Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in X-80 linepipe steels emerged in the early 1980's and it was first used in 1985 by Ruhr Gas [1].The early steels were extensions of conventional Nb-V or Nb-Mo microalloyed X-70 steels but other alloying concepts emerged based on Nb-Mo-B alloying (NKSTAF [2] and ULCB [3]).The latter had acicular ferrite/bainitic microstructures and carbon contents below 0.05 percent.In parallel renewed interest developed in ultra low carbon (0.02 percent) higher niobium steels which had first been studied in 1962 [4].Such steels exhibited excellent notch toughness when processed with high finish rolling temperatures (>950°C) which made them suitable for processing on weak, older rolling mills.With time such steels, designated "High Temperature Processed", or HTP steels, were further optimized and produced in modern, very strong rolling mills due to their superior economy compared with traditional vanadium and molybdenum containing steels.The chronology of the HTP development is presented in the present paper.Full scale demonstration heats of a 0.06 percent carbon 0.10 percent niobium steel were produced by Bofors Steel Plant in 1972 and were converted from slabs to plates by nine different steel mills [5][6][7].Commercial application in API Grade X-70 first occurred in Canada in 1974 [8,9] but the concept was only used sporadically after that until 1998 when it was applied for the API Grade X-70 Sour Service Cantarell Project [10] in Mexico.Soon thereafter, the El Paso Cheyenne Plains Project used a 0.05%C 0.095%Nb 0.27%Cr variant of the HTP steel [10][11][12].Nowadays the HTP concept is being utilized for construction of approximately 6000 km of 48" OD x 18.4 mm X-80 per year in China.The metallurgical principles and history of the development are presented in details in this paper.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".