MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535771793 · doi:10.1115/ipc2000-134

Simulation of Dynamic Ductile Failure in Pipelines

2000· article· en· W2535771793 on OpenAlexaff
N. Pokutylowicz, Michael J. Luton, R.A. Petković, J. A. NEMES, Steve Yue

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTearingFinite element methodToughnessDynamic loadingHardening (computing)Strain hardening exponentMaterials scienceMaterial failure theoryStructural engineeringWork hardeningPlasticityPipeline transportFracture mechanicsComposite materialMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A finite-element method computer simulation was constructed in order to assist in determining what material properties affect the resistance to dynamic ductile failure in pipelines. Such failure is caused by stable axial tearing that involves a substantial amount of plastic deformation, and is driven by the kinetic energy of the expanding gas. Various semi-empirical relationships exist in the literature to predict the toughness required for resistance to the propagation of a dynamic ductile failure, but these tend to be ineffective when applied to higher strength grades of steel. The present finite-element model is composed of two main sub-models. The gas decompression algorithm is based on analytical expressions and calculates the gas pressure throughout the pipe as the ductile fracture propagates. The material-response algorithm determines the behaviour of the material under the changing loading conditions. It simulates the material response, including rate-dependent yield as well as anisotropy of yield and work hardening. The model is validated by using comparisons with published data from the literature. This paper focuses on a description of the different components of the model and their interaction. In addition some observations from the various simulations are discussed.

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 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 categoriesnone
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207