MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312337476 · doi:10.1115/ipc2022-87079

Squeeze the Crack Out of It - With Type A Compression Sleeves

2022· article· en· W4312337476 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David B. Futch, Atul Ganpatye, Josh Wilson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompression (physics)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Type A Compression Sleeves have been a technically viable repair method for corrosion, lamination-like features, and longitudinal crack-like features for the past 20+ years. A Type A Compression Sleeve relies on thermal expansion/contraction of the steel sleeve, which once the sleeve long seam welds are made, results in a compressive hoop stress in the carrier pipe at levels equal to or greater than generated at max operating pressure. This repair technology has been mostly marketed in Canada, and therefore, CSA Z662 includes the Type A Compression Sleeve in their list of approved permanent repair technologies. Over the past five years, there’s been an increased awareness in the United States as the technology has become referenced in industry documents such as the PRCI Pipeline Repair Manual and API 1176. This paper provides an overview of a Type A Compression Sleeve, including the basis of how the repair system functions and how the sleeve is installed. Finally, this paper presents a series of full-scale tests and numerical modeling validating this innovative repair system. The use of induction heat, rather than open flame, provides a more consistent and traceable heat signature, allowing for confidence in the installed repair. Tests include synthetic cracks generated by precracking an EDM notch to generate a sharp-tipped crack, then heat tinted to provide a distinguishable boundary. The EDM notches, installed at a maximum of 50% of the wall thickness within the ERW seam, were subsequently repaired via the induction heating sleeve technology with and without flowing water in the carrier pipe. Test samples were cycled to 100,000 cycles, burst, and metallurgically examined. Post-test examination of the fracture surfaces revealed no discernable growth, therefore, indicating the technical viability of the repair technology as a permanent repair of crack-like features and provides an Operator another option when making repair decisions.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207