MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007084267 · doi:10.1115/pvp2005-71082

On the Validity and Limits of the Gasket Effective Width Concept

2005· article· en· W2007084267 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 institutionsPolytechnique MontréalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGasketFlexibility (engineering)Structural engineeringStress (linguistics)EngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current ASME code procedure for the design of the gasketed bolted joints, the concept of the effective width is introduced to take into account the effect of the non-uniform gasket contact stress distribution. The code fixes a threshold value of the gasket width above which an adjustment of the gasket contact width is introduced. The validity of this threshold has never been verified. Under the normal operating conditions of flanges used with flat gaskets, the definition of this threshold is independent of the bolt load, the average gasket stress, the internal pressure and the flexibility of the joint. In this paper a study on the new limits of the concept of the effective gasket width is conducted. A new approach for the calculation of the effective gasket width, based on the results of an experimental investigation and undertaken in parallel to a numerical study, is presented. This approach takes into account the non-uniform distribution of the gasket stress, the flexibility of the flanges, the mechanical behavior and the sealing performance of the assembly.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Structural Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207