Adoption of the Composite Reinforced Pressure Vessels (CRPV) Into the ASME BPV Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adoption of composite reinforced pressure vessels (CRPV) into the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code represented advancement in the technology of pressure vessels. The advantage of this construction technique is that the weight of a CRPV for compressed gas service built may be reduced to about one-half conventional pressure vessel of the same capacity. The concept of hoop wrapping fibers in a plastic composite (>90% fiber fill) makes full utilization of the fiber strength as the fibers share the hoop load with a metal cylinder. With reduced hoop stresses in the metal, a substantial reduction in wall thickness is attainable. The process of adoption of this technology presented several challenges and some robust administrative hurdles. These included coordination with ASME BPV Code Section X for the composite application and Section VIII for the steel design and overall acceptance of the Case. The most vexing technical challenge was the inspection of an unfinished weld on the inside of the shell from the outside of the shell. The next challenge was to gain consensus on the testing criteria for the acceptance of finished vessels. Case 2390 was drafted in the winter of 2000 and spring of 2001 and approved for publication after nine revisions with an approval date of October 9, 2002. The Case was subsequently adopted into the body of ASME BPV Code Section VIII, Division 3 [1] (VIII-3) in the 2010 edition.
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".