Risk-Based Maintenance Planning for Deteriorating Pressure Vessels With Multiple Defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pressure vessels are subject to deterioration processes, such as corrosion and fatigue, which can lead to failure. Inspections and repairs are performed to mitigate this risk. Large industrial facilities (e.g., oil and gas refineries) often have regularly scheduled shutdown periods during which many components, including the pressure vessels, are disassembled, inspected, and repaired if necessary. This paper presents a decision analysis framework for the risk-based maintenance (RBM) planning of corroding pressure vessels. After a vessel has been inspected, this framework determines the optimal maintenance time of each defect, where the optimal time is the one that minimizes the total expected cost over the lifecycle of the vessel. The framework allows for multiple defects and two failure modes (leak and burst), and accounts for the dependent failure events. A stochastic gamma process is used to model the future deterioration growth to determine the probability of vessel failure. The novel growth model presents a simple method to predict both the depth and length of each corrosion defect to enable burst analysis. The decision analysis framework can aid decision makers in deciding when a repair or replacement should be performed. This method can be used to immediately inform the decision maker of the optimal decision postinspection. A numerical example of a corroding pressure vessel illustrates the method.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".