Technical Basis for Application of Weight Function Method for Calculation of Stress Intensity Factor for Surface Flaws Proposed for ASME Section XI Appendix A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analytical evaluation procedures for determining the acceptability of flaws detected during in-service inspection of nuclear power plant components are provided in Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Linear elastic fracture mechanics based evaluation procedures in ASME Section XI require calculation of the stress intensity factor. A method for calculating the stress intensity factor is provided in Appendix A of ASME Section XI. This method consists of a two-step process. In the first step, the stress distribution, as calculated in the absence of the flaw, is obtained at the flaw location. For a surface flaw, the stress distribution at the flaw location is then fitted to a third-order polynomial equation. In the second step, the fitted polynomial representation of the stress distribution is used with standardized influence coefficients to calculate the stress intensity factor. An alternate method for calculation of the stress intensity factor for a surface flaw that makes explicit use of the universal weight function method and does not require a polynomial fit to the actual stress distribution is proposed in this paper for implementation into Appendix A of ASME Section XI. Universal weight function coefficients are determined from standardized influence coefficients through closed-form equations. Closed-form equations for calculation of the stress intensity factor are provided. The technical basis and verification for this alternate method for calculation of the stress intensity factor are described in this paper.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".