MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073227141 · doi:10.1115/ipc2006-10345

Prediction of Environmentally Assisted Cracking on Gas and Liquid Pipelines

2006· article· en· W2073227141 on OpenAlexaff
Jenny Been, R.L. Eadie, R. Sutherby

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 2: Integrity Management; Poster Session; Student Paper Competition · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaTransCanada (Canada)Nova Chemicals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportCrackingMaterials scienceStress corrosion crackingCrack closureCorrosionParis' lawStress (linguistics)Fracture mechanicsWeldingStructural engineeringEnvironmental scienceComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model has been developed to predict crack growth on pipelines from environmentally assisted cracking in near-neutral pH environments (often-termed low-pH stress corrosion cracking (SCC)). The model is based on the results of cyclic loading experiments and is used in conjunction with pressure time variations in the pipeline determined from the operating SCADA records to predict the growth of an assumed existing crack in the pipe. The crack grows through different crack growth regimes, which are determined by the size of the pressure variations and the instantaneous crack dimensions. For a growing crack that experiences relatively high pressure fluctuations, as often encountered on liquid lines, reasonable crack growth predictions were made based on corrosion fatigue. An approach based on crack tip strain rate appears more suitable for the prediction of crack growth of small cracks and for cracks on gas lines with small pressure fluctuations. The model is designed so that the effect of stress intensifiers (like the long seam weld crown) that are often associated with these failures can be included. The model can be used in its present format for prioritizing inspections on both gas and liquid pipelines. Whereas predicted crack growth rates compare favorably with rates measured in the field, further work is required to incorporate additional mechanical and environmental effects, in particular to improve the prediction of small crack growth rates. Low crack velocities may be possible in the presence of small pressure fluctuations and low frequencies, but they may be less probable.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 2: Integrity Management; Poster Session; Student Paper CompetitionSame topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207