MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135663698 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2020-0204

Failure phenomena in metallic and metal-lined polymer composite pressure vessels for aerospace applications

2021· article· en· W3135663698 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C.P. Goldin Priscilla, J. Selwin Rajadurai

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerospacePressure vesselMaterials scienceSoftwareComposite numberExtrapolationStress (linguistics)Structural engineeringPolymerComposite materialMechanical engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metallic and metal-lined polymer composite pressure vessels are extensively used in industries, including the aerospace industry. In the absence of unique failure criteria for the structural elements, phenomenological or empirical methodologies are used by researchers. This paper discusses comprehensive methodologies for predicting burst pressure of metallic and metal-lined polymer composite pressure vessels for aerospace applications. Metallic pressure vessels were analysed using Ansys software, considering the elastic-plastic nature of the materials. The progressive analysis was performed in metal-lined composite pressure vessels in an explicit mode using Ansys software. The problem of solution convergence is discussed in detail. The extent of degradation in static analysis is suggested after multiple analysis trials. In the unit pressure extrapolation technique, the stress components were evaluated using Ansys software and transformed into a local coordinate system, and hence, the failure pressure of the first-ply was identified by the maximum stress criterion. The analysis then continues with the degradation of the failed layers using Ansys software, and successive failures of layers were identified in steps. The results of burst pressure, evaluated through the present analyses, showed good agreement with the published test results. The procedures described in the paper would be of interest to the designers of pressure vessels.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207