MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900325965 · doi:10.1115/ipc2018-78097

Next Generation Ductile Fracture Arrest Analyses for High Energy Pipelines Based on Detail Coupling of CFD and FEA Approach

2018· article· en· W2900325965 on OpenAlexaff
K. K. Botros, Eric Clavelle, Fakhar Uddin, Gery Wilkowski, C. Guan

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and Joining · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)Nova Chemicals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFracture mechanicsFinite element methodFracture toughnessStructural engineeringPipeline transportFracture (geology)Materials scienceToughnessMechanicsComputational fluid dynamicsStrain energy release rateMechanical engineeringEngineeringComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Axial ductile fracture propagation and arrest in high energy pipelines has been studied since the early 1970’s with the development of the empirical Battelle Two-Curve (BTC) model. Numerous empirical corrections on the backfill, gas decompression models, and fracture toughness have been proposed over the past decades. While this approach has worked in most cases, the dynamic interaction between the decompression of the fluid in the vicinity of the crack tip and the behaviour of the pipe material as it opens to form flaps behind the crack has been very difficult to solve from a more fundamental approach. The effects of the pressure distribution on the flap inner surface making up the crack-driving force which drives the crack propagation speed has been suggested in the past, but due to intensive computational effort required, it was never realized. The present paper attempts to tackle this problem by employing an iterative solution procedure where the gas pressure field in the vicinity of the crack tip is accurately solved for by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for a given flap geometry determined from a dynamic FEA model to render a new flap geometry. In this model a cohesive-zone element at the crack tip is employed as a representation of the material toughness parameter. The final outcome is the determination of the cohesive energy in the FEA (as a representation of the material toughness parameter) to match the measured fracture propagation speed for the specific case. A case study was taken from full-scale rupture test data from one of the pipe joints from the Japanese Gas Association (JGA) unbackfilled pipe burst test data conducted in 2004 on the 762 mm O.D., 17.5 mm wall thickness, Gr. 555 MPa (API 5L X80) pipe.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 3: Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance; Materials and JoiningSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207