Technical Basis for Revisions to ASME Section XI Code Case N-597-2 on Requirements for Analytical Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code Case N-597-2 provides procedures and acceptance criteria for the evaluation of piping items subjected to wall thinning mechanisms such as flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC). The acceptance criteria ensure that margins equivalent to those of the ASME B&PV Code are maintained. Subsequent to the publication of Code Case N-597-2, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) found the Code Case conditionally acceptable. A number of task items have been undertaken by the ASME Section XI Working Group on Pipe Flaw Evaluation (WGPFE) to address the NRC conditions. A 2006 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping (PVP) Division conference paper was published to provide an expanded explanation of the technical basis for Code Case N-597-2. A 2009 PVP paper was published to provide results of validation of evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria in Code Case N-597-2 against experimental and historic wall thinning events. More recently, revisions to Code Case N-597-2 have been made and were proposed as N-597-3. Significant changes have been made in the proposed revised Code Case to clarify the technical requirements and address the NRC concerns over N-597-2. The technical basis for revising Code Case N-597-2 is provided in this paper.
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 | 0.024 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.130 |
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".