Prediction of corrosion failure probability of buried oil and gas pipeline based on an RBF neural network
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk assessment is critical to ensure the safe operation of oil and gas pipeline systems. The core content of such risk assessment is to determine the failure probability of the pipelines quantitatively and accurately. Hence, this study combines the MATLAB neural network toolbox and adopts an Radial Basis Functions (RBF) neural network with a strong non-linear mapping relationship to build a corrosion failure probability prediction model for buried oil and gas gathering and transmission pipelines. Based on the hazard identification of pipeline corrosion failure, the model summarizes the causes of corrosion failure and determines the input and output vectors of the neural network based on the fault tree. According to the selected learning samples, through the design and training of network parameters, the RBF neural network that can predict the system failure probability is finally obtained. Taking the failure probability of 30 groups of high-pressure gathering and transmission pipelines of gas storage as an example, the capability of inputting the probability of the bottom event and outputting the probability of the top event is demonstrated through training data. Our results show that the calculated failure probability based on the fault tree analysis model is consistent with the predicted failure probability based on the RBF neural network model. Hence, the RBF neural network model is shown to be reliable in predicting the corrosion failure probability of buried pipelines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it