MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6921753435 · doi:10.7939/r3-k35j-5330

Failure Assessment of Pipelines Due to Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

2022· dissertation· en· W6921753435 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2022
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPipeline (software)Pipeline transportCorrosionSampling (signal processing)Expert systemCurrent (fluid)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) is a difficult degradation mechanism to diagnose in pipeline systems due to the complex interaction between biotic (i.e., microbial) and abiotic (e.g., fluid chemistry, pipe/vessel metallurgy/corrosion, and operating conditions) factors. This complexity often makes it difficult to accurately assess pipeline failures due to MIC. However, even with available data, failure investigators often face a number of challenges in diagnosing MIC such as how to properly integrate the available datasets, questions regarding data accuracy (e.g., confidence in the sampling and/or analysis method used) and lack of available information from operators (e.g., missing data). As a result, practical MIC failure assessments are most often performed by experts or specialists with significant knowledge and working experience in this topic. Based on these issues, the objectives of this thesis are three-fold: 1) to quantify the actual prevalence of MIC related pipeline failures in Alberta’s oil and gas sector, 2) to perform a gap analysis of failure investigation methods used to assess these pipeline failures, and 3) to develop a novel expert system based on machine learning to assist both experts and non-experts in assessing potential MIC related pipeline failures. The first part of this study highlights a review and analysis of MIC related pipeline incidents in the province of Alberta, Canada over a three-year period (2017-2019). This review was used to quantify the occurrence of MIC failures relative to other corrosion mechanisms, and to conduct a gap analysis of MIC failure investigation techniques being used relative to the current state of the art. Over this three-year period, MIC was found to be responsible for 13.6% and 4.8% of all pipeline leak incidents due to internal and external corrosion, respectively (either as the main failure mechanism or as a contributing factor). Most of these failures were seen to occur in small diameter upstream pipelines (with less than or equal to 220.3 mm outside diameter) carrying mainly multiphase fluids (oil-water emulsions) or produced water. In terms of the failure investigation methods currently being used, it was noted that there was some inconsistency among reports and a number of important gaps were identified. Various assessments lacked microbiological test data, in particular, tests which specifically identify microbial functional groups or speciation, which is critical to confirm observed corrosion mechanisms. Furthermore, a number of these assessments identified MIC primarily on the basis of corrosion morphology, which has been shown to be an incorrect assumption and approach without additional evidence. Details related to sampling methods were also lacking in these assessments, which created some uncertainty as to the quality of data obtained. Overall, most assessments did a reasonable job in characterizing and including chemical (solids, fluids, and corrosion products), metallurgical/ corrosion, and operating data. However, the integration of these various layers of evidence (i.e., connecting corrosion to microbiological activity, and eliminating possible abiotic corrosion mechanisms) was missing in many reports. The second part of this study highlights the modeling of an expert system for the classification of internal microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) failures related to pipelines in the upstream oil and gas industry. The model is based on machine learning (artificial neural network) and involves the participation of 15 MIC subject matter experts (SMEs). Each expert evaluated a number of model case studies representative of both MIC and non-MIC related upstream pipeline failures. The model accounts for variations in microbiological testing methods, microbiological sample types, degradation morphology, among others, and also incorporates cases with select missing datasets which is commonly found in actual failure assessments. The output classifications comprised elements of both potential for MIC and confidence in the data available. The results were contrasted for 5- and 3-output classification models (5OC and 3OC, respectively). The 5OC model had an overall accuracy of 62.0% while the simpler 3OC model had a better accuracy of 74.8%. This modelling exercise has demonstrated that knowledge from subject matter experts can be captured in a reasonably effective model to screen for possible MIC failures. It is hoped that this study contributes to a better understanding of the prevalence of MIC in the oil and gas sector, and highlights the key areas necessary to improve the diagnosis of MIC failures in the future.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,173
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,345

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0110,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,215
Écart entre enseignants0,205 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Alberta Library→Même sujetEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning→Travaux en français237 207→