MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551674862 · doi:10.1115/ipc2016-64618

Estimating J-R Curve From CVN Upper Shelf Energy and its Application

2016· article· en· W2551674862 on OpenAlexaff
Samarth Tandon, Mingxing Gao, Ravi Krishnamurthy, Richard Kania, Gabriela Rosca

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharpy impact testTearingFailure assessmentInstabilityFracture mechanicsFracture (geology)Impact energyPipeline transportFracture toughnessEnergy (signal processing)MechanicsStress (linguistics)Pipeline (software)ToughnessStructural engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsMathematicsMechanical engineeringComposite materialStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accuracy in predictions of burst pressures for cracks in pipelines has significant impact on the pipeline integrity management decisions. One of the fracture mechanics models used for failure pressure prediction is API 579 Level 3 FAD ductile tearing instability analysis that requires J-R curves, i.e., crack resistance curves, for the assessment. However, J-R curves are usually unavailable for most pipelines. To overcome this technical barrier, efforts have been made to estimate the J-R curve indirectly from commonly available toughness data, such as the Charpy V-notched Impact Energy CVN values, by correlating the upper-shelf CVN value (energy) to the ductile fracture resistance J-R curve. In this paper, the theoretical background and studies made by various researchers on this topic are reviewed. Attempts made by the present study to establish correlations between CVN and J-R curves for linepipe materials are then presented. Application of this CVN-JR correlation to API 579 Level 3 FAD tearing instability assessment for failure pressure predictions is demonstrated with examples. The accuracy of the correlation is analyzed and reported.

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)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207