MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233374204 · doi:10.1115/pvp2007-26644

The Effect of Bolt Size on the Assembly Nut Factor

2007· article· en· W4233374204 on OpenAlexaff
Warren Brown, Luc Marchand, Arnaud E ́vrard, David Reeves

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Structural Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutBreakoutPipingTorqueProcess (computing)Structural engineeringBolted jointFactor (programming language)Mechanical engineeringEngineeringEngineering drawingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper details recent testing that was performed as an extension of earlier work on nut factor and high temperature breakout performance of selected anti-seize products. Comparison is made between results obtained using bolt diameters from 3/4 inch to 2 inch, two different anti-seize products (Molybdenum and Nickel) and two different bolt materials (ASTM A193-B7 & ASTM A193-B8M). In addition, common equations used for the determination of achieved bolt load from a given torque are examined and compared from a practical perspective in light of the nut factor test results. The test methods that were used are designed to closely mimic actual bolt assembly in a process plant environment. The paper, therefore, presents useful information that will enable more accurate assembly of bolted flanged joints on pressure vessels and piping in any process plant environment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Structural Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207