MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073538934 · doi:10.1115/pvp2007-26366

Z-Factor for Ferritic Pipe Axial Flaw Using J-T Analysis

2007· article· en· W2073538934 on OpenAlexaff
Phuong H. Hoang, Douglas A. Scarth

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Codes and Standards · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipingTearingSection (typography)Cylinder stressStructural engineeringAddendumStress (linguistics)Fracture (geology)Materials scienceEngineeringComposite materialMechanical engineeringComputer scienceFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tabulation solution for ductile tearing failure of piping axial flaws was first implemented in the A90 Addendum to the 1989 Edition of the ASME B&PV, Section XI, Appendix H. The solution was based on J-Tearing analyses of pipe axial semi-elliptical part-through wall flaws in a generic ferritic material that has J1C > = 600 in-lbs/in2. Analytical solution for pipe axial flaw has not been implemented in the Code. In this paper a general load multiflier Z-factor is developed for use in an analytical solution for pipe axial part-through wall flaw, which is compatible with the current Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM) tabular solution in the Section XI, Appendix C. The Z-curve is developed using the same J-Tearing analysis technique and the same generic material properties for ferritic materials that were used in the development of the Code tabulation solutions. The predicted failure stresses using the Z curve are fairly corelated and conservatively the actual failure stress in the available test specimens from the PIFRAC database.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 1: Codes and StandardsSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207