Stability Design Criteria for Above-Ground Unrestrained Pipeline Anchors and Line-Stops, Considering Frictional Forces Caused by Thermal Expansion and Weight of Pipeline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pipeline anchors and line stops are essential elements for design and construction of a pipeline system. Anchors limit and isolate the thermal growth of the pipeline and control as well as guide it in favorable directions. Steel piles are often used to serve as anchors. Designing of anchors should include a combination of reactions between pipe to shoe-anchor, shoe-anchor to steel pile and steel pile to soil as well as stability consideration of soil at the location where anchor is applied. Many factors have to be considered in the engineering design of pipeline anchors and line stops, including loads, displacements and maximum allowable forces. Industrial-wise, expansion growth and frictional forces for above-ground pipelines have to account for the basic design conditions as well as bending and possible elastic instability of the pipe and its anchors due to the longitudinal compressive forces. Stress calculation formulas for anchors tend to consider the ambient to design temperature as the design criteria for thermal loads, however due to the complexity of reactions between static-dynamic frictional forces and thermal expansion forces, anchors may be subjected to higher loading in lower temperature than design temperature. This effect can be crucial to the stability of anchors during commissioning. This paper considers and establishes the stability design criteria due to temperature for anchors and associated components subjected to thermal and frictional forces.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".