MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549301847 · doi:10.1115/ipc2016-64224

The Development and Use of an Absolute Depth Size Specification in ILI-Based Crack Integrity Management of Pipelines

2016· article· en· W2549301847 on OpenAlexaff
Geoff Foreman, Steven Bott, Jeffrey Sutherland, Stephan Tappert

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsPetroleum Technology Alliance Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingPipeline (software)Ranking (information retrieval)Computer sciencePipeline transportExcavationLine (geometry)AlgorithmEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceGeotechnical engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To provide a more insightful and accurate feature description from Crack In-line Inspection (ILI) reporting as per the Fitness For Service analysis in API 1176, individual crack dimensions must be established to a given accuracy. PII Pipeline Solutions established an absolute depth sizing specification conforming to the dig verification processes of API 1163. This change represented a significant shift from a traditional reporting format for depth sizing in “bands” of 1–2 mm, 2–3 mm and > 3 mm depths within crack ILI inspection reporting. When assessing features with characteristics stated in a sizing band, the pipeline integrity assessment approach required a conservative assumptions that all of the features in that band must be treated as if they are in the deepest band value. The implication then meant that the specification created only 3 sizes of crack depths 1–2 mm, 2–3 mm, > 3 mm (± 0.5mm tolerance at 90% certainty). In practical terms a large quantity of features in the significant band of 2–3 mm must be treated as potential dig candidates with a depth of at least 3 mm, making length characteristics as the only severity ranking basis for any priority dig selection. Previous attempts at establishing absolute depth sizing for crack inspection required a series of calibration digs. The large sample size over multiple inspection runs and pipeline sections allowed for a statistical specification algorithm is developed as part of the analysis process, therefore no additional reporting time, or excavation cost was involved. The new absolute sizing algorithm has provided operators with a means of prioritizing digs, based upon individual feature length and depths. Replacing the traditional depth bands with individual feature specific peak depths and thereby providing a major step forward in achieving a cost effective process of prioritizing crack mitigation in pipelines. Following the dig verification process in API 1163, significant populations of infield NDE results were utilized on a variety of pipeline sections of different diameters. Predicted absolute depth estimation accuracy was determined for specific feature types and thereby created a depth tolerance, with statistical certainty levels established that match those available and recognized with metal loss ILI. This paper describes the process and the means by which an absolute depth crack ILI specification was established using characteristics from a significant set of real features. It also describes benefits realized within pipeline integrity engineering of moving to such a new reporting protocol.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207