MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073504922 · doi:10.1115/ipc2008-64620

Development of a Pipeline Wrinkle Material Ultimate Limit State: Full Scale Modeling

2008· article· en· W2073504922 on OpenAlexaff
Vlado Semiga, Sanjay Tiku, Aaron Dinovitzer, Joe Zhou, Millan Sen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringFinite element methodFull scalePipeline transportServiceability (structure)EngineeringPipeline (software)Displacement (psychology)CrackingForensic engineeringMechanical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the formation of a wrinkle in an onshore pipeline is an undesirable event, in many instances this event does not have immediate pipeline integrity implications. The magnitude or severity of a wrinkle formed due to displacement controlled loading processes (e.g. slope movement, fault displacement, frost heave and thaw settlement) may increase with time, eventually causing serviceability concerns (e.g. fluid flow or inspection restrictions). Pipe wall cracking and eventually a loss of containment involves contributions from the wrinkle formation process, as well as wrinkle deformations caused by in-service line pressure, temperature and seasonal soil displacements. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the ongoing research efforts, sponsored by TransCanada PipeLines Ltd, towards the development of a mechanics based wrinkle ultimate limit state that may be used in future to evaluate the long term integrity of wrinkled pipeline segments. The research efforts include testing and non-linear finite element modeling of a full scale wrinkled pipeline segment. This paper outlines the development of the full scale finite element model, including the detailed material model development, used to estimate the fatigue life of the experimental full scale fatigue test specimen. A comparison is then carried out between the experimental results and the results from the finite element analysis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207