MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039865646 · doi:10.5006/c2004-04241

Iron Contamination of Ni-Cr-Mo Alloy Weldments

2004· article· en· W3039865646 on OpenAlexaff
P. Cripps, M. D. Butts, Richard A. Corbett, O. Gilbertson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)SNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetallurgyContaminationMaterials scienceAlloyCorrosionChromium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents findings of an investigation into the cause of contamination in alloy 59 (UNS N06059) weld qualification. Qualification specimens were welded and tested as part of the welding procedure development supporting the on-site fabrication of a large flue gas desulfurization (FGD) absorber and associated storage tanks. The specimens were fabricated by welding together carbon steel plates clad with alloy 59, or welding clad plates to solid alloy 59 with UNS N06059 filler metal. During the course of welding procedure development, various welding processes and techniques were evaluated for optimum as-welded corrosion resistance of the weldment. The evaluation included corrosion testing in the Green Death solution, which is a modified ASTM G 28 B test (the sulfuric acid content is reduced from 23 % to 11.5 % whilst keeping other constituents the same). The results of these Green Death corrosion tests included several pitting failures, which prompted a metallurgical examination to determine the cause of attack. During this investigation, iron was identified on or near the weldment surfaces of specimens not yet exposed to corrosion testing, despite substantive welding procedure development specifically designed to limit dilution from the carbon steel backing material. Such iron contamination was subsequently identified on all-alloy qualification specimens as well. This investigation determined that iron contamination was introduced during weld interpass cleaning with stainless steel power brushes. This paper describes the occurrence and solutions to this problem.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207