Prediction of Tensile Strain Capacity for X52 Steel Pipeline Materials Using the Extended Finite Element Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strain-based design (SBD) plays an important role in pipeline design and assessment of pipelines subjected to geo-hazards. Under such hazards, a pipe can be subjected to substantial plastic strains, leading to tensile failure at locations of girth weld flaws. For SBD, the finite element method (FEM) can be a reliable tool to calculate the tensile strain capacity (TSC) for better design in pipelines. This study aims to investigate the ductile fracture properties for specific vintage pipeline steel (API 5L grade of X52) using the extended finite element method (XFEM). Eight full-scale tests were simulated using the commercial finite element analysis software ABAQUS Version 6.17. Maximum principal strain is used to assess the damage initiation using the cohesive zone model (CZM) when the crack evolution is evaluated by fracture energy release. A proper set of damage parameters for the X52 materials was calibrated based on the ability of the model to reproduce the experimental results. These experimental results included the tensile strain, applied load, endplate rotation, and crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD). This study describes a methodology for validation of the XFEM and the proper damage parameters required to model crack initiation and propagation in X52 grades of pipeline.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".