MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005644050 · doi:10.1115/pvp2010-25213

Relation B/W Stress, Nozzle Load and Total Length in a Process Piping Line

2010· article· en· W2005644050 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Structural Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipingNozzleStress (linguistics)Structural engineeringProcess (computing)EngineeringLine (geometry)Mechanical engineeringComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, time saving in piping stress analysis is a major concern among consultant engineering companies in power and process plants. In this paper, we are going to have a quantity review between some important parameters such as sustained, occasional and expanding stresses with total length and nozzle load of a real case according to ASME B31.3. Most of the times, piping stress designers try different and more flexible piping routes completely arbitrary. Longer piping route means greater mass, and it means a big trouble in earthquake time especially for allowable nozzle loading, on the other hand shorter piping route increases thermal nozzle loading and operating stresses. We will try to find a relationship among mentioned parameters to have an optimal piping route in order to save time and material. Finally, different routes will be analyzed using Caesar II to plot related parameters and find optimum criterion.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Structural Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207