MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535010116 · doi:10.1115/ipc2000-189

Influence of Line-Pipe Steel Metallurgy on Ductile Tearing of Stress-Corrosion Cracks During Simulated Hydrostatic Testing

2000· article· en· W2535010116 on OpenAlexaff
Michiel P. H. Brongers, John A. Beavers, C. E. Jaske, B. S. Delanty

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTearingMaterials scienceCorrosionTension (geology)Stress (linguistics)MetallurgyComposite materialWeldingHydrostatic testHydrostatic equilibriumYield (engineering)Hydrostatic pressureUltimate tensile strengthMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrostatic testing is one method to confirm the integrity of pipelines containing colonies of stress-corrosion cracks. Although this technique is widely used, a concern of the pipeline industry is the potential for ductile tearing damage of subcritical flaws in pipes with cracks in the base metal and in the welds. The objectives of the current study were to determine the amount of ductile tearing and crack tip blunting that may occur at the crack tips of flaws that survive a hydrotest and to evaluate the influence of metallurgy on the extent of ductile tearing. In this research, stress-corrosion cracks (SCC) were grown in a near-neutral-pH environment in compact tension (CT) specimens made from two heats of X-65 line-pipe steel and one heat of X-52 line-pipe steel with an electric resistance weld (ERW). Simulated hydrostatic tests were performed on these specimens at loads that corresponded to hoop stresses at and above the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of the pipe steel, resulting in applied J-integral values near and above J(Q). Some specimens ruptured; some did not fail. Crack tip blunting and the extent of tearing were evaluated. Based on curve fits of the data collected from the CT specimens, the CorLAS™ software was utilized to predict the maximum amount of tearing for cracks of varying flaw dimensions and hydrostatic pressures.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207