MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559224930 · doi:10.1115/pvp2016-63863

Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analyses of Thin-Sliced Compact Tension Specimens of Irradiated Zr-2.5Nb Materials With Consideration of Split Circumferential Hydrides

2016· article· en· W2559224930 on OpenAlexaff
Shin-Jang Sung, Jwo Pan, Poh-Sang Lam, Douglas A. Scarth

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFinite element methodTension (geology)Composite materialStrain energyDisplacement (psychology)Structural engineeringUltimate tensile strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the low energy mode associated with split circumferential hydrides is examined by conducting three-dimensional finite element analyses of thin-sliced compact tension (CT) specimens of irradiated Zr-2.5Nb materials with split circumferential hydrides. Finite element models of thin-sliced CT specimens with split circumferential hydrides and various slice thicknesses are developed with the assumption of the plane strain condition in the thickness direction except in the split circumferential hydride regions. The computational results indicate that with split circumferential hydrides, the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) can increase 50% for thinner thin-sliced specimens under the same load per unit thickness. With the use of a strain-based failure criterion with split circumferential hydrides, the load per unit thickness for thinner thin-sliced specimens can reduce by at most 70% to meet the failure criterion.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207