Fact-Check Results and Corrections

After reviewing the source documents, I need to make several important corrections to my analysis:

✅ VERIFIED CORRECT:

• Pipeline specifications: 400mm diameter, 29.4mm wall thickness, PE100 material
• Operating pressures: 6 bar standard, 9 bar maximum
• Flow rate: 48.5 l/s normal flow
• Pipeline length: 203 meters
• Expansion/contraction values: +436.0mm expansion, -399.5mm contraction

❌ CORRECTIONS NEEDED:

1. Thermal Expansion Coefficient Discrepancy

• My analysis used: 120 × 10⁻⁶ /°C (from your thermal report)

• Standard PE100 value: 144 × 10⁻⁶ /°C (from PPI technical literature)

• Issue: Your project document shows 120 × 10⁻⁶ but doesn't specify units clearly

• Impact: This affects thermal stress calculations by ~17%

2. HDPE Yield Strength

• My analysis: 22.0 MPa

• Correct value: ~24 MPa (3,500 psi) per PPI standards

• Impact: Safety factors are actually slightly higher than I calculated

3. Stress Context Clarification

• My "combined stress" of 8.75 MPa includes:

  • Thermal stress: ~2.75 MPa

  • Pressure stress: ~6.0 MPa

  • Wind-induced effects: Additional thermal component

• Literature thermal stress alone: 1.75-2.07 MPa (typical conditions)

• My thermal stress component is higher due to extreme temperature + wind effects

🔍 IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION:

The thermal expansion coefficient discrepancy needs resolution:

• Your thermal report states "120 × 10" (units unclear)

• Standard PE100 material is 144 × 10⁻⁶ /°C

• Question: Is your project using a modified PE100 formulation or is this a documentation error?

📊 Corrected Key Metrics:

• Yield strength: 24 MPa (not 22 MPa)
• Thermal stress component: 2.75 MPa (reasonable for extreme conditions + wind)
• Combined stress: 8.75 MPa (includes pressure + thermal + wind effects)
• Safety factor vs. yield: 2.7 (better than my stated 2.5)

✅ VALIDATED CONCLUSIONS: