MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Loading Sequences on Remaining Life of Plain Dents in Buried Liquid Pipelines

2019· article· en· W2907754997 on OpenAlexaff
Muntaseer Kainat, Janine Woo, Doug Langer, Thomas Krausert, Jianwei Cheng, Sherif Hassanien, Samer Adeeb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportGeotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringPipeline (software)GeologyEngineeringEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integrity assessment of dents in liquid pipelines, as regulated by codes and standards, is based mostly on depth and threat integration, with strain analysis incorporated as a nonmandatory recommendation for gas pipelines. There have been incidents in which the current regulatory criteria have not successfully predicted imminent failures of dents, leading to operators using noncodified, more conservative approaches to maintain safety, typically resulting in poor dig efficiency. The dent assessment methods currently available in the industry do not account for the sequences of loading by which a dent may have formed. In this paper, the effects of different load sequences on the remaining life of plain dents in liquid pipelines are demonstrated using a validated finite-element analysis. A parametric study is carried out to confirm that the findings hold true for a range of pipe geometries, materials, and dent depths. The findings indicate that the severity and/or remaining life of a dent cannot be fully assessed based on its depth alone. The restraint condition, indenter shape, loading sequence, and pressure-cycling history should be considered for a reasonable assessment of the remaining life of plain dents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and PracticeSame topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207