MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of EPFM Procedure for Axially Flawed Pipe Using Z Factor Based on CVN

2006· article· en· W2264014272 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Codes and Standards · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharpy impact testAxial symmetryStructural engineeringFracture toughnessFracture mechanicsLimit loadFracture (geology)Failure assessmentMaterials scienceSection (typography)EngineeringToughnessComposite materialComputer scienceFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation procedures on an allowable axial flaw in a pipe for fully plastic fracture is provided by limit load criteria in Appendix C-5000 of the ASME Code Section XI. However, flaw evaluation for ductile fracture using EPFM (Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics) criteria is not provided for axial flaw in the Appendix. Methodology of the flaw evaluation for ductile fracture using EPFM criteria is discussing at the Working Group on Pipe Flaw Evaluation of ASME Code Section XI. Many failure experiments on axially flawed pressurized pipes made of moderate toughness materials had been performed at Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Semi-empirical equations for predicting failure stresses were developed from these experiments. This paper describes a derivation of load multiplier, Z factor, based on Charpy V notch upper shelf energy (CVN) from failure stresses for moderate toughness materials based on the experiments, and proposes a flaw evaluation procedure to determine allowable axial flaw for a ductile fractured pipe using the EPFM criteria.

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.

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 score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.222 · 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