MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050111371 · doi:10.2207/qjjws.22.565

Study on Estimation Method of the Welding Deformation for Thick Plate Fillet Welding

2004· article· en· W2050111371 on OpenAlexaff
Mitsuyoshi Nakatani, Akikazu Kitagawa, Mitsuo FURUKATA, Shinji Ohgaki

Bibliographic record

VenueQUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE JAPAN WELDING SOCIETY · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlangeWeldingFillet (mechanics)Fillet weldMaterials scienceStructural engineeringUpset weldingElectric resistance weldingDeformation (meteorology)Mechanical engineeringEngineeringArc weldingComposite materialFiller metal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to manufacture I section of bridge, the fillet welding of the both sides for the web is conducted simultaneously, or conducted one side sequentially. The angular distortion will occur in the case of simultaneous welding, the leaning deformation on the flange to the first welding side will occur in the case of sequential welding for the thick plate. Compared with the angular distortion, it is difficult to correct the leaning deformation on the flange. If we can estimate the amount of the leaning deformation on the flange to first welding side, we will be able to set the flange lean to the second welding side before welding and keep the flange right angle to the web without correcting the deformation after welding. We conducted some cases of experiment and thermal elastic-plastic analysis for I section with sequential fillet welding. From the results, we developed the program for estimating the leaning deformation on the flange with tandem submerged arc welding method sequentially, and we applied to the actual bridge manufacturing. Consequently, we reduce the correcting work drastically, and achieve the cost reduction in production.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE JAPAN WELDING SOCIETYSame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207