MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899576675 · doi:10.1115/ipc2018-78283

Toughness of EW Pipe Seam Welds of Contemporary Steels

2018· article· en· W2899576675 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shunjian Xu, Andrew Laver, Juhua Liang, W. R. Tyson, Saburo Matsuno

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and Joining · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharpy impact testWeldingFractographyToughnessMaterials scienceMicrostructureComposite materialStructural engineeringMetallurgyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An extensive experimental program to characterize the Charpy-V-notch (CVN) impact toughness of ten contemporary Electric Welded (EW) pipes was recently completed to establish a database to support the revision of the EW seam weld Charpy toughness testing requirements in Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z245.1-14. The toughness in these welds is lowest at or near the weld bond line (BL) within a narrow zone ±≈0.5 mm wide. It is feasible and desirable to position the BL notch to a precision to match this width, i.e. ±0.5 mm from the BL. In this paper, typical results of microstructure, micro-hardness, CVN toughness (i.e. absorbed energy) as a function of temperature and notch location, and fractography will be presented. CVN absorbed energy requirements for EW welds in CSA Z245.1 have been determined using a failure assessment diagram (FAD) procedure. The values of required CVN estimated from the FAD are close to those specified in CSA Z245.1-14 but are higher than the specification in CSA Z245.1-18.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and JoiningSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207