Establishing a Safe Working Pressure During Excavation of a Pipeline in a Rock Ditch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to perform pipeline maintenance it is often necessary to excavate the pipeline. To ensure this is conducted safely, the expected condition of the pipeline and possible failure scenarios are considered in order to establish a safe operating pressure during the excavation and subsequent work. For pipelines that are laid in rocky terrain, consideration must be given to the possibility of a large rock impacting the pipeline. The purpose of this work is to describe the application of a numerical procedure to establish the safe working pressure during the excavation of a pipeline in a rocky terrain. A numerical procedure, developed previously [1] was shown to conservatively estimate a safe working pressure for the case of a rock falling on the pipeline. FEA was used to determine the relationship between the available kinetic energy of a falling rock and the energy to puncture the pipeline (as a function of internal pressure). The resulting puncture dimensions were then compared to the critical-crack-length to cause rupture. The safe pressure was obtained from the pressure where rupture first occurs, reduced by an appropriate safety factor. This paper describes the application of the numerical procedure described to cover a large range of pipe toughnesses and internal pressures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".