MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123004918 · doi:10.1115/ipc2020-9580

Application of Noise Filtering Techniques for the Quantification of Uncertainty in Dent Strain Calculations

2020· article· en· W3123004918 on OpenAlex

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 institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalipersNoise (video)Pipeline (software)Fast Fourier transformComputer scienceCurvatureFinite element methodDeformation (meteorology)Pipeline transportAcousticsStructural engineeringEngineeringAlgorithmGeologyMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringGeometryImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The integrity assessment of dents in pipelines is primarily driven by the dent depths as per the stipulations in current codes and standards. There is a provision for strain-based analysis to quantify the severity of dents based on their shapes in the ASME B31.8 non-mandatory Appendix R. In recent years, the pipeline industry has also started leveraging more advanced techniques such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA) for dent assessment. These assessments require the detailed deformation profile of dents, which are available from In-line Inspection (ILI) tools. The ILI tools use caliper arms that roll along the inside of the pipeline and scan the inner profile. The measurements recorded by each caliper arm are susceptible to noise due to the vibration of the ILI tool, and as a result, the dent shapes obtained from ILI are not smooth. Strain assessments of dents typically require the calculation of radius of curvature in the longitudinal and circumferential directions. This becomes a complex problem while the ILI data contains noise, particularly for relatively shallow dents, when the dent depth approaches the magnitude of the noise in the data. In these cases, the radius of curvature estimation can become highly inaccurate. Furthermore, the amount of noise in the data can vary between dents, and so the accuracy of the estimation varies as well. This paper presents several methods to resolve the above-mentioned issues. To address the issue of data noise itself, a combination of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and Gaussian filtering is used to produce a smooth profile that can be used to calculate the maximum radius of curvature of the dent. The smoothed profile also results in a better estimation of dent depth. To estimate the amount of uncertainty in the data, we apply many independent iterations of random noise to the smoothed curve. Characteristics required for further reliability analysis, such as dent depth or radius of curvature, are calculated for each iteration. This forms a distribution for each characteristic, and the properties of each distribution are used to quantify the uncertainty in the ILI data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.248 · 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