Panel Peer Review of PHMSA Pipeline Safety Research Projects: 2013

R&D Menu


 The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) Pipeline Safety Research and Development (R&D) Program is holding annual structured peer reviews of active research projects since 2006 in accordance with mandates by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) to maintain research data quality. PHMSA holds these reviews virtually via teleconference and the Internet saving time and resources. This execution is also working well with panelists, researchers, Agreement Officers’ Technical Representatives and project co-sponsors. Most impressively, the PHMSA approach facilitates attendance from all U.S. time zones, Canada and Europe.

The annual peer review continues to build on an already strong and systematic evaluation process developed by PHMSA’s Pipeline Safety R&D Program and certified by the Government Accountability Office. The 2013 peer review panel consisted of two retired government and one independent technical consultant.

Six research projects were peer reviewed by expert panelists using 13 evaluation criteria. These criteria were grouped within the following five evaluation categories:

  1. Project relevance to the PHMSA mission.
  2. Project management.
  3. Approach taken for transferring results to end users.
  4. Project coordination with other closely related programs.
  5. Quality of project results.

The rating scale possibilities were "Ineffective," "Effective," “More than Effective” or "Very Effective." During the April 2013 review, the average program rating between all the evaluation categories was “Very Effective.” For this year, 5 projects were rated “Very Effective” with 1 project ranked as “More than Effective.” The average sub-criteria scoring were also rated very high and underpin these findings. The majority of peered projects and the overall program rating is up to “Very Effective” from the 2012 rating of “More than Effective.” Table 4 summarizes the overall program performance based on the summary of the reviewed projects. Table 5 itemizes the project ranking order, where projects of the same score have an equal ranking. Additional details are available in Section 7 and Tables 4, 5 and in Appendix C of the report.

Rating Scale
Very Effective4.5 to 5.0 (5 Projects)
More than Effective3.0 to 4.4 (1 Project)
Effective1.9 to 2.9 (0 Projects)
Ineffective0.0 to 1.8 (0 Projects)
Average Program Score4.7

Program Averages - Review Categories and Sub-Criteria
Review Categories and Sub-Criteria Score Rating
1. Project relevance to PHMSA mission. 4.9 Very Effective
  1.1. How well does the project illustrate its relevance for enhancing pipeline safety and or protecting the environment? 4.9 Very Effective
  1.2. How well does the project address its relevance to research program goals (technology gap, consensus standard or produce general knowledge)? 4.9 Very Effective
2. Project Management. 4.6 Very Effective
  2.1. How well is the project making progress toward the work scope objectives and the PHMSA goals? 4.6 Very Effective
  2.2. How well is the project being managed (on budget and schedule)? 4.6 Very Effective
3. Approach taken for transferring results to end users. 4.7 Very Effective
  3.1. Is there a plan for dissemination of results, including publications, reporting? 4.7 Very Effective
  3.2. How much end user involvement is incorporated into the work scope? 4.7 Very Effective
  3.3. For results that may include marketable products and technologies, are commercialization or U.S. Patent plans established? 4.8 Very Effective
4. Project coordination with other related programs. 4.8 Very Effective
  4.1. Does the project build on, or make use of, related or prior work? 4.9 Very Effective
  4.2. Is the work of the project being communicated to other related research efforts? 4.6 Very Effective
  4.3. Has consideration been given to possible future work? 4.8 Very Effective
5. Quality of project results. 4.7 Very Effective
  5.1. Are the intended results supported by the work performed during the project? 4.7 Very Effective
  5.2. Are the intended results consistent with scientific knowledge and/or engineering principles? 4.8 Very Effective
  5.3. Are the intended results presented in such a manner as to be useful for identified end users? 4.6 Very Effective
Average Category Score and Rating: 4.7 Very Effective

Project Rankings
Project Rank Contract Project Title Score Rating
354 1 DTPH56-10-T-000009 Meandering Winding Magnetometer Array Characterization of Mechanical Damage and Corrosion 4.9 Very Effective
359 1 DTPH56-10-T-000014 Selection of Pipe Repair Methods 4.9 Very Effective
390 1 DTPH56-11-T-000003L Comprehensive Study to Understand Longitudinal Electric Resistance Welded (ERW) Seam Failures 4.9 Very Effective
366 2 DTPH56-10-T-000021 Advanced Learning Algorithms for the Proactive Infrasonic Pipeline Evaluation Network (PIGPEN) Pipeline Encroachment Warning System 4.7 Very Effective
252 3 DTPH56-08-T-000019 Advanced Development of Proactive Infrasonic Gas Pipeline Evaluation Network 4.6 Very Effective
323 4 DTPH56-10-T-000001 Cost-Effective Techniques for Weld Property Measurement and Technologies for Improving Weld Hydrogen Embrittlement and Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance for Alternative Fuel Pipelines 4.4 More than Effective