Design and Analysis of Buried Liquid Petroleum Gas Storage Bullets Supported on Multiple Saddles (PVP2010-25052)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of large, high pressure liquid petroleum gas (LPG) storage bullets has become a common, and often assumed safe, practice in the petrochemical industry. The Engineering Equipment and Materials Users Association (EEMUA) is an organization that has attempted to address design aspects related to mounded or buried bullets; Publication No. 190 published by the EEMUA (2000, Guide for the Design, Construction and Use of Mounded Horizontal Cylindrical Vessels for Pressurized Storage of LPG at Ambient Temperatures, EEMUA, London, England.) became a standard practice in the industry. However, the design recommended, and therefore addressed, by Publication 190 is for bullets directly supported by soil (i.e., without saddle supports). However, it has been noticed by the authors that many users are requesting these storage bullets be supported by saddles resting on foundations in order to minimize the chance of unexpected settling and any motion of the bullets underground. The large span of these bullets requires more than two saddles adding to the complexity of the design due to statically indeterminate construction, differential settlement, and uneven supports. This paper focuses on major issues related to the design of such bullets. First, the loads induced by mound weight, pressure due to mound, and the loads due to longitudinal thermal expansion and soil resistance to this expansion is analyzed. Next, a method for calculating the multiple saddle reactions and bending moments at spans and supports is provided. A simplified method for assessing the effect of differential settlement between saddles is proposed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".