Comparison of Compressive Strain Limit Equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buried pipelines subjected to non-continuous ground movement such as frost heave, thaw settlement, slope instability and seismic movement experience high compressive strains that can cause local buckling (or wrinkling). In the context of strain-based design, excessive local buckling deformation that may cause loss of serviceability, or even pressure containment in some cases, is managed by limiting the strain demand below the strain limit. The determination of compressive strain limit is typically performed by full-scale structural testing or nonlinear finite element analysis that takes into account material and geometric non-linearity associated with the inelastic buckling of cylindrical shells. Before performing testing and numerical analysis (or when such options do not exist), empirical equations are used to estimate the strain limit. In this paper a number of representative equations were evaluated by comparing strain limit predictions to full-scale test results. Work prior to this study has identified the importance of key variables that have the greatest impact on the local buckling behaviour. Examples of these variables include the diameter-to-thickness ratio (D/t), internal pressure and shape of the stress strain curve. The evaluation presented here focused on how existing equations address these key variables, and the performance of the equations with respect to key variables and in different ranges.
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) | 0.000 | 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".