MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3151092510 · doi:10.3390/met11040583

Predicting the External Corrosion Rate of X60 Pipeline Steel: A Mathematical Model

2021· article· en· W3151092510 on OpenAlexafffund
Min Xu, Hongxing Liang, Yu Liu, Edouard Asselin

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMitacs
KeywordsCathodic protectionCorrosionCoatingService lifeSodium sulfateMetallurgySalt (chemistry)Materials scienceSodiumEnvironmental scienceChemistryComposite materialAnode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need for predicting pipeline service life and improving risk assessment relating to corrosion hazards requires establishing a correlation between the corrosion rate (CR) of pipeline steel and its coating condition, cathodic protection (CP) levels and surrounding soil conditions. This paper presents a systematic study of the CR of bare and coated—with and without a dent or holiday defect—X60 pipeline steel in simulated field environments. Three CP scenarios, i.e., no, optimized, and over-protection, were studied to cover a wide range of possible CP conditions that pipeline steel may encounter in the field. Two types of salt solutions (sodium chloride or sodium sulfate) with a variation of temperatures (10 °C, 40 °C, 65 °C) and pH values (2, 7, 12) were investigated to simulate different levels of soil corrosivity. A mathematical model was developed to reveal the impact of various parameters and their interactions on the CR of X60 steel. The coating condition was the most important factor. The individual effects of other factors including temperature, pH, salt composition and CP were not shown to be significant. Instead, the interactions between temperature and salt composition, and particularly the interaction between pH and CP appeared more important in determining the overall CR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicCorrosion Behavior and InhibitionFrench-language works237,207