Fitness-for-Service of Unconstrained Shallow Dents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current federal regulations in the U.S. require excavation of plain dents identified through in line inspection surveys based primarily on depth. Industry experience, and previous research, has shown that the depth of the dent, alone, is not sufficient to assess dent severity and that releases could occur at dents below the excavation threshold (Dawson, 2006). Canada’s National Energy Board released a safety advisory on June 18, 2010, to all companies under their jurisdiction regarding two incidents involving shallow dents. The safety advisory stated that all integrity management programs should be reviewed and updated where appropriate to address the threat posed by shallow dents. Similar incidents have raised awareness in the United States and elsewhere around the world. This paper focuses on an extensive multi-year effort to analyze the fitness for service of unconstrained shallow dents on multiple pipeline systems. Fatigue and strain analyses were performed to determine the serviceability and estimate the remaining service life. The dents in this study included both topside dents and bottomside dents that were previously evaluated through excavation to be unconstrained. Results of the fatigue and strain assessments are presented, along with field results of dents that were chosen for excavation. Comparison of the fitness for service results and subsequent excavation findings were performed to improve an ongoing campaign to prioritize several hundred in-service unconstrained dents. Maximum strain levels of the dents were calculated based on the geometry of the dent as determined by radial sensor measurements from in line inspection surveys. The results of the in-line inspection and field measurement comparisons were analyzed to determine the accuracy and possible adjustments of strain assessments for the ongoing fitness-for-service program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".