumferential part-throughwall flaw). The solution is not in closed form, but can be easily solved with available mathematical software like MathCAD. The obtained limit loads for a steam generator tube are compared to those from simplified analytical solutions. The effect of tube supports on the limit load of a tube with non-axisymmetric flaw is discussed with a simplified model.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
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 topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207