MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094605379 · doi:10.1115/1.4002059

Incorporation of Strain Hardening Effect Into Simplified Limit Analysis

2010· article· en· W2094605379 on OpenAlexafffund
P. S. Reddy Gudimetla, R. Adibi-Asl, R. Seshadri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsLimit loadHardening (computing)Limit analysisTangentStrain hardening exponentMaterials scienceBilinear interpolationFinite element methodLimit (mathematics)Nonlinear systemStructural engineeringMechanicsComposite materialMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a method for determining limit loads in the components or structures by incorporating strain hardening effects is presented. This has been done by including a certain amount of the strain hardening into limit load analysis, which normally idealizes the material to be elastic perfectly plastic. Typical strain hardening curves such as bilinear hardening and Ramberg–Osgood material models are investigated. This paper also focuses on the plastic reference volume correction concept to determine the active volume participating in plastic collapse. The reference volume concept in combination with mα-tangent method is used to estimate lower-bound limit loads of different components. Lower-bound limit loads obtained compare well with the nonlinear finite element analysis results for several typical configurations with/without crack.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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