MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060302660 · doi:10.1515/corrrev.2008.295

Review of Standards for Evaluating Coatings to Control External Corrosion of Pipelines

2008· article· en· W2060302660 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sankara Papavinasam, R. Winston Revie

Bibliographic record

VenueCorrosion Reviews · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCathodic protectionPipeline transportCorrosionCoatingPipeline (software)BackupMaterials scienceCorrosion preventionForensic engineeringMetallurgyEngineeringMechanical engineeringNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Coatings are the first line of defence against external corrosion of pipelines and, when they fail, cathodic protection (CP) acts as the backup. Because of their importance, a variety of coating properties are evaluated and standards developed. The standards used in North America for evaluating external pipeline coatings on pipelines are reviewed in this paper. These standards have been developed by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), and the Society of Protective Coating (SSPC). Limited information on standards used in Europe and elsewhere is also presented in this paper. There is good understanding in the industry of the important properties that have a detrimental effect on pipeline coating behavior, and several standards are available to test these properties. Some coating properties for which different standards have essentially the same requirements include blast cleaning, surface profile, penetration resistance, chemical resistance, dielectric strength, electrical conductivity, and impact resistance. Properties for which standards from different organizations have different requirements include cathodic disbondment, adhesion, cohesion, water permeation, flexibility, and abrasion resistance. These properties are also important for coating performance; thus harmonization of the standards used to evaluate these properties would be very useful. Properties for which no adequate standards have been developed include: quantification of visual and non-visual contaminations of steel surface, pH measurements at the disbonded coatings, blister formation, holiday detection using above-ground techniques, and compatibility and repairability of joint and mainline coatings. Properties for which adequate standards are available but are not utilised in the standards to evaluate pipeline coatings include: microbial resistance, weathering, gas permeation, and freeze-thaw stability. Correlation of performance of coatings in standard tests and in the field has not been well documented, nor is such a correlation a specified requirement in any of the standards. To date, no studies have been successful in establishing a correlation between field performance and performance in standard tests. Development of a capability to predict long-term coating performance from test data established in short-term standard tests is an industry priority.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0150.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorrosion ReviewsSame topicCorrosion Behavior and InhibitionFrench-language works237,207