MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008074752 · doi:10.1115/pvp2012-78841

Cracking of Heavy Wall Steam Separators During Fabrication: An Investigation

2012· article· en· W2008074752 on OpenAlexaff
K. Dilip Kumar, Luis Ganhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsJacobs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNozzleWeldingFabricationCrackingGrindingMetallographyUltrasonic testingMaterials scienceBoiler (water heating)MetallurgyStructural engineeringComposite materialMechanical engineeringEngineeringUltrasonic sensorMicrostructureWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On a recent project, four high pressure steam separator vessels were received from overseas after fabrication. There was suspicion on the quality of fabrication when non destructive examination (NDE) reports were reviewed. There were major concerns with the quality of radiographic films as they did not meet the ASMe Section VIII Div. 1 Code requirements as well as client specifications. Subsequent examination of welds using radiographic testing (RT) revealed crack-like features around nozzles in the region adjoining (but outside) the weld metal. Macro etching at the surface around nozzles showed that the weld area was extended beyond the apparent weld/base metal interface. Further examination of a cross section cut out from one vessel nozzle confirmed the initial doubts that weld repairs had been performed that were not reported. Metallography of the cross section indicated evidence of significant cracking associated with carbon contamination and very high hardness (up to 365 HV; in one particular case 609 HV) in affected areas. This was believed to be due to improper and incomplete cleaning by grinding after performing carbon arc or, flame gouging to remove a weld defect. Further detailed NDE was carried out using advanced ultrasonic testing (UT), i.e. phased array UT and time of flight diffraction (TOFD) and all defects (many new that were undetected by RT) were repaired per ASME Section VIII Div. 1 Code and client specification. This experience was a lesson for the design office and helped make a decision to be much more vigilant and to ask for greater quality surveillance on overseas fabrication of critical equipment for all future projects. The paper discusses the detailed investigation as well as findings.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207