MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058393082 · doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0692

Prediction of Corrosion Defect Failure Pressure for Finite Length Defects

2004· article· en· W2058393082 on OpenAlexaff
Duane S. Cronin

Bibliographic record

Venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportFinite element methodPipeline (software)CorrosionStructural engineeringConstant (computer programming)Materials scienceFailure assessmentReliability engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corrosion defects commonly occur on operating pipelines due to a loss of protection in a corrosive environment. These defects require practical and accurate assessment, particularly for older pipeline systems, to determine the need for remediation or allow for continued operation. Previous research has shown that appropriate application of full three-dimensional finite element analysis, and newly developed analytical approaches, can provide very accurate predictions of failure pressure but require detailed material and geometric data. Although this is important, a simpler method that allows for efficient evaluation of large amounts of data is also desirable. A method has been developed from an existing analytical solution by assuming a defect can be characterized in terms of the total defect length, and a constant defect depth equal to the maximum defect depth. In general this produces a conservative estimate of the material loss. This finite-length defect solution is in good agreement with experimental data for idealized defects, and provides reasonable predictions of burst pressure, with a minimum amount of data, when applied to real corrosion defects.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207