An Upheaval Buckling Limit State Function for Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reliability-based design and assessment (RBDA) methodology has gained increasing acceptance in the pipeline industry, largely due to a multi-year PRCI program aimed at establishing RBDA as a viable alternative for the design and assessment of onshore natural gas pipelines. A key limit state of buried pipelines that operate at elevated temperatures is upheaval buckling. The elevated temperatures generate large compressive axial forces that can cause Euler buckling susceptibility. The tendency to buckle is increased at vertical imperfections (i.e. a series of cold formed bends) that primarily occur due to topography. Upheaval buckling in itself is not an ultimate limit state but can lead to high strains, local buckling, high cycle fatigue, expensive remediation measures, and even loss of pressure integrity. The critical forces at which upheaval buckling occurs for typical hill-crest type imperfections present in onshore pipelines cannot be readily predicted using analytical methods. A parametric study is therefore undertaken using non-linear finite element analyses to generate a matrix of upheaval buckling responses. The critical force for the onset of upheaval buckling is then developed using a series of empirical relationships to capture the influences of all key parameters. An upheaval buckling limit state function is subsequently developed by comparing the critical buckling force with applied compressive force, which is a function of operating pressure and temperature differential between the operating and tie-in conditions. The limit state function can be readily implemented in a reliability analysis framework to calculate the pipeline failure probability due to upheaval buckling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".