MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557370642 · doi:10.1115/pvp2016-63198

Review and Critical Assessment of Hardness Criterion to Avoid Sulfide Stress Cracking in Pipeline Welds

2016· article· en· W2557370642 on OpenAlexaff
Yuji Kisaka, A.P. Gerlich

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceMicrostructureAcicular ferriteMetallurgyVickers hardness testCrackingWeldingResidual stressAusteniteComposite materialBainite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although employing high strength steels in pipelines provides many benefits, it is difficult to satisfy all required mechanical properties simultaneously because some are potentially at odds with each other. Additionally, when new natural gas pipelines are constructed for severe sour service, the hardness must be below 248 Vickers to avoid sulfide stress cracking (SSC) regardless of pipe grades, and this has been standardized by NACE and applied for approximately five decades. On the other hand, the relevance of this hardness criterion has been controversial. This paper proposes three possible methods to improve SSC resistance for weld metals; 1) reducing impurities, 2) producing fine and homogeneous microstructure, 3) controlling microstructures that characterize high hydrogen permeability, solubility, and low diffusivity. This paper states that reducing impurities and producing fine and homogeneous microstructure would reduce SSC susceptibility and an acicular ferrite would be the effective microstructure to increase SSC resistance for weld metals.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metalsFrench-language works237,207