Closed-Form Calculation of Stress Intensity Factor for an Axial ID Surface Flaw in Cylinder Subjected to Weld Residual Stresses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method for calculating the stress intensity factor for linear elastic fracture mechanics based flaw evaluation is provided in Appendix A-3000 of ASME Section XI. In the 2010 Edition of ASME Section XI, the calculation of stress intensity factor for a surface crack is based on characterization of stress field with a cubic equation and use of influence coefficients. The influence coefficients are currently only provided for flat plate geometry in tabular format. The ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation is in the process of rewriting Appendix A-3000. Proposed major updates include the implementation of explicit use of Universal Weight Function Method for calculation of the stress intensity factor for a surface flaw and the inclusion of closed-form influence coefficients for cylinder geometry. The explicit use of weight function method eliminates the need for fitting polynomial equations to the actual through-thickness stress distributions at crack location. In this paper, the proposed Appendix A procedure is applied to calculate the stress intensity factors in closed-form for an axial ID surface flaw in a cylinder subjected to a set of nonlinear hoop weld residual stress profiles. The calculated stress intensity factor results are compared with the results calculated based on the current method in Appendix A using cubic equations to represent the stress distribution. Three-dimensional finite element analyses were performed to verify the accuracy of the stress intensity factor results calculated based on the current and proposed Appendix A procedures. The results in this paper support the implementation of the proposed stress intensity factor calculation procedure into ASME Code.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".