Testing to Determine Whether a PetroSleeve Can be Used for an Electrical Connection to a Pipe for AC Mitigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of a mechanical electrical connection to a pipeline is tested to determine its’ viability. Historically, the installation of a cadweld on pipelines has been the method generally accepted for attaching an electrical connection to pipe. Cadwelds are usually serviceable. In the case of accommodating up to 800 amperes of current, up to 3 CAD welds have been used. In addition, there is a general feeling in the pipeline industry to avoid cadwelds, if possible, because they can create a heat affected zone and the possibility of cracking. Where pipelines traverse or parallel high voltage transmission lines, there exists the possibility of voltage and current induction when phase imbalance occurs. These current flows can approach 800 amps. If a cadweld is the main conduct at the pipe surface, burns, high heat, or connection malfunction can occur. This paper describes the testing undertaken to determine if a PetroSleeve installation could be used as a mechanical electrical connection suitable for conducting up to 800 amperes of current. Following the initial testing, three sleeves were installed on operating pipelines for AC Mitigation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".