Investigation and Characterization of Pipe Defects and Techniques, and Challenges Toward the Protection of Environmental Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pipes have been used for many years to transport fluids safely. Historically, pipes have been used in many different ways; however, many internal and external parameters affect the use of pipes, such as leakage, chemical corrosion, fatigue, and sediment. Additionally, pipe environments and soil components, such as humidity, can cause problems. All these factors are sources of risks that affect the installation and maintenance costs of the pipelines. This paper provides pipelines, users with a comprehensive description of pipe defects, their type, and their potential cause, which can be used as a reliable reference to recognize and predict pipe defects and make proper arrangements to avoid catastrophic incidents. Therefore, pipelines and their inspection methods are examined from multiple perspectives, including material composition, design, applications, and overall performance. Besides, pipelines, defect causes visual changes, making visual inspection methods valuable to the manufacturing sector and inspectors. However, in all inspections, the pipe length, size, internal diameter, location, and toxic environment around the pipes are the main limitations of assessments. To improve defect recognition, completely categorized defect types, shapes, and pipelines, defect diagnostic systems are introduced and compared to the concept of defect shape and diagnostic platforms. As stated in this review, steel, concrete, and PVC are the most commonly used pipeline materials, with welding defects, cracks, and corrosion as major concerns. Vision-based robotic inspection, AI-driven analytics, and advanced modeling improve defect detection and predictive maintenance. Integrating these technologies enhances pipelines, monitoring, safety, and longevity. Additionally, vision-based inspection systems can leverage defect categorization to develop a standardized image database, expanding the capabilities of existing systems. Finally, a review of recent and essential analytical research and some areas that still need more work are presented. In particular, they can offer researchers opportunities for their future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".