Panel Peer Review of PHMSA Pipeline Safety Research Projects: 2014

R&D Menu


• Regulations
• Advisory Bulletins
• Interpretations
 The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) Pipeline Safety Research and Development (R&D) Program has held 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 2014 peer review panel consisted of two retired and three active independent technical consultants and one academic representative.

Twenty-four 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 May 2014 review, the average program rating between all the evaluation categories was “More than Effective.” For this year, 13 projects were rated “Very Effective” with 11 projects 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 down to “More than Effective” from the 2013 rating of “Very Effective.” Weakness in project management contributed to the lower program average. The government shutdown in CY 2013 was identified as a contributor to lower rating for project management.

Rating Scale
Very Effective4.5 to 5.0 (13 Projects)
More than Effective3.0 to 4.4 (11 Projects)
Effective1.9 to 2.9 (0 Projects)
Ineffective0.0 to 1.8 (0 Projects)
Average Program Score4.4

Program Averages - Review Categories and Sub-Criteria
Review Categories and Sub-Criteria Score Rating
1. Project relevance to PHMSA mission. 4.7 Very Effective
  1.1. How well does the project illustrate its relevance to enhancing pipeline safety and or with protecting the environment? 4.7 Very Effective
  1.2. How well does the project describe its relevance to PHMSA's research program goals? 4.7 Very Effective
2. Project Management. 4.3 More than Effective
  2.1. How well is the project being managed (on budget and schedule)? 4.2 More than Effective
  2.2. How well is the project making progress toward the work scope objectives? 4.4 More than Effective
3. Approach taken for transferring results to end users. 4.4 More than Effective
  3.1. Is there a plan for dissemination of results, including publications, and reporting? 4.4 More than Effective
  3.2. How much end user involvement is incorporated into the work scope? 4.4 More than Effective
  3.3. For results that may include marketable products and technologies, are commercialization or U.S. Patent plans established? 4.4 More than Effective
4. Project coordination with other related programs. 4.2 More than Effective
  4.1. Does the project build on, or make use of, related or prior work? 4.5 Very Effective
  4.2. Is the work of the project being communicated to other related research efforts? 4.0 More than Effective
  4.3. Has consideration been given to possible future work? 4.2 More than Effective
5. Quality of project results. 4.5 Very Effective
  5.1. Are the intended results supported by the work performed during the project? 4.5 Very Effective
  5.2. Are the intended results consistent with scientific knowledge and/or engineering principles? 4.5 Very Effective
  5.3. Are the intended results presented in such a manner as to be useful for identified end users? 4.3 More than Effective
Average Category Score and Rating: 4.4 Very Effective

Project Rankings
Project Rank Contract Project Title Score Score
128 1 DTRS56-03-T-0008 A Comprehensive Update in the Evaluation of Pipelines Weld Defects 4.7 Very Effective
176 2 DTPH56-05-T-0001 Understanding Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Signals from Mechanical Damage in Pipelines 4.6 Very Effective
141 3 DTRS56-04-T-0001 Nonlinear Harmonic-based Mechanical Damage Severity Criteria for Delayed Failures in Pipelines 4.5 Very Effective
154 3 DTRS56-05-T-0001 Innovative Welding Processes for Small to Medium Diameter Gas Transmission Pipelines 4.5 Very Effective
163 3 DTRS56-05-T-0003 Model Modules to Assist Assessing and Controlling Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) 4.5 Very Effective
104 4 DTRS56-02-T-0001 Application of Remote-Field Eddy Current Testing to Inspection of Unpiggable Pipelines 4.4 Very Effective
152 4 DTRS56-04-T-0011 Optimizing Weld Integrity for X80 and X100 Linepipe 4.4 Very Effective
164 4 DTRS56-05-T-0003 Integrity Management for Wrinklebends and Buckles 4.4 Very Effective
165 4 DTRS56-05-T-0003 A New Approach to Control Running Fracture in Pipelines 4.4 Very Effective
167 4 DTRS56-05-T-0005 Development of ICDA for Liquid Petroleum Pipelines 4.4 Very Effective
127 5 DTRS56-03-T-0007 First Major Improvements to the Two-curve Fracture Arrest Model 4.3 Very Effective
144 5 DTRS56-04-T-0010 Evaluation of Hydrogen Cracking in Weld Metal Deposited using Cellulosic Electrodes 4.3 Very Effective
150 5 DTRS56-04-T-0005 Modeling and Assessing a Spectrum of Accidental Fires and Risks in a LNG Facility 4.3 Very Effective
153 5 DTRS56-04-T-0012 Hazardous Liquids Airborne Lidar Observation Study (HALOS) 4.3 Very Effective
168 5 DTRS56-05-T-0004 Evaluation and Validation of Aboveground Techniques for Coating Condition Assessment 4.3 Very Effective
179 5 DTPH56-05-T-0006 Pipeline Assessment and Repair Manual 4.3 Very Effective
146 6 DTRS56-04-T-0009 Mechanical Damage at Welds 4.2 Very Effective
159 6 DTRS56-05-T-0002 Design, construction and demonstration of a robotic platform for the inspection of unpiggable pipelines under live conditions 4.2 Very Effective
169 6 DTPH56-05-T-0004 Use of Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) for Pipeline Surveillance to Improve Safety and Lower Cost 4.2 Very Effective
172 6 DTPH56-05-T-0003 Behavior of Corroded Pipelines Under Cyclic Pressure 4.2 Very Effective
174 6 DTPH56-05-T-0003 Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe Under Secondary (Biaxial) Loading 4.2 Very Effective
131 7 DTRS56-03-T-0010 Alternate Welding Processes for In-service Welding 4.1 Very Effective
161 7 DTRS56-05-T-0002 Validation and enhancement of long range guided wave ultrasonic testing: A key technology for DA of buried pipelines 4.1 Very Effective
170 7 DTPH56-05-T-0004 Use of Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUAV) for Pipeline Surveillance to Improve Safety and Lower Cost 4.1 Very Effective
173 7 DTPH56-05-T-0003 Assessment of Older Corroded Pipelines with Reduced Toughness and Ductility 4.1 Very Effective
160 8 DTRS56-05-T-0002 Design, Construction and testing of a segmented MFL sensor for use in the inspection of unpiggable pipelines 4.0 Very Effective
162 8 DTRS56-05-T-0003 Applying External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) to Difficult to Inspect Areas 4.0 Very Effective
171 8 DTPH56-05-T-0003 Corrosion Assessment Guidance for Higher Strength Pipelines 4.0 Very Effective
178 8 DTPH56-05-T-0005 Cathodic Protection Current Mapping In-Line Inspection Technology 4.0 Very Effective
145 9 DTRS56-04-T-0003 Human Factors Analysis of Pipeline Monitoring and Control Operations 3.9 Very Effective
148 10 DTRS56-04-T-0008 Stage 2 Phased Array Wheel Probe for In-Line Inspection 3.6 Effective