MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990796128 · doi:10.1115/pvp2019-93762

A Simplified Large Thin Plate Model for Modeling Fracture Behavior of a Hydrided Irradiated Zr-2.5Nb Pressure Tube Specimen With an Axial Crack

2019· article· en· W2990796128 on OpenAlexaff
Shin-Jang Sung, Jwo Pan, Cheng Liu, Douglas A. Scarth

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceSymmetry (geometry)Tube (container)Crack tip opening displacementComposite materialPressure vesselMechanicsFracture mechanicsCrack closureGeometryPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The crack tip opening displacements (CTODs) and the effective plastic strains ahead of the crack front in a hydrided irradiated Zr-2.5Nb pressure tube specimen with an axial crack are investigated using two 3-D finite element models in this paper. The first model is a pressure tube with 80 split circumferential hydrides distributed through the thickness ahead of the crack front. The second model is a large thin plate with a central crack with four split circumferential hydrides under symmetry/symmetry, free/symmetry and free/free constraint conditions. The results for CTOD indicate that the CTOD of the pressure tube specimen with 80 hydrides is slightly smaller than that for the large thin plate with the free/symmetry constraint condition and larger than that for the large thin plate with the symmetry/symmetry constraint condition. The effective plastic strain of the pressure tube specimen with 80 hydrides is smaller than that for the large thin plate with the free/symmetry constraint condition and larger than that for the large thin plate with the symmetry/symmetry constraint condition at large normalized loads. The computational results show that instead of modeling a full 3-D pressure tube with a larger number of hydrides, a large thin plate model with a limited number of hydrides can be used to efficiently determine the upper and lower bounds of the CTODs and the effective plastic strains ahead of the crack front in a pressure tube specimen.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207