Application of High-Grade Steels to Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines Using Reliability-Based Design Method
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two example onshore gas pipelines were designed using a reliability-based approach. The first example (1219 mm, 17.2 MPa) represents a high-pressure large-diameter pipeline; the second example has a smaller diameter (762 mm) and lower pressure (9.9 MPa). Three steel grades (X70, X80 and X100) were used to develop three design solutions for each example. The wall thickness-related life cycle costs of the designs were evaluated. The design outcomes show that the reliability targets for both examples can be met using X100 steels and high equivalent design factors (0.93 for the first example and 0.9 for the second example). Moreover, ruptures and excessive plastic deformation of a defect free pipe were found to be insignificant integrity threats even when the design uses X100 and relatively high equivalent design factors such as 0.85 and 0.9. The economic assessment results show that the X100 design is the most economical option for the high-pressure large-diameter example. However, using X100 does not show a clear economic advantage over using X80 for the second example mainly because the wall thickness for the design using X100 is governed by the maximum D/t ratio constraint. The study also demonstrates the advantages of the reliability-based approach as a valuable tool in assessing the feasibility and potential benefits of using high-grade steels on a pipeline project.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it