MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997391241 · doi:10.5006/c2019-12830

Effect of Steel Surface Roughness on FBE Coating Performance

2019· article· en· W2997391241 on OpenAlexaff
Russell Draper, Haralampos Tsaprailis, Jiajun Liang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface roughnessMaterials scienceCoatingSurface finishMetallurgyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes an experimental study of the influence of steel surface roughness on the performance of a fusion bonded epoxy (FBE) pipeline coating. Steel panels were abrasive blast cleaned with various steel shot and grit abrasives. The roughness characteristics of the blast cleaned surfaces were measured with a stylus profilometer, replica tape per NACE SP0287, and a digital replica tape reader. The 3D topographical data files generated by the digital tape reader were interpreted using surface analysis software. A FBE pipeline coating was applied to the prepared steel panels and the performance of the coating was evaluated using pull-off adhesion strength, cathodic disbondment and Atlas cell wet thermal gradient tests. The strength of correlations among the roughness parameters and the FBE coating performance results were compared. Tortuosity, measured with a stylus profilometer, and developed interfacial area (Sdr), measured with the digital replica tape reader, were found to be strongly correlated with FBE coating performance. The findings of this study suggest that the increase in real surface area developed by roughening the surface is a fundamental roughness characteristic that strongly influences coating adhesion performance.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207