MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206303203 · doi:10.3390/met11101609

A Numerical and Experimental Assessment of the Small Punch Creep Test for 316L(N) Stainless Steels

2021· article· en· W3206303203 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Karl-Fredrik Nilsson, D. Baraldi, Stefan Holmström, Igor Simonovski

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJoint Research CentreHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaEuropean Commission
KeywordsCreepMaterials scienceDeflection (physics)Stress relaxationvon Mises yield criterionFinite element methodStrain rateStrain hardening exponentHardening (computing)Structural engineeringMechanicsComposite materialPhysicsClassical mechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a finite element analysis of the small punch creep test for 316L(N), which is compared with experimental data for 650 and 700 °C. Special emphasis is placed on (i) assessing the influence of friction and (ii) comparing two different creep models: the simple Norton creep and the more general creep model. The computed normalized deflection rate versus time is almost identical for all cases, which allows for scaling of the results. The computed time to rupture increases linearly with the friction coefficient due to a reduction in the mean stress. There is a good overall agreement between the experimental values and the computed deflection rate for a friction coefficient of around 0.3. It is shown that the initial reduction in deflection rate is due to stress relaxation and homogenization, and is only marginally affected by primary creep hardening. The computed results are compared with the equivalent stress and strain rates in the recently published small punch standard (EN 10371). The computed von Mises stresses at minimum deflection decrease linearly with the friction coefficient but are consistently slightly higher than the equivalent stress in the standard. For the strain rates, the computed values are significantly higher than the equivalent values in the standard. The presented simulations give a deeper insight of the small punch creep and impact of key parameters such the friction coefficient and in general as a guidance to refinement and improvement of the empirically based formulae in the standard.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicHigh Temperature Alloys and CreepFrench-language works237,207