An Experimental Evaluation of Critical Buckling Strain Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past, a significant amount of investigation into the development of critical buckling strain limit state criteria for pipelines has been conducted and a number of critical strain criteria have been proposed. However, the availability of comparative experimental data that have been collected under representative pipeline operating conditions has been somewhat limited. Over the past eight years, more than 50 full-scale pipeline tests under representative field conditions have been conducted at the University of Alberta (U of A) in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Experimental parameters have included the diameter-to-thickness (D/t) ratio, the internal pressure to yield pressure ratio (p/py), and the presence or absence of a circumferential girth-weld at the mid-height of the specimen. Critical strain values were determined for the majority of these test specimens and were then compiled in an attempt to assess current limit state design criteria for governing critical buckling strains. This paper summarizes the critical buckling strain values from a total of 38 tests that have been conducted at U of A at the present time. The experimental results are then used to assess a number of previously developed critical strain criteria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".