MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314762096 · doi:10.1115/ipc2012-90289

Fracture Toughness of X100 Pipe Girth Welds Using SE(T) and SE(B) Tests

2012· article· en· W2314762096 on OpenAlexaff
Dong-Yeob Park, W. R. Tyson, J. A. Gianetto, Guowu Shen, R. Eagleson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTearingGirth (graph theory)Base metalWeldingTension (geology)Composite materialToughnessFracture toughnessBendingFracture mechanicsEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionMicrostructureUltimate tensile strengthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive single-edge notched tension (SE(T)) and single-edge notched bend (SE(B)) tests were performed to apply the SE(T) procedure developed at CANMET and the standard SE(B) procedure of ASTM E1820 to pipeline girth welds as a contribution to a broader project on strain-based design (SBD) for pipeline girth weld integrity. Specimens were precracked from the pipe inner surface to target lengths of 3 and 6 mm to represent surface-breaking weld flaws of single- and double-pass height, respectively. It was found that resistance curves for weld metal (WM) were much lower than those for base metal (BM) or heat affected zone (HAZ) specimens even though the WM strength overmatched the BM, owing to effects from the WM microstructure. The small crack-tip opening angle observed in post-test WM specimens was consistent with the low crack propagation resistance, which in turn results in small tearing resistance, TR. In general, toughness decreases with increase in initial crack length. J values and tearing resistance are found to be influenced by loading mode; toughness is higher in tension, SE(T), than in bending, SE(B) for a given crack length and test temperature.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207