Measurement of Decompression Wave Speed in Rich Gas Mixtures at High Pressures (370 bars) Using a Specialized Rupture Tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurements of decompression wave speed in conventional and rich natural gas mixtures following rupture of a high-pressure pipe have been conducted. A high-pressure stainless steel rupture tube (internal diameter=38.1 mm and 42 m long) has been constructed and instrumented with 16 high frequency-response pressure transducers mounted very close to the rupture end and along the length of the tube to capture the pressure-time traces of the decompression wave. Tests were conducted for initial pressures of 33–37 MPa-a and a temperature range of 21–68°C. The experimentally determined decompression wave speeds were compared with both GASDECOM and PIPEDECOM predictions with and without nonequilibrium condensation delays at phase crossing. The interception points of the isentropes representing the decompression process with the corresponding phase envelope of each mixture were correlated with the respective plateaus observed in the decompression wave speed profiles. Additionally, speeds of sound in the undisturbed gas mixtures at the initial pressures and temperatures were compared with predictions by five equations of state, namely, BWRS, AGA-8, Peng–Robinson, Soave–Redlich–Kwong, and Groupe Européen de Recherches Gaziéres. The measured gas decompression curves were used to predict the fracture arrest toughness needed to assure fracture control in natural gas pipelines. The rupture tube test results have shown that the Charpy fracture arrest values predicted using GASEDCOM are within +7% (conservative) and −11% (nonconservative) of the rupture tube predicted values. Similarly, PIPEDECOM with no temperature delay provides fracture arrest values that are within +13% and −20% of the rupture tube predicted values, while PIPEDECOM with a 1°C temperature delay provides fracture arrest values that are within 0% and −20% of the rupture tube predicted values. Ideally, it would be better if the predicted values by the equations of state were above the rupture tube predicted values to make the predictions conservative but that was not always the case.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".