MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069819733 · doi:10.1115/ipc2014-33295

Buried Steel Pipeline Design: External Load Methodologies and Strain Limits

2014· article· en· W2069819733 on OpenAlexaff
Z. L. Chou, L.J. Wittenberg, Samer Adeeb, J. J. Roger Cheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)Structural engineeringEngineeringStress (linguistics)Design loadDeformation (meteorology)BucklingLoad bearingGeotechnical engineeringMarine engineeringMechanical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Buried steel pipelines are one of the most efficient means of transporting oil and gas from their resource deposits to their markets. The pipeline industry is experiencing an increased demand for larger diameter pipelines along with the implementation of thinner walls and higher operating pressures. In these cases, the external pipeline loads have significant effect on the pipeline stresses and deformations, thus influencing wall thickness and associated cost effectiveness. The external loads are made up of the weight of the backfill material combined with live and impact loads due to traffic. For the designs of buried pipelines, API RP1102, CSA Z662, American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) “Guidelines for the Design of Buried Pipelines”, ASCE “Design and Installation of Buried Pipes” and AWWA Manual M11 are commonly used to calculate external loads on buried pipelines. For the calculation of backfill loads, these methods are based mainly on the same theory, i.e., Marston load theory, while the calculation of live load, due to traffic loads, is based on different approaches. Depending on the design methodology selected, there is a large variation in the calculated external loads due to both backfill and live loads. In this paper, the experimental results of a field monitoring program will be compared with the calculated results from the various methods. An alternative approach for calculating external loads is presented and verified to field studies. In addition, for the design of onshore pipelines the industry uses design criteria which are based on allowable stress and ovalization deformation limits. Pipe stresses and deformations resulting from the external loads are commonly based on the Spangler stress and the Iowa equations. The parameters in the formulas include pipe and soil properties, pipe-soil stiffness and the geometric relation of a pipe section during deformation. As pipe materials, pipe sizes, operating means and pipe coating techniques change over time, the allowable design criteria shall be re-examined, especially for the ovalization deformation limits. In this paper the allowable strain and the corresponding ovalization deformation limits are re-examined by reviewing experimental results and industrial requirements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207