MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082630542 · doi:10.1115/ipc2006-10323

Impact of Yield to Ultimate Ratio on the Reliability of Burst Limit States

2006· article· en· W2082630542 on OpenAlexaff
Marc A. Maes, Mamdouh M. Salama

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 3: Materials and Joining; Pipeline Automation and Measurement; Risk and Reliability, Parts A and B · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportLimit state designInternal pressureHardening (computing)Materials scienceSofteningUltimate tensile strengthCorrosionStructural engineeringPipingReliability (semiconductor)EngineeringComposite materialMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to reduce arctic construction and transportation costs, high strength steels (> X80) have been advocated for use in high pressure gas pipelines. These steels differ from conventional steels by exhibiting lower work hardening capacity, lower strain to failure and possible softening of their HAZ. These differences can impact burst limit state and tensile limit state, in addition to crack arrest. In this paper, the impact of the variations in mechanical properties on the reliability of several pipe limit states involving burst is examined. The paper presents the results of burst limit state analysis using state-of-the-art plastic burst models of strain hardening pipe and considering all the uncertainties that impact the margin of safety of pipes subject to internal pressure. Intact pipes, corroded pipes and externally damaged pipes are considered. The analysis focuses on different design check equations (DCE) which “control” the safe usage of the pipe. In addition, the paper looks at how external or internal damage or corrosion affects the burst capacity differently for medium versus high-strength pipelines steels.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 3: Materials and Joining; Pipeline Automation and Measurement; Risk and Reliability, Parts A and BSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207