Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efforts to develop clear and conservative methods to measure and evaluate wall thinning in nuclear piping have been underway since the late 1980’s. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) carried out a successful campaign to address programmatic issues, such as locating and predicting flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) degradation. This included developing a computer code (CHECWORKS), a users group (CHUG), and a comprehensive program guideline document for the effective prediction, identification and trending of flow-accelerated corrosion degradation. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidelines are provided in the NRC Inspection Manual Inspection Procedure 49001. At the same time, committees under Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code have addressed evaluation of structural integrity of piping subjected to wall thinning. Code Case N-480 of Section XI provided acceptance criteria that focused on primary piping stresses, with evaluation based on a uniform wall thinning assumption for evaluating the minimum wall thickness of the piping. However, when applying this methodology to low pressure piping systems, Code Case N-480 was very conservative. Code Case N-597 was first published in 1998, and supercedes Code Case N-480. The current version is N-597-2. Code Case N-597-2 provides acceptance criteria and evaluation procedures for piping items, including fittings, subjected to a wall thinning mechanism, such as flow-accelerated corrosion. Code Case N-597-2 is a significant improvement over N-480, containing distinct elements to be satisfied in allowing the licensee to operate with piping degraded by wall thinning. The Code Case considers separately wall thickness requirements and piping stresses, and maintains original design intent margins. The Code Case does not provide requirements for locations of inspection, inspection frequency or method of prediction of rate of wall thinning. As described in the original technical basis document published at the 1999 ASME PVP Conference, the piping stress evaluation follows very closely the Construction Codes for piping. Five conditions related to industry use of Code Case N-597-1 have been published by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.147, Revision 13. A number of these issues are related to a need for additional explanation of the technical basis for the Code Case, such as the procedures for evaluation of wall thickness less than the ASME Code Design Pressure-based minimum allowable wall thickness. This presentation addresses these NRC conditions by providing additional description of the technical basis for the Code Case.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.610 | 0.493 |
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".