MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076366808 · doi:10.1115/pvp2008-61628

On the Interaction of Thermal Membrane and Thermal Bending Stress in Shakedown Analysis

2008· article· en· W2076366808 on OpenAlexaff
Wolf Reinhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Codes and Standards · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShakedownRatchetStress (linguistics)BendingStructural engineeringClassification of discontinuitiesMechanicsMaterials scienceThermalRange (aeronautics)EngineeringComposite materialMechanical engineeringPhysicsMathematicsThermodynamicsFinite element methodMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the primary plus secondary stress range exceeds 3 Sm, the current ASME Code rules on simplified elastic-plastic analysis impose two separate requirements to evaluate the potential for ratcheting. The range of primary plus secondary stress excluding thermal bending must be less than 3 Sm, and the thermal stress must satisfy the Bree criterion for thermal stress ratchet. It has been shown previously that this method can be unconservative, i.e. predict shakedown when elastic-plastic analysis shows ratcheting. This paper clarifies the interaction between thermal membrane and bending stress in the presence of a primary membrane stress. An analytical model is used to derive the closed-form ratchet boundary for combined uniform loading of this type. The impact of having stress gradients along the wall that are typical for discontinuities is studied numerically. Simple modifications of the current Code methods are suggested that would achieve a clearer and better-justified set of rules.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 1: Codes and StandardsSame topicHigh Temperature Alloys and CreepFrench-language works237,207