MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412990570 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-13358-9

Effect of operating conditions on the bursting performances of cross-grooved domed rupture disc

2025· article· en· W4412990570 on OpenAlexaff
Shu-Ying Feng, Zhaijun Lu, Shuang Wu, Jiefu Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hunan ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBurstingComputer scienceAnatomyMechanicsMedicinePhysicsBiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cross-grooved domed rupture disc (CDR) is widely used due to its rapid response and the absence of fragment spattering. The bursting performance of the CDR is primarily affected by the operating conditions including the applied pressure, clamp fillet radius, and pressure rise rate. In this study, a systematic investigation was conducted to examine the dynamic bursting pressure (DBP) of the CDR under varying operating conditions. A numerical model of the CDR was developed and validated against the dynamic bursting test results. The applied pressure conditions, including the operating pressure and back pressure, were thoroughly analyzed. The results indicate that an increase in applied pressure leads to a decrease in DBP. In certain cases, the presence of back pressure can cause premature failure. This behavior is attributed to the combined effects of residual stress and plastic deformation. Furthermore, due to shear stress at the boundary, the DBP of the CDR decreases as the clamp fillet radius increases. Finally, as the pressure rise rate increases, the DBP initially rises and then declines, which can be attributed to the strain rate effect of the material.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.332
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material BehaviorFrench-language works237,207