Laboratory Study of Local Buckling, Wrinkle Development, and Strains for NPS12 Linepipe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buried pipelines are subjected to fluid pressure (oil/gas/water), axial loads, moments, and complex load combination histories. As a result, they may develop large compressive strains and curvatures leading to formation of localized buckles or wrinkles in the pipe shell. Recently, full-scale tests on 12.75″ diameter (NPS12) energy pipes have been carried out at the University of Alberta to study the behavior of wrinkle development and the ultimate limiting strains at the wrinkle locations. Different internal pressures, and axial loads were applied to produce a wrinkle, followed by load variations intended to produce fracture that could develop in buried pipelines in the field. Three different axially loaded tests are reported. Two different internal pressures were applied, namely, (i) 0.8py and (ii) 0.4py, where py is the required internal pressure to cause the yield stress of the pipe material to be developed in the circumferential direction. Also, two different specimen lengths were adopted. They are: (i) 406 mm (16 inch) and (ii) 736 mm (29 inch). All specimens were loaded axially until the wrinkle formed. It was observed that the pipes are highly ductile and very large compressive strains can be developed without fracture or leakage in the pipe wall. Because the pipe specimens of the first two tests did not fail (i.e. fracture) under monotonically increasing displacements and strains, the third wrinkled specimen was subjected to load histories involving strain reversals. This load history resulted in a low cycle failure after a very few cycles. The paper addresses test procedures, buckling and post-buckling behavior of NPS12 energy pipelines and relates them to three different types of strain measures, namely, material strain, wrinkle strain and overall strain as observed from these tests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".