Revision to Stress Intensity Factor Equations for ASME Section XI Appendix C-4000: Determination of Failure Mode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In ASME Section XI Appendix C for analytical evaluation of flaws in piping, a screening procedure is prescribed to determine the failure mode and analysis method for the flawed pipe. The end-of-evaluation period flaw dimensions, temperature, material properties, and pipe loadings are considered in the screening procedure. Equations necessary to calculate components of the screening criteria (SC) include stress intensity factor (K) equations. The K-equation for a pipe with a circumferential inside surface flaw in the 2017 Edition Section XI Appendix C-4000 is for a fan-shaped flaw. Real surface flaws are closer to semi-elliptical shape. As part of Section XI Working Group on Pipe Flaw Evaluation (WGPFE) activities, revision to stress intensity factor equations for circumferential surface flaws in Appendix C-4000 has been proposed. The proposed equations include closed-form equations for stress intensity influence coefficients G0 for membrane stress and Ggb for global bending stress for circumferential inside surface flaws. The rationale for the Code changes and technical basis for the proposed stress intensity factor equations are provided in this paper.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.061 |
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".