MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145752708 · doi:10.1115/1.4025613

Development of a New Bolt Spacing Formula

2013· article· en· W2145752708 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Tan, Abdel‐Hakim Bouzid, Thiên-My Dao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Structural Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlangeGasketPipingStructural engineeringStiffnessFoundation (evidence)Cylinder stressContact mechanicsElastic modulusEngineeringStress (linguistics)Materials scienceFinite element methodComposite materialMechanical engineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bolted flange joints are extensively used to connect pressure vessels and piping equipment together. They are simple structures that offer the possibility of disassembly. However, they often experience leakage problems due to a loss of tightness as a result of a nonuniform distribution of gasket contact stresses in the radial and circumferential directions. Many factors contribute to such a failure; the flange and gasket stiffness, bolt spacing or a combination of them are to name a few. In our recent papers, the effect of bolt spacing was investigated based on the theory of circular beams on linear elastic foundation and on the theory of rings on nonlinear elastic foundation. The variations of the contact stress between bolts were of a concern. This paper is an extension of the work in which an analytical solution, based on the theory of circular beams resting in a linear elastic foundation, has been developed to determine a formulae for flange bolt spacing. The relationship between bolt spacing, gasket compression modulus, and flange thickness is deduced from an analysis that considers a maximum tolerated gasket contact stress difference between any two bolts.

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)0.005
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicEngineering Structural Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207