Applicability of Equivalent Constant Amplitude Loading for Assessing the Fatigue Life of Pipelines and Risers and the Influence of Compressive Stress Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatigue life assessment of pipelines and risers is a complex process, involving various uncertainties. The selection of an appropriate fatigue model is important for establishing the inspection intervals and maintenance criteria. In offshore structures, the vortex-induced vibration (VIV) could cause severe fatigue damage in risers and pipelines, resulting in leakage or even catastrophic failure. The industry has customarily used simple fatigue models for fatigue life assessment of pipelines and risers (such as the Paris or Walker models); however, these models were developed based on constant amplitude loading scenarios. In contrast, VIV-induced stress-time history has a variable amplitude nature. The use of the simplified approach (which is inherently non conservative), has necessitated the implementation of large safety factors for fatigue design of pipelines and risers. Moreover, most of the experimental investigations conducted to date with the aim of characterizing the fatigue response of pipelines and risers have been done based on incorporation of constant amplitude loading (CAL) scenarios (which is unrealistic), or converting the variable amplitude loading (VAL) scenarios to an equivalent CAL. This study demonstrates that the use of such approaches would not be lead to accurate assessment of the fatigue response of risers subject to VIV-induced VAL. The experimental investigation performed in this study will also clarify the underlying reasons for the use of large safety factors by the industry when assessing the fatigue life of pipelines and risers. In addition, an experimental investigation was also conducted to highlight the influence of the compressive portion of VIV stress-time history on the fatigue life of such components. It is shown that the compressive stress cycles significantly influence the fatigue crack growth response of risers, and their presence should not be ignored.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".