MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109550756 · doi:10.1115/omae2006-92605

Reliability of Burst Limit States for Damaged and Corroded High Strength Pipelines

2006· article· en· W2109550756 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportMaterials scienceHardening (computing)SofteningUltimate tensile strengthLimit state designPipeline (software)CorrosionInternal pressureStructural engineeringWork hardeningComposite materialEngineeringMechanical engineeringMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High strength steels (X100 and X120) that are being considered for high pressure gas pipelines differ from conventional steels by exhibiting lower work hardening capacity, lower strain to failure and softening of their HAZ. These differences 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 pipe limit states involving ductile burst of damaged or corroded pipe 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. A case study comparing the differences between normal strength (X60) pipeline and high strength (X100) pipeline is also presented.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · 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