MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2197153449 · doi:10.1115/pvp2015-45797

Technical Basis for the Assessment of Small Bore High Energy Piping With Lower Than Code Specified Design Minimum Thickness

2015· article· en· W2197153449 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xinjian Duan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBruce Power
KeywordsPipingService lifeLife extensionStructural engineeringEngineeringCorrosionCode (set theory)Computer scienceMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wall thinning by Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC), Erosion-Cavitation (E-C), and fretting has been observed in carbon steel piping. At some locations, the predicted end-of-life wall thickness could be below the design minimum thickness required by ASME B&PV Code Section III, which is an extremely conservative analysis method. To support the life extension without replacement or repair, it is essential to demonstrate the fitness for service of degraded piping components that satisfy the mandatory structural factors with uncertainties explicitly identified and addressed in an integrated manner. The present paper discusses the key technical basis for a sound assessment of small bore high energy Class 1 piping with lower than Code specified design minimum thickness, and proposes some future research activities to further enhance the technical basis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207