Crack Propagation and Burst Pressure of Pipeline with Restrained and Unrestrained Concentric Dent-Crack Defects Using Extended Finite Element Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical damage in form of dents, cracks, gouges, and scratches are common in pipelines. Sometimes, these damages form in proximity of each other and act as one defect in the pipe wall. The combined defects have been found to be more injurious than individual defects. One of the combined defects in pipeline comprises of a crack in a dent, also known as dent-crack defect. This paper discusses the development of finite element models using extended finite element criterion (XFEM) in Abaqus to predict burst pressure of specimens of API X70 pipeline with restrained and unrestrained concentric dent-crack defects. The models are calibrated and validated using results of full-scale burst tests. The effects of crack length, crack depth, dent depth, and denting pressure on burst pressure are investigated. The results show that restrained dent-crack defects with shallow cracks (depth less than 50% wall thickness) inside dents do not affect pipeline operations at maximum allowable operating pressure if crack lengths are less than 200 mm. Releasing restrained dent-cracks when the pressure is at maximum allowable operating pressure can cause propagation of deep cracks (depth of 50% wall thickness or more) longer than 60 mm. However, only very long cracks (200 mm and higher) propagate to burst the pipe. Cracks of depth less than 20% of wall thickness inside dents formed at zero pressure are not propagated by the maximum allowable operating pressure. Dent-crack defects having dents of depth less than 2% outside diameter of pipe behave as plain cracks if the dents are formed at zero denting pressure but are more injurious than plain cracks if the dents are formed in pressurized pipes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".