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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".