MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075624976 · doi:10.1115/ipc2014-33563

Evaluation of Existing Fracture Mechanics Models for Burst Pressure Predictions, Theoretical and Experimental Aspects

2014· article· en· W2075624976 on OpenAlexaff
Samarth Tandon, Ming Gao, Ravi Krishnamurthy, Shahani Kariyawasam, Richard Kania

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
FundersTexas A and M University
KeywordsFracture mechanicsTearingCoalescence (physics)Joint (building)WeldingStructural engineeringMaterials scienceLeakFracture (geology)MechanicsEngineeringComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The predictions of burst pressure and leak/rupture have significant impact on the pipeline integrity assessment results, and subsequently on the extent of the required mitigation and re-inspection interval. There are models available for burst pressure and leak/rupture prediction in the literature, namely API-579, CorLas®, and NG-18 (Modified Ln-Sec). In this paper, evaluation of existing fracture mechanics models for burst pressure and leak/rupture prediction for external crack and crack like features including stress corrosion cracks (SCC) are performed. Both theoretical and practical aspects of each model are discussed in detail. An experiment is set up to conduct fifteen full scale burst tests of 20-inch, 34-inch and 36-inch diameter joints removed from the pipeline field. Among them, seven pipe joints are with base material SCC, four joints with seam weld cracks, three joints with linearly aligned crack-like features surrounded with shallow base material SCC, and one joint with crack-like feature in the Weld area. A high speed camera is utilized to capture rupture events. The rupture events can be stable tearing, crack coalescence and unstable propagation of a critical crack or multiple closely aligned cracks in a crack colony which are responsible for the rupture. Detailed profile measurements of the critical crack/s for burst pressure predictions are done from the fracture surfaces. Relevant material properties are measured for each joint in base material or seam weld location depending on the crack location. Burst pressure predictions are performed with models available in API-579, CorLas®, and Modified NG-18. An elastic-plastic finite element model is generated to quantify the effective stress intensity factor with and without the end cap effects during the burst testing. The accuracy and conservatism of the models evaluated are analyzed. Implications of the findings are discussed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207