A Review and Remediation of a Code Non-Compliance Incident: Lessons Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ASME Codes address the needs of industry and the public for the construction of safe equipment for pressure containment. The two basic philosophies underlying the requirements of the ASME VIII sections are “rules based” design versus “design by analysis”. Code contributors have written extensively on the need for Code users to apply common sense when using the Code. This message is often lost in the confusion when atypical mechanical design details have been intentionally or inadvertently used. Those atypical design details that can be identified during the review process can be easily resolved; details that are discovered after construction completion and, worse yet, just prior to operation can be devastating to a project. The Code places emphasis on education, experience and the use of engineering judgment but, these can never be used to overrule mandatory requirements or specific prohibitions of the Code. A specific incident is reviewed wherein the regulatory authority of the jurisdiction intervened and de-registered a vessel design due to Code non-compliance. Although the deficient detail was thought to be better, based on consideration of engineering principles, than the detail strictly meeting Code requirements, the as-constructed detail was rejected by the regulatory authority. Extensive field rework ensued to modify the detail to conform to Code, and of course the costs were very high. This paper reviews the engineering issues, illustrates the motivation for the Code requirements, and serves as a reminder to Code users to be vigilant in the details of Code construction.
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 | 0.035 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".