Development of Analytical Evaluation Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Pipe Wall Thinning in ASME Code Section XI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the worldwide fleet of nuclear power plants ages, the need to address wall thinning in pressure boundary materials becomes more acute. The 2001 ASME Code Case N-597-1, “Requirements for Analytical Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning,” provides procedures and criteria for the evaluation of wall thinning that are based on Construction Code design concepts. These procedures and criteria have proven useful for Code Class 2 and 3 piping; but, they provide relatively little flexibility for Class 1 applications. Recent full-scale experiments conducted in Japan and Korea on thinned piping have supported the development of a more contemporary failure strength evaluation methodology applicable to Class 1 piping. The ASME B&PV Code Section XI Working Group on Pipe Flaw Evaluation has undertaken the codification of new Class 1 evaluation methodology, together with the existing Code Case N-597-1 rules for Class 2 and 3 piping, as a non-mandatory Appendix to Section XI. This paper describes the current status of the development of the proposed new Class 1 piping acceptance criteria, along with a brief review of the current Code Case N-597-1 evaluation procedure in general.
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 | 0.025 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".