MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405360726 · doi:10.1115/ipc2024-133149

Reliability-Based Evaluation of Corrosion Assessment Safety Factors for Pipelines Designed to Risk-Based Safety Class System

2024· article· en· W4405360726 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringCorrosionComputer scienceClass (philosophy)Risk assessmentEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Computer securityMaterials scienceBusinessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A risk-based pressure design approach for designing onshore transmission pipelines has been developed and incorporated in the Annex C of the 2023 edition of Canadian Standard Association (CSA) Z662 standard. This approach uses a set of hoop stress factors (termed class factors) calibrated for six consequence-based safety class system to design the required minimum wall thickness of the pipeline to limit the pipeline risk at a consistent acceptable level. This non-mandatory approach provides an alternative to the more established experience-based hoop stress factors (product of design and location factors) described in Clause 4.3.5 of the standard. As written in the CSA standard, Clause 4.3.5 hoop stress factors are also used as safety factors to assess corrosion features as prescribed in Clause 10 of the standard. Following the same principle, Annex C class factors described in Clause C.5 are also prescribed to be used for the Clause 10 corrosion assessment. This paper evaluates the reliability implications of applying the class factors for corrosion assessment of pipelines designed to the Annex C safety class approach. Three gas pipeline cases were considered in this evaluation, one in undeveloped area and the two others in developed areas. All pipelines were considered in two scenarios: 1) designed using the Clause 4.3.5 approach, and 2) designed using the Clause C.5 approach. Similar corrosion populations representative of decades-long operation were simulated for each scenario using information in public domain literature, and corrosion assessments to determine repairs were carried out using the approach described in Clause 10.10.2.5 of the CSA standard. In this assessment, each scenario utilized the corresponding hoop stress factors for the pipeline design as the corrosion safety factors (i.e. design and location factors for scenario 1, class factors for scenario 2). The implication of using these safety factors was evaluated by assessing the reliability of the pipelines with the remaining corrosion features that passed the Clause 10.10.2.5 assessments and subsequently their overall safety. Comparison was made between the Clause 4.3.5 and Clause C.5 scenarios to demonstrate the implied safety with both approaches.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.287 · 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