MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determination of X-Ray Elastic Constants for Q1N Submarine Pressure Hull Steel

2011· article· en· W2051810560 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shannon P. Farrell, Kyle J. Avery, Luke W. MacGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidual stressDiffractometerMaterials scienceHullResidualCalibrationStructural engineeringSubmarinePressure vesselStress (linguistics)Forensic engineeringEngineering drawingComposite materialEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Navy has a requirement to conduct on-site accurate residual stress investigations to improve the efficacy of risk assessment and damage tolerance analysis of critical structures. This paper describes the techniques for qualification of the portable miniature X-ray diffractometer (mXRD) for residual stress analysis on Canadian VICTORIA Class submarine (VCS) pressure hulls. The effect that thermomechanical processing has on the X-ray elastic constant (XREC) and resultant stress analysis is discussed. The approach for calibration of the mXRD equipment and calculation of residual stress values from strain measurements is explained. A new methodology for determination of the XREC, based on the ‘multiple angle method’, is presented discussed and applied to describe the stress-strain relation for tempered Q1N steel. This method, which expands on the ASTM standard, examines the change in lattice strain at multiple y angles (∂d fy /∂sin 2 y) and provides improved statistical error over the ASTM standard. An XREC of 195 ±6 GPa was experimentally determined for Q1N steel using the {211} crystallographic planes of bcc Fe (using Cr Kα radiation) using the multiple angle method.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Mechanics and MaterialsSame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207