MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091655561 · doi:10.1115/1.2172618

Stress Intensity Factors for Internal Straight and Curved-Fronted Cracks in Thick Cylinders

2006· article· en· W2091655561 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony P. Parker, Choon-Lai Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersArmy Research Office
KeywordsAutofrettageStress intensity factorCylinderRADIUSMaterials scienceStructural engineeringInternal pressureMechanicsCurvaturePressure vesselIntensity (physics)Tube (container)GeometryMathematicsFracture mechanicsComposite materialEngineeringPhysicsOpticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fatigue and leak-before-break calculations for a pressure vessel require knowledge of the stress intensity factor at the deepest point of a straight- or curved-fronted (semi-elliptical) surface crack emanating from the bore of an internally pressurized, autofrettaged thick cylinder. A limited number of available solutions is curve fitted. The concept of a tube equivalent plate (TEP), which exhibits crack-constraint characteristics matching those of a thick cylinder, is developed, and the resulting equations are curve fitted. Ratios of the TEP stress intensity factor results are then used to interpolate between certain existing solutions. This provides wide-ranging solutions covering radius ratios from 1.8 to 3.0, autofrettage overstrain from 0 to 100% and crack shapes from straight fronted to semi-circular. The calculation procedure is described using worked examples.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207