Pipeline Coating Selection Process: A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Based Approach
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The most critical component of external corrosion prevention on pipeline is the protective coating system. The coating selection process can be extremely challenging due to the sheer number of manufacturers and products/options that are offered — often with limited performance data available. Relying solely on manufacturer’s recommendations or information can be problematic when the anticipated service environment has not been adequately characterized, application parameters not completely understood, and/or when there is a misunderstanding of the product’s capabilities. Although there are many test methods for evaluation of pipe coatings, there are no commonly accepted test protocols or acceptance criteria for selecting coatings. Moreover, laboratory based testing is often complicated, expensive, and rarely provides an accurate simulation of field conditions. Although in-house subject matter experts (SMEs) and/or independent coating specialists provide some confidence in coating selection, the diversity of background and experience between these experts frequently creates inconsistency in coating evaluations and can produce divergent or conflicting recommendations. In this paper, an innovative approach is proposed to address these coating selection process challenges. The proposed approach incorporates a systematic analysis of critical material attributes within an expert environment, and applies established decision making techniques to the evaluation. Priorities are developed by structuring a hierarchy of criteria and eliciting technical judgment of company’s SMEs, stakeholders, and unbiased industry specialists. The Deterministic Analytic Hierarchy Process (d-AHP) is applied using pairwise comparisons for prioritizing coating products/options and achieving an optimal selection. The experts’ opinions can then be updated by technical lab-based results for a smaller selection of top ranked products. Laboratory tests would be expected to be completed annually based on smart selection of certain products and to ensure year-over-year consistency. This paper also presents a probabilistic approach that improves d-AHP in order to capture uncertainties in experts’ opinions and/or lab results through probabilistic AHP (p-AHP). Although this approach is not widely used within the pipeline industry, there is a potential opportunity to improve conventional approaches for selecting and approving coatings for pipelines based on a systematic/quantitative approach.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle