MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398205544 · doi:10.1115/1.887738_ch17

Dig Effectiveness and Repair Criteria for Dents in Gas Pipelines

2024· book-chapter· en· W4398205544 on OpenAlexaff
M Moshfegh Mojarad, Isabella Uzcategui

Bibliographic record

VenueASME eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Properties and Failure Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsAlberta Energy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportComputer scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pipeline dents form from different causes including third-party damage, backfilling issues, pipe sitting on rocks. US DoT includes dent repair and remediation criteria based upon dent depth, dent location (top or bottom side), pressure cycling, strain, and dent interaction with other threats like welds, corrosion, cracks. These criteria are easy to apply, however, they may cause conservative excavations. Over 80 deformation excavation results were reviewed in this paper. The results were compared against In-Line Inspection (ILI) reported values. The paper is targeted to gas pipelines, but some of the conclusions can be applied to liquid pipelines and facilities. This paper includes a review of in the ditch excavation results versus ILI data. ASME B31.8 includes repair criteria for plain dents considering susceptibility for crack initiation during dent formation. As found results were reviewed and no cracks were found in the majority of excavations with high dent strain. The depth and strain based dent assessment criteria as required by various government regulations and industry codes have served the pipeline industry as an evaluation method to determine fitness for service. However, this criteria can result in unnecessary excavations. Excavation results are reviewed versus as called to investigate the level of conservatism embedded in critical strain values recommended by ASME B31.8. Megarule Part 2 has a maximum level for dent strain (10%) where engineering critical analysis is not allowed and dent must be repaired. The as found results were compared where this strain level was achieved for any possible crack initiation. The review results and conclusions will be one source to improve integrity repair decisions and can be used to support modifications of guidelines, standards, or regulatory documents. Information presented will be of interest to pipeline operators, in-line inspection (ILI) companies, integrity management specialists and regulators.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASME eBooksSame topicMaterial Properties and Failure MechanismsFrench-language works237,207