Alignment of Stress Intensification and Flexibility Factors for the B31 Book Sections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been recognized for some time that the current B31 Codes are inconsistent in the values they use for stress intensification factors for piping design. ASME has undertaken a project to align the Stress Intensification and Flexibility Factors in the various B31 book sections via the ASME ST-LLC 07-02 Project which is being managed by the Paulin Research Group. The intent is neither to decrease nor to increase conservatism but rather to improve the accuracy of piping analysis as it attempts to model the real world. The supporting research is based on literature reviews, recent testing (within the last 25 years), new testing, advanced analysis techniques and interviews with industry and research personnel. The results are intended to be eventually included in a non-mandatory appendix to ASME B31J. In this paper the scope of the changes and visual representation of some of the current information from the Project is provided to acquaint the piping analysts in general terms. Since flexibility changes are more fundamental to piping analysis, some discussion is provided as to how to incorporate them and some of the possible effects on piping design.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".