MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996591069 · doi:10.1115/pvp2011-58005

Comparison of Cyclic and Burst Test Result With FE Simulation of a Locally Thinned Pipe Bend

2011· article· en· W1996591069 on OpenAlexaff
Wolf Reinhardt, Ali Asadkarami

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipingCabin pressurizationMaterials scienceBendingFinite element methodWeldingDeformation (meteorology)Carbon steelStructural engineeringComposite materialCorrosionEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thinning of Carbon steel pipe subjected to water flow has been observed in many piping systems. The feeder pipes in CANDU® reactors have been found susceptible to this degradation mechanism. In response, an industry program has been initiated to investigate the effect of local thinning on structural integrity. A CANDU® feeder pipe bend specimen was thinned locally to about 70% of pressure based thickness near the weld at the onset of the bend. The test specimen was subjected to severe pressurized cyclic bending for over 1600 cycles, and was subsequently pressurized to failure under a constant applied bending deformation. The failed specimen was subjected to metallurgical examination. The present paper reports the results of a finite element analysis of the cyclic part of the test and an elastic plastic analysis for failure under pressurization. The results are compared with the experimental outcomes. The conclusions address specifically the test, more generally the failure of thinned pipe and the use of elastic-plastic finite element analysis to predict failure due to pressurization.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207