MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082108101 · doi:10.1115/ipc2012-90072

Risk Assessment of Modern Pipelines

2012· article· en· W2082108101 on OpenAlexaff
James Mihell, Cameron Rout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsDynamic Systems Analysis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)Reliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Set (abstract data type)Reliability engineeringSelection (genetic algorithm)Data miningEngineeringArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proponents of new pipeline projects are often asked by regulators to provide estimates of risk and reliability for their proposed pipeline. On existing pipelines, the availability of operating and assessment data is generally considered to be essential to the task of performing an accurate and defendable risk or reliability assessment. For proposed or new pipelines, the absence of these data presents a significant challenge to those performing the analysis. The reliance on industry incident data presents problems, since the vast majority of loss-of-containment incidents relate to older pipelines in which the design, routing criteria, material properties, material manufacturing processes, and early operating practices differ significantly from those that are characteristic of modern pipelines. As a consequence, much of the available failure incident data does not accurately reflect the threats or the magnitudes of the threats that are associated with modern pipelines. In order to address this problem, ‘adjustment factors’ are often applied against incident data to try to account for threat differences between the source data and the intended application. The selection of these adjustment factors can often be quite subjective, however, and open to judgment; therefore, they can be difficult to justify. With the rapidly growing practice of regular in-line inspection (ILI) on transmission pipelines, an extensive repository of ILI data has been accumulated — much of it relating to modern pipelines. Through the judicious selection of source data, ILI data sets can be mined so that an analogue data set can be created that constitutes a reasonable representation of the attributes of reliability of a specific new pipeline of interest. Key reliability properties, such as tool error distribution, feature incidence rate, feature size distribution, and apparent feature growth rate distribution can be derived from such analogue data. By applying these reliability properties in an analysis along with known pipeline design and material properties and their associated distributions, and by taking consideration of planned inspection intervals, a reliability basis can be derived for estimating pipeline risk and reliability. Estimates of risk and reliability that are derived in this manner employ methodologies that are repeatable, defendable, transparent, and free of subjectivity. This paper outlines an approach for completing risk and reliability estimates on new pipelines, and presents the results of some sample calculations. The reliability estimates illustrated are based on an approach whereby corrosion feature size and growth rates are obtained from analogue ILI datasets, and treated as random variables. In that regard, they constitute the probability of exceeding a limit state that represents an approximation of the condition for failure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207