MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979628858 · doi:10.1115/1.4007644

Crack in Corrosion Defect Assessment in Transmission Pipelines

2013· article· en· W1979628858 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFailure assessmentCorrosionMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthCharpy impact testInternal pressurePipeline transportStructural engineeringFracture mechanicsComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cracks may occur coincident with corrosion representing a new hybrid defect in gas and oil pipelines known as crack in corrosion (CIC) that is not directly addressed in the current codes or assessment methods. Hence, there is a need to provide an assessment of CIC and evaluate the line integrity, as well as identify the requirements for defect repair or line hydrotest. An experimental investigation was undertaken to evaluate the collapse pressures of lines containing corrosion, cracks, or (CIC) defects in a typical line pipe (API 5L Grade X52, 508 mm diameter, 5.7 mm wall thickness). The mechanical properties of the pipe were measured using tensile, Charpy, and J-testing for use in applying evaluation criteria. Rupture tests were undertaken on end-capped sections containing uniform depth, finite length corrosion, cracks, or CIC defects. Failure occurred by plastic collapse and ductile tearing for the corrosion defects, cracks, and CIC geometries tested. For the corrosion defects, the corroded pipe strength (CPS) method provided the most accurate results (13% conservative on average). The API 579 (level 3 failure assessment diagram (FAD), method D) provided the least conservative collapse pressure predictions for the cracks with an average error of 20%. The CIC collapse pressures were bounded by those of a long corrosion groove (upper bound) and a long crack (lower bound), with collapse dominated by the crack when the crack depth was significant. Application of API 579 to the CIC provided collapse pressure predictions that were 18% conservative. Sixteen rupture tests were successfully completed investigating the failure behavior of longitudinally oriented corrosion, crack, and CIC. The pipe material was characterized and these properties were used to predict the collapse pressure of the defects using current methods. Existing methods for corrosion (CPS) and cracks (API 579, level 3, method D) gave conservative collapse pressure predictions. The collapse pressures for the CIC were bounded by those of a long corrosion groove and a long crack, with collapse dominated by the crack when the crack depth was significant. CIC failure behavior was determined by the crack to corrosion depth ratio, total defect depth and its profile. The results showed that the failure pressures for CIC were reduced when their equivalent depths were similar to those of corrosion and using crack evaluation techniques provided an approximate collapse pressure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.237 · 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