Reliability-Based Evaluation of Corrosion Assessment Safety Factors for Pipelines Designed to Risk-Based Safety Class System
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
Abstract A risk-based pressure design approach for designing onshore transmission pipelines has been developed and incorporated in the Annex C of the 2023 edition of Canadian Standard Association (CSA) Z662 standard. This approach uses a set of hoop stress factors (termed class factors) calibrated for six consequence-based safety class system to design the required minimum wall thickness of the pipeline to limit the pipeline risk at a consistent acceptable level. This non-mandatory approach provides an alternative to the more established experience-based hoop stress factors (product of design and location factors) described in Clause 4.3.5 of the standard. As written in the CSA standard, Clause 4.3.5 hoop stress factors are also used as safety factors to assess corrosion features as prescribed in Clause 10 of the standard. Following the same principle, Annex C class factors described in Clause C.5 are also prescribed to be used for the Clause 10 corrosion assessment. This paper evaluates the reliability implications of applying the class factors for corrosion assessment of pipelines designed to the Annex C safety class approach. Three gas pipeline cases were considered in this evaluation, one in undeveloped area and the two others in developed areas. All pipelines were considered in two scenarios: 1) designed using the Clause 4.3.5 approach, and 2) designed using the Clause C.5 approach. Similar corrosion populations representative of decades-long operation were simulated for each scenario using information in public domain literature, and corrosion assessments to determine repairs were carried out using the approach described in Clause 10.10.2.5 of the CSA standard. In this assessment, each scenario utilized the corresponding hoop stress factors for the pipeline design as the corrosion safety factors (i.e. design and location factors for scenario 1, class factors for scenario 2). The implication of using these safety factors was evaluated by assessing the reliability of the pipelines with the remaining corrosion features that passed the Clause 10.10.2.5 assessments and subsequently their overall safety. Comparison was made between the Clause 4.3.5 and Clause C.5 scenarios to demonstrate the implied safety with both approaches.
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 | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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