MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899574200 · doi:10.1115/ipc2018-78604

An ILI Based Program That Prevents Reoccurrence of Post ILI Failures Seen in Industry

2018· article· en· W2899574200 on OpenAlex
Terry T.‐K. Huang, Shahani Kariyawasam

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Computer scienceIncident reportRisk analysis (engineering)Computer securityBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pipeline industry has been using Inline Inspection (ILI) since the 1970s. High resolution tools have been available for inspecting corrosion from about the 1980s and related ILI-based programs have been evolving. In this study incident rate data from the last 30 to 40 years of experience was examined and trended. Corrosion related incident rates have reduced where ILI programs have been implemented. Significant changes in programs have shown related incident reductions or positive trends. Throughout this time there have been a few post-ILI incidents and by taking a closer look at these incidents and learning from the findings the ILI-based assessments and programs were further improved. In this study, all of the post-ILI corrosion related ruptures on the TransCanada system have been closely examined and trended. The effects of program changes and related changes to performance indicators have been examined. Some significant industry failures, where data is publicly available, have also been examined. These failures have been analyzed and trended to understand significant commonalities between these failures. Data was analyzed with the intention of learning from them and applying this learning to avoid similar failures in the future. By understanding the uncertainties, technology limitations, and limits of applicability as well as the types of programs used and where these have not identified probable failures practical solutions were derived. All of the failures have been examined (as allowed by the data available) to find approaches which would have proactively identified these events, so that similar events can be avoided in the future. ILI tools generate a wealth of information and appropriate use of this information has shown to be effective in managing pipelines. However, it is also important to understand the limitations of technologies, learn from the failures, and acknowledge uncertainties so that undesirable events can be avoided.

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.

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 score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.268 · 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