Talk:Wave loading

message: It has been requested that users cite the sources for this article, but I removed the template because it is going to be deleted. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template removal 

message: * Wave loading This article was apparently created to support another on liquefaction and seems to be rather limited and makes some dubious claims with no references. I don't know enough about the physics involved to either verify or expand it. Vsmith 04:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From PNA/Physics 

message: I just took a look at the article again, and found that the example of undersea pipes bursting is now cited to an article entitled "Large Diameter Underwater Pipeline for Nuclear Power Plant Designed Against Soil Liquefaction."  If a discussion results, I'll try to find this journal (which, given the oddities of my university's library system, should be easier to locate than Discover, assuming that we have it).  However, even without the journal itself in hand, I'd like to note that the wiki article claims that pipes may "break" or experience "resonance vibrations", and says nothing about liquefaction. --Smack (talk) 06:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undersea pipes 

message: Hello Frazzydee, Vsmith, Smack, Ungtss, 
This article has been on the doubtful list for ten years with a single reference.  I am tempted to rewrite the whole thing from scratch.
The author postulates the following: a twelve foot pipe undersea is subject to cyclic stress and therefore will work harden, eventually leading to failure.  I can do the math, but let's look at the plain numbers before we get to the calculus.  Steel pipe suitable for an oil or gas pipeline has a working pressure on the order of . The repetitive loading from the head of water above varies by . Waves of  come very few per minute, so the total number of cycles is quite small and they are a tiny fraction of the working pressure of the pipe.  Compare that to a gasoline engine crankshaft that turns 600 million times in its life. A pipe in the ocean in thirty years would see a tenth as many cycles.
The author postulates that a harmonic wave could be generated in the pipe. She is thinking of Galloping Gerdy. That won't happen to a buried pipe; the sand around the pipe, liquefied or not, will dampen the oscillations.  Resonance vibrations? Show me the math.
No I didn't read the whole reference, only the free part, the abstract. It's about soil liquefaction. If it were about cyclic loading of the pipe, it would say so in the abstract.  It's a bullshit reference for an unsubstantiated assertion.  Someone didn't want a nuclear power-plant on her seacoast. Was the author worried about burying a pipeline in sand? Sure. He was getting paid to be very conservative because it was a nuclear powerplant. There's undersea pipe all over the Gulf of Mexico. In 1992, they put a 20 inch line sixty miles long as deep as  under the Gulf of Mexico. 
Are waves a design criteria for offshore oil drilling platforms or bridge abutments? Certainly. The same way wind loading is a criterion for buildings and bridges.  Is it complicated? To be sure. But we mostly solved the problem. We haven't had a bridge collapse from wind since the 1940s or a major building wind failure since the windows fell out of the John Hancock Tower in Boston. Rhadow (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it. Vsmith (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new look