Review of Original Calculations and pc-PRAISE Source Code Used to Develop ASME Code Section XI Appendix L Equivalent Single Crack Tables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract ASME Section XI Appendix L permits the use of flaw tolerance procedures to determine the allowable operating period for operating plant components and piping subjected to cyclic loadings, providing NDE confirms that the location of interest has no flaw larger than allowed by the Acceptance Standards. The flaw tolerance analysis postulates a pre-existing flaw at the location of interest and calculates fatigue crack growth to determine inspection intervals necessary to assure that the fatigue-growing flaw can be detected before it exceeds the allowable size. To account for the possibility of multiple flaws coalescing and forming longer flaws during the fatigue crack growth, the postulated single flaw is assigned with an aspect ratio, known as the ESC (equivalent single crack) aspect ratio, based on the applied loading and material type. As part of the activities undertaken by the Section XI Task Group on Appendix L, an effort was made to conduct a detailed review of the original calculations performed to develop the Appendix L ESC tables and the pc-PRAISE source code that was used for those calculations. This effort was necessary because the available Appendix L and pc-PRAISE technical basis documents do not contain all the necessary details to reproduce the ESC tables, and there were knowledge gaps that prevented a complete understanding of the original technical basis. This paper documents the review findings and their impacts on calculating ESC so that future improvements to Appendix L can be considered appropriately.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".