Panel Peer Review of PHMSA Pipeline Safety Research Projects: 2017

R&D Menu


Since 2006, 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 to maintain research data quality, in accordance with mandates from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST). PHMSA holds these reviews virtually via teleconference and the internet in order to save time and resources. Virtual teleconferences facilitate attendance from all U.S. time zones, Canada, and Europe, making it easier for panelists, researchers, project co-sponsors, and representatives of Agreement Officers to participate.

The annual peer review continues to build on an already strong, systematic evaluation process developed by PHMSA’s Pipeline Safety R&D Program and certified by the Government Accountability Office. The 2017 peer-review panel, which consisted of six academic representatives, reviewed 18 projects using 11 evaluation criteria grouped into the following four categories:

  1. Project management;
  2. The method used to transfer results to end users;
  3. Project coordination with other closely related programs;
  4. Quality of project results.

The potential ratings assigned by the peer-review panel are: Ineffective, Effective, More than Effective, and Very Effective. The average rating for the 18 projects assessed during the May 2017 review was More than Effective; the average sub-criteria were also rated highly, underpinning these findings. Five projects were rated Very Effective and 13 were rated More than Effective. Panelists made several recommendations associated with each project during the review that were categorized into Strong and Weak points. Recommendations focused on improving what was deemed to be overall good performance. Common project weaknesses identified for projects rated More than Effective were in the categories of scientific knowledge and/or engineering principles and/or communication. The majority of the projects were approximately 70 to 90 percent complete, which means only some projects will be further studied in future reviews.

Rating Scale
Very Effective4.5 to 5.0 (8 Projects)
More than Effective3.0 to 4.4 (16 Projects)
Effective1.9 to 2.9 (0 Projects)
Ineffective0.0 to 1.8 (0 Projects)
Average Program Score4.2

Program Averages - Review Categories and Sub-Criteria
Review Categories and Sub-Criteria Score Rating
1. Project Management. 4.4 More than Effective
  1.1. How well is the project being managed (on budget and schedule)? 4.3 More than Effective
  1.2. How well is the project making progress toward the work scope objectives? 4.4 Very Effective
2. Approach taken for transferring results to end users. 4.3 More than Effective
  2.1. Is there a plan for dissemination of results, including publications, and reporting? 4.1 More than Effective
  2.2. How much end user involvement is incorporated into the work scope? 4.3 More than Effective
  2.3. For results that may include marketable products and technologies, are commercialization or U.S. Patent plans established? 4.4 More than Effective
3. Project coordination with other related programs. 4.1 More than Effective
  3.1. Does the project build on, or make use of, related or prior work? 4.3 More than Effective
  3.2. Is the work of the project being communicated to other related research efforts? 3.9 More than Effective
  3.3. Has consideration been given to possible future work? 4.0 More than Effective
4. Quality of project results. 4.0 More than Effective
  4.1. Are the intended results supported by the work performed during the project? 4.0 More than Effective
  4.2. Are the intended results consistent with scientific knowledge and/or engineering principles? 3.6 More than Effective
  4.3. Are the intended results presented in such a manner as to be useful for identified end users? 4.1 More than Effective
Average Category Score and Rating: 4.2 More than Effective

Project Rankings
Project Rank Contract Project Title Score Rating
650 1 DTPH5615T00015L Natural Gas Pipeline Leak Rate Measurement System 4.8 Very Effective
643 2 DTPH5615T00007 Slow Crack Growth Evaluation of Vintage Polyethylene Pipes 4.5 Very Effective
649 2 DTPH5615T00014 Use of Electromagnetic Sensors to Quantify Strength and Toughness in Steel Pipelines In and Out Of Service 4.5 Very Effective
651 2 DTPH5615T00016L Rapid Aerial Small Methane Leak Survey 4.5 Very Effective
724 2 DTPH5616T00003 Development of High Performance Gas-Coupled Ultrasonic Transducers for Inspection of Unpiggable Natural Gas Pipelines 4.5 Very Effective
641 3 DTPH5615T00006L Characterization and Fitness for Service of Corroded Cast Iron Pipe 4.4 More than Effective
644 3 DTPH5615T00010L Human Centric Approach to Improve Pipeline Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) Performance and Reliability 4.4 More than Effective
653 3 DTPH5615T00018L EMAT Sensor for Small Diameter and Unpiggable Pipes; Prototype and Testing 4.4 More than Effective
654 4 DTPH5615T00019L Intrinsically Locatable Technology for Plastic Piping Systems 4.3 More than Effective
725 4 DTPH5616T00002 Development of EMAT Sensors for Corrosion Mapping of Unpiggable Natural Gas Pipelines Using ILI Tools 4.3 More than Effective
640 5 DTPH5615T00005L Comparison of Exclusion Zone Calculations and Vapor Dispersion Modeling Tools 4.2 More than Effective
652 5 DTPH5615T00017L Pipeline Damage Prevention Radar 4.2 More than Effective
723 5 DTPH5616T00004 EMAT Guided wave technology for inline inspections of unpiggable natural gas pipelines 4.2 More than Effective
655 6 DTPH5615T00020L Combined Vibration, Ground Movement, and Pipe Current Detector 3.8 More than Effective
557 7 DTPH56-14-H-00004 Improving Models to Consider Complex Loadings, Operational Considerations, and Interactive Threats 3.7 More than Effective
645 8 DTPH5615T00009 Development of Comprehensive Pressure Test Design Guidelines 3.6 More than Effective
648 8 DTPH5615T00013L Development of an AMR Eddy Current-Based Crack Detection Sensor for the Live Inspection of UnPiggable Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines 3.6 More than Effective
647 9 DTPH5615T00012L Emissions Quantification Validation Process 3.1 More than Effective