MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409528899 · doi:10.5006/c2001-01041

Modelling of Aqueous CO2 Corrosion of Iron in Turbulent Pipe Flow

2001· article· en· W4409528899 on OpenAlexaff
Fan Wang, J. Postlethwaite

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionTurbulenceMaterials scienceMetallurgyAqueous solutionFlow (mathematics)Pipe flowMechanicsChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aqueous CO2 corrosion of iron in turbulent pipe flow is modelled with a two-dimensional low Reynolds number k-ε turbulence model by simultaneously solving the conservation equations for mass, momentum, kinetic energy of turbulence and turbulent energy dissipation rate, along with the concentrations of various dissolved species. The effect of slow homogeneous chemical reaction of CO2 hydration is incorporated into the model by including an extra source term in the transport equation for H2CO3. Other homogeneous chemical reactions are assumed to be in equilibrium with the equilibrium adjusted after each iteration. The cathodic reactions considered are the reduction of H2CO3, H+ and H2O. The anodic reaction is iron dissolution. An iterative procedure is employed to calculate CO2 corrosion rates. It involves the determination of surface concentrations of dissolved species and the fluxes of all the reacting species at the surface. The iteration ensures that mixed potential theory is satisfied on the surface and that the cathodic fluxes are balanced by the anodic fluxes at the surface. The results of parameter studies are compared to the previous experimental findings.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.198
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207