A Bayesian network‐based susceptibility assessment model for oil and gas pipelines suffering under‐deposit corrosion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oil and gas pipelines are exposed to harsh operating conditions that facilitate their susceptibility to complex corrosion mechanisms. This affects their integrity and results in failure with associated consequences. Capturing these complex corrosion phenomena requires a robust approach. This study proposes the application of a dynamic probabilistic model to capture the key influential factors that contribute to the complex under‐deposit corrosion (UDC) mechanism in oil and gas pipelines. The Bayesian network model assesses the pipeline's susceptibility (degradation rate) to the UDC, capturing parametric dependencies. The predicted corrosion rates are input data for the corrosion propagation prediction. Three semi‐empirical corrosion propagation models are used for a comparative assessment to establish the degree of susceptibility given the prevalent influential factors and model parameters. The proposed approach is tested on an offshore pipeline, and the degree of impact of the key influential parameters is predicted. The result shows a percentage increase in the degradation rate by 18.7%, 33.2%, 35.8%, and 63.4%, respectively, for the various interaction scenarios. The present approach offers an adaptive and robust technique that would provide an early warning guide on the rate of pipeline degradation to aid integrity management for offshore assets suffering from deposit corrosion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".