MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252429581 · doi:10.1115/1.2716439

Proposed Design Criterion for Vessel Lifting Lugs in Lieu of ASME B30.20

2006· article· en· W4252429581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dennis K. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Failure Analysis and Simulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPressure vesselEngineeringStructural engineeringPhraseStatutory lawSafety factorMechanical engineeringComputer scienceLawArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes a method for evaluating the structural adequacy of various lifting lugs utilized in the erection and up righting of large pressure vessels. In addition, the analysis techniques are described in detail and design guidelines for vessel lifting are tendered. The statutory and provincial regulations in both the United States and the province of Alberta, Canada are also reviewed and discussed with respect to the too often utilized phrase “factor of safety” (FOS). The implied implications derived from the chosen FOS are also outlined. A discussion is presented as to the applicability of the ASME safety standard B30.20 entitled, “Below the Hook Lifting Devices” (1999, ASME, New York) and as to the severe shortcomings of the safety standard in its attempt to delve into the design of lifting devices, especially when applied to lifting lugs on large and heavy-weight pressure vessels. Exemplar lugs on vessels are defined and the finite element analyses and closed form Hertzian contact problem solutions are presented and interpreted in accordance with the proposed design criteria. These results are compared against the very limited design information contained within ASME B30.20. Suggestions for the revision and applicability of the safety standard are presented and discussed in light of the examples and technical justification presented in the following paragraphs. In addition, the silence of this safety standard on the very large contact stresses that are well known to exist between a lifting pin and clevis type geometry is also discussed. Because of the limited number of repetitive loading cycles that vessel lifting lugs actually experience during the service life of a vessel, a recommendation is made to either clearly exclude vessel lifting lugs from the scope of ASME B30.20 or to specifically include a separate design and analysis section within this standard to properly address the mechanical and structural design issues applicable to pressure vessel lifting lugs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicMechanical Failure Analysis and SimulationFrench-language works237,207