MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023416948 · doi:10.1115/pvp2011-57669

Sensitivity Study of Shakedown Assessments Using Probabilistic Methods

2011· article· en· W2023416948 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Vlaicu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsOntario Power Generation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShakedownNonlinear systemProbabilistic logicStructural engineeringFinite element methodSensitivity (control systems)Bayesian inferenceRepresentation (politics)MathematicsBayesian probabilityComputer scienceEngineeringStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work is presented the development of generic models that emulates the behavior of finite element models under cyclic loads, with the probabilistic representation based on samplings of base-model data for a variety of test cases. The base-model is a pipe with a notch subjected to pressure loading translated into hoop stress and the thermal loading is applied as a cyclic load through the pipe thickness. The probabilistic method takes variations of the nonlinear material properties, loading conditions, and geometrical dimensions, whereas the response variables are defined in terms of stress intensity for the static analyses, and the total accumulated strain as well as the strain ranges translated into the number of allowable load cycles by using the Manson’s common slope method define the response variables for the nonlinear calculations. Bree diagram converted into the Interaction Diagram is used to correlate the results of the nonlinear cyclic analyses and the ASME Code limits for primary and secondary loads from linear elastic analyses, whereas the definition of the shakedown towards of the steady cycle is identified in terms of the local and global components of strain. Furthermore, the Bayesian statistics expands the results of the nonlinear cyclic analysis by combining the interpretations of statistical results to scenarios either not accessible by the frequentist statistics or better served by complex stochastic models.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207