MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313338991 · doi:10.1115/ipc2010-31512

Remaining Local Buckling Resistance of Corroded Pipelines

2010· article· en· W2313338991 on OpenAlexaffabout
Qishi Chen, Heng Aik Khoo, Roger Cheng, Joe Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venue2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)University of AlbertaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBucklingStructural engineeringFinite element methodCorrosionPipeline transportParametric statisticsWork (physics)Materials sciencePipeline (software)Computer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringComposite materialMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a multi-year PRCI research program that investigated the local buckling (or wrinkling) of onshore pipelines with metal-loss corrosion. The dependence of local buckling resistance on wall thickness suggests that metal-loss defects will considerably reduce such resistance. Due to the lack of experimental data, overly conservative assumptions such as a uniform wall thickness reduction over the entire pipe circumference based on the defect depth have been used in practice. The objective of this research work was to develop local buckling criteria for pipelines with corrosion defects. The work related to local buckling was carried out in three phases by C-FER and the University of Alberta. The first phase included a comprehensive finite element analysis to evaluate the influence of various corrosion defect features and to rank key parameters. Based on the outcome of Phase 1 work, a test matrix was developed and ten full-scale tests were carried out in Phase 2 to collect data for model verification. In Phase 3, over 150 parametric cases were analyzed using finite element models to develop assessment criteria for maximum moment and compressive strain limit. Each criterion includes a set of partial safety factors that were calibrated to meet target reliabilities selected based on recent research related to pipeline code development. The proposed criteria were applied to in-service pipeline examples with general corrosion features to estimate the remaining load-carrying capacity and to assess the conservatism of current practice.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207