Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pipelines form an integral component of the distribution network of oil and gas products, which have to be transported from production sites to markets far off where there is need for them. Pipelines thus have to traverse long distances and as any other structure are susceptible to damages with use. A common cause of damage is the mechanical damage in pipeline in the form of dents, which are caused by a host of factors ranging from, but not limited to construction errors, ground movement and third-party interactions. While some dents in a pipeline might be dormant features, some have the potential to affect the structural integrity of the pipeline thus resulting in the immediate or delayed failure of the pipeline. It becomes necessary that some measure be put in place for accessing the severity of dents in order to prioritize allocation of the resources in the implementation of management strategies. The codified stipulation of the Canadian pipeline code, CSA Z662-16, proposes the depth based criterion as a measure of the severity of dents in pipelines. History and research have however shown that this approach fails to accommodate other factors such as the localized strain and stress distribution because of the geometry of the dent, as a dent might fall below the codified deformation limits while violating the localized plastic strain or stress limits. As an alternative to the traditional depth based approach, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standard for gas pipelines, ASME B31.8-16, presents a set of non-mandatory closed form expressions for evaluating the strains in pipelines in a bid to generate the strain state of the dented region based on the dent profile. This technique has, however, been criticized for inaccuracies in its assumptions. Well aware of the pitfalls of existing analytical evaluation techniques for the strains in dented pipeline, some pipeline operators subscribe to the numerical modeling via Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of dents as assessment technique, a procedure regarded to be computationally demanding and resource intensive. The work presented herein is a novel technique for evaluating the strains in dented pipelines based solely on data obtained from inline inspection devices. This study discusses two ideas. The first proposes a new technique for the strain analysis of thin walled structures through a combination of B-Spline interpolation and deformation discretization. This technique allows for the evaluation of all the components of the strain tensor that defines the strain state of the dented pipeline. The second novel approach is extending the proposed technique and the existing ASME B31.8-16 equations into a three-dimensional continuum, thus allowing for a more elaborate analysis without loss in the generality of the procedure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".