MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042535152 · doi:10.1115/ipc2014-33245

In Line Inspection of Geotechnical Hazards

2014· article· en· W2042535152 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Westwood, Dan Jungwirth, Randy Nickle, Doug Dewar, M. Martens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSpectra Energy (Canada)Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrain gaugePipeline (software)Pipeline transportLine (geometry)Nondestructive testingStrain (injury)BendingStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineeringForensic engineeringMarine engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four North American pipeline operators and a pipeline inspection company have been working together on a research project assessing the feasibility of using an electromagnetic non-contacting strain measurement tool capable of being deployed during ILI inspection to measure axial strain in pipelines. The axial strain sensor is the TSC StressProbe. It is an electromagnetic technique which makes use of the fact that when a steel structure is loaded, its electromagnetic properties change. Monitoring the changes in magnetic properties allows one to measure changes in strain. The use of in-line inspection high resolution inertial survey tool data in the determination of bending strain in operating pipelines is well developed and understood. The missing component in determining the total strain in the pipeline is to understand the component of axial strain that the pipeline is experiencing without the need to expose the pipeline for the installation of surficial pipe monitoring (primarily strain gauges) or destructive testing (such as cut-outs). Many current methods of stress/strain measurement including the installation of strain gauges only allows for the determination of change in strain going forward from the date of install; whereas, the StressProbe responds to total strain at the time of inspection. This paper will present the technology implementation, inspection feasibility and discuss preliminary results from case studies in determining the ability of the in-line inspection axial strain measurement to correlate with known changes in strain in pipelines being influenced by ground movements.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207