Analysis of HDPE Failure Data in Support of Development of Flaw Acceptance Criteria for Butt Fusion Joints
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is a need for ASME B&PV Code procedures and acceptance criteria for evaluation of flaws detected by inspection of high density polyethylene (HDPE) piping items in safety Class 3 systems. To support the development of flaw acceptance criteria for butt fusion joints in HDPE pipes, a series of coupon tests have been completed for specimens cut from butt fused HDPE pipes with surface or subsurface flaws placed in the joints prior to fusion process. Specimens containing known flaw sizes were tested under axial load at accelerated stresses and temperatures until failure; or until a prescribed number of test hours was reached. The failure time from the tests has been correlated to the net section stress and the stress intensity factor, and the results showed that the failure time can be better represented by the stress intensity factor. The test results were then used to fit the Brown and Lu formula that predicts the time to failure due to the slow crack growth of flaws as a function of stress intensity factor and temperature. With the developed Brown and Lu equation, the allowable stress intensity factors for a piping lifetime of 50 years at the maximum code allowable temperature of 60°C have been proposed for both surface and subsurface flaws in HDPE butt fusion joints. Examples of what might be corresponding allowable flaw sizes in the butt fusion joints of piping are also provided.
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.
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 it