l

Burst Test Results

ia
19

nt
i d e
n f
C o
Compared to RSTRENG, Psqr is less conservative and more
precise
 l
Model Uncertainty

ia
20

t
▪ Model error: test-to-prediction ratio

n
o actual pipe properties

e
o laser scan: lab controlled minimized error

f i d
Test-to-prediction ratio
Parameter

n
Psqr method RSTRENG
Mean 1.13 1.31

o
Std 0.07 0.10
COV (%) 5.9 8.0

C
▪ Psqr vs RSTRENG
o Psqr has higher accuracy and precision
compared to RSTRENG
o 14% reduction in model bias
o 30% reduction in standard deviation
 ia l
21

nt
i d e
n f
Benefit and Safety

C o
 l
Case Studies

ia
22

t
▪ Case I: 154 immediate features with FPR≤1.25

n
Model Number of features with FPR ≤ 1.25

d e
RSTRENG 154

f i
Psqr 31

n
80% reduction in feature excavations required

o
▪ Case II: 170 excavated features

C
Model Number of features with FPR ≤ 1.25
RSTRENG 44
Psqr 5

89% reduction in feature repairs required

 l
Expanded Case Studies

ia
23

t
▪ ILI by different ILI vendors

n
Total
Excavation decision – Number of Features with FPR ≤ 1.25
Cluster Number

e
Dataset of
B31G MB31G RSTRENG Psqr

d
Features

f i
23502 868 600 154 31
650 130 96 20 6

n
ILI Data
169 16 12 6 4

Cluster
Dataset

Laser Scan C o
▪ Field-measurements on different pipe sections
Total
Number of
Features
84
Repair decision - Number of Features with FPR ≤ 1.25

B31G
81
MB31G
77
RSTRENG
15
Psqr
0
data 6 6 6 2 0