C-½Mo Vs 1Cr-½Mo: A Comparative Study of Coke Drum Shell Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To mitigate the impact of severe thermal loads during operation, two different design methodologies are typically adopted when selecting base metal materials for coke drum fabrication. The first approach favors the use of certain chromoly steels (i.e. 1¼Cr and higher), prioritizing strength characteristics to improve resistance to bulging. The second approach, which favors carbon steel and C-½Mo, acknowledges the inevitability of bulging and targets materials with lower strength and finer grain size to optimize fracture ductility, allowing larger bulges to develop before cracking occurs. The trade-off between optimizing bulge resistance and cracking resistance is a critical consideration, particularly when other factors, such as the superior reparability of C-½Mo, may influence material selection. This study examines eight coke drums from the same upgrader unit that were designed using “lower strength” base metal materials; six were fabricated using a C-½Mo alloy, two were fabricated using a 1Cr-½Mo alloy. Despite differences in material composition, both sets of drums share many design and operating characteristics, providing an ideal framework for directly comparing the two base metal materials. An extensive experimental testing program was conducted on boat samples extracted from all eight coke drums, along with a review of historical inspection data. Based on the performance metrics outlined in this study, the C-½Mo drums generally outperform their 1Cr-½Mo counterparts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".