An Integrated Prognostics Approach for Pipeline Fatigue Crack Growth Prediction Utilizing Inline Inspection Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatigue cracking is a key type of defect for liquid pipelines, and managing fatigue cracks has been a top priority and a big challenge for liquid pipeline operators. The existing inline inspection (ILI) tools for pipeline defect evaluation have large fatigue crack measurement uncertainties. Furthermore, the current physics-based methods are mainly used for fatigue crack growth prediction, where the same or a small range of fixed model parameters is used for all pipes. They result in uncertainty that is managed through the use of conservative safety factors such as adding depth uncertainty to the measured depth in deciding integrity management and risk mitigation strategies. In this study, an integrated approach is proposed for pipeline fatigue crack growth prediction utilizing ILI data including consideration of crack depth measurement uncertainty. This approach is done by integrating the physical models, including the stress analysis models, the crack growth model governed by the Paris’ law, and the ILI data. With the proposed integrated approach, the finite element (FE) model of a cracked pipe is built and the stress analysis is performed. ILI data are utilized to update the uncertain physical parameters for the individual pipe being considered so that a more accurate fatigue crack growth prediction can be achieved. Time-varying loading conditions are considered in the proposed integrated method by using rainflow counting method. The proposed integrated prognostics approach is compared with the existing physics-based method using examples based on simulated data. Field data provided by a Canadian pipeline operator are also employed for the validation of the proposed method. The examples and case studies in this paper demonstrate the limitations of the existing physics-based method, and the promise of the proposed method for achieving accurate fatigue crack growth prediction as continuous improvement of ILI technologies further reduces ILI measurement uncertainty.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".