MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087518043 · doi:10.1115/pvp2008-61641

The Elastic Modulus Adjustment Procedure (EMAP) for Shakedown

2008· article· en· W2087518043 on OpenAlexaff
R. Adibi-Asl, Wolf Reinhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Codes and Standards · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShakedownFinite element methodLinear elasticityStructural engineeringElastic modulusBar (unit)ModulusCylinderStress (linguistics)MathematicsMathematical analysisMaterials scienceEngineeringGeometryPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple and systematic procedure is proposed for shakedown analysis using combination of linear and non-linear finite element analysis (FEA). The method can identify the boundary between the shakedown and ratcheting domains directly does not require a time history analysis (non-cyclic). The proposed method is based on elastic modulus adjustment procedure (EMAP) and non-cyclic elastic-plastic FEA. The aim of EMAP is to generate statically admissible stress distributions and kinematically admissible strain distributions. By modifying the local elastic moduli it is possible to obtain an inelastic-like stress redistribution. The method is first demonstrated with a two-bar structure model based on analytical routine. The analysis is then applied to some typical shakedown problems including the “classical Bree problem” and the “bi-material cylinder”.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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