MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560779263 · doi:10.1115/1.4035385

Fatigue Crack Growth at Electrical Resistance Welding Seam of API 5L X-70 Steel Line Pipe at Varied Orientations

2016· article· en· W2560779263 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Taylor, Sreekanta Das, Laurie Collins, Muhammad Rashid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsEVRAZ (Canada)University of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeldingMaterials scienceBase metalParis' lawWeld lineCrack closureMetallurgyStress (linguistics)Fatigue testingLine (geometry)Structural engineeringComposite materialFracture mechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Very few studies have been conducted concerning fatigue in steel line pipe and fewer using full-scale testing. Further, at the time of this study, no research on full-scale testing was available in open literature regarding fatigue behavior of line pipe with longitudinal cracks, despite being considered more critical than the line pipe with cracks oriented in the circumferential direction. In the current research work, fatigue crack growth was investigated in NPS 20, API 5L X-70 grade, electrical resistance welding (ERW) straight-seam steel line pipes in the base metal and at the weld seam for various orientations. It was found that there was no significant difference between fatigue crack growth in the base metal and at the weld seam for the tested stress ratio. Increasing the angle of inclination of the crack with respect to the weld line was found to decrease the rate of fatigue crack growth due to a decrease in the mode I stress component. Finally, it was observed that despite the difference in fatigue crack growth rates, the crack aspect ratios were nearly identical for all cracks at the same crack depth.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic EngineeringSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207