MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998898142 · doi:10.1115/1.1689357

A Critical Examination of Sachs’ Material-Removal Method for Determination of Residual Stress

2004· article· en· W1998898142 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony P. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBauschinger effectAutofrettageSuperposition principleResidual stressMechanicsResidualTube (container)Materials scienceStrain gaugeStructural engineeringStress (linguistics)Cylinder stressComposite materialMathematicsPlasticityEngineeringPhysicsMathematical analysisUltimate tensile strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sachs’ method is an experimental procedure used primarily in the determination of residual stresses in autofrettaged thick cylinders. In its usual form it involves fixing axial and hoop direction strain gauges to the OD of a tube; strain readings are then obtained after each incremental removal of material from the bore. Sachs’ analysis assumes that the remaining tube unloads in linear-elastic fashion throughout the process and that superposition may therefore be employed to quantify the residual stresses within the original tube. By numerical simulation of two complete Sachs’ experimental sequences with “open end” conditions it is demonstrated that the assumption of elastic unloading is invalidated by the Bauschinger effect. Sachs’ method thereby overestimates compressive residual bore hoop stresses in a typical tube by between 24% and 43%. If used as the basis for cyclic pressurization fatigue lifetime predictions with pre-existing cracks, such discrepancies will cause overestimates in fatigue lifetime of an order of magnitude. Sachs’ experimental procedure is therefore not recommended as a reliable or conservative method for determination of residual stress.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207