MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046069961 · doi:10.1115/pvp2014-28415

Low-Constraint Toughness Testing of Two SE(T) Methods in a Single Specimen

2014· article· en· W2046069961 on OpenAlexaff
Dong-Yeob Park, Jean‐Philippe Gravel, C. Hari Manoj Simha, Jie Liang, Da-Ming Duan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrack tip opening displacementMaterials scienceToughnessStructural engineeringEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionDisplacement (psychology)Tension (geology)WeldingLine (geometry)Composite materialGeometryFracture mechanicsMathematicsComputer scienceEngineeringCompression (physics)Crack closure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-edge notched tension (SE(T) or SENT) specimens has been increasingly proposed as a low-constraint toughness test to measure toughness of line pipe materials, as the crack tip constraint approximates a circumferential surface flaw in a pipe under loading. The clamped SE(T) single-specimen procedures recently developed by Shen and Tyson [1, 2] and Tang et al. [3] have in common the use of a clamped single-specimen of similar geometry and rely on unloading compliance technique for crack size estimation. In the former case, a single clip gauge is attached to the integral knife edge and the crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) is estimated by means of a J-integral-to-CTOD conversion, similar to the procedure of ASTM E1820. The latter uses a pair of clip gauges mounted to an attachable raised set of knife edges to estimate CTOD at the original crack tip position by a triangulation rule. Consolidating these two sets of clip gauges in a specimen makes direct comparisons of two SE(T) methods on identical test conditions: material, specimen geometry, equipment, test temperature and operator [4]. In this study, SE(T) testing employing these two SE(T) methods on a single specimen was conducted on BxB shallow-cracked (a/W∼0.35) specimens of two x70 pipeline girth welds. This paper discusses the details of two SE(T) methods and techniques on the same specimen.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207