Machine Learning Modeling for Predicting Tensile Strain Capacity of Pipelines and Identifying Key Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning (ML) techniques have recently gained great attention across a multitude of engineering domains, including pipeline materials. However, their application to tensile strain capacity (TSC) modeling remains unexplored. To bridge this gap, this study developed and evaluated an ML model to predict the tensile strain capacity of girth-welded pipelines. The model was trained on over 20,000 data points derived from a TSC equation available in the literature. The ML model demonstrated robust performance in predicting tensile strain capacities. Evidence of this lies in the near-zero means, minimal standard deviations, and normal distribution of residuals for both the training and test datasets. These collectively suggest that the model provides a good fit for the data. Furthermore, the model's loss behavior indicates successful convergence and generalization, without signs of overfitting or underfitting. An analysis using the random forest method revealed that the geometry of the flaw, specifically the flaw depth, is the most influential variable in predicting the TSC. This could be attributed to its significant impact on the fracture toughness of materials. In contrast, material properties and fracture toughness exert less influence relatively, despite their contributions to the model. This finding underscores the importance of flaw geometry in TSC prediction models. Overall, the development of a data-driven TSC model has shown efficient TSC modeling. This model leverages ML techniques, allowing for continuous updates with new data via deep learning.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".