Effect of Hydrostatic Testing on Ductile Tearing of X-65 Line-Pipe Steel with Stress-Corrosion Cracks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydrostatic testing is one method to confirm the integrity of pipelines containing colonies of stress-corrosion cracks. Although this technique is widely used, a concern of the pipeline industry is the potential for ductile tearing damage of subcritical flaws. The objectives of the current study were to evaluate the influence of hydrostatic testing on the crack tip morphology and to determine the amount of ductile tearing that may occur for different hydrostatic testing conditions. Stress-corrosion cracks were grown in compact tension specimens of X- 65 line-pipe steel in a near-neutral-pH SCC environment. Simulated hydrostatic tests were performed at loads that corresponded to hoop stresses at and above the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), resulting in applied J-integral values near to and above J(Q). Some specimens ruptured and some did not fail. Crack tip blunting occurred and the tearing extent was small and proportional to the J integral. The electric potential drop (EPD) technique consistently over-estimated the extent of ductile tearing by a factor of 2 to 3.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".