MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621042211 · doi:10.5006/c2017-09286

Heat Exchanger Failure Case Study: Understanding the Total Cost of a Corrosion Issue in the Oil and Gas Industry

2017· article· en· W2621042211 on OpenAlexaffabout
A.I. Williamson, L. M. Cardenas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Failure Analysis and Simulation
Canadian institutionsHudbay Minerals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionHeat exchangerPetroleum industryGas industryPetroleum engineeringFossil fuelWaste managementEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceMetallurgyEngineeringNatural gasEnvironmental engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The total cost of corrosion in the oil and gas industry is an often overlooked subject when evaluating the impact of an upset or failure due to corrosion. Costly issues can arise when as little as a single piece of equipment is not designed to properly mitigate corrosion. Not only is there a need to replace the failed piece of equipment but there are many other costs to consider, including, but not limited to: environmental and cleanup costs, safety related costs, unnecessary corrosion inhibition costs, and costs associated with potential future failures at other projects that have utilized similar designs and processes. In this case study, a Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) facility in northern Alberta, Canada is examined as it experienced two very similar failures in heat exchanger tubes within 2 years of each other due to a boiler feedwater (BFW) tank without a nitrogen blanket and a low flow condition. High amounts of oxygen were able to dissolve into the BFW, which led to several problems downstream of the BFW tank, particularly in the tubes of the heat exchangers. The low flow conditions present in the system led to a buildup of solids, which also aided in an accelerated corrosion rate.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Failure Analysis and SimulationFrench-language works237,207