MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanistic Leak-Detection Modeling for Single Gas-Phase Pipelines: Lessons Learned from Fit to Field-Scale Experimental Data

2013· article· en· W1889120062 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in petroleum exploration and development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakGas leakPipeline transportPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceInletEngineeringMarine engineeringEnvironmental engineeringChemistryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of pipelines is one of the most popular ways of delivering gas phases as shown by numerous examples in hydrocarbon transportation systems in Arctic regions, oil and gas production facilities in onshore and offshore wells, and municipal gas distribution systems in urban areas. A gas leak from pipelines can cause serious problems not only because of the financial losses associated but also its social and environmental impacts. Therefore, establishing an early leak detection model is vital to safe and secure operations of such pipeline systems. A leak detection model for a single gas phase is presented in this study by using material balance and pressure traverse calculations. The comparison between two steady states, with and without leak, makes it possible to quantify the magnitude of disturbance in two leak detection indicators such as the change in inlet pressure (ΔP in ) and the change in outlet flow rate (Δq out ) in a broad range of leak locations (x leak ) and leak opening sizes (d leak ).  The results from the fit to large-scale experimental data of Scott and Yi (1998) show that the value of leak coefficient (C D ), which is shown to be the single-most important but largely unknown parameter, ranges from 0.55 to 4.11, and should be a function of Reynolds number (N Re ) which is related to leak characteristics such as leak location (x leak ), leak opening size (d leak ), leak rate (q leak ) and system pressure. Further investigations show that between the two leak detection indicators, the change in outlet flow rate (Δq out ) is superior to the change in inlet pressure (ΔP in ) because of larger disturbance, if the pressure drop along the pipeline is relatively small compared to the outlet pressure; otherwise, the change in inlet pressure (ΔP in ) is superior to the change in outlet flow rate (Δq out ). Key words : Leak; Leak detection modeling; Pipeline; Leak coefficient; Gas flow in pipe

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it