MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125620769 · doi:10.1115/ipc2020-9757

Repair of Leaks in Thin Wall High Pressure Pipelines Using Composite Reinforcing Technologies

2020· article· en· W3125620769 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and Joining · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionMaterials scienceWeldingComposite numberComposite materialPipeline transportCabin pressurizationHydrostatic testStructural engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A study was conducted to evaluate two composite repair technologies used to reinforce severe corrosion and thru-wall leaking defects in thin-walled pipe materials; conditions where the welding of conventional Type B steel sleeves cannot be conducted. This program involved the reinforcement of simulated 85% corrosion defects in 6.625-inch × 0.157-inch, Grade X52 pipe materials subjected to cyclic pressure and burst testing. The test matrix also included repaired pipe samples with thru-wall defects that were pressurized using nitrogen gas and buried for 90 days. The program was comprehensive in that it evaluated the following elements involving a total of 81 reinforced corrosion defects. • Corrosion features with a depth of 85% of the pipe’s nominal wall thickness in thin-walled pipe material (i.e., 0.157 inches, or 4 mm). • Thru-wall defects having a diameter of 0.125 inches (3 mm). • Repairs made with leaking defects having 100 psig (690 kPa) internal pressure. • Strain gage measurement made in non-leaking 85% corrosion defects; it should be noted that the remaining “15%” ligament was 0.024 inches (0.6 mm); to the author’s knowledge, no high-pressure testing has ever been conducted on such a thin remaining wall. • Long-term 90-day test that included pressurization with nitrogen gas, followed by relatively aggressive pressure cycling up to 80% SMYS followed by burst testing. This is the first comprehensive study conducted by a major transmission pipeline operator evaluating the performance of competing composite technologies used to reinforce severe corrosion features with thru-wall defects. The reinforcement of leaks has not been accepted by regulatory bodies such as the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER), or the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). A goal of the current study is to validate composite repair technologies as a precursor to regulatory approval. The results of this study indicate that viable composite repair technologies exist with capabilities to reinforce leaks in pipelines that experience operating conditions typical for gas transmission systems (i.e., minimal pressure cycling).

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.209 · 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