MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336192609 · doi:10.1115/1.4033450

Improvements in Article A-3000 of Appendix A for Calculation of Stress Intensity Factor in Section XI of the 2015 Edition of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code

2016· article· en· W2336192609 on OpenAlexaff
Steven X. Xu, Russell C. Cipolla, Darrell R. Lee, Douglas A. Scarth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStress intensity factorBoiler (water heating)Section (typography)Structural engineeringEngineeringPressure vesselCode of practiceFunction (biology)Stress (linguistics)Weight functionMechanical engineeringMathematicsFracture mechanicsMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analytical evaluation procedures for determining the acceptability of flaws detected during in-service inspection of nuclear power plant components are provided in Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Linear elastic fracture mechanics based evaluation procedures in ASME Section XI require calculation of the stress intensity factor. Article A-3000 of Appendix A in ASME Section XI prescribes a method to calculate the stress intensity factor for a surface or subsurface flaw by making use of the flaw location stress distribution obtained in the absence of the flaw. The 2015 Edition of ASME Section XI implements a number of significant improvements in Article A-3000. Major improvements include the implementation of an alternate method for calculation of the stress intensity factor for a surface flaw that makes explicit use of the Universal Weight Function Method and does not require a polynomial fit to the actual stress distribution and the inclusion of closed-form equations for stress intensity factor influence coefficients for cylinder geometries. With the inclusion of the explicit weight function approach and the closed-form relations for influence coefficients, the procedures of Appendix A for the calculation of stress intensity factors can be used more efficiently. A review of improvements that have been implemented in Article A-3000 of Appendix A in the 2015 Edition of ASME Section XI is provided in this paper. Example calculations are provided for illustration purpose.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1080.077

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
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

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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207