MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409497820 · doi:10.5006/c2025-00471

Corrosion Failure Analysis of the Vacuum Tower at the LVC Draw Piping Line

2025· article· en· W4409497820 on OpenAlexaff
Duane Serate, Patrick Morlet, Simon Yuen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Failure Analysis and Simulation
Canadian institutionsSuncor Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipingTowerCorrosionEngineeringReliability engineeringComputer scienceForensic engineeringMaterials scienceStructural engineeringMetallurgyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The corrosion failure of the Light Vacuum Condensate (LVC) draw piping line in a vacuum tower was investigated to identify the damage mechanism. The failure was localized at the LVC draw elbow near the tower's draw nozzle, with significant corrosion observed in the outlet straight piping up to the first elbow. Visual Inspection and RT inspection showed a corrosion damage morphology named “wolverine claws”. Metallurgical analysis revealed smooth pits and grooves, with corrosion products consisting of iron sulfides, and other oxides containing chlorides. The study explored the potential role of nitrogen-based compounds, particularly amine-hydrochloride oil-soluble salts formed from the interaction of crude feed nitrogen and amine-based chemical injections, as key contributors to the corrosion process. These salts, trapped in the LVC circuit, can enhance and accelerate organic corrosion, especially at lower temperatures (<400F) where Naphthenic Acid Corrosion is not expected. The paper explores possible sources of chloride in the LVC system and describes the morphology of the damage mechanisms

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Failure Analysis and SimulationFrench-language works237,207