Associations of Creep Behavior Models and Resource Recovery with Serviceability Limits in High Temperature Pipelines

Authors

  • Irene Hernández Department of Chemistry, Materials for schools, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain Author

Keywords:

Creep Behavior Models, Serviceability Limits, High Temperature Pipelines, Resource Recovery, Structural Reliability

Abstract

The operational integrity and life cycle management of high-temperature pipelines represent critical challenges in modern power generation and petrochemical industries. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of serviceability limits by integrating advanced creep behavior models with emerging paradigms of resource recovery. High-temperature components are subjected to severe thermomechanical loading, leading to time-dependent permanent deformation, microstructural degradation, and eventual failure. Traditional serviceability assessments often evaluate these phenomena in isolation, focusing solely on avoiding catastrophic rupture. However, a modern approach requires understanding how continuous microstructural damage influences not only the remaining useful life but also the end-of-life viability for material reclamation. By examining phenomenological and continuum damage mechanics models, this study bridges the gap between predictive structural health and circular economy principles. The analysis explores void nucleation, grain boundary sliding, and precipitate coarsening, correlating these mechanisms with the thermodynamic and economic feasibility of recovering high-value alloying elements such as chromium and molybdenum. Findings suggest that proactive serviceability limit state definitions, informed by precise creep forecasting, can significantly optimize both operational safety and subsequent resource recovery efficiency. Ultimately, integrating these domains provides a holistic framework for sustainable infrastructure management, minimizing industrial waste while maximizing material utility.

References

1. Tang, D.; Zhao, Z.; Shen, W.; Zhang, J.; Kong, Y.X.; Boamah, V. Research on the impact of digital finance on the industrial structure upgrading of the Yangtze River Economic Belt from the perspective of R&D innovation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 425.

2. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). State of Finance for Nature: Restoration Finance Report. Growing the Green: Why and How Restoration Finance Needs to Quadruple by 2030; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2024.

3. Delacote, P.; L’horty, T.; Kontoleon, A.; West, T.A.; Creti, A.; Filewod, B.; LeVelly, G.; Guizar-Coutiño, A.; Groom, B.; Elias, M. Strong transparency required for carbon credit mechanisms. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 706–713.

4. Wunder, S.; Börner, J.; Ezzine-de-Blas, D.; Feder, S.; Pagiola, S. Payments for environmental services: Past performance and pending potentials. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2020, 12, 209–234.

5. Fares, N.; Islam, M.S.; Jauhar, S.K.; Kucukaltan, B. Towards an International Digital Product Passport: The New Paradigm of a Worldwide Circular Economy. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2025, 5, 5475–5495.

6. Filewod, B.; McCarney, G. Avoiding carbon leakage from nature-based offsets by design. One Earth 2023, 6, 790–802.

7. Seddon, N.; Chausson, A.; Berry, P.; Girardin, C.A.; Smith, A.; Turner, B. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2020, 375, 20190120.

8. Miltenberger, O.; Jospe, C.; Pittman, J. The good is never perfect: Why the current flaws of voluntary carbon markets are services, not barriers to successful climate change action. Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 130.

9. Koutmos, D. Twitter Economic Uncertainty and Herding Behavior in ESG Markets. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2024, 17, 502.

10. Adisorn, T.; Tholen, L.; Götz, T. Towards a digital product passport fit for contributing to a circular economy. Energies 2021, 14, 2289.

11. Deutz, A.; Heal, G.M.; Niu, R.; Swanson, E.; Townshend, T.; Zhu, L.; Delmar, A.; Meghji, A.; Sethi, S.A.; Tobinde la Puente, J. Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap. The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability.

2020. Available online: https://www.paulsoninstitute.org/conservation/financing-nature-report/ (accessed on 5 November 2025).

12. World Economic Forum (WEF). New Nature Economy Report II: The Future of Nature and Business; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://www.weforum.org/publications/new-nature-economy-report-ii-the-future-of-nature-and-business/ (accessed on 5 November 2025).

13. Butler, R.W. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution. Can. Geogr. 1980, 24, 5–12.

14. Crippa, M.; Guizzardi, D.; Pagani, F.; Banja, M.; Muntean, M. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions of All World Countries—2025 Report; Publications Office of the European Union (EU): Luxembourg, 2025; Available online: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025 (accessed on 5 November 2025).

15. EDGAR. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions of all World Countries; EDGAR Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research: Ispra, Italy, 2023; Available online: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2024 (accessed on 5 November 2025).

16. Liu, C.; Jiechang, X. Online Market, Digital Platform and Resource Allocation Efficiency: The Effect of Price Mechanism and Data Mechanism. China Ind. Econ. 2023, 7, 84–102.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-29

Issue

Section

Articles