Effects of Cathodic Protection on Cracking of High-Strength Pipeline Steels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison was made between four strength levels of pipeline steels (X-70, X80, X-100 and the X-120) from the point of view of their susceptibility to hydrogen embrittlement under cathodic protection. The main aim was to determine whether the development of higher strength materials led to greater susceptibility to hydrogen embrittlement. This was achieved by straining at 2×10−6 s−1 after cathodic charging in a simulated dilute groundwater solution (NS4) containing 5% CO2/95% N2 (pH approximately 6.7). The results showed quantitatively the loss of ductility after charging, and the loss of ductility increases with strength level of the steel. All four steels exhibited a loss of ductility at overprotected charging potential and an increasing amount of brittleness on the fracture surface. Ductility in solution was measured under four different levels of cathodic protection, ranging from no cathodic protection to 500 mV of overprotection with respect to the usually accepted criterion of −850 mV vs. Cu/CuSO4 reference electrode. Experiments were carried out by straining during cathodic polarization in a simulated dilute ground water solution (NS-4 solution). Strain rates used were 2×10−6 s−1. After failure, the fracture surfaces were characterized by examination using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Under cathodic protection, all four steels showed loss of ductility and features of brittle fracture. The loss of ductility under cathodic polarization was larger the greater the strength of the steel and the more active (i.e., more negative) the applied potential. The Ductility Reduction Index (DRI) was defined to quantify the reduction in ductility.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".