MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765757086 · doi:10.1115/pvp2017-66268

Dynamic Cyclic Stress Analysis of Rolling of a Diametrically Loaded Helical Test Specimen

2017· article· en· W2765757086 on OpenAlexaff
Don R. Metzger, Mark Paulseth, Andre Gagnon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsSNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringReciprocating motionStress (linguistics)Spring (device)Finite element methodCyclic stressMaterials scienceTest dataDynamic testingEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a particular nuclear application, separation between structural components is maintained by a helical spring such that the separating load bears across the diameter of the spring coils. Relative motion between the structural components due to changing load and temperature is accommodated by rolling of the spring. This rolling motion while under radial load results in cyclic loading of the spring material. Fatigue analysis of the cyclic loading must take into consideration the material degradation due to the unique operating environment, so testing of ex-service material is required. Standard fatigue test specimens are not possible due to the small dimensions of the spring component, so cyclic stress is applied to the material via a reciprocating rolling motion between two platens. Stress analysis of this arrangement provides the stress range and mean stress necessary for fatigue analysis. A three dimensional finite element dynamic simulation of the test process is applied to a nominal test specimen to determine detailed history of the stress distribution. Numerical challenges are addressed to ensure representative loading conditions are properly applied, and that steady-state response is achieved. Bounding stress ranges are determined, and the implications of the results in fatigue analysis are discussed. It is concluded that response at the ends of the specimens is important in properly evaluating test data.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207