MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103417003 · doi:10.1115/ipc2012-90081

Fatigue Life Assessment for NPS30 Steel Pipe

2012· article· en· W2103417003 on OpenAlexafffund
Jorge Estrela da Silva, Hossein Ghaednia, Sreekanta Das

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringPipeline transportFracture mechanicsTest dataFinite element methodEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pipeline is the common mode for transporting oil, gas, and various petroleum products. Aging and corrosive environment may lead to formation of various defects such as crack, dent, gouge, and corrosion. The performance evaluation of field pipelines with crack defect is important. Accurate assessment of crack depth and remaining fatigue life of pipelines with crack defect is vital for pipeline’s structural integrity, inspection interval, management, and maintenance. An experimental based research work was completed at the University of Windsor for developing a semi-empirical model for estimating the remaining fatigue life of oil and gas pipes when a longitudinal crack defect has formed. A statistical approach in conjunction with fracture mechanics was used to develop this model. Statistical analysis was undertaken on CT specimen data to develop this fatigue life assessment model. Finite element method was used for determining the stress intensity factor. The fatigue life assessment model was then validated using full-scale fatigue test data obtained from 762 mm (30 inch) diameter X65 pipe. This paper discusses the test specimens and test data obtained from this study. Development and validation of the fatigue life assessment model is also presented in this paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207