MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312950946 · doi:10.1115/ipc2022-97332

Probabilistic Surviving Population Remaining Life and Inspection Timing Guidance

2022· article· en· W4312950946 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 institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicPipeline transportPipeline (software)Hydrostatic testTimelineReliability engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringPopulationStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The estimation of the Post Hydrostatic Test (PHT) baseline crack Inline Inspection (ILI) timeline for oil pipelines, and their ILI re-inspection intervals afterwards, can be a technically challenging task for some operators due to the complexity of the analysis and the computational resources required to perform the analysis. In addition, a balance between the proper level of conservatism in the analysis assumptions needs to be considered to ensure that the targeted level of safety is achieved while maintaining optimized inspection intervals to reduce cost. While generalized guidance for re-assessment timing is provided in STP-PT-011 [1] for gas pipelines susceptible to stress corrosion cracking, this guidance does not fully account for flaw growth due to cyclic pressure loading typical of liquid pipelines. This paper applies a probabilistic method to derive this guidance to liquids pipeline operators on recommended crack ILI and hydrostatic test reinspection timelines for pre-1970s vintage ERW and SAW line pipe. The method requires only input variables that are typically readily available to most pipeline operators, specifically, pressure cycling severity, line length, and defect density. To estimate recommended timelines for hydrostatic tests and crack in-line inspections, assessments were completed using the probabilistic surviving flaw approach described in [2]. This approach provides a realistic probabilistic assessment for remaining life post-hydrostatic test (PHT) in comparison to a traditional deterministic analysis which assumes worst case scenarios for distance from pump station and defect severities. In this paper, the probabilistic approach is baselined and generalized for pre-1970s vintage line pipe. A baseline set of failure probabilities and mean time to failure (MTTF) estimates are probabilistically estimated for an aggressive pressure cycling severity using typical random variable inputs. MTTF was found to be independent of pipeline diameter (assuming maximum operating pressure (MOP) of 72% SMYS), but increased with lower wall thickness, so conservative baseline MTTF results were generated assuming a nominal wall thickness of 0.25″. These results were found scalable with line length, defect density, and pressure cycle severity (expressed in cycles-per-year at 13 ksi hoop stress), allowing these results to be generalized to a line of specific length, defect density, and cyclic loading. In addition, a user-friendly life reduction factor approach is implemented and baselined with two validation cases (one post-hydrostatic test and one post-ILI failure) to account for uncertainties in possible growth accelerators and pressure monitoring provisions. The results support the reduction of the projected MTTF to a conservative deterministic re-assessment timeframe through a life-reduction factor methodology. Expansion of this framework to modern pipe and weld types, along with refinement and additional validation testing is recommended for future work.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.209 · 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