MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334920724 · doi:10.1115/pvp2003-1887

Lower Bound Limit Load Determination: The mβ-Multiplier Method

2003· article· en· W2334920724 on OpenAlexaff
R. Seshadri, H. Indermohan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiplier (economics)Upper and lower boundsMathematicsLimit loadLimit (mathematics)Mathematical analysisSensitivity (control systems)Stress (linguistics)Linear elasticityApplied mathematicsFinite element methodPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existing lower bound limit load determination methods that are based on linear elastic analysis such as the classical and mα-multiplier methods have a dependence on the maximum equivalent stress. These methods are therefore sensitive to localized plastic action, which occurs in components with thin or slender construction, or those containing notches and cracks. Sensitivity manifests itself as relatively poor lower bounds during the initial elastic iterations of the elastic modulus adjustment procedures, or oscillatory behavior of the multiplier during successive elastic iterations leading to limited accuracy. The mβ-multiplier method proposed in this paper starts out with Mura’s inequality that relates the upper bound to the exact multiplier by making use of the “integral mean of yield.” The formulation relies on a “reference parameter” that is obtained by considering a distribution of stress rather than a single maximum equivalent stress. As a result, good limit load estimates have been obtained for several pressure component configurations.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207