Pipeline Corrosion Growth Modeling for In-Line Inspection Data Using a Population-Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To manage the integrity of corroded pipelines reliable estimates of the current and future corrosion growth process are required. They are often obtained from in-line inspection data by matching defects from two or more inspections and determining corrosion growth rates from the observed growth paths. In practice only a (small) subset of the observed defects are often reliably matched and used in the subsequent corrosion growth analysis. The information from the remaining unmatched defects on the corrosion growth process are typically ignored. Hence, all decisions that depend on the corrosion growth process such as maintenance and repair requirements and re-inspection intervals, are based on the information obtained from the (small) set of matched defects rather than all observed corrosion anomalies. A new probabilistic approach for estimating corrosion growth from in-line inspection data is introduced. It does not depend on defect matching and the associated defect matching uncertainties. The reported defects of an inspection are considered from a population perspective and the corrosion growth is determined from two or more defect populations. The distribution of the reported defect sizes is transformed into the distribution of the actual defect sizes by adjusting it for detectability, false calls, and sizing uncertainties. The obtained distribution is then used to determine the parameters of the assumed gamma-distributed corrosion growth process in order to forecast future metal loss in the pipeline. As defect matching is not required all reported corrosion defects are used in the probabilistic analysis rather than the truncated set of matched defects. A numerical example is provided where two in-line inspections are analyzed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".