Prediction of Corrosion Defect Growth on Operating Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrity management is based on the ability of the pipeline operator to predict the growth of defects detected in inspection programs on an operating pipeline system. Accurate predictions allow targeted interventions to be scheduled in a cost effective and timely fashion for those defects that pose a high potential risk. In this paper two distinct theories are described for predicting the development of corrosion pits on an operating pipeline. The first theory corresponds to the traditional approach in which the past growth behaviour of each defect is used to predict the rate of its future development. In this theory each defect is assumed to have its own unique corrosion environment in which only a very limited range of corrosion rates will be seen. In the second approach, this assumption is not made. Instead any corrosion defect is allowed to grow at any likely rate over any time interva. In this approach an arbitrary selection of corrosion rates derived from the overall profile of past rates seen for all defects is applied to each defect over time. Predicted distributions derived by computer simulation of the initiation and growth of corrosion defects according to each theory have been compared to an actual defect depth distribution derived by in line inspection (ILI) of an operating pipeline. The success of the two models is compared and implications for pipeline integrity management are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".