MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006099697 · doi:10.1115/pvp2005-71764

Acoustic Emission Testing of a Process Reactor

2005· article· en· W2006099697 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Yuen, David Wang, Paul Benedictus

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcoustic emissionNozzleMaterials scienceWeldingCrackingNuclear engineeringCabin pressurizationUltrasonic testingReactor pressure vesselOverlayInternal pressurePenetrant (biochemical)Head (geology)Structural engineeringComposite materialUltrasonic sensorMechanical engineeringEngineeringAcousticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Acoustic Emission Test (AET) was performed on a hydrocarbon processing reactor to inspect for environmental cracking in 2000. The thick-wall reactor was built in 1965, fabricated from 2.25Cr-1Mo steel with Type 347 stainless steel weld overlay. Past internal inspections of the reactor using liquid penetrant had revealed cracking at internal ring supports. Such inspections were exhaustive and time consuming. The AET was performed to achieve 100% inspection coverage of the reactor and to identify suspect areas for further evaluation. The test included over-pressurization of the reactor to 10% above its operating pressure before the shutdown and the actual cooling of the reactor from 745°F to 300°F. Upon completion of the acoustic emission (AE) monitoring, significant indications were identified, most noticeably at the reactor dump nozzle and the bottom head to shell weld. Both of these were in areas that had not been inspected previously. Follow-up inspections, including external ultrasonic and internal liquid penetrant test, were performed to investigate all the areas of significant AE activities. The results showed internal cracks isolated to the weld overlay at the catalyst dump nozzle and a 12” long weld slag inclusion in the bottom head to shell weld. A methodology was developed also to evaluation criticality of AE signals during different stages of AE test.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metalsFrench-language works237,207