MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062924463 · doi:10.1115/ipc2014-33264

Pipeline Coating Selection Process: A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Based Approach

2014· article· en· W2062924463 on OpenAlex
Sherif Hassanien, Len J. Krissa, V. M. Vorontsov

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsPetroleum Technology Alliance Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAnalytic hierarchy processProcess (computing)Risk analysis (engineering)Selection (genetic algorithm)Pipeline (software)StructuringCoatingReliability engineeringSystems engineeringManagement scienceOperations researchEngineeringMachine learningBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most critical component of external corrosion prevention on pipeline is the protective coating system. The coating selection process can be extremely challenging due to the sheer number of manufacturers and products/options that are offered — often with limited performance data available. Relying solely on manufacturer’s recommendations or information can be problematic when the anticipated service environment has not been adequately characterized, application parameters not completely understood, and/or when there is a misunderstanding of the product’s capabilities. Although there are many test methods for evaluation of pipe coatings, there are no commonly accepted test protocols or acceptance criteria for selecting coatings. Moreover, laboratory based testing is often complicated, expensive, and rarely provides an accurate simulation of field conditions. Although in-house subject matter experts (SMEs) and/or independent coating specialists provide some confidence in coating selection, the diversity of background and experience between these experts frequently creates inconsistency in coating evaluations and can produce divergent or conflicting recommendations. In this paper, an innovative approach is proposed to address these coating selection process challenges. The proposed approach incorporates a systematic analysis of critical material attributes within an expert environment, and applies established decision making techniques to the evaluation. Priorities are developed by structuring a hierarchy of criteria and eliciting technical judgment of company’s SMEs, stakeholders, and unbiased industry specialists. The Deterministic Analytic Hierarchy Process (d-AHP) is applied using pairwise comparisons for prioritizing coating products/options and achieving an optimal selection. The experts’ opinions can then be updated by technical lab-based results for a smaller selection of top ranked products. Laboratory tests would be expected to be completed annually based on smart selection of certain products and to ensure year-over-year consistency. This paper also presents a probabilistic approach that improves d-AHP in order to capture uncertainties in experts’ opinions and/or lab results through probabilistic AHP (p-AHP). Although this approach is not widely used within the pipeline industry, there is a potential opportunity to improve conventional approaches for selecting and approving coatings for pipelines based on a systematic/quantitative approach.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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