MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400961972 · doi:10.1061/jpsea2.pseng-1625

Numerical Investigation of Strain Variations along Steel Pipelines in Four-Point Bending Tests

2024· article· en· W4400961972 on OpenAlexaff
Haitao Lan, Neil A. Hoult, Ian D. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportStructural engineeringBendingGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringThree point flexural testGeologyForensic engineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four-point bending tests have been widely applied for investigating flexural behavior of different materials. However, there are no guidelines or standards relating to four-point bending tests for pipes. A steel pipe with a diameter of 154 mm and 3.4-mm wall thickness was instrumented with distributed fiber-optic strain sensors and tested in four-point bending. The measured strains at the crown, springlines, and invert deviated from results calculated using beam theory. This strain deviation is investigated using numerical analyses, and it is found that local deformations along the length of the pipe due to concentrated loads at load and support locations contributed to the deviation. Parametric studies are conducted using different geometries of wood support blocks, specimen lengths, and pipe thicknesses to investigate their impact on the strain distribution with the pipe. Recommendations for reducing the strain deviation at the midspan of the specimen are given for four-point bending tests carried out on the steel pipes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and PracticeSame topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207