MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898326966 · doi:10.1115/pvp2018-85050

Beyond Shakedown-Ratcheting Boundary

2018· article· en· W2898326966 on OpenAlexaff
R. Adibi-Asl, Wolf Reinhardt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShakedownRatchetPipingStructural engineeringFinite element methodPressure vesselMaterials scienceWork (physics)MechanicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Section III and Section VIII) provides requirements to avoid a ratcheting (accumulating permanent strain) condition under cyclic thermal load application. The ratchet check in this code is based on the solutions presented by Miller in 1959. One important focus in Miller’s work was to estimate the accumulated plastic strain under cyclic loading. The existing pressure vessels and piping codes have been adopting Miller’s ratchet boundary solution where there is no cyclic plastic accumulation of strain. However, some of these codes also provide limit on accumulated plastic strain under ratcheting conditions. Since the cyclic loading also causes fatigue damage in thee component, the question how to account for the interaction of ratchet deformation, which may contribute to damage in the material, and fatigue damage arises, since the fatigue curves are obtained from tests in the absence of ratcheting. This paper investigates the solutions to calculate growth strain (incremental plastic strain) and their application in design including taking into account the interaction with fatigue. Finite element analysis is presented to validate the analytical solutions.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigh Temperature Alloys and CreepFrench-language works237,207