Fracture Toughness Characterization of High-Pressure Pipe Girth Welds Using Single-Edge Notched Tension [SE(T)] Specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The safety and reliability of large-diameter pipelines for the transport of fluid hydrocarbons is being improved by the development of high-strength steels, advanced weld technologies, and strain-based design (SBD) methodologies. In SBD, a limit is imposed on the applied strains rather than the applied stresses. For high-pressure pipelines, SBD requires an assured strength overmatch for the weld metal as compared to the base material, in order to avoid strain localization in the weldment during service. Achieving the required level of strength overmatch, as well as acceptable ductility and low-temperature fracture toughness, is a challenge as the pipe strength increases. Published studies show that low constraint geometries such as single-edge tension [SE(T)] or shallow-notched single-edge bend [SE(B)] specimens represent a better match to the constraint conditions of surface-breaking circumferential cracks in large-diameter pipelines during service (Shen, G., Bouchard, R., Gianetto, J. A., and Tyson, W. R., “Fracture Toughness Evaluation of High Strength Steel Pipe,” Proceedings of PVP2008, ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Division Conference, Chicago, IL, July 27–31, ASME, New York, 2008). However, the SE(T) geometry is not included in any of the most widely used elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) test standards. A procedure has been developed for performing and analyzing SE(T) toughness tests using a single-specimen technique that includes formulas for calculating the J-integral and crack-tip opening displacement, as well as for estimating crack size using rotation-corrected elastic unloading compliance. Here, crack-resistance curves and critical toughness values obtained from shallow-crack SE(T) specimens (a0/W ≈ 0.25) are compared to shallow-crack (a0/W ≈ 0.25) SE(B) specimens. We believe that the SE(T) methodology is mature enough to be considered for inclusion in future revisions of EPFM standards such as ASTM E1820 and ISO 12135, although additional work is needed to establish validity limits for SE(T) specimens.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".