MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013591294 · doi:10.1115/1.4007213

Nonlinear Stress–Strain Characterization of Cast Iron Used to Manufacture Pipes for Water Supply

2012· article· en· W2013591294 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Balvant Rajani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Materials and Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaThames Water
KeywordsConstitutive equationUltimate tensile strengthStructural engineeringCompression (physics)Tension (geology)Stress (linguistics)BendingDeformation (meteorology)Nonlinear systemCompressive strengthCast ironStress–strain curveMaterials scienceFlexural strengthLawEngineeringFinite element methodComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stress–strain response of cast iron under tension or compression is nonlinear. This paper examines how the hyperbolic constitutive law can be applied to characterize nonlinear stress–strain behavior of cast iron used in water supply networks. Procedures are described to obtain parameters of the hyperbolic constitutive law from either the response (data) obtained from simple uniaxial tensile and compressive tests or from bending tests. To demonstrate its applicability, this hyperbolic constitutive law is first applied to data obtained from uniaxial tensile and compressive tests conducted by Schlick and Moore (1936, “Strength and Elastic Properties of Cast Iron in Tension, Compression, Flexure, and Combined Tension and Flexure,” Bulletin 127, Iowa Engineering Experiment Station, Ames, IA). In addition, an approach to extract parameters for the hyperbolic constitutive law from bending (beam and pipe rings) tests is proposed and subsequently applied to tests conducted by Talbot (1908, “Tests of Cast-Iron and Reinforced Concrete Culvert Pipe,” Bulletin No. 22, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL). This latter approach is attractive for practical purposes because the test set up is simple and the test coupons are very easy to prepare. The hyperbolic constitutive law in conjunction with maximum normal strain theory as proposed by St. Venant (Collins, J. A., 1993, Failure of Materials in Mechanical Design: Analysis, Prediction, Prevention, John Wiley, New York, NY) was also used to predict failure loads.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering Materials and TechnologySame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207