MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900072028 · doi:10.1115/ipc2018-78608

Implementation of Reliability-Based Criteria for Corrosion Assessment

2018· article· en· W2900072028 on OpenAlex
Riski Adianto, Maher Nessim, Shahani Kariyawasam, Terry T.‐K. Huang

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 transportCorrosionReliability (semiconductor)Pipeline (software)Reliability engineeringConsistency (knowledge bases)Integrity managementProbabilistic logicComputer scienceEngineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era where pipeline safety is of paramount interest, vintage pipelines with corrosion have to be managed responsibly. Optimization of corrosion mitigation for these pipelines has a significant effect on the industry’s management systems and related costs. To help optimize the corrosion management process, reliability-based limit state design (LSD) corrosion assessment criteria have been developed for onshore pipeline as part of a joint industry project. The LSD approach is a simplified form of the reliability-based approach. It achieves risk or safety consistency within a certain tolerance, while utilizing a deterministic procedure that is easier to apply. The overall methodology and development of the criteria are described in a companion paper. This paper describes the application of the LSD corrosion criteria to real pipeline cases and evaluation of the results. The performance of the LSD criteria, as determined by the number of corrosion repairs required, was compared to that of the CSA Z662 deterministic assessment criteria and the full probabilistic criteria used by TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. (TCPL) to determine if the criteria lead to practical solutions for real cases. The CSA criteria use safety factors that are not directly based on the risk level associated with the pipeline, while the TCPL criteria utilize pipeline-specific reliability targets. The comparison was conducted using a comprehensive set of TCPL pipeline cases that covered a wide range of diameters (NPS 6 to 42), hoop stress-to-SMYS ratios (0.4 to 0.8) and corrosion densities (0.625 to 6508 features per km). The results show that the LSD criteria perform similarly to the TCPL reliability-based criteria, and that both are generally less conservative than the CSA deterministic criteria. The results demonstrate that the LSD criteria provide a simple and deterministic procedure that capitalizes on the benefits of more complex reliability analyses in eliminating unnecessary conservatism and focusing on the repairs required to achieve consistent safety levels for all cases. Thus, these criteria will enable operators to maximize risk reduction for the dollar spent.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.330 · 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