A Tiered Approach to Girth Weld Defect Acceptance Criteria for Stress-Based Design of Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative girth weld defect acceptance criteria implemented in major international codes and standards vary significantly. The requirements for welding procedure qualification and the allowable defect size are often very different among the codes and standards. The assessment procedures in some of the codes and standards are more adaptive to modern micro-alloyed TMCP steels, while others are much less so as they are empirical correlations of test data available at the time of the standards creation. A major effort funded jointly by the US Department of Transportation and PRCI has produced a comprehensive update to the girth weld defect acceptance criteria. The newly proposed procedures have two options. Option 1 is given in an easy-to-use graphical format. The determination of allowable flaw size is extremely simple. Option 2 provides more flexibility and generally allows larger flaws than Option 1, at the expense of more complex computations. Option 1 also has higher fracture toughness requirements than Option 2, as it is built on the concept of plastic collapse. In comparison to some existing codes and standards, the new procedures (1) provide more consistent level of conservatism, (2) include both plastic collapse and fracture criteria, and (3) give necessary considerations to the most frequently occurring defects in modern pipeline constructions. This paper provides an overview of the technical basis of the new procedures and validation against experimental test data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".