An Approach for Evaluating the Integrity of Plain Dents Reported by In-Line Inspection Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current federal regulations in the U.S. require excavation of plain dents identified through in-line inspection surveys based primarily on depth. Industry experience, and previous research, has shown that the depth of the dent, alone, is not sufficient to assess dent severity and that releases could occur at dents below the excavation threshold (Dawson, 2006). Canada’s National Energy Board released a safety advisory on June 18, 2010, to all companies under their jurisdiction regarding two incidents involving shallow dents. The safety advisory stated that all integrity management programs should be reviewed and updated where appropriate to address the threat posed by shallow dents. Similar incidents have raised awareness in the United States and elsewhere around the world. This paper focuses on the fitness for service of dents identified by in-line inspection surveys. The fitness for service assessment provides an estimated remaining life of a dent based on the geometry of the dent and current pressure cycling of the pipeline. Dynamic pressure cycling at each dent location is estimated using the upstream and downstream pressure cycle data, elevation, and distance along the pipe. The dynamic pressure cycle data at each dent is then converted into equivalent stress cycles based on the results of rainflow cycle counting. Maximum strain levels of the dents are calculated based on the geometry of the dent as determined by radial sensor measurements from the in-line inspection survey. The combination of assessment methods provides estimates of remaining fatigue life and peak strain which can be used for prioritizing the investigation and remediation of plain dents in pipelines. Finite element analysis (FEA) is performed for one dent to calculate the maximum strain levels and identify stress concentration areas. These results are compared with the values applied during the fitness for service assessment to validate the accuracy and conservatism of the calculation methods used. An idealized dent will be analyzed to investigate the strain calculations in ASME B31.8 and localize maximum strain values.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".