MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124734975 · doi:10.1115/ipc2020-9314

Surviving Population Reliability Projection Methods

2020· article· en· W3124734975 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley Krug, Lyndon Lamborn, Alireza Kohandehghan, Stuart Guest, Mahmoud Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicPipeline (software)Reliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringHydrostatic testPipeline transportHydrostatic equilibriumComputer sciencePopulationHydrostatic pressureEngineeringMechanicsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While the uncertainties associated with actual pipeline asset condition demand the use of probabilistic methodologies to assess the integrity of pipelines, a realistic and validated probabilistic method to demonstrate post-hydrostatic test (PHT) integrity has eluded the pipeline industry. Traditionally, deterministic methods grow a “just-surviving flaw” (JSF) under worst-case pressure cycling to predict the remaining life of the most severe imperfection which could have survived a high-pressure event, such as hydrostatic test. The deterministic analysis results in a JSF fatigue life but does not identify the likelihood that the flaw exists. Furthermore, identifying the most severe flaw is not intuitive and attempts to probabilistically model material variabilities have failed to match known historical PHT reliability. A pipeline operator has now developed a novel approach to the task of quantifying marginal pipeline reliability after hydrostatic tests. Rather than limiting random values to only material properties, potential defects are assigned sizes and pressure cycling values, randomly sampled from validated distributions of defect size and pressure cycling severity (equivalent to downstream location). The number of generated defects is determined by a validated defect density, and defect size remains limited to what could have physically survived the hydrostatic test. The question posed is no longer “what are possible sizes of JSF close to discharge pressure surviving to a specific time under known load conditions?”, but rather “what proportion of the pipeline segments with similar defect populations would survive to a specific time under known load conditions?”. This represents a fundamental paradigm shift away from considering only a worst-case scenario to the quantification of plausible pipeline health conditions. Monte Carlo simulation time is kept practical by using an equivalent load integral method to project crack growth. This proposed methodology was validated by applying it to a selection of pipeline segments with known historical fatigue failures following hydrostatic tests in order to quantify the predictability of each section’s reliability at the failure time. The initial validation of the method was found to reasonably predict the past incidents. This paper will discuss the methodology, input parameters including their distributions, methods for assigning defect size distributions and densities based on extrapolations of field nondestructive examination (NDE) and in-line inspection (ILI) data, and a minimum defect density floor established based on the PHT fatigue failure of a newly constructed pipeline. While this method originally targets PHT pipeline segments, the development of a similar method for pipelines managed exclusively by ILI data is under development. The largest potential flaw for ILI-managed assets is then dictated by what could have evaded ILI tool detection rather than what could have survived a hydrostatic test. Herein, the progress on this development and future suggested research will be provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207