MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135484375 · doi:10.1115/omae2013-10952

Employing Visual Image Correlation for the Measurement of Compressive Strains for Arctic Onshore Pipelines

2013· article· en· W2135484375 on OpenAlexaffabout
Istemi F. Ozkan, Daryl Bandstra, Chris Timms, Arthur T. Zielinski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrain gaugeMaterials scienceCompressive strengthUltimate tensile strengthBendingStructural engineeringCompression (physics)BuckleTension (geology)Composite materialGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic onshore environment contains regions of discontinuous permafrost, where pipes may be subject to displacement-controlled bending in addition to high hoop stresses due to the pressurized fluids being transported. Considering the displacement-controlled nature of the deformations, strain-based design methodologies have been developed for permafrost pipelines when they are subject to bending and tension, which limit the longitudinal compressive and tensile strains. The widely accepted methodology in the industry to obtain the compressive strain capacity of line pipes subject to bending is to conduct Finite Element Analysis, incorporating material and geometrical nonlinearity calibrated against benchmark full-scale tests (bend tests) [1,2]. During these tests, compressive strains can be measured by various methods. The seemingly obvious choice is to apply strain gauges along the compression face of the specimen with respect to bending (intrados). This method will provide reasonable results until the compressive strain pattern begins to vary due to the initiation of buckle formation, which typically occurs shortly after yield. In order to measure average compressive strain beyond yield and up to buckling, the method used by C-FER Technologies (C-FER) involves using rotation measurement devices (inclinometers) to calculate the strain change between the most compressive and tensile fibres of the specimen (intrados and extrados, respectively) with respect to the bending direction. This value is then subtracted from the tensile strain gauge readings as measured by the strain gauge(s) located on the extrados of the specimen. The average compressive strain values derived from the inclinometer and extrados strain gauge measurements are based on the assumption that the plane sections remain plane. Recently, five large diameter pipes were bend-tested at C-FER’s testing facility in Edmonton, Alberta. In addition to the compressive strain measurement method used by C-FER described above (C-FER method), a visual image correlation (VIC) camera system was used to survey the strain distribution on the compressive face of the specimens. This paper gives a brief description of the test setup and instrumentation of this test program. The VIC camera setup and measurement technique are described and the overall strain distribution on the bending intrados as measured by the VIC cameras is presented. Strain measured by the VIC system is compared with gauge measurements at local points as well as the average compressive strain behaviour of the specimens obtained through the C-FER method described above. The results show that the VIC system can be a candidate to replace the conventional measurement techniques employed for compressive strain limit testing in support of strain-based design of arctic pipelines.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207