MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043423877 · doi:10.1115/pvp2002-1289

A Finite Element Analysis of the Residual Stresses Incurred During Bending of Pipes

2002· article· en· W2043423877 on OpenAlexaff
Colin Scott, Michael J. Kozluk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodResidual stressBendingStructural engineeringMaterials scienceIsotropyStrain hardening exponentPure bendingStress (linguistics)Composite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work illustrates the potential for finite element methods to be used in support of metal fabrication processes. The focus is an analysis of the residual stresses incurred during cold bending of small diameter pipes. The pipe was modeled using 3D constant strain elements. The mandrels used to support the pipe and apply the necessary bend forces were modeled using 2D rigid surfaces. Contact surfaces were defined on the outside of the pipe and the inside of the mandrels. The fabrication process was simulated by programming the nodes of one of the mandrels with prescribed velocities. The finite element analysis was performed using H3DMAP, proprietary software that includes a hybrid explicit/dynamic relaxation module. The technique is a quasi-static approach that discounts inertial effects. The finite element analyses are used to predict the residual stresses and plastic strain in the pipe. The studies involve a constant pipe size. Two stress/strain curves are used. The effect of using isotropic or kinematic material hardening models, compressive pre-stressing and differing bending procedures are considered, and results compared. The details of each simulation are shown to influence the calculated residual stress field.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207