MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017517225 · doi:10.1115/ipc2014-33576

Shallow Dents: Updates to the UKOPA Dent Management Strategy

2014· article· en· W2017517225 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Pipeline transportStage (stratigraphy)WeldingFeature (linguistics)EngineeringWork (physics)Computer sciencePrioritizationConstruction engineeringGeologyProcess managementMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pipelines can be dented, but shallow dents with depths less than 2% of the pipe diameter have only recently begun to be reported reliably by high resolution in-line geometry inspections. Most thin-walled onshore pipelines around the world are found to contain these shallow dents, many on welds of unknown toughness, or subject to severe pressure cycling. Much of the existing guidance for dent management was published before such shallow dents were being reported, and did not necessarily consider them. Furthermore, recent failures in Canada have demonstrated that the existing guidance can be non-conservative when a shallow dent is combined with fatigue loading or other undetected damage. The United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association (UKOPA) is developing a strategy for the management of dents to provide guidance to operators based on published best practice. The aim of the work is to ensure that dents now identified but not sized by MFL inspection tools are appropriately inspected, investigated, assessed and repaired. UKOPA’s methodology allows shallow dents to be screened and assessed without the requirement for numerous feature investigations. This management strategy is: Stage 1: Use previously published UKOPA guidance on the prioritization of dents. This involves following a series of flow charts, leading the operator from dent discovery, through decisions affecting assessment and possible repair. Stage 2: This Stage provides a series of criteria to indicate whether a weld is likely to be of sufficient toughness to withstand shallow denting, then gives a method to carry out an engineering assessment of a dent based on finite element analysis. This paper presents the background and justification of ‘Stage 2’, and updates ‘Stage 1’. It includes a review of recent published work covering dents on welds, including analytical studies, finite element analyses, testing and failures. The results of this work by UKOPA will form an input to the planned updates to the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM). The paper then applies the updated guidance to operational dent assessment problems provided by UKOPA members. Finally, an example of a dent assessment under the previous and updated guidance, including a finite element analysis, is given to illustrate how a shallow dent on a weld of unknown toughness may be re-categorized as not requiring repair.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it