Influence of Pipeline Misalignment on the Local Buckling Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pipeline transportation systems are generally constructed by connecting individual linepipe segments through joint-to-joint end girth welds. The mechanical behavior of shell structures, such as a pipeline, can be sensitive to initial imperfections in geometry, material properties and loading. These initial imperfections can affect the pipeline load-deformation response and reduce the limit moment and strain capacity. Initial geometric imperfections may result from fabrication processes, as related to variations in the pipeline diameter and wall thickness. These geometric imperfections may have circumferential and longitudinal variation. During the construction process, the initial geometric imperfections may be the result of end misalignment due to longitudinal pipeline offset and ovality. This study examines the influence of initial geometric imperfections associated with joint-to-joint misalignment that may be present due to the girth welding process when connecting pipeline segments. A parametric analysis was conducted using finite element methods to assess the effects of diameter-to-wall thickness ratio, internal pressure, axial force, misalignment amplitude, and misalignment orientation, on the local buckling response of pipelines. Through this parametric analysis, the moment-curvature response, variation in section geometry with increasing curvature, limit moment and strain capacity were all examined. Comparison of the results with those obtained from the engineering codes and recommended practice is also presented. This study concludes that offset misalignment orientation, with respect to the bending axis, and the increasing misalignment imperfection amplitude both affect the pipeline peak moment and global strain capacity at the limit moment.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".