Review of Technical Basis for ASME Code Section XI Appendix L
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Equivalent Single Crack (ESC) sizes are provided in ASME Code, Section XI, Nonmandatory Appendix L, Tables L-3210-1 (for ferritic piping) and L-3210-2 (for austenitic piping). These two tables define initial flaw aspect ratios for use in fatigue flaw tolerance evaluations. These ESC sizes were based on the results of probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) evaluations that determined the equivalent single crack size that resulted in the same probability of through-wall leakage as the case when multiple cracks are initiated and grown around the inner circumference of a pipe. The PFM software, pc-PRAISE, used for the evaluation of ESC sizes had fracture mechanics models based on available data and models in the early 2000s. The stress intensity factor solutions used in pc-PRAISE were generated for a pipe radius-to-thickness ratio, Ri/t, of 5, and used a root-mean-square (RMS) averaged methodology. And the crack growth model was based on NUREG/CR-2189, Volume 5. This paper presents the results of evaluations to calculate a limited number of ESC sizes using updated fracture mechanics models for stress intensity factor and fatigue crack growth rates. The effect of crack growth due to stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in determining the ESCs is also discussed. The impact of the revised ESCs by performing two sample fatigue flaw tolerance problems and the associated results are also presented and discussed 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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.259 | 0.300 |
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".