MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056891466 · doi:10.1115/icone10-22750

Non-Linear Stress Analysis of Threaded Connection With High Strength Ratio Materials

2002· article· en· W2056891466 on OpenAlexaff
Kamal Khair, Prasoon Singh

Bibliographic record

Venue10th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Volume 1 · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Structural Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThread (computing)Finite element methodStructural engineeringRotational symmetryNutNonlinear systemEngineeringStress (linguistics)Mechanical engineeringMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the relative strength ratio of nut-to-bolt thread is high, the weaker of the two threads will deflect under the relatively stiff action of the other. The rules of the ASME B1.1-1989 provide general design rules for designing non-critical threaded joints. Most threaded joint designs are based on these rules. In most cases, the strengths of the stud and the nut are about the same. This paper addresses plastic deformation and strain in the threaded part of a component (stud) whose strength is about 7 times more than the mating threads. An axisymmetric finite element analysis was performed using nonlinear material properties and nonlinear contact elements between the surfaces of the threads. The results were used to calculate the collapse load for the thread following the rules of Appendix F of the ASME B&PV. It was found that the collapse (maximum allowed) load calculated using this nonlinear finite element approach and Appendix F of ASME code is 50% higher than the load calculated using the conventional elastic methods given in the ASME code rules would be acceptable.

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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue10th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Volume 1Same topicEngineering Structural Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207