Theoretical Analysis of Hydraulically Expanded Tube-to-Tubesheet Joints With Linear Strain Hardening Material Behavior
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism of failure of tube-to-tubesheet joints is related to the level of stresses produced in the tube expansion and transition zones during the expansion process. Maintaining a lower bound limit of the initial residual contact pressure over the lifetime of the expanded joint is a key solution to a leak free joint. An accurate model that estimates these stresses can be a useful tool to the design engineer to select the proper material geometry combination in conjunction with the required expansion pressure. Most existing design calculations are based on an elastic perfectly plastic behavior of the expansion joint materials. The proposed model is based on a strain hardening with a bilinear material behavior of the tube and the tubesheet. The interaction of these two components is simulated during the whole process of the application of the expansion pressure. The effects of the gap and the material strain hardening are to be emphasized. The model results are validated and confronted against the more accurate numerical finite element analysis models. Additional comparisons have been made to existing methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it