Ductile Fracture Control for High Strength Steel Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The determination of the toughness values required for arresting ductile fracture propagation has been historically based on the use of models whose resulting predictions can be very unreliable when applied to new high strength linepipe materials (≥X100) and/or different operating conditions. In addition, for the modern high strength steels a methodology for determining the material fracture resistance for arresting running shear fracture starting from laboratory data is still lacking. The work here presented (developed within a PRCI sponsored project) deals with the use of CSM’s proprietary PICPRO® Finite Element code to develop methodologies for ductile fracture propagation control in high grade steel pipes. The relationships providing the maximum crack driving force which can be experienced in a pipe operated at known conditions have been determined, for different types of gas. On the other side, an empirical relationship has been found to correlate the critical Crack Tip Opening Angle (CTOA) determined by laboratory testing, to the critical CTOA on pipe (which represents the material fracture propagation resistance) with the aid of devoted simulations of past full-scale burst tests. By comparing Driving Force and Resistance Force, ductile fracture control for high strength steel pipelines can be achieved.
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 | 0.001 | 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".