MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016190702 · doi:10.1115/ipc2014-33235

Pipeline Integrity Analyses for Construction in Mountainous Areas

2014· article· en· W2016190702 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)TerrainPipeline transportFinite element methodWeldingStructural engineeringRouting (electronic design automation)Stress (linguistics)Marine engineeringHydrostatic pressureGeologyEngineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction of a pipeline in mountainous terrain often exposes great challenges compared to that on flat land. To accommodate the terrain and resultantly complex route, the pipeline design must incorporate a large quantity of cold bends and elbow fittings. A recently constructed project provides a prime example of a pipeline crossing such terrain. The challenging construction conditions and the bends and elbows make the assessment of stress impacting long-term pipeline integrity critical, yet difficult. This paper focuses on three specific aspects of long-term integrity for construction in mountain areas using advanced finite element analysis (FEA). The first scenario is tie-in welding. Tie-in welding connects separate pipeline segments constructed independently. In general practice, considerable lengths of pipe are left unburied to reduce the potential resultant stress due to the misalignment between the pipes at the tie-in weld location. However, in mountainous terrain the length of unburied pipe may be constrained by field conditions of the tie-in location. The implications are amplified at a tie-in adjacent to bends or elbows. The second scenario is hydrostatic testing. The gravitational weight of water generates additional internal pressure in the pipeline segments at low elevations. In areas of significant elevation change, hydrostatic test section design defines the segments based on the maximum allowable hoop stress level calculated for straight pipe. However the bends and elbows often encounter increased combined stresses at such locations that may not be adequately considered. The last scenario is ratcheting. Exacerbated by complex routing and profile, pipelines constructed in mountainous areas are at risk to develop significant uplift in the soil at bend locations during hydrostatic testing and initial operating cycles. If such uplift displacement accumulates during subsequent operating cycles, a phenomenon known as ratcheting, the pipe may eventually fail by upheaval buckling. This paper evaluates the above scenarios of a NPS 30 section of pipeline consisting of several segments with wall thicknesses varying from 12.0 mm through 19.6 mm, and contains frequent bends and elbows. The pipeline route is mountainous with slopes exceeding 70 degrees, and includes a tunnel immediately adjacent to water crossings and steep slopes. Tie-in welds are made in tight confines at either end. Analysis based on this project profile provides detailed information and insight into the design and construction of pipelines in mountainous terrain.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it