MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015972226 · doi:10.1115/ipc2008-64559

Development of a Multi-Pass Weld Transverse Cracking Test

2008· article· en· W2015972226 on OpenAlexaff
L. N. Pussegoda, D. Begg, Robert Lazor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrackingWeldabilityWeldingMaterials scienceTransverse planeMetallurgyFillet weldPerpendicularStructural engineeringComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transverse weld metal cracking has been occasionally observed in girth welds on large diameter thick wall pipelines that utilize high strength steels. The cracks are typically in the last one or two layers of the weld, and are not necessarily surface-breaking cracks. These cracks are a serious concern as they are parallel to the pipe axis, an orientation that is perpendicular to the hoop stress due to pipeline operation. Weldability tests have been developed or modified in recent years that were intended to specifically examine the tendency for cracking in multipass welds. Test methods are somewhat similar in that a multilayer full-thickness weld is deposited in a restrained (or self-restrained) weld joint, followed by examination to determine the occurrence of cracking after a specified delay period. The primary objective of this study has been to develop a test method that can then be used to compare the incidence of cracking to hydrogen-induced cracking prediction methods (for example delay time), also allowing one to develop welding conditions that would avoid cracking of field welds during pipeline construction. This could be achieved in two ways; a) determining delayed cracking time, and b) assessing the effects of pre-heat and interpass temperature. The test has been successful in producing transverse cracks in the top layers of the fill passes, similar to the cracking that has been observed on thick weldments in high strength steels. The test has been instrumented to assess the restraint level and also to attempt to detect cracking. The cracking has also been detected by UT and subsequent sectioning.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207