Study of Safe Dig Pressure Level for Rock Dents in Gas Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pipelines passing through hilly-terrain potentially have numerous rock dents. Some of them require further in-ditch investigation. However, in-ditch experience revealed elastic rebounding and re-rounding due to internal pressure that could cause cracking on dent outside surface when rock is removed even after following the commonly used pressure reduction by industry. Such OD-surface cracking in rock dent could pose safety issues to excavation crew and immediate integrity threat due to gas release. A preliminary research was performed to determine the required safe dig pressure level for rock dent excavation and address if there is a gap between the common industry practice for pressure reduction. This research could assist pipeline operators with setting a safe dig pressure level for rock dent excavation. The research consists of four components. First, detail review of rock dents cracking experience during excavation has been performed and identified relevant parameters that contributed to OD-cracking. Then, performed several rock dent case studies with different dent depths, indenter sizes, internal pressures and developed criterion for OD cracking using Finite Element Analysis. Thirdly, a decision chart was developed for safe rock dent excavation and presented. Finally, full-scale denting tests with internal pressure was conducted to corroborate the safe dig pressure criterion and compared against FEA results. In this paper, all above components are presented with summary of findings and recommendations for future research.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".