Repair of Leaks in Thin Wall High Pressure Pipelines Using Composite Reinforcing Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A study was conducted to evaluate two composite repair technologies used to reinforce severe corrosion and thru-wall leaking defects in thin-walled pipe materials; conditions where the welding of conventional Type B steel sleeves cannot be conducted. This program involved the reinforcement of simulated 85% corrosion defects in 6.625-inch × 0.157-inch, Grade X52 pipe materials subjected to cyclic pressure and burst testing. The test matrix also included repaired pipe samples with thru-wall defects that were pressurized using nitrogen gas and buried for 90 days. The program was comprehensive in that it evaluated the following elements involving a total of 81 reinforced corrosion defects. • Corrosion features with a depth of 85% of the pipe’s nominal wall thickness in thin-walled pipe material (i.e., 0.157 inches, or 4 mm). • Thru-wall defects having a diameter of 0.125 inches (3 mm). • Repairs made with leaking defects having 100 psig (690 kPa) internal pressure. • Strain gage measurement made in non-leaking 85% corrosion defects; it should be noted that the remaining “15%” ligament was 0.024 inches (0.6 mm); to the author’s knowledge, no high-pressure testing has ever been conducted on such a thin remaining wall. • Long-term 90-day test that included pressurization with nitrogen gas, followed by relatively aggressive pressure cycling up to 80% SMYS followed by burst testing. This is the first comprehensive study conducted by a major transmission pipeline operator evaluating the performance of competing composite technologies used to reinforce severe corrosion features with thru-wall defects. The reinforcement of leaks has not been accepted by regulatory bodies such as the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER), or the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). A goal of the current study is to validate composite repair technologies as a precursor to regulatory approval. The results of this study indicate that viable composite repair technologies exist with capabilities to reinforce leaks in pipelines that experience operating conditions typical for gas transmission systems (i.e., minimal pressure cycling).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".