Design, Application and Installation of an X100 Pipeline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional pipeline technology will be severely challenged as design-operating pressures continue to rise and gas field developments occur in more remote locations including the arctic. Cost-effective solutions to these issues can be found through innovative designs using new technology and its implementation. Some of these designs have considered the use of high-pressure natural gas pipelines resulting in the development of high strength steel. In order to meet these increases in pressure TransCanada and JFE/NKK have been working extensively on the application of X100 (Grade 690) linepipe and this has culminated in the construction and installation of a X100 project in the fall of 2002. This paper will discuss the development of the related research projects that allowed the successful completion of the field project. The topics will include the material properties and fracture control plans for X100. In addition the approach to strain based design for X100 will include the analysis for both the tensile strain limits (weld mismatch consideration) and compressive strain limits (i.e. buckling capacity). The development of the field welding process will also be covered. The paper will discuss the implications of using X100 from the perspective of the successful field project and the application of a strain-based design.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".