Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intent of this testing was to evaluate the residual stresses that occur in and around the attachment details of a case stiffener segment that has been subjected to flight/recovery followed by proof loading. Not measured in this test were stresses relieved at joint disassembly due to out-of-round and interference effects, and those released by cutting the specimens out of the case segment. The test article was lightweight case stiffener segment 1U50715, S/N L023 which was flown in the forward stiffener position on flight SRM 14A and in the aft position on flight SRM24A. Both of these flights were flown with the 3 stiffener ring configuration. Stiffener L023 had a stiffener ring installed only on the aft stub in its first flight, and it had both rings installed on its second flight. No significant post flight damage was found on either flight. Finally, the segment was used on the DM-8 static test motor in the forward position. No stiffener rings were installed. It had only one proof pressurization prior to assignment to its first use, and it was cleaned and proof tested after each flight. Thus, the segment had seen 3 proof tests, two flight pressurizations, and two low intensity water impacts prior to manufacturing for use on DM-8. On DM-8 it received one static firing pressurization in the horizontal configuration. Residual stresses at the surface and in depth were evaluated by both the x-ray diffraction and neutron beam diffraction methods. The x-ray diffraction evaluations were conducted by Technology for Energy Corporation (TEC) at their facilities in Knoxville, TN. The neutron beam evaluations were done by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories in Ontario. The results showed general agreement with relatively high compressive residual stresses on the surface and moderate to low subsurface tensile residual stresses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".