MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087390604 · doi:10.1115/power2014-32208

Maintaining High Energy Piping Integrity With Unit Specific Strategic Planning

2014· article· en· W2087390604 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pamela Hamblin-Smoske

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipingRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringPreventive maintenanceUnit (ring theory)EngineeringComputer scienceBusinessMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-energy piping systems are essential to the safe and cost-effective operation of power plants. The propensity for piping failures increases with the age of the systems involved. Prolonged operation, particularly at elevated temperatures, may result in metallurgical degradation which in-turn increases the potential for cracking and crack propagation until a final failure stage is reached by the component. As a result, power plant operators have become increasingly cognizant of the importance of condition assessment evaluations for high-energy piping systems. Power plant operators are faced with specific challenges to maintain the integrity of their high energy piping systems including the reduction of onsite engineers, aging workforces, equipment, and the need to remain competitive in a challenging global energy market. Plant managers are routinely faced with the complex task of evaluating the current condition of their equipment, forecasting outage budgets and schedules, and performing risk assessments. Additionally, insurance companies are increasingly requiring inspection and maintenance records that are not always up-to-date or readily available. The solution to strategically maintaining the integrity of high-energy piping systems involves taking a comprehensive approach to piping management utilizing unit specific operational training, advanced data management, strategic inspection, maintenance and replacement prioritization. Implementing this comprehensive approach has resulted in avoiding both catastrophic and leak type failures for plant managers that have adopted this strategy. Implementing a unit specific, targeted plan enables utility owners and operators to succeed in today’s competitive market by increasing the unit’s reliability and availability without sacrificing safety or environmental standards. Thielsch Engineering, Inc. hosts over 30 years of advanced engineering experience and provides extensive services to more than 150 power plants each year. Our firm is also the creator and proprietary owners of the 4 SYTE System Strategies that is currently operating in more than 60 power plants throughout the U.S. and Canada. We are an employee-owned company with 425 partners who are dedicated to best practices and customer service is a priority. Thielsch has offices in Rhode Island, Ohio, Texas and Florida.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207