MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534735805 · doi:10.1115/ipc2000-235

Predicting Pipeline Collapse Resistance

2000· article· en· W2534735805 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstabilityBucklingStructural engineeringComputer scienceProgressive collapseBendingPlasticityTension (geology)BifurcationPipeline (software)Stability (learning theory)Finite element methodEngineeringMechanicsNonlinear systemUltimate tensile strengthReinforced concreteMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much research has been performed over the past twenty-five years to refine our basic understanding of tubular stability, which includes bifurcation, imperfect systems, factors influencing tubular stability and post-buckling behaviour. Tubular instability resulting from load combinations is not a trivial topic, particularly when inelastic material behaviour occurs. Many influencing factors must be considered when attempting to understand (and predict) the onset of instability. Many existing collapse predictive methods are either simplistic or involve advanced plasticity or finite element methods. Simplistic methods are typically semi-empirical, and contain a degree of uncertainty resulting in conservative collapse predictions. Nonetheless, they are generally considered satisfactory for design purposes. Advanced methods normally involve high-end calculations using specialized software programs that might not be available for general use. Therefore, a relatively easy-to-use method that accurately predicts the actual collapse resistance is, in many cases, the most desirable option. This paper presents a collapse predictive methodology, developed from a variety of research projects performed over the last fifteen years. The prediction method, which can easily be entered into a spreadsheet program, is applicable to most forms of tubular members, including pipelines. Applicable load combinations include external pressure, axial tension and bending. An overview of the parameters influencing collapse resistance is also provided, including manufacturing history, material modelling, and tubular geometry and imperfections. Also presented is a summary of accuracy of the method to predict some test results. The test database largely contains results of collapse tests on tubular members subject to only external pressure, and axial tension with external pressure. The adaptation of the method to include external pressure with bending is summarized, and the accuracy of the prediction method is demonstrated by predicting the results of the Oman-India and Blue Stream pipeline collapse test programs, and comparing these predictions with those of other well known methodologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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