MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800016173 · doi:10.1115/1.4040096

Improvements to the ASME B31.8 Dent Strain Equations

2018· article· en· W2800016173 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStrain (injury)Finite element methodDeformation (meteorology)Pipeline (software)Structural engineeringPipeline transportDistribution (mathematics)GeologyMechanicsComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringPhysicsMathematical analysisComposite materialAnatomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pipelines used to transport oil and gas products are often subjected to external forces during its construction or operation, which can result in the formation of dents in the pipe. Various pipeline codes have stipulations on how a dent's severity can be ascertained in order to prioritize repairs. The most prominent being the depth-based criterion, which determines the severity of a dent by its depth. The depth-based criterion fails to consider the fact that the geometry of the dent can result in high strain concentration and eventually lead to integrity issues at the dented region. Alternatively, the strains associated with the dent can be an indicator of the dent's severity. Nonmandatory codified equations are available for evaluating the strains at the dented region of the pipe. The current implementation of these equations might fail to capture the strains that are not aligned with the most severe deformation profile of the dent and as such a global view of the strain distribution of the dented profile would be more informative as per the localized strain distribution. The study presented herein is the implementation of ASME B31.8 formulations together with the suggested modifications to evaluate the three-dimensional (3D) strain state of the dented pipe. The strain distributions obtained are compared against the strains predicted by finite element analysis (FEA) model. The correlation in the predicted strains indicates the possibility of the rapid and concise strain based characterization of dented pipes with the proposed technique.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.244 · 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