MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993043780 · doi:10.1520/jte12328j

Ring Hoop Tension Test (RHTT): A Test for Transverse Tensile Properties of Tubular Materials

2002· article· en· W1993043780 on OpenAlexaff
Huamiao Wang, R. Bouchard, Roy Eagleson, P. Martin, WR Tyson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Testing and Evaluation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTensile testingTension (geology)Materials scienceTransverse planeUniaxial tensionComposite materialUltimate tensile strengthStructural engineeringTest (biology)EngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tube hydroforming has been receiving increasing attention, particularly for making automotive components. In this process, tubular metal pats are formed within a die cavity by forcing pressurized fluid inside so that the part expands into its final shape in a die. Process control requires an improved knowledge of mechanical properties in the transverse direction of tubular products. Several laboratory tests have been used to evaluate tube properties. One test method that has been used for zirconium alloy cladding tubes in the nuclear industry is the ring test, in which an expansion force is applied from inside the ring by separating two die inserts. In the present work, this test method is adapted to determine the hoop stress-strain curve of tubular materials. The new protocol allows measurement of the tensile properties without altering those properties in specimen preparation, which occurs using the conventional flattened strip tensile test. This paper presents the new test and data analysis procedure, along with typical data for a commercial steel hydroforming tube.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · 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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.170 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations75
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Testing and EvaluationSame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207